PDA

View Full Version : giving



Alaskans
29th July 2010, 08:13 AM
<thinking aloud>
whats your philosophy on giving?

I used to not give to someone if it was going to hurt them, or if they were just being greedy (because letting someone take advantage of you encourages thier behavior).

But I quickly couldnt stand the feeling I got when judging if someone was really in need or not- it had to be wrong.

And Jesus said if someone robs you, generously load them up.

Maybe its confusing because it can only be understood from a neutral standpoint perhaps. Then it looks like: Give money to a junkie, gain merrit (wich you value), junkie buys drugs & gets high (wich he values) neither is good or bad, only fulfilling requests is.. lawfull.
Under that thought, giving money to someone when they refuse, is actually bad because they want merrit not money.
Therefore, be generous even to the greedy/destructive because you'll get to liquidate all your material belongings into holy bucks?
Easy to accept if I can get over the desire for everyone to value merrit over matter. I would love to not have to care about who is trying to pilfer from me God's stuff for bad ends (oh yea, no bad exists..)

Korpo
29th July 2010, 10:06 AM
Hello, Alaskans.

There are some intricate general questions in there you could ponder endlessly, but I personally would not give to someone if I was sure that that person would do harmful things to himself or others.

The problem is also in the language. The junkie may "need" the drugs, but it's not a useful need, what I would recognise as a basic need. It's not a basic need of his being like social contact, adequate food, a sense of belonging, shelter, etc. This so-called "need" (or really craving) is instead gradually destroying the junkie's ability to sense his own basic needs and replacing it with the craving for the drug. That's true for most cravings if driven to an extreme, I'd say.


And Jesus said if someone robs you, generously load them up.

I'd say generally feel no ill will against the robber if you can, but I really see no gain in helping someone that is basically hurting you. I think that's a harmful piece of life philosophy right there. It's similarly harmful in my opinion as the idea of martyrdom of self for the sole benefit of others - it's seldom helpful, and it's self-destructive. It's an unfortunate cultural heritage we have right there.

For people overly tending into the direction of neglecting self and overemphasizing selflessness I'd recommend this:

See yourself as just another person. There's this "you" person, there's your family, there's your friends, etc. Now, why do something to this "you" person that you would not do to any other? Why do you treat this "you" person so badly or worse than anyone else?

Thinking like that can preclude needlessly martyring yourself and also being overly selfish. It's a practical example of applying the Buddhist principle of equanimity or Charles' principle of "intrinsic value" - no more and no less than any other.

Cheers,
Oliver

Tutor
29th July 2010, 02:18 PM
in giving there is nothing attached to it, not even philosophy.

in receiving it is the same, lest pride bring you down in the refusal of what is being given.

if i am to give from myself, then surely it must be that at first I had been given to that from that i may also give from to another.

so, the question is really about 'receiving' freely.

now there is a bit of distasteful medicine requiring a whole heaping spoonful of surgar to help it go down.

thus the disdained negative and the welcomed positive, and how they line up in their going down.

yet from 'up' is from whence they've come.

truly, if understood, one's innocense is seen to have had no choice other than being stained in it, yet IT having never been lost at all.

narry a white page written upon has escaped the staining ink of the word coming down proclaiming justice vs mercy (12). but alas, shortly thereafter comes raining down the sweetness of grace (13th alternative), helping that which cures go down.

understanding that whomever of those 12 do not of their own deliver, this 13th interchangably assumes either/any of them in said deliverance.

this speaks of the human personality, it's self a fragmented wonder of disintegrated roles. where as 6|1|6, the 13th sees all and hears all alternatingly through the spanning twelve on either side of the unfolding story.

correctly seen, written before time in that field on high of fields below where time first did spin, is through those 6|1|6 as 13 written characters, the very name of integrated God - Jesus, or in it's raw compressed form - IOEUEOI, where U is centrality, the 13th, and if seen rightly as the physician which heals theyself, it is SUS. and of course IO is ultimately that which renders J. but that U has had quite the journey as W being UU which renders V, yet Victory for a brief Peace such as Solomon had felt to see in His lifetime was layed down for the timely sake of every yoU in it as the body of Christ/Humanity.

i rest in that Name and Nature,

tim

CFTraveler
29th July 2010, 05:44 PM
If I'm moved to give I do, and think it's God's job to figure out where it should go. So I go from there.

Tutor
30th July 2010, 12:46 PM
If I'm moved to give I do, and think it's God's job to figure out where it should go. So I go from there.

yet, here is God's Job: http://ebible.org/kjv/Job.htm

and this is what happens when humans put it all on god to do, they inadvertantly choosing a scapegoat to carry the burden of the 'job': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHaJf3pRfso

any and every thing we'd have god do as the 'job' is ours, through us, to do. otherwise, through time we are the one's committing upon the body of humanity what those in specific time committed on the body of jesus christ.

who can deny that very god figures out where very they will go, even as they 'think' to have gone in and of their own self going?

who is not, they being, given from god to be going?

yet, in your concluding words, whether you intended it or not, you have felt to say it in your statement, "So I go from there."

so yes! 'it' is god's job to figure out, even as 'it' is 'you' which is 'figuratively outward as the doer'.

that would mean that every 'you' is Job....

everyman...

tim

Alaskans
31st July 2010, 12:17 AM
If I'm moved to give I do, and think it's God's job to figure out where it should go. So I go from there.
I like that.

Nobody knows better than our high self.