PaulS

It's to be expected that Maslow, like all of us, may have his own personal biases. The behavior I 'applaud' is not dysfunctional. You and Maslow are simply mistaken. As soon as somebody starts citing morality amongst their studies - run for the hills! I don't apply judgement like you do about what makes somebody fully human. We do, or we do not, and all of it is fully human. One is not 'better' than another because they are in a married, committed relationship compared to one who has mutually agreed one night stands. That sort of judgement results in actions and behaviors being called 'sins' by others and I say it's a nonsense that is best relegated to the history bins for the waste of time and harm it has caused. No, I'm right and you're wrong. I know this because I am fully actualised. You will get there. Keep trying grasshopper.

You seem to be comparing the actions/inaction associated with Maslow's model with the notion of sin causing failure to self acutalize in a religious context. No? No, you seem to have redefined sin to a way that suits your view. I don't think this agrees with what many (i.e. a lot of) understand to be the definition of sin in a religious context. When you say 'use' let me clarify - 2 x consenting adults who say "let's have sex together but take our relationship no further" and then who enjoy a night of passion before parting ways, is how I am saying one may be using another, but it is not abuse of another and it is not even 'use' of another in a negative context. I am saying people who do this can be already be fully human and jut be enjoying one another for sex. All power to them I say. See above concerning how I am talking about 'use'. We are not talking about sexual abuse. I compare using one as an 'object' (that is to say, consensual sex but which both parties know is not going to develop into anything else) compared to sex with one who we are in a committed relationship. Same act, different outcomes. Neither are 'bad'. Neither is 'better' than another, they are just different scenarios. We are fully human from the day we are born - warts and all. Being 'self actualized' makes one no more human than another - just a different type of human, as we all are to one another.

Even the general idea is a major shortcoming in my opinion. Self-actualization is nothing like sin as promoted by religion. So to try and give 'sin' some sort of secular justification seems a nonsense to me. I don't disagree with the concept of actualizing human potential, just that it doesn't correlate with the religious idea of sin and 'missing the mark' of being fully human. Religious sin is about not meeting a standard of perfection as established by God. All that is is human judgement based on whatever culture of the day decides what is sin and what isn't. Indeed it does. But to understand sin from anything other than a religious perspective means we are no longer talking about sin, but simply what it is to be human. Fully human at all times. I don't think there is anything wrong with consensual sex and treating each other as an object to be used. If both parties are happy providing their bodies to the other whilst also gaining their own enjoyment of using the other's body, what's the issue? It's actually quite fun if you've never tried it. And there is respect for the other because you are both agreeing to participate in an entirely natural thing, for the pleasure, enjoyment and satisfaction of both parties. I don't disagree that there are users and abusers, but that is not the situation I am discussing. I don't think they have to 'love' at all to be self-actualizing, enjoyers of consensual sex. No harm, no foul. But sex isn't a good one to discuss because there does seem to be a particular hangup about sex when it comes to religion and sin. If self actualizing is an analogy that works for you, all power to you. But linking it to sin just seems unnecessary to me. In fact, linking it to sin is probably an unnecessary distraction and confusion that is best avoided altogether, in my view. Why confuse a religious judgement about what is wrong with humanity with a positive view such as when we feel our best as humans, warts and all. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I just don't think man "needs God understood as love" to become fully human. To clarify - I think it is fully human to start stipulating and categorizing what 'love' is and then to start judging whether one is becoming 'fully human' or not. We are already fully human as we are. Religion and sin does not say that.

How do you believe it is a sin?

You're giving sin the bird?

There are too many shortcomings in equating Maslow's secular hierarchy simply tracking alongside the religious view of 'sin', to marry the two together somehow. They are not a secular and a religious view equating to the same thing at all. One could be 'fully actualized' according to the Maslow hierarchy but still be a sinner according to a religious view. For example, a fully actualized person who isn't married but has consensual sex with another. To me there is no sin in that arrangement yet in the main, Christianity and other religions will call it such. Yet if both parties are fully actualized, what even is the relevance of the term sin when considering Maslow in this occasion? Not being fully actualized is different to being born faulty and needing redemption, which is pretty much any religion's understanding of sin.

I suspect your mind would very quickly step in and limit your charity once it realized you wouldn't otherwise have enough money to pay your bills or have enough time to care for your family instead of giving a certain amount of time to help others. My point isn't about the thought that goes into giving, but moreso the thought that goes into when to restrict that giving. Most of us consciously and with intent decide when we will limit our giving any further (usually for good reasons) - it doesn't just 'happen' is my contention.. I agree we can't know Jesus' precise will, and of course you are a different breed of Christian than typically those I am referring to in this thread. In fact most on this Forum are a different breed of Christian altogether from those I had in mind when posting, but I thought that many of us (i.e. a lot of us) had experienced a more fundamental type of Christianity, if not directly at least indirectly, and so I thought we might be able to discuss somewhat. Not now, but when I initially tried to discuss the matter. For me it wasn't any offense about Christians who limit their charity on the one hand whilst presenting a somewhat contrary version of Jesus on the other (probably less judgement and more an assessment, an observation) and wanting to initiate a discussion about 'why'. I had genuine intentions for wanting to discuss the matter, but obviously others felt the need much less. I appreciate your thoughtful response in trying to actually discuss the issues I raised.

But it is clear that people make choices about when to give to charity and when not to give. They don't just 'do' without thought of when to 'not do'. Clearly the phrase/idiom of drawing a line in the sand was a step too far for some which is why I tried to explain, several times over, that it is just a phrase to make the point that people make decisions about charity and those decisions include when to limit charity, for any number of reasons. Although this was disputed, I think most people agree that people do make decisions about limiting their charity so in fact they do draw a line at some point - but I can see how it may be hard for some to acknowledge and hence they become defensive, rather than thoughtfully discuss the matter being raised. The heart of the issue I was trying to get to was when there are Christians who view Jesus as God, as Lord of their life, as the fullest expression of what it is to be a human being - how do those Christians reconcile that view with NOT doing their absolute all to help another simply stay alive by providing charity. How do they make their decisions to go on a cruise or spend money on themselves outside of the bare necessities to maintain their own survival, instead of feeding a starving child or helping provide life-saving medicine for what are otherwise simple, curable diseases in better off countries. As I asked in one of my earliest posts in this thread - would Jesus be happier with Christians taking cruises and holidays or do you think he would prefer they stop a child starving to death? Of course we all do what we do, but I was trying to discuss why some who say one thing, don't actually do another, or more accurately, why they impose limitations to their charity. It is my direct experience that many (that is a lot of) Christians say one thing about Jesus but do another when it comes to doing, what I imagine Jesus would consider, enough to help others. Is that a judgement? It probably is, but I was open to discussing it and trying to better understand. You have contributed somewhat, but any genuine discussion around the matter was too long in coming from others in this thread because of a perceived attack they imagined. That was a shame really.

Thanks for the thoughtful response around the matter, Joseph. The 'line' was never meant to be such a divisive issue as I was only using it as an expression to say many Christians (i.e. a lot of, in my experience) make determinations about when they have given enough charity and when they may spend it on themselves instead (money and time). I think your decision to spend your money on a cruise instead of giving it to the poor is an example of that. And all power to you I say - I do the exact same thing - well, I've never gotten to a cruise yet but I'm not as old as you , but I do limit my charity financially and as a time commitment because I choose to, for a number of reasons. I don't just 'do' without the thought of recognizing what I think is 'enough'. I personally think that the ointment story is misused by many Christians (i.e. a lot of , in my experience) and I personally think it is a misinterpretation when used as a reason for limiting charity. I'm not against limiting charity - I just don't think that story is meant to support such a position. Yet in my experience, many Christians (i.e. a lot of) do cite this verse as justification for not doing more for the poor when they in fact could. I'm not so convinced that each person gives according to any grace 'given' to them, but largely suspect they give (and limit that giving) because of personal beliefs and decisions. I don't think it is necessary to give everything away to be a Christian as evidenced by the many Christians (i.e. a lot of) who enjoy a much higher standard of living and comfort than the majority of the world (usually way in excess of mere survival). But what I was trying to discuss was how a Christianity that says it worships Jesus and sees him as the greatest example of what it is to live a human life, then seems to conveniently overlook Jesus' focus on loving one another - to the extent that many (i.e. a lot of) limit charity when physically they probably don't need to, but choose to for various personal reasons. I personally can't comprehend how loving one another can be interpreted into letting another die whilst another goes on a relaxing cruise instead. That's not to have a shot at anyone for doing so but rather to demonstrate how many (i.e. a lot) make choices about charity and also to demonstrate that clearly some people draw a line when they think they have given enough. Where it seems incongruous to me is that if one was a Christian who believed wholeheartedly that Jesus was God and that Jesus lived a sinless, model life for us humans, then to me, if one were to believe that then it seems incongruous to me that they would then overlook saving another's life to simply add physical and emotional contentment to their own. I'm not trying to guilt anyone into anything either, just as an aside. I'm just questioning how limiting charity to whatever degree sits with the majority of Christians who see Jesus as THE Son of God, sinless and an example of a perfect human life. The phrase WWJD comes to mind and I just can't imagine, no matter how hard I try, the Jesus that Christianity largely portrays, as choosing a holiday over another's life. So it's that which I am trying to understand. I do recognize that many (i.e. a lot of) Progressive Christians look at Jesus a bit differently, so I can understand why they, and perhaps you, may feel a bit different about limiting charity, as do I.

It's the word 'sin' to me and it's religious connotations that I see as nonsense. I think it's time to dispense with that word because of its baggage. To try and turn the term into something else, seems just a game to me. Better to boot it altogether. Sin, as taught by Christianity in general, is an outdated concept. We know better. That there are consequences for thoughts and behaviors, is inarguable to me. That we can feel guilt and self condemnation I also agree with. That it is only ourselves who can make us feel this way is fair, but there can be a lot of pressure in society and from family to feel that way as well.

Not begrudgingly - I was happy to move on from your needless distraction because you don't understand the correct definition of a word. I really don't care what you believe you think a word means. I would prefer next time you check what the English language, agreed definition, of a word means before you accuse another of misusing it. Again, just use a dictionary first and you might not need to go down an unwarranted path arguing against a view that doesn't exist. Or here's a novel idea - next time ask the person if by using the word 'many' do they mean your understanding of it being 'majority' or are they using it as per the dictionary definition of the adjective meaning 'a lot of'. Of course it was worth a discussion which is why I raised it in the first place, but to be entirely honest, for me this entire thread has been tarnished by you and Burl's behavior and incessant arguing about stuff I haven't said. You've applied your own interpretations and wasted pages and pages with tangents. I've had enough at this point. Chalk that up as another 'win' if you want. Happy to oblige. I would suggest your logic in this thread has been anything but impeccable (whether you're joking or not). No need to be careful because I have finished with this thread. Out.

Again, of course people are charitable in many ways. You were the one that said I was referring to only financial charity when I had already outlined a broader scope. Only you can explain why you overlooked those words of mine but I suspect it was because of your rush to defend what you thought I was attacking. And one may still give some sort of charity (eg time) when they cannot in other ways (eg financial), yet still, those people make a choice concerning how much of any charity they can give and most/many/probably all (but don't hold me to all), have limits they choose to impose for a number of reasons. You were denying this. You were the one who created 'completely and forever' - I never mentioned it. I was saying that Christians, like me and others, impose limits to their charity for various reasons. You argued they didn't - they just 'Do' were your words. I say nonsense - they make choices.

It was clear I was talking also about time contribution well before you accused me (twice) of only considering charity as financial - you just didn't take the time to read my comments in the thread - probably due to your rush to defend what you thought I was attacking, or it could simply have been your failure to read thoroughly. No - the point I was raising was that many Christians (reduced to 'some' to stop your bickering, even though by any definition of the adjective 'many' means "a large number of" - which is my direct experience) do in fact use these words of Jesus as an excuse to limit their charity. That is clearly the experience of other people too. You have made it abundantly clear that this is not your Catholic experience, even if it is the experience of other Catholics in other countries separate to my own. Unfortunately you have assumed I am only talking about money, but as we have established, if you'd read my comments with more care it is clear I have am using a broader definition than you imply I am. Well may people give themselves in numerous ways - no argument from me as the one who mentioned that early on - but I stand by that most, if not all, say enough at some point in that they make a conscious choice when to impose a limit on their charity (financial or otherwise). As the idiom 'to draw a line in the sand' means to express - I think most of us have a point beyond which one will not go; a limit to what one will do or accept. In relation to charity, that means one makes a choice where they impose a limit to their charity (financially of with their time). I expect you do too or do you give all of your money away/work yourself to the bone with no time for yourself. It's rhetorical - don't bother answering.

That is just gold! We finally get to a point where maybe we can have a proper conversation around motivation and drivers for Christian charity, and you want to bail after a couple of difficult questions! You really are a classic Burl!

Don't be like that Burl, I am trying to have a genuine discussion with you. If you think Christians only rarely allow religious beliefs, values, ones own understanding and interpretation of Christian scriptures, as well as other personal beliefs to be involved in this pragmatism about choosing how charitable to be, then what do you think drives their desire to be charitable? Are you only charitable because of weather conditions or because you happen to be in a good mood some days, or as a Christian does your understanding of God play a part in your charity choices?

Rarely? That does surprise me. So if Christians typically don't consider factors such as their religious beliefs, values, understanding of scripture and other personal beliefs when considering how much charity they may give (time and/or money) what then do you think does drive their choices? Just the random emotional and external factors, or something else? And I am asking only about people who are not considered to have a diagnosed mental condition such as schizophrenia or other such mental health issues.

I agree Burl - it would seem that most people do apply some sort of pragmatism to their charity based on any number of factors, which do include factors such as emotion, weather, physical condition and perhaps other factors outside of their control. Apart from making pragmatic choices about their charity, some could also randomly vary their response for what appears no reason, but I suspect there is always a reason to why we think like we do, it just might not be obvious to others or even to ourselves sometimes. Would you also agree that factors such as religious beliefs, values, ones own understanding and interpretation of Christian scriptures, as well as other personal beliefs can also be involved in this pragmatism and impact how one chooses to express or limit their charity?

To all and sundry who are reading: please disregard my personal experience that MANY Christians use Jesus' words as a reason for not doing more to alleviate poverty and suffering, and simply consider that SOME Christians do so. Clearly this is not a figment of my imagination over here in Australia and remarkably, as had been briefly referenced, people in other countries (even places such as Catholic Churches in Cincinnati) have also experienced Christians interpreting these words of Jesus' as a reason for not doing more to alleviate poverty and misery. But in the interests of generating a constructive discussion, let's just go with 'SOME'. All good? But much more importantly, let's discuss WHY Christians limit their charity - the reasons why and any logic behind such. I am interested in how Christians understand Jesus' example and his words about love and their subsequent understanding of contributing charity (in all ways, including financial). Please don't bother participating if you are simply going to deny that people limit their charity based on any decision-making process (Thormas) - that will really be a waste of time.

Burl, in your experience, do you or other Christians you know, apply some sort of logic or some sort of decision-making/reasoning process when it comes to your charity (i.e how much you are prepared to give - either in time or money or both) and do you restrict your charitably at all, for any reason whatsoever, practical or not? This is not a judgement - this is trying to move the discussion ahead.

I will point out, again, that clearly I discuss charity as more than a money & possessions thing when in my response to Burl about where I draw my line when it comes to charity, I say "So I have a line, a point, a budget, where I say I don't want to give any more than a certain amount of money away. My contribution in the community is less rigid and may change from week to week depending on what else is happening in my life. My point is - I don't run myself into the ground with my time contribution and I don't spend more than my budgeted charitable contribution, so I draw a line at some point." If you read that as only referring to money and possessions then there is not much more I can say,but I think most can read that I am also referring to a time commitment (if you need the detail, I had helping with a homeless shelter and volunteering as a responder on a suicide hotline in mind).

It's your defensiveness that sees what I am saying as judgement. We haven't even got to discuss and consider or asses the whys and wherefores of limiting charity because of your issues, assertions, insults and ongoing defence about there being Christians who use Jesus' words as an excuse to limit charity (just how many is disagreed upon we all can see) and your understanding that no Christian actually stops charity at some practical point because they all just keep on giving and giving without any thought for limiting charity - in your experience apparently. Your red herrings concerning what to debate have totally distracted from what I hoped to discuss, which is possibly your attempt to avoid the actual stuff I was hoping to get to. Who knows. What I do know is your counter argument is contributing nothing to a genuine debate around the question of Christians limiting their charity for whatever circumstance. If you actually want to constructively contribute to a debate as to why many Christians do restrict their charity (for a variety of reasons), then feel free, but otherwise I have finished engaging in your dead-end argument about perceptions of numbers of how many Christians use these words of Jesus or your illogical point that people don't make some sort of logical decisions concerning when to limit their charity (which you say never happens).

Well, I'm sure you can read your name several times over throughout that post, so yes. When I referred to "This in the face of many Christians proclaiming Jesus to be the best example of what it is to be fully human and in my words, to be the epitome of love", I did have you, and many other Christians in mind. You used the term 'fully human' in a previous thread but I know many, many Christians (presumably the majority who worship Jesus anyhow) who believe and preach that Jesus was THE example of how to live one's life. I understand you have never, ever heard among your Catholic surroundings the reference to Jesus' words being justification for not doing more for the poor - you have repeated that several times. I think we all understand by now that you have never heard it. Indeed there are many, many Catholics and it would seem the author of the link from the Catholic Archdioses of Cincinnati as far back as 2013 has had a different Catholic experience than you when she says "If I hear one more person take the phrase “The poor you will always have with you” out of context (almost always as an excuse to avoid asking the hard questions about poverty), I may have to scream. I have heard this statement used countless times as Jesus’ prediction of the state of the world." Look maybe she is lying, or maybe she is simply mistaken when she portrays it as a common issue she has come across. I don't really know - perhaps you can take it up with her. But nonetheless, I was just showing you that hearing such excuses is not limited to my experience. My experience is many, yours is none. Move on, mate.

What are you reading into those references, Thormas! They are there just to demonstrate that I am not the only person who has heard Christians defend not doing more for the poor because of those words attributed to Jesus! Those authors of those links have heard it to! That's why they are arguing it is NOT a correct interpretation of the words. I pretty much agree with them as I discussed with Burl! Slow down - read what is getting written in this thread. Again, please read the thread, Thormas. How did I explain to Burl how I consider limits to my charity?

Not sure what your issue is with me and quotes, Thormas, but it's your issue, not mine. I never said I was producing evidence of any sort other than list a couple of links to demonstrate that I am not the only person to experience "the poor will always be with you" as an argument for limiting Christian charity. If you're happy to ignore that it exists - I don't care. If you are defensive of my personal experience concerning 'many' Christians, again that is your issue. Yours is 'zero' - I get that. I thought if I reduce it to 'some' you might be a little moire able to discuss the matter. Seems not.

I guess my intro wasn't about trying to correctly interpret this passage, but rather just identifying that many Christians (IMO) do make a judgement call about what they can and can't give and that in my experience, many do use this alleged quote from Jesus as justification for not doing more. As I said, they draw a line in the sand (an analogy) as to when they determine they have contributed whatever they consider 'appropriate'. There is a reason or a number of reasons why you don't give 'all' of your money away, so to me that is a decision-making process based on what you consider important to the decision. That's what I do too, as previously explained. I am NOT saying you or Thormas use Jesus' words this way. My personal experience was that many Christians justify not giving more by some reference to "the poor will always be with you". I understand you and Thormas have never, ever heard that explanation, but I hope you both might understand that such an experience isn't limited to myself, hence why I provided some brief references to show that (late I agree, but I did suggest others look them up themselves a lot earlier on). There was no point in further discussing that point of view though with either of you because you weren't familiar with it and it has never been your experience apparently, but I tried to further discuss the concept of 'limitations' on charity based on people's own decisions. Again, this is something that Thormas denies people do, so the conversation wasn't really going anywhere. I can imagine how he and others may feel attacked because I am calling into question the amount of Christian charity that some people do or don't provide. I question for instance how some Christians can feel comfortable about say buying material items to make their life more comfortable whilst children in the world starve to death or die because they can't afford medications to otherwise simple, curable diseases. This in the face of many Christians proclaiming Jesus to be the best example of what it is to be fully human and in my words, to be the epitome of love. It's that discussion I'd like to have but we haven't been able to get there because up until now, nobody seems to think people withhold charity whatsoever, for any reason (they just 'do' without any thought according to Thormas). I don't see that as reality but if others do, then there really is nowhere for this discussion to go. Some people simply can't afford to give more in their lives because otherwise even their basic necessities in life would deteriorate to a point where they are then just as bad off. But we all know there are plenty of Christians who do buy comfortable things in life (upgraded cars, toys for their kids, TV's, make-up, nice clothes, etc etc) and I am hoping to discuss how people think Jesus would react if he had a choice between say buying a new cologne or the latest iPhone compared to instead giving that money to feed a starving to death child or one that could be saved with medications that cost less than a years' subscription to Netflix.