Is Christian faith necessary for Selfless Love?

[PRmerger]

No, you are not obligated to “believe” anything that Sarah has said. But it isn’t necessary to do so to move forward. There are many discussions here. In which, for the sake of discussion, certain propositions are granted the status of being provisionally true so that discussion can continue.

I absolutely understand this concept, TS.

In fact, in the many discussions I’ve had with atheists I often have to invoke this paradigm because when we are discussing theology and a point is made that an atheist cannot refute, he seems to resort to, “Well, I don’t believe in God anyway so…”

If you are an atheist in dialogue with a Believer then it necessitates some presuppositions in order to continue the dialogue.

Thankfully, I haven’t been in a dialogue with an atheist in a while where he has used “I don’t believe in God anyway so the question is irrelevant to me” as a crutch. I think we Christians have pretty much figured out that if your screenname is, say, TheHappyAtheist that you’re going to be, well, atheist, but that you concede certain points for the sake of dialogue here on the CAFs.

That being said, I don’t HAVE to concede anything, as it pertains to my discourse here on this thread.

My question is: where’s the evidence for the Phantom Atheistic Kolbe?
The atheistic parallel: where’s the evidence for God?

The response here was: You have to take my word for it. I know one!
My parallel response: You have to take my word for it. I know him!

Now, if the atheist accepts my response in Magenta, then I’ll accept her response in black.

If she’s willing to say that she believes in God because I know him, then I will absolutely proclaim here that I believe in her PAK because she knows him.

See the parallel?

It’s been great fun being the atheist to atheists!

 

[PRmerger]

That wasn’t always the Popes position on the Jews, was it?

The popes’ positions on the Jews have indeed varied.

The Jews have quite a different take on it:

Well, I would think so.

 

[inocente]

I love it! Think about this, inocente:

Pope JPII called the Jews our “elder brothers in the faith”

Your point: to lay down one’s life for one’s “friends” is better than laying down one’s life for a “stranger”.

Thus, to lay down one’s life for a “brother” is better than laying down one’s life for a friend!

IOW: what Kolbe did for his elder brother in the faith surpasses any (still nebulous) atheistic soldier who jumps on a grenade for his friends.

So, now I think the criterion has been upped: please provide the evidence for an atheist who has given his life for a Jew.

Puh-lease.

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

He doesn’t say strangers, He doesn’t say brothers. He says friends.

God isn’t like a tax return, we don’t get to duck and dive around the small print. Gajowniczek was a stranger to Kolbe, not a friend, end of story. Basically then, all you’ve got is a Phantom PR Kolbe. Unless you’re also set on reinventing God in your own image, I suggest you admit to Him, privately if you like, that you got this one wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

Puh-lease.

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

He doesn’t say strangers, He doesn’t say brothers. He says friends.

Perhaps you are looking at this verse, friend, with an uncharacteristically narrow view because you have decided to put on your Baptist lenses today?

Catholics don’t tend to look at things with such a narrow lens.

At any rate, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say, “Friend is better than stranger” but not “Brother is better than Friend.”

Use your Reason and Logic Glasses and you will see.

 

[inocente]

Perhaps you are looking at this verse, friend, with an uncharacteristically narrow view because you have decided to put on your Baptist lenses today?

Catholics don’t tend to look at things with such a narrow lens.

At any rate, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say, “Friend is better than stranger” but not “Brother is better than Friend.”

Use your Reason and Logic Glasses and you will see.

OK, put on your Reason and Logic Glasses and notice that the verse is followed by others: Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit —fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. This is my command: Love each other.

You’ll see that substituting brother or stranger for friend doesn’t work, the scripture would no longer make sense.

I apologize if you are shocked to the core by the Baptist practice of reading what is written rather than what we think should have been written, and even more shocked by the idea of not reading verses in isolation. But if you keep your glasses on and read, for instance 1 Cor 13, you’ll see that the whole idea of Christians being more capable than others, and thus others being less capable than Christians, is incompatible with love - Christ wore a crown of thorns not diamonds.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I absolutely understand this concept, TS.

In fact, in the many discussions I’ve had with atheists I often have to invoke this paradigm because when we are discussing theology and a point is made that an atheist cannot refute, he seems to resort to, “Well, I don’t believe in God anyway so…”

I’m making the assumption that the discussion was meant to be to illustrate a line of reasoning and not necessarily to persuade the other person, in which case there was a failure of that person to understand that the discussion was to communicate a line of reasoning.

When I was in a high school World History class the teacher had to cover some of the foundations of the three Abrahamic religions. When she had gotten to Islam a girl in the class room loudly objected against the teacher sharing this information. “I’m a Christian and I don’t care what you say; you aren’t going to teach me a false religion!” The same type of failure occurred here. The teacher attempted to explain that the purpose of this information was to understand the motivations behind some of the historical events and that it was not necessary for the girl to modify her faith position to be able to process this information, though she wasn’t successful in getting the girl to understand this.

If your discussion is to discourage some one from following a certain behavior then that’s when things go from being able to be treated as provisionally true to interacting with one’s position. One of my room mates in college was a Hindu. She was against the use of cows for meat or leather. In a discussion we had I came to understand why she held this position. Had things gone from just conveying this understanding to her telling me that I shouldn’t eat beef or wear my leather belt then that is when my stance comes into play. “I don’t believe the story you told me, so I’m not motivated to conform to those rules”

If you are an atheist in dialogue with a Believer then it necessitates some presuppositions in order to continue the dialogue.

Thankfully, I haven’t been in a dialogue with an atheist in a while where he has used “I don’t believe in God anyway so the question is irrelevant to me” as a crutch.

It’s also possible that the person had no interest in the discussion. After allowing a Jehovah’s Witness come to my house on a weekly basis for 6 months I felt I had come to understand what I wanted to know about their position. Now when one comes knocking and ask for permission to share some of the “good word” with me I respond “If you feel compelled to do so I will allow it, but I have no interest in your message.” That’s not much unlike “the question is irrelevant to me” response. From there the JW and I may talk about other things such as how their day is going, the animated responses they’ve gotten from other people (one had been chased away with a shot gun) and then they go on their way…

That being said, I don’t HAVE to concede anything, as it pertains to my discourse here on this thread.

Indeed. I think we are in agreement that you are under no obligation to do so. And you have every right not to do so. Not doing so can hinder the potential to develop a mutual understanding of each other. But you are under no obligation to develop this understanding. If you do have interest in developing this understand despite the lack of obligation I encourage the exploration of the hypothetic pathways and temporarily accepting some propositions as temporarily provisionally true.

My question is: where’s the evidence for the Phantom Atheistic Kolbe?
The atheistic parallel: where’s the evidence for God?

The response here was: You have to take my word for it. I know one!
My parallel response: You have to take my word for it. I know him!

Now, if the atheist accepts my response in Magenta, then I’ll accept her response in black.

If she’s willing to say that she believes in God because I know him, then I will absolutely proclaim here that I believe in her PAK because she knows him.

See the parallel?

Afraid I don’t see them as parallel. Belief isn’t necessary for either person to discuss the propositions that the other is offering. Sarah’s spun off a new thread ( forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=683292 ) that presupposes that the Catholic concept of God exists while it’s made clear on several levels that she personally does not believe that this entity exists. She’s participated and has started other threads in which the starting points include the assumption of the Catholic concept of God. There was also the hypothetical presented that if a person existed that meets the description of what you’ve coined as being the PAK how would we know about him. A hypothetical exploration doesn’t require you to have a belief, non-belief, or disbelief of this person’s existence. But exploring that pathway would call for at least temporarily treating this conceptual entity as though it were descriptive of a person that had lived.

As was made clear before you are not under any obligation to explore these hypotheticals or treat anything presented as provisionally true. But I’d like to request that you do so as I think that it would be constructive to progress within this thread.

 

[atheistgirl]

OK, put on your Reason and Logic Glasses and notice that the verse is followed by others: Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit —fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. This is my command: Love each other.

That’s very interesting.

Could it be argued from the above, that Jesus didn’t lay down His life for everyone, out of Love, but only His friends?

To be His friend, you have to do what He commands. If you don’t, you’re not His friend.

So Jesus didn’t die for all mankind, out of Love, He died for His friends, those that did what He commanded them to do.

I found the comment about not chosing Him, He chose them, interesting also.

If Jesus picks and choses who can be His friend, then I guess people like me are the unchosen

Oh well.

There’s always chocolate

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

There is not one minute jot of evidence that mindless molecules

Evidence of existence is not evidence of the origin of existence.

It is an immense leap of fervent faith to believe in the possibility of an animal without a self

capable of unselfish love compared to a person capable of overcoming the survival instinct and choosing to suffer and die for total strangers. And it is immensely simplistic to suppose that the only way personhood could possibly obtain is through the existence of some nonphysical ectoplasm or supernatural magic.

It is positively illogical to believe an animal without a self is capable of unselfish love. Unselfish presupposes a self.

And it is immensely simplistic to suppose that the only way personhood could possibly obtain is through the existence of some nonphysical ectoplasm or supernatural magic.

it is ludicrously simplistic to suppose that the only way rational **persons **could possibly exist is by the fortuitous juxtapositions of impersonal molecules which haven’t the foggiest idea of what they are doing - and never will have (unless one is committed to substitious fantasy…)

And to claim to actually know that this is the case seems absurd, since we don’t actually know how consciousness arises, although neuroscientists are working on it.

The fact that people are working on things proves absolutely nothing about the nature of consciousness…

For you to say “Consciousness can’t be physical!” is the same species of claim as PRMerger’s “Atheists can’t be martyrs for charity!” in that you are both stating unequivocally that you have already proven a negative.

For you to say “Consciousness can’t be non-physical!” is the same as stating unequivocally that you have already proved a double negative!

The fact remains that a **mechanistic **explanation of reality leads inexorably to the conclusion that we are impotent cogs in a machine unaware of our existence and helpless spectators of our own choices and decisions, utterly powerless to alter the course of events or control our thoughts or feelings. To think otherwise is to reject the principle of (physical) causality

.Obviously if one doesn’t believe in the soul on the ground that persons are biological machines there is no reason to believe there is a “self”. **What would it consist of? **Molecules? Electrical impulses?

**How can a living organism act contra-causally?

**It is incomparably more reasonable and economical to believe consciousness has always existed because it is an essential condition of rational existence. To opt for the irrational is to undermine all one’s conclusions. Absurdity gets no one anywhere…

 

[AlanFromWichita]

If Jesus picks and choses who can be His friend, then I guess people like me are the unchosen

Sorry to prove you wrong, Sarah, but He told me He has a wonderful wing to His mansion with your name on it!

Alan

 

[atheistgirl]

Sorry to prove you wrong, Sarah, but He told me He has a wonderful wing to His mansion with your name on it!

Alan

Who am I to argue with that.



Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

That’s very interesting.

Could it be argued from the above, that Jesus didn’t lay down His life for everyone, out of Love, but only His friends?

To be His friend, you have to do what He commands. If you don’t, you’re not His friend.

So Jesus didn’t die for all mankind, out of Love, He died for His friends, those that did what He commanded them to do.

That, Sarah, is exactly the point I was going to make in response to inocente’s post.

Thank you for doing this for me.

Without the Church to act as the lens through which we interpret the Scriptures, it could very much be interpreted that Jesus died only for his friends. Only for a few.

That would be the logical position from what inocente is trying to argue.

Fortunately, the Catholic answer to your question above is No, Jesus died for all. Even atheists.

 

[atheistgirl]

Without the Church to act as the lens through which we interpret the Scriptures, it could very much be interpreted that Jesus died only for his friends. Only for a few.

That would be the logical position from what inocente is trying to argue.

Fortunately, the Catholic answer to your question above is No, Jesus died for all. Even atheists.

I’m not so sure.

We know what happens to people who are not Jesus’ friends Damnation

Jesus defines what the greatest Love is, to die for your friends. Jesus defines what a friend is, someone who does what Jesus commands.

By Jesus’ own definition, I’m not His friend so while it can be argued He died for everyone, including me, as the Church does, it can also be argued it wasn’t out of love for me, because I’m not His friend (by His own definition).

So, He may have died for me, but He didn’t die out of the greatest love anyone could express for me.

Now, if it’s true that a precondition of getting into heaven, is loving God above all else, then I’m not getting into heaven on that criteria either. We know what happens those that don’t love God and are not friends of Jesus

So it could be very easily argued that Jesus did indeed only die for a few, because His death has no effect for those that don’t meet the preset criteria of benefiting from it.

Sarah x

 

[AlanFromWichita]

By Jesus’ own definition, I’m not His friend so while it can be argued He died for everyone, including me, as the Church does, it can also be argued it wasn’t out of love for me, because I’m not His friend (by His own definition).

First let’s get past this “commands” stuff. I think we need to consider that Jesus was trying to get us to a (non-dualistic) state of mind He called “the kingdom,” while we are on earth. He came here to help us learn to think. By giving us challenges and seeming contradictions to spread our minds. The doctrine and dogma is but a small fraction. It really boils down to love. And if you have selfless love – then as far as I’m concerned you are following Christ’s commands … doesn’t mean you go to Church and stand, sit, kneel. That’s for those who are currently active members.

Mark 9:38-41
John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us.” Jesus replied, “Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me. For whoever is not against us is for us. Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward.

How do you give a drink in Jesus’s name? One is by thinking, “Jesus would have me do this.” Another is to have a desire for the other to be happy. Doesn’t matter if they know you helped them. Blind charity is good, but so is non-blind charity. Sometimes the latter is more humbling for both parties even.

I just planted a suggestion in your memory of thinking “Jesus would have me do this,” every time you do something with the hopes another person will benefit.

See, I was atheist once before, and I’ve had kids atheist in past and one present. It isn’t about trying to convince them; it’s about showing them the way of life compatible with the blessings Jesus brought about. Who knows but the taste-and-see thing will work? In my experience I haven’t ever gotten anybody to consider Jesus by winning an argument. I like the stealth approach. Listen first, then reply in pleasant form. It’s better than vinegar.

So, He may have died for me, but He didn’t die out of the greatest love anyone could express for me.

As far as that goes, the important part is that you are in His story. He makes a big deal out of speaking against quantitative comparisons, like “last, first” and “greatest, least,” so all you need to be is in the mystical Body of Christ, and you can choose not to look at it that way. But the Church is in charge of everything mystical since you don’t claim it.

Now, if it’s true that a precondition of getting into heaven, is loving God above all else, then I’m not getting into heaven on that criteria either. We know what happens those that don’t love God and are not friends of Jesus

Sigh. Let not your heart be troubled. Preconditions are highly overrated. For one thing, they make God into a cheap and grouchy Santa Claws; for another, they imply God is constrained to a certain sequence of events. Time is just a human thing so God can decide to fix you tomorrow, make it retroactive to yesterday, and you may not even realize it for another month. Not saying that’s precisely how it will go, but it’s one possibility.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not so sure.

We know what happens to people who are not Jesus’ friends Damnation

Perhaps this description of “damanation” will assist you in understanding why, even if Jesus died for all–even atheists–you would be damned.

Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft puts it this way: "The fires of hell maybe made of the very love of God, experienced as torture by those who hate him: the very light of God’s truth, hated and fled from in vain by those who love darkness. Imagine a man in hell—no, a ghost—endlessly chasing his own shadow, as the light of God shines endlessly behind him. If he would only turn and face the light, he would be saved. But he refuses to—forever." (bold mine)

So while it’s true Jesus died for all, even atheists, it is because you find his love so odious, that you will be damned.

As CS Lewis says, paraphrasing, hell is locked from the inside.

Now, you can proffer that you don’t see any evidence of God’s love, and that is another argument.

Here we are only discussing how Jesus could have died for you but you end up damned.

 

[atheistgirl]

I just planted a suggestion in your memory of thinking “Jesus would have me do this,” every time you do something with the hopes another person will benefit.

And I’m resisting this really weird desire to pm you my bank details and passwords :hypno::hypno::hypno:



Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

Afraid I don’t see them as parallel. Belief isn’t necessary for either person to discuss the propositions that the other is offering

TS, think of it this way–as if Sarah and I were having a discussion about the evidence for God’s existence. (We’re reversing roles a bit here in this hypothetical–I have been asked to provide evidence for God’s existence, she doubts.) You cannot tell her, “Sarah, for the sake of discussion, certain propositions are granted the status of being provisionally true so that discussion can continue. That is, you have to accept God’s existence.”

Why can’t you?

Because that is the premise we’re trying to establish.

Similarly, we are having a discussion about the existence of this Phantom Atheistic Kolbe. You cannot tell me that I have to accept the PAK’s existence so that dialogue can continue.

That is the premise we’re trying to establish.

If we were having a different discussion, say, on whether the PAK would die for a Catholic, then, of course, I would grant, provisionally, that the PAK exists for the sake of that discussion.

Sarah has done that very thing, provisionally granting that God exists, in our dialogue above about damnation. She doesn’t have to premise all of her posts with, “Even though I don’t believe God exists, if he did, how could etc etc etc.” She grants his existence for the sake of the discussion. And I grant that I understand that she is not admitting at all to God’s existence. That’s how it works when atheists and Believers dialogue.

And I would bet my post count that Sarah will not back away with, “Well, I don’t believe in God anyway, so it’s irrelevant whether he damns atheists, friends or enemies.” She’s too noble to use that crutch!

 

[PRmerger]

You’ll see that substituting brother or stranger for friend doesn’t work, the scripture would no longer make sense

Inocente, I wasn’t proposing that we substitute* brother *or stranger for friend.

I was merely stating that the logical conclusion of your proposition is that dying for a brother is greater than dying for a friend.

Mathematically, it looks like this:

animal < stranger < friend < brother

Where does that logic fall short?

 

[atheistgirl]

And I would bet my post count that Sarah will not back away with, “Well, I don’t believe in God anyway, so it’s irrelevant whether he damns atheists, friends or enemies.” She’s too noble to use that crutch!

This entire conversation is a waste of time!

I don’t believe in God anyway, so it’s irrelevant whether he damns atheists, friends or enemies.

Oh C’mon!!!

You left that door wide open - what was I supposed to do

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft puts it this way: "The fires of hell maybe made of the very love of God, experienced as torture by those who hate him: the very light of God’s truth, hated and fled from in vain by those who love darkness…

Do you really think there is anyone, anywhere, who, given the choice, with the certain knowledge and proofs of God and Heaven’s existence, would freely chose to reject them and chose come kind of eternal torture whatever form that may be, instead?

I don’t think so.

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

This entire conversation is a waste of time!

I don’t believe in God anyway, so it’s irrelevant whether he damns atheists, friends or enemies.

Oh C’mon!!!

You left that door wide open - what was I supposed to do

Sarah x

Heh.

I read the first line and thought, “Seriously?”

You got me there, Sarah. I am usually not that gullible.