People often lament the low tone and bad manners of the blogosphere. For them, it’s like something out of the Wild Wild West.
And, indeed, I’m reminded of the difference between a duel and a free-for-all. A duel was a teddibly civilized and classy way of murdering people. A way for “gentlemen” to receive “satisfaction” for injuries to their honor.
It had elaborate rules. For example:
The Degrees Of Insult, And How Compromised
The Person Insulted, Before Challenge Sent
Second's Duty Before Challenge Sent
The Party Receiving A Note Before Challenge
Second's Duty Of The Party Receiving A Note Before Challenge Sent
Duty Of Challengee And His Second Before Fighting
Duty Of Challengee And Second After Challenge Sent
Duties Of Principals And Seconds On The Ground
The usual distance is from ten to twenty paces, as may be agreed on, and the seconds in measuring the ground usually step three feet.
The arms used should be smoothbore pistols, not exceeding nine inches in length, with flint and steel. Percussion pistols may be mutually used if agreed on, but to object on that account is lawful.
The principals are to be respectful in meeting, and neither by look nor expression irritate each other. They are to be wholly passive, being entirely under the guidance of the seconds.
Any number of friends that the seconds agree on may be present, provided they do not come within the degrees of consanguinity mentioned in the seventh rule of Chapter I.
http://faculty.columbiabasin.edu/faculty/dabbott/duAmericanCode.htm
A duel is like a referred journal. By contrast, the blogosphere is more often like one of those fistfights that got started in the saloon, usually over a woman, and spilled out into the muddy streets. Lots of broken bottles, shattered windows, and splintered furniture—with the piano player ducking for cover. All teddibly uncouth and undignified.
The blogosphere is to a John Ford Western what a refereed journal is to Masterpiece Theater. John Wayne v. Alistair Cooke.
Publications like Faith & Philosophy or The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society serve a very important niche in Christian scholarship.
At the same time, there’s an honesty to the blogosphere that’s often concealed by the artificial etiquette of a refereed journal.
A while back, some explicative-laden email between Michael Ruse and Daniel Dennett surfaced and quickly spread the Internet. It was a rare moment of candor behind the manicured façade of academe.
It’s not so much that the blogosphere brings out the worst in people. Rather, it exposes what was there all along. There’s no point attacking the medium. The medium is just a window.
In that respect, there’s something refreshing about the blogosphere. It may frequently put us in touch with an ugly reality, but at least we know what we’re dealing with. We may not always like what we see behind the mask, but the mask is just a pretty illusion.
People often lament the low tone and bad manners of the blogosphere. For them, it’s like something out of the Wild Wild West. It’s not so much that the blogosphere brings out the worst in people. Rather, it exposes what was there all along.
ReplyDeleteDo good now, and you are good. From moment to moment, you may choose to treat your neighbor in the blogosphere as you wish to be treated. Since I do not wish to be subjected to personal attacks, I will never make personal attacks. Nevertheless, even if I am subjected to personal attacks, I will not return evil for evil, that good may abound.
Was Dawkins the one who was using the expletives just out of interest?
ReplyDeleteBrawl fighting can make debates quite interesting, since sometimes the opponents that you run into are all hot wind insults with little or nothing to say. :)
I really do not like it when people start personally attacking someone (I might make an exception there for the new atheists since they often ask for it), attacking arguments is better.
"teddibly?" ;)
ReplyDeleteMR: "Nevertheless, even if I am subjected to personal attacks, I will not return evil for evil, that good may abound."
ReplyDeleteI hope that you did not regard my questions on the thread "Hush, Hush, Relativism" as a personal attack. Eg., "Can I assume that you're a non-celibate lesbian? If so, do you consider yourself a follower of Christ? Do you think your lesbian behavior is a sin that you need to repent of?"
I was merely trying to accurately describe and confirm the information that your blogsite provided.
I certainly agree that the blogosphere simply helps remove a false veneer from an individual. An atheist I know in person comes off very aloof and arrogant, making a few statements, not getting to the point, being roundabout, etc, but he tends to remain calm, cool, and collected. In email exchanges, he rants, he raises objections that are laughable, and he behaves as any good apostate should (like Loftus). I had a feeling it was all there the entire time, but he never let it all out before. Guess we were dueling before. But I love gloves the gloves off approach.
ReplyDeleteDear Sean,
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the reverse ever happens too? I.e., whether someone is "more transparent and open" in person, yet more contained and restrained in writing.
Regardless, the medium does have impact on information delivery and reception.
The medium is the message.
ReplyDeleteFor the curious:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ruse-dennett-briefwechsel-the-clash-between-evolution-and-evolutionism/
I hope that you did not regard my questions on the thread "Hush, Hush, Relativism" as a personal attack.
ReplyDeleteI do not consider questions to be personal attacks.
"Can I assume that you're a non-celibate lesbian? If so, do you consider yourself a follower of Christ? Do you think your lesbian behavior is a sin that you need to repent of?"
Having already been deleted from one person's "combox" whatever that is for saying something wrong, or not saying something right, or whatever, it occured to me that this blog is not the right venue to answer such questions...it was not a case of deliberately ignoring you. But I might as well go out in style, so I will just say that Paul refers to it as unnatural, but he also refers to long hair for mean as unnatural (1 Cor 11:14) suggesting that it was "I Paul speaking, and not the Lord" because why would unnatural be sinful? It is unnatural to apply deodorant too. And woman-woman contact is not condemned in the Law (only male-male contact is), and since sin is the transgression of law, the answer to your last question is no. As for being a follower of Christ, let him decide who his disciples are. I don't have standing to make that claim. Let me take the lowest seat, rather, and be asked by the host to step up.
"Having already been deleted from one person's "combox" whatever that is for saying something wrong, or not saying something right, or whatever, it occured to me that this blog is not the right venue to answer such questions..."
ReplyDeleteMichelle still shows that she refuses to represent reality correctly. You accused me of making a theological error that you needed to correct with Scripture. I repeatedly asked you to demonstrate said error. You continued to ignore me while still posting. Just so we're straight: my policy is liberal. It is also commonsensical. Just don't make false accusations and then fail to back them up when repeatedly asked. I think this is a very plausible way to go about interacting with other humans, no?
"And woman-woman contact is not condemned in the Law "
ReplyDelete"Do not defraud your neighbour or rob him"
I can rob women though.
"Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute"
I'll make my son a prostitute then.
"Be careful not to do your acts of righteousness before men"
OK, I'll do them before women.
Mark Pendray, you strike me as an intelligent fellow. Here is the text:
ReplyDeleteLev.18:[22] Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
First of all you must see that the commandment is directed solely at males, otherwise it would forbid heterosexuality.
Second, you must see how the scripture differentiates mankind from womankind so as to prevent the very confusion that arises from using the word "men" to refer to human beings in general.
Third, there is no corresponding commandment forbidding womankind from lying with womankind. When the Bible does take the opportunity to address this issue again, it is to restate the first commandment.
Lev.20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Paul Manata: I repeatedly asked you to demonstrate said error. You continued to ignore me while still posting.
ReplyDeleteI will break radio silence this one time because I can't abide to see falsehoods spread. The first time you threatened the removal of my posts, we were through. That is why you thought I was "ignoring you", but you didn't know the specific cause. It is impossible to fellowship in a spirit of fear, so I didn't (and won't) try. When you followed through and removed all my replies to the gentleman in NZ because they were in your "commbox" that was a petty exercise of power for power's sake and it revealed your character to me, but no amount of coercion in the world can call up the Holy Spirit which must be present when Christians share the Sacred Scriptures with each other, because God's still small voice cannot be heard in a noisy frathouse atmosphere.
MICHELLE RENEE SAID:
ReplyDelete"God's still small voice cannot be heard in a noisy frathouse atmosphere."
Funny, I find it difficult to hear God's still small voice in a lesbian bathhouse atmosphere.
Q: Duel or free-for-all?
ReplyDeleteA: What is free-for-all? ;-)
---------
TUAD: "Do you think your lesbian behavior is a sin that you need to repent of?"
MR: "And woman-woman contact is not condemned in the Law (only male-male contact is), and since sin is the transgression of law, the answer to your last question is no."
I must say that I've never seen this line of reasoning used before to justify lesbian behavior as being not a sin!
I don't agree, but I will happily accept your concession that male homosexual behavior is a sin.
It will be quite interesting to inform gay men that there is a lesbian who states that gay behavior is a biblical sin whereas her lesbian behavior is not. I wonder what the look will be on their faces when they hear that.
MR: "As for being a follower of Christ, let him decide who his disciples are. I don't have standing to make that claim."
I think you can still answer the question honestly to yourself. (At least I hope you can.)
Anyways, I pray that the Lord is merciful to me for I will say the following with trembling and love:
"Dear Michelle Renee,
You do not know truly know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, the Lover of your eternal soul. You need to repent of your sins (including your same-sex behavior) and pray that the Holy Spirit regenerates you with a humble saving faith.
And although there were some rough comments exchanged, I would humbly suggest that you be electronically discipled by Steve Hays, Paul Manata, and any other Triabloguer (These guys are far better Christians than I) as well as getting into a local church. Also, check into one of the local Ex-Gay ministries (I know they're held in great disrepute in the GLBT community, but I think it's grossly unfair).
And I would suggest reading the Bible, but to be honest, I don't trust your ability to interpret or exegete the Bible. That's why I suggest Steve Hays or Paul Manata.
I hope you forgive me if I have offended you with such unsolicited counsel. But I might never get another opportunity again to speak humble truth-in-love to your soul, a soul that Jesus died on the Cross and shed His Blood for.
And I ask God to forgive me if I have been more offensive than He needed me to be. The offense of the Cross is already offensive enough without me making it worse.
Much Love in Christ,
Truth Unites... and Divides
You need to look at the context of the passages though. The point I was making was that the Bible was written in a patriarchal culture and for that reason many of the commandments only address men. However, the law is clear that you can't have sex outside of marriage and marriage is also defined as between a man and a woman.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly with Romans 1. The verse which you say is merely Paul voicing his preferences comes in a context where he's obviously talking about sin.
Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."
What you have to do is rip out a verse from it's context, and claim that 'unnatural' doesn't necessarily mean immoral. It CAN mean that though. Just as it can mean that in English. Anyone who's honest with themselves, though, can look at the surrounding text and see that each sentence is linked to the next one.
God gave them up to 'vile affections' 'for' their women had 'unnatural' relations. And 'likewise' so did the men, for which they received 'just recompense'.
No, Michelle, you quite talking not because I threatened to ban you for a week, but becausze you couldn't back up your charge. You are using what I said as an excuse to avoid backing up your claim. Apparently you think you should be able to lie with impunity in people's comboxes and not have to face consequences. Sorry, there's consequences for your actions. I gave you ample time to substantiate your chargers. You should just keep silent because, like Pinocchio, your nose keeps growing as you try to come up with new lies to cover the original lie.
ReplyDeleteThe point I was making was that the Bible was written in a patriarchal culture and for that reason many of the commandments only address men.
ReplyDeleteThere are other commandments against sexual immorality, such as not having sex with your aunt. Just because the commandment is written in such a way as to be an imperative against the man not to have sex with his close relatives, it follows necessarily that the aunt is not to have sex with the man.
There is a commandment against bestiality which is addressed to both genders. Lev.18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Yet there is no similar injunction against lesbianism in the Mosaic Law. So we are left with Romans 1:26. But at least you are honest about the Bible. Most Christians think it is an exhaustive Catechism.
And although there were some rough comments exchanged, I would humbly suggest that you be electronically discipled by Steve Hays, Paul Manata, and any other Triabloguer (These guys are far better Christians than I) as well as getting into a local church.
I used to be in an Evangelical Free Church and I knew the scriptures like the back of my hand, inside out, upside-down and backwards. But I'm a lesbian. There is a thin thread still connecting me to Christianity which is my knowledge of the scriptures (you may not agree with my interpretation of them, but I know what they say). I keep my bible knowledge polished by entering into discussions with online groups. I'd like to do that here, but it may not be possible. I've already been banned from one editor's commbox and I'm probably about two seconds away from being invited to leave altogether. I am reluctant to use scriptures to try to defend lesbianism, but I was led into it by answering direct questions, and I think it would be better not to discuss this topic anymore.
TUAD said:
ReplyDelete---
(These guys are far better Christians than I)
---
For the record, I don't agree with this. :-)
We may be more outspoken and we may have had more practice with apologetics, but that doesn't make us "better Christians."
Even if we are better in those areas, however, that is far from saying we're better in all areas. In fact, this reminds me a bit of what Paul once said:
---
If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. (1 Cor. 12:17-20).
---
No, Michelle, you quite talking not because I threatened to ban you for a week, but becausze you couldn't back up your charge.
ReplyDeleteThe charge was scriptural error. You said Christians go to heaven. I said no, the meek inherit the Earth, and the New Jerusalem comes down to Earth, and Christians go to the New Jerusalem. All this has already been answered. Go look at the original post.
Sorry, there's consequences for your actions. I gave you ample time to substantiate your chargers. You should just keep silent...
As you wish. I didn't get a fair shake here.
MR: "I used to be in an Evangelical Free Church and I knew the scriptures like the back of my hand, inside out, upside-down and backwards."
ReplyDeleteBelieve me, no offense is intended for the following, but the response needs to be said.
The Adversary knows the Scriptures extremely well and can also say what you said "I knew the scriptures like the back of my hand, inside out, upside-down and backwards."
You do, of course, remember the temptations that Satan gave Jesus in the wilderness, yes? Does it not follow then that correct, Spirit-directed, interpretation and loving obedience is needed... so that you may not merely know Scripture (in an unregenerate sense) as God's adversary/Adversary, but that you may *genuinely* KNOW the Author of Scripture as your Lord and Savior, the Lover of your soul?
In short, there are two senses of knowing Scripture. I fear that you "know" Scripture in the lesser, non-salvific, unregenerate sense.
"But I'm a lesbian."
This short statement may be speaking to the heart and crux of the matter. There is the revealing "but" qualifier.
This shows that your identity, your worldview, your prism of filtering, processng, and understanding everything is rooted in you (mistakenly) thinking that your primary identity is that of a lesbian.
You are so much more than that. So much more. You have the (marred) image of Christ in you, waiting to be redeemed and sanctified. So that your identity will be in Christ, and not in thinking that you're primarily a lesbian.
"There is a thin thread still connecting me to Christianity which is my knowledge of the scriptures (you may not agree with my interpretation of them, but I know what they say)."
Praise be to God, Michelle Renee, that He has mercifully provided that thin thread. I pray that you grasp onto that thin thread and see it develop into a loving, genuine, salvific relationship with Jesus Christ as your Lord, Master, King, and sacrificial Lover of your eternal soul.
Peace in Christ alone.
Dear Michelle Renee,
ReplyDeleteIn a previous blog thread, you mentioned something like "Moral Naturalism" as being something more efficient and winning out over what you termed "Divine Command Theory". I think you did this because you did not like the term "relativism" or "moral relativism".
Eventually, in a windy way, it came to light that you're a lesbian, and I then shared with you that you bear a (marred) image of Christ.
I should like to share a sermon which I have just read that discusses how important that the image of Christ is within you (marred and fallen as it is). And to boot, this sermon does touch a little bit about moral agents from a secular framework... which kinda circles back to the original discussion you had with Paul Manata, and Adam and Eve's moral culpability as moral agents, remember?
Sermon by Pastor Tim Keller titled "In the Image of God":
"What happens in a society that got its idea of human rights from a belief in the image of God, that all people are created in the image of God? What happens to that society when as a society as a whole it loses the idea of God? You see, what happens when you have a secular society in which most of the cultural elite say "well, we don't believe in God anymore, and therefore we don't believe human beings were made in the image of God, we just evolved, they are very complex organisms?"
Now, how do you ground human rights in the worth of the individual human being? What does that worth consist of? What makes a human being worthy of rights now that you don't believe in the image of God anymore?
And you realize that there is a huge problem right now in the philosophy, you might say in the upper reaches of the academic world, of the Western nations, Western culture. Because that's the question. If we don't believe in the image of God, this idea, what makes human beings worthy of rights and therefore protection? And here's what they are all saying. They are saying, if we don't believe in the image of God then we have to ground human rights in what they call capacities. You understand that?
The reason a human being deserves rights, protections, is because they have the capacity, they have the capacity to reason, they have self-consciousness, they have the capacity to make moral choices, they know right from wrong, they have the capacity for what some professors call "preferences." And because they have reason, and the ability to make choices and they have preferences, they are moral agents and therefore they are capable, or they are worthy of protection; they have rights.
But there is a huge problem with this whole approach, the secular approach to rights. It's huge. Nicholas Wolterstorff's new book on justice brings this out.
Peter Singer, at Princeton University, a prominent philosopher and ethicist, shows the problem and here's how he argues. He says he believes that's right, human rights are grounded in capacities. And that's why Peter Singer says I believe the Supreme Court was right when it said abortion was alright.
Now what was the reason that the Supreme Court said abortion was okay?
Now everyone gets so quiet here. Because the life in the womb doesn't have capacities. They can't make choices. They can't reason, they can't tell right from wrong, they can't live apart from the mother. They don't have capacities and therefore they don't have rights. And here's what Peter Singer says, yes he agrees with that. But if that's true let's keep something in mind. Born infants don't have those capacities either. They can't reason; they have no preferences yet. They can't make moral choices and neither can senile old people. And neither can very mentally handicapped people. And therefore, none of them .... if you believe abortion is alright, then you really can't protect the rights of any of these other people because their rights are based on capacities.
Now, do you realize how many people are furious at Peter Singer? They are furious. And every so often there is a big article in the New York Times about somebody who just fulminates against him.
Do you know why they are furious? Because he's right. He's right. If you don't believe in the image of God, what are you going to ground human rights in? You're going to ground it in capacities. If you can't protect the unborn you can't protect the newly born, you can't protect the mentally handicapped, you can't protect old people. It's a fact. It's logical. If you go back to the beginning of the Christian church, here's what you saw: they came into a Greco-Roman world that also grounded the idea of rights on capacities. Aristotle said that some races are too emotional, they couldn't reason because they didn't have the capacity for higher reason. They deserved to be slaves. And in the Greco-Roman world you had slavery, you had terrible poverty, you had lots of abortion (it was very dangerous then, but it still happened), you had infanticide, it was perfectly legal, especially girl babies died of exposure. And you took the elderly and sick poor people and just let them die. And that was all legal; and it was done all the time.
But the Christians came along and they believed in the Imago Dei. And because they believed in the image of God, from the beginning they were champions ... well, first of all, they were totally against abortion, from the beginning. Because if you believe in the image of God you have to be. You have to be. You know, I mean, if human life is good, then nascent human life has got to be good. But they were also against infanticide. They were not one issue people. They cared for the poor. They cared for women, they didn't make widows ... at that time most people said that if you are a widow, you've got to remarry. And the Christians said not if you don't want to, we'll support you. They were champions of women; they were champions of orphans; they were champions of the weak; they were champions of the poor. And they were against abortion. And they put the rest of the culture to shame because of their belief in the sanctity of life.
So that eventually, the whole Western world adopted the idea of the image of God. Because when you believe in the image of God, the circle of protected life expands. But if you don't believe in the image of God, if you only believe in capacities or some other trumped up approach to why we believe in human rights, the circle will continually contract. It will get smaller and smaller, and fewer and fewer people will be protected. You see how incredible, crucial, important, the image of God teaching is."
-------
Michelle Renee, repeating in love to you: "You have the (marred) image of Christ in you, waiting to be redeemed and sanctified. So that your identity will be in Christ, and not in thinking that you're primarily a lesbian.
You do not yet truly know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, the Lover of your eternal soul. You need to repent of your sins (including your same-sex behavior) and pray that the Holy Spirit regenerates you with a humble saving faith."
Peace in Christ alone.
What are the Biblical arguments against lesbianism?
ReplyDeleteTURNSTILE SAID:
ReplyDelete"What are the Biblical arguments against lesbianism?"
Start with Gen 1-2 and Rom 1.
I hope I don't offend the lesbian and/or feminist readership here on the Triablogue site, but I've just read the following about the 2008 award for Political Incorrectness:
ReplyDelete"This year's award goes to an unassuming university professor who has devoted his career to the understanding and remedy of family violence. He has received funding from the National Institutes of Health and was elected president of the National Council on Family Relations and the Eastern Sociological Society. Needless to say, his resumé is lengthy and impressive.
When he began his research in the 1970s, the public was well-acquainted with the stereotype of beer-swilling men who bullied their wives. That was the good professor's assumption, as well. But when he published his research findings in 1975, everyone was amazed -- women were just as likely as men to engage in partner violence.
When he did follow-up surveys over the following 20 years, the gender-equal results confirmed his original research. More surprising, when other researchers studied homosexual relationships, they found lesbians had the highest rates of partner aggression.
There was a problem, but not with the research itself.
The burgeoning feminist movement had staked out the domestic violence issue as its cri de coeur. The feminists had ginned up their own theory: Domestic violence is a hate crime perpetrated against women. Gloria Steinem said it best: "The patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself."
But what if all the research paints a completely different picture, showing heterosexual women are equally likely to aggress, and the highest rates of battering are found among lesbians? Obviously the hate crime theory goes out the window, and Steinem's breathless claim seems pretty far-fetched, as well.
So what's a good feminist to do about the good professor's research? Well, why not start a whispering campaign? Anything for the cause of female empowerment, right?
So feminists at his university organized telephone ring accusing him of being a misogynist. He was picketed repeatedly. At the University of Massachusetts, a group of shouting and stomping women prevented him from delivering a guest lecture. (Yes, these are the same women who claim to be working for a more peaceful and tolerant society.)
In Canada, Pat Marshall, chairwoman of the Commission on Violence Against Women, made this charge to a reporter about her meeting with the professor's wife: "I have never met a woman who looked so victimized." But when the writer called the woman, she said she had never been struck. Marshall was later forced to apologize.
When the professor was elected president of the Society for the Study of Social Problems, a group of feminists stood up and walked out as he began his presidential address. And the threats continue to this day -- recently one of his PhD students was told she would never find a job if she did her doctoral research with him.
In the face of such opposition, many academics would go into another line of research, or begin to skew their data to be politically acceptable. But he would have none of that. Rather than being cowed by the threats, he opted to expose the motivations behind the attacks.
In one interview, he charged the criticisms of his work are "justifications of violence by women in the guise of feminism. This is a betrayal of the feminist ideal of a nonviolent world."
Then we went on to shed the light of truth their tactics.
Writing last year in the European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, he cast the spotlight on how feminist academics conceal, deny, and distort the evidence. Then he detailed the ways in which feminists have corrupted the research on female-perpetrated abuse, even scheming to obstruct research funds that might identify female offenders. Finally he took aim at researchers who have "let their ideological commitments overrule their scientific commitments."
Interested persons can read this no-holds-barred paper here.
Congratulations, Dr. Murray Straus, director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. You are the winner of the 2008 Award for Political Incorrectness."