Merry Christmas

[Frank ess]

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.

Doesn't everything?

 

[Mark²]

Doesn't everything?

No.
Not everything. There really is such a thing as self sacrifice or selfless
giving.

 

[John McWilliams]

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.

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.

 

[Mark²]

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.

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...

 

[Bandicoot]

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......

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

 

[Mark²]

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.

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.

 

[Ron Hunter]

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.

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.

 

[Ron Hunter]

No.
Not everything. There really is such a thing as self sacrifice or selfless
giving.

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.

 

[Mark²]

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.

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.

 

[Mark²]

Nope. He did it quietly,

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.

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)

 

[ASAAR]

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.

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.

 

[Bill Funk]

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.)

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[Bill Funk]

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......

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?

 

[Ron Hunter]

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.

Sometimes, the process of public giving motivates others to give likewise.

 

[Alan Browne]

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.

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

 

[Alan Browne]

Yes. Hitler, (for one) believed in astrology.....He looked to the stars for
justification of his decisions.....

So did Ronald Reagan. A lot.

 

[Alan Browne]

Tell that to the founding fathers.
They were clearly nuts...if it's nuts to believe you are led by God.

For their period it was as standard to profess belief in God as it was
to hide any doubts about such a belief.

 

[Alan Browne]

Does that in any way mean the COE is not the official state church of
England?

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.

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.

And, ironically, some of them were COE (Episcopal) and remained so
afterwards.

 

[Mark²]

Sometimes, the process of public giving motivates others to give
likewise.

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...

 

[William Graham]

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.

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?