167 acts of imposed obligations in Scottsburg.

[HoughMade]

You seem to be quoting from Matthew 25, if not where are you quoting from? I see no requirement to judge the need before giving in that text.

So you're assuming that hungry simply meant "I haven't had lunch yet" as opposed to "I have a real need for food and no means to get it"?

Well, shoot, those church potlucks are more meaningful then I thought.

 

[foszoe]

Not the motives, per se, but the motivation. Cognitive psychology.

What is the difference between motive and motivation? One can talk about the motive and motivations in the realm of Cognitive Psychology, but the opening post was far afield from discussing motive. Cognitive psychology discussions identify trends but the conclusions reached in the opening post are in the realm of cynicism than psychology.


And no it wasn't purple.

 

[foszoe]

So you're assuming that hungry simply meant "I haven't had lunch yet" as opposed to "I have a real need for food and no means to get it"?

Well, shoot, those church potlucks are more meaningful then I thought.

Lawyers can surely come up with more than two options!

Jesus fed the 5000 and the 4000. Neither record a needs test being given. In fact, Matthew 14:15 would seem to say some of them DID have the ability to buy their own food.

I am not questioning anyone who does not participate in the "paying it forward". We can even talk about motive/motivation, but to outright attribute a blanket motive/motivation to people who do is wrong.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So you're assuming that hungry simply meant "I haven't had lunch yet" as opposed to "I have a real need for food and no means to get it"?

Well, shoot, those church potlucks are more meaningful then I thought.

This opens all kinds of questions:

1. Does a person have to be destitute in order to have a need? Corollary: As foszoe mentioned, Christ's feeding of thousands was not a means-tested act of welfare and in fact it appears that some had brought their own lunch as evidenced by the collections taken up prior to eating. You also have to consider place utility. While this doesn't apply to the guy behind you at McD's, for the crowd assembled before Christ, going to Long John's for their fish was not an option. Similarly, if you see me standing on the side of the road on a hot day in close proximity to absolutely nothing, I would greatly appreciate a bottle of water which is not available to me even if I have enough money in my pocket to buy a new car.
2. Does a person have to be devoid of any alternative (like buying his own lunch) in order for a genuine act of kindness to have merit?
3. Is there value in the community-building done in a situation like that mentioned originally, or a church potluck, or even buying a stray kid with an empty pocket an ice cream cone? Does that act of kindness have the potential to make a difference?

 

[JettaKnight]

You're getting off topic.

If someone orders food at the McD's drive through, then they have disposable income to commit to fast food.
When they order, they mentally spend that money, the only thing remaining is the actual handing of the money to cashier.
When they hear the cashier say, "the person in front of you paid for your meal." then they aren't being truly selfless and altruistic in paying for the the next customer. Nor are they really thinking, "that person behind needs food, and WWJD?"


Yes, Foszoe, this is a limb I'm more that willing to go out on.


Furthermore, paying for the next gal's frapachino, and claiming it as a good deed, sounds like something a Pharasee would do. If you do this stuff and think, "hey, it's a fun way to build community among those of us that eat fast food and use the drive through", then... whatever. If you use this as a way to convince yourself that you're a compassionate, giving individual, then you've been watching too much Joel Osteen.

 

[T.Lex]

When they hear the cashier say, "the person in front of you paid for your meal." then they aren't being truly selfless and altruistic in paying for the the next customer. Nor are they really thinking, "that person behind needs food, and WWJD?"

A) In INGObinarian terms, they are. They are not being selfish and greedy, which is the only other option.

B) In more gray area terms, they may not be being totally selfless, in that they are spending (roughly) the same money they were intending to pay anyway, but I would argue that they ARE being altruistic. They are caring more - in that moment - about the next guy's $5 than their own. That's altruism.

C) I thought we already resolved that the real issue is where on the spectrum you are regarding expected social interactions. It really just throws you for a loop because there isn't a clear "oh, when people do this, I'm supposed to do that" thing. (Please don't be offended at the "spectrum" thing, I'm really just giving you a hard time.) Social ambiguity can be fun, and funny. Remember all the various "hidden camera" TV shows?

 

[Alpo]

"The guy in front of me paid for my meal!!!!??? Wow. Thanks dude!

"Hmmm. Hey, I want to pay for that lady behind me. What did she order?"

"4 Big Macs, 6 Large Fries, 2 Apple pies and a Large McFlurry, sir."

"Ya know...she could lose a little weight. Those springs are sagging on her side of the van. Cancel her order and give her a garden salad with lo-cal dressing. And a glass of water. ON ME!"

 

[SSGSAD]

There is, or was a "pay it forward" thread here on INGO,

that if I remember correctly, a LOT of "us" participated in .....

Here it is .....

I found it .....

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-forward-thread.html?highlight=pay+it+forward

and I just bumped it .....

 

[JettaKnight]

A) In INGObinarian terms, they are. They are not being selfish and greedy, which is the only other option.

B) In more gray area terms, they may not be being totally selfless, in that they are spending (roughly) the same money they were intending to pay anyway, but I would argue that they ARE being altruistic. They are caring more - in that moment - about the next guy's $5 than their own. That's altruism.

C) I thought we already resolved that the real issue is where on the spectrum you are regarding expected social interactions. It really just throws you for a loop because there isn't a clear "oh, when people do this, I'm supposed to do that" thing. (Please don't be offended at the "spectrum" thing, I'm really just giving you a hard time.) Social ambiguity can be fun, and funny. Remember all the various "hidden camera" TV shows?

Funny thing... I mentioned this incident and this discussion, briefly, but her comment was, "of course you're obliged to p(l)ay along."

So it's not just me.

And she's the total opposite of me!

 

[foszoe]

You're getting off topic.

If someone orders food at the McD's drive through, then they have disposable income to commit to fast food.

You can play the law of averages and be right, but you can not say it is true in every case. The person behind you could be making a choice between food and medicine.

When they order, they mentally spend that money, the only thing remaining is the actual handing of the money to cashier.
When they hear the cashier say, "the person in front of you paid for your meal." then they aren't being truly selfless and altruistic in paying for the the next customer. Nor are they really thinking, "that person behind needs food, and WWJD?"

Furthermore, paying for the next gal's frapachino, and claiming it as a good deed, sounds like something a Pharasee would do. If you do this stuff and think, "hey, it's a fun way to build community among those of us that eat fast food and use the drive through", then... whatever. If you use this as a way to convince yourself that you're a compassionate, giving individual, then you've been watching too much Joel Osteen.

I have not claimed it was a good deed. It is the certainty that it isn't that I find troubling. if we are going to dwell in the land of supposition, I will say that a person who has $10 in their pocket and buys for the car behind them most likely was not going to go to the soup kitchen later and give that same $10.

The scriptures I cited specifically say the sheep did NOT know that they were doing a good "deed" which completely cancels the bold type, but it does say that's what gets them placed on the right. Buying a meal for someone else is not a bad thing. The sheep were taking care of those they did not know. In fact, if we do a good deed for the recognition in this life than it is in this life that we receive the reward and not in the next.

For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.”

In the end God will judge the intention of every heart for that I am thankful.

What is the litmus test for buying a meal that makes it ok? Why? Is it done because we are nice? Because we are grateful for something else? Have you known anyone that buys meals for veterans? Police officers? Little old ladies who are on a fixed income but have enough food at home to fix a meal?

I think I will end my input on this matter with this post. It is a disappointment to me, but God will judge.

 

[foszoe]

Well, I have to make one response, Jetta, since you are so certain its not a good deed, you have the best opportunity out of the both of us to get it counted in your favor if you do it

 

[JettaKnight]

What is the litmus test for buying a meal that makes it ok? Why? Is it done because we are nice? Because we are grateful for something else? Have you known anyone that buys meals for veterans? Police officers? Little old ladies who are on a fixed income but have enough food at home to fix a meal?

Who said it wasn't OK?

I'm merely countering the claim that this is "spontaneous generosity" as one article put it.

I think I will end my input on this matter with this post. It is a disappointment to me, but God will judge.

I think you took my post today to be a counter to you - it was merely to get back on topic.

Well, I have to make one response, Jetta, since you are so certain its not a good deed, you have the best opportunity out of the both of us to get it counted in your favor if you do it

Touché.

I never said it's not a good deed... besides, what's the definition of a "good deed"?

 

[sgreen3]

There's worse things in this world to be doing....

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

As to T.Lex - I don't have a study to present, but there's a the wildly known bias when dealing with "anonymous" surveys. In other words, people try to conform because some unknown person is watching. In one case it's the surveyor, in another case it's the cashier. There's that psychological bias that's obligating me to keep "paying it forward". Stanley's telling me to push the button...
How Big is My Penis? (And Other Things We Ask Google) - Freakonomics Freakonomics

Had to drive this morning and finally got a chance to listen to that Freakonomics podcast about Google search data. Thanks for pointing it out, it was really interesting.

Now I might have to buy his book, because after listening to it, I have a lot of questions. I like the idea that google search data can tell us something about ourselves that, many times, we'd never ever admit, but I'm curious why he seemed like he lumped some of the searches, for example the racist searches after Obama was elected, all into one mind-set or motivation. He didn't say if he differentiated between those people who searched with racist terms because they were racist and those who searched with racist terms to maybe just learn about the extent of racism on the internet.

 

[IndyDave1776]

=Furthermore, paying for the next gal's frapachino, and claiming it as a good deed, sounds like something a Pharasee would do. If you do this stuff and think, "hey, it's a fun way to build community among those of us that eat fast food and use the drive through", then... whatever. If you use this as a way to convince yourself that you're a compassionate, giving individual, then you've been watching too much Joel Osteen.

This brings to mind...

Something does not have to make a significant material difference in order to be a good deed. Is it not good if you can put a smile on someone's face by doing something nice even if it doesn't make any particular economic difference to that person and/or if the person isn't in a state of need? How do you put a quantifiable value on a smile. Maybe you didn't materially help the next person but improved the really crappy day that person was having with a kind gesture.

I will agree with you regarding the hazards of taking in too much of the Joel Osteen [STRIKE]worship service[/STRIKE] pep rally with virtually no theological content.

 

[foszoe]

Who said it wasn't OK?

I'm merely countering the claim that this is "spontaneous generosity" as one article put it.



I think you took my post today to be a counter to you - it was merely to get back on topic.




Touché.

I never said it's not a good deed... besides, what's the definition of a "good deed"?

I simply chose to disengage because I don't believe our dialogue was going to bear any fruit. I replied with scriptures and you replied with the wisdom of men so it felt like we were talking past one another.

I love you brother.

I'll get you straightened out at a Purdue home game someday.
Going to Lucas for Louisville? If its boring by the 4th,....

 

[JettaKnight]

Had to drive this morning and finally got a chance to listen to that Freakonomics podcast about Google search data. Thanks for pointing it out, it was really interesting.

Now I might have to buy his book, because after listening to it, I have a lot of questions. I like the idea that google search data can tell us something about ourselves that, many times, we'd never ever admit, but I'm curious why he seemed like he lumped some of the searches, for example the racist searches after Obama was elected, all into one mind-set or motivation. He didn't say if he differentiated between those people who searched with racist terms because they were racist and those who searched with racist terms to maybe just learn about the extent of racism on the internet.

Who knew the Indians were so into breastfeeding?

 

[JettaKnight]

I simply chose to disengage because I don't believe our dialogue was going to bear any fruit. I replied with scriptures and you replied with the wisdom of men so it felt like we were talking past one another.

I love you brother.

I'll get you straightened out at a Purdue home game someday.
Going to Lucas for Louisville? If its boring by the 4th,....

Lucas for Louisville?

I'll be going to at least one home game this year...

 

[foszoe]

Lucas for Louisville?

I'll be going to at least one home game this year...

Purdue Louisville. First game of the year at Lucas oil

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Who knew the Indians were so into breastfeeding?

[Allegedly]