Would Jesus Support the Nanny State?

[David Castlen]

Originally Posted by TheTrueCentrist

Yes.

Now if the doing of Charity is providing, what is the subject of Charity; who is the provider?

[TheTrueCentrist]

Originally Posted by David Castlen

Now if the doing of Charity is providing, what is the subject of Charity; who is the provider?

A tricky question. Take, for example, the Catholic Church. Presumably you would agree that it constitutes a charitable organization. When it engages in a charitable venture there are many people involved, lets consider a blood drive as an example. We would not have any qualms about saying "the church is putting on a blood drive" because indeed all activities were coordinated through the church using church resources but we know that the church (as an organization) cannot act by itself. So what about the people involved? Immediately present are the people giving blood, the medical personnel, some church staff and helpers. Not present but still involved might be parish staff and council, the priest, and donors who provided money or equipment. Who is providing the service in this case? Certainly the people giving blood and the medical staff are the most obvious choices. However, if the parish council or staff had not decided to hold a blood drive (or the local hospital had declined to participate) these people would have been neither giving or taking blood. Therefore, we may say that all of these people were engaged in providing this service.

But wait, the parish staff and medical professionals may not be doing this with the intent to help people; it may simply be part of their job. One of the people there as an aid may be performing court-ordered community service. The donors that enabled the events may have intended for their money to be used for this particular activity. With people, intent obviously matters. Not everyone employed by a charitable organization is automatically being charitable, nor are people acting under obligation necessarily uncharitable.

Therefore, to your question. You have phrased it "who is the provider?" which rules out organizations, as they do not constitute a "who." The "who," I must conclude, is everyone involved in the providing process. If the question were instead "who, in the process of providing, is acting charitably" the answer would be anyone involved in the process with the intent of acting charitably (i.e. not selfishly.)

[David Castlen]

Originally Posted by TheTrueCentrist

A tricky question. Take, for example, the Catholic Church. Presumably you would agree that it constitutes a charitable organization. When it engages in a charitable venture there are many people involved, lets consider a blood drive as an example. We would not have any qualms about saying "the church is putting on a blood drive" because indeed all activities were coordinated through the church using church resources but we know that the church (as an organization) cannot act by itself. So what about the people involved? Immediately present are the people giving blood, the medical personnel, some church staff and helpers. Not present but still involved might be parish staff and council, the priest, and donors who provided money or equipment. Who is providing the service in this case? Certainly the people giving blood and the medical staff are the most obvious choices. However, if the parish council or staff had not decided to hold a blood drive (or the local hospital had declined to participate) these people would have been neither giving or taking blood. Therefore, we may say that all of these people were engaged in providing this service.

But wait, the parish staff and medical professionals may not be doing this with the intent to help people; it may simply be part of their job. One of the people there as an aid may be performing court-ordered community service. The donors that enabled the events may have intended for their money to be used for this particular activity. With people, intent obviously matters. Not everyone employed by a charitable organization is automatically being charitable, nor are people acting under obligation necessarily uncharitable.

Therefore, to your question. You have phrased it "who is the provider?" which rules out organizations, as they do not constitute a "who." The "who," I must conclude, is everyone involved in the providing process. If the question were instead "who, in the process of providing, is acting charitably" the answer would be anyone involved in the process with the intent of acting charitably (i.e. not selfishly.)

Centrist,

I think you are being very clear; let me make sure. The subject of Charity is the (actual) person giving AS LONG he is not being forced to (you example of community servicez) give. Is that what you are saying regarding the subject of Charity? Just yes or no, please

[mitex]

There was a time when Catholic charities and welfare worked hand in hand and were essentially partners in social justice.

[TheTrueCentrist]

Originally Posted by David Castlen

Centrist,

I think you are being very clear; let me make sure. The subject of Charity is the (actual) person giving AS LONG he is not being forced to (you example of community servicez) give. Is that what you are saying regarding the subject of Charity? Just yes or no, please

No.

Not everyone employed by a charitable organization is automatically being charitable, nor are people acting under obligation necessarily uncharitable.

[ACCT]

There is nothing in the bible supporting the idea of a welfare state. St. Paul says that if we do not work, we do not eat! Work is noble from the Christian viewpoint. We are to voluntarily give to the poor through our church. However, we are not to allow the government to steal from us my force for some imagined good!

We are the people of God. We look to Jesus Christ for answers. We do NOT look to the government for answers. You will not find redistribution of wealth in the bible. Unjust government is building a world without God and without the principles of our founding fathers.

Mary says that Satan is ready to take over the world with the intent to destroy it. What God cannot purify, He will destroy. We will pay this terrible price because we have been blind, deaf and do not want to know where we are going.

[David Castlen]

Originally Posted by TheTrueCentrist

No.

I note that if someone is forced to give, that giving is not charity. It appeared you agreed with that premise, but now you say not. Please explain. Perhaps there is some ambiguity.

[Swiss Guy]

Originally Posted by mitex

There was a time when Catholic charities and welfare worked hand in hand and were essentially partners in social justice.

Really?

[TheTrueCentrist]

Originally Posted by David Castlen

I note that if someone is forced to give, that giving is not charity. It appeared you agreed with that premise, but now you say not. Please explain. Perhaps there is some ambiguity.

I did not, if you read my posts you might have understood. Let me repeat myself:

The "who," I must conclude, is everyone involved in the providing process.

Regardless of their motivations for providing charitable services, they are still providing charitable services.

If the question were instead "who, in the process of providing, is acting charitably" the answer would be anyone involved in the process with the intent of acting charitably (i.e. not selfishly.)

However, it must be noted that just because someone is compelled to provide a charitable service does not mean their compliance is uncharitable.

Not everyone employed by a charitable organization is automatically being charitable, nor are people acting under obligation necessarily uncharitable.

For example, a person with an order to perform community service may perform that service sincerely and with charitable intent. We may not find him as admirable as people who volunteer, but his circumstances do not automatically render his actions void. Likewise, people employed by charitable organizations may still be acting out of charitable intent, despite receiving compensation for their work.

[mitex]

Originally Posted by Swiss Guy

Really?

Yes adoption is one that is still around. Back before the days of TANF and Bill Clinton we were one of the leaders in the nation accepting patients with Medicaid and Medicare along with those who had no insurance.

We were also a favorite of the Office of Faith Based Initiatives under Bush II. From the Depression era to the Great Society Catholic charities were often given quite big government contracts to provide various services.

But Obama has destroyed whatever is left of that relationship. And the Bishops don't seem to care enough about social justice issues to defend what's left of the relationship or rebuild it.

[Swiss Guy]

Originally Posted by mitex

But Obama has destroyed whatever is left of that relationship. And the Bishops don't seem to care enough about social justice issues to defend what's left of the relationship or rebuild it.

No, it's just that Obama has caused so many problems that the Bishops have more things to worry about.

[David Castlen]

Originally Posted by TheTrueCentrist

I did not, if you read my posts you might have understood. Let me repeat myself:

Regardless of their motivations for providing charitable services, they are still providing charitable services.

However, it must be noted that just because someone is compelled to provide a charitable service does not mean their compliance is uncharitable.


For example, a person with an order to perform community service may perform that service sincerely and with charitable intent. We may not find him as admirable as people who volunteer, but his circumstances do not automatically render his actions void. Likewise, people employed by charitable organizations may still be acting out of charitable intent, despite receiving compensation for their work.

Ok then to summarize:
Charity is first a provding
by
Someone who is not being forced to provide.
The next issue is what is the predicate; i.e., who is the receiver?
Anyone, those in need, just a select group? who decides who the giver is to give to? Who is the receiver/

[TheTrueCentrist]

Originally Posted by David Castlen

Ok then to summarize:
Charity is first a provding
by
Someone who is not being forced to provide.

I am fine with responding to your questions, but in return you will not oversimplify my responses to fit the narrative you have constructed. The external circumstances are irrelevant.

Originally Posted by David Castlen

The next issue is what is the predicate; i.e., who is the receiver?
Anyone, those in need, just a select group? who decides who the giver is to give to? Who is the receiver/

This is a weird question. The receiver of a charitable act is the receiver of the charitable act. Who is eligible for an organization's charity is determined by an organization's policies which are set by its decision-making body. Who actually recieves charity may not correspond perfectly to these guidelines. A person simply chooses who to be charitable towards. A government might provide charity to its citizens or anyone within its borders. A religion might only extend charity to members in good standing.