Master Vigil said:
No*s said:
Well for point 1, is it arrogant if someone accepts a belief that says this and conforms themselves to it? There's a world of difference between accepting something, and creating something.
Even if you conform yourself to a belief that claims this, you are conforming yourslef to an arrogant belief, and thus makeing yourself arrogant as well. Also, it doesn't matter if you created it or not. Even if you accept an arrogant point, you are still arrogant.
Not so. If I believe it is true, how is that arrogant? It is arrogant, IMO, to tell people that if they accept a certain way of looking at the world then they are arrogant while embracing a sort of minimalist approach to the world.
It also seems to contradict your values that the core value is goodness, and none of the others really are valuable. If you really believe this, why are you so ready to call me arrogant for being willing to follow my beliefs? It doesn't seem to follow, because you are condemning not just exclusivity, but multiple beliefs.
Master Vigil said:
No*s said:
Most exclusivist truth claims come (including mine) from an acceptance of divine revelation."
This would be ok if only one religion claimed to have divine revelation. But that is not the case, so we go to the argument of "whos revelation is right?" If you think yours is, than that is arrogancy.
What does number have to do with it? My accepting an assertion and the existence of a counter-assertion has no relevance on the arrogance/humility of a given claim. My inner state is not dependent upon the actions of others, but you require that I be arrogant/humble on the basis of what others believe or say. The only criteria involved is my heart and my beliefs. Each claim of divine revelation is a case unto itself. Jesus' claim to divine revelation is not dependent on Muhammed's, and neither is dependent on Joseph Smith.
You should beware, your assertion cuts counter to you as well. You have now condemned over half the world's population's faith as arrogant, because they disagree with your beliefs on exclusivity and subjectivity/objectivity. It would seem that your arguments condemn your position as readily as everyone else's.
Remember your advice about outsiders? This seems to be a double-standard to me.
Master Vigil said:
I also believe there is a difference between exclusivity and arrogance. You may believe that your religion is right, and that is fine. But as long as you understand that it is only your opinion and you may be wrong. But if you totally believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong no matter what, that is being arrogant. Just like, I don't believe christianity is completely true, but as long as people are good as a result of it, I have no problem with it and have total respect for it. But I don't believe in complete truth, in anything. I believe things like religion are completely subjective. And arrogance comes from people trying to make that subjectiveness into objectiveness.
I don't see your difference between exclusivity and arrogance. I have argued that all along in this thread, and you are quick to condemn people as arrogant. However, you are hasty to say your exclusivity isn't arrogant. What we are discussing are degrees of exclusivity, and the position being championed is completely arbitrary.
If you seriously believe that everything is subjective, then you either deny truth, which doesn't mesh with this paragraph's arguments about exclusivity, or you claim that we can't really know what is true or false with any degree of certainty. If that is the case, who is to say that a claim to divine revelation
isn't true? If its followers believe, then what is it to you?
They could well be right. Time and death will tell, and if you believe we cannot really know, then why the haste to disallow a position you cannot know is false? Like I said, this seems like a double-standard.
