Self-righteousness in Christianity

[Luke2427]

It's no different than self-righteousness in Phariseeism.

You just find out what your movement considers "righteousness" in behavior and you seek to project yourself as superior in that thing.

For many Christians it is this "buy the world a coke," "cumbaya," "can't we all just get along," "humble-pie" stuff.

And so self-righteous people in that genre go around projecting themselves as better than someone when it comes to gentleness and meekness and desire for unity. They don't outright SAY IT mind you- they PROJECT it. They are sneaky- so much that they sneak their twisted motives past their own notice.

But that is no different than the self-righteousness of the Pharisees. You can be just as self-righteous about LOVE as they were self-righteous about LAW.

We don't have many LAW Pharisees today, but our churches are OVER-RUN with LOVE Pharisees today.

Self-righteous people are concerned about being thought of by others and especially by themselves as morally superior. So they snootily lecture others about their inferiority as pertains to spiritual maturity and behavior.

They are self-aggrandizing people who are primarily concerned with occupying the moral (whatever the morality whether law-based or love-based is irrelevant) high ground and constantly PROJECTING to others that great level of maturity and moral superiority which they possess over the ones they lecture.

But here's the thing:

The very fact that appearing this way and projecting that image is so manifestly important to them is unequivocal proof that they are actually the OPPOSITE of the very thing they try to project.
Humble people are not constantly trying to APPEAR HUMBLE!!!
Love does not VAUNT ITSELF!!


I'm afraid that many, if not MOST people in our churches and seminaries are there because they are driven to maintain this image of themselves of being such great spiritual, wonderful, moral, humble people. Their attendance in spiritual institutions is meant to make themselves and others think of them as superior. It is that desire that is the reason they are there.

The proof of that is what often happens when you point it out. They become OUTRAGED, INFURIATED and could seem to wish you dead. Isn't that what the "law" pharisees in Jesus' day were like when he pointed out THEIR TYPE of self-righteousness?

 

[12strings]

I'll address some of this, along with few of your quotes from the other thread on this topic:

And so self-righteous people in that genre go around projecting themselves as better than someone when it comes to gentleness and meekness and desire for unity. They don't outright SAY IT mind you- they PROJECT it. They are sneaky- so much that they sneak their twisted motives past their own notice.


But that is no different than the self-righteousness of the Pharisees. You can be just as self-righteous about LOVE as they were self-righteous about LAW.

We don't have many LAW Pharisees today, but our churches are OVER-RUN with LOVE Pharisees today.

Self-righteous people are concerned about being thought of by others and especially by themselves as morally superior. So they snootily lecture others about their inferiority as pertains to spiritual maturity and behavior.

They are self-aggrandizing people who are primarily concerned with occupying the moral (whatever the morality whether law-based or love-based is irrelevant) high ground and constantly PROJECTING to others that great level of maturity and moral superiority which they possess over the ones they lecture.

I agree that this "love phariseeism exists" It exists outside Christianity (total toleration), and with it, in those who feel no one should be confronted with their sin. However, It does not necessarily follow that those who advocate a gentler approach automatically fall into that camp.

But here's the thing:

The very fact that appearing this way and projecting that image is so manifestly important to them is unequivocal proof that they are actually the OPPOSITE of the very thing they try to project.
Humble people are not constantly trying to APPEAR HUMBLE!!!
Love does not VAUNT ITSELF!!

You also said this in the other thread:

Throwing caution to the wind concerning what people think of you, being willing to have them think of you in negative ways- this is what one does when he is blunt- even appropriately blunt. This is simply not what self-righteous people do.

Have you considered the possibility that those on this board who have advised you that we believe your approach is not the best one might be doing this very thing, in our own way. Some have been blunt with you about what we perceive to be rudeness and even self-righteousness...EVEN THOUGH we know you won't like us for it. If we were truly more concerned with being liked, we would just put you on our ignore list.

Self-righteous people are primarily concerned with occupying the moral high ground and constantly PROJECTING to others that great level of maturity and moral superiority which they possess over the ones they lecture.

What so many have been trying to say to you, despite your explanations to the contrary, is that, regardless of your intentions...THIS is EXACTLY what we percieve your repeated posts on logic, harshness, and self-righteousness to be doing: "projecting to others that great level of maturity and moral superiority which they possess over the ones they lecture."

A short statement at the beginning of the post saying "now, I know I also have an ego problem." Does not negate what we ("we" being almost every person who has read it) percieve to be the tone of the entire post: "I know I can be self-righteous too, but I am better than you because at least I am honest enough to admit it, and therefore I maintain the moral high-ground above those who refuse to admit their self-righteousness."

 

[quantumfaith]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9R-Wrpd8w8

 

[webdog]

http://www.baptistboard.com/search.php?searchid=1900707

Luke, one only needs to look at the threads started by you to see you are merely here trying to pick fights, not expose truth. This behavior is shocking coming from a pastor.

 

[Robert Snow]

Luke, this is a topic you should excel in since you portray this attitude in almost all your threads.

 

[MB]

Self righteousness isn't anything new. It's been around since Cain and Able. Truthfully it's why Able was killed by his own brother Cain. It's been in churches at least since I was a kid. It's a fact of life. It's sin at work. We are all guilty of it. Humility is very rare. We all have ego's we desire to be seen as a great Christian. When all the while I believe most of us if we get into heaven will be by the skin of our teeth. I know I don't deserve heaven. The Holy Spirit really has His hands full with me. I know I have the promise of being sealed. That doesn't make me any better than any one but it certainly makes me blessed with a blessing I do not deserve.

I'm not trying to be humble just honest. One thing for certain I've discovered on message boards is if we really want others to believe what we preach we had better ditch that holier than thou attitude and start considering others better than our selves. This is so difficult to do. It means looking up at others rather than down on others. Try it and you'll see what I mean. Why do I keep failing at this. It's because of that sin nature we are all born with. We need to buffet our selves more severely, and we need to consider the self righteous are fighting the same battle we all are and not judge them because we are looking at the same thing in the mirror every morning.

MB

 

[Luke2427]

I'll address some of this, along with few of your quotes from the other thread on this topic:



I agree that this "love phariseeism exists" It exists outside Christianity (total toleration), and with it, in those who feel no one should be confronted with their sin. However, It does not necessarily follow that those who advocate a gentler approach automatically fall into that camp.

Neither does it follow that it is NOT rampant on this site.

Could it be?

Could I be right?

You also said this in the other thread:



Have you considered the possibility that those on this board who have advised you that we believe your approach is not the best one might be doing this very thing, in our own way. Some have been blunt with you about what we perceive to be rudeness and even self-righteousness...EVEN THOUGH we know you won't like us for it. If we were truly more concerned with being liked, we would just put you on our ignore list.

It is not courageous to take a majority opinion in the midst of an entire culture that agrees with you.

This culture hates polemics in Christianity and seeks to strip that tool from our hands.

To take a stand WITH the majority opinion will not make one LESS liked or thought of LESS highly. It bolsters one's opinion of himself and the opinion which others have of him.

So, yes, it is possible, but not probable, in my opinion.

What so many have been trying to say to you,

I'm not running for office. Baptist board is just one tiny place. If I wanted I could find thousands upon thousands of people who agree with my op and my passion for polemics. But truth is not based on a majority of people in one tiny place in one brief span of time.

Mocking the prophets of Baal and withstanding Peter to his face may not be in vogue but there are still plenty of Christians who believe in it.

despite your explanations to the contrary, is that, regardless of your intentions...THIS is EXACTLY what we percieve your repeated posts on logic, harshness, and self-righteousness to be doing: "projecting to others that great level of maturity and moral superiority which they possess over the ones they lecture."

I do not deny it. Not for a second. But the question is, in the midst of my motives tainted by my Adamic nature- is there TRUTH?

COULD IT BE that rebuking people sharply is called for OFTEN on this site and in this culture and people who HATE it have swallowed the lie of this culture.

Could it be that we really DO live in the age of Joel Osteen instead of the age of Jonathan Edwards and therefore the tendency is to be pusillanimous not over-aggressive? And therefore one who is appropriately aggressive is viewed as over-aggressive in this age that is so heavily influenced by hippies and liberals and political correctness?

Look, don't misunderstand me. I really do believe in gentleness. I really do DESPISE the "ministry" of Fred Phelps. I really do repudiate preaching like that of Phil Kidd. I really do.

And I do think that on the meter of appropriate harshness my needle does cross the line often.

BUT I ALSO think that the tendency of the age is to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to aggressiveness- because there are some who hammer the nail too deeply lets throw the hammer away and try to drive nails with handfuls of posies.

Do you see?

A short statement at the beginning of the post saying "now, I know I also have an ego problem." Does not negate what we ("we" being almost every person who has read it) percieve to be the tone of the entire post: "I know I can be self-righteous too, but I am better than you because at least I am honest enough to admit it, and therefore I maintain the moral high-ground above those who refuse to admit their self-righteousness."

Once again, I do not deny it.

And I do think that some introspection is better than none. So perhaps that statement in quotes IS representative of how I feel. I am not above being that self-aggrandizing. I know it well.

But I did not see ANY introspection on YOUR PART. Did you do any? Did you stop for one SECOND and say, "Luke, though he may be as guilty of it as ALL of us are, might have a point. My idea of what is Christian may indeed be heavily influenced by this politically correct, Joel Osteen ruled religious culture,"?

Did you do that?

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, this is a topic you should excel in since you portray this attitude in almost all your threads.

Yet another drive-by post.

Pop in, insult somebody, make a claim without a warrant and run for the hills.

Do you think this is ok?

Do you think it is noble?

It is exactly what you repudiate in me... BUT ON STEROIDS.

 

[Robert Snow]

Yet another drive-by post.

Pop in, insult somebody, make a claim without a warrant and run for the hills.

Do you think this is ok?

Do you think it is noble?

It is exactly what you repudiate in me... BUT ON STEROIDS.

Pointing out the truth about your posting history isn't an insult. It is evident for all to see.

 

[Luke2427]

http://www.baptistboard.com/search.php?searchid=1900707

Luke, one only needs to look at the threads started by you to see you are merely here trying to pick fights, not expose truth. This behavior is shocking coming from a pastor.

SHOCKING!!

:laugh:

You're funny. I thought I'd show myself laughing here taking a page out of your own book.

Picking a fight is often the BEST way to cut through the crud and get the truth to come out.

That's what Stephen did. It is what Paul did. Jesus picked a fight with the Pharisees in his first sermon!

And it seems pretty obvious that YOU do it all of the time when it suits you.

 

[Luke2427]

Pointing out the truth about your posting history isn't an insult. It is evident for all to see.

You didn't "point" anything out.

You just made a claim without a warrant.

You didn't do the work of posting quotes of mine in their context and showing how what you claim is true.

Not only is what you do simply inflammatory nonsense and childish- but it is lazy as well.

Besides it is EXACTLY what you criticize me for doing.

I love the hypocrisy of people who ATTACK people for ATTACKING people!

It is hilarious!

People who TROLL for TROLLERS!

It is hilarious- it truly is.

Attack me if you will- but have the character to MAKE A CASE FOR WHAT YOU CLAIM.

It is trashy not to.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

SHOCKING!!

:laugh:

You're funny. I thought I'd show myself laughing here taking a page out of your own book.

Picking a fight is often the BEST way to cut through the crud and get the truth to come out.

That's what Stephen did. It is what Paul did. Jesus picked a fight with the Pharisees in his first sermon!

And it seems pretty obvious that YOU do it all of the time when it suits you.

Go into the Calvy Cafe & do that with Guy Fredericks! See how long you last. Or try that in the Puritan Forum.

I have no problem with dissenting views in debate, even conflict.... I even think at times its necessary & even desirable in order to gain understanding---but picking a fight in a Christian duscussion forum is going to far, You stand an excellent chance of gettin whacked in the back of the head & put in the brig (if your lucky) ...... ahhhh such memories (& scars) :love2:

 

[Luke2427]

Go into the Calvy Cafe & do that with Guy Fredericks! See how long you last. Or try that in the Puritan Forum.

I have no problem with dissenting views in debate, even conflict.... I even think at times its necessary & even desirable in order to gain understanding---but picking a fight in a Christian duscussion forum is going to far, You stand an excellent chance of gettin whacked in the back of the head & put in the brig (if your lucky) ...... ahhhh such memories (& scars) :love2:

First of all we need to define the term "fight." I don't mean ad homenem. I mean the ability to have your views sharply scrutinized and criticized while fiercely criticizing and scrutinizing the views of others.

I'm no stranger to Puritan board.

Fights break out there all of the time.

HOWEVER, the extremes don't exist on Puritan board so fighting is going to be less severe and less frequent than what is called for here.

On Puritanboard you don't have ANYBODY who thinks that God DID NOT KNOW exactly what future would take place before he made the world.

On Puritanboard you don't have people saying nonsense like "God is so sovereign that he is not sovereign over billions of things that happen every day in this world."

On puritanboard you don't have the disdain for education that you find with so many on here.

On Puritanboard you don't have many people like Winman who will say, "I don't NEED any man to teach me. I don't care what the whole history of the Christian church has believed about a particular passage or doctrine. GOD SPEAKS TO ME!"


Do you see?

 

[Bronconagurski]

First of all we need to define the term "fight." I don't mean ad homenem. I mean the ability to have your views sharply scrutinized and criticized while fiercely criticizing and scrutinizing the views of others.

I'm no stranger to Puritan board.

Fights break out there all of the time.

HOWEVER, the extremes don't exist on Puritan board so fighting is going to be less severe and less frequent than what is called for here.

On Puritanboard you don't have ANYBODY who thinks that God DID NOT KNOW exactly what future would take place before he made the world.

On Puritanboard you don't have people saying nonsense like "God is so sovereign that he is not sovereign over billions of things that happen every day in this world."

On puritanboard you don't have the disdain for education that you find with so many on here.

On Puritanboard you don't have many people like Winman who will say, "I don't NEED any man to teach me. I don't care what the whole history of the Christian church has believed about a particular passage or doctrine. GOD SPEAKS TO ME!"


Do you see?

I don't know about him, but I think I do. Sounds like you need to stay on the Puritan Board as we are so far beneath y'all.

 

[webdog]

SHOCKING!!

:laugh:

You're funny. I thought I'd show myself laughing here taking a page out of your own book.

Picking a fight is often the BEST way to cut through the crud and get the truth to come out.

That's what Stephen did. It is what Paul did. Jesus picked a fight with the Pharisees in his first sermon!

And it seems pretty obvious that YOU do it all of the time when it suits you.

Thank you for proving my point.

Do you pull this same approach with those in your congregation...or only anonymous internet forums?

Of course you can go through the threads I start to back your frivolous charge against me like I did in validating mine against you. :thumbs:

 

[Luke2427]

Thank you for proving my point.

Do you pull this same approach with those in your congregation...or only anonymous internet forums?

We've been over and over and over this.

You are not my congregation. Yes, I know, you thank God for this- and so do I.

I do not talk to my congregation the way I talk to my CHILDREN either.

I do not talk to my congregation the way I would talk to Richard Dawkins in a debate either.

It is silly to think that because one should converse with one group of people in a certain way that he should always have to converse with EVERYONE that same way.

This is a different relationship- it requires different means of communication.

Do you talk to your fellow church members the same way you talk to your children when they rebel?

Are you as insulting to any of your fellow church members as you are to me often?

 

[webdog]

We've been over and over and over this.

You are not my congregation. Yes, I know, you thank God for this- and so do I.

Amen!

I do not talk to my congregation the way I talk to my CHILDREN either.

I do not talk to my congregation the way I would talk to Richard Dawkins in a debate either.

It is silly to think that because one should converse with one group of people in a certain way that he should always have to converse with EVERYONE that same way.

So like I said, you are here just to pick fight. Noted.

This is a different relationship- it requires different means of communication.

I see, so fighting is the approach to take on an anonymous internet forum. Noted.

Do you talk to your fellow church members the same way you talk to your children when they rebel?

I have no authority over my fellow members making this question ridiculous.

Are you as insulting to any of your fellow church members as you are to me often?

I don't have to be, nobody talks to me the way you do. I doubt you would continue this approach in person either. The thing is, cal, non cal, molinist, Arminian, martian, etc see how you interact with others on here and call you out on it. I'm sure everyone is wrong.

 

[Luke2427]

Amen!

Yes.

So like I said, you are here just to pick fight. Noted.

I see, so fighting is the approach to take on an anonymous internet forum. Noted.

Fighting is AN approach depending on how you define "fighting". If you mean balling up fists and pounding one another- that is rarely acceptable.
If you mean calling each other names- that is rarely acceptable.
If you mean obliterating wrong ideals held in stubborn arrogance that are harmful to the Kingdom work- yes. This is AN approach that is acceptable to take.

I have no authority over my fellow members making this question ridiculous.

Why does that change the dynamic?

I don't have to be, nobody talks to me the way you do.

Doubtful.

I doubt you would continue this approach in person either.

I promise you I would. Would you like to meet?

The thing is, cal, non cal, molinist, Arminian, martian, etc see how you interact with others on here and call you out on it. I'm sure everyone is wrong.

And the same is true of you. You are not lacking in your reception of rebukes either.

You may get less because you stay in the pocket less when you debate. You tend to just drive-by insult posters with whom you disagree with a snotty little feigned superiority and then flee for the hills. But even so you get plenty of rebukes yourself.

Besides, I'm not running for office- are you?

 

[Luke2427]

I don't know about him, but I think I do. Sounds like you need to stay on the Puritan Board as we are so far beneath y'all.

Why do you say you are so far beneath them?

 

[webdog]

Yes.

How many others are not welcome in your church?

Fighting is AN approach depending on how you define "fighting". If you mean balling up fists and pounding one another- that is rarely acceptable.
If you mean calling each other names- that is rarely acceptable.
If you mean obliterating wrong ideals held in stubborn arrogance that are harmful to the Kingdom work- yes. This is AN approach that is acceptable to take.

I mean your approach in what you veil as 'debate' that you are called out on by those other than me.

Why does that change the dynamic?

If you have to ask, please do not ever refer to anyone on BB as 'stupid' again.

Doubtful.

Doubt all you like, the people I deal with in my day to day life and especially in my church are respectful. The same cannot be said of you

I promise you I would. Would you like to meet?

I guarantee you wouldn't. Never would get past my wife

And the same is true of you. You are not lacking in your reception of rebukes either.

From the likes of you, true. Means nothing to be honest.

You may get less because you stay in the pocket less when you debate. You tend to just drive-by insult posters with whom you disagree with a snotty little feigned superiority and then flee for the hills. But even so you get plenty of rebukes yourself.

Besides, I'm not running for office- are you?

Not worthy a response. You realize how many fingers point back to you?