As the title says, just want to get an idea of your opinion and maybe some justification.
Thanks!
Do Ungrateful people deserve charity/welfare?
Posts
Total:
50
-->
@Greyparrot
Do ungrateful people (and their children) deserve to starve to death?
If gratitude was the price then it was never really charity to begin with.
I'm just going to assume the first 3 responses are Yes responses.
-->
@Greyparrot
I think I see what you are saying, they SHOULD say, I'd love to pick your cotton MASA! And, Toby be a good--------
-->
@FLRW
Is that a yes?
-->
@Greyparrot
WWJD, Yes
-->
@FLRW
A far-right wing Theocracy is the justification for the Yes?
-->
@oromagi
I like your assessment. Gratitude is the greater measure. Entitlement is a charity-killer when the true definition and character of charity is understood and practiced. And, it makes the charitable act a blessing down the road, and close at hand, for the willing provider.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Gratitude shouldn't have anything to do with it
Then you do not understand the true purpose and character of charity. Learn that, first, then reassess.
-->
@fauxlaw
Is this a no response?
Charity is the pure love of Christ, and it is the means by which we follow the two great commandment [Matthew 27; 37 - 39]. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
if we cannot live the first commandment, the second will never come to pass. If we cannot follow the second commandment, the first will not endure. Both are part and parcel of "charity." It isn't about the money, or any other commodity.
Charity is the pure love of Christ.
So Charity is an instrument of a far-right Theocracy?
Ungrateful people accept charity/welfare?
-->
@ILikePie5
Can you answer yes or no with a Justification?
'Deserve' is a strange word to throw around. I'm aware that the Left Wing throw it around a lot as well.
'deserving', 'inherent right to' and many such phrases are wielded by people of varying agendas. I'm a bit too pragmatic to buy into that shit.
To me, it's about the best win-win endgame for society. THAT is why I am left wing and also why I prefer the state to take care of its poor rather than relying on conventional, random spurts of charity.
'deserving', 'inherent right to' and many such phrases are wielded by people of varying agendas. I'm a bit too pragmatic to buy into that shit.
To me, it's about the best win-win endgame for society. THAT is why I am left wing and also why I prefer the state to take care of its poor rather than relying on conventional, random spurts of charity.
So far your response is the only one in this thread that is rooted in rational thought.
To the original prompt,
Yes or no?
-->
@Greyparrot
Is this a no response?
Yes, that's a 'no'
-->
@Greyparrot
So far your response is the only one in this thread that is rooted in rational thought.To the original prompt,Yes or no?
If you’re ungrateful you don’t need charity or welfare.
-->
@ILikePie5
So this is a No? Sorry but I'm specifically looking for yes or no answers with a justification.
If RM continues to follow his logical train of thought down the rabbithole he will probably be the 1st (and honestly no offense, I think he is the only one capable of those participating on this site) to come up with the correct answer to this specific prompt.
-->
@Greyparrot
So this is a No? Sorry but I'm specifically looking for yes or no answers with a justification.
I’m saying the premise doesn’t exist. Only a person who doesn’t need charity/welfare can be ungrateful
-->
@ILikePie5
A person receiving government welfare cannot be ungrateful yet still deserve the welfare?
Note that this prompt has nothing to do with need.
-->
@fauxlaw
The purpose of charity is to help others, that is literally in the definition - do you perhaps have another definition - because unless you do I will not reassess, the information given does suggest a reason to do that. Just you telling me I should, which, unfortunately for you, I don't really take something at a word whenever the claim is disputable
-->
@Greyparrot
A person receiving government welfare cannot be ungrateful yet still deserve the welfare?Note that this prompt has nothing to do with need.
If a person receiving welfare felt ungrateful then he’s just retarded and should die 🤷♂️🤡
-->
@Theweakeredge
do you perhaps have another definition
Did you miss my #13, because that is the only definition of charity that makes sense to me - it transcends the dictionary. How best to help people but to love them? All else flows from that. "Help" is more than giving money. It's service, at a minimum.
-->
@fauxlaw
I did indeed miss it, my apologies
Charity is the pure love of Christ, and it is the means by which we follow the two great commandment [Matthew 27; 37 - 39]. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."if we cannot live the first commandment, the second will never come to pass. If we cannot follow the second commandment, the first will not endure. Both are part and parcel of "charity." It isn't about the money, or any other commodity.
Let's break it down a little -
Charity is the pure love of Christ,
one problem, er... two problems
1. How can anything which emotion be "pure", as far as we have evidence for love is only a connection of chemicals in response to a repeated pattern - the more you experience which another the stronger those patterns become and the more "love" you feel. Love is real of course; however, I fail to see how it could be "pure". I furthermore fail to see how love and charity correlate.
2. "Pure love of christ," - I do not believe that god or christ exists, so I don't find this definition useful out of principle - however, I will continue to address the definition for fairness of conversations. For the sake of conversation - let's say that I do believe in Jesus and god, that sound good?
it is the means by which we follow the two great commandment [Matthew 27; 37 - 39]. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
In syllogistic form:
P1: You ought to love god
Con: Therefore, You ought to love your neighbors
The problem here is that one does not necessitate the other - it is possible to love your neighbors and not love god - let's take my atheist self, I "loved" my neighbors as a matter of knowing and caring for them a long time. I did not love god.
A. if we cannot live the first commandment, the second will never come to pass. B. If we cannot follow the second commandment, the first will not endure. C. Both are part and parcel of "charity." It isn't about the money, or any other commodity.
A. Blatantally untrue
B. So... If, I do not love my neighbors, then I do not love god? Please explain
C. I fail to see the deductive connection between love and charity - if you have preconceived notions of charity - which you do - because the bible never says the word charity - please share that, because otherwise, you are simply suggesting a new definition with no reason for it. In the current state of the world, commodities and money are much more valuable than a stranger's love, especially because you cannot be sure if that stranger actually loves them - perhaps you do, but I see no way you could argue that all people would fit that mold. So practically, this definition is useless.
-->
@Theweakeredge
love is only a connection of chemicals in response to a repeated pattern
By that, you demonstrate the failure of the English lexicon, which is the most verbose of any current lexicon in the world. As many words as we have, there are still failures of distinct context. English has but one word, 'love,' to express the variety of context that, in Greek, has fully six separate words which take into account your "definition" in but one of them: eros. What English must do is add adjectives to the one word, love, to express what Greek does succinctly and briefly. Actually, Egyptian [ancient hieroglyphics] has even more context by word distinction.
I do not believe that god or christ exists
Fine, then replace the definition as charity: the pure love of man [love being the full scope of the Greek definitions of that word]
it is possible to love your neighbors and not love god
So you may think, but that does not make it true. You diminish both by deleting one of them. Did you miss how I explained the necessity of love of both God and man? if we cannot live the first commandment, the second will never come to pass. If we cannot follow the second commandment, the first will not endure. Both are part and parcel of "charity." It isn't about the money, or any other commodity. That you interject unacceptance of one of them, notwithstanding, you merely limit your scope of possibilities. Argue for your limitations; they're yours. Syllogisms of the type you suggest are the easiest to screw up because you must recognize that all elements of the equation on one side must equate to the result on hte other side of the equation. Thus my favorite, original syllogism:
P1 Birds fly
P2 Camels walk
C Therefore, butterflies swim.
So... If, I do not love my neighbors, then I do not love god? Please explain
If you do not love your fellow man, you cannot love God. And vice versa. The reason is because if you cannot love your fellow man, who you see everyday, every hour, see his successes and celebrate them with him, and his failures and help him to get up again, how can you love whom you do not see, and do not serve? If you do not even acknowledge he exists, you are not inclined to be in his service by helping [your word] your fellow man. Whereas, helping your fellow man is service to God because you sacrifice your own time, talent, commodity and self for the benefit of others; just what God wished we would all do. And that would tell you your first denial of truth, against what I've just explained is not, itself, true. Again, it's arguing for your limitations, and that is a fruitless exercise.
-->
@fauxlaw
I do not feel inclined to answer to a cherry picked rebuttal, either rewrite it with all of my points in, or not at all. I may or may not get to this one though
-->
@Theweakeredge
Which of your points did I not address?
You questioned "love." I replied
You questioned love of Christ. I replied to substitute man.
You questioned love of both God and man, and doing both, offering a flawed syllogism. I gave you a proper scope