Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (12806)	5/11/2002 9:15:44 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Perfect charity would be an act without an expectation of return benefit. (definitely non-human)" Solon: "WE can call it hate or throwing pumpkins or ice skating if you wish. Will you tell me what it means as you use it for "God", and why "charity" is the word that fits the definition you will then have shared with me? Forget the "it is an act" hokeyness." Charity is an attribute of an act, not the act itself. I think it is pretty commonly understood to mean something resulting from a generous nature. It is usually thought of with respect to helpfulness, leniency, or mercy toward those who are suffering or needy. Solon: "What kind of an act is it that persuades you to use the word "charity"? An act that could be considered charitable according to the criteria I just mentioned. You could use a sliding scale to assess charges when providing services to the needy and especially if the service were not-profitable it would usually be considered charitable. In fact, attributions of charity can and do exist along a continuum. The “hokey” example I gave was simply to illustrate that once there is an expectation of, or actual return benefit, an act is viewed as a less charitable act. If the person acting under the guise of charitableness is abusing his role, then the act actually takes on the opposite characteristic. This being the case an act can be charitable, more charitable, less charitable, neutral, and abusive depending on the attribution of return to the actor. The more expectation of return the less we can attribute charitableness to an action. The less expectation of return, the more we can attribute charitableness to an action; with the complete absence of expectation of return representing the ideal form of charity. Solon: "The act is a change. What engenders the change? What limits the change to some specific act rather than any act? What completes the act? What determination protects the act from randomness? Is it Will? If there is no expectation of return...is there expectation of effect or consequence??" I think we both agree that humans are motivated creatures with the will to act, which comes with expectation of cause and effect for our actions. The tendency for a multiple of human drives and circumstances to cause inflection to any single act makes it impossible for us to determine with absolute assurance what drove a particular action in the way it was. The term “expectation” implies some volition toward discovery of the yet unknown. Since another attribute of God is “The All Knowing,” we cannot attach this term in the way you have used it. To engender a change in creation God can merely will the change and it is.