Good deeds?

I've puzzled over this for years and although I've sort of reached a conclusion, I'd be grateful for input from other people.Say I decide to volunteer to serve Christmas dinner to homeless people on Christmas day. On the face of it, that's a good deed. However, I wonder about how the motivation behind the volunteering affects this in the eyes of a Christian God.If I volunteer because it will earn me brownie points with God, isn't that selfish, i.e., only done for my own benefit? How about if I volunteer because I like the warm feeling I get from doing it? That seems to be for my own benefit again.So when does a good deed become a good deed? If I detest every minute of my volunteering and can't wait to be finished, but still do it, is that a proper good deed in the eyes of God, given that I've gained nothing from doing it, but the people I served did gain something?I've wondered about this since I was a teenager and came across a conversation between Father Merrin and Father Karras in The Exorcist by William Peter Blatty. Basically Father Merrin explained he struggled with his faith because he just could not love the dregs of society, he could not love all his neighbours,so to speak. Then he realised that God was asking him to act with love (do unto others....) since you have no control over how you feel, but you do have control over how you act.It's easy to act with love to those you love, but much more difficult to act with love to those you despise. This again raises the question of the motivation of doing so. Is it to please God because you want to please Him? Is it to please God to earn your brownie points? Is it because you want that warm feeling from doing something right? Or is it because everyone deserves to be treated that way no matter how you feel about them.The alternative is that all this is just so much marsh gas and a good deed is a good deed if it helps someone else, regardless of what you gain or lose by helping.

I like this topic and wanted to share my own thoughts.I guess I disagree with your last sentence...
I don't agree that a deed becomes 'good' if it helps someone. If I would break Ted Bundy out of prison, that wouldn't really be a "good deed", eventhough I'm being helpfull to Bundy.I'ld say that you would need to look at the total merrit of the deed, the consequences thereof.
The good should outweigh the bad. If that's the case, one could consider the deed to be "good".But in that case, we need to ask the question what should be considered "good" and what "bad".
I think this question is unanswerable until we put some kind of ideals in place. Something like "the best possible world to live in", some "utopia".Only once we have established (and agreed upon) such ideals, can we objectively identify actions as being "good" or "bad".A "good" action would be an action that gets us closer to those ideals, that fit into the filosophy of those ideals.
If "justice" is one of those ideals, then breaking out Ted Bundy can't possibly be a "good" action.
If "freedom" is one of those ideals, then forced labor can't possibly be a "good" thing.That's how I see it anyway. I guess things like the Universal Rights of Man, are among the things that establish the ideals of our western societies.It's also from this point of view, that I feel like I can objectively consider religions as being "bad".Among the ideals in my utopia, you'll find things like "rationality", "skepticism", "intellectual honesty",...
With that as a base, blind belief becomes a relatively bad thing. Especially if those beliefs start to inform your actions.In summary, I guess what I'm saying is that it's pretty pointless to try and label things as "good" or "evil", if you do not have any ideals to weigh them against.Where do the ideals come from? Well... I'm human. I can easily imagine the kind of society I would want to be a part off. I can also easily imagine the kind of society I most certainly would NOT want to be a part of. Combine that with empathy and the realisation that we are all homo sapiens, no matter what our ethnic or cultural backround is, and I think the ideals you get from that reasoning will for the most part be pretty much universal... At least when it comes to the important stuff.

Generally the position of the Gods of the Judaic based religions, Islam, Judaism and Christianity was that if you did something for the profit you gained during your life by doing it, then you got paid already.However, if you do something because it needs to be done and incidentally, enjoy doing it, then that's just an added benefit.In the end it will come down to your personal honesty as to motive with the conditional added that when judged, the judge WILL know what your real motive was even if you succeed in convincing yourself otherwise.

Yes, quite right. And I think that's the intended point of "salvation is by grace, not by works." So doing something to earn brownie points won't do it for you. I'd say that illustrates the other side of the issue, that faith without works is dead. If you have taken the teachings of Jesus to heart, you will get that warm feeling from doing what's right. If not, then you have not really taken those teachings to heart.At least, that is my understanding of it.

In my opinion, the fact that it is selfish in that way simply is not relevant. Jesus was clear that if you did things to be seen by your peers, then your reward was being seen. But he never condemned visiting people in prison or feeding the hungry because it makes you feel good.If your attitude towards the people you serve is correct, and you are truly helping, I wouldn't sweat the small stuff. Don't worry about complaining to yourself that your back is hurtin' after serving 1000 homeless people lunch. Depends on what you detest. If you detest the people you are helping, then you've gained nothing.Quite frankly, I think this stuff takes care of itself. I don't believe it is actually possible for most of us to act like Father Merrin for any sustained length of time.

We know our actions have consequences that either improve or worsen our chances of going to heaven.
So, I see no way to behave that doesn't involve us actively trying to get into heaven (or maybe actively avoiding hell).But if you intentionally try to get into heaven then you are excluded for being selfish.
Sounds like a bit of a Catch 22...

Kinda.As a Christian the direction of ones actions should be oriented towards those living today and those who will live in the future.If you are only doing stuff to get to heaven or avoid hell, then you missed the point.

People need food.Feeding them is a good thing.

I do not understand how this reply relates to my post.
Sorry. Don't religious people have a set of rules which tells them how to get closer to heaven?
Do they not know what their god thinks is 'right' and 'wrong'?
Do they not try to do 'right' and avoid doing 'wrong'?
Does this not mean they are intentionally avoiding hell?And what is the point they would be missing? (Maybe this is a bit too far off-topic)

These are really great questions that I think lie at the heart of the Christian faith. It is actually, the basis for the discussion around faith and works.IMHO you are absolutely right that you can't earn favour with God if that is the basis for you spending time in the soup kitchen. You can't work your way into His favour so to speak.Again, IMHO, what is pleasing to God is the love and concern in your heart for the plight of the people who are blessed by you in that soup kitchen. The Christian message is that we are to love our neighbour, love kindness and mercy etc and the good deeds will flow from that without thought of reward from either people or God.Of course you are right that the people who use the soup kitchen do gain something even if you're motivation is for those volunteering there is wrong. However, in many ways the love that they receive is possibly more important than the food and there probably aren't a lot of really good vibes if the volunteers are essentially there for selfish reasons. Love is contagious. Merry Christmas

Religious people are little different than anyone else and their behavior reflects the same stages as shown in general behavior theory.There are those whose behavior is driven by coercion, by thoughts of punishment or reward, by threats of hell or promises of heaven.They need an authority figure, one who sets rules and tells them what is right and wrong.Hopefully, as they grow and mature they can move beyond that to understand that what is required is the they, individually, must make decisions about what is right and wrong using often incomplete information but with the full understanding that they must also take responsibility for when the choose wrongly, try to make amends for their wrong decisions and try not to make the same mistake in the future.

I dislike people in general, but my chosen profession is psychotherapist.I think help other people even though it annoys you is far more virtuous than doing it because you get a buz out of it or you think you're banking god credits.

Maybe. Wouldn't that depend on exactly why you bothered?

Absolutely.To be truly altruistic I would have to donate money to something I detest; like the IRA.But I'm not that altruistic.

What you are describing sounds a lot like how many atheists/humanists would describe their own lives.Your post appears to say that the best way to avoid the Catch 22 is to stop thinking about religion completely.
But that would not be an answer, as religion is a necessary premise to Trixie's question.There are 'requirements' set out by most religions.
To adhere to them is to intentionally 'move towards' that god's favour - which is simply self-interest.An example:
As a jew, not eating pig is solely an act of self-interest.
No-one benefits from the lack of bacon consumption.
It is avoided because they don't want to offend their god.
But to act in such a selfish manner would offend their god.A vicious circle...