dreamer_easy | (no subject)

I'd like to share with you a story from my religion. It's about the goddess of childbirth, Ninmah, and the cunning god, Enki. They get drunk one night and have a competition: can Ninmah produce a disabled person for whom Enki can't find a place in society? She makes a blind man, and Enki gives him a job as a musician. She makes a lame man, and Enki gives him a job as a silversmith. She makes a woman who can't have children, and Enki gives her a job as a weaver. She makes an intellectually disabled man, and Enki gives him a job as a servant of the king.

I like this story for two reasons. Firstly, because of its light-hearted explanation of disability: it's not a curse or a judgement or a catastrophe, it's just that the gods had a bit too much to drink. And secondly, because of its compassion. No disabled person is worthless; each has a useful role in society. We need weavers and silversmiths and musicians, and where would the king be without his servants?

I thought of this story when reading the terrible news stories about two women with Down syndrome who were apparently used as human bombs in Iraq. Far from treating them as people created by God or the gods, they were treated as worthless and disposable.

And I thought of myself, too, crippled with physical and mental illness, and yet still able to keep a household running and do a little Web work and writing and look after my husband and cats.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

No, I can't, I'm afraid. Do you not see that getting drunk and then deliberately playing with people's lives is an entirely different kettle of fish to 'shit happening'?

If the claim were that, say, a rich feudal lord who gets drunk and has a similar bet with his rich feudal lord friend -- and then sends out his servant to maim one of his serfs, and hands the maimed serf over to the other lord who, to win the bet, finds a place for him in his retinue -- would that be about 'shit happens'? Or would it be a story about cruelty, callously inflicted simply because those above have the power to do so?

It's true - the gods are fickle, negligent, and goofy. Which is a good match for the general randomness of real life, and solves the theodicy problem to boot. I much prefer the idea of gods who simply fucked up to the idea that it's my own fault I'm sick because my ancestors didn't do as they were told.

the gods are fickle, negligent, and goofy

And yet you worship them?

I much prefer the idea of gods who simply fucked up

They didn't fuck up, though, as discussed above. They were fickle, negligent, and -- goofy hardly covers it. Mindlessly cruel.

to the idea that it's my own fault I'm sick because my ancestors didn't do as they were told

In what possible way would that then be 'your fault'?

If, rather than being born lame, a child is maimed by a drunken driver, they are more directly the victim of sin than the one who is a tragic mistake in a fallen world (who is a victim of sin, but indirectly); are you going to claim that the injury of the car-struck child is the child's 'own fault because [the driver] didn't do as they were told'?

Perhaps 'fault' is the wrong way to look at it; perhaps 'responsibility' is better. That people are born disabled because of the fallen nature of the world, because of the sin of all of us, that means that the fact there are those who are born disabled is our responsibility.

And yet you worship them?

We probably mean different things by "worship". Not to mention "gods", actually.

Re the concept of Original Sin, you'd be better off discussing it with your fellow anonymous poster, since I reject this piece of ugly theology with all my might.

Why; what do you mean?

"Can you be more specific?" - Xoanon

What do you mean by 'worship'; what do you mean by 'gods'?

OK doke... you first! :-)

You brought it up. If you want to claim that you mean a different thing to (what you assume) I mean then the burden is on you to explain how, possibly including what you think I mean.

I'm pretty sure it'd be easier for me to articulate where our meanings differ. But to be honest, I don't think you give a flying frog-monster what I believe, so I'll leave our discussion there.