This is even older than Jesus.

I also am not religious, but there is a hebrew tradition of Tzedakah mentioned by another poster below, but here are the levels instead of a link.,

Maimonides defines eight levels in giving charity (tzedakah), each one higher than the preceding one.

On an ascending level, they are as follows:

    8. When donations are given grudgingly.

    7. When one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully.

    6. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked.

    5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked.

    4. Donations when the recipient is aware of the donor's identity, but the donor still doesn't know the specific identity of the recipient.

    3. Donations when the donor is aware to whom the charity is being given, but the recipient is unaware of the source.

    2. Giving assistance in such a way that the giver and recipient are unknown to each other. Communal funds, administered by responsible people are also in this category.

    1. The highest form of charity is to help sustain a person before they become impoverished by offering a substantial gift in a dignified manner, or by extending a suitable loan, or by helping them find employment or establish themselves in business so as to make it unnecessary for them to become dependent on others.

Yea, I wonder what it would be like to live in a culture, in a civilization, without usury. I think it'd be pretty nice.

Also, isn't most important stuff older than Jesus? Like, he's a bit of a best-of compilation, right? Not to denigrate the story, I'm a big fan.

It's out there - look up "Islamic finance" (or Islamic banking)

Oh yeah, I know about that.

There's a lot of other baggage with that one particular culture.

I forgot to stipulate a lot of other things besides just lack of usury that I would like to have in a culture.

It might just be that lack of usury leads to economic stagnation.

#1 surprised me, in a good way. Propping someone up before they're in dire straits is a great thing to do for someone. Identifying the need might be a little harder, but digging someone out of a shallow hole is easier and less costly than digging them out of a deep hole, and I bet that person will have a much better time not having to be in that deeper hole in the first place.

This reminded me how some municipalities with homelessness issues will often spend homeless-related funds toward subsidizing living expenses for people who are not homeless, but are living on the edge and would end up losing their homes if not for some extra help. It's much easier and better (and cost-effective!) to help keep someone in a home, than it is to wait until they are on the streets before helping them.

> "do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing"

I see Matthew worked as a mid-level manager in a tech company.

Joking aside, Something I find fascinating about ancient wisdom literature that has been in circulation for centuries - honed and refined generation after generation, is how succinctly key concepts are boiled down in ways that can be easily grasped/remembered. (In this case, avoiding conflict of interest/segregation of duties.)

1. Selection bias. There's a lot of stuff in the Bible that is total gibberish to modern ears.

2. Inversed cause and effect. Even if you aren't Christian, there's a good chance that the morals you were taught as a child are influenced by it. The Christian Bible is literally the world's best selling book.

Going further it's in fact the very foundation of the morality of western civilization. It's little wonder why it's constantly under attack and diminished.

Western civilization existed long before the bible (the Greeks) and the predominant culture spread throughout western civilization (Roman) was non-Christian long before it was Christian.

This is an interesting passage. I fully support the message, that giving done in secret is more valuable than equivalent giving done for public acclaim, but for a believer, it seems like it leaves the same basic moral philosophical question open.

Instead of giving publicly to receive an extrinsic reward, instead you should give in secret to receive a different but still extrinsic reward.

Of course, a non-believer donating in secret is also probably doing it in order to obtain an intrinsic reward of self-satisfaction, and there’s no real reason why I should view the intrinsic reward self-satisfaction as any more worthy than the extrinsic motivation of God’s reward.

I don’t have any really coherent point here, it just seemed somewhat interesting…

No, no. You are going in the right direction in analysing the morality of such proclamation. The point is, you can a) give others and collect reward in terms of other's people perception/rewarding of you (what the Bible passage above suggests is bad), b) do the same because someone just convinced you you'll get a reward from .. someone important, worthy of respect/awe (what the passage suggests is good, though I'm sure there will be those who say it's just parabole for being humble in giving, which of course the text could say but somehow doesn't), c) for some another reason. We'll get to c) in a minute.

When you think about what this is really easy to see is a = b. That I am rewarded with promise of heaven for a deed, or hope of being well-respected by others who see what I've done, affects the same object: ego. It's not driven by desire to help others (compassion, love or else), but desire to be seen /judged as good by others.

There is a c) (and more for sure). The much more mundane reason c) is "give to people and let your reward be the feeling you get that you do a good thing". Good thing can be in this case simply the result of mental congruence of your act with, say, your utilitarian belief that "helping others by decreasing their suffering is good".

If I tell people "a good act is when you help others to help them maximize utility", it's a moral stance. It's a very different moral stance than "a good act is when you do what someone says you should do in order to get eternal life".

The former is far better from ego-point of view, and less prone to corruption, and focuses on the values and reasons why somethign is good, in other words - promotes understanding and is clear why it's good. The latter promotes blind following and subservience to anothe person/being becomgin the guide of y our actions.

It's clear that most people need a guide, but be careful what kind of guide you pick.

Well, it’s not the only moral instruction in the Bible, to put it mildly.

Consider also the story of the Good Samaritan: Jesus tells the story of a person who goes out of his way to help someone in need. He incurs risk (helping the man meant risking getting caught in an ambush), expense (oil and wine for the wounds plus paying the innkeeper), and inconvenience (he had to interrupt his journey to help). Jesus tells us this is how we should treat our neighbor.

The Samaritan is also assuredly not Christian so isn’t doing this to gain eternal life in heaven through faith in Jesus. It’s pretty obvious and indisputable altruism.

"And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

So still selfish (if doing it for the reward), but that is human nature.

The way that CS Lewis puts this is essentially that if the reward becomes the motive, you're not going to get it:

> We are afraid that heaven is a bribe, and that if we make it our goal we shall no longer be disinterested. It is not so. Heaven offers nothing that a mercenary soul can desire. It is safe to tell the pure in heart that they shall see God, for only the pure in heart want to. There are rewards that do not sully motives.

If the alternative is eternal torture in hell I'm not sure that holds.

This is more a disagreement about fact than it is a threat.

"Take care of your body or else it will grow weak and sick" has a directive and a warning of consequences---is it a threat?

Your example isn't a threat because there is no external/conscious actor who is going to cause your body to grow weak and sick if you don't take care of it; it will just happen as a consequence of normal biological processes.

There need not be a consequence of failing to follow the Christian Bible; God/Satan have decided that there will be consequences, and Satan will be the one torturing you if you don't do what God says. That's definitely a threat. In these stories, God and Satan are conscious, sentient beings with free will. They can choose to reward or punish you based on whatever criteria they've decided.

Your questioning here rhymes with what drove me from the church:

If God is good, why do bad things happen?

I never got an answer that resonated with me. Wound up not pursuing theology.

This is what has always baffled me.

‘I don’t understand something therefore there is no God’ is one of the most common trains of thought that lead to atheism.

Especially and most commonly ‘How could a loving God allow x.’

There isn’t an easy answer to this stuff and I wouldn’t expect there to be. The notion that the universe is easily comprehensible is a framework of thinking that only gets there by discarding everything NOT easily comprehensible and calling the remainder ‘real.’

When people ask why a loving god would allow bad things to happen I want to reply ‘how would you do it better? Design a universe that has meaningful goodness without suffering and evil. Explain how it would work …’

I view this as the root hypocrisy in the Bible, not as Yet Another Question. Assume I’ve thought and read about this.

> Design a universe that has meaningful goodness without suffering

Without meaning offense, “you try it” is one of the weaker defenses of religion I’ve heard…

I don’t view religion as needing defending.

I view it as a wonderful resource that people deny themselves through overweighting their own cleverness.

That you favor religion as a resource means your walk is orthogonal to any issues of faith I have. My call to serve as a pastor was hard to justify when I saw suffering. The utility of my faith just isn't a part of the calculus.

It’s hard for me to understand your POV. I empathize, but I can’t grok it.

What you call hypocrisy I call a mystery or an enigma or something that it might takes decades of work to understand.

How can you be called by something that doesn’t exist? Or you are saying it does exist but isn’t good. Or the practice isn’t good.

I just don’t understand why lacking a good explanation for the existence of suffering that you, personally, can wrap your mind around would be such a deal breaker.

I’m sure it makes sense to you. I just don’t think that way, at least not anymore.

Everything in the Bible, including what Christians are supposed to be like, should be viewed through the lens of Jesus on the cross. The idea is that you are supposed to imitate Christ in your life for salvation which is reaching Heaven i.e glorifying God, the Father forever via achieving the Beatific vision.

So the "reward" in this case is you becoming one with Christ and thus closer to God. It's not a "currency" to be accumulated to attain Heaven. This is why you can't "fake" your way through it by for example donating money to the poor or the Church and thinking that will impress God.

I think what Christians say before receiving the Eucharist at Mass really summarizes this nicely: "Lord I am not worthy to receive you".

Is that last part really a Christian (in a wide sense) thing or just a Catholic thing? I definitely hear it at Catholic Mass but I have not experienced it at most protestant Eucharist ceremonies.

There may be some overlap in some denominations I'm not aware of, but as far as the Eucharist is concerned, it's largely only a Catholic thing. In Catholicism, the first Eucharist has a particular significance as Christ/the Spirit dwelling within you. In Protestantism, it's only an ordinance, so is only a representation/ritual/tradition. There is often a component of confessing sins privately before partaking though, but the "Lord's Supper" (as it's called by most protestant denominations) is not a means of grace or sacrament in most protestant denominations. By "means of grace", I mean that taking the Lord's Supper does not lead to salvation or impart God's grace or anything else. It's purely symbolic in probably 95% of Protestantism. In the other 5% of orthodox Protestantism, it's not just symbolic, but is not a means of salvation/grace. In Catholicism (to my understanding of not being Catholic but studying it in a protestant seminary), it is considered a means of grace and imparts some form or measure of grace for salvation.

In all of Christianity though, there is an understanding that our sin is a failure to live up to God's holiness and standards, and that in Protestantism one of the pillars (5 solas) is that it is only through his grace, mercy, and love for us that Jesus came to die, and that our salvation is due to his grace alone and not something individually inherent in ourselves that makes us worthy.

I'm hedging all of that with the fact that there's a lot of religions/denominations/cults that call themselves "Christian", and many believe very different things.

Great summary! It's not actually talked about much, and not even well understood by many Protestants themselves, but it actually is a sacrament in most major Protestant traditions I'm familiar with (Reformed[1], Lutheran[2], Anglican, Methodist[4]). Zwingli was the only major reformer I know of to take purely memorialist stance, while Luther, Calvin, and Wesley all professed some degree of presence (spritual presence or real presence) in the eucharist.

Some non-reformed baptists and non-denominationals are memorialist, but historically most protestant churches do consider it a sacrament.

[1] https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/ccc/westminster/of_the... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist_in_Lutheranism [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_eucharistic_theology [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_theology#Methodist...

Thanks for correcting me, I was completely off on that! I realized after your post that I was thinking of transubstantiation instead of sacrament/ordinance. I'm Baptist and both in the 1689 confession [1] and the baptist faith and message 2000 [2] it's considered an ordinance, so most southern baptist churches to my knowledge consider it an ordinance, even those that are reformed-leaning. There are also other non-mainline denominations, probably mostly non-reformed, where it's usually an ordinance, such as Pentecostalism.

My confusion was that I was equating transubstantiation with it being a sacrament...so to my knowledge only Anglicans have preserved full transubstantiation (with others having some mixture of Christ being present)

[1] https://www.arbca.com/1689-chapter30 [2] https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/#vii

I think it's safe to say that in almost all protestant denominations, the Eucharist is not a means of salvation though. I would hope that all would say salvation is through grace alone through faith alone. Let me know if you disagree though, I'd be curious of exceptions.

No worries, it was something I actually had to research recently myself after seeing the results of a poll of users' beliefs on /r/reformed where people were asked about their own beliefs on eucharistic presence. I was raised methodist and attend a reformed (presby) church now, so I appreciate your perspective as as a Baptist as well! I don't exactly know the difference between an ordinance and sacrament (and the WCF seems to refer to it as both), so I'll check out those links for sure.

Definitely agree that most every Protestant church would agree that it's not a means of salvation, but I do think most would call it a means of grace though.

I've never been to a protestant church where the message was that we were "worthy" of the cross. Everything has always been predicated on grace which is necessarily unmerited.

Yeah don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting that any somewhat mainstream protestant church emphasizes that its followers are worthy. I'm just wondering about literally that line being said before they eat the bread and drink the wine.

The theology of the eucharist/communion is definitely different in protestant churches.

I've never been to a protestant church where they believe you receive a sort of saving grace from consuming the host - though there is agreement it is pleasing to God to do it.

In the Catholic church they definitely believe you receive some sort of grace. What "kind" of grace is something I still haven't wrapped my head around.

As someone who was a practicing catholic for over half my life, its still not exactly clear.

In terms of the specific wording, most anglophone churches that use a historic liturgy have some form of this prayer (it comes from Matthew's gospel): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_of_Humble_Access

I remember wondering, when I first heard about altruism, whether I was actually an altruist. If I feel good when I do something good for someone, am I not just an egoist who's wired differently? True altruism would be going against what feels good, because I know it to be right.

Even then it's not true altruism because you're doing it because you know it to be right and you (selfishly?) want to be the kind of person who does the right thing.

I don't think it's possible for apes who evolved and outcompeted other apes in the endeavor to become the dominant species on a planet to be truly altruistic. At least not without a lot more cultural, social, and possibly biological evolution, if ever.

Doesn't matter though. What difference does it make how "true" one's altruism is?

I think this is a classic philosophical problem. Unless you are a philosopher, though, I don't think it really matters all that much. The bottom line is that you are making a sacrifice for someone else, and that you aren't involving other people in it.

Doing good for others should feel good! And if that internal reaction helps us want to continue doing good for others, then that's also a good thing.

I think also we should be less concerned about labeling ourselves this way. I would not try to make "altruist" a part of my identity (or "egoist", for that matter). You are just someone who does good things for others, and -- incidentally -- that makes you feel good. That should be enough.

I think you are an altruist if you feel good for sacrificing to helping others. That good feeling will motivate you to sacrifice to help others and sacrificing to help others is what an altruist is.

"do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing"

Weird metaphor, right? We're probably missing context for that one. My theory is that it boils down to "don't nickel and dime or be overly concerned with recording the amount of your charitable giving"

The reason I think that, is because in ancient Roman times they had a way of counting on your fingers where you could count up to 100 on your left hand alone (then you could use your right hand after that for even larger values). [1]. So if the context is "small values" and charitable giving, it makes more sense to me at least.

[1] https://tookmund.com/2020/05/roman-finger-counting

The context is the next sentence.

"do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret."

It's just hyperbolic/poetic language. It's not possible to do something in such a way that your right hand doesn't know what your left hand is doing, because they are both connected centrally (and they can't know anything to begin with).

"Be so secretive that your resting hand doesn't know what your charitable hand is doing."

That is very interesting!

I think the point is that if you focus too much on the reward, you lose focus on helping the person. It's not that it's bad to (want to) be rewarded for good deeds, it's bad when you end up making things worse because of it.

By some views every action you take is motivated by some psychological reward, and if you follow that through you end up with a view that there's no good/bad/emotion/etc and everything is purely mechanical.

It's more subtle than that. Because God's reward isn't really in the same conceptual category as material reward or approval of your peers.

But it means you’re doing it because you think you’ll get something out of it.

It's more mind bending than that. The reward is synonymous with the fact that it is good. These are definitionally equivalent within this framework.

It doesn't map one-to-one to the way we typically conceptualize rewards or self interest or altruism.

Perhaps it only means, seek reward from heaven, not from people. Perhaps because the former would lead you into correct behavior while the latter will lead you inevitably astray.

Not clear the passage is about selfishness per-se at all.

And since presumably reward from heaven is the ultimate in delayed gratification.

Religious or not, I think one of the best philosophies on giving is Rambam's 8 levels of tzedakah. The highest is doing something to materially improve someone's condition, the absolute lowest is giving with a poor attitude. That he doesn't even rank "giving with the intention of getting something yourself" shows how far this is from any sort of good act.

https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/67238?lang=bi

> I sort of feel compelled to quote the Bible here, though I'm not religious.

There's a lot of ancient wisdom that has stood the test of time in there, from which many could benefit. As we move away from the idea of a man-like god running the universe, I hope we still keep the good bits.

I grew up roundly rejecting religious teachings as a matter of course, mocking it on the grounds of fanciful belief in God/Hell/etc. As I've gotten older and started thinking more about how I want to live my life I've looked at the bible with new eyes, and no longer see any necessity to believe in god or the afterlife to realize the immense wisdom and beauty in Jesus's teachings.

Reminds me of when I was a child and my very religious Aunt and Uncles would slip me a 5 pound note without saying anything and without it being obvious to my parents :)

I had an aunt and uncle felt it was crass to give money as a gift, and that also it was bad luck to give someone a wallet or purse that was empty. I remember getting a wallet from them every year for my birthday from like the age of 5 through 15. But the deal was that the gift was the wallet, and any of the cash inside was immediately spendable and didn't need to be put in the bank like other birthday money.

Weird family traditions I suppose.

The corresponding Qur'an verse (because they're all faces of the same coin):

"To give charity publicly is good, but to give to the poor privately is better for you, and will absolve you of your sins. And Allah is All-Aware of what you do." Al-Baqarah 272

I don't think that the bible says that giving to the poor will absolve you of your sins. So maybe not the same coin.

Coins usually don't have the exact same thing on each side, just the core value is the same.

Which is my being pedantic on the coin side, to point out that pedantry isn't really needed on the metaphorical side.

Right. I would say that these concepts are similar. But "because they're all faces of the same coin" seems to put forth that the two religions are of the same coin which I disagree with.

I think people down voted this thinking it’s pedantic, but there is a pretty significant distinction theologically between this Quran passage and the biblical description of how sins are forgiven. Although both books do encourage secret charity.

Well even though it says that, the concept of absolution (at least as far as I know, I am not religious anymore) does not exist in Islam. It's more as in doing good things would cancel out some of your sins, but not omit them completely.

If the reward cited above in Matthew 6 isn't absolution then it is still effectively similar if it's a pleasant afterlife.

It isn’t. A primary tenet of Christianity is to identify with Christ, mainly through suffering. Much the way a workout can be rewarding in and of itself (e.g. the runner’s high), the suffering of sacrifice can be its own reward if given in the correct mindset. What makes this possible for the Christian believer is the faith/knowledge that one’s sins have already _been_ absolved, so Heaven has already effectively been attained. So (now having a mindset of gratitude) the Christian believer is free to be charitable without the need for personal gain, for what more could the believer gain? Or what could he/she lose that would stain the gift already received?

>What makes this possible for the Christian believer is the faith/knowledge that one’s sins have already _been_ absolved, so Heaven has already effectively been attained

I have yet to meet a Christian believer IRL who has actual faith that their sins have already been absolved so heaven has already effectively been attained

Maybe that's more common in other corners of the world? I haven't met many people who actually act as if they know they'll be saved as opposed to hoping they'll be saved

There are entire books of the New Testament devoted to assurance of salvation. I find this sentiment I described commonplace in my area of the world (Florida, US).

So what is the motivator for people to give charity if there is no reward from God? I would have thought there were some sort of reward for charity in Christianity.

> So what is the motivator for people to give charity if there is no reward from God?

Love of ones fellow man.

> I would have thought there were some sort of reward for charity in Christianity.

To the extent that there may be, that reward is not generally viewed in most Christian doctrine as the motivator. Christianity is not, predomonantly, doctrinally, transactional in that way.

(Transactional personal beliefs are, however, far more common in Christianity than formal doctrine would suggest, and political Christianity frequently invokes a transactional view that is at odds with common doctrine.)

>Love of ones fellow man

Hmm interesting. I wonder is love really a motivator? It's more of a reason, right? "I give charity because I love my fellow man". I feel like that's not inclusive.

Like what about people who don't love their fellow man all that much? I mean is that even allowed?-- If I'm a Christian do I have to love my fellow man to the point of charity? What if I call myself Christian but I think most people are rude and selfish and have a hard time loving them.. does that make me not Christian? I'm sure there are people who are Christian and have a hard time loving humanity, seems like they would be not included. I suppose the reward aspect still applies so it makes sense for everyone.

I like the idea, it's very philosophically pure. But I'm surprised it actually works in real life. It seems to me like that would encompass only a minority. Maybe that's more a reflection of the times we're in than anything else. Hope you don't mind the probing questions-- I'm not trying to poke holes in these beliefs I'm just trying to understand them completely

> I wonder is love really a motivator? It's more of a reason, right?

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are drawing here.

> Like what about people who don't love their fellow man all that much? I mean is that even allowed?

“Allowed” as in “not sinful”? No.

“Allowed” as in “forgivable”? Yes.

> If I'm a Christian do I have to love my fellow man to the point of charity?

For certain values of “have to”, yes, though it doesn't have to be expressed by giving money to a recognized charity. But equally Christianity means you have to accept that virtually every actual person will fall short of what they “have to” do.

> What if I call myself Christian but I think most people are rude and selfish and have a hard time loving them.. does that make me not Christian?

No, having a hard time doesn't make you not Christian.

The reward is being in a state of obedience to Christ and his will which is a reward in and of itself.

Human beings possess empathy and a desire to help the less fortunate entirely apart from religion or its rewards. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, one could argue that the reward of altruistic behavior within a social hierarchy is the strengthening of social bonds and likelihood of reciprocity, and this behavior has been seen in other primate species besides humans, suggesting it has an evolutionary benefit. Unfortunately, thousands of years of religious indoctrination has led many people to believe that humans are essentially amoral sociopaths without religion. But religion doesn't generate morality, ethics or virtue so much as codify them into a culturally specific framework.

That said, Jesus commanded his followers to practice charity often and directly linked doing so with gaining rewards in heaven.

Thanks for this.

Similar, from AJR's "3:30" song:

Someone told me to be selfless // But we are helpless without attention // Wealthy people learn the lesson // And never donate without the press there //

Why do you feel compelled to do so?

Is it that you feel that a quote from a fantastic book measures the goodness or evilness of the act or are you just saying that someone else already found himself in this dilema in the past and wrote a parable about it with its personal judgement?

Agree, the thing is that being raised catholic I only heard bible quotes from my teachers, priests and family when judging my moral and that is what raised my curiosity.

likewise tho baptist

The issue is that it is the trumpet-sounding which enables the giving to the needy. Can’t have one without the other in this scenario.

Funny, we were thinking similar, I immediately thought of Matthe 6:6 which I quoted above.