Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In this case it more about being told we are an abomination in the eyes of god then treated as such.
Who's telling your population this? Is it one or two people here and there? Whoever and wherever it is let's give 'em the what-for so that you won't have to be a perpetual victim anymore.
I have tried to analyze, as have countless philosophers, whether it is even possible to do anything "purely good," purely altruistically. I have concluded it is not. Even if I give $300 to a complete stranger, as I have done, I take pleasure in thinking what a generous person I am and what a generous person he thinks I am. In economic terms, the self-satisfaction is worth $300 to me even though it might not be to someone else. We all act in accordance with our personal economies, whatever they may be.
Compared to many people, I am indeed "good" - generally kind, very generous, always helpful. But this goodness is just the perspective of the recipients of my kindness, generosity and helpfulness. All of it is tainted by the egoistic self-satisfaction I derive. Even if I tell myself I do these things to please God or to be obedient to him, the taint of self-satisfaction is there. I know of no way out of this quandary.
I love how people tell us what God "ought to be like." A God worthy of the name God wouldn't care if we believed in him, he'd only care what we did, yada yada. At least insofar as Christianity is concerned, this completely misses the mark. The point of Christianity is that all of us are estranged from God's perfect holiness, our best deeds fall short of God's perfect holiness. Hence the hyperbolic verse that our best deeds are like "filthy rags" to God. God simply wants us to get right with him by acknowledging this reality and accepting his forgiveness and grace, thereby being eligible for eternal communion with him in his kingdom of perfect holiness. What we did before coming to Christ is irrelevant; what we do afterwards is secondary to having come to Christ.
I don't think taking pleasure in something diminishes it. It should feel good to help someone else as we are social creatures. If it didn't feel good we'd be less likely to do it. Do you take pleasure in knowing what he bought with the 300?
Maybe you sell yourself a little short. Have you ever donated to a food shelf? Did you do that because you wanted validation or did it feel good to know someone would have food because of you? I think this may be why the Bible says not to let your right and know what your left is doing. Sure, its a human need to like validation. If you get validation then you don't get the real benefit if giving. The real benefit in this case would be the feel good of connecting yourself with another person , even anonymously, and knowing you did something to lighten their load.
Who's telling your population this? Is it one or two people here and there? Whoever and wherever it is let's give 'em the what-for so that you won't have to be a perpetual victim anymore.
As many as want communism's anti-religion I guess. We just need to keep an eye on them.
There is a saying, God looks into the hearts. So let’s try just that.
Imagine a rower in a roman slave galley. He believes, that as long as he is rowing there will be no punishment (and likely is very right). He believes also that for rowing well he will be awarded with better meals and the probabity to survive a battle on sea is higher too.What do think, does he has a good heart? Of course, we don’t know at all. At least he isn’t a good guy because he is a phantastic rower. Or because he believes in the captain .But what we know is: he is doing it for himself. No offense for that. Everybody would do it, a holy man like a mafioso.
And now think of some Christians who speak about you shall believe in Jesus, because you won’t be punished and would be rewarded greatly. If you believe that – in a way – your are in the same position as the poor rower. You are doing it for yourself.
To put it provocatively: An atheist is helping me. That’s good. Because he likes me or he likes to help. Both ways a good thing. If a Christian does the same… may be it is pure egoism?
It is like an unvisible trap. What counts is the right motivation. At least if someone states a higher purpose.
So an atheist is altruistic when it comes to helping but a Christian may be motivated to help by punishment and reward?
"There is more happiness in giving than there is in receiving."-Jesus.
"Happiness does not come from material things but rather from a deep, genuine concern for others' happiness."-Dalai Lama
"The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others."-Gandhi
"Everybody can be great because everyone can serve."-Martin Luther King
A Christian will recognize what Jesus meant and also recognize the wisdom in the thoughts of others on the subject of helping. I believe this is true because, atheist, Christian and anyone in between share some traits. In a way all of us are doing it for ourselves because it brings us happiness. But is that a negative?
Atheist or not, some traits we share because we come from one source.
I have tried to analyze, as have countless philosophers, whether it is even possible to do anything "purely good," purely altruistically. I have concluded it is not. Even if I give $300 to a complete stranger, as I have done, I take pleasure in thinking what a generous person I am and what a generous person he thinks I am. In economic terms, the self-satisfaction is worth $300 to me even though it might not be to someone else. We all act in accordance with our personal economies, whatever they may be.
I am no philosopher (at least not in a strict sense), but that question had kept me busy too. Your conclusion that it is not possible to be purely altruistic is right if you see it as a way of life. There are only very extreme situations conceivable in which altruistic behavior is theoretically possible.
F.e. the single man in a concentration camp in Nazi-Germany who offered his life in exchange for the life of a father of a family. In this situation it is theoretically possible (!) there were no egoistic motives at all. But I understand, you even could doubt that with very quibbling but reason-based questions.
If someone enjoys to be a good person and likes to help others ….that’s wonderful. Because he or she loves it.
If someone doesn’t enjoy to act good and does it anyway…. that might be altruistic, but the guy won’t get my sympathies.
So I conclude „pure altruism“ is a misconcept in general. Nobody wants that and there are good reasons for it.
„ Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,“ Thats the point indeed.
I like to see „love“ as the inner action to conceive a You and an I as a We (so it benefits normally both) That We can be with a single person, a long time partner, a group, or the mankind as the „We of God“. So I if you claim „a nation first“ you should remember there might be a higher value than the natural egoism of the nation, a responsibility beyond the national borders TOO.
But these are just some thoughts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
