January 17, 2007
-
*Edit*
Ok. I realise now that this is a much bigger question than I
thought. That’s probably why I had so much trouble pondering it
on my own. So I think we need to redefine the original
question. To do that, I’m going to share with you the
conversation that sparked this line of thought, and you can help me out
from there.Me: Why do you do what you do?
Her: I don’t know. What are you talking about?
Me: Why do you pray? Why do you think drinking is bad? Why do you try to obey the ten commandments?
Her: I don’t know…. because that’s what the Bible says.
Me: Why do you do what the Bible says?
Her: ….Because it makes God happy….
Me: Do you think God is any less happy if you don’t do those things?
Her: …Yes…
Me: Do you think you are responsible for His happiness?
Her: …Yes… no… maybe…
Me: Do you think He loves you any less?
Her: No…. uh… is there a right answer to all of this?
Me: No.As we conversed about this, I wondered if there really was a right
answer to why we do the things we do (if there is one, I haven’t found
it yet). If a person’s reason for following the Bible is to “make
God happy,” ultimately, that person is just another “people pleaser”
towards a divine demander . How is that any different from a
non-Christian who does things to please a parent, or a wife, or a
boyfriend or a boss? A people pleaser finds security in the
conditional acceptance and approval of the one being pleased (I may be
answering my own question here). So if a Christian is just a
glorified people pleaser, how is he or she any different?
Ultimately, how are Christians any different than non-Christians in
doing the things that they do?Take another scenario. You have Sally Joe Christian who is
going to church and swearing off dancing because she is afraid that she
will be condemned by God and condemned to hell. You could say the
fear of condemnation is a reverse form of people pleasing (she’s still
finding security in conditional acceptance), or you could say that she
is motivated by the fear of punishment (self-preservation). Well,
you don’t have to be a Christian to be motivated by
self-preservation. That doesn’t make a Christian any different.Or you can look at Ricky Sue Christian, who is following the Bible
because he believes it is the ultimate truth. He has made the law
of the Bible the first and final authority in his life. What the
Bible says, he does. It’s a high form of legalism and blind
faith. How is that any different than non-Christian idealists/
purists, who commit their whole lives to a doctrine, like communism
or fill in the blank ? I don’t know.You can easily find people without a specified faith working for
human rights, or environmental preservation, or curing diseases, and
they will tell you that they do what they do “to make the world a
better place.” And if you ask Christians who are doing the same
thing, they may give the exact same answer….appended with statements
like “for the sake of the Kingdom” or “so they will know saving faith
through Jesus Christ.”So, ultimately, I think I’m asking, “how are Christians motivated
any differently from the rest of the world?” I think that’s what
I’m pondering. And although I have some thoughts bouncing around
in my head, I can’t quite put them into words just yet. So I’m
putting this out here for you in the hopes that it will foster some
discussion and get some people thinking.Because many heads are better than one, right?
Well, usually, anyways. =P Let’s get this baby cracking.
*/End Edit*
Hopefully, this will be a precursor to a more in-depth post, which I
think will foster quite a bit of discussion. I have been
wrestling with something in my head for the past few weeks and I can’t
quite make heads or tails of it yet. So I’m coming to the xanga
community for some help.Question:
What motivates people?
I know there must be several different schools of thought regarding
motivation. I’ve heard bits and pieces of those schools of
thought. For example, the school of fear: fear of failure,
rejection, etc. Another school of thought was that people were
motivated by “cooperation, competition, and creation,” with creation
being the highest, but rarest form of motivation, and cooperation being
the most common, but least effective form. A third line of
thought comprises of people-pleasers and self-indulgers.I am curious about the different schools of thought. What are
they? What do they think is the root of motivation in
people? If you don’t know what the different schools of thought
are, then I am interested in what you personally think motivates
people. What is your take?Go!
Comments (38)
I don’t know schools of thoughts. Failure is huge but pride is equally big. Pride in family, the history, your self. It’s an asian thing that relates to failure but stems more from pride. And that kind of leads to insecurities. Guys are full of insecurities. That motivates us in almost all things I think. We have to win, have to get the biggest thing, the latest thing, etc all because we are not secure with where we are at the given moment.
That’s a question with many possibilities. And I am unfamiliar with any school of thought. But I guess deep in the heart of every human being is the need for love. The need for acceptance/belonging, security, and significance. These needs manifest in many different forms like fear, pride, ambition, etc, but I guess it all stems from a need to be loved, and a need for significance. (Perhaps it’s more of the latter for guys, and more of the former for girls.)
That’s a huge question. I don’t think that could possibly be answered unless I knew what type of motivation you mean. People can be motivated on so many different levels. Do you mean motivated to live life, motivated to act the way we do, motivated to pursue activities or complete certain tasks? And even then, I’m not sure there would be one particular thing that is the root motivator of an individual. I think people can be motivated by different things at different times.
ultimate motivation = STAYING ALIVE!
Well, now that it’s clarified a bit…
A Christian should do things like obeying 10 commandments and whatnot out of service–it’s different than being a people pleaser (or at least should be). Ecclesiastes tells us that the “whole duty of man” is to fear and obey God. ‘Tis our purpose, our reason for being.
A nonChristian’s motivation, ultimately, is always him/herself. To please themselves, to gratify themselves, to prove themselves, ect. People pleasers please others because they want the others to like them–it’s still ultimately self-serving. Enablers enable because they don’t want others to be mad at them–self-serving.
A Christian’s motivation is, at first, identical. “Oh, how I love Jesus because He first loved me.” We become Christians out of duty to the self–because we don’t want to go to Hell, because we want the abundant life, ect. We help old ladies across the street, not out of any regard for the old lady, but because God says stuff like that is good and we want to be on God’s good side–it’s still selfishness.
As we are Christians for longer, though, and become more Christlike, gradually something happens. The selfish motivation for spiritual activities surfaces less and less. Perhaps it has something to do with what John the Baptist said: “He must increase, I must decrease.” It’s just that you are less concious of your own benefit even when doing things that (in a spiritual sense) will benefit you. Obedience out of your redeemed nature rather than obedience out of a desire to actually accomplish anything.
Ideally, I think, we will all come to a place in which we can serve God with no thought of even spiritual gain. Where we would continue to serve God even if He suddenly and for no reason whisked heaven away from us: where we can actually say, “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.” Where our nature progressively becomes more and more Christlike until our heart breaks for the things that break His heart and our anger burns at the things that anger Him and we cannot HELP but do as Christ would do.
More than making the world vaguely “a better place.” Much more than that. It’s the point at which your will, desires, and motivations are all transformed–subliminated even–by the will, desires and being of God.
“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit” – Aristotle
Chris,
It sounds like what you’re saying (although I think I understand what you really mean), is that when you do something for a long time (“As we are Christians for longer… and become more Christlike”), you become what you do. The original reasons nolonger are relevant because, eventually, Christians do things out of habit, without thought to fears and/or selfishness that drove them in the very beginning. However, those fears and/or selfishnesses are still the root cause that directed that behaviour to begin with. They are just hiding in the background on cruise control. It also sounds like “transformation” is simply a factor of time. However, I think either you meant something different or I am just intentionally taking liberty in interpreting your third to last paragraph in an effort to encourage discussion.
What I think you mean is something different.
If I were to build off of your last two paragraphs and put an “Alban-twist” on it, I would say that when Christians do and act as the Bible proscribes, and are able to see the fruits of their labor and efforts (which oftentimes, are not immediately harvested), they feel pleasure… both at the fruit and the pleasure of God…. “Well done good and faithful servant. Come share in your master’s joy.” Repeated obedience, along with intermittent harvesting of fruit, combined with a trust (or blind faith) that some harvests go unseen, eventually becomes a rewarding way of life. I believe when Christians recognise the rewards of this way of life, they also recognise the transformation of will, desires, and motivations you speak of in your closing statement. They find that they desire the things God desires because they see the inherent good in God and the commands He gives. Perhaps, in this “holy state,” the Christian finds that his or her motivations stem from a desire to do good with the expectation that their actions prepare a harvest that is for the common good of all. And ultimately, under the divine authority of God, the aggregate thoughts and actions of each individual contribute significantly to an incomprehensibly amazing grand plan. You mean what I do matters? Yeah, I’d say that’s good motivation.
These are good thoughts. Thanks for sharing them. Let’s keep them coming.
i’m not gonna read all those other comments. I’ll just shoot off what came quickly to my mind and if something comes out later I’ll post what comes out later.
here comes my 2cent. *ahem.
People/God pleasing is a secondary issue. It is. You are focusing in on the extremities of what should be a life trying to imitate Christ. Isn’t that what, ultimately, God wants us to be. To be more like Christ? I mean, isn’t that why he sent his son to demonstrate to the world what life really is all about and what the purpose of life is?
Think of it this way. We need to believe that Christ is the smartest man in the world and in history. The smartest. He knows it all. He knows how to live life and he is teaching us that to get the fullest life then you should do what he does. Everything outside of that: doing the ‘right’ things and loving people and ‘forgiving’ and all that ‘action’ stuff will come out naturally if you become like Christ.
To do that one needs to start talking about the discplines of Christ but I won’t get into that novel now.
Fullness of life ultimately is the reason we become Christian or we do anything at all. We want to live life the best we can. To the fullest without that empty feeling that we get after we’ve acheived some secular goal that we’ve set and reached. Here, in Christianity, we have this book that says iif you want a full/complete/ etc life then ‘this (Christ) is the way.’ Now, if we are secular we believe in other people or influences that say that ‘this (money, success, fill in the blank) is the way.’
Is there a difference? I could go on how Christianity has reached varing cultures and people groups and have penetrated lives of so many different people that so univserally emcopass society that the motivation of ‘Christ’ is different then say ‘parents, money success, etc.’ but, for me, it comes down to picking finite stuff over infinate stuff.
I choose an Infinite stuff and that is the difference there.
man, I hope I’ve made some sense. More later when it comes together in my head but these are my initial gut reactions.
Let me rephrase.
God was doing us a favor. We were crying out and stumbling over each other saying, “what is the purpose of life? How do I live life to the fullest? And God showed mercy on us and gave us Christ to demonstrate how to live life. He sent the example. Jesus Christ. Now if you believe it then this is why we do anything. If not, then you have your own example of how to live life to the fullest and you do that.
Okay, now that you have further clarified what you actually mean, I’ll just give my opinion based on my observations in both Christian and non-Christian circles, and it may come across as a tad, well, cynical.
Having worked in both Christian ministry and the secular world, my opinion is that unless a Christian really desires to please God and live to glorify God, both Christians and non-Christians more or less have the same motivation. They both live for self, though perhaps for a Christian that can be disguised in a way so that s/he appears more positive or “spiritual”.
Of course, we know what should motivate a Christian, but more often than not, I have seen Christians being motivated by very much the same things non-Christians are (myself included).
BUT I have also seen Christians (and this is a rarer bunch) who really live their lives for God. And it’s not because it’s what they are supposed to do, or to make themselves look good, but because they have really experienced God’s love, grace and mercy, and their lives have been profoundly changed by it. Looking at their countenance, the words they say and the things they do, you know it’s not out of duty or performance or for approval, but because they have been so touched by God that they just spill forth God’s love and grace. You can sense the difference.
Of course, being fallen human beings, and given our complexities, and where moment-by-moment decisions are concerned, Christians in the first category can make decisions out of a genuine desire to please God, and Christians in the second category can also make decisions out of their carnal nature. But this is more for specific decisions/motivations, and not an overall motivation as you are talking about.
But I guess at the end of the day, we humans are complex beings, and it’s a moment-by-moment decision whether a Christian chooses to live by the flesh or by the Spirit. And like what Chris mentioned, the process of sanctification also comes in. So I guess there is no cut-and-dry answer, although we (Christians, I mean) know what we should be motivated by. A very hard to answer question, that’s all I can say.
GummieF,
Sorry to pick on you here, but I wanted to represent a viewpoint outside of Christianity that will probably not get properly represented here. Please don’t take anything here personally… I’m just trying to say what I “hear” my friends would say in response to this. So here goes:
1) You say that Jesus came to demonstrate how to live life to the fullest. Ok. So what did Jesus do? He taught in synagogues. He fed people. He healed the sick. He criticized politicians and church leaders. And then he died. Young. And he didn’t even get married? How is that an example of living life to the fullest? In fact, if you ignore the part about dying young (and for some of us, the unmarried part), you could say that most non-Christians do what Jesus did. People teach! People feed the hungry! People pay taxes that support the healthcare system, and even donate to charitable donations that help with hunger/sickness relief efforts. You don’t have to be a Christian to do these things. Furthermore, Jesus didn’t need to come to demonstrate these things. I am almost certain that they were done before his arrival.
2) You say that people were crying out and stumbling over each other saying, “what is the purpose of life? How do I live life to the fullest?” To borrow a phrase from the Christians, “where is that in the Bible?” Were the slaves in Egypt crying out for the purpose of life? Were the 12 tribes of Israel crying out to live life to the fullest when God sent the judges? Did Israel ask Samuel for the purpose of life… or were they asking for a king so they could be like other nations? I find it hard to believe that the people in the Bible were more concerned about the purpose of life than the more immediate problems of being dominated by a foreign ruler and being integrated into an empire.
3) What makes a Christian’s way of living life to the fullest any better than a non-Christian’s? Please don’t think that non-Christians are only living life for worldly and finite pleasures such as wealth and power… and conversely, please don’t think that Christians are exempt from such things. Some people live life for love… to love and to be loved. To have a husband or wife… and to have children. How can that be any less fulfilling than the example Jesus gave? Other people live for beauty… to find beauty or to create beauty through art, and then share it with others to bring hope or inspiration. What about people who devote themselves to humanitarian organisations that treat people for illnesses, or feed/clothe the hungry? Can you claim that their lives are any less full by doing what they do when compared with what Jesus (and Christians) do?
Gummie, again, I apologise for picking on you. I want to state here what I did not state in my post, and that is this pondering and questioning that went into this post is greatly influenced by my desire to share Christ with those who do not have him. I know some of the things my friends will say to refute them… and I have no answer to give to them. So when I present these hard, opposing questions to you, I’m not just trying to give you a hard time. I’m also trying to find an answer to give them. Thank you for understanding.
–Alban
Eusisms,
I see your caveat about the inability of individuals to persistently adhere to one philosophy without breaking from it in a moment of weakness (or inspiration, depending on what it is). I think Paul said it best when he said, “The things I do not want to do, I do, and the things that I want to do, I do not do.” – Romans 7
However, I think I am asking about why a person would subscribe to one philosophy over another. You insinuate in your second paragraph that real Christians should be trying to please God and to glorify Him. Why? What would they want to do that for? Like I mentioned in my main post, if they are doing it out of insecurity and are simply seeking the approval of God, then how are they any different from a non-Christian who seeks approval from his parents or his peers?
I think you touched on an interesting point in your fourth paragraph: “I have also seen Christians… who really live their lives for God…they have really experienced God’s love, grace and mercy, and their lives have been profoundly changed by it.” I would like to hear you expand on this. How does experiencing God’s love, grace, and mercy change a person? I guess thats the million dollar question, right?
I know it’s a tough question. Thank you for trying to help me ponder it.
ah, Until you amended the question, I was going to post something along the lines of ‘bloodsugar levels and chemicals in the brain.’ Without them, none of us would get out of bed in the morning.
I haven’t read the rest of the comments, (lacking the motivation atm) so pardon the redundancies.
I’d add another level. ‘Pleasing God’ is not the motivation (though it might be a goal of sorts). Love of God is the motivation as Christians. We do things we don’t feel like, put up with stupidities graciously, try to do the right stuff because we Love God. If we love anyone, some part of our energies are spent trying to please them. Take any dating scenario, for example: what are all the candies, flowers, letters, gifts about? They are offered in the hopes that they will be pleasing to the beloved. WHY we love that person is an entirely different matter, and at a basic level can be very selfish (for example: this person makes me feel good). Come to think of it, Go read C.S. Lewis’ book before I rehash the whole lot.
I don’t feel that is quite the same thing as being an all-around ‘people-pleaser.’ It’s not so much a need to please, as the active desire to please as an outpouring of love.
Addition, the love spilling over into everyday life stuff, it’s not unlike the ‘love me, love my cat’ principle. As we continue to grow in love of God, so too, do we come to love the things that he loves (including other people) out of our love for him. This principle explains why wives watch football.
^good show, Rebel Friend. You bring up a point that I had completely forgotten about. Pleasing others can be done out of love for the beloved, and not necessarily out of the insecurity of the lover. It seems like I need to go back and reread my own posts on Thomas Merton and love. What CS Lewis book are you referencing?
I am actually hoping to put together a tackle football game if we get 3 inches of snow on the ground. Do you think wives would love their husbands enough to participate in such an event? =)
^I don’t think it simply becomes habit but “those fears and/or selfishnesses are still the root cause that directed that behaviour to begin with.” I’m saying the root causes themselves change when one becomes more Christlike–that your heart is regenerated (Eldredge), and thus your desires change.
And I disagree that the change is a pleasure response based partially on being “able to see the fruits of their labor and efforts.” I think when the change happens it’s independant of results. In fact I’ve seen with some Christians that the more Christlike they become the less results they get, because they keep getting re-assigned to thicker and deeper fields of battle… That the deeper they go the less their actions have any presently visible or tangible impact.
Chris, I THINK we agree on your first paragraph. I’m having a little trouble understanding your first sentence grammatically. Perhaps you can state it another way.
Regarding your second paragraph, I did say that, “Repeated obedience, along with intermittent harvesting of fruit, combined with a trust (or blind faith) that some harvests go unseen, eventually becomes a rewarding way of life.” The idea is, what begins as an “obedience/immediate reward” relationship eventually transitions into an “obedience/trust” relationship over time. I believe that God nurtures people in accordance with their level of faith, allowing them to see the fruits of their labor when their faith is still young, and encourages the growth of faith by concealing some of the fruits of their labor while still asking for the same obedience. I specifically chose the words “intermittent harvesting of fruit” and “a trust … that some harvests go unseen” to indicate that Christians, as they grow in their faith, will be “rewarded” less but continue to do more because their trust in a good and soverign God increases. Also, I say “rewarded” somewhat loosely because I believe the object of our pleasure changes accordingly as our faith grows. I think we’re actually trying to say the same thing from differing perspectives, but I’ll let you refute that assumption if you disagree. =P
After digging into the love of Christ this break, I agree w/withabandon that love is the motive for what we will and what we do. Lovers demonstrate their love by doing what each other wants…the same goes for Christians and their God. The relationship we have with Christ is unlike those of soldiers and their superiors but one of lovers. We obey God because He has won our hearts in love. I think that’s the difference between motivation for Christians and non-Christians. Apart from love, obedience is simply an act of obligation – as a response to love, duty becomes an act of devotion.
C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves I have a copy here if you’d like to borrow. I even know where it is (shock horror).
As for tackle football, you’re asking completely the wrong question. It’s not ‘would she play?’ but rather, ‘would you WANT your (theoretical) wife to play?’ This is, after all, TACKLE football. 0.o Conversely, do you want to suffer the penalty (beating) for tackling someone else’s wife? I get the impression you haven’t thought through this plan . . .
Xanga ought to have a ‘reply to comment’ feature- this is tricky to follow.
Sav3dbygrace and Withabandon,
The irony of this discussion is that we have now described the motivation for Christians to act by using an analogy that is not widely considered to be Christian in nature, that is, the love that exists between lovers, which was, in fact, originally a teaching of Paul’s to teach men how to love their wives by using the love of Christ for us as an example to follow.
This then, leads me to wonder, was Paul instituting social change by exhorting men to love their wives, or were Christian men particularly negligent in this area whereas the rest of society was already treating their wives with tender loving care?
Withabandon – I agree with you about xanga’s lack of a “reply to comment” feature. perhaps we should petition for change.
Lastly, I DID think about the tackle football game. The rules are as follows:
Women shall not be tackled. They shall be protected by the two hand touch rule. Women are permitted to attempt tackles, although it is expected that this will not happen in reality. If she so chooses, an individual woman may waive the right to the two hand touch rule and participate in full contact sport. Any woman who has ever made a statement using the phrase “men and women are equal” in conjunction with “there is no difference between the genders/sexes” automatically forfeit the right to two hand touch. That woman will be tackled with extreme prejudice.
All other participants will play by the normal rules of tackle football. Children are encouraged to avert their eyes.
I really don’t see how it isn’t considered widely to be Christian! This is hardly strictly a New Testament theme. The wife/husband relationship is prevailent throughout scripture, and Paul was only reiterating what had gone before. The entire book of Hosea, for example, is all about God, as a loving husband, wounded over the actions of a faithless wife, Israel.
16″And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.’ 17For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth, and they shall be remembered by name no more.
19And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. 20I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. And you shall know the LORD.
Just for a sample. Really better to read Hosea and see for yourself. I don’t even have to mention Song of Solomon. There is also the line of thought that marriage is supposed to mirror not only Christ and the Church, but the companionship of the trinity. It was ‘not good’ for man to be alone, as he was made in the image of God, and God was not, strictly speaking, alone. I’m not prepared to defend that atm, the arguments are fuzzy in my head as I heard it quite a while ago.
The urge to love predates Paul. Jesus himself makes a point of it: 8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. In other words, lack of love was hardly just a ‘Christian’ problem. It was already an issue when Moses was around (and before then, what about Leah, the unloved wife? When the LORD saw that Leah was not loved, Gen 29:31). Must’ve really sucked to be Leah. -_- Paul was not giving a new commandment to remedy a ‘recent’ problem, alas.
And I disagree slighty with your football rules, (well thought out as they are): Men and women ARE equal, BUT different.
Equal but different is my official stance on the matter. Anyone who says equal and same… that really ruffles my feathers.
When I say that the love that exist between two lovers is not widely considered a Christian concept, I was referring to the world at large, not just in Christian communities. The world is flooded with movies, books, plays, and songs from thousands of years and hundreds of cultures that were written about the love and passion that exist between lovers (please also note that I have strategically avoided saying “between a man and a woman.” I am talking about the world at large here.) While it would be easy to dismiss a portion of these artistic expressions to be lust-inspired, it is difficult to ignore the love-centered themes that make no mention of Christ. The point I am trying to make is that from the perspective of the world, love has been around forever without the aid of Christ. I understand that Jesus taught on love and that love is mentioned throughout the Old Testament as well. But to convince someone that love is a Christian/Judaic/Divine invention (as opposed to an evolutionary trait) is to convince someone that there is a Creator and that we are the created. Really, I’m just using a lot of words to say that not everyone sees it your way. While I agree with you, I was reminding myself that others do not. Not all of my readers are Christian, and unfortunately, they are not well respresented in my comments section.
When I talked about Paul instituting social change, I was wondering out loud if Paul was playing revolutionary. Was he the first one to say, “Men, you should love your wives,” or was he merely taking a look around society and saying, “Men, these greeks love their wives better than you love your own. You gotta step it up and get with the program!” Clearly, lack of love has been a longstanding problem. I was merely wondering if Paul was the first one to make a change or if he was trying to get the believers to play catchup. If it’s the former, that’s one more bullet in my gun when I argue for positive impact Christians have made in this world. If it’s the latter, then I can humbly remind myself and others that Christians have a lot to learn from the world. Honestly, I think it’s better to endeavour the former and humbly remember the latter regardless of whether Paul was a revolutionary or not.
Alban,
I really don’t want to get into a debate because, obviously, if there was a single ‘right’ answer then people would be arguing people that Christianity is the right way by handing out a packet of ‘right answers’ and that would be that. I mean, wouldn’t apologetics then be the method to ‘convert’ people. But, aruging and disecting and trying to ‘prove’ anything doesn’t work. Maybe it does for some people but let’s face it, debating with people doesn’t work for a majority. Come now, Christ was debating with Pharisees who knew that he was the Messiah but still went against him for their own pride. Paul debated people all day and only some were saved. Answering questions don’t equal conversion for everyone. This has been my experience.
To quickly answer your ‘questions’ I’ll do it generally.
1.) Again you are looking at the extremeties/actions. What was the character of Christ? First and for most he loved God. He spent time with God. He talked to God. Disciplines of prayer, solitude, and silence are here. Secondary he loved people. He quoted from scripture which means he studied the word and he taught the word of God because he loved God. The actions based on these 2 attributes have to be context associatied. In his context, in his time of history, in his culture, in his area, he did what he thought were satisfiying those 2 attributes. In our context, in our time of history, in our culture, in our area this would be drastically different but the 2 attributes would be the same.
2.) You realize that ‘atonement’ is never used in the bible but it is implied. Wanting to go back to God or a lack of a ‘fullness’ of life apart from God is implied way back to Adam and Eve. As soon as Adam and Eve were banished they were looking for a savior. Looking at the Hebrew, when they bore their first child they named him ‘I’ve found him’ which implies their belief that they would be able to get back into paradise. That this child was the way back into God’s graces. The 2nd child they name ‘pphh’ – basically a frustrated sound of confusing because if the first son was the one then why did this 2nd one come and why haven’t they been welcomed back. Ultimately, as we do, their generations substituted God for other more easily tangible gods.
3.) I have not lived the secular life so I cannot relate. What people who have converted from ‘good lives’ have told me was that if all you knew was bologna sandwhiches and that was accepted by most as the best food then that is what you would go for and buy and eat. However, when someone gives you steak, no matter how much you like bologna sandwhiches that steak tastes better and you can’t go back to just bologna sandwhiches.
Let me just end it with the basics of my conversion which relates to the Sammaritan woman story. I got saved because my mom told me. Now that may seem a simple statement at first but behind that is the fact that the person that loved me, invested in me, was there for me advised that this was the right way and, eventually, I picked that way. For the sammaritan (i know I’m spelling this thing wrong) God first met her need – water – then talked about eternal life through him. With all this debating and stuff we are tackling the wrong issue. We need to tackle what the individual’s need is initially. What is the reason for the questions and the attacking and the debating. There has to be some inner need that is producing this outer layer of doubt.
Personally, I think that what motivates us is what we love. We love ourselves so we feel motivated to eat, find work, and entertain ourselves. Some in this world love God or their own religious diety so they motivate themselves to do things that will please them. Often times when we find two loves at an impass, we’ll choose the one we love more. I love sleep and I love looking nice for work but I love sleep more so I’m often less lovely upon arrival at work. Sometimes we didn’t know what we loved more until we were forced to choose between them – do I go to the concert or do I stay home with a hurting friend? Do I take the night off to finally relax or do I go over to my mom’s to help her clean because she’s had a bad week? Do I choose this major or that major? – the last one can be a bit more tricky because we don’t always know which we love more, but the final decision is usually based on what we love more (rather it’s the major itself or an outside influences.)
There’s nothing wrong with that, I don’t think. Sometimes we have to change what we love or let other things outgrow them. (I might add that I believe that we can choose what to love)
Ah, I see, I thought you meant love within the Judeo-Christian tradition. I’m up to speed now.
I highly doubt it was a game of catch up, (especially since mutual monogamy wasn’t much cultural mandate for the [largely male] Greeks) but do not have documentation to point at just now.
^^GummieF,
I’m interested to know where you got your translations of the names Cain and Abel. According to my Hebrew translation, Cain is simply derived from the verb “to acquire,” which could likely point to the fact that they (miraculously!) produced a human being where there once was none.
it’s hard not to like someone who uses a lego starwars profile pic… and w/abandon has good thoughts too.
in writing my application essays, i’ve had to do a lot of hard thinking about what i believe lately.
to take issue with chris, i didn’t become a christian for selfish reasons (to escape from hell). i became a christian because the holy spirit presented me with a reality, once exposed, i could not ignore. a loving God made the universe and is, thereby, due praise. i rebelled against the creator, so i can only realign myself with him now, through the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ. God made me. Jesus died for me. how can you go back to the farm after seeing those big city lights?
i think the purpose of christian life is the purpose of Jesus’s life: to make God manifest (visible). that my life becomes better is just a byproduct. Jesus came as a human being, in part, so that we could see God in a form we could recognize. He didn’t heal, feed, teach because he was working on a spiritual merit badge, but because those things were revealing of who God is and who God is is worthy of praise. in turn, i tend the sick, feed the hungry, and teach the truth because i want who God is revealed. i call this incarnational living.
i didn’t read the above word for word so i don’t know if anyone has brought up the ol’ death to self business yet… but if death to self is necessary (and it is!) to live an incarnational lifestyle, then any pretense that this is about me being a better person is blown away. i don’t think death to self is the self-deprivation you mentioned earlier (no drinkin’, no dancin’, no hollerin’), but is an abandonment of my personal reputation in favor of promoting the reputation of Jesus and ultimately the creator God. jesus DOES desire a full life for us, but the full life that was intended from the beginning was one conspicuously alligned with God. all the goodness is found in the shelter of his pressence. enter tree hugging, wedding dress picture… we’ve talked about all this before…
…and the comment is getting long enough that no one will read it…
…but i LOVE that sally jo christian is still going strong. you made my day.
^ooooooh, i really wish i had the animal crossing option of having little “war har har” spinning around my head in laughter….
the above is not drew, but me. for whatever reason, our computer signed me in under his user.
for the record, i did not do a thing to his page… like SOME people i know.
WAR HAR HAR WAR HAR HAR!
Bokwai, I was joking on the favor.
KaylnALaMode, My Old Testament/Hebrew prof – Dr. Richard O. Rigsby (Adjunct prof at GGBTS and Prof of Old Testament and Semitics at Talbot School of Theology) – shared his insight on the translation of Cain and Abel. To him the search for the Messiah began at the very beginning. ‘to acquire’ or ‘to find,’ if I may try to paraphrase his thoughts, was not that a human being was produced but to say that I have acquired that which will get me back into Garden.
KaylnALaMode, I believe he got that idea from the translation of Abel which is in stark contrast. Basically ‘Abel’ is translated like that sound you make when you ‘diss’ something like ‘Phh, whatever.’ Abel basically means – Phh.
^It’s true that the name Abel is shockingly blatant and depressing. Unlike Cain’s name which is a derivative, Abel is the Hebrew noun hevel, which literally means “vapour, breath.” But it’s most common and overwhelming usage was poetical – to describe something that is worthless, insignificant, meaningless. In fact, it is the famous word from Ecclisiastes where the teacher repeatedly exclaims that everything is “meaningless, meaningless.” (NIV translation). I can see where your professor’s interpretation comes from because the name difference is so great. Of course, there is the cultural tradition of elevating firstborn sons above the other children, but the absolute lowness of Abel’s name seems to extend farther than what that explanation might account for. (Can you imagine how harrowing it would be if your parents named you Insignificant?) However, the contrast of the names is a powerful setup for the coming story, where Abel in all his insignificance brings an offering pleasing to God while Cain, the firstborn and probably the pride of his parents, only succeeds in continuing on the path of his parent’s sin.
^Adam and Eve were the first parents. There were no cultural traditions… except for the one that they just made. =P
^^Catechufem, when I read FreakyJesus’ quote, I was quite impressed with his comment. You should have just let it the way it was to see how many people would have fallen for it… although the reference to application essays kinda gave it away. =D
^hmmm….good point. I guess there’s another reason why that argument’s not very good.
First off, Hi.
Secondly, there is a lot of text on this comment page that I may read later on if I’m bored at work. But I definitely wanted to post my thoughts on your questions on motivations.
Yes, I believe that often, the motivations for a Christian to live their life as they do is similar if not the same as the motivations for a non-Christian to live their life as they do. The question is – so what? We are called to be different, apart from the world, yes. But everyone, saved or unsaved, was made in God’s image. I’ve thought and pondered over the similarities between the two lives as well. Isn’t praise just a secular concert with emotional ties? Isn’t evangelism just salesmanship? Isn’t everything a Christian does more or less the same thing that a non-Christian does, only with a different context? Isn’t church just another non-profit organization? Yes; which is why non-Christians have such difficulty in seeing how Christians are apart from the world at all.
I think the difference lies in where you start from. Are Christians just like non-Christians because of the similarities? Or can we conclude that the similarities arise because non-Christians are attempting to emulate the truth they deny? Or does it not matter, because in our genes and cells and brains, we are all essentially the same? Is not all of our understanding of God limited by our humanness (Holy Spirit influence aside)? We are the same. The ‘transformation’ that the Bible speaks of I believe is the change in the context of how we live our lives, a change in spirit, a change in heart and direction. We do not become superhumans (not in the least); the motivations and the natural tendencies that we have to do certain things just gets geared towards the right direction. If I people-pleased as a non-Christian, now I can God-please as a Christian. If I sought to help the poor as a non-Christian, now I can help the poor FOR GOD’S GLORY as a Christian. The underlying motivation will be the same but the context will finally be right; the relationship will finally be restored.
Soap,
Firstly, Hiya back.
Secondly, I think you’re contradicting yourself. If all that’s changed is context (the way we perceive the world), then there is no transformation in us at all. There is no heart change. What you are saying when you say the change is only in context is that Christians are only mentally aware of a God, which makes God an intellectual philosophy, not a divine being who created us and actively interacts with us. You are essentially saying that Christians are working under a different set of rules and a different organisation structure. God is the CEO. Instead of working for the man, Christians are working for…. well, the man… who is now Jesus, instead of your boss.
I do not believe that everything a Christian does is what a non-Christian does in a different context. That is the intention of this post. I believe there are different motivations. I believe… we have a different heart.
Paul tells us that the old man must die. A new man is in us. We are not the same person anymore. There is inner change. If all that changed was our head knowledge without any change of heart, then we would be no better than the pharisees. We are a new creation in Christ. We should not have the same heart and same motivations as we once did before we accepted Christ. This does not mean we are superhumans. But it does mean we are nolonger the same as we once were.
Praise is not just a secular concert with emotional ties. Praise doesn’t even have to have music. Praise, in a Christian context, is offering adoration to a God. Praise, in a non-Christian context, is one person applauding another person. I may gain praise in my job for my good ideas and contributions. I may praise my employees for their hard work and dedication. Someone’s home can be praised for its beauty and warmness. Praise, requires a praiser and one receiving praise. It is not about music and emotions.
Evangelism is not salesmanship. Paul said that Apollos planted the seed, Paul watered the seed, but only God can make it grow. Furthermore, Jesus says in John 16:8 that He will send the Holy Spirit, who will convict the world of sin and righteousness and judgement. It is not we, who convict and convince others to accept Christ. It is the Holy Spirit that convincts man. Evangelism is not salesmanship. If it were, Who “sold” Christ to you?
What you are suggesting is dangerously works-based and people centric. You are forgetting about the power of God persistently working in and around us.
When I mentioned praise and evangelism, I did not mean it as praise and evangelism, in their essences. Of course with the Spirit, everything becomes more than just enjoying music and salesmanship. Of COURSE there is a spiritual nature and a God who influences everything. I was not saying that there wasn’t. My hypothetical questions propose ideas that non-Christians would see and ask, particularly because they cannot see the Spirit at work. My question is parallel to your question about how the motivations are the same for Christians and non-Christians. Also, what I was referring to was the act of praise, specifically, the act of singing, and the act of evangelizing, specifically speaking the gospel to someone. If you take away the Spirit, it is just the same as what a secular person would do.
I was never saying that we had no change in heart and that we only changed in head knowledge. I apologize if that is what I seemed to infer. My point was that we are all human and the way we communicate and understand the world will always essentially be, human. Is people-pleasing for a non-Christian very wrong? Should motivation to God-please be wrong for a Christian to have because it resembles what secular people do but in a different context? You assume that Sally Joe Christian who acts in accordance with her fear of the Lord makes her the same just because it seems to be another version of what a secular person would do. Can we not also use your explanation of what makes praise and evangelism different and apply it to Miss Sally Joe? Perhaps it is the Spirit who guides her fear of the Lord and thus guides her actions. In that sense, the Spirit makes all the difference even if we started the same.
If any of you figure out what motivation is, let me know so I can finish (start) my homework.
Your Albanness,
i have stayed out of the fray because at this point it would mostly be a list of “agree/disagree” to the previous comments — you’ve got a fairly strong debate humming along here. I’m not sure if I should be offended or not that you thought my wife’s comment was way too intelligent to be from me!! Sometimes I think she’s too intelligent for me too.
But if I were you I wouldn’t try tackling her anytime soon.
Jalixx3 – You don’t need to know what motivation is to know that you don’t have it.
FreakJesusMusic – I didn’t mean to imply that the comment was way too intelligent to be from you. I said “I was impressed with it.” Specifically, I was impressed with the length of the comment and the language/word choices in the comment. It doesn’t mean I didn’t think you could do it, I was just happy that it was finally happening on my site.
I’m going to let your tackling comment go for now.
PinkSoap – I have a response to your comment, but I’ll have to post it later. I’m quite busy at the moment. But thank you for providing clarification.