Call Glenn Beck, that's a lot of gold.
One of the most annoying pieces of Christian (and possibly other, I don't know) theologies is that we, as living beings, owe God for the "gift of life". Allow me to explain the concept of the "gift" to you: once it is given, it belongs entirely to the receiver, not to the giver. The giver of the gift has no claim upon it once it is given and has no right to control what the receiver does with the gift. (Seriously, if you're one of those people that gets all bent out of shape about what people do with your gifts, you need to reconsider why you are giving gifts in the first place.)
Then you are misunderstanding how gifts work.The current confusion about identity is mainly rooted in the idea of the self-identifying or the self-defining person. ‘My life is mine and I can make whatever I want of it’. This is not so, in the first place because I only possess my life precisely insofar as it has been given to me; it is a gift.
When I receive a gift, it becomes mine; yes, that is true. But if I am sensible, I want to know the nature of the gift so as to use or handle it wisely; for it can be spoiled, even completely, by bad use. If I am given a paperweight of gold, I may drop it and nothing is lost. If the gift is a precious porcelain vase and I drop it, the gift itself is lost. It is important to know that some things given to us in life are both precious and breakable, and not easily recovered if broken.
"A paperweight of gold" struck me as a weird example until I considered that Monsignor Burke is Catholic and the Vatican likely has toilet paper made of gold. (Have you seen the place?) Really, though, it doesn't matter what you do with a gift. If it truly is a gift, it is yours to do with as you please. Also, gold is a soft metal, dropping a paperweight of gold would damage it, probably severely.
Why be so worried about paperweights of gold, anyway?
We live in a thoroughly ‘disenchanted’ secular age (as Charles Taylor brings out so well).[1] There is nothing beyond what I see, nothing underlying what I feel, nothing that promises more than what I have… Things, events, relationships, have no more meaning than what I choose to give them. I decide their value. But, at the best, that value is limited, for I do not, I will not, believe in absolute values. I identify things by how they suit me — my satisfaction my advantage — not by any value they have in themselves.
Well, then, you are a sociopath, not an atheist or a liberal or a feminist. Believe it or not, I believe people, though not things, have intrinsic value outside of what they do or do not do for me. Only sociopaths see people purely in terms of "what have you done for me lately". As for things, things are things. I do have sentimental attachments to things, but in the end, even the greatest of paintings or the most favorite of childhood toys is nothing compared to people.
You know what really bothers me about this? This is actually a screed against feminism and gay marriage, but read the above carefully. You'll notice one word comes up a lot: things. Things have the value we assign to them. Paperweights of gold, precious vases, things.
People are not things. People are infinitely more precious than things. Yet clearly, for all their posturing about "life", the Catholic Church does not feel this way. Have you ever seen The Vatican? Have you ever seen the Pope? Vatican City is filled with precious works of art, things of great beauty- and value. The Pope wears fine clothes, sits on valuable chairs, views priceless art on a daily basis. He also apparently has never looked at any of these things and thought, "Huh, I wonder how many people I could feed, educate, provide with medical care just by selling one of these things."
No, he advises instead that the poorest of the poor use no birth control- and never once considers financing their children for them. He advises against the use of condoms to halt the spread of HIV- and never once considers financing medication to help those he condemns to infection. The Catholic soup kitchen around the corner from my work is stretched to the breaking point, turning away the hungry every day. I regularly give away my lunch and even our local cathedral is filled with things of value.
Do I think that these things, these priceless works of art, are valuable, valuable even beyond monetary value? Sure. I think art and music and poetry and prose are of immeasurable value. However, they are of no value to the starving, to the dying, to those whose every thought is of the suffering of their children. Things are not more valuable than people, and I would burn every lovely piece of art if it meant an end to hunger and poverty and disease.
Too bad I just don't understand the value of the gift god has given me.
i once had to attend a catholic mass.
ReplyDeletei spent most of the time marveling at all the STUFF in the room - much of it gold, silver, or containing precious stones...
and then the collection plate went around, and i was COMPLETELY confused. so i asked the people i went with - WHY? we're surrounded by hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of wealth. and they said "how do you think the church affords it?"
so, really, i tend to think "collection plates" are ONLY for the church [and leaders] and won't give, because the PEOPLE who need help never get any.
*WHY* they need even MORE stuff is beyond me.
"One of the most annoying pieces of Christian (and possibly other, I don't know) theologies is that we, as living beings, owe God for the "gift of life". Allow me to explain the concept of the "gift" to you: once it is given, it belongs entirely to the receiver, not to the giver. The giver of the gift has no claim upon it once it is given and has no right to control what the receiver does with the gift. (Seriously, if you're one of those people that gets all bent out of shape about what people do with your gifts, you need to reconsider why you are giving gifts in the first place.)"
ReplyDeleteThat was weird. I came here from the Slacktivist, and for a moment I forgot I'd changed blogs, so I read that paragraph in Fred Clarks gentle, sympathetic, mildly-concerned tone*, and it seemed perfectly in character. I can't imagine Fred's god thinking we owe him anything for the "gift of life", for exactly that reason: it's a gift. How we use it is entirely up to us, and how we treat the gift-giver in return is a measure of our character.
Dammit, why does Fred have to make christianity so damn appealing?
* I assign every blog I read an imaginary tone of voice (not the author: the blog itself). Forever In Hell is snarky and sarcastic. Pharyngula is erudite but vicious: like Shakespeare in drunken rage. "Atheist Central" (Ray Comforts Blog) is whiny and cajoling, like a poor used car salesman. And I went to Vox Day's blog once, but the rumbling, evil voice and the continuous demonic whispering in the background drove me away.
denelian: i had that thought at the age of 6, when i was expected to give 10% of allowance away at church. my mom was a little too impressed by my logic to punish me for snotty disobedience.
ReplyDeletequasar: to me, fred is the second coming of Christ. I seriously would not be surprised if a flock (horde?) of angels descended one day to announce him as the messiah. unfortunately, fred would be horrified if i worshipped him, so i'll stick with atheism.
i like to read fred's blog in the voice of the guy from Inside the Actor's Studio: warm, erudite, ever so slightly amused by it all, but truly, deeply interested at the same time.
yeah, i wasn't much older [but my mom wasn't impressed at all by what i said - it made perfect sense to her that the church needed more stuff, and we should help pay for it - even though my shoes had holes and i was in the hospital more than out.] 8, i think.
ReplyDeleteon the other hand, i so embarrased her that she didn't make me go to church again for
YEARS. so that was worth it [not what i *meant* but worth it]
Quasar - you make me laugh so much! now *I'M* reading blogs in the voices you assigned - it's kind of great :D
If life is a gift, it's a pretty crappy one. I didn't ask for it, and if I was never given it, I wouldn't even be aware of it. If I was given life for the purpose of thanking the one who gave it to me, then I have to wonder who it was for in the first place and if he even deserves thanking.
ReplyDeleteLife is an opportunity to experience pleasure and pain, but I would forgo a thousand years of pleasure to avoid a nanosecond of pain if I had any choice in the matter, and I think that any nonliving object with any sense would think the same.