Is Christian faith necessary for Selfless Love?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sair
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
Obviously the latter is more noble, as we fancy it, but I think your comparison misses the mark. The difference you’re actually addressing is that between the person who would jump into the ocean to save their child, even knowing they couldn’t swim, but entertaining the hope that they could work around that; and the person who did the same thing, saved the child and then deliberately hung around in the water until they drowned themselves. Why is knowingly ending one’s own life in the act of saving another declared to be a more loving act that merely risking one’s life (after all, technically, according to the storyline, Jesus didn’t even rise to the former challenge…)? More courageous, probably - but I can definitely see where deliberate self-destructiveness might well be a manifestation of emotions other than love. It’s been observed that suicidally-minded people, having once made the decision as to when and how they will end their lives, exhibit quite extraordinary calm, or even euphoria. I don’t think this has anything to do with love.
 
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.
Group attachments and out-group suspicion are natural and commonplace human characteristics. On the other hand, one of the problems, indeed, of irrational and supernaturally-based definitions of what constitutes human well-being is that it leads to people acting in ways that are objectively and obviously harmful, even towards those who naturally form their own ‘in-group’, all the while thinking they are acting in the best interests of the person affected. I’m sure that the perpetrators of the Inquisition and those who enacted (and who still, occasionally, enact) “exorcisms” thought they were acting out of love for their victims, as, no doubt, did those who inflicted - and still inflict - injuries such as foot-binding and genital mutilation upon their children for religious and cultural reasons.

Now, it is almost always asserted, in response to such claims, that worse atrocities have been committed “in the name of” atheism, or at least by people who don’t believe in traditional religious notions. No-one denies that the regimes of Hitler and Stalin destroyed countless lives. But even these artificially-exalted leaders themselves never claimed that their murderous actions were committed out of love for those they cut down. If we want examples of people acting “unnaturally”, they are to be found in those who commit hateful and harmful acts against others and still sleep soundly with a clear conscience because they believe they are acting out of “love”.
 
Then why do many people behave unnaturally? Do they want to feel bad? 😉
Physical and psychological abuse, and also religious indoctrination (I’ll leave it to others to pronounce on whether this consititutes deliberate abuse or otherwise) have been known to interfere with the natural functioning of human empathy. Just saying…
 
Why do we compare whether one act or another is more noble?

That’s just more and more divisive, icky, dualistic thinking taking charge again.

“Who is greatest in the kingdom?”

First shall be last, vice versa. The least will be greatest, etc. Jesus tried and tried to keep us from making the “my faith is bigger than yours” comparisons. True or false?

An act is selfless love or not without being compared to another. It is always an act done in the here and now, depending on the situation.

“I risked my life, but you only risked your left leg so who’s more noble?”

Reminds me of the robot in “I Robot” that saves the man instead of the girl because of the calculated odds of success were higher. And the star of that show hated it for doing so. Personally I think he should have been happy to be saved, and could mourn the girl – without having to be so bitter. If the robot weren’t there they’d both be dead so he wouldn’t have to worry about it. (This is one weakness I saw in the character.)

Alan
 
I’m sure that the perpetrators of the Inquisition and those who enacted (and who still, occasionally, enact) “exorcisms” thought they were acting out of love for their victims,
I’m reminded of the dreadfully sad and horrific case of Anneliese Michel.

I have no doubt all concerned, except the doctors treating her who did not want her medical treatment to stop, believed they were acting out of genuine love and concern for the young woman.

Her death certificate stated she died from malnutrition and dehydration.

Yet the state sentenced the priests concerned to three months in prison, suspended, for homocide caused by negligence.

Thankfully, our understanding of the mind, and mental illness, will hopefully mean women like Anneliese will never be subjected to such horrific treatment, out of ‘love’, again.

Sarah x 🙂
 
I’m reminded of the dreadfully sad and horrific case of Anneliese Michel.

I have no doubt all concerned, except the doctors treating her who did not want her medical treatment to stop, believed they were acting out of genuine love and concern for the young woman.

Her death certificate stated she died from malnutrition and dehydration.

Yet the state sentenced the priests concerned to three months in prison, suspended, for homocide caused by negligence.

Thankfully, our understanding of the mind, and mental illness, will hopefully mean women like Anneliese will never be subjected to such horrific treatment, out of ‘love’, again.

Sarah x 🙂
I never heard of the case before, but what I just read sounds pretty bad. For me it sounds like the parents were even stupider than the priests for going along with it. Even if Father A. personally came and danced the Flamingo on my kitchen table, I wouldn’t let my child be treated that way. 😦

Alan
 
😃

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.
I’ll try to put this as simply as possible, since it doesn’t seem to have made much of an impression thus far.

I don’t hold a belief in any particular individual who both lacks belief in gods and who gave their life that someone else might live.

All that I have stated is that I don’t believe this to be impossible. Given the demonstrated breadth of possible human motivations and the manifest imperfection of human records, it’s hardly unreasonable to suppose that somewhere, at some time, there might have been a non-Christian who gave her life in place of another person.

Now, it’s often claimed by religious believers (albeit indirectly through the vehement declaration, “You cannot know that god doesn’t exist!!!”) that somewhere, somehow, at some unexamined corner of the universe (or “outside” it, whatever that might mean), a god might exist - because of course we don’t - and probably can’t - know everything there is to know about such a vast and complex system. It’s possible that somewhere out there is a god hiding behind a cosmic cloud. But it’s fair to observe that if this is the only avenue by which to entertain the possibility of your god as something more than a literary creation and cultural construct, then he’s pretty ineffectual, as imagined gods go. As Laplace is supposed to have said to Napoleon, “I have no need of that hypothesis.”

Similarly, I have no need of the hypothesis that there has actually been an atheist martyr for charity. People’s actions tend to reflect their own personal beliefs and experiences, rather than the efficacy of their particular religious tradition - the latter might be a facet of their personality, but not the whole of it - as is clearly shown by the fact that there are Christians who have not risen to the challenge of the “high dive”, as you’ve put it. Even if we could know that there has absolutely never been an atheist who knowingly and deliberately gave her life for another person - and for reasons stated previously, I don’t think we’re in a position to know this - it would not negate the possibility that there might be such a person at some point in the future. We have time to speculate.

But your purportedly ‘timeless’ god either exists or doesn’t. And by contrast, your declared perspective upon the world (based on this thread) absolutely requires that you commit to belief in your god’s existence, and also to the impossibility of an atheist martyr for charity - neither of which position is demonstrable, let alone provable. The fact that you seem unable even to entertain speculation upon the latter is telling.
 
But …

Is “selfless love” necessary for Christian faith?

If SL is required for CF, and vice-versa, then they are equivalent. But that’s not the case. Christians doing selfless acts of love is a subset of all the selfless acts of love that are done. Christians who do not do selfless acts of love have no been tested or demonstrated by their works.

Thus far I haven’t even bothered looking up the PAK or whatever the hell it is – I’ve watched non-believers put themselves at a disadvantage for the sake of others (and out of concern, not for show) so I don’t need to refer to some third-party for my own evidence.

Alan
 
Why do we compare whether one act or another is more noble?

That’s just more and more divisive, icky, dualistic thinking taking charge again.

“Who is greatest in the kingdom?”

First shall be last, vice versa. The least will be greatest, etc. Jesus tried and tried to keep us from making the “my faith is bigger than yours” comparisons. True or false?

An act is selfless love or not without being compared to another. It is always an act done in the here and now, depending on the situation.

“I risked my life, but you only risked your left leg so who’s more noble?”

Reminds me of the robot in “I Robot” that saves the man instead of the girl because of the calculated odds of success were higher. And the star of that show hated it for doing so. Personally I think he should have been happy to be saved, and could mourn the girl – without having to be so bitter. If the robot weren’t there they’d both be dead so he wouldn’t have to worry about it. (This is one weakness I saw in the character.)

Alan
People have different capabilities, obviously. I suppose I could draw some kind of analogy with the observation Jesus makes in one of the gospels (I forget which one, or it might even be more than one) of the woman giving a small amount of money to the temple coffers, yet really giving “more” than the rich men who parted with much larger amounts of money, because the few coins she gave were all she had.

You’re quite right, I believe, in saying that actions are situation-dependent. That situation includes the state of mind of the person acting at the time. I mean, would any genuinely charitable person say to another who had just risked themselves to save a life, “Oh, I’m sorry - I can’t respect you because you didn’t intend to die trying”?
 
Another interesting question that arises from a general consideration of this subject is whether or not there is anyone who would genuinely want another person to die for them.

On one level, it’s easy to suppose that there would be considerable relief at being spared a horrible fate - but if you, in turn, value the life of the person who has sacrificed for you, what longer-term effects would this sacrifice have upon you?

Obviously this is one of those questions that can only be fairly superficially examined unless one has actually experienced the circumstances involved; but I can’t help thinking that if someone willingly gave their life for me, the burden of guilt, for one thing, would be very hard to bear. Am I worth it? The sacrifice of a life for a life implies a lot - anything short of perfection (and who doesn’t fall short pretty much all of the time?) would be amplified to a failure, all the more onerous because it would be a failure of the faith your benefactor placed in you, a faith so great they were willing to give their life for it. Such, I think, is the core of what is known as “Catholic guilt” - but even that is alleviated by the belief that Jesus came back to life three days after his crucifixion.
 
Group attachments and out-group suspicion are natural and commonplace human characteristics.
Certainly. I probably should have stated this, but I can’t think of behaviors that humans have that would not be driven b natural impulses and motivations. So I had casted “unnatural” as possibly being intended to express behavior harmful to others.
I’ll try to put this as simply as possible, since it doesn’t seem to have made much of an impression thus far.

I don’t hold a belief in any particular individual who both lacks belief in gods and who gave their life that someone else might live.

All that I have stated is that I don’t believe this to be impossible. …]
That sounds fairly compatible with an explanation that I provided several pages back.
PRmerger;9403685:
What about this one: based on the evidence, I believe that God *might *
exist.

Is that a statement of faith, TS?

It’s an expression of a possible conclusion or a thought being entertained or isn’t being ruled out as impossible. The personal pronoun and the verb that follows it tells that it is a consideration in the mind of the person making the speaker. It could be exchange with the phrase “I think” and express the same meaning.
 
Another interesting question that arises from a general consideration of this subject is whether or not there is anyone who would genuinely want another person to die for them.
Going back to the armed services angle of it, I totally appreciate these guys die for my freedoms. I don’t want them to die, but I would rather they willingly die, doing what they believe in doing and knowing that without their doing it there would be no freedoms, then for me and everyone else to lose what previous generations fought and died to get for us.

But I just thought of another angle, I’ll call it a “mystical” angle.

Back to giving people a part of our lives, I appreciate it when somebody stops to say hello and chat for a minute when they really don’t have to. Or trusts their feelings with me by telling me a personal story. I love it when people give me a minute of their time. Whether it is their last minute or not, it’s still a part of themselves.

When we are told to give the tunic as well, or to walk a second mile, Jesus is clearly talking about giving somebody much more than what we “owe” them, as a spiritual exercise. (It isn’t that God’s up there counting beans.)

Like if a person asks for something, and you give it to them, it may not be selfless. If you don’t give it, you might go around all day feeling like you avoided what you should have done. But if you go “over the top” then as long as you’re not just feeding ego, you are making a FREE WILL decision to give something of yourself.

If it is a young person, and they pay attention to me, and even believe in me, whether in person or on chat, I feel lucky they have given some of their “fresh new” lives to this old one. Makes me feel important on this planet. A young person listening to me tell them about the “old days” is qualitatively dying for me. I try to make it up to them by being interesting enough to be worth their time – but it is just a mutual favor not quid pro quo. Ideally. And that’s what I’m about – ideally what is possible, and how do we get there?
On one level, it’s easy to suppose that there would be considerable relief at being spared a horrible fate - but if you, in turn, value the life of the person who has sacrificed for you, what longer-term effects would this sacrifice have upon you?
Great point. I think it can be devastating, depending on where you are spiritually and of course the specifics.
Obviously this is one of those questions that can only be fairly superficially examined unless one has actually experienced the circumstances involved; but I can’t help thinking that if someone willingly gave their life for me, the burden of guilt, for one thing, would be very hard to bear. Am I worth it? The sacrifice of a life for a life implies a lot - anything short of perfection (and who doesn’t fall short pretty much all of the time?) would be amplified to a failure, all the more onerous because it would be a failure of the faith your benefactor placed in you, a faith so great they were willing to give their life for it. Such, I think, is the core of what is known as “Catholic guilt” - but even that is alleviated by the belief that Jesus came back to life three days after his crucifixion.
I’ve heard quite a few times, “YOU did that to Jesus. YOU put Him on the cross by YOUR sins.” Or, “if you disobey your mother and refuse to eat your Brussels Sprouts, then YOU have just hammered in one more nail!!” It’s maddening. I could cut out the tongues of people who use that guilt/blame/shame garbage on innocent children especially. People get messed up their whole lives over that.

If someone dies for me, I’d spend a part of my life honoring them by doing something they would want done. By keeping in touch with the survivors and helping them however I can. By giving to others of myself, in like fashion and in memory of, the lost one. Lighting candles. Having Masses said. Playing music and dedicating it to them. By writing that letter to the editor the other person always thought about writing.

Alan
 
I never heard of the case before, but what I just read sounds pretty bad. For me it sounds like the parents were even stupider than the priests for going along with it.
True, but can you imagine the fear of the parents, let to believe their daughter was possessed of the devil. It must have been utterly terrifying, and they turned to the only place they could, the Church, for guidance.
Even if Father A. personally came and danced the Flamingo on my kitchen table, I wouldn’t let my child be treated that way. 😦
Good.

And I sincerely hope this never happens to your child, or any other.

But I do think given how much more we understand about the mind and it’s workings, it’s not likely to.

Sarah x 🙂
 
I don’t hold a belief in any particular individual who both lacks belief in gods and who gave their life that someone else might live.
That’s what I believe, too. 👍

He doesn’t exist.
All that I have stated is that I don’t believe this to be impossible. Given the demonstrated breadth of possible human motivations and the manifest imperfection of human records, it’s hardly unreasonable to suppose that somewhere, at some time, there might have been a non-Christian who gave her life in place of another person.
And here’s where you go with the faith part.

You’re proposing that someone might exist, but when pressed for evidence for this existence, all that can be offered is evidence for a Phantom.
Now, it’s often claimed by religious believers (albeit indirectly through the vehement declaration, “You cannot know that god doesn’t exist!!!”) that somewhere, somehow, at some unexamined corner of the universe (or “outside” it, whatever that might mean), a god might exist - because of course we don’t - and probably can’t - know everything there is to know about such a vast and complex system. It’s possible that somewhere out there is a god hiding behind a cosmic cloud.
Yep. :yup:

So I don’t see why you’re a pro-PAK believer but an anti-God believer, when it’s the very same ideology you’re using to come to these conclusions.
But it’s fair to observe that if this is the only avenue by which to entertain the possibility of your god as something more than a literary creation and cultural construct, then he’s pretty ineffectual, as imagined gods go. As Laplace is supposed to have said to Napoleon, “I have no need of that hypothesis.”
This is a non-sequitur, Sair.
Similarly, I have no need of the hypothesis that there has actually been an atheist martyr for charity.
And yet you started an entire thread on this issue, when it was proposed to you in another thread and you couldn’t answer it on your own. :hmmm:

That’s fine, of course. I have done that meself. 🙂

However, the fact that you started a thread really does belie your statement that you really don’t care whether there’s been an atheist martyr for charity.
Even if we could know that there has absolutely never been an atheist who knowingly and deliberately gave her life for another person - and for reasons stated previously, I don’t think we’re in a position to know this - it would not negate the possibility that there might be such a person at some point in the future.
😃

I suppose, since we can’t know for certain, perhaps in some unexplored corner of the universe a flying spaghetti monster exists as well.

You can hold out hope that the PAK will make his appearance someday soon.
We have time to speculate.
Indeed.

No one is proposing that we can’t speculate.
But your purportedly ‘timeless’ god either exists or doesn’t.
True.

Either/or in this case.
And by contrast, your declared perspective upon the world (based on this thread) absolutely requires that you commit to belief in your god’s existence, and also to the impossibility of an atheist martyr for charity
Actually, no. I have not absolutely declared the impossibility of the PAK.

I said that if he exists, I would like proof.

And I am going to use nothing more and nothing less than proof that is demanded by atheists.

But, sadly, you will not be allowed to proffer eye-witness accounts, because you have declared them to be invalid.

So only first-person narratives of a PAK’s existence will be considred.
 
For you. :rolleyes:

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. :rolleyes:
And I asked for evidence of their atheism.

And how we know that it’s not a myth. I think there may be a pagan myth, centuries old, about a woman who gave up her life for another. I dunno.

And, like your conjecture about Kolbe’s “medical condition”, I’d like some proof that they didn’t have an underlying medical condition as well.
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.
If you want to change the definition of agape to being “self-sacrifice” I was willing to meet you there. 🤷
 
Obviously the latter is more noble, as we fancy it, but I think your comparison misses the mark.
It was simply a comparison that refuted your scorn regarding people tending “to value direct sacrifice more highly than indirect sacrifice.”

It simply shows why some people might value direct sacrifice over indirect sacrifice.
The difference you’re actually addressing is that between the person who would jump into the ocean to save their child, even knowing they couldn’t swim, but entertaining the hope that they could work around that; and the person who did the same thing, saved the child and then deliberately hung around in the water until they drowned themselves. Why is knowingly ending one’s own life in the act of saving another declared to be a more loving act that merely risking one’s life
I don’t think anyone here has proposed that Christian sought to hang “around the water until they drowned themselves.” :whacky:
(after all, technically, according to the storyline, Jesus didn’t even rise to the former challenge…)?
Careful, Sair. You are getting close to being quite contemptuous of the only act that ever really mattered. So be careful about disrespecting this One Act on a Catholic forum.
More courageous, probably - but I can definitely see where deliberate self-destructiveness might well be a manifestation of emotions other than love. It’s been observed that suicidally-minded people, having once made the decision as to when and how they will end their lives, exhibit quite extraordinary calm, or even euphoria. I don’t think this has anything to do with love.
No, “suicidally-minded people” are not motivated by love, but by pain.
 
Why are we so focused on martyrs?

There are billions of ways to have selfless love, and to perform acts of selfless love.

When I let a person go ahead of me in line, I have taken away from my life so that another might go forward with theirs. When a woman chooses to have a baby, she gives of her life and risks it all, for someone she hasn’t even seen yet.

Does anybody share my belief that having and showing “selfless love” do NOT imply martyrdom?

And what about atheists who were killed by Christians for not believing in God? Do they get martyr status?

It blows me away that anybody can think that true love can only accompany a conscious, professed belief in Jesus. That means that the Virgin Mary did not have selfless love at the time of the annunciation. That means Abraham didn’t truly love his son – maybe that’s why he didn’t mind cutting off his head? Besides, Jesus said, “no greater love,” He didn’t say, “this is the only way to love unselfishly.”

Now we return you to: “my martyr’s better than your martyr.” 👍
In short, is it necessary to believe in Christ in order to act in a truly altruistic manner?
No.
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?
For Christians, especially in their first half of spiritual life, there is no easy way to tease out mixed motivations. If the person is truly motivated by heaven/hell, then one cannot say it is “selfless.” The belief in heaven/hell doesn’t prevent selflessness – just makes it harder to recognize or isolate it.
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?
It doesn’t gain benefit in terms of making God happy. God’s happy that the act was done. It only loses benefit in the sense that one might be doing a spiritual exercise in this manner such as focusing on one’s own pride. If I give the dog lady five bucks because I want to feel good about myself but also because I want her to have it, then I have to become spiritually sound enough neither to go nuts worrying about it or to become smug about it.

Alan
 
Does anybody share my belief that having and showing “selfless love” do NOT imply martyrdom?
Yep.
Now we return you to: “my martyr’s better than your martyr.” 👍
Not here 😃

Prudent use of the ignore feature now means the interesting posts are finally getting through all the derailing agendas 😃

Sarah x 🙂
 
If I give the dog lady five bucks because I want to feel good about myself but also because I want her to have it, then I have to become spiritually sound enough neither to go nuts worrying about it or to become smug about it.

Alan
I first thought you were refering to giving the lady that walks your dogs 5 bucks :confused: and thought were the heck do you live that you get your dogs walked for 5 bucks :confused: 😃

Because we have human empathy, it’s inevitable we will feel better in ourselves to some degree or other and good about ourselves to some degree or other, when we alleviate someones pain or suffering. It’s our empathy with them at helps motivate us to do something in the first place, and when their lot is improved, it’s natural we too will feel better for them and better about ourselves as a result.

I don’t know, but I would imagine that having a spiritual dimension to this would not preclude a person from still feeling good in themselves about what they have done.

I don’t think a spiritual dimension would over ride our human empathy would it? Rather it would surely enhance it and amplify it?

Sarah x 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top