Is Christian faith necessary for Selfless Love?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sair
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tonyrey said:
Only a cynic believes the thought of a personal reward is uppermost - or even present - in a person’s mind when (s)he chooses to die out of selfless love for others.
But such a view is an inevitable conclusion for a hedonist who interprets morality in terms of the pain-pleasure principle. No wonder selfless love is completely out of the question for a person who has consistently and resolutely rejected Christianity…

It is a typical materialist’s ploy to discredit all noble behavior by attributing it “purely” to instinct or other physical causes. It is hardly surprising that consistent materialists are incapable of genuinely selfless love given that they don’t believe it is possible unless they act thoughtlessly! Fortunately the vast majority are not consistent - unlike the small minority who follow the person=ape theory to its logical conclusion…
Click to expand...
Short version: “My beliefs are better than yours!! So there!!” :dts:

:hmmm: Touched a nerve there, methinks…
 
PRmerger said:
NO.

Please re-read this entire thread, Sair, so you can get this right.
Click to expand...
Just when I thought the whole convoluted mess was starting to make some kind of sense.

A backtrack through the thread reveals the following: First you say only a Christian can sacrifice themselves for another person. Then you say people of other faiths and no faith can sacrifice themselves for others, but it’s not selfless love because it’s not based on Christian faith. Then you claim that the important distinction is qualitative, not based on the actual actions of the person involved. Then when I finally attempt to clarify all this, you turn around and say I’ve got it wrong! :banghead:

In what way, exactly, are you not saying, “Only a Christian can consciously imitate Christ”? Because I’m quite happy to concede this, being that it’s your standard of perfection to which no non-Christian can aspire (even with the exact same behaviour), and then we can call the whole thing off.
 
PRmerger said:
Well, except for the “so there!” part, what’s wrong with thinking that?
Click to expand...
Nothing whatsoever. We all think that - but we don’t all shout others down with angry and hyperbolic tirades when we come across arguments we don’t like…
 
I wish to inform everyone that I am always right.

Here’s proof: if I’m ever wrong, I change my mind.

Alan
 
PRmerger said:
NO.

Please re-read this entire thread, Sair, so you can get this right.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think I’ve got it about as right as anyone can, given the apparently rather fluid nature of the parameters.

A quick backtrack through the thread reveals the following series (and I use that word loosely) of claims - Christian faith is necessary to motivate someone to give up their lives out of pure altruism; okay, maybe a non-Christian can do this, but only if they’re suffused with God’s grace already; actually, come to think of it, no, a nonbeliever can’t rise to the occasion because there’s no record of one ever having done so; and even if they did give their lives for a cause or for another person, it’s just not the same as what Kolbe did, because he was jumping off the high dive because it’s obvious (from the fact that he was a Christian and a priest, no less) that he was acting from pure, disinterested love; and the only way anyone can do that is by consciously imitating Christ, because Christ is the ultimate example of selfless love.

Honestly, if this whole argument boils down to the claim that only a Christian can consciously imitate Christ, then I’m quite happy to concede this. Then maybe we can get on with pursuing some more fruitful discussions about the nature of love and belief and motivation.
 
Sair said:
Actually, I think I’ve got it about as right as anyone can, given the apparently rather fluid nature of the parameters.

A quick backtrack through the thread reveals the following series (and I use that word loosely) of claims - Christian faith is necessary to motivate someone to give up their lives out of pure altruism; okay, maybe a non-Christian can do this, but only if they’re suffused with God’s grace already; actually, come to think of it, no, a nonbeliever can’t rise to the occasion because there’s no record of one ever having done so; and even if they did give their lives for a cause or for another person, it’s just not the same as what Kolbe did, because he was jumping off the high dive because it’s obvious (from the fact that he was a Christian and a priest, no less) that he was acting from pure, disinterested love; and the only way anyone can do that is by consciously imitating Christ, because Christ is the ultimate example of selfless love.

Honestly, if this whole argument boils down to the claim that only a Christian can consciously imitate Christ, then I’m quite happy to concede this. Then maybe we can get on with pursuing some more fruitful discussions about the nature of love and belief and motivation.
Click to expand...
Okay. Then I would be happy to concede that an atheist is capable of dying for another person out of sacrificial love, if you could provide evidence for this person.

I would like a name. And what he has done to give up his life for another. And documentation of his atheism. Evidence for all of this, of course, will be required.

You do not begrudge me this, right?

Unfortunately no eyewitness accounts (as they are, you say, “notoriously unreliable”) will be considered.
 
PRmerger said:
Okay. Then I would be happy to concede that an atheist is capable of dying for another person out of sacrificial love, if you could provide evidence for this person.

I would like a name. And what he has done to give up his life for another. And documentation of his atheism. Evidence for all of this, of course, will be required.

You do not begrudge me this, right?

Unfortunately no eyewitness accounts (as they are, you say, “notoriously unreliable”) will be considered.
Click to expand...
It would be easier just to say that atheists are not capable of sacrificial love, and leave it at that. If it’s your heartfelt opinion then nobody can change it. You are just teasing by dangling out the carrot of "I’ll reconsider if there is evidence … " that is inoperable because the way we’re defining our terms, we’ve made PAK an impossibility.

So I say we should all just agree. Nobody did it like Kolbe, whatever “it” is. There. That was easy. 😉

But is this just our opinion, or is it objectively true?

Alan
 
AlanFromWichita said:
It would be easier just to say that atheists are not capable of sacrificial love, and leave it at that. If it’s your heartfelt opinion then nobody can change it. You are just teasing by dangling out the carrot of "I’ll reconsider if there is evidence … " that is inoperable because the way we’re defining our terms, we’ve made PAK an impossibility.

So I say we should all just agree. Nobody did it like Kolbe, whatever “it” is. There. That was easy. 😉

But is this just our opinion, or is it objectively true?

Alan
Click to expand...
🤷

Certainly if “conscious imitation of Christ” is part of the definition of selfless love, then no atheist could be expected to live up to that without compromising their integrity.

Be that as it may, it seems clear that it requires something more than ordinary motivation to prompt people to act directly against their own immediate self-interest. That seems to have been the case for UK animal activist (or “terrorist”, as the media had it at the time) Barry Horne, who starved himself to death in protest against vivisection. Whatever his motivation was, it seems unlikely to have been Christian faith, but it couldn’t be said that he lacked the courage of his convictions.
 
Sair said:
That seems to have been the case for UK animal activist (or “terrorist”, as the media had it at the time) Barry Horne, who starved himself to death in protest against vivisection.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t consider his action as selfless love for the reasons below:
  1. His attempt to rescue animals without proper logistic planning and professional handling might end up injuring the animals. Captive animals if released into the wild with injury are susceptible to infection which in the wild means high prospect of death. He did not seem to exercise judgement of reason and acted outside his limitation.
  2. His rescue mission did not achieve his end goal of saving animals, nor did his action inspire followers, well, because there are other proper and legal ways of rescuing animals. Other more effective ways include educating people about the harsh treatment of animals, teaching people about dignity of animal, offering veterinarian service in animal shelter, raising funds for the release of animals. To do all these, he could have educated himself first with the skills and knowledge of animal handling.
  3. He trespassed civil laws in his attempt to rescue animal. Why choose a flawed, unlawful way of rescuing animal while there are other ways? Did any animal get rescued as a result? No. Did that improve the life of animals in captivity? No.
  4. His attempt to arouse animal awareness by planting explosives endangered other people’s lives. That is a serious crime not just on legality principle but a total reckless disregard for the dignity of other human beings who might be physically injured by his thoughtlessness.
  5. What was the purpose of his hunger strike when the labor party already agreed to hold a public inquiry into animal testing? Couldn’t he at least wait patiently to see it through and perhaps contribute recommendations to safeguard animal testing? What was he petitioning when the petition has already been granted?
Selfless love seeks to preserve the lives of others, without compromising anyone’s life other than his own. Selfless love does not seek aggressive means to harm others to get its message across. That is terrorism. Jesus said no to that. He asked Peter to put the sword back to his scabbard.

Mr. Barry Horne was just being reckless compromising the safety of others without any sincerity and earnest planning in his animal rescue, causing him to end up in a lose-lose situation. His sentiments for animal, while heartfelt, but very misguided. May his soul rest in peace.
 
DeepBlueSea said:
I wouldn’t consider his action as selfless love for the reasons below:
<>
Selfless love seeks to preserve the lives of others, without compromising anyone’s life other than his own. Selfless love does not seek aggressive means to harm others to get its message across. That is terrorism. Jesus said no to that. He asked Peter to put the sword back to his scabbard.

Mr. Barry Horne was just being reckless compromising the safety of others without any sincerity and earnest planning in his animal rescue, causing him to end up in a lose-lose situation. His sentiments for animal, while heartfelt, but very misguided. May his soul rest in peace.
Click to expand...
Actually I don’t think Horne was acting from selfless love either, and I wasn’t offering him as an example of such - merely for his extreme behaviour against his own self-interest, for all that he was deemed to be perfectly sane during his hunger strike and thus not a candidate for force-feeding (unlike Ian Brady). It does highlight an interesting point, though - sometimes the more dramatic or attention-grabbing actions are not, in fact, the most useful ones. It may be genuinely selfless to give up one’s own life in the service of others, but it could be said that it’s always better - if only because it prolongs one’s usefulness - if it doesn’t come to that.
 
Sair said:
🤷

Certainly if “conscious imitation of Christ” is part of the definition of selfless love, then no atheist could be expected to live up to that without compromising their integrity.
Click to expand...
My point exactly. It’s all in how you do or don’t define the terms.
 
DeepBlueSea said:
I wouldn’t consider his action as selfless love for the reasons below:
  1. His attempt to rescue animals without proper logistic planning and professional handling might end up injuring the animals. Captive animals if released into the wild with injury are susceptible to infection which in the wild means high prospect of death. He did not seem to exercise judgement of reason and acted outside his limitation.
  2. His rescue mission did not achieve his end goal of saving animals, nor did his action inspire followers, well, because there are other proper and legal ways of rescuing animals. Other more effective ways include educating people about the harsh treatment of animals, teaching people about dignity of animal, offering veterinarian service in animal shelter, raising funds for the release of animals. To do all these, he could have educated himself first with the skills and knowledge of animal handling.
  3. He trespassed civil laws in his attempt to rescue animal. Why choose a flawed, unlawful way of rescuing animal while there are other ways? Did any animal get rescued as a result? No. Did that improve the life of animals in captivity? No.
  4. His attempt to arouse animal awareness by planting explosives endangered other people’s lives. That is a serious crime not just on legality principle but a total reckless disregard for the dignity of other human beings who might be physically injured by his thoughtlessness.
  5. What was the purpose of his hunger strike when the labor party already agreed to hold a public inquiry into animal testing? Couldn’t he at least wait patiently to see it through and perhaps contribute recommendations to safeguard animal testing? What was he petitioning when the petition has already been granted?
Selfless love seeks to preserve the lives of others, without compromising anyone’s life other than his own. Selfless love does not seek aggressive means to harm others to get its message across. That is terrorism. Jesus said no to that. He asked Peter to put the sword back to his scabbard.

Mr. Barry Horne was just being reckless compromising the safety of others without any sincerity and earnest planning in his animal rescue, causing him to end up in a lose-lose situation. His sentiments for animal, while heartfelt, but very misguided. May his soul rest in peace.
Click to expand...
👍 Excellent analysis! It was noble but flawed selfless love which is clearly not to be emulated or encouraged because the highest form of selfless love is rational and clear-sighted as well as being inspired by compassion and concern for the welfare of others.
 
AlanFromWichita said:
But is this just-] our/-] the atheistic* opinion, or is it objectively true?

Alan
Click to expand...
'zactly, Alan. Egg-zactly.

This whole exercise has been quite satisfying to me–the entire point, (which initiated from a genuine curiosity regarding whether there existed someone who was the atheistic equivalent of Kolbe) was to consider this:

Is there sufficient evidence to convince an* atheist *to change her mind regarding God’s existence?

It appears patently clear that the answer is: NO.

IOW:
[SIGN1]This thread has demonstrated so very clearly that the atheistic position is untenable[/SIGN1].

By my taking the atheistic paradigm of:* show me he exists! But you have to use criteria A, B and C** in order to convince me*…

and your comment here:
If it’s your heartfelt opinion then nobody can change it.
Click to expand...
we have limned quite nicely that there is no evidence that Believers could provide that will be sufficiently convincing to the atheist. Because the criteria they demand is so…

unreasonable.

And their minds are closed to the possibility. :sad_yes:

(which, curiously, for every other arena in life they suddenly are saying, “well, it’s *possible *he could exist!”)

*(Apologies to you for usurping your post)

**criteria taken right out of the atheists’ mouths, BTW.
 
PRmerger said:
'zactly, Alan. Egg-zactly.

This whole exercise has been quite satisfying to me–the entire point, (which initiated from a genuine curiosity regarding whether there existed someone who was the atheistic equivalent of Kolbe) was to consider this:

Is there sufficient evidence to convince an* atheist *to change her mind regarding God’s existence?

It appears patently clear that the answer is: NO.

IOW:
[sign1]This thread has demonstrated so very clearly that the atheistic position is untenable[/sign1].

By my taking the atheistic paradigm of:* show me he exists! But you have to use criteria A, B and C** in order to convince me*…

and your comment here:

we have limned quite nicely that there is no evidence that Believers could provide that will be sufficiently convincing to the atheist. Because the criteria they demand is so…

unreasonable.

And their minds are closed to the possibility. :sad_yes:

(which, curiously, for every other arena in life they suddenly are saying, “well, it’s *possible *he could exist!”)

*(Apologies to you for usurping your post)

**criteria taken right out of the atheists’ mouths, BTW.
Click to expand...
Let me attempt to be the devil’s advocate for a change - even though in this context that presupposes a Godless devil… 🙂

The difference between God and Blessed Maximilian is… (Wait a minute. I’m supposed to be the devil’s advocate.) I beg your pardon… (Darn it! He wouldn’t talk about “pardon”. Oh, well.) The difference between God and Maximilian is that we’ve seen men but we haven’t seen God. How about that? (I’d better stop before I commit another faux pas… although… The devil’s advocate can pretend to believe - at least some of the time.:signofcross:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top