8 ms·

I sort of feel compelled to quote the Bible here, though I'm not religious. "So when you give to the needy, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrite

• Graffur 4y ago
  Reminds me of when I was a child and my very religious Aunt and Uncles would slip me a 5 pound note without saying anything and without it being obvious to my parents :)
  • JackFr 4y ago
    I had an aunt and uncle felt it was crass to give money as a gift, and that also it was bad luck to give someone a wallet or purse that was empty. I remember getting a wallet from them every year for my birthday from like the age of 5 through 15. But the deal was that the gift was the wallet, and any of the cash inside was immediately spendable and didn't need to be put in the bank like other birthday money. Weird family traditions I suppose.
• curiousgal 4y ago
  The corresponding Qur'an verse (because they're all faces of the same coin): "To give charity publicly is good, but to give to the poor privately is better for you, and will absolve you of your sins. And Allah is All-Aware of what you do." Al-Baqarah 272
  • jonnycomputer 4y ago
    Thanks for this.
  • protonbob 4y ago
    I don't think that the bible says that giving to the poor will absolve you of your sins. So maybe not the same coin.
    • swores 4y ago
      Coins usually don't have the exact same thing on each side, just the core value is the same. Which is my being pedantic on the coin side, to point out that pedantry isn't really needed on the metaphorical side.
      • protonbob 4y ago
        Right. I would say that these concepts are similar. But "because they're all faces of the same coin" seems to put forth that the two religions are of the same coin which I disagree with.
    • wyldfire 4y ago
      If the reward cited above in Matthew 6 isn't absolution then it is still effectively similar if it's a pleasant afterlife.
      • twodave 4y ago
        It isn’t. A primary tenet of Christianity is to identify with Christ, mainly through suffering. Much the way a workout can be rewarding in and of itself (e.g. the runner’s high), the suffering of sacrifice can be its own reward if given in the correct mindset. What makes this possible for the Christian believer is the faith/knowledge that one’s sins have already _been_ absolved, so Heaven has already effectively been attained. So (now having a mindset of gratitude) the Christian believer is free to be charitable without the need for personal gain, for what more could the believer gain? Or what could he/she lose that would stain the gift already received?
        • Dudeman112 4y ago
          >What makes this possible for the Christian believer is the faith/knowledge that one’s sins have already _been_ absolved, so Heaven has already effectively been attained I have yet to meet a Christian believer IRL who has actual faith that their sins have already been absolved so heaven has already effectively been attained Maybe that's more common in other corners of the world? I haven't met many people who actually act as if they know they'll be saved as opposed to hoping they'll be saved
• joshjje 4y ago
  "And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." So still selfish (if doing it for the reward), but that is human nature.
  • whiddershins 4y ago
    It's more subtle than that. Because God's reward isn't really in the same conceptual category as material reward or approval of your peers.
    • azinman2 4y ago
      But it means you’re doing it because you think you’ll get something out of it.
      • whiddershins 4y ago
        It's more mind bending than that. The reward is synonymous with the fact that it is good. These are definitionally equivalent within this framework. It doesn't map one-to-one to the way we typically conceptualize rewards or self interest or altruism.
        • deleted 4y ago
          [deleted]
  • jonnycomputer 4y ago
    "do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing"
    • sudosteph 4y ago
      Weird metaphor, right? We're probably missing context for that one. My theory is that it boils down to "don't nickel and dime or be overly concerned with recording the amount of your charitable giving" The reason I think that, is because in ancient Roman times they had a way of counting on your fingers where you could count up to 100 on your left hand alone (then you could use your right hand after that for even larger values). [1]. So if the context is "small values" and charitable giving, it makes more sense to me at least. [1] https://tookmund.com/2020/05/roman-finger-counting https://tookmund.com/2020/05/roman-finger-counting
• nailer 4y ago
  > I sort of feel compelled to quote the Bible here, though I'm not religious. There's a lot of ancient wisdom that has stood the test of time in there, from which many could benefit. As we move away from the idea of a man-like god running the universe, I hope we still keep the good bits.
  • nverno 4y ago
    I grew up roundly rejecting religious teachings as a matter of course, mocking it on the grounds of fanciful belief in God/Hell/etc. As I've gotten older and started thinking more about how I want to live my life I've looked at the bible with new eyes, and no longer see any necessity to believe in god or the afterlife to realize the immense wisdom and beauty in Jesus's teachings.
• nepeckman 4y ago
  Religious or not, I think one of the best philosophies on giving is Rambam's 8 levels of tzedakah. The highest is doing something to materially improve someone's condition, the absolute lowest is giving with a poor attitude. That he doesn't even rank "giving with the intention of getting something yourself" shows how far this is from any sort of good act. https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/67238?lang=bi https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/67238?lang=bi
• strix_varius 4y ago
  > "do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing" I see Matthew worked as a mid-level manager in a tech company.
  • F_J_H 4y ago
    Joking aside, Something I find fascinating about ancient wisdom literature that has been in circulation for centuries - honed and refined generation after generation, is how succinctly key concepts are boiled down in ways that can be easily grasped/remembered. (In this case, avoiding conflict of interest/segregation of duties.)
    • notriddle 4y ago
      1. Selection bias. There's a lot of stuff in the Bible that is total gibberish to modern ears. 2. Inversed cause and effect. Even if you aren't Christian, there's a good chance that the morals you were taught as a child are influenced by it. The Christian Bible is literally the world's best selling book.
      • decremental 4y ago
        Going further it's in fact the very foundation of the morality of western civilization. It's little wonder why it's constantly under attack and diminished.
        • mrunkel 4y ago
          Western civilization existed long before the bible (the Greeks) and the predominant culture spread throughout western civilization (Roman) was non-Christian long before it was Christian.
• guerrilla 4y ago
  Funny, we were thinking similar, I immediately thought of Matthe 6:6 which I quoted above.
• e-clinton 4y ago
  The issue is that it is the trumpet-sounding which enables the giving to the needy. Can’t have one without the other in this scenario.
• bussierem 4y ago
  Similar, from AJR's "3:30" song: Someone told me to be selfless // But we are helpless without attention // Wealthy people learn the lesson // And never donate without the press there //
• ncallaway 4y ago
  This is an interesting passage. I fully support the message, that giving done in secret is more valuable than equivalent giving done for public acclaim, but for a believer, it seems like it leaves the same basic moral philosophical question open. Instead of giving publicly to receive an extrinsic reward, instead you should give in secret to receive a different but still extrinsic reward. Of course, a non-believer donating in secret is also probably doing it in order to obtain an intrinsic reward of self-satisfaction, and there’s no real reason why I should view the intrinsic reward self-satisfaction as any more worthy than the extrinsic motivation of God’s reward. I don’t have any really coherent point here, it just seemed somewhat interesting…
  • draw_down 4y ago
    Well, it’s not the only moral instruction in the Bible, to put it mildly. Consider also the story of the Good Samaritan: Jesus tells the story of a person who goes out of his way to help someone in need. He incurs risk (helping the man meant risking getting caught in an ambush), expense (oil and wine for the wounds plus paying the innkeeper), and inconvenience (he had to interrupt his journey to help). Jesus tells us this is how we should treat our neighbor. The Samaritan is also assuredly not Christian so isn’t doing this to gain eternal life in heaven through faith in Jesus. It’s pretty obvious and indisputable altruism.
  • jakubp 4y ago
    No, no. You are going in the right direction in analysing the morality of such proclamation. The point is, you can a) give others and collect reward in terms of other's people perception/rewarding of you (what the Bible passage above suggests is bad), b) do the same because someone just convinced you you'll get a reward from .. someone important, worthy of respect/awe (what the passage suggests is good, though I'm sure there will be those who say it's just parabole for being humble in giving, which of course the text could say but somehow doesn't), c) for some another reason. We'll get to c) in a minute. When you think about what this is really easy to see is a = b. That I am rewarded with promise of heaven for a deed, or hope of being well-respected by others who see what I've done, affects the same object: ego. It's not driven by desire to help others (compassion, love or else), but desire to be seen /judged as good by others. There is a c) (and more for sure). The much more mundane reason c) is "give to people and let your reward be the feeling you get that you do a good thing". Good thing can be in this case simply the result of mental congruence of your act with, say, your utilitarian belief that "helping others by decreasing their suffering is good". If I tell people "a good act is when you help others to help them maximize utility", it's a moral stance. It's a very different moral stance than "a good act is when you do what someone says you should do in order to get eternal life". The former is far better from ego-point of view, and less prone to corruption, and focuses on the values and reasons why somethign is good, in other words - promotes understanding and is clear why it's good. The latter promotes blind following and subservience to anothe person/being becomgin the guide of y our actions. It's clear that most people need a guide, but be careful what kind of guide you pick.
• melenaboija 4y ago
  Why do you feel compelled to do so? Is it that you feel that a quote from a fantastic book measures the goodness or evilness of the act or are you just saying that someone else already found himself in this dilema in the past and wrote a parable about it with its personal judgement?
  • wahnfrieden 4y ago
    • melenaboija 4y ago
      Agree, the thing is that being raised catholic I only heard bible quotes from my teachers, priests and family when judging my moral and that is what raised my curiosity.
      • wahnfrieden 4y ago
        likewise tho baptist
• sbf501 4y ago
  This is even older than Jesus. I also am not religious, but there is a hebrew tradition of Tzedakah mentioned by another poster below, but here are the levels instead of a link., Maimonides defines eight levels in giving charity (tzedakah), each one higher than the preceding one. On an ascending level, they are as follows: 8. When donations are given grudgingly. 7. When one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully. 6. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked. 5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked. 4. Donations when the recipient is aware of the donor's identity, but the donor still doesn't know the specific identity of the recipient. 3. Donations when the donor is aware to whom the charity is being given, but the recipient is unaware of the source. 2. Giving assistance in such a way that the giver and recipient are unknown to each other. Communal funds, administered by responsible people are also in this category. 1. The highest form of charity is to help sustain a person before they become impoverished by offering a substantial gift in a dignified manner, or by extending a suitable loan, or by helping them find employment or establish themselves in business so as to make it unnecessary for them to become dependent on others.
  • kleer001 4y ago
    Yea, I wonder what it would be like to live in a culture, in a civilization, without usury. I think it'd be pretty nice. Also, isn't most important stuff older than Jesus? Like, he's a bit of a best-of compilation, right? Not to denigrate the story, I'm a big fan.
    • googlryas 4y ago
      It's out there - look up "Islamic finance" (or Islamic banking)
      • kleer001 4y ago
        Oh yeah, I know about that. There's a lot of other baggage with that one particular culture. I forgot to stipulate a lot of other things besides just lack of usury that I would like to have in a culture. It might just be that lack of usury leads to economic stagnation.