[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by maddog

Well, I was thinking more about the statement, in response to "no such thing as a free lunch," that "around Christians, there's supposed to be." As if, near any other kind of people, there could never be a possibility of a free lunch; i.e., ONLY Christians (or other religious adherents) "get" the principle of charity or are "supposed to be" charitable. That kind of thoughtless expression or tossed-off implicit assumption just makes my blood boil. Sorry (seriously) for being so cranky and emotional if I've taken something wrong.

I understood you the first time, I just don't agree. I don't know the Boy Scout code, but lets hypothesize that it includes wording that a Boy Scout should be charitable. So someone says, "I met a Boy Scout who wasn't charitable", and another Boy Scout present says, "That pisses me off! Boy Scouts are supposed to be charitable!" Would you get pissed off at that Boy Scout because hey, everyone should be charitable! Boy Scouts don't have any monopoly on charity!

I'm supposing you would, but it doesn't make any sense to me. Of course everyone should be charitable. But as we all know everyone isn't charitable. But at least most people don't vow to be charitable. In theory at least, people who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ do. Hence, Christians of all people should be charitable. In no way does that suggest that others cannot or should not also be charitable.

I do not deny that the efforts of the people who do charitable things are virtuous. Sometimes the only choice you have is the vehicle that's there. I'm sure plenty of atheists have done work for the Salvation Army, for example. BUT -- the organization, by naming itself as it has, claims virtue for itself AS a Christian "charity"; thus, it has already put strings on its OWN motivations. They are an army seeking to recruit soldiers for God. They have an ulterior motive that is not only NOT charitable, it's the antithesis of charity.

If you believe the work of the Salvation Army is the antithesis of charity then I don't understand the meaning of the word as you're using it.

The other thing I'd point out is your misperception/assumption that the "cross" of the "Red Cross" is a religious/Christian symbol. It isn't.

Thanks for the background on the Red Cross. I did assume incorrectly.

Beyond that, you're right, of course. I was making a somewhat hyperbolic statement, I suppose. It isn't that Christians can't do charitable things. Of course they can! (and do!) They are human beings socialized to be kind to other human beings. BUT -- so are all kinds of other human beings. And, IMO, labeling the charitable activity that you are doing as "Christian" carries a lot of baggage with it, including the schizophrenic doctrinal problems and contradictions inherent in Christianity; many of those doctrines and contradictions are the antithesis of virtue and charity (again, imo).

I think you're just reiterating what you said above here.

Seebs and I have had this discussion before -- applying the label "Christian" inherently and immediately tends to set up distinctions and divisions between people, when the central message (my opinion, also) is that there ARE NO distinctions and divisions between people. That's precisely WHY it IS a "really fucking clear" tenet of Christianity to do charity to others -- BECAUSE there are (and should be) no distinctions between people; i.e., EVERYONE is "my neighbor." I'm just banging away on one of my old saws/pet peeves. Don't pay me never no mind.

I'm sorry maddog, but your whole argument in both of these posts is a massive strawman argument. Seebs didn't label charity "Christian", he said that anyone who claims to follow the example of Jesus Christ should be charitable, and it pisses him off when they aren't. I honestly can't imagine what problem anyone would have with that statement at face value.