Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Actually, I think you guys might have missed something. This thread represents a profound struggle for NL than just an interesting religious idea.

_________________

NL?

Netherlands?

National Leadership Camp?

Newt Lake? Oh, I got it. It's a struggle for Newt Lake.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

But then wouldn't people do good things only to get their share of the "points." Similarly some people (and I do say SOME) only do good deeds to go to heaven and not merely for helping people out.

_________________

Good point, which is one of the reasons I'm removing heaven. It's hard to balance out and besides, the problem you stated happens with every faith. All of my friends are christians and basically do good stuff just to make it a safe bet to go to heaven, not actually doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Yet, they all seem shocked at me when I sing my "Satan Song" (Don't ask), but they don;t seem to question whether what the "right" things they're doing is acutally "right" because they're doing it for a prize. It's like a carrot being dangled before the donkey's eyes. Some people abuse every system for their own personal gain, sadly.

I cannot comment on your friends, NL. But I can say that, if that is the only reason they do good stuff, then they do not understand the teachings of Scripture. Christians do not believe that good works can earn you heaven. Heaven is a free gift, not something you can work for (Ephesians 2:8-9). For Christians, good works are supposed to be acts of love, not obligations.

It may be simply that your friends do not understand their faith, or that you have misinterpreted their motives. You could ask them sometime. But that's a different matter.

_________________

The last time I read Aristotle, I remember a bit on what "good deeds" were truly good. To him, if a man did good because he happens to be a nice guy and likes doing good, that's the same as a bad man doing a bad thing because he happens to like being bad. No brownie points.

When a bad man does something good that he doesn't like to do, that was meritorious... because that man did something against his tendencies for the sake of goodness... for goodness' sake.

Christian philosophy of man explains that all men are fundamentally bent on doing bad by their nature. So for them to do a good thing, even under threat or promise of reward, has a little merit in my view of these people.

I also extend Aristotle's reasoning to include meta-good -- which I have too many emails backed-up to explain this minute -- as being inherently meritorious as well.

However, the heart of the matter for a Christian hinges on grace and love: grace that a sinner can be redeemed, and love that he should show to God and other humans (in the latter case, in the form of good deeds).

The Bible says in Hebrews 11:6 that without faith it's impossible to please God. In Isaiah 64:6 we're reminded that good deeds alone are like a filthy rag (a really filthy rag if you read the Hebrew) to God. No good deeds however good will get someone into heaven. So Didymus' challenge about your friends holds: if they think that heaven is a reward for their good deeds they are mistaken (and maybe GRAVELY mistaken).

_________________

Grace = God's unmerited love (He loves us, even when we are unloveable).

Saved = being given God's free gift of eternal life.

Faith = believing God's redeeming love, even when it doesn't seem to make sense.

Works = good deeds.

V. 10 continues:

Meaning that truly good works flow from our being created in Christ's love. Truly good deeds happen when his love is at work in us, and we act in love toward others.

_________________

So if a man who has killed five people in the past donates to charity, it's better than when it's done by someone who's been doing it all his life?

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

Well, first, I'm not 100% aligned with Aristotle. But in his view of ethics, it has to do with what a person wants to do, not what they did in the past. Further, I don't know for sure that Aristotle was comparing a person to another. But the part of your question that asks "the person who's donating all his life isn't doing anything special?" would be answered "right" by Aristotle.... if he used online forums.

_________________

Okay... so, if someone wants to kill someone, but refrains, that's better than when someone who doesn't want to kill someone refrains?

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

Again, I don't think Aristotle was comparing people to each other. To your case: he would say your second person, who had no compulsion to kill, was not doing something inherently meritorious by not killing. He would say that the killer instinct man was being good by holding back. That's not meant as a comparison, and it doesn't take into account my concept of meta-good (which I still don't have the energy to outline right now), but if you're looking for something deeper than what I have said, you may need to get someone who's a little closer to the material. I merely brought it up for consideration. I'm sorry if I'm not succeeding in being clear.

_________________

Even if it wasn't meant as a comparison, the two scenarios can't just be kept separate. If the second person was not doing something good, but the first person was, we have a comparison, by definition, that being that what the second person did was better than the first person.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

I don't take it to the extreme that Aristotle does, but I think it makes sense that if I don't do something that I am really tempted to do, that I should get a greater reward than when I don't do something bad that I didn't have the inclination to do in the first place. However, I think whenever we do something good (not just the absense of doing evil), that is against the natural man in all of our natures. Since it is against everyone's nature, then any good that we do would be rewarded with blessings, no matter how wicked or righteous that person may be. We can (with lots of time and incredible self control and love for God and all mankind) overcome the natural man in our personalities, and thus be reborn and become children of God, and I suppose then it could be argued that doing good is no longer against that persons nature, so he wouldn't received as big of a blessing for the righteous act. However, I think by virtue of being an obedient, loving, reborn child of God, that person would be receiving even greater blessings than those from acting against our wicked natures could even provide.

That's pretty close to what I meant by "metagood." Meta-good is an action or decision that is not necessarily a "good deed" in the traditional sense, but that is intended to change one's own character to become the kind of person who does good. Self-discipline in the broader sense is this kind of thing. Like the man who prays for the grace to love his wife even though they're arguing angrily: the prayer itself isn't that good of a deed, especially when compared with what he actually needs to do for his wife. But if he changes into a better man who doesn't argue with his wife, then the alteration itself is the meta-good. This is a proposed augmentation to the Aristotlean concept of good which ethically credits good men for doing good things, by placing the credit on the metagood of "becoming a good person."

This diminishes the comparison discrepency you disliked, Upsilon, by letting a good man doing good compare favorably to a bad man avoinding bad deeds. While I don't think Aristotle had this in mind, it's very natural for us humans to compare ourselves one to another. I try to avoid comparison except in terms of quantitative measurables. That is, I've never taken an I.Q. test but I have no problem giving an estimate of how long it'll take me to do a job compared with differently skilled programmers.

_________________

Here's another interesting point from C. S. Lewis (though perhaps better developed by his friend Charles Williams): what you DO (decisions you make, actions you commit) actually effect what you ARE. So if you steal, you become a thief; if you murder, you become a murderer (overly simplified, but you get the idea). Your crimes or heroic actions actually shape the person you become, which in turn influences your future crimes or heroic actions.

_________________