Yuyutsu

Yes and no.

Here is a question to simplify the confusion of the meaning of life.

What cause should we die for, since we all die in the end.

Man usually dies for his own selfish cause, and in the West it is the cause most associated with collecting and consuming personal wealth. You could call that one greed.
A motivation which is the most carnal of all.

Religion is a social factor, invented long ago, to ameliorate the very negative effect on society of its consequences,(greed).

Overcoming this trait of selfishness , ( in Christianity at the least), requires a reworking of the spirit.
We are taught in the teachings of Christianity, that the interference of Gods work is most effected by mans carnal nature, and the only way to defeat this tendency is to overlay ones own spirit with that of Gods spirit. (Watchman Nee’s thesis on the spiritual man).

The soul is referred to as the persons ID.

Where all that fits with politics is quite another story, but Christ was never too concerned with the state of society here on earth. But mere carnal mortals are highly concerned.
That’s the conflict between religion and the affairs of State.

Dan

What are you people going on about regarding selfishness? If people were more selfish then the world would be a lot better place!

For exmple:
No war would ever be fought if soldiers were selfish. Why? Well it is a requirement of being a soldier that you be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for the benefit of others. No selfish person would ever lay down their own life for others.

In fact if people were completely selfish there would be no physical violence at all. Because nobody would ever put themselves in a situation or act in a way that may result in other people hurting them.

Poverty due to over population is mainly a result of people not being selfish enough. No selfish person would have so many kids that it negatively impacts their own prosperity.

Indeed, the need for welfare in general is a result of people not being selfish. Selfish people want to own stuff to make their lives easy and comfortable. So they go out and produce stuff that they want or that they can trade to get the stuff they want. Hence selfish people quite often end up being wealthier and thus can pay their own way though life unlike many unselfish people.

Selfish people also tend to be healthier than non-selfish. Because they value their own life more than anything, they take actions to care and protect their lives. eg. staying fit, not taking drugs, eating healthy, undertake activities that keep them happy, etc.

The combination of private property and selfishness results in a better environment to live in. Because selfish people value their own comfort and value the stuff they own they look after their own stuff better and thus produce nice environments to live in. The worst places to live in the world are those that don't have strong personal property rights and/or areas where land and housing is collectively owned.

To Yuyutsu.

Actually, it is psychology 101. If you want to worship a telephone pole because you think it will give you guidance in being a god person, and will give you eternal life, then go for it. Just don't push that superstitious nonsense on me.

"Socialising" is the act of teaching children to sublimate their selfishness for the greater good of the community. 'Good" and "bad" are simply judgements as to whether any persons actions are selfish or altruistic. There is nothing wrong with selfishness provided it does not negatively impact the community at large. Each person must decide for themselves where their pursuit of happiness through self aggrandisement should be sublimated to the needs of their friends, family, and community. Those who cast aside all thought of self interest in defence of their community (ie soldiers who take great risks to advance their nations military goals) are considered heroes of their people.

To Diver Dan.

There is a saying that "If you are not a socialist when you are young, you haven't got a heart. If you are still a socialist when you are old, you haven't got a brain."

I too was a young lefty and an anti apartheid demonstrator. What got me thinking straight was because it was obvious to me that those who were the leaders of the anti racist movement, were in fact very racist towards white people. My people. This has now become screamingly obvious with the rise of Critical Race Theory (which leftists are trying to admit into the school curriculum) which claims that everything that ever went wrong with the notoriously dysfunctional minorities, is all the fault of white people.

My goal on OLO and on other debate sites, is to deprogram the young who have been turned into Manchurian Candidates by our education system.

Dear Dan,

You essentially got it right: Christ was never too concerned with the state of society here on earth.

Very true also, and not only in the teachings of Christianity: overcoming this trait of selfishness requires a reworking of the spirit.

Also true, greed is one of the six obstacles on the path to God: lust, anger, greed, delusion, pride and envy.

Nevertheless, religion is not a social factor.
Religion does, in fact, precede society and will, in fact, continue even after society no longer exists.
It is true that religion often also has social implications, but these are just a coincidence, not what religion is about.
As I noted earlier, for those who limit themselves to the social dimension (including the author), judging religion by its social effects is like judging three-dimensional objects only according to the shadow they lay over the two-dimensional ground.

---

Dear Thinkabit,

«What are you people going on about regarding selfishness? If people were more selfish then the world would be a lot better place!»

Perhaps, perhaps not, but please allow me to stay out of this political debate because selfishness was mentioned here in the religious context: Whether or not selfishness can make this world a better place, it is a hindrance on the spiritual path.

From a religious perspective, there is nothing wrong with private ownership - only with the greed to own things no matter what it takes.

---

Dear LEGO,

I agree with you that «Each person must decide for themselves where their pursuit of happiness through self aggrandisement should be sublimated to the needs of their friends, family,...».

Nevertheless, true lasting happiness can only be found in God, not in the world.
The sages have already outlined what works towards that goal and what doesn't.
While you are not obligated to listen to me or to them, my posts here address not just you but the whole OLO readership, including the silent readers.

Meanwhile why not check out an essay titled The Criticism That Cures The Heart http://www.dabase.org/up-1-6.htm

And of course the kind of religion advocated in the featured essay is entirely of an exoteric institutional nature which by its very nature is completely devoid of any Spiritual and in the case of the featured essay
anything associated with the Transcendental dimensions of our existence-being - check out http://www.dabase.org/up-1-1.htm

I am of course on the left of the culture wars spectrum as are all of my friends most of whom take their religion and Spiritual practice very seriously. None of them have any sympathy for right wing religiosity and its obviously benighted political and cultural expressions.

In one way or another world wide I know of hundreds of thousands (even millions) of people who take their religion and Spiritual practice quite seriously who are not in any sense right wing.

And of course world wide there are hundreds of millions of Christians who are on the left of the political spectrum and who are (quite rightly) horrified by the obviously benighted nature of right wing religiosity and its political and cultural manifestations,which were epitomized in the form of Donald Trump and the fact that he was enthusiastically supported by right wing "religious" dingbats. Of course during his entire life time Donald Trump made a complete mockery of the Ten Commandments and The Sermon on the Mount.

There are of course there are millions of American Christians on the left of the political and cultural spectrum too.

The kind of self-serving religiosity proposed by the author is of course entirely exoteric in its nature. Such self-serving religiosity by its very nature has nothing whatsoever to do with the intrinsic Transcendental dimensions of our existence-being - even while quite often pretending to point to a transcendent "God".

thinkabit,
>No war would ever be fought if soldiers were selfish.
FALSE. They'd be fought under duress, and probably with a lot of deserters, but they'd still be fought.
Indeed famously, a lot of British soldiers in WW1 were killed by their own side after being wrongfully convicted of cowardice.

>nobody would ever put themselves in a situation or act in a way that may result in other people hurting them.
LAUGHABLY FALSE. That would mean robbers are less selfish than law abiding citizens! I suggest you try and start to live up to your name.
The flaw in your logic, of course, is that not all people are so risk averse, and the prospect of great reward is enticing to many.

>No selfish person would have so many kids that it negatively impacts their own prosperity.
Selfishness is not boolean; if it were, you could just as easily argue that no selfish person would have any kids at all! But in reality, poverty is the cause of overpopulation, as people have many children in the hope some survive.

>Selfish people want to own stuff to make their lives easy and comfortable. So they go out and produce stuff
That's not just selfish people, but people in general. But you have neglected to consider two factors: firstly, there's a limit to how much discomfort people are willing to put up with in an attempt to make their lives comfortable. Secondly, not everyone is able to go out and produce stuff.

________________________________________________________________________________

diver dan and Yuyutsu,
Christ was very concerned with the state of society here on Earth.
But Christ saw that it wasn't just a problem of leadership.