1) Yes, it was an interesting article.
2) I purely
hate OP's which consist of barely anything except a link that you have to go somewhere else to read so you'll even have a clue what the OP is supposed to be about. GIMME A HINT please, confound it!!
3)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by seebs
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by godfry n. glad
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
|
Perhaps there isn't, but near Christians, there's supposed to be. This is one of the tenets of the faith. |
Jeepers, you say that
as if only "Christians" can possibly "get" that helping one another should not be burdened with a price. The PRINCIPLE of charity requires that, WHOEVER does it -- Christian or no -- should not "exact a price" for the act of kindness. Otherwise, quite simply, it's not charity, not virtue, at all.
That's one of the things that REALLY REALLY bothers me about the label "Christian" -- it's as if Christians claim to be in exclusive possession of all or any virtue, when, in fact, it's almost impossible, for, as Godfry points out, the equi-balancing "tenet" of their religion or faith is prosyletization with the goal of conversion.
Whoever gives the lunch TRULY FREELY -- THAT's the virtuous person. And I believe there is/can be a "free lunch." Parents do it for their children all the time. And plenty of people do it for plenty of other people all the time. And anyone who does it in the NAME of a religion, such as "Christianity," has just put a price on the act and spoiled it of its virtue. IOW, if the act were truly charitable, you would never be able to find out if the person who did it was a Christian or not.
more thoughts later perhaps; I'm tired and going to sleep now. See y'all later.
#156