A thought that tickled my brain

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by jiggerj

 

So someone who doesn't love themselves means they love themselves in other ways? If they don't love themselves then they don't love themselves. It doesn't make sense that someone can not love themselves but love themselves in different ways at the same time. That's like saying since they hate themselves then they love themselves by hating themselves, it's illogical.

Is it that you didn't understand what I meant, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? I wrote: "If (SOME) people can NOT love themselves, then they (OTHER THAN THOSE THAT DON'T LOVE THEMSELVES) can certainly love themselves in ways that you or I would not consider love at all.

reply to post by jiggerj


I understood your question and it doesn't make sense. Would you consider hating yourself as loving yourself? Because that's basically what you're implying here.

Love is a concept just like math is. If 2+2=4 then it equals 4, no matter how someone else tries to spin it just like how hate =/= love no matter how YOU try to spin it.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by jiggerj

 

You're assuming that everyone always does good only so they can get that "good feeling" in the end, which is not always the case. The good feeling in the end is not always the reason someone does something good, in fact a lot of the time that good feeling is only a side effect of what they did.

I couldn't disagree more. The TOP reason for doing something good is because it makes us feel good. Mother Theresa didn't help the down and out of India in order to HELP the down and out in India. She did it because she couldn't stand how it felt inside of her to see all that misery. She tried taking away the strife of others in order to take away her own bad feelings about it. This is not a bad thing, but it's not a selfless thing either.

If it didn't make us feel good, then who in their right mind would donate a kidney to someone? Even if it's your own child getting the kidney, it is YOU that wants your child to live. It is YOU making sure that you are performing the ultimate act of a loving parent. Again, not a bad thing at all, but not selfless.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by jiggerj

 

I understood your question and it doesn't make sense. Would you consider hating yourself as loving yourself? Because that's basically what you're implying here.

Love is a concept just like math is. If 2+2=4 then it equals 4, no matter how someone else tries to spin it just like how hate =/= love no matter how YOU try to spin it.

edit on 21-1-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

No, you didn't understand. Let's move on from here.

reply to post by jiggerj


Have you ever given a kidney to help someone survive? If not then how could you possibly know their Intentions behind doing it? The same thing with Mother Theresa, how can you just assume what she was thinking then turn around and call it fact?

reply to post by jiggerj


No, I understood it quite clearly actually. You can assume I didn't but that still makes you wrong. Care to address the points I made?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Have you ever given a kidney to help someone survive? If not then how could you possibly know their Intentions behind doing it? The same thing with Mother Theresa, how can you just assume what she was thinking then turn around and call it fact?

Because they're human.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by jiggerj

 

No, I understood it quite clearly actually. You can assume I didn't but that still makes you wrong. Care to address the points I made?

You wrote:

Would you consider hating yourself as loving yourself?

This clearly shows that you didn't understand. I'll say no more on this matter.

reply to post by jiggerj


Just because you can't be selfless doesn't mean anyone else can't either. Spin it whatever way you want, but there is such a thing as selflessness. Just because someone feels good after doing something nice doesn't mean they weren't acting selflessly. What about somebody who risks their life to save a strangers? Were they doing it only to get a good feeling afterward? I seriously doubt it.

reply to post by jiggerj


Someone who can NOT love themselves means they can NOT love themselves, it's as simple as that. If they love themselves in a different way other than love then it is not love.

Originally posted by Akragon
I've got an interesting question for the religious community...

The two commandments Jesus gave were:

Love God...

And love your neighbour as you love yourselves...

But....

What if one does not love him/her self?

In fact, what does said person do if he/she actually hates themself?

Many go through life, and at some point they end up hating what they've become...

I thought this might be an interesting discussion so lets see where it goes...

By the way... I have no food for the trolls... So you guys will have to feast elsewhere

I'll bite, Jesus said that way, do unto others what you want to be done to you, but do it to yourself first. Good lessons to be learned from it + that way you make life alright. If one doesn't love himself, he can do nothing to others.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Just because you can't be selfless doesn't mean anyone else can't either. Spin it whatever way you want, but there is such a thing as selflessness. Just because someone feels good after doing something nice doesn't mean they weren't acting selflessly. What about somebody who risks their life to save a strangers? Were they doing it only to get a good feeling afterward? I seriously doubt it.

edit on 21-1-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

If a selfless act were possible it wouldn't be defined by how one feels after, but rather how one thinks and feels before they do something. If they think (beforehand) that being helpful will make them feel good after, then this is not a selfless act.

If someone risks his life to save a stranger, this comes from a mix of instinct and a desire to play a part in society. We want to belong. We want to be remembered as a hero. In the matter of instinct, mankind wouldn't have survived without it. Primitive man would have just let a wild animal carry off his child (or carry off other members of the tribe) if he didn't have the instinct to protect and to fight off such scary beasts.

reply to post by jiggerj


It's defined while you're doing it! Who cares what happens before or after? If you go out on a limb and risk your life to save a stranger then you are being completely selfless. This will be my last reply to you because you obviously are not going to get it.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by jiggerj

 

It's defined while you're doing it! Who cares what happens before or after? If you go out on a limb and risk your life to save a stranger then you are being completely selfless. This will be my last reply to you because you obviously are not going to get it.

Agreed. I have NO idea what you're talking about, but it's not selflessness.

Enjoy: Does a selfless act exist?




Even better:

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by jiggerj

 

A child will hate his parents if they take away their favorite toy... but if that toy is a knife... is it right to let them have it?

All depends. What century are you talking about? If love is the same for everyone, then surely you'd agree that love has meant the same throughout time. What did good, loving parents give their ten year old boys back in the 1700's? Answer: Hunting knives and guns.

Would you let a 30 year old man molest your 13 year old child? Of course not. But, back in the day, and as a loving, caring father you would have let a financially well-to-do man MARRY your 13 year old daughter and let her have his babies.

Well there would be no point in talking about any time but the present... The past doesn't exist... nor does the future... So lets just keep with the present shall we?

Loving parents still give their children Guns and knives... but back in the 1700s we didn't have children going into schools killing anyone they can either... back in that time guns were a tool, and our children were taught not to play with them as a toy... In this time we give "toy guns" and toy knives to our children... we let them play video games which depict murderers as the Hero's of the game... Guns are toys in this age, and we're taught that they are toys through the media at an early age... And people wonder why kids use them as such...

And IF I had a daughter ( and I pray that I never do) she wouldn't leave the house until she was 30 herself... lol

especially in the age we live in...

Perhaps we gave away our children at such an early age because certain "priests" taught us it was right back in the day?

Where else could such trash come from but the OT?

reply to post by Akragon

Perhaps we gave away our children at such an early age because certain "priests" taught us it was right back in the day? Where else could such trash come from but the OT?

You wrote this 45 minutes ago and you're still alive?
If I wrote that I would soon learn what love ISN'T.

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by Akragon

 

Perhaps we gave away our children at such an early age because certain "priests" taught us it was right back in the day? Where else could such trash come from but the OT?

You wrote this 45 minutes ago and you're still alive?
If I wrote that I would soon learn what love ISN'T.

IF I happen to say this back in the 1700s I would have been strung up and hung like a rat.... Thank God the churches and religions don't have that kind of power anymore...

Besides... most "religionists" on ATS know better then to attack me... and if they don't they learn fast