"Christianity - Is it Arrogant?"

Christian Arrogance

The idea presented in this argument against Christianity is that the faith is invalid because it engenders a certain attitude of arrogant superiority.  Such superiority then is a plausible reason to abandon the faith and move on.  Those making that claim use a very broad brush and present as being of limited view.

Arrogance Disqualified

For example, arrogance is a part of the condition of man and is not limited to Christianity.   Who can miss the example of sports where one often observes that the participants develop and display an arrogant attitude. 

Does that mean that such a sport is should be abandoned?  Of course not!  Then why disqualify Christianity based on a perception of arrogance?  The implication of course is that Christianity is held to a different standard.  Those leveling the criticism in some sense validate the uniqueness of Christian belief and practice.

The Values Involved

Once again, as in many of these kinds of criticisms, one arrives at the question of values.  To negatively value arrogance suggests that there is something which is antithetical to arrogance.  That something then would be the value by which arrogance is determined to be wrong.

What is that opposite value but modesty?  Modesty is in the sense of humility or reticence.  That then leads to two further questions.

First, what is the origin of that value?

Second, by whose authority does one pronounce something as arrogant?

Relative Arrogance

Some consideration needs to be given to the degree to which someone or a group is arrogant.  Certainly, one man’s arrogance is another man’s humility. 

Would that not mean then that to judge something as arrogant, is simply saying that such an attitude or action is more arrogant than the one making the judgment.  By inference then to make the value judgment is to imply that the one doing the valuing is more humble than that which he is valuing.

Those of Arrogance

To be sure there are people and movements that have assumed some air of superiority.  However, such arrogance often leads to the humility of downfall.  The reality is that such groups have missed the point of Jesus message which was that His followers were to be humble servants (actually the word is slaves).

The Overall Picture

Were one to take time to view Christian history, certainly there are times of conflict and arrogant attitudes regarding others.  However, more often than not the genuine Christian was quite the opposite—often sacrificing much in the service of others.  Sometimes that “much” included the ultimate sacrifice.

Because of the sacrifice of Christians as they sought and today seek to follow their Lord there are education institutions, medical care facilities, stable governments, civil rights, women’s rights, and so much more.  However, one views the subject, one cannot easily dismiss the place of humble Christianity in these and other things.

Background

To see the list of subjects to be discussed in this series see my blog (Christianity – Is it a Faith Driven by Fear?).  Contained within that blog is a reference, 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity and in that reference is a list which is the springboard from which this subject has been discussed.

Part IV – ARE THESE TRUTHS UNIVERSAL?

If as in the previous posts you can accept that, 

1)      There are negative concepts that would not exist except that there is an antecedent positive. 

2)      These concepts are not without being assigned a value.

3)      The values of “good” and “bad” or “evil” are found to exist broadly and historically.

4)       “Good” and “Evil” cannot be equivalent opposites since one is dependent upon the other.

5)      Just as you push “Evil” forward and find chaos, so too you push “Good” back and you find purer forms of same.

Then comes the question, “What is the ultimate perfect “Good?”

ORIGIN OF ULTIMATE “GOOD”

Following are some options that you might choose.

The Spiritual or New Age Truth Paradigms would suggest that ultimate and pure “good” is found within and thus has been there all along.  However, such is highly subjective and the subjective will eventually break down.

The Postmodern Truth Paradigms rejects all notions of the existence of all universals to include "good" or "normal."  So then the concept of "good" is purely individual.  Again, this is highly subjective and thus fragile.

The Evolutionary Truth Paradigm would suggest that “good” is not as pure in the past as it will be as man continues up the evolutionary trail.  The problem here is that there is no constant notion of “good” as it is ever changing.

The Secular or Modernism Truth Paradigms would suggest that “good” though currently not quantifiable one day will be measurable and thus processes for improving “good” will follow.  The problem in this view is that today’s good is not tomorrow’s good.

The Materialistic Truth Paradigm suggests that “good” will develop and it is simply a matter of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.  The obvious problem here is that in their purest form one cannot combine “good” and “evil” in order to develop some sort of a "grey area" synthesis.

However, there is one more truth paradigm which may provide a more stable understanding of “good.”

The Divine Truth Paradigm suggests that “good” is based upon divinely revealed truth.  Because this truth is rooted in a holy book like the Jewish Scriptures, the Christian Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Quran, or some other holy writing, there is a stable platform.

That stable platform does not change and thus provides the one who reads and obeys that particular writing with the criterion for valuing something or even someone as being “good” or “evil.”  What is interesting is those same standards apply today as they did 2,000 years ago or even at its writing.

 

Will the standards of “good” and “evil” differ from belief to belief?  Of course, but that is not the point nor is it to be discussed at this juncture.  The simple point is that people with a Divine Truth Paradigm have a more stable standard of “good” and “evil” by which to order their lives.

OUTCOMES

Some years ago I had a car that the driver had to be ever vigilant. It was, “always looking.”  That is to say that it could never find a spot in the lane where it would become stable.  

So it is with many of the truth paradigms presented above.  Though they would all agree that there is such a thing as “good’ they would not agree as to the origin and stability of same.  It is as with that car, there is always a quest.  It may by an overt attempt at finding “good” or it may almost be subconscious, but none-the-less it is there.

In order to confidently function in life, one needs a steady platform.  As it turns out there is but one which maintains a truth paradigm in which one might have confidence.  That is the final one presented above, the divine truth paradigm. 

Perhaps that is why approximately 82% of the earth’s population embraces some form of a divine truth paradigm. Just maybe it is because such a truth paradigm provides what is needed for the individual to establish and maintain a sense of well-being, a sense of confidence, and a sense of purpose.  

Viewed another way, if such stability is not present when problems arise, there is little stability upon which to rely.  It is as the Bible says, "The winds blew, the rains beat upon the house, and it stood firm."  Why?  Because it was built upon a stable foundation--a foundation of Truth. 

Part III – ARE THESE TRUTHS UNIVERSAL?

Previous two posts have noted, 

1. There are negative concepts that would not exist except that there is an antecedent positive word.  For example, “misuse” requires “proper use.” 
2. The principle found in Number 1) is not without some valuing which is that “proper use” is positive or good and “misuse” is negative or bad. 
3. The values of “good” and “bad” are found to exist broadly and historically. 
4. Pushed out further one finds this is same difference in the notion of “good” and “evil” for without “good,” there would be no concept of “evil.” 
5. “Good” and “Evil” cannot be equivalent opposites since one is dependent upon the other for its existence.

Continuing the Discussion

If the previous points are accepted or at least assumed, then one faces another problem.  It is the chronology of the concepts.  If one concept is necessary to the other, then which came first? 

The logical answer is that the “proper use” preceded “misuse,” and “good” preceded “evil.” Of course if the order was reversed then “misuse” or “evil” would be without meaning.  Looking further then, one can plausibly argue that since “evil” has no meaning apart from there being “good” that “good” preceded “evil.” 

The Common Factor

Consideration has already been given to there being concepts such as “good” and such as “evil” in various truth paradigms.  The question then arises as to how it is that such concepts be so broadly accepted?

One could understand it in a revelation paradigm that relies upon some form of Scriptures, however what about the broad spectrum of other truth theories?  The seven truth paradigms referenced in the first article though radically different from one another and though they have different ways of valuing, still in all they accept that there is “good” and “bad” etc. 

If you think about it such paradigms have only two things in common.  First the notion of “good” and related antecedent terms are common to all.  Second, in order for there to be a paradigm there must be at least one person to postulate that paradigm, even if such an one does not develop a following.  More about that later.

The Good and the Normal

Another way to view these antecedent words and deviant words is in terms of normal and abnormal.  When one considers the notion of “abnormal” one then has to assume that there is an antecedent word, “normal.”  Therefore “good” and “normal” share the same position.

It then can be argued that with “good” as “normal” that “evil” then is the “abnormal.”  For those who might wish to argue against this one only need ask the question as to the last time they questioned “Why is it that ‘bad’ things happen to ‘good’ people?” 

Could it be that generally man’s internal compass is set toward “good?” In fact the notion of "good" is so prevalent that it would seem that such is "hard wired" into one's DNA.  If such is so that would mean that the just asked question points to “evil” in its various forms grating against one's moral sensitivities no matter his truth paradigm.

Push Forward:  Ever Degrading Perversion

Now, consider the word “chaos” along with other perverted words.  There is in the perverted words the decent toward chaos.  That is to say such words as abnormal, bad, evil, etc. are not homeostatic but degrading.   Eventually, as time goes forward, such chaos will further disorganize and degrade.  Carried to the logical ends, there comes a point that such chaos reaches a state of “entropy.” 

It might be worth thinking about that that eventually the prevalence of chaos will be of such magnitude that it will become so extreme that it will outstrip man’s capacities to intervene.  Thus, no matter how innovative and resourceful he might be there will be the descent into more chaos.

Push Back:  Antecedent Words

If one considers the chaotic outcomes of perverted words going forward in time, then it seems plausible that one should consider the antecedent words pushing back in time.  That is to say that if one could time travel to moments just after the “big bang” or “creation” or whatever fits into one’s truth paradigm, such antecedent words would be in a purer form.  Thus the concept of “good” would be a much more purer form of good than is known today.

 ~More to follow~