I'd even argue that we should encourage _more_ of this behavior, if it leads to more charity.
The idea that you have to do good deeds without expecting any kind of reward or recognition seems distinctly Christian to me. For Christians, the intent of this requirement is to ensure people remain humble (pride is a sin, of course) but this clearly contradicts the (imo much more relevant) principle of self interest. You can't really expect people to do something for other people without some kind of reward -- be it the promise of eternal salvation, some kind of social credit, or simply an internal sense of satisfaction.
As long as people aren't merely simulating charity to receive it, I don't see any downside to allowing people a bit of social reward for their giving.
I believe in the ancient world (roman, jewish, and greek) charity was seen as a moral good but the emphasis was on helping your own tribe. Jesus expanded that to helping the "other".
Sure, I never claimed that Christians invented charity. They're certainly not even the only religion that advocates universal charity.
To be clear, what I see as distinctly Christian is the idea that charity must be purely altruistic -- it's not seen as Christian to desire recognition for your charity, or to perform charitable acts with the hope of being rewarded with eternal salvation. They must be done purely out of duty to God, and love for others (which are essentially identical requirements, since "God is love").
But if there's ignorance behind that thought, I'm open to being educated.
Altruism predates humans, but we are the best at it, and this behavior long predates Christianity. That you associate altruism distinctly with Christianity just discloses massive gaps in your experience and/or education.
Not only have you misinterpreted my comment to attack claims I never made, you've also used this misinterpretation as license to insult me. Lovely.
It isn’t an insult to say you’re speaking about something you’re clearly not educated in when you clearly aren’t educated in it. A lot of people might take offense I guess, but an insult would be directed at you personally, not something you could easily rectify.
The rest of your comments confirm what I said. I am really unclear how you think I have misinterpreted your comment.
If you were interested in demonstrating my lack of education, I'm not sure you have done so.
But I'm happy to conclude this exchange with your feeling satisfied on that point. I don't imagine you're interested in an actual debate on substance, given that your only argument is essentially that I'm ignorant, and I don't know what I'm talking about.
Thank you for lending your expertise in this matter.
My argument seemed pretty clear to me. Altruism, which is generally defined as helping others without expectation of benefit, is not at all specific to Christianity, despite that being your impression.
I would be happy to discuss the topic in more detail but your responses have so far consisted of telling me I don’t understand what you’re saying, but without clarifying your position further.
I don't think that altruism is specific to Christianity. I clarified that in a sibling comment (which you seemed to indicate you had read?), and that what I meant was Christianity specifically requires that good deeds must be purely altruistic. It's not considered true charity to do something with the expectation of any kind of reward. Am I wrong in thinking this is distinctly Christian? I'm genuinely interested.
Can we please guillotine this entire sidebar, it's offtopic to Ted Turner (or anywhere on HN).
Yeah, actually I completely agree with you. This discussion has gotten way out of hand.