Is Christian faith necessary for Selfless Love?

[inocente]

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.

Is dog lady what cat woman becomes at a certain age?

Of course, it’s possible five bucks isn’t the thing to do if she’s an alcoholic. Maybe better to buy her food and keep her company while she eats it. Depends on her needs and ours. An interesting thing about the Good Samaritan, the model of mercy, is how practical he is - he does everything that needs to be done, and having done his best then gets on with his own life.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Is dog lady what cat woman becomes at a certain age?

Sorry about the dog lady reference. I thought I had mentioned her before, but sometimes I get my threads confused. :whacky:

There is a homeless woman who had a small dog and who would sit among other places, on the sidewalk of convenience stores. It could be 100 degrees out, or 10 degrees out. She wouldn’t block the door or address anyone or even make eye contact unless you made it first, but she would take donations. She wears a crucifix, and is always ready to smile and have a conversation. A few days ago I saw her without her dog; turns out the dog died a couple months ago.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

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

I do! I do!

 

[atheistgirl]

A few days ago I saw her without her dog; turns out the dog died a couple months ago.

That is just so sad

He was possibly her best friend in the whole world

We sometimes fail to recognize the love and strength we can gain from our animal friends. And the bond between dog and owner can be as profound as between any two human hearts. A British soldier and his dog Theo: together they saved countless lives by sniffing out and uncovering bombs, and when the soldier was killed, his dog died of a seizure, but some said it was induced by broken heart

foxnews.com/world/2011/03/10/uk-army-dog-died-broken-heart-1606316739/

Comment from a vet on the case:

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterwedderburn/100078527/can-a-dog-die-of-a-broken-heart/

Interesting reading.

Sarah x

 

[Sair]

That’s what I believe, too.

He doesn’t exist.

See below…

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.

Different, but as I’ve already explained why, I’ll keep it brief here - humans exist, evidently; we have no reference point for bodiless, brainless, immaterial minds that interact with nature.

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.

Interest does not denote dependence…

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.

Actually, my statement was that I don’t need the hypothesis to sustain my lack of belief in a personal god, but we’ll let that slide, since it seems to have been ignored anyway.

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

Quite possibly. Since that’s the same level of evidence we have for your god, why aren’t you a Pastafarian as well?

Actually, no. I have not absolutely declared the impossibility of the PAK.

You have, in point of fact - you stated unequivocally, in at least a couple of posts, that it absolutely requires Christian faith in order to undertake the kind of action exhibited by Kolbe.

 

[PRmerger]

You have, in point of fact - you stated unequivocally, in at least a couple of posts, that it absolutely requires Christian faith in order to undertake the kind of action exhibited by Kolbe.

And I’ve also stated that I will consider the evidence for the existence of the PAK (although not eyewitness accounts, of course, as you have stated that they are notoriously unreliable.)

 

[PRmerger]

Different, but as I’ve already explained why, I’ll keep it brief here - humans exist, evidently;

And yet you have no evidence for this Phantom…

we have no reference point for bodiless, brainless, immaterial minds that interact with nature.

Do you believe Jesus was bodiless, brainless, and immaterial?

(Remember, you proclaimed that you don’t even believe, astonishingly, that a historical Jesus existed.)

Interest does not denote dependence…

I agree!

Quite possibly. Since that’s the same level of evidence we have for your god, why aren’t you a Pastafarian as well?

Because I have used my faith and reason to determine that Christianity is true.

Why don’t you believe in the existence of the flying spaghetti monster? Why aren’t you proclaiming the possibility that he might exist?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Ah, yes, I knew I had read something about a pagan goddess whose story could be a parallel to this heroic atheist lady (provided she really was an atheist–something I have not yet been given any evidence for.)

According to legend, the Egyptian goddess Nephthys “was thought to protect women in childbirth (with the assistance of her sister, Isis). Thus she was closely associated with both death and life.”

So perhaps this story about this atheistic hero is someone misunderstanding what really happened because she was familiar with this ancient pagan myth?

(NB: I mean no disrespect to the memory of this heroic lady, nor to her family. I am simply proposing an argument that has been proffered by atheists regarding someone dearly beloved to Christians (that is, perhaps Jesus is merely a myth). So if it’s ok for atheists to proffer that argument to Christians, it’s certainly not disrespectful for Christians to do the same for “atheist” heroes)

 

[Sair]

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?

This thread was originally conceived as a response to the claim made on another thread that no atheist ever had nor - and this was the clincher - ever could behave in the way Max Kolbe is reported to have behaved in Auschwitz. This certainly appears to have predisposed the discussion in the direction of martyrdom.

Christopher Hitchens often remarked in debates that there was no conceivable ethical action that could be performed by a religious believer that was impossible to imagine an unbeliever performing. Selflessness, as such, is certainly not restricted to those who have religious faith. And you’re quite right that whenever one gives of themselves, without thought for their own benefit, then if love is to be considered manifest in the desire for the well-being of another, this is certainly an act of selfless love. Not being martyred also means that you have the opportunity to continue to demonstrate love!

I will add that I still find it problematic to consider love to be selfless, but the discussion of this may warrant a significantly longer post, so I might leave off for now and see if the discussion tends that way.

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

An atheist “martyr for reason”! I would be surprised if the Richard Dawkins Foundation or any of the growing number of atheist/sceptical/rationalist organisations did not afford some recognition to those who can be identified as having been murdered for their lack of belief in gods - it’s still happening in the Middle East, of course, but Muslim theocracies don’t restrict their animosity to atheists.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I will add that I still find it problematic to consider love to be selfless, but the discussion of this may warrant a significantly longer post, so I might leave off for now and see if the discussion tends that way.

Well, when you think about it, if there is causality based on some instinct or built-in process of attraction or something, then it still may not be selfless. It may be subconscious. I hope I didn’t throw things too far out … I got mixed up with some of that fancy stuff and skipped a bit.

Alan

 

[atheistgirl]

You have, in point of fact - you stated unequivocally, in at least a couple of posts, that** it absolutely requires Christian faith **in order to undertake the kind of action exhibited by Kolbe.

A position utterly discredited not just by the truely wonderful atheist women I’ve already referenced, but by Sufi Muslims like Noor Inayat Khan, who’s refusal to reveal any information about her operations or comrades in the face of the Nazis at the risk of her own life saved countless lives. She was executed as a result, after months of questioning in which she revealed nothing.

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

A position utterly discredited not just by the truely wonderful atheist women I’ve already referenced,

Please provide evidence that they were atheists.

but by Sufi Muslims like Noor Inayat Khan, who’s refusal to reveal any information about her operations or comrades in the face of the Nazis at the risk of her own life saved countless lives. She was executed as a result, after months of questioning in which she revealed nothing.

Sarah x

Another heroic person. A patriot, to be sure.

Just not in the same caliber as Kolbe, who volunteered for a horrific death in the stead of a stranger, out of love.

 

[tonyrey]

Christopher Hitchens often remarked in debates that there was no conceivable ethical action that could be performed by a religious believer that was impossible to imagine an unbeliever performing.

He was obviously mistaken - as in many other instances -because an unbeliever wouldn’t die for God. If he chose to die for his lack of faith - which is unlikely - he wouldn’t be motivated by love…

 

[DeepBlueSea]

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

Me too.

Christian faith is not necessary for selfless love.

But, it helps people who are not capable of selfless love (such as me) to learn this virtue, nurture it and practice it. I think christian faith is necessary to sustain selfless love in people who are formerly not capable of selfless love.

I suppose there are people born with the natural tendency and capability of selfless love.

So, the necessity of christian faith for selfless love is conditioned upon the state of insufficiency of a person.

 

[Sair]

He was obviously mistaken - as in many other instances -because an unbeliever wouldn’t die for God. If he chose to die for his lack of faith - which is unlikely - he wouldn’t be motivated by love…

Technically, Kolbe didn’t die for God either, but out of compassion for the man whose place he took, and that man’s dependent family.

To claim that an atheist would not be motivated by love if circumstances required her to die for her lack of faith is a claim that cannot be substantiated. Considering that one of the things that leads some people away from religious faith is a passionate love of truth, and that it requires substantial courage to refuse to pay lip-service to the ruling dogma when faced with death as the alternative, I don’t think it’s legitimate to say that Christian martyrs are motivated by love but that atheist martyrs never could be.

The real question of this thread concerns the nature of motivation and the effects of belief upon behaviour. Essentially, the claim that only Christians can show selfless love is a claim that Christian faith is necessary for compassionate action. I think it’s fair to say this has been shown not to be the case. As regards Kolbe’s behaviour in Auschwitz, one thing he had in common with several other prisoners was Christianity. Yet the others were not all giving up their lives for the sake of others. Therefore it must have been something particular about Kolbe himself, about how his experiences had affected him, that led to his actions. Claiming all the credit for Christian faith is erroneous.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

But, it helps people who are not capable of selfless love (such as me) to learn this virtue, nurture it and practice it. I think christian faith is necessary to sustain selfless love in people who are formerly not capable of selfless love.

Thank you for your reply.

I agree that Christianity, if done right, points beyond itself into true selfless love. But I tend to think we have this function built in when we were babies but then lose it when we are young and are being socialized to be responsible for our actions and to think before we act and to follow rules and expect others to, too and to manipulate and control and exert peer pressure against others who don’t. Pretty soon we are little bundles of ego, blame, and judgment – including blame and judgment of ourselves. So we have to develop something we once had, but pretty much had squashed for us by the age of 8.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

Essentially, the claim that only Christians can show selfless love is a claim that Christian faith is necessary for compassionate action.

Just to be clear, no one is claiming that atheists can’t show selfless love. Only that they can’t do it in the caliber of a Kolbe.

No atheist has jumped off the high dive, metaphorically.

At least, no evidence has been provided for one.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Just to be clear, no one is claiming that atheists can’t show selfless love. Only that they can’t do it in the caliber of a Kolbe.

No atheist has jumped off the high dive, metaphorically.

At least, no evidence has been provided for one.

I’ve never had direct evidence that every human being has a respiratory system, either.

I like it when I get to talk about absolutes. If I’m going to prove a negative I need to.

Alan

 

[atheistgirl]

-because an unbeliever wouldn’t die for God.

And is thus less likely to do certain things, like, strap a suicide vest on, for example, and not only die for God, by Divine command, but kill hundreds of innocent men women and children in the process.

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve never had direct evidence that every human being has a respiratory system, either.

'zactly. Yet you believe every human being has a respiratory system, yes?

Curiously, though, atheists will believe that the PAK exists, without any direct evidence (or, let’s be honest any indirect evidence), but deny the existence of God, using the very same ideology.

Why the difference? I don’t get it.