Who gets the rewards of charity?

[magsmay]

I was listening to someone on the radio talking about giving to charity and how it was not HOW much you gave, but what percentage of your income you were giving. An example was a millionaire giving £100 to charity and a 'pauper' giving their last penny. The 'pauper' would be actually giving much more than the wealthy man. They then went on to say Mother Theresa preached that to truthfully give to charity you had to give until it hurt -give more than you could afford, otherwise it was not charity. This got me thinking -who then is in receipt of this charity? Because if EVERYONE is expected to give -even the poorest of people -does it mean those in receipt of charity are expected to give it back or they won't go to heaven , be redeemed or whatever their religious beliefs (if any) tell them?? Surely the 'pauper' giving their last penny to charity should be the very person the charity is helping? I realise some of the statements in religious books are out of date with sentences like 'pauper' etc. but surely this would be akin to someone giving their last groceries to a food bank -then having to go to the food bank to be able to feed their family?

[jomifl]

I give to charity in the hope that someone else might benefit from my donation, not to benefit my 'immortal soul' or appease my 'maker'.

[maggiebee]

Agree with jomifl. I give to charity because I want to and hope that my donation will make a difference to those less fortunate than me.

[magsmay]

yes jomilf I agree but a lot of people preach the necessity to give to charity and its not confined to Christianity so maybe someone who believes this doctrine could comment?

[Mamyalynne]

Interesting point though not the main thrust of your post - worth reading how Mother Theresa for explain used charity - indeed until it hurt. Until he hurt those little ones she was purporting to help.

Overall I give what I can when I can, with no thought of the possibility of anything back, spiritual or mortal.

[Mamyalynne]

oops 'for explain' should be 'for example'

[ludwig]

// They then went on to say Mother Theresa preached that to truthfully give to charity you had to give until it hurt -give more than you could afford, otherwise it was not charity //

Nonsense.

[grasscarp]

This reminds me of a saying - If we are put on earth to help others, what are the others put here for.

[magsmay]

@ludwig - are you saying the quote is nonsense or the sentiment behind it? -because the quote is very well known
<give, but give until it hurts>

[ludwig]

Sorry, I wasn't clear mags. I mean that if that's what she said, then she was talking nonsense.

I don't see why you should have to make yourself a charity case in order to help others. It's daft for the reasons pointed out in your question.
Why do you get extra brownie points if your giving hurts?

Also, was the pope aware of these sentiments? The vatican's got a few quid apparently.

[magsmay]

@ ludwig -my sentiments exactly - I fail to understand how the Christian Church is one of the richest land and property owners in the UK, but expect people to reach into their pockets to repair their properties -but I think that's another topic for debate. If some of these preachers took the time to listen, really listen to what they are preaching perhaps they would agree a lot of it is nonsense?

[WaldoMcFroog]

Mother Theresa believed that suffering was a gift from God. She opposed the empowerment of women (a known cure for poverty) and she took money from some of the worst human beings on this planet including the Duvaliers in Haiti and Charles Keating, the man behind much of the savings and loans disaster in the US and then praised them. The finances of her homes was considered by some investigators to be suspect, as was the quality of care on offer. Her homes baptised dying people irrespective of their religion or wishes.

Not a nice or laudible woman at all and certainly guilty of hypocricy in the matter of the quote you used.

[jomifl]

Waldo....I agree 100% mother theresa was a self publicising egomaniac who cared more for her own 'soul' than her victims.

[sandyRoe]

Like mercy, it is twice blest, it blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
But giving 'til it hurts is pushing it a bit.

[woofgang]

she also opposed contraception...
I think there is a point, not that the poor person "should" give but that what they do give can have a spiritual worth of more than the rich mans donation because of what it "costs" them to give. They aren't just giving money but giving up something that they might want in order to give.

But in the real world, a million quid does more than 5p however much the poor person has denied themselves to give the 5p or how little the million quid means to the millionaire donor.

[WWEFREAK372]

Allah is the bhagawan, which means god.

[wildwood]

If the Saints are so saintly, why don't they convince JC to force the religious sects to sell off their opulent wealth and really help those less fortunate, while they are up there.

I believe that apart from helping people to help themselves, most charity almost never reaches the ones who it was given for. The charity business is a profitable booming industry and apart from the few genuine ones, many are just set up for profit.

[jomifl]

Absolutely Wildwood, I believe 90% of some charities' income is spent on administration. They even subcontract out collections to collection companies who get commission thus reducing the amount that gets to the 'needy' even further.

[birdie1971]

Waldo “... [Mother Theresa] Not a nice or laudible woman at all...”

That hasn't stopped the Catholic Church from attempting to canonise her though; she was beatified in 2003. Just one more 'miracle' to be attributed to her and she's good to go.

Say Hallelujah my brother!

[Mamyalynne]

As I said earlier read up on her, many children would have lived.

[birdie1971]

↑ I am well aware of Mother Theresa's appalling record on caring for the sick. My post to Waldo was very much tongue in cheek!