I've been trying to write, or maybe I've been focusing a lot on not writing which seems an awful lot like trying to write but in theory is somehow different.
But maybe I am trying to write. I suspect this is true because I've taken to exercising (twice in as many weeks) because I heard forcing productivity is easier when one adheres to a schedule involving some sort of physical fitness regime. So in a sense I suppose I'm trying to prepare myself to write, but I still haven't done much writing.
Well I did yesterday. I wrote something better than what I had written on the page above it. I wrote about being pregnant from the point of view of someone who has never been pregnant, is incapable of becoming pregnant, and has never before considered being pregnant. It came about from my new policy of not writing what I want to write but instead writing what seems to be the immediate opposite of what I want to write (I don't say exact opposite because who the hell knows what that means?). I feel this keeps me from being cliched and stupid, as much as is possible.
That happened.
I've been thinking about Christian people, but not in my usual condescending, pitying, acerbic, hopefully insightful way. Maybe this is because instead of thinking about religion, which I generally don't anymore ( ... because who needs that hassle? ... ) I was thinking about language (I've been reading a book about language by Bill Bryson, among other things I learned it's absurd to assume we understand anything anyone has ever said, especially if it's been translated... I am honestly shocked).
But, I was thinking about language and religion, or maybe more aptly the things religious people say that I used to assume I understood because I'd like to think I'm competent at being literate and generally speaking the language.
I realized I have no idea what the word "sin" means. I used to think I did. In fact, I had a pretty good idea I knew what sin meant.
A sin is a thing that pisses off God (or makes him cry... it's screwy as I understand it). As a result of this, in religious circles a committing sin is a bad thing to do (depending on the circle the response to being caught sinning can be anything from polite yet infuriatingly patronizing understanding to being hit in the face... and body... with rocks... lots of goddamn rocks... or being set on fire... or having large red hot things put in your butt, or mouth, or vagina, or new holes they'll make with the red hot things).
So my understanding of sin is that the religious folks believe they should be avoided... like high-fructose corn-syrup, but not because it makes you a fattie but because it goes against the wishes of the sole being capable of knowing with absolute certainty what is good and what is bad.
It would stand to reason it's fair to say "committing a sin is to do something bad." Or maybe "to commit a sin is to do something wrong." These seem to make sense (not to be read I agree with the assertion that sin is synonymous with wrong, just that this is supposed to represent their version of wrong).
So, sin is bad. I get that.
But, there are a lot of christians who would suggest everyone is a sinner and as such we're all equally bad because all sins are equally bad (so murder and masturbating are on the same level... probably rape too, though it seems God never really comes out and says this, very occasionally he demands the opposite... but there I go again).
But if we're all sinners and everyone's a sinner and as such we ain't supposed to be casting no stones, I wonder what exactly it means to sin.
Maybe it's like calling god a sissy. If I call god a sissy then god and me have what I believe they call a beef. Traditionally god and I would either step outside where I'd immediately run away or we'd just go about our lives silently bitter with each other and as a result, we'd both just pretend the other doesn't exist (or not pretend... as it were).
But, if I call god a sissy, no matter how well god decides to take that, his friends are going to assume he's crying (like some sort of sissy) and in response, determine it is somehow their responsibility to tell me off (or treat me with callous indifference, or beat the hell out of me... who knows?).
I feel pretty great about this analogy. It establishes sin as something which is disrespectful to a certain group's sensibilities but does not, as an act, in and of itself, harm anyone (which runs contrary to what I've heard from crazy people, but I do not make it a practice to trust the opinions of crazy people).
So, maybe sinning is like drinking. A lot of uptight people in AA will tell us we should not drink. If they see us drinking they'll glance at us coldly over their iced-teas and talk about how we're dangerous and ruining the world with our terrible weaknesses. And they'll get together in a group and tell each other we're bad because we drink (I don't know any teetotalers, so I assume if you're reading this you're an us), they'll use the word bad, they'll claim to be moral stalwarts, they'll make the issue moral and they'll tell themselves they know better than the rest of us.
And I get this.
I worry it sounds more patronizing than it's meant to, because this is what groups do. They claim what they value is more important than what they don't value ("I'm a football fan, so to me, football is more important than jazz fusion, and my local football squad is more better than the football squad in the next state... those guys suck").
And this is news to me.
If sin is bad, but not for the world, bad for god (or bad for their group morale maybe...), then I think I kind of get it. I understand why someone can believe in god, who is compassionate, and can say "it's a sin to have premarital sex but that's all right because we're all sinners" and feel what they're saying isn't just not-offensive but is somehow a show of humility.
It's not, it's arrogant and insulting but I can see how they could believe otherwise.
Maybe this is a step in a direction.
