Thread: Selflessness

Originally Posted by Capulet

Well, you're asking me to make an assumption here, but I'll give it a shot:

You say the father has a child, and from your later quoting of scripture, I'm going to assume you're Christian. Because of that, I'm also going to assume the father waited until he is married. The wife stayed home to raise the child, because their values indicated it was best for them to raise and teach the child themselves, thus the man is the primary income earner in the family. He works full days, but only personally collects a small percentage of the benefit from that work, choosing instead to give it to the family.

The woman seeks out the company of a strange boy, clearly a red flag. She could be single, thus having lots of disposable income that giving to strange children is no large feat for her. If she does have children, she too is probably married and a stay at home mom, and thus giving toys purchased with the money her husband provided. Can we call someone generous if they are giving away that which they did not earn?

Of course, this is all predicated on the assumption that giving toys to children at Christmas is generosity, let alone good. Christ never gave children toys at Christmas, and I see it nowhere in the new testament. I find the giving of toys at Christmas to be an obfuscation of the true meaning of the holiday, and Christians should see it as an affront to their belief system.

So, assuming they do not understand how they are undermining Christianity with their callous actions, I would have to say the father is the more generous of the two, as opposed to the woman that is creepily hanging out with strange children.


Ok. Gotcha. So I must free myself from low level emotions, but love has many levels... So I will cease to hate the killer; I will just love him at the -10 level, where 0 is the baseline.

I'd love to see the source for your 1%/99% statistics though. Do you have a link? I'm curious to see how they framed the experiment to derive those numbers.

You have this thing with Christianity. Maybe, you are justified because for centuries the teachings of Christ have been distorted. But the primary message is a rather simple one: treat others as one would want others to treat him.

You mustn't do anything besides paying taxes and dying. The source for my statistics is all around you. It even spilled from your own mind--you said you would hate the person who kills someone you loved dearly. So would nearly anybody else--but that one person in one hundred whose forgiveness is incomprehensible to you.


Stats? Love isn't found in a book. It's much closer. By the way, carefully reread (or read) the passage about love. It will all come together.

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

You have this thing with Christianity. Maybe, you are justified because for centuries the teachings of Christ have been distorted. But the primary message was a rather simple one: treat others as one would want others to treat him.

You quote scripture, and quote/reference the actions of Christ, but because I mention it I have a thing with Christianity? Make your point without mentioning Christ or Christianity, and I won't bring it up. Until then, I think you should be ready to defend your sources if you if/when you intend on using any. At the very least, you shouldn't claim fault on someone else if they address your sources.

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

You mustn't do anything besides paying taxes and dying.

Wait, I thought you were encouraging me to love selflessly and unconditionally. I'm getting mixed messages from you. Am I supposed to love, or just pay taxes and die?

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

The source for my statistics is all around you. It even spilled from your own mind--you said you would hate the person who kills someone you loved dearly. So would nearly anybody else--but that one person in one hundred whose forgiveness is incomprehensible to you.

So you have a sample size of one... I don't think that meets the standards of statistical validity.

Instead of discussing people I don't understand, those who can provide unconditional love and forgiveness, why don't we discuss someone else. Like Jesus, a man filled with such rage at seeing merchants selling doves that he destroyed their personal property and chased them with threat of further violence from the temple.

My only hope was that there were at least 100 merchants chased from the temple, because if your statistics are correct then at least that one loved him unconditionally, and forgave him for his violent and intolerant nature.

My only hope was that there were at least 100 merchants chased from the temple, because if your statistics are correct then at least that one loved him unconditionally, and forgave him for his violent and intolerant nature.

You keep using examples filled with holes. Christ's actions turning tables and calling certain individuals hypocrites were not motivated by hatred. It isn't the people you fail to understand, it is the concept of love which you cannot grasp and probably never will.

I don't encourage people to do anything. I'm not a preacher and I don't even go to a church when a sermon is being delivered (I prefer empty churches). I throw a ball across the great lawn in a nearby park and my dog fetches. I'm happy; he's happy; we're happy.

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

My only hope was that there were at least 100 merchants chased from the temple, because if your statistics are correct then at least that one loved him unconditionally, and forgave him for his violent and intolerant nature.

You keep using examples filled with holes. Christ's actions turning tables and calling certain individuals hypocrites were not motivated by hatred. It isn't the people you fail to understand, it is the concept of love which you cannot grasp and probably never will.

I don't encourage people to do anything. I'm not a preacher and I don't even go to a church when a sermon is being delivered (I prefer empty churches). I throw a ball across the great lawn in a nearby park and my dog fetches. I'm happy; he's happy; we're happy.

Well, he certainly didn't turn the other cheek when he blew through the temple, did he? That sounds hypocritical to me.

As for your church habits: you should be taking in the fellowship of your fellow Christians. To deny yourself and the rest of the church your fellowship is not proper conduct. You should be an active part of the Christian community if you want to be following Christ's example properly, not skulking in during off hours.

You are right that I'll probably never understand your concept of love. I have one that works quite well for me and my family/friends. I'm happy; they're happy; we're happy.

Your callous enslavement of an animal and their forced labour is best discussed in the animal intelligence thread.

Originally Posted by Capulet

Well, he certainly didn't turn the other cheek when he blew through the temple, did he? That sounds hypocritical to me.

As for your church habits: you should be taking in the fellowship of your fellow Christians. To deny yourself and the rest of the church your fellowship is not proper conduct. You should be an active part of the Christian community if you want to be following Christ's example properly, not skulking in during off hours.

You are right that I'll probably never understand your concept of love. I have one that works quite well for me and my family/friends. I'm happy; they're happy; we're happy.

Your callous enslavement of an animal and their forced labour is best discussed in the animal intelligence thread.

My concept? Socrates, Saul, Einstein--oh, no. I'm not in that class, not even close.

Since you mentioned family, I'll mention my mom. In all the years I knew her, I never saw her near a Bible. And as I grew older and began to peek into one myself, it struck me that she didn't need to read the words written inside because she lived those words. Words are just that--they are words; they are meaningless, regardless how good you are dressing them up.

But those who have a need for church and pastors, I don't despise them. If it makes them happy, they should be happy. I got all the training I needed long ago, without even realizing it.

But, you know what is mind-boggling to me. How can people dislike a man like Jesus? I mean, you may despise religion and all the crap that swindling, wacked-out preachers dish out, but Jesus? Here is a man who preached nothing but brotherhood and love; a man that healed the sick; a man who would do anything for his friends. And you have a bone to pick with him?

That's mind-bobbliing to me. It seems so pitiful, but that's your life, your journey. The bed you have made for yourself. Pleasant dreams, my friend.

Originally Posted by Capulet

Well, he certainly didn't turn the other cheek when he blew through the temple, did he? That sounds hypocritical to me.

Your callous enslavement of an animal and their forced labour is best discussed in the animal intelligence thread.

oops, two things I forgot to mention:

#1- I would get down on my knees and lick urine-covered ground for a year if the worst thing one human being would do to another is toss over his table.

#2- Callous enslavement of an animal? Seven years ago my wife spotted our dog Lucky in 117 degree heat in the desert. Some freaking asshole probably abandoned him there. We took Lucky home, and he's been the happiest dog in town since. If showing concern for some helpless creature is enslavement, well, then, it's your dictionary. And I'm glad it's not mine.


Careful with the beef. Mad cow disease is still going around.

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

My concept? Socrates, Saul, Einstein--oh, no. I'm not in that class, not even close.

Well, true, you are not in that class, but you do seem to be willing to quote from them liberally, and then pawn off defense of the quotes because you profess being incapable. I would suggest that, if you feel unworthy of defending their words, you do not quote them.

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

Since you mentioned family, I'll mention my mom. In all the years I knew her, I never saw her near a Bible. And as I grew older and began to peek into one myself, it struck me that she didn't need to read the words written inside because she lived those words. Words are just that--they are words; they are meaningless, regardless how good you are dressing them up.

If your mom never read a Bible, how could she live the words? That seems particularly difficult since studying scripture is a prime duty for Christians. So while I can't comment on her as a person, you paint her as a bad Christian. Moreover, you say she lived the words, and that the words are "meaningless", so she lived a meaningless life? Please correct me if I'm interpreting you wrong.

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

But those who have a need for church and pastors, I don't despise them. If it makes them happy, they should be happy. I got all the training I needed long ago, without even realizing it.

It's not about training, it's about living your life in a pious manner. Part of that piety is to read Scripture, obey it, and take part in the community of Christ. So far you have told me you don't care for the Bible, and have no desire to take part in the community of Christ. I don't think you're fitting the description of "Christian" very well, do you?

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

But, you know what is mind-boggling to me. How can people dislike a man like Jesus?
I mean, you may despise religion and all the crap that swindling, wacked-out preachers dish out, but Jesus?

First off, I don't despire "religion and all the crap...", but if I did I would consider Jesus part of "all the crap", wouldn't I? Since I doubt you learned of Jesus firsthand (if he existed), you learned from him somewhere. Chances are it's from the Bible, or from someone that read the Bible. How can you divorce him from the Bible, preachers, or the rest of what comes with Christianity? It's hardly pious to pick and choose.

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

That's mind-bobbliing to me. It seems so pitiful, but that's your life, your journey. The bed you have made for yourself. Pleasant dreams, my friend.

Thank you for calling my life pitiful.

But I don't think we ever cleared up our disagreement on your assertion that all positive actions come from love. Nor do I believe we've come to agree that the woman who gives to a strange(?) child is being more selfless than the father giving to his son.

But let's examine those two together: the only difference between the father's and the woman's giving is the amount of emotional attachment the two have for their recipients. It is clearly implied the father must love his son, and that the woman is at best indifferent to the child as an individual, even though she might love humanity as a whole. Person attachment between the two is minimal.

Is this is true, that the less you care for someone, the more meaningful/selfless it is to give to them, then consider this:

If I had a liter of water to last me a two day walk in the desert, and I came across my most-hated enemy, whom giving water would provide me no benefit, not only would it be selfless of me to share my water with him, but it would be even more selfless than if I shared it with a friend or family member.

Hate has been a key component to enhancing the selflessness of my action. Also, since love is not a factor, and my action is clearly a positive one (preserving life), we have an example of a positive action occurring without love being involved.

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

0oops, two things I forgot to mention:

#1- I would get down on my knees and lick urine-covered ground for a year if the worst thing one human being would do to another is toss over his table.

So it was ok... because there were worse crimes being committed elsewhere? Please remind me not to retain you as legal council.

"Your honour, my client may have robbed the accuser, but others are being killed around the globe! Clearly you must acquit."

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

#2- Callous enslavement of an animal? Seven years ago my wife spotted our dog Lucky in 117 degree heat in the desert. Some freaking a**hole probably abandoned him there. We took Lucky home, and he's been the happiest dog in town since. If showing concern for some helpless creature is enslavement, well, then, it's your dictionary. And I'm glad it's not mine.

First, let me say that I did need a dictionary to look up what that word you used meant, and was clearly appalled once I found out it was a curse word. I thought this was a family-oriented board, and that you were an upstanding Christian sort. Once I recovered from my swoon, I began typing this reply.

Your concern for the animal (his slave-name is Lucky?) is admirable, but if you haven't been able to nurse the dog back to health in seven years, perhaps you should let a professional take a crack at it. If the dog is now healthy, you should set him free. Perhaps he was on some mission like the Littlest Hobo, and you have kept him from his work. Regardless, if you put a door, fence, or leash in the way of his free mobility, you are enslaving the movements of another intelligent creature to your whim. If you're fine with that, I'm not going to tell you how to live your life within the legal framework of the country. It's like plantation owners taking joy in the happiness of their African-American property before there was a mental and legal shift in society, and such ownership was seen in the proper (a)moral light.