Christian Pride.

you've completely ignored Message 68. Have another look.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

"Come on that roller coaster daddy" or "walk across that foot wide beam spanning the top of two skyscrapers" Of course you could do it in theory. But in practice you cannot.In a similar story, a lawyer asks Jesus what he had to do to inherit the kingdom (for he "wanted to justify himself" - to do it himself, to get himself into heaven). Jesus gives him the parable of the good samaritan and finished by saying "Go do likewise"There is nothing stopping us picking up the next tramp of drug addict we come across and doing as Jesus commanded. We can do it in theory. But in practice we cannot obey the commandment - our own desire to serve ourselves prevents us from following the commandment. We cannot because we chose not to love others as we love ourselves. And the fact that we can but chose not means that we can be justly punished for not following the commandment - one could not be justly punished for not doing something that it was impossible to do.Jesus said do it. You (like me) do not and recognise (like me) that you do not. Hence (unlike me) "Try". "Try" attempts to circumvent the commandment but fools no one but the person who fabricates said 'gospel'We all have areas where we come up against this problem of not loving others as we love ourselves. Jesus just picked out one which would highlight that problem for the rich young man. His own personal roller coaster ride. The disciples are shocked by the message. They say "who then can be saved" not "how would a rich man be saved". What was asked of the rich man was to give up everything and follow Jesus. This can be applied to all men for all have something to give up. All are rich if giving up everything is what it takes. "Who then can be saved" = how then, ont the basis of what you are saying, can anyone at all be saved" I don't conclude that directly from this passage. What I conclude from this passage is that when a man asked Jesus what it is that he must do to gain the kingdom and Jesus tells him what he must do, the man turns away saddened. Where then all his confidence. You think he would have been delighted to be told what he was told. Eternal bliss for some temporal goods. What a good deal! Its harder than it looks this doing good works bit - especially if they aren't the ones that you chose to do yourself and which you find easy. If it takes doing as Jesus said then you will find you cannot do it.Love thy neighbour as yourself? No one can do it - not because it is impossible to (in one sense) but because it is impossible to (in the other sense. We will not chose to love our neighbour but ourselves instead). We are not prepared to sacrifice all and follow him. If we loved God with all our heart, soul and minds then we would follow him, wouldn't we?Thank God for the gospel then. God has found a way around our inability (throught own choice) to follow these two, seemingly simple commands.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Hi Legend,This is an interesting thread, now that I've had a chance to read it all (well, at least until it de-evolved into another biblical exegesis exercise). Actually, I might (as an atheist) disagree with you here. Although in one sense we are in fact the "random by-product" of an unfeeling, uncaring universe (as there is no particular reason for us to be here rather than something else), in another of looking at things we're not. The sieve of natural selection passes only those organisms which are somewhat more "fit" for their environments than their conspecifics - or competitors. Given that ~98% of all species which have ever existed are extinct, from a certain point of view we are the inheritors of a literally unbroken line of evolutionary "winners" dating back almost 3.5 billion years. If our lineal ancestors hadn't been in some sense the "best of the best", we wouldn't be having this conversation.In other words, if we want to take pride in our origins, this fact certainly gives us a better basis for it than some old book, no matter how revered. So tell me, would you rather be a "winner" and the scion of constant "winners" for literally the entire existence of life on Earth, or the helpless playthings of some Bronze Age barbarian godlet? How's that for hubris?

Pretty damn good if you ask me...

Hi Quetzal,I certainly agree with you that this this thread has digressed miles away from topic, may be iano and I should start a separate thread on exegesis, I'll try to rein it back on track. That's an interesting spin on it. I, personally, don't know any atheists (myself included) who see themselves personally as the culmination of thousands of years of natural selection. I suppose it's difficult to see yourself individually in this light, as you don't really know if natural selection will 'select' you or your descendants to propagate your genes or if you'll be eliminated from the gene pool in a few generations.I suppose what makes the difference is the personal element in Christianity. Even accepting what you said above as true, that would still make the atheist just a sample of the most successful species on earth. He might be representative of a select few, but his personal existence is just the side-effect of a set of random events and his ancestors ability to survive. He can take pride in his kind's success but not in himself personally.Your average Christian on the other hand feels that he's been personally created for a reason. His conception was a pre-planned event, there was no randomness involved there. Throughout his life he will have a 'personal relationship' with the Creator where he will communicate with him on a personal basis. Most also believe that even their death happens in a particular way and time for a specific reason that God dictates.Think about it : you and the Ultimate Being mano-a-mano, from birth to death, on first-name basis. How more special can one get ?!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Indeed, I agree with you. My post was, albeit a true statement, somewhat tongue-in-cheek. You didn’t pick up on the obvious corollary, however (nor did Ian). I deliberately talked about species, not individuals. Humans are, in essence, no different from any other species currently alive on this planet - they too are the lineal descendants of an unbroken line of evolutionary “winners”. I find the whole concept of taking credit for something your ancient ancestors may have done (or not done, for that matter) in the survival game to be somewhat silly. Which is a round-about way of saying that, whereas it is true that we are in fact successful as a species (thus far, at any rate), that datum doesn’t necessarily mean we are “special” in any way whatsoever. Not much to base a lot of self-pride on, is it?As you point out, the individual sense of special-ness achieved by many adherents of all modern revealed religions is a case of individual arrogance, not species-ism. They personally think they’re the cat’s whiskers because of their one-on-one relationship with their self-defined creator-of-all. Any time you get a group playing the exclusivist card - which they all do in one form or another - you’ve got hubris. “We’re better than them because . ”.The good news, of course, is that not all the adherents of Christianity, for instance, actually feel that way. There are some on this forum even that recognize the danger of false (in the sense of unfounded) pride based on a dogmatic and unthinkingly exclusivist viewpoint dependent on an idiosyncratic interpretation of their religious texts. They go way out of their way to limit or eliminate the “us vs. them” element. They are, of course, vociferously condemned as “not true Christian”, or words to that effect, by the rest of the crowd. I think they actually have a harder row to hoe than an atheist in many ways.

It will be realised, I trust, that this take on things derives out of a worldview where a person holds that a single belief system cannot be known to be the 'right' one by the person of that belief system. Because it is assumed that this is the case the charge of arrogance can be made. It's correctness is founded in the viewpoint behind it being correct. And that is not possible to know that such a viewpoint it correct. One cannot know one is the product of blind processes for instance - one can only hold so tentitively.Now if the creator behind the belief system is not self-defined but self-defining and communicates his existance with a person then they can indeed know he is but the only one and that they are special in the sense that they know him. If this knowing came as a result of the effort of the person then there is a basis for pride (unto smugness perhaps). But if this knowing came as a result of an act on the part of the creator and was equally available to everyone then there is no basis for self-pride and certainly not smugness. One is entitled to feel privileged however - without that reflecting badly upon them (like pride and smugness would)And in similar fashion they would sit in an exclusive position for they ride as it were, in an exclusive vehicle compared to all other belief systems/philosophies/worldviews etc. Exclusive in the sense that all other belief systems of whatever hue yield illusionary results. (in so far as they seek to comment on whatever it is they comment on: who am I? why am I here? where am I going? - issues of that type. The worldviews in question here at EvC are of that ilkSo. If a particular creator exists then "special" "privileged" and part of something "exclusive" the person is who sits under the umbrella of that creator is entitled to feel. Simply because this would be the case if said creator existed. As I say, there is nothing untoward about this - it cannot be helped and it reflects not at all badly on the person. My own position, the faith alone position, lends no pat on the back to the person who occupies that position - they did nothing to achieve this special and privileged status. So pride and smugness (in the negative sense of those words) doesn't apply. It would be like feeling proud because you won the lotto - which would be silly really.All that has to be the case to avoid the charge of pride and smugness is for the position to be a true one. If true then you would I hope agree that special and privileged the person is. And if it is true and this is known to the person - then there is no harm in saying so. The offence taken, if taken, is a matter for the offendee. One can hardly go around pretending that all views have merit when they patently know they have not. That would be telling fibs.

I'm noticing a change in you position Ian.
In recent weeks/months you seem to have reached the opinion that salvation is available to all. where as further in the past I remember debating with you about those who are not presented with an opportunity to accept/reject God (an infant I believe was one example). But now, a couple of times, I have noticed you proclaiming that all are presented with the opportunity. (by this do you mean something as simple as flicking through a relicious TV channel? or something more profound? like a personal encounter with God?)I can't decide if it's a softening or a hardening of your position. But you did, You ACCEPTED god, you could have rejected, but you accepted. In doing this you directly contributed to your own salvation.Whether or not you, and those like you feel smugness, and/or pride, It certainly comes across very strongly in the opinions expressed here. I seem to remeber you refering to non believers and "like Swine" at some point.
That in itself speaks volumes for your view of yourself as being better than ther rest of us.

I don't see this. The quality of "smugness" is personal not philosophical. Everyone thinks they are right, so we can waive that point. But when someone makes PERSONAL boasting statements about themselves, that's smugness. If someone tells me, for example, apparently in all seriousness, that he is a person of exemplary moral character, that's smugness.

I presume that's a typo, but I like it.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Am on the run out the door of this pox of a job of mine so won't deal with this fully. Hi by the way.Not necessarily so Crevo me old flower. I gave an analogy a while back which you might have missed. That of a bike gearbox. You can put it into gear and drive away from God. Or God can put it into neutral and pull you back to him. He puts it into neutral and pulls (you will be saved) or you can kick it back into gear and drive off (you will be lost)You do nothing at all to contribute to your salvation - except not reject it.I'm rather proud of my analogy!

Not if someone else made him that way. A Christian will eventually become someone of exemplary moral character (after they die of course). God will do it. So not smug to recognise when it happens. Trouble is, everyone will be of exemplary moral character so no reason to boast of it - even in the non-smug sense of the word

This person, as you know, does not think that way.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I love Christian thinking!It's inadvertently Monty-Pythonesque.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."