Respect For A Human Being's Intelligence
The other day I was engaged in various religious and political debates and/or discussions with one ofmy friends with whom I frequently have such conversations. An interesting exchange took place that I would like to expound upon. First, however, is the advanced warning. Since I ruffled some feathers a little while ago I will warn people in advance this time. The comments that I made to him, which I will be relaying here due to their bearing on the entire post will be seen as offensive by some of you. No apology. Just fair warning.
He stated something to the extent that while the bible was not the foundation for me, it was a foundation for me as well. My response was that I gave the bible some credit because She wrote it. He found this comment offensive. (Go figure.)
I got to thinking about this later on, though, and realized that this actually didn't make sense. After all, we have had many conversations in which we have discussed a difference of opinion as to who is at the root of all that is, and this isn't offensive, yet the authorship of this book is a sore point? I would think the copyright on man would be a bigger issue than on a book.
Then my mind turned to a conversation MC and I had several months ago that, I think, addresses this situation. (Took me long enough, didn't it MC?) He and I were talking after my daughter was baptized, and he pointed out that many of those from both my family and Martha's likely have their own ideas about why we had her baptized. That many of them saw me as being rebellious or dabbling with this "false religion" but being unwilling to risk my own daughter in the same foolishness. As if I didn't take my own religion and belief seriously, or they arrogantly believed that somewhere deep inside I knew that I was wrong.
I think this kind of mentality, whether my anonymous friend realizes it or not, is at the root of the question of why this single comment is this great offense while the rest of the conversation isn't. Its as if he (and other similarly minded) sees it like my imaginary friend suddenly got delusions of grandeur. In this light, it seems that this comment shouldn't have been offensive to him, but rather his reaction along those lines should have been offensive to me. Moreso because there was no question as to what I meant when I said it.
This lack of question could point to several possibilities. One being that he knew already, or based on what he has pieced together about my beliefs thought he did, and thus his reaction would insinuate a dismissal of the possibility of a valid discussion of the position and a voiding of all such discussions we had thus far. The second would be that he dismissed the possibility that I was presenting a position at all, thus once again being the offender in this meeting of minds.
You see, the issue is that I wasn't presenting a new position at all. This wasn't an out of the blue remark. This was a continuation of positions I have held all along. Yet this one remark is the second most offensive he has ever heard.
Since my comments were a simple and logical extension of the position I have repeatedly presented, in response to his interpretation of my position, this comment should have been expected. Any offense should already exist and/or have been dealt with. Unless he was not paying attention in our numerous debates, or behaving like the other group mentioned and not giving me sufficient credit for having established beliefs.
The point behind this ranting about these two situations? I have been straight forward in dealing with you folks, and given credit even to those I disagreed with. It is you, Mr. "second most offended" that insulted me. It is you folks presuming why my daughter was baptized that insult me. Many of the rest of you who quietly presume this is rebellion or a phase insult me. Should you care? Not necessarily. Just pointing out that this flows both ways. Consider that particularly next time you want to say that I offended you. Ask yourself if my comments are a surprise, or are any different then what I have been saying all along. If you have any reason to be offended now when you weren't before.
Or don't. It's just one more choice in life, or something close to it.
He stated something to the extent that while the bible was not the foundation for me, it was a foundation for me as well. My response was that I gave the bible some credit because She wrote it. He found this comment offensive. (Go figure.)
I got to thinking about this later on, though, and realized that this actually didn't make sense. After all, we have had many conversations in which we have discussed a difference of opinion as to who is at the root of all that is, and this isn't offensive, yet the authorship of this book is a sore point? I would think the copyright on man would be a bigger issue than on a book.
Then my mind turned to a conversation MC and I had several months ago that, I think, addresses this situation. (Took me long enough, didn't it MC?) He and I were talking after my daughter was baptized, and he pointed out that many of those from both my family and Martha's likely have their own ideas about why we had her baptized. That many of them saw me as being rebellious or dabbling with this "false religion" but being unwilling to risk my own daughter in the same foolishness. As if I didn't take my own religion and belief seriously, or they arrogantly believed that somewhere deep inside I knew that I was wrong.
I think this kind of mentality, whether my anonymous friend realizes it or not, is at the root of the question of why this single comment is this great offense while the rest of the conversation isn't. Its as if he (and other similarly minded) sees it like my imaginary friend suddenly got delusions of grandeur. In this light, it seems that this comment shouldn't have been offensive to him, but rather his reaction along those lines should have been offensive to me. Moreso because there was no question as to what I meant when I said it.
This lack of question could point to several possibilities. One being that he knew already, or based on what he has pieced together about my beliefs thought he did, and thus his reaction would insinuate a dismissal of the possibility of a valid discussion of the position and a voiding of all such discussions we had thus far. The second would be that he dismissed the possibility that I was presenting a position at all, thus once again being the offender in this meeting of minds.
You see, the issue is that I wasn't presenting a new position at all. This wasn't an out of the blue remark. This was a continuation of positions I have held all along. Yet this one remark is the second most offensive he has ever heard.
Since my comments were a simple and logical extension of the position I have repeatedly presented, in response to his interpretation of my position, this comment should have been expected. Any offense should already exist and/or have been dealt with. Unless he was not paying attention in our numerous debates, or behaving like the other group mentioned and not giving me sufficient credit for having established beliefs.
The point behind this ranting about these two situations? I have been straight forward in dealing with you folks, and given credit even to those I disagreed with. It is you, Mr. "second most offended" that insulted me. It is you folks presuming why my daughter was baptized that insult me. Many of the rest of you who quietly presume this is rebellion or a phase insult me. Should you care? Not necessarily. Just pointing out that this flows both ways. Consider that particularly next time you want to say that I offended you. Ask yourself if my comments are a surprise, or are any different then what I have been saying all along. If you have any reason to be offended now when you weren't before.
Or don't. It's just one more choice in life, or something close to it.
posted by Wanderer at 12:07 AM
11 Comments:
hey Steve. sorry you've had some more of those conversations. I promise i will try very hard not to add to your frustration this time! ;-)
for the record, (though you didn't ask), i wondered about the baptism but figured that if you wanted to explain it you would and until then it was none of my business. besides, you never really said what kind of baptism it was.
you've clearly written plenty of times that you consider the goddess to be creator. what i didn't know is that you credit the bible to her. is that what you meant? I'm not offended, just trying to clarify. And, to save time, if your answer is yes, why do you then give it only some credit? If i've totally misread you here, i apologize. i try to read a lot in the mornings in a very short time.
I had her baptized because her parents practice two different religions. She will grow up being aware of both. She will ultimately decide for herself which, if either, she believes. As several of the Christian traditions, including ones she is personally surrounded by, baptize their children at a young age and have reasons for doing so, I would look like a hypocrite if I say down the line "You have to come to your own realizations about who and what God is, but if you are figuring the christians are right, you have some serious catching up to do."
Now the bible thing:
"you've clearly written plenty of times that you consider the goddess to be creator."
I write a story within which a character writes a poem. If that poem exists fully in my story, who wrote it? The character, or myself?
More significant to this particular book: Those who wrote it, and many of those who read it, feel that those writings were inspired by God. If that is true, one must identify who that God is. Since I have laid out there several times that your God does not exist independent of Her, well, who inspired the book?
Why do I only give it some credit? Because some of the teachings weren't supposed to be permanent. Some of them had reasons for the time. Some are philosophical lessons. I give it credit for what it was supposed to be. A guide. On the flip side, there are aspects I don't give it credit for. It is in fact outdated in some areas, as even the believers of its sanctity agree but don't admit out loud. It was also translated by man. Consider the concept of a scientist with important information for mankind. The problem is that the only way he can get that information across is to tell it to a fourth grader so he can write it down. He might just transcribe even those things he doesn't understand properly, or he might not. In either case he can't answer the questions the readers have.
The bible was inspired by God. It was inspired by Her. It is also not completely accurate.
If you or others are wondering about my comments about logical extensions of my positions, review some of the "Mother Posts" in the archive linked under my wolf. A Different POV points to the fact that when I get in these debates with the Christians we speak of the same God. In Disappointed Mother (the one where you asked why I speak for her) the same connection is made. Slightly more clearly when discussing the names. The following A Mother's Response goes a step further when She refers to one of my christian friends as one of Her children.
I searched through them all, certain She had made a comment at least once about having sent teachers and books. She hinted once at this in one of the posts but didn't come right out and say it.
that clarifies. thank you.
I still don't understand laying claim to the Bible.
Why would you say it was inspired by the Goddess when it's clearly a text of a different religion?
Why isn't it separate from your religion?
As an atheist I believe it's just a book, written by mortals, and containing no special truth. I don't understand why this view would be less probable than the one you presented.
Were the Torah, Koran, Lotus Sutra, and those golden plates supposedly found in Elmira, NY, also written by the goddess?
If not, what makes the bible special amongst them?
Serious question.
Some other thoughts:
If your position will be that all sacred texts were handed down by the goddess in various forms owing to difference in scribe, and the reason they're all different and contradictory is simply who copied them down from the deity in question, then what if I involve a "sacred text" believed by millions to be spiritually true but known to non-retards not to be?
Was Dianetics written by the Goddess?
If not, what makes the bible more true than Dianetics?
I am not insulting you the way whats-his-name did. I realize that you are on a journey, not at a destination. I just wonder if this current reasoning isn't a tad reminiscent of the Wicca days when you used to claim Jesus was "the most powerful sorceror" ever born.
Are you grafting your beliefs onto other more established religions to lend credence and credibility, like tying a sapling to an oak?
Again, all serious questions. Think your way through them. If they're all stupid questions, so be it, but don't avoid the challenge of figuring them out if they aren't. I'm not assuming you will have to amend anything, but if you do, remember the journey versus destination comment. It's better to be right for the right reason than to avoid any perceived "losing face", especially since it's nothing of the sort.
Incidentally, if you feel the need, feel free to remind everyone of the retarded assertions I've made on my own path and then tried to back up with reason and couldn't because they were not reasonable and had to recant after having already said them.
Just off the top of my head, remember when I said religion should be punishable by death and then tried to back that up with reason? Didn't work out as I recall.
Also, remember when my belief was that all of us humans were equally gods and there were no gods but us? That particular platform was struck down by definition of terms, of all things. I mean, stuff happens when you're shooting from the hip, as all of those who are not being told what to believe are doing.
All right, here we go MC. :) (Or we will as soon as I smoke, chat with the germans and replenish my jokes. Don't worry, I doubt you will even notice the delay.)
I was going to respond in more of an essay format than the cut and paste fashion, but then I decided that while that might save a little actual space the clarity provided in regards to which points I was addressing might be preferable. While there are one or two joking comments to minor points, I want to head off the risk that my responses might be misinterpreted. I understand they were legitemate, serious questions, and I believe I have given serious answers. If I come across as being defensive or facetious, I am sure it is merely an error in my attempt to communicate what I am thinking:
"I still don't understand laying claim to the Bible."
I am not, and was not laying claim to the bible. The statement was rather more oriented toward the fact that any divine inspiration the text might have at its source would be from Her, as She is the only possible source of divine inspiration. A reflection of the position that their god is a reflection of the god, which exists because of Her as a tool and a subordinate. Here I will get a little offensive toward them again, but no different really than MaryEllen calling the Goddess a demon. I am hoping, as this post indicated to begin with, that this is again a reflection of my different religion, not an attack. The god, to use terms familiar to them, would be semi-akin to an archangel. Even if he inspired, it was for Her.
"Why would you say it was inspired by the Goddess when it's clearly a text of a different religion?"
Bear in mind that the bible would not have been written as a direct transcription of god's words. It was written by men who were reacting to what they thought their god wanted. By supposed prophets, some of which may have in fact spoken with the god or the Goddess, many of whom probably didn't. You also have the inevitable interjection of man into the equation, altering things as he thinks more likely to be correct. The result of such a combination is that the men will frequently get it wrong, and only occasionally get it right. The bible would be this scenario in book form.
"Why isn't it separate from your religion?"
It is.
"As an atheist I believe it's just a book, written by mortals, and containing no special truth. I don't understand why this view would be less probable than the one you presented."
I imagine it isn't less probable. I tend to agree with you somewhat on this. There are some valid teachings in it though, whether they were accidental or inspired.
"Were the Torah, Koran, Lotus Sutra, and those golden plates supposedly found in Elmira, NY, also written by the goddess?"
I believe I basically covered my thoughts on these in the first two points of this response. Although the mormon deal probably closer resembles my "Mother" posts (in nature, not substance) than it does the other books.
"If not, what makes the bible special amongst them?"
Nothing. I just happen to know more of it. I should note for the record that my wording in this piece and some of my other conversations may have been somewhat misleading. I don't hold the bible up as a sacred text to me. I do quote it in conversations with Christians, but that isn't because I take it as god's word. (If you think I am contradicting myself now, then I failed to articulate points 1 and 2. Let me know and I will try again.) I do it because the people I am speaking to take is as their god's word. The fact that I quote it at times regarding my own beliefs is also not a tell in my opinion. I also quote novels, movies and books.
"Was Dianetics written by the Goddess?"
I hope not.
"If not, what makes the bible more true than Dianetics?"
Most likely accident as much as anything else.
"I am not insulting you the way whats-his-name did. I realize that you are on a journey, not at a destination. I just wonder if this current reasoning isn't a tad reminiscent of the Wicca days when you used to claim Jesus was 'the most powerful sorceror' ever born."
At most, that is probably what he was. I do see what you are saying and will not only say I see the validity of your concern but am glad that I have you around to make me double check myself. If my responses here don't lead you to think this isn't quite so reminiscent of that time period, please let me know, and feel free to draw more parallels. As you said, I am on a journey, and if I need to backtrack or take detours, I am not concerned about that.
"Are you grafting your beliefs onto other more established religions to lend credence and credibility, like tying a sapling to an oak?"
Objectively addressing this from your horticultural approach I would suspect if anything it was more of a "grown from the same soil" thing than grafting. In reality, though, I am not tying myself to their beliefs, but I do address parallels, and I do speak to them from more their perspective than mine. An act of helping a person on a faith journey without proselytizing too much. Apparently this gives some wrong impressions of where I actually stand. My fault, nobody elses. If I don't speak, who is to know?
"Again, all serious questions. Think your way through them. If they're all stupid questions, so be it, but don't avoid the challenge of figuring them out if they aren't. I'm not assuming you will have to amend anything, but if you do, remember the journey versus destination comment. It's better to be right for the right reason than to avoid any perceived "losing face", especially since it's nothing of the sort."
None of these were stupid questions, and I actually am thankful that you engaged my mind with them and led me to look beyond the surface of my own beliefs. Hopefully, over time, there will be many more rounds.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
First, one nitpick: I could be wrong but I'm sure the Mormon thing was supposed to be a revelation; i.e. a message handed down from God to man, like the Koran is supposed to be, as opposed to an intentional and overt work of fiction like your Mother posts. And I don't mean fiction like I do when I say the bible is fiction, I mean you don't intend it to be a literal representation of events.
So, what you're saying, if I understand correctly, is:
The goddess did not "write the bible." You're only saying that if the bible was divinely inspired, then by definition they were inspired by the goddess.
If that's the extent of what you're saying then, fine, that makes perfect sense to me, if you assume your premise.
I'd advise you to make less parallels and references (or disclaim them when you do it) to Christian tradition and texts in the future because it does lend the impression that you give special credence to that faith, implying the same message as we discussed on your porch that day.
For instance, when you said Jesus was a powerful sorceror, the only source you have to believe he had any particular power is the text of a different religion. It's not logical to believe the descriptions of miracles performed but not the rest of the content, so it implies to the reader (at least it does to me) that you believe the bible, and what's more, you do so as a matter of faith (why else would you? Maybe 1% of what's written in itcan be backed up by historians or evidence). For very logical reasons, it's easy to equate belief that Jesus had some special power with belief in Christianity. As I said before, otherwise you'd have to articulate why you'd believe in Jesus but not his message.
I still disagree about the gender of the deity. First and foremost, it's illogical for a deity to even have a gender. Deities produce via will, not biology, thus relegating gender useless. Also, identification with a gender is inconsistent with the nature of a deity because to identify with one gender over the other implies a limiting of ability of the deity (it doesn't have positive "typically male" attributes, whereas in theory it should have all positive attributes). The argument that the deity is female because from it springs life is illogical, because religiously, as stated above, a deity creates by will, not by biological means, and biologically or symbolically speaking, a female can create nothing without a male (and vice versa, obviously), thus making the identification with one gender and exclusion of the other quite contradictory to the nature of the creator deity. Note that the female only plays a "greater" role in reproduction due to custody of gestation in most species. There are species in which the male is in charge of gestation (see seahorses). Why would you have a reason to categorize a deity as one type or the other?
Also, I object on logical grounds to the transliteration of the deity's gender by mortal or biased male authors. If a god came to you and presented a message to you, who the hell would you have to think you are to decide to change the message? Would you not fear angering the deity by contradicting and thus denying it? If you were inspired to tell others of the message, why would you choose to change or modify it? Also, if you saw the deity WAS female, why would you still disrespect the female gender? You KNOW god is female, after all.
The reason why I say that all of those things were true in the Christian text is because I believe that there are no special truths to it. As a total fabrication of mortals, there's no "real" message or toes to step on, and thus all of the above shenanigans occur. I don't see why they would if the message were true.
There are a couple of points I would like to respond to, and I say this now only because you know I am awake and reading it. However, 6am is real early, so I won't be actually addressing them until tomorrow. (An advantage since I will need some time to think about some of it, since you have to be a bastard and not offer only easy arguments.)
"First, one nitpick: I could be wrong but I'm sure the Mormon thing was supposed to be a revelation; i.e. a message handed down from God to man, like the Koran is supposed to be, as opposed to an intentional and overt work of fiction like your Mother posts. And I don't mean fiction like I do when I say the bible is fiction, I mean you don't intend it to be a literal representation of events."
Unlike the Koran, bible, etc..., the knowledge handed down wasn't supposed to be the whole story. More of an adaptation, or additional set of chapters. To my understanding, they still use the bible as the basis, but simply have a new-new testament of sorts. I wasn't necessarily trashing the mormons, as much as making a slight differentiation on how I would approach my thinking on that particular book.
"So, what you're saying, if I understand correctly, is:
The goddess did not 'write the bible. You're only saying that if the bible was divinely inspired, then by definition they were inspired by the goddess."
You do indeed seem to understand the point correctly.
"I'd advise you to make less parallels and references (or disclaim them when you do it) to Christian tradition and texts in the future because it does lend the impression that you give special credence to that faith, implying the same message as we discussed on your porch that day."
I will bear that in mind. I do see what you are saying with your example. You are well aware of the fact that at that time I was much more combative towards christians than I am now, and those issues would lead to presenting a position such as that which was little more than combative.
"I still disagree about the gender of the deity. First and foremost, it's illogical for a deity to even have a gender."
It is agreed that for the purposes of reproduction, gender would be unnecessary, and that in truth She probably doesn't actually have one.
"Also, identification with a gender is inconsistent with the nature of a deity because to identify with one gender over the other implies a limiting of ability of the deity (it doesn't have positive 'typically male' attributes, whereas in theory it should have all positive attributes)."
Fair enough. However, it must be born in mind that "typically male" attributes are not exclusively found there.
I am not attempting to short change you on the greater answer here. You know I have attempted to answer this out here once. Poorly. I will admit that at this point I don't fully have an answer. I will work on it. Moreso particularly if we discuss it a few more times.
"Also, I object on logical grounds to the transliteration of the deity's gender by mortal or biased male authors. If a god came to you and presented a message to you, who the hell would you have to think you are to decide to change the message?"
In regards to this, that isn't completely what I was indicating. Sure, angering the deity could be a problem, unless you consider the fact that one might thing it more important that the message of what that deity wanted from their people would sit much better if there was a chance that your message was believed. The insinuation of culture into it wouldn't have been an overt attempt to change the god's words, but more likely an attempt to do what they could with what they had to work with. Look at the christians modifying stories to compare them to pagan stories, and make them more palatable.
You for one know how little the truth impacts what people believe. If you combine all of the religions, toss in atheism, then you seem to cover all of the bases. The truth isn't winning, whichever it in fact is.
I still haven't gotten around to putting it online, and I owe something else to another first, but the biggest issue with the paragraph quoted from above has to do with the fact that religion and its gods very rarely have much of anything to do with each other.
Post a Comment
<< Home