Who are happier -- Christians or Atheists?

So God becomes human and suffers and dies on the cross to save all of humanity and that human suffering is belittled by you because you think God was just going through the motions? What about the suffering of his divinity as well, not only in leaving the perfectness of Heaven but in knowing that even after having sacrificed everything He possibly could there would still be people who rejected His gift of salvation and even denied it was a real sacrifice at all? If He knew all things at that moment he would know how many people would still scoff at the cost He paid to offer His free gift of eternal salvation because they say He didn't give enough.

Quote: FrGamble

What about the suffering of his divinity as well, not only in leaving the perfectness of Heaven but in knowing that even after having sacrificed everything He possibly could

I don't know what 'suffering of his divinity'
means. Is that like if a king were to leave
his perfect quarters and spend a day in
one of his slums?

If god knows everything that will happen
(all knowing all seeing), he knows when
he started the project how it will end and
there will be no real sacrifice, him and Jesus
are reunited in heaven.

I think you know what you're trying to say,
but it's hard to explain. I read that this is
a paradox, it looks like god made no sacrifice
at all, yet it seems like there was one.

par·a·dox
a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless

Much of religion is a paradox, hence the mystery.
God is a paradox, you can't prove he exists, yet
you, and many others, believe he does. What it
means is, there is a greater truth out there. And
you've picked your path to finding it. Others
pick other paths, truth is a pathless land..

Quote: FrGamble

If someone who did not know your relationship objectively looked at the situation would they see it that way.

If someone without the facts reaches a different conclusion, this does not mean there' no objectivity on my part.

Quote:

So it would be a sacrifice if you gave a kidney to a stranger?

Yes.

Unless it happens after I die. once I'm dead I'll have no use for any of my organs.

Quote: FrGamble

So God becomes human and suffers and dies on the cross to save all of humanity and that human suffering is belittled by you because you think God was just going through the motions?

It does feel a bit like Clark Kent "giving up" his life when he can simply fly away and smite down the bad guys at any time.

In superhero fiction, it's common to invent weaknesses and vulnerabilities for the main characters, as otherwise they become rather boring. Unless the superhero has no special supernatural powers (other than the one real supernatural power: a writer's imagination), like Batman and Batgirl. They can be killed and injured rather easily at any time by just about anyone.

Quote: Evenbob

I think you know what you're trying to say,
but it's hard to explain. I read that this is
a paradox, it looks like god made no sacrifice
at all, yet it seems like there was one.

Much of religion is a paradox, hence the mystery.
God is a paradox, you can't prove he exists, yet
you, and many others, believe he does. What it
means is, there is a greater truth out there. And
you've picked your path to finding it. Others
pick other paths, truth is a pathless land..

You didn't comment on this, so must agree with
it. The sacrifice is a mystery and a paradox.

Okay so you answered yes that it would be a sacrifice to give a kidney to a stranger, but that it is not a sacrifice to give one to a friend you love.

So in both instances the act of giving a kidney remains the same but what makes one a sacrifice (negative in your view) and the other a non-sacrifice (positive) is who is receiving the kidney. Remembering your definition of a sacrifice being exchanging a good value for a non-value or negative I don't see how your position is consistent. The act of your non-sacrifice is a good, giving a kidney to save a life, yet it is the very same act when it is done for a stranger, giving a kidney to save a life. Surely it makes a difference if the recipient is a stranger or a friend, but does that difference change the act of giving a kidney from a great value to a non-value?

Another way to look at this would be to ask yourself if you needed a kidney and a stranger was willing to give you one, would that be a good thing or a non-value? In this case you have already said this is a sacrifice, giving a stranger a kidney, yet you would see this as very good. I sound a little like a Sophist so I will stop now, but I was just thinking a little more about your position. Peace.

Quote: FrGamble

So in both instances the act of giving a kidney remains the same but what makes one a sacrifice (negative in your view) and the other a non-sacrifice (positive) is who is receiving the kidney. Remembering your definition of a sacrifice being exchanging a good value for a non-value or negative I don't see how your position is consistent.

I also said a lesser value.

Most people's lives have an intrinsic value to everyone else(*). That's why we do small favors for total strangers, like holding a door open, giving directions, helping with car trouble, etc. When a majority of people do this, life is much nicer for everyone.

But giving a stranger a kidney does not hold the same value for me as giving my dear friend a kidney. For a friend I love I'd be willing to risk surgery, complications, discomfort and inconvenience. Not for a stranger I hardly value at all.

I have given blood to people I don't know. The risk is essentially zero, the inconvenience and time is small. I'd do it again, too, if given the opportunity (though according to one hospital's blood bank, electrolysis disqualifies me from doing so). If I were asked to donate bone marrow for a stranger, I might do it. But blood and bone marrow are replenished by the body. Organs are not.

(*) Some people's lives are of no value to anyone. A serial rapist, for example, or a murderer. Some people's lives, like for example Stalin's, are of negative value to the whole world.

Quote:

Another way to look at this would be to ask yourself if you needed a kidney and a stranger was willing to give you one, would that be a good thing or a non-value? In this case you have already said this is a sacrifice, giving a stranger a kidney, yet you would see this as very good.

If I needed a kidney, then receiving one from any source would be good for me, and would be a very large value for me. I would not turn down a donation from a stranger, but I wouldn't expect one either. I wouldn't rail at an unfair world because there isn't a line of strangers waiting to sacrifice their kidney for me.

Quote: Nareed

For a friend I love I'd be willing to risk surgery, complications, discomfort and inconvenience.

Oh its maddening how close we are in our thoughts but not our verbiage. This to me is the very same things as saying I would be willing to sacrifice for a friend and undergo the risk or surgery, complication, discomfort, and inconvenience all to gladly and joyfully help him out. The same thing with giving blood, it is a small sacrifice of inconvenience and time but I'm glad to put another's value and need for blood above my value of time and convenience.

Quote:

If I needed a kidney, then receiving one from any source would be good for me, and would be a very large value for me.

But didn't you just say that giving a kidney to a stranger would be a sacrifice and in your worldview of no value, a negative or lesser value? So you would accept this sacrifice and see it as very great value for you and therefore some sacrifices are indeed good.

Quote: FrGamble

Oh its maddening how close we are in our thoughts but not our verbiage.

I don't think we're close at all.

Quote:

This to me is the very same things as saying I would be willing to sacrifice for a friend and undergo the risk or surgery, complication, discomfort, and inconvenience all to gladly and joyfully help him out.

That's not anywhere near the same moral universe as mine.

I'd be willing to help, despite the risk, discomfort (ie massive PAIN) and inconvenience. I would not be happy to do it, because that would mean I'm happy my friend has a life-threatening condition. There would be no joy in the process at all, and there should be none, because I can assure you everyone involved (me, my friend, his other friends, his family, etc) would rather not be involved at all. We would rather all see our friend healthy and not in the hospital waiting for a major organ.

This would be a horrible situation for anyone to be involved in. Not a joyful opportunity for making a sacrifice.

Quote:

But didn't you just say that giving a kidney to a stranger would be a sacrifice and in your worldview of no value, a negative or lesser value? So you would accept this sacrifice and see it as very great value for you and therefore some sacrifices are indeed good.

Good point. I want to say if some stranger offered a kidney as a sacrifice I would decline their offer. I don't believe in either making or collecting sacrifices. This means my earlier statement was mistaken.

But then, too, I've never faced a life or death situation involving myself. Being in that position I might act out of fear and come to a different conclusion. I hope not, but I recognize the possibility.

Quote: Nareed

I'd be willing to help, despite the risk, discomfort (ie massive PAIN) and inconvenience. I would not be happy to do it, because that would mean I'm happy my friend has a life-threatening condition. There would be no joy in the process at all, and there should be none, because I can assure you everyone involved (me, my friend, his other friends, his family, etc) would rather not be involved at all. We would rather all see our friend healthy and not in the hospital waiting for a major organ.

This would be a horrible situation for anyone to be involved in. Not a joyful opportunity for making a sacrifice.

I was pretty sure you were saying earlier that you wouldn't want someone who loved you to say they were making a sacrifice for you because that would mean they didn't really love you but were in a sense forcing themselves to love you even though they really didn't want to. The statement was repulsive to you because it meant in your mind that their love for you was a type of suffering. Here you seem to be saying that you would be giving this kidney as a non-sacrifice and it would be a horrible experience all around, yet you would still do it. In doing this it is of great value to you, yet awful and difficult through and through. So I guess my question is, if someone said to you, "I love you, but it is really difficult and awful to do so, but nevertheless I will continue to love you because you are of great value to me." Would that be more meaningful and attractive to you than saying, "I am willing to sacrifice for you out of love."

Quote:

Good point. I want to say if some stranger offered a kidney as a sacrifice I would decline their offer. I don't believe in either making or collecting sacrifices. This means my earlier statement was mistaken.

Just to be clear your earlier statement was that giving a kidney to a stranger to save their life was a sacrifice, and therefore to you a negative thing. So does this mean you no longer see giving a kidney to a stranger to save their life as a sacrifice? Or does this mean that some people would not see giving their kidney as a sacrifice and therefore in these cases you would agree to accept their kidney?

If it is the latter, then could you help me to understand what would make the difference in someone's mentality between seeing their giving up a kidney to save a life as either a non-sacrifice or as a sacrifice?