Would you be like them? I don't see the connection. The only condition for you to be different is to act in accordance with your own convictions rather than a ruleset... but you must embrace your own convictions rather than have them imposed. You must know why you, not what or how to, act. If you make your choice based upon those convictions, you'll always be different.
Let's see if I can use an analogy... It is far less noble to donate to a charity becase "Jesus said so" than it is to donate to a charity "because people need help"... and to flip that around, it will be noble to help them because they need help - it will not be noble to continue helping them just to avoid being "one of them".
Well, to explore this concept further, I'm not choosing to do something just to "not be like them." I do what I do because I believe it's the "right" thing to do... and I have also reached a point in my life where I can take responsibility for it.
(Example: I remember being very whiny at times because I wanted to do the right thing and then "didn't think it was fair" that some people would antagonize me for not conforming, so I'd become plaintive and whine to be understood. Now I just see it as the cost of doing what I believe in, and they are not obligated to accept my behavior or reject it; they have to make their own decisions, just as I have.)
Tangent: In any case, isn't implicit in a statement that "I don't want to be like <some other group>" a sense that I'm not conforming, I have my own internal standard, and I am following it? Not wanting to be like another group is itself a principle, isn't it? And a self-held one?
This is one major difference between myself and religion - I do not expect or ask for forgiveness. "Sorry" means that I didn't make a choice - an oversight, a true mistake, etc. I do not apologise for the actions I take intentionally... The responsibility lies with me and me alone and it should be me who bears the cost of my mistakes. Asking for forgiveness and having it given unconditionally trivalizes the burden of making the right moral choice.
All right, I understand your reasoning.
So what happens if you happen to be human and make a decision that you know isn't really the best (just because you want to, or because it's easier?), and later you come to regret it, and so you feel you should apologize?
I think there is also a large difference between the ideal of "unconditional forgiveness" and the reality of it. While we can generalize someone's choice to forgive you to a case of "being unconditionally forgiving" (because they are making a conscious choice to forgive you even if they have contrary emotions and/or do not want to forgive in some large portion of themselves), it's never that simple... as I just inadvertently pointed out.
For someone to offer unconditional forgiveness usually takes a heroic internal choice to take the burden of the offense upon themselves and not hold it against the other person. You are carrying the other person's "sin" on your own shoulders and not laying it to their account. If done correctly (i.e., with the right spirit and attitude), this is a powerful act of good, a sacrificial act that ends up sanctifying the entire exchange.
I don't see anything wrong with it. I have autonomy. So do they. If they want to forgive me, who am I to stop them? I don't have a right to DEMAND an apology, but if I care about them and the relationship, I have every option to put myself at their mercy, apologize, and ask forgiveness -- to relay my intentions. And they have every option to deny or offer forgiveness.
And when this occurs, two people become more like "one unit" and the relationship deepens.
What exactly is so bad about this, if done in the right spirit?
(Note: I'm thinking you were mostly just referring to the "cheap grace" where someone asks to be forgiven without really repenting or being sorry, and someone else offers it because they're "supposed to" and doesn't even think much about it...)
A reaction to the OP, though: what does it mean to "do" faith?
Such a little question.
Such an unanswerable one too.
I don't know yet what it really means to "do" faith. I am reaching a conclusion like RLP has -- where I can't force myself to believe in God's existence, but I can still align myself with him (or my ideal understanding of him) and do what I think is morally good and whole as a sign of "faith."
As far as what is good? Jesus seemed very particular about how faith and belief was really about serving those who are in a worse position than yourself. You give water to the thirsty, food to the hungry, visit the imprisoned. You see their needs, you fill their needs, and you do it out of love.
I think it goes beyond that to just being part of the tapestry of other people's lives and letting them be part of the tapestry of yours. We are not separate little isolated organisms, we are all part of the same thing, and behaving as if no one else matters (or matters as much as we do) sunders that sense of universal humanity.
As far as the specifics, I could not tell you. Obviously no single one of us has the time or money or resources to solve everyone's problems all around the world. I think the globalization of culture though has distorted our understanding -- because we CAN impact events and people half a world away from us, within a day's time, suddenly they have become part of our mission field.
But Jesus was referring to what specific individuals could accomplish AROUND them, where they were actually present (and the OT scriptures were similar). I would guess that it is more of a sense that we each individually are salt where we are; we're supposed to be who we are, WHERE we are, and take care of that area of the kingdom...
(Funny how I still talk in Christianese, isn't it? Sigh. The faith changes, but I never forget the language.)