ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF SAVING FAITH

[Mark Quayle]

I said:
It cannot be scientifically proven that man has a free will, so if I could proof to you, I did stuff as a result of my free will, I could also proof to scientist I have s free will, which has not been done.

BUT, just the opposite is also true, we cannot proof that mature adults do not have a free will.

Scripture and logic to show or not show mature adults having a free will is our proof for a free will:

Free will is needed to fulfill man’s earthly objective, so we must have a free will.

God does would not cause people to sin, but would allow them to sin, so we have a free will.

Will and free will are the same thing and humans have a will, so we have a free will.

If we have no “will” than we are nothing more than a nice robot, so we have a free will.

Having a free will explains why we spend time here on this earth, so we have a free will.

God certainly can provide mature adults with a free will and it would be a wonderful needed gift, so we have a free will.

We are held accountable for negative thoughts, so we must have a free will.

Is that "free will" subject to causation or not? If you say 'the free will', or even if you say 'the will', is not subject to causation, I don't care what other truisms you hope to establish as good reasoning, the law of causation prohibits any effect from being uncaused.

 

[bling]

Is that "free will" subject to causation or not? If you say 'the free will', or even if you say 'the will', is not subject to causation, I don't care what other truisms you hope to establish as good reasoning, the law of causation prohibits any effect from being uncaused.

God caused adult humans to have a free will or will.
All "Laws of physics" are only observations we have made in our corner of the universe, so is this "Law of causation", a God given "Law" or something hmans have just observed happening?

 

[Mark Quayle]

God caused adult humans to have a free will or will.
All "Laws of physics" are only observations we have made in our corner of the universe, so is this "Law of causation", a God given "Law" or something hmans have just observed happening?

What we refer to as laws, are not our description of them. Whether we describe them or not, the principles by which things operate will continue to be the principles by which things operate. You yourself have acknowledged this when you contradicted yourself above. First you say all "Laws of physics" are only observations we have made, then you ask if the "Law of causation" is not something humans have just observed happening.

So which is it —are the principles by which things operate real things, or, does the fact that we describe those principles make them only concepts in the mind?

 

[bling]

What we refer to as laws, are not our description of them. Whether we describe them or not, the principles by which things operate will continue to be the principles by which things operate. You yourself have acknowledged this when you contradicted yourself above. First you say all "Laws of physics" are only observations we have made, then you ask if the "Law of causation" is not something humans have just observed happening.

So which is it —are the principles by which things operate real things, or, does the fact that we describe those principles make them only concepts in the mind?

God has Laws, so is the "Law of Causation" one of God's Laws? If not, it is not a "Law", but it is something we have observed, and it is something God can break into and change.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God has Laws, so is the "Law of Causation" one of God's Laws? If not, it is not a "Law", but it is something we have observed, and it is something God can break into and change.

If the law of causation is something we have observed, then our observation of it, and even our naming of it, is not what it is, but what God made and sustains is what it is.

You will probably remember that I say God 'invented' all things, to include very reality and existence, and is not himself subject to them as if they were principles from outside himself, and certainly not as though he is obligated to OUR concept of such things. Nevertheless, I believe they are made according to —perhaps even 'of'— his nature, and are in some sense representative of his nature. The principles by which the universe and even 'reality' operate, such as logic and the law of causation, would be considered brute fact, were first cause not himself the only brute fact.

So, IF logic, and the law of causation, are according to his nature, then I find no reason to believe that anything else you might propose as 'possible for him to do' differently from those, or in opposition to those, or outside of those, can logically be made principles by which things operate. To go there is a sort of madness.

No, I don't say that God is governed by logic, even though we must be, but I do say that logic is, (I believe), of his nature. It does not make sense to me to say he could make a different world that operates on a different set of principles, just because we can imagine (without much cogent detail) a world that does operate on a different set of principles. I don't know if you can see the parallel, but the notion that he could do so is much like the question of whether he can make a rock too big for him to pick up.

And no, (just to head the conversation off at the pass), the fact that I do not say that he could make a world that operates on a different set of principles, does not imply that I do say that he could not make a world that operates on a different set of principles. I am saying that, to me, it is a bogus statement. An illogical notion. Self-contradictory.

 

[bling]

If the law of causation is something we have observed, then our observation of it, and even our naming of it, is not what it is, but what God made and sustains is what it is.

You will probably remember that I say God 'invented' all things, to include very reality and existence, and is not himself subject to them as if they were principles from outside himself, and certainly not as though he is obligated to OUR concept of such things. Nevertheless, I believe they are made according to —perhaps even 'of'— his nature, and are in some sense representative of his nature. The principles by which the universe and even 'reality' operate, such as logic and the law of causation, would be considered brute fact, were first cause not himself the only brute fact.

So, IF logic, and the law of causation, are according to his nature, then I find no reason to believe that anything else you might propose as 'possible for him to do' differently from those, or in opposition to those, or outside of those, can logically be made principles by which things operate. To go there is a sort of madness.

No, I don't say that God is governed by logic, even though we must be, but I do say that logic is, (I believe), of his nature. It does not make sense to me to say he could make a different world that operates on a different set of principles, just because we can imagine (without much cogent detail) a world that does operate on a different set of principles. I don't know if you can see the parallel, but the notion that he could do so is much like the question of whether he can make a rock too big for him to pick up.

And no, (just to head the conversation off at the pass), the fact that I do not say that he could make a world that operates on a different set of principles, does not imply that I do say that he could not make a world that operates on a different set of principles. I am saying that, to me, it is a bogus statement. An illogical notion. Self-contradictory.

Godly type Love is not "logical".
What man can become goes beyond logic.
We do not and really cannot be governed by "logic" to believer (have faith in) a benevolent Creator.
You keep saying: I am being "Self-contradictory", but do not explain what I am saying that is "self-contradicting"?
Free will is needed and God can provide humans with free will, so we have free will.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Godly type Love is not "logical".
What man can become goes beyond logic.
We do not and really cannot be governed by "logic" to believer (have faith in) a benevolent Creator.
You keep saying: I am being "Self-contradictory", but do not explain what I am saying that is "self-contradicting"?
Free will is needed and God can provide humans with free will, so we have free will.

Godly love is VERY logical. That we can operate beyond what we can logically realize does not mean it is illogical that we do so, nor even that it is not logical TO do so. Likewise, while we may not be able (and I agree we certainly are not able) to comprehend the logic behind faith, there is nevertheless total logic in the matter.

What is self-contradictory about 'free will' is when that notion of "free" is what I have here heard called "libertarian free will", that behaves uncaused. That is self-contradictory in several ways; I will show 3 of them here: 1) While not many people who believe in it claim that they (the believers) are 'better than' anyone else, they do claim that one person chooses right and the other chooses wrong, uncaused. Thus they invoke mere chance, which is a fiction. It is self-contradictory to think that something can happen by 'chance'. 2) Those I have pressed on the matter claim that God himself GAVE us free will, or 'endowed' us with it, and the like. How is that then, 'uncaused'? And like it, even those who imply operation of mere chance in free will, (supposing that causation by chance is not self-contradictory), how is that also not causation? 3) Some of those who perhaps will say they do not claim either #1 nor #2 above, say that they are, by nature of moral agency, in and of themselves capable of some absolute spontaneity —i.e. that they are 'limited' first causes. That denies the meaning of "first cause'. There can be only one first cause.

 

[bling]

Godly love is VERY logical. That we can operate beyond what we can logically realize does not mean it is illogical that we do so, nor even that it is not logical TO do so. Likewise, while we may not be able (and I agree we certainly are not able) to comprehend the logic behind faith, there is nevertheless total logic in the matter.

What is self-contradictory about 'free will' is when that notion of "free" is what I have here heard called "libertarian free will", that behaves uncaused. That is self-contradictory in several ways; I will show 3 of them here: 1) While not many people who believe in it claim that they (the believers) are 'better than' anyone else, they do claim that one person chooses right and the other chooses wrong, uncaused. Thus they invoke mere chance, which is a fiction. It is self-contradictory to think that something can happen by 'chance'. 2) Those I have pressed on the matter claim that God himself GAVE us free will, or 'endowed' us with it, and the like. How is that then, 'uncaused'? And like it, even those who imply operation of mere chance in free will, (supposing that causation by chance is not self-contradictory), how is that also not causation? 3) Some of those who perhaps will say they do not claim either #1 nor #2 above, say that they are, by nature of moral agency, in and of themselves capable of some absolute spontaneity —i.e. that they are 'limited' first causes. That denies the meaning of "first cause'. There can be only one first cause.

• You can only choose right after you have obtained Godly type Love and the indwelling Holy Spirit, but even than you are only allowing the Spirit to work through you doing the right, all the glory goes to God. Prior to becoming a Christian you can only choose what wrong you will be doing and it is not between right and wrong. The pre-Christian can choose to selfishly (sinfully) humbly accept God’s undeserving charity as charity.
• God did give us free will so God is the cause (I have said this before), what God does not directly cause are a very few mental choice made by the free will individual, which we agree God has the power to allow. The outcome of those choices may or may not be allowed to happen, but the choices of the free will person are known by God.
• In a string of causes and effects, there is only one first cause, but we agreed God can start as many first cause strings as He wants, each with a string of causes and effects. Does the very first, “first cause”, way back in the beginning control all God can do in the future? If there can be more first causes, creating lines of cause and effect, why can’t God allow man to start a string?

I am not “denying” the meaning of “first cause”, but I am also not denying the power of God to be the first cause of many lines of causes and effects. Science is trying to find or proof just one first cause, so they can explain how everything else got started and/or proof something can come from nothing and/or proof infinite regression.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You can only choose right after you have obtained Godly type Love and the indwelling Holy Spirit, but even than you are only allowing the Spirit to work through you doing the right, all the glory goes to God. Prior to becoming a Christian you can only choose what wrong you will be doing and it is not between right and wrong.

"Allowing" the Holy Spirit to work through you? WHY? or maybe a better question is HOW? How does one "allow" the Holy Spirit to do anything? And, please, don't answer with "by obedience" or "by submitting" or such. Because, that only invokes a repeat of the question. How does anyone do anything without it being an effect of first cause? And how does a believer do anything without it being a result of the Holy Spirit's work? "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

The pre-Christian can choose to selfishly (sinfully) humbly accept God’s undeserving charity as charity.

How can humility be selfish? Or maybe, more to the point —How can such an "accepting" be anything but pretense? (And I'm not even talking about sincerity there, but about capability to accomplish the enormity of the task.)

God did give us free will so God is the cause (I have said this before), what God does not directly cause are a very few mental choice made by the free will individual, which we agree God has the power to allow. The outcome of those choices may or may not be allowed to happen, but the choices of the free will person are known by God.

Who's talking about directly causing? Reformed Theology, nor Calvinism, says that God causes all things "directly". Where did we agree God has the power to allow mental choices by "free will"? If you quote me, then remember, I say God CAUSES. You say ALLOWS. It'll most likely be in Heaven where we agree on what "free will" even means. We can agree on the words, but you operate on self-determination. I reject that.

In a string of causes and effects, there is only one first cause, but we agreed God can start as many first cause strings as He wants, each with a string of causes and effects. Does the very first, “first cause”, way back in the beginning control all God can do in the future? If there can be more first causes, creating lines of cause and effect, why can’t God allow man to start a string?

Why does this keep coming up. Very strange. GOD is the first cause. There is no other. God doesn't start any other first causes. You seem to be talking about first effects. Those may well be causes, but they are not first causes.

Everything anyone is or does or anything is or does, that has effects, is a cause. But, except for God, it is also an effect. Not only are there (usually) many causes to directly bring about any one effect, but, generally, each effect also causes many more effects. And, not that it is particularly relevant to your question, but the strings of causation overlap a lot.

Regardless, Man cannot be first cause, nor can anything man does be first cause. An effect can not be first cause.

I am not “denying” the meaning of “first cause”, but I am also not denying the power of God to be the first cause of many lines of causes and effects. Science is trying to find or proof just one first cause, so they can explain how everything else got started and/or proof something can come from nothing and/or proof infinite regression.

If you say there can be more than one first cause, you are denying the meaning of 'first cause'. Yes, obviously, God is the first cause of innumerable lines of cause and effect.

You might find some scientists and armchair scientists reject that notion, that "Science is trying to find or proof just one first cause", but I agree with you there, that in the end, that is what they are trying to do, by looking into the smaller and smaller world.

 

[bling]

"Allowing" the Holy Spirit to work through you? WHY? or maybe a better question is HOW? How does one "allow" the Holy Spirit to do anything? And, please, don't answer with "by obedience" or "by submitting" or such. Because, that only invokes a repeat of the question. How does anyone do anything without it being an effect of first cause? And how does a believer do anything without it being a result of the Holy Spirit's work? "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

You can quench the Spirit and keep Him from working through you. You have a free will choice.

How can humility be selfish? Or maybe, more to the point —How can such an "accepting" be anything but pretense? (And I'm not even talking about sincerity there, but about capability to accomplish the enormity of the task.)

You desire to live on, but fully deserve to be severely tortured to death for what you have done in the past, Your survival instinct is great and you can decide to humbly accept undeserved charity from the enemy you hate to selfishly continue to live, instead of being macho and taking the punishment you fully deserve.

Who's talking about directly causing? Reformed Theology, nor Calvinism, says that God causes all things "directly". Where did we agree God has the power to allow mental choices by "free will"? If you quote me, then remember, I say God CAUSES. You say ALLOWS. It'll most likely be in Heaven where we agree on what "free will" even means. We can agree on the words, but you operate on self-determination. I reject that.

Why would God not have the power to allow mental choices by “free will”? My God is all powerful and can do anything that is not impossible to do, is that not your God or is free will impossible for some reason?
We do not agree on what “will” means.

Why does this keep coming up. Very strange. GOD is the first cause. There is no other. God doesn't start any other first causes. You seem to be talking about first effects. Those may well be causes, but they are not first causes.

God first caused the universe to come into existence, but let’s just say. that would not result in life, so God was the first cause of life. There are now two strings of cause and effect started by two different first causes.

Everything anyone is or does or anything is or does, that has effects, is a cause. But, except for God, it is also an effect. Not only are there (usually) many causes to directly bring about any one effect, but, generally, each effect also causes many more effects. And, not that it is particularly relevant to your question, but the strings of causation overlap a lot.

Regardless, Man cannot be first cause, nor can anything man does be first cause. An effect can not be first cause.

If you say there can be more than one first cause, you are denying the meaning of 'first cause'. Yes, obviously, God is the first cause of innumerable lines of cause and effect.

You might find some scientists and armchair scientists reject that notion, that "Science is trying to find or proof just one first cause", but I agree with you there, that in the end, that is what they are trying to do, by looking into the smaller and smaller world.

Will that is the question: Why could God not allow humans to be the first cause of a mental choice, be miraculously endowed with some limited free will? You are not giving an answer with your posts.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You can quench the Spirit and keep Him from working through you. You have a free will choice.

Of course you can quench the Spirit. Did I imply otherwise? I'm only saying that everything one does, whether they can only work within one category or two, (death, and new life w 'the old man still present')

You desire to live on, but fully deserve to be severely tortured to death for what you have done in the past, Your survival instinct is great and you can decide to humbly accept undeserved charity from the enemy you hate to selfishly continue to live, instead of being macho and taking the punishment you fully deserve.

Once again, HOW? You cannot be humble enough for such a thing, as unregenerate (nor, in my opinion as regenerate, but that's another conversation). Selfishness is not humility.

Why would God not have the power to allow mental choices by “free will”? My God is all powerful and can do anything that is not impossible to do, is that not your God or is free will impossible for some reason?
We do not agree on what “will” means.

You keep coming at me with this vague, "free will". What do you mean by it?

God can do all things, but it is ludicrous to say whether he can or cannot do impossible things. If he can do them they are possible. If they are impossible he has no need, nor interest nor respect even for the notion as to call it a thing. It's not that he can't do it. It's that it is not a thing.

God first caused the universe to come into existence, but let’s just say. that would not result in life, so God was the first cause of life. There are now two strings of cause and effect started by two different first causes.

Two strings of cause and effect are started by God. THE First Cause. Not two first causes. You are referring to two first effects, or maybe, to try to help you follow, you are referring to the first effects that were also causes of whatever came after them. They were not FIRST CAUSES.

Will that is the question: Why could God not allow humans to be the first cause of a mental choice, be miraculously endowed with some limited free will? You are not giving an answer with your posts.

Because it is self-contradictory. First cause is necessarily SELF-EXISTENT. We are not. Our wills are not.

 

[bling]

Of course you can quench the Spirit. Did I imply otherwise? I'm only saying that everything one does, whether they can only work within one category or two, (death, and new life w 'the old man still present')

Once again, HOW? You cannot be humble enough for such a thing, as unregenerate (nor, in my opinion as regenerate, but that's another conversation). Selfishness is not humility.

“Humility” does not make you deserving of anything. I never said selfishness is humility or humility is selfish. Everyone is going to be humbled now or humbled later (it could be as late as judgement). Being selfish is sinful, so it is something sinful man exercises and is motivated by. Sinful man can choose between two selfish (sinful) options. Sinful man can selfishly desire to have some kind of livable life and humble himself enough to accept that life as pure undeserved charity or he can operate out of a false pride and decide to be macho and take the punishment he fully deserves.

You keep coming at me with this vague, "free will". What do you mean by it?

Will = free will = autonomous free will. I am using the definition used in scripture and biblical scholars use: “Here is one definition of free will from a Scriptural sense: Free will is the power to decide what you will do in a certain situation. However, don’t forget your choices have consequences. Here is an example from Scripture of the free will we have.” “You say, ‘I am allowed to do anything’—but not everything is good for you. You say, ‘I am allowed to do anything’—but not everything is beneficial” (1 Corinthians 10:23).

To me a free will choice is one you can be held accountable for making or it can be just your personal portion of the choice which you made.

God can do all things, but it is ludicrous to say whether he can or cannot do impossible things. If he can do them they are possible. If they are impossible he has no need, nor interest nor respect even for the notion as to call it a thing. It's not that he can't do it. It's that it is not a thing.

If God could make more Christs, then He would certainly have made them, but since Christ is not a made being but deity itself, he cannot make that which is not made. Man was made as good as man can be made “very good” by God’s standard, but not perfect like Christ.

Two strings of cause and effect are started by God. THE First Cause. Not two first causes. You are referring to two first effects, or maybe, to try to help you follow, you are referring to the first effects that were also causes of whatever came after them. They were not FIRST CAUSES.

Can the first cause (God) make man with some very limited free will? What ever man does it is the product of the first cause God, but man interjects his will in the effect of some very limited choices.

Because it is self-contradictory. First cause is necessarily SELF-EXISTENT. We are not. Our wills are not.

I just asked the question: Can the first cause (God) make man with some very limited free will? There is nothing self-contradictory about God doing that, God is still Self-existent, causing what happened but allowing man some very limited free will.

How is free will self-contradictory for you?

 

[Mark Quayle]

“Humility” does not make you deserving of anything. I never said selfishness is humility or humility is selfish. Everyone is going to be humbled now or humbled later (it could be as late as judgement). Being selfish is sinful, so it is something sinful man exercises and is motivated by. Sinful man can choose between two selfish (sinful) options. Sinful man can selfishly desire to have some kind of livable life and humble himself enough to accept that life as pure undeserved charity or he can operate out of a false pride and decide to be macho and take the punishment he fully deserves.

You said, "Sinful man can selfishly desire to have some kind of livable life and humble himself enough to accept that life"

Let's just stop right here and quit trying to plow the stump. You CAN'T be humble enough to do anything producing even the smallest motion toward salvation. WE DO NOT HAVE THE INTEGRITY, THE PURITY OF HEART, and so many other things that the Holy Spirit has without end.

I don't doubt you are aware that your construction of that sentence above is of your own reasoning —a necessary bridge between 'inability' and 'free will decision to accept Christ'.

 

[bling]

You said, "Sinful man can selfishly desire to have some kind of livable life and humble himself enough to accept that life"

Let's just stop right here and quit trying to plow the stump. You CAN'T be humble enough to do anything producing even the smallest motion toward salvation. WE DO NOT HAVE THE INTEGRITY, THE PURITY OF HEART, and so many other things that the Holy Spirit has without end.

I don't doubt you are aware that your construction of that sentence above is of your own reasoning —a necessary bridge between 'inability' and 'free will decision to accept Christ'.

Luke 14:11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Everyone can be humble and will be humbled at some time, so this is not something worthy of anything, requiring integrity, a pure heart, or the Spirit.

Being humble does not result in salvation for it is nothing of value (unbelieving sinners will be humble eventually).

I did not say the sinner makes a “free will decision to accept Christ”, that comes after receiving forgiveness, Godly type Love and eternal life (regeneration).

The unbelieving sinner for good logical selfish reasons is just willing to humbly accept pure undeserving charity as charity.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
You said, "Sinful man can selfishly desire to have some kind of livable life and humble himself enough to accept that life"

Let's just stop right here and quit trying to plow the stump. You CAN'T be humble enough to do anything producing even the smallest motion toward salvation. WE DO NOT HAVE THE INTEGRITY, THE PURITY OF HEART, and so many other things that the Holy Spirit has without end.

I don't doubt you are aware that your construction of that sentence above is of your own reasoning —a necessary bridge between 'inability' and 'free will decision to accept Christ'.

Luke 14:11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Everyone can be humble and will be humbled at some time, so this is not something worthy of anything, requiring integrity, a pure heart, or the Spirit.

Being humble does not result in salvation for it is nothing of value (unbelieving sinners will be humble eventually).

I did not say the sinner makes a “free will decision to accept Christ”, that comes after receiving forgiveness, Godly type Love and eternal life (regeneration).

The unbelieving sinner for good logical selfish reasons is just willing to humbly accept pure undeserving charity as charity.

Notice even in the verse you quote, the self-exalted will be humbled —not of their own choice. But you have not shown HOW it is possible for one to humble themselves. I don't doubt it is possible to choose to humble oneself, but the ones who are enmity with God, I don't see how it is possible for them to humble themselves.

I don't follow what you are saying in your sentence: "I did not say the sinner makes a “free will decision to accept Christ”, that comes after receiving forgiveness, Godly type Love and eternal life (regeneration)." Is there a punctuation problem there? I don't understand. Are you saying, "I did not say the sinner makes a "free will decision to accept Christ.", or are you saying you did not say it, if it comes after receiving forgiveness, etc.? Because I'm pretty sure you did say that the sinner makes a free will decision to accept Christ, and have been saying it all along. Your construction, involving selfish humility, is how you seem to think it is done.

 

[bling]

Mark Quayle said:
You said, "Sinful man can selfishly desire to have some kind of livable life and humble himself enough to accept that life"

Let's just stop right here and quit trying to plow the stump. You CAN'T be humble enough to do anything producing even the smallest motion toward salvation. WE DO NOT HAVE THE INTEGRITY, THE PURITY OF HEART, and so many other things that the Holy Spirit has without end.

I don't doubt you are aware that your construction of that sentence above is of your own reasoning —a necessary bridge between 'inability' and 'free will decision to accept Christ'.


Notice even in the verse you quote, the self-exalted will be humbled —not of their own choice. But you have not shown HOW it is possible for one to humble themselves. I don't doubt it is possible to choose to humble oneself, but the ones who are enmity with God, I don't see how it is possible for them to humble themselves.

I don't follow what you are saying in your sentence: "I did not say the sinner makes a “free will decision to accept Christ”, that comes after receiving forgiveness, Godly type Love and eternal life (regeneration)." Is there a punctuation problem there? I don't understand. Are you saying, "I did not say the sinner makes a "free will decision to accept Christ.", or are you saying you did not say it, if it comes after receiving forgiveness, etc.? Because I'm pretty sure you did say that the sinner makes a free will decision to accept Christ, and have been saying it all along. Your construction, involving selfish humility, is how you seem to think it is done.

The situation people have got themselves into, will humble them, when brought to light. For humans just realizing where your at is humbling, you can humble yourself by washing the feet of those in a lower position than you are. Others can bring what you have done to light and thus make you feel humble. All I am trying to point out is anyone can feel humble, without having the indwelling Holy Spirit making them humble, but it also might not happen until judgement.

The unforgiven unbelieving sinner cannot make the righteous choice to “follow Christ”, prior to being regenerated. He can make the “choice” to follow Christ after he has been showered with unbelievable wonderful gifts which include eternal life, indwelling Holy Spirit, Godly type Love and being forgiven. Prior to regeneration the sinner can only be willing and trusting to humbly accept God’s gifts as pure undeserved charity for really selfish reasons.