Everything you have said has refuted this statement so all I will say is that I respect your opinion, but take no value in it.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I understand the onus to spread the word. I understand how fervently you believe what you believe. Why? Because I believe what I believe just as fervently. Agreement and understanding do not amount to the same thing. Edit: I'm now going to retire before this gets anymore off track.
A lot of charity is about how the giver feels. I think I've mentioned the stories about a natural disaster a few years ago, when people were doing things like FedExing used pillows to the disaster site. Donating the FedEx cost would have done far more good, and in fact the action, by using up transportation capacity that could have been used for something else, hurt rather than helped. And those charities that waste the charity's money by sending thank-you gifts are presumably doing so because they've learned that the giver needs a feel-good gesture. Expecting charity without there being something in it for the giver may not be plausible. At least in this case, the action does produce a net positive, even if it would be more positive without the book. (It occurs to me that having a stack of New Testaments next to the backpacks could give the opportunity for the homeless person to demonstrate respect and thanks, "paying back" the giver by respecting the giver's beliefs by taking one. That could make the homeless person feel stronger and kinder, rather than weaker and imposed upon. No, I have no idea whether that makes sense.)
As a atheist/agnostic*, I feel that JJ Maxx is having a bit a hard time on this thread. I have a lot of problems with religion, but somebody giving a homeless person a pack that happens to contain a bible doesn't seem that bad. Actually, it seems good. Hell, if I were homeless I'd probably prefer to believe in God anyway! What I believe in most fervently when it comes to religion is freedom of choice. I don't think that any belief, including atheism, should be forced down anyone's throat. Giving someone a New Testament doesn't count. *I am virtually certain that a Christian God, or a Muslim God etc., does not exist, but am unwilling to discard the possibility of there being some kind of higher reason for it all.
We should either take this to the debate room, and jettison this thread out an airlock, or get back on topic... What started as a simple exchange of views has turned into something nasty, and the poor homeless have again been forgotten.
Of course! "Why care about the poor when we can fight about religion or politics?" is sadly the general atmosphere.......
That's probably because everyone here agrees that poverty is a bad thing. Talking about poverty eventually leads to a discussion about government policies, which then turns into a political debate. That's just the way things go.
I'm kinda on JJ's side this time (and we're not usually on the same side I feel lol). My church also runs a ministry for the homeless, called YANA, which stands for "You Are Not Alone". Every Saturday, a group of students meet up, cook a meal (usually Chinese Malaysian food cus almost all our cooks are Chinese Malaysians lol) and pack it into 40-60 boxes depending on the season, and flasks of tea. Every box contains a Bible verse on it in Czech (we live in the Czech Republic). In winter we give out blankets and coats and gloves too. We make it clear we come from a church. Does it mean they HAVE to believe? No. Does it mean they don't get food unless they read and/or believe? Absolutely not. It is simply that we believe Christ is ultimately the peace and love that they need. We could be wrong, of course, but we all have freedom of faith and speech, and this is what we believe. No, a Bible verse or even the entire Bible won't convert someone usually. But conversion is not why the people at my church go out. Most of these students don't even speak Czech and they're trying to improve on their language skills just so they could talk to these people - a lot of times NOT about God. Plenty of times we listen to their stories, to their job struggles, stories about their estranged children or divorced partners or addiction. You'd be surprised at how many people actually want to pray. Sometimes they ask for it themselves. Other times, we offer, and 99% of the time they are pleased. The ministry has grown so much that we now run a monthly short service for the homeless at our church. There've been several who have come to our Sunday services. Our church helped a homeless couple with jobs and paying for their shelter for close on 2 years, as well as paid for another homeless man's leg surgery. No, we don't invite them so we can convert them. But those who wish to talk, we offer them friendship. We're there to show the love of God, not necessarily to preach. There're many relationships that various people within the homeless ministry have with specific individuals - they know their names and histories and meet them almost weekly. Why? Because Jesus loves them. That's why we go out. And what's wrong with that? What's wrong with letting them know that's why we go out? And if we've found something wonderful that we feel they could benefit from, why is it wrong to share it?
I don't see any issue here. The Bible would prove to be a great source of warmth for the homeless. And if not, they can always read it.
Interesting how JJ brings up giving backpacks as charity to homeless people (the bible being an extra) and what most people pick up on is the bible, instead of the charity itself. Just goes to show that you don't need to be a die hard christian to have an agenda or be arrogant.
When I worked at the prison, the inmates got free Bibles. I often caught most of them using the pages out of it to roll cigarettes.
Because these people don't see the (giving of a) bible as relevant to charity. Is it so bad to bring up a debate about something so conspicuous? With only three lines of text it is difficult not to pick it up. I have a hard time seeing how this is arrogance, and let us not misuse the definition of ''agenda.'' Edit: Also, it has been stated that this was ''a good idea.'' That doesn't mean we should all drool over the word that is flung at our heads every second of every day—charity, a word so pristine, it is as though it nullifies any sort of controversial discussion.
This is ridiculous. I’ve seen a few points here about how it might not be a good idea because of a potential negative reaction but you can’t guarantee that the response or effect will be negative. What if that person is a believer and receiving the bible from an individual human being personally and together with other necessities like food and clothes does a tremendous amount to lifting that person’s spirits? What if they decide to just open the book and happen to read a passage that becomes a planted seed that later helps them overcome their hardships? What if there is some other scenario that none of us can predict in which giving that homeless person a bible benefits them more than if they had not been given a bible? Do what you feel is right and let others do the same as long as you and they do not aggress against others. The truth is that you don’t know what the consequences are. JJ intends only good in his actions and they do not harm that individual. The only “harm” that I can see is an extremely negative reaction; perhaps pride and anger causes them to reject both the bag and the book because they find it so offensive. A loud voice in the religious debate is that atheists should not have to refrain from harmless actions because it may offend a theist; likewise, religious people should not have to refrain from harmless actions because it may offend an atheist -- or someone of a different belief. The agenda behind giving a homeless person food and clothes is to help them. To JJ, giving them a bible is part of that agenda. You and even the recipient of these items may believe that there is a different agenda behind being given a bible. However, JJ is neither responsible nor accountable for beliefs and conclusions you draw; nor is he responsible or accountable for the actions that other people make of their own free will when no coercion was involved.
getting back to the cold and/or homeless folks out there, one of my favorite 'brain-down' respites from hours-long stretches on the computer is crocheting hats and scarves to give away... so if anyone here who's concerned about their fellow humans who need same knows a group/person willing to distribute my free wares, just drop me a line... oh, and i would welcome donations of yarn, if anyone is so inclined, as i've exhausted the meager supply available here in this tiny little town and can't afford to buy much, on my ss income... love and hugs, maia maia3maia@hotmail.com
The butterfly effect, or fatalism in a sense, never appealed to me as a solid argument. I could argue the exact opposite. The word ''harm'' and ''aggress'' depend on interpretation. Some might find the spreading of religion harmful for our social-cultural development. I do not strongly believe in charity, so I'm highly skeptical about any agenda and its consequences, good intentions or lack thereof.
This is pretty much my point. I'd also like to add that I don't believe in consequentialism. True, most words have more than one interpretation. What constitutes harm and aggression is a different beast altogether and far too off-topic here. What I mean is that I haven't taken away the person's free will; I haven't physically aggressed against them or threatened to do so; I haven't stolen anything from them; and I haven't put them in physical danger. You're welcome to define aggression in a different manner, but excluding property rights, you may have a hard time finding a logically consistent definition of aggression that differs from my interpretation. By harm, I mean physical harm. Not spreading religion may also be considered harmful for our social-cultural development. It may also be considered harmful to individuals to place so much value on social-cultural development. My approach is simply a "live and let live" one. Claiming that you know better than others what constitutes as "harmful for society" is a bit arrogant, in my opinion. Yes, maybe giving food to a starving homeless person is not good for them; perhaps this one person is not going to survive anyway and I should've given it to someone else or kept it for myself?
I agree with your definition of aggression. But as you show yourself, 'harm' can be seen from several angles, so I don't see why we should neglect debate on the matter. I don't think that discussion regarding the topic (of harm)—with all that it entails—is a claim for knowing better than others. ''It may'' is a fatalistic argument indeed, but not all people simply infer it from a 'what-if' hypothesis. I'd agree on the first statement, but for other reasons than the second.
My point is that there are some forms of harms that are far too subjective and uncertain to be even considered. Considering whether giving a bible to a homeless person may end up affecting society in a negative way is just arrogant, self-aggrandizing and self-righteous. The only thing we can look at is how it affects the individual right there and then. We don't know if giving food to a starving homeless person is good or bad in the end, but we can say with very high probability that it is good for them now. More importantly, there's no aggression involved, right?
And my point is that if the premise of harm is built upon, it's not so uncertain. The ''affecting society in a negative way'' was just an example, mind, there are other objections to this. When you state that we do not/can not know if giving food to a homeless person is good or bad, then I would like to point out at how you use high probability as an argument. I agree that we cannot know, but high probability is, in this case, a double-edged sword—a proponent of discussion. In the sense that you have described ''aggression,'' no, it is not involved. But that does not nullify any (adverse) effect it might have. I do not think the benevolence of the now justifies the presumed later. Also, the question whether or not it is actually benevolent is still one that can be asked and debated upon.
@JJ_Maxx - I think it's a great idea. I can understand how some might be put off by the inclusion of a bible in the packs, but as the ubiquitous Murphy is supposed to have said, "If you try to please everybody, somebody won't like it." It's not as if you are requiring anyone to convert in order to get the help. Maybe they'll read it, maybe they won't. Then again, they might not use the soap, either. "That which you did for the least of them, you did for me." I'd like to help, if I may. I'll send you a PM.
I am sad to say that, two weeks after I posted the above expression of support and offer of assistance, and then followed up with a more specific offer in a PM (and a second PM two days ago), I have had no response from @JJ_Maxx. Not even a "thanks but no thanks" which would have been fine. There are any number of possible explanations for this. Perhaps, despite his expression of New Years goodwill, JJ has placed me on "ignore", in which case he would have seen neither my offer here nor my PM. Perhaps he found no local support when he went to find it, or was uncomfortable with the idea of accepting financial support for his part, or maybe even had second thoughts about the project as a whole - although in any of these scenarios, a "thanks but no thanks" would have covered it. In any event, I hope he discovers the wisdom of the first several verses of Matthew, Chapter 6.