Part 1
Part 2
I'm reasoning over reasons that we try to be nice to others. We all agree that we should, but I'm noticing that any motivation besides Christ's love is destined to fail. I'm proving my case by tackling different motivations from my own worldview and with plain logic.
3. I spread joy because it gives me a purpose.
I don't struggle with this, probably because a lot of the time I'm not spreading joy. But I know someone who has told me this is her life philosophy and this is what we were made to do. It sounded so noble, I couldn't figure out why it bothered me so much, so I'm reasoning it out below.
The negative version of this statement: "If I don't spread joy then I won't have a purpose. In other words, I won't have a reason to live." (There's the fear theme that keeps cropping up.)
At first glance, this seems very noble, if a bit dramatic. What better way to motivate oneself to be nice, than to base one's whole self worth on it?
At a second look:
Again, this sounds very noble and even Christian, because it is the right thing to do. But why is it the right thing to do? In my worldview, the answer is this: that Christ forgave me, and therefore I have a reason to forgive others.
In some other worldviews, this is purely a matter of conscience. The negative version of this statement is, "I try not to hold a grudge toward others because that is the wrong thing to do." I wouldn't say this motivation is based on fear unless it is coupled with one of the other ones. But there's something to be said about motivations based on fear: they are compelling. This motivation relies solely on your interpretation of your own conscience. And if there aren't any consequences to a wrong interpretation, then you are free to interpret it however you want. You don't answer to a higher law; you only answer to yourself.
If you only answer to yourself, then you cannot claim forgiveness is "the right thing to do." You can only claim, "It is the right thing to do for me, because you cannot speak to another person's code of ethics or conscience. You are forced to regard their worldview just as valid, but you know in your heart that they should change - although you have nothing to base it on except your conscience!
5. I compensate for my bad habits by doing extra good things.
For some reason, we think this is naturally true. We think that bad deeds are balanced out by good deeds, and somewhere we end up on the neutral scale. My question is, who decides whether good deeds are good enough to cancel out bad deeds?
I'm reminded of Catholic priests, to whom you confess and are given a penance. Once you do the penance, you're back to neutral or good. But who decided that saying some words negates your sin, or how many words you must say to negate the sin? Even if saying a bunch of words does negate the sin, won't this invite some folks to manipulate the system? The penance for rape might be 1000 Hail Marys, but the rapist is deceived or justified to rape again as long as he does his penance. He takes away his heavenly rewards and then he builds them up again. They say "go and sin no more," and penance is supposed to show you are truly sorry and won't do it again. But does this mean if you do it again you won't be forgiven or given another penance? Of course not. So how many times can you repeat the sin before you're screwed?
The Christian version says, "I sinned, but there is no way I can earn forgiveness. However, I have already been pardoned by God because Christ already did my penance." Our pride makes us want to earn our forgiveness, but God demands humility and does not allow us to earn it. This means our good deeds do nothing to negate the bad; they are simply an act of love because Christ did our penance. We're not repaying him; we're just accepting a gift.
Ah, it feels good to have all my thoughts down and reasoned out. If you see a fallacy in any of my arguments, please point it out. These views have not yet been challenged, and I know they cannot be entirely correct because they are borne from Christ working through a sinful mind, and my output gets warped as a result. I can't claim they're strong arguments until I've worked through any challenges, so I ask for your input in comments, or through Facebook, or via email at amberfer at comcast dot net.
Thanks for reading!
Part 1
Part 2
Part 2
I'm reasoning over reasons that we try to be nice to others. We all agree that we should, but I'm noticing that any motivation besides Christ's love is destined to fail. I'm proving my case by tackling different motivations from my own worldview and with plain logic.
3. I spread joy because it gives me a purpose.
I don't struggle with this, probably because a lot of the time I'm not spreading joy. But I know someone who has told me this is her life philosophy and this is what we were made to do. It sounded so noble, I couldn't figure out why it bothered me so much, so I'm reasoning it out below.
The negative version of this statement: "If I don't spread joy then I won't have a purpose. In other words, I won't have a reason to live." (There's the fear theme that keeps cropping up.)
At first glance, this seems very noble, if a bit dramatic. What better way to motivate oneself to be nice, than to base one's whole self worth on it?
At a second look:
- It's proud, because it places oneself above others. If someone commits suicide, it must be because they weren't spreading joy to others. Destructive people, like some criminals, have no reason to live because they aren't spreading joy. Unhappy people just need to learn to spread joy to others. These people just need to learn what you've discovered. You spread joy to these people, but they will never be truly happy till they learn to spread joy to others. You listen and sympathize with others, but you can't empathize out of your own experience because if you admit you've been depressed or sad, you admit you haven't been following your own philosophy.
- It's dangerous, because none of us are always full of, or spreading, joy. This philosophy doesn't allow for depression or sadness. And if we do go through a period of depression, we think it's our own fault because we're not spreading joy. Then the guilt enters, and the efforts to fake it. It puts the burden of self-worth on your mental state, which can be affected by environmental factors outside of your control.
- It's futile, because it forces you to be a certain consistent person to others. Everyone loves you because you are a nice person, but no one identifies with you because you are not a real person. We're made to deal with our difficulty in community and rely on each other.
Again, this sounds very noble and even Christian, because it is the right thing to do. But why is it the right thing to do? In my worldview, the answer is this: that Christ forgave me, and therefore I have a reason to forgive others.
In some other worldviews, this is purely a matter of conscience. The negative version of this statement is, "I try not to hold a grudge toward others because that is the wrong thing to do." I wouldn't say this motivation is based on fear unless it is coupled with one of the other ones. But there's something to be said about motivations based on fear: they are compelling. This motivation relies solely on your interpretation of your own conscience. And if there aren't any consequences to a wrong interpretation, then you are free to interpret it however you want. You don't answer to a higher law; you only answer to yourself.
If you only answer to yourself, then you cannot claim forgiveness is "the right thing to do." You can only claim, "It is the right thing to do for me, because you cannot speak to another person's code of ethics or conscience. You are forced to regard their worldview just as valid, but you know in your heart that they should change - although you have nothing to base it on except your conscience!
5. I compensate for my bad habits by doing extra good things.
For some reason, we think this is naturally true. We think that bad deeds are balanced out by good deeds, and somewhere we end up on the neutral scale. My question is, who decides whether good deeds are good enough to cancel out bad deeds?
I'm reminded of Catholic priests, to whom you confess and are given a penance. Once you do the penance, you're back to neutral or good. But who decided that saying some words negates your sin, or how many words you must say to negate the sin? Even if saying a bunch of words does negate the sin, won't this invite some folks to manipulate the system? The penance for rape might be 1000 Hail Marys, but the rapist is deceived or justified to rape again as long as he does his penance. He takes away his heavenly rewards and then he builds them up again. They say "go and sin no more," and penance is supposed to show you are truly sorry and won't do it again. But does this mean if you do it again you won't be forgiven or given another penance? Of course not. So how many times can you repeat the sin before you're screwed?
The Christian version says, "I sinned, but there is no way I can earn forgiveness. However, I have already been pardoned by God because Christ already did my penance." Our pride makes us want to earn our forgiveness, but God demands humility and does not allow us to earn it. This means our good deeds do nothing to negate the bad; they are simply an act of love because Christ did our penance. We're not repaying him; we're just accepting a gift.
Ah, it feels good to have all my thoughts down and reasoned out. If you see a fallacy in any of my arguments, please point it out. These views have not yet been challenged, and I know they cannot be entirely correct because they are borne from Christ working through a sinful mind, and my output gets warped as a result. I can't claim they're strong arguments until I've worked through any challenges, so I ask for your input in comments, or through Facebook, or via email at amberfer at comcast dot net.
Thanks for reading!
Part 1
Part 2
Comments
Post a Comment