A Tangent From teh Schala's 'Just Wondering' Thread

[Daniel Krispin]

Perhaps Hadriel was subtly referring to blokes like me with his “unleashed” remark...

If I were a few years younger, I would have relished getting my hands dirty in this topic. But it never ends; there’s always another devout Christian. I have to start all over again with each one. I have to have the same conversations, turn the same corners, and make the same points, before we can come to an amicable understanding and a mutual respect for the sincerity, if not necessarily the veracity, of one another’s thoughts. It is always an enriching experience, but it gets more tedious and more redundant each time. I decided at some point…that I would move on. Changing the world one person at a time…is a waste, of ambition, of time, of material.

I certainly don’t like your pompousness on these forums, Daniel…perhaps because I used to be somewhat the same way—all intellect and no discretion—or also perhaps because I see a lot of blinding pride in you, and it irks me when people are like that. Some say that it takes a proud person to be bothered by a proud person. I say…it would have been interesting to go head to head against your 50 caliber ideological certitude. If only this compendium had been around five years ago, or even three, eh? I won’t pretend that I would have made you “come around,” but I guarantee you’d have ended up with a better understanding of what, to you, must be a very distant mindset.

I commend the thought you put into your work, like this topic. It’s the only compliment I can genuinely offer, and it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on, but it’s the best I can do short of giving you the ideological counterpoint you so sorely crave.

Well... this certainly distresses me. First and foremost, this was meant as a direct comment to 'teh Schala', and I only kept it off a PM so that some such as Hadriel might respond if they so wished. I'm not certain how or why you would wish to give an ideological counterpoint, though. My primary thesis - did you read it? - was the rationale as to why the Bible needn't be interpreted literally all the time, and why, for that reason, certain theories such as the Big Bang, extinction of the Dinosaurs, and the like, needn't neccessarially contradict with Christian canon. I should think that, as you are a proponent of these theories, you would rather have sided with what I said, rather than wishing for a counterpoint. My adamant stance as a Christian was meant to assure that I am not speaking as someone who has a foot in both camps, so to speak, but that I am ardent in faith, yet believe these things. Only at the end do I make a direct theological point - and this because I do indeed see it as a grave danger to the Church, a more dire issue than the theories of science post. I'm not sure in what all of this you would disagree with, actually.

But most distressing of all is your comment regarding my pompousness on these forums. I am at a loss to understand what you mean. I certainly have a more formal fashion of speech, but that then would be ad hominem, as it is not a purposed thing, but merely natural to me to speak so. If you are referring to what I said to Hadriel... that was a joke. We long since had it out theolgically on the Chronicles forums, and I think we understand each others doctinal stances well enough that we needn't argue them more. It was an empty wordy threat, really. Apolgies if you took that one the wrong way. If you speak of this thread... as I have said, it was meant as a theolgocial and scholarly counterpoint to 'teh Schala', and I felt I approached the manner, on the whole, by citing actual logical data to support my hypothesis. It is true that I stood a little more proudly in this instance, but in matters of theology, one cannot but stand ardent and with absolute prideful conviction. I would expect no less of anyone else, otherwise it is not true faith. 'Blinding Pride' you say, though again, I am at a loss. Do you know me? Do you know how much I have thought on these matters, or how much I know of them? I speak truly when I say I know more of Christian theology than most, and there is nothing blind in what I say of it nor, for that matter, proud, come to think of it. Quite the contrary, my stance is always, rather, that the pride must be put in God. Do not make the mistake of thinking me blind for being a Christian: there are many of us that are intelligent and have through logically through our faith, and I am among them. And, if truth be told, I have always held that those who cling to evolution are likewise not doing so through logic, but through blindness and pride. And, if you must know, that irritates me exceptionally. But I let it slide as their belief, and think it not pompous, but rather a heartfelt confession of what they think.

But I am still wondering, since you said 'on these forums'. Please, tell me, where am I being pompous? Where else, save for here, have I spoken in blind pride? I speak of what I know, but do we not all? I speak with a certainess to my voice, that is for sure, but on most matters I hold myself to be near certain - often speaking on history or mythology, which I do indeed know well. I have been wrong on my facts several times, and each time gladly admit to it. The only matters I am ever absolutely ardent on is matters of religion. That I am bound to sterner than life and death, and cannot do otherwise, for I hold my soul to stand in the balance if I should deny what I believe. One must naturally hold what they believe to stand superior to all others. If you are offended by this, there is nothing I can do. And this is not pompous, this is the way of things, rather. If that was the measure of pompousness, I could say likewise regarding your comments on evolution, in the thread off which this sprung. But, the simple fact is, matters of religion come up rarely, and most often when they do I begin with a disclaimer, claiming that 'this is my belief' and the like. I remember, when I first joined near the origin of this site, I had a long-standing argument on certain matters... I left the forums for a year. On returning, I felt that these matters had been laid to rest, and never more spoke derisively of the Compendium. Is this, perhaps what you are referring to. To be frankly honest, I'm a little stung by this, and more than a little disconcerted and unsure, for I would not have expected this to be said of me so caustically, that this supposed attitude of mine is Compendium-wide. 'All intellect and no discresion' as well gives me cause for concern. In what manner do I not have discresion? Have I spoken out each time people have mentioned evolution? Have I cast down other theories? What is this thing? Have I claimed to be far best amongst us, ever to be greater than ZeaLitY or you or the other manifold scholars, or even Hadriel who coming later than I surpasses me in wit and scientific understanding? I know these things, and accept them, and make no secret of it. I have referred to ZeaLitY as the master of things Chrono, and pointed in the direction of these others, claiming their superior knowledge of it when occassion permits, and my own memory or understanding is lacking. Where and with what have I so greatly offended you? What has driven a wedge of enmity for I, for my part, have borne no ill will towards you. What in these things is pompous? For that title to befit me, I should need be so prideful that I cannot accept correction. Yet this has never been the case.

So I beg you, tell me: where is the offence? Name these instances, tell me, I wish to know. I sincerely hope this was a misunderstanding or misreading of what I had written. If not, I challenge you to place evidence before me, in the manner of a court. I throw this out to all that I know on the forums: do you think likewise of me? Let this be a judgement of peers.

[Lord J Esq]

Allow me to rest your fears. I speak only for myself, not for the Compendium. And yet I would expect that you are held in high regard by most if not everyone else here—for your intelligence, for your style, and for your dedication to these boards. However, you cannot expect to earn the admiration of everybody, and we all have our own reasons for feeling the way we do. Do you really need to impose upon others by asking for their vote of confidence because of my words? I should like it if my opinion legitimately carried such weight to all the four corners of the Earth, but in fact it does not. Gird yourself with their opinions as you like—but also know that their opinions have no relevancy with respect to mine, and mine was the one that drove you to invite them to judge me on your behalf in the first place. Play not these senatorial games, Daniel Krispin, but instead take heart! You are among friends at the Compendium. I offer that concession to you here at the onset. It is not relevant.

My primary thesis - did you read it? - was the rationale as to why the Bible needn't be interpreted literally all the time, and why, for that reason, certain theories such as the Big Bang, extinction of the Dinosaurs, and the like, needn't neccessarially contradict with Christian canon. I should think that, as you are a proponent of these theories, you would rather have sided with what I said…

If I respond, I have read that which I am responding to.

And I would not dispute that there are many who hold—more rationally than the alternative, I should say—that Christianity does not have to be the enemy of scientific methods and empirical facts. So far we are in no disagreement; however, I can see already that you have taken my reply more locally than I had intended it. I do not believe I have ever spoken to you directly on the Compendium before; much of what I offered in my above post is not meant to directly address anything you have said in this topic. It is, instead, a general comment to you, on the occasion of this topic. I said that I do not plan to debate the issues herein with you. I said that I would have done so once upon a time, and implied that I almost did tonight, that you had piqued my interest to such a point. I won’t pretend that my post was flattering. It wasn’t. But sometimes you can find that praise is a subtle art. I don’t waste my time debating with just anybody. I don’t even waste my time considering a debate with just anybody. You flock too easily to the offenses you perceive against you, when you would do better to bring impartiality and confidence to the table.

I'm not sure in what all of this you would disagree with, actually.

Ah…you’re trying to goad me into having the debate I have committed not to having. Fear not! I would not be such a cad as to say “I disagree” on a point of substance and then offer no reason. Thus, I did not disagree aloud with anything you said in your initial post here. I certainly gave the impression that there are some things I disagree with, but because I made no specific claim, I have nothing in need of a supporting argument. There is no game of chess between us, because I have not sat down at the table. You must understand that. I withhold battle on this topic, for that was not my reason to visit.

And while I wish I could leave it at that, you do go on with so many of these personal questions, and I want to address at least a few of those inquiries.

'Blinding Pride' you say, though again, I am at a loss. Do you know me?

I thought you would have understood what it is I am talking about. Perhaps you may yet, someday…long after you have forgotten about me and anything I ever said.

You ask me if I know you. That would be quite a bold thing for me to claim…so I do not claim it.

And yet I claim this bit about “pride.” So why is that, you wonder. “Who is this Josh guy to waltz in here and call me a name? I’ll courteously ask him to back it up, and we’ll see if anything comes of it.” And I have no doubt that you would courteously hear me out, and perhaps even act on my advice. Well, I am not here to give you advice. I dropped in to read your post here, and then thought to say that you’re one of those people who isn’t hopeless—who, despite being a fanatical Christian, nonetheless possesses the sort of intelligence for amicability and understanding to arise between us. You see, I used to do that with people. I’ve made some fine friends over the years among the staunchest religious conservatives, and they in turn have felt a little bit better about those “damned liberals.” It’s a rewarding feeling to make amity from enmity. Perhaps, having decided not to join a full discussion, I should have kept my mouth shut entirely. But the box is open now, so we may as well get on with the reality we’ve got. You want lists of evidence to support my vague intuitions? I deny you your pride.

I am something of a lurker here on the Compendium. I have been here longer than almost everyone else. I rarely post. But I do read some of the topics that catch my eye, and I have had many opportunities to see your thoughts in the various topics in which you have written. That is where my opinions come from.

You ask me why I have those opinions. You are asking me to tell you about yourself. Well, that’s silly. You tell me. The self-reflection will be productive for you; it hardly matters if my perceptions are right or wrong.

Yes…perhaps “pride” is not the perfect word. A lack of confidence, but an excess of certitude…what is the word for that? I cannot find the word because I do not fully understand the idea. I had a roommate like you, once. Implacably stubborn. Loved to argue. Thought the word of himself, but not in the sort of way that would invite a term like “arrogance.” Depressed when no one was looking, but easygoing among company. And every little scrap of knowledge he knew, he treated as though it made him an expert. And because he was indeed a smart individual, and had more scraps than comprise most people’s finest collections, he could fool those people—even himself. I wish I could explain it to you in a few neat sentences…but I cannot. His personality type is one that I have yet to comprehend rationally. As yet, I only recognize it intuitively. But I recognize it in you. So you tell me, why that is.

And by all means, I invite your thoughts. Your conversation, directed straight at me, addressing you yourself, will give me an opportunity to learn about a type of personality that I find frustrating. We’re probably more similar than dissimilar, but this essential difference stands between us.

Lastly, I say “blinding,” because like my old roommate I truly believe you recognize none of this. Despite my three pages now, I cannot but hope that a single bit of the meaning I mean has found its way into your comprehension.

'All intellect and no discresion' as well gives me cause for concern. In what manner do I not have discresion?

I chose those words carefully, but apparently not carefully enough for my meaning to be clear. I would not make the mistake of contesting your intellect. You have demonstrated that it would take more energy than I care to invest in outwitting, outthinking, outmaneuvering, or outreasoning you on whatever topic—and so great is your intellect, that I cannot even claim to myself that I could outdo you in these things without some measure of audacity in my voice. I do hope this strokes your ego, because even though my concession may be conservative, I would not offer to just any mook that they could give me a run for my money intellectually. You’ve got to be a pretty sophisticated mook to do that! There. I’ve managed to pat both of us on the back. That’s win-win.

Your discretion, however, is a more interesting notion. The word that I had originally put in its place was “prudence.” But I wanted a connotation of “wisdom,” without subscribing to that damned cliché “smart but not wise,” which is not what I meant and was something I wanted to avoid implying. So I chose “discretion.” It stands for prudence, wisdom, maturity, good judgment.

I don’t know how old you are. Much as you do now, I too used to go out of my way to show off my intellect. I wrote in a very snobby style. And I’d nitpick in many of the same ways you do. As recently as four years ago, this was true. I would advance my agenda through the most cogent logic, the most impeccable reason…and with a vocabulary greater than that of anyone on the Compendium today, and the most sophisticated sentence structure. When I grew up a bit more, and became more comfortable with who I am, my confidence increased. I settled into my mature identity. As that happened, the snobbishness decreased. Discretion…is when your actions emanate rather than absorb satisfaction. Does that make any sense?

I just know there’s some crucial difference between us…maybe a letter on the temperament sorter. Perhaps you’re an F to my T, or an S to my N. Or both! Or perhaps it is that you are a pessimist to my optimist, or maybe you feel at odds with who you are whereas I relish what I am, or some other damned thing. The point is that we’re not similar enough that I can use my own example to explain you, and yet this is what I have tried because I can think of no other way to answer your concerns to my best ability. I again invite you not to ask me to tell you about who you are, but to look for it yourself. And if you find out, let me know.

Have I claimed to be far best amongst us, ever to be greater than ZeaLitY or you or the other manifold scholars, or even Hadriel who coming later than I surpasses me in wit and scientific understanding?

Is this false modesty, or rhetorical style? I’m not sure if you are trying to play an act of innocence or if you are trying to be dramatic.

Or could it be that you ask these genuinely? That’s what puzzles me about you. If you truly believe everything you are saying, and are playing no games of intention or style…if you are offering the plain and complete and unadulterated thoughts in your mind, without deception, without self-absorption, without any technique of insinuation, metaphor, or maneuvering…then how can I possibly offer any suitable reply? For I would be speaking to the most clueless man in the world—and I refuse to believe that of one so intelligent as you.

But now I have gone on for longer than I should. Already the hour is late, and I feel I have accomplished very little. I hope I have satisfied your curiosity, because I imagine with much certainty that I have not, and cannot, satisfy whatever threat you perceive in me—in both senses.