Protestantism

» 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