(no subject)
Jan. 3rd, 2003 09:09 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ambitious_wenchWay back elsewhen, revalkorn made the following observation:
So, I would assume you are refering to the strict biological definition of the word "mother". I'm disappointed in your narrowness of language use, Pastor. There are lots of women who do not have the biological ability to bear children but are great mothers. Are you saying saying that they can't be mothers? My point, Pastor was and is this: Parenting is a non-gender specific task. We as a culture have assigned roles around parenting according to gender. And yet, in OTHER cultures those roles are assigned to the opposite gender. Mothering is not limited to those of us with a final X chromosome. At the risk of punning without a license, try to think outside the box, Pastor.
Previously he quiped:
At one time I would have snarled "Mighty White of you, pal." But I'm over such racist comments. No, really. I mean that.
He also declared like a braying mule:
*Blink*
I did? Gee, I don't remember doing that. I am sure I'd remember commiting murder of a concept.
At the ripe old age of 43, pal, I was THERE. I marched with my mother at the age of 7 for the women's rights in Monterey, California. And when gentlemen standing by the road tipped their hats to us, I remember the women smiling, waving at them and saying thank you. I also remember the man who yelled at my mother "You're just a f*cking c*nt!" as she walked by him, holding my hand. She looked down at me, tears in her eyes, and just shook her head. Just who killed civalry? You are laboring under a very common misconception, Pastor. And at such a young age, too.
A good friend of mine likes to declare that "The Great War was the death of chivalry." I am more inclined to believe him over your biased pronouncement.
Now, regarding chilvalry: There are aspects that are simply assinine. Like "Never change your mind". That one has been expunged from modern copies, but it was there. A not-so-quick trip to Google with the paramerts "Code of Chivalry" will provide copious amounts of material.
The Pastor tantalizes us with:
For the record, I was being just as snide. However, I will confess to a very strong temptation to post the deleted entry here. Out of respect for you, I decided not to. But I will say this, Pastor: That deleted post revealed a human side of you. Including the rather surprising use of the often derogatory "wench" when you refered to me. I have offered the use of my first name before and since. I wonder if you had seen them? My nick is indeed Ambitious_Wench. You will note that I capitalize "Wench". I got the distinct impression that you were not using the sobriquet in it's original meaning of "woman who works with her hands".
Is it me, or does anyone else get a visual of a pouting face when they read:
:::chuckle::: I will cheerfully admit to being presumptuous, Pastor. And I will also gladly release them in favor of more likely presumptions as they present themselves. Presumptions. We all have them. The trick is letting them go when they have died.
I already addressed that to my satisfaction here.
Finally, we begin to find some common ground when the Pastor opens up to say:
:::nodding::: I can respect the difference. Me, well, I have neither religion, nor faith. I have spirituality, and knowledge. If faith it the substance of things unseen, I will pass. I think it was Starhawk who illustrated thusly: "I believe in the Goddess like I believe in rocks". It's not a matter of believing, it's a matter of immanence.
"Let Thy shekinah glory, now shine forth from within..."
And then fast on the heels of the previous comes this declaration:
Considering the above, I am willing to risk accusation of sarcasm to say that I don't think you are a proponent of evolution. No, I'm going to reveal my basic belief that Christians are downright obstructionist when it comes to other world views of Prime Source. And I found your comment rather insulting, Pastor. I'm of the mind that you and I are refering to the same deity, after all. I just prefer to refer to Her in the feminine. There is precident for it in your own bible. In fact, "elochim" in the original Hebrew is gender inclusive plural, making "In the begining, the gods and goddesses (together) created the heavens and earth" a plausible translation of the first verse of the Bible. Also, the "indwelling glory of G*d", or Shekinah, is specificly of feminine gender. Are you really going to deny me my Mother Goddess? Odd, that. I remember a great line from some movie about the life of Martin Luther. When he heard that some of his followers had descecrated a Catholic church by smashing sacred statues, he cried "Never destroy that which leads another human being to The Divine!" Was that just Hollywood, Pastor? One of the things I liked about Lutherans was their tolerance of other views. Was it a lie made up for a good script?
Of course, I could be way off the unbeaten path here-- you very well may be a proponent of evolution.
He concluded the above with:
"Well, then that's one thing we've got. "
And so, another.
I somehow missed this way back at the begining of our discourse:
I thought I smelled a troll!
Come out from under your bridge, Pastor. However, I think that like the billygoats, you will find me too tough and stringy to eat. But you are welcome to bite---. Er. Never mind. You are a Pastor, not a saint.
Sorry, but to the best of my knowledge .....(name deleted for privacy reasons) does not have the correct anatomical structure to be a mother.
So, I would assume you are refering to the strict biological definition of the word "mother". I'm disappointed in your narrowness of language use, Pastor. There are lots of women who do not have the biological ability to bear children but are great mothers. Are you saying saying that they can't be mothers? My point, Pastor was and is this: Parenting is a non-gender specific task. We as a culture have assigned roles around parenting according to gender. And yet, in OTHER cultures those roles are assigned to the opposite gender. Mothering is not limited to those of us with a final X chromosome. At the risk of punning without a license, try to think outside the box, Pastor.
Previously he quiped:
I've never been one to deny someone the use of sarcasm, and so I must say that I appreciate the liberal dose with which you flavored those sentences.
At one time I would have snarled "Mighty White of you, pal." But I'm over such racist comments. No, really. I mean that.
He also declared like a braying mule:
I know what chivalry is. However, I also know that "liberated" women murdered chivalry years ago. God forbid a man holds a door or extends his arm or holds a chair or take a coat, presuming to do something for a woman which she can already do.
*Blink*
I did? Gee, I don't remember doing that. I am sure I'd remember commiting murder of a concept.
At the ripe old age of 43, pal, I was THERE. I marched with my mother at the age of 7 for the women's rights in Monterey, California. And when gentlemen standing by the road tipped their hats to us, I remember the women smiling, waving at them and saying thank you. I also remember the man who yelled at my mother "You're just a f*cking c*nt!" as she walked by him, holding my hand. She looked down at me, tears in her eyes, and just shook her head. Just who killed civalry? You are laboring under a very common misconception, Pastor. And at such a young age, too.
A good friend of mine likes to declare that "The Great War was the death of chivalry." I am more inclined to believe him over your biased pronouncement.
Now, regarding chilvalry: There are aspects that are simply assinine. Like "Never change your mind". That one has been expunged from modern copies, but it was there. A not-so-quick trip to Google with the paramerts "Code of Chivalry" will provide copious amounts of material.
The Pastor tantalizes us with:
By the way, I was being smart-alec-y when I talked about "on" the arm.
For the record, I was being just as snide. However, I will confess to a very strong temptation to post the deleted entry here. Out of respect for you, I decided not to. But I will say this, Pastor: That deleted post revealed a human side of you. Including the rather surprising use of the often derogatory "wench" when you refered to me. I have offered the use of my first name before and since. I wonder if you had seen them? My nick is indeed Ambitious_Wench. You will note that I capitalize "Wench". I got the distinct impression that you were not using the sobriquet in it's original meaning of "woman who works with her hands".
Is it me, or does anyone else get a visual of a pouting face when they read:
I don't mind a challenge; but I think you're guilty of the presumption of which you accuse me.
:::chuckle::: I will cheerfully admit to being presumptuous, Pastor. And I will also gladly release them in favor of more likely presumptions as they present themselves. Presumptions. We all have them. The trick is letting them go when they have died.
And one of these days, maybe you'll be kind and gentle enough to explain my presumption?
I already addressed that to my satisfaction here.
Finally, we begin to find some common ground when the Pastor opens up to say:
And yes, in a sense it is meant to indicate a deep religiousity; however, I prefer to call it a confession of faith.
:::nodding::: I can respect the difference. Me, well, I have neither religion, nor faith. I have spirituality, and knowledge. If faith it the substance of things unseen, I will pass. I think it was Starhawk who illustrated thusly: "I believe in the Goddess like I believe in rocks". It's not a matter of believing, it's a matter of immanence.
"Let Thy shekinah glory, now shine forth from within..."
And then fast on the heels of the previous comes this declaration:
Since there is no "Creatrix", I certainly can't trust something she couldn't have made.
Considering the above, I am willing to risk accusation of sarcasm to say that I don't think you are a proponent of evolution. No, I'm going to reveal my basic belief that Christians are downright obstructionist when it comes to other world views of Prime Source. And I found your comment rather insulting, Pastor. I'm of the mind that you and I are refering to the same deity, after all. I just prefer to refer to Her in the feminine. There is precident for it in your own bible. In fact, "elochim" in the original Hebrew is gender inclusive plural, making "In the begining, the gods and goddesses (together) created the heavens and earth" a plausible translation of the first verse of the Bible. Also, the "indwelling glory of G*d", or Shekinah, is specificly of feminine gender. Are you really going to deny me my Mother Goddess? Odd, that. I remember a great line from some movie about the life of Martin Luther. When he heard that some of his followers had descecrated a Catholic church by smashing sacred statues, he cried "Never destroy that which leads another human being to The Divine!" Was that just Hollywood, Pastor? One of the things I liked about Lutherans was their tolerance of other views. Was it a lie made up for a good script?
Of course, I could be way off the unbeaten path here-- you very well may be a proponent of evolution.
He concluded the above with:
But if it's any consolation, I don't trust pharmaceuticals either.
"Well, then that's one thing we've got. "
I *will* agree with you about Solomon, though. Rather salacious, if you ask me.
And so, another.
I somehow missed this way back at the begining of our discourse:
(Of course, that could make someone ask why I feel the need to comment on his livejournal, but I'm sure you can already tell that I'm a contrary person by nature.)
I thought I smelled a troll!
Come out from under your bridge, Pastor. However, I think that like the billygoats, you will find me too tough and stringy to eat. But you are welcome to bite---. Er. Never mind. You are a Pastor, not a saint.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Wow.
Date: 2003-01-03 08:01 am (UTC)I don't talk to this person much anymore.
Re: Wow.
Date: 2003-01-03 08:42 am (UTC)S'okay, Figster. He's a Lutheran. But don't let that stop you from liking Lutherans. Just like that Catholic should not be reason to dis all Catholics.
Auntie Ambitious
Re: Wow.
Date: 2003-01-04 09:36 am (UTC)Re: Wow.
Date: 2003-01-04 11:13 am (UTC)"...morons come from everywhere" indeed.
Auntie Amb.
Re: Wow.
Date: 2003-01-03 10:37 am (UTC)Odd rebuttal? I think I can come up with one. :)
And if it's any consolation, there are Lutherans who say that Roman "Catholics" aren't Christian, either. But I'm not one of them.
Re: Wow.
Date: 2003-01-04 09:33 am (UTC)I'm probably not in a good position to speak on behalf of that church, seeing as how I only go there once a year, not counting weddings, funerals, baptisms.
Let it go...
Date: 2003-01-03 03:20 pm (UTC)This is not one you can win by logical argument, because 'logical argument' is not the game being played here. It doesn't matter how well you argue your case; if somebody values dogma more highly than reason, it will simply end with a "But I am right and you are wrong, God says so."
Would you play chess with somebody who refuses to take their pieces off the board as you capture them? That's what you're dealing with.
(Plus, I can't help but notice, argument with the obstructionist one is leading you into rudeness to those several of your friends who do combine Christianity with the facility for logical thought. Why allow those who are not your friends to sour things between you and those who are?)
- Bram.
Re: Let it go...
Date: 2003-01-03 06:45 pm (UTC)Thank you for your immanant good sense. I had pretty much decided to do just this. Of course, I'll allow the Good Pastor his chance to speak. And it will go unanswered. But it will remain for all to read.
I am not normally an argumentative sort. Not usually, at least. But something about this youngster got the best of me.
To those friends of mine who are thinking Christians, I wish to modify the following comment:
Re: Let it go...
Date: 2003-01-04 05:24 am (UTC)Re: Let it go...
Date: 2003-01-04 07:04 am (UTC)Is is summer where you are?
E.
Re: Let it go...
Date: 2003-01-03 10:11 pm (UTC)Taken from a post on my own journal: I would like to say that this person with whom I had this discussion is the friend of a pair of my friends. Nothing I said in any of this discussion was mean to drive a wedge between this person and our mutual friends. Our mutual friends know that I’m not the kind of person to impose my beliefs on someone else (although I will try to share my faith with others); and moreover, they know I wouldn’t try to choose their friends for them. It’s hard enough in this world to find people to love and who will love you; far be it from me to destroy friendships. I do not have to agree with my friends about every little thing, or even eternally important matters like faith. Friendship and faith are not mutually exclusive. Mutual faith helps, but it is not the be-all/end-all of friendship.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-03 04:43 pm (UTC)At its best, 'chivalry' equates pretty much to 'honesty and good manners'. You hold the door open for anybody who looks like they'd appreciate it, male or female (and if they turn out not to appreciate it, you don't whine about it, neither.)
In practice, however... the organisation of which I was a member attempted to recreate the Victorian ideal of chivalry. And sometimes they succeeded. But all too often, it became a macho game where the object was to score as many Chivalry Points as possible. You extend your opponent obsequious courtesy on the field, because people are watching, and because there's a special prize for the Most Chivalric. That is: you go through the motions of chivalry because there are social rewards to be gained from doing so, not because of any innate respect for the people you're dealing with.
And once you're off the list-field and behind closed doors, you can bitch about your opponent, and accuse him of cheating, or whatever. Chivalry stops being something to offer to others, and becomes a stick with which to beat them. ("You want to fight with rapiers rather than broadswords? It's not in Mallory, therefore it's unchivalric, therefore despicable. Out!") And it was indeed used in WWI, to encourage young men to die for blind jingoism; but that wasn't the end of it.
The vast majority of SCAdians are truly decent, honourable folk who don't need the SCA to tell them how to treat others with respect. Unfortunately, a tiny minority of bad apples succeeded in souring things for me. Because the problem with honesty and trust is that it _does_ allow the weasels to take more than their share of power.
After being clubbed with the Chivalry Stick a few times too many I went looking for historical ammunition, and discovered some interesting things. The 'chivalry' of which we are wont to speak is a Victorian romanticisation of a heavily expurgated version of a rose-tinted view of Arthurian epics.
For an idea of how 'chivalry' really worked, you could go looking for the less expurgated versions of Mallory, but that's still seeing things through several layers of interpretation. A book I found utterly fascinating was 'Tirant lo Blanc', written by Joanot Martorell - a Catalan knight of the Middle Ages - and another knight, whose name I forget, and now available in English translation.
Martorell was a knight, writing about a knight. Not just any knight, either; the character of Tirant was presented as a paragon of chivalry, the best knight of his day. And what did this chivalry entail?
Well, mostly, it entailed picking fights with other knights and killing them, or at the very least bashing them into unconsciousness. In one instance, Tirant looks too long at a lady's cleavage - I think she gives him a brooch as token of favour - and so her previous paramour challenges him. They agree on conditions which amount to a knife-fight as vicious as the one Harlan Ellison describes in 'Memos from Purgatory'. Tirant wins, of course, but has to flee the field because their seconds are stepping into the fight and exchanging arrow-fire.
But what of chivalric love? Wooing women, and all that?
Well, there is this princess... Tirant fancies her all through the story, and nearly gets her more than once - on one occasion he breaks his leg falling out of her window. And in the end, an accomplice lets him into her bedroom, whereupon he finally manages to rape her (as he's been trying to do throughout the book.) But it's okay, because she enjoys it in the end, and so they're betrothed. Isn't that a happy ending, boys and girls?
Is chivalry dead? Well. The gentle chivalry of Arthurian legend never died; it could no more die than can the Tooth Fairy, and for the same reasons.
The other sort, the real sort... alas, it's still with us. And it's no substitute for honesty, or gentleness, or courtesy, because it doesn't put much stock on any of those things.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-03 06:56 pm (UTC)Whoa, thanks for this bit of diversionary tangentalism. Yes, I know the sort of folks to whom you refer. I've been considering membership in the International Wench's Guild (www.wench.org) as a means of offsetting, and therefore balancing.
Come to think of it, I bet *you* would be a good candidate for the Guild. According to the website, they do indeed have male members. Er. Human Males as Members.
I knew a fellow who had the same attitude as you do regarding "Chivalry". It was from him that I learned about it. I just wish I could remember the sources he quoted.
AWenc
You're right: time to let it go.
Date: 2003-01-03 10:17 pm (UTC)