Ship of Fools: Hell: Fausto

Thread: Hell: Fausto Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001318

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Fuck you, coward.

[ 25. November 2016, 21:53: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Might we have some back-story, or a link? Thx.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Right. Here you go. Context.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

It is possible to read your post as lacking either hostility or condescension, but it is easier to read it as expressing one or both.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
It is possible to read your post as lacking either hostility or condescension, but it is easier to read it as expressing one or both.

I agree with you, but after reading a few of fausto's posts on that page, I think a little hostility and condescension are appropriate.
They are less than clearly written. In order to make sense of them, one is forced to mentally insert punctuation and add/change verbiage.

[ 08. September 2016, 05:44: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

mt--

Thanks for the link. I started reading there, then skimmed forward through many posts.

In what way do you think fausto is a coward? Are you saying he's waffling in his beliefs, and obscuring that with language?

I'm not fond of that kind of language about and approach to Jesus. But I'm also in a "don't know" space myself, now. FWIW, I think fausto thinks there's Something there, even if the details are unclear.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
It is possible to read your post as lacking either hostility or condescension, but it is easier to read it as expressing one or both.

I read it as frustration.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I found nowt wrong wi fausto's post that you, mousethief, objected to.

His personification of the 'Bible ... narrates' is perfectly standard.

He didn't have to nip back. And you CERTAINLY didn't have to up the ante down here did you?

There's summat else going on with you isn't there?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

fausto implied that mousethief had no business responding to a post that was addressed to Alan Cresswell. This is not how the ship works. Anyone is free to comment on any post, regardless of whom it was addressed to.

Moo

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
fausto implied that mousethief had no business responding to a post that was addressed to Alan Cresswell. This is not how the ship works. Anyone is free to comment on any post, regardless of whom it was addressed to.

Moo

Sure. Fausto (a RL friend, fwiw) is a rare enough visitor here to not get that (yeah, shoulda coulda woulda read the commandments...). A rebuke/reminder was in order, but a hell-call? Seems like overkill to me.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Fuck you, coward.

Obviously your follow-up proves that I was all wrong to infer anything but pure Christian philia and agape from your comments, and that had I replied more obediently to your inquiry, we both would have come away better informed and more satisfied.

Therefore have I uttered that which I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in sackcloth and ashes.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
fausto implied that mousethief had no business responding to a post that was addressed to Alan Cresswell. This is not how the ship works. Anyone is free to comment on any post, regardless of whom it was addressed to.

Moo

I see now how you read it that way, but what I was really objecting to was what I perceived as mousethief's disdainful tone, which to me did not seem to reflect much interest in pursuing a fruitful discussion. I did say I would have replied if the question had been posed more respectfully. I understand that the Ship boards are open forums and did not mean to suggest that he was inappropriately disrupting a private conversation.

Although anyone is free to comment on any post, no one is obligated to respond to every post.

[ 08. September 2016, 15:44: Message edited by: fausto ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Hey, Fausto. Read that Ehrman book you're extensively quoting from yet?

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Hey, Fausto. Read that Ehrman book you're extensively quoting from yet?

I referred to it but I didn't quote from it. I have heard some of his lectures, though. I was paraphrasing some of the things he said in his lectures, which it appears he has expanded upon in greater depth his book.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

"Read this book I haven't bothered to yet. It'll convince you I'm right!"

[Razz]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Fuck you, coward.
Obviously your follow-up proves that I was all wrong to infer anything but pure Christian philia and agape from your comments, and that had I replied more obediently to your inquiry, we both would have come away better informed and more satisfied.

Therefore have I uttered that which I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in sackcloth and ashes.

This is kind of gorgeous, actually. Each participant demonstrating pristine, wholesome Hell values, each in their own special way.

I'm torn-- who do you sympathise with? The guy who was clearly spoiling for a fight, or the guy who was stupid enough to take the bait?

Marty, flip a coin for me, willya? I have a feeling this is your thread.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Hey, Fausto. Read that Ehrman book you're extensively quoting from yet?
I referred to it but I didn't quote from it. I have heard some of his lectures, though. I was paraphrasing some of the things he said in his lectures, which it appears he has expanded upon in greater depth his book.

Not that I seek to pile more ashes on your beautifully grovelling self, but my understanding is, on the Purg thread, you finished off your recommendendation for the book you haven't read with some oblique little snipe about " people looking for an informed debate rather than protecting their preconcieved assertions" , or some shit like that. (Forgive me, I am using device that makes quoting difficult. Following your lead, I should now make a vague complaint about inaccurate quotes.)

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Hey, Fausto. Read that Ehrman book you're extensively quoting from yet?

Yeah, to be fair most of his books are a variation on the same theme and most are reworking of his talks. So if you've heard his talks and/or read one of his books you've got a pretty good idea of what the others say.

He's got a pretty good gig going.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Hey, Fausto. Read that Ehrman book you're extensively quoting from yet?
I referred to it but I didn't quote from it. I have heard some of his lectures, though. I was paraphrasing some of the things he said in his lectures, which it appears he has expanded upon in greater depth his book.
Not that I seek to pile more ashes on your beautifully grovelling self, but my understanding is, on the Purg thread, you finished off your recommendendation for the book you haven't read with some oblique little snipe about " people looking for an informed debate rather than protecting their preconcieved assertions" , or some shit like that. (Forgive me, I am using device that makes quoting difficult. Following your lead, I should now make a vague complaint about inaccurate quotes.)

Hehe. Your memory is close enough for oral tradition.

If my own memory serves, I made that remark in response to Moo's sarcastically repeated request for published scholarship supporting a specific strawman premise -- that in particular preliterate or semiliterate cultures anthropological studies had affirmatively found oral history traditions to be inaccurate. I had been paraphrasing Ehrman's arguments and had already said so, including the observation that his own scholarly sources would be in his book, and had also already cited my personal conversations with two other distinguished professors well versed in the field of oral history (although I did not give their names out of concern for their privacy). Accordingly, since I had already tried in good faith to explain the scholarly basis underlying my comments, it seemed likely to me that Moo might be more eager to score facile but unenlightening debate points ("Ha! You can't name a paper that says exactly what I hypothetically require, can you!") than in seriously considering whether other kinds of scholarship might also challenge the default supposition of the Gospels' historicity from a different direction -- hence my reciprocal snark.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Hehe. Your memory is close enough for oral tradition.

If my own memory serves, I made that remark in response to Moo's sarcastically repeated request for published scholarship supporting a specific strawman premise -- that in particular preliterate or semiliterate cultures anthropological studies had affirmatively found oral history traditions to be inaccurate. I had been paraphrasing Ehrman's arguments and had already said so, including the observation that his own scholarly sources would be in his book, and had also already cited my personal conversations with two other distinguished professors well versed in the field of oral history (although I did not give their names out of concern for their privacy).

OK, but you'll admit that's a pretty shitty way to make an argument, right? Not only are you suggesting that Ehrman must have a reason to say what he says and that the references must exist in the book that you've not read nor can refer to, you've now brought in other sources which we can't interrogate.

That's not much different to an argument based on an appeal to authority and we're all just expected to take your word for it.

quote:
Accordingly, since I had already tried in good faith to explain the scholarly basis underlying my comments, it seemed likely to me that Moo might be more eager to score facile but unenlightening debate points ("Ha! You can't name a paper that says exactly what I hypothetically require, can you!")

No, come on, grow up. We can all make statements of this kind, you're not the only person in these parts who is on speaking terms with a range of academics in different disciplines.

The reason we don't tend to do this is because it doesn't actually advance anything very far and just tends to close down discussion. OK, so your mates say xyz, but in the absence of knowing who they are or what specific research they are referring to, we're not really any the wiser.

If you had an ounce of nouse, you might actually take the lead from the direction that your friends have pointed and see if you can dig up the research rather than just parroting something which might (a) be completely off the wall in the field or (b) misunderstood by you or (c) about something else altogether.

But no, it is easier just to close down the discussion by appealing to these authorities and then blaming others as lacking in enlightenment.

No, friend, what is lacking around here is the intellectual respect that you owe someone else in a discussion which means that you can actually refer to something rather more substantive than something you once heard your friend rant about one night down the pub.

quote:
than in seriously considering whether other kinds of scholarship might also challenge the default supposition of the Gospels' historicity from a different direction -- hence my reciprocal snark.

Explain to me exactly how Moo is supposed to have a serious scholarly discussion when you're refusing to name the sources you're getting your argument from and you've not actually bothered to invest the time in investigating yourself.

The problem here is entirely with you.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

The problem here is entirely with you.

Maybe, but I suspect some of it also lies in the fear that if the Gospels were anything less than 100% historical fact, that might cast an intolerable degree of doubt upon other faith propositions, such as the authority of scripture, the virginity of Mary, the bodily Resurrection, etc., etc. -- even the very existence of God. (I don't think it necessarily does, but some people do.) That fear can provoke defensive and/or hostile reactions out of all proportion to the provocation. I have seen it happen before, and in much uglier ways.

I don't doubt that I have beams in my eyes that blur my vision, nor that with much more time I could argue from a much better researched and more scholarly foundation -- but I also don't think I showed significantly more disrespect or argued significantly more inarticulately in that discussion than did others who disagreed with me.

Nevertheless, I abhor myself and repent in sackcloth and ashes.

[ 08. September 2016, 19:05: Message edited by: fausto ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Maybe, but I suspect some of it also lies in the fear that if the Gospels were anything less than 100% historical fact, that might cast an intolerable degree of doubt upon other faith propositions, such as the authority of scripture, the virginity of Mary, the bodily Resurrection, etc., etc. -- even the very existence of God. (I don't think it necessarily does, but some people do.) That fear can provoke defensive and/or hostile reactions out of all proportion to the provocation. I have seen it happen before, and in much uglier ways.

Now you're just projecting. The discussion was about the accuracy of the historical record, and you've provided "evidence" to support your opinion that it isn't very which consists of a conversation and a book you've not read.

And to top it all, you're now alleging that the reason people don't instantly accept your view is because they're fearful and - oooh, the pain of being a radical - they're just too wedded to the status quo etc and so on. Believe me when I tell you that we've all heard this kind of crap before.

quote:
I don't doubt that I have beams in my eyes that blur my vision, nor that with much more time I could argue from a much better researched and more scholarly foundation -- but I also don't think I showed significantly more disrespect or argued significantly more inarticulately in that discussion than did others who disagreed with me.

Nevertheless, I abhor myself and repent in sackcloth and ashes.

Oh shut up. I mean, really, you must like the sound of your own voice if the best that you can come up with is a "sorry, not sorry" non-apology.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh shut up.

Done.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Maybe, but I suspect some of it also lies in the fear that if the Gospels were anything less than 100% historical fact, that might cast an intolerable degree of doubt upon other faith propositions, such as the authority of scripture, the virginity of Mary, the bodily Resurrection, etc., etc. -- even the very existence of God. (I don't think it necessarily does, but some people do.)

That must be the quickest self-immolation of a Straw Man I've seen in a long time.

Most Christians are entirely sanguine about the idea that we have four gospels that contain different information and different emphases, but that they agree on the salient points while not being exactly the same is a strength, not a weakness.

If you want to argue about inerrancy, Dead Horses is ---> Otherwise, feel free to climb down off the hobby horse. Must be difficult to read Ehrman's book up there. Or not read it.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Maybe, but I suspect some of it also lies in the fear that if the Gospels were anything less than 100% historical fact, that might cast an intolerable degree of doubt upon other faith propositions

I would be surprised if any of our regular contributors would hold such a simplistic opinion. We get the occasional visitor who does hold very simplistic views on the accuracy of Scripture, but they don't usually hang around for long when faced with the more nuanced and intelligent views of the majority of people here.

It would probably make for a much better discussion if you spent a bit of time finding out what people believe, rather than make assumptions. Especially when those assumptions are very wide of the mark.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(Forgive me, I am using device that makes quoting difficult. ...)

This?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

[Killing me]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Fuck you, coward.
Obviously your follow-up proves that I was all wrong to infer anything but pure Christian philia and agape from your comments, and that had I replied more obediently to your inquiry, we both would have come away better informed and more satisfied.

Therefore have I uttered that which I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in sackcloth and ashes.

Obviously this shows that you are an unmitigated asshole. The idea that someone's repose to a facial slap proves their initial overture was disingenuous is too stupid for words.

For those who care, which apparently doesn't include fausto the magnificent, I found his grandiloquence obfuscatory, and wondered exactly what it meant in plain English. I foresaw some blowback (boy was I right) and so wanted to preclude certain possible non-answers and so spelled out what I found unclear. Did my expressed attitude descend to fausto's level? One might take it that way.

What I find cowardly is the refusal to try to put his elocution into plain English. The "oh you hurt my widdle feewings" excuse is too precious coming from a blowhard, as has been noted upstream. Perhaps cowardice is not the most charitable explanation. Perhaps he realizes he's blowing smoke and got called on it, making him cranky.

Martin get off my leg.

Fausto's holier-than-thou card pretty much shows me right, and, I would suggest, is heading in the direction of, if not actually arriving at, ITTWACWS.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(Forgive me, I am using device that makes quoting difficult. ...)
This?

Oooh. Nice try. Shame you didn't check that the site allowed hotlinking before you posted it. Also, linking to a picture of a bong, viewable in jurisdictions where the herb is still an illegal drug and not slapping an NSFW sticker on it?

Strike two. Why not take another swing at it, champ? I'm sure you'll hit it this time.

DT
HH

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
If my own memory serves, I made that remark in response to Moo's sarcastically repeated request for published scholarship supporting a specific strawman premise -- that in particular preliterate or semiliterate cultures anthropological studies had affirmatively found oral history traditions to be inaccurate.

I wanted to know whether the cultures studied were modern illiterate cultures or ancient ones. There was a time when all ancient cultures were illiterate, even the ones which were very large and sophisticated. Gradually the concept of writing spread, but since it required special skills and equipment, most people continued with the old ways.

In modern times, all illiterate cultures are small and isolated. I don't believe that conclusions about small modern isolated cultures necessarily apply to large ancient cultures.

I have the impression that you believe everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, stupid, in denial, or deliberately obstructive.

Moo

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Fuck you, coward.
Obviously your follow-up proves that I was all wrong to infer anything but pure Christian philia and agape from your comments, and that had I replied more obediently to your inquiry, we both would have come away better informed and more satisfied.

Therefore have I uttered that which I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in sackcloth and ashes.
Obviously this shows that you are an unmitigated asshole. The idea that someone's repose to a facial slap proves their initial overture was disingenuous is too stupid for words.

For those who care, which apparently doesn't include fausto the magnificent, I found his grandiloquence obfuscatory, and wondered exactly what it meant in plain English. I foresaw some blowback (boy was I right) and so wanted to preclude certain possible non-answers and so spelled out what I found unclear. Did my expressed attitude descend to fausto's level? One might take it that way.

What I find cowardly is the refusal to try to put his elocution into plain English. The "oh you hurt my widdle feewings" excuse is too precious coming from a blowhard, as has been noted upstream. Perhaps cowardice is not the most charitable explanation. Perhaps he realizes he's blowing smoke and got called on it, making him cranky.

Martin get off my leg.

(just to clarify stuff I realized I was pissing off the toilet about before.)

1. I rolled my eyes at you before I back- read from your first post. If you were testy, it worked to the benefit of a lot of people similarly disgruntled, it seems.

2. However, I only had a four word OP to go on other than the link, hence the back-reading part. (I know, I know...)

3. Hey, Martin doesn't just pick ANY leg to hump...

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(Forgive me, I am using device that makes quoting difficult. ...)
[Fuck]This?

Ha, Ha, Freaking Ha, Felonious Punk.

And I was on a hyphee this morning. Let The Reader Understand.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
3. Hey, Martin doesn't just pick ANY leg to hump...

Look, I paid $6.99 for these slacks at Value Village and I don't want, um, that stuff all over them.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

Sorry DT. Thanks for cleaning up my mess. [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

mousethief.

You were unnecessarily (which is overegging the pudding, redundant, I realise) hostile.

There was NO call for it in the first place on that excellent thread and there was nothing wrong with fausto's English. And there was no point in adding a sulphurous ostrich egg to the mix with this Hell call for which you should be called to Hell.

Yeah fausto could have theoretically been superhumanly Christlike about your multiply inappropriate response.

Anyone like to advise how he should have removed that mote from his eye?

You've got a nasty one mate.

Where do I send the $6.99?

[ 09. September 2016, 12:10: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

All monies gratefully received

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Martin, bugger off. If I need advice, you're the last person I'd seek it from. Last month you were all nicey nicey and now the first chance you get, you're jumping right back down my throat again. Damn, damn, damn me for ever trusting you again.

[ 09. September 2016, 12:48: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

Maybe you forgot that posting here is the equivalent of drawing a big, fat bull's eye on your chest? Or throat, or whatever.

I hardly think that Martin's recently being nice to you disqualifies him from pointing out that your hellcall was excessive. Pretty much spot on, I'd say, but it's your shtick to deflect such criticism with louder complaints about your critics.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Martin, bugger off. If I need advice, you're the last person I'd seek it from. Last month you were all nicey nicey and now the first chance you get, you're jumping right back down my throat again. Damn, damn, damn me for ever trusting you again.

You better be joking mate. It's not advice. It's iron to iron. A brotherly rebuke. Trust me.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Fuck you, coward.
Obviously your follow-up proves that I was all wrong to infer anything but pure Christian philia and agape from your comments, and that had I replied more obediently to your inquiry, we both would have come away better informed and more satisfied.

Therefore have I uttered that which I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in sackcloth and ashes.
Obviously this shows that you are an unmitigated asshole.

Is that a speck of psychological projection in your eye? Here, let me help you remove it. [Biased]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

I hardly think that Martin's recently being nice to you disqualifies him from pointing out that your hellcall was excessive. Pretty much spot on, I'd say, but it's your shtick to deflect such criticism with louder complaints about your critics.

I see. So which part of (a) calling into question someone else's motives (b) describing someone else as unscholarly, hostile and defensive whilst (c) not offering any scholarly defence of your position whatsoever is unworthy of a hell call.

I'd agree that if he'd just been spouting off in the normal way of things then well, that'd be par for the course. But that's not the situation here, he's clearly saying something about Moo as a person and is deliberately trying to denigrate the scholarliness of Moo's position whilst at the same time callously refusing to provide support for his own.

To then get on a high-horse when someone asks what the fuck he is on about is about the height of hypocrisy.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

And now, of course, I'm all over the place.

I'd gone away from this thread initially with 'Fucking coward'. But that's NOT what you said mousethief. 'Fuck you, coward', which, even to my un-nuanced ear does have something of the humorously hyperbolic about it. As does 'Fucking coward' actually in hindsight, with the loop of cognitive dissonance. It's so OTT it's funny. I trust you intend that. Hell is full of such, but it's usually obvious. Done in lerve. Banter.

I squint and see a vein of sardonic, in your face humour throughout here. And therefore historically throughout. Or am I being Sir Percy Blakeney to your Citizen Chauvelin?

And you're really JUST hostile?

I can't believe that. I don't. I WON'T!

So you're using hostility purely for humorous, rhetorical effect.

And I'm a literal minded ijut.

Because I don't want to lose you my friend.

Hopefully that explains your original rock in the pond (Anglo-US polarization by a common language and wildly different culture) to fausto.

We Brits are ALL a tad old school. Feel like saying 'Steady on old man'. When you're just being Lenny Bruce.

So fuck you.

[ 09. September 2016, 13:50: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I wish you hadn't written those last three words.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Bugger. I was just trying to be mt to mt! And are you winding me up? Tripping my guilt switch?!

'stir-rewth! Damned if I do and damned if I don't.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I just don't like the f-word. Even in Hell.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Ffff...air enough BT. I consider myself reproached. Dash it all. 't'is a multihued thing, like a rapidly spinning Rubik cube along multiple axes. In everyday parlance I DON'T use it. Except to curse myself privately. And when I bang my head on the lintel. And it DOES help, unfortunately.

Oh double-minded man that I am!

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I just don't like the f-word. Even in Hell.

But we love it. It has a stark, poetic honesty to it, an unambiguity that isn't present in such other phrases as 'assisted dying', 'collateral damage', 'smart bomb' or 'DWP assessment'.

So fuck away, everyone, fuck away.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Couldn't it be adjectivally interjected to create fine tmeses with all of those?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

See, I was ready to leap to your defense, Martin, and then you throw in the word "tmeses" and I just want to pinch your nose. Showoff. And stop whacking yourself with the cat o' nine tails, it's been done, and everybody can hear you giggling over the whacking.

( Sigh. Oh, what the hell.)

MT, there was a reason I initially took Marty's first read of the situation as reasonable one. The scenario of you poking at someone until they blow up at you and then retiring to the fainting couch of Hell is an old one. And even given the fact that fausto is being an insufferable jackass doesn't change the sense I get that he just made a really handy target for someone who needed to go off on someone. Anyone.

Not that I want you to stop. Fucking have at 'im. I just don't think Martin ( or me) pointing out that we might not not absolutely 100% agree with you constitutes " jumping down your throat."

Yorick, however, is a giggly little Hell thread ambulance chaser. Have at him, too.

P.S. "Being MT to MT", Martin?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I just don't like the f-word. Even in Hell.

Not fond either. It connotes sexual violence, even when people claim it doesn't and that the roots of the word are gone in their aggressive usage (or even humourous). It's an Alice in Wonderland thing.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Damn. That's the elephant in the room with sexual swear words. They combine sex and violence. Male aggression. In my last work environment some men swore to the max, no women did. It was always an abuse of power.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Is that a speck of psychological projection in your eye? Here, let me help you remove it.

Nice dodge. "I know you are but what am I?" or as it's called in Latin, tu quoque. Anything but man up.

Kelly, love your socks off.

Yorick, good to see you old chap.

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I wish you hadn't written those last three words.

Actually it makes the humor of the whole thing work.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Maybe you forgot that posting here is the equivalent of drawing a big, fat bull's eye on your chest? Or throat, or whatever.

I'm sorry, what makes you think I forgot that?

quote:
I hardly think that Martin's recently being nice to you disqualifies him from pointing out that your hellcall was excessive. Pretty much spot on, I'd say, but it's your shtick to deflect such criticism with louder complaints about your critics.

Don't knock it. It works.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

( regarding the sexual swearing tangent) That actually is interesting food for thought, but it would be better food for thought in Purgatory. Start a thread, NP&c, I'm sure the Purgatorians will hump it like MT's leg.

(The fact that people are using MT to reference Mother Teresa is making it a very confusing time on the Ship for me. Granted, it doesn't take much.)

[ Dayum. Talk about crosspost frenzy.]

[ 09. September 2016, 17:40: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I hardly think that Martin's recently being nice to you disqualifies him from pointing out that your hellcall was excessive. Pretty much spot on, I'd say, but it's your shtick to deflect such criticism with louder complaints about your critics.
Don't knock it. It works.

And why the hell are all of you horning in on a PERSONAL CONVERSATION between me and NP&canukistan? Are you all to selfish and impatient to accomodate my slow typing? Shame on you. Excuse me, FUCKING SHAME ON YOU ALL.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
If my own memory serves, I made that remark in response to Moo's sarcastically repeated request for published scholarship supporting a specific strawman premise -- that in particular preliterate or semiliterate cultures anthropological studies had affirmatively found oral history traditions to be inaccurate.
I wanted to know whether the cultures studied were modern illiterate cultures or ancient ones. There was a time when all ancient cultures were illiterate, even the ones which were very large and sophisticated. Gradually the concept of writing spread, but since it required special skills and equipment, most people continued with the old ways.

In modern times, all illiterate cultures are small and isolated. I don't believe that conclusions about small modern isolated cultures necessarily apply to large ancient cultures.

I have the impression that you believe everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, stupid, in denial, or deliberately obstructive.

Moo

Moo, I have to apologize. My eyes were glazing over in fausto's reply to me, and I missed the bit where he put the words " facile and unenlightened" in the same sentance with your name. Boy, when this cat's wrong, he's wrong with a side of fries and a Coke.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
( regarding the sexual swearing tangent) That actually is interesting food for thought, but it would be better food for thought in Purgatory. Start a thread, NP&c, I'm sure the Purgatorians will hump it like MT's leg.

+1

(which means according to some younger folk who text me, great approval of the several aspects of the comment and kind regards, as far as I can tell).

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I'm totally right about the Purg crowd, aren't I? [Big Grin]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
( regarding the sexual swearing tangent) That actually is interesting food for thought, but it would be better food for thought in Purgatory. Start a thread, NP&c, I'm sure the Purgatorians will hump it like MT's leg.

Dammit Kelly, you have to go and ruin a potentially good topic with that imagery. Now I shall feel filthy if I post on it. But not in a good way.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Really? But I was thinking of you! [Angel]

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

You know,

I don't get to visit as often any more.
One of the things I love in getting to the 'get off my lawn*' phase of ship life is seeing the development in us old-timers as people. You can see maturation in thinking, softening in position, change and it is a joy. The ship is full of good people.

Oh, and of course, the reassuring unchanging same old shtick.

*You know, old, rocking chair etc.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Kelly, how can MT be an abbreviation for mousethief? I mean is ETC used for et cetera? Hmmm? And yes I know N.B. can be used for nota bene, it's optional. Most Latin abbreviations of single words are lower case I think you'll find.

Talk of the devil. You sod.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Maybe, but I suspect some of it also lies in the fear that if the Gospels were anything less than 100% historical fact, that might cast an intolerable degree of doubt upon other faith propositions
I would be surprised if any of our regular contributors would hold such a simplistic opinion. We get the occasional visitor who does hold very simplistic views on the accuracy of Scripture, but they don't usually hang around for long when faced with the more nuanced and intelligent views of the majority of people here.

Perhaps it's foolish of me to return to this discussion after most of the steam has already been vented. You're probably right, too, that most shipmates don't take such a simplistic view. To be fair it's worth noting, though, that I did get a lot of stiff resistance from several others (although not you) when I tried to propose that the Gospels might be less than historically accurate, and that the early Church did not yet have a fixed oral tradition or strong safeguards to protect it from alteration until some length of time after the four (eventually) canonical Gospels were written.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

You strained at an Aramaic-Greek straw gnat fausto.

Everything else is a given.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I suggest you might need to learn to discern the difference between stiff resistance to an idea, and stiff resistance to an idea posited without proof or evidence. The ship's discussion/argument spaces tend to be really big on not just making claims, but having backing for them.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I suggest you might need to learn to discern the difference between stiff resistance to an idea, and stiff resistance to an idea posited without proof or evidence. The ship's discussion/argument spaces tend to be really big on not just making claims, but having backing for them.

At the risk of sounding too Pollyanna (or Rodney King "can't we all just get along?") for the sulfur zone, I think you both were too quick on the draw here.

Fausto made claims w/o having sufficient documentation to back them up (he did have evidence-- from Ehrman's speeches-- just not documentation). But this is the Ship, not an academic conference. We have to have some leeway to discuss topics without a trip to the library to check out a book, find the exact page and provide a specific quote. This is casual conversation, and in casual conversation you're not going to defend your theses with the same precision. The question was appropriate, but I think a hell-call was an overreaction.

otoh, my friend Fausto certainly added gasoline to the fire by jumping to unwarranted assumptions about the motives of those who questioned his claims. He jumped to conclusions that more regular shipmates know just don't fit, and sounded just a wee bit patronizing in his delivery. In so doing he added to the impression that he makes quick, overblown claims without really doing his homework. From our RL conversations I know that's not really fausto, but I can't deny that's the picture that's conveyed when he follows legit questions about his sources with an inaccurate presumption about his questioners.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Damn. That's the elephant in the room with sexual swear words. They combine sex and violence. Male aggression. In my last work environment some men swore to the max, no women did. It was always an abuse of power.

Years ago, when I worked with the Heavy Mob all my colleagues, male and female, swore like troopers. I'd left by the time that 'The Thick Of It' came on the telly but I think their collective attitude to Malcolm Tucker would have been 'not bad for a beginner'. In any event, one of my colleagues, one day, had had an unproductive conversation with a colleague in another department and when, I ambled into the office after lunch, was going at it with a vehemence that would have made the aforementioned Spin Doctor kneel at his feet with the words: "I have much to learn, master, teach me". After a few more minutes of profanity, he twigged that I had returned to my desk and apologised profusely: "Callan, I know that you're a religious man* and if I had known you were there, I would have moderated my language" (All of this in a Glaswegian accent) "But the guy is such a... fucking cunt!"

The poor man was genuinely bewildered when the whole office, male and female, were immediately convulsed with laughter.

*He never showed an reluctance to swear in my presence, usually, but this was a particularly spectacular display of profanity, so perhaps he might have felt that he had crossed a threshold of some sort.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Kelly, how can MT be an abbreviation for mousethief? I mean is ETC used for et cetera? Hmmm? And yes I know N.B. can be used for nota bene, it's optional. Most Latin abbreviations of single words are lower case I think you'll find.

Talk of the devil. You sod.

Is "Martin60" the designation printed on your pills? Perhaps get some Martin120s or Martin600s.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
At the risk of sounding too Pollyanna (or Rodney King "can't we all just get along?") for the sulfur zone, I think you both were too quick on the draw here.

You say this, but then much of the rest of your post refutes it.

I did not read that much of the thread in question, tl;dc, but from what I did the call was warranted.
When you question or confront other people's beliefs and haven't even read the material you are using to do so. And then have the effrontery to suggest they should, you deserve a Hell call.
And he baited mt. Whilst that is not a crime, it is an invitation.

You might know he is not as portrayed here, but that is irrelevant if his own words accuse him otherwise.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

At the risk of being the target for everyone's opprobrium: this.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
At the risk of being the target for everyone's opprobrium: this.

There's a solution for threads you're not interested in or feel are overblown. I think you know what it is.

ETA:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The question was appropriate, but I think a hell-call was an overreaction.

Sure, but that's not what elicited the hell call.

[ 10. September 2016, 17:24: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
At the risk of being the target for everyone's opprobrium: this.

Opprobrium? It's hard to take anything here seriously or personally when everyone comes to the party armed with grenades and flamethrowers, eagerly hoping for any excuse to use them, rather than hoping to actually resolve misunderstandings. It's no more serious than grade-school kids having a cursing contest. Your picture just describes the mood.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
At the risk of being the target for everyone's opprobrium: this.
Opprobrium? It's hard to take anything here seriously or personally when everyone comes to the party armed with grenades and flamethrowers, eagerly hoping for any excuse to use them, rather than hoping to actually resolve misunderstandings. It's no more serious than grade-school kids having a cursing contest. Your picture just describes the mood.

Cute. I had been giving you a little benefit of doubt because I respect cliffdweller, but this kind of passive-aggressive rubbish tends to make me want to rethink that.
You tweaked mt's nose* on purpose or you are a clueless fool.

*Granted, mt is a tad offence-sensitive.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Maybe, but I suspect some of it also lies in the fear that if the Gospels were anything less than 100% historical fact, that might cast an intolerable degree of doubt upon other faith propositions
I would be surprised if any of our regular contributors would hold such a simplistic opinion. We get the occasional visitor who does hold very simplistic views on the accuracy of Scripture, but they don't usually hang around for long when faced with the more nuanced and intelligent views of the majority of people here.
Perhaps it's foolish of me to return to this discussion after most of the steam has already been vented. You're probably right, too, that most shipmates don't take such a simplistic view. To be fair it's worth noting, though, that I did get a lot of stiff resistance from several others (although not you) when I tried to propose that the Gospels might be less than historically accurate, and that the early Church did not yet have a fixed oral tradition or strong safeguards to protect it from alteration until some length of time after the four (eventually) canonical Gospels were written.

It's kind of like bouncing into a conference of gourmet chefs and announcing, " Guess what? There are other foods besides cheeseburgers!"

I think you are mistaking a collective " duh!" for resistance.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Kelly, how can MT be an abbreviation for mousethief? I mean is ETC used for et cetera? Hmmm? And yes I know N.B. can be used for nota bene, it's optional. Most Latin abbreviations of single words are lower case I think you'll find.

Talk of the devil. You sod.

If you start accusing MT of being latin- leaning, there's gonna be a huge throwdown, dude. Not since the fourth century.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You tweaked mt's nose* on purpose or you are a clueless fool.

*Granted, mt is a tad offence-sensitive.

WHAT'S THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN??!?!?!?!

But seriously, clearly I'm not the only one to feel that fausto is a pretentious, self-righteous tit. As witness the many other complainants on this thread. This was a hell thread just waiting to be made. SOMEbody has to be thin-skinned enough to get these things off the ground, or things will just go on getting tense and ugly on the original thread. It is the purpose of Hell to avoid just that. I am a hero, dammit. Worship me.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If you start accusing MT of being latin- leaning, there's gonna be a huge throwdown, dude. Not since the fourth century.

Although if a Hispanic lady of good repute had thrown herself at me before I met Josephine, I might have easily tilted Latin. Tilted 90° even. [Biased]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[qb] Perhaps it's foolish of me to return to this discussion after most of the steam has already been vented. You're probably right, too, that most shipmates don't take such a simplistic view. To be fair it's worth noting, though, that I did get a lot of stiff resistance from several others (although not you) when I tried to propose that the Gospels might be less than historically accurate, and that the early Church did not yet have a fixed oral tradition or strong safeguards to protect it from alteration until some length of time after the four (eventually) canonical Gospels were written.
It's kind of like bouncing into a conference of gourmet chefs and announcing, " Guess what? There are other foods besides cheeseburgers!"

I think you are mistaking a collective " duh!" for resistance.

This. (Sorry, fausto buddy, but, yeah. You were thinking Beliefnet. This ain't no Beliefnet.)

[ 10. September 2016, 19:06: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Oh, HELL no.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Now, now. The management frown on Board Wars.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Now, now. The management frown on Board Wars.

Yeah, but they are owned by Fox! Excuse me now whilst I go wash the fingers that typed that word.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

A note to all the fuckers asking if this issue warranted a Hell Call: the only criterion for a Hell Call is that the Caller is pissed off at the Callee. Whether you think it's justified is beside the bastard point.

Tell him you think he's overreacting by all means, but for the love of Zeus stop saying this thread shouldn't exist.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A note to all the fuckers asking if this issue warranted a Hell Call: the only criterion for a Hell Call is that the Caller is pissed off at the Callee. Whether you think it's justified is beside the bastard point.

Tell him you think he's overreacting by all means, but for the love of Zeus stop saying this thread shouldn't exist.

I believe "overreaction" was the precise word I used. I don't believe anyone has said this thread shouldn't exist.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Can I say it? Huh? Can I? Can I?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Go ahead, orf. Someone opining something should't exist doesn't make it disappear in a puff of smoke.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

No. Only hosts and admins can do that... [Devil]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Yes, but if the existance of the thread annoys people, that is fufilling a Hellish purpose, is it not? [Smile]

I for one think turning a perfectly good bun fight into a boring ass,rules- lawyering navel gazing, pitiful excuse for an erzatz Styx thread makes it excruciating, but of course some people are gonna see the point of a Hell call and some are not. That's why it's called a " discussion,"

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Now, now. The management frown on Board Wars.
Yeah, but they are owned by Fox! Excuse me now whilst I go wash the fingers that typed that word.

Who said anything about a Board War, anyway? There's nothing to frown at, Barney Fife. Put the squirt gun away.

We're just shit- talking them behind their backs, like good little Christians do.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I think the prigs who sit on the sidelines of a Hell call and hold up cards saying "3.7" and "4.2" like 1970s' Olympic judges need to explain for us what their exacting requirements are. What does it have to have to be your model Hell thread? Or indeed deemed worthy in your exalted opinion to be a Hell thread at all? Clearly you have some set of criteria over and above what the actual Ship's rules, guidelines, and commandments specify. What are those exalted criteria? Puke -- sorry, cough -- up your personal self-righteous measuring stick.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Why validate the scores by caring, MT? Like you said, opinion doesn't trump the rules, guidelines, etc. And according to the old saying, opinions are like assholes, everyones's got one.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Mostly to be a shit, and tempt self-righteous fuckwits into calling me names. But I'm also mildly interested in what opinions these assholes have.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

(Will you get such refreshing honesty from these smug hypocrites?)

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But I'm also mildly interested in what opinions these assholes have.

Whatever opinions the assholes have, they still stink of shit.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I'm trying to figure out who exactly the assholes are. Pretty much everybody conceded the usefulness of the Hell call by the middle of page 1. Martin keeps yanking MT's chain, just to giggle at the reaction, cliffdweller is fair but loyal, and lilbuddha made a passing remark about oversensitivity. The clamor for thread closure... Isn't happening. As far as I can see.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

I hear you Orfeo.
[Pats him on the shoulder and gives a tissue.]
I heard your little clamour mate. You matter. Don't you listen to Kel.

But to be fair, his post was a piss take as well.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Kelly, how can MT be an abbreviation for mousethief? I mean is ETC used for et cetera? Hmmm? And yes I know N.B. can be used for nota bene, it's optional. Most Latin abbreviations of single words are lower case I think you'll find.

Talk of the devil. You sod.
Is "Martin60" the designation printed on your pills? Perhaps get some Martin120s or Martin600s.

I won't take the meds. They blunt my edge with clarity.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
this kind of passive-aggressive rubbish tends to make me want to rethink that.
You tweaked mt's nose* on purpose or you are a clueless fool.

Yeah, I think I'm getting the hang of the hell-game now. Thanks for the fine example.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
It's kind of like bouncing into a conference of gourmet chefs and announcing, " Guess what? There are other foods besides cheeseburgers!"

I think you are mistaking a collective " duh!" for resistance.
This. (Sorry, fausto buddy, but, yeah. You were thinking Beliefnet. This ain't no Beliefnet.)

Thanks, you two. That's the first constructive criticism on this thread that actually makes sense to me. (Which makes me wonder whether it really belongs in hell, though.)

Some of the pushback I was getting on the other thread archly defending the historical accuracy of the Gospels didn't taste much like gourmet food or sound like a collective "duh", though. It sure tasted like cheeseburgers to me.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:
Thanks, you two. That's the first constructive criticism on this thread that actually makes sense to me.

Really? Alan, Doc and Moo were clear and relatively polite about outlining where they felt you went wrong. If they did not make sense as well, then perhaps you are not as bright as you think you are. I can understand your unwillingness to concede to your challenger, mt. Or to someone as confrontational as I, but if you cannot listen to criticism without an accompanying pat on the head, then your maturity is in question as well.

quote:

(Which makes me wonder whether it really belongs in hell, though.)

Hell is for getting personal. Whether nice or nasty is irrelevant.

You received pushback for reasons outlined in the thread so far and because of your presentation. When you are even more stubborn than I about conceding that you were got it wrong, you have a problem.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
this kind of passive-aggressive rubbish tends to make me want to rethink that.
You tweaked mt's nose* on purpose or you are a clueless fool.
Yeah, I think I'm getting the hang of the hell-game now. Thanks for the fine example.

Well you have to admit he sure has the hang of passive-aggression. And passive-aggression in response to an accusation of passive-aggression is a remarkable, if probably accidental, example of "meta".

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Fausto( she said wearily) have you actually taken the time to visit Dead Horses and read the pages and pages and pages of what various people have said about inerrancy?

While you're there, can you take a little trip to the board description? The whole reason we HAVE a Dead Horses? Maybe then you'll understand why people seemed tolerant of various perspectives on inerrancy, and reluctant to get roped into a gigantic hairy tentacled tangent.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
It's kind of like bouncing into a conference of gourmet chefs and announcing, " Guess what? There are other foods besides cheeseburgers!"

More like:
'Cheeseburgers will never be gourmet food.'
Chef: 'I cook gourmet cheeseburgers.'
'Macdonalds is NOT gourmet.'
Chef: 'I'm not Macdonalds.'
'You mean you're Burger King.'

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

I agree with the general consensus that inerrantism is not a big thing on SOF. Quite the opposite, in fact.

However, belief in divine inspiration of scripture(which is a different thing from inerrancy, though they do overlap sometimes) does have a bit of a following. I can think of numerous occassions where someone has argued that a particular passage from the Bible is so off-the-wall that it couldn't have been inspired by the Christian God, but is instead reflective of the cultural biases of the writer, and someone replies that the passage can't possibly mean what any unbiased reader would conclude it means.

[ 11. September 2016, 16:10: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Well,, then you've got issues with what "unbiased" means.

None of us are the original audience living 2000 or so years ago in the Middle East.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well,, then you've got issues with what "unbiased" means.

None of us are the original audience living 2000 or so years ago in the Middle East.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by saying I have issues with the meaning of unbiased.

One of the examples I was thinking of was a thread where various Shipmates tried to argue that the author of Psalm 137 didn't actually think it was okay to kill the babies of enemy tribes. Among the alternative explanations put forward was that the psamlist recognizes that his revenge-scenario is fucked-up, and is trying to grapple with what he knows to be negative feelings.

Whereas if I were to show that piece of writing to someone not already commited to the idea that it was inspired by the same God that he loves and prays to evey day, he'd just conclude that it was simply a violent piece of hate propaganda, like a zillion others that have been written by tribalist and nationalist hatemongers before and since.

[ 11. September 2016, 17:09: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
None of us are the original audience living 2000 or so years ago in the Middle East.

But isn't the stock and trade of a massive number of Christians that the words are relevant across time?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

...see, fausto, the reason we have Dead Horses( in case you haven't got there yet) is to prevent the OP of a thread becoming obliterated by a tangent that has a high likelyhood of becoming circular and repetative. For instance, if you go to the thread I courteously bumped for you, you are probably going to find the above idiots (WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER) making the same damn arguments they are making now, if you page back far enough.

Except for Dafyd's clever expansion of the cheeseburger metaphor. That was funny.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
...gigantic hairy tentacled tangent.

For some reason I read this as "gnostic hairy tentacled target." Those guys got up to some pretty kinky stuff.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well,, then you've got issues with what "unbiased" means.

None of us are the original audience living 2000 or so years ago in the Middle East.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by saying I have issues with the meaning of unbiased.

One of the examples I was thinking of was a thread where various Shipmates tried to argue that the author of Psalm 137 didn't actually think it was okay to kill the babies of enemy tribes. Among the alternative explanations put forward was that the psamlist recognizes that his revenge-scenario is fucked-up, and is trying to grapple with what he knows to be negative feelings.

Whereas if I were to show that piece of writing to someone not already commited to the idea that it was inspired by the same God that he loves and prays to evey day, he'd just conclude that it was simply a violent piece of hate propaganda, like a zillion others that have been written by tribalist and nationalist hatemongers before and since.

I'm referring to the fact that all of us have biases, and the great thing is to try to be aware of them and do what you can to counteract them. Anybody born today is the inheritor of 2000 years of Christian influence, regardless of whether or not they personally adhere to Christianity. I don't think anyone will disagree if I say that Christianity is largely responsible for the change in human sentiment (well, SOME human sentiment) that makes that verse in the Psalms so abhorrent to us today. But there's a bias for you. Similarly we tend to have the idea that you should control your mouth and not say unbecoming things, no matter how angry you are or how justified in your anger. But even today there are whole cultures where this particular belief (=bias) does not pertain. (You ought to hear some of the things that fly out of Vietnamese mouths--major culture shock. In early days I was inclined to fear such people were monsters and ought to be locked up, before I identified this as an area where my culture and theirs differs.)

We're not going to ever get rid of all bias. But my point was that taking a passage to the man-down-the-street and asking him what he thinks of it isn't going to yield you an ultimate truth, either.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
None of us are the original audience living 2000 or so years ago in the Middle East.
But isn't the stock and trade of a massive number of Christians that the words are relevant across time?

Relevant, certainly. But there's a huge distance between relevant and "I'm going to take this text exactly as it appears to me, regardless of context, culture, language, and so forth" and run with it.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
None of us are the original audience living 2000 or so years ago in the Middle East.
But isn't the stock and trade of a massive number of Christians that the words are relevant across time?
Relevant, certainly. But there's a huge distance between relevant and "I'm going to take this text exactly as it appears to me, regardless of context, culture, language, and so forth" and run with it.

The problem is that some Christians pick and choose what is to be accepted as a straight* reading, typically DH issues, and what needs to be interpreted or taken with context, typically nasty, horrible embarrassing issues.

*No pun intended, but left because it works.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Surely. But abusus non tollit usum--just because somebody abuses the text that way doesn't invalidate its proper use.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

does this side discussion about inerrancy per se as opposed to fausto's response to shipmates who he suspects are inerrantists qualify as a *gigantic hairy tentacled tangent*?

*cliffie loves gigantic hairy tentacled tangents. Especially with garlic aioli sauce.*

[ 12. September 2016, 00:27: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Eeewwww. At least take the hair off! [Paranoid]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Eeewwww. At least take the hair off!

You crack them open and pick out the meat.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
does this side discussion about inerrancy per se as opposed to fausto's response to shipmates who he suspects are inerrantists qualify as a *gigantic hairy tentacled tangent*?

*cliffie loves gigantic hairy tentacled tangents. Especially with garlic aioli sauce.*

Gotta love a girl who can take a hint.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Pssst...that's no hairy calamari--you're trying to eat Cthulu, and he's still alive!!! Run!!!
[Paranoid]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0