Superiority Complex.

[ephraimanesti]

That's not such a great analogy. There are methods for dealing with one's alcohol addiction that don't involve the 12 Step method.


eudaimonia,

Mark

MY BROTHER,

Yes, but none with the same success rate or the character building--through finding, and surrendering to, God in Steps 2 and 3--capability.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[ephraimanesti]

.

PEACE.

 

[razeontherock]

Hhmmm, lemme grok at this one a bit more. It's not dependent on the object, it's the choice itself. Those that say they "can't choose to believe" X, Y or Z aren't saying they have no capacity to believe, they're saying a specific thing lacks sufficient reason to be believed, at least for them.

Whatever distinctions might exist between these words believe and trust, that same thing applies to me re: trust. I've got to "see it." There are physical applications of this; I won't put my weight on something w/o testing it, or at least having a pan B at the ready. I'd probably make a great rock climber for this reason, although the fact I've never done it may actually have something to do with this

Not consciously though. My point being it makes me be very careful in developing my Faith, as it is something unseen. So it's got to really check out before I "place my weight on it," so to speak. Don't know if anybody can find that understandable?

 

[Eudaimonist]

My point being it makes me be very careful in developing my Faith, as it is something unseen. So it's got to really check out before I "place my weight on it," so to speak. Don't know if anybody can find that understandable?

Trust, but verify.

It sounds like you have difficulty offering trust. I can't say that I am much different. Still, I think that trust can be a choice.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SithDoughnut]

Hhmmm, lemme grok at this one a bit more. It's not dependent on the object, it's the choice itself. Those that say they "can't choose to believe" X, Y or Z aren't saying they have no capacity to believe, they're saying a specific thing lacks sufficient reason to be believed, at least for them.

Whatever distinctions might exist between these words believe and trust, that same thing applies to me re: trust. I've got to "see it." There are physical applications of this; I won't put my weight on something w/o testing it, or at least having a pan B at the ready. I'd probably make a great rock climber for this reason, although the fact I've never done it may actually have something to do with this

Not consciously though. My point being it makes me be very careful in developing my Faith, as it is something unseen. So it's got to really check out before I "place my weight on it," so to speak. Don't know if anybody can find that understandable?

Makes sense to me, that's what I do.

 

[b&wpac4]

Not consciously though. My point being it makes me be very careful in developing my Faith, as it is something unseen. So it's got to really check out before I "place my weight on it," so to speak. Don't know if anybody can find that understandable?

I think in our conversations it should have become abundantly clear that this is how I operate.

 

[Catherineanne]

Hhmmm, lemme grok at this one a bit more. It's not dependent on the object, it's the choice itself. Those that say they "can't choose to believe" X, Y or Z aren't saying they have no capacity to believe, they're saying a specific thing lacks sufficient reason to be believed, at least for them.

Whatever distinctions might exist between these words believe and trust, that same thing applies to me re: trust. I've got to "see it." There are physical applications of this; I won't put my weight on something w/o testing it, or at least having a pan B at the ready. I'd probably make a great rock climber for this reason, although the fact I've never done it may actually have something to do with this

Not consciously though. My point being it makes me be very careful in developing my Faith, as it is something unseen. So it's got to really check out before I "place my weight on it," so to speak. Don't know if anybody can find that understandable?

I agree. If I am uncertain, I check with my priest. He knows I have a horror of wandering from the mainstream and into fringe belief or behaviour. I am not able to attend church regularly, so this kind of wandering away would be more than possible, without reality checks from time to time.

 

[Dragons87]

I think we would be hard pressed to find anyone who will disagree with raze's statement. The question is: what are you trusting, and how are you testing your trust?

I don't know how off-topic this is now.

 

[razeontherock]

Hey with this many people agreeing with me? It's gotta be WAY OT ...

 

[SithDoughnut]

Hey with this many people agreeing with me? It's gotta be WAY OT ...

I don't think anyone here thinks particularly different to you, it's just that people like to use different words for the same definitions.

 

[Catherineanne]

I think we would be hard pressed to find anyone who will disagree with raze's statement. The question is: what are you trusting, and how are you testing your trust?

I don't know how off-topic this is now.

Well, in relation to the OP, if we are all so careful to test what we believe, and ensure it remains within our own reality, or that of our church, that would suggest the very opposite of endemic superiority.

Those who believe themselves safely superior never have to doubt, and never have to check that what they believe is reasonable.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Those who believe themselves safely superior never have to doubt, and never have to check that what they believe is reasonable.

Could this also say: Those who never have a doubt believe themselves to be safely superior, and never have to check that what they believe is reasonable.

To me that's the causality here. In my opinion, people think they're superior BECAUSE they don't have a doubt, not the other way around.

 

[razeontherock]

people think they're superior BECAUSE they don't have a doubt, not the other way around.

That was the fatal flaw of Jericho: like a gourd, hard on the outside but rotten to the core on the inside.

 

[Dragons87]

Well, in relation to the OP, if we are all so careful to test what we believe, and ensure it remains within our own reality, or that of our church, that would suggest the very opposite of endemic superiority.

Those who believe themselves safely superior never have to doubt, and never have to check that what they believe is reasonable.

The Biblical verse I use to remind myself of that is:

"So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!" 1 Cor 10:12

 

[razeontherock]

The ol' 'pride before a fall' to the rescue ... wisest man in the world was raised on Proverbs.

 

[sentipente]

I don't identify with an ism either. But you dodged the question; do you know Jesus?

It depends on what you mean by that. I did not live when it is claimed that He lived. How does one know someone they never met personally? You may claim that you know Him but that would be a lie.

 

[Catherineanne]

Could this also say: Those who never have a doubt believe themselves to be safely superior, and never have to check that what they believe is reasonable.

To me that's the causality here. In my opinion, people think they're superior BECAUSE they don't have a doubt, not the other way around.

I think you may not understand superior people. They are superior BECAUSE of their doubts, not because they don't have any. They are full of doubts, but cannot deal with them. The superiority is a very fragile shell, and lacks any real authenticity.

Such people then use a psychological defence known as projection. If at any point they become aware of any failing, then they will accuse someone else of having that failing, in order to allocate the locus of that failing other than in their own self.

A selfish person will accuse you of being selfish. A manipulative person will call you manipulative. People are remarkably good at identifying what the problem is, and remarkably good also at projecting that problem away from their own self, in order to absolve themselves of responsiblity for doing anything about that failing.

And, conversely, generous people will commend you for your generosity. It takes one to know one.

People who are able to admit that they have doubts, without this damaging their self image, can then deal with those doubts without projecting them away. They are far less likely to accuse other people, because they can accept that they also lack perfection, and have a lot to learn before they can straighten anyone else out.

 

[sentipente]

I think you may not understand superior people. They are superior BECAUSE of their doubts, not because they don't have any. They are full of doubts, but cannot deal with them. The superiority is a very fragile shell, and lacks any real authenticity.

Absolutely.

 

[razeontherock]

It depends on what you mean by that. I did not live when it is claimed that He lived. How does one know someone they never met personally? You may claim that you know Him but that would be a lie.

do I take this to mean that you're not a Christian in any sense of the word? that's how I've always viewed your seeker icon, but recently it was drawn to my attention that's not what it means on CF. Seems like a simple enough question, no?

 

[sentipente]

do I take this to mean that you're not a Christian in any sense of the word? that's how I've always viewed your seeker icon, but recently it was drawn to my attention that's not what it means on CF. Seems like a simple enough question, no?

And I'm trying to get you to understand that labels and claims mean nothing when humans are involved.