what i struggle with is self-justification from myself and others about WHY we should NOT give to the poor and why many believe....not that the poor are responsible for the poor (which is true) but that the rest of us are NOT responsible.
There is a third way here: that the poor are responsible for themselves, but that we should still give to the poor because it is to our own benefit (spiritual, economic and all other kinds of benefits). The responsibility of each for himself does not diminish my ability to be charitable. And my lack of *requirement* to be charitable does not remove my *option* to be (and my joy in being) charitable. The creation of obligation removes much of what is good in charity. It is freedom that allows us to be good.
We are not free to be other than ourselves, for example. We are (mostly)not free to do things out of character, although we are free to change our characters.
What is "character" here? What would it be to act outside of one's (as you indicated, mutable) character? This sentence is at risk of being circular reasoning. How could you demonstrate this assertion; if I were to act outside my character, would you tell me that my character has changed? If so, is this nothing more than a tautology?
The rich are not free to see the imago dei in their neighbors and treat them as loved children of God,
I am rich and am touched daily with the image of God (and God herself) in everyone. It is the core point of most of my writings (I friended you, so you can go back and look). It is because I believe in the God within everyone that I believe that they can each become more than their current station, whether rich or poor. Through the God within them, the poor are "free to actualize their real potential." That I may be able to help them do that is a gift of God to me, but only the individual can become what they wish or need to be; others cannot do it for them. It is the separation of people's character into economic classes that obscures the imago dei. Good and evil are found in all portions of the economic spectrum.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-09-25 03:00 pm (UTC)what i struggle with is self-justification from myself and others about WHY we should NOT give to the poor and why many believe....not that the poor are responsible for the poor (which is true) but that the rest of us are NOT responsible.
There is a third way here: that the poor are responsible for themselves, but that we should still give to the poor because it is to our own benefit (spiritual, economic and all other kinds of benefits). The responsibility of each for himself does not diminish my ability to be charitable. And my lack of *requirement* to be charitable does not remove my *option* to be (and my joy in being) charitable. The creation of obligation removes much of what is good in charity. It is freedom that allows us to be good.
We are not free to be other than ourselves, for example. We are (mostly)not free to do things out of character, although we are free to change our characters.
What is "character" here? What would it be to act outside of one's (as you indicated, mutable) character? This sentence is at risk of being circular reasoning. How could you demonstrate this assertion; if I were to act outside my character, would you tell me that my character has changed? If so, is this nothing more than a tautology?
The rich are not free to see the imago dei in their neighbors and treat them as loved children of God,
I am rich and am touched daily with the image of God (and God herself) in everyone. It is the core point of most of my writings (I friended you, so you can go back and look). It is because I believe in the God within everyone that I believe that they can each become more than their current station, whether rich or poor. Through the God within them, the poor are "free to actualize their real potential." That I may be able to help them do that is a gift of God to me, but only the individual can become what they wish or need to be; others cannot do it for them. It is the separation of people's character into economic classes that obscures the imago dei. Good and evil are found in all portions of the economic spectrum.