Elvis And Religion

[joobz]

Giving money does not necessarily guarantee one is a good person. It is no secret that Microsoft spends a lot of time in court from being sued by several companies concerning questionable business practices. While Gates seems like a decent guy on the surface, I get the impression that his company does not always play by the rules which hurts other businesses.

He's no longer CEO of Microsoft. You can't judge Gates' Current actions based upon it. Yes, Bill was a shrewd business man, but lets say he did do unsavory things as a CEO. Are you saying a man can't atone for his previous errors? Doesn't that contradict christian notions of forgiveness and salvation. INdeed, I appears that his ability to do good now further undermines the utlity of christianity. Afterall, if christianity was "needed" for healing the soul, his turn arround in good will would have been impossible.

Also, you have to look at how much of a sacrifice the money given is. When you have 44 billion in assets left after giving 8 billion one could argue that the sacrifice is not that great and if he was a Christian the amount given could have been much higher.

Speculation, with no proof. Anyway, even based upon your numbers, he's exceeded christian requirements. (15% vs. 10%Tithe).

Also, you have to look at where the money is going. There has been criticism a substantial portion of the money given is going to companies whose social concern standards are questionable. Also the money given is very tilted to tech and medical companies which doesn't always help those in most need.

Now, this is something that will have to wait and see who's right.

What is more benefiicial:
1. A charity who goes and tries to convert others while they suffer and die?
or
2. one that helps develop technologies that will improve the health care of impoverished nations.

My money is on 2, becuase one has no hope of ever improving thier status. Judging by the number of poor christian nations, I'd say that such ministries haven't helped a lick. In 2, The Foundation attempts to address a issue. There is no development being done by companies to help improve the treatment of health care in africa. There's no money in it. For instance, we take for granted that we can refridgerate medicines without concern. Access to refridgerators isn't a guarantee, so what do you do? We can develop medicine to account for such limitations, but there was no money supporting such research. Now there is.

The article deals with a chicken/egg issue. Do you counter act the poverty and hope over time that the people's health would improve, or do you treat people so they are healthy, empowering them to improve thier econmic status?

Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation: By Charles Piller, Edmund Sanders and Robyn Dixon, Times Staff Writers
January 7, 2007


"Using the most recent data available, a Times tally showed that hundreds of Gates Foundation investments — totaling at least $8.7 billion, or 41% of its assets, not including U.S. and foreign government securities — have been in companies that countered the foundation's charitable goals or socially concerned philosophy."


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story?page=2&coll=

This is a result of a management ethic that they decided to use.

At the Gates Foundation, blind-eye investing has been enforced by a firewall it has erected between its grant-making side and its investing side. The goals of the former are not allowed to interfere with the investments of the latter.

Having written grants, I can speak intelligently on this subject.
For a granting institution, They want to minimize the politics of granting and fund purely the best proposals that come along. Period. NOw if the best proposal comes from a investigator working at a big pharma, it's going to get funded. but because big pharma has a bad rap, such negative press is bound to occur. This is a rather minor point and one that is more related to management then effectiveness.


I find it interesting that you are trying to prove my claim wrong by attempting to attack the success of Bills foundation and about the committment he has put into this area Remember that it isn't' pure money. He and his wife have put a time into it as well.

Consider the time investment that Angelina Jolie has put into her chartiable actions... I stand by my statement, and you haven't yet offered any evidence that would prove it wrong.

And How do you explain the rich and famous* (those living in thorns) who do wonderful chartiable work without any christian influence? They lead enriching lives and work to enrich the lives of others. They seem to embody the ideals that christian claim to aspire to yet so often fail. The fact that they acheived such good seems to completely contradict the claim that jesus is "the way". Seems to me that there must be some other "seed" that produces a plant more wholesome and lifegiving that what christianity offers.

Examples include
*Brad and Angelina
and the two greatest philanthropists in american history are the atheistsagnostics
Bill gates and Warren Buffet

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Giving money does not necessarily guarantee one is a good person. It is no secret that Microsoft spends a lot of time in court from being sued by several companies concerning questionable business practices. While Gates seems like a decent guy on the surface, I get the impression that his company does not always play by the rules which hurts other businesses.

Also, you have to look at how much of a sacrifice the money given is. When you have 44 billion in assets left after giving 8 billion one could argue that the sacrifice is not that great and if he was a Christian the amount given could have been much higher.

Also, you have to look at where the money is going. There has been criticism a substantial portion of the money given is going to companies whose social concern standards are questionable. Also the money given is very tilted to tech and medical companies which doesn't always help those in most need.

Here is a site that says some of the money given to Medical Industries is even potentially harmful

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=10101

And here is a site that talks about a Los Angeles Times article entitled:

Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation: By Charles Piller, Edmund Sanders and Robyn Dixon, Times Staff Writers
January 7, 2007

"Using the most recent data available, a Times tally showed that hundreds of Gates Foundation investments — totaling at least $8.7 billion, or 41% of its assets, not including U.S. and foreign government securities — have been in companies that countered the foundation's charitable goals or socially concerned philosophy."


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story?page=2&coll=

Now I'm really, really confused. Because you can find problems with Gates’ philanthropy, it has a bearing on atheism. But when we find problems with Elvis’ morality, that has no bearing on Christianity?

 

[Tanstaafl]

Easily explained. Hypocrisy is the highest virtue in the Church of DOC.

 

[DARK LORD XENU]

missing the point of what effect on our daily lives does what a dead singers religious beliefs are meant to have here.

Further more who cares?

 

[Gazpacho]

Also, you have to look at where the money is going. There has been criticism a substantial portion of the money given is going to companies whose social concern standards are questionable. Also the money given is very tilted to tech and medical companies which doesn't always help those in most need.

Here is a site that says some of the money given to Medical Industries is even potentially harmful

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=10101

And here is a site that talks about a Los Angeles Times article entitled:

Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation: By Charles Piller, Edmund Sanders and Robyn Dixon, Times Staff Writers
January 7, 2007

"Using the most recent data available, a Times tally showed that hundreds of Gates Foundation investments — totaling at least $8.7 billion, or 41% of its assets, not including U.S. and foreign government securities — have been in companies that countered the foundation's charitable goals or socially concerned philosophy."

Gates has been asked about this. His response is that he doesn't know how to run all the companies the foundation is invested in and he isn't going to try. He wants to solve problems, not preach to people about how they should solve problems.

As to whether someone's a good person or not, I'll take the person who accomplished something over the person who accomplished little, but felt good about it.

 

[joobz]

DOC, may I assume that you admit that agnostics (people who have no belief in any god, not just the christian god) are fully capable of doing acts of charity and altruism?

That(using your parable's analogy) these agnostics had seeds grow and thrive into a healthy altruistic flower. That the source of these seeds weren't obviously jesus, but something else. As such, the claim that a person requires christianity to make someone a good person is completely false.