Talk:Alms

Untitled
The definition of tzedakah on this page does not sound like it is a good thing. Sounds more like the terminator for some reason. Gordond 07:48, 2005 February 16‎ (UTC)

Buddhism
Regarding the paragraph... "The paradox in Buddhism is that the more a person gives without seeking something in return, the wealthier (in the broadest sense of the word) one will become. This is because by giving, one destroys those acquisitive impulses that are believed to ultimately lead to further suffering. Generosity is also expressed towards other sentient beings as both an aid to the receiver of the gift and a cause of merit for the person giving the gift. In Mahayana Buddhism, it is accepted that although the three jewels of refuge are the basis of the greatest merit, by seeing other sentient beings as having Buddha nature and making offerings towards the aspirational Buddha to be within them is of equal benefit." Should we be making claims about whether or not this is a paradox? I'm tempted to just delete this paragraph as irrelevant. This should be covered on the linked dāna, sīla, bhāvanā pages. It also lacks any citation. I'm going to delete it, but my user info is below so if you know how to fix it, make it relevant, cite it, etc. then undo my edit and go ahead. (talk) 16:36 29 November 2021 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadry1938 (talk • contribs)

Christianity
The verse quoted should probably not be there, as it is not talking about almsgiving specifically. It is talking about "practicing righteousness," found in a more literal translation. Is there any verse from the Gospels that commands almsgiving? Tim Long 01:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)christians do not belive in alms--93.96.187.125 (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Alms and Tithe are quite distinct
Alms in British English refers to an offering of money given to the poor (eg Matthew 6:4; Strong's G1654) "mercy, pity". Alms in recent times in Britain are usually associated with nobles and royalty and often with specific occasions such as a patron saints day, alms to me is an archaic term for what we would now call charitable giving. Tithe in distinction refers to a gift of a tenth part (eg Luke 11:42; Strong's G586) which for a modern Christian is a gift of 10% (or a proportion at least) of one's income for the running of the Church (which means corporate acts of charity, other gospel based activities and menial things such as communal administration, payment of workers, maintenance of properties, etc.). There is a confusion in this section and I don't think that enough differentiation is made. I would strongly dispute that the offering at a CoE service is a collection of alms for dispensation, it is a predominantly a collection of tithes, alms-giving is usually handled separately (often with names such as "an Appeal for the people of Eritrea" or whatever). Any other comments? Pbhj (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Canons of the CoE, Section F10 refers to an "alms box" being provided separate to the collection (supporting the above) but also refers to the collection plate as "a basin for the reception of the alms and other devotions of the people" in mild contradiction to what I'm claiming.
 * "Training for Clergy and Readers"from the CoE says "Modern-day tithing practice is said by some to have only come into being in this country between the two World Wars, under the influence of American thought. There is also the question of a cultural hangover from agricultural tithes paid to the Church, still felt in some rural areas." and that "The preacher should also stress the official Church of England giving target: 5% of take-home pay to and through the local church, leaving (perhaps) 5% for other causes." Pbhj (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What the Lord God expects
This paragraph, "This indicates that we should give, for as god loves us so should we love the very least person, even if they do wrong against us or are offensive to us in any way, we should still love them and show compassion to them. This is what the Lord God expects." while it is a kind and worthy sentiment, appears to be the author's opinion. Kidigus (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ordering of religions?
Today I see someone put Buddhism first. I can see this being justified on at least two basis: chronology, alphabeticalization. However, honestly, I'm concerned that the motivation (or at least the perceived motivation) is POV (especially since the remaining sections were not re-ordered in terms of chronology or alphabetization, etc.). Is there a WP standard for ordering religions in articles like this? If not, what makes most sense, seems most fair, to others? Thanks for any clarity, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's been nearly a year and no one's responded. So, to simplify potential reader's scanning of the TOC and article, I'm going to order the religion-specific sections alphabetically.
 * Other options such as ordering the sections chronologically I think would be less useful to WP readers and would not add any historical perspective since this article does not present the different religions' perspective on alms as being interdependent. (For instance, if the Christianity section identified that Christian notions of almsgiving was somehow in reaction to or an evolution of Judaic practices, then it might make more sense to order the sections chronologically.)
 * Practically speaking, this means swapping the section on Islam with the section on Christianity. I deeply regret if this swap is seen as somehow motivated by anything other than a desire to increase the article's readability and deal with this issue in a non-arbitrary fashion.  As indicated above, I welcome alternate solutions based on superior reasoning.
 * With metta,
 * Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Recently added "Hinduism" section from "all rights reserved" material at http://santhemant.sulekha.com/
Recently a very poorly formatted addition was made under the heading of "== HINDUISM ==" (where the equal signs are part of the literal sectional title). In addition to being poorly edited (e.g, the first words are literally, "Bold text," and much of the initial text is in all capital letters), this text seems to have been cut and pasted from a blog as evidenced by text strings such as "Feb 9 2008 | Views 8 | Comments (0) Leave a Comment Tags." Based on this assessment, a Google search was done for text from this newly inserted material and it was found that this text was cut-and-pasted from http://santhemant.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/02/give-me-only-this-o-rama-swami-samarth-ramdas.htm. At the bottom of this source page it states "© santhemant., all rights reserved. Page protected by COPYSCAPE. DO NOT COPY."  This copyright appears to be antithetical to Wikipedia's GFDL-compatibility requirement and thus, if for no other reason, this text needs to be deleted (reverted).

I truly regret reverting such material since (a) this article is in serious need of a section on Hinduism, and (b) the cut-and-pasted text is compelling in its devotional earnestness. If the above text can be shown to not be in violation of WP's GFDL-compatibility requirement (and to be pertinent to the topic of "alms," e.g., vs. "devotion"), let's restore the text (undo my undo) and I'd be happy to help fix up the text for WP presentation (e.g., it appears that there's a need for a side-by-side Sanskrit-English poem translation which likely could be better represented in an HTML table). Alternately, if anyone else could add material appropriate to Hindu scriptures and practices related to Alms that too would be greatly appreciated.

Please forgive me if I error in this and even if I do not. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Santhemant - thank you so much for the additional interesting information. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Judaism
Judaism is by far the smallest section and doesn't have any references. Does anyone have any information to add here to make it a well-rounded article? Leefkrust22 (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hinduism redux
In editing the article for grammar issues, I've begun to think that the Hinduism section needs more attention from an expert in the field...hopefully someone with more skill and knowledge in this area will come along? (I'd be delighted to help with grammar, punctuation and that sort of thing, but I'm not familiar enough with Hinduism to edit for content.) Queenmomcat (talk)

External links moved to talk
In case something here could be used for verification or expansion of the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Buddhist

 * Thaibuddhist.com, "The Morning Alms Round" article by Richard Barrow
 * Kariyawasam, A.G.S. (1995). Buddhist Ceremonies and Rituals of Sri Lanka (The Wheel Publication No. 402/404). Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society. Chapter 5, section 1, pertains to almsgiving. Available from Access to Insight, (1996 transcription)
 * Blogspot.com, "Five pillars of life" by Satish Chandra.

Christian

 * Charity as a Christian concept - Encyclopædia Britannica
 * Charity and Charities - Catholic Encyclopedia

Islamic

 * Survivorsareus.com, all about Zakat and many benefits of paying it.

Judaism

 * Judaism 101 - Tzedakah
 * Information for effective Tzedakah
 * Tzedakah: an Anthology

"The offertory is the traditional moment in Roman Catholic Mass, Anglican Eucharist, and Lutheran Divine Services when alms are collected."
In Catholic churches at least, money collected at the offertory is principally used for the upkeep of the church, clergy and other staff. Alms tend to be gathered through (a) donation-boxes fixed to the church-building and/or (b) special collections taken during or after the service in addition to the offertory collection. Pfedanon 12:55, 2021 June 20‎ (UTC)

Additional citations template
Does this article still require the maintenance template from 2021? Could it be replaced by section and/or inline templates? WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Christian section?
The Christian section currently says: "Giving should be out of love and not out of duty: He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

—  Mathew 25:45" This quote seems to contradict the claim it's supposedly supporting. In context the quote says neglecting to give will lead to one to "go away into eternal punishment" Mathew 25:46 (and 25:41) If that doesn't imply a serious duty I don't know what does.

And in context the passage in context doesn't mention so I don't see why this quote follows the claim "Giving should be out of love and not out of duty" but I am not a Christian and please correct me if I'm wrong. Dovmiester (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)