ARRG! I’m watching 20/20 and John Stossel just did a piece on giving charity. on of his points: religious people give more than nonreligious people.His support was Salvation Army cans set up around the country. They asked the people who donated to specific cans and — guess what! — they were almost all religious!Well guess what! The Salvation Army is a Christian ministry bent on preaching and converting the sick and the poor, and I NEVER donate to them! Don’t you think that little detail might skew the results? The study specifically claimed that religious people give more blood and more money to secular charities than their nonreligious counterparts, but how can I trust and use that information with such a glaring problem in the study? Argggg, Stossel, you can do better than that!Do you give to charity? I do, but I think I should give more. But not to those darn cans.
Minister to congregation:
“We have been given the DIGNITY of CAUSALITY!!!”
Congregation: “Amen!”
On member nudges the other and whispers quietly, “What’s that mean, anyway?”
“I dunno, I was going to ask you. So you don’t know either, huh?”
“Nope, sure don’t. But it SOUNDS good.”
“Yeah, sounds real important and official-like.”
“Amen.”
“Amen.”
Hey Karen,
hmmmm…. am I trying to sound smart? D’oh! Causality is an understanding of why things happen and who is responsible. Let me use an example:
Let’s imagine a man in his 50’s who ate poorly his whole life and didn’t get much exercise and developed diabetes as a result. He also grew up poor and didn’t have access to good education. Direct causality would go like this: he got diabetes because he chose to eat poorly and decided not to excercise. The cause of his diabetes was a direct result of his choices. Systemic causality would go something like this: having no access to good education and never learning the value of good nutrition and excercise and also being subject to marketing practices of fast food chains (inexpensive high fat, high sugar foods coming with toys for his kids that he couldn’t afford otherwise and offers a safe environment with a playground) he developed bad habits.
Is he simply the result of his environment or is he responsible for his own actions or lackthereof? In this case I would suggest that there are elements of both and a good way to address these issues is to understand both the direct and systemic causal issues. Once you are an adult, you are responsible for the choices you make. However, it is difficult to make good choices if you’ve never been trained how to make good choices.
Does that make more sense?
Amen!
spanders,
You’re welcome.
Spanders, I’m right there with ya.
Which is why I especially detest the Rapture-crowd.
They see no reason to conserve resources or in any way adress environmental concerns… since, ya know, Jeebus’ll come down in a tinfoil UFO any day now and beam up the True Believers(tm).
Hehhh, Karen… nice.
Very well written -and- put!
Besides, the idea of an omnipotent god, that is, at the same time, universally good, was well questioned long ago:
“Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. … If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. … If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?”.
– Epicurus.
I think it is too hard to assess and that is another reason for a compensation cut off point. I agree it could be argued in some cases descendants suffer repercussions but then in other it could be argued that descendants are better off.
I am not in favour of affirmative action. ?Positive? discrimination is still discrimination. Of course then you have the difficult problem of pin pointing instances of racism and making everyone hire on merit etc. I am not sure how you do that. As you say it is a question of creating a meritocracy. I think education is part of it. Equal access to equally good education. Merit based scholarships. Free education.
In a soc_ialised system business does not have to provide health benefits as it is government funded. I advocate a mixed system where anyone can access the basics for free and those who want to pay for something more can. The thing about government healthcare IMO is that you (as the voting public) can force more transparency and efficiency into the process. I am not suggesting this is easy necessarily but the public has more power over government that private business. A life threatening procedure should not cost the money your wife?s did! And like you say private business still has bureaucracy.
spanders
No, buddy. My smartass flippery wasn’t aimed at you. I just cocked and fired at the term “dignity of causality” itself, because it just sounds so high-fallutin’ but it’s really just full of hot air. IMO, anyway.
It reminded me of some of the preaching I’ve heard, where I’d notice people nodding their heads in agreement about what I thought were ludicrous statements and I wondered, are these people really listening, or are they just on auto-pilot?
spanders:
spanders, I was making a direct and honest response to what you wrote. My intent wasn?t to hurt your feelings but to address how you entered into that discussion. I directly addressed, issue by issue, what you said that frustrated me. I apologize if my phraseology wasn?t what you expected and upset you, but I?m never going to be less than honest in what I say here. I wasn?t profane; didn?t call you names, or intentionally try to insult you personally. I matter-of-factly informed you of the thoughts, and emotions, you elicited in me.
As I said, part of my frustration is that instead of us discussing any commonality of our faith (which is what I?d really like for us to do) we always seem to get sidetracked into the political aspects of it.
Not allowing for change by who?
Not so much ?sneaky,? as ?subtle;? but I believe the record speaks for itself here. It?s my recollection that in the majority of your responses to me, you rarely pass up an opportunity, or find some way to insert a shot at Bush, Republicans, or Conservatives. Protest all you want, but to me, doing such is unequivocally engaging in subterfuge. Now, after reconsidering your response of righteous indignation at my use of the term ?subterfuge,? I?ll concede that perhaps you were genuinely attempting to branch the conversation, but given your track record of backhandedly including subtle, said barbs, you?ll forgive me if my immediate perception of it was being more of the same.
Well, considering your affinity for the likes of Lakoff, I believe I?m fairly well justified in my assessment of you at this point.
You seem awfully thin-skinned here. I merely offered one solution to your dilemma?and in no way meant to imply that you were in 100% agreement with it.
Again, considering that you jumped-in and tangentially diverted the conversation topic?and seemed to imply guilt by inheritance, I don?t know if, in retrospect, I could have reacted any other way.
I believe we?re all entitled to ?feel? any way we please about others, are we not?
Well, given that we?re on an atheist blog?and their predilection/demand for dealing with concrete facts when it comes to establishing an intellectual affinity for a concept, yeah, I think the same should be applied to politics as much as possible (and your frequent, Kerryesque use of nuance is one more data point supporting my perception of you)
And why not? Christ told us to pray, didn?t He??if you believe in God, how else can we communicate with Him?and doing so either will, or won?t change you, correct? If you?re so unsure about it then may I ask, why do you engage in it at all? You come across as being almost uncomfortable expressing your faith publicly here. It?s almost as if you?re ashamed to admit that, if it has, prayer has had any effect on you at all. I don?t understand your perceived timidity on that. And I don?t understand you?re lack of desire to express how your faith has changed your life?unless it hasn?t. If you really love God as you say you do, then where is your zeal for Him??a city on a hill cannot be hid.
To reiterate, the intent of my response was not to make a ?personal attack? on you?it was out of genuine frustration. If you don?t want future misinterpretations then, and I?m trying to say this as tactfully as I can, then please try to refrain from slipping in the subtle jabs while patting me on the back.
I know from experience, you have to have a thick skin to play in this yard, and more often than not, hard feelings are caused here by misinterpretations and misperceptions?and I think that that was clearly the case here.
I learned a new word today.
‘Kerryesque’
r4d
You didn’t tell us the definition of the new word. Does it have something to do with someone who doesn’t cause chaos?
I’m not sure – can’t find it on Dictionary.com.
My first guess is that it refers to a person who doesn’t rely on half-remembered yet obnoxiously blunt aphorisms to describe incredibly complex issues.
My second guess is that it refers to a person who is so wrapped up in his Vietnam War/Summer of Love past that he’s still making lame jokes about the draft.
Oh wait… it’s an adjective, not a noun.
Maybe it just means ‘intelligently blundering.’
Really? I don’t think I’ve taken a shot recently. I was specifically trying to avoid any attacks in this thread. I was thinking about bigger picture issues and asked a question that went to my ideas about living perfectly. You could have ignored the question, but you made it political. You assumed affirmative action. That’s not my fault. In fact, I could argue that you took a political shot at me. I’m trying hard to refine my discourse. If you then rely on what you think my record is as you’ve been gone for months, then you’re not allowing for change. I’ll forgive you for your immediate perception of me being backhanded. Why do you have to add inflametory language like “righteous indignation”? Couldn’t you have just said “considering your response of me using subterfuge…”? Why did you need to say righteious indignation? Who is barbing who?
Yes, you could have. You could have asked me to stay on track to the specifics, but you didn’t. I like to ask broad questions at times. It’s the way I think. Please ask me to stay on track if you feel as though I’ve gotten off.
Now isn’t that subterfuge? Correct me if I’m wrong here.
Christ also told us to take care of the poor. I do pray and I also wonder about its worth sometimes. You’re making it into an either it works or it doesn’t scenario. I wonder sometimes, but ultimately think that every part of every day is a form of prayer and communication with god. I don’t think god needs a formal ritual to communicate with us. I think praying does more for me than it does for god. Are you saying that the only way to communicate with god is prayer?
I’m uncomfortable with being rude. I try to follow the parameters they set up here, but I think I get opportunities to let people know what I think without being rude. I prefer to be asked and then give what I think rather than tell people what to think.
I don’t like what zealots have done over the years.
I’ll apologize for any past barbs and jabs I’ve taken at bush and conservatives. I don’t think I did it here on this thread.
Yes, yes we are JCC.
as I’m pretty sure that you’ll have a response, I’ll give you the last word. I won’t respond past this point.
spanders:
I?m not responding just so I can get the last word in here. I?m replying with answers to your questions and questions of my own.
I said ?righteous indignation? because it seemed to me that you obviously felt your indignation was righteous. I meant no malice by it and I certainly wasn?t trying to be inflammatory. I was just trying to accurately describe what I thought you were experiencing. Clearly the phrase carries a different connotation for you than it does for me. Again, my apologies.
Then, if you?re at all comfortable talking about it, and I mean this with all sincerity, please, by all means, tell me about it?I?d really like to hear about it.
No, but I believe it?s the primary way to.
How, when asked, is telling about the most important aspect of your life being rude?
Okay, so now I?m asking, again. And if you don?t mind, when have I ever told anybody here what to think?
Really? Not even the likes of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, C.S. Lewis, or Billy Graham?
Apology accepted. And apology extended for the miscues that could have been avoided by temperance on my part.
I hope you?ll reconsider.
karen:
Because it is there, where two or more are gathered in His name, that He will be also?it?s where we are held accountable to each other, before God, for what we say and do as Christians.
No. As you alluded, practically speaking, ?Sunday Christian? is a self-contradictory phrase.
As much as I can. Why do you ask?
What do you mean by a ?secular? charity?. Personally, I?m inclined to think that the kinds of charity that are of any importance (i.e. have eternal implications) are only the types that are of a spiritual nature.
Nothing. I mention it to them whenever it?s appropriate.
No. That?s not how it works. As far as I know, any agent can show any house on the MLS system after clearing it with the centralized showing system. Again, we didn?t get any interested lookers from any agent during those 4 months.
Again, it was the summer of ?03, interest rates were below 5%, if anything, it was a better buyer?s market then than now.
Then explain the utter lack of interested buyers? For the record, we didn?t list it with a fly-by-night Realtor?she was one of the top agents in our region.
So how much longer would you have stuck it out??given the complete lack of lookers, under such ideal market conditions? We took it off after realizing that we were in danger of getting in over our heads.
And you?re certainly free to interpret it that way. On the other hand, your interpretation does not automatically negate the validity of my first-hand perception of the situation. I don?t expect you to buy what I?ve told you hook-line-and-sinker, but given that you cannot scientifically or logically dispel my explanation of it, I would hope that you would realize how much it would behoove you to bring yourself to at least acknowledge that my interpretation is possible.
We did this time what we did last time: paint what needed painting?no major renovations or additions; it is essentially the same house as before.
My point exactly.
As it was 3 years ago when interest rates were the lowest ever.
No, not at all. Have you not heard of the enormous popularity of the gift from the devil himself in the form of the ?interest only? loan?
Obviously, I failed to adequately express my thoughts about that aspect. Our prayer is that our house can be the same blessing for whoever buys it as it has been for us. And why do you let yourself assume such xenophobic traits about me?
I know. And that?s why I continue to pray that someday soon you do.
jcc
You are only held accountable to each other IN church? Well, that explains a lot. Although, I’ve seen some quite nasty behavior in church too.
If you and I are talking about god, does that constitute being gathered in his name? Or do we have to designate a time and place first, then meet there, and then only praise him and not question him to qualify?
How does this being held accountable to each other thing work? And how does church itself facilitate it? It would seem everyday life would give a better accounting of who is really walking the walk.
Just curious. No agenda. I showed you mine; was asking you to show me yours. Bevermind if it’s too personal.
Rats.
I screwed the blockquotes… again.
*sigh*
I personally, do not believe in John Stossel. When I press the “off” button on my TV, he vanishes. A real person can’t do that, can they?
Besides, his speech abilities glaringly exceed his observation skills.
It’s a clever animation. But, to me, less than convincing.
That’s just my opinion.
So it turns out that the majority of donors to a Christian charity are Christians.
What a surprise.
I wonder how the survey would’ve looked if instead of the Salvation Army it had been the Muslim Brotherhood? I bet it would!