I've been accused of being an arrogant know-it-all. While I'm not sure actually knowing it all is a bad thing, I'm pretty sure that being an arrogant know-it-all isn't meant as a compliment. Of course, to be fair, I don't know where the accusation comes from. You see, there are a lot of things I don't understand.
I don't understand the correlation of predestination and free will. I affirm both and perhaps a lot more of it seems clear to me than to a lot of others I know, but I can't really put it all together in a nice, neat package.
I don't understand Quantum Physics. Not even a little.
I don't understand the Trinity. Oh, I believe it and I can explain a lot about it, but ... it's God and I'm not.
The other day I was waiting with other pedestrians at a street corner waiting for the light to change. A woman waiting with us became very agitated. A motorist across the way had part of his car in the crosswalk while he waited behind the bus that had stopped in front of him. She started to yell at him. "Don't you know that it's illegal to stop your car in the crosswalk??!! What's wrong with you??!!" And then she crossed ... against the light. I don't understand people like that.
Some of what I don't get isn't nearly as serious. I work in a "weapons-free zone". So why can't I get free weapons?
I bought a bottle of water from a vending machine and followed the instructions, "Get change here." So why am I still the same?
Why are some people lack toast and tolerant?
What exactly is a pullet surprise and why are people happy to get them?
Oh, the list goes on and on. I'd have to say that I'm not much more than a know-it-some. I think the better people get to know me, the more likely they'll think I'm a know-very-little.
24 comments:
Many people confuse confidence in what we know, with arrogance, especially in light of the reality that they DON'T know what the true believer does know. It is beyond their comprehension that we so boldly proclaim what they don't get.
The confusion of confidence for arrogance can be a real problem. Funny thing, though. People usually only notice it in others.
Sooo, if I'm confident I'm right, but you think I'm wrong, then I'm deluded. BUT if you're confident you're right and I think you're wrong, then I'm just not getting your confidence and certainty that you ARE, in fact, right?
Is that how it works?
Let's see ... I'm reading everything over ... nope, don't see anything about "deluded" in anything I wrote at all.
I was joking, Stan. If "I'm" confident (whoever "I" is) and you (whoever "you" is) thinks you're wrong, then "you" tends to think they're just deluded. But when "you" is confident (whoever "you" is), it's because they are securely RIGHT.
I was making a joke about human nature. Not directing it towards you necessarily (except insofar as you are amongst us humans...)
Which is why I said in my comment to Timothy that we typically only notice "arrogance" in others while it's "confidence" in ourselves.
(I'm human? That's perhaps the nicest thing anyone has said to me in a long time!)
(I, too, am joking.)
I guess I was directing it a bit towards, Timothy, though...
So, tell me, Dan, if I believe I'm right -- I'm confident in what I believe -- can it be expressed confidently or is it inherently arrogant to do so?
How do I know? I'm just a fool who believes...
I suppose I tend to be QUITE confident in much of what I believe. I REALLY believe this Gulf oil disaster is a horrible result of our horrible lust for cheap oil so we can maintain a luxurious lifestyle cheaply (but which comes - I confidently believe - at a huge cost that someone has to pay).
I confidently believe that too many people drive cars too much and not enough people walk, bike and bus.
I reckon I don't have problem with confidence, so long as we're clear it's OUR opinion or it's OUR understanding of the facts. On matters that are more vague and less "provable," I think it behooves us to always make clear we're expressing our opinions.
Where I have problem is stating confidently that "I speak for God when I say..." Confidence that we are wholly correct in our understanding of God on some point seems to me to be getting too close in being over-confident in our ability to know and understand the Awesome God who is beyond our understanding.
Can we state, "I am QUITE confident that God would not have me hate my enemies, that God would not have me KILL my enemies..."? Yes, I think so.
Ought we state, "I am confident God opposes (supports) marriage of gay folk..."? As long as we're clear that it's our opinion, sure. But to say, "GOD SAYS, 'I hate gay marriage...'" that's where I think we've stepped too far in assuming we can know that.
For example.
In short, yes, I think we can express our opinions confidently, just be clear that we're expressing our opinions.
So is it arrogant for someone to think they understand what God says?
As an aside, you do know, I hope, that I have never said that God opposes or hates gay marriage, right?
I was just using gay marriage as an example, because that is one I know I have heard people speak for God. To be clear, I have said I think gay marriage is a blessed thing, but I'm expressing my opinion when I do so.
Is presuming to speak for God a bad or arrogant thing? I'd say it depends on how it is done and what the topic is.
Saying God would not have us harm or kill innocent people, to say that God wants us to love our neighbors and even our enemies, to say that God would have us live lives of grace and mercy... ie, the "obvious" and blatant truths of the Bible and specifically of Jesus' teachings, I think you're safe in saying that kind of thing.
However to say "God only wants you to believe in X Atonement," or "God is telling me to tell you to sell your home and give the money to my ministry," or "God hates gay marriage," or "God hates homosexuality," or _______ (fill in the blank with non-obvious, extrabiblical opinions) and offer it as God's demand coming from you, that I find to be arrogant.
What do you think?
You answered "Do you think it's wrong to speak for God?" I asked, "Is it arrogant for someone to think they understand what God says?"
I can't answer your question because I don't know how you're differentiating between "the 'obvious' and blatant truths of the Bible" and other things. I mean, "Sell your home and give the money to my ministry" isn't in there, but God's opinion of homosexual relationships is. Still, you put it in a different category and I don't know why.
(And what is interesting is that all this has come from what was primarily intended to simply be humor.)
Stan...
I mean, "Sell your home and give the money to my ministry" isn't in there, but God's opinion of homosexual relationships is.
That would be an example. YOU THINK that a few verses in the Bible SUGGEST that God has an opinion of all homosexual relationships, but God does not say that and the Bible does not say that.
Rather it is your interpretation of a very few passages that do not come out anywhere near clearly saying anything like God has an opinion about all homosexual relationships.
That's why I think many anabaptist and progressive types tend to be more circumspect about what they claim to be God's Word as opposed to many more fundamentalist and some conservative types are.
Does God have an opinion about whether we are to live our lives as lives of mercy and grace? I think one can get a clear and consistent message from the Bible and from all around on that front.
Does God have a spelled out opinion about gay marriage or abortion? I don't think you can begin to make such a claim. Are there things that HINT AT what God might think about gay marriage, abortion, taxes, communism, capitalism, butterfly tattoos? Sure, there are verses that HINT AT all of that.
But God does not step up in the Bible or elsewhere and offer a definitive opinion on these and most other specific topics.
Better to say, without a doubt, that God DOES want us to love our neighbors, to love our enemies, to love our families... that God DOES wish us to live lives of grace and mercy, walking in Jesus' steps... ALL of these claims we can make I think without arrogance and with a degree of certainty.
Start trying to say what God's opinion is of the US Postal office or the best hot rods or abortion or gay marriage and we're moving in presumptive territory, seems to me, UNLESS we are making it clear we're just offering our opinion.
That seems to me to be the difference between arrogance and not: Whether or not we're clear that we're offering OUR opinion about what God thinks, rather than claiming to speak for God.
That's one fella's know-very-little opinion about this humorous topic.
I'm only confident in those things for which I have proof, evidence, experience, education and such, but not in things for which I have none of those things. In those cases I will say, "I may be wrong, but..." and then state what I believe to be true. Arrogance is a matter of tone, either perceived by the listener or intended by the speaker. More often than not the arrogance of which I am sometimes accused is merely a misperception of the listener (or reader) and I arrogantly and confidently stand by that.
But I too lacking in total knowledge (though I tell my kids I know everything). For example, I don't know what a "lert" is or why I should be one when I'm driving. I also don't know what has four pair of pants, lives in Philedelphia and it never rains but it pours. But if I did, I'd be proudly confident to explain it to others.
I texted my youngest daughter to ask what she wanted for dinner a few months back and she texted back: flaming yawn. Cute. Except she's 18. Still kinda cute though.
Dan,
The passages on homosexual behavior are undeniably sweeping. They don't say, "In this instance" or "under these circumstances" or "with these exceptions". You believe (and I agree) that we are broadly commanded to be merciful and to care for people. If the passages on homosexual behavior, however, are limited, why not the ones on to whom we are merciful or for whom we care? On what basis do you limit one by broadly apply the other?
And are you actually claiming that we do not know God's opinion on which hot rod is the best??!! Now what are we to do???!!!
That was humorous (the part from you), but you lumped together very odd things. God does not say anything about the postal service or hot rods. We're in agreement. You would go on to say that He says nothing about that thing you term "gay marriage" or abortion. He does however state His "opinion" (if God's view can be termed "opinion") on homosexual activities and terminating human life. The Bible is abundantly clear on marriage. (All references are to "husband" and "wife", never anything different.) To suggest that God doesn't speak of "gay marriage" or abortion is to ignore all that stuff. Shall we, then, suggest that murder may be acceptable (as an example) under certain circumstances?
But, as I said, the post was humor. These are intended as rhetorical questions. I don't want an answer to any of them. I won't, in fact, continue this conversation. Too serious for a comedy post.
Sorry Stan, I know you said you were done, but I have to add one more. I just cannot fathom how Dan can say:
"Start trying to say what God's opinion is of the US Postal office or the best hot rods or abortion or gay marriage and we're moving in presumptive territory, seems to me, UNLESS we are making it clear we're just offering our opinion."
Wow...to trivialize two sins the Bible is so clear about by comparing them to hot rods and the post office. Truly offensive. I pity...
I understand that it is YOUR OPINION that the Bible clearly condemns all gay behavior. But the Bible does not say that, it is your interpretation of what a handful of verses might mean.
Let me give you a counter example: The Bible clearly teaches us we are to love our enemies. That is without a doubt, a direct biblical teaching.
Agreed so far?
FROM THAT STARTING POINT, I further raise the question, How can I possibly choose to KILL my enemies, if I am to love them? And from there, I further conclude, well, how could I even be in a military service, if I can't see how I can kill my enemies if I am called to love them?
Thus, my conclusion about military service is that Christians ought not take part. I think that is a clear extension of clear biblical teaching.
At the same time, I am QUITE clear that this is my opinion. God has not said "Don't serve in the military." God has not said, "don't kill your enemies." I'm not claiming that God said that, I just think it is a clear extension of biblical teaching.
You, I would guess, disagree. EVEN THOUGH Dan thinks it is clear and reasonable, you manage to somehow disagree with my conclusion.
Fair enough.
Now, on YOUR side of the table, the Bible clearly teaches in two places in Leviticus that "a man shall not lie with a man." That's directly in the Bible. It ISN'T a constant and repeated theme like Love your enemies, but it IS in the Bible.
FROM THAT STARTING POINT, you further question, "If men ought not lie with men, then doesn't that mean that all gay behavior is condemned (and lesbian, too)?" and from there, you conclude, "well, then I guess there can't be any gay marriage..."
But these are extensions of the Biblical starting point. They are NOT the starting point.
Now, if you wish to say that you think it is a reasonable extension of clear biblical teaching, you are welcome to make that case. But what you can't say is that "God said it," or even "There is no other conclusion to reach except that God opposes gay marriage."
Those are YOUR opinions based upon a direct teaching from the Bible. It is not a direct teaching from the Bible.
The difference, then - and where arrogance comes into play, it seems to me - is that I am quite clear that my position is ONLY my opinion (even though I believe it strongly), and that I'm NOT speaking for God. You all, it seems, want to suggest that there is no other conclusion one could reach in good faith except YOUR conclusion on this topic.
That's where it seems arrogant and worthy of humble prayerful consideration.
That's my hunch, my opinion. Not God's.
Star...
to trivialize two sins the Bible is so clear about by comparing them to hot rods and the post office. Truly offensive.?
It is, in fact, my opinion that abortion and gay marriage are comparable to hot rods and the post office insofar as none of them are discussed in the Bible and God has offered no opinion on any of these topics.
How is that offensive to you?
Is it the case that, because it seems clear to you and because I disagree with your opinion, you take exception to my disagreeing with your opinion? Is it the case that you think that your opinion is the only Godly opinion?
I'm not clear on what is offensive about my having a different opinion than you do on these topics which aren't discussed in the Bible.
Dan Trabue: "Agreed so far?"
No, not based on your method of interpretation. The context of most of the passages on homosexual behavior put them in the "all" category. (Leviticus 18 is talking about general, personal sexual relations, not some obscure "temple rite" or some pagan operation. It doesn't fit at all in the context. Romans 1 is talking about general humans, not some obscure pagan rite or even "against that which is natural" in your version because no one does that which is against their nature.) Since you are free to say, "Yeah, well, since it doesn't say 'to all people in all situations', I can't assume it is", I can't see how the absence of the same phrase doesn't allow the same limitation in terms of "love our enemies". Maybe He was just talking to the 12 that were there. Maybe it was just a reference to the Roman occupiers. Maybe ... I can come up with a lot of "maybes" that can't be disputed because Jesus at no time says, "To all people everywhere under any circumstances, love all of your possible enemies."
Dan Trabue: "'well, then I guess there can't be any gay marriage...'"
I will point out one more time that I do not make such a claim. I say that there can't be any "gay marriage" because there is no such thing as "marriage" except in terms of "man and woman". If you could find instructions in Scripture for marriage that includes same-gendered people, I might reconsider. But every instruction in Scripture for marriage is in terms of man and woman. In fact, they are for "husband" and "wife" and they are different instructions. Since you cannot identify "husband and wife" in a same-sex relationship, it cannot be "marriage". I say "There can't be any gay marriage" because "marriage" has a definition and "same-sex" is not included. Your saying "square circle" when "circle" has a definition that precludes "square".
Dan Trabue: "You all, it seems, want to suggest that there is no other conclusion one could reach in good faith except YOUR conclusion on this topic."
You don't want to go there. Not if you want to be consistent. You claim (often), for instance, that "I know of no biblical reason to preclude gay marriage." Since you are claiming "It's my opinion", the truthful statement would be "I accept no biblical reason to preclude gay marriage." You don't say that. You conclude, that is, that "there is no other conclusion one could reach in good faith except MY conclusion on this topic."
Dan Trabue: "How is that offensive to you?"
When you're arguing that abortion (the undeniable, intentional murder of a baby) is like post offices or hot rods, it will come across as offensive, not merely "his opinion". If a guy said, "I don't see anything wrong with molesting little children, but that's just my opinion", you would likely take offense. (At least, I hope you would.)
When you're arguing that abortion (the undeniable, intentional murder of a baby) is like post offices or hot rods, it will come across as offensive
So, ought I take offense if you argue that killing our enemies is a moral "good" and that Christians CAN take part in doing so - despite my belief that we can't kill our enemies and love them at the same time?
I guess I just don't take offense as easily as some. I recognize that within the faith, we WILL have differences, even on matters of importance. It's human nature, eh?
Interesting. So you would not be shocked by someone whose opinion it was that molesting children was good. Didn't see that one coming. Perhaps I should have.
See? "Know-it-some".
Read my words, Stan. I did not say that.
There is no defense at all for making such a statement, so I would be disturbed at someone making THAT statement.
Would I be surprised, though, at someone stating that they think God commands molesting children?
No.
After all, Bible literalists ALREADY say that. They say that when the Bible describes God "commanding" Israel to kill children, to wipe out a village and kill every one except the virgin girls and those can be taken home and made "wives," (ie, sex slaves), that the Bible means that literally and God really DOES do crap like that.
I guess THAT level of biblical ignorance is disturbing, yes.
Dan,
If you're going to go back to insulting, demeaning, and intentionally misrepresenting those with whom you disagree, you can stop commenting here again. You cannot find a "Bible literalists" who already says that God approves child rape (the standard definition of "child molestation"). Please take your lies and go somewhere else with them.
As for your assertion that you didn't say that. I asserted,"If a guy said, 'I don't see anything wrong with molesting little children, but that's just my opinion', you would likely take offense." You answered, "I guess I just don't take offense as easily as some."
And somehow, all the way from a humorous post on how little I know, we've managed to end up with a false accusation regarding biblical literalists and child molesters. We'll end this now. Please feel free not to comment anymore.
Post a Comment