NationStates Jolt Archive

Christian Morality is a selfish morality, it's aim being eternal happiness and satisfaction for the individual.

Christianity stresses selflessness, but only on Earth in order to achieve your personal goal of ever-lasting bliss in heaven. The motive of the Christian to do good is that it is in his own self-interest, not out of altruism. Also, the threat of eternal, indescribable pain in hell drives him twoards heaven for fear of his own pain.

These threats and promises are inexcusable abuses of charisma and power by religious leaders attempting to control a group and gain power for themselves.

Morality should be founded upon our natural senses of guilt and justice, which differ wildly from individual to individual, from circumstance to circumstance. While this is most certainly present in the moral exercise of Christians, it is wholly absent from Christian moral philosophy and leads to underdeveloped natural morality, and overdeveloped selfishness and fear.

A moral system should be founded on man's natural moral tendencies, with a full understanding of human subjectivity, reactions, and motives, not on petty threats and baseless promises.

Wow, you're really into stereotyping, aren't you?

Let me guess, you met some Christians that work off the carrot-stick mentality and now you think they all do?

We're getting alot of these threads lately.

Here is the bottom line, I really do not care of one's morals so long as it is not hurting anyone.

If there is one thing that really angers me is when someone crams thier morals onto me. If I am hurting someone, call me on it. Otherwise, leave me alone.

Christian Morality is a selfish morality, it's aim being eternal happiness and satisfaction for the individual.
Actually, it's main problem is that it's not. If it were actually a selfish morality it'd be alright.

Christianity stresses selflessness, but only on Earth in order to achieve your personal goal of ever-lasting bliss in heaven. The motive of the Christian to do good is that it is in his own self-interest, not out of altruism. Also, the threat of eternal, indescribable pain in hell drives him twoards heaven for fear of his own pain.
Got news for ya chief: altrusim is a hoax. All voluntary action is selfish, so it's utterly impossible to have any morality that is 'truly' based in 'altruism.'

I've never understood the mentality that claims altruism is in and of itself a 'wonderful' thing. Consider, for instance, that the government [who is for all intents and purposes, an 'altruistic' entity that exists to provide for the people] created the single most devastating weapon on the planet--the thermonuclear bomb-- in the name of the 'public good.' They're also waging wars on my personal habits and my paycheck for the very same reason. A doctrine of altruism would have me work my whole life for a pittance, with my only recompense coming from the warm fuzzy feeling I'm supposed to get when I help other people.

These threats and promises are inexcusable abuses of charisma and power by religious leaders attempting to control a group and gain power for themselves.
No argument here. I hate the bastards too.

Morality should be founded upon our natural senses of guilt and justice, which differ wildly from individual to individual, from circumstance to circumstance. While this is most certainly present in the moral exercise of Christians, it is wholly absent from Christian moral philosophy and leads to underdeveloped natural morality, and overdeveloped selfishness and fear.
Ehhh... close, but no cigar. I prefer to think that morality should be based on reality, on the facts of life and how to discover them. Morality should be based on knowledge and logic, not 'guilt,' as you put it [you were right about the 'justice' part though; props for that]. Humility is not a virtue, and wealth is not a sin. I'll damn to the depths anyone who says otherwise.

A moral system should be founded on man's natural moral tendencies, with a full understanding of human subjectivity, reactions, and motives, not on petty threats and baseless promises.
While said understanding is important, advocating a subjective morality is completely bogus. If we approach morality from a subjectivist viewpoint, right and wrong cease to exist. The two concepts will bleed together in a nebulous, wholly undefined mass that will only serve to confuse and infuriate anyone who attempts to contemplate it.

We should understand subjectivity, but we should avoid devising our entire moral code on it. Not everyone is right. In fact, most of us aren't.

An interesting take. On first read, I agree with you.

As a balance, I'd like to mention St. Francis of Assissi, whose life and teachings may be an example of what true Christianity could be. If it was, I might be a Christian myself. It's sad that Christianity was instead taken over, by extremely pessimistic and anti-humanist thinkers who believed people had to be threatened and bribed to obey, and by a hierarchical organization that quickly became corrupted by pursuit of power. It could have been so much more and had such a different influence.

So I toss out St. Francis, in the hope he may shame some of the more vehement bible thumpers into thinking a little more before they act.

I personally think it's sad that Christianity isn't oppressing anyone right now. It'd be fun to make someone into a scapegoat again. Now here's the thing.....Christian morality is human morality the same can be said for any other form of morality. I know somebody probably going to come out and say or quote something that proves me wrong. But Muslims still help people. Christians still help people. Jews still help people. Everyone still helps people. Well some people kill people. But that's a different story. BOOGERSTANDING!

An interesting take. On first read, I agree with you.

As a balance, I'd like to mention St. Francis of Assissi, whose life and teachings may be an example of what true Christianity could be. If it was, I might be a Christian myself. It's sad that Christianity was instead taken over, by extremely pessimistic and anti-humanist thinkers who believed people had to be threatened and bribed to obey, and by a hierarchical organization that quickly became corrupted by pursuit of power. It could have been so much more and had such a different influence.

So I toss out St. Francis, in the hope he may shame some of the more vehement bible thumpers into thinking a little more before they act.

Christianity hasn't been "taken over" by anything. Anyone can follow what you call true Christianity. If you want to be that type of person - then be that type of person. If you want to follow your ideal of Christianity, then follow your ideal of Christianity.

What other people, who you believe have twisted the message, say should be irrelevant to your own beliefs. The biggest problem with people who say, "I would be a Christian if...." is that they are basically saying, "The only way I can get religion is if it is spoon-fed to me, and I don't like what's on the spoon." My answer to that is, "Get your own spoon, find what does seem right to you, and start scooping."

Christian morality does not consist of the rules its people obey, as those rules, as Aggretia pointed out, are also useful to the individual. Christians may act according to morality, but morality is only part of the religion itself in so far as God is bound by moral law, which he would have to be to exist (a topic for another thread, but I can prove it). Christianity doesn't give moral rules to its followers, it gives incentives. Wouldn't it be interesting if Christians obeyed the rules their God obeyed as opposed to those he set? It'd be a very weird world.

Well... as a friend once said... in general... If you let a Fundy madman stand between you and God... then who is closer to God?

To say that such a person has 'control' over a religion is basically resignation... you are letting someone else determine what the Bible says... I too personally object to a lot of things being done by the fundamentals... but... personally... I wouldn't call them Fundamentalists... that's too high a praise for them in the technical sense of the term... I tend to refer to them as half-baked judaists...

Ever noticed that they wave biblical laws condemning people around them in the world... and at the same time, they rather conveniently ignore others? Well, I'm not content in letting them do that... This faith is meant to be a benevolent faith based on community and relationships... Jesus died to do away with this Bible thumping legalism... and I'm not gonna let some big-time pastor in some state in the Bible belt tell me that their idea of Christianity is the only right one.

Christian Morality is a selfish morality, it's aim being eternal happiness and satisfaction for the individual.


That is not the aim of Christian morality. You already have eternal happiness the moment you accept Christ, if that was the aim then its done at that very instant and you need do nothing else.


Christianity stresses selflessness, but only on Earth in order to achieve your personal goal of ever-lasting bliss in heaven. The motive of the Christian to do good is that it is in his own self-interest, not out of altruism. Also, the threat of eternal, indescribable pain in hell drives him twoards heaven for fear of his own pain.

Also untrue. The Christian has already recieved the gift of salvation, so everything else he does is because he wants to help others. Christians are under no threat or fear of eternal pain for they have already been saved from it.


These threats and promises are inexcusable abuses of charisma and power by religious leaders attempting to control a group and gain power for themselves.

Those days are over and have been over for a long time. The new religious leaders are people like Rick Warren and Joel Osteen who preach a message of hope and charity. There arent any threats going around.


Morality should be founded upon our natural senses of guilt and justice, which differ wildly from individual to individual, from circumstance to circumstance. While this is most certainly present in the moral exercise of Christians, it is wholly absent from Christian moral philosophy and leads to underdeveloped natural morality, and overdeveloped selfishness and fear.

Do you have any evidence to back up your statement?


A moral system should be founded on man's natural moral tendencies, with a full understanding of human subjectivity, reactions, and motives, not on petty threats and baseless promises.

That is but your opinion and is not an absolute truth nor have you provided any evidence that it should be considered correct. As previously stated it is impossible to threaten a Christian with eternal punishment for they already know they have been spared of it.

Yeah, I can say I liked St. Francis of Assissi's style: "Preach often. If necessary, use words." That's a good way to be a Christian. That's pretty much the way to practice any religion: make it the foundation of life.

As far as selfishness vs altruism goes, I see no conflict, provided one has the correct concept of self. When one considers the oneness of self and environment, distinctions like selfishness and altruism melt away. How can one help someone else without helping themself in the process? In order to give someone something of value, one has to posess something valuable in the first place. It's people that are impoverished that have nothing to give to the world. Some of the most monetarily poor people that I know have riches beyond my imagination.

That is not the aim of Christian morality. You already have eternal happiness the moment you accept Christ, if that was the aim then its done at that very instant and you need do nothing else.

Well if you redefine the word "Christian" as someone who has eternal happiness, then I am wrong, but I define Christians as people living on Earth who believe in Christian doctrine, and since noone on Earth has eternal happiness or knows they will recieve eternal happiness, my points still stand.

Ehhh... close, but no cigar. I prefer to think that morality should be based on reality, on the facts of life and how to discover them. Morality should be based on knowledge and logic, not 'guilt,' as you put it [you were right about the 'justice' part though; props for that]. Humility is not a virtue, and wealth is not a sin. I'll damn to the depths anyone who says otherwise. Actually, humility is the absence of hubris and arrogance, which are both bad, so humility is good.
No one ever said wealth is a sin… except for certain Chinese and Russian types. I know that Christian morality doesn't - it states that wealth can lead to complacency and sin - not a sin in itself.

I'm agreeing more on LazyHippies on this one.

Christianity isn't a morality nor a teaching. It's accepting a gift, which is the gift of eternal redemption through Jesus Christ, the son of God.

Anything else, it's born out of love knowing that you have nothing left to prove but only to share the good news through charity and love.

Christian Morality is a selfish morality, it's aim being eternal happiness and satisfaction for the individual.

Christianity stresses selflessness, but only on Earth in order to achieve your personal goal of ever-lasting bliss in heaven. The motive of the Christian to do good is that it is in his own self-interest, not out of altruism. Also, the threat of eternal, indescribable pain in hell drives him twoards heaven for fear of his own pain.

These threats and promises are inexcusable abuses of charisma and power by religious leaders attempting to control a group and gain power for themselves.

Morality should be founded upon our natural senses of guilt and justice, which differ wildly from individual to individual, from circumstance to circumstance. While this is most certainly present in the moral exercise of Christians, it is wholly absent from Christian moral philosophy and leads to underdeveloped natural morality, and overdeveloped selfishness and fear.

A moral system should be founded on man's natural moral tendencies, with a full understanding of human subjectivity, reactions, and motives, not on petty threats and baseless promises.

If that's your view of it, I'm afraid I have to inform you that you know absolutely nothing about Christianity.

But don't worry, you're far from alone in that regard. :)

Well if you redefine the word "Christian" as someone who has eternal happiness, then I am wrong, but I define Christians as people living on Earth who believe in Christian doctrine, and since noone on Earth has eternal happiness or knows they will recieve eternal happiness, my points still stand.
How do you figure that? The whole selfishness vs. altruism argument is determined by what the person in question's motives are, not by YOUR opinion of what the person in question's motives are. The simple fact is, the definition of Christian is one who believes that Jesus died for their sins and they will go to heaven (although there are several different beliefs of how to accept that fact), and you cannot change that, no matter what YOUR opinion is. If a person living on Earth truly believes in Christian doctrine, then they have eternal happiness.

Got news for ya chief: altrusim is a hoax. All voluntary action is selfish, so it's utterly impossible to have any morality that is 'truly' based in 'altruism.'

Yes, as though I'm expecting a huge paycheck for calling for the abolition of capitalism.

I've never understood the mentality that claims altruism is in and of itself a 'wonderful' thing. Consider, for instance, that the government [who is for all intents and purposes, an 'altruistic' entity that exists to provide for the people] created the single most devastating weapon on the planet--the thermonuclear bomb-- in the name of the 'public good.' They're also waging wars on my personal habits and my paycheck for the very same reason. A doctrine of altruism would have me work my whole life for a pittance, with my only recompense coming from the warm fuzzy feeling I'm supposed to get when I help other people.

As though acting out of selfishness is any better.

Christianity hasn't been "taken over" by anything. Anyone can follow what you call true Christianity. If you want to be that type of person - then be that type of person. If you want to follow your ideal of Christianity, then follow your ideal of Christianity.

What other people, who you believe have twisted the message, say should be irrelevant to your own beliefs. The biggest problem with people who say, "I would be a Christian if...." is that they are basically saying, "The only way I can get religion is if it is spoon-fed to me, and I don't like what's on the spoon." My answer to that is, "Get your own spoon, find what does seem right to you, and start scooping."
I don't need or want anything spoon-fed to me by anyone. I want to be left the hell alone when it comes to my spiritual life. The problem is, as the original poster was pointing out, that many Christians feel pressured to prove their faith, either to gain grace or avoid damnation. That pressure is evident in the drive to convert others, to condemn the sins of others, to increase the worldly power of the church, etc. Practical result: They won't leave people around them alone.

The point of my post was that, about 1000 years ago, the church had grown to a size where it had to decide on a new organization and public identity, and that's what I mean by being "taken over." Go read the history and the letters/writings of those bishops to see the choices they had in front of them. There were a lot of church leaders who wanted to emphasize personal spirituality over teaching of scripture, and others who wanted the opposite. The latter group prevailed. I happen to think the world might be a better place if they hadn't. That's my opinion.

As for whether I would have been a Christian, I meant an active member of a Church. I feel the organization is twisting, in some cases corrupting, the message. Again, that's my opinion.

BTW, I have the same opinion of all organized religions -- Islam, Judaism, even Buddhism and Animism.

Greetings one and all.
The idea of a selfless act is a difficult question indeed. Is humanity inherently selfish in looking out for number one unquestionably? I would assert that this train of thought is completely untrue. In a given act there are two things which are important to determine morality, the result of the act and the original intention behind such an act. Now then, in the case of Christianity it has been said that people do things simply because of the temptation of going to eternal paradise, and thus are truly immoral and selfish in their intent. I would say otherwise, that Christians could indeed be perfectly moral and selfless. The key idea behind a selfless act is intention, and the intention behind an act can only be known by the actor. Thus said, a Christian may do an act simply to be a good person. Now that act may get them into heaven and eternal bliss, but did they do it for that reason? Obviously not.
So is Christianity a selfish religion? Absolutely not, however many people misinterpret it as such. It is a inherently selfless religion, however when people have the wrong motivation it becomes twisted. This is true of any religion though overall.
- Brian Chut
Official Religious Emissary

The original poster errored in saying that a Christians all think they can achieve heaven through good acts toward people. Heaven is acquired though Christ's sacrifice and belief in that sacrifice and nothing more. That is the central doctrine of Christianity and anything contradicting that is heresy whether is comes from a pastor, priest, or whoever.

Yes, as though I'm expecting a huge paycheck for calling for the abolition of capitalism. You know, you've got it correct here. I've been thinking… one could say that the reason one would sacrifice the self to help others would be because it feels better - but it doesn't. The gain we get is far greater if we help ourselves - so why don't we do that all the time? Answer: altruism does exist.

Greetings one and all.
The idea of a selfless act is a difficult question indeed. Is humanity inherently selfish in looking out for number one unquestionably? I would assert that this train of thought is completely untrue. In a given act there are two things which are important to determine morality, the result of the act and the original intention behind such an act. Now then, in the case of Christianity it has been said that people do things simply because of the temptation of going to eternal paradise, and thus are truly immoral and selfish in their intent. I would say otherwise, that Christians could indeed be perfectly moral and selfless. The key idea behind a selfless act is intention, and the intention behind an act can only be known by the actor. Thus said, a Christian may do an act simply to be a good person. Now that act may get them into heaven and eternal bliss, but did they do it for that reason? Obviously not.
So is Christianity a selfish religion? Absolutely not, however many people misinterpret it as such. It is a inherently selfless religion, however when people have the wrong motivation it becomes twisted. This is true of any religion though overall.
- Brian Chut
Official Religious Emissary


Rats. I was going to point out the Kantian dynamic to Christianity myself, but you beat me to it. Kudos to you; that was an excellent explanation.

Christian Morality is a selfish morality, it's aim being eternal happiness and satisfaction for the individual.

Christianity stresses selflessness, but only on Earth in order to achieve your personal goal of ever-lasting bliss in heaven. The motive of the Christian to do good is that it is in his own self-interest, not out of altruism. Also, the threat of eternal, indescribable pain in hell drives him twoards heaven for fear of his own pain.

These threats and promises are inexcusable abuses of charisma and power by religious leaders attempting to control a group and gain power for themselves.

Morality should be founded upon our natural senses of guilt and justice, which differ wildly from individual to individual, from circumstance to circumstance. While this is most certainly present in the moral exercise of Christians, it is wholly absent from Christian moral philosophy and leads to underdeveloped natural morality, and overdeveloped selfishness and fear.

A moral system should be founded on man's natural moral tendencies, with a full understanding of human subjectivity, reactions, and motives, not on petty threats and baseless promises.


Ironically, the system you describe is the Christian moral system. Specifically, that's a dead-ringer description for Aquinas' natural law.

Actually, humility is the absence of hubris and arrogance, which are both bad, so humility is good.
Humility's only good if you fucked up and have the balls to own up to it. Arrogance is only bad if it's undeserved and based on utterly false pretenses. There's nothing wrong with being proud of yourself for actually accomplishing something.

No one ever said wealth is a sin… except for certain Chinese and Russian types. I know that Christian morality doesn't - it states that wealth can lead to complacency and sin - not a sin in itself.
Try telling that to Letila or Swimmingpool or any one of the other teenage socialists who are crawling out of the woodwork every day in this country. A common viewpoint on this board is that no wealth can possibly be generated without simultaneously generating poverty somewhere else: an interesting claim considering the relative state of the poor folks in this country.

Yes, as though I'm expecting a huge paycheck for calling for the abolition of capitalism.
Jesus, you just get farther and farther out towards the deep end every day. Not all selfishness is rooted in a desire for money: if you're an 'altruist' and you do 'good things' for other people, you're doing so out of a personal desire to live up to your value hierarchy, which is ultimately a selfish motiviation. Can we please drop this 'selfishness is bad' bullshit now?

As though acting out of selfishness is any better.
Stunning argument, that. Of particular interest to me was your lengthy discourse on the reasoning behind this statement and its moral justifications, which you've been kind enough to offer to us here in incredible, almost mind boggling volume.

Look, consider that every amenity we possess was brougt about by someon ewho ultimately wanted to fashion a better life for himself, and, as a consequence of doing so, s/he fashioned a better life for others in the process. Take automobiles for instance. 150 years ago, the concept of travelling 60mph was unheard of: transportation was still limited more or less to horses or trains. Some dude named henry Ford came along looking to make a buck and guess what? He completely changed the cultural structure of our nation, enabling us to spend less energy transporting materials and people over long distances, probably adding about another 10 years to the average American lifespan [ask me how, I dare you]. Inventions like the internal combustion engine, the automobile--or hell! even a goddamn pulley system has done much more for the average American than nearly any government regulation or hair-brained price fixing scam you could ever name.

Now what, pray tell, do you think would have happened to someone like Mr. Ford if he had lived under a regime who thought tradition and public good was the be-all end-all of morality? Like I mentioned earlier, the concept of travelling at such speeds as we regularly do today was unthinkable to nearly everyone. "No one can travel that fast," he would have been told. "Your invention is simply an effort to line your pocketbook, and all that will come out of your scam will be hundreds of dead Americans, trapped behind the wheel of a poorly designed 'vehicle,'" they would have said. The people who make a difference in the end are always the people who look conventional wisdom in the face and tell it to go fuck itself. No one who has followed it mindlessly has accomplished anything nearing this significance.

The people who act out of selfishness--of genuine, consistent selfishness are the people who benefit the remainder of society by their ingenuity and competence alone. The flip side of that coin are the naysayers and tradition-worshipping simpletons who serve no greater purpose than to attempt to drag down their betters. I'll be the first to admit that irrational, contemptuous 'selfishness' can be damaging to everyone involved, but without that qualifier your generalization is utterly useless.

To make such a belligerent comment while not supporting your points and insufficiently denying points previous accomplishes nothing, Melkor. Your objectivism is an interesting point, yet your Randian view is simply supported by sputtering insults and frustratingly pointless rhetoric.
You have upset me slightly, no small task, with your continuous blithering on multiple posts with little to no logical function except to insult your superiors who at least provide reasoning for their possibly flawed ideas.

Now then, if I continue this way I shall be no better, so allow me to continue. I wish to begin by noting that my posts ideas are still untouched, undenied. So I ask, am I so skilled at writing so as to convince you all to my ideals? I doubt this is the case, so I say, please address the argument I presented if you wish to disagree. Sorry, but I am getting tired of my ideas being ignored. Moving onwards, Melkor, you present an interesting idea of selfishness as a virtue. If my memory serves, Ayn Rand preached that idea from her pulpit quite vehemently. The example you present seems inadequate. Mr. Ford seeing the furtherment of humanity as the ultimate goal for life would not have prevented his creation of the automobile. In the face of adversity he would not simply give up due to his selflessness, that frankly makes no sense. Rather, he would direct his efforts toward creating a car that would benefit humanity. This makes the car creation a selfless act, and yet still makes the car creation happen as planned. You see, simply encouraging self servitude does not create ingenuity and competence, rather is gives a reason for the outlet of these abilties. Selflessness can also be an outlet for these abilities, giving an individual a reason to use these abilities for the common good.

So you see, selfishness is not the only way in which people can release their abilities. One can serve oneself, but one can also serve another, and in both cases progress will come.
- Brian Chut and Rachel Stremp
Official Religious Emissary and Head of Philosophy

Personally I just don't like any religious approach to morality. Religion means dogma. Morality is NEVER absolute and to say otherwise is utterly foolish. This is not to say that you can't guide your life by religion, but to treat it as an absolute is just ludicrous.

(Nietzsche strikes once again!!!)

To make such a belligerent comment while not supporting your points and insufficiently denying points previous accomplishes nothing, Melkor. Your objectivism is an interesting point, yet your Randian view is simply supported by sputtering insults and frustratingly pointless rhetoric.
You have upset me slightly, no small task, with your continuous blithering on multiple posts with little to no logical function except to insult your superiors who at least provide reasoning for their possibly flawed ideas.
What the fuck?! If, after reading everything, you still think I'm 'not supporting [my] points,' there's not really much else I can do. It leads me to wonder just what virtue my opponents possess in answering my posts with one sentence of remarkably less substance than my replies. Letila posts maybe thirty words, and I answer with three paragraphs of moral expostition and I'm 'not supporting [my] points?'

Why am I reminded of the phrase "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink?" You're free to disagree with me all you like, but suggesting that I'm not supporting my points is an implication I refuse to accept. I've put more time and effort into explaining myself in this thread than anyone else--yourself included.

Now then, if I continue this way I shall be no better, so allow me to continue. I wish to begin by noting that my posts ideas are still untouched, undenied. So I ask, am I so skilled at writing so as to convince you all to my ideals? I doubt this is the case, so I say, please address the argument I presented if you wish to disagree. Sorry, but I am getting tired of my ideas being ignored.
Get used to it. I was consistently ignored for about the first three weeks of my posting here. It's not an uncommon thing.

Moving onwards, Melkor, you present an interesting idea of selfishness as a virtue. If my memory serves, Ayn Rand preached that idea from her pulpit quite vehemently.
As a point of fact, Rand's dogmatism never was something I was particularly thrilled with. I certainly have my problems with the woman, but they're not quite as pronounced as most other objections I've seen. She frequently argued for the elimination of dogmatism, then turned around and did it anyway. It's hard to resist sometimes, I guess.

The example you present seems inadequate. Mr. Ford seeing the furtherment of humanity as the ultimate goal for life would not have prevented his creation of the automobile.
What? This makes no sense. Ford would not have prevented the creation of the automobile? I think that's pretty obvious. Also, the 'furtherment of humanity' was not his goal: making money was. I'm puzzled as to where you drew this particular inference from.

In the face of adversity he would not simply give up due to his selflessness, that frankly makes no sense. Rather, he would direct his efforts toward creating a car that would benefit humanity. This makes the car creation a selfless act, and yet still makes the car creation happen as planned.
You're right. He wouldn't give up, and he quite obviously didn't. Again, I do not see any equation made with "Henry Ford" and "Selflessness" in the same sentence in my post above. I'm beginning to think you grossly misinterpretted my post. My point was, [towards the end at least] that a government hell-bent on selflessness would have been more likely to deem his invention as worthless, and probably would have viewed his business ideas as a petty scheme for the advancement of his pocketbook and nothing else. That isn't to say that said government would be opposed to the creation of the automobile: maybe they'd just decide to subsidize the idea instead. You know, make sure it's done right, for the 'public good,' and all. Where's the justice in that?

You see, simply encouraging self servitude does not create ingenuity and competence, rather is gives a reason for the outlet of these abilties.
Right, because competence and ingenuity are character traits, which arent really influenced by government policy. Again, my point is that stifling the ability to excersise these particular virtes is of no worth to the individual or to society as a whole.

Selflessness can also be an outlet for these abilities, giving an individual a reason to use these abilities for the common good.

So you see, selfishness is not the only way in which people can release their abilities. One can serve oneself, but one can also serve another, and in both cases progress will come.
Right, which explains why so many famous inventors have distributed the product of their labor to anyone and everyone free of cost. Please.

I don't need or want anything spoon-fed to me by anyone. I want to be left the hell alone when it comes to my spiritual life.

The statement you made suggested that you were not a Christian because other Christians had ideas you didn't like, which leads to the logical conclusion that you think Christianity is "whatever other people say it is."

The point of my post was that, about 1000 years ago, the church had grown to a size where it had to decide on a new organization and public identity, and that's what I mean by being "taken over."

The Church and Christianity are not equivalent concepts.

Go read the history and the letters/writings of those bishops to see the choices they had in front of them. There were a lot of church leaders who wanted to emphasize personal spirituality over teaching of scripture, and others who wanted the opposite. The latter group prevailed. I happen to think the world might be a better place if they hadn't. That's my opinion.

I have read quite a bit of the history of the church, and disagree with many of the "consensus" (which were rarely, if ever truly consensus in the first place) decisions that were made. The Roman Cathollic Church took the road of teaching tradition and ceremony over Scripture and personal spirituality. Many Protestant churches took the road of teaching Scripture over personal spirituality. Other churches took the road of teaching personal spirituality. In each of these, there were different proponents - some of whom were talked down/deemed heretical, but some of their writings are still available.

My point was that a person must make up their own mind on how to interpret these things. What another person says may be taken into consideration, but should not and cannot be the basis for faith.

As for whether I would have been a Christian, I meant an active member of a Church. I feel the organization is twisting, in some cases corrupting, the message. Again, that's my opinion.

I would agree with that opinion, but not being a member of a regular church does not make me any less Christian, because being Christian and being a member of an organized church are not equivalent statements.

BTW, I have the same opinion of all organized religions -- Islam, Judaism, even Buddhism and Animism.

In each of these, you have the organized religion, and then you have the individual believers, who may or may not be a part of that organization, and may or may not agree with it. It would not make sense for me to say, "I would be a Christian, but I don't like the churches, so I'm not." It does make sense to say, "I am a Christian, but I don't agree with the established churches."

The statement you made suggested that you were not a Christian because other Christians had ideas you didn't like, which leads to the logical conclusion that you think Christianity is "whatever other people say it is."

The Church and Christianity are not equivalent concepts.

I have read quite a bit of the history of the church, and disagree with many of the "consensus" (which were rarely, if ever truly consensus in the first place) decisions that were made. The Roman Cathollic Church took the road of teaching tradition and ceremony over Scripture and personal spirituality. Many Protestant churches took the road of teaching Scripture over personal spirituality. Other churches took the road of teaching personal spirituality. In each of these, there were different proponents - some of whom were talked down/deemed heretical, but some of their writings are still available.

My point was that a person must make up their own mind on how to interpret these things. What another person says may be taken into consideration, but should not and cannot be the basis for faith.


I would agree with that opinion, but not being a member of a regular church does not make me any less Christian, because being Christian and being a member of an organized church are not equivalent statements.


In each of these, you have the organized religion, and then you have the individual believers, who may or may not be a part of that organization, and may or may not agree with it. It would not make sense for me to say, "I would be a Christian, but I don't like the churches, so I'm not." It does make sense to say, "I am a Christian, but I don't agree with the established churches."
I thought I had just finished saying that, in my opinion, the church was ruining Christianity, which would imply that I don't think they are the same thing. I guess I shouldn't ask people to make conceptual leaps, but I use the term "the church" as a generic for any organized system of Christian worship of which churches are the primary units. The Catholic church. The Methodist Church. Etc. "Church" is the organization. "Faith" is the belief system. Individuals own the faith. The church, imo, attempts to own the individuals. If there were no churches, there would still be faith.

No matter how corrupt a system gets, it does not stop the individual from developing their faith independently. But corrupt systems discourage individual development of faith. They want worshippers to follow them, not go seeking on their own. That's why, until Martin Luther came along, The Church refused to translate the bible into vernacular languages that could be understood by non-clergy.

And actually, I think it DOES make sense to say I am not a Christian because I don't like the churches, if you accept the definition of Christian as one who accepts Jesus as his savior and the rest of Christian doctrine, which is promulgated by churches. Churches have gone to a lot of trouble to make themselves the symbol of their faiths. I believe the churches have become so corrupt and hypocritical that they ruin the value of the name "Christian" and all the symbols that go with it. If I called myself a Christian, I would forever have to be explaining the difference between me and the churches.

But I wouldn't call myself a Christian anyway, because while I believe in many of the teachings of Christ, I do not accept him as the savior of my soul.

Question:
Selfless acts
Self-less acts...
An act less the self?

Explain how possible, I don't think the original intent can exist without the self, or we would not be responsible for our acts. Is this just bad wording?

What good dead happens without selfishness? One has to want to gain something, even if it's saticfaction, and another has to be selfish enough to accept it, grateful or not.

What good dead happens without selfishness? One has to want to gain something, even if it's saticfaction, and another has to be selfish enough to accept it, grateful or not.
ThankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouTHANKYOU!

Finally! Someone who gets it!

I thought I had just finished saying that, in my opinion, the church was ruining Christianity, which would imply that I don't think they are the same thing. I guess I shouldn't ask people to make conceptual leaps,

Apparently you missed the concept of talking about your first post relative to your second one. I am aware that you changed the context in your second post. However, in your first post, you spoke as if they were the same thing. Otherwise, the statement would have made no sense.

[quoe]"Church" is the organization. "Faith" is the belief system. Individuals own the faith. The church, imo, attempts to own the individuals. If there were no churches, there would still be faith.[/quote]

Exactly!

And actually, I think it DOES make sense to say I am not a Christian because I don't like the churches, if you accept the definition of Christian as one who accepts Jesus as his savior and the rest of Christian doctrine, which is promulgated by churches.

As you already pointed out, churches don't have to come into it at all. You don't have to believe any doctrine promulgated by churches.

Churches have gone to a lot of trouble to make themselves the symbol of their faiths. I believe the churches have become so corrupt and hypocritical that they ruin the value of the name "Christian" and all the symbols that go with it. If I called myself a Christian, I would forever have to be explaining the difference between me and the churches.

If I call myself a woman, I have to explain the difference between me and the stereotypes that people place upon women. So? I am still a woman.

But I wouldn't call myself a Christian anyway, because while I believe in many of the teachings of Christ, I do not accept him as the savior of my soul.

Main Entry: 1Chris·tian
Pronunciation: 'kris-ch&n, 'krish-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & n., from Greek christianos, from Christos
1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Christian Morality is a selfish morality, it's aim being eternal happiness and satisfaction for the individual.

Christianity stresses selflessness, but only on Earth in order to achieve your personal goal of ever-lasting bliss in heaven. The motive of the Christian to do good is that it is in his own self-interest, not out of altruism. Also, the threat of eternal, indescribable pain in hell drives him twoards heaven for fear of his own pain.

These threats and promises are inexcusable abuses of charisma and power by religious leaders attempting to control a group and gain power for themselves.

Morality should be founded upon our natural senses of guilt and justice, which differ wildly from individual to individual, from circumstance to circumstance. While this is most certainly present in the moral exercise of Christians, it is wholly absent from Christian moral philosophy and leads to underdeveloped natural morality, and overdeveloped selfishness and fear.

A moral system should be founded on man's natural moral tendencies, with a full understanding of human subjectivity, reactions, and motives, not on petty threats and baseless promises


Mistake number 1. Christian morality is not "lets do our best to get to heaven". Christian morality comes from a response to Gods love for us. God loves all humans more than humans can understand, and Chrisitians should recipricate that love back to him. In the same way a parent displays love for their parents by obeying them.

Mistake number 2. Hell is not a "threat". Hell was created by God as a place for all those who rebell against him which was needed as a result of Lucifiers uprising and all those who supported him. However, Lucifer was not the only one to rebell against God. Humans also rebel agianst God through sin, as sin can be defined as rebellion against God. So God, because he loved humans and did not want to see them forever away from his presence in hell, sent his son Jesus to die so that humans could have their sins forgiven and thus be in God's presence forever. Hell exists not to force people to love God, but as a result of God being a just God

Mistake number 3. Entry into heaven or hell is not based on how "good" we are in this life, but upon our reaction to Jesus, IE faith. Now you might say "What about where the Bible says 'faith without deeds is nothing'" and that is indeed true. But dont misunderstand. That does not mean that God is some kind of cosmic scoreboard, keeping a tally of the quality and quantity of our good deeds and will thus eventually let us in when we reach the bench mark. Deeds and good works should be a result of our faith, but they themselves are not what you put your faith in to enter hevaen. You do them not because you want to get to heaven, but because God asks us to and you love God.

Mistake number 1. Christian morality is not "lets do our best to get to heaven". Christian morality comes from a response to Gods love for us. God loves all humans more than humans can understand, and Chrisitians should recipricate that love back to him. In the same way a parent displays love for their parents by obeying them.

Yes, but love does not require blind obedience.

Example: What if my father is a massmurdering maniac ? Should I still obey him, because he does love me very much ?

Example 2: What if I simply disagree with him, being an adult human being with my own life and all ? Should I still obey because he "only wants the best for me" ? Let my parents pick my partner, my career etc ?

ThankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouTHANKYOU!

Finally! Someone who gets it! But the gain one gets from acting selfishly - that, is materially selfishly - is far greater than the satisfaction one gets from helping others.
Yes, but love does not require blind obedience.

Example: What if my father is a massmurdering maniac ? Should I still obey him, because he does love me very much ?

Example 2: What if I simply disagree with him, being an adult human being with my own life and all ? Should I still obey because he "only wants the best for me" ? Let my parents pick my partner, my career etc ? Yes, totally obey your parents, as long as they're omniscient, omnibenevolent and omni-everything else.

Yes, totally obey your parents, as long as they're omniscient, omnibenevolent and omni-everything else.

That is still not a good reason to obey them. To take their advice into account - definately. But what point would there be in being an individual, if all you do is obeying someone else ?

That is still not a good reason to obey them. To take their advice into account - definately. But what point would there be in being an individual, if all you do is obeying someone else ? Soldiers have to unquestioningly obey their commanding officers - yet they are still individuals. This is because their officers do not dictate EVERYTHING in their lives - and it's the same with Christianity, it's only morality it dictates. In the view of Christianity, we are all bound in some way, to God or darkness.

But the gain one gets from acting selfishly - that, is materially selfishly - is far greater than the satisfaction one gets from helping others.
Ummm.... so?

Ummm.... so? Therefore if one is indeed acting in one's interest, one would always choose the path of self material gain, as that is more beneficial to the self. However, that often doesn't happen; often people choose the opposite.

Therefore if one is indeed acting in one's interest, one would always choose the path of self material gain, as that is more beneficial to the self. However, that often doesn't happen; often people choose the opposite.
The level of frustration I'm feeling right now borders on cataclysmic. If you give $10 to a bum or go work at a Red Cross shelter, the simple fact of the matter remains that you made the choice to go [hopefully] of your own volition, which makes that a marginally selfish act too.

Whether you do it for material gain or you do it because it makes you feel better about yourself [and, possibly, others as well] doesn't change the volitional aspect of goal-oriented action.

Also, your initial reply is something of a misnomer. If someone makes a "selfless" choice over a selfish one [broadly speaking] then the decision has been made that the benefits of the former outweigh those of the latter. Sometimes, material gain isn't even an issue to them. If they think nonmaterial things are of greater value to themselves, they'll puruse them.

Main Entry: 1Chris·tian
Pronunciation: 'kris-ch&n, 'krish-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & n., from Greek christianos, from Christos
1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Depending on how one views the definition, the number of Christians in the world can vary in number greatly. Let's start with profess. Is the meaning the primary definition:

"to receive formally into a religious community following a novitiate by acceptance of the required vows"

or the secondary definition:

"to declare or admit openly or freely"

?

With the primary definition, one would have to have someone else declare them to be a Christian, whereas with the secondary definition, one can claim the appelation for themself.

Belief I think we can leave alone without having to define further, but what about "belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ". There's several levels of degree that can be applied here. Is the implication all the teachings, most of the teachings, some of the teachings, or even one of the teachings?

Finally, there is the IP issue of "the teachings of Jesus Christ". After all, a good chunk of what Jesus taught is a reflection of other, older, geographically distant religions. Does one have to believe that Jesus is the source of these teachings or can one simply value the teachings themselves, regardless of who they came from?

In the strictest sense, being able to say someone is a Christian would involve:
1: formal recognition
2: believing everything Jesus taught
3: believing that Jesus is the source of all these teachings

That would exclude a great deal of people, possibly to the point where there may not be any "real" Christians in the world.

In the loosest sense, being able to say someone is a Christian would mean all one would have to do is admit that even just one of the ideas that Jesus taught is valid, which would probably include the entire population of the planet.

So, depending on how one wants to view it, Christianity is non-existient, everyone is already a Christian, or there is some vague distinction inbetween, which is why there are so many denominations.

The level of frustration I'm feeling right now borders on cataclysmic. If you give $10 to a bum or go work at a Red Cross shelter, the simple fact of the matter remains that you made the choice to go [hopefully] of your own volition, which makes that a marginally selfish act too.

Whether you do it for material gain or you do it because it makes you feel better about yourself [and, possibly, others as well] doesn't change the volitional aspect of goal-oriented action.

Also, your initial reply is something of a misnomer. If someone makes a "selfless" choice over a selfish one [broadly speaking] then the decision has been made that the benefits of the former outweigh those of the latter. Sometimes, material gain isn't even an issue to them. If they think nonmaterial things are of greater value to themselves, they'll puruse them. Okay, well this seems logical. People do what they believe to be right because it feels right. However, it feels good in a different way - if it is "selfish" it's a totally different sort of "selfish". More "self-determined".

If you do something to help someone and it makes you feel good, then it could be interpreted as being selfish, but it isn't wrong. If a person is able to live only for other people, ie. Jesus. Then that is what I believe Christianity strives for. It can't be one of thing, but something continual and unending.

I wish to begin for apolgizing for my attack on Melkor, it was uncalled for and useless for the purposes of this discussion.
Moving onward, I wish to once more refute a point he has made. Melkor, your points consistanly hinge on a singular idea, that every human makes choices the ultimately are meant to benefit him/herself. This assumption decides this post really, and cannot logically be made. I am going to put this simply. Is it possible for me to work for the Red Cross simply because it is the right thing to do, not because I wish to, not because I gain pleasure from it, but because I feel it is my duty as a human being? I would say that I easily could do such a thing. "Whether you do it for material gain or you do it because it makes you feel better about yourself [and, possibly, others as well] doesn't change the volitional aspect of goal-oriented action." The key idea here that I would disagree with is that simply because you act on your own volition does not necessarily entail selfish motives. The making of a choice is not inherently selfish in my mind.
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan

I wish to begin for apolgizing for my attack on Melkor, it was uncalled for and useless for the purposes of this discussion.
Moving onward, I wish to once more refute a point he has made. Melkor, your points consistanly hinge on a singular idea, that every human makes choices the ultimately are meant to benefit him/herself. This assumption decides this post really, and cannot logically be made. I am going to put this simply. Is it possible for me to work for the Red Cross simply because it is the right thing to do, not because I wish to, not because I gain pleasure from it, but because I feel it is my duty as a human being?

Simply put, "no." Think about it for a moment. If you work for the Red Cross or $CHARITABLE_ORGANIZATION, I think it's pretty obvious that you're doing it because you wish to, regardless of the other stipulations. Likewise, if you feel that it is your duty [and it isn't], you're clearly still acting on a specifically designed value structure; you've chosen that value structure because you think it's right. This logic is peculiar at best, because if someone didn't wish to do something they wouldn't do it; at least not voluntarily.

I would say that I easily could do such a thing. "Whether you do it for material gain or you do it because it makes you feel better about yourself [and, possibly, others as well] doesn't change the volitional aspect of goal-oriented action." The key idea here that I would disagree with is that simply because you act on your own volition does not necessarily entail selfish motives. The making of a choice is not inherently selfish in my mind.
Sure it is. The opposite of acting by choice is acting by force, and the desire to act by choice is a selfish one, because none of us want to have our behavior dictated by some unknown, outside force.

Okay, well this seems logical. People do what they believe to be right because it feels right. However, it feels good in a different way - if it is "selfish" it's a totally different sort of "selfish". More "self-determined".
I suppose I can accept that. Although I prefer to do what I know to be right as opposed to what I feel to be right. :p

Okay, well this seems logical. People do what they believe to be right because it feels right. However, it feels good in a different way - if it is "selfish" it's a totally different sort of "selfish". More "self-determined".

Here's the real problem with the Randian view of the word selfish: It leaves out half the definition!

Main Entry: self·ish
Pronunciation: 'sel-fish
Function: adjective
1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>

The definition is clear that, not only must the person be concerned with himself, but he must either be exclusively concerned with himself, or must be concerned with his own welfare in disregard of others. The Randian definition stops with "concern for oneself".

Thus, an action of charity cannot be considered a selfish act, unless one can show that the person acting cares only about himself and truly holds no concern for those who are being helped. The fact that it makes him feel good is irrelevant - it makes him feel good because he is helping others. Thus, he is not exclusively concerned with himself, nor is he disregarding others.

Apparently you missed the concept of talking about your first post relative to your second one. I am aware that you changed the context in your second post. However, in your first post, you spoke as if they were the same thing. Otherwise, the statement would have made no sense.

[quoe]"Church" is the organization. "Faith" is the belief system. Individuals own the faith. The church, imo, attempts to own the individuals. If there were no churches, there would still be faith.

Exactly!

As you already pointed out, churches don't have to come into it at all. You don't have to believe any doctrine promulgated by churches.

If I call myself a woman, I have to explain the difference between me and the stereotypes that people place upon women. So? I am still a woman.

Main Entry: 1Chris·tian
Pronunciation: 'kris-ch&n, 'krish-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & n., from Greek christianos, from Christos
1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ[/QUOTE]


1. Apparently you missed the concept of people clarifying their first post with more detailed information in their second post. But to clarify, you have to be aware that one of your points may not be perfectly clear the first time. Perhaps you haven't had that experience of self-critique.

2. Again, you choose to miss my point. It is my opinion that the word "Christian" has become so tainted by corrupt churches that it is a word I would not apply to myself, regardless of my beliefs. Likewise, I support a lot of feminist politics, but I find most feminist activists to be so out of control and counterproductive with their rhetoric that I distance myself from them in order to save the principles they are warping.

3. You can call yourself a woman even if you're a man. You can call yourself anything you like, but if the facts don't match, then yes, you'll have to explain that. It would be perfectly reasonable for people to question why I would call myself a Christian while rejecting all Christian churches and one of the central tenets of their doctrine. It would sound very conceited of me at the least, maybe even hypocritical.

You don't seem to get it that I reject organized religions based on evidence of what I would consider corruption, not on stereotypes -- evidence such as hiding pedophiles among the clergy, sponsoring violence, pressuring large amounts of money out of followers, belligerent, unprovoked denunciations of other faiths. [EDIT: Oh, and also rhetoric and rules towards their own followers that are out of keeping with the tenets of the faith they claim to serve.] There is hardly an organized religion on the planet that hasn't been guilty recently of one or more of these actions.

4. Thank you. I know what Christian means. I give you credit for not flaming me yet in this thread, but I wonder when you will stop talking down to me.

1. Apparently you missed the concept of people clarifying their first post with more detailed information in their second post. But to clarify, you have to be aware that one of your points may not be perfectly clear the first time. Perhaps you haven't had that experience of self-critique.

No, I didn't miss that point, which is why I stated in my reply that I was still responding to what was said in your first post - attempting to clarify what I had said as it didn't seem completely clear. I believe I even used words like, "Your first post seemed to suggest...."

2. Again, you choose to miss my point. It is my opinion that the word "Christian" has become so tainted by corrupt churches that it is a word I would not apply to myself, regardless of my beliefs.

It has nothing to do with choosing to miss your point and much more to do with the fact that you had not made this particular point at all clear. Now you have. Thank you.

3. You can call yourself a woman even if you're a man. You can call yourself anything you like, but if the facts don't match, then yes, you'll have to explain that.

The facts do match. In fact, considering that there is some debate over how to define biological sex, I can even point out that, to my knowledge, I meet both the morphological and genetic requirements generally placed upon being female.

However, I do not meet many of the stereotypical views of women. This has nothing at all to do with the actual definition of the word woman, and everything to do with the fact that people have placed stereotypes upon the word. I haven't stopped calling myself a woman just because there are some women who give the word a bad name. Nor have I stopped calling myself a woman because of the stereotypical views of women that some people hold. I do, when I meet someone who holds such stereotypical views, have to explain the fact that I do not meet them. It doesn't make me throw up my hands and say, "Well Crikey! I'm not going to call myself a woman anymore!"

It would be perfectly reasonable for people to question why I would call myself a Christian while rejecting all Christian churches and one of the central tenets of their doctrine. It would sound very conceited of me at the least, maybe even hypocritical.

If you are referring to the divinity of Christ, that is not really a central tenet of every doctrine. In fact, especially in the early church, it was a point of some contention. One could be a Christian and disagree with most, or even all, of the dogma of a given church, if they believed that Christ's teachings were worthy of being followed. Even believing that Christ was a prophet whose teachings should be followed, but completely human, could technically earn you the title.

Again, you are letting religion be defined by a few "elite" guys arguing over it, while religion is actually defined by the individual following it.

You don't seem to get it that I reject organized religions based on evidence of what I would consider corruption, not on stereotypes -- evidence such as hiding pedophiles among the clergy, sponsoring violence, pressuring large amounts of money out of followers, belligerent, unprovoked denunciations of other faiths.

This is like saying, "I reject all organized government because there is evidence of corruption in its highest ranks." Any time you have a hierarchical structure, there will be corruption in it. However, to suggest that all members of that structure, or that all followers of that structure, have anything to do with the incidents you describe is textbook stereotyping.

There is hardly an organized religion on the planet that hasn't been guilty recently of one or more of these actions.

A religion cannot, in and of itself, be guilty of any action. You would be more correct in saying, "There is not a religion on the planet which has not had members guilty recently of one or more of these actions."

4. Thank you. I know what Christian means. I give you credit for not flaming me yet in this thread, but I wonder when you will stop talking down to me.

Talking down to you is not my intention, and I apologize if it seemed that way.

Simply put, "no." Think about it for a moment. If you work for the Red Cross or $CHARITABLE_ORGANIZATION, I think it's pretty obvious that you're doing it because you wish to, regardless of the other stipulations. Likewise, if you feel that it is your duty [and it isn't], you're clearly still acting on a specifically designed value structure; you've chosen that value structure because you think it's right. This logic is peculiar at best, because if someone didn't wish to do something they wouldn't do it; at least not voluntarily.


Sure it is. The opposite of acting by choice is acting by force, and the desire to act by choice is a selfish one, because none of us want to have our behavior dictated by some unknown, outside force. Your definition of selfish seems to be "motivated by the self or the beliefs that the self holds". Is this correct?

Your definition of selfish seems to be "motivated by the self or the beliefs that the self holds". Is this correct?
Leaving aside, for the moment, the dictionary listing above for "selfishness" [the invocation of which I find amusing, as the poster seemed to be refusing to acknowledge any difference between the terms "motive" and "intent" in another thread--even with definitions having been provided regularly], your definition seems to be fairly accurate.

Rand sort of revolutionized the concept of 'selfishness': I find the dictionary definition a little bit lacking because there's nothing inherent to selfishness that says I have to completely disrespect the same tendancy in other men. I've been doing it for years. That's generally why it carries the 'rational' prefix, which my detractors love to keep out. It's not really that much of a surprise to see the same mistake committed again.

If selfish is defined as: Acting soley towards the completion of your own will and fullfillment of your own desires

Then every single action that any being attempts is selfish.

If selfish is defined as: Acting soley towards the furthering of personal comfort and well-being

Then Christians, seeking the maximum comfort and happiness for themselves in heaven, act selfishly when they consciously act in a moral manner.

If selfish is defined as: Acting soley towards the furthering of personal comfort and well-being

Then Christians, seeking the maximum comfort and happiness for themselves in heaven, act selfishly when they consciously act in a moral manner.

This is only true if their motive is to get into heaven, and not to do good/act in a moral manner for the sake of the good/morals.

The idea behind Christianity is not (or at least it shouldn't be), "Act nice and you get a present." That is a childish attitude that most of us should've grown out of by now. The idea is that, if you truly love God and have accepted God's guidance, you will perform good actions, out of love (not out of fear).

<snip>
However, I do not meet many of the stereotypical views of women. This has nothing at all to do with the actual definition of the word woman, and everything to do with the fact that people have placed stereotypes upon the word. I haven't stopped calling myself a woman just because there are some women who give the word a bad name. Nor have I stopped calling myself a woman because of the stereotypical views of women that some people hold. I do, when I meet someone who holds such stereotypical views, have to explain the fact that I do not meet them. It doesn't make me throw up my hands and say, "Well Crikey! I'm not going to call myself a woman anymore!"

If you are referring to the divinity of Christ, that is not really a central tenet of every doctrine. In fact, especially in the early church, it was a point of some contention. One could be a Christian and disagree with most, or even all, of the dogma of a given church, if they believed that Christ's teachings were worthy of being followed. Even believing that Christ was a prophet whose teachings should be followed, but completely human, could technically earn you the title.

Again, you are letting religion be defined by a few "elite" guys arguing over it, while religion is actually defined by the individual following it.

This is like saying, "I reject all organized government because there is evidence of corruption in its highest ranks." Any time you have a hierarchical structure, there will be corruption in it. However, to suggest that all members of that structure, or that all followers of that structure, have anything to do with the incidents you describe is textbook stereotyping.

<snip>
Sorry to take so long in responding; I was occupied elsewhere.

Okay, we've established now that you get my points about the corruption of churches tainting the names/symbols of the religions they supposedly serve. I assume from the parts of your post quoted above that you disagree with me. Well, that's fine -- we're discussing opinions here, so if we fail to persuade each other, it's no big deal. However, I'd like to pursue a few more points before letting it go.

First: Your actual sex was not the issue, obviously. I was referring to the fact that *if* the facts don't match a person's self-description, then it would be reasonable for others to question why that person uses that self-description. I also think it might be reasonable for them to decide that the person is being dishonest by claiming the title of a group they do not actually belong to. I am perhaps a bit too orthodox to go with the idea that you can fully customize the beliefs and the practice and still claim membership in the group. I understand that there are lots of Christian churches to choose from, but IMO, they (and other religious organizations) all suffer from the same faults and I object to them all more or less equally. Therefore, for sake of conversation, I put them all together under the rubric "Christian" churches.

I know that the question of Christ's divinity has been a bone of contention among Christians for pretty much ever, but I don't buy the idea that you can think of Christ as nothing more than a human teacher and still be called a Christian. By that measure, Muslims could be called Christians, as they acknowledge Jesus as a teacher and prophet. I believe one of the baseline requirements to be officially a Christian is that you have to believe in salvation of the soul and that salvation of the soul is found in the teachings of Christ -- at the very least. I don't believe either proposition, therefore, I don't think I qualify as a Christian.

As for the idea that I'm letting an "elite" define religion -- no, I'm letting an elite define *church*, not religion. We've already agreed they're not the same thing. I was avoiding the following comparison because people take it the wrong way, but it's on point, so: The swastika was originally a sun symbol that appeared in many cultures around the world and had a great meaning attached to it. Then the nazis adopted it, and in a very short time they poisoned the meaning of that symbol forever. Nowadays, very few people try to use that symbol in any other context. The poisonous effect of the misuse of that symbol has forced others to abandon it to avoid being tarred with the nazi brush.

This is meant just as a forceful illustration of how a bad minority can ruin a good thing for everyone. My opinion about the perniciousness of church corruption is so strong that I do feel I must divorce myself from even their names to avoid being associated with their actions. And it's not just about symbols. I really feel their actions will end up destroying religion/faith, if religious/faithful people don't separate their beliefs from the churches.

That's what I meant about not calling myself a feminist. I believe the feminist movement has important work to do in achieving social equality, but so many feminists waste their time blaming men for every little thing, arguing over gender roles, looking for sexist boogeymen in magazine covers, that it not only distracts from rights issues, it actually creates hostility to the word "feminism" and by extension to the debate over women's rights. They are destroying their own cause. Women who want to save the cause, must get rid of the old leaders, and their names and jargon.

All of this is just to explain why I made the statements I made. I'm just trying to express my opinion, not change anyone else's.