He's right!; they each believe they're right, even if wrong!

[2PhiloVoid]

As brother "Whaddo You Meme?" briefly shares, there's a meme going around which implies that everyone, on some level, thinks their religion (or worldview) is right and that those who disagree are wrong, or else they each wouldn't hold to the opinion or viewpoint that they do. And this applies to everyone..............except Christians. Right?

Quick Summary of Video:

There's a meme going around [points 1-3] which incorporates the following three statements:

1) My religion (or worldview--even if it's atheistic) is right.
2) Everyone else is wrong, especially other religious people.
3) Since I have right beliefs, I'm "better" than those who disagree with me.
******
4) BUT true Christianity is exceptional to this, since to be a Christian is to admit that one is a sinner in need of God's forgiveness, so it can't contain a position of superiority over others, even if being a Christian requires an assertion of supreme truth.

 

[gaara4158]

I think the "I'm better than you" lie everyone tells themselves is more an artifact of our self-preservation drive than any religious or nonreligious ideology. Surely there are worldviews other than Christianity which recognize this and do not encourage such egotism?

Even so, I think the point of these memes aren't to say that egotism is a purely religious trait, but rather to poke at how the religions always assure their followers that, in addition to being right no matter what anyone else says, they are "chosen" or "saved" and everyone else isn't. "Better" just reads well in a meme.

 

[Mark Quayle]

As brother "Whaddo You Meme?" briefly shares, there's a meme going around which implies that everyone, on some level, thinks their religion (or worldview) is right and that those who disagree are wrong, or else they each wouldn't hold to the opinion or viewpoint that they do. And this applies to everyone..............except Christians. Right?

Wrong. Since when are Christians any different about that?

Truth is, to some degree, there are as many worldviews as there are people, and that applies within any religion. The notion that it SHOULD BE OTHERWISE is false, though. There is much that Christians --i.e. regenerated Christians-- have in common, though, and those are the basics. What those basics imply, and where to they extrapolate, and so on, varies widely.

But your post seems to imply that someone thinks Christians accept (or maybe, SHOULD accept) any other worldview (i.e religion) besides Christianity, and that is false. It isn't a matter of "religion" as such, but a matter of Who God is, and Who is Christ that says there is no other way.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Even so, I think the point of these memes aren't to say that egotism is a purely religious trait, but rather to poke at how the religions always assure their followers that, in addition to being right no matter what anyone else says, they are "chosen" or "saved" and everyone else isn't.

But their bible tells them they are saved, and that those that choose not to be, are not...why would that bother anyone? What's to poke fun at? If it helps, we didn't write the bible.

You can always get saved if you feel left out.

 

[Silmarien]

As brother "Whaddo You Meme?" briefly shares, there's a meme going around which implies that everyone, on some level, thinks their religion (or worldview) is right and that those who disagree are wrong, or else they each wouldn't hold to the opinion or viewpoint that they do. And this applies to everyone..............except Christians. Right?

I think this is a bit too simplistic, since there are various theories of salvation within Christianity and some of them certainly do encourage feelings of superiority. If a person's theology teaches them that salvation is an event which wipes away their sinfulness forever, then they will end up feeling superior to those who are still dead in their sins, and there's no clear theological admonition against feeling that way.

You need a really robust, almost Augustinian theology of sin to genuinely challenge the tendency to think that we're better than other people. I don't think that's as common as it really ought to be, though.

 

[gaara4158]

But their bible tells them they are saved, and that those that choose not to be, are not...why would that bother anyone? What's to poke fun at? If it helps, we didn't write the bible.

You can always get saved if you feel left out.

To someone who doesn't believe in the concept of spiritual privilege or salvation, it is indeed amusing to see warring factions of similar faiths all seeming to believe that they're the "chosen" sect and the fact that everyone else feels exactly the same way about their own faith doesn't bother them. Why shouldn't it give us pause if many faiths' identity message can be boiled down to "we good, they bad?"

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think the "I'm better than you" lie everyone tells themselves is more an artifact of our self-preservation drive than any religious or nonreligious ideology. Surely there are worldviews other than Christianity which recognize this and do not encourage such egotism?

...I don't know that expressions of egoism can be purely reducible to “self-preservation drives” that may emanate from various outcomes of our evolutionary development. It may be that this is the case, but from my view, it sounds too simple.

Then again, as for the other nuance you've referred to, you may me right—there could be some worldviews out there that promote humility and demote egotism, but which worldviews are they, really? I'm asking because it seems to me that it's one thing for us to peruse the existing belief systems of the world for statements of tolerance and acceptance, but it's another thing to actually see the ideal claims of tolerance and inclusiveness bear themselves out and become authentically demonstrated in everyday human discourse. Somewhere in the social mix, sparks of emotional friction seem inevitable.

As for Christianity, there's something that has always been a burr under my saddle and that something is what Paul said about “considering others better than yourselves,” and I'll admit that even with all things considered by way of a more or less Socratic investigation, I'm often at pains to fully appropriate Paul's little imperative, a seemingly moral one at that. How does one consider other people “better than one's self,” yet adhere firmly to some conception of truth that displaces the competing conceptions of truth held by those other people? How can one fully adhere to a collection of truth statements about Jesus of Nazareth being “all that” as the the Messiah of the World, the Son of God … and at the same time, deny that figures like Buddha, Krishna, Mohammad and Confucius, or even Marx, Nietzsche and Anton LaVey, have all expressed some truth claims of [apparently] 'equal' importance to those made by Jesus and the early Christians? Personally, I feel it's difficult to reconcile the attitudinal attempt at Christian humility with the inherent assertion of certainty that comes with at least some Christian truth claims. I guess if one could be a convinced Universalist of sorts, then the reconciliation of both personal attitude and one's assertions of truth as they may be wrapped together within the 'Meme' the OP video speaks of would be so much the easier.

Even so, I think the point of these memes aren't to say that egotism is a purely religious trait, but rather to poke at how the religions always assure their followers that, in addition to being right no matter what anyone else says, they are "chosen" or "saved" and everyone else isn't. "Better" just reads well in a meme.

...I suppose the claim of “being better” all too easily comes about as a kind of emotive default when one feels confidence in one's own point of view …

When dealing with other people who disagree with us, how can we each best reconcile our emotions and attitudes with our ideologies with engaging other people, especially during ideologically charged political disputes? Or why is it we often feel that it is so difficult to resist resorting to verbal or physical violence when “defending” our respective ideologies or worldviews, even those involving the Christian faith?

For instance, Gaara, would it make you feel any better if I just say, “Gaara, you're obviously a caring, gentle soul---a sweet, thoughtful guy, really! I know this because I, myself, have been guilty of committing a huge laundry list of sins during my own life, and surely you must be a “better” man than me!” [...then I, as 2PhiloVoid, frantically scramble to produce a long laundry list of all of the evident moral and surely un-Christian failures that have checkered my life, and I do this so that all can peruse this list and then know with full assurance that..........indeed.........everyone else is “better” than I am. ]

...Yeah, I have to say that as tempting as that scenario may sound, I'm rather thinking it's probably not how my attempt to “consider others as being better than myself” is going to go down. Should I consider it? Would this make the truths of Christianity 'more' palpable for some unbelievers if I did? Or are there other social issues in the middle of the OP's MEME that are as yet still in need of citing and of being brought into the discussion?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wrong. Since when are Christians any different about that?

I guess we Christians are guilty quite often of over-asserting ourselves, if that's what you mean. Is it?

Truth is, to some degree, there are as many worldviews as there are people, and that applies within any religion. The notion that it SHOULD BE OTHERWISE is false, though. There is much that Christians --i.e. regenerated Christians-- have in common, though, and those are the basics. What those basics imply, and where to they extrapolate, and so on, varies widely.

I think I can agree with your first point about there being as many worldviews as there are individuals. So, you disagree with Waddo You Meme's exposition in the video?

But your post seems to imply that someone thinks Christians accept (or maybe, SHOULD accept) any other worldview (i.e religion) besides Christianity, and that is false. It isn't a matter of "religion" as such, but a matter of Who God is, and Who is Christ that says there is no other way.

No, I don't think Christians should accept other worldviews, or at least they shouldn't accommodate other worldviews which clearly and distinctly contradict all assertions made in the Bible. So, I agree that we Christians need to assert what we 'see' is the truth about Jesus, but somewhere in the mix, there comes some conceptual accounting that we each must do in exactly what nuances of that truth we should defend and how we should comport our attitudes to our expressions of that truth. Right? Or am I missing something?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think this is a bit too simplistic, since there are various theories of salvation within Christianity and some of them certainly do encourage feelings of superiority.

Which one's might those be, precisely, do you think?

If a person's theology teaches them that salvation is an event which wipes away their sinfulness forever, then they will end up feeling superior to those who are still dead in their sins, and there's no clear theological admonition against feeling that way.

Do we really need to assume that this definitely will be the case for those who support that kind of soteriology? Again, which theory of salvation, or which denominational articulation thereof, do you think may be most prone to this kind of thing?

You need a really robust, almost Augustinian theology of sin to genuinely challenge the tendency to think that we're better than other people. I don't think that's as common as it really ought to be, though.

You mean, a theology that asserts that sex is only for pro-creation and that much of what passes for good old fashioned sexual relations even between a man and a wife is an expression of genetically expressed sin? That kind of theology? (I have to ask since that's what a full bore appropriation of Augustinian theology would entail---------for those who would affirm Augustine in all theological reverence.) Yeah, I'm not so sure that an adherence to Augustine will provide a robust enough theology to be completely reflective of the actual theology which the New Testament writers likely meant to express.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I guess we Christians are guilty quite often of over-asserting ourselves, if that's what you mean. Is it?

I guess that is one way, though I was thinking of we simply thinking better of ourselves than we should, taking the reins from God, so to speak, as if we are something in and of ourselves.

I think I can agree with your first point about there being as many worldviews as there are individuals. So, you disagree with Waddo You Meme's exposition in the video?

Don't have the bandwidth to check out the video

No, I don't think Christians should accept other worldviews, or at least they shouldn't accommodate other worldviews which clearly and distinctly contradict all assertions made in the Bible. So, I agree that we Christians need to assert what we 'see' is the truth about Jesus, but somewhere in the mix, there comes some conceptual accounting that we each must do in exactly what nuances of that truth we should defend and how we should comport our attitudes to our expressions of that truth. Right? Or am I missing something?

Agreed. My thinking has to do with the fact that we quickly decide we know what there is to be known, "and now that I understand, I have it all, and anything else is [at least] useless (if not dead wrong)."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I guess that is one way, though I was thinking of we simply thinking better of ourselves than we should, taking the reins from God, so to speak, as if we are something in and of ourselves.

That's an interesting, perhaps effective way to state it. Maybe we do tend to "take the reins from God," and like Saul of the Old Testament, we take matters into our own hands. At the same time, Paul the Apostle seems to have offered up the sharp, even barbed, reposte on occasion to those who opposed him. Do you think we should take his rhetoric as an attempt to "take the reins from God," or was there something in his cutting critiques that sounded forth the truth of God? (Such as we can read in the 1st chapter of the letter to the Galatians.)

Don't have the bandwidth to check out the video

Ok. No problem. I've typed out a brief summation of the basic content of the OP video and placed that up in the OP, so you can see what the assertions were that the apologist in the video stated.

Agreed. My thinking has to do with the fact that we quickly decide we know what there is to be known, "and now that I understand, I have it all, and anything else is [at least] useless (if not dead wrong)."

That's a good point! Could this be some of the reason that James said we should be "quick to listen but slow to speak..."?

 

[Silmarien]

Which one's might those be, precisely, do you think?

I have concerns about OSAS, and about theology that views salvation as a single event rather than as a lifelong journey in general.

More importantly, I think there are dangers everywhere. Even someone who fully recognizes their own personal failings can develop a superiority complex about their own perceived wretchedness, in contrast to all of those unenlightened souls who don't recognize how terrible they are.

Do we really need to assume that this definitely will be the case for those who support that kind of soteriology? Again, which theory of salvation, or which denominational articulation thereof, do you think may be most prone to this kind of thing?

Definitely? No. But if they avoid it, that's likely despite their theology instead of because of it.

You mean, a theology that asserts that sex is only for pro-creation and that much of what passes for good old fashioned sexual relations even between a man and a wife is an expression of genetically expressed sin? That kind of theology? (I have to ask since that's what a full bore appropriation of Augustinian theology would entail---------for those who would affirm Augustine in all theological reverence.) Yeah, I'm not so sure that an adherence to Augustine will provide a robust enough theology to completely reflective the actual theology which the New Testament writers likely meant to express.

No, I am thinking more in terms of some postmodern Augustinian theology I'm familiar with, of a distinctly political bent. Nothing to do with his sexual views, and everything to do with the old debate between Augustine and Pelagius over whether people are free to refrain from sinning. I use the term Augustinianism to refer to the darker picture of human nature, particularly as opposed to the type of view that stresses human goodness. (Not that there isn't room for that too, but only when grounded in the less pleasant recognition.)

 

[Kenny'sID]

To someone who doesn't believe in the concept of spiritual privilege or salvation, it is indeed amusing to see warring factions of similar faiths all seeming to believe that they're the "chosen" sect

That to me is a misunderstanding on your part. "I" chose to accept the salvation, anyone can. So what you are saying essentially is something a kin to... On the way to work, I (me) stop and grab a sandwich for lunch, you do not and when lunch rolls around, you are mad at me because I have a sandwich, and you don't because you didn't make the effort to get one? One possibility anyway.

and the fact that everyone else feels exactly the same way about their own faith doesn't bother them. Why shouldn't it give us pause if many faiths' identity message can be boiled down to "we good, they bad?"

I can't help what others think, the same argument could be/is made with Mac and PC/Ford and Chevy, so you see why things like that are not of concern to me or others, it's silly to let it be.

You are boiling it down to us good, them bad, not me. And that truly is the way when it comes to Atheist thoughts about Christians...they just want to "think" we all feel that way. For some reason, Atheists insist on all Christians being snobs because of a few overzealous new Christians that haven't figured things out yet, or others that may just be mean posers, are mean or whoever.

We can have a completely Amicable conversation on getting saved, but in the end, for no reason whatsoever, the Atheist somehow gets out of that conversation, the christian is a snob, when they did absolutely nothing but pass on the good word.

For that reason, I tend to think it's the message, not the Christian causing this. Or it's as I mentioned, Atheists just not using good sense, and tossing a net over all Christians for the snobiness of a few. If the latter, it's clearly because they just want to be mad at all Christians, and not for anything the majority of them did to them.

Why would Atheists want to be mad a Christians for no reason, for essentially just bringing them good news? Maybe the key is, why did, not Atheists necessarily but definitely not good people... why did they kill Jesus? Even when I ask myself that, I'm at a loss? Why do Atheists think they (whoever "they" might be) killed Christ?

Or is it simply that Atheists, in spite of claiming there is not God, Feel very uneasy when Christians start bringing up Hell.

I personally think many Atheists choose to deny there is a God so they are comfortable in their sin, and all the reasons for no God, come after they make that decision, and is not a reason for the decision itself. They die when they die, done deal.

BUT when people start throwing that H word around they get nervous because now they have to consider "Well, what if the Bible is right?" and that threatens their created comfort zone, makes them uneasy and all, and we all know how anyone can get generally nasty when we mess wit their "Everything is just fine" world, whiter it be getting disturbed reading the morning paper or something more intense...people can get mad. Then the reaction is to simply hate the messenger, an all too common concept.

Got into that a bit more than I intended, but those are a few possibilities.

 

[gaara4158]

...I don't know that expressions of egoism can be purely reducible to “self-preservation drives” that may emanate from various outcomes of our evolutionary development. It may be that this is the case, but from my view, it sounds too simple.

You’re right, I shouldn’t speculate as to the origin of egotism in humanity without evidence beyond intuition, but suffice it to say I don’t think it originates in ideologies. I think it’s just a common personality trait. It’s interesting to note that many ancient cultures have used the same word to describe humankind and their specific tribe or people and another word for outsiders.

You asked which worldviews encourage humility and discourage egotism, and I’m actually having trouble thinking of one that doesn’t. Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Taoism... they all hold humility as a virtue. Sure, most people fail to uphold these ideals in practice, but that’s a failing of the individual, not a feature of the worldview.

As for the rest of your response, which I thoroughly enjoyed, I think I agree. The general message of the meme falls apart if taken too seriously, and indeed may just be an emotive response of the sort you described as inevitable when worldviews collide. “Who are they to say they’re better than us? Don’t they know we’re the heroes and not them?” The fun of the meme comes from the fact that to nonbelievers, a religious person’s proclamation of faith often sounds like “Oh thank God I’m clever enough to have found the right invisible dragon among all the false ones and become an enlightened/saved/chosen person because of it.” That doesn’t mean we don’t find similar attitudes in atheists. It’s just not that deep

 

[gaara4158]

That to me is a misunderstanding on your part. "I" chose to accept the salvation, anyone can. So what you are saying essentially is something a kin to... On the way to work, I (me) stop and grab a sandwich for lunch, you do not and when lunch rolls around, you are mad at me because I have a sandwich, and you don't because you didn't make the effort to get one? One possibility anyway.

No one’s mad, we’re just laughing because we think you wasted your money on a fake sandwich. You know, the exact same way you feel about those following false gods.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No one’s mad, we’re just laughing because we think you wasted your money on a fake sandwich. You know, the exact same way you feel about those following false gods.

No one claimed anyone was mad, and though unfairly, and for no reason saying we think we are better than others does indicate you're just mad, I made it clear that was only a possibility.

Of course your claiming no one is mad is just a claim. I mean how can I believe someone who claims my sandwich, one you never came near to, is a fake when I know perfectly well the imaginary sandwich wasn't fake.

 

[gaara4158]

No one claimed anyone was mad, and though unfairly, and for no reason saying we think we are better than others does indicate you're just mad, I made it clear that was only a possibility.

Of course your claiming no one is mad is just a claim. I mean how can I believe someone who claims my sandwich, one you never came near to, is a fake when I know perfectly well the imaginary sandwich wasn't fake.

Do you really know your imaginary sandwich isn’t fake, or is that just a claim, too?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Do you really know your imaginary sandwich isn’t fake, or is that just a claim, too?

I'll leave that up to you, but a few things to consider...Have I given you any reason to believe I would not be truthful about my imaginary sandwich, and have you ever even heard of anyone telling a lie about their imaginary sandwich?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have concerns about OSAS, and about theology that views salvation as a single event rather than as a lifelong journey in general.

Yes, OSAS is something that I question, too.

More importantly, I think there are dangers everywhere. Even someone who fully recognizes their own personal failings can develop a superiority complex about their own perceived wretchedness, in contrast to all of those unenlightened souls who don't recognize how terrible they are.

...oh my goodness! It almost sounds as if the act of perceiving one's own wretchedness could contribute to a full-blown state of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Either that, or we're talking about the onset of a really twisted form of asceticism. ...on the flip side of the coin, it could be too that some of the other social dangers lurking in the hallways and byways of social discourse are due to cases of hyper-sensitivity in individuals who can only perceive unwelcome assertions of truth as brash statements of arrogance.

I don't know. I guess these things really have to be taken on an individual basis, deeply analyzed and deliberated over, to see if an apparent expression of arrogance is indeed just what it appears to be. (I mean.................sometimes people just have to accept the truth that an orange haired person IS their president without throwing a huge fit about it. )

Anyway, I'll discontinue in my digression.

No, I am thinking more in terms of some postmodern Augustinian theology I'm familiar with, of a distinctly political bent. Nothing to do with his sexual views, and everything to do with the old debate between Augustine and Pelagius over whether people are free to refrain from sinning. I use the term Augustinianism to refer to the darker picture of human nature, particularly as opposed to the type of view that stresses human goodness. (Not that there isn't room for that too, but only when grounded in the less pleasant recognition.)

So, which Modernesque form of Augustinian theology are you referring to? I'm thinking that with or without either Augustine or Pelagius, we can theologically challenge the notion some people hold, even if they're Christian people, about their own supposed superiority.

For instance, I just bought a bargain book at the Christian bookstore for a buck (lucky man that I am!), and I'm thinking that this book, which is titled: Why People Matter: A Christian Engagement with Rival Views of Human Significance [ed. by John F. Kilner] could go some way in enabling us to challenge the upstart, even selfishly inclined definitions and appropriations (political appropriations?) of religious/worldview"truth" that are used by various people who hold differing worldviews. Of course, I don't know this because....I haven't actually read it yet. But it looks interesting.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

.