Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - To Brian

In response to To Brian posted by _Boanerges_:

Thanks, Wendell. But Phil will now probably call you a sycophant for paying me that compliment. I'll just say "thank you." I appreciate it.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» _Boanerges_ - To Brian "circling the wagons"

In response to To Brian posted by BrianTubbs:

But Phil will now probably call you a sycophant for paying me that compliment.

no doubt.... but.. whatever..

I believe a compliment (such as it is) is due.. We are encouraged to exhort our brothers and sisters in the faith. My main point was that your "contending for the faith" is worthwhile, even though it may at times (even - most times) not be visible to us..

So then, think of it as an exhortation, as verses a compliment.. In that aspect, "sycophant" could be adjusted to Phil's uses of "circling the wagons".. (haha)... (the image I have is a bunch of hapless cow-boies being rounded up by a bunch of hustlers... ready to scalp us or whatever.. kind of comical in a loose sort of way...

-- posted by _Boanerges_

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» dancooper - Arrogance and Credibility - reply to Dan

In response to Arrogance and Credibility - reply to Dan posted by BrianTubbs:

I agree that we all apparently agree on that point. But then you seem to be saying that while arrogance is to be avoided, it is nevertheless excused in the presence of truth. If that is what you are indeed saying, then I disagree with that.

I believe that almost anything can and might be excused/forgiven/overlooked. And while truth can excuse ignorance, for example, I don't think it excuses arrogance.

The truth is, that Bobby Fisher was the most brilliant chess player the world had perhaps ever seen when he was World Champion. But he was also one of the most boorish, insensitive and arrogant S.O.B.'s on the planet. And while no one can take away his contributions to the game, his mastery of it, and his combination of skill, experience and ingenuity, he still tarnished his reputation with a lack of personal character.

"Nevertheless, what about the TRUTH? If a person is making a case, and that case is correct, then that case is STILL correct - even if the person making it is obnoxious. Do you follow me?"

Yes, I follow what you are saying. But I don't think we can jump to the status of truth just because some people believe their position is the truth.

For Adolf Hitler, truth justified genocide. For Jews in the First Century, truth justified persecution of the blasphemous upstart Christians. For more than a few of the misguided Islamic right wing fanatics today, the truth justifies killing Christians. And for today's normal, run of the mill Christian, truth justifies their own pet dogmas, which are unassailable by virtue of their 'inherent connection' with truth.

Obviously, my point is that truth is no easy thing to locate, and one person's truth is another's anathema.

But going back to your question, you want me to accept the TRUTH, and then from that acceptance, forgive and forget the obnoxion factor in the guy's message delivery characteristics. So, I guess I can give you this much: If the substance of his message indeed expresses the truth (a "fact" to which I have not agreed), then I can TRY to forgive his incompetence in delivering the message, his insensitivity and uncompromising animosity, and his ignorance both of social skills and the concept of viewpoint.

But when I do all of that, his 'truth' takes on a definite hue that colors his entire presentation in negativity. However, in fairness, he is apparently preaching to the choir and doesn't really care about the viewpoints of those outside his limited perimeter of 'truth.'

My position: Let him have his choir to preach to. No harm, no foul. But it doesn't mean I am listening. If he wants to turn listeners off to his message, he has certainly found a successful means by which to do so.

-- posted by dancooper

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» _Boanerges_ - Arrogance and Credibility - reply to Dan

In response to Arrogance and Credibility - reply to Dan posted by dancooper:

My position: Let him have his choir to preach to. No harm, no foul. But it doesn't mean I am listening. If he wants to turn listeners off to his message, he has certainly found a successful means by which to do so.

on the same token, the reverse is true with the Apostles. they all save one were murdered, for.. being nasty to people? no.. for their belief.. period.. In fact, they demonstrated how to give out hurtful truths in a compassionate way....

Of course, today.. at least till now, here in the civilized world (excluding places where 100's of thousands are put to death for their faith simply because of it).... we do not murder people because the "preach the Gospel....

Who has it harder? each, in reality and in truth...

-- posted by _Boanerges_

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Not quite

In response to Arrogance and Credibility - reply to Dan posted by dancooper:

Dan, I am not excusing a person's rudeness or boorish behavior so long as what he/she is saying reflects the truth. What I'm saying is that the TRUTH is still the truth even if it's not being presented politely. The same can also be said for faleshood, of course.

In other words, if I am teaching mathematics (which would be a scary thing), and I am explaining to someone that 2 plus 2 equals 4, the CONTENT of what I'm teaching (2 + 2 = 4) is true whether I am rude or not. I can call the person I'm teaching an idiot, spit on them, berate them, shove them around, be as obnoxious as possible - and 2 plus 2 is still four!

Yes, I should be fired as a math teacher and a more polite, reasonable teacher should be hired. But the expectation is that my replacement would still teach 2 plus 2 equals 4.

Bottom line...Migisi's comment on the author's rudeness brings up a SECOND issue -- namely, the rudeness of the author. It does not reflect on the FIRST issue - namely whether the author of the article I referenced is correct.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brother_Jones - Tainted?

In response to Tainted? posted by Migisi:

I think Dan read it the way I did. So, I guess I missed Holding's point too.

That is very possible. Whenever anybody uses a specific personal encounter to magnify a particular knotty character flaw in an adverse group, then all hell can and will break loose. You simply talk about Holding's conclusion in your complaint. I asssume you are talking about his encounter with Gordon Stein. And you must have replaced Stein with yourself as the person who Holding feels acted improperly. Then Holding expresses how he disregards Stein for his behavior. So, this snowball got started with some paricular offense to somebody, and now we just have a gigantic boulder coming down the mountain concerning the rudeness and arrogance of most supposed Christians. Maybe you should go back and look at the details and try to make some sense of it to me.

i'm the Lord's oldtimer.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» _Boanerges_ - very simple reply, BJ

In response to Tainted? posted by Brother_Jones:

:)

-- posted by _Boanerges_

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Migisi - Arrogance and Credibility - reply to Dan

In response to Arrogance and Credibility - reply to Dan posted by _Boanerges_:

.
In fact, they demonstrated how to give out hurtful truths in a compassionate way....
.
Not all the time, Wendell. Stephen and Paul (just two examples) said some pretty harsh things. And Jesus certainly did too (including some name-calling) when he addressed the priests.

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» _Boanerges_ - Arrogance and Credibility - reply to Dan

In response to Arrogance and Credibility - reply to Dan posted by Migisi:

Indeed true, Mig. But... as you know being a parent, sometimes the truth can hurt.... butt hen again, if one does not believe a thing, then what can be done... simply move on!.. talk about the weather or something I guess..

-- posted by _Boanerges_

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - The Floor

.
I think Wendell is the one who said something recently about liberals being able to have the floor.
.
This is not, so much, from the standpoint of my being a progressive thinker; but, it is more to the point of the loggerheads to which we come against each other.
.
There are few exceptions to the idea that the issues we discuss--each and every one of them--exist in an historical context. Each one we bring to the table comes with its own history that often goes back hundreds if not thousands of years in time. Yet, there is a tendency for us to discuss them as though they are of some recent vintage.
.
So, what might the consequences of such an approach be? I think one of the problems is that the words we use are not able to give understandings on which we can get past these loggerheads. All sides involved need to recognize the context in which these issues have come to us.
.
For what it's worth.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds