Is it possible to accept the message and reject the messenger?

I've noticed a tendency to ignore a great message from someone on the grounds that you think they're a complete wack job. While I don't think we should accept everything they say, I do think that they might have some good to accomplish with the message they deliver.

We have UFO nutjobs like Alex Collier and Billy Meier who deliver messages that are completely sane, even if the sources they claim it's from aren't. By ignoring the message, we certainly discredit the messenger, but we also ignore a truth on the grounds that there are lies next to it (guilt by association, as it were). Is there a way that a message can be accepted and yet not need to include the craziness that surrounds it?

Answers need to be submitted by August 3rd, 2008. The most complete answer will win the 10 points. Feel free to email me for clarifications on any point.

Update:

I rejected Yahoo Messenger's message, but I accepted Messenger itself... silly spammers!

I also wanted to add that I'd like justification for why people don't accept the message more often, even if the messenger is completely incredible.

Update 2:

But, Deenie, is it possible that the message they give is a productive one?

7 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Hi

    Okay here is a simple answer.Yes. Look at the music we enjoy.

    Sometimes the person who produced the song and sings it may not be an ideal model of a human, yet we like some of their songs because they are personally appealing to us in one way or another. Yet, it is common that we would never admit to enjoying that artist's music for fear of being judged by our peers. I will refer to Michael Jackson as an example.

    His music is enjoyed by millions but the guy has some issues. Do people quit listening? No. Will the majority admit to liking him and agreeing with his lifestyle -no.

    We are given free will to process any information in the manner we wish. Sometimes there is a method to someone's madness or they may simply see the end result of a concept we are not prepared to mentally embrace yet.

    Lemonade can be made out of lemons even if the tree is not in an orchard. :O)

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes!!! Since He was born, His presence - His very existence - and message have been denied. His words have been ridiculed, His footsteps a lie!!! For some he exists, but His message questioned. For others, the words are powerful, but He never walked in our world. It is so sad that faith - or lack there of - is getting nations, countries, peoples, & families killed. For some, there is the messenger; for others there is the message. From the beginning of time, both can't be put together. To do that would be admitting wrongdoing. To believe the messenger, the message is false: to believe the message, no messenger could deliver!!!

    Source(s): My inner soul!!!
  • 1 decade ago

    Yes Red, it is very possible to accept the message and reject the messanger. I have learned in my life that God , Fate, the stars, or whatever... can still use us or others in spite of ourselves - themselves.

    The world would be very short on messengers if they only had people who totally respected and believed in them. Being frail humans it is impossible to find such a person.

    Also look through the thorns and find that amazing rose.

    Don't judge a book by it's cover.

    this is me trying to be humorous. LOL

    Even considering myself. I find my self full of beliefs and information that I freely give if given the chance.

    Your question is sort of like, don't shoot the messenger because of the message. Sort of kind of...well maybe or maybe not. *smile*

    Source(s): My brain
  • Deenie
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    This is my answer even though it looks like a question. Would you believe that at church God would speak through someone who is totally evil and has done you and others great harm? There are some people who no good can possibly come out of...no matter what they say. This probably isn't the case with the person you mentioned.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Thomas Jefferson accepted the message of Jesus, but rejected the messenger of the Bible; so he created his own. We call it the Jefferson Bible, and you can find it online, but he called it "The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth."

    Thomas Paine, and all of the Deist Founding Fathers, felt the same way. Paine wrote "The Age of Reason," the most telling example ever written of the falsity of the Bible; yet he professed to love the message of Jesus and said no better message has ever been delivered to man.

    Oddly, the atheist Ayn Rand also said Jesus was good. As an atheist, she obviously rejected the Bible, whereas the Deists are not atheists.

    "There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.

    "This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul)."

    Ayn Rand http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/jesus.html

    Perhaps the Bible is the biggest "messenger" that has ever been rejected. We know it is the biggest messenger ever accepted.

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    i'm particular you study the quran and bible quite a few circumstances hahahaha Allah IS Jehovah - God the father. The muslims are descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's son. i'm particular you recognize all the small print, thinking you study the bible quite a few circumstances.

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes, one can accept the message and reject the messenger; and the reverse is also possible. The reasons can be expedient for pragmatic reasons due to urgency of a particular situation such as a fire or sinking boat; or expedient as a convenient excuse for lazy thinking. These are two edges to the same sword.

    Examples:

    Accepting Message and Rejecting Messenger-

    Children have done this with parents, parents with children, spouses with spouses, teachers with students,& students with teachers. A person can accept a message that his tire has a spike within it but reject or resent the messenger.

    The preconceived notions or prejudices regarding the messenger, or the station or presented image of the messenger, in the eyes of the receiver of the message; are due to Emotional insecurity, emotional immaturity, and inflated ego. Often the receiver will attribute the message as his own and not credit the messenger. This also in part is due to the perception of "projected personality". There are individuals whom have been slaves, servants, janitors, or members of an "untouchable class," that have been ignored or marginalized because they did not fit the image in the minds of others.

    Accepting Messenger and Rejecting Message-,

    Children have done this with parents, parents with children, spouses with spouses, teachers with students,& students with teachers.

    Again emotional insecurity, etc can play a part but in this instance it is a little different. The "projected personality" or image is worshiped but the message falls on a numb heart.

    For instance, there are those who claim to revere a Prophet, Saint, Teacher, or minister. Their focus is on the "projected personality," the message is immaterial to them and not as importance as the symbolism of the (a) messenger.

    The substance of the message is lost on these as pearls before swine.

    For instance, I have talked with many whom have seen the movie "The Passion". The movie has graphic violent torture scenes that caused many of these viewers to emote on behalf of the actor playing the part and also be appalled. What I find interesting is that these same viewers could not emote for those tortured in Bosina, Abu Grave, or Guantanamo Bay. Neither could they emote for Reginald Denny or Rodney King

    The depth of the message of "Doing unto others as they would desire done unto themselves," is lost.

    Sometimes those writing or professing a message lack the emotional maturity or the volition, to muster the bravery act consistently with the message that they have written. For example, Pres. Thomas Jefferson wrote ,"All Men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights." Yet he owned slaves until the day he died. He failed to make provisions for their release upon his death.

    It is evident from Jefferson's "Letters from Monticello" that he was in personal conflict regarding slavery. He wrote against the injustice of slavery and that the nation would be paying for it spiritually for a long time to come.

    Emotional maturity demands that we understand that anyone and everyone can be mistaken for a variety of reasons both intentional and unintentional for various agenda.

    We must use "all of the eyes" that we can perceive which are at our disposal. The eyes of compassion, reasoning, and common sense that reside within the self are useful tools in this regard.

    “The Boy Who Cried Wolf", is an example of one who created a track record for himself as a liar. Both his truthfulness or integrity and his believability or credibility was in question. One day the wolf did indeed come and slew the sheep. It is difficult to trust liars. The smart thing to do would have been to give the most trustworthy boy the task.

    It is best to be vigilant and discerning of not only the message and messenger, but also of ones own thought processes, emotions and motives.

    .

    You can never cheat an honest man, because the honest man is not looking to get something for nothing. We cheat ourselves when we fail to watchful of the message, messenger, ourselves and our motives. We also cheat ourselves when we do not investigate and analyze the motives of the messenger and the veracity of the conveyed message. We must sift through lies to find the facts to reconstruct the outcomes and scenarios that lead to the truth. We must gather all of the data and organize them in such fashion, while considering both the best and worst of Human natures that point to truths. We must be careful to consider the context of a message. Improper context can be misleading. Often times we are not using are abilities in the sharpest manner because of the tendency to believe things that feel comfortable to us. Historical messages as taught in schools or through popular media are often intentionally skewed and designed to condition the receiver of the message with symbols that fashion the manner in which one thinks. It is deceptive, but with a little work, truth can be gleaned from it. It is the same with religious,scientific & philosophical dogma.

    “History is a agreed upon lie”. –Voltaire

    Every fool has his story. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    Consider the source and th context of the message of the message as well the reasons you consider the messenger credible. Consider the integrity of the messenger. Then put the messenger and message in the proper perspective both generally and specifically.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.