OT: Are all religious believers (Christian, Jewish, Atheist, Mormon, etc.) self-righteous by default? Are religions themselves? If a specific individual of a faith isn’t self-righteous on the whole, how come they always seem to come off like they are?
Background: I’ve noticed, particularly among Christians, that no matter how hard they try not to sound holier-than-thou, they almost always invariably do. I understand that there are many individuals who really aren’t self-righteous, but for some reason, no matter how delicately they try to put their point of view into words, it always seems to come out as condescending. “There, there, I understand you don’t have the faith I do, but someday you’ll understand.” As if we were petulent children who will understand “when we’re older.” I’ve seen it on this board, I’ve experienced it in real life.
Two particular stick out in my mind. One was CalifBoomer who said something to the effect of, “When you end up suffering for eternity you’ll remember I was right.” (Not that he’s any kind of example to hold up for Christian ideals, and I also understand he meant in this instance to be smug, but it still resonated with me.) The other is a button I’ve seen on several occasions: “You’d smile too if you were going to Heaven.”
Of course y’all know I’m queer. I have many Christian friends, and frankly most of them are very liberal-minded, bare threads Christian, so they really don’t see me as a sinner - in fact, their specific religious beliefs rarely come up, and if they do, we just talk, not debate or point out each other’s deficiencies. But I’ve encountered more than my fair share (co-workers, for example) who, upon finding out I’m gay, instantly change their stance towards me. Do they really treat me any differently? Not on the surface. But do they abhor my “dirty little secret” (that isn’t so secret)? Yes. The air fairly reeks with “Well, at least I’m not you.” Sometimes it irks me, sometimes it doesn’t.
A challenge: Someone who believes homosexuality is wrong, please type out a sentence saying so without coming off as a pretentious snob. Seriously. I want to see if it can be done.
Perhaps this has much to do with writing/speaking style as it does with belief systems? Or is it just me, the reader/listener, who is acutely aware, perhaps even overly sensitive when it comes to religious ideas, since I know I am not of the mainstream and/or I disagree with the speaker’s point of view?
It also begs the further question - in order to have such strong faith, is it necessary to inherently be self-righteous? After all, you believe what you believe and believe it will ultimately prove right for everyone - in itself, doesn’t then that faith have to include self-righteousness by definition and/or by default?
Tinker, cut and paste it here so there’s no confusion.
Eve, I know this ground has been covered in another thread, but for the purposes of this thread, let’s include Atheists under the heading of “believer.” (Under normal circumstances I’d be happy to use whatever term, or not use any term, as you please.)
C&P:
:::::::::::::::::::::::
Esprix:
Let me say first: I don’t know.
First, if you wish to persue it their is a Gay Christian over at LBMB. (If that link fails, just go to www.leftbehind.com, click on the message boards, and search for his handle.) His handle is STRUGGLINGCHRISTIAN. I checked his profile and he does have an available email address. When the topic comes up (and it does come up) he(?) points people to a website that disputes the traditional interpretation of the commonly quoted verses (e.g., Romans 1).
If one disputes their interpretation and accepts that everything that the OT and NT traditionally includes belongs, then it would seem that celibacy is the only answer.
The apostle Paul, at one time in his life, was single.
Verse 8 shows that Paul was single at the time he wrote this. It is supposed that the reason he would prefer that people remain single is so that they could better dedicate their lives to the Kingdom of God. You will note that here Paul concedes that sex is necessary to a marriage. Other scripture suggests (e.g., Song of Solomon) that sex, within the context of marriage, is not just acceptable but very good.
Again, I wish to make it clear: if the homosexual act is sin, it is no worse than my own sin.
Tinker
P.S. If you do a search on Polycarp, you will find his take on the interpretation of those verses. I am sorry, I don’t know where.
Still a sinner …
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
By definition, a person exhibits self-righteous behavior when they assert their own self as the definition of right and wrong. They are appealing to their own intrinsic moral authority.
When a person appeals to a generally agreed upon extrinsic moral authority, they are not being self-righteous. If I argue that abortion is murder, I am arguing that the action has a rational relationship to the extrinsic, widely held moral belief in the value of human life.
A moral belief may be intrinsic or extrinsic based on context and circumstances. If a gay person were to enter a conservative Christian church, then in that context the prohibition against homosexuality would indeed be an extrinsic belief; the judgement there would then be rational and not self-righteous.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
Self-righteousness is hardly limited to religious issues. It’s easy to detect in politics as well…not just on the right (where it’s often enough tied into religion), but also on the left.
And expressions of religious beliefs are not limited to self-righteousness. I dare say the most properly religious people are those who will act humble and unsure of their own righteousness, even while telling other people they are wrong. Self-righteousness is an attitude about one’s self, not about one’s beliefs.
I don’t see how this exercise proves anything, but I’ll (hopefully) rise to the challenge, with one caveat: I don’t believe there’s anything inherently wrong outside of a religious system that prohibits it. From a secular point of view, it’s a harmless variation.
However, if one considers himself to be a religious Christian or Jew, it is wrong for that person to maintain a homosexual sexual relationship. The Bible clearly states that G-d condemns that type of activity. If one wishes to maintain that such activity is not wrong and wishes to consider himself religious, he is creating his own religion, because he is not adhering to the teachings of the founder(s) of either Judaism or Christianity.
“Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks.”
– Douglas Adams’s Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
Yes, belief is, in a sense, inherently self-rightous. The core of western thought is empiricism–if something is true, then it is true independent of the beliefs of any individual. If I believe that 2 + 2 = 4, and you believ 2 + 2 = 6, then I think you are wrong. If I didn’t, I couldn’t say I really believed that 2 + 2 = 4. Most people, I daresay, believe that even if everyone came to believe that 2 + 2 = 6, 2 + 2 would still equal 4. Now, in modern society many people are willing to accept that different practices of worship or ways of seeking God are equally valid, but there are few who are willing to say “I believe in a spiritual aspect to life and John believes that nothing beyond the material exisists in any form or fashion, but I have no opinion on which of us is right”. That makes no sense, see. Now, some people are more able to just not worry about the fact that John is wrong, and so feel no need to mention it to him, but they are still self-rightous.
The thing is, self-rightousness is not unilateraly bad. Without it, we wouldn’t be able to feel good about ourselves when we strive not to be racist, say, or when we stick twenty bucks in the Salvation Army bucket. Self-rightousness is the reward of knowing that you are a better person than you could be; an inevitable result of this is that you sometimes notice when you are a better person than your neighbor in some particular aspect. If we really didn’t believe that anyone’s actions could be “right” or “wrong” or even the more relativistic “better” or “worse”, then we would have no moral compass to guide ourselves.
I do think, Esprix, that you may well be oversensitive. In your self-concept you seem to consider the trait “homosexual” as a very important, defining part of who you are. I say that because of how frequently you start threads pertaining to homosexuality, because of your sig line, etc. This is normal for people that are part of a minority, for obvious reasons–when you are a victim or potential victim of intolerance, it tends to remind you of the thing that makes you intolerated and that thing assumes a defining role in the self concept. However, this is not true for the people in the majority. White people, for instance, usually do not say “white” when asked to define themselves in a few words. Heterosexuals do not say “heterosexual”. I suspect, Esprix (although feel free to correct me) that since sexual orientation is a very important part of how you define yourself, you may assume that other people rank it very high as well. The fact is that many don’t. My father, for example, does not like homosexuality, but it is not that big of a deal to him. Frankly, it is much more important to him whether one is a democrat of a republican, because in his own self-concept he identifies himself as a “Middle aged, Republican father of six and an engineer”. The word “heterosexual” dosen’t appear because to him who you sleep with has little to do with who you are. To other people I know, who you vote for–or if you vote–has little to do with who you are. So when he finds out that someone is a homosexual he is, in the strictest sense, self-rightous–he does not believe that their lifestyle is correct-- but he is not going to see this as being nearly as important as who they vote for, or if they vote. I am suggessting that whenever someone expresses disapproval for your lifestyle you assume that they must think, as you do, that it is one of the most important things about you. To them, it may well be no more important than your taste in clothes. Does it bother you when someone mentions that they would never, in a hundred years, dress like you?
Esprix, I think this is a great question. And I think for the most part, you’re right about the impression many Xians give off.
To clarify, this answer will be from the viewpoint of a Catholic. A guilt-laden, you-must-be-sorry-for-your-sins, you-must-be-sorry-for-every-sin-ever-committed Catholic.
To answer the OT, I think it is very easy to view religions themselves as self-righteous. Very easy. Too easy, in fact. As a Catholic, it is too easy to view S. Baptists as self-righteous. In general, it is too easy to view anything we don’t understand/interact with/are involved with as holier-than-thou. I think you hit the nail on the head when you say they seem to come off that way. But that’s not to belittle a first impression. That’s the most important one.
Now, here’s my attempt to write your sentence, in a reference of my own faith (with is very much consistent with my church’s teaching, from my view).
Esprix, the fact that you are homosexual is not a sin. The acts that you commit are. By not acknowledging them as sins, you are going to hell. However, in the converse, everytime I curse, everytime I am slothful, everytime I deny my faith, my self, my family, my friends, and act in a way that is unfaithful, ungodly, unXian, and do not acknowledge them as sins, I am going to hell. My faith (and by “faith” I do not mean doctrine/catechism/rules/dictatorship/etc.) tells me that by myself I am unworthy of God’s love and redemption. I am unable to comprehend that concept. But it is in the attempt, the effort to please that does in fact please.
I know I left some holes in here, but I hope it restores a little faith you have in us Xians.
I think putting the challenge to this group makes this a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I mean, you’re gay. That’s a basic, day-in and day-out, part of your reality.
Now, along comes some fellow with a Bible who, on the basis of a half-dozen verses of Scripture, claims to know more about what’s right and wrong for you than you do yourself, despite the fact that he hasn’t walked one inch in your shoes.
Isn’t that the essence of self-righteousness - to say you know more about someone else’s life than they themselves know?
I think there are lots of Christians (and members of other faiths) who don’t have any more moments of self-righteousness than the average person of no particular religious belief. On this board, Polycarp comes to mind.
The odd thing is, Jesus called His followers to be humble. (Do a word search on ‘humility’ and ‘humble’ in the NT, and see what you get.) That particular calling seems to get ignored a great deal.
Specifically, Esprix, I think all fanatics are self-righteous (and, by extension damned jerks a lot of the time).
After all, to be fanatic about something means to hold it above all other things, to believe in it completely, and to feel hatred/disgust/pity for people who dare believe anything different.
The reaction you think you get when people find out you’re gay is pretty close to the reaction I sometimes think I get when people find out I’m a Republican. Oh, sure, they try to act nice, but you can tell there’s an alarm going off in the back of their head screaming “Unclean! Unclean!”. Admittedly, I’m living in the D.C. suburbs, which is a liberal mecca just this side of San Francisco and Berkeley, whereas the attitude you face is probably much more prevalent in the country as a whole.
But in the end, it comes down to “I follow a certain moral code. You do not follow this moral code, and therefore I am superior to you.” Thankfully, not everyone is quite so self-assured in their moral convictions.
JMCJ
“Y’know, I would invite y’all to go feltch a dead goat, but that would be abuse of a perfectly good dead goat and an insult to all those who engage in that practice for fun.” -weirddave, set to maximum flame
I certainly hope that I’m not a snob. I disagree with you but I would never resort to being mean or calling you names. As far as my self righteousness goes…well, that’s for you to decide I guess. BTW, are you asking me to write a sentence telling you that you are wrong and do so politely?
God bless,
jenkinsfan
what I was thinking exactly! This morning I was thinking that some homosexuals were shooting themselves in the foot. I’m referring to the “marriage” issue. I had seen some woman (don’t know her name caught her briefly on TV) criticizing that bill because to her the wording was kind of a cop out. I don’t know what I’m talking about here except that I think it will recognize same sex partners as life companions but the spirit of “marriage” is absent in the bill. Am I right about this? Or am I talking out the wrong side of my mouth?
Anyway, I thought please! Just take it and shut up! I thought the whole idea behind this was to give these partners legal rights to each others assets. I don’t think that’s a bad thing at all. Now correct me if I’m wrong here…marriage is not only a legal institution but above all else a religous commitment, right? That is where marriage originated, at least that is what I thought. Anyway, no state can force the church, any church, to perform or recognize a marriage, right? The whole idea behind this thing is so that there will be some security in these relationships. So that these life companions can enjoy the same rights as life companions committed in marriage, pensions, insurance, assets, etc. Am I wrong? Hell! I think it’s a good bill. I think it should be extended to include anyone that legally chooses a life companion. Sex shouldn’t even enter into it. I had two maiden great aunts that lived together for 40 years. They were life companions. One of them stayed home and raised foster children, the other worked for RCA. I think the working aunt should have been able to carry the stay at home aunt on her taxes. I think when she finally died of breast cancer in 67 the stay at home aunt should have been able to collect her pension. That isn’t such a bad idea. Why shouldn’t I be able to designate a life companion? Is this making any sense? Of course I’ve digressed…but it speaks to this…
Kind of similar to the “Confederate Heritage” thing. It’s a self perpetuating problem. You see yourself as gay when most people would probably prefer to simply see you as a man.
Well, hell knows I’ve been self-righteous with you in the past, Esprix. I don’t deny it. It’s a character flaw that comes from having too little understanding about other people’s life situations, and thinking that you have the right to judge them by your own standards instead of walking a mile or two in their shoes.
But most of all it’s a result of being a busybody and not minding your own business, IMHO. You know, trying to change someone else before you even change yourself. I’m guilty of this, and if I’ve offended anyone by this attitude, I apologize.
As a semi-professional religious person, I think that its easy for Christians (and iothers) to be self-righteous. I think that this is often unintentional and often rooted in deep-seated fears. However, Scripture is obviously opposed to self-righteousness and good old JC Himself fought bitterly with the Pharisees and Sadducees - about their self-righteousness. A cursory examination of the truly holy people in history shows them universally to be humble. So, it is hard for persons of faith to be self-righteous, but not impossible. And their self-righteousness, ironically enough, reveals them to be less righteous than they seem to think.
And, for what’s it worth, not ALL Christians and Jews see homosexuality as incompatable with Scripture. But that’s a much longer post, of course. I think it is sufficient to say that if we are going to follow Scripture literally, then the whole lot of us are way off base. How many of those “family values” folks live in commnues or have sold all their possessions to give to the poor? It’s Scripture, but we have a great way of reading selectively to make us feel good about ourselves.
Not really Preacherman, Jesus came and told us to read selectively. In one point in the bible someone gives the greeks 4 commands to obey to go to heaven. Only 4, however they were the most important ones i am guessing.
Espirix, if they don’t treat you diffrently on the surface its all in your imagination. Its not them who think that the air reeks with “well at least im not you” its you who place such a high importance on yourself and homosexuality, im sure they don’t care.
to the challenge “Homosexuality is wrong.”
I agree that many people don’t see homosexuals as “homosexuals” they see them as people. When I’m asked to define myself I don’t say “White, straight, female.” I say something more like “Fat, plain, girl”. I may or may not be fat, but I fear that people will see me so, and therefore judge me as a cow/pig/lazy. It does no good to point out to people that I am none of those things. There are many stereotypes involving homosexuals, all of them negative. And there are many people who do operate on those stereotypes, but there are many people who do not.
Esprix, are you openly gay in defiance to all those who are homophobic? Are you openly gay because it’s the one defining factor of your life? Do you get self-righteous when someone knocks your life choices?
I got in a fight with one of my best friends because as a Christian she is incredibly self-righteous at times, and while I am not the most humble of people, I try REALLY hard to temper it. I think to a certain extent a good dose of self-righteousness is important, but I think most of it stems from small mindedness, and fear that there is a possibility of being wrong.
All in all, I agree with MandaJo on this topic a great deal.
I’m going to think about it more, then I’m going to respond to Esprix’s challenge.
“The bitch, oh the bitch, the bitch is back…I’m a bitch cuz I’m better then you, it’s the way that I move
The things that I do…” Elton John
“People try to tell me thoughts they cannot defend…” The Moody Blues
“To start, press any key. Where’s the any key?” Homer Simpson.
If this was the line you were referring to and asking if that came off as self-righteous, I’d have to say no, on the face of it, it’s not. However, having heard this line so many times before, it does sound trite and insincerely self-effacing - “Well, of course, I’m bad, too, but you’re still bad, remember.” However, I understand your intent, and accept it as you meant it.
SingleDad wrote:
So can a belief system (the extrinsic) as a whole be self-righteous? Obviously Christians feel that their way is the only way, but just because that is an “extrinsic moral authority” they and the belief system are absolved from being self-righteous? (Damn, you’re a good poster! :D)
Cmkeller wrote:
Oh, absolutely.
Again, see my question to SingleDad. Is a belief system inherently self-righteous by definition? Certainly there are individuals who follow a faith who are not (as you said, those who are humble and open).
Actually, that sentence in itself is just about right.
No - that was factual and precise. Really, your own religious views didn’t even enter into the statement.
It seems that clarifying “in this religious context” or “this is only what’s right for me” does go a long way towards preventing misunderstanding.
Manda JO wrote:
As a UU, I often substitute the word “right” with the word “believe” - rather than saying, “John believes this and I believe that, so I think John is wrong,” I would say, “John believes this and I believe that, and there’s absolutely no way to tell which of us is right.” I don’t have to believe something is “right” and other things are “wrong” in order to believe in something. (And comparing religious faith to mathematics is disingenious at best.)
Why compare yourself to your neighbor? Can’t a Christian simply compare his life to the Bible’s list of rules to see if he’s doing better or worse, or being a better person than he could be otherwise? Can’t a Pagan believe she is in balance with the nature around her to be satisfied she is living properly according to her beliefs?
I will point out that I am not nearly as gay-oriented in real life as I am here, but I accept that is all folks here know of me, so for the sake of argument this is fine. (In real life there are far more important things on my plate than gay activism, something I really very rarely do any more, although I am going to the March on Washington this weekend, but only to see Garth Brooks in concert. :D)
Again, in real life, sexual orientation isn’t “high” on my list, but rather a part of who I am. My personal experience, however, proves you otherwise - when people find out I’m gay, their attitude does change, and not just in my mind, so, no, they don’t rank it high… until they find out otherwise. Then it’s always there when they see me - I’m the “gay friend” or the “gay cousin” or the “gay co-worker.” Certainly this doesn’t apply to people I am close to, have been friends with for a long time, my family, and so on - I’m just talking about people who don’t know me well, co-workers, people I meet for the first time, etc. Heck, even gay people - my friends always seem to be concerned about who plays for which team at a party.
Yes, because I have impeccable taste in fashion.
Connor wrote:
[quote]
Esprix, the fact that you are homosexual is not a sin. The acts that you commit are. By not acknowledging them as sins, you are going to hell. However, in the converse, everytime I curse, everytime I am slothful, everytime I deny my faith, my self, my family, my friends, and act in a way that is unfaithfu
