Humanists of the not necessarily secular kind.

[listener]

As a christian, I know that things are not justified in this world alone. Good for the sake of good, sounds good; but is a little off since it is redundant. I help others not to make the world a better place, but simply because Jesus has given me the means to help the person before me. The idea of philanthropy is, within its very meaning, a statement of moral intent.......'good people' doing good. But why?
I know many will not understand this, but I see something beyond which pours its meaning into what I do and waits to see how I react to it. If the child is hungry and cold, and I have the means, it is my privilege to feed the child and to clothe the child. If I do that then I will grow a little more in the direction God wants me to grow. So, from one point of view, I cannot seperate what I do from God, for now I do all that I do for and through Him, and He enables me to do it. As we help others, we grow in a certain way to Him that makes all the difference. So, christians cannot fully seperate God and what we do; why should we? We have a concrete eternal reason for doing it.............

 

[whitestar]

I have not even started it, but I don't think my inaction should deter you. I don't have the time, nor capital, to do anything other than put my thoughts down. Perhaps I should build a website to attract attention to the idea, and let all of us figure it out.

I am sure you know there are alot of very famous people now and in the past that did wonderful things to help people in their own cities and towns and around the world. They did not have a faith in something either, just had a goal like you do, to help others. I am sure you could do an internet search to find out who they were and what all they have done. I do not believe they were doing this to 'work their way to Heaven' either...but simply saw a need and wanted to help. Nothing wrong with that.

Now most of us aren't rich and famous and don't have money to send here and there to help with different things...but usually on a local front we can do alot of good. I like taking clothes my son has outgrown and some of his toys and books (in good shape) to the local women's shelter several times a year. This is for women and children who have had to flee a voilent situation, many times with nothing. You could call about helping in soup kitchens too though they might ask what church you are with...you could just say none, that you just wanted to help. And the news paper is always listing for volunteers to help with various places that really do need the help...

Right now people (groups) are still badly needed in the hurricane hit areas. The need there is extremely great! I posted a video on the missionary fourm on here where my sister's church group had gone down to help. All sorts of groups are going in those areas to help....and certainly not all of them are from church groups either. I heard even the homeless are traveling to help the homeless in New Orleans....helping to rebuild, clean up homes...whatever needs to be done.

Good luck on your adventure!

God bless
WhiteStar

 

[CSMR]

"What can we do to make the world better from the standpoint of the one receiving the help?" This is the question we will be trying to answer and then implement.

So, what do you think God would think of an organization which promotes the greater good of human life, but not through the spreading of his word?

Such an group of people ought to be humble about what it is doing. It is not promoting the greater good, but the good from the standpoint of the one receiving its attention. Perhaps it will give food to hungry people, perhaps it will help clerics to build churches, perhaps it will help satanists to tear them down. Some of its goals may coincide with what they would be if it were acting out of faith, and some may not.

I know some may already believe this group exists; universalists.

How so?

 

[Danhalen]

Whitestar,

We (my wife and I) do help out in our community. She is more active than I am, but I help as often as I feel I can. Perhaps I just feel the need for something bigger. You seem to associate with good people, and you seem to be able to dee the good in people, so I think you can understand. I appreciate your thoughts. I will keep you in mine.

Dan

 

[Danhalen]

Such an group of people ought to be humble about what it is doing.

I don't think it ought to be anything. I think it would be humble by merit of what it is doing.

It is not promoting the greater good, but the good from the standpoint of the one receiving its attention.

The alleviation of human suffering is the greater good. To acheive this on an individual basis is only building small blocks of the foundation for the greater good to stand.

Perhaps it will give food to hungry people, perhaps it will help clerics to build churches, perhaps it will help satanists to tear them down. Some of its goals may coincide with what they would be if it were acting out of faith, and some may not.

This part is tricky. To feed the hungry seems obviously good. To build churches seems good in certain contexts. To tear churches down seems bad in certain contexts. Perhaps we should stick to the obvious and avoid the contextual.

How so?

I meant universalists as in Unitarian Universalists. I pointed them out only to show how I did not intend to include them as an example. They celebrate their differences. I want to celebrate commonality.

 

[Danhalen]

As a christian, I know that things are not justified in this world alone. Good for the sake of good, sounds good; but is a little off since it is redundant. I help others not to make the world a better place, but simply because Jesus has given me the means to help the person before me. The idea of philanthropy is, within its very meaning, a statement of moral intent.......'good people' doing good. But why?
I know many will not understand this, but I see something beyond which pours its meaning into what I do and waits to see how I react to it. If the child is hungry and cold, and I have the means, it is my privilege to feed the child and to clothe the child. If I do that then I will grow a little more in the direction God wants me to grow. So, from one point of view, I cannot seperate what I do from God, for now I do all that I do for and through Him, and He enables me to do it. As we help others, we grow in a certain way to Him that makes all the difference. So, christians cannot fully seperate God and what we do; why should we? We have a concrete eternal reason for doing it.............

I normally would crop this to address only the issues I have with it, but I think you are saying one thing in a whole bunch of different ways (and I don't want to be accused of quote mining.

You say doing good for the sake of good is redundant. You say doing good for the sake of God is divine. What is God if not good? Why must I include God in order to justify good? Can't I find my divinity in what I perceive as good?

 

[CSMR]

The alleviation of human suffering is the greater good. To acheive this on an individual basis is only building small blocks of the foundation for the greater good to stand.

That is not a Christian point of view obviously, but I would think that it can be a service of God to ally with people who believe this in order to relieve particular suffering. Many charities do the sort of thing you describe and I think it's fine to support them. That answers your question?

 

[Danhalen]

That answers your question?

I think it does. Thank you. I like your answer.

 

[radorth]

I wonder what you think your God would feel about a true group of humanists.

What I propose to do is form a philanthropic group which crosses all ideological boundaries. We will not soley rely on monetary philanthropy. What we will do is focus on what we can do to make the world better. We want to reduce the suffering of all people. We want to acheive this in a way which does not ask those receiving our help to follow our ideologies. "What can we do to make the world better from the standpoint of the one receiving the help?" This is the question we will be trying to answer and then implement.

I know some may already believe this group exists; universalists. But I do not want to celebrate our differences in our group. I want to celebrate our coming together to conquer a common enemy; human suffering.

So, what do you think God would think of an organization which promotes the greater good of human life, but not through the spreading of his word?

You mean like the Christian groups who built more private hospitals than all other universalist, humanist, atheist, pantheist, Buddhist, and deist groups put together?

Yeah I got an idea. Become a Christian, be born again spiritually and have the inspiration to actually do something besides help the anti-Christ nitpick the Bible and point out Christian mistakes. Talk is cheap. You folks have a lot of catching up to do, but I suppose the task of building a thousand hospitals looks so enormous, it's easier to sit around and pick nits with the Christians.

But David Gould says you can't form coalitions like we can so you really can't be held accountable for your failure to do anything much about human suffering. Oh well....

Rad

 

[Danhalen]

You mean like the Christian groups who built more private hospitals than all other universalist, humanist, atheist, pantheist, Buddhist, and deist groups put together?

Many of the works Christians have done are to be commended. The examples you have listed are just the tip of the iceburg, but you knew that already, didn't you.

Yeah I got an idea. Become a Christian, be born again spiritually and have the inspiration to actually do something besides help the anti-Christ nitpick the Bible and point out Christian mistakes.

I am not capable, at this point in my life, of becoming a Christian.

I don't like the talk that leads to nitpicking. This is why I want to form a group of humanists of the not necessarily secular kind. People of all beliefs, or lack thereof, can work together to perform great things.

Talk is cheap. You folks have a lot of catching up to do, but I suppose the task of building a thousand hospitals looks so enormous, it's easier to sit around and pick nits with the Christians.

Yes, talk is cheap, and the task before us (I'm not excluding Christians in "us") is great. I want to stop talking and start working. In this way we can avoid all this 'nitpicking' you don't like. Do you have a problem with me wanting to form a group of true humanists of all stripes? Do you want to keep your monopoly on good works? Why so selfish with the capacity for good?

But David Gould says you can't form coalitions like we can so you really can't be held accountable for your failure to do anything much about human suffering. Oh well....

I'm not David Gould.

 

[MQTA]

I think it's excellent, and if there truly exists a loving, compassionate, merciful, good God, I cannot see why this God would not find it excellent as well.

Be Excellent to each other ~

 

[Code-Monkey]

I don't think you are thinking along the same lines as me. I don't think religious charity is wrong, even if they are spreading their message while being charitable. I am merely proposing another way to be charitable. Charity for the sake of charity.

The part implies that the religious people who are charitable aren't also being charitable for the sake of helping others but possibly for other motives. While is it sometimes the case, it certainly is not always the case. There are many cases of non-religious public figures giving very public donations seemingly for the sake of making a good PR showing. So it really seems to go both ways.

One thing that interests me is the attempt to separate charity from the other virtues. CS Lewis warns against this in some of his writings, perhaps Mere Christianity. I'll need to get it out and review it. But I think it becomes pretty easy to see if you start trying to see what it leads too. If you are all about reducing suffering and helping people and you follow that path unchecked by other virtues such as justice, then you will end up lying in court to help a murderer escape some suffering in jail, you would be against laws on the basis that telling someone something is wrong itself causes suffering, and so forth... He argues that we cannot isolate any virtue to the complete exclusion of the others without ultimately ending up in some very wicked situations. All of the virtues must be used, and the moral law tells us when to use which virtue. I'll have to find this and bring it back up as I've probably done it an injustice by trying to recall the full argument by memory.

But if your suggestion is ultimately to setup shelters for battered women or homeless people, provide clothes and food to the needy, provide relief to victims of natural disasters, then I think you would find a lot of people agreeing with you. But I don't think there's any real notion of starting this up, rather I think you can look around you and start helping out in the numerous organizations that already do this such as the Red Cross.