James White's outfit has a new contributor by the name of Ryan. I'll make a few comments about his post, attacking Acts17:
1. Ryan says:
I also think Acts17Apologetics knows that lines were crossed. Regarding a church in Florida that David Wood was scheduled to visit, he revealed some of his personal thoughts prior to the visit from the YouTube video–
Gosh, I hope they haven’t seen Islamicize Me because they’re going to get mad.
David, if you didn’t cross any lines, then why did you think the church would be mad?
How does the fact that some people get mad or might get mad at something entail that the individual they're mad at crossed the line? People got mad at OT prophets. People got mad at the Apostles. People got mad at Jesus.
In addition, different Christians have different sensibilities. Some Christians have scruples that others do not.
2. Borrowing Doug Wilson's "boundary between satire and scurrility", Ryan implies that the Islamicize Me video series is scurrilous. It's unclear what, exactly Ryan is alleging inasmuch as the word has more than one sense.
i) Related definitions of the word include "low buffoonery", "coarse, gross, obscene." Yet on that definition, some parts of the Bible are "scurrilous", but presumably, Ryan doesn't mean to say the Bible is scurrilous.
ii) Another definition is "humorously insulting", but that's pretty mild. Is it always wrong to be humorously insulting? And in reference to what? People? Ideas? Isn't Scripture sometimes humorously insulting?
iii) Another definition is "libelous, slanderous, defamatory, expressing unfair or false criticism intended to damage someone's reputation".
No doubt Acts17 intends to damage Muhammad's reputation. However, that's only slanderous if it amounts to unfair or false criticism. Is it Ryan's contention that the Hadith don't command or commend what Acts17 depicts? If Muhammad commands or commends the behavior which Acts17 parodies, how is that slanderous or defamatory? To the contrary, if that's accurate, then it would be self-incriminating for Muslims to accuse Acts17 of scurrility. For in that event, what's scurrilous isn't Islamicize Me but the Hadith. Is it now the official position of Alpha and Omega Ministries that speaking ill of Muhammad is scurrilous?
3. On the heels of accusing Acts17 of scurrility, Ryan says:
There’s very little difference in the degree of offense and the justifications being used by Acts17Apologetics and Westboro Baptist Church. In fact, Westboro could probably learn a thing or two from the Islamicize Me and the James White Controversy video and bolster their defense by employing the same justification.
How ironic. What could be more scurrilous than comparing Acts17 to the Westboro cult! In what respect is there "very little difference in the degree of offense and the justifications being used by Acts17Apologetics and Westboro Baptist Church"? Ryan doesn't begin to spell that out. Let's run through some possibilities:
4. Methodological moral equivalence
i) Perhaps Ryan means that Acts17 and the Westboro cult employ the same methods. Let's temporarily grant that postulate for discussion purposes. Even if two groups use the same methods, that would only make them methodologically morally equivalent if their methods are intrinsically good or evil. Suppose two groups both torture children. That makes them methodologically morally equivalent.
ii) However, methodological equivalence doesn't entail methodological moral equivalence. Suppose an armed burglar breaks into a house. The owner is home. The owner is armed. The owner shoots intruder in self-defense. Both owner and burglar are methodologically equivalent inasmuch as both men have guns. But that doesn't' make them methodologically morally equivalent. The intruder is an assailant. He's in the wrong. So even if, for argument's sake, Acts17 and the Westboro cult use the same methods, that doesn't ipso facto make them morally equivalent.
iii) But do Acts17 and the Westboro cult use the same methods? On the one hand, Acts17 is producing videos that simulate behavior commanded or commended in the Hadith. On the other hand, the Westboro cult pickets funerals with placards like "God hates fags", "Semper fi fags," and "Thank God for dead soldiers."
How do those reflect the same methods and tactics? Can Ryan explain?
5. Substantive moral equivalence
i) Perhaps Ryan means Acts17 and the Westboro cult are substantively morally equivalent. Let's take some examples of the Westboro cult:
Marine Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder was killed in Iraq on March 3, 2006. His father, Albert Snyder, filed a lawsuit in June 2006 against Westboro Baptist Church and several of its members ("Defendants") after members of the church went to Maryland to picket his son's funeral in a protest against homosexuality. The Defendants were not present at the funeral, but carried signs with messages such as "God Hates the USA," "America is doomed," "Fag troops," "You're going to hell," "God hates you," "Semper fi fags," and "Thank God for dead soldiers."Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, announced today that they plan to protest the funeral of a 9-year-old girl murdered during Saturday's shooting rampage in Tucson.Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims (2012): A day after 20-year-old Adam Lanza killed 20 Newtown, Conn., first-graders, six school workers, his mother and himself on Dec. 14, 2012, church members took to social media claiming that they would picket the vigil for victims of the mass killing.
How is that substantively akin to what Acts17 is doing? Murdered grade elementary school students aren't morally responsible for the homosexual culture. Marines aren't responsible for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. That was an act of Congress. There's no presumption that Marines are homosexual. To the contrary, we can safely presume that the Marines are overwhelmingly straight.
Conversely, Acts17 is exposing people to what Islam actually represents, in its authoritative founding documents. In terms of substance, how is that remotely like what the Westboro cult does? These reflect two radically different causes.
If, however, Acts17 and the Westboro cult aren't substantively alike or methodologically alike, then what's the level at which Ryan's comparison operates? "The degree of offense"? Many unbelievers are offended by the Bible. Does that mean there’s very little difference in the degree of offense between the Bible and the Westboro cult?
Even if that were the case, everyone is not entitled to be offended. It's wrong to be offended by some things.
Even if two groups use similar justifications, that can't be detached from the nature of the cause. It isn't simply the nature of the justification or purported justification, but the nature of the cause that makes a morally salient difference. Is Ryan unable to grasp that elementary distinction?
They used words to talk about things they disagree with! You know who else used words to talk about things they disagree with? Hitler!
ReplyDeleteWait. Islamicize Me.
Me Islamicize.
Meim slaicize.
Mein Kampf!
I see what you did there, Wood!
I am sorry, but one sentence from Ryan becomes the emphasis of your article? Really? Your time would of been more efficiently and effective if you sought to attack Douglas Wilson's underlining theme by Ryan, which puts Sam Shamoun. For example, out of receiving donations because the man has a haughty spirit and horrid temperament, which makes any project of seeking to walk the fine line of mockery and satire impossible.
ReplyDeleteYou failed in really addressing Ryan's attack on David Wood's immature satire and mockery.
Yeah, cuz it's not like we've mentioned the surrounding controversy at any time over the past three days.
DeleteLudwigg
Delete"I am sorry, but one sentence from Ryan becomes the emphasis of your article? Really? Your time would of been more efficiently and effective if you sought to attack Douglas Wilson's underlining theme by Ryan, which puts Sam Shamoun. For example, out of receiving donations because the man has a haughty spirit and horrid temperament, which makes any project of seeking to walk the fine line of mockery and satire impossible."
As far as this goes, why should anyone have to deal with Doug Wilson's "principles" for being "a godly satirist"? The only reason to address Wilson's principles is if they are equivalent to biblical principles. Wilson may think they are, but that doesn't mean others agree they are.
Ludwigg
Delete"You failed in really addressing Ryan's attack on David Wood's immature satire and mockery."
That begs the question. It's the very point of contention. You're assuming what Wood did in his "Islamicize Me" videos is "immature". That's how James White (and others at his ministry) frames it, but White hasn't actually responded to objections from people like Steve Hays and Peter Pike, among others.
>>>You failed in really addressing Ryan's attack on David Wood's "immature" satire and mockery.
DeleteLike you failed to justify that remark? Or did he fail in some other way? You really make very convincing points!!! Very!!!
>>>I am sorry, but one sentence from Ryan becomes the emphasis of your article? Really?
DeleteWell, if that point seeks to defame Wood's ministry by comparing it to an extremist outfit - shouldn't that point become an emphasis of criticism? I have not seen a more careless comparison in my life!
>>>Your time would of been more efficiently and effective if you sought to attack Douglas Wilson's underlining theme by Ryan
For a ministry that brags about being scripturally oriented - their (AO Ministries) time would have been more "efficiently" and "effectively" spent if they justified their attack Biblically. They thought that they did, and Wood rebutted that - so logic would demand that the next reply (i.e. this one) would rebut Wood's positions (- again -) Biblically. Ryan tried to do that, but he also quoted Douglas somebody. We dont care who that person is because he just a man like us - we can what the scripture say. Thats the rule of faith, and thats the point White has been harping about throughout his apologetics (i.e. to stick to that rule of faith). (Oh, and to some of the other Bible verses that Ryan did misapply to the videos, consider my brief response as a standalone comment.)
>>>"You failed in really addressing Ryan's attack on David Wood's immature satire and mockery."
If you keep missing the point, why would you think otherwise?
"Douglas somebody"...
DeleteSuch an arrogant statement demonstrates the level of immaturity happening from supporters of immature satire( blurring out their genitals as a form to mock at man with tunics is childish, something one finds in middle school behavior). If you would read Douglas, a guy who manage to convert a whole city through strategy and is the leader in homeschooling, and he is a minister that should require at least respect as the Scripture calls of believers concerning their elders, then you might have something valuable to say. Instead, you are a simple yes-man to everything a group of yahoos are doing.
And let me just add, David Wood, as far we know from his own testimony, has suffered from mental illness of the kind that ideation of murder and insensitivity comes easy to him. It is no surprise that he acts the scenes of murder and violence with great ease;it takes one to act one well. And, Sam Shamoun suffers from a temperate problem, which always seems to be asking prayer about, which makes his mad hogan character and sheik flow naturally. As for the other two, they are acting simply their immaturity, they are reliving there not too distant childhood of fart jokes and body parts.
DeleteYou see, acting is not simply acting,a pose, it comes from the character of individuals as well.
In my opinion, it is a group of yahooz with vulgar taste, even if what they are trying to mock is debased.
To quote Nietzsche, if you stare into the abyss long enough, it will stare back at you. One can say now, these yahoos are looking into how dark they can get
Suppose Acts17 hired professional actors to perform the skits. How, if at all, would that change your criticism?
DeleteI'd say the main effect of Wood's personality disorder is that it makes him fearless. On a related note, he doesn't care what people think of him. Attempts to shame him or bully him emotionally are futile. By contrast, White is vain, unctuous and image-conscious.
DeleteLudwig
Delete>>>""Douglas somebody"..."
>>>"Such an arrogant statement demonstrates the level of immaturity happening from supporters of immature satire( blurring out their genitals as a form to mock at man with tunics is childish, something one finds in middle school behavior)."
These sort of juvenile tantrums from you notwithstanding, let me clarify: it is not arrogant when I am comparing and contrasting the authority of this Douglas "somebody" with the rule of faith: Scripture. You failed to appreciate that, DESPITE me emphasising it, and that is your problem, and yours alone to suffer.
>>>"If you would read Douglas, a guy who manage to convert a whole city through strategy and is the leader in homeschooling, and he is a minister that should require at least respect as the Scripture calls of believers concerning their elders, then you might have something valuable to say."
Look man, I dont have the patience for such rhetoric. The whole debate has centred about WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS, and what SCRIPTURE permits. Not Douglas, not James White, not James McCloud! Scripture is inspired, interpretations of that scripture by us is not inspired, so pardon me if I wish to see the scriptural verses themselves and then discuss on them. If this is too much for you to bear - If you have nothing valuable to contribute on that, or even appreciate the context of that - you are the last person to talk about what could be valuable in this discussion or not. To repeat again: compared to the authority of scripture - which derives it authority from God, all of us are nobody (to apply what I said about Douglas to us, me included) - even the ones whom God has used for more than others. This is Christian theology 101. Not to mention Christian commonsense 101.
>>>"Instead, you are a simple yes-man to everything a group of yahoos are doing."
Lol. Do you see your reflection in me, Ludwig? Such ad hominem on my person have no effect on me, arguments do so try again.
>>>By contrast, White is vain, unctuous and image-conscious.
DeleteAnd arrogant. Self-obsessed (only my methodology works!). Accusatory. Dismissive. And closed-minded.
Ludwigg
Delete"Such an arrogant statement demonstrates the level of immaturity happening from supporters of immature satire( blurring out their genitals as a form to mock at man with tunics is childish, something one finds in middle school behavior)."
How do you know they aren't blurring it out because he might seriously have accidentally exposed his genitals?
Also, even if what you say is true, even if it's immature, it doesn't necessarily mean it's immoral. People, even adults, do lots of silly things for fun that aren't morally wrong. Well, unless you live a very dour and sour life!
"If you would read Douglas, a guy who manage to convert a whole city through strategy and is the leader in homeschooling, and he is a minister that should require at least respect as the Scripture calls of believers concerning their elders, then you might have something valuable to say."
What makes you think James McCloud is being disrespectful by calling Doug Wilson "Douglas someday"? Maybe James McCloud honestly doesn't know who Doug Wilson is.
There are a lot of ministers who have done much for God's kingdom who nevertheless we should not necessarily listen to on certain topics. Take, for example, James White. He's done a lot for God. But I wouldn't listen to White on scientific topics because he's not scientifically informed.
"Instead, you are a simple yes-man to everything a group of yahoos are doing."
Harsh.
"And let me just add, David Wood, as far we know from his own testimony, has suffered from mental illness of the kind that ideation of murder and insensitivity comes easy to him. It is no surprise that he acts the scenes of murder and violence with great ease;it takes one to act one well...You see, acting is not simply acting,a pose, it comes from the character of individuals as well."
Whoa, for real? You're speaking about a fellow Christian who is penitent about his attempted murder of his father. But I guess even the apostle Paul had many Christians who doubted his conversion was genuine.
I'd hate to see what sins you've committed in the past, then hold them against you if you did something tangentially related! Like if you were a former alcoholic, but were acting in a play involving the Last Supper, and I said, "Ludwigg sure can drink that wine with great ease, it must be because he was a former alcoholic! I mean it takes one to act one well, right? Because acting is not simply acting, a pose, it comes from the character of individuals as well!"
Douglas Wilson wrote a book on satire, folks. If you are going to claim, solo scriptura to avoid reading Ryan's means of context and spirit behind his post, then stop trying to come off all fundamentalist who only read the Bible and shuns reading outside it to be informed. Douglas Wilson should of been read by David Wood and Sam Shamoun, instead they are acting out their repressed egos before hundreds of people, wishing to get paid from such nonsense.
DeleteLet me say it again, read Douglas Wilson book on satire, then critize. Stop with the Twitter like responses, typical of our millennial generation.
Ludwigg
Delete"Douglas Wilson wrote a book on satire, folks. If you are going to claim, solo scriptura to avoid reading Ryan's means of context and spirit behind his post, then stop trying to come off all fundamentalist who only read the Bible and shuns reading outside it to be informed. Douglas Wilson should of been read by David Wood and Sam Shamoun, instead they are acting out their repressed egos before hundreds of people, wishing to get paid from such nonsense. Let me say it again, read Douglas Wilson book on satire, then critize."
I saw Doug Wilson's 21 "principles" for being a "godly satirist" that Ryan regurgitated. As I've already said, the only reason to address Wilson's principles is if they are equivalent to biblical principles. Wilson may think they are, but that doesn't mean others agree they are.
"Stop with the Twitter like responses, typical of our millennial generation."
For one thing, it's not only millennials who have weighed in here (e.g. Steve Hays).
Also, it's not as if all the responses have been "Twitter like responses". You're just attempting to smear people.
And maybe you should stop attacking milliennials and start considering the problems with your own generation if you're not a millennial. Maybe you have a blindspot about what's appropriate or inappropriate based on your own generational prejudices.
>>>What makes you think James McCloud is being disrespectful by calling Doug Wilson "Douglas someday"? Maybe James McCloud honestly doesn't know who Doug Wilson is.
DeleteI actually don't. There are many people God uses for his glory - one cannot expect me to know everybody. I am not omniscient like my maker, nor do I feel the need to google every name slapped in a discussion about what "scripture says". There are Christians who dont know Wood or White. Plus, argument from authority does not work on me - arguments from scripture (supported by an authority, if I find that argument valid) does.
>>> If you are going to claim, solo scriptura to avoid reading Ryan's means of context and spirit behind his post,
Either you cannot comprehend English or (and more likely) you are so biased about this affair that you fail to appreciate the weight scripture has in this matter by WHITE's OWN STANDARD. White did not appeal to anyone. but scripture - and I found that very fair and very Christian.
The reason I am dismissing Wilson's take is not because I disagree with his arguments - but because 1. we have already seen how White's application of scripture in this matter does not make sense to the rest of us who are not in White's virtue signaling camp, and 2. I STILL want to discuss the RULE OF FAITH, not an OPINION on that rule of faith. Wilson's opinion, to me at least, will be valuable IF - and this is that BIG IF you stubbornly refuse to accommodate - the scripture verses he has applied, which are then applied to Wood, would make him guilty of disobeying God. If one cannot make that said application convincingly, Wilson's opinions loose relevance.
>>>Douglas Wilson wrote a book on satire, folks.
So? Argument from authority? Sorry, fallacy!
>>>Douglas Wilson should of been read by David Wood and Sam Shamoun, instead they are acting out their repressed egos before hundreds of people, wishing to get paid from such nonsense.
They have read the BEST book out their: SCRIPTURE. Now if you think the scripture is so hopelessly unclear that we compulsorily need to defer to an authority to make sense of it - we are not on the same train.
>>>Let me say it again, read Douglas Wilson book on satire, then critize. Stop with the Twitter like responses, typical of our millennial generation.
So now Wilson's book is the 68th book of the canon! Stop this generalisation. Yes I am a millennial, but I have no social media account except for Google and another. I deactivated all my accounts last October. Search my name and you will find me nowhere. That is atypical of my generation - but if you have social media accounts, you have found yourself guilty of your own words.
P.S. I did plan to read Wilson's book as a general defense of satire. But if people want to turn that book into a specific critique of Wood's series - I'll need convincing scripture application first - and in a way that does not makes Jesus, the apostles and the prophets sinners.
*67th book seemingly being all/some of White's rigid interpretations which he expects us to accept as obvious.
Delete>>>Whoa, for real? You're speaking about a fellow Christian who is penitent about his attempted murder of his father. But I guess even the apostle Paul had many Christians who doubted his conversion was genuine.
DeleteI'd hate to see what sins you've committed in the past, then hold them against you if you did something tangentially related! Like if you were a former alcoholic, but were acting in a play involving the Last Supper, and I said, "Ludwigg sure can drink that wine with great ease, it must be because he was a former alcoholic! I mean it takes one to act one well, right? Because acting is not simply acting, a pose, it comes from the character of individuals as well!"
Good rebuttal!
Ludwigg,
DeleteYour priorities are revealing. So much ire for Acts17. It would behoove you to redirect your ire at the Islamists and their enablers.
I am ashamed of being a millennial, when I see our twitter-like reactionary responses. Not one week went by for a response of Ryan`s article, nor did you actually took the time to read Ryan`s book reference before a response. Shallowness is the supreme vice; when you try to attack someone who has read a book on how to do satire, draws the criticism for the yahoos of coarse joking from, and somehow the supposed detached, analytical, and mere theologian who wants to refute a well thought article finds it scholarly to not wait for a response rooted in a deep and well thought response. Pathetic. To me, this is just another sign of seeking internet fame; I get it, theology degrees don`t make money, create a modern class of beggars who are willing to create content to get likes and shares for profit. This is my final thought on blogs like these, and debased yahoos who are trying to make a living from controversy.
DeleteMy friend Ludwig!
DeleteYour said: "I am ashamed of being a millennial, when I see our twitter-like reactionary responses. Not one week went by for a response of Ryan`s article, nor did you actually took the time to read Ryan`s book reference before a response. Shallowness is the supreme vice; when you try to attack someone who has read a book on how to do satire, draws the criticism for the yahoos of coarse joking from, and somehow the supposed detached, analytical, and mere theologian who wants to refute a well thought article finds it scholarly to not wait for a response rooted in a deep and well thought response. Pathetic. To me, this is just another sign of seeking internet fame; I get it, theology degrees don`t make money, create a modern class of beggars who are willing to create content to get likes and shares for profit. This is my final thought on blogs like these, and debased yahoos who are trying to make a living from controversy."
In my judgment with that kind of a response you are justified in being ashamed of yourself.
I am happy for you that this was your final response, for I wouldn't want you to keep embarrassing yourself for a minute more by doing nothing more than engaging in logical fallacies (Ad hominem, non-sequitur, argument from authority, begging the question).
Ludwigg:
Delete"Not one week went by for a response of Ryan`s article, nor did you actually took the time to read Ryan`s book reference before a response. Shallowness is the supreme vice; when you try to attack someone who has read a book on how to do satire, draws the criticism for the yahoos of coarse joking from, and somehow the supposed detached, analytical, and mere theologian who wants to refute a well thought article finds it scholarly to not wait for a response rooted in a deep and well thought response. Pathetic."
Why would a week need to elapse to comment on Ryan's post? You think everyone who reads his post is supposed to read Wilson's whole book?
I notice that you haven't attempted to refute a single point I made in response to Ryan's post.
"To me, this is just another sign of seeking internet fame; I get it, theology degrees don`t make money, create a modern class of beggars who are willing to create content to get likes and shares for profit. This is my final thought on blogs like these, and debased yahoos who are trying to make a living from controversy."
I don't make a living as a blogger or apologist. Tblog doesn't take donations.
There's no predicting which posts will be popular.
Ludwigg
Delete"I am ashamed of being a millennial, when I see our twitter-like reactionary responses."
Once again, painting with a broad brush and bad-mouthing millennials even though there's clear evidence to the contrary since there are millennials here who haven't responded with "twitter-like reactionary responses" but who have responded with thoughtful and rational responses. You won't agree with them, but you can't say they're unreasonable.
"Not one week went by for a response of Ryan`s article, nor did you actually took the time to read Ryan`s book reference before a response. Shallowness is the supreme vice; when you try to attack someone who has read a book on how to do satire, draws the criticism for the yahoos of coarse joking from, and somehow the supposed detached, analytical, and mere theologian who wants to refute a well thought article finds it scholarly to not wait for a response rooted in a deep and well thought response. Pathetic. To me, this is just another sign of seeking internet fame; I get it, theology degrees don`t make money, create a modern class of beggars who are willing to create content to get likes and shares for profit. This is my final thought on blogs like these, and debased yahoos who are trying to make a living from controversy."
1. Since you keep harping on about shallowness, not having deep and well thought out responses, etc., it's ironic you don't interact with people's comments except in a very "shallow" manner! Your comments are just lots of whining and complaining without any actual arguments. One might even conclude your comments are not "well thought out"!
2. I appreciate how you keep calling people "yahoos" like it's an insult even though we're living in the year 2018! :) I guess it's an insult, but couldn't you come up with something a little less hokey? Something a bit more clever? I imagine you saying "yahoos" while wearing horn-rimmed glasses and a bowtie while sucking on a lemon drop.
Two quick responses. Ryan said,
ReplyDelete"This line does in fact exist, as difficult to discern as it might be, and we have plenty of examples of these types of lines that shouldn’t be crossed throughout scripture. Consuming alcohol / Drunkenness (Galatians 5:21), Eating food / Gluttony (Proverbs 23:20-21), Resting / Laziness (Proverbs:30-34, 1 Timothy 5:8), Seasoning with Salt / Coarse Jesting (Ephesians 5:4)"
My response: all of those things are ACTUALLY doing it. David did not actually suckle on a nipple. Or is he suggesting that even to act like a drunkard is a sin (when one is not really drunk?)?
>>>"Quoting Vocab, how does someone “show the absurdity of sin, without sinning”, in regards to Ezekiel 23, using a visual medium such as YouTube? Can we all agree that an Egyptian male with the member of a donkey and the issue of a horse is absurd? I think we can. Since that’s the bar or line Acts17Apologetics is employing, does that mean Christians are free to visually represent it? This is your degree of offense that Christians aren’t supposed to surpass, right?"
My response: Why would you want to show that? Because you want to satirise the "weird stuff" (White's description) of the Bible? More importantly, and even if you do,:
1. If you don't show the actual penis in any way (I didnt see breasts in David's videos), AND
2. Dont have someone (or some horse) ejaculate on camera, AND
3. You are doing it to bring people to God as a first step (which would be weird considering you want to satirise the Bible - but David's videos are seen by him as a first step in preparing for the gospel so this context is relevant).
THEN I think it should be fine. If it is good for the goose, its good for the gander.
But given that you would be at least failing condition 3, no, a Christian should not engage in such a satire against the Bible. Sorry, poor analogy. Think over it, and come up with a better analogy that could actually defeat Wood's stance rather than weaken yours!
>>>"Quoting Vocab, how does someone “show the absurdity of sin, without sinning”, in regards to Ezekiel 23, using a visual medium such as YouTube?
DeleteIs Ryan implying that Ezekiel sinned here? Hmm, interesting!