Fallen and Flawed

Demian,

I heartily agree with all of this:

“The quaint, paradoxical antidote to skyrocketing self-worth, Twenge suggests, is nothing more than humility and compassion.

It’s the idea of nurturing your relationships. Helping others. Critically and accurately evaluating your self.”

I think that this is excellent advice.

But I think this is superfluous:

“And, in my own opinion, surrendering your life to Jesus Christ.”

Does one have to accept Jesus Christ to:

Have humility?
Have compassion?
Nurture relationships?
Critically and accurately evaluate the self?

Why can’t Buddhism or Sikhism or Islam or Hinduism or even Humanism accomplish the goals which Twenge has listed? I can certainly find examples of people who have adhered to those faiths, philosophies, or traditions which embody those qualities.

There is a multitude of non-Christian thinkers and teachers and philosophers who have embraced, lived, and articulated these very principles. How Christianity offer a unique solution above and beyond the other systems I have listed?

Even comedian Bill Hicks performed a hilarious routine about why “Your Kids Aren’t Special”. It’s for mature audiences, but I did get quite a kick out of it.

Teleprompter,

Here’s my take on why Demian’s point is relevant (I would say even primary).

Demian says:
“And, in my own opinion, surrendering your life to Jesus Christ.”

The reason all other reasons for being compassionate don’t measure up is that they still all ultimately point back to self. Even the compassion is self-seeking. It says, “I am compassionate; I am good. I help the poor.” It says, “Follow my example of self-sacrifice.”

When true Christians have compassion they are always pointing away from themselves and to something better and truly satisfying: God, Jesus, atonement. It would not be true love or compassion if all you have to offer someone is yourself plus fill-in-the-blank-need, precisely because you (me, everyone) is not worth offering. You may better someone’s life, but what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit His soul. To be truly compassionate you must offer Christ and meet the felt needs of people.

I realize that explanation won’t jibe if you aren’t a Christian, but even so, that’s why Christ is the only real cure to narcissism.

Abigail,

I respect you, and I respect Demian, and I hope you both understand the spirit in which this reply is offered:

Here’s my take on why Demian’s point is irrelevant.

Demian says:
“And, in my own opinion, surrendering your life to Jesus Christ.”

The reason all other reasons for being compassionate don’t measure up is that they still all ultimately point back to self and further the struggle of suffering. Even the compassion of the self is part of the cycle. It says, “I am compassionate; I am good. I help the poor.” It says, “Follow my example of self-sacrifice.”

When true Buddhists have compassion they are always pointing away from themselves and to something better and truly satisfying: freeing all other sentient beings from suffering within cyclic existence. It would not be true love or compassion if all you have to offer someone is yourself plus fill-in-the-blank-need, precisely because you (me, everyone) are sentient beings suffering within a cyclic existence. You may better someone’s life, but what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and still be reborn into suffering? To be truly compassionate you must understand why suffering exists, and the need to strive to help liberate other sentient beings from suffering. Compassion can only emerge from an awareness of the suffering of others.

I realize that explanation won’t jibe if you aren’t a Buddhist, but even so, that’s why Buddhism is the only real cure to narcissism.

Suffering exists because mankind continues to deny GOD, the creator, and the only way to relieve the suffering is to reconcile with GOD, and the ONLY way to do that is through Christ Jesus.

Abigail’s got right to the point in a perfect way and amplified the essence Damian’s subject core, but it can’t be grasped through a non-Christian worldview.

Damian, thanks for sharing it. It’s a dominant problem in our society, and as a byproduct of the post-modern “self” it has not been faced up as frequently as it should be. Thanks again.

Bob,

You nailed it.

I studied Buddhism for several years. One of the things Buddhism does not truly deal with is where sin comes from. Buddhism offers a lot of teaching about removing suffering, but it refuses to take a hard and true look at mankind and admit that there is an inherent flaw in man. When you scratch the surface of this problem and dig deeper, the horrors of sin reveal themselves and Buddhism ignores the root cause and offers no solution to that problem.

Christ IS the only solution.

What is funny is, in High School, I saw right through my narcissism and always hoped others did not. Then I found out some of my friends were the same way.
It is really the most shallow of self-images because it is built on absolutely nothing, and is easy to obtain. It is really a huge weakness. I love that compassion is the antidote, but we do know it takes a long time (a lifetime?) to allow it to be the cure.

Bob,

“Suffering exists because mankind continues to deny GOD, the creator, and the only way to relieve the suffering is to reconcile with GOD, and the ONLY way to do that is through Christ Jesus.”

Are you sure about this?

All the famines, droughts, purges, persecutions, genocides, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, tsunamis, wars, murders, rapes, kidnappings, discriminations, prejudices, and inequalities are caused by what, exactly? The denial of a certain religious belief which first surfaced a few thousand years ago in a small Middle Eastern enclave?

When I examine the world, all the same good and bad things happen to those why deny your religious beliefs and to those who accept your religious beliefs. In fact, the same things tend to happen at the same rates to people of all religious or nonreligious creeds. What is the difference?

Yes, I agree with Eric that there are some things that are inherently wrong – but I have found different explanations.

There’s been quite a bit of suffering on this planet before human beings arrived on the scene. It’s critical to remember that. Somewhere around 99% of the species that have ever lived are now extinct – most of which flourished and then perished eons before humanity even existed – epics of unmitigated suffering which in all likelihood have no direct connection to the actions of human beings. How do you explain that? How does your interpretation of Christianity explain that?

I explain suffering through the hypothesis that the universe is indifferent to our plight. If you examine the world today and the world as it’s been for the vast ages preceding our arrival, I think you may agree that the universe is quite indifferent to us, too.

I apologize for double posting, but I wanted to clarify the point of my Buddhist counter-example.

I was hoping that one of you would respond by stating a belief that “cyclic suffering” is a vague or meaningless concept. Then I would have replied that for a non-Christian, sin and other doctrines are also meaningless concepts. I know that most of you do not accept Buddhist concepts, but I also know that it is an honest difference of opinion, not a malicious attempt at drowning “truth” under a sea of lies. You know what it’s like not to believe in something.

Many worldviews have an explanation for the suffering which exists in our world. Buddhism has one explanation, which confirms to its ideas about the universe. Christianity has its explanations, which conform to Christian ideas about the universe.

However, it is less likely that a Buddhist explanation will make sense to non-Buddhists, just as it is less likely that a Christian explanation will make sense to non-Christians.

And why is this? It’s not because you have enmity towards Buddhism or because you’re trying to flout the cycle of suffering by ignoring Buddhism’s fundamental truths. No, the simple answer is that most of you are Christians, and it’s just not your belief system. It is an honest difference of opinion.

This is the frame in which I present my beliefs to you. I do not have enmity toward your beliefs, just as I am sure that you do not have enmity toward the beliefs of a Buddhist – it is a question of differing perspectives. I think we do have honest differences of opinion.

You could accuse me of being blind to the truths of Christianity for my own nefarious reasons, but I could likewise accuse you all of being blind to the truth of Buddhism, Islam, or Hinduism on account of selfishness or narcissism or some other moral or ethical charge.

But you know that the accusation is empty because I assume that most of you are honest people just trying to find your way. You honestly and sincerely believe what you believe. It would be rude and it would be a lie and a false charge if I accused you of not believing in other religions for your own purposes. So why are nontheists accused of not believing in religion for their own purposes? Can those who have no religion also have an honest difference of opinion? Can those who have no religion also be sincere?

If apologists refuse to allow for the possibility that those who disagree with them are sincere and may even have some good ideas, then I believe that conversation is impossible, even if the sole object is conversion or proselytization alone. A meaningful conversation between one human and a dummy of the other human’s imagination cannot occur.

I know that I hear you, but I am trying to listen, and I hope that you have the same goal. But if your goal is not to listen, but to assume poor motives and bad faith (har har) on my part, then nothing I say is worth saying.

Tele, I always value your contribution. And think your position is a valid position.

And while people are perfectly capable of being compassionate and not born again, my whole point in throwing that in there at the last moment was to address a secular writers antidote…

We can all be kind to each other, but like you pointed out, not only is the universe indifferent to our plight…but most people are, too. And the problem boils down to sin. It boils down to a rejection of the creator of the universe. Something compassion–any virtue for that matter–can’t fix. That’s why I threw that in there.

Demian,

Thank you for a considerate response. I strongly appreciate that you value my opinions.

However: if the universe is indifferent to our plight because of sin, then how does that explain the apparent indifference of the universe during the periods which came before the existence of humanity? Couldn’t one argue that the system was already indifferent before human beings existed? What about the indifference of our universe as it applies in retrospect to all of the living beings which came before us?

How can sin (which is supposed to be a sole product of human existence) be to blame for the nature of a system which was set before our existence? This is problematic.

Perhaps one could argue that a god already knew how we would act (which I suspect is at least somewhere close to where you are, but don’t let me presume for you – that would be rude), and set up a system which accommodated the course of action which it was known that we would take. But this runs into at least two problems:

1. Where is our free will if our lives are merely accommodated to a pre-set course of action?

2. What if everything about our potential existence cannot actually be known? What if there is a certain uncertainty at the base of our universe which prevents such accommodation?

If the universe was in a state of indifference before humanity arose, many problems arise for Christian arguments, especially if one of those arguments is that the indifference and suffering found in our universe is caused by sin.

If sin causes the indifference of the universe retroactively, then that conflicts with some doctrines of Christian theology, such as free will.

Even if one can find an appropriate justification for the retroactive application of sin in affecting the indifference of the universe for humans, the matter of what accounts for the suffering undergone by other living beings is still unresolved.

And lastly, I agree that no amount of compassion – or of any virtue – can fix the indifference of our universe. But I do suggest that compassion can lessen it.

[...] http://www.fallenandflawed.com/narcissim-epidemic-review/ [...]

Teleprompter,

I can not presume to speak for others but the answers to your questions are quite simple to me. God, who was there before the beginning of time, says in His word that before sin all things were good. There was no indifference in the universe before sin. All death, suffering and decay came after the fall of man.
Since the fall of Satan, there has always been attempts to cast doubt upon God’s word but it continually, even to this day, has proven to be true. Now I know that many men, far wiser than I, beg to differ and will tell you that there was millions and billions of years before man somehow came to exist on this planet but there are also many other men, far wiser than I who agree with what I am saying. So for myself, I will just stay with the Word of the only One who was there in the beginning, the One who said ‘Let there be Light’!
As for God’s foreknowlege of all things, remember that God created space and time. He is not limited to time and space as we are. Like a man on a roof watching a parade, God can see the beginning from the end. He knows the order it takes place in. Also as the creator of the ‘parade’ He has the authority to intercede throughout and ‘change a float’ or add a new one.
That was just an analogy, I’m sure it has many flaws in it.
Here’s a good sight with answers to many of your questions from men far wiser than I. I hope you will check it out with an open mind.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers

Carey,

I’ll go to answersingenesis if you’ll go to talkorigins with an open mind.

I haven’t been there for a while, but I have checked it out. I was there shortly after my wife was born again and I was on a journey of searching for the Truth, I was trying to prove that she was a quack. Answers in Genesis was one of the other major sights on origins that I ‘dug into’. I found their arguments to be very reasonable, based on their worldview just as those of talkorigins were of their’s. However as I studied further on a different note, namely the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ I came to hear the Gospel. I looked into the mirror of God’s Law, and saw my wretched state. God, by His grace, allowed me to see that I deserved Hell and judgment. I knew He would be Just in sending me there but instead, I was humbled by His amazing Grace. The reality of my Savior bearing my sin upon Himself on the cross brought me to my knees before God and because Jesus is alive today I know I to will live forever with Him because I have been adopted into His kingdom.
Faith in God is reasonable and once one has humbled himself before God, his eyes are open to that truth. God has chosen to reveal this to those who are humble before Him, He rejects the proud.