Merry Christmas

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alan Browne
  • Start date Start date
Mark² said:
Sure. It's good.
He also made sure that you heard all about it, and thatyou gave him
"credit" for it.
One of my pet peeves is when companies write a HUGE, 4-foot-long
check to some charity, and then throw themselves a big party to show
how charitable they are.

Yes...it's good and nice for the receiver...but it also becomes
self-serving at some point.
Click to expand...

Doesn't everything?
 
Mark² said:
We're still photographers.
We just happen to also be people, and people are never single-minded.
We're familiar with each other here, so it's natural to branch off into
discussion...just as you would over teh lunch table at a photography
convention. It happens, and it's natural. There are other "tables" tosit
at (other threads), so it's not like this conversation is forced on anyone.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the above. It's just that a small handful post and
post and post bucketfuls of OT stuff, or turn any discussion into an
OT drift, and almost never post about photography. You are not among
them, but occasionally fan the fires- as we all do to some degree.
 
John said:
I don't disagree with the above. It's just that a small handful post
and post and post bucketfuls of OT stuff, or turn any discussion
into an OT drift, and almost never post about photography. You are not
among
them, but occasionally fan the fires- as we all do to some degree.
Click to expand...

Sure, I'm guilty. But this is a "Merry Christmas" thread...after all...
Not a, "Which lens should I use to capture my Merry Christmas" thread... :)
 
William Graham said:
Stalin == atheist

Unfair! - these guys may have been atheists, but it had nothing to do with
their wars....that's like me blaming Hitler's holocaust on his
religion.....Sure, he might have believed in God, but it had nothing to do
with his murdering 6 million Jews.....He didn't kill them for religious
reasons. And Stalin didn't murder religious people because he was an
atheist, either.....He was just a paranoid megalomaniac, and his atheism had
nothing to do with it......
Click to expand...

Well, Stalin and Mao _did_ both kill people specifically because they (the
victims) were religious. Principally Christians but other groups suffered
too. Lenin also had a deliberate policy of killing Orthodox priests.

I'm not saying these guys (and there are many other examples) were evil
_because_ they were atheists, but you are wrong to say that the fact that
they were was irrelevant to their violent actions. To play on words, they
pursued their atheism with what might be described as 'religious' fervour.


Peter
 
Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here said:
Well, Stalin and Mao _did_ both kill people specifically because they
(the victims) were religious. Principally Christians but other
groups suffered too. Lenin also had a deliberate policy of killing
Orthodox priests.

I'm not saying these guys (and there are many other examples) were
evil _because_ they were atheists, but you are wrong to say that the
fact that they were was irrelevant to their violent actions. To play
on words, they pursued their atheism with what might be described as
'religious' fervour.
Click to expand...

There are a LOT of atheists like that. I've dealt personally with many of
them, and quite a number of them have had such a HUGE chip on their shoulder
that they go about it with milirasistic tunnel-vision...much more so than
even some of the most religious among us. It becomes their overwhelming,
single-minded "guide" in some cases. It is VERY close to a religious
zealot, and sometimes worse.
 
Mark² said:
Sure. It's good.
He also made sure that you heard all about it, and thatyou gave him "credit"
for it.
One of my pet peeves is when companies write a HUGE, 4-foot-long check to
some charity, and then throw themselves a big party to show how charitable
they are.

Yes...it's good and nice for the receiver...but it also becomes self-serving
at some point.
Click to expand...
Nope. He did it quietly, but the news media picked up on it, since it
was something that required interfacing with government. I suspect it
might have cost him a bit more than he planned, but since he isn't all
that far behind Gates in the money department, I doubt he suffered much.
 
Mark² said:
No.
Not everything. There really is such a thing as self sacrifice or selfless
giving.
Click to expand...
It is rather hard for someone in the Gates/Dell financial bracket to
make self-sacrificial charitable donations. Or, they could give TIME
rather than money. It is hard for us to assess their motives for these
donations.
 
Ron said:
It is rather hard for someone in the Gates/Dell financial bracket to
make self-sacrificial charitable donations. Or, they could give TIME
rather than money. It is hard for us to assess their motives for
these donations.
Click to expand...

I don't claim they had poor or selfish motives, since that's not really up
to me...but when you claim credit for these sort of gifts, it's as though
you've just cheapened the act of giving into a sideshow for yourself.
Giving can become means of attracting favor or approval from the givee...or
even onlookers, rather than the simple willingness to make a personal
sacrifice to give...that isn't "paid" in return by receiving kudos on the 6
o'clock news. The over-all effect of receiving gifts may be great and good
to the receiver...but in terms of the giver--to me they've basically given
THEMSELVES the "gift" of kudos. Brownie points...

Keep giving...even if it's 4 foot long checks, and the like. -Just don't
expect God to fall all over himself because you gave in that way.

There's an interesting story in the Bible about giving. Jesus describes a
rich man who makes a huge procession of his act of "giving" to the temple--a
HUGE quantity of cash, etc....but then following this, he notices an
impoverished widow who secretly drops what little she had (a single "mite"
in this case) into the box when nobody was looking. Jesus sees her, and
uses it to explain how God views "giving." He notes that the rich man gave
painlessly from his wealth, while the widow gave only a tiny fraction...but
a gift that was truly a sacrifice for her. She received no fanfare, and no
outward appreciation for it, and yet Jesus describes hers as the greater
gift, and the only gift of significance to God. He goes on to say that the
attention the rich guy got from the crowds was all the "reward" he'd
receive...but said the widow's reward would be in heaven.

It's an interesting little glimpse of how God, according to Jesus, sees the
act of giving.
 
Ron said:
Nope. He did it quietly,
Click to expand...

If so, then good for him.
but the news media picked up on it, since it
was something that required interfacing with government. I suspect it
might have cost him a bit more than he planned, but since he isn't all
that far behind Gates in the money department, I doubt he suffered
much.
Click to expand...

And to God (according to the New Testament), it's the sacrifice that is
noted. -Not the value of the gift itself.
(See my other reply to you above)
 
There's an interesting story in the Bible about giving. Jesus describes a
rich man who makes a huge procession of his act of "giving" to the temple--a
HUGE quantity of cash, etc....but then following this, he notices an
impoverished widow who secretly drops what little she had (a single "mite"
in this case) into the box when nobody was looking. Jesus sees her, and
uses it to explain how God views "giving." He notes that the rich man gave
painlessly from his wealth, while the widow gave only a tiny fraction...but
a gift that was truly a sacrifice for her. She received no fanfare, and no
outward appreciation for it, and yet Jesus describes hers as the greater
gift, and the only gift of significance to God. He goes on to say that the
attention the rich guy got from the crowds was all the "reward" he'd
receive...but said the widow's reward would be in heaven.

It's an interesting little glimpse of how God, according to Jesus, sees the
act of giving.
Click to expand...

Thereby demonstrating that in yet another category, spirituality,
Dubya Bush, who promises much, ensures that his "generosity" is well
publicized but delivers very little, falls far and away short of
Bubba Clinton, who is so easily able to "feel your pain".

I've also been made aware that when it comes to appreciating the
use of photography to help spread the word, to make the gospel
heard, God values more highly the works produced and the effort made
by photographers using humble $150 cameras. Affluent dilettantes
may mistakenly think that by the almost effortless use of luxurious
$5000 cameras they'll reap greater rewards, but the story of The
Widow's Mite says otherwise. I learned all of this from the blessed
Ken Rockwell who heard it directly from God, but whether God was
speaking to him or through him has not yet been determined.
 
1) I suggest then that you read up on the origins of the Church of
England, aka, the Anglican Church, aka Episcopal. It, despite splitting
from the Catholic Church, remains almost entirely conformal to it in
terms of doctrine and considers itself to be "Catholic" but non-papal.
(if you ever attend a high church Sunday service you will not see much
difference from a Catholic mass.)
Click to expand...

Does that in any way mean the COE is not the official state church of
England?
2) The crown (England) is the "Defender of the Faith" (above) as granted
by Pope Leo X to that good ole boy Henry VIII, who split the Church of
England from the Roman Catholic Chursh, thereby founding the Anglican
Church. Today, the crown remains "Defender of the Faith". This causes
some red faces as the "faith" in question is the Catholic faith, yet the
Brit crown "protects" the Church of England.
Click to expand...

The "Defender of the Faith" title *was* meant o refer to Catholocism;
it no longer does.
It now refers to the COE, as it did during the revolutionary war.
Henry was ex-communicated, you may reemember.
3) So, you can say it any way you like but the 1st ammendment writers
were concerned with any hold that religion might have on the government,
and the origins of that are rooted in the creation of the Anglican
Church from the Catholic Church. And the Catholic Church was entirely
embedded in most European governments for over 1000 years at the time.
Click to expand...

Yes, any religion. They used the COE as the main reason, though, since
that was the religion of the country they were breaking from.
As to Bush and "faith based" initiatives, any trouble that might arise
would be via funding. If any FBi uses federal $ for purposes related to
religion (instead of or in addition to social purposes) then Congress
(who authorize the budget by law) will be in conflict with the EC.
There are no loopholes here. Part of the FB i reads: "... through ....
legislation, Federal and private funding," and section 2e and 2f of the
FBi provide clear instruction wrt the Establishment clause.

Cheers,
Alan
Click to expand...

The 'funding' problem has always been a red herring. If the funds are
used as they are intended, and not used to further the givers, there's
no problem. Oversight is always done.
And using establishments that already have systems set up for giving
and otherwise distributing those funds is far more efficient that
setting up governmental agencies to do the same thing.
 
But it was Congress who changed the pledge of allegiance to the flag to
include the words, "under God" instead of "indivisible", back in the
50's......
Click to expand...

And what penalties did Congress set up to punish any and all who don't
utter the magic words?
None.
What means were set up to ensure that the Pledge is said by all ands
sundry at any given interval?
None.
So, where's the idea that any God is somehow the God of the
Government?
 
Mark² said:
I don't claim they had poor or selfish motives, since that's not really up
to me...but when you claim credit for these sort of gifts, it's as though
you've just cheapened the act of giving into a sideshow for yourself.
Giving can become means of attracting favor or approval from the givee...or
even onlookers, rather than the simple willingness to make a personal
sacrifice to give...that isn't "paid" in return by receiving kudos on the 6
o'clock news. The over-all effect of receiving gifts may be great and good
to the receiver...but in terms of the giver--to me they've basically given
THEMSELVES the "gift" of kudos. Brownie points...

Keep giving...even if it's 4 foot long checks, and the like. -Just don't
expect God to fall all over himself because you gave in that way.

There's an interesting story in the Bible about giving. Jesus describes a
rich man who makes a huge procession of his act of "giving" to the temple--a
HUGE quantity of cash, etc....but then following this, he notices an
impoverished widow who secretly drops what little she had (a single "mite"
in this case) into the box when nobody was looking. Jesus sees her, and
uses it to explain how God views "giving." He notes that the rich man gave
painlessly from his wealth, while the widow gave only a tiny fraction...but
a gift that was truly a sacrifice for her. She received no fanfare, and no
outward appreciation for it, and yet Jesus describes hers as the greater
gift, and the only gift of significance to God. He goes on to say that the
attention the rich guy got from the crowds was all the "reward" he'd
receive...but said the widow's reward would be in heaven.

It's an interesting little glimpse of how God, according to Jesus, sees the
act of giving.
Click to expand...
Sometimes, the process of public giving motivates others to give likewise.
 
Bill said:
Does that in any way mean the COE is not the official state church of
England?



The "Defender of the Faith" title *was* meant o refer to Catholocism;
it no longer does.
It now refers to the COE, as it did during the revolutionary war.
Henry was ex-communicated, you may reemember.



Yes, any religion. They used the COE as the main reason, though, since
that was the religion of the country they were breaking from.



The 'funding' problem has always been a red herring. If the funds are
used as they are intended, and not used to further the givers, there's
no problem. Oversight is always done.
And using establishments that already have systems set up for giving
and otherwise distributing those funds is far more efficient that
setting up governmental agencies to do the same thing.
Click to expand...

It's not a red herring. No government in the world has funded things to
find that the money was used in 100% of the cases for the intended purpose.

As you said "If the funds..." while "if" statements have at least two
outcomes.

There is no guarantee that a church or other "faith based" organization
has an in place non-religious-intent book keeping system. This would
have to be set up if not already in place by any organization that uses
this funding.

Government agencies can't buy toilet paper efficiently...

Cheers,
Alan
 
Mark² said:
Tell that to the founding fathers.
They were clearly nuts...if it's nuts to believe you are led by God.
Click to expand...

For their period it was as standard to profess belief in God as it was
to hide any doubts about such a belief.
 
Bill said:
Does that in any way mean the COE is not the official state church of
England?
Click to expand...

It is the official state church of england.
The "Defender of the Faith" title *was* meant o refer to Catholocism;
it no longer does.
It now refers to the COE, as it did during the revolutionary war.
Henry was ex-communicated, you may reemember.
Click to expand...

The nuance here is that "the faith" is the _Roman_ Catholic Church.
There have been efforts to change "Defender of the faith" to "Defender
of faith" but this requires a change to a law that dates back some
centuries. It does not appear to be worht the effort to do so, so the
original wording remains.

Note: COE is _Catholic_. It is NOT _Roman_ Catholic.
Yes, any religion. They used the COE as the main reason, though, since
that was the religion of the country they were breaking from.
Click to expand...

And, ironically, some of them were COE (Episcopal) and remained so
afterwards.
 
Ron said:
Sometimes, the process of public giving motivates others to give
likewise.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of "Miracle on 34th Street" where Macy and Gimble start arguing
over who gets to pay for the x-ray machine Kris Kringle want to buy for his
friend... :)
 
There are a LOT of atheists like that. I've dealt personally with many of
them, and quite a number of them have had such a HUGE chip on their
shoulder that they go about it with milirasistic tunnel-vision...much more
so than even some of the most religious among us. It becomes their
overwhelming, single-minded "guide" in some cases. It is VERY close to a
religious zealot, and sometimes worse.
Click to expand...

Yes....Some people get very annoyed at being discriminated against just for
exhibiting common sense.....After all, It was the middle 50's when congress
changed the pledge of allegiance to read, "under God" instead of,
"indivisible". Where did that come from? - If that wasn't simply a slap in
the face to the atheists, then what, exactly was it? One might argue that if
the religious zealots started it, then they have no one but themselves to
blame when we fight back, do they? So now many of us are petitioning the
government to remove all references to god from all of our public
places....Well, what do you guys expect? In my case, it isn't worth the
trouble.....For the first 10 years of my life, I thought it meant you
couldn't see our country.....:^) So why, exactly would I care? but
obviously, there are some who do. And, when I am asked to go to the polls
and vote....Which side do you think I am going to vote for?
 
Back
Top