Re: cliff heller

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:37:27 -0500, Jack Denver wrote:

It's amazing to me that a man writing in 12th century Egypt could see the
"charity vs. ego" question as one involving various subtle gradations on a
spectrum while you in the 21st century see it only as an "either/or"
question.

In this particular instance, both people posted from google groups. Our
subject had two options. Either hit "reply to the group" or hit "reply by
e-mail." So yes, IN THIS INSTANCE, it does boil down to an either/or
choice:
1) a public "show of generosity."
2) a private "act of generosity."

One or both may be a shade of gray, but there were only two alternatives.

Then again, you're no Maimonides. I suppose even Maimonides
would say that there comes a point where the "giving" is so token and
the ego/promotion driven motives so predominant that an act no longer
"counts" as charity at all, but Dave's orignal offer falls somewhere in
the middle of the spectrum - even if his motives were 80% promotional
and 20% charitable, that's 20% more charity than you've offered.

<smile> The whole point is that you don't know anything about my
generosity, and given my view on the subject, you never will (at least
not from me).

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.