NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a rep at my house for being less than generous with candy, in fact, I have a stash. I will give candy out, I mean share, if I feel like it, but people are often upset with the way things go.

"can I have a piece of candy?"
*hands them a hershey kiss*
"I wanted that snickers bar"
"you didn't specify"
"give me the snickers bar"
*takes back the hershey kiss, hands over snickers bar*
"I want both"
"too late, you said a piece, that's a piece."

:p

so, the other day when I brought home a candy bar for my husband, he was shocked, and then confused. He realized that it was a kind that I could not have and wrote off my contribution as 'throwing away things I didn't want' instead of me purposefully getting something for him.......>.>

anyway, we got into the discussion of motivations, intentions and those affects on your actions. He assumed my intention was to get rid of candy that I couldn't have that was tempting for me, but my motivation was to get him a candy bar, to be nice.

Long story short (now that you have seen the major backstory) we started the discussion about intent and finished up decided that all actions are basically selfish, why would I have bought him a candy bar if I didn't want him to think I had repented of my candy hoarding sins and was turning over a new leaf as a candy sharer? Well, about 6 months ago in one of our discussions we decided that all sin comes from being selfish, if we mesh that with all actions are selfish then it becomes all actions are sin.

so, this is disturbing.

what do you guys think?

anyway, we got into the discussion of motivations, intentions and those affects on your actions.

we started the discussion about intent and finished up decided that all actions are basically selfish

about 6 months ago in one of our discussions we decided that all sin comes from being selfish, if we mesh that with all actions are selfish then it becomes all actions are sin.
All that 'cause of a candy bar? Your family must be deep... :p

All our actions are tainted by sin, but that doesn't mean that every action is equally sinful.

All our actions are tainted by sin, but that doesn't mean that every action is equally sinful.

all sin is equal

I think you have to go with the Ayn Rand version of the word "selfish" to come to that conclusion.

Generally, when most people use the word selfish, it isn't just, "something that benefits you." It is an action or thought or whatever which takes only the self into account, with disregard for the welfare of others.

I might give to charity and it might make me happy, but it isn't a selfish action. I am not doing it solely for myself, and I am not disregarding the welfare of others when I do it.

If, on the other hand, I buy myself candy while my friend can't even afford a meal and I could buy them one, that is selfish. I am giving myself something sweet - something I don't need but want - while disregarding the plight of another - someone who cannot even eat.

One entry found for selfish.
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>
3 : being an actively replicating repetitive sequence of nucleic acid that serves no known function <selfish DNA>; also : being genetic material solely concerned with its own replication

With the exception of the biological reference, we can see that the word pretty much relies on the disregard for others, as well as the concern for oneself.

There's no such thing as sin, so go ahead and enjoy the candy already.

I think you have to go with the Ayn Rand version of the word "selfish" to come to that conclusion.

Generally, when most people use the word selfish, it isn't just, "something that benefits you." It is an action or thought or whatever which takes only the self into account, with disregard for the welfare of others.

I might give to charity and it might make me happy, but it isn't a selfish action. I am not doing it solely for myself, and I am not disregarding the welfare of others when I do it.

If, on the other hand, I buy myself candy while my friend can't even afford a meal and I could buy them one, that is selfish. I am giving myself something sweet - something I don't need but want - while disregarding the plight of another - someone who cannot even eat.
*looks at her huge copy of Atlas Shrugged that is sitting on her desk*

to be selfish means to be concerned with self, it is the opposite of selfless, we (my husband and I) strive to be selfless but the big bad selfish monster keeps coming to beat us up.

so, the other day when I brought home a candy bar for my husband, he was shocked, and then confused. He realized that it was a kind that I could not have and wrote off my contribution as 'throwing away things I didn't want' instead of me purposefully getting something for him.......>.>

anyway, we got into the discussion of motivations, intentions and those affects on your actions. He assumed my intention was to get rid of candy that I couldn't have that was tempting for me, but my motivation was to get him a candy bar, to be nice.

Long story short (now that you have seen the major backstory) we started the discussion about intent and finished up decided that all actions are basically selfish, why would I have bought him a candy bar if I didn't want him to think I had repented of my candy hoarding sins and was turning over a new leaf as a candy sharer? Well, about 6 months ago in one of our discussions we decided that all sin comes from being selfish, if we mesh that with all actions are selfish then it becomes all actions are sin.

so, this is disturbing.

what do you guys think?

if you dig down deep enough, anything anyone does is for a selfish reason. even if that reason is "to make me feel good"

"I WANT to make the world a Better Place" (better by who's standard)
"I WANT to find a cure for cancer." (and get the fame and fortune that will come with it.)

To me, tho. is HOW far one must dig to find that selfish reason.

You gave your husband a candy bar.
so look at the ladder of reasons and what is the first reason for your action.

if you gave him the candy bar to make him happy, then it wasn't a selfish reason.
If you gave him the candy bar to show your children the joys of sharing. not selfish.
if you gave him the candy bar to make yourself feel better. then that is a selfish act.

God doesn't say "Never think about yourself." but "Put others first."

All that 'cause of a candy bar? Your family must be deep... :p

*misses some of the dinnertable conversations my siblings and cousins had a long time ago.* :(

you eat candy for dinner?

Anyway, as for the "all actions are selfish" thing, think about it: if you were truly selfish, why would you care about people thinking you were stingy with candy? i.e. why get the candy bar to make your husband think you weren't?

also there is no such thing as sin.

I came into this thread because I have the ulterior motive of avoiding the zillion threads on the US election, about which I care little.

So, if I answer your question, will I be doing so because I want to, or because I'm being selfish?

In all seriousness, it's incredibly hard to say whether we're truly capable of selfless acts. For everything you can think of, such as giving to charity anonymously, there is the argument that, if nothing else, it's selfish as you're doing it to make yourself feel good.

It would be interesting to see if anyone can come up with an example of an act that truly has no benefit to you whatsoever.

i came to the conclusion that a truly selfless act (what's the word for that, now? buggered if i can remember, begins with 'a' i think) does not exist for similar reasons that you did here. but when i tried to discuss it with my parents they acted all shocked and wouldn't let me explain why i thought that. humph.

you eat candy for dinner?
only on Wednesdays

Anyway, as for the "all actions are selfish" thing, think about it: if you were truly selfish, why would you care about people thinking you were stingy with candy? i.e. why get the candy bar to make your husband think you weren't?


because if he likes me more than it's to my advantage.

*looks at her huge copy of Atlas Shrugged that is sitting on her desk*

*shudder*

to be selfish means to be concerned with self, it is the opposite of selfless, we (my husband and I) strive to be selfless but the big bad selfish monster keeps coming to beat us up.

If selfish really only meant "concerned with self" and didn't include the issue of disregard for others, then being unselfish would be utterly impossible without dying. If the only way to be unselfish is to take actions in which you have no concern whatsoever for yourself, you cannot eat, unless it is to eat poison. You cannot sleep, you have to work until you drop. You cannot educate yourself, that helps you. And so on....the word becomes utterly useless.

If being selfish is supposed to be a bad thing, then it must have something in the definition that makes it such. Being concerned for yourself, on its own, is not a bad thing. In fact, Scripture tells us to do so. We are supposed to try and remain healthy. We are supposed to see to our own welfare, and so on. Being concerned with oneself only becomes a bad thing when you do so at the expense of others. If your concern for yourself is such that you are harming (or simply not caring about) others to help yourself, then it is a bad thing.

all sin is equal

Bible verse, please.

And that's not what I said anyway. What I said was that not all actions are equally tainted by sin.

Bible verse, please.

And that's not what I said anyway. What I said was that not all actions are equally tainted by sin.

Are any actions untainted? Surely worshipping the Lord is not tainted with sin.

What a wonderful conversation to have at home. That sounds like my home, but I'm the most pedantic person alive so I don't expect to see othe people doing that.

I would describe selfishness as a motive that is primarily concerned with your own benefit. So it can involve helping others if you enjoy helping others, but if you don't enjoy helping others then doing so would not be selfish.

However, given free will, I don't think it's possible to act unselfishly. Everything you choose to do you do so because you want to choose it. Otherwise, you'd choose something else. You might not always be happy with the set of available options, but among those options you chose the one you like the most.

Therefore everyone behaves selfishly all the time and the term really ceases to have meaning. I'm okay with that.

What Dempublicents did was follow that same line of reasoning, but upon reaching a conclusion she deemed unacceptable decided to throw away the reasoning that lead there. I think that was a bad decision. If the reasoning leads you to a conclusion, then that's the best available conclusion, regardless of whether you like it.

What a wonderful conversation to have at home. That sounds like my home, but I'm the most pedantic person alive so I don't expect to see othe people doing that.

I would describe selfishness as a motive that is primarily concerned with your own benefit. So it can involve helping others if you enjoy helping others, but if you don't enjoy helping others then doing so would not be selfish.

However, given free will, I don't think it's possible to act unselfishly. Everything you choose to do you do so because you want to choose it. Otherwise, you'd choose something else. You might not always be happy with the set of available options, but among those options you chose the one you like the most.

Therefore everyone behaves selfishly all the time and the term really ceases to have meaning. I'm okay with that.

What Dempublicents did was follow that same line of reasoning, but upon reaching a conclusion she deemed unacceptable decided to throw away the reasoning that lead there. I think that was a bad decision. If the reasoning leads you to a conclusion, then that's the best available conclusion, regardless of whether you like it.

I didn't do any such thing. I simply went back to the actual definition of the word and found that it includes a disregard for others. In other words, if we have all the information, including the actual definition of the word, the reasoning leads us to believe that many actions are neither selfless nor selfish (which is good, since it means both words are actually useful in the English language).

The only way to reach the conclusion that all actions are selfish is to start with a flawed definition, one specifically designed to lead to that conclusion, which is precisely what Ayn Rand did.

Note: You can certainly use the non-standard definition if you want, but *then* the word becomes useless, which is what I was pointing out.

Are any actions untainted? Surely worshipping the Lord is not tainted with sin.
I think the concept of original sin requires that all human action is tainted.

Are any actions untainted? Surely worshipping the Lord is not tainted with sin.

Anything mere man touches is stained. So while if we were to take purely the worship of God, it would be good, because in actuallity man touches it, it is in practice tainted by sin.

Does that make it sinful? No, not necessarily. Disect the word: full of sin. So is worshiping God full of sin, just because Man touches it? No, but, again, it is stained. Our motives are not pure (I'm a Miller, and Millers will go to church every Sunday, what will the congregation think!), we add to it (see below), we take from it (many churches, including my own, don't do a confession of sin).

Some "worship" of God is sinful, I believe, but then it is no longer truly worship. Dramas in church, I believe, are sinful, because there is no precedent for them in the Bible.

Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter XVI Section 6
"Yet notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works are accepted in him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable and unreproveable in God's sight; but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections."

I didn't do any such thing. I simply went back to the actual definition of the word and found that it includes a disregard for others.
I think it does invole a lack of regard for others as its primary motive. Selfishness is concerned solely with benefitting you. You, however, might benefit from helping others. The helping others part is entirely contingent upon your own self benefitting from doing it.

If we accept the traditional definition (as you have), then the relevant distinction arises within what people like to do. And then we're lauding or criticising people (because selfishness is bad) based on their personal preferences, something over which they might not have control.

I don't think the definition of the word can include a value judgement. Selfishness is selfish. Whether it's good or bad is immaterial.

Anything mere man touches is stained. So while if we were to take purely the worship of God, it would be good, because in actuallity man touches it, it is in practice tainted by sin.

Does that make it sinful? No, not necessarily. Disect the word: full of sin. So is worshiping God full of sin, just because Man touches it? No, but, again, it is stained. Our motives are not pure (I'm a Miller, and Millers will go to church every Sunday, what will the congregation think!), we add to it (see below), we take from it (many churches, including my own, don't do a confession of sin).

Some "worship" of God is sinful, I believe, but then it is no longer truly worship. Dramas in church, I believe, are sinful, because there is no precedent for them in the Bible.

Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter XVI Section 6
"Yet notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works are accepted in him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable and unreproveable in God's sight; but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections."

I would say by this that not all actions are sin, but that the actors are tainted by sin. In other words, you, a sinner, may perform an action before God that is not in itself s sin. I think that's correct, is it not?

I'm more and more under the impression that Christians generally tend to spend a lot of time and energy on feeling bad an inadequate...

I'm a Miller, and Millers will go to church every Sunday, what will the congregation think!
When I read that I honestly thought, "You're a miller? You make flour from grain? That can't be a terribly common profession these days."

I do a great deal of volunteer work for the needy. It's an excellent way to meet chicks.

It's all selfish.

"I gave him candy because I wanted to do something nice."

True Meanings:

Option A: I'll do something nice so that I can feel good about myself and say, "See? I did something nice for no reason at all."

Option B: I'm going to do something nice in the hopes that something nice will be done for me in return.

Option C: I'll do something nice, only to find out that nobody appreciates it and become a martyr.

So the next time you get your husband a candy bar, just launch it across the room into his head and walk away. A lot less pretense. :p :D

That must be some pretty intense candy talk.

That must be some pretty intense candy talk.

That's it, it was the candy talking! Off to rehab with you, Smunkee! (Except you've probably been there, I suppose.)

I think it does invole a lack of regard for others as its primary motive. Selfishness is concerned solely with benefitting you.

....with a disregard for others. You say you are including that portion, but you are not. If you do not include it, eating dinner is selfish, because it is soley concerned with benefiting you. It is not, however, selfish if we go by the standard definition. You don't demonstrate or (generally, anyways) think with any disregard to the welfare of others by eating dinner.

Now, if you are eating steak and lobster while your poor mother barely gets by on bread and cheese, *that* is selfish. You are eating good stuff, solely to benefit yourself, while completely disregarding the welfare of your mother, whom you could help to be healthier with only a small amount of the money you are spending on your own dinner.

See the difference?

If we accept the traditional definition (as you have), then the relevant distinction arises within what people like to do. And then we're lauding or criticising people (because selfishness is bad) based on their personal preferences, something over which they might not have control.

No, it has nothing whatsoever with "what people like to do" or personal preferences. It has to do with the motivation behind the action and whether or not the decision process involves disregarding the welfare of others. If you decide to do something because you like it, and the welfare of others is not at all concerned, the action isn't selfish. If, on the other hand, you do something you like even though that action could very well harm others, and you just don't care, *that* is selfish.

I don't think the definition of the word can include a value judgement. Selfishness is selfish. Whether it's good or bad is immaterial.

The definition cannot involve a value judgement, nor does it. The definition doesn't say that a disregard for others is a bad thing, just that it is necessary to define an action as selfish. That is something, however, that many of us believe to be true.

How dare you make candy hording sound like a bad thing, Smunkeeville!

I would say by this that not all actions are sin, but that the actors are tainted by sin. In other words, you, a sinner, may perform an action before God that is not in itself s sin. I think that's correct, is it not?

Intent often determines whether we consider an action a sin or not.

When determining if something was a sin for a person to do, we must ask these questions:

What did s/he do? (Was it contrary to God's Law?)
Why did s/he do it? (What was the intent?)
How was it done? (Did the person knowingly employ means contrary to the Law?)

The last two questions are usually answered the same way.

So, let's look at gossip. I tell you that John Doe goes and prostitutes himself every Saturday night.

What did I do? Was it contrary to God's Law? No, not if it's true and I know it to be true (more than rumor)

Why did I say it? What was my intent? If it was to alert you to a possible danger to your daughter who is dating him, my intent was good. If it was for a less honorable reason (some love triangle thing, maybe) it would be wrong.

How did I say it? Did I say it in front of his boss, who need not know anything about it? If I did (assuming I knew it to be his boss), I was in sin there.

Assume that I am "in the right" for all these questions. The act itself then, was not a sin. But, if we look long enough, Scripture teaches (and I am inclined to agree) that we will find something which places the stain of sin on the act. It may be that way back in my mind I excused a doubt about whether to tell you with the thought that I should pay the prostitute his due (taking God's role on myself). It could be many things (though usually in intent), but it will always be there.

When I read that I honestly thought, "You're a miller? You make flour from grain? That can't be a terribly common profession these days."

lol :p

Intent often determines whether we consider an action a sin or not.

When determining if something was a sin for a person to do, we must ask these questions:

What did s/he do? (Was it contrary to God's Law?)
Why did s/he do it? (What was the intent?)
How was it done? (Did the person knowingly employ means contrary to the Law?)

The last two questions are usually answered the same way.

So, let's look at gossip. I tell you that John Doe goes and prostitutes himself every Saturday night.

What did I do? Was it contrary to God's Law? No, not if it's true and I know it to be true (more than rumor)

Why did I say it? What was my intent? If it was to alert you to a possible danger to your daughter who is dating him, my intent was good. If it was for a less honorable reason (some love triangle thing, maybe) it would be wrong.

How did I say it? Did I say it in front of his boss, who need not know anything about it? If I did (assuming I knew it to be his boss), I was in sin there.

Assume that I am "in the right" for all these questions. The act itself then, was not a sin. But, if we look long enough, Scripture teaches (and I am inclined to agree) that we will find something which places the stain of sin on the act. It may be that way back in my mind I excused a doubt about whether to tell you with the thought that I should pay the prostitute his due (taking God's role on myself). It could be many things (though usually in intent), but it will always be there.

You've missed my point. Surely, there are many, many sinful actions and sinful intentions. I'm asking if there are any actions that are in and of themselves without sin, even though the person acting is a sinner.

You've missed my point. Surely, there are many, many sinful actions and sinful intentions. I'm asking if there are any actions that are in and of themselves without sin, even though the person acting is a sinner.

Augustine wrote that a baby is sinning when it cries for food....

IIRC, Edwardis is a member of a Calvinist religion, and Calvin based his theology in the writings of Augustine, so....

You've missed my point. Surely, there are many, many sinful actions and sinful intentions. I'm asking if there are any actions that are in and of themselves without sin, even though the person acting is a sinner.

I'm sorry, I missed that.

Yes, of course, to answer your question. Otherwise, Jesus would have sinned in some way and would have not been an adequate sacrifice for our sins.

I'm sorry, I missed that.

Yes, of course, to answer your question. Otherwise, Jesus would have sinned in some way and would have not been an adequate sacrifice for our sins.

So you're saying that Jesus was a sinner?

I have a rep at my house for being less than generous with candy, in fact, I have a stash. I will give candy out, I mean share, if I feel like it, but people are often upset with the way things go.

"can I have a piece of candy?"
*hands them a hershey kiss*
"I wanted that snickers bar"
"you didn't specify"
"give me the snickers bar"
*takes back the hershey kiss, hands over snickers bar*
"I want both"
"too late, you said a piece, that's a piece."

:p

so, the other day when I brought home a candy bar for my husband, he was shocked, and then confused. He realized that it was a kind that I could not have and wrote off my contribution as 'throwing away things I didn't want' instead of me purposefully getting something for him.......>.>

anyway, we got into the discussion of motivations, intentions and those affects on your actions. He assumed my intention was to get rid of candy that I couldn't have that was tempting for me, but my motivation was to get him a candy bar, to be nice.

Long story short (now that you have seen the major backstory) we started the discussion about intent and finished up decided that all actions are basically selfish, why would I have bought him a candy bar if I didn't want him to think I had repented of my candy hoarding sins and was turning over a new leaf as a candy sharer? Well, about 6 months ago in one of our discussions we decided that all sin comes from being selfish, if we mesh that with all actions are selfish then it becomes all actions are sin.

so, this is disturbing.

what do you guys think?


I think you wanted to be nice; he was grouchy and instead of thanking you assumed it was a cast off, and has convinced you that putting someone else's wishes first is, instead of a loving act, is instead selfish to cover the fact that he was less than gracious.

I'm sorry, I missed that.

Yes, of course, to answer your question. Otherwise, Jesus would have sinned in some way and would have not been an adequate sacrifice for our sins.

Right, which answers Smunkee's question, I think. She should give us the rest of her candy stash for our services. :p How is the flour business nowadays, anyway?

So you're saying that Jesus was a sinner?

He is by proxy because he died for our sins...

So you're saying that Jesus was a sinner?

No, I'm saying there must be works which are not sinful in and of themselves. If there were not, Jesus must have sinned. If Jesus sinned, He could not have died for our sins. So, there must be works which are free of sin in and of themselves.

only on Wednesdays



because if he likes me more than it's to my advantage.

O_o

Ok, if your relationship is all about getting the advantage, then that's the FURTHEST thing I can think of to what I would consider a marriage.

He is by proxy because he died for our sins...

That's sloppy wording. I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with what the words actually mean.

That's sloppy wording. I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with what the words actually mean.
It's not sloppy wording. He was by proxy a sinner because he died for sins.

I'm more and more under the impression that Christians generally tend to spend a lot of time and energy on feeling bad an inadequate...

Not all of us.

No, I'm saying there must be works which are not sinful in and of themselves. If there were not, Jesus must have sinned. If Jesus sinned, He could not have died for our sins. So, there must be works which are free of sin in and of themselves.

But the question included the stipulation that the person acting is, in fact, a sinner. Do those actions continue to be free of sin if a sinner carries them out?

I'm more and more under the impression that Christians generally tend to spend a lot of time and energy on feeling bad an inadequate...

I don't know that this discussion would necessarily lead to that. My fiance (who is an atheist) and I have spent quite a bit of time talking about the nature of selfishness and how to determine it. My eventual conclusion from my week-long conversation/argument with him (a bit off-topic, but still related) was that we can never know if any actions but our own were truly selfish, because it is impossible to measure the motives of another. The definition of the word relies on motivation, but motivation cannot be measured, only the results of a given action can.

But the question included the stipulation that the person acting is, in fact, a sinner. Do those actions continue to be free of sin if a sinner carries them out?

I would think so, yes.

Darn, I wish I could stay.

I have a rep at my house for being less than generous with candy, in fact, I have a stash. I will give candy out, I mean share, if I feel like it, but people are often upset with the way things go.

"can I have a piece of candy?"
*hands them a hershey kiss*
"I wanted that snickers bar"
"you didn't specify"
"give me the snickers bar"
*takes back the hershey kiss, hands over snickers bar*
"I want both"
"too late, you said a piece, that's a piece."

:p

so, the other day when I brought home a candy bar for my husband, he was shocked, and then confused. He realized that it was a kind that I could not have and wrote off my contribution as 'throwing away things I didn't want' instead of me purposefully getting something for him.......>.>

anyway, we got into the discussion of motivations, intentions and those affects on your actions. He assumed my intention was to get rid of candy that I couldn't have that was tempting for me, but my motivation was to get him a candy bar, to be nice.

Long story short (now that you have seen the major backstory) we started the discussion about intent and finished up decided that all actions are basically selfish, why would I have bought him a candy bar if I didn't want him to think I had repented of my candy hoarding sins and was turning over a new leaf as a candy sharer? Well, about 6 months ago in one of our discussions we decided that all sin comes from being selfish, if we mesh that with all actions are selfish then it becomes all actions are sin.

so, this is disturbing.

what do you guys think?

This is something of the psychology behind the most immature of political attacks. It's why the villains in comic books always call compassion weak while they call cruelty strength.

Pro-vietnam people call conscientious objectors "cowards," because people who are afraid to fight are cowards. But it's people who are afraid to stand up for the cause they believe in who are cowards, so the CO's would be cowards if they went to Vietnam to avoid the scorn of their countrymen, but the "patriots" would be cowards if they ran to Canada.

It baisicly comes down to maturity. If you're a mature human being with an understanding of the effects of your actions and the nature of the world you live in, then you can be selfless and appreciate the selfless acts of others.

If you are a selfish person, then selfless acts will just look like exotic kinds of selfish acts. All people who worry about the health of their loved ones will appear to be just like those psychos with Munchausen by Proxy syndrome who poison their kids to get attention.

This is why Conservatives accuse liberals of such horrible things all the time. It's a projection of their own immaturity. They are baisicly just spoiled bullying brats (with a few exceptions). When they controlled Congress they called Dems calls for bipartisanship "whining," because they did not believe that anyone could truly believe in cooperating with someone in a weaker position if they didn't have to. Now the Dems will control Congress and the very first day that it became apparent Hastert called for Bipartisanship because he, and other conservatives, are exactly the kind of whiner that they accused the Dems of being.

People who only see selfishness, weakness, hatred, and cowardice all around them are the people who are only capable of selfishness, weakness, hatred, and cowardice. They will call love weakness, concern hatred, selfishness wisdom, and wisdom cowardice. Because they themselves aren't capable of demonstrating any of those virtues.

O_o

Ok, if your relationship is all about getting the advantage, then that's the FURTHEST thing I can think of to what I would consider a marriage.

that's not what my relationship is about, but, I was asked why someone might do that and I offered up a suggestion of why someone might have selfish reasoning to offer a candy bar.

[/incoherent]

But the question included the stipulation that the person acting is, in fact, a sinner. Do those actions continue to be free of sin if a sinner carries them out?

Thank you. I'm having a hard time reading today for some reason.

An action can be without sin in and of itself. If we were to look at that action without relation to the doer, we would see no sin.

But, the instant we look at it as being done by a sinner, we must recognize it as being tainted by sin.

If we look at it as being done by someone who is not a sinner, we must recognize it as being maintained as sinless.

The act can be looked at in two ways: on its own or in relation to the actor.

When we look at it on its own, we can say good or wrong. When we look at it in relation to the actor, we can only guage it according to the moral ability of that actor. Because Man is sinful and unable to (in this life) be purely good, we can only guage His acts on the scale of least sinful to most sinful. He is incapable of pure good, so He cannot help but taint the good act which He does.

Is that better? Or did I miss something else?

Is that better? Or did I miss something else?

I think you answered the question, although I must say I disagree with you.

I think you answered the question, although I must say I disagree with you.

You're allowed to disagree. I wish you wouldn't, but you're allowed.

It would be interesting to see if anyone can come up with an example of an act that truly has no benefit to you whatsoever.

Ok, heres one: throwing yourself onto a grenade. You die; a mate survives, but you still die. Pretty damm selfless.

Ok, heres one: throwing yourself onto a grenade. You die; a mate survives, but you still die. Pretty damm selfless.

You're saving yourself the pain of possibly living and knowing you could have prevented the death of your spouse.

You're saving yourself the pain of possibly living and knowing you could have prevented the death of your spouse.

If I commit suicide I save myself the pain of a future toothache. It's hardly selfish if the cost/benifit analysis is very much against you.

If I commit suicide I save myself the pain of a future toothache. It's hardly selfish if the cost/benifit analysis is very much against you.

Eh, some would disagree. I don't konw what I think of your statment. I was just proposing a possible retort to his statment (one I might possibly disagree with myself).

You're saving yourself the pain of possibly living and knowing you could have prevented the death of your spouse.

So you might feel some sort of "warm inner glow" for about 0.25 seconds, but then you die. Really, thats just bollocks.

So you might feel some sort of "warm inner glow" for about 0.25 seconds, but then you die. Really, thats just bollocks.

See what I said above.

In order for this arguement to work, one must beleive in the concept of "sin."

that's not what my relationship is about, but, I was asked why someone might do that and I offered up a suggestion of why someone might have selfish reasoning to offer a candy bar.

[/incoherent]
as Garfied (the cat) once said...

"People don't want nice... they want consistancy."

If I commit suicide I save myself the pain of a future toothache. It's hardly selfish if the cost/benifit analysis is very much against you.
Those are hardly the same things. The thought of suddenly losing someone with whom you have lived for years (possibly decades) in a sudden fashion is terrifying, but the thought of dying is also terrifying. Whether you leap on the hand grenade, then, is solely motivated by which fear is stronger at that exact instant.
And just because an act is irrational doesn't mean it isn't selfless, if I start chopping my fingers because I think that the Finger Fairy will leave me a million dollars for each digit left under my pillow at night, I am acting self-destructively, but still with selfish (and, in fact, material) goals.

There's a finger fairy???

*cuts fingers*

There's a finger fairy???

*cuts fingers*
How are you posting on NS without fingers?

To try to be selfless runs counter to the Tao, if you have to try, you've already failed.

To follow the Tao, you must be, unthinkingly, truly yourself and virtue will follow.

To follow the Tao, you cannot try to follow the Tao.

This is something of the psychology behind the most immature of political attacks. It's why the villains in comic books always call compassion weak while they call cruelty strength.

Pro-vietnam people call conscientious objectors "cowards," because people who are afraid to fight are cowards. But it's people who are afraid to stand up for the cause they believe in who are cowards, so the CO's would be cowards if they went to Vietnam to avoid the scorn of their countrymen, but the "patriots" would be cowards if they ran to Canada.

It baisicly comes down to maturity. If you're a mature human being with an understanding of the effects of your actions and the nature of the world you live in, then you can be selfless and appreciate the selfless acts of others.

If you are a selfish person, then selfless acts will just look like exotic kinds of selfish acts. All people who worry about the health of their loved ones will appear to be just like those psychos with Munchausen by Proxy syndrome who poison their kids to get attention.

This is why Conservatives accuse liberals of such horrible things all the time. It's a projection of their own immaturity. They are baisicly just spoiled bullying brats (with a few exceptions). When they controlled Congress they called Dems calls for bipartisanship "whining," because they did not believe that anyone could truly believe in cooperating with someone in a weaker position if they didn't have to. Now the Dems will control Congress and the very first day that it became apparent Hastert called for Bipartisanship because he, and other conservatives, are exactly the kind of whiner that they accused the Dems of being.

People who only see selfishness, weakness, hatred, and cowardice all around them are the people who are only capable of selfishness, weakness, hatred, and cowardice. They will call love weakness, concern hatred, selfishness wisdom, and wisdom cowardice. Because they themselves aren't capable of demonstrating any of those virtues.

why is everything you ever post in reply to me peppered with your dislike for "conservatives"?

this question had nothing to do with politics....

To try to be selfless runs counter to the Tao, if you have to try, you've already failed.

To follow the Tao, you must be, unthinkingly, truly yourself and virtue will follow.

To follow the Tao, you cannot try to follow the Tao.

okay, you seriously have to explain this to me, it's counter to my view of life and everything.........I need more details.

okay, you seriously have to explain this to me, it's counter to my view of life and everything.........I need more details.

Read Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching. Get a good translation. The best way to do it is to read it once through and then then take each verse separately and think about it for a few days. Then do it all over again. Each time will bring you something new.

There are some Biblical sayings that are quite Taoist, like, "Be still and know I am God (this doesn't just mean stop talking, this means empty your mind of all thought and let God in).

I don't see what's wrong in being selfish as long as you share your stash. If you do that, for whatever reasons, it's not really selfish anymore. Or is it? ;)

How are you posting on NS without fingers?nose? Tongue? toes?

I just wanna know how he cut those last two fingers off.

well, he could have help I suppose...

If you look at it from the old "Selfish Gene" perspective you can see that most actions tend to promote selfish behaviour. The important thing to point out though is that the selfishness is aimed at the gene level not at the individual level.

Therefore in many cases altruistic behaviour by an individual can be the most logical action to take for the selfish preservation of a gene.

Example
You are in the woods with your 4 younger brothers.

You come across a wolf.

If selfishness was at the individual level then the logical response would be to run as fast as you can and avoid injury. You don't have to be able to outrun the wolf.. just outrun one of your brothers, and the wolf will eat him instead.

However if you consider that your brothers also carry a portion of the same genes as you, suddenly the equation changes and it may well be worth you risking injury attempting to scare off the wolf, as if you all survive then that is promoting increasing numbers of your gene set surviving.

Hence on the individual level completely selfless acts can in fact be selected for as they act in a selfish way when considering the genepool.

Traditionally people close to you were usually related to you. Tribal villages and hunting groups. So we are "programmed" (if you like) to sometimes have acts of altruism towards people that are close to us.

Hence even jumping on a grenade for a buddy can be a "logical" action in a biological sense. Not a productive one in this particular case as they aren't related to you. But the set of random events in the past that has guided your current biological make up would have favoured that kind of action enough in the past to make it a suggested behaviour.

I dont feel that every action is selfish, but reather that no action is selfless.

If you give to someone, you feel good about it, that means you are not being selfless, but I dont feel that you are being selfish, as you are putting yourself first yes, but not at the cost of others, rather helping others to make yourself feel better. If that didn't happen, no-one would help each other, and we shouldn't demonize that.

nose? Tongue? toes?
There was a perfectly dirty answer to that question, and I had even prepared an appropriately comical response, but he never replied.
Some people can't even hit a nice easy pitch across home plate.
I just wanna know how he cut those last two fingers off.
He could have used one of those cutting boards designed to take paper off on a clean, measured edge.
Like so (http://www.factory-express.com/Paper_Cutters/Dahle_Special_Purpose_Cutters/dahlespecialpurposecutter.jpg)
well, he could have help I suppose...
I haven't seen a post of his since that one, so maybe he really did take off his fingers, but just posted about it first . . .

I have a rep at my house for being less than generous with candy, in fact, I have a stash. I will give candy out, I mean share, if I feel like it, but people are often upset with the way things go.

"can I have a piece of candy?"
*hands them a hershey kiss*
"I wanted that snickers bar"
"you didn't specify"
"give me the snickers bar"
*takes back the hershey kiss, hands over snickers bar*
"I want both"
"too late, you said a piece, that's a piece."

:p

so, the other day when I brought home a candy bar for my husband, he was shocked, and then confused. He realized that it was a kind that I could not have and wrote off my contribution as 'throwing away things I didn't want' instead of me purposefully getting something for him.......>.>

anyway, we got into the discussion of motivations, intentions and those affects on your actions. He assumed my intention was to get rid of candy that I couldn't have that was tempting for me, but my motivation was to get him a candy bar, to be nice.

Long story short (now that you have seen the major backstory) we started the discussion about intent and finished up decided that all actions are basically selfish, why would I have bought him a candy bar if I didn't want him to think I had repented of my candy hoarding sins and was turning over a new leaf as a candy sharer? Well, about 6 months ago in one of our discussions we decided that all sin comes from being selfish, if we mesh that with all actions are selfish then it becomes all actions are sin.

so, this is disturbing.

what do you guys think?


The goal of complete selflessness is a deception of the enemy. You are NOT directed to attempt to achieve such a condition, it’s a lie to even think of it as the objective.

Christians are NOT supposed to be completely selfless. I’ll show you why…

1) A sinner must first acknowledge their sinful state and then recognize the gift of salvation that God offers through Jesus Christ for what it is, a reward unearned, a gift inequitable for us to merit it. We MUST be selfish to accept the gift of salvation under those conditions. If we were completely unselfish, then we would accept eternal punishment instead of accepting a gift of salvation undeserved, justly punishing ourselves for our sins committed. But God does NOT want us to do that. He depends on our selfishness to accept his gift, for his glory and our salvation, we must be selfish to consider our personal salvation even though we are not worthy, and everyone knows that taking something for our own good, something we did not deserve, is selfish in definition.

2) Christians are instructed to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” IF you do NOT love yourself, then you will NOT love your neighbor very well. If you do not help yourself, you will not help your neighbor very well, if you do not give yourself mercy and grace for yourself then you will find yourself in the position of judging against your neighbor when they ask for your mercy and help (if you don’t do it for yourself, why should you do it for them?). As a Christian directed by Jesus to Love you neighbor as yourself, you MUST learn to treat yourself with respect and give yourself unearned rewards so that in return (as a Christian) your also feel that your neighbor should equally have these things and you will invite them over to share in your own reward. But you will NOT reward them if you are not rewarding yourself, you must be selfless to share your selfish reward/interests from time to time.

3) God wants us to enjoy his company, our lives, his universe and all of existence. Enjoying anything is purely selfish. God gave us a conscious to make us feel guilty and shameful when we do something wrong. God also gave us our ability to enjoy ourselves and feel happy and pleasure, to reinforce good actions that God wants us to do. God has a rod for punishment but also a staff of direction to steer us to better pastures. IF we are not self motivation by some level of selfishness then we will not be encouraged to participate in those behaviors that make us feel good (such as giving your husband candy simply because you want him to be happy which in return will make you happy) God is happy with that, love yourself, love your spouse, love your neighbor.


However, do not forget, all things in moderation, especially self love. Love oneself too much and you will forget to share your happiness with others, you will be too preoccupied with yourself to care about others.

I haven't seen a post of his since that one, so maybe he really did take off his fingers, but just posted about it first . . .

yes i di cut o my fingers, thqats why thius took so long to tupe, im using my nose.

hahas, didnt see that one cominfg did you.

The goal of complete selflessness is a deception of the enemy. You are NOT directed to attempt to achieve such a condition, it’s a lie to even think of it as the objective.

Christians are NOT supposed to be completely selfless. I’ll show you why…

1) A sinner must first acknowledge their sinful state and then recognize the gift of salvation that God offers through Jesus Christ for what it is, a reward unearned, a gift inequitable for us to merit it. We MUST be selfish to accept the gift of salvation under those conditions. If we were completely unselfish, then we would accept eternal punishment instead of accepting a gift of salvation undeserved, justly punishing ourselves for our sins committed. But God does NOT want us to do that. He depends on our selfishness to accept his gift, for his glory and our salvation, we must be selfish to consider our personal salvation even though we are not worthy, and everyone knows that taking something for our own good, something we did not deserve, is selfish in definition.

2) Christians are instructed to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” IF you do NOT love yourself, then you will NOT love your neighbor very well. If you do not help yourself, you will not help your neighbor very well, if you do not give yourself mercy and grace for yourself then you will find yourself in the position of judging against your neighbor when they ask for your mercy and help (if you don’t do it for yourself, why should you do it for them?). As a Christian directed by Jesus to Love you neighbor as yourself, you MUST learn to treat yourself with respect and give yourself unearned rewards so that in return (as a Christian) your also feel that your neighbor should equally have these things and you will invite them over to share in your own reward. But you will NOT reward them if you are not rewarding yourself, you must be selfless to share your selfish reward/interests from time to time.

3) God wants us to enjoy his company, our lives, his universe and all of existence. Enjoying anything is purely selfish. God gave us a conscious to make us feel guilty and shameful when we do something wrong. God also gave us our ability to enjoy ourselves and feel happy and pleasure, to reinforce good actions that God wants us to do. God has a rod for punishment but also a staff of direction to steer us to better pastures. IF we are not self motivation by some level of selfishness then we will not be encouraged to participate in those behaviors that make us feel good (such as giving your husband candy simply because you want him to be happy which in return will make you happy) God is happy with that, love yourself, love your spouse, love your neighbor.


However, do not forget, all things in moderation, especially self love. Love oneself too much and you will forget to share your happiness with others, you will be too preoccupied with yourself to care about others.

I believe you win the thread.

I believe you win the thread.

Well thank you, thank you very much :)

I guess my work here is done. ;)

THough I'm sure that this has already been reccomended, (I haven't got ttime to read the whole thread):

Go have sex with Ayn Rand and Melkor Unchained, preferably at the same time, and you will understand all.

THough I'm sure that this has already been reccomended, (I haven't got ttime to read the whole thread):

Go have sex with Ayn Rand and Melkor Unchained, preferably at the same time, and you will understand all.

LOL!

There's a finger fairy???

*cuts fingers*

No, please don't. Typing on NSG wouldn't be the same without them. :rolleyes:

some random things discussed at my dinner table
I have a rep at my house for being less than generous with candy, in fact, I have a stash. I will give candy out, I mean share, if I feel like it, but people are often upset with the way things go.

"can I have a piece of candy?"
*hands them a hershey kiss*
"I wanted that snickers bar"
"you didn't specify"
"give me the snickers bar"
*takes back the hershey kiss, hands over snickers bar*
"I want both"
"too late, you said a piece, that's a piece."

I'm impressed you acquiesced with the whole snickers/hershey's thing.
Personally, I would have taken it back and said, "You complain about the candy you're given, you lose the candy you're given".

But then, I don't like sharing my candy with anyone.

Well, about 6 months ago in one of our discussions we decided that all sin comes from being selfish, if we mesh that with all actions are selfish then it becomes all actions are sin.

so, this is disturbing.

what do you guys think?
Methinks that your premise is faulty. :D

If selfish really only meant "concerned with self" and didn't include the issue of disregard for others, then being unselfish would be utterly impossible without dying. If the only way to be unselfish is to take actions in which you have no concern whatsoever for yourself, you cannot eat, unless it is to eat poison. You cannot sleep, you have to work until you drop. You cannot educate yourself, that helps you. And so on....the word becomes utterly useless.

If being selfish is supposed to be a bad thing, then it must have something in the definition that makes it such. Being concerned for yourself, on its own, is not a bad thing. In fact, Scripture tells us to do so. We are supposed to try and remain healthy. We are supposed to see to our own welfare, and so on. Being concerned with oneself only becomes a bad thing when you do so at the expense of others. If your concern for yourself is such that you are harming (or simply not caring about) others to help yourself, then it is a bad thing.
Yeah, I think that just about covers the salient points. :D

I have a rep at my house for being less than generous with candy, in fact, I have a stash. I will give candy out, I mean share, if I feel like it, but people are often upset with the way things go.

"can I have a piece of candy?"
*hands them a hershey kiss*
"I wanted that snickers bar"
"you didn't specify"
"give me the snickers bar"
*takes back the hershey kiss, hands over snickers bar*
"I want both"
"too late, you said a piece, that's a piece."

:p

so, the other day when I brought home a candy bar for my husband, he was shocked, and then confused. He realized that it was a kind that I could not have and wrote off my contribution as 'throwing away things I didn't want' instead of me purposefully getting something for him.......>.>

anyway, we got into the discussion of motivations, intentions and those affects on your actions. He assumed my intention was to get rid of candy that I couldn't have that was tempting for me, but my motivation was to get him a candy bar, to be nice.

Long story short (now that you have seen the major backstory) we started the discussion about intent and finished up decided that all actions are basically selfish, why would I have bought him a candy bar if I didn't want him to think I had repented of my candy hoarding sins and was turning over a new leaf as a candy sharer? Well, about 6 months ago in one of our discussions we decided that all sin comes from being selfish, if we mesh that with all actions are selfish then it becomes all actions are sin.

so, this is disturbing.

what do you guys think?

My theory on human behavior is that all human behavior comes from one of two sources, Love and Fear.

Love often manifests as the following:

Selflessness (a willingness to sacrafice for the good of others)
Generostiy
Forgiveness (being willing to forgive others, as well as yourself)
Patience
Mercy
Optimism
Hope

Fear often manifest in these ways:

Pride (we often create a sort of shield of pride to hide from things that we are afraid of, this is often why people are unwilling to appologise when they have hurt someone else, because the are afraid of being wrong, or they are afraid of the person not forgiving them and thereby hurting them)
Selfishness (steming from the fear of not having enough for our own needs)
Pesimism (coming from the fear of being disapointed)
Despair (comming from the fear of failure, IE 'you can't win, so why try?')
Accusing/Judging Others (or a willingness to see the worst in others, so you can protect yourself from being hurt by them, again comming from the fear of pain)


Both of these emotions have powerful influence over our actions. And when we follow the impulse to love, or to fear, the impulse to do so in the future gets stronger.

There is a native american parable about an old chief explaining to his grandson: 'inside of every man there are two wolfs locked in an eternal struggle. One is good, and the other is evil.'
'Which one wins?' the boy asks.
'Oh that is simple', says the old chief, 'which ever one you feed.'

This is not to say that once selfish we will always be selfish, but it does take concious and concerted effort to overcome our selfish desires.

My thoughts are far from fully crystalised on this subject, so I'm sorry if what I have posted above is a bit convoluted.

Dumb americans they are called chocolate bars not candy bars. Candy is like a gummybear or a lollypop. A Snickers bar isn't a bar of candy, its a bar of chocolate.

all sin is equal
yep.

I have a rep at my house for being less than generous with candy, in fact, I have a stash. I will give candy out, I mean share, if I feel like it, but people are often upset with the way things go.

"can I have a piece of candy?"
*hands them a hershey kiss*
"I wanted that snickers bar"
"you didn't specify"
"give me the snickers bar"
*takes back the hershey kiss, hands over snickers bar*
"I want both"
"too late, you said a piece, that's a piece."



so, the other day when I brought home a candy bar for my husband, he was shocked, and then confused. He realized that it was a kind that I could not have and wrote off my contribution as 'throwing away things I didn't want' instead of me purposefully getting something for him.......>.>

anyway, we got into the discussion of motivations, intentions and those affects on your actions. He assumed my intention was to get rid of candy that I couldn't have that was tempting for me, but my motivation was to get him a candy bar, to be nice.

Long story short (now that you have seen the major backstory) we started the discussion about intent and finished up decided that all actions are basically selfish, why would I have bought him a candy bar if I didn't want him to think I had repented of my candy hoarding sins and was turning over a new leaf as a candy sharer? Well, about 6 months ago in one of our discussions we decided that all sin comes from being selfish, if we mesh that with all actions are selfish then it becomes all actions are sin.

so, this is disturbing.

what do Y'ALL think?

I think (as a christian) you set a good exaple for your kids, and your are doing your best. (if that means alot from a 14 year old) keep it up:D

yep.

Nope. Where is it in Scripture? You can't find it.

Nope. Where is it in Scripture? You can't find it.
where does it say there is one great sin?

Nope. Where is it in Scripture? You can't find it.
I believe what they are saying is that no matter the sin, how great or small you may think it is, God will forgive you if you are truely repentant.

I believe what they are saying is that no matter the sin, how great or small you may think it is, God will forgive you if you are truely repentant.
thanks Junii

where does it say there is one great sin?

Sins that are done without remorse, without repentance.

another Great Sin is putting your judgement over Gods.

Dumb americans they are called chocolate bars not candy bars. Candy is like a gummybear or a lollypop. A Snickers bar isn't a bar of candy, its a bar of chocolate.

D'oH! :mad:

Not all candy bars have chocolate on them (admittedly most do though ;) ), such as the PayDay (http://www.hersheys.com/products/details/payday.asp) bar, no chocolate. And the Abba-Zaba (http://www.annabelle-candy.com/abba%2Dzabba/), taffy and peanut butter bar. So there, pompous Europeans :p

where does it say there is one great sin?

The unforgivable sin. Mark 3:28-30


But it doesn't say that all sins are equal, does it? Don't add to Scripture.

D'oH! :mad:

Not all candy bars have chocolate on them (admittedly most do though ;) ), such as the PayDay (http://www.hersheys.com/products/details/payday.asp) bar, no chocolate. And the Abba-Zaba (http://www.annabelle-candy.com/abba%2Dzabba/), taffy and peanut butter bar. So there, pompous Europeans :p

I have never eaten those. And I am a North American.

I believe what they are saying is that no matter the sin, how great or small you may think it is, God will forgive you if you are truely repentant.

That may be what was meant, but it is not what was said. Also, it is incorrect. There is an unforgivable sin.

The unforgivable sin. Mark 3:28-30


But it doesn't say that all sins are equal, does it? Don't add to Scripture.

that translation is contested hotly

that translation is contested hotly

What's to contest? There's an unforgivable sin! Jesus says so! What that sin may be could be contested, but we cannot argue whether it exists from a Christian standpoint.

This reminds of the "TV channel" thing from "the young ones"....

The unforgivable sin. Mark 3:28-30


But it doesn't say that all sins are equal, does it? Don't add to Scripture.

verse 28 dude.
28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them.

The unforgivable sin mentioned is assigning God's work to the Devil. another unforgivable sin is the one that is never repented. How can God forgive you if you do not ask for forgiveness.

That may be what was meant, but it is not what was said. Also, it is incorrect. There is an unforgivable sin.

there are several dude. ;)

verse 28 dude.

The unforgivable sin mentioned is assigning God's work to the Devil. another unforgivable sin is the one that is never repented. How can God forgive you if you do not ask for forgiveness.

I don't understand your point. Jesus says that all sins will be forgiven. Then He says that the exception is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I believe that that is refusal to repent, but that can be debated. And that makes sense, because it is only by repenting that we can be forgiven of any sin.

However, being that the Unforgivable sins are not what's being discussed by the OP...

there are several dude. ;)

Jesus only names one.

I have a rep at my house for being less than generous with candy, in fact, I have a stash. I will give candy out, I mean share, if I feel like it, but people are often upset with the way things go.

"can I have a piece of candy?"
*hands them a hershey kiss*
"I wanted that snickers bar"
"you didn't specify"
"give me the snickers bar"
*takes back the hershey kiss, hands over snickers bar*
"I want both"
"too late, you said a piece, that's a piece."

:p

so, the other day when I brought home a candy bar for my husband, he was shocked, and then confused. He realized that it was a kind that I could not have and wrote off my contribution as 'throwing away things I didn't want' instead of me purposefully getting something for him.......>.>

anyway, we got into the discussion of motivations, intentions and those affects on your actions. He assumed my intention was to get rid of candy that I couldn't have that was tempting for me, but my motivation was to get him a candy bar, to be nice.

Long story short (now that you have seen the major backstory) we started the discussion about intent and finished up decided that all actions are basically selfish, why would I have bought him a candy bar if I didn't want him to think I had repented of my candy hoarding sins and was turning over a new leaf as a candy sharer? Well, about 6 months ago in one of our discussions we decided that all sin comes from being selfish, if we mesh that with all actions are selfish then it becomes all actions are sin.

so, this is disturbing.

what do you guys think?

I think you're abusing logic, frankly, which is fun (I certainly enjoy it in debates), but not a source of a sound understanding of sin or of anything else, really. Also, "all sin comes from being selfish" is not the same as "all selfish acts are sinful".

Keep in mind that it is our nature to want happiness and wholeness for ourselves, just as that is what God wants for us, because God made us and is within us. When we give to other people or take care of ourselves properly because it fulfills us and God's purpose for us in bringing us to wholeness and happiness, that is selfish, but hardly sinful. Quite the opposite, it's exactly what we should be doing as Christians, making ourselves and others more happy and whole.

I don't understand your point. Jesus says that all sins will be forgiven. Then He says that the exception is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I believe that that is refusal to repent, but that can be debated. And that makes sense, because it is only by repenting that we can be forgiven of any sin.
define blashpemy against the holy spirit

define blashpemy against the holy spirit

I believe that it is the refusal to repent. But that is debateable. What is not debateable is that there is an unforgivable sin.

Jesus only names one.

only in that verse.

another is an unrepentant sin.

Matthew 7:7
7"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

How can God forgive your sins if you do not ask for forgiveness?

then there is the first commandment.

Thou shalt have no other god before me.

if you do not worship God, how can you ask him for forgiveness?

only in that verse.

another is an unrepentant sin.

Matthew 7:7
7"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

How can God forgive your sins if you do not ask for forgiveness?

then there is the first commandment.

Thou shalt have no other god before me.

if you do not worship God, how can you ask him for forgiveness?

But that all hinges on refusing on repentance. If you repent, you will ask for forgiveness. If you repent, you will have no other god but God. But if you refuse to repent, you will continue in all the other sins.

You will be judged for all your sins. But theoretically (and in real life) you could never ask for forgiveness until your deathbed, but ask for it then. You could worship Baal, but then repent and worship God.

I believe that it is the refusal to repent. But that is debateable. What is not debateable is that there is an unforgivable sin.

if you refuse to repent you arent going to heaven anyway so...

if you refuse to repent you arent going to heaven anyway so...

But you are commanded to repent, yes? And if you refuse to follow God's command, you are sinning, yes? So the refusal to repent is a sin.

And God will onyl forgive if you repent. So, let's pretend you're an adulterer. If you had repented, that sin would be forgiven. But it will not be, because you refused to repent. So, adultery is forgivable, but not necessarily forgiven.

But the refusal to repent cannot be repented of. So, it is impossible to forgive it at all under any circumstance.

But you are commanded to repent, yes? And if you refuse to follow God's command, you are sinning, yes? So the refusal to repent is a sin.

And God will onyl forgive if you repent. So, let's pretend you're an adulterer. If you had repented, that sin would be forgiven. But it will not be, because you refused to repent. So, adultery is forgivable, but not necessarily forgiven.

But the refusal to repent cannot be repented of. So, it is impossible to forgive it at all under any circumstance.

Interesting. I always thought that any sin could be repented of.

Interesting. I always thought that any sin could be repented of.

How can you repent of not repenting? Assuming that you go through your entire life refusing, of course. You can repent of having refused to repent. But you can't repent of refusing, because you would still be refusing to do that repenting.

But that all hinges on refusing on repentance. If you repent, you will ask for forgiveness. If you repent, you will have no other god but God. But if you refuse to repent, you will continue in all the other sins.

You will be judged for all your sins. But theoretically (and in real life) you could never ask for forgiveness until your deathbed, but ask for it then. You could worship Baal, but then repent and worship God.only if you Truly Repentant.

thus if you worship Baal and commit all sorts of sins, all the while planning on converting on your deathbed... you are not being truly repentant.

for you are willfully comminting sins, knowing that they are against God.

and what happens if you die in a car accident before you can make a Deathbed conversion?

only if you Truly Repentant.

thus if you worship Baal and commit all sorts of sins, all the while planning on converting on your deathbed... you are not being truly repentant.

for you are willfully comminting sins, knowing that they are against God.

and what happens if you die in a car accident before you can make a Deathbed conversion?

Of course. You must be sincere. If you die in a car accident before you repent, you will be judged and condemned. For all your sins.

Of course. You must be sincere. If you die in a car accident before you repent, you will be judged and condemned. For all your sins.
so how sincere can someone be if they live a life of
"Meh, I can repent on my deathbed..."

not very...

But you are commanded to repent, yes? And if you refuse to follow God's command, you are sinning, yes? So the refusal to repent is a sin.

And God will onyl forgive if you repent. So, let's pretend you're an adulterer. If you had repented, that sin would be forgiven. But it will not be, because you refused to repent. So, adultery is forgivable, but not necessarily forgiven. if you repent Adultery, you are not refusing to repent. if you are refusing to repent, then you are NOT repenting for your sins.

But the refusal to repent cannot be repented of. So, it is impossible to forgive it at all under any circumstance.you can repent your decision to refuse repentance.

so how sincere can someone be if they live a life of
"Meh, I can repent on my deathbed..."

not very...

Only God knows the heart.

if you repent Adultery, you are not refusing to repent. if you are refusing to repent, then you are NOT repenting for your sins.

you can repent your decision to refuse repentance.

Then you are no longer refusing to repent.

How can you repent of not repenting? Assuming that you go through your entire life refusing, of course. You can repent of having refused to repent. But you can't repent of refusing, because you would still be refusing to do that repenting.

double negative.

if you repent of refusing (to repent) then you are sincerely asking for forgiveness for your decision to never repent. that is repenting refusal of repenting. now if you still refuse to repent your refusal to repent, then you are not repenting.

Only God knows the heart.exactly. so such an attitude of "I'll sin now and repent for it later" isn't really being sincere. for you are WILLINGLY sinning.

Then you are no longer refusing to repent.which is repenting your refusual to repent. and you will be forgiven.

exactly. so such an attitude of "I'll sin now and repent for it later" isn't really being sincere. for you are WILLINGLY sinning.

which is repenting your refusual to repent. and you will be forgiven.

Okay. If you were to had repented generally but not particurally (say you lied to your boss and took a sick day), you walked outside and get hit by a bus. You will be forgiven, because you repented generally.

If the same thing happens to your neighbor, but he is has not repented generally, he would not be forgiven because he refused to repent.

So, we're speaking (or at least I'm speaking) about our condition when we meet our Maker.

Edwardis- when I said that all sins are equal I meant spiritually they all have the exact same result, a liar and a murderer are both sinners, Romans 6:23 says that all have sinned, Romans 3:23 says that the wages of sin is death, all sins are equal because spiritually they have the same consequence.

Everyone else (and Edwardis too)- Texan Hotrodders gets a cookie, because the whole point of my thread (other than super fun educational value) was to see how freaking long it took for someone to see the flaw in my supposed logic.

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:wyjF4lf5-Q6rPM:http://wiki.coolmon.org/files/cookie.jpg

Edwardis- when I said that all sins are equal I meant spiritually they all have the exact same result, a liar and a murderer are both sinners, Romans 6:23 says that all have sinned, Romans 3:23 says that the wages of sin is death, all sins are equal because spiritually they have the same consequence.

Okay, I can agree that all sins have the same result (Scripture is quite plain about that). But I cannot agree that all sins are equal in their level of corruption.

Okay, I can agree that all sins have the same result (Scripture is quite plain about that). But I cannot agree that all sins are equal in their level of corruption.

hey, once you are corrupted, you are corrupted.

It makes no difference to me if my 5 gallon bottle of water has a cup of sewage in it or a gallon of sewage in it, it's still pretty nasty.

hey, once you are corrupted, you are corrupted.

It makes no difference to me if my 5 gallon bottle of water has a cup of sewage in it or a gallon of sewage in it, it's still pretty nasty.

Of course. And God thinks the same way about our sins. But, there is still a difference in how much sewage there is.

Example: Adultery is worse than pre-marital sex. Why? Because sex is for marriage only. But adultery is also the breaking of the oath/vow to remain faithful to your spouse.

Clearly there's sewage in both, but one one has more than the other.

Of course. And God thinks the same way about our sins. But, there is still a difference in how much sewage there is.

Example: Adultery is worse than pre-marital sex. Why? Because sex is for marriage only. But adultery is also the breaking of the oath/vow to remain faithful to your spouse.

Clearly there's sewage in both, but one one has more than the other.

why is one worse than the other?

why is one worse than the other?

I don't understand why this is so difficult.

One is worse. One has (just making these up) 25% sewage and the other has 75% sewage. One is worse than the other. They should both be thrown out, but one is worse.

I'm sorry, but it just seems so simple to me, I don't know how else to explain it.

Everyone else [/B](and Edwardis too)- Texan Hotrodders gets a cookie, because the whole point of my thread (other than super fun educational value) was to see how freaking long it took for someone to see the flaw in my supposed logic.

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:wyjF4lf5-Q6rPM:http://wiki.coolmon.org/files/cookie.jpg

Ohhh... Trickssy you are... yess my precious... :D

I admit I got caught by the curveball you slid in there about the idea of being selfish. :p

I don't understand why this is so difficult.

One is worse. One has (just making these up) 25% sewage and the other has 75% sewage. One is worse than the other. They should both be thrown out, but one is worse.

I'm sorry, but it just seems so simple to me, I don't know how else to explain it.
as you often asked of others...

where in the bible does Jesus state that Adultry is worse than Pre-Marital Sex?

as you often asked of others...

where in the bible does Jesus state that Adultry is worse than Pre-Marital Sex?

Ooooooo... He doesn't. But He does state that sins are different in their operation from one another (the unforgivable sin). Also, some penalties in the OT are death. Others are not. Why? Might it have something to do with the "amount of sin" (for lack of a better phrase) in the actions which warrant punishment? That's the best explanation I've heard.

EDIT: I have to go, but I'm interested in continuing this. I'll get back as soon as I can.

Ohhh... Trickssy you are... yess my precious... :D

I admit I got caught by the curveball you slid in there about the idea of being selfish. :p

I did too, at first. =(

I thought about the logical problem last night (yes, I'm a big nerd and I think about NS discussions at home), but the thread had gotten off topic since then, and I'd already made my point about the definition of selfishness, so I just didn't bother.

Edwardis- when I said that all sins are equal I meant spiritually they all have the exact same result, a liar and a murderer are both sinners, Romans 6:23 says that all have sinned, Romans 3:23 says that the wages of sin is death, all sins are equal because spiritually they have the same consequence.

Everyone else (and Edwardis too)- Texan Hotrodders gets a cookie, because the whole point of my thread (other than super fun educational value) was to see how freaking long it took for someone to see the flaw in my supposed logic.

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:wyjF4lf5-Q6rPM:http://wiki.coolmon.org/files/cookie.jpg

Thanks. *munches cookie*

Oh, how selfish of me to eat this. ;)

I did too, at first. =(

I thought about the logical problem last night (yes, I'm a big nerd and I think about NS discussions at home), but the thread had gotten off topic since then, and I'd already made my point about the definition of selfishness, so I just didn't bother.
I think about NS threads when I'm doing other things... :p


Thanks. *munches cookie*

Oh, how selfish of me to eat this. ;)go ahead... you earned it.

*watches enviously.*

really, it doesn't bother me...

*wipes up drool.* :D

I did too, at first. =(

I thought about the logical problem last night (yes, I'm a big nerd and I think about NS discussions at home), but the thread had gotten off topic since then, and I'd already made my point about the definition of selfishness, so I just didn't bother.
Yes....you did expose the flaw in logic, as did I, and I think we also deserve cookies. :D

BTW, I am willing to share any cookies that I might get.....wouldn't want to appear selfish. :)

I have never eaten those. And I am a North American.

Then you're using some local semantic difference that the rest of us are unaware of.

CANDY= a large category of sweets, of which CHOCOLATE is one type. So all chocolate candies is candy, while not all candies are chocolate.

I have a rep at my house for being less than generous with candy, in fact, I have a stash. I will give candy out, I mean share, if I feel like it, but people are often upset with the way things go.

"can I have a piece of candy?"
*hands them a hershey kiss*
"I wanted that snickers bar"
"you didn't specify"
"give me the snickers bar"
*takes back the hershey kiss, hands over snickers bar*
"I want both"
"too late, you said a piece, that's a piece."

:p

so, the other day when I brought home a candy bar for my husband, he was shocked, and then confused. He realized that it was a kind that I could not have and wrote off my contribution as 'throwing away things I didn't want' instead of me purposefully getting something for him.......>.>

anyway, we got into the discussion of motivations, intentions and those affects on your actions. He assumed my intention was to get rid of candy that I couldn't have that was tempting for me, but my motivation was to get him a candy bar, to be nice.

Long story short (now that you have seen the major backstory) we started the discussion about intent and finished up decided that all actions are basically selfish, why would I have bought him a candy bar if I didn't want him to think I had repented of my candy hoarding sins and was turning over a new leaf as a candy sharer? Well, about 6 months ago in one of our discussions we decided that all sin comes from being selfish, if we mesh that with all actions are selfish then it becomes all actions are sin.

so, this is disturbing.

what do you guys think?

I think that your logic is misleading, or perhaps better put, that your definition of selfish is inadequate, and as a consequence you asserted a false second statement, namely that all selfish action is sinful.

I think the problem with your account is simply that you seem to have intuited that in order for an action to be altruistic, that action can only be an action that was done purely for the benefit of another or in accordance with a hypothetical moral law. The problem, however, is that no action can be defined purely in those terms, especially when intents come into play. I could pull a Donnie Darko and die for all humanity, with no one ever knowing about it, and yet if you could theoretically posit that humans in general like the idea of being a savior, then my actions would still not be altruistic, because as a human I might have been acting purely because I like the idea of being a martyr, not because it was right. In short, you've posited an empty definition of altruism, one that can never be fulfilled. Any altruistic act can, with enough contorting, be made to sound egoistic with the right interpretation of another's motives.

Rather, an altruistic act is one taken not without any possible benefit for myself, but one taken irrespective of the benefit. It may be that being a savior would make me happy, but if I'm doing it simply because it's right, and would still do it even if it brought me unending misery, then it's an altruistic act.

I would say further that the purpose of human action is happiness, and selfishness ultimately comprimises our ability to be happy. Part of being happy means having a social connection to others, and selfishness inhibits this because it's a habit of action that reduces the value of others and their time with me to the value I get out of that relationship, not the value of the relationship in itself.

I think that your logic is misleading, or perhaps better put, that your definition of selfish is inadequate, and as a consequence you asserted a false second statement, namely that all selfish action is sinful.

I think the problem with your account is simply that you seem to have intuited that in order for an action to be altruistic, that action can only be an action that was done purely for the benefit of another or in accordance with a hypothetical moral law. The problem, however, is that no action can be defined purely in those terms, especially when intents come into play. I could pull a Donnie Darko and die for all humanity, with no one ever knowing about it, and yet if you could theoretically posit that humans in general like the idea of being a savior, then my actions would still not be altruistic, because as a human I might have been acting purely because I like the idea of being a martyr, not because it was right. In short, you've posited an empty definition of altruism, one that can never be fulfilled. Any altruistic act can, with enough contorting, be made to sound egoistic with the right interpretation of another's motives.

Rather, an altruistic act is one taken not without any possible benefit for myself, but one taken irrespective of the benefit. It may be that being a savior would make me happy, but if I'm doing it simply because it's right, and would still do it even if it brought me unending misery, then it's an altruistic act.

I would say further that the purpose of human action is happiness, and selfishness ultimately comprimises our ability to be happy. Part of being happy means having a social connection to others, and selfishness inhibits this because it's a habit of action that reduces the value of others and their time with me to the value I get out of that relationship, not the value of the relationship in itself.

your cookie sir. http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:FHBYUZHhsPduNM:http://www.benefit1bakery.com/bear.jpg