Someone once said, "the highest form of charity is anonymous"

Maybe he should stick to that because people will always see an alterior motive even if he is sincere.

Giving is really only giving when there is no expectation of getting something back. If Ford is really being charitable and really doesn't expect anything in return, then it is giving. If he is thinking "if I help these folks out they may vote for me and/or my bro", then it ceases to be giving and becomes vote-buying (or marketing if you want to be charitable to the Fords).

The problem is history. At least since the Roman Republic and likely even earlier, lavishing charity on the poor in expectation that they will vote for you (or otherwise support you) in return is a time honoured way of doing the business of politics. It sometimes tipped the balance of power in Rome (look up "bread and circuses"). So, whenever a politician lavishes charity on the poor, it tends to get interpreted in that light regardless of the politician's real motives.

Unfortunately, in the case of demagogues like the Fords, I'm rather inclined to agree with that negative assessment of their motives. Their way of playing the game is all too familiar to those who have studied history.

Mendalla

Or does the thought really count across the board or is it nuanced?  If I am interested in being perceived as a Philanthropist, despite working the other hand of power to take even more from them, is there still value to the recipient? 

Is a gift diminished by asking for a tax receipt? Personally, I don't think it is. It's more like a winning contract - just another kind of gift. 

Hi ninjafaery,

How are we defining merit?  Something good for Councillor Ford or something good for those receiving the $20?

If someone needed $20 then it is good that they got the $20.

What did the rest who didn't need the $20 do with it?

Did some recieving that $20 spend it towards something self-destructive?  Does that make the good enough not so good?

We'd have to know what the "end" actually was to be able to justify the means.

All we know now are several potential ends.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Listening in, this comes to mind:
.
"He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty."
.
Will say a bit to elaborate later in the day.
.
George
.

Hi ninjafaery     your quote     Is a gift diminished by asking for a tax receipt? Personally, I don't think it is. It's more like a winning contract - just another kind of gift. 

It is called for selling the gift -----you are expecting something back ----when you make a donation you can claim it ---so you make the donation because you will receive some back  on taxes therefore your for selling your donation --  you are not giving it --- you exchanging it ----

God's word says this ---

Peace

Generally I give anonymously to individuals.  Sometimes money sometimes flowers. groceries, home prepared food etc.  When I give  money to the groups I suupport I like  to get the tax receipt.  The money I save on taxes can then be re used as another donation. 

Public acknowledgement of gifts - photo in the paper - announcement at church etc - makes me cringe.

Perhaps drifty....

I have been in active relationship with beggars from my youth. Beggars in high and low places. My preferred associations were and continue to be in the low places, fully aware of scoundrels in both.

What can we infer when the text speaks of the hungry being filled and the rich being sent away empty?

I think the parable of the rich man and Lazarus has something to say. The rich man has status in the community. He is esteemed and honoured for his reputation as a charitable man.

This though he has acquired his wealth by the appropriation of land and labour for the service of profit, and the ostentation profit makes available.

The problem addressed by charity among us is not going away. It is growing rapidly. Soon charity will be insufficient to the demand. Seeing this we would expect the charitable to be pressing for government responsibility for the well being of all citizens.

Why do our laws increasingly favour the rich and ignore, if not openly oppress, the poor? Could it be that the electorate is satisfied with status quo?

This takes nothing away from the good that comes by the habit of charity. It only wants to be clear that charity falls far short of justice. Further, if charity is practiced without the pursuit of justice attending, it brings the increase of that which requires charity.

Those who are good seek the good of others. Those who do not seek the good of others are not good.

George

Hi kaythecurler         I give  money to the groups I suupport I like  to get the tax receipt.  The money I save on taxes can then be re used as another donation. 

Of course that is your right to think that way -----but this says to me that you are relying on the world's way of giving not God's way of giving ----you give from the materials you get from the world and the you reap the benifit from the world system to give back into your giving -----

God says when you give from me you get from me ----God's Blessing ---not the goverments blessing ----It sound to me your saying ---I don't trust God to replenish what I give so I only give what I get back from my taxes ---

God says this about giving His way ---we choose who we want to rely on and trust in  ---I personally choose God's way and it works ----trust is the key to His system -

Who are we trusting God or the Goverment -----all up to us to choose our way ---

Peace

What makes giving into giving?

Giving something to others voluntarily, or giving of oneself to others voluntarily.