Originally posted by wolfgang59Not surprised. Christians are warned not to try to do good works as it would appear to Christ as if they dont appreciate his sacrifice and that they are trying to earn their salvation. I have to say that its only a really dumbo Christian would believe such mumbojumbo.
The most represented religious group who give
to Kiva is the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Seems Pastafarians are more charitable than Chrstians.
17 Sep 14
Originally posted by Rajk999"Christ preached, charity, generosity, compassion for the poor, sharing of ones worldly goods, helping those in need. The Apostles practiced it. Modern Christianity condemn its and calls it trying to earn salvation,.."
Christ preached, charity, generosity, compassion for the poor, sharing of ones worldly goods, helping those in need. The Apostles practiced it. Modern Christianity condemn its and calls it trying to earn salvation, insulting to Christ, self-righteousness, hypocrisy, salvation by works and other derogatary expressions"
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, ...[text shortened]... e people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. (Acts 2:38-47 KJV)
Modern Christianity condemns charity, generosity, compassion, sharing and helping those in need?
Statements like that make you look profoundly ignorant. You espouse a lie.
In addition, practicing those attributes you listed are part and parcel of Christian living, and in no wise does it mean by doing so can it get a person saved.
You're delusional if you think that that is what a "modern Christian" believes.
17 Sep 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59Perhaps you didn't see my reply to your OP.
The most represented religious group who give
to Kiva is the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Seems Pastafarians are more charitable than Chrstians.
Two million dollars is nothing by comparison to the billions given by Americans across all demographics. Charitable contributions are not exclusive to Christian organizations or any other religious or secular group.
Americans give.
19 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59Where did Kiva get started? Who started it?
What is Kiva?
Kiva is a platform where you can make small loans to people in poor
areas that need help starting small business. These are interest-fee
loans in places like Cambodia, Peru, Uganda — places where
traditional bank lending to the poor is unavailable. Kiva ensures that
the loans are paid out and that the money is paid back. This is th ...[text shortened]... eas.
Many religious groups have contributed.
http://www.venganza.org/category/evangelism/
I'm wondering because I live in the American Southwest and I understand that a kiva is a large room used for mainly religious and other ceremonial reasons among Pueblo Native American peoples around 1000 to 1300 A.D.
Just wondering how the name was borrowed for this purpose.
19 Sep 14
3 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999You're not surprised? Really?
Not surprised. Christians are warned not to try to do good works as it would appear to Christ as if they dont appreciate his sacrifice and that they are trying to earn their salvation. I have to say that its only a really dumbo Christian would believe such mumbojumbo.
It's really too bad you buy into all this FSM mumbo-jumbo.
But then again, considering the badmouthing you routinely give your Christian brothers (all because they disagree with YOU, not Jesus), I guess I'm not really that surprised after all.
You can't even give up your Oreo religious ideas (Christian "on the outside", yet evil "on the inside" ) long enough to realize that the FSM is only so that atheists can crap all over Christianity and get away with it.
And of course, in your own twisted mind, you support that, while still maintaining that you are the only REAL™ Christian here. YOU are the one who will be crying "Lord, Lord" at Judgement, "Look what I did in your name!" and you are the one to whom He will be saying "depart from me".
You just cannot see the forest for all the trees.
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." -- Matthew 7:21-23, KJV
19 Sep 14
3 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59Naysayers love to trot this out.
As a percentage of Gross National Income
USA - 19th ... well done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governments_by_development_aid
"As a percentage of Gross National Income", I'm guessing what you mean to say is GNP, or Gross National Product.
You have to remember that GNP is the sum total worth of goods and services the USA provides. It far, FAR outpaces the typical average American income, which, thanks to corporations, is growing smaller all the time. Corporate greed is not a good thing for the typical American, in fact, it takes money OUT of his pocket and transfers it to the corporations. (And yet, corporations have half of America fooled into believing that the "tax man", the US Government, is the biggest drain on typical Americans. This is just not true.)
So GNP does not accurately reflect what the "typical" American can afford to give. Using the GNP figures in this way is a gross misrepresentation.
(After following the link, I see that that page does indeed list countries by their ratio of giving to their GNI (Gross National Income). This is an even worse comparison. Again, due to corporate greed, America has some of the richest people in the world. (Even people not completely super well-known, like Matt Lauer, make obscene amounts of money for what they do. Matt Lauer makes 25 million dollars per year for co-hosting the Today show.) Many movie stars make more than 20 million dollars per film. And I'm not even mentioning CEOs of major corporations who routinely pull down hundreds of millions of dollars per year in salaries and stock options. The "typical" American makes less than $100,000, in most cases far less. And yet, Americans as a whole, still give more than twice the amount of the second country on the list, the UK. What I would like to see is a list of countries listed by "AVERAGE giving to AVERAGE income" ratio.)
19 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwHe hasn't answered you because it's Luxembourg.
Who's #1?
Yeah, tiny, tiny Luxembourg.
Other tiny countries on the list ahead of the US:
1. Luxembourg - 549,680
4. Denmark - 5,639,719
5. Netherlands - 16,856,620
6. United Kingdom - 64,100,000
8. Ireland - 4,609,600
9. Belgium - 11,198,638
11. Switzerland - 8,014,000
16. New Zealand - 4,537,081
17. Portugal - 10,427,301
18. Iceland - 325,671
19. United States - 318,764,000
Yeah, good comparisons, there.
19 Sep 14
Originally posted by SuzianneHow do you explain not-so-tiny countries being ahead of the U.S. like ...Denmark ... Netherlands ... United Kingdom ... Ireland ... Belgium ... Switzerland ... New Zealand ... Portugal...?
He hasn't answered you because it's Luxembourg.
Yeah, tiny, tiny Luxembourg.
Other tiny countries on the list ahead of the US:
1. Luxembourg - 549,680
4. Denmark - 5,639,719
5. Netherlands - 16,856,620
6. United Kingdom - 64,100,000
8. Ireland - 4,609,600
9. Belgium - 11,198,638
11. Switzerland - 8,014,000
16. New Zealand - 4,537,081 ...[text shortened]... ,301
18. Iceland - 325,671
19. United States - 318,764,000
Yeah, good comparisons, there.
19 Sep 14
1 edit
I am not sure the link being used here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governments_by_development_aid) is very relevant to what is being discussed. The OP is discussing a private charity (Kiva), which morphed into a discussion about how charitable Americans are. The link above is discussing government-funded aid to other countries, which has nothing to do with private charity.
A more appropriate link might be en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index which claims that the US was the fifth most charitable country in 2012, and the most charitable country in 2013. I have no idea about the methodology, so I can't vouch for their conclusions.
19 Sep 14
Originally posted by SuzianneNo. I meant Gross National Income.
"As a percentage of Gross National Income", I'm guessing what you mean to say is GNP, or Gross National Product.
That is why I said "Gross National Income"
Definition
The Gross national income (GNI) is the total domestic and foreign
output claimed by residents of a country, consisting of gross
domestic product (GDP) plus factor incomes earned by foreign
residents, minus income earned in the domestic economy by non-residents.
19 Sep 14
Originally posted by SuzianneI'm slightly bemused at the description of my country as being tiny. Bear in mind that government development aid can be a double edged sword of Damocles (*) the cash can come with conditions which aren't necessarily all that benign.
He hasn't answered you because it's Luxembourg.
Yeah, tiny, tiny Luxembourg.
Other tiny countries on the list ahead of the US:
1. Luxembourg - 549,680
4. Denmark - 5,639,719
5. Netherlands - 16,856,620
6. United Kingdom - 64,100,000
8. Ireland - 4,609,600
9. Belgium - 11,198,638
11. Switzerland - 8,014,000
16. New Zealand - 4,537,081 ...[text shortened]... ,301
18. Iceland - 325,671
19. United States - 318,764,000
Yeah, good comparisons, there.
(*) This is my favourite badly mixed metaphor of all time. Sadly I can't remember who came out with it.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
19 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneNote that the list is for both internal (domestic) and external (foreign) aid.
He hasn't answered you because it's Luxembourg.
Yeah, tiny, tiny Luxembourg.
Other tiny countries on the list ahead of the US:
1. Luxembourg - 549,680
4. Denmark - 5,639,719
5. Netherlands - 16,856,620
6. United Kingdom - 64,100,000
8. Ireland - 4,609,600
9. Belgium - 11,198,638
11. Switzerland - 8,014,000
16. New Zealand - 4,537,081 ...[text shortened]... ,301
18. Iceland - 325,671
19. United States - 318,764,000
Yeah, good comparisons, there.
2 points:
1. Our guide during a tour of the city said if we think the US is a welfare state, we should compare it to Luxembourg. A great deal of Luxembourg's welfare (much of it taxes on corporate earnings of their banking industry that make money from foreign sources) goes to internal welfare payments. Luxembourg is heaven for otherwise homeless people and is a net importer of people and labor.
"Luxembourg has a typical Bismarckian corporatist welfare system, which has developed a gener-ous [sic] and broad welfare regime over the last 100 years with a further important push during the last two decades."
http://ideas.repec.org/p/irs/cepswp/2011-29.html
2. Much of the foreign aid payments of countries like the US is very much intended to be investments that benefit the donor country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development#Controversies_and_criticism
Basically governments do not give domestic and foreign aid because it is virtuous to do so. They do it because (and if) it is in their perceived interest.