"The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones." - Confucius
That's all very well, mister Confucius, but what if you want to create a mountain? If you're omnipotent it should be a easy shmeasy, but even if you're only pretending to have every power conceivable so as to scare yourself up some followers, it can't be too hard, judging from the enormous amount of 'Grand Theft Planetoid' reports the Ultrasupermega Intergalacticspaceuniverse Policeforcepower (or UIP) got, some five thousand years ago, at the same time a conspicuous blue planet suddenly sprang up near Alpha Centauri. But we're not here to point fingers. We're here to enlighten, you with a little luck, me with little luck (I'll finally find out what people are not interested in reading).
So, this God (the quotation marks are still there, just, use your imagination) God decided to create the earth, the universe and everything, which he might have been too late in trying, as the UIP reports prove irrefutably that there was something else already, but there are two characteristics that all of His (the capital letter purely for clarity's sake) followers in the higher echelons share to the last, namely the ability to lie through the teeth and a very bloated sense of theatricality. Therefore, it's not a far stretch to assume that 'God' (the quotation marks just as a reminder) was the original master of theatrical lies and embellished this creation story a bit; just a bit.
But, to make a small accomplishment into a small story: six days later, there was Earth, just as it is today, with dinosaurs, fossil fuels and diamonds, all created in His infinite wisdom. It was perfect. But, as we all know, natural beauty bores rather quickly. And as even somewhat omnipotent beings have urges, God created his toyboy, the father of the whole of mankind and the reason that everyone today is always bitching about the weather if they can’t find anything else to bitch about: Adam. Now, I’m sure all you chauvinist pigs are going to say: ‘But hey, wasn’t Eve the one who brought about all of this ‘casting out’ business and shouldn’t we blame her and her entire ‘look at me, I’ve got internal genitals’ gender?’ Well, no, because Adam was not only the first man and first human, he was also the first proof of this God’s lack of perfection (and that’s also saying that the earth was perfect before we came along, which might fit into that unavoidable idea that anything is better in the past tense). Adam was human, which means that Adam was horribly imperfect (as are we all). Thus, as God failed to create something perfect, he himself cannot be perfect.
Of course, the theologists are now screaming that my idea of perfection is not God’s Idea of Perfection, but as I’m created in His image, I’m sure inherited I His ideals as well. No, the more possible – and slightly unnerving – option is that He never intended to create something perfect, that He was, in fact, a scientist without any morals who created His own strain of guinea pigs. And then, when we turned against Him, He would first try to repress us, but when that didn’t work, he tried again with peace, love and a stronger social structure, so that he could create vast networks of followers who would fight each other in a war for supremacy until only the strongest survived, so that he could enlist them in His awe inspiring galactic armada. Morally, this would place him far below the Nazi scientists, but I don’t really want to be lynched, so I sternly reject this theory.
No, God was imperfect, that’s for sure.
5 opmerkingen:
Is there a point to this (hopefully to be made in the near future), or should the reader wait until the respected author eventually decides he has long enough indulged in listening to himself talk - as he so priggishly fancies - cleverly, or perhaps rather, indulged in listening to himself talk about his being so (allegedly) clever? In which case, this reader would appreciate a small notice (so as not to take up too much space that could easily be filled with another word that the respected author has meticulously looked up in the dictionary, or, more likely, that has been proposed by his word processor as one of many ill chosen synonyms, the proper use of which it nor he seems to master) conveying something along the lines of “Here endeth the long and tedious tale in many polysyllabics of Nonsense, And here beginneth the short tale of Sense”, or, showing more of an education: “Explicit disipiens pars. Sequitur pars sapiens.”
It indeed sometimes seems that the respected author has no clue what, in fact, he is talking about, let alone whether there is any real sensible outcome to his elaborated reasoning on which I do not surmise much influence from the rational department of his otherwise well developed mind (I shall not treat here of the imaginative department, which would take me too far, or to be more precise, farfetchingly far). Most stupefying to read, and I dare not suggest how so to write, is the respected author’s incapacity to distinguish between morals and ethics when dealing with a topic that not simply makes use, but defines the use of these concepts. This failure to discern with a candid mind between separate logical structures, and not mix, substitute or scrap any of them, appears to have become an underlying flaw in some of the respected author’s writing. Nevertheless, owing up to what has just been said, I readily and gladly admit that in the rest of his writing, the respected author manages to charm the intelligent reader seeking intellectual entertainment.
Should at any point in the above paragraphs the respected author of this weblog have felt unduly treated, then let him know I have no mind for insults, for he is much respected. Not seldom have I shared his opinions. So with the doubts about Confucius’ all encompassing wisecracks, cleverly expressed by the author of this weblog, for he is much respected. To prove this point, I happen to remember another doubtful saying by Confucius: “Friendship with those who flatter, with those who are meek and who compromise principles, and with those who talk cleverly is harmful.” I am certain that the much respected author of this weblog will agree with me, for he is upright, truthful and well informed.
Explicit adnotanda pars.
Priggish, I like that.
Firstly, I'd like to know where the dictionary/word processor crack comes from, as I never use the synonym function and I have only taken a single word from the dictionary in writing this text (namely 'descry', which might indeed be slightly misplaced), so, examples, please.
Other than that, I do not feel a need to discern between ethics and morals, as that is in no way the goal of this text, just as ethics or morals are no longer the goal of modern day religion. You see, in this era, this fin-de-sciècle, there are already more than enough people who take the necessary debunking of all things Divine very seriously and who are rather good at it (even if all it takes is a little rational thought). I prefer to simply ridicule religion, as I do not have enough respect for it to take it seriously.
If I wanted to write a short tale of sense about God and his little slaves, I would probably fall short after three letters, unable to find any sense in the centuries old
writings and traditions. If I wanted to offer intellectual entertainment - which I try to avoid, as there are too many people in my social circles who are much more 'educated' than I am, not to say intelligent - I would at least conduct a little research about my subject, or pretend to have done so.
No, I have decided years ago that the goal of my writings should not be to convince my reader of my ideals; I write for people who share my ideals, and who retain the ability to smile. That is the only purpose. Not art for art's sake, but art for mental relief's sake (my art, not art per se); the therapeutic power of the twitching corners of the mouth. It's almost poetic.
And the reason I have opted to analyze (or ridicule) a pre-existing work, is simply that I still haven't been able to work through a beginning, middle and end in one of my very own stories. Some would call it lack of talent, but I'm sure you'll agree that I'm just a tad lazy.
But really, I'd like some examples of these 'ill chosen synonyms'; sound criticism is hard to come by, and I'll take any I can get, even if it comes from an anonymous coward (no offence, I just don't like to guess).
Besides, 'long and tedious'? That's not what I read in your comment. You smiled while reading this, so all in all, I'm happy.
In fact, it was never my intention to offer or proffer any criticism that had any chance of being called sound.
As for the smile, I fear that it could not even have been called a faint grin. The problem is (and if this reads as sound criticism, then it probably is...) that your text is formally very dull, at times annoying and hard to read, not in the post-modern Ulysses kind of way.
(Because of the poor arguments...)
It is not that I strongly object to the subject matter (which I do, but not as poignantly as to take any offence), but as you said yourself: we are dealing with a story, more precisely with a myth (true or not). Nevertheless, you treat it as if it had any more intrinsic value that just as a myth. Hence the mild concern.
We don't go overanalyzing Little Red Riding Hood, now do we? And as for some of the curious plot twists and turns, I suggest you perhaps read the (later to be determined good or bad) book. It is, in fact, not all that bad, given you treat it no differently than let's say Baldrs Draumar or the Völsunga Saga. Many interesting pointers in there! Or if you possess a moderatly open sense of humour, many good puns and an abundance of sarcasm.
And for what it's worth, the biblical creation myth is essentially no different from that of any other religion. That is, the workings are the same. And if you want to get technical and have a bit of a comparative theological talk, than Hinduism and Christianity both explain creation in the same way.
As for the remark on not intending to convince anyone and merely writing down his ideas, shielding the writer from any futher possible criticism regarding the content of his writings, I can agree with him on the notion that "it is but a game". It is indeed best not to let Wittgenstein slip away to far.
Well, I might as well give one last reply, so as to give everyone a sense of closure and allow me to move on, with this story, or another one.
Firstly, I personally might not overanalyze the girl in the red hood, but you can be sure that some people do, as it is one of the few instances of folk culture that can be easily analyzed. But even if it wasn't, it's beside the point, as everyone knows it's just a story. A myth is always false, there is no doubt about that, and the fact that you apparently leave both options open, makes you either very open-minded, or very narrow-minded. I wouldn't give a rat's ass about the bible if it was treated as any other myth, but it isn't; people base their lives on the primitive ramblings from a culture that's nearly two millenia old. God is no more real than Zeus, Odin or Juno were, and the fact that there are so many religions in the world, each more ridiculous than the next, should prove this to anyone who takes the time to look at religion in our world today. But no, it has to be protected, defended, funded and it's assailants prosecuted and sent straight to hell.
"And for what it's worth, the biblical creation myth is essentially no different from that of any other religion." you say. Well, draw your own conclusions. Mind you, I may not have been completely clear: I don't dislike christianity any more than any other religions, they're all a bunch of stories to scare and guilt everyone in following society's rules while protecting and stratifying that society. It's a relic from an age that has long since passed and it prevents humanity as a whole from evolving to a collective moral system based on its own, inherent values. So seriously, screw it.
And I wasn't protecting myself from criticism by saying I write for those who share my views; people can say whatever they like about what or how I write; critique that implies an omnipotent being, however, just doesn't make it past my stupidity detector. The bible is made up, trust me on that one.
En heeft de man niet gelijk soms?
Groetjes Birit van de Echtkrant! Kom ook eens een blikje werpen bij onze Blog!
Een reactie posten