Who gets the rewards of charity?

[magsmay]

I was listening to someone on the radio talking about giving to charity and how it was not HOW much you gave, but what percentage of your income you were giving. An example was a millionaire giving £100 to charity and a 'pauper' giving their last penny. The 'pauper' would be actually giving much more than the wealthy man. They then went on to say Mother Theresa preached that to truthfully give to charity you had to give until it hurt -give more than you could afford, otherwise it was not charity. This got me thinking -who then is in receipt of this charity? Because if EVERYONE is expected to give -even the poorest of people -does it mean those in receipt of charity are expected to give it back or they won't go to heaven , be redeemed or whatever their religious beliefs (if any) tell them?? Surely the 'pauper' giving their last penny to charity should be the very person the charity is helping? I realise some of the statements in religious books are out of date with sentences like 'pauper' etc. but surely this would be akin to someone giving their last groceries to a food bank -then having to go to the food bank to be able to feed their family?

[Mammar]

What's going to happen when she gets up to the Pearly Gates and they won't let her in because they know the other side of the story?
Re the original question, I give to the charities I trust preferring small charities run by big-hearted fund raisers who are more likely to spend funds wisely. I regret I don't give till it hurts. I'm not too worried about being on the outside of the Pearly Gates though as I don't reckon I shall know many people in there.

[Batexia]

magsmay
//I fail to understand how the Christian Church is one of the richest land and property owners in the UK, but expect people to reach into their pockets to repair their properties -but I think that's another topic for debate. If some of these preachers took the time to listen, really listen to what they are preaching perhaps they would agree a lot of it is nonsense? //
I agree with you here. I look around at these churches that are always asking for money because the roof etc.etc needs repair. Yet the money is there in their coffers. They charge exhorbitantly for services such as burials, marriages etc.
Countries like Greece, Spain are deeply in debt so why doesn’t the government go to the religions for donations rather than seek money from other countries, putting them in debt.
The only way charity works is by giving freely of your time and energy. Money does not always go to where it should. Better to teach a man to fish than give him a fish.

[tamborine]

Here, Mother Theresa's biography. She did try to persuade the RC church to allow birth control.

http://www.biography.com/people/mother-teresa-9504160

[woofgang]

tambo, I can't finds anything in your link about asking the RC church to allow contraception.

[tamborine]

In particular, she has drawn criticism for her vocal endorsement of some of the Catholic Church's more controversial doctrines, such as opposition to contraception and abortion.

I got it wrong, but then she was a catholic.

[magsmay]

@batexia -totally agree -sometimes it is far easier to give money than your time. Although I am not religious i support the Salvation Army as I think more of your charitable donations go straight to the needy than some other charities.

[birdie1971]

Tamborine - “... She did try to persuade the RC church to allow birth control...”

As has already been pointed out, this is not true. Not only did she never call for the abolition of the prohibition on birth control, she also publicly endorsed the RC Church's position on abortion. In a speech in Northern Island back in the 1980s she said that she was against the practice of abortion even in the case of rape.

Lovely woman. Not.

[tamborine]

birdie1971, It was not Mother Theresa's want to challenge RC beliefs. Her work was to succour orphans & destitute.

[plautus]

This is a reworking of the Gospel story of the Widow's Mite. As has been said, some widows might, but round here most of them do!

[birdie1971]

Tamborine - “... It was not Mother Theresa's want to challenge RC beliefs. Her work was to succour orphans & destitute...”

If her remit was to 'succour' then why did you falsely laud her for challenging the RC church on birth control in the first place if that wasn't within her remit?

The fact remains that she said what she said. She was an appalling individual who genuinely believed that an individual’s suffering was a direct path to god and actively denied treatment to those in her charge. She denied them treatment until it became obvious even to the most unqualified of observers that immediate medical attention was necessary.

[FredPuli43]

Isn't this the story of the widow's mite? She quietly gave what to her was, a lot,all she could afford, in marked contrast to those who made a great public show of piety and gave more, which they could easily spare. Don't think that Christ meant that what you gave had to hurt though!

[tamborine]

As the OP is about Mother Theresa & the homes are still active. Here dated 1997 but they dont spend on publicity.

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1419/14190170.htm

[naomi24]

It might be noted that when Mother Teresa fell ill, she was treated in expensive private clinics.

[tamborine]

MT was too ill to accept or refuse donated treatment in USA, it didn't save her (so much for private clinics)!

She was primarily a nun and humanist. When you can match her selfless work then you can brick her.

Birdie, see my post 15.32

[naomi24]

//MT was too ill to accept or refuse donated treatment in USA//

What do you mean? She couldn't speak? I don't think so.

And what does ‘brick her’ mean? If it means to criticise her, then since her ‘selfless work’ included encouraging those who already had nothing to bring more babies into a world where they would know nothing but poverty and misery, then I feel quite justified in doing that – but then I’m no saint.

[tamborine]

MT didn't look for medical intervention for her ailments. She was treated as a casualty from heart attacks. Can you link your evidence for her private health care ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Declining_health_and_death

Contraception & abortion were not in her remit.

[naomi24]

Tamborine, you said this: //MT was too ill to accept or refuse donated treatment in USA, it didn't save her (so much for private clinics)!//

Why ask me to provide a link? You clearly already know.

//Contraception & abortion were not in her remit.//

No, sadly for the poverty-stricken people who listened to her, they were not.

[birdie1971]

Tamborine - “... [Mother Theresa] was primarily a nun and humanist...”

She was a nun but she certainly wasn't a humanist in any way, shape or form. Clearly, you do not understand the meaning of the word 'humanist'.

A humanist is someone who:

1. Trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic);
2. Makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals;
3. Believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism

[tamborine]

whatever Naomi & Birdie, I cannot think of another individual to match MT legacy of nurture to Aids, lepers, beggars, sick and homeless people in 3rd world lands that offer little respite to the fallen.

MT charitable homes live on in above links if you have donation to spare or volunteers.

[jomifl]

MT sought out the poor, sick and disadvantaged and used them as a stepping stone to heaven. That's all. Finito.