Theological Ignorance
Posted: 24 October 2006 11:38 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2006-10-24

I am an atheist. This note might upset a few of you, but that is not my intent.

I was born into a catholic family and came to my own conclusions about the world through many years of research and contemplation.  I will try to help you help others do the same, because the discussion on these boards is appalling. 

Please consider this a primer on Christianity for those who seek to help people think beyond their faith.  Indeed, you my find some of the information unknown/misunderstood to many Christians and Protestants. 

Some of you, not all of you, are the example of ill-informed, intolerant, ramblers that you believe religious people to be.  You cannot further the cause of helping people question their faith if you cannot engage them in an intelligent discussion of their beliefs instead of defensive posturing (i.e. the name-calling, hop-scotch verse quoting and poor efforts to translate scripture). 

Many of you seem to imagine the Christian idea of God, if not exactly as Zeus, then at least as some kind of guy, however characterized.  You ask how this fellow can speak to billions of people simultaneously, commit atrocities or allow them to be performed, which is rather like wondering why, if George Bush is an octopus, he has only two arms. For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Dan Quayle arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or ‘existent’ in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including us. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my happiness and my right arm constitute a pair of objects.

Imagine a 4th-grader arguing on the constitutionality of Bush’s new anti-terrorism laws, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read your arguments on/against theology. Rationalists like yourselves (and Sam Harris, who many of you seem to follow with a slavish devotion that would make Jesus’ alleged apostles blush) are in a real way the least well equipped to understand what you castigate, since you don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why you come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith. 

Many of you consider that all faith is blind faith, and that Christian and Muslim people are raised to believe unquestioningly. Is this true? Not even the nuns who slapped me through elementary school thought that. For mainstream Christianity, reason, argument and honest doubt have always played an integral role in belief. (When I refer to Christians, I mean it in the original sense - the Catholic Church. A rudimentary knowledge of western history is sufficient to understand that Protestant groups, cut off from the complete doctrine of the Church, are necessarily deficient in their teachings and understandings of Christian theology and history. I make no apologies for the truth). 

Where, given it is rational to question everything, is the critique of science, objectivity, liberalism, atheism? Reason is obviously not fully embraced by believers, but it isn’t for many non-religious types either. Even you and I live more by faith than by reason. We hold many beliefs that have no rational justification, but are nonetheless reasonable to entertain. Only positivists think that ‘rational’ means ‘scientific’. And yet you flatly reject the reasonable case that science and religion are not in competition on the grounds that this insulates religion from rational inquiry.

But this is a mistake to claim that science and religion pose different questions to the world is not to suggest that if the bones of Jesus were discovered in Palestine, the pope should get himself down to the dole queue as fast as possible. It is rather to claim that while faith, rather like love, must involve factual knowledge, it is not reducible to it.

Christianity teaches that to claim that there is a God is reasonable, but that this is not at all the same thing as faith. Believing in God is not like concluding that aliens or the tooth fairy exist. God is not a celestial super-object or divine UFO, about whose existence we must remain agnostic until all the evidence is in. Christians do not believe that he is either inside or outside the universe, as several of you think they do. They think his transcendence and invisibility are part of what he is, which is not the case with the Loch Ness monster.

They believe therefore that God is not an obstacle to our autonomy and enjoyment but the power that allows us to be ourselves. Like the unconscious, he is closer to us than we are to ourselves. He is the source of our self-determination, not the erasure of it. To be dependent on him, as to be dependent on our friends, is viewed as matter of freedom and fulfillment.

Because they believe God is transcendent of us (which is another way of saying that he did not have to bring us about), he is free of any neurotic need for us and wants simply to be allowed to love us. Many of you postulate a God, by contrast, that is Satanic. Satan (‘accuser’ in Hebrew) is the misrecognition of God as Big Daddy and punitive judge, and God is often portrayed precisely as such a repulsive superego. Such a view of the Christian Supreme Being falsely plants the idea of a God of those who seek to avert divine wrath by sacrificing animals, being choosy in their diet and being impeccably well behaved. They cannot accept the scandal that God loves them just as they are, in all their moral shabbiness. You see Christianity in terms of a narrowly legalistic notion of atonement – of a brutally vindictive God sacrificing his own child in recompense for being offended – and describe the belief as vicious and obnoxious.

Jesus, to be frank, was a joke of a Messiah. As understood by catholic tradition, he was a clown-like parody of a leader who understood, so it would appear, that any regime not founded on solidarity with frailty and failure is bound to collapse under its own hubris. The symbol of that failure was his crucifixion. In this faith, he was true to the source of life he enigmatically called his Father, who in the guise of the Old Testament Yahweh tells the Hebrews that he hates their burnt offerings and that their incense stinks in his nostrils. They will know him for what he is, he reminds them, when they see the hungry being filled with good things and the rich being sent empty away.

Salvation for Christianity has to do with caring for the sick and welcoming the immigrant, protecting the poor from the violence of the rich. It is not a ‘religious’ affair at all, and demands no special clothing, ritual behaviour or fussiness about formal prayers.

Jesus hung out with whores and social outcasts, was remarkably casual about sex, disapproved of the family, urged people to be laid-back about property and possessions, warned his followers that they too would die violently, and insisted that the truth kills and divides as well as liberates. He also cursed self-righteous prigs and deeply alarmed the ruling class. 

The central doctrine of Christianity, then, is not that God is a bastard. It is that if you don’t love, you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you. That’s enough for now – I don’t want to get started on the misconstruing of Revelation as something going to happen in the future versus the symbolic history of the building of the early Church in Rome.  (History-yes, future? no).

Now it may well be that all this is no more plausible than the tooth fairy. Most reasoning people these days will see excellent grounds to reject it. But we have an intellectual obligation to confront that case at its most persuasive, rather than grabbing a victory on the cheap by savaging it as superstition and childish wishes. The mainstream theology I have just outlined may well not be true; but anyone who holds it is to be respected, whereas many reading this consider that no religious belief, anytime or anywhere, is worthy of any respect whatsoever. Even moderate religious views, you insist, are to be ferociously contested, since they can always lead to fanaticism.

The two most deadly texts on the planet are the Bible and the Koran; and several individuals have done a magnificent job over the years of speaking out against that particular strain of psychopathology known as fundamentalism, whether Texan or Taliban. I think you are right to repudiate the idea that one has to respect other people’s silly or obnoxious ideas just because they are other people’s. But you can do it with tact, politely and without being so appallingly bitchy about those who disagree with you and without being so theologically illiterate.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2006 11:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

Grls R smrtr, if this is an example of smarts, there is no hope for humanity!

LOL, boy, you are about as on target as an atheist in America spitting into the wind trying to hit Hawaii.

However, I will grant you this, you are smart by the world’s standards and smart by the mockers of God and deviants of society (including academia). Oh yes, by the world’s standards you….have ......arrived! Give this girl a c-gar…...

Of course, by God’s standards, you’re just a wheel spinning in the wind. Haven’t even got to the 101 of Godly wisdom. But you would need to humble yourself in the sight of the Lord and ask for wisdom from the Holy Spirit. Ever think about doing that? Thought not. Guess for some they seek approval of the world rather than approval of God.

A friend of the world is an enemy of God. That’s what the good book says.

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2006 12:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

[quote author=“Grls R smrtr”]
Now it may well be that all this is no more plausible than the tooth fairy. Most reasoning people these days will see excellent grounds to reject it. But we have an intellectual obligation to confront that case at its most persuasive, rather than grabbing a victory on the cheap by savaging it as superstition and childish wishes. The mainstream theology I have just outlined may well not be true; but anyone who holds it is to be respected, whereas many reading this consider that no religious belief, anytime or anywhere, is worthy of any respect whatsoever. Even moderate religious views, you insist, are to be ferociously contested, since they can always lead to fanaticism.

The two most deadly texts on the planet are the Bible and the Koran; and several individuals have done a magnificent job over the years of speaking out against that particular strain of psychopathology known as fundamentalism, whether Texan or Taliban. I think you are right to repudiate the idea that one has to respect other people’s silly or obnoxious ideas just because they are other people’s. But you can do it with tact, politely and without being so appallingly bitchy about those who disagree with you and without being so theologically illiterate.


grls R smrtr
You do your gender no good when you quote, verbatim, a review of Richard Dawkins The God Delusion (written by a man) and pawn it off as your own thought. Changing Dawkins to you does make someone elses thought your own.. We call this plagiarism. I posted the link to the review earlier today.
 

The nuns obviously didn’t beat you hard enough.

Here is a quote from the article to match the above. There are more but this will suffice. I should say that not only do I teach religion to high schoolers but I am on the discipline committee as well. You get a zero on your post, a two day suspension and a stern lecture from the committee young lady. (we don’t hit the kids anymore in Catholic schools although some need a good smack)

[quote author=“London Review of Books, Terry Eagleton”]Now it may well be that all this is no more plausible than the tooth fairy. Most reasoning people these days will see excellent grounds to reject it. But critics of the richest, most enduring form of popular culture in human history have a moral obligation to confront that case at its most persuasive, rather than grabbing themselves a victory on the cheap by savaging it as so much garbage and gobbledygook. The mainstream theology I have just outlined may well not be true; but anyone who holds it is in my view to be respected, whereas Dawkins considers that no religious belief, anytime or anywhere, is worthy of any respect whatsoever. This, one might note, is the opinion of a man deeply averse to dogmatism. Even moderate religious views, he insists, are to be ferociously contested, since they can always lead to fanaticism.

and later in the article

[quote author=“London Review of Books”]The two most deadly texts on the planet, apart perhaps from Donald Rumsfeld’s emails, are the Bible and the Koran; and Dawkins, as one the best of liberals as well as one of the worst, has done a magnificent job over the years of speaking out against that particular strain of psychopathology known as fundamentalism, whether Texan or Taliban. He is right to repudiate the brand of mealy-mouthed liberalism which believes that one has to respect other people’s silly or obnoxious ideas just because they are other people’s. In its admirably angry way, The God Delusion argues that the status of atheists in the US is nowadays about the same as that of gays fifty years ago. The book is full of vivid vignettes of the sheer horrors of religion, fundamentalist or otherwise. Nearly 50 per cent of Americans believe that a glorious Second Coming is imminent, and some of them are doing their damnedest to bring it about. But Dawkins could have told us all this without being so appallingly bitchy about those of his scientific colleagues who disagree with him, and without being so theologically illiterate. He might also have avoided being the second most frequently mentioned individual in his book – if you count God as an individual.

Integrity its a virtue prized by atheist and Christian alike.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2006 12:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

frankr,.....a GENTLEMAN and a scholar would not convey the respect you just garnered in your response to that post.

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2006 06:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2005-01-22

Thanks frankr for outing The Girl on her insincerity, now I’ll go and read that Eagleton review.
So The Girl’s got the real scoop on god -

      “He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including us. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. “

Now you’ve gone and captured the essence of Dao and you throw this brilliant philosophy over christianity as if the two could somehow be the same.  Please, there is no living christian who would agree with your assessment of the nature of god.  If you find our discourse here “appalling” (referring to our childish take on the christian faith), please take a second to read what the christians here are saying - they speak the sort of christian dogma that you find infantile and outrgeous.  We respond to them.

BTW, since you (presuming you actually wrote this bit) accuse Jesus of being “a joke of a messiah” - your understanding of god is not substantially christian, but goes back to the hebrew faith and beyond,  that being the case, do you think that allah is also “the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever” and that muslims understand their faith in that context?

Bob

 Signature 

It’s definitely a moon! . . . and now it’s become a sunflower!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2006 07:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1568
Joined  2006-03-02

[quote author=“CanZen”]      “He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including us. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. “

Now you’ve gone and captured the essence of Dao and you throw this brilliant philosophy over christianity as if the two could somehow be the same.  Bob

I add my thanks to frankr for drawing attention to the plagarism.  But I also agree with Bob that the views contained in the message are worth discussing.  And, of course, I also agree with Bob’s analysis that few, in any, Christians accept the Taoist interpretation of God offered here.

But I have a bone to pick:

I wasn’t aware that there was an answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing.  It is very strange to me to say that God or the Tao is the answer to this question.  For when someone tells me that the Tao explains why there is something rather than nothing, my natural response ought to be, “But why is there the Tao rather than no Tao, (or why is there God rather than no God).”  If Tao (or God) is something, than the same question applies to it:  Why is there this something, rather than nothing?”
Futhermore, simply saying that the Tao is the answer to the question is not therby to give an answer.  A real answer to this question will explain why there is something rather than nothing.  And just saying, “it’s the Tao” or “It’s God” is not thereby giving an answer to this question.
I’m not trying to argue that the Tao does not exist.  Perhaps it does, and perhaps it is, in some sense, the fundamental reality.  But it seems to me that there is hardly an explanation for the existence of the Tao.

The question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is a deeply important question, but one that cannot be answered.  And it is also of fundamental importance that it cannot be answered.

 Signature 

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2006 07:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

I think the whole review is great. I don’t think I understand your question though. I think the question of why something? is a philosophical one. I think it is a starting point that can lead to faith or God or the Tao or a mind but it is not going to provide a scientifically answer that satisfied.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2006 07:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1568
Joined  2006-03-02
[quote author=“frankr”]I think the whole review is great. I don’t think I understand your question though. I think the question of why something? is a philosophical one. I think it is a starting point that can lead to faith or God or the Tao or a mind but it is not going to provide a scientifically answer that satisfied.

I guess I disagree with your assessment of the review.  There is much to criticize about Dawkins, I agree, and sometime Eagleton hits the right notes, but at least as often, he misfires. 
Eagleton keeps suggesting that belief in God is reasonable, but he never really explains why. Theology is indeed more coherent and intricate than Dawkins gives it credit for, but that alone does not make it reasonable.

And nowhere else does Eagleton more widely miss the mark than in the following (also quote above):
“Nor is he a principle, an entity, or ‘existent’: in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.”

God may be the condition of possibility of any entity existing.  But three things are important to note:
(1) Even if we accept that it is meaningful to assert that there is something that is the condition of possibility of any entity existing, we still, as yet, lack any reason to believe that that such a thing exists.  Why believe that there is such a God?
(2)  We also still lack an explanation of how this thing (whatever it is, God, the Tao) can function as scuh a condition.  How does it work?

And most importantly (as I stated earlier)
(3)  There just is no answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing.

Frankr,
You said that the question (why is there something rather than nothing) can lead to faith in God. How?  Why would asking that question and being convinced that it is deeply important, lead (possibly) to faith in God?

 Signature 

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2006 09:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

I’m going to answer with Scripture. Mind you I am not using this as proof, but as a poetic way of explaining how the search for the answer to the question of why something can lead to God.

Psalm 8

O LORD, our Lord, how awesome is your name through all the earth! You have set your majesty above the heavens!
Out of the mouths of babes and infants you have drawn a defense against your foes, to silence enemy and avenger.
When I see your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and stars that you set in place—
What are humans that you are mindful of them, mere mortals that you care for them?
Yet you have made them little less than a god, crowned them with glory and honor.
You have given them rule over the works of your hands, put all things at their feet:
All sheep and oxen, even the beasts of the field,
The birds of the air, the fish of the sea, and whatever swims the paths of the seas.
O LORD, our Lord, how awesome is your name through all the earth!

Make sense now? It is worth a try.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 October 2006 12:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2006-10-16

[quote author=“TheChampion”]Grls R smrtr, if this is an example of smarts, there is no hope for humanity!

LOL, boy, you are about as on target as an atheist in America spitting into the wind trying to hit Hawaii.

However, I will grant you this, you are smart by the world’s standards and smart by the mockers of God and deviants of society (including academia). Oh yes, by the world’s standards you….have ......arrived! Give this girl a c-gar…...

Of course, by God’s standards, you’re just a wheel spinning in the wind. Haven’t even got to the 101 of Godly wisdom. But you would need to humble yourself in the sight of the Lord and ask for wisdom from the Holy Spirit. Ever think about doing that? Thought not. Guess for some they seek approval of the world rather than approval of God.

A friend of the world is an enemy of God. That’s what the good book says.

Now, now Champion,

speaking for the Almighty are we? Why don’t you let him speak for himself and tell her exactly what he thinks about her…whenever he shows up that is.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 October 2006 04:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2168
Joined  2005-11-15

[quote author=“frankr”]You do your gender no good when you quote, verbatim, a review of Richard Dawkins The God Delusion (written by a man) and pawn it off as your own thought. Changing Dawkins to you does make someone elses thought your own.. We call this plagiarism.

While I admire your nailing this poster for their highway robbery, frank—and I do—it’s sad that you don’t recognize the irony in your own accusation. Your religion is one long line of plagiarisms.

 Signature 


Welcome to Planet Earth, where Belief masquerades as Knowledge!

This way to the Unasked Questions—->
<—- This way to the Unquestioned Answers

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 October 2006 05:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1568
Joined  2006-03-02

[quote author=“frankr”]I’m going to answer with Scripture. Mind you I am not using this as proof, but as a poetic way of explaining how the search for the answer to the question of why something can lead to God.

Psalm 8

O LORD, our Lord, how awesome is your name through all the earth! You have set your majesty above the heavens!
Out of the mouths of babes and infants you have drawn a defense against your foes, to silence enemy and avenger.
When I see your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and stars that you set in place—
What are humans that you are mindful of them, mere mortals that you care for them?
Yet you have made them little less than a god, crowned them with glory and honor.
You have given them rule over the works of your hands, put all things at their feet:
All sheep and oxen, even the beasts of the field,
The birds of the air, the fish of the sea, and whatever swims the paths of the seas.
O LORD, our Lord, how awesome is your name through all the earth!

Make sense now? It is worth a try.

Not really, no.  But I never was very good at interpreting poetry.

Let me just say what I think (for once, HA!). 
I think that the recognition that the question (“Why is there something rather than nothing?”) is unanswerable should lead one away from religion.  Away from all attempts at ultimate explanations; and toward a recognition that this universe is deeply mysterious.  To paraphrase Wittgenstein, all explanations must come to an end.  There is a point at which any explanation for the phenomena in this world must end and inevitably, there will be something left unexplained; some fact that just must be taken for granted, that lies outside the scope of the explanation.  There are no forthcoming explanations for why the universe exists, or for how life can have deep meaning.  Religion (especially theistic religion) is ultimately empty because it offers “explanations” that have the form of explaining the deep mysteries of life but which are, ultimately, hollow.

We are told, for example, that life has meaning because each of us is an integral part of God’s divine plan.  But one MUST ask, why is God’s plan meaningful?, where does it derive its meaning?  What if I don’t want to take part in the celestial plan?  What if the whole idea of helping the creator of the universe fulfill his dreams gives me a headache? 

I am being facetious, but I do have a point.  Why should we derive meaning from being a part of God’s plan?  What is so meaningful about God and His plan?  Nobody would grant universal meaning to any of my plans (and belive me, I have some pretty good ones), so why should we think that God’s plan has such universal value.  That life can have meaning is very mysterious, but the mystery is not answered by claiming that God’s plan gives it meaning since we can still ask, “What is so damn meaningful about God’s plan?”

 Signature 

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 October 2006 06:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

God does not explain away mystery. Yet with God one can enter into the mystery. To say God has a plan is not an answer to a mystery it is the beginning of the mystery. To say the world is meaningless seems to me the cop out. To say it doesn’t matter seems cowardly. The non believer says the “all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil” therefore there is no meaning but the meaning we attach to it. The believer recognizes the above yet still believes that “for all this, nature is never spent; There lives the dearest freshness deep down things “

The theist holds that God has a plan. This is not an answer but a beginning. The journey to find the what. The nontheist sees no meaning and must refrain from asking why? Not why as in how the universe functions rather the Big Y (I throw that out to the western Mass residents) as in the end and purpose of our being.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 October 2006 06:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

As to knowing and wanting to know, Waltercat, I turn to robert Penn Warren and his description of Willy Stark before giving a speech.

[quote author=“RPW”]You saw the eyes bulge suddenly like that, as though something had happened inside him, and there was that glitter.  You knew something had happened inside him, and thought:  It’s coming.  It was always that way.  There was the bulge and the glitter, and there was the cold grip way down in the stomach as though somebody had laid ahold of something in there, in the dark which is you, with a cold hand in a cold rubber glove.  It was like the second when you come home late at night and see the yellow envelope of the telegram sticking out from under your door and you lean and pick it up, but don’t open it yet, not for a second.  While you stand there in the hall, with envolope in your hand, you feel there’s an eye on you, a great big eye looking straight at you from miles and dark and through walls and houses and through your coat and vest and hide and sees you huddled up way inside, in the dark which is you, inside yourself, like a clammy, sad little foetus you carry around inside yourself.  The eye knows what’s in the envelope, and it is watching you to see you when you open it and know, too.  But the clammy, sad little foetus which is you way down in the dark which is you too lifts up its sad little face and its eyes are blind, and it shivers cold inside you for it doesn’t want to know what is in that envelope.  It wants to lie in the dark and not know, and be warm in its not-knowing.  The end of man is knowledge, but there is one thing he can’t know.  He can’t know whether knowledge will save him or kill him.  He will be killed, all right, but he can’t know whether he is killed because of the knowledge which he has got or because of the knowledge which he hasn’t got and which if he had it, would save him.  There’s the cold in your stomach, but you open the envelope, you have to open the envelope, for the end of man is to know

I wish I could write like that

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 October 2006 01:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23

[quote author=“frankr”]grls R smrtr
You do your gender no good when you quote, verbatim,

Not quite.  What put up a red flag for me, before I saw your response, was her writing this

[quote author=“grls”]Imagine a 4th-grader arguing


and this

[quote author=“grls”]Not even the nuns who slapped me through elementary school thought

Americanisms.  No problem yet… But a bit further down, we suddenly come upon this:

[quote author=“grls”]the pope should get himself down to the dole queue as fast as possible.

The dole queue?  Only Brits say that.  An American would have written “the welfare line”.  Girl got careless.  She realized that

[quote author=“London Review of Books”]Not even the dim-witted clerics who knocked me about at grammar school thought

had to be edited, but missed “dole queue”.  Ha.

[quote author=“frankr”]The nuns obviously didn’t beat you hard enough.

Indeed.  They should have beaten her into a more coherent style of writing as well.  Then again, it must be difficult to combine your own words with long stretches of someone else’s without coming across unevenly, I suppose.

 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 October 2006 01:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23

[quote author=“frankr”]grls R smrtr
You do your gender no good when you quote, verbatim,

Not quite.  What put up a red flag for me, before I saw your response, was her writing this

[quote author=“grls”]Imagine a 4th-grader arguing


and this

[quote author=“grls”]Not even the nuns who slapped me through elementary school thought

Americanisms.  No problem yet… But a bit further down, we suddenly come upon this:

[quote author=“grls”]the pope should get himself down to the dole queue as fast as possible.

The dole queue?  Only Brits say that.  An American would have written “the welfare line”.  Girl got careless.  She realized that

[quote author=“London Review of Books”]Not even the dim-witted clerics who knocked me about at grammar school thought

had to be edited, but missed “dole queue”.  Ha. 

[quote author=“frankr”]The nuns obviously didn’t beat you hard enough.

Indeed.  They should have beaten her into a more coherent style of writing as well.  Then again, it must be difficult to combine your own words with long stretches of someone else’s without coming across unevenly, I suppose.

I was ready to Google, but you saved me the bother.

(Edited because quotes got weirded.)

 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed