Tangible ways a nonbeliver can not help as much as a believer

[StrawberryJam]

Let’s consider what these ways may be.

 

[Boston_Sem]

Let’s consider what these ways may be.

“Help” in what respect?

 

[edarlitrix]

Here is something I found at the following link: oca.org/questions/otherconfessions/buddhism-and-conversion-to-orthodoxy

I placed in bold the point which I believe is important

YOU WRITE:

I understand that one must, with his entirety, place himself into a religious path in order to give the most and get the most from that practice. But do Orthodox people believe, like the Buddha did, that there are several paths to divinity, and that Christ is not the only one?

RESPONSE:

Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, Who together with the Father and the Holy Spirit brought about all that exists. Jesus Christ took on the human nature, without ceasing to be God, in order to reunite man with Himself and His Father and Holy Spirit, in response to the separation that sin placed between the human and the divine. Jesus Christ is the only Savior, the fulfillment of God’s promise to mankind to bring about “a new heaven and earth.” As such, He is the only Savior and, as such, Orthodox Christianity—as well as virtually every other Christian tradition—acknowledges that there is no other “way” than through Jesus Christ, Who refers to Himself as “the way, the truth, and the life,” not as “A way, A truth, and A life.” Now, this does not mean that absolutely everything Buddhist is evil or demonic. Surely the concern Buddhists display for others, especially those in need, is a good thing. However, if such concern is not a reflection of one’s conviction that every man and woman, even the “least of the brethren,” bears the image of Jesus Christ, this does not negate such ministry, but does render it incomplete or lacking in something that Christ Himself clearly teaches is absolutely essential. Finally, if Orthodoxy is focused on the fullness of truth revealed in the very person of Jesus Christ, there can be no question as to whether or not there are “other paths” to salvation. St. Paul clearly teaches us that salvation comes through Jesus Christ, period. He alone is “the Way,” by His own admission. Orthodox Christianity does not subscribe to any notions that “all religions are merely different paths to the same goal.” In fact, I dare say that the goal of Christianity is radically different than the goal of Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

In other words, of course non-believers can do anything **outwardly **that any believer can do… but inwardly, there are some motivations that non-believers cannot have… they cannot act out of a faith in God for example, or a love for God, or else they would not be unbelievers. SO their actions cannot flow from a union with God’s will as described by Pope Benedict:

The love-story between God and man consists in the very fact that this communion of will increases in a communion of thought and sentiment, and thus our will and God’s will increasingly coincide: God’s will is no longer for me an alien will, something imposed on me from without by the commandments, but it is now my own will, based on the realization that God is in fact more deeply present to me than I am to myself. Then self-abandonment to God increases and God becomes our joy (cf. Ps 73 [72]:23-28). -Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est

Their actions would thereby be considered incomplete… by the Christian religion.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Wonderful stuff there.
They can do it all, and many do.
Without the threat of hell causing them to.
They just do it.
My question is, how is one who does good just as the atheist does any better because they were ordered to do it by their God?
The one who wasn’t ordered to do anything did it anyway.
It is sad that you had to ask a forum about my question how long ago to reply…
Why did you have to seek an Orthodox priest out? He never even had my original question.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I’ve always wondered if believers would hesitate if given the opportunity to completely eliminate poverty. After all, it would invalidate Jesus’ declaration that “the poor will always be with you.” They might convince themselves that eliminating poverty is impossible so any attempt at elimination is destined to fail. They might go so far as to say that it is somehow immoral, that we would be depriving ourselves of the lessons that poor people teach us.

A non-believer would have no such qualms.

 

[humble_catholic]

I’ve always wondered if believers would hesitate if given the opportunity to completely eliminate poverty. After all, it would invalidate Jesus’ declaration that “the poor will always be with you.” They might convince themselves that eliminating poverty is impossible so any attempt at elimination is destined to fail. They might go so far as to say that it is somehow immoral, that we would be depriving ourselves of the lessons that poor people teach us.

A non-believer would have no such qualms.

But I think everyone is forgetting one important factor here and that is satan.
It is said that God has imprinted his laws into the hearts of all men, but Satan can also be deceptive ,especially working in people that don’t even believe that he exists , such as atheists .

If an atheists were faced with a Dilemma in which he or she would stand to gain a billion dollars for the displacement or death of a few people , what’s to stop satan from growing the intensity of thought already implanted into the atheist’s heart that tells them what they shoud
Logically believe within their worldview , namely that we are just pieces of meat that evolved over millions of year through a process of blind chance and chemical interactions .

Most people forget that The bible says that Satan is roaming the earth looking to cause evil and agony .

 

[JapaneseKappa]

But I think everyone is forgetting one important factor here and that is satan.
It is said that God has imprinted his laws into the hearts of all men, but Satan can also be deceptive ,especially working in people that don’t even believe that he exists , such as atheists .

If an atheists were faced with a Dilemma in which he or she would stand to gain a billion dollars for the displacement or death of a few people , what’s to stop satan from growing the intensity of thought already implanted into the atheist’s heart that tells them what they shoud
Logically believe within their worldview , namely that we are just pieces of meat that evolved over millions of year through a process of blind chance and chemical interactions .

Most people forget that The bible says that Satan is roaming the earth looking to cause evil and agony .

I’m not sure how that is relevant. I’m not sure it is even correct, since the data shows countries which are less religious tend to have lower murder and violent crime rates. So unless the devil is roaming around the more atheistic countries sowing the evil of nonviolence, I suspect your reliance on the bible for sociological conclusions has led you astray.

 

[Della]

Wonderful stuff there.
They can do it all, and many do.
Without the threat of hell causing them to.
They just do it.
My question is, how is one who does good just as the atheist does any better because they were ordered to do it by their God?
The one who wasn’t ordered to do anything did it anyway.
It is sad that you had to ask a forum about my question how long ago to reply…
Why did you have to seek an Orthodox priest out? He never even had my original question.

There is a big difference between natural good and supernatural good.

Natural good can be done by anyone, of course. It’s practiced by people of all kinds, believers and non-believers alike because it is a part of human nature to be kind and helpful under normal, and even adnormal, circumstances. This is one of God’s gifts to us in our creation. Therefore no one, not believer or unbeliever, can take credit for having this built in desire for good.

Supernatural goodness is another matter. It takes being remade in Christ (since we are all fallen creatures) because it springs, not from natural desire, but from agape/divine love alone. Those who do good through the power of the Holy Spirit oftentimes are doing acts of love that go beyond human desire/patience/natural goodness. It is manifested in the whole of their lives in ways large and small–mostly in small acts of love that aren’t immediately evident to those who are the recipients of such love.

A great book to read about this kind of love is “The Story of a Soul” by St. Therese of Lisieux. She practiced this kind of love by conforming her will entirely to that of Christ (whose love for us drove him to die on the cross although he was divine and need not have done it except for love of us). Therese cooperated with God’s grace to a high degree in all the little events of her life. To be patient with those who are constantly annoying, to love when dispised by the other, to care for those who are not loveable–this demands agape love, which comes only from God.

 

[inocente]

Re: Tangible ways a nonbeliver can not help as much as a believer.

As your OP is dated June 2013, congrats on your long-running thread.

PS: Thanks for your PM. Tried to answer but got “StrawberryJam has exceeded their stored private messages quota and cannot accept further messages until they clear some space”

So now you know you’re not a he or a she. You’re a they.

 

[humble_catholic]

I’m not sure how that is relevant. I’m not sure it is even correct, since the data shows countries which are less religious tend to have lower murder and violent crime rates. So unless the devil is roaming around the more atheistic countries sowing the evil of nonviolence, I suspect your reliance on the bible for sociological conclusions has led you astray.

Maybe your not sure if it is even correct because your claim that atheistic countries have lower crime rates then religious countries has no validity . If scrutinized more closely you would have known that the countries in question already had lower crime rates way befire they became more atheistic ,but of course you wouldn’t have known that would you .

This is why taking these statistics at face value almost never gives us a true picture.
As far as brutality I don’t think any worldview has ever been more brutal then atheism , especially considering the fact that over 200 million deaths were comitted within a span of 100 years. What makes it even more amazing is that they were comitted in the 20th century, the times where atheists say we have broken away from the yolk of supposed superstition.

And we go back to that old saying that without God anything is possible .

 

[humble_catholic]

I’ve always wondered if believers would hesitate if given the opportunity to completely eliminate poverty. After all, it would invalidate Jesus’ declaration that “the poor will always be with you.” They might convince themselves that eliminating poverty is impossible so any attempt at elimination is destined to fail. They might go so far as to say that it is somehow immoral, that we would be depriving ourselves of the lessons that poor people teach us.

A non-believer would have no such qualms.

Considering that it is a statistical fact that religious people give 3 times as much to charity then non religious people is say this is idol speculation at best and disinformation at worst.
Throughout history religious people have always given more then non religious people .

What I consider amazing is why would an atheist give at all to charity considering that in his worldview a human being is nothing but a piece of meat that came together by blind chance and chemical interactions over millions of years. Absolutely nothing special about that.

This is also why I believe that God has imprinted his laws into the hearts of all human beings . It is when the atheist decides to go against his or her worldview that they decide to give .
Something inside tells them it is right to give .

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Maybe your not sure if it is even correct because your claim that atheistic countries have lower crime rates then religious countries has no validity . If scrutinized more closely you would have known that the countries in question already had lower crime rates way befire they became more atheistic ,but of course you wouldn’t have known that would you .

This is why taking these statistics at face value almost never gives us a true picture.
As far as brutality I don’t think any worldview has ever been more brutal then atheism , especially considering the fact that over 200 million deaths were comitted within a span of 100 years. What makes it even more amazing is that they were comitted in the 20th century, the times where atheists say we have broken away from the yolk of supposed superstition.

And we go back to that old saying that without God anything is possible .

When they became peaceful is irrelevant. According to your devil-stirs-up-trouble hypothesis, as a country becomes more secular, the devil would cause more violence. However, in peaceful countries that became more secular, they did not observe an increase in violence. Therefore, your devil-stirs-up-trouble hypothesis must be wrong.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Considering that it is a statistical fact that religious people give 3 times as much to charity then non religious people is say this is idol speculation at best and disinformation at worst.
Throughout history religious people have always given more then non religious people .

But giving to charity is not the same as eliminating poverty. Most religious people give money to their church to keep the ship afloat as well as to help with things like feeding the hungry or clothing the naked. Those are perfectly fine reasons to donate money, but there is no magic number of soup kitchens which, once reached, will have eliminated poverty. People donate to treat the symptoms of poverty, because the causes require things money can’t buy, like societal reform. Religion could be at the forefront for something like a movement to eliminate poverty, but it has never been. It is similar to the Catholic refusal to lead the way on reform with regards to slavery.

There is no danger — no possibility, on ourprinciples — that Catholic theology should ever be tinctured with the fanaticism of abolition.

What I consider amazing is why would an atheist give at all to charity considering that in his worldview a human being is nothing but a piece of meat that came together by blind chance and chemical interactions over millions of years. Absolutely nothing special about that.
This is also why I believe that God has imprinted his laws into the hearts of all human beings . It is when the atheist decides to go against his or her worldview that they decide to give .
Something inside tells them it is right to give .

Is it for lack of imagination that you’re ignoring the more likely explanation: that you’re mischaracterising the atheistic worldview?

 

[Della]

I’ve always wondered if believers would hesitate if given the opportunity to completely eliminate poverty. After all, it would invalidate Jesus’ declaration that “the poor will always be with you.” They might convince themselves that eliminating poverty is impossible so any attempt at elimination is destined to fail. They might go so far as to say that it is somehow immoral, that we would be depriving ourselves of the lessons that poor people teach us.

A non-believer would have no such qualms.

Really? This is just plain laughable.

Jesus’ words were not marching orders of any kind, but the sad realization that fallen humanity will always have to deal with poverty–mainly because of human sinfulness and brokenness, not due to any lack of efforts to eliminate poverty by anyone, believer or non-believer alike. Let’s be real here.

How many believers or non-believers have eliminated poverty anywhere in the world who have tried? Nowhere. It’s part of the human condition. All the government programs and private efforts have failed miserably, sad to say. People have issues that cannot be solved by others trying to fix their lives. It simply doesn’t work. We should try to get people out of poverty, of course, but not be surprised when such efforts fail.

I remember seeing a documentary in which homeless people were given jobs so they could get housing and buy the necessities of life. Most returned to the streets within a very short time. Why? Because they weren’t mentally or emotionally able to sustain a job, poor things.

Another person in another city started a community garden. Those living on welfare came and just stood there like statues. They hadn’t a clue what to do or why. They had to be shown how to do things as simple as dig a hole because they’d never worked a day in their lives.

It’s not as simple as “believers think there’s no need to eliminate poverty,” rather it’s that human beings are flawed and so can’t always do what those with less/other flaws can do. Thus the need to care for them as they are instead of expecting them to do what they cannot do.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Really? This is just plain laughable.

Jesus’ words were not marching orders of any kind, but the sad realization that fallen humanity will always have to deal with poverty–mainly because of human sinfulness and brokenness, not due to any lack of efforts to eliminate poverty by anyone, believer or non-believer alike. Let’s be real here.

How many believers or non-believers have eliminated poverty anywhere in the world who have tried? Nowhere. It’s part of the human condition. All the government programs and private efforts have failed miserably, sad to say. People have issues that cannot be solved by others trying to fix their lives. It simply doesn’t work. We should try to get people out of poverty, of course, but not be surprised when such efforts fail.

I remember seeing a documentary in which homeless people were given jobs so they could get housing and buy the necessities of life. Most returned to the streets within a very short time. Why? Because they weren’t mentally or emotionally able to sustain a job, poor things.

Another person in another city started a community garden. Those living on welfare came and just stood there like statues. They hadn’t a clue what to do or why. They had to be shown how to do things as simple as dig a hole because they’d never worked a day in their lives.

It’s not as simple as “believers think there’s no need to eliminate poverty,” rather it’s that human beings are flawed and so can’t always do what those with less/other flaws can do. Thus the need to care for them as they are instead of expecting them to do what they cannot do.

So what you’re saying is that if you were given an on/off switch for poverty, you wouldn’t flip it to “off” on the grounds that it’s impossible to eliminate poverty? I would set it to “off” because even if it didn’t work, the possibility of it working is too great to pass up.

I will also point out that you’ve explained a big problem with most people’s perspectives on charitable giving. You’re saying: “Look at all these things we give them, and they’re still poor? We can’t fix that!” But somehow you’re simultaneously acknowledging that the cause of poverty lies elsewhere “Because they weren’t mentally or emotionally able to sustain a job, poor things.” In other words, you’re simultaneously saying “Poor people need psychiatric treatment” and “we’ve tried giving them everything they need (except psychiatric treatment) and they’re still poor!”

 

[Della]

So what you’re saying is that if you were given an on/off switch for poverty, you wouldn’t flip it to “off” on the grounds that it’s impossible to eliminate poverty?

Please don’t put words in my mouth or leap to conclusions. Thank you.

I would set it to “off” because even if it didn’t work, the possibility of it working is too great to pass up.

So would I, but like I stated, let’s be real here.

I will also point out that you’ve explained a big problem with most people’s perspectives on charitable giving. You’re saying: “Look at all these things we give them, and they’re still poor? We can’t fix that!” But somehow you’re simultaneously acknowledging that the cause of poverty lies elsewhere “Because they weren’t mentally or emotionally able to sustain a job, poor things.” In other words, you’re simultaneously saying “Poor people need psychiatric treatment” and “we’ve tried giving them everything they need (except psychiatric treatment) and they’re still poor!”

Jesus’ teaching is that all people are in need of a physician for their sins and wounded natures. Medical help might be of benefit for some, of course. Many living on the streets suffer from mental illnesses, but that’s not what I’m talking about.

People are in poverty for many reasons, some of which are deeply embeded within the human condition, for which the poor are not to blame. Scripture tells us to not despise the poor. Why? Because the poor are not always poor due to any lack on their part. We are all wounded, we all have flaws. However, the “fix” isn’t simple human goodness which can only go so far.

If the kind of measures you would propose worked they would have worked by now because millions upon millions have been dedicated to the elimination of poverty through government programs and private efforts by believers and non-believers alike. There’s got to be reasons why they haven’t worked. What are they? Why can’t they be solved through ordinary goodness? Those are the questions that ought to be asked, not if people of faith care enough.

 

[humble_catholic]

When they became peaceful is irrelevant. According to your devil-stirs-up-trouble hypothesis, as a country becomes more secular, the devil would cause more violence. However, in peaceful countries that became more secular, they did not observe an increase in violence. Therefore, your devil-stirs-up-trouble hypothesis must be wrong.

Actually it is relevant because you claimed that atheistic leaning countries are more peaceful , which is have shown simply isn’t true . I looked at this many years ago and aww that if you had switched the question and instead if just using the stats of who claimed a certain religious belief to whether they really practiced their religious belief you would geta. Dramatically different story here, and in fact it showed that these people had a ich lesser crime rate their their unbelieving counterparts which would make complete sense and would be in line with what the bible teaches us.

Atheists on the other hand believe that morality is relative and not objective so if an atheist can get away with something’s and he could convince himself by bypassing the inner. Oral code placed within him by God then anything is possible .

Cafeteria Christians and social Christians can be found anywhere .
But with atheism if they truly followed their atheism logically would see no reason other then their personal subjective opinions to care one way or another if they committed a crime to hurt another person , as long as they could get away from it as there is no objective good or evil in atheism .

I have rarely if ever seen a Christian that followed the bible understanding the heart of the law commit a murdrer . I have however seen atheists butcher over 220 million in the span of 100 years , in the post modern age to boot. Heck in china they are killing Chinese Christian for simply having a bible study in their own home. I have a friend that says he’s Christian yet doesn’t follow any tenant of Christianity whatsoever and keeps saying it’s ok because God will forgive him. He’s basically acting like an atheist who doesn’t believe in objective good or evil , he just twists the words around a bit.

 

[grannymh]

Wonderful stuff there.
They can do it all, and many do.
Without the threat of hell causing them to.
They just do it.
My question is, how is one who does good just as the atheist does any better because they were ordered to do it by their God?

I am not sure if the “threat of hell” and “because they were ordered to do it by their God” are the only reasons people in general do good things. I see goodness in people without having to know their religious or non-religious beliefs.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Please don’t put words in my mouth or leap to conclusions. Thank you.

But that was my original point, to which you seemed to be offering some sort of justification for religious attitudes. But if you think that religious people would mostly flip the switch to off without hesitation, then the rest of your explanation was irrelevant to that point.

Jesus’ teaching is that all people are in need of a physician for their sins and wounded natures. Medical help might be of benefit for some, of course. Many living on the streets suffer from mental illnesses, but that’s not what I’m talking about.

People are in poverty for many reasons, some of which are deeply embeded within the human condition, for which the poor are not to blame. Scripture tells us to not despise the poor. Why? Because the poor are not always poor due to any lack on their part. We are all wounded, we all have flaws. However, the “fix” isn’t simple human goodness which can only go so far.

If the kind of measures you would propose worked they would have worked by now because millions upon millions have been dedicated to the elimination of poverty through government programs and private efforts by believers and non-believers alike. There’s got to be reasons why they haven’t worked. What are they? Why can’t they be solved through ordinary goodness? Those are the questions that ought to be asked, not if people of faith care enough.

But my contention was precisely that most charities (and especially religious ones) *are rarely and have rarely been *interested in eliminating poverty. Jesus didn’t say: “create a society where people don’t need you to clothe them,” he said “clothe the naked.” That’s fine, but it creates an attitude of running around putting out fires instead of addressing the problem in any sort of definitive way.

Here is an example of thinking about it correctly:
melvilletrust.org/grantmaking/faq/

 

[Della]

But that was my original point, to which you seemed to be offering some sort of justification for religious attitudes. But if you think that religious people would mostly flip the switch to off without hesitation, then the rest of your explanation was irrelevant to that point.

The very idea that religious people wouldn’t want to an end to poverty is just plain calumny. Try to prove your statement–that’s my point.

But my contention was precisely that most charities (and especially religious ones) *are rarely and have rarely been *interested in eliminating poverty. Jesus didn’t say: “create a society where people don’t need you to clothe them,” he said “clothe the naked.” That’s fine, but it creates an attitude of running around putting out fires instead of addressing the problem in any sort of definitive way.

Here is an example of thinking about it correctly:
melvilletrust.org/grantmaking/faq/

First of all, you have no proof that religious charities have never been interested in eliminating poverty. Your merely stating that they haven’t doesn’t make it true. Besides this, I don’t think you read a single word I wrote because I addressed this quite thoroughly.

Jesus never intended social reforms through social action because he knows it just doesn’t work. If it did we’d have eliminated poverty long since. We haven’t and we can’t through any kind of social program. That’s my point.

I will not debate caluminous unsubstantiated statements that are supposed to “silence” all opposition. It’s pointless.