this is the discussion I had hoped to provoke

Post #77,461

1/28/03 12:01:25 AM

This refers to the principal of mitzva giving a charitable gift only has meaning if no one (except perhaps the receiptiant) knows you are giving it. This to me is a part of charitable giving we no longer see much of.
thanx,
bill

will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

"The Mafia was preferable to the state, because it survived by providing services people actually wanted"
Murray Rothbard

Post #77,464

by deSitter

1/28/03 12:12:31 AM

Good is Anonymous

..but Evil demands a false accounting.

-drl

Post #77,623

by tseliot

1/28/03 4:08:47 PM

From our modern POV perhaps.

Charity is one of the most misunderstood concepts between us and the first century. I think James is addressing the first issue you mentioned, but I don't think it's about charity per se. Charity was a different thing to them than it is to us; we don't have the patronage system they did. We don't understand how radical these statements were:

Matt 6:
1 "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.
2 "So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.
3 "But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
4 so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
5 "When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.
6 "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

Prayer was seen as the same sort of discussion one would have with an earthly patron: you give me something, I give you my loyalty. So of course it would be done out in the open, with witnesses; otherwise, the patron isn't put on the spot. From the patron's POV, of course charity is given in the open; how else would you impress potential clients? This was all taken for granted until Jesus spoke the words above. For the first time, our relationship to God was seen as a relationship disembedded from politics and family.

So, to say charity "only has meaning if no one knows" is only half the story. Without the concept of a greater reward outside of earthly social interaction, charity only makes sense if it is publicized. They "have their reward in full."

Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10

Post #77,712

by static

1/29/03 1:51:59 AM

Some thoughts on "belief" et al.

My pastor has unearthed some interesting nuances of language WRT that sort of scripture in recent months. In Hebrew (and likely Aramaic), the meaning of the phrase "I believe ..." meant that the speaker responds or is responding to that belief with some sort of action or change in their life. The Hebrew mindset of the day could not conceive of "belief" that led nowhere, as it were; in such a case, you do not "believe".

This, IMO, is what James is also arguing. In other words, Belief must have a visible, physical component - often called Works - that happens because one believes.

Wade.

Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed

Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please

-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne.

Post #77,843

by tseliot

1/29/03 1:44:29 PM

Yes, although the NT points out change

In Hebrew (and likely Aramaic), the meaning of the phrase "I believe ..." meant that the speaker responds or is responding to that belief with some sort of action or change in their life.

In the OT writings, this seems a truism. But notice how that foundation is cracking with the Hellenization of Judea, and then Roman occupation. It has to be addressed at all in James, et al because it became a new problem for that group of people--particularly notice it in Paul's writings to communities separated from Jerusalem (the center of Jewish orthodoxy).

I believe this had to do with the shift from "belief" meaning essentially "belief in a person" (i.e. loyalty to a patron) to the more Greek concept of belief as ideological. OT Jewish thought didn't seem to have any concept of a Truth behind reality; or, if it did, it was a personal Truth inseparable from a personal Being.

Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10

Post #77,849

by boxley

1/29/03 1:50:41 PM

Isnt I believe an act of oath taking?

Post #77,897

by tseliot

1/29/03 4:12:16 PM

Depends upon your definition of oath

I use "oath" to mean invocation of a higher power (i.e. patron), usually to imply sanctions if the expressed contract is broken. "I believe X to be true," doesn't often include such an oath. "I believe in person X" might, especially if they are seen as that higher power. *Long* before Kant or even Linnaeus' assertions about taxonomy, common wisdom assumed a thing's name was coterminous with the thing itself, hence the language about taking action "in the name of" someone else. Or take the verses about "I was baptized by Paul, Apollos", etc, concerning which Paul has to take pains to make clear that such intermediaries are not going to be a part of this new covenant.

Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10

Post #77,903

by boxley

1/29/03 4:22:00 PM

same definition as I use, thanx

Welcome to IWETHEY!