In almost every one of my relationships there comes a point when the other person—whether acquaintance, friend, or coworker—realizes that I’m kind of a jerk.
It often comes as an epiphany, a sudden realization that, now that they think about it, I was a jerk all this time---they just never realized it before. Perhaps they had chalked up my standoffishness to introversion or my critical nature to an analytic mind. Maybe my gruffness was because I was in the Marines or that my social skills atrophied because of disuse. However they had previously excused my behavior, they now realized that, nice guy that I might appear on the exterior, I am a barely tolerable jerk.
Generally, they are too polite to acknowledge this openly; mostly I just recognize it in their eyes. However it happens, it is unmistakable and the moment brings me both relief and distress. It's like publicly removing a man girdle that has been holding in an excess of gut and love handles. Although I can finally breathe easier, everyone else is looking at me with disgust.
How is this possible? How can I be a Christian for over three decades (since the age of six) and still be such a jerk? The only response I can give is that if I wasn't a Christian I'd be much, much worse. As Evelyn Waugh--another Christian who recognized he was a nasty chap--once said, "If not for my faith I would be barely human."
While true, that answer seems a bit of a cop-out. I don't like being a jerk and I don't like making excuses for my nasty behavior. So I attempt to be nicer, more likable. I pretend to be genial and gregarious in the hope that I'll eventually become less of a jerk.
But it doesn't work. The more I pose and pretend that I'm something I'm not, the more I appear to be a hypocritical jerk.
The main problem is that I go about it all wrong. Instead of trying to be more likable I should focus on being more loving. As C.S. Lewis once noted, "Christian Love (or Charity) for our neighbors is quite a different thing from liking or affection."
[T]hough natural likings should normally be encouraged, it would be quite wrong to think that the way to become charitable is to sit trying to manufacture affectionate feelings. Some people are 'cold' by temperament; that may be a misfortune for them, but it is no more a sin than having a bad digestion is a sin; and it does not cut them out from the chance, or excuse them from the duty, of learning charity. The rule for all of us is perfectly simple. Do not waste time bothering whether you 'love' your neighbor; act as if you did. As soon as we do this we find one of the great secrets. When you are behaving as if you loved someone, you will presently come to love him. If you injure someone you dislike, you will find yourself disliking him more. If you do him a good turn, you will find yourself disliking him less. …
Consequently, though Christian charity sounds a very cold thing to people whose heads are full of sentimentality, and though it is quite distinct from affection, yet it leads to affection. The difference between a Christian and a worldly man is not that the worldly man has only affections or 'likings' and the Christian has only 'charity'. The worldly man treats certain people kindly because he 'likes' them: the Christian, trying to treat every one kindly, finds himself liking more and more people as he goes on — including people he could not even have imagined himself liking at the beginning.
Lewis has touched on one of the reasons I appear so unregenerate. For thirty years the Holy Spirit has been leading me to hate sin and I have responded, albeit modestly. As theologian R.C Sproul says, "Sin is cosmic treason. Sin is treason against a perfectly pure Sovereign. It is an act of supreme ingratitude toward the One to whom we owe everything, to the One who has given us life itself."
For me, gratitude comes easy, which is why it is easy to hate sin since it is rejection of ingratitude. What is more difficult is grace. Grace does not come naturally, which makes it easier for me to ignore the promptings of the Spirit in that direction.
We Christians often say we should, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." I've certainly made headway on half that cliché. For the sanctification of this jerk to progress, though, I need to start acting on the other half.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-trackback.cgi/3726
1
Joe, I was going to email this to you, but I want to share it with everyone. Ergo, it's something I posted on my own blog.
I'm probably less of a jerk than you, but I'm not sure I love my neighbors any better... and the following was truly edifying to me. Perhaps it will catch your eye if I say that this stuff is more important to me than Dooyeweerd 100xs over, and more revolutionary:
http://honest2blog.blogspot.com/2007/02/sin-shall-have-no-dominion-how-does.html
Its a few mp3s and PDFs for your sanctification.
posted on 07.05.2007 2:07 AM2
"Sin is cosmic treason. Sin is treason against a perfectly pure Sovereign. It is an act of supreme ingratitude toward the One to whom we owe everything, to the One who has given us life itself."
posted on 07.05.2007 4:18 AMNo...sin is a man made concept invented by priests,shamans,witch doctors and assorted theologian crackpots to extract monney/service/power from the gullible...it mostly encompasses what intelligent,well informed people would recognise as purely natural instincts,many of whihc are the sole reasons why we are still here to discuss the matter.
3
Fundamentally, a human problem. As believers we are not called to like one another but to love one another. This would take on the acts of caring that reflect true love. Although no excuse for "bad behavior" there is comfort in knowing that God loved us when we were his enemies (potentially the worst of jerks) and that great love resulted in our salvation and the possibility of loving others which is only possible through the transforming power of God. Fundamentally, we all know ourselves better than anyone else and when we compare ourselves to the goal all fall far short so no matter how much the spirit moves us and changes us we still will always have far to go.
However, there needs to be a spirit of acceptance and love toward those who confront us in these circumstances, becaues the hardest thing to do with a "jerk" is to care enough about them to speak to them about these issues. If listening and acceptance of that fundamental concern is present, I have found that it can result in deeper relationships than would otherwise be possible because it reflects true concern for the individual. Assuredly there are good and bad ways to do it, but it still takes a lot of courage to approach a jerk.
I trust that God through Christ will continue to lead you, transform you, and encourage you in your walk with him and others of the Christian community.
In Christ and for his glory
posted on 07.05.2007 7:40 AM4
Hi Joe
Thanks for writing this. I've taken the liberty of posting a response at my blog: http://theconnexion.net/wp/?p=2981
posted on 07.05.2007 8:58 AM5
I go to this small group where there's this one lady who speaks her mind - in often a caustic manner. When I first met her, she was rather standoffish; but after some time she became really close with me and my wife. I realized that there are some people that make it clear that you have to earn their respect before they will "let you in" rather than putting on airs of "politeness" (as is common in the South where I live)
I count the well-earned respect of a curmudgeon higher than politeness given out of social obligation.
As for your situation, like the man said: you've got to learn to live with what you are
posted on 07.05.2007 9:17 AM6
If I might indulge a little copy/paste. From A Spiritual Psalter compiled by Theophan the Recluse (written by Ephraim the Syrian in the 4th century). Ephraim was considered by the early (and still by the Eastern) church to be the psalmist of the New Testament.
For Joe and the rest of us who feel "hypocritical" in forcing ourselves to do the right thing, note the stanza on that "Blessed is he who forces himself to perform all manner of good deeds, for the forceful shall capture the kingdom of heaven." posted on 07.05.2007 10:32 AM
7
I've met few folks on the web as close-minded as Ludwig here, but I feel compelled to respond to his statement:
No...sin is a man made concept invented by priests,shamans,witch doctors and assorted theologian crackpots to extract monney/service/power from the gullible...it mostly encompasses what intelligent,well informed people would recognise as purely natural instincts,many of whihc are the sole reasons why we are still here to discuss the matter.
The snarky response is that inventing concepts to secure money/service/power from the gullible is a sin. ;-)
But the deeper response is that there is no greater slavery than the man who cannot control his own instincts. These are what the ancient's called "the passions" - these intense biological and emotional urges that inspire action without thought. To be controlled by the passions is to be a mere animal. The higher calling of humanity is to cultivate reason and virtue, and subject the passions to the service of these.
So, if I know I am fighting for a truly noble cause for the justice of the oppressed, I can employ bestial aggressive passions to make me a better soldier. But if it is mere personal vengeance against my own pride, these passions must be subjected to the will enforcing virtue. The passions then make good servants, but horrible masters.
So to overcome sin - to be controlled by the mind, will, and heart in pursuit of virtue - to cultivate justice, temperance, wisdom, fortitude, faith, hope, and love - far from enslaving a people, frees them to live as man was intended. What's more, when we overcome sin and subjugate the passions, far from being easily controlled by power mongers, we have a higher authority than our own instincts by which to challenge them, and are harder to control then those whose lusts make them drool after every trifle that a tyrant offers to placate the masses.
posted on 07.05.2007 10:43 AM8
I don't know you personally Joe, but based on your blog writing, you don't seem to be a jerk.
posted on 07.05.2007 10:51 AM9
Ya know... this same epiphany happened to me when I was in my senior year of college. After trying and trying and trying to be likable (much like you)... I realized, everyone is a jerk. But that's what Grace is for, to change us to be less jerk-like.
And so I learned I needed to start with Love for Christ then move to loving people, but not so that people will like me, but because Jesus provides Grace.
G&P bro
posted on 07.05.2007 10:58 AM10
Joe,
If you can't annoy somebody, there's little point in writing.
-- Kingsley Amis
Just thought that'd help.
Love
David
ps. I do believe a good preacher will annoy the hell out of people!
posted on 07.05.2007 11:19 AM11
Joe said C.S. Lewis said:
"Some people are 'cold' by temperament...but it is no more a sin than having a bad digestion is a sin"
I love Lewis' writings, but this is faulty logic IMHO. Most often one's temperament is caused by environmental factors, how the person was raised, being overly teased, praised, abused, supported, etc. If Lewis is referring to "bad digestion" as some birth defect, as I already inferred, that is difficult to overcome. But most people's "bad digestion" is the result of what they have chosen to eat and it's longterm effects.
As fallen creatures, we all too often say "that's just how I'm made" to cover our laziness. The latest trend is for "authenticity", "transparency", or as is said in the hood, "keeping it real". These somewhat positive terms turn negative and ugly real quick because they tickle our inner desires to say whatever we want without regard to others. And that is just speaking the ugly truth, not truth in love.
I do appreciate your close in wanting to "work on the other half." That we should all attempt it.
posted on 07.05.2007 11:21 AM12
Michael -
You seem to be completely missing Lewis' point, though. He is saying that, regardless of the feelings you have, it doesn't excuse you of the duty of charity. God understands if it is harder for you than someone else, but he expects you to do what you can with what you have. It's the reasonable balance - granted you are stuck with the person you are, and granted much of it may not be your fault, God both sympathizes and expects (and empowers) you to make the most of it.
posted on 07.05.2007 11:57 AM13
Joe -- I feel your pain, as uhhh, someone said, because I share your disposition. I do prefer to call it my natural charm. But my wife et al use your label: jerk.
I've not noticed people making a lot of money by calling things sin, altho I have noticed a lot of people making money by doing things called sin.
Sin is ingratitude for God? Yes, and more: It's also indifference to God, neglect of God, and living outside the image of God. When Jonah took off for Tarshish, he wanted to immerse himself in a culture that did not know or care about God -- one that left Him alone and minded only its business. When the storm made reaching Tarshish unlikely, Jonah went to sleep -- cutting off his mind from God. Either way, sin.
Christ's work freed us from sin, so, being free, we don't have to sin. But of course we do anyway, beause it's what we want to do, or at best it's a set of habits we find hard to break. Especially if we just try to stop, rather than by replacing them with different attitudes/actions/habits.
I need to practice agape/charity towards those I like, those I dislike, and those about whom I could care less. I find it helps to try to identify, or just assume, some lovable characteristic that I can use for the latter two types. Somehow, God finds them lovable, so I should be able to as well.
(People who drive in the left lane slower than I want to really annoy me. But I met a sweet woman who does that, so now I must acknowledge that some of these people may also be as sweet as Lenore. So that helps me a bit.)
Is everyone a jerk? I think so, albeit in differing degrees. I knew a couple made up of a "perfectly Christian" woman and her cantankerous Christian husband. She died a couple years ago, and recently I met their kids. Nothing was said explicitly, but my wife and I picked up that perhaps there was some jerk in the woman. I think we all have some jerk in us.
Perhaps those who notice the jerk in themselves are able to do so because they have a clearer image of God that shows they distance between Him and them.
posted on 07.05.2007 12:40 PM14
Joe,
It would be rather ungrateful of me not to respond to such an honest, witty, and wise post, so here I go.
What is a jerk?
A jerk is someone who thinks he is better than other people.
As a hard-core Calvinist, you don't think you are any better than anyone else. You know that everybody is pretty much equally a stinking sack of iniquity, unredeemable except by the intervention of the overwhelming power of God's grace.
However, this all-encompassing and perhaps counter-intuitive message of faith and salvation is such an enormously important bit of knowledge, that any mere mortal, such as yourself, who is privy to it cannot but help be infected/tempted/led astray by the transgression of hubris.
Hence the paradox of truly wanting to be one with one's fellow ambulatory sacks of offal, but somehow still thinking, deep in the back of your mind, that your possession of the Bible's "secrets" makes you just a little bit special. If for no other reason than the fact that you have an obligation, however modest, to help others understand the path toward sanctification.
So what is the solution for someone who wishes to not be a jerk?
I like Justin's answer, in comment 4: "learn to live with what you are". That is pretty solid advice.
However, you strike me as someone who, for the most part, has come to terms with himself, but is still unsatisfied with who he is. So if you do in fact feel compelled to stretch yourself a bit more in an attempt to perhaps finally ameliorate your jerkiness, then my approach to this problem might be interesting to you.
One good way of striving for genuine humility vis-a-vis others is to understand that one's perspective on life is not the final word. One's perspective might be true and worthy; it might be really, really cool, and the cat's pajamas in just about every way, but it is not the final word.
How is it not?
Not because all truth is relative - far from it. Some things are true, and some are false, and there is no getting around that.
It is because all truth is incomplete. We are each of us acquainted with only a tiny fragment of the truth.
If one takes one's personal fragment of truth and compares it to all the truth in the universe that we do not know, then our fragment appears to be pretty close to vanishingly small.
Our fragment is not zero. It is substantial and meaningful, and good and true. But no matter what we learn, or how much we learn, it will always be partial, and on the largest scale of things, relatively trifling.
It is like the parable of the blind men and the elephant. When each blind man holds a piece of the elephant, he gets a good feel for that piece, but not for the whole elephant.
So I believe that the key to genuine humility is to realize that even the dumbest, most screwed-up people you'll ever run into are in possession of a tiny shard of the great mosaic of truth in the universe. Moreover, any person's shard of truth is unique to them, for it is based on that person's life history and experiences.
We might have access to a grand mosaic of truth which is composed of some of the finest fragments of truth in the history of man. But if our mosaic is missing any individual's personal shard, it is going to have a hole in it that can never be filled. Because of this truth-gap, every person is valuable to us not just morally or charitably, but also in a deep intellectual and spiritual sense as well.
Or, if you prefer a more religious metaphor, Jesus is in every person that you meet (or don't meet for that matter).
posted on 07.05.2007 1:56 PM15
"The snarky response is that inventing concepts to secure money/service/power from the gullible is a sin. ;-)"
not in the least...its merely a statement of fact backed by mountains of direct evidence.
"But the deeper response is that there is no greater slavery than the man who cannot control his own instincts. These are what the ancient's called "the passions" - these intense biological and emotional urges that inspire action without thought. To be controlled by the passions is to be a mere animal. The higher calling of humanity is to cultivate reason and virtue, and subject the passions to the service of these. "
you ve set up a nice little strawman and beat it down all on your own...congrats...the problem is it has absolutely nothing to do with what i said. Most people are in control of their passions most of the time but guess what....SO ARE MOST ANIMALS...very few creaturwe can hope to survive for any lenght of time if they are solely driven by their primal urges but make no mistake....no single creature in the known universe could ever hope to survive without them. They are part of what makes us alive to being with...the trick is to tailor their use depending on the situation and most living organism manage to do this quite well,with a few notable exceptions here and there. and none of this tailoring ever required bibles or scrolls or holy texts.
"So, if I know I am fighting for a truly noble cause for the justice of the oppressed, I can employ bestial aggressive passions to make me a better soldier. But if it is mere personal vengeance against my own pride, these passions must be subjected to the will enforcing virtue. The passions then make good servants, but horrible masters. "
more strawman arguments...see above.
"So to overcome sin - to be controlled by the mind, will, and heart in pursuit of virtue - to cultivate justice, temperance, wisdom, fortitude, faith, hope, and love - far from enslaving a people, frees them to live as man was intended. What's more, when we overcome sin and subjugate the passions, far from being easily controlled by power mongers, we have a higher authority than our own instincts by which to challenge them, and are harder to control then those whose lusts make them drool after every trifle that a tyrant offers to placate the masses."
posted on 07.05.2007 2:08 PMand theres the false premise right there...passions are NOT sins for 2 reasons...A: and the most important is because there is no such thing as sin and B: as you yourself pointed out,every one of our passions can be directed to do good or bad things toward our fellow men,making them moraly neutral.
16
Ludwig,
Are you saying that sin does not exist, or are you saying that it has been expanded beyond recognition by people with hidden agendas?
I ask, because it seems to me that I am capable of sinning against someone else.
For example, it someone absent-mindedly leaves a bag full of money open on the sidewalk for a minute, and I spot it and grab a handful of cash while walking by, I would say I have sinned against that person.
posted on 07.05.2007 2:17 PM17
Matthew Goggins
posted on 07.05.2007 2:48 PMSin is defines as an offence against a god...but a god,by its very nature as an allpowerfull being,cannot be offended...you can commit crimes or misdeeds against your fellow men but that would leave the matter to be resolved between you and whoever you did wrong against and no one else...asking god to forgive you for having shoved say your brother in the mud would be as pointless an activity as asking my forgiveness for it...thats between you and your brother. ^Think about it...what action can you take that would impact an allpowerfull,all knowing timeless being in any way shape or form?
18
Thanks Ludwig, I agree with the distinction you make between sinning against a person and sinning against a god.
However, one could salvage a more general notion of sinning against "God" if one treated God as a metaphor for one's individual conscience, or even as a kind of karma that if affected by the balance of one's good vs. bad deeds.
posted on 07.05.2007 3:01 PM19
Ludwig -
We're not Deists - we are Christians. Things we do impact God because he is present within and among his creation.
posted on 07.05.2007 3:14 PM20
"We're not Deists - we are Christians. Things we do impact God because he is present within and among his creation."
posted on 07.05.2007 3:48 PMthats fairly arrogant of you to claim the ability to impact something that is all powerfull,all knowing timeless and unchanging...but then again,as you pointed out,you re a christian so it goes with the package deal i guess.
21
Perhaps it is fairly arrogant of you to say to the said all-powerful, all-knowing something that he has not the capacity to create smaller somethings as the signature of his created work, putting some of his own essence into them, such that they have the capacity to affect the aforementioned something in some way. Especially seeing that the something has told us as much.
posted on 07.05.2007 3:55 PM22
thats fairly arrogant of you to claim the ability to impact something that is all powerfull,all knowing timeless and unchanging...but then again,as you pointed out,you re a christian so it goes with the package deal i guess.
There is a recorded history of God being either pleased or displeased with the actions of certain individuals or groups of people. You may think that history is untrue, but you seem to be saying that even if that history were true, it would prove that God is not all-powerful, all-knowing, timeless, and unchanging, because such being could not be impacted by a lowly human being.
I honestly don't get how you could say that. If such a being exists, wouldn't it be up to Him to decide what he cares about and what he doesn't?
I think it's the opposite of what you say. It's arrogant to think God doesn't care what we do. After all, if He's infinite, He can care infinitely about every molecule in the universe, let alone some collection of them.
On the surface, your argument appears to be a moral cover for doing whatever you please without accountability. Maybe it is but there's another possibility. An old friend of mine used to think like you do. I'm pretty certain she just couldn't conceive of an all-powerful God who could love her. She was less than a "speck" in a vast universe. She said it was arrogant for us to think God gave a shit about us, which I'm reasonably certain was her own psychological ploy to not have to deal with who she really was or who God is. I was sad that at as long as she maintained that frame of mind, she was unlikely to ever know the love of God. Sure, many a religious charlatan has used the concept of sin to manipulate people, but that doesn't mean it's not a real concept. Understanding sin is ultimately understanding the vast gap between God and man... His perfection are our missing the mark of perfection.
posted on 07.05.2007 4:59 PM23
In an attempt to drag this back to the original topic rather than just letting Ludwig needle us, I feel like I ought to point out Galatians 5:22-23: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance” Gentleness and meekness don’t really fit in with what I normally think of as a jerk. So I think we have to be careful with just accepting ourselves.
However, some Americans define a jerk as anybody who speaks concisely and acts seriously (i.e. any German or Frenchman), and who just doesn’t go out of the way to engage everybody in small talk and be smiley and brighten the day of everyone around them. He reserves that kind of favor for close friends. In that case, yes, I think you can be that kind of “jerk” and still be a good Christian.
posted on 07.05.2007 5:03 PM24
Ludwig and Wonders for Oyarsa,
As two smart, articulate persons who have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of the world we live in, perhaps you can a find a way to agree to disagree.
Is it really such a bad thing that someone should hold beliefs that appear to be inconsistent with you own? Isn't it actually kind of neat that intelligent people can approach things so differently and still be worthy of respect and consideration?
Who among us is so special that we have the right to attempt to cram our beliefs down the throats of those who dare to dissent?
posted on 07.05.2007 5:44 PM25
Who among us is so special that we have the right to attempt to cram our beliefs down the throats of those who dare to dissent?
Joe and all the rest of us jerks, that's who.
posted on 07.05.2007 6:00 PM26
Hi Joe, my name is jd and I'm a jerk.
With me, however, it is most apparent in my ability to hold a grudge based on some resentment that began long ago. This is not to say that the reason for the resentment is not real or based on something that actually happened (the sin), but that I let that resentment affect my attitude towards that person (the sinner) for ever and ever, amen.
It has robbed so much joy from my life. It's a damn shame. It's the single most important thing for me to overcome. I feel like I can't do it without my faith, yet I feel so alone when it comes time to actually do something about it.
I would add that C.S. Lewis also wrote in "Screwtape" that getting the "patient" to write is a good way to keep him on the path to hell. It's easier than actually doing something worthwhile, isn't it?
posted on 07.05.2007 6:15 PM27
Wow. This went downhill in an unexpected, freakishly sad way.
Anyway... I liked this post. We all really are a bunch of self-centered jerks that would be much worse if left to our own jerk potential. Even the most stellar Christian gets their eyes off Christ and can turn into a big jerk.
...really but by the grace of God alone can I even get my eyes off me for a moment. However, the Bible does often point to the word "practice"
Php 4:9 The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things; and the God of peace shall be with you.
Ro 7:15 For that which I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.
Ro 7:19 For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish.
So what am I going to practice? That which is evil or that which is good? Am I going to practice what is righteous, depending on the Lord, or what appeals to my flesh as I depend on me? As a Christian my deeds through Christ are a fragrant aroma. Apart from Him they are dross. But then, there is something to be said about obedience in spite of how I feel isn't there?
posted on 07.05.2007 6:36 PM28
Jd,
... I let that resentment affect my attitude towards that person (the sinner) for ever and ever, amen.
That's human nature. Big transgressions leave a big mark.
I think the best way to achieve peace after being a victim is to move on to bigger and better things.
Once you are involved in something fulfilling and worthwhile which does not involve the sinner, it is much easier for the memory of the transgression to fade into mellow hues, until you go for long stretches not thinking about it at all.
You don't really have to forgive to let go of your resentment. You just have find better relationships and find your happiness somewhere else.
The hardest thing, probably, is being alone. It helps if you have a dog or a cat, or even a bunny.
I would add that C.S. Lewis also wrote in "Screwtape" that getting the "patient" to write is a good way to keep him on the path to hell. It's easier than actually doing something worthwhile, isn't it?
Even if nobody ever reads what you have to write, you are still communicating to yourself when you commit words to paper, or to a computer screen. The act of organizing thought into sentences and paragraphs has a way of clearing the mind and revealing what we really think.
Take care,
posted on 07.05.2007 8:48 PMMatthew
29
Matthew -
I shouldn't respond to Ludwig, but he manages to get a rise out of me for some reason - which on the internet is always a bad thing. But you are mistaken if you think I can't tolerate a disagreement - notice I never made any blanket statements about all atheists being horrible or whatever. I simply tried to defend my faith against Ludwig's attacks - which is not the same thing as cramming them down his or anyone else's throat.
My last comment was more tongue-in-cheek than anything else. Arrogance? It's a question about the nature of things - if it is false it is just false - if it is true its true. I thought the claim of "arrogance" rather silly, so I showed how it could be turned around the same way.
Anyway, the bottom line is that of course you and anyone else are free to disagree. Sometimes we disagree on things that are rather important - matters of life and death and all. That doesn't mean we need to demonize our opponents, or lose respect for them as people. But respect also means understanding that these issues aren't trivial - and you need not be shocked that they are defended with passion.
posted on 07.05.2007 11:00 PM30
Wonders for Oyarsa,
Well, "cram our beliefs down the throats of those who dare to dissent" was putting it a bit strongly, especially for you. I understand that you were just giving tit-for-tat to Ludwig.
On the other hand, you do like to prosyletize your point of view. It would be unfair to characterize that as "cramming", especially since I can be just as tenacious in a discussion as anyone else. But I do think you may get a bit overinvested at times in trying to convert people to your point of view.
I can certainly empathize with your eagerness. I feel that way sometimes when I am arguing in a comment thread about the occupation/reconstruction of Iraq. But when it comes to religion, I'm always much more concerned that a person be good and ethical than whether or not he believes in God.
Good people come in all religious flavors, and so do bad people. I think it's bigoted to assume that some theological beliefs are a prerequisite to virtue, so I don't stress out too much over whether people agree with me or not. Or at least I try to remember not to ;)
But respect also means understanding that these issues aren't trivial - and you need not be shocked that they are defended with passion.
I think you've identified a key point here.
Sometimes atheists do forget that some things are not trivial for believers. It is easy to mock something that a religious person holds sacred when one doesn't think there is anything sacred about it.
But when one is discussing something that is allegedly sacred with the person to whom that thing is sacred, it is important to remember to put the mockery on hold, or at the very least, be very sensitive and respectful to any negative reactions that one gets.
Otherwise, one is just being a jerk.
I think that sometimes in these believer/atheist debates, the believer side will occasionally go out of its way to mock science (especially Darwinism!) out of a misguided attempt to engage in tit-for-tat mockery of stuff that some atheists have reverence for.
But if that is the motivation for the mockery, it just serves to reflect poorly on those who engage in it, just as when the atheists get overbearing and arrogant.
posted on 07.06.2007 12:05 AM31
On the other hand, you do like to prosyletize your point of view. It would be unfair to characterize that as "cramming", especially since I can be just as tenacious in a discussion as anyone else. But I do think you may get a bit overinvested at times in trying to convert people to your point of view.
Meh - I don't know. I don't think I have any real expectations to convert anyone to my point of view in a blog comment exchange. I'm more interested in showing people that the Christian faith is defensible, than in actively converting anyone.
posted on 07.06.2007 1:35 AM32
Hey Joe,
In an attempt to atone for my part in derailing the comments, let me say something about your post.
I remember another thing that Lewis said (probably in Mere Christianity) about self-knowledge. One of the things that we learn as we become more and more sanctified is the full extent of how sin permeates our being. So a moderately good man thinks he's pretty sinful, while a bad man thinks he's a basically good guy. When the great saints talked about the wretchedness of their sin, they were speaking with scientific accuracy.
So perhaps you can take some comfort in this. Perhaps you are indeed becoming less of a jerk through the work of the Holy Spirit, and part of that is a fuller realization of just how much of a jerk you still are.
posted on 07.06.2007 8:22 AM33
"One of the things that we learn as we become more and more sanctified is the full extent of how sin permeates our being."
wow...that statement stank so completely of self importance that it actually woke me up.
"So a moderately good man thinks he's pretty sinful, while a bad man thinks he's a basically good guy."
ah the good old "created sick,commanded to get well" canard. i must say i ve rarely seen so masochistic a cult as christianity...is there anything in your debased dogma that does not proceed from this psychotic self loathing that seem to permeate your every waking moments?
"When the great saints talked about the wretchedness of their sin, they were speaking with scientific accuracy. "
posted on 07.06.2007 7:30 PMoh so now we are back at ridiculing science eh? well riddle me this einstein...how many grams of sin is there in my little finger?
34
You'll have to scale back a tad, Ludwig. That one was a little too over-the-top to get a rise out of me.
posted on 07.07.2007 1:04 AM35
Wonders for Oyarsa,
posted on 07.07.2007 6:22 PMYou could at least have told him that the number of grams of sin in his little finger is as many as the number of grams his little finger weighs.
36
"You could at least have told him that the number of grams of sin in his little finger is as many as the number of grams his little finger weighs."
posted on 07.07.2007 7:32 PMindeed...that would have fit right in with the old addage "Its better to look like a fool and remain quiet than to speak up and confirm it"
37
It was a joke son. Get over yourself.
posted on 07.07.2007 7:56 PM38
Ludwig,
You do realize where that old adage comes from, right? Do you really want to dirty your hands with (oh horrors) the BIBLE?
posted on 07.09.2007 4:09 PM39
"You do realize where that old adage comes from, right? Do you really want to dirty your hands with (oh horrors) the BIBLE?"
posted on 07.09.2007 6:15 PMoh thats a good one...the bible highjacks claims of originality for so many things so why not this one as well...its like murder and theft....the jews all thought it was cool to kill one another and steal each oterhs wives until they reached Mount Sinai and were told to knock that s#!t offf right? the sky is probably also blue BECAUSE the bable says so....lol lol lol
40
And you just stole that jab at the Bible from The Simpsons (Homer vs. Lisa 1991). Didn't you read in the Bible that you're not supposed to steal?
posted on 07.09.2007 11:38 PM41
Wow! I've not waded into the cesspit of Joe's comment threads for quite awhile, and so shall it remain after looking in on what Ludwig tries to pass off as intelligent commentary. At least Larry Lord and Mummon had a thin veneer of coherence and civility on occassion.
The sad thing is that while others can just not read L's rantings, he has to live with himself 24/7/365. I'll say a prayer for you, Ludwig. I would be miserable living with so much bile and hatred.
posted on 07.19.2007 2:51 AM