NOTE: I’ve decided to discontinue dating these. I’ll probably also go back and delete the dates on previous dated conversations.
This is a brief one I had with a kind lady who maintained things like the Torah being sacred (but not for any very good reason). To me, her position seemed to be, “I like the Torah (and related texts) because I do and it’s old and revered so that justifies my liking it and I don’t care about its torrid history because I like it because I do.” While this isn’t surprising coming from a religious person, I still find it frustrating that she not only justified her position through cherry-picking, but seemed to revel in the cherry-picking itself.
And of course, she wasn’t at all interested in any kind of discussion beyond the thin layer of wax that most of us rub on during polite discourse. I can’t say I blame her. She was under no obligation to address any of my points or questions. Why did I feel so irritated, then? I guess because I still stupidly expect that when one chooses to enter a discussion armed only with old books of mythology, that one at least be able to defend them before saying, “We won’t convince each other.”
My text is in Italics. Hers is in bold. Comments are in plain text.
For context, a mutual acquaintance had mentioned mitzvot, the (more or less) Jewish act of doing something kind or respectful. My first question was to this mutual acquaintance.
Anton Hill Oh, no. You’re [mutual acquaintance] not converting to Judaism, are you? :/
Mary G. Surely you mean to add, Anton: “Not that there’s anything wrong with that”?
See what I mean? She chose to address me directly; I didn’t ask her to. I didn’t say anything like, “Gee, Mary G., why are you an adherent of the Jewish faith?” Admittedly, my question could easily be interpreted as provocative, but her response was still her choice. No matter, I wasn’t gonna let that opportunity lie dormant. Read more »