 The subject of selfishness was discussed briefly in another thread and was promoted in this week's "Freedom Watch" (you can see the relevant section here) in which Yaron Brook defended Ayn Rand's belief that selfishness was a good thing. His basic point was that we should all think rationally about how we can be happy, successful and prosperous, and if we as a society were to do so, we would be a happier society. While sounding good on the surface, this worldview has some serious flaws. Upon first viewing, I immediately took issue with this line of reasoning because it contradicts the teachings of the Bible which promotes humility and servant leadership. I have found that when I stop and think about something carefully, the wisdom put forth by the Bible continues to ring true. As I thought about it more, I realized there is a huge flaw in this reasoning: it assumes that rational selfish thought will result in actions that will benefit society as a whole. On the surface, this makes some degree of sense. Those of us who believe in free markets do so because we believe that individual freedom breeds creativity and hard work as your efforts are more often than not rewarded. In this sense, the free market uses our selfishness to drive us toward success. So far so good, but if we elevate the concept of happiness, success, and prosperity as our chief virtues, what happens when a choice comes between our happiness and someone else's? Would not a devotion to selfishness cause us to ignore the plight of our neighbor instead of risking harm to our own? Would anyone ever risk their life to save another? It would go completely against this dogma. Second, not everyone desires possessions. Some desire fame. Others desire power or control. This is especially true of those who have achieved a great amount of any one of these. If someone has more money than they need, they will seek to then pursue fame or power. Donald Trump sought fame by starting his own TV show. Most wealthy people go into politics so that they can also gain power and control. Especially in this latter case, you can see where the selfish desires can quickly trump liberties in society. If one's selfish desires draw them to power, others must relinquish their liberty to satiate those desires (willingly or not). This is exactly what we have witnessed with the central bankers, the Bilderbergers, or the Illuminati. They would argue that they are, in fact, pursuing their selfishness -- their desire for happiness, success, and prosperity. While society may not grow more wealthy as a result of their actions, they certainly will do quite well as long as they can control the masses. This is the ultimate end of worshiping at the feet of self, and we would do well to consider that. So, what does the Bible have to say about the subject?
There is a sense in which selfishness is called into play: there are promised rewards throughout the Bible for those who will do what is good -- in this life and especially in the next. So in that sense, we do live selfishly but -- and this is key -- selfishness is not the highest virtue.
What does it mean to love God? It means that we follow God's commands:
The fact is that we are selfish creatures. We will always seek to satisfy our needs and pursue our desires. It is our natural bent. But our human nature needs to be brought under control. We need to set our minds on the higher virtues -- virtues that transcend ourselves and are represented in the person of God: truth, justice, and mercy. You can see clearly how our society has violated these principles. We try to redistribute wealth while ignoring the virtues of those who earned their wealth by hard work and dedication. We allow the majority to have their say even when it goes against the law of the land. The loudest or richest voices rule and lawlessness abounds. The opposite of selfishness is not selflessness or self sacrifice:
We need to make righteousness and justice the chief aim of our lives. We can see this example in Ron Paul who tries with every vote to uphold the law and strive for justice and fairness in all things -- showing no partiality but executing the duties of his office in service to his fellow citizens.
So when we promote libertarian principles and constitutional law, we should do so not out of selfishness, but because our deep desire and love for law, justice, and truth. We strive to see the law fairly executed across our country regardless of wealth, race, or status. We remove laws that are restrictive to freedom because we want all people to have the chance to succeed. We create good laws to promote harmony and peace between people. We demonstrate love for people by willingly giving from our own wealth instead from the wealth of others
We should not hold selfishness as the ultimate virtue. We need to get ourselves out of the picture and expand our view of what is right and good. I strive to live for God, and to try to emulate His passion for justice, mercy and love toward those around me. I believe society would prosper if it were to do so as well. |
|||
 |
Hidden PlacesLife outside of the mainstream |
|
|
|
|
Believe!
My thought is that it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you believe in 'Something'...
Most theologists point out that the way to change your life for the better is to change yourself from within. As you see things change around you to the better, it is actually YOU that is changing.
You say you want to fight the New World Order? In that case, please join me and "serve others" whenever you can and wherever you see the need! If you do this on a regular basis, that's all you need to do; no weapons, no violence, no hatred or revenge. Just "serving others", unconditionally - unselfishly. If one day you notice that the New World Order is no longer around, it is because YOU changed, not the environment. The New World Order at that point STILL EXISTS, but not on the spiritual level YOU are. When this happens, you have done all you can, and the people you see around you in your "New World" without the Illuminati, are the people who followed a similar path.
Most theologies point out quite similar steps, processes and mindsets that are to be aspired to in their "instruction manuels", because they are useful tools and paths toward this "New World", for all who aspire to that end. The first step and guiding light of your journey is in your belief.
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
~ Mahatma Gandhi
The way to change things is to change yourself from within.
"You must be the change you want to see in the world." ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Boy I'm right there with ya Katherine.Or as I believe..thoughts become things. Serving others is always wonderful and helpful. It takes your mind off many negative things and gives you a pay check you can't get any other way. Thanks for my morning note of "Zen"
:)
Hey, you are welcome, Krmaya! And I don't know if any of us truly know exactly how it happens, we simply know that it just does:
We all 'somehow' are creating our own realities, and 'God' is somehow experiencing creation through us, as well! When you look at it that way, selfishness is not a trait to be taken lightly!
As seethru said, below:
being selfish to pursue spiritual growth and self-care are good things. however, we can never ignore our responsibilities without consequences.
The way to change things is to change yourself from within.
"You must be the change you want to see in the world." ~ Mahatma Gandhi
I think people misunderstand Ayn Rands views on selfishness. What I got from reading her views in Atlas Shrugged was that sacrifice for the good of the collective does not work. What works is paying attention to self to become all you can and thus by becoming a producer you are then a real blessing to society by making life better for others by what you produce that benefit society.
This is why she promoted the captains of industry who built this country from the ground up. They made a profit but they also made modern society what it is today. Their profit was just compensation for thier contributions to modern society. And I am not talking abut the wealthy who exploited people to get where they are I am talking about real producers who actually produced and started by thier boot straps.
People miss the part in Atlas Shrugged where several friends of Galts Gulch came together to save some of their friends. So she wasn't saying ignore everyone and everything but your self.
Expecting nothing from others and expecting them not to expect anything from you. And if they do do something for you then it must be strictly voluntary. Being rewarding for you hard work by the compensation from selling your product. This rather then feigning poverty or stealing from others under color of law in the name of the common good etc. using the excuse we must all sacrifice for others or the common good etc.
Thats The Key hawkeye And The Science of Being Rich...
by Wallace Wattles says it better than anything. All the gurus on growing weather it's mind,body, or spirit or wealth got their ides from him. Amazing man and covers this unlike no other and I would be willing to bet she read Wattles "The Science of Being Rich":
Qoute:
"What I got from reading her views in Atlas Shrugged was that sacrifice for the good of the collective does not work. What works is paying attention to self to become all you can and thus by becoming a producer you are then a real blessing to society by making life better for others by what you produce that benefit society.
Wow
Yes I think I'll pull up a chair and hang out for awhile. I am impressed and satisfied by this thread. Yes society would prosper. In fact dare I say thrive.
Liberty is paramount to the individual.
Hmmmmm, Further Thought
Are we really talking about "EGO"?
"Our value to one another can not measured. It is measurments that have divided us."
LIVE and let live.
A thought...
~To thine own self be true~
I've read through this thread and while there are some good answers, one thing keeps popping up that I don't agree with.
Let me preface this by saying that it isn't from a Christian standpoint, but what I believe to be a moral one.
First off, selfishness has a bad rap. To me it is a good quality, if BALANCED. To strive for being the best you can be in every area possible should be viewed as a good thing. That is actually selfish. However, it certainly can help not only those around you, but society in general, as Rand points out. IF BALANCED. Balance here, as in all things, is paramount to the thoughts or deeds themselves.
Now to what I disagree with... selflessness. Defined as doing something for another for no gain. Is that really possible in reality? Not really. Good deeds and charity HAVE a personal gain for those that practice them, after all. In the immediate, it makes you feel good. (Or should.. we'll keep sociopaths out of this for now!). In the long-term you are bettering your environment, be it emotional, physical or social. What it REALLY does, however, is that it provides balance to the things that you do for yourself.
To think about it another way, you cannot technically be ~purely~ selfish OR selfless, as defined. Because if you were purely selfish (and rational), you would perform selfless acts for the benefit of your own life. Being purely selfless implies that you are only doing things for others with no thought of benefit to yourself... but you are actually benefitting.
So to me it boils down to what everything else eventually boils down to.. finding and maintaining a balance.
So while the example you put up in reference to Illuminati, etc looks on the surface to be purely selfish, it is not. It is actually self-destructive in the long-term, which is not selfish at all. It is merely short-sighted.
In my world, everyone should strive to be selfish, with all that implies. The world would be a much better place... :)
~Live life to its fullest... with open arms, an open heart and most importantly, an open mind.~
I agree with this statement --
"So to me it boils down to what everything else eventually boils down to.. finding and maintaining a balance."
When looking at the yin-yang, there is a black and white side but tiny circles of black and white within these sides but opposing one another. I see this as "a little good in the bad and a little bad in the good".
Selfishness Is Our Bent
I disagree. You see, we as human being are already inherently selfish. It is part of our nature. The fact is that we will never cease to be selfish even if we our absolute best to try to be selfless because even then we would be seeking to bring some different kind of reward for ourselves. The Bible does not shy away from this, but it is packed with promises of future rewards in heaven and the peace of God in our hearts on this earth.
I am not advocating for selflessness. I am advocating that we remove selfishness as the new idol of the age. Placing selfishness as the paramount virtue will result in a destructive and isolated world devoid of love. The key problem here, I believe, is that we do not believe these words of wisdom:
Our hearts, not wanting to give up the selfishness it craves, seek to justify our behavior by attaching more virtue to it than it deserves.
Selfishness and self-preservation will always exist. I have never met a person who was not selfish on some level. This is why Jesus commanded us to "love our neighbor as ourselves" because he knew that we already loved ourselves more than anyone else in the world. We don't need to love ourselves any more than we already do. We need to show that same level of love and concern for other people.
Rather than desiring selfishness as the paragon of virtue, I would submit integrity, humility, and compassion.
"I would submit integrity, humility, and compassion."
Even the choice to be humble and compassionate is a selfish choice.
Selfishness has been given a negative spin. Mainly by people who want you to do something their way. I don't see it as good or bad. It's inescapable. Every choice you make -- even one to sacrifice your life for another is a selfish choice.
Take breathing. It's pretty obvious why it's good for you, but breathing also slowly kills us through oxidation. So, is breathing good or bad?
As soon as a person makes a choice, it's a selfish one.
Selfishness is inescapable and I'm not sure why the word needs a value judgment attached.
It is a trait, however...
You cannot just ~remove~ it, no more than you would want to remove self-preservation.
What it needs to be is balanced with your other traits, not brought to the forefront as a primary trait.
After all, personal integrity is not mutually exclusive to selfishness... neither is humility or compassion.
Our main issue as a people is not that we are selfish.. it is that most of us are unbalanced.
:)
~Live life to its fullest... with open arms, an open heart and most importantly, an open mind.~
I agree...
Would a living being learn more from a selfish person or a kind whole hearted person. No they would probably starve to death for love compassion, needless to say the food for life itself... Love from the selfish. If you are not willing to do, or be something, anything for another that you care about. Those around you would simply isolate themselves from you to protect the loving enviroment for which they strive for and encourage.
I know what kind of person I would like to be around.
A real friend is one who walks in when the rest of the world walks out. ~ Walter Winchell
Actually...
Love is an extremely selfish act. After all, you are ~in love~ for the feeling YOU get. To make the most of it, a selfish person would nurture the relationship, allow it to grow to its utmost possibilities...
Because you get more out of it, both giving and receiving. Balance, again.
You can be selfish and kind, of course. In fact, that would be much better than selfish and unkind... you get more out of the world around you if you are kind. You also get more out of the experience yourself, emotionally.
Selfish is only a bad thing if it is a primary trait... as any other trait would be.
~Live life to its fullest... with open arms, an open heart and most importantly, an open mind.~
Minor correction,
Devon, while I am otherwise almost completely agreeing with you on this thread: Selfishness is only a bad thing if it is a solitary trait; it is necessarily the primary thing because we are egocentric.
In other words, if I were to boil it down base economic terms, self gratification, like all other sensory phenomena, is subject to the principle of marginal utility. The last bite is nowhere near as satisfying as the first. Because we are egocentric AND gregarious (to varying degrees each of us) we need to take care of ourselves and each other, and we can't take care of anyone until we have taken care of ourselves first.
We must be selfish, in order to survive.
As always, muchos majalos for the keen perception.
Thank you!
That was bothering me as I wrote on this subject, but I was unable to articulate it.
NOT primary.. solitary. As in with nothing there to balance it... :)
~Live life to its fullest... with open arms, an open heart and most importantly, an open mind.~
I feel like we are speaking a different language with some of these words. This is the definition of love that I use:
Love is sacrificing some of your own wants and desires and considering someone else's wants and desires instead. True love gives even to people who may never return the favor simply because you care about them. I have posted the definition of selfishness below, and by that definition, love simply cannot be selfish. They are exclusive. The minute love becomes selfish, it ceases to be love.
Just as the potency of the term child abuse is lessened when you broaden its definition to include any kind of disciplinary action, true selfishness is losing its meaning by broadening its definition so that it includes any direct or indirect benefit to the individual.
You are correct...
I'm using a different language. Call it filter removal for the day...lol.
Love is sacrificing some of your own wants and desires and considering someone else's wants and desires instead.
No. Love is allowing your partner to do whatever they want or need to do in this world... the freedom to grow, explore, become themselves. You do not need to compromise to do this... that is a cop-out. Love is allowing your partner to be themselves without compromise. Love is listening, being a sounding-board for whatever ideas they bounce off of you. Love is telling the truth in that situation... not because you want to hurt them, but because you want them to grow personally. Love is telling your partner the same and knowing that they will tell you what they think.. not what they think you want to hear. So you can grow too.
Is self-growth selfish?... :)
~Live life to its fullest... with open arms, an open heart and most importantly, an open mind.~
That makes a lot of sense. But there are also times when you do have to sacrifice for your partner -- to put aside your selfish desires for a while to help them or encourage them.
And no, I would not call self-growth selfish. :-)
Different language still...
Why would you want to go fishing, for instance, if your partner needed your help?
In helping her, are you not getting the satisfaction of helping her? Which would probably beat fishing, in this instance...lol.
A bad analogy, I think... but somewhat workable.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you are in love with someone, thier needs overshadow your wants. And vice-versa. You are not compromising in taking care of thier needs because they are more important to you than your wants. And vice-versa. So you are not giving up anything, you are gaining something.
It sounds confusing, but if you live it, you'll find that there really is no compromise at all.
~Live life to its fullest... with open arms, an open heart and most importantly, an open mind.~
Well said, and I think we are getting ever closer to the same language. :-)
This is the heart of unselfishness -- allowing their needs to overshadow your wants. A selfish person simply cannot do this because they are preoccupied with themselves. This is the danger I see with elevating selfishness -- particularly in a society where the word can mean so many things to different people. To most people I believe, selfishness will mean doing what I want when I want. To hear someone say that we should all strive to be selfish is to encourage the very behaviors that are tearing apart our country today.
Perhaps what you and Lisa are trying to do is redefine the word selfishness, but I think that is only going to lead to trouble. Perhaps you should try to find a different word that is already closer to the meaning you are trying to say.
K...
This is the heart of unselfishness -- allowing their needs to overshadow your wants. A selfish person simply cannot do this because they are preoccupied with themselves.
But I'm doing it because I want to. I'm not preoccupied with myself.. I just like the feeling I get.
Sel.fish adj Concerned chiefly or only with oneself.
Is the definition I just looked up...
I believe every morning when I wake up that the entire planet is there for me... it is my stage, my experiences of the day.. it is my playground. I am with my mate because I want to be... not because I need to be. Bad things that happen during the day are there to teach me lessons in life so that I may grow to be what I consider a better person. In doing so, I am a better person to and for the people around me.
I fit, I think, that definition. After all, I just typed a whole lotta ~I~....lol
However, only by living that way are you free to honestly feel compasssion, real love, truth, freedom.
Self.less adj Having, exhibiting, or motivated by no concern for oneself
This to me would be a bad thing... if you are not concerned with one's self, what good are you to others? How can you grow to be of use to anyone if you cannot take the time for yourself?
Keep in mind, English is not my first (or second) language, so I may be confusing a WHOLE lotta nuances here. Either that, or there are filters that you need to be aware of on this subject.
I'm not the one to make that call, since again I'm on the outside looking in on this.
No disrespect intended on this thread or in this forum, but I'm really not trying to redifine a word.
~Live life to its fullest... with open arms, an open heart and most importantly, an open mind.~
ah... but which 'love'?
there's romantic love and unconditional love.
romantic love isn't unconditional.
romantic love is selfish and unconditional love is unselfish.
romantic love is chemical. unconditional love isn't. weird...i know.
so i can see why you say we have to be balanced.
I don't think you can make such black and white statements. Love is eternal, boundless and weaves in out of many different things, (even the killing of a beloved that is suffering)Romance is a subset of love and when we put them together magic can truly happen. The flood gates open and we experience highs we never knew. A similar beautiful thing happens when you have a baby...our daily lives bog us down and negativity clouds some of our magic...ah but the experience is never forgotten. It's why we have them so we can draw on them during drought conditions
i'd suggest reading ram's book 'elixir'
he'll say it better than i ever will.
the research candace pert does .... her book 'molecules of emotions' goes into it. she's done more recent work now. plus she's an rse student now... so her new research will be revealing.
I am aware of this part Of Ramtha's work more than others , and I think if you tweezed out what my experience is and Ramtha's experience they wouldn't be that far apart but my view is my own unique one which is what we are all here for is to have our very own unique experience ; )
Well..
Romantic love certainly can be unconditional, if done correctly. In fact, it makes it better.. complete.
Then you don't have to deal with things like guilt or jealousy.
Balance in all things makes you free... :)
~Live life to its fullest... with open arms, an open heart and most importantly, an open mind.~
then you are coming from a place of unconditional love....
you can unconditionally love your romantic partner.
kay.. why the hell am i in this thread?!!
Sorry.. lemme explain....
By unconditional love, I mean exactly that.. you expect nothing in return. Honestly, literally, to the core of your being.
If you have a partner that feels the same, do you know how many doors that opens?
What would you expect to get out of that kind of relationship?
And how would you NOT consider that romantic?
~Live life to its fullest... with open arms, an open heart and most importantly, an open mind.~
That's the problem with English: love means so many things in this language -- from sensual attraction to infatuation (including inanimate objects) to unconditional love to the act of sex itself. It is times like these that I start to hate English. ;-)
Ya..
Hopi have 31 words for love.
English has one all-inclusive one.
I'm hard-pressed to even explain the concept in English... :(
~Live life to its fullest... with open arms, an open heart and most importantly, an open mind.~
yeah, i ~get~ what you are saying now.
kay... like ~maybe~ 0.5% of the world's relationships are that.
i'm aware of the doors that opens.
i can see why you'd call that 'romantic'.
but you can have that with friends, children, parents.
are you calling it 'romantic' because of the sexual aspect?
Good point.
that's the love ram says is fourth seal....
Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
(1Co 13:4-7 ESV)
Ayn Rand: The "Accidental Christian"
Ayn Rand: The "Accidental Christian"...
I am formulating this essay in my mind. God knows Ayn would despise the label. ;)
However, I got all "Rand" after my meltdown and watched the Mike Wallace interview again, the same video where I got the light bulb moment about our "possibly true" motives for action. Then I went on to watch the Donahue interview. PHEW!
I came away with this feeling: that the truth is an offense, but not a sin. And Christ came to offend them one and all right? Without offense and bristle, there's no easy way to communicate Rand's message either. Her message is offensive unless you allow the new thoughts past the voodoo filter in your brain. But if you sift for gold with your filter, all of a sudden, Rand sounds a lot like God's Word.
Even if I used Rand's "reason" only, I still come away without an attack on my Christian foundation. I am not offended by Rand, I am excited by the challenge.
A point she made that I found poignant was, paraphrasing, "why do we sacrifice our son for the neighbor's son?" I feel the weight of this question. I've been taught that in all cases, one should put themselves behind others except in cases of self-defense, when presented with immediate threat. I've made "good sacrifices" and "bad sacrifices" in my life. But now I realize that I should have exercised more internal oversight of my "sacrifices" and should have been "more selfish" and not bent to "the world". (Sorry a lot of my words are in "airquotes"...almost nothing seems clearly defined anymore)
There is a "hierarchy of God". If we believe the Bible, is the divinely inspired Word of God, He clearly sets a hierarchy of "power". He instructs we put Him first, ourselves second, spouse third (actually second and third place flip and flop sometimes as God instructs to love your wife as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it), children and immediate family fourth, friends and so on fifth and so on and so on. I could dig up the scripture right now but I'll lose focus if I try to dig it up but it is there. Corinthians or Thessalonians I think. It is just like a ship's organization really. So I'll get a little Dr. Philish here and say that if you "break the vows of marriage" and there are children involved, and you remarry -- your wife who should be third alone, should become lateral to the children who physically came from the first marriage. Thus some squirrely problems in the God-funnel working as it should family-wise in decision making. This is not a condemnation of anyone as my family is a product of remarriage. Just saying, there's always "hellda pay" for breaking a vow to God but nevertheless He has grace (unmerited favor) and does bless a spiritually healthy family no matter the mix. It's tough sometimes but there are always consequences, no matter if you saved yourself in the process.
So Rand says "why do we sacrifice our son for the neighbor's son?" and the Bible says:
1 Timothy 5:8
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
So does this not say, at the least, to "put family first"? (Some of my atheist friends might take offense to the comparison of "non-believer" but this is God's distaste being represented and his measurement. I didn't write the Bible but believe someone who neglects their family is twistedly wrong.)
Like Ayn Rand, God is not saying "only sacrifice and provide for family" and "squander your gifts" but rather spend them on God, yourself and your family first, then go out among the "mission field". And don't buy into the trick that you owe anyone outside that realm. You should give willingly outside that realm. God illustrates over and over that the only way to refill an overflowing cup is to pour some content out first. We are commanded to give (Tithe, time, talent) and I'd say "to the widow and orphan". This is God's commandment of course and not any government's business.
I found many things provocative in listening to Ayn Rand, I have a few more arguments I could build on but honestly these "reasonings" are harsh on the "soul". I have to tumble these thoughts around in my heart because I choose to use not only reason, but prayer and reasoning and prayer and reasoning, in that order. God also instructs to NEVER act quickly, that is a trick of the adversary. God will always offer time for "prayer and reason"...employing this habit buffers many spiritual insults. So I'm still ingesting Ayn Rand.
I do believe:
1 John 3:16
Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
...however I believe taken in context of what the entire Bible reveals, laying down your life should be an entirely truthful choice, and not manipulated by the fraud or desire of others. If a clear choice is made, that is between themselves and God; back to the hierarchy. That last breath you take, it's only you and God for it.
....I'm hungry and tired. That's all I've got for now. :)
I am curious on your list of priorities how our selves ranked at #2. The way I look at it, our priorities according to the Bible should be:
What are the scriptures that support placing ourselves second on the list?
"* God -- following His
"* God -- following His commands and precepts and the leading of the Holy Spirit.
* Our family -- Honor your father and mother, love your wife/submit to your husband, provide for your children.
* Our church -- seek to build up and encourage others, love our brothers and sisters in Christ
* Our community -- not in the political sense but in the sense that you are looking for ways to serve people personally out of love because of the love God showed us.
* Our selves
I agree with you but I think we could be splitting hairs. My husband says that you're meaning "social responsibilities" and if you'd ask would I give my life for someone "under me" in the hierarchy of God, the answer is yes. That's not the angle I'm taking. I'm kind of asking "why worry about God's Temple" and all the stuff we do to be "pure and worthy" if we're not the first mate in this relationship with God? Why deny that you have to live for you and you only in answering to God? I mean, in the end, that is ultimately true.
1 Thessalonians 4:1-12
Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.
For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.
For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;
Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:
That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.
For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.
He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.
But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another.
And indeed ye do it toward all the brethren which are in all Macedonia: but we beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more;
And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;
That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.
To me, literally don't you have to put yourself above all others in defense in some ways? As nothing should come between you and God? I think I'm talking in a literal sense and not of social responsibility. After all, in the beginning, God was only a "voice in the Garden", and He spoke directly to Adam and Eve. It seems ridiculous to try to say that one "has to" put themselves "under" someone else, but one should submit oneself to another as called for only between the agreement of God and the "sacrificer". That's all I was implying...I hope...
I could keep on writing... ;)
You know that "church" is when two or more are gathered in His name and so right now, you and I are having church. It has nothing to do with the physical buildings we call church right? So the "church" and the "community" are your mission field right? We're together on this. Literally when you cross the threshold of your home every day, you are entering the mission field. I'm simply saying how can one be effective for Christ if he lowers himself all the time and "allows abuse" by "sacrificing" himself? I am not even considering the revoking of charity or passing judgment on what is charity I'm simply saying I don't agree with any "you must do this for so and so" hogwash coming from any man.
I won't go so far to say it is "evil" as Rand says concerning our sacrificing ourselves for another. I'm suggesting that often we are merely guilt tripped or deceived into giving our authority away. It seems foolish then to allow abuses like a "dog returneth to his vomit". It seems to be evil to allow evil upon yourself once it's identified...
Titus 3:10
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject...
Perhaps I'm over the hill now and have been somebody or other's carpet far too many times and have some sort of problem with "casting pearls before swine" and am afraid of my own sacrifices. I do have faith that I am working out my own salvation in fear and trembling, as no one else seems to (in a core way), be doing that for me.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. This includes your spouse, your kids, your family, your friends, the country, the dog, the tv, the banks, the bucks, the arts and sciences, the politicians, the yadda yadda yadda.
Think about the conduit of titheing. What is the hierarchy there? Each soul "owes". Who does the ower owe? God. It's a direct path. (Nothing wrong with giving your home church this tithe. Nothing wrong with giving the money to the "Will work for food" guy. It's all God's money. He'll get it out of you one way or another because it's owed. What happens if the money is used dishonestly and out of the will of God? Not your problem if you gave it honestly.) Many people consider giving of their time, talent or tithe a sacrifice. (Perhaps it is a "prescription for joy".)
Fasting -- who can fast for you? Yet this is one of the most powerful means of sacrifice and facing God. Two times a year God requires this and promises many blessings on us for our participation.
Consider what Paul says:
1 Corinthians 9:27
But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
So then between you and God and your fierce and faithful relationship, and your subjection, you can choose to love all others "above yourself" when in line with the "God of your heart, your Captain".
SCButterfly, yes, I think we are splitting hairs. I see now where you are coming from. You are talking about our personal responsibility for our own faith and relationship with God.
I can definitely agree with that.
Also, in regard to the church, I absolutely agree. In looking at the post, I can see how it could easily be misconstrued. What I meant was the brothers and sisters in Christ that we live among and interact with. I have attended numerous denominations and consider myself a member of none. The church is not an organization; it is a collection of people who are committed to Jesus Christ. When I refer to "church", that is what I am talking about. Loyalty to a particular church or denomination can easily turn into idolatry.
My main point is that selfishness is not something we should focus on or exalt. While we certainly have to take responsibility for our lives and work on growing and learning -- developing our gifts, talents, and faith -- we need to remember that it is not all about us.
Yep we agree
:)
When was the only time a car was mentioned in the Bible?
When they were all in one accord. ;)
14 Traits of Leadership...
As posted on DP Look at the 10th one...
There are 14 leadership traits...
On June 22nd, 2009 loyaltothecrazyuncle says:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmc/leadership_traits.htm
A real friend is one who walks in when the rest of the world walks out. ~ Walter Winchell
i pretty much agree with that.
the worldview would probably work if we were of a higher spiritual consciousness. we're not.
being selfish to pursue spiritual growth and self-care are good things. however, we can never ignore our responsibilities without consequences.
responsibility is a little concept we all like to ignore.
we like to shout 'freedom' but we rarely shout 'responsibility'.
i think the environmental movement is the perfect example of that. companies sure don't want to take responsibility for the pollution that is created in the production of their product, or the distribution of their product or the use of their product.
individuals sure don't want to refrain from using those products if it sacrifices their comfort and convenience.
people conveniently see the earth as a dead thing, so they are comfortable doing whatever they want to 'it'. not an unusal thing to happen. that was done with indians, black people and is still being done to women all around the world.
you can own women, abuse women. who cares. they're souless anyways. right?
its no wonder we're on the verge of this experiment being shut down.
Well I'm about done.
What is this flesh we claim so dear. Is it not but the vehicle to enlightenment.
Life, it's the most addicting drug. We need some spiritual psychiatrist to help people understand this.
"a simple judgment of my character is how I treat a person who can do absolutely nothing for me." -Stephen Howard
"The most thoroughly wasted of all days is one in which you haven't laughed" -Julian Howard
Whoever finds his life will
you speak in such
crazy sorceress tongues, I'm not sure whether to burn you at the stake or kiss you.
"a simple judgment of my character is how I treat a person who can do absolutely nothing for me." -Stephen Howard
"The most thoroughly wasted of all days is one in which you haven't laughed" -Julian Howard
Perhaps these verses are more
LOL.
Perhaps these verses are more clear:
These are the words of Jesus confirming what you are saying. We need to let go of ourselves, our selfishness, and strive to live outside of ourselves.
I understood you the first time.
I was being comical.. Glad you spelled it out tho...haha
"a simple judgment of my character is how I treat a person who can do absolutely nothing for me." -Stephen Howard
"The most thoroughly wasted of all days is one in which you haven't laughed" -Julian Howard
I figured I would play it on the safe side. ;-)
A Provacative Word ~ Selfish
Whilst I agree with your reasoning, I must speak up for what Ayn Rand really meant with her philosophy.
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=406&h=42
In her mind, we could not expand "our" view of what is right and good unless we were selfish in "our" beliefs.
Maybe if you just replace the word "selfish" with "tenacious" one may get a truer understanding of her thoughts.
"To thine own self, be true."
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
This also speaks {{loudly}} to individual responsibility.
LIVE and let live.
That makes a degree of sense. I definitely believe in individual responsibility, and I am not trying to say that all selfishness is bad. I understand that the free market utilizes our selfish tendencies to drive the economy of our society by rewarding hard work, and really, it is probably the best way to run an economy.
The problem I have is the argument taken in "Freedom Watch" is that selfishness is the basis of morality. Unless there is a higher moral code, selfishness will undermine the moral fiber of our society resulting in lawlessness.
The problem, I believe, is that the definition of selfishness is being blurred. Consider the official definitions from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
This is calling selfishness what it is. We can try to justify or excuse it, but we need to really wrestle with our decisions to see if it is good or if it is selfish (in the actual meaning of the word). Given our bent toward selfishness, I think we are guilty of full selfishness far more than we would like to admit.
The problem I have with saying that we simply protect our own is that there are times when doing what is right will hurt ourselves or those we love. Consider a situation where a person you love deeply has committed a premeditated murder. Selfishness would tell you to protect or justify that person, but justice would say that they must pay for their crimes.
I do not think it is wise to hold selfishness as the chief virtue. Neither do I think that we should enforce a moral code by force. Rather, we should consider how we can exhibit a moral character in ourselves and thus influence those around us to choose a higher and better way. We should encourage and exhort each other to live lives of integrity, love, and humility.
Remember, being humble does not mean that you are a doormat. Ron Paul is one of the most humble people I have ever run across, but his record of standing for convictions and doing what is right because it is right (even when politically disadvantageous) is anything but cowardly or surrendering.
We Must Be The Change
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi
That, in some people's eyes = selfishness = we
LIVE and let live.