Is Christian faith necessary for Selfless Love?

[Sair]

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?”

Is it the claimed “inevitability” of hurting someone that turns an action into a sin? Or are sins hurtful because they have been declared to be sins and thus hurt the person who commits the action, because they will be damned in the afterlife?

I rather fail to see how stepping onto the altar with the wrong foot or handling the Host with the wrong hand - both mortal sins a priest could commit, according to strict Catholic dogma - could actually do any damage or cause anyone any pain. Conversely, there are plenty of other things that are hurtful and damaging that are not, in fact, officially classified as mortal sins. Like buying another person for the purposes of slavery, for example, or coercing a woman to stay with an abusive spouse, or abusing a nonhuman animal, or driving an SUV instead of a less fuel-hungry vehicle (or opting to ride a bike or catch the train)…I could go on.

It’s quite possible to do a great deal of damage and cause a great deal of pain in the world whilst still adhering to Catholic doctrine, just as it’s possible to be a caring, considerate and hard-working citizen whilst, for example, “living in sin” with a partner to whom one is not formally married, or engaging in homosexual activity, or missing Mass on a day of obligation. So actually, when you unpack my statement and consider its implications, it’s very far from being absurd.

 

[JRKH]

Is it the claimed “inevitability” of hurting someone that turns an action into a sin? Or are sins hurtful because they have been declared to be sins and thus hurt the person who commits the action, because they will be damned in the afterlife?

**I rather fail to see how stepping onto the altar with the wrong foot or handling the Host with the wrong hand - both mortal sins a priest could commit, according to strict Catholic dogma **- could actually do any damage or cause anyone any pain. Conversely, there are plenty of other things that are hurtful and damaging that are not, in fact, officially classified as mortal sins. Like buying another person for the purposes of slavery, for example, or coercing a woman to stay with an abusive spouse, or abusing a nonhuman animal, or driving an SUV instead of a less fuel-hungry vehicle (or opting to ride a bike or catch the train)…I could go on.

It’s quite possible to do a great deal of damage and cause a great deal of pain in the world whilst still adhering to Catholic doctrine, just as it’s possible to be a caring, considerate and hard-working citizen whilst, for example, “living in sin” with a partner to whom one is not formally married, or engaging in homosexual activity, or missing Mass on a day of obligation. So actually, when you unpack my statement and consider its implications, it’s very far from being absurd.

Please provide reference for the bolded section above.

As to the question of how or why something is a sin…Something is “codified” as a sin because it causes harm, first to the individual who actively embraces it and second to others. There are firm underlying principles that govern these things…they are not willy-nilly in any way.

Peace
James

 

[inocente]

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…

This is bit hard to write as I don’t want to fall out with either of you, but maybe you should both take a step back. To extrapolate anything at all from one case like Kolbe is like only having one photo of NY and extrapolating that the weather in NY is always the same as in the photo.

But maybe in your enthusiasm you didn’t notice it’s also somewhat offensive to treat Kolbe as a pawn in an argument. There may not have been any atheists there the day Kolbe volunteered to die, but presumably there were several Jews who didn’t volunteer, so were they less good because they were Jews? What if Kolbe was Jewish and those who didn’t volunteer were Christians? What if Kolbe was atheist? Hindu? What of it, isn’t the very idea of asking such questions perilously close to starting out down the same road as the Nazis?

Kolbe did what he did because he was Kolbe, all honor to him, and if he would give that honor to God then it’s for Kolbe to decide, no one else. imho

 

[A_G]

Selfless love is part of the true Christian lifestyle. It’s not only Christians that act selfless, but a true Christian will live a selfless lifestyle.

“A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.” (John 13:34-35) Douay-Rheims Bible

 

[PRmerger]

But maybe in your enthusiasm you didn’t notice it’s also somewhat offensive to treat Kolbe as a pawn in an argument.

I don’t think so, inocente.

It’s only offensive to use Kolbe as a “pawn” in my argument in the same way that it would be if I were to cite Jesus as a “pawn” in an argument.

And, of course, no one would fault a Christian for citing Jesus in an argument, no?

 

[PRmerger]

Is it the claimed “inevitability” of hurting someone that turns an action into a sin? Or are sins hurtful because they have been declared to be sins and thus hurt the person who commits the action, because they will be damned in the afterlife?

Both/and, Sair. Both/and.

Take this analogy: is it the fact that heroin is going to hurt you that makes it bad? Or is it bad because someone has declared that heroin damages your body and thus hurts the user because he will be damned to an addiction?

You would, of course, if you’re a reasonable person, state: it’s both. Yes?

I rather fail to see how stepping onto the altar with the wrong foot or handling the Host with the wrong hand - both mortal sins a priest could commit, according to strict Catholic dogma

I fail to see how it would be too.

Could you please cite a document*, from the Magisterium,* (as you are claiming it’s Catholic “dogma”) that declares this to be a mortal sin?

 

[tonyrey]

Please provide reference for the bolded section above.

As to the question of how or why something is a sin…Something is “codified” as a sin because it causes harm, first to the individual who actively embraces it and second to others. There are firm underlying principles that govern these things…they are not willy-nilly in any way.

To reject the reality of evil is evil! It gives one a carte blanche to do anything one pleases…

 

[PRmerger]

coercing a woman to stay with an abusive spouse

Also, if you could find a statement from our Church that demands that a woman stay with an abusive spouse that would be helpful.

Otherwise, it does appear that you received a greatly impoverished catechesis in your days as a Catholic.

 

[atheistgirl]

Now, to be sure, there are many noble atheists, and perhaps some of them in the military have risked their lives, jumped on a grenade, for the sake of another.

But, not to demean this heroic act, we can all admit that this type of duty is qualitatively different than the profound act of love that Maximilian Kolbe did

Don’t include me in your ‘‘all’’. I admit no such thing. The soldier who threw himself on a granade in your example above is every bit as brave, and demonstates an act every bit as profoundly loving, as Max Kolbe.

Catholics and Christians don’t have a monoply on self sacrifice or profoundly loving acts.

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

Don’t include me in your ‘‘all’’. I admit no such thing. The soldier who threw himself on a granade in your example above is every bit as brave, and demonstates an act every bit as profoundly loving, as Max Kolbe.

Every bit as brave?

Every bit as profoundly loving? Not so much. :nope:

Catholics and Christians don’t have a monoply on self sacrifice or profoundly loving acts.

Sarah x

On self sacrifice? We are agreed!

On profoundly loving acts? Not so much. :nope:

NB: I am speaking of a sublime “profoundly loving act” here–the type of agape that would have a person volunteer to take the place of another, knowing he will die a slow, horrific death and doing so with a smile on his face. No atheist could do this.

Now, if we mean a profoundly loving act such as administering to the sores of an AIDS victim, putting himself at risk for infection, certainly an atheist could do that.

If we mean a profoundly loving act of carrying a child on one’s back through the mountains in order to escape a tyrannical (and atheistic) government, then certainly an atheist could do that.

But something akin to Kolbe. Not so much.

Else, where is the evidence for this Phantom Atheistic Kolbe?

Why so much faith in the existence of this PAK by some who demand evidence for belief in everything else yet proclaim his existence without a shred of evidence for him?

'Tis curious, indeed!

 

[Sair]

Also, if you could find a statement from our Church that demands that a woman stay with an abusive spouse that would be helpful.

Otherwise, it does appear that you received a greatly impoverished catechesis in your days as a Catholic.

Your Bible admonishes wives to “submit” to their husbands in all things. Husbands are, to be sure, exhorted to love their wives, but not afforded any punishment for doing otherwise. The only reason offered for a wife to actually leave a husband is if he is an unbeliever. And as far as I’m aware, the Catholic church does not recognise divorce, even now. Hence the expectation that even if a husband is abusive, a wife is - in this day and age, at least, tacitly - expected to stay married to him. For a church that excommunicates a young girl who has an abortion yet fails to condemn the rapist who put her in the position of requiring the abortion in the first place, I don’t think any level of misogyny is beneath them.

 

[Sair]

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.

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!

I think you mistake me if you assume I have a blanket objection to religious beliefs - I actually do find some of the purported words of Jesus as given in the gospels to be wonderful summations of how people should treat each other, original or otherwise.

But the problem is, if religious beliefs are taken seriously, they cannot be taken piecemeal - to accept the teachings of Jesus, a serious Christian must accept all the morally reprehensible aspects, not only the whole idea of vicarious atonement, but also the appalling baggage of the Old Testament, since Jesus declared that this was to be accepted. Your attitude of “truth trumps everything” assumes that all the teachings of Christ are, in fact, the truth - you are thus obliged to act (and even think) in ways that are immoral, from an enlightened humanist perspective.

Yes, beliefs are primarily valuable for the actions they motivate - but if we are to take some religious believers at their word, the only reason they treat their fellows humanely is because they believe Christian teaching - or maybe even just theism in general - to be true, and that others are only worthy of respect and compassion because their god has said so. That means, in effect, that they place the commands/desires/whims of beings that are, for all intents and purposes, imaginary, ahead of the needs of real, living, feeling beings. That is, at its core, a very dangerous and destructive belief, as demonstrated by the Muslim ‘martyrs’ of 9/11.

 

[Sair]

Both/and, Sair. Both/and.

Take this analogy: is it the fact that heroin is going to hurt you that makes it bad? Or is it bad because someone has declared that heroin damages your body and thus hurts the user because he will be damned to an addiction?

You would, of course, if you’re a reasonable person, state: it’s both. Yes?

Except that those who declare that heroin damages the body and is addictive do so on the basis of real evidence of the experience of heroin users. The declaration is entirely secondary in this case, to the actual harm resulting from the action. For a deity to whimsically declare a certain action to be sinful means, not that the action is harmful in and of itself, but that the said deity will harm you if you commit it.

I fail to see how it would be too.

Could you please cite a document*, from the Magisterium,* (as you are claiming it’s Catholic “dogma”) that declares this to be a mortal sin?

My source for these supposed offences is, admittedly, the word of my Catholic brother who learned of such things during a religious education course at university (designed for the teaching of religious education in Catholic schools). I have no immediate sources.

What a cursory search on Google has turned up, however, is an extensive list of ‘liturgical abuses’ of varying levels of gravity.

I mean, seriously? What possible effect could any of the actions listed have upon real people? Yet they appear to be taken quite seriously within the confines of the priesthood. I guess I could understand it in the context of a business - say, acting against a business statement or giving away company secrets to competitors, for example - but labelling them as “offences” in the context of the Catholic church seems to confer an additional (and, in my view, entirely unwarranted in any moral sense) gravitas.

 

[Sair]

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.

Well, if I had sought a thorough demonstration of the profound disconnect that subsists between religious belief and non-religious (perhaps a-theistic) reason, I couldn’t have hoped for better than this post.

I’ll try to take it from the beginning.

My motivation for starting this thread was actually just an interest in canvassing opinions on the subject of whether Christian belief is actually ::required:: for acts of selflessness - as suggested by our exchange on a previous thread that was in danger of running wildly off-topic. I thought it was an interesting idea - because, well, the connection between belief and action just is interesting - and it would appear from the length of the thread so far that others deem it likewise. It would even appear, as I rather suspected would be the case, that your opinion on the matter is not universally held even amongst your fellow believers.

In point of fact, I don’t “believe in my heart” (as though the heart were actually the seat of belief) that there has been an unbeliever who has performed an act of altruism on a par with that of Kolbe. I don’t need to believe this in order to maintain my lack of belief in the God of Classical Theism.

I have not - as you will notice if you carefully re-read my posts - declared that such an individual undoubtedly does or “must” exist - nor have I yet explored the related question of whether the kind of individual sacrifice performed by Kolbe is, indeed, the “highest” form of moral goodness or virtue (not to mention practical efficacy) to which humans may aspire; I have simply explained why I don’t believe such an action, on the part of a nonbeliever, to be impossible.

To this end, I have offered reasons to doubt that Christian faith is ::the:: decisive element in the mix; pointed to the exceptional circumstances in which Kolbe’s action took place; suggested reasons for the personal sacrifice of an atheist not having come to light; and queried the basis upon which you would very likely claim, were I to provide evidence of an atheistic martyr for charity, that such a person was infused with the grace of your god, despite having no belief in any such deity - so any evidence I could possibly provide, you would take as strengthening your case rather than mine - futile, indeed. I think the burden of proof in this case - as usual - rests upon those making the positive claim: for you, it is that atheistic selfless love is impossible.

I believe in the potential of human fellow-feeling, it’s true - primarily because this is demonstrated by people of all faiths, and no faith, to an entirely comparable degree and for similar reasons - whether one believes that compassion is warranted because we share a spiritual father or because we share a common biological make-up seems to make little difference in practical terms, except that I have come across believers who have actually owned that they would eschew all expressions of charity, or morality in general, if they discovered that their god did not actually exist (or, presumably, that they’d chosen to believe in the wrong version of god).

I consider it premature to declare, unequivocally, that selfless sacrifice on the basis of common humanity is an avenue closed to those who don’t believe that our common humanity is divinely sanctioned. And I would, as believers are fond of doing, point to the fact that absence of evidence is not, as a matter of philosophical necessity, evidence of absence. I’ll echo the sentiments of many other nonbelievers and declare my willingness to accept any unambiguous evidence of supernatural beings, if it’s ever presented (and if “supernatural” is ever usefully defined…)

Am I following the path of an “atheistic Kolbe”? I doubt I could realistically claim to be doing so. I’ll own that I would ::like:: to think that if it came to a choice between giving up my own life and allowing the destruction of someone who, in all probability, had more to live for - such as a dependent family, as in the case of Kolbe’s beneficiary - then I would take the former option as the lesser of two evils; but I certainly don’t claim to know that I would or even could do so. It would depend upon the circumstances, as pretty much everything does.

 

[atheistgirl]

NB: I am speaking of a sublime “profoundly loving act” here–the type of agape that would have a person volunteer to take the place of another, knowing he will die a slow, horrific death and doing so with a smile on his face. No atheist could do this.

Baseless unsubstantiated assertion.

There are many people I alone would ‘‘volunteer’’ as you put it, to lay down my life for, to willingly exchange my life for, in the full knowledge the exchange would result in a horrific agonizing long slow lingering death.

These same people would do exactly the same for me.

We are all, to a person, atheists.

Furthermore, wasn’t Max Kolbe a priest? It’s ‘‘reasonable’’ to assume he lived a good and holy life, so was pretty sure of getting to heaven, the ultimate goal of all Christians, except Jehovah’s Witnesses. But, isn’t martyrdom as good as a free pass to heaven?

So, what exactly did Max Kolbe risk then, when the reward for his actions was pretty much a VIP welcome into heaven?

Sure, he suffered horrifically for a few days. And I don’t deny his courage and bravery and sacrifice.

But he was as good as ‘‘guaranteed’’ his place in heaven, in eternal peace.

If we look at it dispassionately, that’s a pretty good trade.

Sarah x

 

[inocente]

I don’t think so, inocente.

It’s only offensive to use Kolbe as a “pawn” in my argument in the same way that it would be if I were to cite Jesus as a “pawn” in an argument.

And, of course, no one would fault a Christian for citing Jesus in an argument, no?

Your argument would work if you worship Kolbe. Do you worship Kolbe then?

 

[tonyrey]

*Now, to be sure, there are many noble atheists, and perhaps some of them in the military have risked their lives, jumped on a grenade, for the sake of another.

The problem is that love hasn’t been adequately explained by those who think science will eventually explain everything. What precisely is love - and **how **did it originate?

 

[inocente]

The soldier who threw himself on a granade in your example above is every bit as brave, and demonstates an act every bit as profoundly loving, as Max Kolbe.
PRmerger;9375472:

Every bit as brave?

Every bit as profoundly loving? Not so much. :nope:

Good grief.

Jesus: Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

It’s right there in the Bible, plain as day. If you’re a Christian, you follow the teaching of Christ, you don’t make it up as you go along.

Good grief.

 

[inocente]

The problem is that love hasn’t been adequately explained by those who think science will eventually explain everything. What precisely is love - and **how **did it originate?

Jesus: Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

Wouldn’t you say that’s an all encompassing, unifying, non-religious statement that defines love for everyone?

 

[tonyrey]

*The problem is that love hasn’t been adequately explained by those who think science will eventually explain everything. What precisely is love - and **how ***

“Define” <> “explain”.

Nor does the statement account for the origin of love or its power.

In other words there is no evidence that it is an **entirely natural **phenomenon. If it were it would not have been necessary for Jesus to redeem humanity.