How Can The Truth Be Offensive?
News1 min ago
Suggestions please...
81 Answers
I'm going to gift some money to a neighbor anonymously, but would like to include a bible passage. I'd very much appreciate some fitting suggestions.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Answers
Incognito2 –
That's a very nice thing to do.
How about “... Please accept the present that was brought to you, for God has been gracious to me and I have all I need”? [Genesis 33:11, New Internationa
That's a very nice thing to do.
How about “... Please accept the present that was brought to you, for God has been gracious to me and I have all I need”? [Genesis 33:11, New Internationa
01:27 Sat 05th May 2012
Naomi, I just want you to know how much it grieves me how unjustly you have been treated by the thread police once again here in this thread. I've not always agreed 100% with your opinions and we've had some dreadful misunderstandings in the past but I hope I've never been guilty of trying to censor you? :o/
Birdie, I asked if you were referring to me only because, until Mibs late arrival, there were no posts here from any other ‘known atheist’ questioning the OP’s proposed gesture.
As for ‘sycophancy’, why on earth would you assume I was referring to you? I was simply saying I don’t seek favours,that’s all. I regret your misunderstanding, but my comment wasn’t aimed at you personally, there is no slight, and therefore there is nothing to withdraw.
Mibs, thank you. It’s really appreciated. The OP said he doesn’t want to upset the recipient, therefore it’s quite clear that he’s not sure his gift will be received in the spirit in which it is given – but perhaps those who encouraged him to blunder ahead regardless of the potentially damaging results missed that bit. So much for trying to help. This is potty!
As for ‘sycophancy’, why on earth would you assume I was referring to you? I was simply saying I don’t seek favours,that’s all. I regret your misunderstanding, but my comment wasn’t aimed at you personally, there is no slight, and therefore there is nothing to withdraw.
Mibs, thank you. It’s really appreciated. The OP said he doesn’t want to upset the recipient, therefore it’s quite clear that he’s not sure his gift will be received in the spirit in which it is given – but perhaps those who encouraged him to blunder ahead regardless of the potentially damaging results missed that bit. So much for trying to help. This is potty!
The desire to be helpful does not absolve one of the responsibility of giving. Giving implies receiving and involves a mutual relationship. One hopes that ones gift will be received in the spirit intended and likewise appreciated, otherwise the giver has defeated their own purpose and everyone loses, the worst consequence of all perhaps being the continuing desire to be helpful.
I know of nothing that can be more satisfying and rewarding than an act of giving that ultimately proves beneficial in the long run nor anything more painful than rejection. But there is no gift of more value to anyone than the right to choose and to be the author of ones own destiny and means of ones own success, some advise you might want to keep in mind when giving . . . but then the choice is yours.
I know of nothing that can be more satisfying and rewarding than an act of giving that ultimately proves beneficial in the long run nor anything more painful than rejection. But there is no gift of more value to anyone than the right to choose and to be the author of ones own destiny and means of ones own success, some advise you might want to keep in mind when giving . . . but then the choice is yours.
Mibs - “... Giving implies receiving and involves a mutual relationship...”
Once again, I disagree with that. I don't see how giving necessarily implies receiving. I mentioned organ donation earlier and that seems like an apposite analogy. I am an organ donor and an atheist. I will gain nothing if some of my organs are harvested after my death. It could be argued that I receive some satisfaction (ie. reward) whilst I am alive from the knowledge that my death may benefit someone else when I croak but if that's true, (and I'm not sure that it is) it's a pretty hollow benefit and certainly not one that involves a mutual relationship with anyone.
Why is it not true that giving can be entirely altruistic?
Once again, I disagree with that. I don't see how giving necessarily implies receiving. I mentioned organ donation earlier and that seems like an apposite analogy. I am an organ donor and an atheist. I will gain nothing if some of my organs are harvested after my death. It could be argued that I receive some satisfaction (ie. reward) whilst I am alive from the knowledge that my death may benefit someone else when I croak but if that's true, (and I'm not sure that it is) it's a pretty hollow benefit and certainly not one that involves a mutual relationship with anyone.
Why is it not true that giving can be entirely altruistic?
// I don't see how giving necessarily implies receiving.//
If there's no receiver then where did it go?
I am an organ donor and an atheist. I will gain nothing if some of my organs are harvested after my death. It could be argued that I receive some satisfaction (ie. reward) whilst I am alive from the knowledge that my death may benefit someone else when I croak but if that's true, (and I'm not sure that it is) it's a pretty hollow benefit and certainly not one that involves a mutual relationship with anyone.
Checking a box on your driver's license in the hopes of saving someone's life, what has that cost you personally in excess of what you personally potentially stand to gain should you happen to be on the receiving end of someone else's choice to check the box? Not saying that you took that into consideration when you made the supreme sacrifice of the effort to check the box, but perhaps you can come up with a better example?
Someone might even be willing to die on a cross for the privilege of being worshipped for all eternity. If that prospect happens to appeal to them then . . . where's the sacrifice?
Altruism - Payment made to someone else to relieve the guilt of being alive . . . what a shame.
I have no beef with choosing to give something to someone else capable of appreciating the value of what they have received. Those capable of appreciation realise they are indebted to you. If you're looking for an example of true altruism it would be handing a loaded gun to someone whose desire is to rob, or better yet, murder you for the simple satisfaction of doing so. That, my friend, is the un-stated premise behind and the logical absurdity of altruism.
It comes to no surprise to me that few people understand much of what I'm attempting to communicate. I don't necessary follow 'the rules', in fact, I have no idea what 'the rules' are. You are always welcome to ask for a clarification because I think what I have to share is important and I'm fully aware that successful communication is a mutual and hopefully mutually beneficial relationship . . . I seek no other kind.
If there's no receiver then where did it go?
I am an organ donor and an atheist. I will gain nothing if some of my organs are harvested after my death. It could be argued that I receive some satisfaction (ie. reward) whilst I am alive from the knowledge that my death may benefit someone else when I croak but if that's true, (and I'm not sure that it is) it's a pretty hollow benefit and certainly not one that involves a mutual relationship with anyone.
Checking a box on your driver's license in the hopes of saving someone's life, what has that cost you personally in excess of what you personally potentially stand to gain should you happen to be on the receiving end of someone else's choice to check the box? Not saying that you took that into consideration when you made the supreme sacrifice of the effort to check the box, but perhaps you can come up with a better example?
Someone might even be willing to die on a cross for the privilege of being worshipped for all eternity. If that prospect happens to appeal to them then . . . where's the sacrifice?
Altruism - Payment made to someone else to relieve the guilt of being alive . . . what a shame.
I have no beef with choosing to give something to someone else capable of appreciating the value of what they have received. Those capable of appreciation realise they are indebted to you. If you're looking for an example of true altruism it would be handing a loaded gun to someone whose desire is to rob, or better yet, murder you for the simple satisfaction of doing so. That, my friend, is the un-stated premise behind and the logical absurdity of altruism.
It comes to no surprise to me that few people understand much of what I'm attempting to communicate. I don't necessary follow 'the rules', in fact, I have no idea what 'the rules' are. You are always welcome to ask for a clarification because I think what I have to share is important and I'm fully aware that successful communication is a mutual and hopefully mutually beneficial relationship . . . I seek no other kind.
Hi Mibs.
Your definition of altruism is not one I've ever come across before. Doing a quick search on t'internet, I see it defined as, “... Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness...”, and on my lovely Kindle (Oxford English Dictionary), it is defined as, “...disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others...”. That's a somewhat different definition to the one you're using. Where have you got yours from?
“... you personally potentially stand to gain should you happen to be on the receiving end of someone else's choice to check the box? Not saying that you took that into consideration...”
You're right – I didn't. If I were the only person in the world with an organ donor card I would still carry it since I think it is only right and proper to offer up my organs after my death to anyone who may be able to use them. I expect absolutely nothing in return.
“... If you're looking for an example of true altruism it would be handing a loaded gun to someone whose desire is to rob, or better yet, murder you for the simple satisfaction of doing so. That, my friend, is the un-stated premise behind and the logical absurdity of altruism...”
No it isn't. Your example is entirely spurious. Altruism doesn't rob the proposer of their mental faculties or their right (and will) to preserve their own existence. Altruism is the concern for others – it does not imply a dereliction in the concern for oneself. I think your argument hinges on your understanding of the word. I believe that you have wrongly interpreted this word and as a consequence of this, have reached an erroneous conclusion.
“...I don't necessary follow 'the rules', in fact, I have no idea what 'the rules' are...”
There's a logical inconsistency to your statement. If you have no idea what the rules are, how can you be sure you're not following them even subliminally? In order to be aware that you don't follow the rules, you must first be aware what those rules are...
;-)
Your definition of altruism is not one I've ever come across before. Doing a quick search on t'internet, I see it defined as, “... Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness...”, and on my lovely Kindle (Oxford English Dictionary), it is defined as, “...disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others...”. That's a somewhat different definition to the one you're using. Where have you got yours from?
“... you personally potentially stand to gain should you happen to be on the receiving end of someone else's choice to check the box? Not saying that you took that into consideration...”
You're right – I didn't. If I were the only person in the world with an organ donor card I would still carry it since I think it is only right and proper to offer up my organs after my death to anyone who may be able to use them. I expect absolutely nothing in return.
“... If you're looking for an example of true altruism it would be handing a loaded gun to someone whose desire is to rob, or better yet, murder you for the simple satisfaction of doing so. That, my friend, is the un-stated premise behind and the logical absurdity of altruism...”
No it isn't. Your example is entirely spurious. Altruism doesn't rob the proposer of their mental faculties or their right (and will) to preserve their own existence. Altruism is the concern for others – it does not imply a dereliction in the concern for oneself. I think your argument hinges on your understanding of the word. I believe that you have wrongly interpreted this word and as a consequence of this, have reached an erroneous conclusion.
“...I don't necessary follow 'the rules', in fact, I have no idea what 'the rules' are...”
There's a logical inconsistency to your statement. If you have no idea what the rules are, how can you be sure you're not following them even subliminally? In order to be aware that you don't follow the rules, you must first be aware what those rules are...
;-)
//Hi Mibs.
Your definition of altruism is not one I've ever come across before. Doing a quick search on t'internet, I see it defined as, “... Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness...”, and on my lovely Kindle (Oxford English Dictionary), it is defined as, “...disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others...”. That's a somewhat different definition to the one you're using. Where have you got yours from?//
I made it up. :o)
What I'm referring to with my use of the term 'altruism' is acting in opposition to ones own rational self interest, which is just as amoral as expecting someone else to act against their own rational self interest.
//“... you personally potentially stand to gain should you happen to be on the receiving end of someone else's choice to check the box? Not saying that you took that into consideration...”
You're right – I didn't. If I were the only person in the world with an organ donor card I would still carry it since I think it is only right and proper to offer up my organs after my death to anyone who may be able to use them. I expect absolutely nothing in return.//
Unless your organ donor card specifies no objection to being murdered by someone for whom your organs are a perfect match, I see nothing wrong with that, (see above ‘definition’) . . . I might strongly object however to a donor (living or dead) slipping an organ (of any kind) unannounced through my mail slot. :o/
By the way, if your wondering what for all the organ jokes?, I happen to be, by request, not by design, amongst other things, an organ technician, (the musical variety) . They’re a dime a dozen in that profession . . . but for you, no extra charge. (In fact, today I’ll be responding to a message left on my answering machine by a giggling female requesting my services . . . priceless!)
“... If you're looking for an example of true altruism it would be handing a loaded gun to someone whose desire is to rob, or better yet, murder you for the simple satisfaction of doing so. That, my friend, is the un-stated premise behind and the logical absurdity of altruism...”
No it isn't. Your example is entirely spurious. Altruism doesn't rob the proposer of their mental faculties or their right (and will) to preserve their own existence. Altruism is the concern for others – it does not imply a dereliction in the concern for oneself. I think your argument hinges on your understanding of the word. I believe that you have wrongly interpreted this word and as a consequence of this, have reached an erroneous conclusion.//
Non-sacrificial altruism. As the focus of my attention is temporarily diverted to other interests at the moment, I suppose I can live with that . . . for now.
//“...I don't necessary follow 'the rules', in fact, I have no idea what 'the rules' are...”
There's a logical inconsistency to your statement. If you have no idea what the rules are, how can you be sure you're not following them even subliminally? In order to be aware that you don't follow the rules, you must first be aware what those rules are...
;-)//
Not necessarily. Some of us have reservations regarding following invisible ‘leaders’ . . . ;o)
Duty calls . . . I’ll try harder next time. :o)
By the way, congrats on being awarded best answer . . . you old devil you. >;o)
Your definition of altruism is not one I've ever come across before. Doing a quick search on t'internet, I see it defined as, “... Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness...”, and on my lovely Kindle (Oxford English Dictionary), it is defined as, “...disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others...”. That's a somewhat different definition to the one you're using. Where have you got yours from?//
I made it up. :o)
What I'm referring to with my use of the term 'altruism' is acting in opposition to ones own rational self interest, which is just as amoral as expecting someone else to act against their own rational self interest.
//“... you personally potentially stand to gain should you happen to be on the receiving end of someone else's choice to check the box? Not saying that you took that into consideration...”
You're right – I didn't. If I were the only person in the world with an organ donor card I would still carry it since I think it is only right and proper to offer up my organs after my death to anyone who may be able to use them. I expect absolutely nothing in return.//
Unless your organ donor card specifies no objection to being murdered by someone for whom your organs are a perfect match, I see nothing wrong with that, (see above ‘definition’) . . . I might strongly object however to a donor (living or dead) slipping an organ (of any kind) unannounced through my mail slot. :o/
By the way, if your wondering what for all the organ jokes?, I happen to be, by request, not by design, amongst other things, an organ technician, (the musical variety) . They’re a dime a dozen in that profession . . . but for you, no extra charge. (In fact, today I’ll be responding to a message left on my answering machine by a giggling female requesting my services . . . priceless!)
“... If you're looking for an example of true altruism it would be handing a loaded gun to someone whose desire is to rob, or better yet, murder you for the simple satisfaction of doing so. That, my friend, is the un-stated premise behind and the logical absurdity of altruism...”
No it isn't. Your example is entirely spurious. Altruism doesn't rob the proposer of their mental faculties or their right (and will) to preserve their own existence. Altruism is the concern for others – it does not imply a dereliction in the concern for oneself. I think your argument hinges on your understanding of the word. I believe that you have wrongly interpreted this word and as a consequence of this, have reached an erroneous conclusion.//
Non-sacrificial altruism. As the focus of my attention is temporarily diverted to other interests at the moment, I suppose I can live with that . . . for now.
//“...I don't necessary follow 'the rules', in fact, I have no idea what 'the rules' are...”
There's a logical inconsistency to your statement. If you have no idea what the rules are, how can you be sure you're not following them even subliminally? In order to be aware that you don't follow the rules, you must first be aware what those rules are...
;-)//
Not necessarily. Some of us have reservations regarding following invisible ‘leaders’ . . . ;o)
Duty calls . . . I’ll try harder next time. :o)
By the way, congrats on being awarded best answer . . . you old devil you. >;o)
Count me amongst those who take no pleasure in being witness to the suffering of others, least of all those who suffer needlessly in a vain attempt to help others. The only way to alleviate suffering in the long run is to establish the cause. Simply throwing money at the problem by treating the symptoms, far from being a cure, tends to promote the disease. The cure is to eliminate the cause and thereby the means by which the effect becomes manifest. It's not the easy way to end suffering but it is, other than upon pain of death, ultimately the only way.
When I watched the horror of 9/11 unfolding on my television screen, the question I asked myself was what I myself had done, in what way was I responsible for the consequences in reality I had just been witness to. The one thing I was sure of was that turning off my television was at best only the first step towards realising a vision of a world in which such horrific events did not take place.
In the days that followed, watching people file into churches to pray to their preferred delusion, I realised that eliminating religion was not the solution. What is needed is an answer to the question of why people turn to religion for answers that can only be found by a mutual understanding of the reality we share. Understanding, which can never be overrated, is not to be found in believing in the hope that having faith will somehow make it real. One can only evade reality for so long until reality comes looking for you and dead of alive, it will eventually find you. The fundamental choice is to understand it now or pick up the pieces later.
In the days that followed, watching people file into churches to pray to their preferred delusion, I realised that eliminating religion was not the solution. What is needed is an answer to the question of why people turn to religion for answers that can only be found by a mutual understanding of the reality we share. Understanding, which can never be overrated, is not to be found in believing in the hope that having faith will somehow make it real. One can only evade reality for so long until reality comes looking for you and dead of alive, it will eventually find you. The fundamental choice is to understand it now or pick up the pieces later.
Mibs - “... Simply throwing money at the problem by treating the symptoms, far from being a cure, tends to promote the disease. The cure is to eliminate the cause...”
You're right: Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for the rest of his life.
I don't know who said that (apart from me just now) but it's a cracker. I also like Terry Pratchett's perverse parallel - “Build a man a fire and he'll be warm all day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.” - which is equally true, if unsavoury.
“... One can only evade reality for so long until reality comes looking for you and dead of alive, it will eventually find you....”
And if it finds you dead...? ;-)
“... What is needed is an answer to the question of why people turn to religion for answers that can only be found by a mutual understanding of the reality we share...”
This is a great question and deserves a thread of its own in my opinion. Do you want to do the honours?
You're right: Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for the rest of his life.
I don't know who said that (apart from me just now) but it's a cracker. I also like Terry Pratchett's perverse parallel - “Build a man a fire and he'll be warm all day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.” - which is equally true, if unsavoury.
“... One can only evade reality for so long until reality comes looking for you and dead of alive, it will eventually find you....”
And if it finds you dead...? ;-)
“... What is needed is an answer to the question of why people turn to religion for answers that can only be found by a mutual understanding of the reality we share...”
This is a great question and deserves a thread of its own in my opinion. Do you want to do the honours?
//“... What is needed is an answer to the question of why people turn to religion for answers that can only be found by a mutual understanding of the reality we share...”
This is a great question and deserves a thread of its own in my opinion. Do you want to do the honours?//
No need to wait for me, birdie. Verbatim or in your own words, as you wish. Who knows . . . I might even contribute myself. :o)
This is a great question and deserves a thread of its own in my opinion. Do you want to do the honours?//
No need to wait for me, birdie. Verbatim or in your own words, as you wish. Who knows . . . I might even contribute myself. :o)
well incognito - i guess what you should take from this reaction - rather than offense - is to tread very carefully here.
i think it is a very nice thing to do and your heart is in the right place but
i think personally i would be a bit freaked out about an anonymous donation attached to a bible verse -
i would be worried i had attracted a stalker who was a religious nut.
i would be glad of the cash, but it would unnerve me...
if you think he wil know its you - then just offer it to his face - just casually in chat say " you know, i can always give/lend you some money if you need it you know?... ive got more than i need so dont worry about paying it back/take as long as you like to repay etc " - i know you dont want it back but it may make them feel less like they are taking charity
if you must do it your way, drop the bible verse - unless you are absolutely certain he feels the same as you about religion... you dont want him to think you are preaching.
some one asked a very good question earlier too - how would you feel if he didnt use it the way you intend?
if he didnt sort himself out and just went on a fancy holiday, or bought a fancy tv etc, or a had a big party and wasted it?
you know you have no say in what he does with it once you give it.
i think it is a very nice thing to do and your heart is in the right place but
i think personally i would be a bit freaked out about an anonymous donation attached to a bible verse -
i would be worried i had attracted a stalker who was a religious nut.
i would be glad of the cash, but it would unnerve me...
if you think he wil know its you - then just offer it to his face - just casually in chat say " you know, i can always give/lend you some money if you need it you know?... ive got more than i need so dont worry about paying it back/take as long as you like to repay etc " - i know you dont want it back but it may make them feel less like they are taking charity
if you must do it your way, drop the bible verse - unless you are absolutely certain he feels the same as you about religion... you dont want him to think you are preaching.
some one asked a very good question earlier too - how would you feel if he didnt use it the way you intend?
if he didnt sort himself out and just went on a fancy holiday, or bought a fancy tv etc, or a had a big party and wasted it?
you know you have no say in what he does with it once you give it.
Latest Posts
Technology5 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
Body & Soul9 mins ago
Home & Garden11 mins ago
