The True Root of All Evil...

[Not2BSubjugated]

Nonsense.

First off your accusation regarding my quoted definition as having a "REQUIREMENT" for dis-regard is nonsense. Your's used the term esp. to add emphasis. Mine simply made the same statement your's emphasized without adding the suggestion that it was not a requirement. Mine did not say what you are saying it said. Thus, you have yet to comprehend what I'm saying.

"you haven't given me a definition of lust that is a counterexample of lust being selfish"

I provided a counter example for another type of desire, that of pride. I guess you missed it.

Here, for your reading pleasure. I give you a story of romance. A story in which the initial lustful desires of a couple for each other transcend into self-less love for each other. Yeah sometimes that actually happens. You see it is possible for lust to begat not from selfish desires but from the rewards of a loving self-less relationship in which either party would self-lessly give their time, money, nay even lives to forgo any such meaningless lust originating sexual gratification to the exclusion of their partner. Nay, I say unto you that the mere act of giving your partner pleasure may be much more gratifying than receiving same.

Thus, accusing self-less acts of giving (sexual pleasure to your partner) as being selfish acts is nonsensical, ridiculous, and provably incorrect. Ergo... proof complete.

WTF!? I can understand missing the meaning of my argument, but not understanding the implications of YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!? Actually, that's overly generous. Fuck implications. You apparently don't understand the DIRECT MEANING of what you actually posted.

You literally based your -ENTIRE- opening argument on the requirement for disregard. Let me quote it for you and tell you how you did so.

"self·ish adjective
: having or showing concern only for yourself and not for the needs or feelings of other people

Note: one can lust and still show concern, one can be lustful without being selfish about it."

First of all, the very wording of the definition you used contains the requirement I was criticizing. "Having or showing concern ONLY for yourself AND not for the needs or feelings of other people". ONLY with yourself. AND not for the needs of other people, not OR, not MAYBE. AND. Since you're so concerned with linguistics, this should be easy enough for you to grasp, I won't go into the definitions of these very basic words.

You then reinforce the portion of the definition in question with your argument. "One can lust and still show concern. . .". This implies that showing concern negates its nature as a selfish act. If that is the case, then your definition most definitely does -require- a lack of regard for others to qualify anything as selfish.

So, if I'm not comprehending what you're saying, here, it's because you're using foreign definitions of the words "and" and "only". I'm also somehow missing how your argument here doesn't contradict itself.

The only reason you gave that your counterexample showed lust that was unselfish is that it could show regard for the other person. If that regard is the only remarkable trait you've pointed out (and it is), AND that regard excuses the act of lust from being a selfish act, then how can you claim that you aren't saying that disregard for others is a requirement for selfishness? The only thing I can think of is that regard for others sometimes excuses the act and sometimes doesn't, and for reasons that you have yet to articulate. If this is the case, please expound on where the distinction lies.

Come on, man, you don't gotta keep up with my arguments, but at least keep up with your own.

Your pride example was also errant, though mostly due to the peripheral issue. . .

"It is arguably self-centered but again one can be self-centered without being selfish."

Seeing as how selfish and self-centered are synonyms, no, one cannot be self-centered without being selfish.

More importantly, though:

Since you're just splitting hairs over how some motives make the act selfish and some make it unselfish, lemme just recap the overview.

Every act performed by a conscious being is a selfish one. Literally everything you do (unless you're possessed and being literally worked like a puppet) is the result of a value decision. When you give someone money, even if you do it SPECIFICALLY because you want them to have that money so they can eat, it's -still- a selfish act. You value that person having food to eat more than you value the amount of money that you gave them. If you did not, you would not have done so. Everything you do, including acts of altruism, is designed to promote and facilitate your personal values.

As a human being, you cannot escape that you are selfish. Everything you do is selfish.

If you drop the dogma-based, negative connotations that you seem to be harboring, you'll find this fact easy to swallow and, I daresay, liberating.

Now, before you go crazy calling this a baseless accusation, consider the fact that my ideas on selfishness have led you to assume that I've never been in a truly loving, meaningful, romantic relationship. Nay, that I'm unaware that such a thing could even exist!

Sorry to burst your bubble, but when I love, I do so all out! I don't even consider telling a girl I love her unless I care more for her than my own life, and don't doubt for one moment that I'd give my life in a heartbeat for the people closest to me. The difference between you and I isn't that I care less about people. The difference is simply that I acknowledge that even my willingness to die for a loved one is a selfish thing, born of the fact that I value a reality in which I die and they live on more than the alternative.

I also acknowledge that there's nothing selfless about love, especially that of the romantic variety. If the object of your affection didn't bring some value into your life, you wouldn't love them. I know you're probably going to take that statement as overly-literally as possible, so I'll preempt: When I say value, I don't mean physical value, necessarily. I mean simply that the net result of their presence in your life is a positive, emotionally. That person being a part of your life gives you happiness. If it didn't, you wouldn't feel the way you do about them.

Some might argue that you love even those whose presence equals a net negative. Anyone can call to mind many examples of people staying in friendships and even romantic relationships that are making them miserable. Don't mistake this with love, either. If you're staying around someone who makes you miserable, it's not love, it's a misplaced sense of duty. We like to call it love because nobody wants to believe that their motives are anything other than noble, but what it truly boils down to is avoidance, 10 times out of 10, though for varying reasons. Some people don't want to feel like an asshole who got buyer's remorse with another human being, some people do it for the kids, some people just plain don't like conflict. Still selfish.

Summary: you use a broad definition of the term selfishness to include all selfless acts, thus it is in your belief system that it is impossible for a human to perform a voluntary act that is not selfish. All acts from "birth" to "death" must be selfish, thus they are all selfish, thus all acts derive from said selfish desires no matter how altruistic they may appear on the surface.

IOW your definition of selfishness is really an attempt to find a term to describe all decisions of the soul, each and every decision we make reduced to biochemical reactions to stimuli by our brain. Said more simply, you don't believe in the concept of self determination, aka. the soul.

I on the other hand, disagree. I believe that while we may be reduced to soulless knee jerk reactive decision making based on eons of evolution, I also believe that we as humans have the ability to make conscious, soulful, decisions to do the opposite of what our biochemical reactive instincts are telling us to do. I believe we can fight up stream against our better judgement to do that which is not easy, not desirable, and not selfish.

Said yet another way, I don't share your philosophy.

You don't, and you also don't seem to share the philosophy of the straw man you stood up.

Thanks for telling me what I believe, though. I didn't even realize I believed those things! You must be some kinda psychic to take a look at all the possible philosophical explanations for what I said and boil it down with such certainty to one philosophy. Super psychic, too, cuz, like I said, it's not even the philosophy I thought I held!

God damn! Not2BSubjugated, meet Not2BSubjugated!

Anyway, lemme be serious for a moment.

My definition of selfish has -nothing- to do with whether or not I believe in a soul or self-determination. As an agnostic, I assume self-determination to be the case, though I don't fully believe one way or the other on either count. My definition of selfish also isn't an attempt to boil down anything. It's simply the recognition that, as an individual consciousness, I act only according to my values.

This doesn't mean you don't have some degree of self-determination (and a soul isn't necessary for this property either, you fuckin mystic), it simply means that you cannot escape that your actions are all designed to fulfill your values. I also don't know how you managed to convince yourself that I was definitely talking about a collection of knee jerk reactions resulting from biochemical reactions to stimuli to the brain. Good lord you're a presumptuous fucker.

Why don't you stick to telling us what you believe and leave my beliefs to me. I've got a pretty good handle on what they are, thanks

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Not too self righteous, are we?

Here's a little parable for you:

That is certainly not my intention.

But may I ask, how did you derive that from me starting a thread about selfishness being the root of all evil? In this post of mine you quoted, I asked "what would the world be like if everyone was completely unselfish"? I don't think that's "self righteous", but I may be wrong.

I've clearly stated that I'm far from an unselfish person, and that I (like most others) have a long, long way to go.

Because motive is everything. Christianity is based on motive, you can be as unselfish as you think you need to be, but if you do it grudgingly, or you think there is something in it for you, you might as well not do it at all as far as Christ is concerned.

This is the problem we run into with our friends on the political left. They couldn't care less about the poor, their motivation is to make you feel bad and look bad. They can claim to be selfless but they are only blackmailing others.

Funny you bring this up. This is one of the problems I have with both Christians -and- "the left". The idea that the motives are what justify the action. By this logic, Hitler was both a good Christian and a good Liberal, he was just a little misguided.

 

[RKMBrown]

WTF!? I can understand missing the meaning of my argument, but not understanding the implications of YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!? Actually, that's overly generous. Fuck implications. You apparently don't understand the DIRECT MEANING of what you actually posted.

You literally based your -ENTIRE- opening argument on the requirement for disregard. Let me quote it for you and tell you how you did so.

"self·ish adjective
: having or showing concern only for yourself and not for the needs or feelings of other people

Note: one can lust and still show concern, one can be lustful without being selfish about it."

First of all, the very wording of the definition you used contains the requirement I was criticizing. "Having or showing concern ONLY for yourself AND not for the needs or feelings of other people". ONLY with yourself. AND not for the needs of other people, not OR, not MAYBE. AND. Since you're so concerned with linguistics, this should be easy enough for you to grasp, I won't go into the definitions of these very basic words.

You then reinforce the portion of the definition in question with your argument. "One can lust and still show concern. . .". This implies that showing concern negates its nature as a selfish act. If that is the case, then your definition most definitely does -require- a lack of regard for others to qualify anything as selfish.

So, if I'm not comprehending what you're saying, here, it's because you're using foreign definitions of the words "and" and "only". I'm also somehow missing how your argument here doesn't contradict itself.

The only reason you gave that your counterexample showed lust that was unselfish is that it could show regard for the other person. If that regard is the only remarkable trait you've pointed out (and it is), AND that regard excuses the act of lust from being a selfish act, then how can you claim that you aren't saying that disregard for others is a requirement for selfishness? The only thing I can think of is that regard for others sometimes excuses the act and sometimes doesn't, and for reasons that you have yet to articulate. If this is the case, please expound on where the distinction lies.

Come on, man, you don't gotta keep up with my arguments, but at least keep up with your own.

Your pride example was also errant, though mostly due to the peripheral issue. . .

"It is arguably self-centered but again one can be self-centered without being selfish."

Seeing as how selfish and self-centered are synonyms, no, one cannot be self-centered without being selfish.

More importantly, though:

Since you're just splitting hairs over how some motives make the act selfish and some make it unselfish, lemme just recap the overview.

Every act performed by a conscious being is a selfish one. Literally everything you do (unless you're possessed and being literally worked like a puppet) is the result of a value decision. When you give someone money, even if you do it SPECIFICALLY because you want them to have that money so they can eat, it's -still- a selfish act. You value that person having food to eat more than you value the amount of money that you gave them. If you did not, you would not have done so. Everything you do, including acts of altruism, is designed to promote and facilitate your personal values.

As a human being, you cannot escape that you are selfish. Everything you do is selfish.

If you drop the dogma-based, negative connotations that you seem to be harboring, you'll find this fact easy to swallow and, I daresay, liberating.

Now, before you go crazy calling this a baseless accusation, consider the fact that my ideas on selfishness have led you to assume that I've never been in a truly loving, meaningful, romantic relationship. Nay, that I'm unaware that such a thing could even exist!

Sorry to burst your bubble, but when I love, I do so all out! I don't even consider telling a girl I love her unless I care more for her than my own life, and don't doubt for one moment that I'd give my life in a heartbeat for the people closest to me. The difference between you and I isn't that I care less about people. The difference is simply that I acknowledge that even my willingness to die for a loved one is a selfish thing, born of the fact that I value a reality in which I die and they live on more than the alternative.

I also acknowledge that there's nothing selfless about love, especially that of the romantic variety. If the object of your affection didn't bring some value into your life, you wouldn't love them. I know you're probably going to take that statement as overly-literally as possible, so I'll preempt: When I say value, I don't mean physical value, necessarily. I mean simply that the net result of their presence in your life is a positive, emotionally. That person being a part of your life gives you happiness. If it didn't, you wouldn't feel the way you do about them.

Some might argue that you love even those whose presence equals a net negative. Anyone can call to mind many examples of people staying in friendships and even romantic relationships that are making them miserable. Don't mistake this with love, either. If you're staying around someone who makes you miserable, it's not love, it's a misplaced sense of duty. We like to call it love because nobody wants to believe that their motives are anything other than noble, but what it truly boils down to is avoidance, 10 times out of 10, though for varying reasons. Some people don't want to feel like an asshole who got buyer's remorse with another human being, some people do it for the kids, some people just plain don't like conflict. Still selfish.

Summary: you use a broad definition of the term selfishness to include all selfless acts, thus it is in your belief system that it is impossible for a human to perform a voluntary act that is not selfish. All acts from "birth" to "death" must be selfish, thus they are all selfish, thus all acts derive from said selfish desires no matter how altruistic they may appear on the surface.

IOW your definition of selfishness is really an attempt to find a term to describe all decisions of the soul, each and every decision we make reduced to biochemical reactions to stimuli by our brain. Said more simply, you don't believe in the concept of self determination, aka. the soul.

I on the other hand, disagree. I believe that while we may be reduced to soulless knee jerk reactive decision making based on eons of evolution, I also believe that we as humans have the ability to make conscious, soulful, decisions to do the opposite of what our biochemical reactive instincts are telling us to do. I believe we can fight up stream against our better judgement to do that which is not easy, not desirable, and not selfish.

Said yet another way, I don't share your philosophy.

You don't, and you also don't seem to share the philosophy of the straw man you stood up.

Thanks for telling me what I believe, though. I didn't even realize I believed those things! You must be some kinda psychic to take a look at all the possible philosophical explanations for what I said and boil it down with such certainty to one philosophy. Super psychic, too, cuz, like I said, it's not even the philosophy I thought I held!

God damn! Not2BSubjugated, meet Not2BSubjugated!

Anyway, lemme be serious for a moment.

My definition of selfish has -nothing- to do with whether or not I believe in a soul or self-determination. As an agnostic, I assume self-determination to be the case, though I don't fully believe one way or the other on either count. My definition of selfish also isn't an attempt to boil down anything. It's simply the recognition that, as an individual consciousness, I act only according to my values.

This doesn't mean you don't have some degree of self-determination (and a soul isn't necessary for this property either, you fuckin mystic), it simply means that you cannot escape that your actions are all designed to fulfill your values. I also don't know how you managed to convince yourself that I was definitely talking about a collection of knee jerk reactions resulting from biochemical reactions to stimuli to the brain. Good lord you're a presumptuous fucker.

Why don't you stick to telling us what you believe and leave my beliefs to me. I've got a pretty good handle on what they are, thanks

ROFL... you wrote a NOVEL shoving words in my mouth... and call me out for using your tactic to throw your lies about what I said back at you. lol Take two chill pills, do 25 pushups then come back if you still have something to argue about.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Summary: you use a broad definition of the term selfishness to include all selfless acts, thus it is in your belief system that it is impossible for a human to perform a voluntary act that is not selfish. All acts from "birth" to "death" must be selfish, thus they are all selfish, thus all acts derive from said selfish desires no matter how altruistic they may appear on the surface.

IOW your definition of selfishness is really an attempt to find a term to describe all decisions of the soul, each and every decision we make reduced to biochemical reactions to stimuli by our brain. Said more simply, you don't believe in the concept of self determination, aka. the soul.

I on the other hand, disagree. I believe that while we may be reduced to soulless knee jerk reactive decision making based on eons of evolution, I also believe that we as humans have the ability to make conscious, soulful, decisions to do the opposite of what our biochemical reactive instincts are telling us to do. I believe we can fight up stream against our better judgement to do that which is not easy, not desirable, and not selfish.

Said yet another way, I don't share your philosophy.

You don't, and you also don't seem to share the philosophy of the straw man you stood up.

Thanks for telling me what I believe, though. I didn't even realize I believed those things! You must be some kinda psychic to take a look at all the possible philosophical explanations for what I said and boil it down with such certainty to one philosophy. Super psychic, too, cuz, like I said, it's not even the philosophy I thought I held!

God damn! Not2BSubjugated, meet Not2BSubjugated!

Anyway, lemme be serious for a moment.

My definition of selfish has -nothing- to do with whether or not I believe in a soul or self-determination. As an agnostic, I assume self-determination to be the case, though I don't fully believe one way or the other on either count. My definition of selfish also isn't an attempt to boil down anything. It's simply the recognition that, as an individual consciousness, I act only according to my values.

This doesn't mean you don't have some degree of self-determination (and a soul isn't necessary for this property either, you fuckin mystic), it simply means that you cannot escape that your actions are all designed to fulfill your values. I also don't know how you managed to convince yourself that I was definitely talking about a collection of knee jerk reactions resulting from biochemical reactions to stimuli to the brain. Good lord you're a presumptuous fucker.

Why don't you stick to telling us what you believe and leave my beliefs to me. I've got a pretty good handle on what they are, thanks

ROFL... you wrote a NOVEL shoving words in my mouth... and call me out for using your tactic to throw your lies about what I said back at you. lol Take two chill pills, do 25 pushups then come back if you still have something to argue about.

Shoving words in? Actually, what I did was explain to you the meaning of the words you had spewed out, which you seemed to be confused about. And not obscure, debatable, philosophical meaning. Simply the definitions of "and" and "only". Pretty measurable shit, really. No assumptions required.

I -did- make a couple assumptions about how you would probably respond (and when doing so, I did use the word probably ), but I didn't try to redefine your entire philosophy and then argue with that definition.

You're really bad at deciphering words, no?

 

[RKMBrown]

You don't, and you also don't seem to share the philosophy of the straw man you stood up.

Thanks for telling me what I believe, though. I didn't even realize I believed those things! You must be some kinda psychic to take a look at all the possible philosophical explanations for what I said and boil it down with such certainty to one philosophy. Super psychic, too, cuz, like I said, it's not even the philosophy I thought I held!

God damn! Not2BSubjugated, meet Not2BSubjugated!

Anyway, lemme be serious for a moment.

My definition of selfish has -nothing- to do with whether or not I believe in a soul or self-determination. As an agnostic, I assume self-determination to be the case, though I don't fully believe one way or the other on either count. My definition of selfish also isn't an attempt to boil down anything. It's simply the recognition that, as an individual consciousness, I act only according to my values.

This doesn't mean you don't have some degree of self-determination (and a soul isn't necessary for this property either, you fuckin mystic), it simply means that you cannot escape that your actions are all designed to fulfill your values. I also don't know how you managed to convince yourself that I was definitely talking about a collection of knee jerk reactions resulting from biochemical reactions to stimuli to the brain. Good lord you're a presumptuous fucker.

Why don't you stick to telling us what you believe and leave my beliefs to me. I've got a pretty good handle on what they are, thanks

ROFL... you wrote a NOVEL shoving words in my mouth... and call me out for using your tactic to throw your lies about what I said back at you. lol Take two chill pills, do 25 pushups then come back if you still have something to argue about.

Shoving words in? Actually, what I did was explain to you the meaning of the words you had spewed out, which you seemed to be confused about. And not obscure, debatable, philosophical meaning. Simply the definitions of "and" and "only". Pretty measurable shit, really. No assumptions required.

I -did- make a couple assumptions about how you would probably respond (and when doing so, I did use the word probably ), but I didn't try to redefine your entire philosophy and then argue with that definition.

You're really bad at deciphering words, no?

You really don't know what "summary" means... or In other words (IOW)?

Did you do you push-ups yet?

 

[Clement]

If you do something grudgingly, or think there's something in it for you, then you are not acting unselfishly. Isn't that the point I'm making?

Not exactly, because there is no way to tell the difference. You can't assume everybody's motives are pure, and I am just cynical enough to wonder if anybody's motives are pure. Especially, yours, and I am not saying that to be critical, I am just that realistic.

I'm talking about everyone truly unselfishly loving one another. This is not giving because you expect to receive something back (which is the basis for many marriages and so called "loving relationships" today, unfortunately). If you truly love your wife, your actions are solely for the betterment of her and not yourself.

I truly love my wife. But that's not what we're talking about.

I think that's too vast of a generalization to be true. There are people on both the right and the left who care very much about others, just like there are incredibly selfish people on both sides.

Suit yourself, I see it here every day. I also see it in the news. Obamacare was supposed to help us and all it's done is cost us more - the exact opposite of what was claimed. That's one example. And instead of walking it back, having seen the damage it has caused, it's full speed ahead.

 

[KevinWestern]

If you do something grudgingly, or think there's something in it for you, then you are not acting unselfishly. Isn't that the point I'm making?

Not exactly, because there is no way to tell the difference. You can't assume everybody's motives are pure, and I am just cynical enough to wonder if anybody's motives are pure. Especially, yours, and I am not saying that to be critical, I am just that realistic.

I'm talking about everyone truly unselfishly loving one another. This is not giving because you expect to receive something back (which is the basis for many marriages and so called "loving relationships" today, unfortunately). If you truly love your wife, your actions are solely for the betterment of her and not yourself.

I truly love my wife. But that's not what we're talking about.

I think that's too vast of a generalization to be true. There are people on both the right and the left who care very much about others, just like there are incredibly selfish people on both sides.

Suit yourself, I see it here every day. I also see it in the news. Obamacare was supposed to help us and all it's done is cost us more - the exact opposite of what was claimed. That's one example. And instead of walking it back, having seen the damage it has caused, it's full speed ahead.

Obamacare sucks.

Also want to add I came across an interesting passage in the Bible where an angel was showing a soul (who was going to heaven) what hell looked like. There was a giant bowl with nutritious stew with people all around it holding 12 foot spoons. Despite food being so close by, everyone was starving and miserable. When the angel brought the soul to heaven, surprisingly the scene was somewhat similar (giant bowl, nutritious stew, people sitting around it). This time everyone was happy, well fed.

The only difference? The people in hell were thinking only of themselves and couldn't - by themselves - scoop the stew and eat it due to the length of the spoon. However, if they fed one another (like in heaven), there was absolutely no hunger problem and everyone was fulfilled.

This another example of the bible demonstrating that Selfishness is the root of all evil.

Jesus's only commandment was to love one another. The bible also states that selfishness - not hate - is the polar opposite of Love.

Interesting, huh?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

With all due respect, hogwash.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Besides, did you ever stop and think about how selfish it is of you to try and rope people into your way of looking at things in such a manner?

Did I ever claim to be an unselfish person? I don't think so (but correct me if you think I'm wrong here).

Additionally, all I did was post something that rings true to me; did I force you to come here? To respond?

And regarding my question, it was just a simple challenge because I tried and couldn't think of anything - literally. But of course, you may have a different view. It's a good starting point. If someone can demonstrate that something earthly that we consider to be "evil" isn't rooted in selfishness, then obviously the OP would not be fully correct.




.

Let's redirect this.

Money is just a thing. An inanimate object, with no will or power of decision of its own.

To say that is the absolute rot of all evil is as absurd as the argument that the mere presence of and relatively free access to firearms leads, as a matter of course, to mass shootings.

It is a simplistic attempt to shift the blame from antisocial people to something that, by its very nature, cannot defend itself.

Better now?

 

[Clement]

The bible also states that selfishness - not hate - is the polar opposite of Love.

Chapter and verse? I ask because your interpretations of what the Bible says are, shall we say, unique. The word "eisegesis" comes to mind.

 

[KevinWestern]

With all due respect, hogwash.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Besides, did you ever stop and think about how selfish it is of you to try and rope people into your way of looking at things in such a manner?

Did I ever claim to be an unselfish person? I don't think so (but correct me if you think I'm wrong here).

Additionally, all I did was post something that rings true to me; did I force you to come here? To respond?

And regarding my question, it was just a simple challenge because I tried and couldn't think of anything - literally. But of course, you may have a different view. It's a good starting point. If someone can demonstrate that something earthly that we consider to be "evil" isn't rooted in selfishness, then obviously the OP would not be fully correct.




.

Let's redirect this.

Money is just a thing. An inanimate object, with no will or power of decision of its own.

To say that is the absolute rot of all evil is as absurd as the argument that the mere presence of and relatively free access to firearms leads, as a matter of course, to mass shootings.

It is a simplistic attempt to shift the blame from antisocial people to something that, by its very nature, cannot defend itself.

Better now?

I never said money was the root of all evil, right?

 

[KevinWestern]

The bible also states that selfishness - not hate - is the polar opposite of Love.

Chapter and verse? I ask because your interpretations of what the Bible says are, shall we say, unique. The word "eisegesis" comes to mind.

Not sure. Didn't like the story?

You seem to be a bit confrontational; why?

 

[Clement]

The bible also states that selfishness - not hate - is the polar opposite of Love.

Chapter and verse? I ask because your interpretations of what the Bible says are, shall we say, unique. The word "eisegesis" comes to mind.

Not sure. Didn't like the story?

You seem to be a bit confrontational; why?

No, not really, and I am a little out of sorts - not feeling well. Probably should refrain from posting.

 

[KevinWestern]

Chapter and verse? I ask because your interpretations of what the Bible says are, shall we say, unique. The word "eisegesis" comes to mind.

Not sure. Didn't like the story?

You seem to be a bit confrontational; why?

No, not really, and I am a little out of sorts - not feeling well. Probably should refrain from posting.

Perhaps. Personally, I think it's a nice story. What could be so bad?

It's just a demonstration of how if we work together unselfishly, we can all be abundantly fed - in many ways.

Feel better.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

ROFL... you wrote a NOVEL shoving words in my mouth... and call me out for using your tactic to throw your lies about what I said back at you. lol Take two chill pills, do 25 pushups then come back if you still have something to argue about.

Shoving words in? Actually, what I did was explain to you the meaning of the words you had spewed out, which you seemed to be confused about. And not obscure, debatable, philosophical meaning. Simply the definitions of "and" and "only". Pretty measurable shit, really. No assumptions required.

I -did- make a couple assumptions about how you would probably respond (and when doing so, I did use the word probably ), but I didn't try to redefine your entire philosophy and then argue with that definition.

You're really bad at deciphering words, no?

You really don't know what "summary" means... or In other words (IOW)?

Did you do you push-ups yet?

Lol!

I understand what summary means, and your summary was correct.

I also understand IOW, which is what preceded the sentence where you made a -huge- leap of logic and errantly assumed you were reading the correct implications into my reasoning. You were not. I don't believe or disbelieve in a soul, and nowhere in my argument did I subscribe to any idea that requires that a soul does or does not exist, thus your assumption is incorrect, thus IOW was invalid. Get it? Though, if I did say something that negates the possibility of a soul, please point it out so I can re-examine my philosophy. Accusations without any backup aren't helpful.

I've done considerably more than 25 push ups since that exchange, thanks, but I don't have any chill pills

 

[Clement]

Funny you bring this up. This is one of the problems I have with both Christians -and- "the left". The idea that the motives are what justify the action. By this logic, Hitler was both a good Christian and a good Liberal, he was just a little misguided.

You missed the point by a mile.

Ever hear the phrase, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? All the good intentions in the world don't halp anything or anybody if the motive is wrong. Motives don't "justify" anything, which is why we need to examine our own motives before we take action, which is why I take exception to the OP - who knows your motives other than yourself? How do you know whether someone is selfless or if they have a martyr complex that will demand payment down the road?

Mankind as a group cannot be trusted with such a lofty principle.

 

[Clement]

Not sure. Didn't like the story?

You seem to be a bit confrontational; why?

No, not really, and I am a little out of sorts - not feeling well. Probably should refrain from posting.

Perhaps. Personally, I think it's a nice story. What could be so bad?

It's just a demonstration of how if we work together unselfishly, we can all be abundantly fed - in many ways.

Let me know how that works out for you. Sounds like a pipe dream to me, this side of eternity.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Funny you bring this up. This is one of the problems I have with both Christians -and- "the left". The idea that the motives are what justify the action. By this logic, Hitler was both a good Christian and a good Liberal, he was just a little misguided.

You missed the point by a mile.

Ever hear the phrase, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? All the good intentions in the world don't halp anything or anybody if the motive is wrong. Motives don't "justify" anything, which is why we need to examine our own motives before we take action, which is why I take exception to the OP - who knows your motives other than yourself? How do you know whether someone is selfless or if they have a martyr complex that will demand payment down the road?

Mankind as a group cannot be trusted with such a lofty principle.

By my reasoning, selfless isn't possible for creatures wired up as we are. You know who's selfless? Worker bees. Ant drones. Humans all act according to individual desires. Selfishness is simply an inevitability of the human condition.

Also, I'd have to say I didn't miss your point at all. You said that in Christianity, motive is everything. I agree.

If I gave the church half my money for my whole life because I want to buy my way into heaven, I would've given the church half my money!

If I gave the church half my money for my whole life because I love God and want His cause to be furthered, I would've given the church half my money!

Even though the results are the same, the bible tells me only one of these things will get me into heaven.

What's really fucked up about it is that the reasoning behind it boils down to emotion. Either I truly -feel- love for the lord and the word as I live a pious life, or I don't -feel- that way and I simply go through the motions because I have to. The best part of that? Emotion is fucking involuntary! God says that, no matter how obedient you are, feelings that you have no direct control over can make you an evil person and keep you from heaven?

What a dick. I really hope Christians don't turn out to be correct.

 

[Clement]

Funny you bring this up. This is one of the problems I have with both Christians -and- "the left". The idea that the motives are what justify the action. By this logic, Hitler was both a good Christian and a good Liberal, he was just a little misguided.

You missed the point by a mile.

Ever hear the phrase, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? All the good intentions in the world don't halp anything or anybody if the motive is wrong. Motives don't "justify" anything, which is why we need to examine our own motives before we take action, which is why I take exception to the OP - who knows your motives other than yourself? How do you know whether someone is selfless or if they have a martyr complex that will demand payment down the road?

Mankind as a group cannot be trusted with such a lofty principle.

By my reasoning, selfless isn't possible for creatures wired up as we are. You know who's selfless? Worker bees. Ant drones. Humans all act according to individual desires. Selfishness is simply an inevitability of the human condition.

Also, I'd have to say I didn't miss your point at all. You said that in Christianity, motive is everything. I agree.

If I gave the church half my money for my whole life because I want to buy my way into heaven, I would've given the church half my money!

If I gave the church half my money for my whole life because I love God and want His cause to be furthered, I would've given the church half my money!

Even though the results are the same, the bible tells me only one of these things will get me into heaven.

What's really fucked up about it is that the reasoning behind it boils down to emotion. Either I truly -feel- love for the lord and the word as I live a pious life, or I don't -feel- that way and I simply go through the motions because I have to. The best part of that? Emotion is fucking involuntary! God says that, no matter how obedient you are, feelings that you have no direct control over can make you an evil person and keep you from heaven?

What a dick. I really hope Christians don't turn out to be correct.

Even though the results are the same, the bible tells me only one of these things will get me into heaven.

I don't believe that. I know a lot of people (especially here) won't agree with me, but I think there is such a thing as faking it until you make it.

God says that, no matter how obedient you are, feelings that you have no direct control over can make you an evil person and keep you from heaven?

Not so. If you start out with bad intent, that's one thing, but if you start out by following what you already know about right and wrong, you have a chance. Hear what St. Paul says:

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

This is what makes it possible for even agnostic to see God, if they go by what God has already shown us about His nature - love your neighbor as yourself.

Atheists I am not so sure about. Most of the ones I encounter seem more intent on hating the God they claim they don't believe in, and His people - Jew or Christian.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

You missed the point by a mile.

Ever hear the phrase, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? All the good intentions in the world don't halp anything or anybody if the motive is wrong. Motives don't "justify" anything, which is why we need to examine our own motives before we take action, which is why I take exception to the OP - who knows your motives other than yourself? How do you know whether someone is selfless or if they have a martyr complex that will demand payment down the road?

Mankind as a group cannot be trusted with such a lofty principle.

By my reasoning, selfless isn't possible for creatures wired up as we are. You know who's selfless? Worker bees. Ant drones. Humans all act according to individual desires. Selfishness is simply an inevitability of the human condition.

Also, I'd have to say I didn't miss your point at all. You said that in Christianity, motive is everything. I agree.

If I gave the church half my money for my whole life because I want to buy my way into heaven, I would've given the church half my money!

If I gave the church half my money for my whole life because I love God and want His cause to be furthered, I would've given the church half my money!

Even though the results are the same, the bible tells me only one of these things will get me into heaven.

What's really fucked up about it is that the reasoning behind it boils down to emotion. Either I truly -feel- love for the lord and the word as I live a pious life, or I don't -feel- that way and I simply go through the motions because I have to. The best part of that? Emotion is fucking involuntary! God says that, no matter how obedient you are, feelings that you have no direct control over can make you an evil person and keep you from heaven?

What a dick. I really hope Christians don't turn out to be correct.

I don't believe that. I know a lot of people (especially here) won't agree with me, but I think there is such a thing as faking it until you make it.

God says that, no matter how obedient you are, feelings that you have no direct control over can make you an evil person and keep you from heaven?

Not so. If you start out with bad intent, that's one thing, but if you start out by following what you already know about right and wrong, you have a chance. Hear what St. Paul says:

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

This is what makes it possible for even agnostic to see God, if they go by what God has already shown us about His nature - love your neighbor as yourself.

Atheists I am not so sure about. Most of the ones I encounter seem more intent on hating the God they claim they don't believe in, and His people - Jew or Christian.

If you believe you can fake it til you make it, you've definitely got a softer view on the subject than what I was raised with, much to your credit (in my opinion).

Next, what I was referring to wasn't necessarily starting out with bad intent. The bible says love the lord. What if, for instance, you have the same Christian experience I had?

The God of the bible wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah, men, women, and children, because they were sinful cities. Was every single person in those cities, including the kids, guilty of these death-worthy sins?

The God of the bible murdered the first-born sons of Egypt for the crimes of the Pharaoh. Let me repeat that. The God of the bible murdered all the first born sons of Egypt for the crimes of ONE MAN!

The God of the bible is so insecure about the love of his creations that he will punish via HELLFIRE anyone who loves any other god before him, even though He's offered no conclusive proof that He is the true God.

The God of the bible punished every future generation of mankind with exile from Eden and The Curse because Adam and Eve fucked up.

The list goes on, but there's a lot of shit in the bible that paints God as indiscriminately, unjustly wrathful, and an insecure basket-case to boot. There are many things about that God that I find quite unloveable, yet as a child and teenager, I certainly feared the hellfire that I was raised to believe was awaiting me if I disobeyed. So I did what I could to obey. Church all the time, read my bible, said my prayers, even tithed and paid offering every Sunday tho I was a kid with no income. And yet I was raised to believe that this was not enough. Only truly -feeling- it would make it right, and during that time that my fear enabled me to convince myself I believed any of it, I never did reconcile how to make myself love this God who, as I learned more and more about him, I found less and less loveable.

I also never considered your St. Paul quote one that had anything to do with the situation I'm describing, as he is clearly referring to people who haven't ever been exposed to the word of God. For those who are aware of what is right and wrong, I've always been of the understanding that, without the proper motive, living righteously isn't possible. If that isn't your interpretation, I would again say that your's, to its credit, is a softer interpretation than most.

 

[MaxGrit]

So, although I'm not a Christian - specifically, in the Religious sense - I'm a rather spiritual guy and in the ideas/circles I run with Jesus is often regarded as one of the rare "highly enlightened" beings that have walked on the face of the planet.

Wrong.

What was his only commandment? It was "to love one another" (ie the "New Commandment")

Wrong.

Kinda interesting, isn't it?

No.