The Ultimate Sacrifice

[Resha Caner]

Very well then. You say you've fallen short, pick one of the times you did and tell me why. No need to get embarrassingly specific, you can just say, "I wanted to".

Hmm. I feel a need for some kind of reboot. I have disagreed with you about a few things, but I think I also agree with you on a few others. I feel like you're trying to set me up for some kind of "gotcha" when in all likelihood it's just a confusion of several different issues since this conversation seems to be wandering all over the place.

Let me put it this way. If you're trying to say that there is some degree to which I assent to everything I do, then I agree. If you're trying to say that everything I do is meant to benefit me in some way, I would also agree. The problem is that it always seems to me you're attaching some type of contigency to those two basic statements that I don't agree with, whether it be that I'm never really remorseful, that guilt is some huge motivator for me, or whatever else it is you're trying to attach.

So, you want an example when I fell short. Hmm. OK. Once when I was a kid I lost my temper and kicked my sister because she wouldn't do what I wanted her to do.

 

[TillICollapse]

I don't understand why I don't see more people who profess to be Christians doing pretty much what the OP suggests: willing to sacrifice their "standing" for others. Jesus endured what men endure, let others kill Him even ... and then went to Hell for others, yes ? Did Jesus not cry out and ask God why He had forsaken Him ? So ... I don't understand why I don't see more "Christians" doing this ? Isn't this what Christ did ? Even Paul claimed that he would give up his salvation for the Jews if possible. So ... what gives ?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hmm. I feel a need for some kind of reboot. I have disagreed with you about a few things, but I think I also agree with you on a few others. I feel like you're trying to set me up for some kind of "gotcha" when in all likelihood it's just a confusion of several different issues since this conversation seems to be wandering all over the place.

Let me put it this way. If you're trying to say that there is some degree to which I assent to everything I do, then I agree. If you're trying to say that everything I do is meant to benefit me in some way, I would also agree. The problem is that it always seems to me you're attaching some type of contigency to those two basic statements that I don't agree with, whether it be that I'm never really remorseful, that guilt is some huge motivator for me, or whatever else it is you're trying to attach.

So, you want an example when I fell short. Hmm. OK. Once when I was a kid I lost my temper and kicked my sister because she wouldn't do what I wanted her to do.

Reboot accepted, and yes it was a big "gotcha" question. There was no attachment though. When we get to the issue of guilt and remorse, my point was simply that I don't feel those outside pressures nearly as much as you do. I accept what I've done as being part of me...so I don't regret what I've done. I understand that may seem strange or even unlikely to you, but if I had to come up with just one example, I'd be at a loss for words. We choose to do what we do for the same reasons...the same reason you kicked your sister...we want to. We decide what's good and bad for the same reasons, our own. You simply have this old old book telling what should try to be...I don't. I decide that for myself.

 

[Resha Caner]

I never tried to claim that kicking my sister was good. Are you saying I should have? Just because in a moment of anger, when my reasoning processes were impacted by a negative emotion, it was something I decided to do?

I've never doubted that you make decisions from a different world view than me. It's not a point you needed to make. It actually seemed you were trying to make the opposite point - that somehow the way we make our decisions is the same. I suppose they may share a few similarities, but I think the differences are larger than the similarities.

Given what I know of how you make decisions, I don't know how this conversation could go forward without me saying something that would be rather impolite.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I never tried to claim that kicking my sister was good. Are you saying I should have? Just because in a moment of anger, when my reasoning processes were impacted by a negative emotion, it was something I decided to do?

I've never doubted that you make decisions from a different world view than me. It's not a point you needed to make. It actually seemed you were trying to make the opposite point - that somehow the way we make our decisions is the same. I suppose they may share a few similarities, but I think the differences are larger than the similarities.

Given what I know of how you make decisions, I don't know how this conversation could go forward without me saying something that would be rather impolite.

I didn't say it was good, I didn't place any judgement on it at all...in fact I'm a very non-judgemental type of guy. No, we do it all from the same place for the same reason, desire. We all judge it the same way as well, our own. If you disagree that's fine...but remember you did kick your sister for a reason.

 

[Resha Caner]

...but remember you did kick your sister for a reason.

Yeah. And what does that explain?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yeah. And what does that explain?

Lol

It explains your original question!

"I suppose I am leading up to asking if you think there is bad in the world, and if so, why?"

You desire it, sir, you desire it.

 

[Resha Caner]

It explains your original question!

"I suppose I am leading up to asking if you think there is bad in the world, and if so, why?"

You desire it, sir, you desire it.

You're saying we desire bad? Yeah, I can agree with that. I can also agree that we often try to justify why the things we do aren't bad. I don't think I ever denied that did I?

You first responded to that question in post #23, and said nothing about this (or at least I didn't notice it). Why didn't you just say this in the first place? It seems like a lot of work to answer a question ... and I was never clear exactly what question you were speaking to since more than one came up along the way. So, are you planning another 40 posts or so to answer another question?

 

[quatona]

You're saying we desire bad? Yeah, I can agree with that. I can also agree that we often try to justify why the things we do aren't bad.

Personally, I feel that there´s a more than subtle difference between "desiring bad" and "desiring something that upon being gained turns out to have (unexpected/not thought of) bad aspects".

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't understand why I don't see more people who profess to be Christians doing pretty much what the OP suggests: willing to sacrifice their "standing" for others. Jesus endured what men endure, let others kill Him even ... and then went to Hell for others, yes ? Did Jesus not cry out and ask God why He had forsaken Him ? So ... I don't understand why I don't see more "Christians" doing this ? Isn't this what Christ did ? Even Paul claimed that he would give up his salvation for the Jews if possible. So ... what gives ?

They don't want to lie. Plus, Jesus only had temporary pain; this kind of sacrifice rivals that of Jesus, in that they would be in pain for eternity for the sake of just two unknown people.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You're saying we desire bad? Yeah, I can agree with that. I can also agree that we often try to justify why the things we do aren't bad. I don't think I ever denied that did I?

You first responded to that question in post #23, and said nothing about this (or at least I didn't notice it). Why didn't you just say this in the first place? It seems like a lot of work to answer a question ... and I was never clear exactly what question you were speaking to since more than one came up along the way. So, are you planning another 40 posts or so to answer another question?

Geez, you seem upset. I really liked the way this conversation turned out...there's a certain roundness to it that pleases me. We started somewhere, meandered a bit, came full on back to the start. How many times do you get that? Rather enjoyable if you ask me.

In fairness, you asked two questions, the first easy and the second a little more difficult. Is there bad? Sure...as much as you or I or anyone else decides there is. Why is there bad? That's a little trickier...trying to get you to see it the way I do wasn't exactly easy.

A man walks up to a bum he sees on the street and gives him a twenty. Why? If we boil it down...he wanted to. Another man walks up to that bum, punches him in the face and takes the twenty. Why? The same reason boiled down...he wanted to. I think it's funny that people seem to always struggle to understand "the bad" but never wonder about "the good". The specific reasons change from person to person, instance to instance, but all are born of desire.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Geez, you seen upset. I really liked the way this conversation turned out...there's a certain roundness to it that pleases me. We started somewhere, meandered a bit, came full on back to the start. How many times do you get that? Rather enjoyable if you ask me.

In fairness, you asked two questions, the first easy and the second a little more difficult. Is there bad? Sure...as much as you or I or anyone else decides there is. Why is there bad? That's a little trickier...trying to get you to see it the way I do wasn't exactly easy.

A man walks up to a bum he sees on the street and gives him a twenty. Why? If we boil it down...he wanted to. Another man walks up to that bum, punches him in the face and takes the twenty. Why? The same reason boiled down...he wanted to. I think it's funny that people seem to always struggle to understand "the bad" but never wonder about "the good". The specific reasons change from person to person, instance to instance, but all are born of desire.

I always viewed good and bad as being a result of humans being social animals; those who were generous and got along with others would have the support of the community if they came on hard times, thus increasing their chances of surviving and reproducing. Likewise, those who would steal and take what they want by force would also have the resources of the community at their disposal and would be more likely to survive and reproduce. People who didn't interact much with others would be the least likely to survive and reproduce, because they wouldn't have as much access to the resources of the community.

 

[TillICollapse]

They don't want to lie. Plus, Jesus only had temporary pain; this kind of sacrifice rivals that of Jesus, in that they would be in pain for eternity for the sake of just two unknown people.

Okay then ... why not suffer "temporary" pain for others whom you don't even know ? Let's say you believed that you could give your life, suffer, and even go to hell for another person ... and that God would rescue you later ... forget the "eternal" part and just focus on "temporary".

I realize you're not a believer ... but now I'm asking *you* too lol. Would you do such a thing for another person ? Would you give up your rights, risk suffering, go to a "hell" for another person if necessary ... knowing that it wouldn't last forever, and that you would eventually be rescued ... ?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I always viewed good and bad as being a result of humans being social animals; those who were generous and got along with others would have the support of the community if they came on hard times, thus increasing their chances of surviving and reproducing. Likewise, those who would steal and take what they want by force would also have the resources of the community at their disposal and would be more likely to survive and reproduce. People who didn't interact much with others would be the least likely to survive and reproduce, because they wouldn't have as much access to the resources of the community.

That's a very nice way of thinking, I like it, you're probably a really nice person. I don't think that's the it is though. Were we all to try and live by the golden rule we'd find ourselves broke and destitute at the hands of those who don't. It's my experience that those who are generous, can become generous to a fault, and find themselves taken advantage of and manipulated by those who aren't.

Most people I think don't agree with my view of morality. I understand my judgements of good and bad are mine own and no one necessarily agrees. When I try to understand a behavior, I start at the desire, then look for the reasons behind it. I know I can be wrong about those reasons as well, so I try not to hold them too tightly. All in all though, it's been a rather good method for understanding others in all situations.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why is there bad? That's a little trickier...trying to get you to see it the way I do wasn't exactly easy.

I'll be honest and say it seemed to me the problem in the beginning was an evasiveness on your part. Once you finally answered the question, it seemed simple enough.

Apparently you see it differently. So, I'd be curious to know what you think was missing from my understanding when the conversation started.

Geez, you seem upset.

If, from my perspective, this conversation was all about getting you to drop the smoke screen and answer the question, maybe you can understand why I was frustrated. Even more so because that was only the first question. I've lost track of what this was all about.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'll be honest and say it seemed to me the problem in the beginning was an evasiveness on your part. Once you finally answered the question, it seemed simple enough.

Apparently you see it differently. So, I'd be curious to know what you think was missing from my understanding when the conversation started.



If, from my perspective, this conversation was all about getting you to drop the smoke screen and answer the question, maybe you can understand why I was frustrated. Even more so because that was only the first question. I've lost track of what this was all about.

If I had to guess what was missing from your understanding at the beginning was perspective. If I had to guess, you think of good and bad in very black and white terms. For anyone like that, it's going to be hard to realize there's only grey.

Go back to the beginning and tell me where I was evasive. I don't see it. Quite the contrary, I was about as direct and honest as you could hope to expect. Remember when you asked me these two questions after commenting how I hadn't given it much thought or had any real responsibility? Do those comments seem as funny to you now as they did to me then?

"...but what criteria do you use to decide these things? What purpose does it serve for you?"

What answer did I give you? "Mine". Perfectly eloquent in it's simplicity. Honest, simple, true. Yet you glossed over it like I hadn't answered at all...like you never even considered what I meant. Maybe you haven't given this much thought.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's a very nice way of thinking, I like it, you're probably a really nice person. I don't think that's the it is though. Were we all to try and live by the golden rule we'd find ourselves broke and destitute at the hands of those who don't. It's my experience that those who are generous, can become generous to a fault, and find themselves taken advantage of and manipulated by those who aren't.

Most people I think don't agree with my view of morality. I understand my judgements of good and bad are mine own and no one necessarily agrees. When I try to understand a behavior, I start at the desire, then look for the reasons behind it. I know I can be wrong about those reasons as well, so I try not to hold them too tightly. All in all though, it's been a rather good method for understanding others in all situations.

True, people can be generous to a fault, but within the small communities that people primarily lived in in the past, sharing resources would have been more beneficial, as is seen in the few surviving modern hunter gatherer societies. Those that took what they wanted by force would often have groups of supporters that would prevent them from being punished, or they targeted the weak or less liked people (which is why bullies and rapists tend to target people when they are alone and whom they know they can physically overpower).

 

[Ana the Ist]

True, people can be generous to a fault, but within the small communities that people primarily lived in in the past, sharing resources would have been more beneficial, as is seen in the few surviving modern hunter gatherer societies. Those that took what they wanted by force would often have groups of supporters that would prevent them from being punished, or they targeted the weak or less liked people (which is why bullies and rapists tend to target people when they are alone and whom they know they can physically overpower).

If your statement is that whether for good or bad, people band together for the advantages of numbers, I agree completely.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If your statement is that whether for good or bad, people band together for the advantages of numbers, I agree completely.

Of course, humans are too wimpy to survive by themselves, and most people would have a psychological breakdown if they were deprived of human contact. Thus, if you are going to antagonize the people around you for personal gain, you'd have to have some friends to prevent yourself from being exiled or killed.

That's why all the jerks and spiteful people hang out together

My sister likes to call those people Boxes, because they are all uninteresting, they are all the same, and they are all empty inside.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Of course, humans are too wimpy to survive by themselves, and most people would have a psychological breakdown if they were deprived of human contact. Thus, if you are going to antagonize the people around you for personal gain, you'd have to have some friends to prevent yourself from being exiled or killed.

That's why all the jerks and spiteful people hang out together

My sister likes to call those people Boxes, because they are all uninteresting, they are all the same, and they are all empty inside.

I think that's a common view...rather than attempting to understand, it's easier to label and dismiss. Some people just find it easier to label someone evil, a jerk, or a box.