…in the beginning, God was no size at all. Because there was no Space. And no age at all, because there was no Time.
God just was.
And perhaps, because she was lonely, God grew.
And when God grew, Time and Space exploded into being.
Stuff at colossal temperatures shot outwards, clumping into clouds of burning
gas and splashes of red hot liquid. Suddenly God was everywhere, because there was everywhere to be.
And God called Time and Space her Universe.
Time passed. Space spread. But still, God was lonely.
(And, with so much Time on her hands, she might even have been a little bored.)
God sighed, and said to the glowing clouds:
“Do you like this Universe I’ve made for you?”
But the clouds said nothing at all.
God said to the splashes of red hot liquid:
“Do you like this Universe I’ve made for you?”
But the splashes of liquid said nothing at all.
God waited.
The glowing clouds shrank into hot shining stars. Each hurtling drop of red hot
liquid cooled, and grew a rocky crust. Some went spinning round the stars,
becoming planets.
“Now this is getting interesting”, said God to herself.
And God said to the stars:
“Do you like the shining light the glowing clouds have lit for you?”
The stars said nothing at all. But God thought perhaps she heard them singing, high and faint, across the Universe.
And she said to the planets:
“Do you like the rocky mountains that have cooled to cover you?”
The planets said nothing at all.
But there was a roaring and rumbling, as the mountains threw out great fountains of molten lava, and clouds of ash, and steam, and sulphurous vapours.
From the mountain clouds, rain fell upon the surface of the planets.
God said to the rain:
“Do you like falling from the clouds that the mountain tops have made
for you? Will you flow into great lakes and seas for me?”
But the rain just rained, and said nothing at all. Except on one planet, where
God thought she heard the rain whisper “yes…yes…yes”.
Although it might have been her imagination.
God loved that planet, where the rain had spoken to her.
And she called it Earth, because she hoped that something interesting would
grow in it.
Earth grew cooler still, and more rain fell from the mountain clouds. Icy comets crashed into Earth, and melted. Soon the mountains were running with rivers flowing into lakes, and seas, and oceans.
God said to Earth:
“Do you like the rivers and lakes, the seas and oceans the skies have
made for you? Do you like being watered by the rain from the mountain
clouds? Will you grow something for me?
Earth said nothing. But when God listened very closely, she could hear a
muffled bubbling.
Hot lava was squeezing up through the rocky crust at the bottom of the oceans, heating the water, and squirting rich minerals into the muddy mixture.
God said to the boiling mud at the bottom of the oceans:
“Do you like these hot rich minerals the Earth has given you?”
The mud said nothing at all.
But God waited patiently. And something happened.
Something moved.
All by itself.
“Come out” coaxed God. “Come and talk to me.”
And though the creature said nothing, it wiggled a little. And divided in two.
“Well,” said God, “this is interesting”.
She watched and waited. Each creature divided into two more, and soon there were hundreds, and thousands, and millions of little creatures swimming around in the mud, feeding on the bubbling minerals, all alike. Or were they?
Not quite. Some were a little different. One had a tail. It divided into two more, each with tails. Now there were hundreds with tails, and some had mouths as well. Some started to chase and eat each other.
The longer God watched, the more kinds of creatures she saw.
God said to the creatures:
“Do you like the rich warm mud that feeds your wiggling bodies? Are
you happy? Does it hurt when someone bites your tail?”
But the creatures said nothing. They went on chasing each other, and dividing into more and more creatures, until there were so many different kinds that God nearly lost count.
And some of them were green.
God especially liked the green ones. They rose to the surface, and basked in the sun, and instead of feeding on minerals on the muddy bottom, they fed on sugar they made themselves out of sunlight and carbon dioxide from the volcano vapours. And best of all, as they made the sugar, they also made oxygen – pure fresh air!
God said to the tiny green plants:
“Do you like the light the sun shines down on you? Are you happy?
Will you make more clean fresh air for me?”
The green plants said nothing at all. But they carried on dividing, and making
more sugar and fresh air. Soon the skies and the foamy seas around the Earth
were filled with oxygen, and all the ocean creatures kept dividing and dividing,
until, from shore to shore, there were billions of them.
God looked closely. She saw that some had little feet. Near the shore where the water was shallow, they used their feet to cling to the rocks. Some grew long tentacles, and caught passing creatures for food. Some had several feet, and walked along the rocks. Some moved by squirting water. Some grew flippers and fins.
God said to the sea shore creatures:
“Do you like the shores the land and sea have made for you? The rock
pools left by the tide where the sun warms the water for you? And all the
different creatures you have to chase and eat? Are you happy?”
The sea shore creatures said nothing at all, but went on chasing each other,
eating each other, and producing more and more of each other, until the rock
pools were very crowded.
Some kinds were born who could trap water, and survive high up on rocks that the tides left dry each day. Some kinds were born who could breathe the fresh air the plants had made, and whose feet could carry them over the dry rocks to land.
And meanwhile, the deep sea animals and plants went on growing, with new
kinds appearing all the time. Enormous ammonites with shells and tentacles.
Soaring sea weeds that waved in the sunlit waters.
Plants grew on the land too, and in the forests, the creatures grew tall. Some ate leaves. Some ate each other.
God said to the great land creatures:
“Do you like the forests the plants have sown for you? The sun that
warms your bodies? The cool fresh air the plants have made for you to
breathe?
“Does it hurt when you fight each other? Do you weep when your
friends are eaten?”
And the great creatures roared with pain and anger. But still they said nothing.
Then, one day, a terrible thing happened.
A gigantic rock from Space smashed into Earth. The forest caught fire with the heat of the impact, and black smoke hid the sun. Earth grew cold and dark.
Plants died, because without sunlight, they could make no sugar. Plant-eaters
died, because there were not enough plants to eat. Meat-eaters died, because there were not enough plant-eaters to eat.
God saw the devastation, and she wept.
“Oh my creatures!” she cried, “how can I comfort you?”
But the creatures said nothing at all.
Earth was still. Or almost. Something stirred on the cold ashen floor of the
forest. Small furry creatures, who made their own body heat, and kept warm and snug at night inside their fur.
The furry creatures had survived. Their fur, and their own body heat, had kept them warm. Seeds had survived, and green shoots poked through the blackened soil.
Slowly, the forests grew again. And life was good, with the great angry creatures gone.
God said to the furry creatures, as their babies fed contentedly on their mothers’ milk:
“Do you like the peaceful forest the Space rock left for you? Do you like
the milk your mothers make for you? Do you love your babies?
And, though the animals said nothing, they purred, softly.
The babies grew, and had babies of their own. Most looked like their parents.
But some were a little different. Some were born with hands that were good for climbing. Some with tails that were good for balancing. Some had no tails at all. Some could make loud shrieks to warn each other when danger threatened.
Some learned how to poke tasty ants out of rotten logs with sticks, and they
showed their children how to use the sticks too.
God said to these clever creatures:
“Do you like your forest home? The fruit on the trees? The ants in the
logs? Your families? Do you weep when your children grow and leave
you?”
The clever creatures said nothing, but their eyes shone.
“Well”, thought God, “these are the cleverest creatures in my Universe,
but still no-one has answered my questions”.
And she sighed, and she waited.
And waited.
A baby was born. The baby became a child. The child thought about the tasty ants, and the sticks he licked them from. He thought about his mother, and the sweet milk she gave him. He thought about the trees, and the fruit he ate from them.
And he looked up at the stars in the midnight sky, shining on him from
across the Universe. And he heard them singing.
God said to the child:
“Do you like the shining Universe I’ve made for you? Do you like the
fruit from the trees, and your mother’s milk? Do you like the ants you
poke from the logs with your stick?”
And the child answered
“Yes! Yes! Yes!”
“I do too” said God.
“And I love you most of all, because you love what I love.”
And then God asked the child:
“And do you hurt when you fall, and do you weep when you are lonely?”
“Yes”, said the child.
“I do too,” said God. “And now we can comfort each other.”
And through the child’s ears God heard the stars singing, and through the child’s eyes God saw the shining skies. On the child’s tongue, God tasted the ants, and in the child’s throat, God felt the sweet juice from the fruit trees. In the child’s bones, God suffered the pain of the child’s fall, and in the child’s tears, God wept with grief.
And God was not lonely any more.
God said:
“Dearest child – will you lend me your hands, and your strong young legs
as well? Will you look after my beautiful Earth for me? Will you keep
the rain clean, and the skies clear, and the forests green and bright? And
all the creatures that roam the land and seas, eating each other and being
eaten – even though they do not answer my questions, they are all
precious to me, and they are your brothers and sisters and cousins – will
you love them, as I love you?”
And the child thought in deep silence.
But all he would say was:
“Perhaps….”
© Elizabeth Liddle, 2000
You really think you can tell me what I was doing, based upon what you (wrongly, IMO) claim that someone else did?
When you’re arguing that illogically, there’s almost nothing to add, but wonder at such poor “reasoning.”
Glen Davidson
Aaaand, there we have it. How according to script.
Can I ask a question? If men are the ones being oppressed by male-centric language, then when you say that referring to God as “she” tramples the oppressed, are you actually referring to men or women? Because if in your understanding, God’s male pronoun oppresses men, then God’s female pronoun would oppress women, right? Are you protecting the men or the women, by keeping most pronouns male? *scratches imaginary beard*
And why are _you_ then treading on the oppressed, since wouldn’t a more mixed usage of male and female pronouns lessen the opressive burden of all? Because you seem to oppose a more mixed pronoun bag. Just askin.
mur2,
Or Christians?
You didn’t deal with the lack of truth grounding in typical feminism, nor how it disallows dissent, you just bleated your ignorant accusation ignoring all context. Yes, you are a good example of the ideologic and simple-minded nature of your belief system.
That’s not the issue. The issue is, can you ask a legitimate question that has to do with what I wrote in nuance and in context?
Apparently not.
Did anyone make that claim?
Try to get something right, if at all possible.
I didn’t make a general claim, unlike your unthinking generalist BS “question.”
If.
I mean, if you knew what I actually did write, rather than get everything wrong in your mindless crusade against teh evil.
Gee, who ever said that pronouns should be “male” (of course you’re too ignorant to write “male/neuter,” which is at least more accurate)? I only said that it’s complex and that the simple-mindedness of people like you makes it out to be black-and-white, absolutist. Here you are, making it out to be black-and-white, absolutist, inventing my position rather than referring to what I wrote.
But you’ve not characterized anything I wrote properly, nor has keiths, hotshoe, or Lizzie. Why do you suppose I find this to be ideological, not fact-driven?
Do I, or do you just imagine that and not care about what I was discussing?
Because you haven’t dealt with what I wrote at all, just with your ideological crusade against the other.
Glen Davidson
Alright. I’ll bite.
1. What accusation?
2. I really feel that “respect for the ‘other'” that you talk about. I feel it in all your posts all throughout this thread, you know. “Bleated”, “unexamined beliefs”, “ignorant”, “propaganda”, “simple-minded”, “BS”, “mindless crusade”, “creationism”, “absolutist”. And of course a lot of patting yourself on the back. As a feminist, makes me feel not at all othered, not at all. Show us how not to other, oh great debater and scholar of power structures! Oh how wrong feminists have been — they should all have talked like _you_!
I don’t feel at all condemned or ridiculed for being a feminist. Not othered at all. Hey, that must mean you’re right, ’cause you threw the most hurtful insults!
Yes indeed, it has to have _nuance_! Because that is the narrative style you operate in, and anything else would be beneath you. Ignorant! Simple-minded! I mean, sorry, that slipped… It’s my feminist upbringing… So embarrassed… I promise I’ll try harder!
No, my questions don’t deserve answers. But that’s because feminists (or someone, not sure) are out only to offend, whereas you are out to have an inclusive and respectful discussion with The Other.
I’m sorry, I’m sorry! *grovels* Thank you for not trying to tread on anyone!
But more seriously, I based my understanding on this post of yours, where you finally put some meat on the bones about your quibble with the use of “she” for God:
Especially the last paragraph, and the part “simply not valuing the male as it does the female”. If you don’t actually even remotely think it’s like that, then what exactly is your specific quibble about the pronoun “she” used about God? Why do you think it is so offensive to believers? Their God does not actually _have_ a gender — I hope we all agree to that extent. So over time and culture and translation, they have ended up calling God mostly “he”. They sided with one gender. But I say: that is _not_ the problem of those who want to call God “she”. The people who want to say “she” are not the ones who have to explain themselves. Anything dubious about “she” is equally dubious about “he”. So they painted _themselves_ in a corner about that.
Did you see the links posted here about the Anglican Church? I haven’t seen you comment on those. You even mentioned upthread that you are aware that many people call God “she”. How would you position those believers who want to call God “she” in the power hierarchy within the larger Christian church? Do you think they have more or less power than those who want to call God “he”? Which group do you think gets more othered by the other? I would say the people who call God “she” have less power, and are more often othered. So when you valiantly defend “the other” and the “ones lacking-in-power”, you seem to only see the entire believing population as one monolithic group that all prefer to call God “he”. What about the power balances within? You said things like:
“Because you should respect people, rather than dissing them.”
“I’m attacking power, you just attack those without. Because that’s what’s easy to do, and it pays to stroke the wealthy and powerful, as you do.”
“The issue is that it’s their God and to not disrespect them is to use the terms they use for their God. The “default male” language matter is something you projected onto the field, not about what Gregory, Murray, or I ever wrote. The “default to their terms” (with exceptions, I suppose–“The Only God” presumably isn’t something we’d need to say) as a matter of respect issue is what we actually discussed, not what you wrongly impute to us. That you make it out to be about your concerns only indicates that you’re not listening to them or to us. As if that were not already obvious.”
Who might you be dissing, GlenDavidson? Who might you be attacking? Whose terms that they use about God might you be completely ignoring in favour of a much more powerful tradition’s members? Have you even thought about that? Just askin.
You know, the various claims you made that aren’t true. I’m not going into it, since I have only been misrepresented by you self-righteous ignoramuses. If you want to know what I wrote read it, not the misrepresentations of hotshoe and ilk.
I wasn’t writing about respect for ideologues who clearly care not at all about what a person really wrote. That you and your ilk haven’t and don’t examine your propaganda is rather obvious.
Actually, I’ve not misrepresented what people wrote, while you and the others attacking me have constantly misrepresented my position. So yeah, decency from me, indecency from you, hotshoe, and keiths.
Gee, how evil that I might possibly treat you as you mistreat others.
Well, you could discuss things, rather than misrepresenting as you do. Subtle sarcasm, there.
Of course you don’t care about the lack of groundtruthing and the heavy-handed attacks on dissent–exactly what you’re demonstrating here. Treat others decently. I never said that no one should fight back against misrepresentation and baseless claims, indicating quite the opposite.
And really, I’ve had enough of your tedious avoidance of all of the issues, and mere attacks not based upon any more groundtruthing than are your many misrepresentations. Nothing you write deals with what I actually was discussing nor with the real issues of lack of honest exchange or any sort of real grounding of the initial principles.
Rant away. It’s apparently all that you can do. I probably won’t respond to you in the future, as you’ve not written anything but misrepresentations and insults that ignore all of the context. You are yet another exhibit of the bigotry and privilege of your ideology.
Glen Davidson
Lizzie already asked for restraint. Please, people, address issues and turn down the insults.
Honestly, I don’t even know what further to say in the face of such a reply by GlenDavidson. It’s like he projects everything he himself does into the positions/behaviour of others (misrepresenting, othering, being an ideologue, not listening/reading, defending the powerful). He doesn’t even adress my point. The hilarious thing is that that is actually a bit reminiscent to talking to certain types of creationists. And voilà, the projection reaches 100%.
I am new here, and don’t know Lizzie. But from her posts here on this topic, I glean that when she uses “she”, she is, among other things, paving way for believers who want to have the choice of openly referring to their God as “she”. That’s how I interpret her goal of “balance”. To make the pronoun “she” more of a normalised option for those (currently underdogs) that want to do so.
And it’s ironic that GlenDavidson takes this as “treading on the less powerful”. And accuses others of not analysing what they are doing far enough. Guffah.
Just a suggestion. You might read the “About” and “Moderation issues” pages linked on the header. The idea of the site is to encourage dialogue between disparate point of view. It often breaks down. People get angry, defensive, emotional, that’s people. I, and I think Lizzie too, think it is worth persevering. Let Glen take a breath – see what happens.
Thank you, I will. 🙂 I’ve lurked here a bit and I can see that it gets heated, hehe.
Btw, was not trying to cry “poor me”, in case it sounded like it. Not angry, not offended. I’m often openly feminist online and GlenDavidson’s response to the spectre of feminist issues is fairly typical oatmeal. And I still believe in humanity and even the internet! ;-D
mur2,
And if you’ve lurked for a while, you’ve probably noticed that Glen’s comments are usually quite sensible and insightful. I don’t know what got into him in this thread. It clearly pushed some of his buttons.
keith, I take it that you think Glen has not been “quite sensible and insightful” on this thread, and it’s my sense that that’s strictly a function of you not agreeing with what he’s posted here. I’m curious–Have you ever found Glen “quite sensible and insightful” when he was saying something with which you violently disagreed? If so, please give some examples.
walto,
Is this obsession serving your interests, or is it an itch that you can’t quite scratch?
Yes, I often regard my interlocutors as sensible even when they’re disagreeing with me. For example, I think that accommodationism is the wrong strategic move, but I understand why people espouse it, and I don’t at all regard their position as nonsensical.
My interest–thanks for asking!–is in suggesting to you a way of disagreeing that does not involve remarks like “Give it up, you’re just wrong.” In your case, that is really nothing more than a nasty way of saying “I disagree with you.” That you are adamant and unpleasant about it adds nothing. And the misrepresentations, etc. are obviously not there to convince your adversary, but those who are too lazy or uninterested in ferreting the original context out.
You’re right, however, that there’s little point in trying to make this case to you. We all have our modus operandi. I’m no angel. You have made me somewhat trolly on this site (or, as you put it above, “itchy”). So congrats for that. I could be spending my time more wisely. E.g., I could be posting on one of the eleventeen current threads about how dumb various other people are.
walto:
I had expressed disagreement, and my reasons for disagreeing, long before I wrote that. “Give it up, Glen” was my exasperated response to his refusal to admit error when the evidence was conclusive.
You’re free to point out my supposed misrepresentations, but I’ll challenge you to back up your claims. If experience is any indicator, you won’t be able to do that, and your failure will only increase your frustration. Your obsession with me seems to be a losing proposition, walto, which is why I suggest it is more like an itch you can’t scratch than something from which you are actually benefitting.
Take responsibility. I don’t control what you type, and neither does anyone else but you.
If TSZ is so unpleasant for you, why do you keep coming back? You seem quite unhappy here and eager to blame it on others. Relax a little, walto. Get a few hugs from Rich. You’ll enjoy yourself more.
I love how concerned you are about me and my emotional state. Those expressions of concern are just one more reflection of the honesty and openness that has made you beloved pretty much everywhere you’ve set foot.
As to coming back here, I’m out on a temporary supervised visitation. (Lizzie has a quick whistle so I spend a lot of time in fields of guano.) But I have to go back soon. I like to think of my time here as a kind of community service. As indicated above, it can produce no benefit on a certain type of know-it-all, but perhaps others will notice that it’s possible to disagree with somebody without being an asshole about it by confusing the fact that a proposition appeals to one very much with an estimate of its actual warrant.
walto:
I’m not losing any sleep over your emotional state, walto, but surely it matters to you, right? Why nurture this obsession when it clearly makes you unhappy?
Of course you do. You also like to think of yourself as a puppet in the hands of a “master baiter” who makes you behave trollishly. Those beliefs are self-serving and obviously false. They may make you feel better about yourself in the short term, but do you really benefit fin the long run?
We do that routinely, though you seem determined not to notice. In any case, we’re not looking for lessons on comity from a guy who thinks “Go fuck yourself” is an appropriate response to someone he disagrees with.
Ha ha ha.
It occurs to me that some might wonder why the line I put above cracked me up. It was because while I had criticized keiths, he responded with a remark about what “we” do. That’s an example of either use of a royal ‘we’ or the sort of party-agitation that goes on here (and at UD) so much.
It was perfect.
I’m glad somebody liked it! Yes, it seemed to be the right pronoun for the story.
walto,
‘We’ was the appropriate pronoun, because I was speaking for myself and the “others” whom you are presuming to educate:
As I said:
As you were the one who used it, it would pretty much HAVE to be, no?
As I already indicated (and you must have noticed it, you being all-knowing and all), I was actually (if pointlessly) presuming to educate one who, knowing everything, is for that reason ineducable, not any others.
But as you were generous enough to both me and them to speak for these “others” who you understand so well, you must have been right about what they were thinking, too. So, thanks for setting me straight on the thoughts of both you AND the others. That was kind, supereragatory, even.
BTW, as you are generously condescending to enlighten me, are you ready with your Thomasson thoughts yet, or should I still concentrate on the “Arnie” biz? I mean that was really brilli and I know how busy you are posting Ahnold/Samson cartoons and all, but, you know, you give us needy folk an inch, we’re gonna want a mile!!
Thanks in advance. XOXO.
Rilke on obsession: