Over at Rhoblogy, Alan reproduced an email, as well as his reply, regarding the “notorious” comment he left at the blog of the late Ken Pulliam.
Since a number of commenters have chosen to drag Triablogue into that particular controversy, I might as well take the occasion to make a few observations of my own:
1. I’m not Alan, so I don’t know his motives. Only he knows what he intended to accomplish.
2. One objection is that his comment would be offensive to grieving family members. For all I know, that could be true. But that conjecture raises a question:
If the (allegedly) offended family members are Christian, then why would they even be reading Pulliam’s blog? His blog was militantly anti-Christian.
Put another way, it’s odd to suggest that they would be offended by one brief comment by a Christian, but not be offended by the blog itself. Why is Alan’s comment (allegedly) offensive to his Christian family members, but Pulliam’s full-frontal assault on their Christian faith is not offensive to his Christian family members?
It’s kind of like a customer at an adult bookstore using a mild expletive, only to have the cashier and all the other customers reprimand him for inappropriate language. Somehow the surroundings belie the selective umbrage.
If we presume to speak on behalf of his Christian friends and relatives, what could be more offensive than his blasphemous attack on their precious faith? The setting itself is bound to give offense. So shouldn’t all that indignation be redirected?
3. Phrases like “I pity you!” or “I feel sorry for you!” are often used as put-downs in vernacular usage. As such, they’ve acquired a derogatory connotation.
Yet there’s nothing inherently derogatory about the notion or sentiment of pity. Traditionally, that was deemed to be a Christian virtue. Consider some examples from historic English usage:
Job 6:14
To him that is afflicted pity should be showed from his friend; but he forsaketh the fear of the Almighty.
Job 19:21
Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O ye my friends; for the hand of God hath touched me.
Psalm 69:20
Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none.
Isaiah 63:9
In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.
Matthew 18:33
Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellow servant, even as I had pity on thee?
4. I also think the language of “pity” is apt to offend us because it offends our overdeveloped sense of pride. We don’t like to find ourselves in a pitiful condition.
Again, I can’t speak for Alan. Only he knows what he had in mind. But I am struck by the instantaneous reaction to the language of “pity,” which may reveal more about the attitude of the commenter than it does about Alan.
To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good. - Psalm 14:1
ReplyDeleteI pity the fool.
In Christ,
CD
1 of 4
ReplyDeleteSince a number of commenters have chosen to drag Triablogue into that particular controversy, I might as well take the occasion to make a few observations of my own:
Triablogue has decided to get involved on its own as far as i know?.Is this person in this email suggesting Ken or agnostics or atheists made some suggestions that Triablogue should get involved?.
2. One objection is that his comment would be offensive to grieving family members. For all I know, that could be true
I thought it was more about the fact it could be thought offensive by some family.Nobody assumed it would be offensive,people who were greiving thought it could.
And also for very certain
it was indeed found offensive by some friends and interested followers of Ken and his blog.
If the (allegedly) offended family members are Christian, then why would they even be reading Pulliam’s blog? His blog was militantly anti-Christian.
It is not even known for sure that all Kens family are still all Christian.But besides that fact is no good reason why some Christians might not still venture onto an agnostic atheist blog,some do this all the time you know.
Some even do believe that Jesus himself was also not afraid of being seen among non believers either.Some Christians who visited on on Kens blog indeed also displayed this very same type of attitude.
And anyway after a sudden death its often thought a very natural thing, that family or friends will sometimes specially take some extra special interest in also knowing about the interests of those they loved so much, whom have just passed away.Christian or non Christian alike.
2 of 4
ReplyDeletePut another way, it’s odd to suggest that they would be offended by one brief comment by a Christian, but not be offended by the blog itself.
I suggest your thought assumes
that the blog was indeed offensive.And you suggest likelihood of this offense about the blog of a man, who was also most often very well known by many, to seem to be very fair, caring and extremely kind.
And it seemed the comment made was for some reason, suggesting this man was the one who needed pity?.Please do tell why should we have special need to pity those, who honestly try their best to be fair,caring and extremely kind?.
Surely it is those who along with an attitude, it seems do not even know enough how to try to be a little fair caring and kind. That are those we should feel are maybe far more direct need of our pity?.
Why is Alan’s comment (allegedly) offensive to his Christian family members, but Pulliam’s full-frontal assault on their Christian faith is not offensive to his Christian family members?
Please show the evidence of this full-frontal assault on Christianity you claim as being on Kens blog ,that is actually any worse. Than lots of full-frontal assaults also displayed on many Christian blogs, concerned about matters of Islam or agnostics or atheist belief.
And maybe you can please show me where Ken had ventured onto Rhoblogy blog and suggestec he only had pity for him?.I have extra doubt Ken would dare do such a thing on any sudden death of Rhoblogy.He was a very caring and fair man who was really well known to be extremely loving kind.
And had it been offensive to Kens family then surely that was between Ken and his family?.
It’s kind of like a customer at an adult bookstore using a mild expletive, only to have the cashier and all the other customers reprimand him for inappropriate language. Somehow the surroundings belie the selective umbrage.
I dont think everybody expects all Christians to understand.But that all Christians will understand,does very little to help prove that nothing was actually wrong.And what you seem to be kind of trying to sugges in this comment you made, is that you personally feel all agnostics and atheists or non Christian must simply equal something thats kind of disgusting unthoughtful and uncouth, or some such thing?.
That is pure propaganda.And even more important was the fact that Ken was one of those agnostic atheist who specially proved it to not be so.
3 of 4
ReplyDeleteIf we presume to speak on behalf of his Christian friends and relatives, what could be more offensive than his blasphemous attack on their precious faith? The setting itself is bound to give offense. So shouldn’t all that indignation be redirected?
Those there didnt all presume to speak for Kens family alone,some of Kens friends and blog followers including some Christians felt offended themselves.
And besides, who should have the right to be deeming what might be blasphemous or not?,did you personally find it blasphemous that somebody might decide to burn a whole pile of the Qur'an?.Are any non believers allowed the right to be offended when folks of faith come onto non faithful blogs,and say they only pity them and suggest they will definately be going to hell?.
And the family was far more likely always able to discuss any personal distaste they had of Kens blog with Ken.
4 of 4
ReplyDeleteAgain, I can’t speak for Alan. Only he knows what he had in mind. But I am struck by the instantaneous reaction to the language of “pity,” which may reveal more about the attitude of the commenter than it does about Alan.
In my personal opinion your are being a little dishonest.It was not just the word pity that offended people, it was the way in which Rhoblogy had seemed to be useing it.It was also how Rhoblogy type of thought of pity for Ken, could be double checked simply by looking and reading what Rhoblogy had already written on his on blog.
And then when Rhoblogy was told how he had offended friends and blog followers of Ken. Rhoblogy only cared to strengthen his opinion and totally disregard the offence people told him he had caused.And still totally refuses to even post a simply apology to this very day.
In the last two days on this blog i have already once been humble enough and fully prepared to admit of my own accord of myself being a little wrong by being to quick of assuming something.Even though it was a simple mistake made that was also helped by internet phenomena that helped mislead and confuse, which was simply outside of my oringinal understanding.
I dont find it so very hard to apologize.It doesnt cause to much pain.Maybe for some it can make a dent in the pride.
Now why is it so much harder for some Christian to simply be a little bit humble, and simply say he made a mistake.Even if he honestly didnt mean to offend anyone, like i never meant to do.And just apologize for doing so?.
Is that really so hard?.
Lots of hot air in these comments, but no answers. Taniwha, why do not tire of not answering the questions put forth?
ReplyDeleteSteve said: "I also think the language of “pity” is apt to offend us because it offends our overdeveloped sense of pride. We don’t like to find ourselves in a pitiful condition."
ReplyDeleteWell said, and good point.
In as much as Taniwha refuses to answer any questions, I refuse to answer Taniwha's questions.
ReplyDeleteI don't bow to the whims of hypocritical atheists who think they can drop in and dictate what I should or shouldn't say, while denying the very foundation upon which one could determine such morals in the first place.
TANIWHA SAID:
ReplyDelete“Triablogue has decided to get involved on its own as far as i know?”
People like you linked my remarks to Alan’s remarks.
“I thought it was more about the fact it could be thought offensive by some family.Nobody assumed it would be offensive,people who were greiving thought it could.”
And it could be thought offensive for them to draw attention to an (allegedly) offensive comment. For it could be the case that the family would remain oblivious to the (allegedly) offensive comment unless and until commenters drew their attention to the (allegedly) offensive comment.
So I guess we should be offended by their offensive conduct in making everyone aware of an (allegedly) offensive comment. Especially given the deliberately offensive language in which they couch their feigned indignation.
“And also for very certain_it was indeed found offensive by some friends and interested followers of Ken and his blog.”
That’s your opinion of their opinion.
An alternative interpretation is that his followers pretended to be offended as a pretext to attack the Christian faith. Indeed, they made a point of using that comment as a launch pad to attack Christianity in general.
“But besides that fact is no good reason why some Christians might not still venture onto an agnostic atheist blog,some do this all the time you know.”
And Christians who make a habit of venturing onto atheists blogs aren’t likely to be shrinking violets. So why are you imposing your sob-sister scruples on everyone else?
“I suggest your thought assumes that the blog was indeed offensive.”
And the objection to Alan’s little comment assumes that his comment was indeed offensive.
“And you suggest likelihood of this offense about the blog of a man, who was also most often very well known by many, to seem to be very fair, caring and extremely kind.”
That’s often a residual Christian virtue which apostates retain.
I’d add, however, that attempting to rob all people of the hope of heaven is hardly kind and caring.
and say they only pity them and suggest they will definately be going to hell?.
Why is that wrong, but it’s not wrong to suggest that they will definitely cease to exist (a la atheism)?
“And it seemed the comment made was for some reason, suggesting this man was the one who needed pity?.Please do tell why should we have special need to pity those, who honestly try their best to be fair,caring and extremely kind?.”
To pity their eternal doom.
Cont.
ReplyDelete“Please show the evidence of this full-frontal assault on Christianity you claim as being on Kens blog ,that is actually any worse.”
Irrelevant. You framed the issued in terms of the potential to offend.
“And maybe you can please show me where Ken had ventured onto Rhoblogy blog and suggestec he only had pity for him?.I have extra doubt Ken would dare do such a thing on any sudden death of Rhoblogy.”
That’s an untested hypothetical.
“He was a very caring and fair man who was really well known to be extremely loving kind.”
Actually, he was a spiritual arsonist who, having left the church, tried to burn it down so that no one else could go back either.
“And had it been offensive to Kens family then surely that was between Ken and his family?.”
The same thing could be said of Alan’s comment. So why are third parties butting in?
“…does very little to help prove that nothing was actually wrong.”
Many atheists admit that nothing is actually wrong.
“And what you seem to be kind of trying to sugges in this comment you made, is that you personally feel all agnostics and atheists or non Christian must simply equal something thats kind of disgusting unthoughtful and uncouth, or some such thing?.”
What I obviously suggested is the studied hypocrisy of their selective umbrage.
“That is pure propaganda.”
In your opinion.
“And besides, who should have the right to be deeming what might be blasphemous or not?”
And besides, who should have the right to be deeming what might be offensive or not?
“And the family was far more likely always able to discuss any personal distaste they had of Kens blog with Ken.”
In which case, third parties like you could butt out.
“In my personal opinion your are being a little dishonest.”
And when you personal opinion collides with my personal opinion, what happens?
“It was not just the word pity that offended people.”
In your opinion of their opinion.
“And then when Rhoblogy was told how he had offended friends and blog followers of Ken.”
Since his comment wasn’t even directed at them, they don’t have a right to be offended. That’s pretentious and presumptuous.
Rhology said: Lots of hot air in these comments, but no answers. Taniwha, why do not tire of not answering the questions put forth?
ReplyDeleteHello Rhology.Thanks for the comment.
However thats your opinion.You suggesting something is hot air,does little to help prove it.
And i dont tire of returning to this blog because at this moment in time its being used as a youth groups study of Calvinism.
Peter Pike said: In as much as Taniwha refuses to answer any questions, I refuse to answer Taniwha's questions.
ReplyDeleteI don't bow to the whims of hypocritical atheists who think they can drop in and dictate what I should or shouldn't say, while denying the very foundation upon which one could determine such morals in the first place.
Hello again Peter Pike.Are you having another nice day?
I dont bow to the endless bellows and demands of the wounded pride of Calvinists either Peter.Besides you suggesting i dont answer your questions, seems slightly suspect when you dont even bother remembering to point out which questions you feel i allegedly didnt answer.
Please do feel free to say what you wish Peter, so far your preformance and Steves has been extremely enlightening of effects of the faith Calvinism.
This meme you keep endlessly reciting, accusing me of denying the very foundation upon which one could determine such morals in the first place sounds more and more like the endless chants of a feeble village bush doctor trying to conjure up some hope, that with enough luck his meme will suddenly turn into fact, if only it can be recited enough times over and over again. Like the endless squeals and temper tantrums of a spoilt child stamping the feet while demanding they receive an icecream.
Peter didnt anyone remind you yet?.That faith no longer has the automatic right to simply just demand things.
Do try to cheer up a little Peter.And do some study so you can try prove non believers have no way for foundation of moral.Cause we are not about to bow to your demands.Capiche?
1 of 2
ReplyDeletesteve said: People like you linked my remarks to Alan’s remarks.
Hello Steve.You feel need to get involved anytime somebody links to you?.Why blame others for your actions.
Besides i linked to nothing.
Steve said :And it could be thought offensive for them to draw attention to an (allegedly) offensive comment. For it could be the case that the family would remain oblivious to the (allegedly) offensive comment unless and until commenters drew their attention to the (allegedly) offensive comment.
Steve by your judgement of justice, it seems if somebody sees a sly cellphone picture in the process of being taken, up the skirt of a female.Then people should just be far better to try and simply shut up about it. So as to not draw any attention to it.Even if lots of people that are present there,also already do find it extremely offensive themselves.
In my opinion your suggestions are now grasping at any short tattered straw you feel you can possibly find.While you shrink further and further into an embarrassing situation that you alone have chosen to help create and involve yourself in yourself.
2 of 2
ReplyDeleteNow feeling a little small after creating your own demise,you then start trying to turn it into a situation where maybe it was the others at fault.Suggesting instead maybe it was them others who should have simply minded their own business .So as to not draw attention.
It could never have been Rhoblogy in the first place,or Steve who should have maybe just simply minded their own business right Steve?.
Its truly been an enlightment for all us outsiders to see what kind of moral outlook Calvinism stands for.As we also watch Calvinist after Calvinist try to stand their along with Steve, while at the same time dragging their faith further and further into disgrace.
You remind me lots of the Captain of the Titanic story.Whos cry was said to be, Full Steam Ahead.Even while traveling through waters filled with huge jagged icebergs.
And it didnt matter at all who else around him might plead for use of some caution.No only the ships pride of speed is what mattered most.
Its extra intriguing phenomena for us outsiders to be witnessing i tell you.
1 of 2
ReplyDeleteSteve said :That’s your opinion of their opinion.
An alternative interpretation is that his followers pretended to be offended as a pretext to attack the Christian faith. Indeed, they made a point of using that comment as a launch pad to attack Christianity in general.
No Steve its our observation.And a mighty good observation too considdering it was both the believer and non believer who became offended.Nobody in their right mind would accept your conclusion it was a launch pad to attack Christianity.Its plain to see it offended people.
Steve some Calvinist here even freely seem to have admitted they dont mind offending people.For you to suggest it was about atheists launching an attack on Christianity is simply beyond belief.
2 of 2
ReplyDeleteSteve said:And Christians who make a habit of venturing onto atheists blogs aren’t likely to be shrinking violets. So why are you imposing your sob-sister scruples on everyone else?
This is your reasoning and excuse you offer?.Wow
Steve ive looked right on down through the rest of what you wrote as well, and to be honest saw absolutely nothing more i could see worthwhile even bothing to reply to.Its all endless amount of rhetoric sprawled down the page written by Steve a Calvinist struggling to find a way to excuse the disgraceful action of another Calvinist.
Im not bothered to chase your endless use of rhetoric Steve.Should you feel there was actually some important point you made there, that ive missed and should address.
Then please do kindly point it out.Failure to do so would seem to suggest you agree you have no leg left to stand on.
Taniwha:
ReplyDelete---
Cause we are not about to bow to your demands.Capiche?
---
This isn't your blog, troll.
TANIWHA SAID:
ReplyDelete“Hello Steve.You feel need to get involved anytime somebody links to you?.Why blame others for your actions.”
You can’t even follow your own argument (such as it is). This is what you originally said:
“Triablogue has decided to get involved on its own as far as i know?”
So I gave an explanation.
And why are *you* getting involved?
“Besides i linked to nothing.”
You said I was defending Alan’s comment at a time when my own remarks were independent of his. Try to keep track of your own argument (such as it is).
“Even if lots of people that are present there,also already do find it extremely offensive themselves.”
Lots of Muslims find Valentine cards offensive. Should we discontinue Valentine cards to accommodate their mindless pique? No.
“In my opinion your suggestions are now grasping at any short tattered straw you feel you can possibly find.While you shrink further and further into an embarrassing situation that you alone have chosen to help create and involve yourself in yourself.”
As usual, you can’t present a rational argument. Just more of your emotive moralizing.
“Now feeling a little small after creating your own demise,you then start trying to turn it into a situation where maybe it was the others at fault.Suggesting instead maybe it was them others who should have simply minded their own business .So as to not draw attention.”
Once again, I was answering you on your own terms. Once again, you can’t keep track of your own argument (such as it is).
If (ad arguendo) it was none of Alan’s business, then by the same token, it’s none of your business either.
“Its truly been an enlightment for all us outsiders to see what kind of moral outlook Calvinism stands for.As we also watch Calvinist after Calvinist try to stand their along with Steve, while at the same time dragging their faith further and further into disgrace.”
You have no moral authority for your huffy disapproval.
Cont.
ReplyDelete“Nobody in their right mind would accept your conclusion it was a launch pad to attack Christianity.”
To the contrary, one can read their comments, where they use Alan’s comment as a springboard to malign Christians and Christianity. That’s exactly what they did.
“Its plain to see it offended people.”
You don’t care about offensive comments, per se. Infidel commenters left many offensive comments, but that doesn’t bother you since you only love your own kind.
“For you to suggest it was about atheists launching an attack on Christianity is simply beyond belief.”
Read how they responded.
“Steve ive looked right on down through the rest of what you wrote as well, and to be honest saw absolutely nothing more i could see worthwhile even bothing to reply to.Its all endless amount of rhetoric sprawled down the page written by Steve a Calvinist struggling to find a way to excuse the disgraceful action of another Calvinist.”
I don’t submit to the tyranny of Taniwha’s imperious feelings. You need to get over your little princess complex. The universe isn’t ruled by Taniwha’s frowning brow. Time for you to leave your fairy tale castle and step into the real world.
“Failure to do so would seem to suggest you agree you have no leg left to stand on.”
That’s rich coming from you. You’ve made no effort to lay a moral foundation for your emotive moralizing. And you are utterly duplicitous in your partisan outrage.