Is Christian faith necessary for Selfless Love?

[tonyrey]

Indeed.

And I can foresee the question, then, posed by atheists: if we can perform great acts of love without formally knowing Christ, why then should we become a Christian?

The answer: because it’s true.

Truth trumps everything.

Someone doing good deeds but not steeped in truth is as absurd as a rational man being good because he believes in Santa Claus.

NB: while it’s* theoretically* possible that an atheist can perform a great act of sacrificial agape* without formally knowing Christ*, his chance of doing so is greatly diminished, given his lack of access to the sacraments.

And, the lack of evidence for this Atheistic Kolbe also speaks volumes about how difficult* it is to be an atheist and perform these great acts of sacrificial love.

*difficult, but not impossible, for there always lies the possibility that he has known Christ but not his name.

I agree. The reason why Jesus came into the world was to enlighten us:

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light. 9 The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. 11 He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. 12** But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God**; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Being enlightened is obviously not enough. It is necessary to accept not only the moral teaching of Jesus but Jesus Himself as a real person. Otherwise with all the best intentions in the world we cannot have the power to transcend our human nature like a person united to Him by supernatural love. We have to overcome the obstacles which separate us from Him - and of course from His mother, “our life, our sweetness and our hope”, and all the great saints. We have to become a member of God’s family to enjoy its full benefits… and even then we haven’t finished. We still have to play our own part in bringing peace, joy and harmony to the world.

The alternative is to be on our own…

 

[tonyrey]

I feel strangely compelled to ask - upon what basis do you claim that it is your god’s grace that compels charitable action, and not simply natural fellow-feeling and altruism? If it were indeed the case that your god’s grace can be bestowed with apparent arbitrariness upon those who don’t believe in him, then not only would this be a means for believers to claim that no unbeliever can behave nobly and selflessly without god, but it would - as the proverbial double-edged sword - negate the idea that Christian belief, as such, is necessary for selfless acts of love.

“apparent” is the key word!

 

[PRmerger]

Otherwise with all the best intentions in the world we cannot have the power to transcend our human nature like a person united to Him by supernatural love.

That is exactly my point. Even the most noble atheist cannot have the power to transcend his natural selfish tendencies (which are contrary to agape) except through being united to supernatural love.

Addendum: this is not to say, of course, that atheists are incapable of filial love.

Or, to put it without the double negatives: atheists are quite capable of loving, heroic acts. Just not of profound acts of agape.

 

[tonyrey]

I agree with what you said on my thread, that a (good) Christian really can’t make the “ultimate sacrifice” of giving up their life for another, because they think that they are going to go to heaven after they die and experience eternal reward for dying a martyr. It would be a much greater sacrifice for an atheist to give up their life for another because they are literally giving up their entire existence. In fact, the only greater sacrifice I can think of is for someone to give up their life for another while honestly convinced that they are going to go to hell when they die. That would really be the ultimate sacrifice.

So really, it takes an evil person to make the ultimate sacrifice. Kind of ironic if you ask me.

Right, everyone! Let’s be as evil as we can to see who can make the greatest ultimate sacrifice. Now let me see what I can do… First of all I can desecrate a church. Then rob a blind beggar. Darn it! I need more imagination and time to plan all this very carefully. If I’m put in prison my opportunities will be severely restricted…

Any suggestions?

 

[tonyrey]

That is exactly my point. Even the most noble atheist cannot have the power to transcend his natural selfish tendencies (which are contrary to agape) except through being united to supernatural love.

I apologise for repeating it but I think it’s worth repeating - particularly for my own benefit.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Poseidon;9363484:

…So really, it takes an evil person to make the ultimate sacrifice. Kind of ironic if you ask me.

Right, everyone! Let’s be as evil as we can to see who can make the greatest ultimate sacrifice. Now let me see what I can do… First of all I can desecrate a church. Then rob a blind beggar. Darn it! I need more imagination and time to plan all this very carefully. If I’m put in prison my opportunities will be severely restricted…

Any suggestions?

I’m sure you are kidding , but I think I understand what Poseidon is saying. There’s an occasional person that will decide to kill a group of people (usually their children) to ensure their child’s position in heaven. In some cases the people that have done this are quite certain that as a punishment he/she will be sent to hell, but that doesn’t matter as long as he/she is assured that his/her children won’t end up there.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m sure you are kidding , but I think I understand what Poseidon is saying. There’s an occasional person that will decide to kill a group of people (usually their children) to ensure their child’s position in heaven. In some cases the people that have done this are quite certain that as a punishment he/she will be sent to hell, but that doesn’t matter as long as he/she is assured that his/her children won’t end up there.

Indeed. It is quite frightening when a fanatic takes a certain truth (parents must do all we can to get our kids to heaven!) and isolates this truth to the exclusion of all other truths.

 

[tonyrey]

Right, everyone! Let’s be as evil as we can to see who can make the greatest ultimate sacrifice. Now let me see what I can do… First of all I can desecrate a church. Then rob a blind beggar. Darn it! I need more imagination and time to plan all this very carefully. If I’m put in prison my opportunities will be severely restricted…
Any suggestions? I’m sure you are kidding , but I think I understand what Poseidon is saying. There’s an occasional person that will decide to kill a group of people (usually their children) to ensure their child’s position in heaven. In some cases the people that have done this are quite certain that as a punishment he/she will be sent to hell, but that doesn’t matter as long as he/she is assured that his/her children won’t end up there.

There are sane persons, lunatics and fanatics of every type of belief or non-belief who kill their children for a variety of reasons - or for no reason at all. One wealthy man recently killed his wife and children - and himself - because he went bankrupt…
[/QUOTE]

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There are sane persons, lunatics and fanatics of every type of belief or non-belief who kill their children for a variety of reasons - or for no reason at all

People do kill for various reasons, but the ones that to me seem most relevant to this discussion are the ones that do so believing that by killing they have helped the one they have killed while discarding concern for what is believed to be ones eternal well being.

 

[fhansen]

This is in response to an issue arising in another thread - the claim that Christian faith is necessary for acts of selflessness such as that of Maximilian Kolbe, who willingly gave up his life to Nazi cruelty in Auschwitz so that another man could go on living.

I don’t intend this thread to turn into a heated (and potentially abusive) debate over the relative merits of faith or lack of faith; so I would initially try to focus the discussion upon the kinds of motivations that lead us to sacrifice ourselves, in whatever fashion - from the merely inconvenient to the genuinely difficult or even prohibitively hard - for the benefit of others.

In short, is it necessary to believe in Christ in order to act in a truly altruistic manner? If so, what is it, exactly, that Christianity adds to the mix to motivate selflessness? Not least among the relevant considerations are the question of whether love, in any form, can actually be a selfless experience; and is it truly selfless to act in a manner that one believes will be rewarded in an eternal afterlife? Does an act of goodness, charity, or the rendering of significant assistance to others lose its value if one gains benefit from that action, even if the benefit is simply feeling good about oneself?

Chrsitain fatih is necessary to definitively confirm and sanction that selfless love is foundational to this universe-that’s what the Atonement is all about-so selfless lovers and Good Samaritans don’t have to wing it all alone-God, Himself, has been revealed to* be* love.

 

[PRmerger]

People do kill for various reasons, but the ones that to me seem most relevant to this discussion are the ones that do so believing that by killing they have helped the one they have killed while discarding concern for what is believed to be ones eternal well being.

That’s what happens when a fanatic takes one idea (I must get my children to heaven!) and ignores the entirety of the remainder of the Gospel.

If there’s a Christian out there who’s proclaiming that this is a good paradigm to follow, let him speak now! :coffeeread:

 

[Sair]

Right, everyone! Let’s be as evil as we can to see who can make the greatest ultimate sacrifice. Now let me see what I can do… First of all I can desecrate a church. Then rob a blind beggar. Darn it! I need more imagination and time to plan all this very carefully. If I’m put in prison my opportunities will be severely restricted…

Any suggestions?

Maybe you could commit a designated ‘mortal’ sin that doesn’t actually hurt anyone? I can think of several (although for some of them, you’d have to be a priest). Oh, and I doubt your opportunities would be all that restricted in a prison, somehow - they don’t tend to be hotbeds of virtue.

 

[Sair]

People do kill for various reasons, but the ones that to me seem most relevant to this discussion are the ones that do so believing that by killing they have helped the one they have killed while discarding concern for what is believed to be ones eternal well being.

Fanatical as this is, it’s hard not to see how it is taking certain aspects of Christian belief to their logical conclusion. We just find it absurd (not to say horrifying) because we are not, primarily, driven by logic in most of our dealings with each other. We are, after all, only partly rational animals.

 

[tonyrey]

Maybe you could commit a designated ‘mortal’ sin that doesn’t actually hurt anyone? I can think of several (although for some of them, you’d have to be a priest). Oh, and I doubt your opportunities would be all that restricted in a prison, somehow - they don’t tend to be hotbeds of virtue.

The implication that serious sins designated by the Catholic Church are entirely harmless requires substantiation.

Prejudice against the priesthood also requires justification since it implies that the Christian faith is itself defective. Not only is it deemed unnecessary for selfless Love but also positively pernicious for both individuals and society - in accordance with the Dawkins doctrine…

 

[Sair]

Indeed.

And I can foresee the question, then, posed by atheists: if we can perform great acts of love without formally knowing Christ, why then should we become a Christian?

The answer: because it’s true.

Truth trumps everything.

Someone doing good deeds but not steeped in truth is as absurd as a rational man being good because he believes in Santa Claus.

NB: while it’s* theoretically* possible that an atheist can perform a great act of sacrificial agape* without formally knowing Christ*, his chance of doing so is greatly diminished, given his lack of access to the sacraments.

And, the lack of evidence for this Atheistic Kolbe also speaks volumes about how difficult* it is to be an atheist and perform these great acts of sacrificial love.

*difficult, but not impossible, for there always lies the possibility that he has known Christ but not his name.

The trouble with all this is that it tries to explain too much.

After all, a theory that purports to explain everything is about as useless as a theory that explains nothing!

Why?

Because there’s no way to determine if it’s the truth - or even how closely it approximates the truth - without just taking it on faith. On absolute faith, because all the evidence that could possibly come to light could as easily contradict it as confirm it. This is the real value of falsifiability, dismissively consigned though it often is on these fora to the realms of “scientism” and Logical Positivism.

Obviously it’s the prerogative of every individual believer to explain the world according to their faith as they see fit. But even if I were to present a certified example of an atheist who had sacrified her life in exceptional circumstances, selflessly, for the sake of a stranger, as Kolbe did, you would immediately turn around and say, “Oh, but that’s only because she was infused with the grace of God”, or words to that effect. And thus such an example would have no effect upon your faith. Again, that’s your prerogative in a society where none but the religious recognise thought-crime. But you might find there are those who object to you taking the credit away from purely human altruism, exceptional as it is - even amongst believers. However, most reasonable people are prepared to acknowledge that the real value of beliefs is in the actions they motivate - whether the beliefs themselves are scientifically true or not - and probably wouldn’t mind if there were a person who went around giving gifts to disadvantaged children just because they believed they were emulating Santa Claus!

 

[tonyrey]

People do kill for various reasons, but the ones that to me seem most relevant to this discussion are the ones that do so believing that by killing they have helped the one they have killed while discarding concern for what is believed to be ones eternal well being.

Fanatical materialists - notably Marxists - have taken their** fundamental belief** to its logical conclusion by murdering millions of persons in their deluded quest for well-being on this planet.

We just find it absurd (not to say horrifying) because we are not, primarily, driven by logic in most of our dealings with each other. We are, after all, only partly rational animals.

Materialism implies that we are **not rational at all **but simply cogs in a machine, a doctrine endorsed by the statement that " we are not, primarily, driven by logic in most of our dealings with each other".

 

[tonyrey]

There are sane persons, lunatics and fanatics of every type of belief or non-belief who kill their children for a variety of reasons - or for no reason at all

As I have pointed out in another post, fanatical materialists - notably Marxists - have taken their** fundamental belief** to its logical conclusion by murdering millions of persons in their deluded quest for well-being on this planet.

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe you could commit a designated ‘mortal’ sin that doesn’t actually hurt anyone?

All sins hurt someone, Sair.

What you are proposing is as absurd as saying, “Maybe you could do something that’s painful that doesn’t actually hurt anyone?”

 

[PRmerger]

However, most reasonable people are prepared to acknowledge that the real value of beliefs is in the actions they motivate - whether the beliefs themselves are scientifically true or not -

This is a curious statement coming from an atheist (or “pantheist”, whatever that means to you.)

I assume you consider yourself one of these “reasonable” people?

So then what are you doing on a Catholic forum objecting to our Beliefs?

Did I not quote you at least 5 times demanding “evidence” for something, (which, in the context of this discussion about the Phantom Atheistic Kolbe, provides great irony) in order to believe it?

Now you’re proposing that as long as people do good things it doesn’t matter that there’s no evidence for what motivates them?

I think that you have not actually thought out your paradigm, friend.

and probably wouldn’t mind if there were a person who went around giving gifts to disadvantaged children just because they believed they were emulating Santa Claus!

Oh, to be sure no “reasonable” person would object to a person giving gifts to disadvantaged children just because she believed she was “emulating” Santa Claus. In fact, I give kudos to this person.

Now, MY point was that a man who did these actions because he truly believed in Santa is quite different.

All “reasonable” people would find this person cuckoo. Right?

Why?

Because, as I stated earlier, truth trumps everything. It doesn’t matter if he’s doing good. The rationale for his goodness is based on an absurdity: I believe in Santa Claus so I’m going to give gifts to disadvantaged kids!

 

[PRmerger]

But even if I were to present a certified example of an atheist who had sacrified her life in exceptional circumstances, selflessly, for the sake of a stranger, as Kolbe did, you would immediately turn around and say, “Oh, but that’s only because she was infused with the grace of God”, or words to that effect.

As we have now exhausted over 100 posts with me asking you for evidence for this Phantom Atheistic Kolbe, you proclaiming essentially, “But I believe in my heart that he exists!”, providing not a single shred of evidence for his existence, starting a new thread asking for assistance in this endeavor (!), and still coming up with…

no one…

I think this endeavor is futile, Sair.

Your faith in the existence of this Phantom Atheistic Kolbe is, of course, your right.

I hope though that in your future dialogue with Believers that you will always keep this thought in the back of your mind, "But I believe in the existence of someone without a single shred of evidence, so how can I demand evidence for "

That is, if you’re the noble atheist that is following in the path (taking baby steps!) of an Atheistic Kolbe.