It's a fundamental Law that should never be broken...
Published on January 15, 2004 By OpheliasDestiny In Philosophy
Note to self: Never, ever, ever engage in conversations about religion. Not only do you not know enough about it, but you hold some pretty provocative thoughts about the whole thing.

So then why did I do it?

Who else is like this, 'cause I wanna know if there are any other people who work like I do or if I am really short circuited. Who out there takes a stand against anyone who proclaims anything with definitive authority or absolutism? Who out there does this even while seeing both sides of the statement?

There I was having coffee with someone who is a graduated theologian, DUH!!! I've had that kind of a day where everything that could not feel the brunt of my wrath anyways, (like my puter) was spitting in my face (or in the case of my puter, freezing, like 6 times in a row, grr). So I guess my mood is primed for a debate, but there are still rules. Such as no religion...

I'm kind of an anarchist, though in a religious rather than political sort of way...
Ahem, well I got to debating, not the exhistence of a God but the type of being that he is or is supposed to be. With a Theologian of all people, why oh why couldn't I find someone uneducated about it like myself? Well he's a good person, and allowed me to rant and rave about things I may or may not truly believe, just for the sake of sport I guess. He said later that I was logical, and that he enjoys debating, but I think it did not need to be stated that we would not go there again.

So please tell me stories of how you like to stand up to anyone who thinks they have the authority, and say oh yeah...

As a natural rebel, I have always wondered just how 'expert' the experts really are. Just because you hold a degree from an institution which has taught you what they want you to know, does not really make you an authority. First hand knowledge, I think, makes one an authority, real experience with something makes one an authority, not a piece of paper proving you remembered for 3 months give or take, something you have possibly never even tested or proven yourself. Puleeeese! And for all you amateurs, having experienced something one time does not make it so. I love a testimony as much as the next person but it requires a lot of effort, study and examination to truly state that something is so. Just because it happened to you does not mean that it is fact, I am beginning to question all of the testimonies I hear, there is such a thing as psychosomatic responses, for crying out loud. People try to sell that theory to you all day long. What you see, you will become. Cripes. I understand that we could not possibly all learn first hand all that we know to be true, but now with the accessibility to knowledge that the internet has, we see experts 'popping' up everywhere.

You know, as a distributor of natural health products, I have heard all the comments people make about western medicine and pharmaceutical companies and while alot if it is probably true, it is also true of the claims of the people who sell natural alternatives. Even I have been guilty of it. It's a sales technique, accentuate the positives. The information is coming to you with an ulterior motive, to get you to buy their product, whatever it may be. And the information is being handed down through many people and it is biased. Don't misunderstand me, I am a true advocate of prevention and natural treatment over chemicals and fixits, but it boils down to that authoritative person, and today I have a beef with them all.



Comments
on Jan 15, 2004
hi opheliasdestiny. i can relate to your anguish .

i read a great theory ages ago (but have lost the book). basically, the author named a personality-type as "the transactionists" (odd word, i know). these "transactionists" are tough cookies. they think that if we are all having the same experience, all of us must have the same views on it, or somebody has to be WRONG !.

of course, try theology or any other "sensitive" matter with such a person, and you're going to get a problem .

an example was used in that book (i must find it) to demonstrate "transactionist" behaviour. in brief: 100 persons of high iq in a room. 100 pieces of paper impregnated with a chemical detectable by taste in only 70% of people. they were all given one and asked to taste it. then around the room the lecturer asked one-by-one "what do you taste ?":

"salt", "salt", "salt" ... (8 times). then: "i taste nothing". well. all hell broke loose as 3 of the first 8 people turned on the 9th one: "you have the wrong paper" they yelled. then "try another one". quickly escalating to "you're making it up". even "you're ruining the experiment, you idiot".

(they had not even been told what the experiment was). but the lecturer had to stop there and explain about the chemical before a fist fight started.

sadly, i wonder what i might have done in that situation too.
on Jan 16, 2004
I think I Know what I'd probably do. Whisper into the ear of the person next to me that that person is probably trying to make trouble. heh heh.

But I think that I would most likely be the person who did not taste anything. Then I am not sure what I would do. Probably not say very much, then sit back and wonder wether I did taste something or not. Am I still a transactionist now, or have I graduated to coward?

It seem that tonight I do not have the guts that I did yesterday... I am a creature of contradictory nature I think...
on Jan 16, 2004
... whatever you are, i am certain to be one too. lol. so don't worry too much . awareness saves you "v"