On Substack Notes someone is calling me stupid. (or my idea.).
I commented that no one knows exactly what Jesus said. To prove how thoroughly stupid I must be he throws “have you ever heard of the Q document?” at me.
Well I don’t know the age of this accuser, but just for the bloody record unless you are over 67 years old. You were in diapers or unconceived when I “heard” of the Q document when I read the Zondervan (Wesleyan Methodist, not “liberal”) encyclopedic (multi-volume) biblical commentary at ten, which is the first of over one hundred commentaries I have read.
I have read facsimiles from the Nag Hammadi library in untranslated versions and thousands of very old fragments discovered from other sources.
I don’t think there are too many of the Christian patristic fathers I haven’t read from the second and third centuries, including Irenaeus, who supposedly studied under Polycarp, who supposedly was a disciple of the gospel writer and/or the youngest of Jesus’ disciples, John. Others have suggested the John that Polycarp studied under might have been the John of Patmos, the author of Revelations.
Polycarp has a lot of attributions, none having been found except the Epistle to the Philippians and that only in fragments. I bring up this in relation to Irenaeus, considered one of the earliest fathers, and the one most closely associated to Jesus by his contemporaries. And Irenaeus' writings largely consist of (already circa 150 A.D.) a great deal of attacking various Christologies for being inconsistent, i.e., heretical, in their reportings, or teachings of what Jesus said.
So, hopefully, having established that I am “aware” of “Q”, are you aware “Q” does not exist, or at least, does not exist beyond the theory that there was a document that was sourced by other gospel writers, primarily Matthew, but sometimes extended to Mark, but not generally to Luke.
But exactly then how would knowledge of “Q’ make my statement that no one knows what Jesus said “stupid”. Does not “Q’ prove the opposite, that the gospel writers were unacquainted personally with what Jesus said? How is using your knowledge of the existence of Q and your assumption that I lack knowledge of a document which is only a theoretical supposition that is a “liberal” suggestion to distance the gospel writers and presupposes that none knew what Jesus actually said?
In no way, if you’ve heard of Q, can it be used to disprove what I wrote, because it was a theory put forth to prove what I wrote. So let me ask you, having “heard” of Q, do you understand what the “Q” theory indicates or means, because obviously if you’d knowledge of Q, rather than merely hearing of it, appears the “stupider” suggestion. But let me retract that and say your statement seems to suggest a great lack of knowledge and your attempt to call me stupid for lacking knowledge only indicates you lack more knowledge than I.
“Stupid” does exist, in my book, it is either a willful attempt by some who know they are wrong to deceive others with a misconstruction or limitation of knowledge that can create false knowledge as a means to lead others into believing it is true knowledge.
Example: the stolen election of 2020. Those propagating the idea willingly attempted to “stupify” others into believing a falsehood. This in no way makes those who believed the election was stolen stupid. It merely indicates that those who felt left out of the democratic eco-political process were quite susceptible to being misled by those who willingly and purposely presented falsified knowledge as true knowledge and were successful in doing so because there was a willing audience that believe the eco-political processes had been stolen from them.
But to call another stupid is indicative also of the insecurity of the name caller in his own beliefs. Instead of seeking knowledge for oneself it indicates that the person can only inferiorize those who disagree.
One can easily disagree without needing to infer the other is somehow less smart simply because they disagree. Certainly one can disagree with me. But if you infer that I am stupid, I react and infer you are stupider than and in turns makes me stupider than you. Now instead of having the opportunity for us both to learn from each other; we spiral together into perpetual stupidity.
I don’t even particularly understand what “stupid” means other than it is used as a castigation against another who does not believe as the castigator does, or that the castigated persons somehow lacks knowledge.
Calling the person who does not agree stupid, confers no knowledge to the other, it generally corrects no factual misconceptions, and it does little but arouse opposition in those so-called, and most certainly it makes neither the castigator nor the recipient of the castigator gain any knowledge whatsoever, so if it is not itself in itself, it creates an atmosphere that destroys the opportunity to gain knowledge.
I have certainly been factually incorrect. If it is pointed out to me, I can certainly check my facts and recognize I have erred.
I can certainly accept the idea that everyone will not bow down and worship at my superior knowledge. In fact I would hope no one does so. My purpose is only to challenge the reader or listener to seek further knowledge for themselves. But I am also quite aware that the beliefs that arise from one’s experiences will distort, or create biases, in interpreting facts. This is why people are susceptible to believe different ideas in the first place and are often susceptible to believing factually distorted “knowledges.”
For that very reason I frequently insert my biases in interpreting “facts” and in those instances, generally try to tell the experiences from which those interpretations came. Disagreements do not make one more correct or more intelligent, they are only the biases that our experiences have led us to the manner in which we interpret facts as they are presented to us.
I have been called innumerable epithets of negativity. Mostly these epithets fall deafly. They might even sometimes been viewed positively by myself. For instance, I’ve often been called “mexican-lover” or “nigger-lover.” In my interpretation of their meaning it is that I see no reason to favor my own race over others, fine, the epithet is fitting.
I have often been ridiculed for my looks. Fine I am aware I don’t exactly have the physical features generally attributed “attractive.”
I’ve been called “narcissistic” which I do not feel correct if one listens to my qualifiers; I’ve been called “stubborn” which most generally I am not, but certainly can become in my obstinate refusal to allow anyone to try to force my thoughts or behavior into conformity or acceptance of the norm, and calling me stupid rankles the obstinance in me into a very stupid belligerence of self-defense.
I’ve often been labeled “reckless” or “thoughtless” or “indecisive” which my actions often indicate to be true, because I do often act in the moment and later realize myself, that I did display those qualities.
But then many epithets like “mother-fucker” or “bastard” are mere frustrations of the name caller, not too helpful, and possibly could lead to permanent rifts in friendships. But I can recognize those frustrations for what they are, and let them pass by. On the other hand, others may escalate the rhetoric, and we are left with a society bereft of communicating much more than hatefulness for each other.
“Stupid”, I suppose, comes within the last category, but to me it infers something more. It is the very denigration of people that allows some to be classified as more superior than others. It doesn’t just denigrate the one, but the group.
Why am I, or those who may feel as I do, less than another in any regards, especially, in regards to intelligence, if we do not agree? Why not say you not agree with my interpretation? Or point out why you believe your interpretation is more correct? If I commit factual errors, point out where you believe they are, and often I have found that I have committed factual errors.
Often I over-simplify or combine facts into a generalized pattern that might need to be clarified into more specificity. This of course is for brevity, and of course it leaves open the possibility to specify the most dangerous threats on might see that create the generalities one has referenced.
Because over all we do leave with a structured framework that does open the door to generalities because people often find themselves pigeon-holed into lesser categories and become more easily susceptible to believing what some might want them to believe in hopes of gaining greater status. Then the other calls them stupid for not following the directions of the other who might have placed them into the generalization in the first place that led to their becoming susceptible to follow the other to gain status.
It all becomes convoluted as described by Rollo May in his rather poetic psychiatric studies published in the sixties and early seventies.
So to say a statement proves sometimes is stupid begins the convolution and to claim my lack knowledge of the “Q” –well all the writer did was indicate his own lack of understanding of Q to me. And so my retort is, more or less, no, you’re stupid, not me. Now we’re ready to go into the ring and use our brawn to prove who is less stupid.
I will be the first to say I don’t know the right answer, all I can do is challenge if another’s answer is infallibly correct. Or even if there is an infallibly correct answer for everyone. My answers are correct based on my experiences and my studies, but they might not be correct based on your studies and the experiences in your lifetime.
My goal is not to decide what is infallibly correct at all, but to offer a challenge to the entire concept of mandation of a right belief or behavior, and to suggest the goal for humankind is to formulate a structural society that enhances the opportunity beyond any generally infallible rights as a completed correction that permits any form of always determined eternal rightness that can nevermore be challenged.
In this I suggest the only wrong is created by inference that something therefore is impermeably right. Neither your belief nor my belief bring us to blows, or to name calling, or to disharmony, if we concede that any of those reactive defenses of our own beliefs are never universal and the goals cannot be universally solved.
So please let’s dispense with the “stupid” which only raises my own shackles of self-defensiveness to infer your stupidity and instead of any useful dialogue we both hide behind our inferiorities to proclaim each of our intelligence is somehow more than the other.
Stupid exists only as an expression of one’s own insecurity in one’s own beliefs, and that insecurity makes those not of one’s own beliefs unintelligibly challenging. Dialogue ends and we don the battlelines that might begin verbally but transport themselves into the fisticuffs for supremacy of society’s right behavior.
And frankly, columns like this one, are very stupid, because there is no reason to write them other than out of reactive response that my own insecurities put forth to defend myself from the negative implications that seem to imply that I, as an individual, am somehow not intelligent enough to be allowed to participate in the dialogue. It indicates only that individuals who are as intelligent as you are qualified to know and think for individuals like me and that somehow I am totally worthless.
Amplify this to the millions relegated into the same position around the globe who feel left out of the eco-political process by those who “know” more than they and you have no cause to wonder why whatever eco-political system one finds oneself in can become an objectionable eco-political system. My own conflict is minute,compared to what leads to becoming the basis of the battleground against government for millions globally.
Simplistically stated, it is why democracies may backslide towards autocracy, and why autocracies are always subjected to democratic desires. It is the same rebellion against the concept that some have more knowledge and the rest are sheep expected to follow docilely because they have less intelligence than the leader(s). And the goal of leadership becomes to willfully stupify the populace into submission.
And to end my anger with my most outraged retort, you sir, are somewhat trying to stupify yourself and others if you somehow proclaim your faith in Jesus resides only in the fact that we do know exactly what Jesus said.
And with that I plead my ignorance in understanding why you believe we do know exactly what he said. So you are correct in that I lack that knowledge. But inferring that makes me inferior brings me not one step closer to the enlightenment you apparently have.
Ken, people who call you stupid are not worth responding. I was the recipient of your original comment, and I agreed, Jesus in his own person did no writing that exists today. Everything we know of the man is second or more hand. The first four "gospels" of the new testament were written by his self proclaimed disciples, the other 'books' of the new testament, were written by people who never even met or heard Jesus speak. So, I agree, the statements I admire, despite being an atheist, are statements Jesus purportedly said. Since I am an atheist, that's good enough for me. His (second hand) pleas for people to be kind, and considerate, seem to me to be lost on most so-called Christians of today. Especially, those who call themselves evangelicals. If they were truly Christian, they would not 'hate' persons of color, immigrants from anywhere, persons who have different religious beliefs. I have said the only real Christian alive today (at least of those I've heard of) is Jimmy Carter, who has spent his life as a man of great integrity and kindness. As for the rest - calvanists and followers of knox, all.
“…instead of having the opportunity for us both to learn from each other; we spiral together into perpetual stupidity.”
A magnificent response from the author.
Marvelous, I tell you!