Arrogance

[turtledude23]

Being certain of your beliefs, regardless of how much or little evidence you have for them, could be perceived as arrogant by some people. Does arrogance prevent one from polarizing STO? I think this also ties into my conformity thread since arrogance can be a defense mechanism to maintain one's independence of thought.

[Oldern]

Being certain in your own beliefs, imho, should not result in arrogance. Being certain that others are wrong in their beliefs is what gets that plus, that added touch, that which can be interpreted as arrogance.

Let us just say we have a basic premise. The premise being: every consciousness here, on planet earth, get its kicks, its catalysts and its experiences out of sending out a belief system and getting a feedback. Therefore, there is no right and wrong belief system.

Now, we can go deeper, but ultimately, when you are in "service of others" mentality, it is not about being right, but providing a good example, recognizing when you can actually help others, and when you cannot. These are not easy tasks, especially when one needs to realize when he cant help with saying stuff about what is good in life "for ya". I am constantly being guilty of that, but I am trying to accept that part of me as well. It is almost inevitable for my type of persona before proper wisdom is attained. Or so I would like to believe

[Plenum]

at the heart of arrogance would seem to be an inability to see the fundamental equality between two beings.

that would seem to make it a green ray blockage, or something to do with the heart and lack of empathy/compassion.

as Monica has tried to point out, many of our animal farming practices would speak to such an 'arrogance' of life; that man rules over all others and that raising meat the cheapest way is the only way. That's not a knock on meat eating but rather the methods employed widely currently today.

I'm sure you have met 'arrogant professors' at university, whose rule is 'law' and more humble teachers who will talk to first year students off-the-clock and try to answer even very simple questions.

[Monica]

I don't think certainty necessarily leads to arrogance; rather, the arrogance is a result of being unwilling to consider other perspectives, and unwilling to change or adapt one's beliefs if they are proven no longer useful.

One can be certain, while still willing to change or adapt, should better information be presented. Humility is being willing to consider new information and different perspectives, instead of staying stuck in the now-obsolete beliefs, or being limited by only a single perspective.

[Meerie]

Interesting ideas, being certain of one's beliefs, regardless of whether there is evidence one has, and you are linking it to a defense mechanism...
I noticed sometimes people who act very sure of their beliefs get defensive when someone else questions those.
Like Ra apparently said never to take what they say as gospel but still many do.. someone even mentioned "I don't care if it is truth or not because I believe it" the other day.
I guess it is normal in a way.
But where does "defensiveness" then come into play? if one is really so sure about their beliefs it should not matter whether someone else questions them.
Doesn't that actually mean they are not sure and therefore react to others questioning them?
And could what sometimes translates as arrogance then simply be an attempt to mask that insecurity?

[Oldern]

"And could what sometimes translates as arrogance then simply be an attempt to mask that insecurity? "

Good point, Meerie! Usually, it is definitely the case, I would say.

[spero]

there's a transcript by quo that sorta deals with this. its not exactly relevant since it talks more about sts entities wishing to polarize positively but at the very least it gives a working definition of arrogance versus pride and how to polarize positively when wisdom is in abundance

http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is..._0414.aspx

excerpt

The chief stumbling block to one overbalanced in wisdom is a basic attitude with which this instrument is familiar that she calls pride. When she sees this element of character within herself, she confesses her pride.

However, we would perhaps use the term arrogance rather than pride. In pride, there is a conscious element: one is proud of something. There is a quantitative aspect to this concept of emotive structure. We do not wish to indicate that there is any conscious aspect to the structure involved in those who are wise at the expense of love. Therefore, we suggest the term arrogance, for arrogance is an unconscious attribute carried by those who are aware of the efficacy of their thinking processes.

We would say to those whose profile matches this distortion that it is time to become willing to be grounded in humility.

[Meerie]

Makes sense they link it to wisdom, love and arrogance don't seem to go well together

[Ashim]

Arrogance is your ego's response to what your soul knows to be correct.
It is the resistance between cultural programming and true self knowledge.
'Cockyness'.

[Monica]

Interesting ideas, being certain of one's beliefs, regardless of whether there is evidence one has, and you are linking it to a defense mechanism...
I noticed sometimes people who act very sure of their beliefs get defensive when someone else questions those.
Like Ra apparently said never to take what they say as gospel but still many do.. someone even mentioned "I don't care if it is truth or not because I believe it" the other day.
I guess it is normal in a way.
But where does "defensiveness" then come into play? if one is really so sure about their beliefs it should not matter whether someone else questions them.
Doesn't that actually mean they are not sure and therefore react to others questioning them?
And could what sometimes translates as arrogance then simply be an attempt to mask that insecurity?

Good questions. I agree completely. Most of the time, when someone gets defensive, they probably aren't as sure of their beliefs as they think they are. Other times, though, they might just be annoyed at the closed-mindedness of others.

Either way, there is something to be learned!

[Marc]

I had a conversation with a Christian the other day... They were wondering what my beliefs were. I shared, and didn't shy away from exposing the fear based doctrine of hell. As they defended hell I proceeded to show through careful studying how the bible mentions no such thing. In my explanation, my wife said I seemed prideful.

There are lines, I believe: there are personal beliefs which cannot be proven or disproven, and there are facts on the outside which are necessarily true. I do not try to change beliefs, but if there are faulty facts that one wishes to impose on me, could I not offer my services in shedding light on the fault? To cross the line into changing another's belief is an abridging of free will, but to share reason and clear data and facts, is that?

Socrates' life seems to show a life of love for people. He loved people so much that he would shed light on illogical thought patterns and unreasonable ways of living. His service to mankind was not liked and, to me, he came across as arrogant at times. But after he was tried and killed, the world grew in reason and pursuit of truth. Was his way arrogant or an abridging of free will?

[AnthroHeart]

Is it arrogant to correct someone else's grammar? Especially if English might not be their first language.

[Ashim]

Is it arrogant to correct someone else's grammar? Especially if English might not be their first language.

I usually go over my posts regarding spelling and grammar but must miss a few mistakes froim time to time.
I don't think that this is relevant. The intent is always clear regardless of grammar. I think it is ok to be corrected - my spanish teacher always made a point of not giving me a reply until I had spoken with correct grammar.
I told my wife (who is German) to always correct me if I made a mistake.
It depends on the 'tone' I guess.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Monica]

I had a conversation with a Christian the other day... They were wondering what my beliefs were. I shared, and didn't shy away from exposing the fear based doctrine of hell. As they defended hell I proceeded to show through careful studying how the bible mentions no such thing. In my explanation, my wife said I seemed prideful.

There are lines, I believe: there are personal beliefs which cannot be proven or disproven, and there are facts on the outside which are necessarily true. I do not try to change beliefs, but if there are faulty facts that one wishes to impose on me, could I not offer my services in shedding light on the fault? To cross the line into changing another's belief is an abridging of free will, but to share reason and clear data and facts, is that?

Socrates' life seems to show a life of love for people. He loved people so much that he would shed light on illogical thought patterns and unreasonable ways of living. His service to mankind was not liked and, to me, he came across as arrogant at times. But after he was tried and killed, the world grew in reason and pursuit of truth. Was his way arrogant or an abridging of free will?

I wouldn't dream of going up to someone coming out of a church and blasting their bible beliefs. That would be violating their free will. But, if they start the conversation by proselytizing to me, or by joining an online discussion about religion/spirituality, or by bringing up the topic at a holiday gathering or whatever, then hey, they opted in! So on some level they are inviting me to share my views.

So it really depends on how the conversation is started, and whether the person continues the interaction. If they clearly are trying to get away, then the STO thing is to let them go. But if they persist, then they must want to hear what we have to say!

It's interesting that you told the Christian that hell isn't mentioned in the Bible. To me, that is still sharing the same basic premise: that the bible is some sort of an authority. Were I in that conversation, I wouldn't even try to use the bible to prove anything, but would question why one would want to believe ancient books, written by primitive humans, in the first place.

[Marc]

For me, discovering that hell wasn't in the bible is what freed me from viewing it as an authority. It takes away the fear from exploring spirituality. Most all of Christian philosophy and theology is based on hell and if you take out hell, the teachings are very very much different. It releases people to the love of the creator instead of the fear of it. Also, if people stake everything they believe on a certain book, its probably a wise thing to know what it truly says and the whole history behind it coming into 'authority'. I like to come to a certain level to exchange views that are a common denominator. Although Jesus was very different than Jews, he used their existing mythology to share his wisdom. I've learned to speak the language of the people I talk with instead of trying to teach them my language, its a bit more efficient.

And I agree, the person must ask for me to share.

[AnthroHeart]

I know Jesus mentioned weeping and gnashing of teeth a lot. Does that not refer to hell? In Matthew 13:42, he mentions "They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Here's many references to the "weeping and gnashing of teeth"

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/...ersion=NIV

[Monica]

For me, discovering that hell wasn't in the bible is what freed me from viewing it as an authority. It takes away the fear from exploring spirituality. Most all of Christian philosophy and theology is based on hell and if you take out hell, the teachings are very very much different. It releases people to the love of the creator instead of the fear of it. Also, if people stake everything they believe on a certain book, its probably a wise thing to know what it truly says and the whole history behind it coming into 'authority'. I like to come to a certain level to exchange views that are a common denominator. Although Jesus was very different than Jews, he used their existing mythology to share his wisdom. I've learned to speak the language of the people I talk with instead of trying to teach them my language, its a bit more efficient.

And I agree, the person must ask for me to share.

Ah, I see! :idea:

[Marc]

He only referred to karma, not eternal damnation.

[Monica]

He only referred to karma, not eternal damnation.

That is most likely true. The real issue about the concept of a place of suffering isn't whether it exists or not. Clearly, extreme suffering exists, even extreme torture. It could be argued that this planet is already a hell for many of its inhabitants! The real issue is whether it's permanent.

It's the idea of a place of eternal suffering that I find abhorrent...no chance of ever escaping, and souls are sent there just because they didn't believe the right book? shudder I find that extremely offensive and STS in nature...totally elitist. And, it causes otherwise well-intentioned Christians to close their hearts to friends and family who aren't 'saved' - how can one continue to love someone who is destined to be permanently separated?

What blows my mind is that their fear is so strong, that they are willing to cut off their love from spouses, mothers, sisters, sons and daughters, in order to keep their ticket, while being willing to accept a 'god' who would sentence their loved ones to eternal torture. That is just soooooo creepy!

Also, who knows what Jesus really said? The gospels were all written several decades after his death.

[AnthroHeart]

I'm sure the Michael Newton books I ordered will clear up some of the uncertainty I have around these issues. I agree with you Monica.

[xise]

I find truth in concepts, not in facts.

More and more of my discussion about spirituality revolves less about what someone or some book said as an authority, but rather the logical and heartfelt consistency and coherency of the concepts involved.

You mind can be fooled into believing certain facts, but your heart knows the truth of certain concepts. Does an all loving God have eternal damnation and judgement? The concepts in the question itself reveal the answer.

[turtledude23]

Interesting ideas, being certain of one's beliefs, regardless of whether there is evidence one has, and you are linking it to a defense mechanism...
I noticed sometimes people who act very sure of their beliefs get defensive when someone else questions those.
Like Ra apparently said never to take what they say as gospel but still many do.. someone even mentioned "I don't care if it is truth or not because I believe it" the other day.
I guess it is normal in a way.
But where does "defensiveness" then come into play? if one is really so sure about their beliefs it should not matter whether someone else questions them.
Doesn't that actually mean they are not sure and therefore react to others questioning them?
And could what sometimes translates as arrogance then simply be an attempt to mask that insecurity?

I didn't say defensiveness, I said defence mechanism: being "arrogant" protects yourself from beliefs you consider untrue.

Arrogance may be tied to intuition: if someone strongly trusts their intuition then they will hold on to their beliefs even if they can not provide "adequate" evidence to support them. Of course holding on to beliefs when clearly proven wrong is different.

I ask because I was accused of confirmation bias for believing in conspiracy theories, but as far as I know everyone has confirmation bias so basically I was accused of being imperfect. Frankly the person who attacked my beliefs did so in an emotional and unwarranted manner leading me to believe that they have some unresolved issue tied to the topic. I took it as catalyst to process and momentarily challenged my beliefs but they still held up to my internal logic. Does that come across as arrogant?

[Monica]

I said defence mechanism: being "arrogant" protects yourself from beliefs you consider untrue.

I would say being closed-minded does that. But one can be closed-minded without being arrogant, and vice versa.

There is usually fear hiding being arrogance.

I ask because I was accused of confirmation bias for believing in conspiracy theories, but as far as I know everyone has confirmation bias so basically I was accused of being imperfect. Frankly the person who attacked my beliefs did so in an emotional and unwarranted manner leading me to believe that they have some unresolved issue tied to the topic. I took it as catalyst to process and momentarily challenged my beliefs but they still held up to my internal logic. Does that come across as arrogant?

Standing firm in your beliefs, after examining them and finding the valid, isn't arrogant. You did good to momentarily challenge your own beliefs, to see if they held up. That isn't arrogance; it's humility. You were willing to change your stance and that's commendable! It just so happened in this case that it wasn't necessary to change your stance, because your beliefs held up.

Those who lash out or ridicule conspiracy theorists usually have a lot of fear. For example, they cannot process the idea that their own government attacked its own citizens - it would shake up their cherished concepts of exceptionalism and elitism so prevalent in religion and politics - so they shut their minds to the glaring, irrefutable evidence. Either that or they have something to gain by perpetuating the lie.

In any case, if you've examined your beliefs and found them logically sound, but the other person chooses to attack or ridicule you because of them, to stand firm isn't necessarily arrogant. It might be foolish (since you're probably wasting your time trying to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced) and it might even be imposing on their free will (depending on the situation), but those are separate issues/catalysts and not necessarily arrogance.

[turtledude23]

I said defence mechanism: being "arrogant" protects yourself from beliefs you consider untrue.

I would say being closed-minded does that. But one can be closed-minded without being arrogant, and vice versa.

There is usually fear hiding being arrogance.

I ask because I was accused of confirmation bias for believing in conspiracy theories, but as far as I know everyone has confirmation bias so basically I was accused of being imperfect. Frankly the person who attacked my beliefs did so in an emotional and unwarranted manner leading me to believe that they have some unresolved issue tied to the topic. I took it as catalyst to process and momentarily challenged my beliefs but they still held up to my internal logic. Does that come across as arrogant?

Standing firm in your beliefs, after examining them and finding the valid, isn't arrogant. You did good to momentarily challenge your own beliefs, to see if they held up. That isn't arrogance; it's humility. You were willing to change your stance and that's commendable! It just so happened in this case that it wasn't necessary to change your stance, because your beliefs held up.

Those who lash out or ridicule conspiracy theorists usually have a lot of fear. For example, they cannot process the idea that their own government attacked its own citizens - it would shake up their cherished concepts of exceptionalism and elitism so prevalent in religion and politics - so they shut their minds to the glaring, irrefutable evidence. Either that or they have something to gain by perpetuating the lie.

In any case, if you've examined your beliefs and found them logically sound, but the other person chooses to attack or ridicule you because of them, to stand firm isn't necessarily arrogant. It might be foolish (since you're probably wasting your time trying to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced) and it might even be imposing on their free will (depending on the situation), but those are separate issues/catalysts and not necessarily arrogance.

Thanks Monica, that was helpful.