Originally Posted by paladin

I believe you have gone off on a tangent.

Jesus said do not give to charity. Assisting the poor is a loving and compassionate thing to do directly. love thy neighbor directly... you won't need the church to help you do that yourself. In some cases the poor must be helped with community effort, but for the most part the poor would not be poor if they were assisted in learning to be useful. Meaninglessness is a condition soothed with love and hope. We know how to care, but many of us prefer to simply "feel good" when we really aren't directly contributing our time and talent. Money is the easiest thing to give; love requires more generosity.

Originally Posted by kittensKathi2

Yes and no.

Certainly those with the time and means to do direct work with people who need help have an obligation. Many KR members do volunteer work, myself included.

Its a reality of life I'm aligned with here, not everyone has the time to give. In that case, I don't see what's wrong with money. Especially with those able to spare a bit.

* just me *

Originally Posted by paladin

I commend you and the others for your generosity. Money can be directly given. I have seen too often where people who claim not to have the time can easily find time to network at the golf courses and the gyms. Direct charity gives an opportunity to relate with people we otherwise may not take the time to know. Help the least of mankind and you have helped me.

Originally Posted by Alina

"If you can't feed one hundred people then just feed one" - or words to that effect. Charity is good, it's helpful. It feeds people. It makes someone's life a little bit easier, a little less unbearable. So yes! Charity is good, any charity! Regardless of motive, how it is donated, and who is donating it.

Originally Posted by paladin

Jesus said do not give to charity.