Not_Scarevangelist Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 This is the question I also posted on Yahoo: I've noticed an interesting trend among the Christian people. According to 99% of the Evangelical Christians hell is a very real place of torment and everlasting pain awaits everyone who doesn't accept Jesus. At the same time Christians aren't doing everything to protect people around them from hell... This is quite disturbing. If they sincerely believe in Hell, they should make EVERYTHING possible every single person they know be aware that Hell exists and accept Jesus as their Savior. Yet, most Christians seem indifferent towards the fact that the world around them is dying, that every single minute many people on Earth die and many of them die without being Christians... Most Christians go to the cafes, meet with their friends, laugh and do nothing so more people can be saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 This is the question I also posted on Yahoo: I've noticed an interesting trend among the Christian people. According to 99% of the Evangelical Christians hell is a very real place of torment and everlasting pain awaits everyone who doesn't accept Jesus. At the same time Christians aren't doing everything to protect people around them from hell... This is quite disturbing. If they sincerely believe in Hell, they should make EVERYTHING possible every single person they know be aware that Hell exists and accept Jesus as their Savior. Yet, most Christians seem indifferent towards the fact that the world around them is dying, that every single minute many people on Earth die and many of them die without being Christians... Most Christians go to the cafes, meet with their friends, laugh and do nothing so more people can be saved. I've got you an answer. I have had one experience in my life that I would consider communication with God....like immediate presence. Let me assure you, it is so good, so something, it makes you consider every damn word coming out of your mouth as critical for the salvation of your neighbor, those around you. It only lasts for about a week or two. After that, regression towards who you were. You don't have to believe me.....but it's my answer. But yeah, you are right, that is what should happen, but it doesn't last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Deep down, they probably do not believe it OR the I'm alright jack syndrome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadedAtheist Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I know for a fact that there are millions of people dying from starvation and if I spent a few dollars a month I could probably save 10. Ditto with whatever other bad things that happen that I could help alleviate. It's not because Christians stand out in the hypocrisy department, it's that we are all just shitty beings who only care for our "inner circle" and fuck anyone who isn't in it. We may desire for no bad things to happen to them but we certainly won't do anything actively about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I know for a fact that there are millions of people dying from starvation and if I spent a few dollars a month I could probably save 10. Ditto with whatever other bad things that happen that I could help alleviate. It's not because Christians stand out in the hypocrisy department, it's that we are all just shitty beings who only care for our "inner circle" and fuck anyone who isn't in it. We may desire for no bad things to happen to them but we certainly won't do anything actively about it. I don't buy that. I personally don't send money to help the starving because 1) most of it doesn't get to them and 2) unless they stop having kids and develop a sustainable economy, subsidizing them through food programs will only create more kids and a bigger disaster down the road. If my neighbor was starving, I sure as hell would lend him a hand and I think most people would. I don't think people are shitty. Some are, most are not. Not sending money to Africa does not make people bad. Blame the warlords, diamond miners and even our own countries who in the past contributed to colonialism and the destruction of their old sustainable way of life for being evil. Don't blame yourself or your neighbors. I used to think xians not doing anything about their neighbor's going to hell also meant they didn't care or didn't really believe. Now I think they probably suffer cognitive dissonance over it, which pulls them inside because they know there's nothing they can really do about it but make an ass of themselves. This just leads to more guilt, which feeds the meme and keeps them under the thumb of their beliefs. It's a cruel belief system that has its hold on both good and bad people; mostly good people IMO. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadedAtheist Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Sure, not all of the money goes to them but money does go to them and I'm sure those starving people care more for a meal on the table NOW then for a FUTURE sustainable economy. I mean, really by that argument you're more concerned about future people who don't exist and who are therefore not suffering to the people here and now who are actually suffering and in dire need. Also, I did mention an inner circle that we do care about. I personally care very little for anyone other than my family and friends but I do suppose I might help my neighbor a tiny bit if he was in need. I mean, I would actually be more likely to help someone here in need than any of my neighbors. That same help wouldn't extend to the homeless people that I see on the street everyday on my way to work. Too far out of my circle you see. EDIT: I realize I sound like quite an asshole, which I am but I am quite caring for people; I go out of my way sometimes even when it comes at a personal cost but in the end the amount I care for people outside of my friends and family is minuscule in comparison in both my care factor and the effort that I'd exert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I mean, really by that argument you're more concerned about future people who don't exist Right or wrong, I see little difference between living people I don't know and will never meet and future people I don't know and will never meet. I believe my position on this fits the utilitarian model of morality well. The greatest good for the greatest number of people and the least amount of suffering for the least amount. If I cause future harm to future people by my actions, I'm not going to do it; especially if the end result of my inaction is a reduction in net suffering on the planet. Contrarily, if you cause greater future suffering by your actions, even if those actions mean ending some suffering now, are you really acting morally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 The greatest good for the greatest number of people... I would agree if this was altered to... the greatest good for the greatest number of deserving people. I value justice over mercy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadedAtheist Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Right or wrong, I see little difference between living people I don't know and will never meet and future people I don't know and will never meet. I believe my position on this fits the utilitarian model of morality well. The greatest good for the greatest number of people and the least amount of suffering for the least amount. If I cause future harm to future people by my actions, I'm not going to do it; especially if the end result of my inaction is a reduction in net suffering on the planet. Contrarily, if you cause greater future suffering by your actions, even if those actions mean ending some suffering now, are you really acting morally? I guess that's a bit of a conundrum we face then isn't it? Your solution (in so far as I understand it) is to let these people starve to death so they won't have future hypothetical offspring and thus disrupt/end the viscous cycle while I personally think that the current need would outweigh any hypotheticals. I mean, hear it from the dying child's perspective "Oh, I'm sorry, I would give you food but if I did you would live on to have two children who'd also be starving too! That's why I'm just going to sit here and watch you die instead". Would you think I was a shitty person if you were that child and I was the one saying (though in our case its philosophically speaking) that to you? Also, now that you brought up utilitarianism (this is further off topic so no need to address it, just thinking out loud here) it makes me think about other actions of ours that have an effect on maximizing wellbeing and minimizing suffering. For example, by purchasing electronics, clothing and whatever else is made in 3rd world countries, am I not helping this harmful cycle continue? I realize that some think that this has an overall positive effect but I'm not convinced, anyways.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 is to let these people starve to death That's one way of putting it. If you have a population of deer, the population will only grow to the size that is sustainable by the local food supply. Feeding those in war torn, environmentally destroyed zones, artificially increases the local food supply, increasing the population, increasing suffering. I mean, hear it from the dying child's perspective "Oh, I'm sorry, I would give you food but if I did you would live on to have two children who'd also be starving too! Just because you want, or are predisposed to hearing this. Since you can't actually see, hear or know this child in any way (at least not without great effort on your part) how are his pleas any different from his future children's pleas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 The greatest good for the greatest number of people... I would agree if this was altered to... the greatest good for the greatest number of deserving people. I value justice over mercy. And you're the judge? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 The greatest good for the greatest number of people... I would agree if this was altered to... the greatest good for the greatest number of deserving people. I value justice over mercy. And you're the judge? Well that's really the question isn't it? Who judges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadedAtheist Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 is to let these people starve to death That's one way of putting it. If you have a population of deer, the population will only grow to the size that is sustainable by the local food supply. Feeding those in war torn, environmentally destroyed zones, artificially increases the local food supply, increasing the population, increasing suffering. I mean, hear it from the dying child's perspective "Oh, I'm sorry, I would give you food but if I did you would live on to have two children who'd also be starving too! Just because you want, or are predisposed to hearing this. Since you can't actually see, hear or know this child in any way (at least not without great effort on your part) how are his pleas any different from his future children's pleas? Vigile, to talk clinically about another human being while musing on the best philosophical approach to suffering is your way of not taking ownership of you being an asshole (not a personal attack on you, I include pretty much all of humanity along with myself in this category as I've previously mentioned). I can live with knowing that I'm a shitty person, you however seem to be suffering from some cognitive dissonance and are justifying away the suffering of people currently and your inactivity because you're looking towards that "greater good". To compare people to deer and showing indifference to their pleas (and their children's) is proving my point that you're trying to argue against Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 The greatest good for the greatest number of people... I would agree if this was altered to... the greatest good for the greatest number of deserving people. I value justice over mercy. And you're the judge? Well that's really the question isn't it? Who judges? I dunno. But when people start making a point of "deserving", that implies to me that THEY are being the judge. So what does it mean when people 'deserve' to be part of the 'greatest good'? Does it mean that they meet YOUR standards and do what YOU want? What else COULD it mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Vigile, to talk clinically about another human being while musing on the best philosophical approach to suffering is your way of not taking ownership of you being an asshole I don't know why, I don't feel guilty. I certainly feel bad that people suffer. I'm merely thinking about this logically. I don't give money to the beggars in Russia or here in Thailand for much the same reason. The areas I've been are controlled by a mini mafia. The women here use borrowed babies that they keep with them in the hot sun all day. I've had reliable reports from people that have seen the shift changes where one woman hands off the baby to another woman who starts her begging shift. In St Petersburg, they give the baby glue so it won't cry. I would be an asshole if knowing this I were to make the practice successful, perpetuating it so that more babies are used for this practice. One guy even told me that some villagers will smash their baby's arms and legs with a hammer in order to make them more pitiful, thus successful as a beggar. It's a shitty world and I can't fix it all, but I certainly won't make it worse by my actions, even if those actions temporarily reduce some suffering. That I don't want to perpetuate suffering makes me less than shitty IMO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Let me ask you this. In most instances, Africans who are starving to death are in that situation because of warlords choking off food supplies. Knowing that, are we bad as nations to not go in and bomb the hell out of these countries to establish better governments? Why or why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadedAtheist Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 That I don't want to perpetuate suffering makes me less than shitty IMO. In the end, I guess we're looking at it from 2 different angles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBob Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I would be an asshole if knowing this I were to make the practice successful, perpetuating it so that more babies are used for this practice. I have also visited places where there is poverty and want on an overwhelming scale. In front of a temple in Vietnam, for instance, there was a person with a huge facial tumor begging. It would have been foolish of me to assume that this person was somehow going to be off the street tomorrow if I gave him $10,000. It's just as likely that he was being pimped by someone who deliberately denies him medical care so they are more effective at begging. Unless I know this person personally or could help him via a credible benefactor of some kind, my default assumption is that I'd throw money down a hole, to no one's benefit. And I'd usually be right. The truth is that Vietnamese cities are full of hopeful country bumpkins seeking their fortune and then end up exploited for their lack of actual marketable skills, generally in some sort of street begging scam. On the other hand I gave a woman who punted us up and down a jungle river for a couple of hours, a tip equal to about three day's wages ($10 US). I can't completely explain why I felt good about doing that, but didn't feel good about helping the beggar. Part of it was that our guide told us something of her daily life and routine, so I knew that she was clearly a free agent who was doing what she was able and knew to do to better herself. Her genuine ear to ear grin was all the confirmation I needed. It was as much about being acknowledged with genuine appreciation as the actual money. Somehow I'm pretty sure the street beggar would have accepted the same gift as a matter of course; indeed, some of them seem to demand it as their due, as they can become quite belligerent and persistent to a polite "no". Helping others is very gratifying but often fraught with pitfalls for the unwary. You end up fleeced and helping no one if you're not careful. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted August 20, 2011 Super Moderator Share Posted August 20, 2011 I value justice over mercy. Sounds exactly like Biblegod's position. This goes to the heart of many matters. What is justice - an eye for an eye? Survival of the fittest? A second chance or not for offenders? Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out? Is it a political philosophy? An economic edict? Guide for personal relationships? Each individual has their definition of justice in a multitude of situations. Mercy, however, is universally understood and generally seen in civilized cultures as a good quality as it entails empathy and kindness. Barbarians see mercy as weakness; would you agree with them? 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Is it a political philosophy? An economic edict? Guide for personal relationships? It's apparently an aspect of my personality. I saw it as a question in a personality test and it fits me well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted August 21, 2011 Super Moderator Share Posted August 21, 2011 Just curious, Legion. The question was what is justice (as opposed to mercy). I just wanted to know what justice means to you and in what areas you would apply your brand of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 In front of a temple in Vietnam, for instance, there was a person with a huge facial tumor begging. It would have been foolish of me to assume that this person was somehow going to be off the street tomorrow if I gave him $10,000. The really sad thing here is the beggars, for the most part, really are in dire straights, yet in most cases, they aren't going to get that corner to sit on unless they give money to the little mini mafia that controls the area. They are required to give a certain amount every day or get beaten or get kicked off their begging corner by force. It's all very fucked up. I have no answers, but I can't in good conscience make these assholes more successful (not the beggars), which would then cause them to exploit more innocents. If I find beggars on side streets and such that are not well traveled, I usually give generously. If they are in tourist areas, forget it. The Seattle PI did an expose on one of these guys who worked the Piers in Seattle. He was raking in hundreds of dollars a day; more than most who gave him money. The guy in this instance was faking a deaf/dumb condition and was selling little American flags for $1. I don't know if any thugs are controlling the begging zones in a city like Seattle, but I know for a fact they are in places like St Petersburg Russia and tourist areas in places like Thailand. It's a cruel world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Just curious, Legion. The question was what is justice (as opposed to mercy). I just wanted to know what justice means to you and in what areas you would apply your brand of it. Justice is reaping what you sow. If you sow potatoes you reap potatoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Just curious, Legion. The question was what is justice (as opposed to mercy). I just wanted to know what justice means to you and in what areas you would apply your brand of it. Justice is reaping what you sow. If you sow potatoes you reap potatoes. No- reaping what you sow is more accurately described as "consequences". "Justice" implies... hell REQUIRES judgment. And the question at hand is 'who judges?' 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts