I’ve been contemplating about when someone said my blog was angry. I was perfectly fine with that explanation, but being socially inept as I am, I failed to recognize a subtle hint there that I do now, many weeks later.
When I was told that my blog was angry, I failed to understand that what was really said was, “I won’t read your blog because it’s full of anger.” I suppose that reason goes out to many others who have heard that I write a blog on a regular basis but they decided not to read it. I agree that my blog is angry at times, but I doubt that this is the real reason why they want to read it.
I found myself debating my father over the idea of State-sponsored and mandated marriages a few weeks ago. I made my point that I didn’t see the State as the final arbiter of morality in this matter. He persisted in the socially conservative position that marriage saves civilizations and societies and that it is a moral imperative for the State to take an interest in it. Personally, I couldn’t care less about civilization as the first civilization was created by a man who committed the first fratricide. Living in it has made life a little easier, but not necessarily better. This is because, for better or worse, people are terrible sinners.
In any case, I couldn’t get my father to agree with me. That’s probably a good thing because if my father did agree with me, I’d probably question if he really was my father because most parents never listen to their own children, even if they are fully grown and mature adults. We’re still that cute little toddler who raised Hell and looked cute at the same time, after all. But I wonder if he wasn’t lying to himself, believing the State to be the only way to institute Christian morality.
In other words, I wonder if he was lying to himself. I wonder if he was lying about what he knows to be true versus what he believes to be true. He knows that God is sovereign over all and that the State is made up of men. But does he realize that by codifying morality through the State that he is, in effect, elevating the State above God?
You know, I suspect that my last musing is probably untrue. I know my pride and I know that I can be quite delusional at times. It’s that whole social ineptness thing coming back to me.
But when people say they won’t read my blog because it’s angry, are they really offended by the anger or by my own explanations of the world as I see it? I admit my views are unconventional at times. Unconventional ideas about life are often derided by society at large and usually justifiably so. I wonder if they simply do not like me but cannot admit it. Honesty would be refreshing at times, even if it is something I don’t want to hear.
I know that anger will turn people off. It never works the way you believe it to work. It is hostile and it gets in people’s faces. Anger is often just writing the truth about what we think on a sledgehammer and slamming into the faces of our targets. So the reasons could be just what they are and I am not as totally socially inept as I believe myself to be.
I suppose my posts are angry at times because I can’t control the outcome of events. More than that, most people fail to recognize the obvious conclusions I make about things, like Social Security being a tool of oppression against the young. This does get me angry because I feel like I have decent foresight but I am cursed to be ignored by the very people who could help me. Like Cassandra, except no gore-filled threesome in a tub at the end.
But I would be a fool if I were to say that my ideas, my predictions, and my values (save for the one’s that God explicitly states) are golden. I am not proud enough to admit I am right, although it seems that I am right more than I’d like to be.
At the end of the day, I don’t care if my blog comes across as angry or lacks the entertainment value of a <insert favorite thing here>. I write because no one I know will listen to me. After all, it would just come across as angry.