Is Christian faith necessary for Selfless Love?

[tonyrey]

History is not and has never been an exact science - the closest we can get, especially when it comes to ancient history, is to say that certain events very probably happened, that certain people very probably existed, on the basis of corroborating source materials. The closer we get to the present, the more sources we have, and the more accurate our picture is likely to be. Like mathematical working, the process is just as important as the answer.

Genuine historians don’t evaluate sources solely on the basis of isolated events but assess their credibility on the context in which they occur - both the antecedents and the consequences to which they give rise - which in this case spans more than three thousand years and is the basis of both modern science and civilisation…

 

[atheistgirl]

So, is one demonstration of love to be considered as having greater value than the other? And for what reason?

One is a spur of the moment thing, that could also be a moment of madness to end ones own suffering, mental or physical, or both.

The other is a long term calculated decision to, regardless of the danger, continue to risk one’s life, literally, every moment of day, to improve the lot of one’s fellow man.

I’m not in the business of comparing such acts of bravery and courage and love to a diving competition.

Both exhibit a love for their fellow man that is rare and extrodinary. Assuming of course the person offering their life in the place of another is not mentally ill and is fully aware of what they are doing.

If I had to say which I thought was braver though, if I had to pick one over the other, it is women like Linda that demonstrate the greater love and courage. In my opinion.

Sarah x

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I’m not brave about things like putting myself in harm’s way in a routine basis like those who sacrifice their whole lives in the armed forces, so we may have freedom to practice our religion and speak against the government, etc. I totally honor them, and I’m glad I got to design stuff that could help them go blow up stuff when they were told to. But they are willing and able, so I thank them and support them.

But I think every time we give someone our time and our ear or hand, we are taking of our lives in the here and now, and dedicating it to another. So when Jesus says, “give up your life for your friends,” what about giving 10 minutes you’ll never get back to listen to a lonely old woman in the doctor’s waiting room? What about giving an evening to volunteer at the soup kitchen?

So we all can give part of our lives for others right now. Depending in what you are doing for others, you may or may not be moving your death date earlier. Like industrial accidents, sedentary lifestyle, etc. up through the “big ones” of taking daily death-defying risks.

If I weren’t so self-aware of my own pride, I’d like to think that my posts are gifts I give unselfishly to others.



Alan

 

[inocente]

From Luke:

So not only do you make hazelnut chocolate, you also know the bible. If you’re any good at plowing you’re hired.

*I came across this when I was pondering why there are so many Christian denominations, all claiming to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and all claiming to have the real truth.

I thought it was interesting.

Almost like it’s saying there isn’t just one exclusive group one has to belong to, to do the work of Jesus?*

You quoted Luke 9:49-50, but a bit later in 11:23 there’s the opposite - “Whoever is not with me is against me”.

But on your point, Jesus wasn’t a boot camp sergeant wanting total order and serried ranks, much to the dismay of some. I reckon no two Christians think exactly alike any more than any two atheists. Anyone who believes they are the True Scotsman in possession of the Real Truth[sup]®[/sup] should be put out to grass. But enough of certain other posters.

 

[inocente]

I beg you pardon



I am capable of understanding complex ideas you know

Ok, maybe you’re right but for goodness sake don’t broadcast it all over the internet

 

[inocente]

So you can’t tell me how you know something is inspired or not. Except that you don’t like certain -]verses/-] chapters, so you decide that it’s not inspired.

That’s the essence, inocente, of creating a god in one’s own image.

I guarantee you, friend, that if God exists, that he’s going to proclaim things that you don’t want to hear.

That’s a given.

And if you’ve created this ideology of things that God has said that just happens to converge with your own personal views, then you’re worshipping a god that’s created in your own mind.

I daresay if you cannot proffer any belief that God has declared that you personally have conformed to, then this is what you’ve done: create a god in your own image.

Unless you can proclaim that you’ve conformed your views to God’s, then you ought to re-assess how you identify what’s theopneustos and what’s not.

That’s all, friend.

You’ve admitted you don’t know how the Church decides what you think is “inspired”, you’ve disrespected the Holy Spirit, you don’t appear to know the Holy Spirit or have a clue about CCC 111, and you’ve given a strong impression of never having opened the Bible in your life, down to not even knowing the difference between chapter and verse. You also crossed to an 18-month old thread to resurrect a bizarre obsession with how I read the Bible, and you call me friend but couldn’t even keep your promise to stop making personal remarks for one day.

Yet you, of all people, judge me, and say you know the mind of God.

Bizarre is the word all right.

 

[inocente]

do you have a Catholic friend you could talk to face to face, or are there bible classes at your church?
PRmerger;9405006:

I’ve been trying to figure out what in the world this is supposed to mean. I sense the snark, and I think there was another post you made about my not knowing Bible verses…so I’m guessing it’s another attempt to insult my ability to quote the Bible?

Not sure where that is coming from–except from perhaps a valid observation that lots of Catholics are absolutely clueless about the Bible. So maybe that’s where you’re getting this attempt to be snarky.

But that has as much oomph as if you were trying to make a snide comment about my being fat.

If you look at my pics (which, as a friend you have the ability to see) you will see that any attempt to call me fat would be, well, as ridiculous as any attempt to question my ability to quote the Bible.

That’s never been a problem for me.

Although, perhaps you are right in assuming, since I live in America and there’s lots of fat people here, that I am one of them.

Catholics = unable to quote the Bible
Americans = fat.

Not so much as it applies to me.

Incoherent.

I was trying to help you but your turning it inside out is the last straw, I’m not wasting any more time on you.

I’ve taken you off that silly friends list you wanted long back and my ignore list now has one name on it, yours. I don’t come to CAF to play childish mind games and it’s too nice a life to get dragged into your nightmare world.

 

[teldat]

i really believe that we should follow christ who gave himself to the whole world. this is an act of selfless love. i also think people no matter what religion has capacity to love.

 

[PRmerger]

i really believe that we should follow christ who gave himself to the whole world. this is an act of selfless love. i also think people no matter what religion has capacity to love.

Indeed!

I don’t think anyone–even the most fundamentalist believer–would say that only Christians have the “capacity to love.”

 

[PRmerger]

I’vemade it relatively easy for you - I’ve only asked for plausibility, for some unequivocal evidence. Thus far I can only suppose there isn’t any.

This could be my post!

Exactly my criteria for the PAK. Plausibility. Unequivocal evidence.

And now you can’t use eyewitnesses, sadly. They’re “notoriously unreliable.”

Who is there, then, that fits the example of this atheistic equivalent for Kolbe?

 

[PRmerger]

As regards your standard of proof for other historical (or quasi-historical, as the case may be) figures, that might hold if Pliny the Elder were the figurehead for a religion on which millions of people base their entire worldview, including their ethical judgements. Building a plausible picture of history on the basis of extant sources has comparatively little riding on any guarantee of its veracity, unless, perhaps, you’re looking to get academic tenure. History is not and has never been an exact science - the closest we can get, especially when it comes to ancient history, is to say that certain events very probably happened, that certain people very probably existed, on the basis of corroborating source materials. The closer we get to the present, the more sources we have, and the more accurate our picture is likely to be. Like mathematical working, the process is just as important as the answer.

So it’s not the fact that evidence was written over 50 years after the death of said historical figure to which you’re opposed.

Then why bring it up?

You allow it for one historical figure, but not another one.

That’s curious to me.

 

[PRmerger]

it seems possible that some unbelievers have done likewise - after all, throughout various times in history, both believers and unbelievers have been subject to persecution, and it’s likely we don’t know every individual story involved.

May I use your words, Sair?

Did you not state that you want “some unequivocal evidence”?

And yet here you are proclaiming this PAK’s existence without even a shred of some.

 

[atheistgirl]

In short, is it necessary to believe in Christ in order to act in a truly altruistic manner?

As the discussion so far shows, no, it’s not.

If so, what is it, exactly, that Christianity adds to the mix to motivate selflessness?

When one considers the humanitarians that have died in improving the lot of others, and those of other faiths such as Hannah Szenes, who was captured rescuing Jews and tortured for months by the Nazis before being shot. She revealed no names or information during the torture sessions, and refused a blindfold when she was executed, looking at her nazi executioners straight in the eye, I would say Christianity does not add anything to the mix, and is not required for such acts of selfless love, bravery or courage.

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?

No because at the root of all our selfless acts is human empathy. Without it we would have no morality.

So if identifying with the poor and suffering of this world makes us act, it’s natural when they feel relief of their situation, so do we. This, natually, makes us feel good.

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

No because at the root of all our selfless acts is human empathy. Without it we would have no morality.

So if identifying with the poor and suffering of this world makes us act, it’s natural when they feel relief of their situation, so do we. This, naturally, makes us feel good.

Then why do many people behave unnaturally? Do they want to feel bad?

 

[PRmerger]

As the discussion so far shows, no, it’s not.

Right.

No one has said atheists can be very nice people.

I’ve just asked for someone who’s jumped off the high dive, so to speak, like Kolbe did. And Jesus did.

So far, the evidence has been quite loud and clear:

[SIGN1]Atheists haven’t been up to the task. :nope:[/SIGN1]

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Then why do many people behave unnaturally? Do they want to feel bad?

The strength of the empathy that some have for others varies. Unfortunately through dehuminizing stereotypes anf in group/ out group lines some people have been trained and condition to have stronger or weaker ties to others. There are also some that seem to have a low sense of empathy. Take those with anti-social personality disorder (aka sociopaths) who have an extremely weak sense of empathy.

On the other side some have been trained to have stronger empathy towards some groups, such as those within their own group (political, religious, cultural, nation, gender) which puts those not within the same group at a disadvantage.

 

[PRmerger]

why might it be the case that some people tend to value direct sacrifice more highly than indirect sacrifice? And is this because it involves a greater act of love or a greater act of courage?

Because direct sacrifice is, well, direct.

It’s like sending in a proxy to save your child from drowning rather than jumping in yourself. The former is indirect sacrifice. The latter is direct.

Both ways end up with your child alive.

But which one do you think is better?

 

[atheistgirl]

So far, the evidence has been quite loud and clear:

[SIGN1]Atheists haven’t been up to the task. :nope:[/SIGN1]

For you.

When you’ve been given several women who have sacrificed their lives for the good of others, you compare what they did, and Kolbe, to a diving competition.

You started off by saying no one could show agape in that manner, only a Christian, and have kept moving the markers since as your position was discredited, your latest being the low and high bord competition.

Really?

Perhaps you could let the conversation develop where it will now with others, as it’s very interesting, and stop trying to derail it, in your desperation to claim some sort of exclusivity for an individual who I for one have some suspicions about his motivations, when I consider his physical and mental state and his underlying medical condition.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Then why do many people behave unnaturally? Do they want to feel bad?

I’m not aware that many people do behave unnaturally

I’ve only ever seen humans behaving as humans

Some have high degrees of emapthy, some have lower degrees of empathy.

Were the 167 other priests in Auschwitz some how lacking in empathy when they too did not offer themselves in the place of a family man or woman?

Of course not.

Sarah x

 

[Sair]

I’m not aware that many people do behave unnaturally

I’ve only ever seen humans behaving as humans

Some have high degrees of emapthy, some have lower degrees of empathy.

Were the 167 other priests in Auschwitz some how lacking in empathy when they too did not offer themselves in the place of a family man or woman?

Of course not.

Sarah x

As usual, a spoonful of straightforward common sense (the ‘common’ part is probably a misnomer) cuts through swathes of metaphysical obfuscation