752 - Oh my God don't try to read this
Saw one of those guys with a "Trust in Jesus" sign in the middle of the square today at school; on the other side was a list that went along the lines of "WARNING sex freaks, porn freaks, pagans, feminists" etc "Judgement Day is Coming". I used to get sort of upset when I saw those kinds of things but now I just kind of get sad.
Not for the person, mind you, I'm sure all they want to do is something good for people (or at least, that's what I assume if you're standing out there preaching for 2+ hours). But I mean, it's one of those things where I'd really love to understand someone's view of the world and be able to walk away from it with something to carry with me, but I don't think I'd ever be able to really get on a very... amicable level? With someone like that. I'm probably listed under 'pagan' on that sign, and even if I argued for the sake of understanding different views I don't know how much would fall on deaf ears.
I guess I've just been thinking recently about how everyone seems to want to force a point of view on society while sort of just pushing the majority away in reality. A few people might be moved by what that man says and change, but I wonder how many were like myself and walked by and thought how isolated I felt by that sign and really didn't want anything to do with the subject.
And it's not just religion that's doing this. I'm sort of mad at the whole "gay marriage" debate because people keep using these same tired back-and-forth complaints about how it would "redefine marriage" when it's actually been redefined a bunch of times, and isn't even particularly universal on a cultural scale in different countries. It's about a man and a woman as-is in modern America, sure, but you could argue that for a long while it was about 'man and a woman and her assets and land'? Or maybe 'man and his family and a woman', if we're looking at Indian culture or Chinese tradition. Or what about 'man who provides and a woman who bears kids and stays home'? There's been so many dynamic changes in the family in the past hundred years that maybe it is time to redefine what it means to be with a person, if none of these really apply, especially in post-industrial societies?
Or how about the other side? Gays seem to love to push at the points that it's about love and not about religion or having kids or anything like that. Except that it has been for arguably hundreds of thousands of years, depending on how you view history? No matter if you believe that humans have been around longer than 6,000 years or not, the same evolutionary rules apply: there's a reason we're monogamous as a species, and it's because being monogamous has given us an advantage in our fitness levels because women depended on the men to help them and their children survive. So what has religion provided? A means of making sure we stay monogamous. And that helps us how? Our surival as a species.
So why can't we just say that this whole fiasco is because people aren't ready to accept something that has been, on a subconscious level, a surivial strategy is now turning into a cultural expression instead, and that in the long run, nothing is really being threatened, especially in an overpopulated world? When people cite the 'definition' argument, they're not really reflecting on the history of marriage in the long-run and how it's evolved, and gays seem to want to piss off everyone who has kids and has religion as the center of their life. I promise, all of you, that you're not really winning when you argue these things. You're isolating the people who you need to convince.
I guess I get upset easily about these sorts of things because no one really seems to even try to understand the other side of arguments sometimes. It's frustrating because, well, it's pretty much all I do. Ask Helen! I can't help but try to touch every base in my arguments and observations. It's really not worth opening my mouth about if I can't at least understand to an extent the motivations of an opposing philosophy. I think every culture has something to take from it, be it Christian or Muslim or Hindu or what have you. Because how am I really supposed to understand the world and love it for what it is if I don't see it all? Which, by the way, I do love the world, every last filthy piece of it down to the lowest scum. There is no light without dark, there is no heat without cold, there is no cheerfulness without tears. So if you are to love something, you should embrace it all.
And this is why I seemingly can't get along with people :P
Not for the person, mind you, I'm sure all they want to do is something good for people (or at least, that's what I assume if you're standing out there preaching for 2+ hours). But I mean, it's one of those things where I'd really love to understand someone's view of the world and be able to walk away from it with something to carry with me, but I don't think I'd ever be able to really get on a very... amicable level? With someone like that. I'm probably listed under 'pagan' on that sign, and even if I argued for the sake of understanding different views I don't know how much would fall on deaf ears.
I guess I've just been thinking recently about how everyone seems to want to force a point of view on society while sort of just pushing the majority away in reality. A few people might be moved by what that man says and change, but I wonder how many were like myself and walked by and thought how isolated I felt by that sign and really didn't want anything to do with the subject.
And it's not just religion that's doing this. I'm sort of mad at the whole "gay marriage" debate because people keep using these same tired back-and-forth complaints about how it would "redefine marriage" when it's actually been redefined a bunch of times, and isn't even particularly universal on a cultural scale in different countries. It's about a man and a woman as-is in modern America, sure, but you could argue that for a long while it was about 'man and a woman and her assets and land'? Or maybe 'man and his family and a woman', if we're looking at Indian culture or Chinese tradition. Or what about 'man who provides and a woman who bears kids and stays home'? There's been so many dynamic changes in the family in the past hundred years that maybe it is time to redefine what it means to be with a person, if none of these really apply, especially in post-industrial societies?
Or how about the other side? Gays seem to love to push at the points that it's about love and not about religion or having kids or anything like that. Except that it has been for arguably hundreds of thousands of years, depending on how you view history? No matter if you believe that humans have been around longer than 6,000 years or not, the same evolutionary rules apply: there's a reason we're monogamous as a species, and it's because being monogamous has given us an advantage in our fitness levels because women depended on the men to help them and their children survive. So what has religion provided? A means of making sure we stay monogamous. And that helps us how? Our surival as a species.
So why can't we just say that this whole fiasco is because people aren't ready to accept something that has been, on a subconscious level, a surivial strategy is now turning into a cultural expression instead, and that in the long run, nothing is really being threatened, especially in an overpopulated world? When people cite the 'definition' argument, they're not really reflecting on the history of marriage in the long-run and how it's evolved, and gays seem to want to piss off everyone who has kids and has religion as the center of their life. I promise, all of you, that you're not really winning when you argue these things. You're isolating the people who you need to convince.
I guess I get upset easily about these sorts of things because no one really seems to even try to understand the other side of arguments sometimes. It's frustrating because, well, it's pretty much all I do. Ask Helen! I can't help but try to touch every base in my arguments and observations. It's really not worth opening my mouth about if I can't at least understand to an extent the motivations of an opposing philosophy. I think every culture has something to take from it, be it Christian or Muslim or Hindu or what have you. Because how am I really supposed to understand the world and love it for what it is if I don't see it all? Which, by the way, I do love the world, every last filthy piece of it down to the lowest scum. There is no light without dark, there is no heat without cold, there is no cheerfulness without tears. So if you are to love something, you should embrace it all.
And this is why I seemingly can't get along with people :P