There but for the grace of God go I?

Ickle Magoo

Hello there,

I was reading a thread on another forum about heroin addiction & several of the posters used the expression "There by the grace of God" in response to others posting their lack of sympathy for heroin addicts plight & I was wondering what the statement actually means in that context?

I'm not a religious person & I thought it could have several connotations & I was curious what meaning you would place on the phrase.

Thanks nosily

PDN

As far as I know the phrase was first used by John Bradford, a 16th Century English Protestant Reformer, when he saw a criminal going to execution.

Actually Bradford did go the same place because he was later martyred for his faith under Queen Mary.

The idea is that the heroin addict (to use your example) is not necessarily any worse morally than those of us that live a more respectable lifestyle. The Christian doctrine of original sin teaches that human nature has an inherent attraction towards that which is wrong and self-destructive. If some of us rise above that, then we should not boast or feel superior to the heroin addict, but should acknowledge that, without God's grace, we would quickly mess up our lives.

The Mad Hatter

I thought it was 'There but for the grace of God go I'.

PDN

The Mad Hatter wrote:

I thought it was 'There but for the grace of God go I'.

It was (and still is). By now I've been on boards.ie for so long that the 'little logic gates' in my brain just translate the mispellings, typos, and poor punctuation & grammar into English without it registering with my consciousness.

Ickle Magoo

Sorry, I just typed what had been written on the thread in question, you are right, I'll change the title...I believe it was still written in English!

Thanks PDN, so does it mean the heroin addict is not a Christian? Is God not looking out for him too - or must have he relinquished God when he became an addict?

PDN

Ickle Magoo wrote:

Thanks PDN, so does it mean the heroin addict is not a Christian? Is God not looking out for him too - or must have he relinquished God when he became an addict?

Ah, now we get into the age-old argument about what makes someone a Christian. Maybe it would save some time if I give you all the different answers now? That way it'll save us all posting the same old stuff again.

1. The Catholic posters will tell you that being baptised and part of the Catholic Church makes you a Christian, and that other "communities" aren't real churches.

2. The evangelical Bible bashers like myself will tell you that becoming a Christian means placing your faith in Christ, which will consequently produce a moral improvement in your life.

3. The atheists will tell you that anyone who wants to call themselves a Christian is a Christian, no matter what they believe.

So, according to the Catholics your heroin addict, provided he is baptised by the right church, is a Christian (but probably not a very good one).

According to the evangelicals he probably isn't a real Christian, because if he genuinely had faith then Christ would help him overcome his addiction.

According to the atheists it doesn't really matter unless he does something really bad like becoming a mass murderer or a homophobe. Then they will argue till they are blue in the face that he is a Christian and a prime example of the corrupting nature of Christianity. However, if he reforms and does something good like winning a Noble Prize then they will search out a quote where he hints at being an atheist.

No doubt some will object that I'm oversimplifying their position, but that seems to be the essence of these debates so far.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote:

According to the atheists it doesn't really matter unless he does something really bad like becoming a mass murderer or a homophobe. Then they will argue till they are blue in the face that he is a Christian and a prime example of the corrupting nature of Christianity. However, if he reforms and does something good like winning a Noble Prize then they will search out a quote where he hints at being an atheist.

No doubt some will object that I'm oversimplifying their position, but that seems to be the essence of these debates so far.

Haha - there's a storm a comin' PDN

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Haha - there's a storm a comin' PDN

Naah, they're all at the pub tonight!

Ickle Magoo

Ah right, I see, thanks again PDN - so any of my connotations could be correct depending on the posters particular beliefs? I couldn't work out if the posters were insinuating that if they hadn't been a Christian the heroin addict would have been them or just being thankful that as a good Christian it wasn't them, iykwim?

PDN

Ickle Magoo wrote:

Ah right, I see, thanks again PDN - so any of my connotations could be correct depending on the posters particular beliefs? I couldn't work out if the posters were insinuating that if they hadn't been a Christian the heroin addict would have been them or just being thankful that as a good Christian it wasn't them, iykwim?

Today the phrase is often used even by people with no religious beliefs at all. They just mean, "I feel sorry for the guy because, given a different set of circumstances, I could end up the same way."

Ickle Magoo

True - I was just curious if those "different circumstances" meant belief in a particular faith or God - but I guess it can mean just about anything, lol.

Red Hand

PDN wrote:

According to the atheists it doesn't really matter unless he does something really bad like becoming a mass murderer or a homophobe. Then they will argue till they are blue in the face that he is a Christian and a prime example of the corrupting nature of Christianity. However, if he reforms and does something good like winning a Noble Prize then they will search out a quote where he hints at being an atheist.

No doubt some will object that I'm oversimplifying their position, but that seems to be the essence of these debates so far.

The emboldened part is a very cynical view, PDN. Methinks you are spending far too much time on the atheist board and it is rubbing off?:p

No, seriously, I think there is a difference. Many people are homophobes, atheist included mind, but I guess for me, I cannot get around that fact for all the positive messages Jesus preaches about, there are still huge chunks of the Old Testament that I would not feel comfortable...with reading to my children, say. People being smited down, whole nations destroyed, along with, yes, a justification for homophobia.

Naah, they're all at the pub tonight!

Never fear, your local atheist stayed at home to comfort ye!

Galvasean

PDN wrote:

Naah, they're all at the pub tonight!

Im not. I prefer to stay home eat babies and engage in other wholesome atheist pastimes.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Ah, now we get into the age-old argument about what makes someone a Christian. Maybe it would save some time if I give you all the different answers now? That way it'll save us all posting the same old stuff again.

1. The Catholic posters will tell you that being baptised and part of the Catholic Church makes you a Christian, and that other "communities" aren't real churches.

2. The evangelical Bible bashers like myself will tell you that becoming a Christian means placing your faith in Christ, which will consequently produce a moral improvement in your life.

3. The atheists will tell you that anyone who wants to call themselves a Christian is a Christian, no matter what they believe.

So, according to the Catholics your heroin addict, provided he is baptised by the right church, is a Christian (but probably not a very good one).

According to the evangelicals he probably isn't a real Christian, because if he genuinely had faith then Christ would help him overcome his addiction.

According to the atheists it doesn't really matter unless he does something really bad like becoming a mass murderer or a homophobe. Then they will argue till they are blue in the face that he is a Christian and a prime example of the corrupting nature of Christianity. However, if he reforms and does something good like winning a Noble Prize then they will search out a quote where he hints at being an atheist.

No doubt some will object that I'm oversimplifying their position, but that seems to be the essence of these debates so far.

I think you may be misinterpreting the atheist position here. Whether someone is a heroin addict or a Nobel prize-winner is entirely irrelevant to their religious position, and vice versa, certainly from my point of view. I don't see how someone's heroin addiction, or alcoholism, or smoking, or Nobel prize-wining, would affect my view of their Christianity, or my view of the value of Christianity - unless of course the matter were completely cut and dried, and an innocent visit to church led ineluctably to the needle or the gong...but as far as I know this is not the case.

You, on the other hand, think that if someone were a 'true Christian', then Christ would help them overcome their addiction? So someone who is a junkie is probably not a Christian?

cordially,
Scofflaw

NovemberStar

In my own opinion, (and this is from one how has been Catholic, Wiccan, Agnostic and Christian) I believe that God helps those who help themselves. To overcome any addication, you first have to have a strong will to suceed and steel yourself against the tough times that lie ahead.

Somebody in the midst of something as soul-destroying as addiction can feel very lost without something to draw that strength from or inspiration to drive them on. In this way, I think a Christian addict would have a higher chance of succeeding because they have already found that place from which they can draw strengh.
But that said, it must be remembered that people believe different things and find inspiration in different places, for some it`s art, for some it`s family, and for others, it`s faith.


NovemberStar

Spyral

you could be a heroin addict and be a good catholic.. that said you are hurting yourself and if you adopt a criminal lifestyle to feed the habit you would be committing other sins aside from hurting your body.

That said God is the only Judge really..

SUNGOD

that phrase is widely used in AA literature .if we are all equal and dealt a randon hand of cards at birth obviously some hands are better than others. try look at it in a more spiritual than religous way. this is probably way off the point but someone once said to me religon is for someone who doesnt want to go to hell and spirituality is for someone who has been to hell and doesnt want to go back

karen3212

PDN wrote:

According to the evangelicals he probably isn't a real Christian, because if he genuinely had faith then Christ would help him overcome his addiction.

What, I thought the Kingdom of God was within, and that it didn't matter what other humans told you, you have God's love no matter how disgraceful you might look to other humans.


For me, it means don't kick and blame people when they are down, have some compassion, you never know when you might be in need of compassion and help yourself.

Hivemind187

SUNGOD wrote:

that phrase is widely used in AA literature .if we are all equal and dealt a randon hand of cards at birth obviously some hands are better than others. try look at it in a more spiritual than religous way. this is probably way off the point but someone once said to me religon is for someone who doesnt want to go to hell and spirituality is for someone who has been to hell and doesnt want to go back

Trouble is that AA has been accused (and some might argue quite correctly accused) of using techniques similar to brainwashing and emoto-spiritual 9is that a word?) guilt to get the "desired" results. Results which the various AA affilitated groups have been known to fudge for various reasons.

Alcoholics Anonymous (assuming you werent talking about the Automobile Association) uses barely disguised Chritian rhetoric in order to guilt people into changing their lives. While I'm sure it works on many people it doesnt alter the fact that is a cynical and slightly abusive methodology.

As for Heroin adicts and religion, to be honest, there is no justifiable way you can relate the two things and I think that PDN is being a little negative about the atheist position (suprise suprise!). Very few atheists, and certainly none of the ones that think clearly, are going to claim that a persons addicitions and social problems are related to their spiritual beliefs or lack thereof - without some fairly conslusive evidence that would indicatye that no other cause is as likely.

Excelsior

karen3212 wrote: »

What, I thought the Kingdom of God was within, and that it didn't matter what other humans told you, you have God's love no matter how disgraceful you might look to other humans.

Whatever about the theology you have developed out from it, I just have to point out that Jesus never said that the Kingdom of God was within. He said that the Kingdom of God is amongst us. Different thing. No Gnosticism in Jesus...