Altruism

I would like to know how Warpus, or anyone, has only had this happen once. When I said thirty-forty times a year I wasn't exaggerating. At my gf's house, where I mostly hang out, a Saturday without a visit from at least two out of the JW, Baptists, and this local non-denominational outreach ministries group is unusual. They even show up during the week now and again.

*shrug*, maybe they've figured out that southwestern Ontario is not a good place to find converts.

As to their desire to share their beliefs...blame the bible. It tells them they are saved and that they owe it to those who "have not heard the good news" to share it.

Sure, I know where it comes from, I just find it odd in general for people to walk around, door to door, sharing what they believe. I know what they believe, I can look it up online, they don't need to tell me personally. I have heard "the good news" plenty - and most other people have as well.

It just seems rather comical, if not a bit smug. Again, no offense to anyone who does/did this, I'm just trying to be honest.
 
I would like to know how Warpus, or anyone, has only had this happen once.
I can answer that. Its more straightforward than you might think. Witnesses go out in an "assigned territory" that corresponds to their assigned "congregation" (or church if you will). Similar to how you have a local public school that you must attend based on where you live, they have a local branch where they must attend services. And where you go out knocking on doors is similar or identical to that area, with occasional overlap.

So if you get a lot of people coming to your house it is probably because there is a large (or multiple) "Kingdom Hall(s)" near you. If you never see anyone, then you probably live in "unassigned territory" meaning there is no Kingdom Hall anywhere near you, or the one in your area has such a huge amount of ground to cover (or so few members) that they never make it to you.
 
There's no doubt that it is smug...it doesn't just seem that way. There isn't really any other way to take "Our news is good news." But what the heck? It isn't like they have cornered the smug market.

I don't know about the finding converts aspect, but I will say that I would be much more easily induced into going door to door in southern California than in southwestern Ontario myself. In summers I go door to door selling garage door maintenance, which I would probably not do in most other places I've lived either.
 
Well kinda. Only a portion of them are smug. A significant portion of them are doing it out of genuine concern. If you're only experiencing smugness, that's actually a problem with the perception side of things.

We all like to feel better than other people, so there's no doubt that smugness is also significantly represented.
 
Well kinda. Only a portion of them are smug. A significant portion of them are doing it out of genuine concern.
I agree, I think a lot of missionaries are genuine. At least, the ones I've met seem to be. I kind of wish they'd turn that energy to something more productive, but whatev. The people that chap my [butt] are the ones who want to ram (their) religion into public policy, in a country that's supposed to be founded on freedom of religion.
 
There's no doubt that it is smug...it doesn't just seem that way. There isn't really any other way to take "Our news is good news." But what the heck? It isn't like they have cornered the smug market.

Yeah, I know, I'm not saying they're the smuggest people on the planet. I would have called any person who comes to my front door to share any belief in the same way. "Hi there, I believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun." .. "Ok great.. and you think you really needed to come here to tell me this? Thanks for sharing I guess, now bye."
 
Well kinda. Only a portion of them are smug. A significant portion of them are doing it out of genuine concern. If you're only experiencing smugness, that's actually a problem with the perception side of things.

We all like to feel better than other people, so there's no doubt that smugness is also significantly represented.

It is possible for a position to be smug without the person presenting it to be smug...I think. At any rate, I tend to respond to them with gratitude for their genuine concern whether they exhibit it really strongly or not, because I believe that is at least a component within every one of them.
 
Yeah, a position can be smug. Then it's a function of relative and objective truths. We can only judge such things in retrospect "would El_Mac on his deathbed have preferred to have taken the counter-factual route?" And often there's no way to know. So, future-Mac could also be wrong about how things would have gone if he'd lived his life differently.

In some scenarios, the objective truth is discernible (or at least predictable). It may be smug for my friends to express concern before I inject heroin for the first time, but it likely isn't. Their position and concerns are warranted. And honestly, if the JWs are correct, then their position isn't smug. It depends on how reality actually is.
 
Given that there is no knowing how reality actually is I would classify any position that is dependent on reality being some particular way to be a smug position...even if it subsequently (at some future time that is likely beyond my lifespan) "turns out" to have been "right all along". Again, not everyone who holds or presents a smug position is going to be smug about it.
 
Yeah, I see how it works. Though if an individual person isn't smug, then it might be that the smugness of the position is a function of how many 'unknowable assumptions' it includes. I mean, I think there's a difference in the 'level of smugness' regarding "don't try heroin" and "seek to become a level 3 Scientologist"
 
It is possible for a position to be smug without the person presenting it to be smug...I think.

Yeah, that's sort of what I mean.

"Hi there stranger, I knocked on your front door to tell you that I believe X and Y and that you should too."

Maybe "smug" is not quite the right word, but I would feel smug if I did this with my neighbours.. or with anyone. I mean, these people are busy doing whatever they are doing, and I have the audacity to think that they really care to hear what I believe? And that it's important enough for me to interrupt their day, just to tell them that I believe these things, and that they should too? Nah, that seems like jerk-like behaviour to me. Self-important jerk-like behaviour.

But like it has been stated, these people almost never behave like jerks while they do this. So now they make me look like a bit of a jerk for pointing out how pretentious and annoying what they do is. :p
 
Yeah, I see how it works. Though if an individual person isn't smug, then it might be that the smugness of the position is a function of how many 'unknowable assumptions' it includes. I mean, I think there's a difference in the 'level of smugness' regarding "don't try heroin" and "seek to become a level 3 Scientologist"

I think the easiest way to get into trouble with these smug positions is to not recognize them for what they are. A person can be absolutely sincere and have nothing but the best intentions and end up totally blindsided by the response they get, where just recognizing that the position they are bringing to the table is itself a smug position and has to be handled as such would make everything go much more smoothly.

"Don't try heroin" is a great example. If one takes a brief pause to acknowledge the reality that if you had lived exactly that person's life up to that point trying heroin would most likely seem like just as good an idea to you as it does to them the chances of the conversation ending well go up dramatically.
 
I'm amused that some see my discussion of my Christian faith as disallowed in a topic on altruism. I've shown it's a core belief within Christianity. Not only that, but do we put such restrictions on atheists? Are they not allowed to discuss their faith in atheism within any topic?

What's doubly amusing is that altruism would be spun into an attempt to get new converts when in reality it seldom does this. You're talking to someone whose life was actively involved in this sort of work. But I'm tickled that you think it's effective. There are seldom any strings attached. Anyone can get up and leave after getting fed, clothed, housed, etc. They're not prisoners.

Are nonbelievers prepared to take up the slack if Christians stop doing works of altruism? Will nonbelievers step in for the Muslims who also do this as it's a core part of the Five Pillars of Islam? I'll bet not based upon the apathy in this topic.

Finally I'm bewildered that people who believe that GOD is only a human construct (a god) would then be afraid of an imaginary being. If GOD and Christianity doesn't matter, then why bothering complaining about literally nothing? Isn't that supremely weird? Why not be like the irreligious who shrug their shoulders and work along side us in altruism albeit a secular way. Bridges have been built between the irreligious and believers of several faiths. Together we can do more altruistic acts through synergy.
 
Crackerbox, there's no doubt the Golden Rule is amazing, and that there's an intrinsic drive to be charitable in many of the faiths.

In fact, Christianity's help the one who's not your neighbour is an excellent impetus that many worldviews cannot seem to generate.

In fact, I've found many people are much more willing to donate time than money. Now, this is excellent if the skills they have are of good value. It's even okay in that it's better-than-nothing. I sometimes wonder if proselytizing fits into this category.

It's also a function of our incomes not being very scalable. If people had some way of making more money at the margin, then they'd be more tempted to donate at the margin. But, we all need to pay our bills and save for retirement. I might need the $20 some time in the future, whereas I basically only get one shot at 'spending' Saturday afternoon. So, the donating of time psychologically is less difficult.
 
I'm amused that some see my discussion of my Christian faith as disallowed in a topic on altruism. I've shown it's a core belief within Christianity. Not only that, but do we put such restrictions on atheists? Are they not allowed to discuss their faith in atheism within any topic?

What's doubly amusing is that altruism would be spun into an attempt to get new converts when in reality it seldom does this. You're talking to someone whose life was actively involved in this sort of work. But I'm tickled that you think it's effective. There are seldom any strings attached. Anyone can get up and leave after getting fed, clothed, housed, etc. They're not prisoners.

Are nonbelievers prepared to take up the slack if Christians stop doing works of altruism? Will nonbelievers step in for the Muslims who also do this as it's a core part of the Five Pillars of Islam? I'll bet not based upon the apathy in this topic.

Finally I'm bewildered that people who believe that GOD is only a human construct (a god) would then be afraid of an imaginary being. If GOD and Christianity doesn't matter, then why bothering complaining about literally nothing? Isn't that supremely weird? Why not be like the irreligious who shrug their shoulders and work along side us in altruism albeit a secular way. Bridges have been built between the irreligious and believers of several faiths. Together we can do more altruistic acts through synergy.

I'm more than willing to shrug my shoulders and work alongside anyone...however if they spend their energy proselytizing while I'm spending mine working I am most likely going to shrug my shoulders and go work elsewhere.

By the way, thanks for the demonstration of a smug position...though the whole 'without Christian altruism there just wouldn't be any' business may not be just a position, it might actually be you...hard to tell from here.
 
Look up any hospital in America that is older than 40 years old. It was, no doubt, started by a Christian organization. The same is true of universities.

The irreligious, those who simply shrug their shoulders at spirituality, have done secular altruism all along the history of the USA. The active nonbeliever and the ardent atheist have largely NOT done altruism in our history. It wasn't a priority for them. There were a handful of these folks who donated, but no organization of them acting in a beneficient manner.

If Christians were to stop performing altruistic acts in America, then there would be countless problems among the impoverished. Are you aware that 1 in 5 Americans lives under constant poverty today? If Christians paused even for a month, there would riots in the streets due to pervasive hunger and homelessness.

Look up the local food banks in your area. Chances are they were organized by churches. Look up clothing closets...same thing, organized by churches.

Altruism need not be conversion linked to altruistic acts. Go to any church of any medium or larger size and witness the number of secular meetings that go on there. Without those places, those Al-Anon, Narcotics Anonymous, an endless variety of abuse and battered wife groups, medical diseases and ailments of all kinds, would simply not have a private place to meet to would offer the necessary anonimity.

If you doubt this, merely open up a newpaper or visit websites and see where they meet.

Many churches donate 10% or more of their tithes and offerings to outside secular nonprofits. Go to a rent assistance group in an urban area and ask where the donations come from. Chances are high that it's from area churches.

I have to shake my head in dismay that this is not understood to be essential to cities. Without Christian altruism of secular groups and people, those cities would flounder as the tax base is insufficient to handle their needs.
 
Crackerbox, there's no doubt the Golden Rule is amazing, and that there's an intrinsic drive to be charitable in many of the faiths.

In which faiths isn't there an intrinsic drive to be charitable?

In fact, I'd go further, and propose there's an intrinsic drive to be charitable in everyone.

Though,admittedly, it doesn't always make its presence felt, including amongst the religious. It seems to me.
 
Church=building with limited time of designed utility. It is a place uniquely suited to the activities you point out that most of them host, because otherwise it would be standing idle for the majority of hours in a week.

I have, however, attended meetings in back rooms of restaurants and coffee houses (note that this is far more of an intrusion upon their business than it is upon an otherwise vacant church building) as well as conference rooms of businesses after hours. I'm not denying that religious organizations provide, but once again the smugness of the 'sole provider' is unwarranted.

You seem to not grasp the difficulty most people have overcoming the automatic human response to "well what would you do without us?"...which has always been and always will be "let's find out."
 
And the point remains Christian altruism doesn't equal church membership. Christian altruism benefits the community far more times than being targeted to even mention chruch times. There are entirely secular things that happen at church.

Take away Christian altruism and what would happen to all of these vital aspects of your communities? It's pathetic to imagine you can divorce altruism from Christianity and worse to presume it's somehow beneficial to Christianity. The primary focus isn't on Christianity, nor the secondary, or even the tertiary purpose. :rolleyes:
 
Who is trying to "divorce altruism from Christianity"? As in almost all religions, altruism is encouraged among the adherents of Christian sects and pretty much everyone knows it.

As to presuming that altruism is "beneficial to Christianity", that seems self evident. Frankly I don't see how anyone could presume anything else.
 
Back
Top Bottom