And then there are the people. Debate is pretty common-place in Universities1 or so I hope. It's pretty standard to be challenged, to defend your point and if needs be, to concede. But entering the real world, all that changes. Take the following, which happened today:
My brother: The pope is a bigoted idiot, he hates women and his only reason is "because I want to".
Me: That's bollocks - what on earth are you talking about? He holds views that represent the fact that he's a Catholic.
MB: Yeah, but he has no reason for it. He can't back it up.
M: He's one of the most eminent theologians alive today - I think he can pretty much back up his arguments.
MB: Shut up! You don't know what you're talking about. I've studied this - I did GCSE RS.
M: GCSE RS? That includes a full critique of the pope's theology?
MB: *Continuing rant* Shut the fuck up, I know this because I've studied it - have you studied it? NO? THEN SHUT UP!
Exeunt MB.
---
1. Russell group, anyway.
5 comments:
I also think the Pope is a jackass, though to some degree that's due to the fact that he's all "Divine Revelation is awesome" and I'm all "Revelation is indistinguishable from hallucination viz; worthless"
I dislike a lot of his social positions, but we are playing on completely different boards. We are both in the frustrating poition of believing that most people agree with our worldviews, but lack our conviction.
I also think of him as very sinister, but I don't like to bring it up because I suspect my reasons are a little superficial. Bring back John XXIII, I say.
On the plus side, you didn't justify your arguments by saying you had done a short course in RS at school six years ago.
Damn straight. I did the full GCSE.
I wish I were a Jedi. I don't think that I can get that across strongly enough.
I would love to say that Oxford theology tutorials ever reached that level of sophistication...
Post a Comment