A Short Post on Daniel Ashley Pierce and Desire
I haven't really posted on things going on in the real world. Usually, I focus on my writing - fictional, pop-cultural, and otherwise. But last night I watched the viral video of Daniel Ashley Pierce's family disowning him and abusing him. And today I'm still thinking about it.
If you don't know who Daniel Ashley Pierce is, or why people are talking about him, you can read up on his story here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08...
and take a look at his GoFundMe success here: http://www.gofundme.com/dnoqgg
I am writing a post to catalog my usual reaction to these stories. Each time I hear a story similar to Pierce's, I run through a critical thinking exercise where I carefully try to separate 1. ideology (or religion) and 2. desire, and I look at them separately (both for the sake of understanding others, and to better understand myself). And now, if you keep reading, you'll have to forgive me for over-indulging in over-thinking.
My thinking exercise kind of goes like this:
For a family who disowns their gay son, is there any difference between their ideology and their desire? Is there any gap between what they think they /should/ believe and what they /want/ to believe? Put simply, would they have it any other way if they could (Would they ever have it to where their God accepts homosexuality)? If their answer is "No," then that means they /desire/ that God does not accept homosexuality, and if that is the case, I would say that this exposes a very disturbing personality flaw: "We not only have a God who despises homosexuality, but we desire a God who despises homosexuality."
It is one thing to say, "I wish I could love someone, but my God says I can't," versus, "I want to despise these people, and my God says I can." I think it would be a useful exercise to force people to say, "My God desires _____," and "I desire ______" so that 1. they show they know how to separate themselves from God (he is not an extension of them), and 2. one can ascertain their true beliefs and, more importantly, motive and explanation. To avoid doing this seems like a way of hiding one's own desires behind the face of God, of an inability to cope with what one wants. It is also a way in which one never has to explain one's hatred, for if God is unknowable and inexplicable, you can lump everything you don't know or can't explain onto him (including your desire). I don't think this process is inherently evil (it can be therapeutic), but it is manipulative to use God as a way of never having to explain what you desire and why, of forcing a person to trust wholly in what you say, rather than why you say it, because the reasons for it arrive from a realm where there is no human understanding. "You can't understand it, so just trust in the demand itself. You can't understand it, so just trust in me."
In which case, we return to the same question: If you can't understand it, then why do you desire it? And the answer, most likely, is that it was never about God. It was always about you.
If you don't know who Daniel Ashley Pierce is, or why people are talking about him, you can read up on his story here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08...
and take a look at his GoFundMe success here: http://www.gofundme.com/dnoqgg
I am writing a post to catalog my usual reaction to these stories. Each time I hear a story similar to Pierce's, I run through a critical thinking exercise where I carefully try to separate 1. ideology (or religion) and 2. desire, and I look at them separately (both for the sake of understanding others, and to better understand myself). And now, if you keep reading, you'll have to forgive me for over-indulging in over-thinking.
My thinking exercise kind of goes like this:
For a family who disowns their gay son, is there any difference between their ideology and their desire? Is there any gap between what they think they /should/ believe and what they /want/ to believe? Put simply, would they have it any other way if they could (Would they ever have it to where their God accepts homosexuality)? If their answer is "No," then that means they /desire/ that God does not accept homosexuality, and if that is the case, I would say that this exposes a very disturbing personality flaw: "We not only have a God who despises homosexuality, but we desire a God who despises homosexuality."
It is one thing to say, "I wish I could love someone, but my God says I can't," versus, "I want to despise these people, and my God says I can." I think it would be a useful exercise to force people to say, "My God desires _____," and "I desire ______" so that 1. they show they know how to separate themselves from God (he is not an extension of them), and 2. one can ascertain their true beliefs and, more importantly, motive and explanation. To avoid doing this seems like a way of hiding one's own desires behind the face of God, of an inability to cope with what one wants. It is also a way in which one never has to explain one's hatred, for if God is unknowable and inexplicable, you can lump everything you don't know or can't explain onto him (including your desire). I don't think this process is inherently evil (it can be therapeutic), but it is manipulative to use God as a way of never having to explain what you desire and why, of forcing a person to trust wholly in what you say, rather than why you say it, because the reasons for it arrive from a realm where there is no human understanding. "You can't understand it, so just trust in the demand itself. You can't understand it, so just trust in me."
In which case, we return to the same question: If you can't understand it, then why do you desire it? And the answer, most likely, is that it was never about God. It was always about you.
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Cassandra
(new)
Aug 30, 2014 06:02PM
I am always amazed that God wants people to hate the same people they already do. So convenient.
reply
|
flag
Yes. It is quite convenient. And I've always tried to come up for one apposite question to get at the heart of this convenience, which is, "Would you have it any other way?"I suppose what has changed for me now is that I always used to think about situations like these in terms of people using God as a way to seem powerful and right and infallible compared to another. But, now, I am sliding more and more towards believing that they use God as a way of maintaining a kind of deafness to themselves. Of not having to listen to themselves voice their darker desires, because it hurts to fess up to them. Admitting our faults and mistakes is something difficult to do, and many find a way to never admit them. God can be used as a route to never having to (or, at least not until the threat of the situation dissipates).
