It comes down to perception, I guess.
One man’s sharing of enthusiasm about an embrace that he truly feels is another man’s invasion of privacy and bad manners.
I will say that I think it is immoral to keep coming back to me with the same message, year after year–Jehovah’s Witnesses, take note! ( the current group that roams my neighborhood has always been polite and well mannered. I don’t like that they drag little, little kids along, but that is another thread).
Hey-there’s a relatec question–should kids be made to go with on these prosletyzing ventures?
My point is I don’t agree. An individual can have a genuine desire to help someone and still do something immoral. Dr. K. was convinced what he was doing was moral and good. To others it was akin to murder.
Oh please. I responded to it directly. you clairified your opinion by adding
I responded by pointing out that in the case of the abortion clinic bomber, he feels that he is saving lives.
{sigh} of course you knew thats exactly what I meant. If you’d like to make suggestoins on how to clarify my communication I’m all ears. Lets not waste posts on that kind of nit picking.
A group may not possess an attitude but what the group stands for is a reflection of the attitudes of the members. Let me rephrase. A member of NAMBLA beleives it’s morally correct to molest young boys. Is this attitude moral, immoral or neutral? A similar question might be asked of a Klan member.
I’m bewildered by such a request. It’s like asking for cites when I state that the sun in general is very bright.
I consider it fairly common knowledge. Those with even a superficial understanding of christianity would agree that christians generally see arrogance as a sin. but please let’s waste a little space.
How about this
how about Mark 7:21-23 (New International Version)
21For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’ "
or
2 Cor. 12: 19Have you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to you? We have been speaking in the sight of God as those in Christ; and everything we do, dear friends, is for your strengthening. 20For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder.
Can we agree that in general christians believe the bible or do you want a cite for that as well?
Good point and question. I remember a guy who used to park outside public places such as the library, and pass out “You don’t want to go to Hell” tracts. He had two darling little boys with him who were holding tracts as well and looking very uncomfortable and awkward as they tried to please their Dad. It used to really irritate me.
I’ve seen many examples of parents really jamming their own beliefs down the throats of their kids.
MY point was ‘morality isn’t about how abrasive you are’, the follow-up clause was just a way to point the definition back in the direction I thought it should go, NOT a complete definition.
Sentence is an example of applying rational thought, not the be-all, end-all. Nevertheless, the abortion bomber fails the explicit example’s test. It directly helps no one.
Belief != Attitude.
Examples snipped, but very amusing. You’ll note the Bible passages make no mention of arrogance, the state of mind, as a “Sin”. A few people seem to have extrapolated the idea, but then again, a few people thought Paul McCartney was dead based on some really flimsy evidence too. But you surprised me, I expected you to trot out the Thomas Aquinas chestnut…
It is when you don’t have a shred of evidence to support that perception, especially if you take into account that the other person’s perceptions are just as important to him as yours are to you.
No. That simply means that you’re mistaken. It doesn’t make you arrogant.
It also begs the question of whether someone does have evidence for the belief in question. The proselytizers do believe they have evidence. You may disagree, but your disagreement doesn’t make them arrogant.
Arrogance is not a sin. No attitude is. Let me explain in detail.
A sin is something that is done, or committed. “Take the Lord’s name in vain.” “Think impure thoughts.” “Bear false witness.”
An attitude is a property you have.
Still, the Bible advises against certain attitudes because they often lead to the commission of sins.
And that’s not even the whole problem. See, attitudes are relative. So Bob Q. Example has, in my opinion, an aggressive attitude. I have evidence of his attitude through his deeds. But Suzy G. Counterexample might think Bob’s as passive as a pussycat. She has the same evidence, but a different standard.
And the Bible doesn’t advise you to brainwash the entire population so none of them perceive you as arrogant.
So even if Generic Christians did think arrogance was, as a rule, sinful, not one of them would think that having 100% confidence in their beliefs was arrogant.
I see. I agree morality isn’t about how abrasive you are or aren’t.
Under strict interpertation I concede it does fail.
Is this a statement, question, observation, What??
I’m not sure how you can read the Mark passage and not see it as meaning sin.
The other passages merely support my contention. That Christians do indeed see arrogance as a sin.
I understand you point of attitude not being action. Consider this
MAt 5: 21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Here Jesus specificly says your state of mind is cause for judgement, before and action is taken. I assume christians take the words of Christ somewhat seriously.
not all, but in general.
So you don’t think that the “anger at your brother” or “lustful thoughts”
I mentioned above are an attitude?
I agree but as I read it the thought itself can also be a sin.
I understand the differences in perception. My point about Christian beliefs and arrogance didn’t require that they see it as arrogance. In fact in a later post I stated that they probably wouldn’t see it that way. I do think it qualifies under the definition of arrogance. They assume their beliefs are the only true beliefs with little means to support them other than their own conviction. They then proceed to present their convictions to others not as "my beliefs: but as God’s universal truth for all. Even if they do it with the best of intentions, it still qualifies as arrogance.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain.
BTW, its not Cosmodan, there’s 2 s. Cosmos. Funny. It’s a common mistake here on SDMB.
Then I guess we disagree on the subtle differences between attitude and belief.
In my estimation they overlap with no clear seperation.
In webster attitude is 4 a : a mental position with regard to a fact or state b : a feeling or emotion toward a fact or state
while belief is 3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
On this subject,
It’s arrogant to assume the truth as you percieve it is the truth for everyone else as well.
It’s arrogant to think that your perception of God’s will is complete and you don’t require any input.
The second usage is when someone says “So-and-so has a (blank) attitude towards…” which is distinct from the usage “So-and-so is motivated to do that because he has an arrogant attitude.”
An attitude is a predisposition or perceived predisposition towards a certain mode of behavior. Someone with an arrogant “attitude” is predisposed (or perceived to be predisposed) towards condescension, feelings of superiority, et cetera - but
one nice thing that comes out of arrogant attitudes (and again, they’re relative - one person’s prideful is another’s humble) is pity. And pity is an emotion that can motivate some good deeds. Do those good deeds become immoral because, ultimately, the genesis was the person’s predisposition towards arrogant behavior? No. They turned it in a positive direction. Which is a great moral good. I think that’s about all I need to say on the matter - if I haven’t convinced you by now, nothing I say will.
such as immoral behavior? That seems to be in line with the bible passages I quoted.
Then we agree to disagree. Your comment on the benifits of pity ariseing from arrogance is a tangent we don’t need to get into at this time.
It’s been interesting. peace.
Really? Is that the truth, as you perceive it? Are you saying that we should agree with your perception of the truth in this matter?
I think it’s a stretch to say that any proselytizers claim their perception of God’s will is “complete.” They believe that people are in danger, and that they need a religious conversion. This does not, by any stretch, mean that they claim to know everything about God’s mind or what He desires.
I’m saying we can act upon our own perception of truth without trying to impose it on others. Especially when it comes to matters where there is no evidence or concensous of belief.
I agree with your statement here. Thats reading my statement a little too strictly. They do feel they know enough of God’s will to try and persuade others that their beliefs are the only right ones. In general they reject input from other religions or from those whom they regard as lost. They may believe sincerely and be sincerely concerned about the welfare of others, but it’s still arrogance.
Most if not all of you seem to be disregarding a very obvious thing.
I’d hesitate to call it a ‘fact’, but I strongly believe that it’s more than just an opinion I pulled out of thin air.
That thing is that a good majority, if not most, of adherents to any religion (or atheism) are too busy, lazy, or stupid to understand it to any reasonable philosophical degree. They will not draw spiritual benefit from whatever religion missionaries et al offer them (and they are likely to take it, if the person doing the proselytizing is charismatic enough and the argument isn’t too outside their frame of understanding). This leads me to believe they are not saved regardless of what religion they chose, except maybe for those that believe you are saved regardless if you understand what you do in the religious context. Better then, to leave things as they are, to at least not cause social or familial unrest, to respect whatever moments of stability people’s society offer them. After all, very few religions attempt to proselytize to rocks or animals – maybe we can learn from our own example?
