Okay, it's time to reveal yourself for what you have become. This post is in no way an attack on you or your person, but is an explanation for your actions, which have to be revealed for what you apparently are willing to show to others.
I'm going to use standard logic, rationality and common sense, to dis-spell any notion that you may have with regards to my knowledge and wisdom.
You will be more than welcome to voice said opinions as you see fit, but when you do so, you will be showing exactly what I've said since I began on Hubpages and participating in the forums.
The above quote is from one believer and was confirmed by several others in the forum thread "What is the root cause of intolerance". And, I was waiting for this to occur, so that it could be pointed out. Those who confirmed it(meaning they agreed), are selfish.
As pointed out, time and time again, IF "one puts themselves before others"- it is the definition of selfish action. Those who believe in a god, which is every believer, who believes Jesus was or is a god or son of a god, and will give them a "reward" for believing is selfish as the day is long.
For those who want to attempt to claim that my logic is flawed, then look at it this way- when you form(action) a belief in a god who is going to give you a reward(afterlife), you are in essence "putting yourself before others". Thus, the action is selfish, and all actions afterward are from that same selfish action, regardless of whether or not, you help others. Helping others does not negate the selfish belief that you actions of helping someone will put you in favor with the god you belief to exist.
You cannot deny it. It's common sense and defined by every known explanation of which describes "selfish" action. Actions can be judged by other people. Sure, you can say that people are not suppose to judged, as part of your argument, however, again you would be incorrect, because Laws are specifically designed for that to begin with, regardless of whether or not, they are man's laws or your god's laws.
Now, to prove that no god exists is fairly simple and nothing you can argue with either, simply because the inspired words you used to form(action) your belief, supposedly teaches you to be selfless(action), yet the formation(action) of a belief in a god is selfish. Therefore, a god couldn't possibly have inspired any teaching of any religious scripture written.
Therefore, the only conclusion is that you have sold yourself a lie. Sorry, but that is the truth of the matter.
I remember the quote well Cags.
It a set my feet to dancing, woohooo...
Now it would be selfish if the gift were just for me alone,but it isnt,its offered to everyone.
If you,or anyone doesnt want to gift,doesnt believe in the gift,doesnt see the gift,does that still make it selfish for me to accept it?
I dont think so.
Alternatively most people who choose to accept that gift are more than willing to share it,ALL of it.
Just dont see where you get the selfish act from,and trust me Im trying to see how you arrive at that opinion.
Hey Eaglekiwi. I wouldn't try to follow his reasoning too hard. I've always found it to be rife with logical fallacies. I read through this one. Well, laughed through it would be the correct term, I suppose.
Not looking for an argument, just enjoying the entertainment of reading the thread.
Action is either selfish or selfless.
Putting oneself before others, means that you are only thinking of yourself. What part are you not understanding?
Thinking of yourself before others is selfish in and of itself, by definition. It's not hard to understand.
I noticed how you have twisted what I said- "gift" vs "reward", and I know that is to defend your belief and a refusal to accept humanity's definition. So, you are rationalizing/justifying your belief so you don't have to accept truth.
The "gift/reward" is for only those who believe, but the belief is selfish in nature, which defies, the teaching of being selfless. Because, to get the "gift/reward", requires action and actions can only be selfish or selfless.
The action(forming the belief) is either selfish or selfless and since YOU are "thinking of yourself and not others", it cannot be a selfless act and is in fact a selfish action.
Quit splitting hairs,which I know you like to do.
( Not very nice is it ,when someone makes assumptions?)
No its not selfish to get a prize for doing well ie accepting Christ ,but wait before you copy n paste that ,finishing the race is where the real prize/reward/eternity is at.
Not selfish at all.
Cause and effect.
Do you that Cags" try to keep up.
Again, in defense of your belief. I'm sorry you cannot accept fact.
Another defense, to deny fact.
Actually, this is false, because as explained. Putting yourself before others IS selfish action. Sorry, cannot be denied. You can state what you like, but it doesn't change the fact.
Action(cause) brings consequence(effect). No denying that. It does happen, no getting around that.
It's You who just refuse to accept fact. It has nothing to do with keeping up with you. That's easy.
It's your refusal to understand, which comes from basic denial. No problem. I understand why you don't want to accept it, but do you? Probably not.
Cagsil you are quite wrong ,the fact you keep repeating yourself doesnt change the facts.
Man, Cagsil were you hurt by someone that called themselves a Christian. You have so much hate when you talk about God. What are you trying to prove. You keep saying that we are putting our self in front of everyone, that we act like we are better then everyone (I think that is what you are getting at). God tells us in the bible not to act this way.
Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches,
Psalm 94:4 They pour out their arrogant words; all the evildoers boast.
Helpful Not Helpful
2 Corinthians 10:12-18 Not that we dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those who are commending themselves. But when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding. But we will not boast beyond limits, but will boast only with regard to the area of influence God assigned to us, to reach even to you. For we are not overextending ourselves, as though we did not reach you. For we were the first to come all the way to you with the gospel of Christ. We do not boast beyond limit in the labors of others. But our hope is that as your faith increases, our area of influence among you may be greatly enlarged, so that we may preach the gospel in lands beyond you, without boasting of work already done in another's area of influence. ...
Ephesians 2:8, 9For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:Not of works, lest any man should boast.
As Christians we should act like we are better then anyone.
Don't Blame God for the dumb things we do.
I'm dignifying your post, only to tell you scripture is useless to the topic, so don't bother.
wow. why are so hurt? You say hateful thing to me and i am just sharing what i know. that is what you want right. that is why you are putting these post up. why are you so hateful?
Not hurtful. Just how it is. Scripture has no place in this discussion. That's all.
How on earth can that be?
Those who have the "selfish flaw" of believing in Jesus Christ, do so BECAUSE of scripture. How do you expect people to leave it out?
Easy, because this thread isn't about scripture. I would have thought that was obvious.
You don't read well.
Faith without scripture does not describe the believer in Christ.
It's scripture YOU referred to when you said (copied) the original point by Sirdent.
Where else would the "reward" thingy come from?
As a Christian what do you want me to use? Do you want me to make it up. That is how false religions are made, People adding things to benefit them. Alot of people take what they want from the bible and leave out what they don't want. This is what I have found Growing up a Mormon. The Mormon church takes what they want from the bible and leave out ,even change, what they don't want. I am no long a Mormon because of this.
So when you ask question about Christianity i am going to the source "THE BIBLE". So that means i will be using scriptures.
I wish you well cagsil
In that case I hope you are Roman Catholic, because they are the only branch of Christianity not to suffer from some quite serious Biblical Edits. during the reformation (c.1520) various Protestant sects acted to remove not one, but 7 books from the Bible.
(Ruth, Judith, Wisdom, Tobit 2 books of Maccabees & Baruch)
As well as changing other parts (for example editing ecclesiastes and the letters of St. Paul).
However, that is very much an aside.
It appears the Christians on here have forgotten somethign fundamental about Faith; without faith all else is powerless. This includes scripture. If you don't have enough Faith in God or yourself to bring the truth to others in a way that they can engage with it and try to understand it then you are doing a poor job as a Christian. Truth will out; regardless of how. And if you are strong in your faith then there's no reason to be afraid of meeting it anywhere, at any time, with nothing but a pure conscience and an open mind.
You can use knowledge of Scripture to explain doctrines or philosophies, but don't just quote them. Firstly, that's making the Bible into an Idol, secondly, most people don't have the necessary background to understand the Bible anyway, and thirdly, it's a garuanteed loser in pretty much any debate, so you're not going to get the message across.
Eaglekiwi, I absolutely agree with your replies above.
Of course you would agree. But, thank you for showing yourself.
Well you could have agreed too Cags.
Who else did you expect W.O.C to show (someone else)
Hey eaglekiwi Can you tell that cagsil has been hurt in some way. He hates God and doesn't even believe in him. I would like to know what happen to him.
why don't you just ask him yourself or shoot him an e-mail if you want to know so much? who cares. besides, we're all free to believe what we want anyways. besides, cagsil isn't bitter. just very content in his views is all, from my observations at least.
Is this a discussion? i am discussing it with eaglekiwi. He sound like he was hurt. He is sharing how he feels and I am sharing what i feel. you are right believing in God is your choice. Your a Good person for defending cagsil.
Sorry cagsil. I know you hate it when I post, but I just can't stand it anymore.
Your logic is flawed from the start. You are addressing a specific group and telling that specific group that their problem is that their belief structure is based on a selfish act. What you fail to include in your argument is that there is no such thing as a selfless act. If you name any action as a selfless one, I say you aren't looking at it hard enough. No human being does anything without some gain involved. Even if the selflessness of the action outweighs the selfish part, you still have to accept the fact that the action would not have been completed without selfish desire influencing the outcome.
Here you fail to realize that your argument is based on a false assumption of what the individual believes. When your assumption is proven false you argue that the definition of the words are identical. They are not. She percieves a gift. You don't do anything to earn it. You reference a reward, which is attained by action.
By your argument no one would be able to get a Coke out of a vending machine. It would be selfish. Sure, you have a dollar and the machine has a cold coke, BUT there are others who have a dollar and are thirsty too. To take the coke, not knowing if the attendent will come by to fill the machine before it is empty leaves you in a position to selfishly decide to drink one, while others may not have the opportunity to enjoy the same outcome from the same action. You couldn't buy anything on sale with limited quantities. It would be selfish. By Eaglekiwi's definition, she sees it as an unlimited supply of a given commodity. She takes nothing that denies anyone else the same thing.
You can keep the rest of your argument. It's following the same illogical thread.
I'm afraid your logic is flawed. I'm Glad just_curious has pointed out some of the issues, however there are more - and they are, I think, more serious.
The two I intend to address you have are as follows; the first is you fail to account for the multiplicitous nature of motivation, and the second is you have no schematic recognition of "belief" as differing from "fact".
1) The nature of motivation;
In your thesis motivation is based on the principle of
Action => Reward
As just_curious has pointed out your are incorrect in assuming that "Heaven" is a reward - it can only be viewed in such a manner by missing the fundamental theological significance of "heaven" as a state of being (think buddhism and enlightenment, then you're on the right path).
However at a more basic level, reward is not the motivation for action here. The motivation for action may be rooted in many things other than reward, for example it may be rooted in the process of cultural sedimentation (the person feels a compulsion to act in a certain way through social conditioning) or the formation of a categorical imperative (the rationalisation of ethical value in an action) or just a good old fashioned random impulse. In fact the process of sedimentation is probably the most common motivator for action in the context of this discussion, in which case the moral decisions are taken on a subconscious level before one can even begin to contemplate a reward based system.
2) It's a belief, not a fact. And it's not a belief in isolation. It has all sorts of related beliefs about moral actions as having worth simply because they are the right thing to do. To present it as some sort of cynical lottery with metaphysics misses the importance of belief as a value-set, and the uncertainty inherent in the leap of faith precludes morality being totted up on a rewards basis like some sort of moral investment banker. Faith is uncertain, and so any good action motivated by faith carries in it the inherent uncertainty of reward.
Apparently thinking is not your strong suit, but let's check out the rest of your post.
I have no need to differentiate between "belief" and "fact", everyone knows they are not the same thing.
Did I mention "heaven" anywhere in my post? Nope. Nice try though.
Actually, it is. And to say it's not, is foolish.
And, like I said before, and apparently I have to repeat myself- the action(formation) of the belief in a god, is selfish- (a) favor of that god, (b)reward(afterlife). There isn't any other way around it. No matter how you dress it up.
BS. Unless you're attempting to justify fear as a basis. If so, then it's selfish, because they simply refuse to overcome their fear.
You might consider going back to school, just like "just_curious"- This is about action and nothing more. And, as Bill Manning already stated before you opened your mouth to post this, a selfless act does exist and he proved it in his post. Therefore, it is apparent that you went off on a tangent for no apparent reason. However, I can see by your own actions(which is the post), why you did so.
But, thank you for entertaining me. It was quite delightful.
Cagsil, attempting to educate, in an entertaining manner, is the goal of every good teacher. It keeps the rabble rousers in line while the rest of the class gains knowledge.
And it appears you didn't read Mr. Manning's post. He said he dated the woman. Gain involved.
My mistake - although I do think that the use of "reward", "belief", and "afterlife" in the OP somewhat mitigates my jump to using "heaven".
If you are defining action as the process of forming a belief, and selfishness as putting the self before others, then you must logically define all thought process as intrinsically selfish - being rooted in self conceptualisation or actualisation, surely? Since all thought processes start with the "ego" we cannot but be selfish when we think - according to your definitions.
If you are defining action as the process of acting upon beliefs already held, then I think my original critique holds good.
Maybe your ego does your thinking for you. And, but not everyone does so. Only those who cannot see past their own ego. Remember, pride and ego are two separate things.
Formation(action) of the belief. That specific action is what is referenced.
The "Ego" is the "I am" (literal translation) with which all thoughts start.
Knowing that we exist, we then build a conceptual framework around ourselves by the process of induction. We hold beliefs that such a thing is a certain way because it conforms to general laws of experience, but these things always start from the subjective and then branch out into the objective.
(For example, gravity started with the "ego". Isaac Newton thought "I observe...", he then repeated his observations. Other people made similar observations which concatenated with his and thus the concept of gravity spreads from the "ego" to the universal).
By your definition this would be a selfish act, because in order to think about gravity Newton would have had to disgard an impartial view and adopt an egotistical one, which puts his self first.
Likewise, belief in God, because it starts from the perspective of the ego (and has not yet achieved the form of universal maxim) is also selfish because the act of putting one's self first is "selfish".
This is the position you are arguing, is it not?
Okay, I'm not a philosopher or even a student of psychology. So, that doesn't even appear right.
I don't see how "ego" begins with "I am"?
Yes, usually a person individual view is subjective, but can also be turned objective. That I get.
I'm not sure I agree it comes from "Ego" though. Again, I see no connection between one's 'ego' and "I am". Sorry. Not that educated.
Okay, now that made no sense. Sorry.
Not following. My apologies.
Don't know what to tell you. Apparently not educated enough to keep up with you. My apologies.
Not a fuss - I'm still trying to understand your argument too. I'm sure we'll get there between us.
"Ego" is latin for "I am" - and philosophy/psych bods use it to mean the same thing, so I'm just going to run with "I am" to avoid confusion.
All thoughts start with the statement "I am". They must, otherwise they cannot exist. This thought is subconscious, but it is there.
To run with the example of gravity, most people would think
"that apple has fallen down"
or, in general terms "This thing has happened"
But the full thought process involves the phrase "I am".
"I am able to see these things happening"
"This thing has happened"
"I am able to understand this thing because I understand other things"
We always have to relate it back to us, to that "me-ness" that constitutes the "I am". This means that we all have to put our self first before we can think about anything, so even gravity would originally have been a selfish thought.
Does that make any more sense or am I just rambling?
Yes, that makes sense. However, the "I am" you refer to, as ego- I see differently. I wrote a hub about "Sense of Life". Not sure, if that would help clear up things.
But, I do understand what you said.
I've had a look and it's a good job actually - but it doesn't change the point about thought processes. You've got "thought" as existing as part of consciousness (a point on which we agree) but seem to be following a line of argument where thought drives the man instead of vice versa.
I would argue that since we are encased in a body, the circumstances surrounding that (language, experience, education etc.) all influence the way we think profoundly, and works on a more basic level than the way we think influencing our experiences (which also happens, just because stuff likes to be confusing).
Youre making as much sense as anyone else on here
No seriously welcome aboard
Liam says everyones thinking is flawed.. We're very aware of where that complicated philosophy ends up.. Lost.....
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. To recognise the extent of one's own ignorance is a profoundly enlightening step; which is perhaps why individuals like Jesus, the Buddha and Socrates are still regarded as amongst the greatest teachers ever to walk this earth.
I could not reply above so i will do it here. Hannan, why am i using scripture? Cagsil is telling everyone what Christians believe due to what they were taught. I am showing the place were he could look to show that he is wrong. Should I just tell him and not show him the source?
You are right about faith. But how can someone find God if the Bible is not shared with them. Your logic does not make sense. Because they have no faith in God we should not share the word of God with them? If your are talking about Christianity God Jesus and the bible should be involved in the conversation. should we talk about the fighting in Lybya and not mention Gaddafi?
About the scriptures, I am not a scholar or trying to act like i know it all but Do a study on the Hebrew manuscripts and the dead sea scrolls and Alexander the great. They will all tie in together but that is another Hub i guess.
God is good
Cagsil, whenever i think I see you as somewhat of a humanitarian, you do something like this to totally contradict that thought. Look, by definition, ALMOST ALL ACTS ARE SELFISH TO SOME DEGREE. Think about it. Don't YOU feel good doing something good and/or helping others, am i right? therefore, it's safe to assume you do gain SOMETHING from doing a good deed. therefore, it's not a selfless act, as you were rewarded with a good feeling for doing the right thing. Now if you did something like sacrifice your life to help someone, then that would be a selfless act. if you jumped in front of a bullet and died for another person, then that would be a self less act. look, I'm not saying your wrong, but I think you need to say exactly what you would classify as a selfless act, as almost any acts can be deemed technically selfish by definition.
Steven, read Bill Manning's post. Then get back to me.
I did read his post, and understood it perfectly. Look, I'm not saying what Bill did wasn't a good deed, as I applaud him for it, and it's a noble act of kindness. Having said that, it doesn't disprove my point, as it sounds like he's bitter over the fact that the girl didn't give him the acknowledgment that he wanted. Not saying he didn't deserve it; which he did. However, he was expecting a thank you solely to him; which would give him a sense of accomplishment. However, if it was truly a selfless act, then Bill would just be happy knowing he did the right thing without any recognition for it.
That's all I was getting at.
"of a belief in a god is selfish." Take it then that God is not selfish.
I would really look forward to that, if I had any hope that you would post some standard logic, rationality, and commonsense. But we are waaaaayyyyy past that possibility. [PS: Note that the correct spelling is dispel.]
What exactly has made you equate sequence with exclusion?
Do you claim that that is true, even when the reason for forming the belief stems from a different cause?
Yes, I know the spelling error was there. It was done on purpose, to see who would point out the "flaw" in my spelling and you were the only person who pointed it out. But, thank you for doing so. As, for being beyond logic, rationality and common sense. Your post hasn't changed the fact.
It's a definition of action. I thought that would be obvious. It's an action one does to separate themselves from others. Sorry, but true nonetheless.
There is no cause to do so, unless of selfish reasons. Just like ignorance is never justified. The "cause" as you say for taking a "selfish" action cannot ever be justified.
Ahh... right! - of course!!!!!
I'm sorry that I don't have the time to find all of the "flaws" that you put in your writing. There's only so much time in a day.
Hmm, let's see... Like an OP's claim that others must be wrong because they don't agree with the OP's "logic" is done to separate themselves from others. Sorry, but true nonetheless.
It would be helpful if you would try to clarify how that is different from what you posted here:
The pertinent point, of course, is
But, back to this:
Well, actually, the airline industry would disagree. They always tell passengers that in the event of an emergency, each passenger should attend to their own oxygen mask first (according to you, a "selfish" action) before attending to the mask of others. In other words, if we do not take care of our own immediate needs, we are not in a very good position to help others. Why do you claim that that would not be justified?
As for clarifying that link you posted- that post is fairly simple to understand. If you're unable to understand it, I don't think there are any simpler words to clear it up for you.
Then again, I don't find it relevant to this thread.
No you wouldnt ,because it challenged your logic Cags lol
I rarely get into these types of threads, but this made me remember a lady I use to date.
She was very nice and very god fearing. She had just moved to Orlando so I was helping her find out all the things she needed to learn about the town.
In her mind, god made me find her and help her. Once I helped her and she no longer needed my help, it was time to move on.
Of course, every 6 months or so she would call me about something and I would help her. I even bumped into her a few times and helped her with some things.
Each time she claimed it was gods will that I was there to help her, and once she was fine I was no longer needed.
Talk about selfish!!!!
But, you helped because you could correct? If so, that is a selfless act. Thank you kindly for demonstrating what a selfless act is for all those who choose/refuse to understand.
Much appreciated Bill.
Again, you fail to see that there are no selfless acts. Mr. Manning would not have helped her without some gain involved. He identified her as a very nice lady. He obviously enjoyed the company. Therefore, although she gained from the experience it is apparent he did too. You inability to understand human nature skews your view.
Just because someone gains from an action does not make it selfish. It is selfish if they act only in order that they should gain.
Sorry. I did not mean to imply that everyone is selfish. My only purpose was to point out that there is no such thing as a truly selfless act. The good of one's actions should outweigh the bad, but to see oneself as selfless would be blind to human nature.
Why? Everyone is selfish, that is THE TRUTH. Those who pretend to be not selfish, still get a pretty selfish satisfaction out of this claim
Yep Ray, doncha get a warm feeling out of standing for "what is right"? Here is your selfish satisfaction
That's not selfish satisfaction. You're twisting the meaning. But, thank you for input Misha.
I agree to an extent. Even seemingly selfless acts make you feel good about yourself, so I think the feeling you expect to attain helps motivate you to the action, making it selfish in the end.
Actually I never even got a kiss out of her,,,once.
I helped her because I felt sorry for her. I could see that if nobody helped her she would have a hard time, maybe land in the wrong side of town.
I suppose you could say that it made me feel good, which you could say is selfish. In fact I do believe most actions we make are for selfish reasons.
But you can bet your ass I'm not helping that lady anymore!
Don't tell cagsil you won't help her anymore. He's using you as his example of the Buddha right now. I think you're the hero of the thread.
Okay, never mind if that's your attitude toward.
@Steven. I apologize.
Apology accepted. I apologize to you too Cagsil, if it seemed like I was rude in anyway.
Actually the point I was trying to make with that is about YOUR main point, that religious types are selfish.
She was not thinking that I was a good person for doing what I did, or that it was nice of me to help her.
NO, instead she was thinking that god used me to help her, so that she could be helped and that god was looking after her. Very selfish indeed.
I wouldn't worry too much about it Bill. There's plenty of fish in the sea, and your a helluva a nice guy too. I'm sure you'll find a better girl than the one you mentioned.
Bill I dont like people who manipulate either, its dishonest and probably best decribes a similar scenerio of when people say
God revealed to me etc etc.
There is definately a place in Christianity for Prophecy,but there are common sense guidelines in place so the process is not corrupted.
On the flip side I have had a person try to tell me 'What he thought God wanted for me etc etc...
My answer was this:
If God wants me to know ,he knows Im listening and I have no doubt He will tell me himself.
Another words God is not a man that he should lie, He will guide ,instruct and lovingly teach me ALL things ( eventually)
I agree 100%.
I helped a guy in similar circustances ,foreigner to my country etc etc...
Turned out he was genuinely lost but also a player,but I dont regret helping...didnt cost me anything cept maybe 20 mins of rah rah, and $5 of gas
Maybe God did put you there to help her, and you did, so it was the right call.
I am only going to say this once. The reason behind why a person does something tells whether it is selfish or not. Jesus for instance died for the good of all men. He had absolutely nothing to gain. Everything was already His to begin with.
If I stop to help someone fix a flat tire because I see they need help, it is not selfish to do so. If I stop to help them because I think I might get something for it, it is then a selfish act.
When a Christian posts in these forums warning of the consequences of sin, it is not out of selfishness. Nothing extra is gained for souls saved. The reward that one gets is out of the generosity of the heart of God. He does not have to give us anything.
Now when I see that someone says they found the truth within their own self, I see a narcissistic person. The truth is not within man. Men are flawed. If you find truth within yourself, you convince yourself of a lie.
Jesus is the truth and the only truth there is.
I admit I am not perfect,but there have been many things Ive done that I know are unselfish.
For a start Im a mother ,a good one ,need I say more.
I eat the burnt chop ok!!
I come from a large family -think the Waltons and youll get the general idea-we shared. Have you ever seen shorts made from calico flour bags cute (yea right) but we always made sure we had plenty to share with strangers too.
My parents did it to show us by example. love in action unselfish acts.
Sure we got shown the same love back when our house burned down to the ground years later, but was that on our mind when we gave-hardly
SirDent, Thanks for sharing the definition of selfishness. A narcissistic person is extremely selfish. We all should love ourselves, but a narcisstic person falls in love with themselves.
The underlying belief and what is expected, makes all actions selfish, regardless. It's the initial formation(action) of the belief that is being addressed here, not what you do after it. All actions afterward are selfish based from the underlying initial belief.
Again, this is why you formed(action) the belief to begin with. Get it? All action derived from that one belief is selfish based.
Interesting, and you claim to follow Jesus. Hmmm...?
you seem confused about what a narcissist is. A narcissist has an over-inflated sense of themselves.
Having a realistic view of oneself is not narcissist.
I just relised something.
If its not in line with the Cags theory ,you must be twisting it
Im onto it now.
To the OP, though.
So what action of mankind is NOT selfish?
Think evolutionary explanations, (since that's all you,ve got) all creatures are inherently selfish.
That makes you the MOST selfish amongst humanity.
What do YOU do that is utterly selfless?
The next question is, "why would you do so? (act selflessly).
You all can be very proud of yourself.
The conclusion of this thread by all those who opposed the thread, proved one thing.
The bible and it's teachings are false. Because of the selfishness inherent to all human beings in existence. Therefore, selfless action cannot exist, because all human beings cannot perform a selfless act, according to those in this thread.
Since all human beings are considered selfish in nature, then no selfless action can exist.
Hold your heads up people. You've proven to be selfish and no better than those who you oppose.
But you seem to have missed the fact that we actually do not oppose anyone. We do get a lot of opposition, but not of our own doing.
Selfish only in your eyes and the eyes of those who oppose Christians.
you say you don't oppose anyone, but you feel justified in telling people they are going to hell? You attack evolution with false arguments
A few days ago someone stopped in front of my house in a ATV. I yelled sat them to get off the road because a semi was coming around the curve and it was loaded. I say the same thing to you about hell. Get off the road that leads there before it is too late.
but you can't even prove that what you believe is real.
I don't have to prove it. You know it is real. I just don't know why you refuse to admit it.
are you ok sirdent...every one knows it is unreal...it is just faith and has not been able to prove itself...do you see atheist going door to door to sell no god concept...NO...because it is not required...you would see believers selling god concept bcoz deep within they know that there is no religious god nor there is hell/heaven...
for that you would need to create hell....and if hell is real all those preaching others might have to get off the road of preaching because nothing leads faster to that road than preaching others...only god (if real) has moral authority of it...remember your book says every one is sinner...so one sinner can't preach to another sinner...
Yes which is exactly why we need Christ
So many people can figure out what mans problem is ,but fewer still will build the bridge to someone who is without blame-Jesus Christ.
So this was your whole point in posting the thread.
Yet, you again miss a major point, made by several believers, and that is;
"we are better than you" (or NOT, according to you).
This is not only wrong, but totally absurd. NEVER has a believer said they were better. Quite the contrary, they said, in their own words, that we have simply accepted and received (the) gift that is available to all.
What that actually is saying ie "WE AGREE WE ARE NOT GOOD OR BETTER, than anyone else, and have need of a Saviour". We therefore are just like you, but better OFF than you, because of THE GIFT, and not because of ourselves.
I know you don't want to hear it, but it is actually available to YYYOOOUUU...personally.
But I can't make you believe that, much less make you accept that.
Evolution! it has been proven that it would take an atom 18to100,000,000,000 power Years to become a virus, just a virus. the earth is not that old. You can ask any astrophysics and they would tell you that evolution is out of the question. cagsil I believe that you are posting these things because you want to believe. Don't let what man has done, turn you away from God. He loves you, he doesn't like what you are saying but he loves you. Go to his word (the bible) and find what you are looking for.
wish you the best
There are those who have ears but do not hear and have eyes but do not see.
Im waitin for you to start jamming,cuz I wanna loose these shackles so I can dance! !
Mary J 'Just wanna Praise'
Oops just remembered it was me gettin all excited about a prize that started all this
Why are you ridiculing the blind and deaf???
Perhaps a better way to say it is;
There are none so blind as those who "WILL NOT" see.
I suppose you can modify this and also say;
There are none so deaf as those who WILL not hear.
I'm sure their eyes and ears work just fine, to see and hear what is natural, but not the spiritual. It is, after all, invisible.
If there was not a "GOD" and an existence after this life it would be natural to be selfish, hang onto this life whatever the cost from others.
But knowing that there is life after life (death), it is MUCH easier to be less selfish in this life.
To die that another may live is not seen as a sacrifice, but merly a transition.
@cagsil ofcourse it is selfish...it would have been great if believers minus reward of heaven or fear of hell and see how many still end up loving jesus...as a sage had said once 'who cares whether god is powerful or weak. I love god for sake of it'...most believers work for reward...heaven is carrot and hell is fear...
by Motown2Chitown5 years ago
....Why you choose not to believe? And is there a way that it can be done without attacking those who DO choose to do so? I ask because I truly want to understand, not because I want to fight my way into...
by Jenna Ditsch5 years ago
I am sincerely curious as to why those who do not believe in the existence of God would spend time and energy to convince others to believe the same? I am asking this respectfully and am seeking true, valid...
by GA Anderson2 years ago
OMG! (the "G" stands for Gawd, not God) - what is with these athiests?I am not a youngster. And I am not a believer. But I am envious of the serenity true believers appear to find in their life.Now... don't...
by just_curious6 years ago
There is a God. There is no God. Except for one or two people, most everyone agrees it would be futile to try and prove their position is right.Many people seem to have a problem with Christianity. I get it.But it...
by Alan4 months ago
Is it possible for you to "believe in" god, even though you know that god does not actually exist, except in your mind?
by marinealways246 years ago
Would you still have faith in your chosen religious belief if it didn't guarantee you heavenly rewards in the afterlife? Doesn't it make a person selfish to have faith in something simply for reward?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.