Motives

[leftrightleftrightleft]

What is the practical, functional difference between someone doing a morally good act for purely humanistic reasons and a Christian doing a morally good act in order to serve God?

For example, there's an old lady that needs help crossing the street. The humanist goes out and helps the old lady. When asked what his motives are for doing this, he perhaps says that it benefits the old lady and makes him feel better and more satisfied.

Same situation, but this time a Christian helps the old lady cross the street. When asked why he helped the lady, the Christian replies that his motive is based on the fact that he wants to serve God and helping old ladies to cross streets furthers his service to God.

Some key points. First, the Christian still helps the old lady and the Christian likely feels better in doing it either because he sees the lady has been helped or because he feels as though he's furthering God's kingdom. So, in both the humanist and the Christian scenarios there are three common outcomes:
A) the lady gets helped
B) they feel as though they've helped the lady
C) they feel good about it

So where is the practical, functional difference between the two situations? Why do motives matter? Shouldn't the outcome be of greater importance?

More to the point, what would be the humanist's incentive to help the old lady in order to "serve God" when there is no noticeable, measurable, practical or functional difference between his and the Christian's outcomes?

 

[drich0150]

What is the practical, functional difference between someone doing a morally good act for purely humanistic reasons and a Christian doing a morally good act in order to serve God?

The primary difference is a love for God. And a self serving love for one's self.

For example, there's an old lady that needs help crossing the street. The humanist goes out and helps the old lady. When asked what his motives are for doing this, he perhaps says that it benefits the old lady and makes him feel better and more satisfied.

This is an example of love for one's self. This person is looking to satisfy his own need for a self established sense of righteousness and or to secure bragging rights.

Same situation, but this time a Christian helps the old lady cross the street. When asked why he helped the lady, the Christian replies that his motive is based on the fact that he wants to serve God and helping old ladies to cross streets furthers his service to God.

It doesn't generally look like this. "We" tend to see our own short comings and can identify the great debt that is owed for what has been done for us. In turn because we owe a debt that can not be paid we do the one thing that has been asked of us. In that we fill needs as they present themselves to the Glory of God.

Some key points. First, the Christian still helps the old lady and the Christian likely feels better in doing it either because he sees the lady has been helped or because he feels as though he's furthering God's kingdom. So, in both the humanist and the Christian scenarios there are three common outcomes:
A) the lady gets helped
B) they feel as though they've helped the lady
C) they feel good about it

Actually;
1) the lady gets helped
2a)The Humanist "feels" as though they might have helped the lady.
2b)The Christian "should" impart, or give the glory of this service to God.
3a)The Humanist "feels" good about satisfying his sense of righteousness
3b)The Christian Gives thanks for the opportunity to serve God.

So where is the practical, functional difference between the two situations?

In your understanding there isn't one.

Why do motives matter?

Because God judges the attitudes of the Heart.

Shouldn't the outcome be of greater importance?

It depends on what your value system is based on.

More to the point, what would be the humanist's incentive to help the old lady in order to "serve God" when there is no noticeable, measurable, practical or functional difference between his and the Christian's outcomes?

Your right, if the humanist is looking for what is in it for him, then there is no other reason to do any good outside the self serving sense of righteousness he gets for doing a good deed to obtain bragging rights.

 

[bling]

I agree with Drich.

The Christian is allowing the indwelling Holy Spirit to do good stuff through him, because of what has already been done for him and not to get anything from (like a good feeling). The real benefit in this opportunity to help the woman is for Godly type love to be seen and experienced. If the old woman feels you are just helping her because you feel guilty not helping her or to pay some debt you feel you owe society or any other “self serving reason” she will not give praise to God and see it as Godly type Love.

What we need to talk about is helping a haft dead naked Taliban leader on the side of the road ( being a Good Samaritan).

 

[elman]

What is the practical, functional difference between someone doing a morally good act for purely humanistic reasons and a Christian doing a morally good act in order to serve God?

For example, there's an old lady that needs help crossing the street. The humanist goes out and helps the old lady. When asked what his motives are for doing this, he perhaps says that it benefits the old lady and makes him feel better and more satisfied.

Same situation, but this time a Christian helps the old lady cross the street. When asked why he helped the lady, the Christian replies that his motive is based on the fact that he wants to serve God and helping old ladies to cross streets furthers his service to God.

Some key points. First, the Christian still helps the old lady and the Christian likely feels better in doing it either because he sees the lady has been helped or because he feels as though he's furthering God's kingdom. So, in both the humanist and the Christian scenarios there are three common outcomes:
A) the lady gets helped
B) they feel as though they've helped the lady
C) they feel good about it

So where is the practical, functional difference between the two situations? Why do motives matter? Shouldn't the outcome be of greater importance?

More to the point, what would be the humanist's incentive to help the old lady in order to "serve God" when there is no noticeable, measurable, practical or functional difference between his and the Christian's outcomes?

I think the outcome is not the greatest thing about any action. I think motives do matter. I also think God writes on the heart of every human being and when you are helping the old lady across the street--feeling compasion for the elderly--you are responding to the writing on your heart by God that we should be compassionate for the elderly and the ones in need.

 

[ebia]

What is the practical, functional difference between someone doing a morally good act for purely humanistic reasons and a Christian doing a morally good act in order to serve God?

For example, there's an old lady that needs help crossing the street. The humanist goes out and helps the old lady. When asked what his motives are for doing this, he perhaps says that it benefits the old lady and makes him feel better and more satisfied.

Same situation, but this time a Christian helps the old lady cross the street. When asked why he helped the lady, the Christian replies that his motive is based on the fact that he wants to serve God and helping old ladies to cross streets furthers his service to God.

Some key points. First, the Christian still helps the old lady and the Christian likely feels better in doing it either because he sees the lady has been helped or because he feels as though he's furthering God's kingdom. So, in both the humanist and the Christian scenarios there are three common outcomes:
A) the lady gets helped
B) they feel as though they've helped the lady
C) they feel good about it

So where is the practical, functional difference between the two situations? Why do motives matter? Shouldn't the outcome be of greater importance?

More to the point, what would be the humanist's incentive to help the old lady in order to "serve God" when there is no noticeable, measurable, practical or functional difference between his and the Christian's outcomes?

Your question presumes that everything can be reduced to an atomistic and entirely functional level. Communities and relationships, even in a secular understanding, are more complex and interelated than that.