13 replies to this topic

[hangman]

Okay, it's pretty simple. You do good things!

If someone is asking you to help him move, go help. If you walk passed a bum, go give him some money or give him some food or drink.

God is talking to us constantly, people just don't want to hear him talk. He's the one that puts on your mind "hey, a begger, maybe you should give him something?" and then satan says "No, don't give it, he can work just like you can't he?!"

If you listen to satan, it would seem you would be getting better from it. You're keeping your money, you won't have to walk over either, so you're saving both time and money.

If you listen to God, you would lose some money and some time, which would seem like a losing condition. But seriously, this is the best thing to do! Cause what you recieve back is 5000 times more then what you gave

Just go an experiement with it. Go hold the door open for other people, go help people paint their house. If you do it out of love, you do it with God and you let God work throgh you, because God = love.

That's the choice in life you got. The way you treated others, God will treat you the same. If you help out a bum, God will give you so much more back for it

And then you'll find Jesus and when you find him you will find your eternal life.

[Jace Tropic]

I would suggest that you first start a thread that deals with your epistemology. You are very thoughtful and kind but you would probably do more good if you attempt to answer "How do I know?" with some objective evidence. You speak of dualism as if it is a given. You speak of Satan and God as if they are a given. Tell us how it is justified in thinking so. Simply saying that it is because "we will feel good by doing certain things" does not work. I may feel good when robbing a gas station and just as easily claim that it was out of love for the owner because money is corrupting and I would want people to rob me so I don't go corrupt either and, thus, I am acting accordingly. It should also be noted that people don't necessarily need God to act good. Hecksheri brought this up in the other thread -- another relevant idea you conveniently dodged.

Go sell your fantasy to credulous simpletons. The people here are too smart (not including me) to take you seriously.

[bacopa]

Thank you Jace as always the voice of reason as well as an objective and philisophically driven intellectual who doesn't give herself enough credit! Being good is a rational decision that we make with our own free will and does not have anything to do with an act of divine intervention. I can be good because I want to, I can also pretend to be good and thus act good, think good, but intentionaly I am faking it. So one doesn't need to engage in fantasy or have awe inspiring revelations from God to actually "be good" the trick is do you want to be good and can you on a regular basis the reason for "being good" is not as important. [:o] [lol]

[hangman]

well give it a try, experiment with it.

[kevin]

hangman,

As you probably have already figured out, doing something nice, ie. being altruistic, doesn't have to involve Jesus or religion at all. Being altruistic has recently been show to result in better mental health as long as a person doesn't 'give until it hurts'.

http://www.eurekaler...a-aam101703.php

What level of sacrifice do you think is appropriate in helping others? What level of discomfort would you put up with in lessening the suffering of others? Would you still feel as 'good' as you do looking after a dying parent day in and day out as you do opening the door for an elderly person? I don't think so... many caregivers looking after elderly people, in spite of their altruistic and selfless acts according to their religious faiths, do not fare well mentally or physically through the ordeal. Jesus does not seem to help them in their labors.

The benefits of altruism on our psyche and physiology are explainable by other factors besides direct action by Jesus and religion. Frankly, if you're doing good things for other people in Jesus name, I find it misguided, but applaud you for your efforts as most religious people are total hypocrites. I'm sure that with time and knowledge of science, should you continue to seek answers instead of thinking that you've found 'the' answer, you may find some more avenues to explore that will expand your search that do not involve relying on some figment of your imagination.

and why in the world would you choose the moniker of an executioner for your name? [:o]

[David]

Hey Kevin, it can't be altruism if there is a reward. Just thought I would mention that!

[thefirstimmortal]

God = love.

Are you suggesting that we should obey your "God", and should we believe in your "Bible", and are you even at all familiar with your "Bible"?

Should we use your "holy book" as guide for our conduct?

[thefirstimmortal]

You just might be a Fundamentalist if . . .
you believe that your great, great, great, great, great . . . great-grandparents were Adam and Eve.

[bacopa]

Wow Kevin made a really good point. Caring for a dying parent would probably make me so depressed that this negates the whole idea of "feeling good" by helping others I never thought of that and it makes perfect logical sense it's scary. yeah opening doors feels good like smiling. But being a fireman rushing to save burning victims is a different feeling and one that is probably accompanied by trauma as well. helping a dying parent is more close to home and hurts either way. thanks

[randolfe]

"many caregivers looking after elderly people, in spite of their altruistic and selfless acts according to their religious faiths, do not fare well mentally or physically through the ordeal"

Well, it looks like a good Christian appropriately named "hangman", has wandered into this lion's den. The attacks on him are intellectually fine but they are what I would call emotionally uninformed.

(Read the quoted first paragraph). What no one seems to realize is that most people are "altruistic" because they have no other moral choice. You do not do good or "the right thing" because you choose to do so. You do so because you know it is your duty to do so and you could not live with yourself if you turned your back and walked away.

Taking care of a dying parent is one good example. I know because I spent seven years taking care of two loved ones as they slowly died of AIDS. All my religious friends claim I have all these "gold chips" waiting for me in heaven because, they say, I am "more religious" (despite the fact they know I am an atheist) than those who go to church because I "actually help people". They equate "goodness" with religiousity.

I hated every minute of it. I felt robbed of years of my life and tens of thousands of dollars. Then three years later, I found myself taking care of another sick family member.

Don't laugh. This time it was my dog. She got cancer at 12 and it slowly got worse till I finally had to put her asleep at 16. Meanwhile, it was living with papers all over the hallways, walking her every three hours night and day, even taking in a virtual derelict so she could be walked during the day.

What has been missed in this exchange about altruism and good works is the important fact that they have to do with personal values and nothing at all to do with religious belief.

[Jace Tropic]

randolfe: The attacks on [hangman] are intellectually fine but they are what I would call emotionally uninformed.

This could probably go both ways…

randolfe: What no one seems to realize is that most people are "altruistic" because they have no other moral choice. You do not do good or "the right thing" because you choose to do so. You do so because you know it is your duty to do so and you could not live with yourself if you turned your back and walked away.

I don’t think being emotionally informed consists of trying to empathize how others will feel if they choose not to make decisions according to your morals. I have no clue whether others do “the right thing” out of the sheer force of internalized guilt.

[randolfe]

Well Jace,
You really miss the point when you say:
"I don’t think being emotionally informed consists of trying to empathize how others will feel if they choose not to make decisions according to your morals"

What I am saying is that we are prisoner of our OWN morals. Each of us makes these decisions, or they are made for us, by our own moral compass. Your morals or anyone else's morals mean nothing to me. I had violent arguments with so-called friends who told me I "didn't" have to care for my sick loved ones.

No, legally I really didn't. I would have saved perahps $100,000 and been way ahead of the financial game ion life if I had not. However, if I had acted in such an immoral Machivellian fashion I would have probably ended up drinking myself to death because of guilt.

That is my point. Morality and altruism has nothing to do with belief in "Jesus". It has everything to do with what you believe about human relationships and responsibility.

Perhaps, I might add that I was taking care of my homosexual lover of 18 years which, because of the law's lack of recognition of our relationship, I had no legal obligation to support and take care of. In fact, we had a deathbed wedding nineteen days before he died in 1990.

I have always been ahead of my time.


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

[Jace Tropic]

I think the misunderstanding stems from your idea that morals or not chosen, and if they are chosen we are a prisoner of them. This doesn’t make sense to me. If I refute a particular moral tomorrow, for example, I will not hold onto it and, thus, I am not a prisoner of my morals.

[David]

That is my point. Morality and altruism has nothing to do with belief in "Jesus". It has everything to do with what you believe about human relationships and responsibility.

Morality shmorality. I tried to think of a word that rythms with altruism but really means bullshit, but I couldn't think of one unfortunately! You hit the nail on the head when you mention the internal pain you would go through if you didn't look after your sick lover (Condolences by the way. death is a hideouse disease and nobody deserves it. Ever!) Behavour is all about emotional economic rationalism, costs vs benifits. The cost of not looking after your sick lover was far too high. By your actions you didn't have to pay that particular price.

This has nothing to do with Jesus, altruism or morality. It has to do with how you would feel caring for them, VS how you would feel not caring for them. Humans are like electricity, we take the path of least emotional resistance. You encountered less emotional resistance looking after your lover than if you hadn't looked after them.

I admire you for it! No doubt your actions made your lover feel better in their last days! You are obviously the product of a good gene/environmental mix. Good on you! Should be more like you!

Dave