1. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    06 Sep '15 15:53
    Originally posted by CalJust
    It has beem shown that animals that exhibit altruistic behaviour, i.e. being good (a.k.a. loving) to others for no obvious return, derive ultimate benefit due to reciprocated action. Hence it seems to be an evolutionary driver, at least in some herd animals. Examples are elephants and other mammals looking after each others' young.
    Altruistic behavior does work ie if enough people act altruistically everyone benefits. Not only is altruistic behavior ingrained into us via evolution, but the desire to persuade or even force other people to be altruistic.
    I have noticed in discussions about religion that many people are more concerned about other peoples morality than their own. Its not important whether I believe in God, it is important that 'he' believes in God so that then he will behave morally.
  2. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    66380
    06 Sep '15 15:562 edits
    Originally posted by vistesd
    It seems to me there is clearly a paradox in the two great commandments to love—a bit like a Zen koan perhaps. A commandment to do what is beyond what can effectively be commanded. Obedience can be commanded; acts of compassion or generosity can be commanded; even worship (of a kind) can be commanded—but love with all one’s heart, mind and soul? I think not.
    Then again (self-centeredness?), who would not want to walk in that place, in that way of being, where all fear is absent?** .


    I agree with this analysis, i.e the impossibility to command love. Maybe this is a part of why Paul says it is impossible for us to obey the Law?

    Ultimately, it can be shown that everything we do we do out of one of two motivations - to gain pleasure or to avoid pain. So actually there is no absolutely unselfish act of love or even kindness - but sometimes only sub-consciously so.

    Aside, an interesting aspect of a mother's "unselfish and sacrificial" love is that tests have shown that a mother would readily risk her life to save an infant (say from a burning house) but would NOT do the same for a teenager! So at some stage the instinctive urge to save her offspring weakens, and self-preservation kicks in.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    06 Sep '15 16:28
    Originally posted by CalJust
    Ultimately, it can be shown that everything we do we do out of one of two motivations - to gain pleasure or to avoid pain.
    I actually disagree with that claim.
    1. Many of my actions are actually random with no calculated cost benefit analysis of any kind.
    2. Many of my actions are instinctual and do not involve either pleasure or pain (knowingly or subconsciously).
    3. Once could try and claim that we derive pleasure from 'doing whats right' but even then, I would argue that it is often not the case. When I act lovingly towards a loved one I am not necessarily deriving pleasure from it or avoiding pain. In fact sometimes we experience intense pain and even expect to do so when acting lovingly.
  4. Joined
    26 Feb '09
    Moves
    1637
    06 Sep '15 16:28
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    Seems most religions have a set of moral codes to be followed. Ostensibly "believers" would adhere to them simply because they believe that they are right.

    Of course, for most if not all religions it's not that simple. There are all manner of interesting self-centered beliefs when it comes to adherence.

    The most basic set of self-centered beliefs in ...[text shortened]... hat it's impossible to adhere to the moral code which serves to relieve the "believer" of guilt.
    I think it is interesting to point out that Jesus, in talking of who were accepted in heaven, spoke of those who did things for others, without regard of themselves. "Why Lord, what have we done to receive. And the King said to them, you fed the hungry, you clothed the naked, you helped the sick. When you did it for them you did it for me too" (I know the quote isn't quite right, but you get the point) Might I also add, Jesus never says, "you need to Know me too" So the statement is open for all - EVERYONE!!!
  5. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    66380
    06 Sep '15 17:24
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I have noticed in discussions about religion that many people are more concerned about other peoples morality than their own.
    That is clearly true. It is the failings in ourselves that we criticize most in others. We mostly have higher standards for others than ourselves.

    As Shakespeare said: Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.... (or words to that effect)
  6. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    66380
    06 Sep '15 17:27
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I actually disagree with that claim.
    1. Many of my actions are actually random with no calculated cost benefit analysis of any kind.
    2. Many of my actions are instinctual and do not involve either pleasure or pain (knowingly or subconsciously).
    3. Once could try and claim that we derive pleasure from 'doing whats right' but even then, I would argue th ...[text shortened]... ain. In fact sometimes we experience intense pain and even expect to do so when acting lovingly.
    Of course, I would agree that many of our actions are either on auto-pilot or instinctive.

    But when we DO seriously consider some decision or point of action, those two determinants will normally come into play.

    But I don't want to labour the point, as I am not a psychologist. I just mentioned it in passing.
  7. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    06 Sep '15 17:31
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    Seems most religions have a set of moral codes to be followed. Ostensibly "believers" would adhere to them simply because they believe that they are right.

    Of course, for most if not all religions it's not that simple. There are all manner of interesting self-centered beliefs when it comes to adherence.

    The most basic set of self-centered beliefs in ...[text shortened]... hat it's impossible to adhere to the moral code which serves to relieve the "believer" of guilt.
    Soooooo what self centered reason did you have for posting this or do you have the one and only true religion?
  8. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    06 Sep '15 19:12
    After some thought and reflection, I posted hastily. I remembered something from the past and had to search high and low to find this quote from a book by a man named Leith Anderson, entitled "Praying to the God you can trust"...
    During WWII, fifteen American soldiers prayed with their chaplain the night before the Battle of Tawara. He later reported that they all prayed pretty much the same prayer: “Lord, tomorrow we are going to storm the beaches of Tawara. We’ve been told that this is going to be a bloody battle and many of us will be killed. If this has to be, Lord, let those of us who are Christians be killed and spare those who do not yet believe, so that they will have more time to make their decision for Christ. In Jesus’ name, amen.”
    William Barclay, a famous Bible scholar, wrote: “The ultimate choice in life is between pleasing oneself and pleasing God.” We all need to examine our motives in prayer. God wants us to pray like those soldiers – with our hearts fixed on him and not on ourselves

    This prayer humbles me...it is truly an unselfish prayer. Christians who are born again are already redeemed and should have no problem giving their lives for another.
  9. Standard memberlemon lime
    itiswhatitis
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    06 Sep '15 19:28
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    Just say what you mean without the circumlocution.

    "Christianity is self-centered."

    Oh, I see now why you did it that way. It does sound kinda stupid when you just blurt out what you mean.
    I was thinking the same thing. When you strip away the packaging you'll find the one (and really only) thing he wants everyone to take away from this and remember.

    Are you ever tempted to take these little word bombs, wrap them up in fine sounding arguments, set them on their own doorsteps and set it on fire, and then watch for the inevitable (indignant) reaction? I know I am, and have done it a few times... some have even quoted scripture hoping I will believe that I've done something wrong. LoL
  10. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    07 Sep '15 00:35
    I don't think it can be denied that some Christians are presenting arguments for proper belief and behavior based on a reward-and-punishment level of moral development. All the threads about hell and a few about heaven (interestingly far fewer) indicate a fixation on this model.

    This "centers" morality on the well-being of the self. That's self-centered.

    "Self centered' is treated like a pejorative, but only by people who consider themselves to be above it. Isn't that a little hypocritical if not to say ignorant of the need for reward and punishment in certain real-world situations?

    But it isn't because they are Christians that they are motivated by reward and punishment. Many people operate this way, and that's why we have criminal justice systems that include punishment as a motivator of behavior (and in some countries, belief). Maybe it's what is needed to keep them on the straight and narrow.
  11. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    07 Sep '15 00:526 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    That is an excellent way to put it. Chinese philosophy has a similar paradox whereby you try to achieve 'the way' in order to benefit from it, but at the same time, seeking 'the way' for gain will not get you there.

    In both cases the question then is 'why should we do it?'. Why should one obeys Christs commandment if there is not personal benefit, or why should one seek 'the way'?
    “I am sitting with a philosopher in the garden; he says again and again 'I know that that’s a tree', pointing to a tree that is near us. Someone else arrives and hears this, and I tell him: 'This fellow isn’t insane. We are only doing philosophy.”

    ― Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty

    Kissing the picture of one's beloved... it aims at nothing at all; we just behave this way and then we feel satisfied.

    —Wittgenstein, Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough

    ________________________________________________


    You are quite right. But when we ask certain questions—in this case those quite natural-sounding “why should we” questions—I am reminded of the above quotations. And the Meister Eckhart quote below (Eckhart is perhaps the most appreciated of Christian thinkers among Buddhists). And so my response is deliberately a bit oblique—

    Why should I love my wife? “I didn’t know that I was supposed to.”

    Why should I prefer feeling well to feeling ill? “Ought I to want to feel ill?”

    For what reason should I prefer that you feel ill, rather than well? (Wouldn’t any reason require that I know you, and have some specific animus? Otherwise, wouldn’t we say that some pathology is likely in play?)

    Why do you think I should like Bach? “I don’t; I just like Bach and thought that you might.”

    “I know that’s my wife.” “Was there doubt in your mind?”

    Why should you appreciate beauty? “I wasn’t aware that I shouldn’t.”

    Etc., etc.

    _______________________________________________


    “The path is beautiful and joyful and pleasant and familiar”

    —Meister Eckhart, Christian theologian (1260 – c.1329)

    ___________________________________________________

    So perhaps the real question is why personal benefit is necessarily a problem. Is my act on behalf of another—that involves some sacrifice on my part—somehow suspect if I love them? Does loving them turn altruism into self-centeredness? Does it make my act more, or less, moral? "Should" I care? As I said, I don’t think that I am “good” because I love someone deeply enough that I couldn’t imagine not making the “sacrifice” you proposed—without any “should” thinking at all. Need I adhere without feeling to some “categorical imperative”—that is somehow undone if I love?

    Such questions seem quite soon to lose meaning for me.

    And to belabor it—as I, too, have a tendency to do—seems now to me like philosophizing in the garden: It isn’t insane—it’s just an idle intellectual pastime. One that I myself seem to spend far too much time pursuing.

    EDIT: Of course, it was the very questions that moved me (or returned me) to this point; so perhaps not so idle after all--just a reflection of my own confusion.
  12. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    07 Sep '15 00:591 edit
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    Seems most religions have a set of moral codes to be followed. Ostensibly "believers" would adhere to them simply because they believe that they are right.

    Jesus spke of the blessing of hungering and thirsting for righteousness -

    " Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied." (Matt. 5:6)


    The satisfaction promised is for that which the seekers "hunger and thirst for ...", mainly "righteousness" . The reward is to satisfied with righteousness.

    Of course the real righteousness is God Himself. So the promise is to be satisfied as "fed" and having your thirst quenched by God Himself in coming into union with Him.

    This is consistent with God telling Abraham that He, God Himself, would be the exceeding great reward to Abraham.

    " After these things the word of Jehovah came to Abram in a vision, saying, Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield and exceeding great reward." (Genesis 15:1)


    The exceeding great reward to the father of faith was God Himself . God would be his protection in a fallen sin corrupted world and also His "exceeding great reward".


    Of course, for most if not all religions it's not that simple. There are all manner of interesting self-centered beliefs when it comes to adherence.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Bible the reward is in acknowledging the TRUE center of all reality and the universe God. It is God centered. And it is to place man comfortably in to proper place.

    I see no reason to begrudge then that a proper perspective is deemed a benefit to man. The benefit is that of obtaining reality. God is our center.
  13. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    07 Sep '15 01:01
    The most basic set of self-centered beliefs involve the gaining of "rewards": reciprocity, e. g., karma; afterlife, e. g., nirvana, "heaven", "eternal life"; et al.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I have never met an atheist who was not seeking the happiness he deems is a benefit of just being left alone by God. He too will obtain what he seeks. What he doesn't realize is that he won't like that outcome if he is brought into it. But being deceived, he thinks that he too will live happily if God just does not exist for him.

    How can it be otherwise if we were created for God and God's eternal purpose ?

    And of course the counterpart of the gaining of "rewards" which is the avoidance of "punishments" such as "hell".

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the book of The Song of Songs the lover is being asked by her companions - "What is YOUR beloved more than another's beloved ? What she eventually ends of confessing is that she loves her lover just for himself. He Himself is so desirable and so lovely. She loves him not for what he gives or can do primarily but just because he is altogether lovely.

    The lover in that grand poem stands for all the seekers of God as a collective loving pursuer of God Himself. While there are great blessings in knowing God, eventually we just love Him for Himself.

    No one can compete with Him.
    No one can compare with Him.

    This One has become incarnated to be our Savior. But while we need saving, Paul speaks of the Gospel as "the unsearchable riches of Christ "

    "To me [Paul], less than the least of all saints was this grace given to announce the unsearchable riches of Christ as the gospel ..." (Eph. 3:8)


    He is announcing not only that Jesus saves but that in Christ are fathomless and unsearchable riches. He is the ultimate Value and the final Worth. It will require eternity to explore the wealth of being one with Him. The gospel here to Paul is the unsearchable riches of what Christ Himself is as God incarnate to be our life and Lord.

    We do not begrudge God that the meek shall inherit the earth (Matt. 5:5) We do not despise Him that the saved will inherit a new heaven and a new earth (Rev. 21:1). That is a coming new universe " in which righteousness dwells " (2 Pet. 3:13)

    "But according to His promise we are expecting new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells." (2 Pet. 3:13)


    Since God is the owner of it all, to inherit God is to inherit also all that is His and for His positive plan. But the center of all this benefit is God Himself as our "exceeding great reward".

    The Psalmist wrote that there was nothing that he desired besides God Himself.

    "Whom do I have in heaven but You? And besides You there is nothing I desire on earth." (Psalm 73:25)
  14. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    07 Sep '15 01:01
    The hymn writer also echoes the Christians deepest sentiments - anywhere with Jesus is a wonderful enjoyment of Himself.

    "Anywhere with Jesus I can safely go.
    Anywhere He leads me in this world below.
    Anywhere without Him, dearest joys would fade.
    Anywhere with Jesus I am not afraid.

    Anywhere with Jesus I am not alone.
    Other friends may fail me, He is still my own.
    Though His hand may lead me over dreary ways,
    Anywhere with Jesus is a house of praise.

    Anywhere with Jesus I can go to sleep,
    When the darkling shadows round about me creep;
    Knowing I shall waken never more to roam,
    Anywhere with Jesus will be home sweet home. " (Hymn 583, LSM Hymns)


    If you turn your heart to Jesus Christ your don't HAVE to be superficial. You do not have to be shallow if you don't want to. It is not mandatory that you only care about goodies and not about Christ Himself first and foremost.

    Nothing dictates that I have to be average as a seeker for God's benefits. I can go to the heart of the whole matter and seek God Himself as my highest prize.

    Even more self-centered is the set of beliefs involving the concept of being able to gain the "rewards" and avoid the "punishments" via "substitution" .

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Do you know what this all sounds like? It sounds like so many excuses and rationales to love the SELF. But if we lose our self for the sake of the Gospel we will find it. If we save our self instead of open up to receive the Lord we will lose our self in the end.

    It is pragmatic to lose now to gain in the end than to gain now only to lose in the end. It is a matter of realizing that His love is that deep and far reaching. Since He laid down His life for us, He will surely secure only the best for us.

    This is not a grueling and hard affair. It is a growing and life long one with a gentle Heavenly Father.

    But to begrudge Righteousness because sin is punishable or to begrudge God that there is great reward of enjoyment in being His, is silly. Why be deceived by some by some imagined "nobility" that you do not want to avoid the adverse but want to obtain happiness?

    Every Atheist is also looking to avoid what he considers is adverse to pursue whatever he deems is the happiness. Running away from God is far more self centered.
  15. Standard memberKellyJayonline
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157651
    07 Sep '15 04:15
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    After some thought and reflection, I posted hastily. I remembered something from the past and had to search high and low to find this quote from a book by a man named Leith Anderson, entitled "Praying to the God you can trust"...
    [quote]During WWII, fifteen American soldiers prayed with their chaplain the night before the Battle of Tawara. He later repo ...[text shortened]... o are born again are already redeemed and should have no problem giving their lives for another.
    You should listen to this sermon, I heard it years ago right after I became a Christian, and
    it more than likely shaped my Christian walk more than most. The end of it has a story
    close to what you talked about. This was before the internet a friend had it on a tape, I
    was amazed to find it online.

    I'll say it is a little dry at first, but it is powerful.
    Ten Shekels and a Shirt is the name of the sermon.

    http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=10180222445
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree