Counterfeit Virtue

[Copperfox]

It has crossed my mind that there are dishonorable qualities which manage to masquerade as honorable ones. There are, for instance, at least two inferior substitutes for courage.

There is mindless, blind stubbornness, in which one is so frantically obsessed with getting one's own way and imposing one's own will, that one simply doesn't have time to THINK OF the possible consequences.

And there is narcissistic, smug overconfidence, in which one is so convinced of one's own invincibility as not to BELIEVE IN the danger of a situation.

Real courage, of course, involves REALIZING one's peril and STILL continuing. This was, of course, what Our Lord demonstrated in Gethsemane.

Shall we hunt down and expose the counterfeits?

[inkspot]

Behaving rightly for the wrong reasons, is that the idea?

People who like being thought of as a slave to their families, or a martyr for whatever reason, may do the right thing, not because of love for their family, but because of love for the accolades they get for making such sacrifices?

[EveningStar]

As Aslan said, all titles will be returned to their rightful owners soon enough.

[Copperfox]

"Behaving rightly for the wrong reasons" would cover some, but not all, of what I have in mind. In the case of counterfeit courage, this may accompany actions which are NOT EVEN externally good.

[EveningStar]

Like, perhaps, the difference between self esteem and arrogance?

There were some deaf people who were actually UPSET because advances in medical science may one day render much of their "culture" obsolete. They questioned severely wanting to "help" people when it really only means integrating them into mainstream culture and thought it a sign of arrogance on our part because we wanted to make them like everyone else.

Oh, it just breaks my heart to think there may someday be no reason to teach anyone American Sign Language. My advice is, if you don't want to ever hear Beethoven or Gershwin, cover your ears.

[Protagonist]

Shall we hunt down and expose the counterfeits?
Whoa, I don't want to start any trouble here

[EveningStar]

Protag makes a point. I'd prefer to cast the SECOND stone.

[kingcaspian]

I still don't really get the point this thread is trying to discuss. Is it somewhat related to selfishness in anyway?

[EveningStar]

Actually I THINK that Copper is referring to a society venerating things as virtues that are actually sins.

Think of a bunch of pirates who choose among themselves the most ruthless and ambitious person to serve as captain. Or ancient Greeks who considered external beauty a virtue. To this day in many fairy tales a handsome prince marries the beautiful princess who has ugly stepsisters or is menaced by a wicked hag.

Let's look at two of the things that were praised (and in some places still are praised)...

1) On a farm showing no sympathy for farm animals that are traditionally killed to harvest. That's "the hard reality of life on a farm". Daddy sends Junior to take the turkey to the butchers because "it's about time he learned that such animals were put here for food." Chances are by the time the kid is 12 he's telling the other kids at school how he shot his first buck. He thinks of deer as targets, and that's it.

RESPONSE: Amerindians for centuries hunted animals for food, hides and implements. They would give prayers and offerings to show respect and gratitude to the animals that died. The "harsh reality" of life as an indian did not extend to feeling no sympathy for animals that are about to die, and they didn't have to think "they're only animals" or "they're put here for food" in order to make hunting them part of their lifestyle. They considered animals members of the extended community who needed to make a living too.

2) The code of silence trumps the need for law and order. Even the mother of the murdered boy ought to understand that. It's just the way things are done. We don't rat on each other but stand firm against coppers and flatfoots.

RESPONSE: Nothing in the Constitution says we have to have police or detectives. They were brought to be by people of common sense who think more of society than "might makes right" and paid by the honest taxes of honest men. And they should do their job, which is to stop people, ask questions, and arrest suspects.

[Copperfox]

Yes, Badger is pretty close to what I had in mind.

[dawnpatrol]

Tolerance.

[Copperfox]

Indeed, these days "tolerance" really means, "YOU have to give ME a green light and a blank check for anything I want to do, but I don't owe you the same in return."

[inkspot]

Oh, very good! People today want tolerance of everything except the position that there are absolutes -- then they can be very intolerant of that idea ...

[Copperfox]

The choices for what is accepted can be terribly arbitrary. If I were so unconventional as to propose honorable Christian marriage to one or another of the many good young ladies on this forum (and I mean ones above the age of consent), my age difference from them, all by itself, would cause me to be demonized, vilified, pilloried and crucified as a sicko and an exploiter and a predator, no matter how sincere was my intention to be a Christlike husband and promote my bride's well-being. But certain OTHER "alternate lifestyle choices," so abnormal that they can't even be MENTIONED on this forum, are treated by society at large as not just acceptable, but noble and wonderful.

[EveningStar]

Lifestyles are like automobile rides. We have a set of directions given us by our Heavenly Father (though different faiths do not agree on the path) and if we follow those directions, we are supposed to pass by many things and eventually end up at SUCCESS.

Some people think they can turn however they like and whenever they want. They obey posted speed limits, brake for children and the elderly, stay in their lane, and wear their seatbelt. They feel that becuase they are driving safely that their lifestyle is the same, only different. They have many of the same experiences, passing mailboxes, kids flying kites in the front yard, elm trees and street signs. And because the view out their windows is pretty much the same, they think this means their lifestyle is pretty much the same.

Only eventually the car runs out of gas in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere and they have still not arrived at SUCCESS.

The balanced lifestyle is both a journey and a destination. We don't sit around thinking about dying and going to Heaven someday, nor do we think only of three meals a day and a hot bath to the exclusion of life's great questions.

The balanced lifestyle has a stop for lunch and scenery and fresh air along the way, and it can be very pleasant. But it must end up at success or else it's a worthless monkey run. It's scant comfort in the middle of the night in a stalled car to think back on passing the World's Largest Peanut and eating dinner at the Jade Room. The journey may be half the fun, but the destination is surely the OTHER HALF.

How does this tie in to the topic? A cop that pulls you over because you're black or because you're driving a red sports car is PROFILING and that is intolerance. A cop that blocks off a street and proposes a detour because the bridge is out is DIRECTING TRAFFIC and that is NOT intolerance. The detours we must take in life to keep from falling down a manhole or plunging into a river are not intolerance. Neither are the things we must do--or refrain from doing--to prevent harming ourselves or others.

[dawnpatrol]

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
-John 14:6

To many that is a prime example of intolerance and exclusivity and why the message of the cross is reviled by the postmodern world.

It is exclusive in that Jesus is the only way. But it is the ultimate example of tolerance in that while we were yet sinners and enemies of God, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). And it is all-inclusive in that the way of salvation is available to anyone regardless of our background, race, social class and most importantly what we've done.

[Jeff]

I see the point, intolerence towards the intolerant is intolerence itself. But you cant call a racist a racist without being racist yourself :p

[Copperfox]

I see the point, intolerence towards the intolerant is intolerence itself. But you cant call a racist a racist without being racist yourself :p

Well, that's not quite true. I am not a racist--I wasn't one even _before_ I received Jesus as my Lord--yet I can say that someone else is one. But it is true that _generalized_ accusations of racism often accompany racism IN the heart of the person _doing_ the accusing. For instance, Hispanic radicals in the United States love to cry racism; but _they_ have whole organizations--can you say "LA RAZA," boys and girls?--which _exist_ for the purpose of treating _their_ race as positively _better_ than all others.

[kingcaspian]

It seems like today liberals want everybody to be tolerant of each other. So, it seems like whenever some group of people are left out of something because they are that group of people(I don't want to go into specifics but I think you can figure out what group of people I'm talking about) it seems like people say that's intolerance. I think tolerance and intolerance today have been so changed in their meanings that law and order is getting harder and harder to reach because "no one's feelings can be hurt, oh, boo-hoo-hoo! Everyone needs to be happy!"


Whatever.:rolleyes::mad:

[EveningStar]

Many lifestyle choices involve choosing one thing rather than another. Look at me...I had 300$ and I wanted a nice new graphics card. Now I have the card but not the 300$. That was a price. Things have a price, you know. Marry Catherine and you can't marry Linda. Marry Linda and you can't marry Catherine. That's not intolerance. That's recognizing the price you paid.

The only question that suggests itself is this: Is the price you paid a fair one? Are you truly getting something you wanted more than what you gave up?

When it comes to the Kingdom of Heaven I can say without hesitation, "What profit it a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?"

I start from there, including the important things, then work my way down to the little details such as what colour tablecloth to buy.

John

[Darth Sparhawk]

It seems like today liberals want everybody to be tolerant of each other. So, it seems like whenever some group of people are left out of something because they are that group of people(I don't want to go into specifics but I think you can figure out what group of people I'm talking about) it seems like people say that's intolerance. I think tolerance and intolerance today have been so changed in their meanings that law and order is getting harder and harder to reach because "no one's feelings can be hurt, oh, boo-hoo-hoo! Everyone needs to be happy!"


Unfortunately I see nothing wrong in that. In my opinion tolerance is very important part of our life. In my opinion the lifestyle, the personal faith, or lack of it, are all choices of the individual. Of course, the rights end when another person is victimized. I think that everybody has right to happiness and no one can interfere with his life, unless he is threatening another person. I despise hate speech very much. I don't know if I am a liberal - I consider myself "moderate", besides, the terminology of liberals and conservatives is extremely different in Europe, so I don't know what I am, but to me the freedom of every individual is paramount. Of course, I can see what Copperfox means. I'll give an example - when irreligious people accuse religion of intolerance, they often try to ban religious celebrations, books, even, from what I hear from several countries, Christmas. To me this is an extreme example of intolerance. But when religious people force their view of life to people of different faith or no faith, this is also an example of intolerance, of fascism, even. Both examples frustrate me. I believe that everybody has the right to choose his own path to happiness. My country lived trough a regime which claimed that it will force us into happiness. We all know how this ended...

[kingcaspian]

I respect what you said, Sparhawk. I'm just a more far-right conservative who likes to be politically incorrect.:D

[EveningStar]

But you cant call a racist a racist without being racist yourself.So I suppose Jesus can't call people sinners without being a sinner himself? ;)

[Jeff]

So I suppose Jesus can't call people sinners without being a sinner himself? ;)

Apples to oranges my friend

[Pardine]

Apples to oranges my friend

I don't think EveningStar chooses analogies that fail. You don't want to go down that route. It's an interesting point and something that needs to take into consideration.

Yes, you can call someone a racist without being a racist. I watched plenty of them this last election season, and without going TOO far into politics, and sticking solely to race, it was very easy to see racism. I am not a racist, but when I see someone simply state that a man has no business in politics (or anything but picking cotton, as I have directly seen people say) because of his skin color, I can call that someone a racist.

So yes, you can call racism as you see it without being a racist.

[Ephinie]

Yes, the statement that you can't call someone else a racist without being a racist yourself is clearly not true.

Since we are talking about false virtue, I'll mention a couple of things that I seem to have to deal with constantly in my daily life... though I'm not sure if they would necessarily fit into the "false virtue" category.

The first is false humility. This seems to plague me in two different ways. The first way is that people will put on a facade of being humble while slyly getting other people to notice their accomplishments and act like they are a better person because they are not tooting their own horn (when, in fact, they are tooting their own horn). The second way is when people try to make someone feel bad for taking pride in one's accomplishments. This is usually accompanied by some sort of statement about how the person doing the feel-badding would "never" go around being prideful about all the wonderful things he or she has done! I guess another example of this would be in things like school elections, ect. I clearly remember when I was in high school (a conservative Christian high school), there were elections for homecoming queen. So a bunch of kids in my class had this discussion about how wrong and prideful it would be for someone to vote for themself. I was sitting here thinking... um no. There's nothing wrong with voting for yourself for homecoming queen or class president or President of the United States. In fact, I would wager to say that if you're not voting for yourself, then no one else should vote for you either. Because think about it. If you truly and honestly feel that you are not the best person for the job (or in the case of homecoming queen, the best person available to represent the student body during the game), then you shouldn't be running. And if you aren't going to vote for yourself, that indicates that you really don't think you're best for the job. Why would you vote for someone else if you think you'd do better? The only possible reason is false humility.

The second thing that plagues me is something that I don't know exactly what word would describe it. Basically what people do to me is something along the lines of this. Person will come along and do something horribly mean to me - and do it in such a way (given the circumstances, the things said to third parties, all the clues that add up, ect. ect. ect.) that it is more than obvious that they were being intentionally mean and spiteful. Then I will call Person on it and say, "Hey, Person... this was really mean of you. Why would you do that?" Then they will start crying and carrying on about how they are being treated SO unfairly! And how could I possibly accuse them of EVER trying to hurt me when ALL they were trying to do was be a good friend, and they couldn't have possibly known that I would be so offended by it! Waaaaaa waaaaaa waaaaa... they are so abused and hurt by me, and how could I presume to think I know what their motives are? There are several variations of such situations, but basically what I'm saying is... I seem to constantly deal with people who, no matter what I say or do, ALWAYS assume the victim role and try to act like no matter what mean and vicious things they say and do, THEY are always the ones who are being wronged.

[EveningStar]

Let's tug at the fibre of this arguement a bit.

"The district attorney can't call John Wayne Gacy a mass murderer without being a mass murderer."

Or maybe not!

Want to steer clear of apples and oranges? First off, please avoid Florida or California...they are loaded with apples and oranges. ;)

But more to the point...Christ offered on those who stand in judgment "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

Does that mean that the woman was not an adultress? No. Does it mean that by calling her an adultress, that they were adulterers? No. Does it mean that their sin is THE SAME as hers? No.

Let's take it to the extreme. What IS Christ saying? That we should NEVER arrest ANYONE for ANYTHING?

Far from it. Matter of factly in his analogies, he made reference to jail. The man that owed big to his supervisor begged him to forgive the debt and not cast him into prison. The supe did. But that man went out and tried to collect a small debt someone owed HIM and threatened to have him arrested. The supervisor heard and had his debt reinstated, and he would rot in jail till he paid the last denarius.

Lastly, Jesus had two thieves crucified with him. They argued amongst themselves. The first, that if Jesus is the Son of God he should save himself AND THEM. The second said they were getting their just deserves, but JESUS was being unfairly killed. "Remember me when you come to your kingdom." Jesus forgave his sin but did not either say his faith made him not a robber nor that he would not have to die on the cross after all. He died for his crime and went to heaven for his faith.

Remember when the folk were gathered out there to stone that woman to death, they were a bunch of self-righteous vigilantes seeking to enforce the law by their own means. A real functional criminal justice system where the judge does not know the accused and the police are only doing their job is not self righteous and does not constitute vigilantism.

[Laura Lee]

The second thing that plagues me is something that I don't know exactly what word would describe it. Basically what people do to me is something along the lines of this. Person will come along and do something horribly mean to me - and do it in such a way (given the circumstances, the things said to third parties, all the clues that add up, ect. ect. ect.) that it is more than obvious that they were being intentionally mean and spiteful. Then I will call Person on it and say, "Hey, Person... this was really mean of you. Why would you do that?" Then they will start crying and carrying on about how they are being treated SO unfairly! And how could I possibly accuse them of EVER trying to hurt me when ALL they were trying to do was be a good friend, and they couldn't have possibly known that I would be so offended by it! Waaaaaa waaaaaa waaaaa... they are so abused and hurt by me, and how could I presume to think I know what their motives are? There are several variations of such situations, but basically what I'm saying is... I seem to constantly deal with people who, no matter what I say or do, ALWAYS assume the victim role and try to act like no matter what mean and vicious things they say and do, THEY are always the ones who are being wronged.

This reminds me of people who compliment (you're so talented, you're so beautiful, what you have is great) then follow up with an "I hate you" because you have what they desire. It's usually meant as a joke but I suspect there's always a bit truth to the sentiment.

[Copperfox]

I guarantee you all that I can call my mother a woman without being a woman myself; I can call Vanessa a Dutch citizen without being a Dutch citizen myself; I can call Brad Pitt a movie star without being a movie star myself; I can call Neptune a planet without being a planet myself; I can call wheat a cereal grain without being a cereal grain myself; and I can call a criminal a criminal without being a criminal myself.

[Pardine]

I also think when Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.." That he was wanting to point something out.

There's a difference between punishing someone for a crime because it makes sense, and punishing someone for a crime because they "have it comin." When Jesus was dealing with the criminal on the cross, he could have miraculously pardoned the crime and made the sinner reappear anywhere. However, he didn't. Because the crime fit the punishment. It made sense.

When Jesus convinced the crowd to not stone the harlot, and thus freed her, he was doing so because the crowd cared more about the law than the person. It was one of those situations where they wanted to kill her, nearly I daresay, for fun. It wasn't about the punishment making sense, it was about the crowd wanting to kill her.

I don't think that the message is "Don't judge, lest ye be judged." I think the message is, "Be careful when you judge that you judge for the right reasons."

[Copperfox]

Pardine, you are on the right track. Jesus in John 7 told us TO judge "with right judgment."

[PuzzleGlum]

Confession time.

Sometimes, when I'm sitting on a bus, and a lady/girl steps on, this goes on in my head:

Voice 1: Give this lady your seat.
Me: Why?
Voice 1: You should be a gentleman. It's the chivalrous thing to do.
Me: Okay.
Voice 2: Whoa whoa whoa! Dude, just keep your seat.
Me: But I want to be chivalrous.
Voice 2: You can't!
Me: Why not?
Voice 2: That's sexist. You should not favor women over men in giving up a bus seat. Women have been supressed in history, and you're just keeping the ball rolling. Remember those pioneers who wanted equal treatment.
Me: But surely offering a bus seat, out of niceness to woman, won't be bad.
Voice 2: It's the principle. By offering the bus seat, you are effectivly saying "You should not stand up like me. I, the man, will be the noble one." Do you really want to offend her by doing this? Maybe get a slap on the face? Or this same lecture, only from her in public?
Me: Okay, fine. I'll keep my seat... but I'll still give it to senior citizens.
Voice 2: Deal.

I would like to say that the false valor here is respect to equality. But I'm not sure...

[Copperfox]

Next time, give the seat to the female, no matter what her age. If she is the sort to be irritated by your chivalry, she deserves to be irritated.

[Catherine]

In most cases, the woman will appreciate you giving her your seat. Sometimes, i think some women tend to be hypocritical (and I do this too) in that we demand to be treated as absolute equals in every way, but yet get annoyed if a guy fails to be chivalrous. Technically, if women are to be treated as absolute equals, we ought to stand up instead of taking a guy's seat, open our own doors, pull out our own chairs, but that doesn't stop us from liking and even expecting guys to do it for us. and Copperfox is right. If she is the sort to be irritated by your polite gesture rather than appreciate it, she deserves to be irritated.

[SweetWaters]

Confession time.

Sometimes, when I'm sitting on a bus, and a lady/girl steps on, this goes on in my head:

Voice 1: Give this lady your seat.
Me: Why?
Voice 1: You should be a gentleman. It's the chivalrous thing to do.
Me: Okay.
Voice 2: Whoa whoa whoa! Dude, just keep your seat.
Me: But I want to be chivalrous.
Voice 2: You can't!
Me: Why not?
Voice 2: That's sexist. You should not favor women over men in giving up a bus seat. Women have been supressed in history, and you're just keeping the ball rolling. Remember those pioneers who wanted equal treatment.
Me: But surely offering a bus seat, out of niceness to woman, won't be bad.
Voice 2: It's the principle. By offering the bus seat, you are effectivly saying "You should not stand up like me. I, the man, will be the noble one." Do you really want to offend her by doing this? Maybe get a slap on the face? Or this same lecture, only from her in public?
Me: Okay, fine. I'll keep my seat... but I'll still give it to senior citizens.
Voice 2: Deal.

I would like to say that the false valor here is respect to equality. But I'm not sure...

I'd take it and thank you. :)

I don't know what all your views on chivalry and everything are, but the issue remains true that however women have been suppressed in history, they were never created to have exactly the same roles as men.

[Pardine]

Just give the lady your seat ;)

I'm dying of the plague here, it feels like, and I even let a woman with her daughter on crutches line jump me at Target. It makes you feel better. It's nice. It doesn't have to be chivalrous or sexist, it can just be a nice deed :)

And who knows.. you may not fully believe in Karma, but if you do something nice for someone, maybe they'll do the same, and one day when you need someone to do something for you.. well.. there ya go.

or maybe not :) Either way, still is nice being nice :)

[The Branch]

In regards to the whole tolerance issue, I think christians get unfairly labeled intolerant a lot, but I think many christians may have it coming because they are not truly following Christ's example. The message of the Cross is inhereantly intolerant, but it is intolerant of sin, not of people. It is, by the same token, the most tolerant, welcoming message ever preached by any philosophy. In Christ, there is no male nor female, no slave nor free. We are all equally guilty, equally invited to receive forgiveness, equally valuable. This doesn't mean we all fill equal roles, but we all all equally welcome to fill our true role, in service to Christ. We as christians are called to hate the sin but love the sinner. I think too often we eagerly embrace the former, and allow the latter to simply fall by the wayside.


And to Puzzle Glum, yes, if in doubt, offer your seat. It's better to offend someone through kindness than never risk offending anyone at all. And most likely, she'll gratefully accept, and you build the admirable character trait of a willingness to serve others.

[ChildOfAslan7]

We are all equally guilty, equally invited to receive forgiveness, equally valuable. This doesn't mean we all fill equal roles, but we all all equally welcome to fill our true role, in service to Christ. We as christians are called to hate the sin but love the sinner. I think too often we eagerly embrace the former, and allow the latter to simply fall by the wayside.


Very well said. I absolutely agree about being equal in our own roles.

[PuzzleGlum]

My friend was doing a paper on whether morals were relative or not. He firmly believed they were. I asked him "Aren't you a Muslim?"

He replied "Oh, I'm taking an unbiased view."

The false virtue here is equating "unbiased" with "secular". This poses a problem to many religious groups. As I believe Copperfox has said several times in other places, atheists have their own horse in the race, too.

It seems that any theory or belief is equal to any other, so long as it doent have a god. I mean, when I present my side of an argument, sometimes I'm greeted with "Thats your biased religious view." The person I'm talking to won't even recognize that their anti-God views are also biased. They say it's "open minded" and "fair".

[Copperfox]

You know what those secularist fanatics are like as debaters? It's as if they were playing baseball with you, and when THEY were at bat they demanded the right to widen or narrow the foul lines at will.

[Sam]

I totally agree. I come across this all the time. People say that they can't discuss anything with Christians because we have prejudiced viewpoints and won't change our minds. that goes for most people! To have no starting point would require a person to be a blank slate: impossible, and undesirable. This unfairness drives me crazy. At the moment in London there's a poster campaign on the buses and tube with signs saying: 'there probably is no God so stop worrying and enjoy your life.'

a) this second half of that sentence is not a logical consequence of the first.
b) there's no way a Christian campaign would've been allowed such high profile advertising because somehow having faith is equated with narrow-mindedness or exclusivity and being atheist is equated with being liberal.

Aaaanyway. Glad I got that off my chest.

Oh, and as far as giving your seat goes: do it. My Dad gets embarrassed when young people (including girls) offer him their seat ('do I look that old?!') but at the same time it's a nice change from observing how rude the younger generation are. ;)

[Copperfox]

Sam, we have to work hard at proving to others that intentional unbelief IS ITSELF one of the competitors, NOT the impartial referee it lyingly pretends to be.

[Sam]

Yes, I agree- an example that always winds me up is when Phillip Pullman accuses C.S.Lewis of indoctrinating children with his own beliefs. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. But actually, a lesson I'm learning at the moment is how best to defend my faith while demonstrating an openness that shows up some of the narrowness in some atheist rhetoric. It's difficult to always remember that these issues are too important to turn into some kind of competition.

[PuzzleGlum]

To tell you the truth, I'm also a bit upset at schools favoring evolution over intelligent design. Evolution, at least as seen in an average New York textbook, has a whole two chapters on how it works, and maybe one sentence acknowledging it as a theory. Because evolution isn't a "religion" in the sense of having a god (and with that, moral obligations) it gets a free pass in schools.

This is just nitpicky, but I'm also a bit angry at many world history textbooks almost whitewashing all history of the Israelites. I cannot find, in an avreage high school history textbook, anything about the Israelites leaving Egypt. More importantly, nothing about the belief of the "Promised land"; even as just a belief of the people. I have a feeling this may be why so many people in my class don't support U.S. aid to Israel.

Edit: I just found a textbook that nicely touches on the Israelites, with several allusions to the Bible. Oops.

[dawnpatrol]

But actually, a lesson I'm learning at the moment is how best to defend my faith while demonstrating an openness that shows up some of the narrowness in some atheist rhetoric. It's difficult to always remember that these issues are too important to turn into some kind of competition.

I like Lewis' quote on open mindedness:

An open mind, in questions that are not ultimate, is useful. But an open mind about the ultimate foundations either of Theoretical or of Practical Reason is idiocy.

[PuzzleGlum]

I'm sorry I keep introducing false virtues in this thread. I must be coming off as self-righteous. But these ideas just keep coming.

One of the things I've read in The Screwtape Letters is something that I've begun to notice is really evident. And that is humor.

People want to be funny, myself included. But oh so many times I see my peers (not on this forum)cross the line from witty to offensive, just to be "funny".

[EveningStar]

'Tis always better to laugh with someone than at them.

A joke that must be told in hushed tones or with the ladies absent is not fit for gentlemen.

So-called "adult" humour is usually quite childish.

[Copperfox]

Childish, is right. While I refuse to say that absolutely ALL humor not meant for eight-year-olds in Sunday school is evil, I know that as a boy I went through a stage when my friends and I were absurdly juvenile in our idea of humor. We would tell each other "jokes"...whose ONLY purpose was to lead up to saying one of the forbidden words we had recently learned.

If, for instance, there were a word "SPOG," which was a naughty word, one of our jokes might have climaxed by saying: "--and when the car ran into the tree, it went 'spog!' " Yuk yuk ha ha ha, brilliant--in the minds of dorky boys.

[EveningStar]

What a spoggish bit of trivial trash! You should be blorted with a sipper-squizzy! And not simply rhetorically.... :cool:

[inkspot]

Let's watch the language, boys!
:)

[PuzzleGlum]

Actual exchange I had yesterday:

Friend- So Jesus was a sinner. He was a glutton for death.
Me- No, he wasn't. What makes you say that?
Friend- It was a joke. I was being funny.

:mad:

[Copperfox]

Puzzleglum, have you read The Screwtape Letters? In it, Mr. Lewis discusses true and false versions of humor. What Mr. Lewis describes as Flippancy is the false version; in it, the person just wants to _imagine_ that somehow he's being clever, without making the effort to be original or creative.

[PuzzleGlum]

One of the things I've read in The Screwtape Letters is something that I've begun to notice is really evident. And that is humor.


Yep. I have read it. It's funny how many of these things I began to notice after reading the book.

[Inkling]

It's all about the mean. /Any/ virtue, when either deficient or excessive, ceases to be virtuous. Aristotle uses the example of bravery. Too little, and you're a coward. Too much, and you're foolhardy. I suppose Goldilocks had it right all along...who would have thought it? Since I'm back in Ancient Greece, let's continue there. The two inscriptions on Apollo's temple at Delphi--I know because I've been there ;)--read, "Know Thyself" and "Nothing in Excess".

Even love can go horribly, horribly wrong, and the greater the love, the worse it falls. Lewis describes this so eloquently in the Great Divorce: even such a pitiful, puny lizard as lust, when redeemed, becomes something both mighty and beautiful. How much more so, then, the love of a man for his country or that of a mother for her son. A virtue can err through being perverted (hate instead of love), through being deficient, or through being excessive when directed towards the wrong object (gluttony would fall under the category of excessive love of a secondary good).

The danger with counterfeits is that the closer the false virtue resembles the true virtue, the more difficult it is to pinpoint. Nobody's going to mistake clay for gold. Brass, on the other hand...

[Copperfox]

Yes, "Moderation in all things"--but that should include moderation IN our insistence ON moderation.

[PuzzleGlum]

I just started watching a program on T.V called "G.K Chesterton" about the man and what he believed.

Last week's (or maybe two weeks ago) episode was about heath, and by extension, what people do to morality. People make big deals out of the little morals, and don't pay attention to the big moral laws.

But what I liked most about that episode, and I think qualifies as a "counterfeit virtue" is health. Not health per se, but the total dedication to health. Whene a person thinks, "I should keep myself in a healthy state, because I don't want to be sick and die," that's okay. But oh so often today, people think "I'll do anythinthing in my power to keep me healthy, because living is what is most important." The focus on survival, crossing into territory of fanaticism, is in no way healthy (irony).

Then the episode got into the false virtue of the health care industry (both bashing private and government controlled health care). I don't remeber exactly what they said about HMO's, but I recorded the episode, so I'll look it up later.

[inkspot]

Very interesting, Puzzle Glum. Some people do make a little idol of health and fitness. While it's good in itself to be fit, I do think it can be spiritually destructive to make your body the first concern of your life ...

[PuzzleGlum]

I recall seeing a commercial from some HMO, and it's goal was to sell health insurance to babies. Or rather, the parents for their babies. The commerical actually said "There's nothing more important than the health of your baby."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I find that a bit off-putting. Since (as Chesterton pointed out) life itself is a hindrance to health, it would seem that today, we have to give up living in order to survive. And that is the point that is being glorified. Survival of the body for as long as possible is the ultimate goal.

Radical enviormentalism also follows this conundrum. People have to switch to caring for the earth instead of themselves, or else the earth is doomed.

Believe it or not, there are more important things than the earth. Note: We still have the obligation to take care of it.

[Copperfox]

Majoring in the minors indeed is often the problem.

Imagine that I'm writing a story in which the Christian hero has never had sex outside marriage in his life, never _will_ have sex outside marriage in his life, has served his country honorably in war, has helped people in distress, has shown compassion and never taken advantage of the weak. But in an intense love scene, the hero strokes with his hands the _clothed_ legs of his sweetheart as they lie closely embraced. Some will take this action as invalidating _everything_ positive about the hero, dismissing him forthwith as a "hypocrite." Meanwhile, some other characters who may not have _done_ much of any value, are still preferred simply because they _haven't_ touched any legs.