Interesting. I never give to panhandlers or street people, ever. I do go home and make donations to organizations in my area who help these people in need. I also volunteer where I have something of value to contribute.Yesterday, I was coming to an intersection in town where the homeless stand and beg for alms. I normally share money that I have, but I didn't have any to give at the time, so I turned and went the other way so as to not face them. 😔
Truth be told, I could've bought them lunch or something... I could've done something, anything, but I gave myself an excuse not to. Alms could be anything at all, yet I told myself that it has to be money, so when I didn't have any on me, I didn't do anything for them.
Alms giving is perhaps the best way to get back on the divine ladder yet I forsook it.... lesson learned
This is what a hypocrite looks like.
From today’s reading:
35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. (‬ Luke 6‬:35-36‬ NASB)
“What, more realistically, is this “mutation,†the “new manâ€? He is the rootless man, discontinuous with a past that Nihilism has destroyed, the raw material of every demagogue’s dream; the “free-thinker†and skeptic, closed only to the truth but “open†to each new intellectual fashion because he himself has no intellectual foundation; the “seeker†after some “new revelation,†ready to believe anything new because true faith has been annihilated in him; the planner and experimenter, worshipping “fact†because he has abandoned truth, seeing the world as a vast laboratory in which he is free to determine what is “possibleâ€; the autonomous man, pretending to the humility of only asking his “rights,†yet full of the pride that expects everything to be given him in a world where nothing is authoritatively forbidden; the man of the moment, without conscience or values and thus at the mercy of the strongest “stimulusâ€; the “rebel,†hating all restraint and authority because he himself is his own and only god; the “mass man,†this new barbarian, thoroughly “reduced†and “simplified†and capable of only the most elementary ideas, yet scornful of anyone who presumes to point out the higher things or the real complexity of life.â€
After examining the parallels between the theology of the Trinity and the Buddhist concept of “interbeing,†[Thich Nhat Hanh] takes issue with the man regarded by millions as the foremost exponent of the Christian tradition—Pope John Paul II. In his recent book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, John Paul II states that:
Christ is absolutely original and absolutely unique. If He were only a wise man like Socrates, if He were a “prophet†like Mohammed, if He were “enlightened†like Buddha, without any doubt He would not be what He is. He is the one mediator between God and humanity
Quoting this passage, Thich Nhat Hanh comments:
This statement does not seem to reflect the deep mystery of the oneness of the Trinity. It also does not reflect the fact that Christ is also the Son of Man. All Christians, while praying to God, address Him as Father. Of course Christ is unique. But who is not unique? Socrates, Mohammed, the Buddha, you, and I are all unique. The idea behind the statement, however, is the notion that Christianity provides the only way of salvation and all other religious traditions are of no use. This attitude excludes dialogue and fosters religious intolerance and discrimination. It does not help.
Oh Justin! I don't even want to think of that, but you are right that we should be that serious about it.
Surely there is an afterlife.
One such Western convert to Buddhism exhorted me not to use the term "Enlightened" to describe what the True Light does to His Israel, as the Buddha somehow copywrote the term when he described his state of contentment to be called "Enlightenment."
How curious then that during the "Enlightenment" period of the West, one such fraternity of schemers called themselves the "Illuminati" as an inversion of the Christian "Illuminated," and to depose the Monarchial order of the day, and to install their own vision of a Secular world order. Of course then, that same Buddhist won't have a problem with that era being called the "Enlightenment." It's only wrong if the Illuminated uses the term.
This isn't a pro-Monarchy post. I just found it interesting that the world vies to usurp the Light.
in all seriousness, if you really believe that when you die there is NOTHING afterwards, how are most of you making it through the day? like that's it we just gonna be gone. I cant deal with that , I can except death but not ZERO afterlife. like why then WHATS THE POINT.