DescentBB

Thorne, I generally agree with everything you said about selfishness, so long as you aren't talking about a trivial selfishness that allows one to label any action performed by a non-Christian as selfish, even knowing nothing else about the circumstances. You could not make your case against this type of selfishness. For example, you claim that selfishness is a bad habit. But this is not true of the trivial selfishness. Dictionary.com says a habit is this: "an acquired behavior pattern regularly followed until it has become almost involuntary." But trivial selfishness has no period of acquisition--it's always trivially true of any non-Christian action. Moreover, it's not almost involuntary--it's completely involuntary. The politician who publicly performs a charitable deed for popularity is acting selfishly in a meaningful way, but the non-Christian who privately performs a charitable deed with every good intention in conscious in mind is not acting selfishly in a meaningful way.

Duper wrote:It has been my exp watching and interacting that after they lay down excellent proofing and reason that their posts get sidestepped or replies are made in the form of splitting hairs into infinity.

Lame--whenever you think someone is sidestepping a reply or needlessly splitting hairs, you should call them out on it. It's intellectually responsible, not only because you're testing the person's views, but also because you're allowing your own views to be tested.

I’m not sure what I’m hearing here, but it sounds like your saying that Christians are somehow by default less selfish than non-Christians, please tell me that is not what you saying. I was raised a Christian and married as a Christian, and from “my” perspective most Christians act on the motivation of saving their souls, and that seems like a very selfish reason, and would imply that every act derived from that motivation is purely self serving…

As I understand him, Thorne is saying that whatever unselfishness a Christian has is a reflection of God's own nature working in them, not that they are somehow magically changed to be unselfish in themselves.

Spidey wrote:...most Christians act on the motivation of saving their souls, and that seems like a very selfish reason...

That's an interesting point. I don't know that it applies to "most", but there are certainly some Christians whose motivation is solely to get to Heaven, or to avoid Hell; that's certainly a selfish reason. That kind of motivation has often been used in evangelism as well, which is disappointing to me. The motivation for putting one's faith in Christ should never be about "What can I get out of it?; it should be primarily about who He is.

There's no "should" about it. Jesus said:

John 12 wrote:25 "He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

Foil, please refrain in the future from explaining for me. I appreciate the effort, but I think that you and I are generally too opposed for that to work out well.


I think you're making a mistake with that scenario, Jeff. I wouldn't necessarily say that the non-Christian is acting selfishly at all. I don't feel the need to try to make non-Christians out to be absolutely selfish. I think I would be standing in denial of reality to try. As long as a person has genuine love for another or others, they can be unselfish. I think it would be correct to say that genuine love (not fondness, not attraction) is the prerequisite for, and even the cause of selflessness.

I can think of few scriptures that pertain:

1 Corinthians 13 wrote:4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;

Matthew 24 wrote:12 "And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.

(My dad tells me that the Greek for this verse contains two instances of the "definite article" ("the"): "the love of the many"--or most)

I agree--I'm resisting Snoopy's stance that even seemingly altruistic non-Christians can't be unselfish. It might be wise to wait for Snoopy to see if I responded to something that represents his position accurately.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Foil, please refrain in the future from explaining for me. I appreciate the effort, but I think that you and I are generally too opposed for that to work out well.

Having someone else say "I think he meant..." is ESPECIALLY valuable if they are from a different point of view, since it gives you an insight into what others actually heard as opposed to what you meant to say.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Foil, please refrain in the future from explaining for me. I appreciate the effort, but I think that you and I are generally too opposed for that to work out well.

I was trying to clarify what I thought was a misunderstanding on someone's part about the intent of your post (which I completely agree with, btw).

If you'd rather me not do so, I can refrain in the future.

Jeff250 wrote:Snoopy, am I correct to say that you are taking up the view of psychological egoism, with the extension that God, through divine intervention, allows one to overcome this?

You are correct. And yes, I'm speaking of a philosophical, objective presence or lack thereof of selfishness in an action; not the practical, subjective varying blatancy & quantity of selfish gain garnered from the actions.

To put it another way, apart from God, we, as humans, are incapable of doing anything that isn't tainted by sin. As the linked article pointed out, this isn't something that can be disproved, but at the same time is an essentially philosophical position.

I'm also stating that in God, a Christian's actions, that otherwise would be tainted by sin, can be freed from that taint. It's isn't a newly found capacity within the Christian, but that a Christian's actions, when properly directed by God, are supernaturally perfected. I suppose it's hard exactly to explain or understand, and I don't pretend to have a complete understanding of it myself- but the perfection doesn't source from the person, as if they are suddenly in-and-of themselves able to act perfectly selflessly, it's that suddenly the person no longer has to act on their own- they are aided and guided by the perfect God, who can make otherwise miserable failures into perfect successes.

That distinction being laid down, it becomes evident how the majority of Christians act in equally evil & imperfect ways as non-Christians the majority of the time- namely, the majority of the time they are acting on their own, just like they did before conversion, and get equally imperfect results.

snoopy wrote:It's isn't a newly found capacity within the Christian, but that a Christian's actions, when properly directed by God, are supernaturally perfected.
...the perfection doesn't source from the person, as if they are suddenly in-and-of themselves able to act perfectly selflessly, it's that suddenly the person no longer has to act on their own- they are aided and guided by the perfect God...

Well stated, and I agree.

I'm curious, though. Why do you think that human actions are always selfish/imperfect by nature?

Is it simply by the definition of selfishness as an action motivated by our own inclinations and desires? If so, every action that we intentionally take is selfish, simply by definition. In that case, the only possible un-selfish acts would be ones motivated from outside ourselves (e.g. by God, or by coercion from someone else). But in that case, are they really our actions, can we take credit for them?

More or less, yes.

In more proper doctrinal terms, I'd say that all of our actions are tainted by sin. I see all sinful actions springing from the root sin of selfish pride, which springs from our sinful nature. Thus I'd associate all sinfulness with selfish pride. I believe (but I'm not sure) that it's theologically correct to state that all sin is selfish and prideful in nature.

Just want to add that sin is unto God and no one else. This doesn't mean that we can't wrong someone; but Sin is unto God. So that is why it's prideful. We sin by apposing God in some manner.

Duper wrote:Just want to add that sin is unto God and no one else. This doesn't mean that we can't wrong someone; but Sin is unto God. So that is why it's prideful. We sin by apposing God in some manner.

This thread has been bothering me for some time because I don't consider myself evil or selfish and I don't look for any form of personal pleasure for what I do in church. I would be hurt if some of the devout Christians here thought that way.

So, thank you for clarifying that it's just a God thing.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:I don't consider myself evil or selfish and I don't look for any form of personal pleasure for what I do in church. I would be hurt if some of the devout Christians here thought that way.

No, I don't think at all that you're doing it for personal pleasure. Your reasons are somewhat foreign to some of the Christians here, because we naturally associate church-related actions with a personal faith... but from what you've said before, I wouldn't assume that you were doing it just to make yourself feel good; you genuinely seem to have the interest of others in mind.

I also think there's a bit of semantic misunderstanding going on here, because we're using a definition of "selfish" which means "motivated from within our own human nature", rather than "for our feelings at the expense of others".

I'd like to regurgitate what Foil posted Bet. The fact is that we are evil and selfish, but more than the run of the mill perception. No, I don't think you're evil like Hitler or any other steriotype or selfish in the same manner. But before God we are.

It is in our nature, our very make up. We come out of the chute that way. That's why it's SO important to understand the story of Adam and Eve. It's not about so much whether the earth was made in a literal 6 days or not (not that it really matters anyways) but WHY we are the way we are and the position we exist in before God. Paul goes into painful detail about this over and over in his epistles. Remember that no matter HOW good at person is, they still are corrupt before God and this is direct result of the fall.

So back to the title of this thread. That's why it's yes and no. Yes there are folks that sin in the body of Christ, (again, i'm talking about the collective, invisible group of believers.. not necessarily \"church goes\") but because of Christ's sacrifice resolving our blood debt we are considered holy (or set apart) and no longer sinners before God.

Whew.. that was a lot longer than I intended. Does that help a little?

Foil is right though. there is an importance of semantics here in that we need to understand what the other is REALLY talking about.

Foil wrote:If so, every action that we intentionally take is selfish, simply by definition. In that case, the only possible un-selfish acts would be ones motivated from outside ourselves (e.g. by God, or by coercion from someone else). But in that case, are they really our actions, can we take credit for them?

I'm more interested in the opposite case. If we are involuntarily selfish, how can you or I be culpable for this per se? Or have Christians redefined "culpable" too.

yes, we are guilty. For the Christian, we are absolved of this guilt. That's the deal with following Jesus as a disciple. We are excused.

But understand that its way WAY much more than you did this wrong or you did that wrong. It's your very nature..the part of you that you can't change. Like your skin color or your nationality, you are born without being given the choice. As I posted above, we come into this world on the loosing side. ..with the possible exception of newborns where Jesus's sacrifice covers a person with grace until such a time that (between that person and God)a decision is made within that could separate that individual from God.

it's way too late to be posting.

Duper wrote:Like your skin color or your nationality, you are born without being given the choice.

I asked how we could be culpable. How could we be ethically responsible for something we didn't choose to do, something that is involuntary and beyond our ability to change.

Jeff, I really recommend that you go back through and re-read this thread. The answer is there.

You made a sarcastic remark and I addressed that.

No, I think Jeff250 is asking a fairly valid question:

If we're using a definition of \"selfish\" which includes every human act we intentionally take (as opposed to something motivated from outside ourselves, i.e. from God), why should we be culpable?

Good question, but I think the answer is in the definition (at least the one I'm using): we intentionally did the act, so we're responsible for it. We can take some credit for it, or we are held accountable for it.

Of course, that doesn't extend to actions motivated from outside ourselves (e.g. actions with God's help, or things we do involuntarily).

Foil wrote:Good question, but I think the answer is in the definition (at least the one I'm using): we intentionally did the act, so we're responsible for it. We can take some credit for it, or we are held accountable for it.

I agree that we are accountable for the action itself. But are we accountable for this selfishness intrinsic to every human action? For example, consider the person who gives charitably, in secret, behind closed doors, seemingly altruistically. But the psychological egoist says that the motivation for this charitable deed is still selfishness. Is this charitable person guilty here of anything then?

And to make things interesting, consider two people who have done the exact same actions in their lifetime. One person was involuntarily motivated by selfishness in every action. The other was not.* By intuition, the person with built-in selfishness to overcome is more ethical, since, although she performed the same actions, she had the greatest obstacles to overcome.

* Whatever this mode of being would be like.