Wednesday, January 11, 2012

FacePlant of the Day: Response to Quote of the Day: Desposyni: Stephen Colbert on Pain

I recently posted a link to an article in which Stephen Colbert actually gives a good Biblically sound theodicy. I had an anonymous comment on my post that reads:

This is only "much wisdom" because it's universal to the human experience and because any mention of God or Christ could be removed from what Stephen Colbert said without affecting the meaning in anyway.

Is this statement true? Let's find out. You can read the original quote below:

What had happen' was.....: Quote of the Day: Desposyni: Stephen Colbert on Pain

Here is the same same quote if you take out the part about God and Christ:

In 1974, when Colbert was 10, his father, a doctor, and his brothers Peter and Paul, the two closest to him in age, died in a plane crash while flying to a prep school in New England. “There’s a common explanation that profound sadness leads to someone’s becoming a comedian, but I’m not sure that’s a proven equation in my case,” he told me. “I’m not bitter about what happened to me as a child, and my mother was instrumental in keeping me from being so.” He added, in a tone so humble and sincere that his character would never have used it: “She taught me to be grateful for my life regardless of what that entailed.

Does the quote still make sense without what was said about God and Christ? Yes, but it doesn't ground the quote in anything. It doesn't answer why we should be grateful for life. And It misses the profound observation Colbert makes about what pain is and why should thank God for it. Without the part about God the point is lost - just like everything without God. How do you be grateful whatever happens? And to whom should you be grateful for? This is a good theodicy. The thing I recognize is that if you are truly grateful for whatever happens to you and around you then the so-called "problem of evil" is moot. So is suffering because you now see everything in its proper context. I invite everyone to examine their lives and ask "Am I grateful for what ever happens and to whom deserves my gratitude? How do you answer these without God? You cannot.
Enhanced by Zemanta

17 comments:

  1. You have missed the point. Rather than simply removing entire offending passage, it can be rephrased to exclude the divine. "What she taught me is that **life is tough, but you can choose to learn from your trials and then they** actually **become** a gift. What’s the option? **Life** doesn’t really give you another choice.”

    This is a common theme in most belief systems.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You can't have a gift unless someone gives it to you. i think that all you have done is redefine "gift" and rephrased what he said into a pretzel. It is you who have missed the point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. **You can't have a gift unless someone gives it to you.**

    Semantics.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No...definitional. Necessary. If someone does not give you a "gift" then you can't call it a "gift".

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, definitional, but certainly not “necessary” by any means. Anthropomorphisms are quite common in the English language. So you are just nitpicking now, but to what end?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Again you have missed the point. If the understanding that suffering is a "gift" and that you can choose how you respond to tragedy is a "gift", Who gives it? By definition, you can't earn a "gift" it must be given by someone. If there is no God, where do you get it from? In addition can you name a "Gift" or a situation where you can get a "gift" that is not given by someone.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Can you "earn" a nice breeze on a hot afternoon? Again, what is your motive for nitpicking like this?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Can you "earn" a nice breeze on a hot afternoon?

    No. It's a gift. From who? Like the sun shining on the just and the unjust.

    Again, what is your motive for nitpicking like this?

    Think about it. The quote makes no sense without God and looses the point Colbert was making. You may disgree with his point...your right...but you don't have the right to rephrase it and then pretend you are saying the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. **The quote makes no sense without God and looses the point Colbert was making.**

    Perhaps not to you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You are the one with the need to rephrase what another says.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What does that have to do with if it not making sense to you?

    I suspect it does make sense to you, however you are, for some reason, bound to argue against every thing that appears to be "argumentative". Maybe reread my initial comment. I mean after all, who doesn't find sense in basic English?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I do understand your comment and I disagree. IT shows just how much you don't understand what Colbert actually said. And given the idea that you think you can have a "gift" without a "giver" makes me wonder if you understand English.

    ReplyDelete
  13. ***I do understand***

    Of course you do, but you said...

    ***The quote makes no sense***

    this is why I said you seem to need to argue against everything and anything that you perceive to be against you. Perhaps you should reread my initial comment.

    ***And given the idea that you think you can have a "gift" without a "giver" makes me wonder if you understand English.***

    Look up "anthropomorphism" in a grammatical context.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You can't introduce a anthropomorphism into something someone else said. You twist and distort what they say when they do that and that is why I said the quote makes no sense in the way you fail in your re contextualizing of it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Name-Calling: the refuge of one who has no cogent argument.

    ReplyDelete