I was reading through Threads (similar to X, formerly Twitter) this
morning, and a lady posted about visiting Aldi for a dozen eggs, and the chap in front of her was busy stacking eggs into his trolley.-a "I may be some while" he said.-a It turned out he was collecting eggs for a food
bank as Aldi had a special offer on.-a The lady said "I would like to contribute" and bought 10 dozen eggs for him.
There were various responses from "well done" to "your giving should be
in secret, stop blowing your own trumpet"
This obviously stems from Matthew 6:1-4 but her response was "I'm
telling others so they might also do the same" which I think was a fair point.-a Maybe I've misunderstood Matthew and it's more to do with your reasons for telling others. If it's to big yourself up it's wrong, but
if it's to encourage others to respond similarly, then it's not a bad
thing?
On 08/11/2025 11:22, John wrote:
In practice, there are often reasons for letting the recipient know who
we are. One example is 'Gift Aid'. I'm sure those of us in the UK know
about that, but for any one who doesn't know, if you are a UK tax payer
then you can ask for charitable donations to be 'Gift Aided', which
means the government will add a percentage to your gift using some of
the tax you have paid.
I was reading through Threads (similar to X, formerly Twitter) this
morning, and a lady posted about visiting Aldi for a dozen eggs, and the chap in front of her was busy stacking eggs into his trolley.-a "I may be some while" he said.-a It turned out he was collecting eggs for a food
bank as Aldi had a special offer on.-a The lady said "I would like to contribute" and bought 10 dozen eggs for him.
There were various responses from "well done" to "your giving should be
in secret, stop blowing your own trumpet"
This obviously stems from Matthew 6:1-4 but her response was "I'm
telling others so they might also do the same" which I think was a fair point.-a Maybe I've misunderstood Matthew and it's more to do with your reasons for telling others. If it's to big yourself up it's wrong, but
if it's to encourage others to respond similarly, then it's not a bad
thing?
On 08/11/2025 11:22, John wrote:
I was reading through Threads (similar to X, formerly Twitter) this
morning, and a lady posted about visiting Aldi for a dozen eggs, and
the chap in front of her was busy stacking eggs into his trolley.-a "I
may be some while" he said.-a It turned out he was collecting eggs for
a food bank as Aldi had a special offer on.-a The lady said "I would
like to contribute" and bought 10 dozen eggs for him.
There were various responses from "well done" to "your giving should
be in secret, stop blowing your own trumpet"
This obviously stems from Matthew 6:1-4 but her response was "I'm
telling others so they might also do the same" which I think was a
fair point.-a Maybe I've misunderstood Matthew and it's more to do with
your reasons for telling others. If it's to big yourself up it's
wrong, but if it's to encourage others to respond similarly, then it's
not a bad thing?
I entirely agree.
Maimonides (a 12th century Jewish philosopher) broke it down into Eight Levels of Charity.
At the top of the list is helping someone back into employment.
After that are various levels of support for the poor.
Best is to give to the poor anonymously and without knowing the
recipient and somewhat lower is when one does know the recipient.
And then it starts getting personal:
When one gives to the poor person directly, but gives before being asked.
When one gives to the poor person after being asked.
When one gives inadequately, but gives gladly and with a smile.
The lowest level is when one gives unwillingly.
On 08/11/2025 18:15, GB wrote:[rambam]
At the top of the list is helping someone back into employment.
After that are various levels of support for the poor.
Best is to give to the poor anonymously and without knowing the
recipient and somewhat lower is when one does know the recipient.
And then it starts getting personal:
When one gives to the poor person directly, but gives before being
asked.
When one gives to the poor person after being asked.
When one gives inadequately, but gives gladly and with a smile.
The lowest level is when one gives unwillingly.
I can't understand that last one, it's better not to give at all if
you're giving unwillingly.
* John <10eoi4q$2t7k8$1@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sat, 8 Nov 2025 23:01:45 +0000:
On 08/11/2025 18:15, GB wrote:[rambam]
At the top of the list is helping someone back into employment.
After that are various levels of support for the poor.
Best is to give to the poor anonymously and without knowing the
recipient and somewhat lower is when one does know the recipient.
And then it starts getting personal:
When one gives to the poor person directly, but gives before being
asked.
When one gives to the poor person after being asked.
When one gives inadequately, but gives gladly and with a smile.
The lowest level is when one gives unwillingly.
I can't understand that last one, it's better not to give at all if
you're giving unwillingly.
This is one aspect of charity, the other aspect is covered by satan and
his money laundering angels running the network of billion dollar
"Chariable Trusts" and "Charitable Instituions" to launder the deficit.
In that context one is often obliged to contribute to organized charity
as some part of banking scam. It may even be automatically deducted
from your paycheck before even it goes to the bank.
* John <10eoi4q$2t7k8$1@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sat, 8 Nov 2025 23:01:45 +0000:
On 08/11/2025 18:15, GB wrote:[rambam]
At the top of the list is helping someone back into employment.
After that are various levels of support for the poor.
Best is to give to the poor anonymously and without knowing the
recipient and somewhat lower is when one does know the recipient.
And then it starts getting personal:
When one gives to the poor person directly, but gives before being
asked.
When one gives to the poor person after being asked.
When one gives inadequately, but gives gladly and with a smile.
The lowest level is when one gives unwillingly.
I can't understand that last one, it's better not to give at all if
you're giving unwillingly.
This is one aspect of charity, the other aspect is covered by satan and
his money laundering angels running the network of billion dollar
"Chariable Trusts" and "Charitable Instituions" to launder the deficit.
In that context one is often obliged to contribute to organized charity
as some part of banking scam. It may even be automatically deducted
from your paycheck before even it goes to the bank.
In that context one is often obliged to contribute to organized charity
as some part of banking scam. It may even be automatically deducted
from your paycheck before even it goes to the bank.
Not here in the UK. No one is obliged to give to any charity.
On 09/11/2025 12:42, Madhu wrote:
This is one aspect of charity, the other aspect is covered by satan
and his money laundering angels running the network of billion dollar
"Chariable Trusts" and "Charitable Instituions" to launder the
deficit.
Fallen angels or corrupt organisations/individuals?
In that context one is often obliged to contribute to organized charity
as some part of banking scam. It may even be automatically deducted
from your paycheck before even it goes to the bank.
Not here in the UK. No one is obliged to give to any charity.
This obviously stems from Matthew 6:1-4 but her response was "I'm
telling others so they might also do the same" which I think was a fair point.-a Maybe I've misunderstood Matthew and it's more to do with your reasons for telling others. If it's to big yourself up it's wrong, but
if it's to encourage others to respond similarly, then it's not a bad
thing?
Maimonides (a 12th century Jewish philosopher) broke it down into Eight Levels of Charity.
At the top of the list is helping someone back into employment.
I can't understand that last one, it's better not to give at all if
you're giving unwillingly.
What I will say is this: Giving money directly to beggars is often unhelpful, if they then go on to use it to buy alcohol or drugs to feedHear hear.
an addiction or habit. Some beggars are genuinely down on their luck,
but others are addicts or actually make a living out of begging. That's
why I'd rather donate to organised charities than throw coins into
random hats on the pavement.
* John <10eq9d1$3aniv$1@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sun, 9 Nov 2025 14:44:49 +0000:
On 09/11/2025 12:42, Madhu wrote:
This is one aspect of charity, the other aspect is covered by satan
and his money laundering angels running the network of billion dollar
"Chariable Trusts" and "Charitable Instituions" to launder the
deficit.
Fallen angels or corrupt organisations/individuals?
It is my belief that the "invisible hand" of the economic theory is
precisely the 1/3rd fallen of the heavenly host which coordinates and
evolves the financial systems of the world (towards a single economy)
and manages the nations debts (represented by slavery to satan) and
provides the "monetary value" for "money"
In that context one is often obliged to contribute to organized charity
as some part of banking scam. It may even be automatically deducted
from your paycheck before even it goes to the bank.
Not here in the UK. No one is obliged to give to any charity.
I understand, and also acknowledge Tim's point.
When an organization volunteers to say donate, the individuals have been automatically "volunteered", so there is no problem with the public view
that it was that the contributions are giving willingly. But we could allowing the "volunteered" individual to nurse a private opinion.
What I will say is this: Giving money directly to beggars is often unhelpful, if they then go on to use it to buy alcohol or drugs to feed
an addiction or habit. Some beggars are genuinely down on their luck,
but others are addicts or actually make a living out of begging. That's
why I'd rather donate to organised charities than throw coins into
random hats on the pavement.
On 08/11/2025 23:01, John wrote:
I can't understand that last one, it's better not to give at all if
you're giving unwillingly.
I think that a person who is starving would rather have a loaf of bread, even if given unwillingly, than continue hungry while you sort out your motivations!
* John <10eq9d1$3aniv$1@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sun, 9 Nov 2025 14:44:49 +0000:
On 09/11/2025 12:42, Madhu wrote:
This is one aspect of charity, the other aspect is covered by satan
and his money laundering angels running the network of billion dollar
"Chariable Trusts" and "Charitable Instituions" to launder the
deficit.
Fallen angels or corrupt organisations/individuals?
It is my belief that the "invisible hand" of the economic theory is
precisely the 1/3rd fallen of the heavenly host which coordinates and
evolves the financial systems of the world (towards a single economy)
and manages the nations debts (represented by slavery to satan) and
provides the "monetary value" for "money"
In that context one is often obliged to contribute to organized charity
as some part of banking scam. It may even be automatically deducted
from your paycheck before even it goes to the bank.
Not here in the UK. No one is obliged to give to any charity.
I understand, and also acknowledge Tim's point.
When an organization volunteers to say donate, the individuals have been automatically "volunteered", so there is no problem with the public view
that it was that the contributions are giving willingly. But we could allowing the "volunteered" individual to nurse a private opinion.
Maimonides (a 12th century Jewish philosopher) broke it down into
Eight Levels of Charity.
The lowest level is when one gives unwillingly.
I can't understand that last one, it's better not to give at all if
you're giving unwillingly.
Back in 2007 I worked for a payroll company who did the payroll for a
couple of very major charities, and I was shocked by the (low) 6 figure salaries the people at the top were receiving. Obviously I don't expect
them to work for nothing, but even half of that at the time woould have
been sufficient, in my opinion of course.
On 08/11/2025 23:01, John wrote:
Maimonides (a 12th century Jewish philosopher) broke it down into
Eight Levels of Charity.
The lowest level is when one gives unwillingly.
I can't understand that last one, it's better not to give at all if
you're giving unwillingly.
He's saying that giving charity unwillingly is still charity, but you
could do better next time!
I must admit that I do feel unwilling to give to the same faces outside
the supermarket, with the same cardboard sign that they take it in turns
to hold.
Who would have thought giving money could be so difficult?
Back in 2007 I worked for a payroll company who did the payroll for a
couple of very major charities, and I was shocked by the (low) 6 figure salaries the people at the top were receiving. Obviously I don't expect
them to work for nothing, but even half of that at the time woould have
been sufficient, in my opinion of course.
(1) Side question, does a third of the stars actually mean a third of1. It is an interpretation - though not an unreasonable one - to say
the angels?-a That's a mighty big rebellion up there in Heaven.
But why would you give them a loaf of bread unwillingly.
If someoneIt may be that your motivation is wrong, but at least the starving
wants a loaf of bread, they can have it with pleasure, I would never begrudge that.-a If I feel I have to give them a loaf of bread then my motivation is wrong.
I must admit that I do feel unwilling to give to the same faces outsideIn such a case I think that you should follow your instincts. There are
the supermarket, with the same cardboard sign that they take it in turns
to hold.
On 10/11/2025 10:30, John wrote:
Back in 2007 I worked for a payroll company who did the payroll for a
couple of very major charities, and I was shocked by the (low) 6
figure salaries the people at the top were receiving. Obviously I
don't expect them to work for nothing, but even half of that at the
time woould have been sufficient, in my opinion of course.
Quite so. I've stopped donating to several charities over the salaries
paid to their CEOs.
(1) Side question, does a third of the stars actually mean a third of1. It is an interpretation - though not an unreasonable one - to say
the angels?-a That's a mighty big rebellion up there in Heaven.
that the stars in the dragon's tail are the devil's angels.
2. I doubt the figure of 1/3 is intended to be exact.
3. But yes, it was a significant rebellion. Partly it was due to the
devil using lies in a "culture" that had always relied upon truth. The angels who sided with the devil are, in many cases, victims.
Which is why there was "war in heaven". They may have been victims, but
they had to explicitly and openly fight against God to merit being
thrown out of heaven. Unfortunately a large number did so, either
because they were further deceived that God would show no mercy, or
because they felt they were so deeply implicated that there was no way
back.
On 11/11/2025 06:00, Kendall K. Down wrote:
1. It is an interpretation - though not an unreasonable one - to say
that the stars in the dragon's tail are the devil's angels.
2. I doubt the figure of 1/3 is intended to be exact.
Accepted
3. But yes, it was a significant rebellion. Partly it was due to the
devil using lies in a "culture" that had always relied upon
truth. The angels who sided with the devil are, in many cases,
victims.
Which is why there was "war in heaven". They may have been victims,
but they had to explicitly and openly fight against God to merit
being thrown out of heaven. Unfortunately a large number did so,
either because they were further deceived that God would show no
mercy, or because they felt they were so deeply implicated that
there was no way back.
Presumably angels existed before humans did, and were created as
perfect beings, as humans were. Lucifer was one of the leading lights
I believe until he rebelled, taking a myriad of angels with him.
Why, if God is perfect and angels were also perfect, did he rebel?
On the subject of the quantity, I remember walking to church one
Sunday and thinking about how only a third of the angels rebelling and somehow being able to persuade >90% of humans to rebel against God.
Presumably angels existed before humans did, and were created-a as
perfect beings, as humans were. Lucifer was one of the leading lights I believe until he rebelled, taking a myriad of angels with him.
Why, if God is perfect and angels were also perfect, did he rebel?
On the subject of the quantity, I remember walking to church one SundayI know. As we are daily reminded, most people have good and kind
and thinking about how only a third of the angels rebelling and somehow being able to persuade >90% of humans to rebel against God.
On the subject of the quantity, I remember walking to church one Sunday
and thinking about how only a third of the angels rebelling and somehow being able to persuade >90% of humans to rebel against God.
On 11/11/2025 13:17, John wrote:
On the subject of the quantity, I remember walking to church one Sunday
and thinking about how only a third of the angels rebelling and somehow
being able to persuade >90% of humans to rebel against God.
Thinking about this last night, it occurred to me that there is one >important reason why the devil is so successful. He is "a liar and the >father of lies", whereas God only tells the truth.
In a universe where truth is the norm, a liar has a huge advantage,
because he will automatically be believed until it can be proven
otherwise.
That's the premise of the film, "The Invention of Lying", by comedian Ricky Gervais. The film is set in an alternate universe where people are always truthful. Until, that is, one person discovers how to lie.
It's not a very good film. I'm not recommending that you watch it. But it does make an interesting concept, and does go a long way to illustrating why liars can be so effective.Thanks. If Jesus' words about satan being "a liar and the father of
Thanks. If Jesus' words about satan being "a liar and the father of
lies" mean what I think they mean, then we have an explanation for why
the devil has been so successful. Allied with the other statement that
satan "was a murderer from the beginning" we have an additional
element to add to the mix.
God is fighting with one hand tied behind His back, so to speak, for
He can only use truth and love, never force or deception.
I'm not sure if we should defend God on these lines, even it it is truePhysically - if that is the correct term to use for God - He can do
it is not a complete argument. If God wanted to exercise his will to
stop satan, he can. so it is more complex than that.
On 17/11/2025 15:37, Madhu wrote:
I'm not sure if we should defend God on these lines, even it it is truePhysically - if that is the correct term to use for God - He can do
it is not a complete argument.-a If God wanted to exercise his will to
stop satan, he can.-a so it is more complex than that.
anything He wants. However we believe that He desires the love of His creatures, which means that He cannot do many things, otherwise He would forfeit that love.
To use a silly example, God could have zapped Mother Theresa and caused
her to die in a pool of blazing oil, screaming in agony. Something like
that is well within God's powers. But if God had done such a thing, how
many people would love and trust Him in future? So by doing something of which He was capable, He would have lost that which He values - your
love and mine.
There's a particularly silly conundrum: "Can God make a weight that is
too heavy for him to lift?"
I know Theresa has now been made into a saint, but she has her critics. Christopher Hitchens (I doubt you're a fan!) called her a fraud and
accused her of glorifying suffering rather than alleviating it.
She seems to have believed that suffering had spiritual value, which influenced her care practices, so she prioritized spiritual comfort over physical relief, leading to unnecessary suffering.But of course, from her point of view, such suffering was not unnecessary.
On 17/11/2025 15:37, Madhu wrote:
I'm not sure if we should defend God on these lines, even it it is truePhysically - if that is the correct term to use for God - He can do
it is not a complete argument.-a If God wanted to exercise his will to
stop satan, he can.-a so it is more complex than that.
anything He wants. However we believe that He desires the love of His creatures, which means that He cannot do many things, otherwise He would forfeit that love.
To use a silly example, God could have zapped Mother Theresa and caused
her to die in a pool of blazing oil, screaming in agony. Something like
that is well within God's powers. But if God had done such a thing, how
many people would love and trust Him in future? So by doing something of which He was capable, He would have lost that which He values - your
love and mine.
I am sure that God could have blotted satan out of existence any time
over the last 6,000 years, but had He done so, He would have forfeited
the love and respect of countless beings elsewhere in the universe,
being who, perhaps, had been satan's friends before he went wrong. and
who are still puzzled over what has happened.
On the other hand he could have removed satan from the mix in AD28 (ish)
and began a utopia on Earth.-a There are strong hints in the bible that
this was supposed to happen, and that Jesus would return in that era,
but somehow it never happened.
There are currently 8 billion on this planet. Putting aside the fact
that where you're born increases or decreases the opportunity to be
saved, he is sending 7 billion to "hell" to save, at most, a billion.-a I refer back to my earlier paragraph.
Are you seriously suggesting he was a loveable rogue and those who knewNo, not a loveable rogue; if the hints in Scripture are interpreted
him said Awe, poor lad, shame he went off the rails, he was kind to his
mum though.-a Surely the good angels would want satan removed from just
as much as the followers of Jesus.-a Isn't there supposed to be war in Heaven over this?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 21:45:32 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
6 files (8,794K bytes) |
| Messages: | 186,234 |
| Posted today: | 1 |