posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 04:35 AM
In response to the original post:
As a Christian, I take to heart the words that God is "the God of the living, and not of the dead". There are many warnings about doing good "to be
seen of men" - charity in the sight of men, for the praise of men, begets vanity.
Instead, "pray in the closet" and "give in secret" and the "father will reward you openly".
To give charity and mercy in secrecy does not mean not to do good deeds in the view of others. Instead, it means to do it for the glory of God, and
not for men. You are showing your mettle to God. Only you and God (and maybe the bum you gave twenty dollars to) know your goodness.
I vounteered and worked for a charitable organization once and can tell you that those at the top, of most charities, use the charity to appear
benevolent to their friends, collegues, and business associates. They throw charity balls, not to make money for charity, but to make contacts and to
further their business agenda. The charity gets $15,000.00 and they, through the deals they make, walk out with millions. They do this in the sight of
men, for the honor of men.
As much as I bash it, the one thing I like about freemasonry is that it has set a good precident by not boasting about how much it gives to charity.
It has used it in various spins, and defenders of the craft are quick on the draw to mention their charity in their defence... but, for the most part,
they do it in secrecy - which is a Christian ideal.
I disagree with your statement because there are several instances where good people do great things and are not remembered in the hearts of anyone.
Just like there are terrible people that do terrible things but are remembered as kind, honest, giving people.
If President Bush died tomorrow, the vast majority of americans would remember him as valient, brave, and a lot of other qualities which he isn't. On
the other hand, Afghanis, Iraqis, North Koreans, etc, would throw parties because the 'dajjal', antichrist, leader of "the Great Satan", which he
also isn't, is dead. But who's remembrance is more valid? How is the way he died more important than the way he lived? His demeanor and character
becomes arbitrary and subjected to the preconceptions of the individual while, at the same time, it is buffetted by the judgement of the media for pro
or for con.
In any event, he is dead. He may have hurt people while looking good, or helping people while looking bad. But in the end each has to meet his Maker,
and His judgement of our performance here is the only one that counts.