Sunday, January 04, 2009

Duel or free-for-all?

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.

25 comments:

  1. 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.

    Do 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.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Was Dawkins the one who was using the expletives just out of interest?

    Brawl 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.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Comment has been blocked.

  4. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Comment has been blocked.

  6. The medium is the message.

    ReplyDelete
  7. For the curious:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ruse-dennett-briefwechsel-the-clash-between-evolution-and-evolutionism/

    ReplyDelete
  8. I hope that you did not regard my questions on the thread "Hush, Hush, Relativism" as a personal attack.

    I 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.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "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..."

    Michelle 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?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "And woman-woman contact is not condemned in the Law "

    "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.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mark Pendray, you strike me as an intelligent fellow. Here is the text:

    Lev.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.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Paul Manata: I repeatedly asked you to demonstrate said error. You continued to ignore me while still posting.

    I 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.

    ReplyDelete
  13. MICHELLE RENEE SAID:

    "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.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Comment has been blocked.

  15. 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.

    Similarly 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'.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 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.

    There 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.

    ReplyDelete
  18. TUAD said:
    ---
    (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).
    ---

    ReplyDelete
  19. No, Michelle, you quite talking not because I threatened to ban you for a week, but becausze you couldn't back up your charge.

    The 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.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Comment has been blocked.

  21. Comment has been blocked.

  22. What are the Biblical arguments against lesbianism?

    ReplyDelete
  23. TURNSTILE SAID:

    "What are the Biblical arguments against lesbianism?"

    Start with Gen 1-2 and Rom 1.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Comment has been blocked.