I'm still reading, so this post is incomplete. Ayn Rand already gave a secular argument against altruism. What we need is religious argument against altruism, so here's my attempt.
1 Corinthians 13:3 goes, "If I give everything I have to feed poor people and if I give my body to be burned, but do not have love, it will not help me." Love is mutual. It's not just about giving but also receiving. What we can conclude is that if you give, you should receive. Giving without love is worse than not giving.
Jesus said the rich man will have a tougher time entering the kingdom than a camel will to enter the eye of a needle. But based on this Corinthians verse we can see that poor people won't enter either even if you give because they need love. It also depends on what wealth means. He may be referring to billionaires or millionaires. He didn't say anything about those who are moderately wealthy, middle class so we can assume they can enter the kingdom too. It's okay to have some riches and use it for yourself. To enter the eye of the needle, you need to be on the receiving end of love/altruism.
We need to ask ourselves why Jesus said this. Perhaps it's not about wealth but what the richest people were coincidentally in the period of time Jesus lived. Perhaps it's rich men like George Soros who are fighting against the least of the "least of these," the preborn children.
Jesus did say to give all your possessions away, but it seems that was to enter into communism where everyone's needs would be met. As The Bible says, "The apostles then distributed it according to each person’s need." Perhaps it's okay to give your possessions IF you're entering a system in which your needs will met. Otherwise it's not.
Paul seems to imply altruism should be mutual, "If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?" If you give, you should receive.
Jesus did say to do good deeds in secret, which may imply the worst form of altruism - the non-mutual kind, but I just debunked this.
He also did say 'Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat..." He's saying poor people are God. But perhaps he means you only need to help one and not many, since he says, "Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." Although the poor may be like God, Psalms 82:6 seems to say everyone is a God
Technically, children are the least of these(because they're hungry, thirsty, and need clothing which they can't acquire themselves due to being so young), so just having children fulfills the commandments.
Here's why I don't think the poor will enter the kingdom. Acquiring wealth seems to be the next step after becoming Christian. Jacob 2:18 says, "But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God." This also implies it's okay to have riches. If you don't have riches, perhaps it's because you're not Christian. Without this insight, you'd think people poor due to iniquity(like excessive use of gambling) or laziness are on the right path. I don't think gambling or laziness are sins though.
Jesus said ask and ye shall receive. You might think this refers to panhandling, but I don't think so. It's referring to putting in effort to get what you want. Working is one way of "knocking." He didn't exclude the well off from this. It's okay to seek more even when you already have. For example, 2 Nephi 4:35 says, "Yea, I know that God will give liberally to him that asketh." It's okay to receive a lot.
Another relevant verse is Matthew 21:31, which says tax collectors will enter the kingdom before you. Perhaps these tax collectors were moderately wealthy due to taxation.
@Old Ironsides I'm pinging you because you're a Christmaxxer. Perhaps this thread might interest you.p
1 Corinthians 13:3 goes, "If I give everything I have to feed poor people and if I give my body to be burned, but do not have love, it will not help me." Love is mutual. It's not just about giving but also receiving. What we can conclude is that if you give, you should receive. Giving without love is worse than not giving.
Jesus said the rich man will have a tougher time entering the kingdom than a camel will to enter the eye of a needle. But based on this Corinthians verse we can see that poor people won't enter either even if you give because they need love. It also depends on what wealth means. He may be referring to billionaires or millionaires. He didn't say anything about those who are moderately wealthy, middle class so we can assume they can enter the kingdom too. It's okay to have some riches and use it for yourself. To enter the eye of the needle, you need to be on the receiving end of love/altruism.
We need to ask ourselves why Jesus said this. Perhaps it's not about wealth but what the richest people were coincidentally in the period of time Jesus lived. Perhaps it's rich men like George Soros who are fighting against the least of the "least of these," the preborn children.
Jesus did say to give all your possessions away, but it seems that was to enter into communism where everyone's needs would be met. As The Bible says, "The apostles then distributed it according to each person’s need." Perhaps it's okay to give your possessions IF you're entering a system in which your needs will met. Otherwise it's not.
Paul seems to imply altruism should be mutual, "If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?" If you give, you should receive.
Jesus did say to do good deeds in secret, which may imply the worst form of altruism - the non-mutual kind, but I just debunked this.
He also did say 'Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat..." He's saying poor people are God. But perhaps he means you only need to help one and not many, since he says, "Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." Although the poor may be like God, Psalms 82:6 seems to say everyone is a God
Technically, children are the least of these(because they're hungry, thirsty, and need clothing which they can't acquire themselves due to being so young), so just having children fulfills the commandments.
Here's why I don't think the poor will enter the kingdom. Acquiring wealth seems to be the next step after becoming Christian. Jacob 2:18 says, "But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God." This also implies it's okay to have riches. If you don't have riches, perhaps it's because you're not Christian. Without this insight, you'd think people poor due to iniquity(like excessive use of gambling) or laziness are on the right path. I don't think gambling or laziness are sins though.
Jesus said ask and ye shall receive. You might think this refers to panhandling, but I don't think so. It's referring to putting in effort to get what you want. Working is one way of "knocking." He didn't exclude the well off from this. It's okay to seek more even when you already have. For example, 2 Nephi 4:35 says, "Yea, I know that God will give liberally to him that asketh." It's okay to receive a lot.
Another relevant verse is Matthew 21:31, which says tax collectors will enter the kingdom before you. Perhaps these tax collectors were moderately wealthy due to taxation.
@Old Ironsides I'm pinging you because you're a Christmaxxer. Perhaps this thread might interest you.p
Last edited:
