Thread: Grow the fuck up, Kaplan Corday Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029961
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Kaplan Corday appears to have a stick so far up his arse it's giving him a hard-on for attacking me. Apparently we're such meanies here to evangelicals that it's okay for him to say unsubstantiated shit about Orthodoxy. It doesn't matter whether what he says is true, because anti-Evangelical meanies. Which is perhaps all well and good, but when called on it he makes "I'd insult you but I'm too nice a guy" noises.
Well, now you can insult me with your evangelical epithets.
You're a fucking crybaby. Waaaah, you people are so mean to us Evangelicals, it gives me the right to misrepresent your churches, even when told by a member thereof that I'm misrepresenting you!
Actually that's far too articulate to be a fair representation of your speech.
You're a fuckwit and a liar and a jackass and a stranger to truth and decency. And those are your good properties. You give all evangelicals a bad name. If you're a representative sample, evangelicals deserve to be mocked and ridiculed and run out of town on a very hot rail.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I get pissed off from time to time with the way evangelicalism is misrepresented on the Ship, but it goes with the territory or, to change the metaphor, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".
It is precious to complain if you feel that your particular position is not getting the respect you feel it deserves, and only my exquisite code of courtesy prevents my recourse to vulgar expressions such as "suck it up, princess".
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Oh dear ...
A few observations about Kaplan.
1. He's nowhere near as bright as he thinks he is.
2. He knows nowhere near as much about other people's traditions or Traditions - or even his own - as he thinks he does.
3. He's probably nowhere near as self-aware as he thinks he is.
4. He's not as balanced or nuanced in his evangelicalism as he likes to think he his.
In other words, he's pretty similar to myself and many other posters here in various ways ...
More worryingly, I do think he can be disingenuous at times ... 'I'm only saying what RCs and Orthodox state on their websites ...'
No, you're not. You're making value judgements about they say on their websites and make very little effort to dig below the surface to find out what they are actually saying and how they can apparently reconcile some kind of 'priesthood of all believers' notion (albeit in a different way to Protestants) with a Big S approach to Saints and a sacerdotal approach to church ministry ...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Also, there's websites and there's websites. To paraphrase Tolkien, if you get your information from orthodoxinfo.com, you'll never want for moonshine.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think it is probably fair to say that it is very hard to misrepresent Evangelicalism - because it is a very broad concept with many different people who believe many different things. I'm not sure it is really possible to point to any particular authority and say that this accurately represents "true" Evangelicalism whereas others are just freaks.
We can grind our teeth and wish that certain wings did not exist, but I don't really see how we would judge that they were a misrepresentation of the thing as a whole.
Whether the same could be said about Orthodoxy, I have no idea.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think the issue is more specific than that, mr cheesy.
Nobody is saying that Kaplan Cordite is wrong to assert that Orthodox believe in the intercession of the Saints or onvoking their aid.
Whereas that seems to think Mousethief is objecting to. As far as I can tell, what Mousethief objects to is the insinuation that because this is the case and also because of their approach to sacerdotal ministry, they are somehow diminishing the sainthood - small s - of 'ordinary' believers and somehow undermining any impression of the priesthood of all believers.
Mousethief, presumably insists that this is not the case and the idea of a sacramental priesthood and of Big S Saints does not obviate any of that.
Kaplan Killjoy nevertheless insists that this can't possibly be the case because he, the great all-knowing Kraplan, knows Orthodoxy a lot better than Mousethief does despite not being, or ever have been a member of the Orthodox Church.
It'd be like me claiming to know my way around Sydney despite only visiting the city once - as a toddler - and knowing my way around Darwin despite never having been to that part of Australia and only to have lived near Adelaide as a £10 Pom from 1964 to 1966.
My issue with Kranklan isn't that he's a conservative evangelical and as such in a minority here on the Ship, but that he presumes to tell other people what they do or don't believe based on a partial and superficial grasp of what other traditions (or Traditions) actually believe.
The same thing can happen in the other direction too, of course. But that doesn't excuse such behaviour.
Other than that, I have no axe to grind with him at all and on many issues find myself on the same page.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Scroll past, people, scroll past. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Ok - so here's a link to some shots of cute cats and kittens that people might find more interesting ...
https://www.pinterest.com/89lcarrington/cute-cats/
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Sorry Kay Cee, I LIKE you. You remind me of Peter Oborne. A truly decent conservative. I know you serve the underprivileged. And I too struggle with my hostile reaction to hostile religion.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Actually as I remember, Gamaliel, the run-in between KC and myself had to do with the Orthodox attitude toward Augustine, and the entire Orthodox church being a bunch of hypocrites for not sucking his balls. Figuratively speaking.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
That too. The Saints thread wasn't the first time he's told people that he understands their tradition better than they understand it themselves.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
So do I have to search on Kaplan in All Saints?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Without wanting to subtract from this rant against Kaplan, I have the feeling that mousethief has been making some sweeping statements about Protestants lately. It's not that I'm offended by them, but they don't really seem to be his style.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, I meant the thread on idols, Martin, which appears to have morphed into a debate about Big S Saints.
On the thing about Mousethief making sweeping generalisations about Protestants, then perhaps we could have some links/examples so we can have a rang at him as well, seeing that Kaplan isn't coming down here to read the rants he so richly deserves.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
You can't get the staff Gamaliel. The Saints. All Saints. As the half my age twice as Aspy genius who eclipsed me at work says when being helpful, 'All the information you need is on the screen in front of you Martin.'
I'll go through the thread, but where does Kay Cee do what is being claimed here? Tell the big Oh little emm what it believes? Can we have a quote?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Hmmm. I'm sure it's all there, but I can't see it in all the not too clever by half pots calling kettles black in a perichoretic maelstrom of incoherent offended personality disorder. I on the other hand ...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Yeah some particular Protestants have pissed me off, so I may have been broad-brushing. But show me where I have actually told them what they believe despite their protestations? Let alone what they should believe to be good little Protestants?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think that's the point.
Kaplan, laughingly, claims to be a 'self-aware' evangelical and accuses mainstream Protestantism of taking a know-it-all, superior, de haut en bas position - by which I take him to mean the Methodism he was reared in until Billy Graham hit town.
Whilst all the time it doesn't seem to occur to him that his ostensibly pure as the driven snow NT exegesis and the moral high-ground he seems to believe it gives him is an example of precisely that - a kind of de haut en bas sense of superiority.
I sympathise with Mousethief, not because someone disagrees with the RC and Orthodox positions on Big S Saints or on the sacraments - plenty of Protestants do that - but because Kaplan seems to think he knows what RCs and Orthodox 'should' believe better than they do themselves.
That's the issue. Hence the Hell call.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Fucking sorry, I fucking am fucking in-fucking-sufferably, fucking un-fucking-forgivably fucking dim I fucking know, but fucking where fucking does the fucking obviously fucking appalling fucking egregious fucking Kay fucking Cee and his fucking Sun-fucking-shine fucking Band fucking do fucking that?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
WTF?
When does he not do it?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Ah, it's in the disposition of the beholder. Thought so.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Martin, I was procrastinating earlier (it's nice outside and I can think of lots better things to do than be working) and started finding links, but I thought the Hell hosts would be unimpressed by six or seven examples from that thread. Including the ones you were scoring.
By the way, John Cooper Clarke does it much better (some work places, will not like the language on that link, but it is a JCC poem)
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Isn't evangelicalism represented first and foremost on this site by those who say they're evangelicals?
Don't really understand KC's problem. If people's opinions of his view of evangelicalism is, to his mind, wrong-headed, he has the freedom to respond.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I'm glad my mediocrity provoked you to good works Curiosity killed ...
May I ask for just one glaringly obvious example of unsubstantiated shit about Orthodoxy of the six or seven?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, Mousethief has cited KC's insistence that the Orthodox should recognise Augustine as one of the most important Church Fathers despite MT's inside-track testomony that the Orthodox don't regard him as such and never have done.
Rather than taking MT's word for it, KC insists that he knows best rather than conceding that someone on the inside of that Tradition might - just might - know more about it than he does.
If that wasn't sufficient grounds for a Hell call he also seems to expect the RCs and Orthodox to adhere to an evangelical Protestant approach to the scriptures - despite their not being evangelical Protestants - and to insist that liberal Protestants can be snarky towards conservative evangelicals like him without acknowledging that his own tradition can be just as snarky towards everybody else.
That's my beef. It might not be a big one but it's sufficient to have me posting down here.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, Mousethief has cited KC's insistence that the Orthodox should recognise Augustine as one of the most important Church Fathers despite MT's inside-track testomony that the Orthodox don't regard him as such and never have done.
Rather than taking MT's word for it, KC insists that he knows best rather than conceding that someone on the inside of that Tradition might - just might - know more about it than he does.
If that wasn't sufficient grounds for a Hell call he also seems to expect the RCs and Orthodox to adhere to an evangelical Protestant approach to the scriptures - despite their not being evangelical Protestants - and to insist that liberal Protestants can be snarky towards conservative evangelicals like him without acknowledging that his own tradition can be just as snarky towards everybody else.
That's my beef. It might not be a big one but it's sufficient to have me posting down here.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Yeah, mousethief graciously acknowledged that even I knew that. On another thread though? That was strange of KayCee.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: Yeah some particular Protestants have pissed me off, so I may have been broad-brushing. But show me where I have actually told them what they believe despite their protestations? Let alone what they should believe to be good little Protestants?
(Sorry to leave you hanging like this; I know this is bad form. I have some stuff going on, I'll try to answer later.)
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
One word, MT: Calvinism.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
One word, MT: Calvinism.
I think I need more than one word. What about Calvinism?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Calvinism is in the jeans?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
And Kaplan isn't a Calvinist.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: But show me where I have actually told them what they believe despite their protestations?
Sorry, I'm finally able to answer this. You know as well as I that the Ship's search function is, erm … slightly less than perfect, but I'm thinking of posts like this recent one, where you say about the Protestant view: "for you it all comes down to people's relationship with the Bible".
I'm not saying that this is as bad as whatever Kaplan did (I'm not following that thread closely). I'm also not very offended by this. But this apparent attempt to summarise the relationship all(?) Protestants have with the Bible in a twelve word sentence does make me raise an eyebrow: "really, mousethief?"
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I didn't say I wasn't a pissant, and frankly admitted I was painting with a broad brush. But where has a Protestant said, "We don't believe XXX" and I told them, "Yes, you do" or "You should or you're not a good Protestant"?
I'm as big a prick as they come, but I don't try to run other people's churches for them.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Mine's bigger than yours ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
QED
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I tried the Search button a bit more, not to pile up on you but to convince myself that I didn't dream this up. In this post (on the same thread) you say things like "Protestantism [is] based on ideas" and "'toeing the party line' is really the bottom line in Protestantism".
quote:
mousethief: But where has a Protestant said, "We don't believe XXX" and I told them, "Yes, you do" or "You should or you're not a good Protestant"?
I didn't say you did that.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I tried the Search button a bit more, not to pile up on you but to convince myself that I didn't dream this up. In this post (on the same thread) you say things like "Protestantism [is] based on ideas" and "'toeing the party line' is really the bottom line in Protestantism".
quote:
mousethief: But where has a Protestant said, "We don't believe XXX" and I told them, "Yes, you do" or "You should or you're not a good Protestant"?
I didn't say you did that.
Then you're just proving what I've already admitted. You could have saved yourself the time.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: Then you're just proving what I've already admitted. You could have saved yourself the time.
So, basically what you're saying is that I'm right in my assertion that you paint Protestants with a broad brush sometimes.
Well, that was easy.
I'm trying to understand a bit what your rationale is behind this though. What I've been able to pick up from what you've said so far is either "painting other people's world view with a big brush is not a big deal", "painting other people's world view with a big brush is a bit dodgy, but it can be justified as a reaction if they did the same thing to me" or "it is OK to paint other people's world view with a big brush, as long if you're prepared to review it when they don't agree with it".
Is it one of these?
[ETA: Once again, sorry for interrupting your rant against Kaplan, but I don't have the feeling that that will go much further than it already has]
[ 24. March 2016, 22:38: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Perhaps part of what I'm saying is that if you feel someone is painting your group with a broad brush, you should speak up at the time and not attack them personally later in a completely different context. Something Kaplan Corday still hasn't learned, poor pitiful jerk that he is.
Partly I'm trying out ideas. Something comes to mind and I float it to see how other people think about it. This being the ship, one feels one shouldn't have to put "in my opinion" after every opinion they express. Perhaps people are too fucking stupid to realize that when I post my opinion, it's an opinion. But isn't that what we're all doing here?
And then when someone expresses an opinion that is as moronic as "if you don't admit Augustine is all that and a bowl of orgasm, you're being a hypocrite," one can try to explain how that's not the case. When the fucking moron doubles down, then what can you do but call them to Hell, or just let them go their own way in their delusion and hypocrisy and fuckmuppetry.
In short, if someone says something wrong, be it me or Charlotte Korday, or whoever, then one engages them in dialogue. Then go on from there.
Coming back months later and saying, "In January you said blah blah blah and I was too stupid or chickenshit to call you on it then, but now I'm doing so, just to make a point about how unfair you're being to Fuckmuppet Corday" seems a bit naff.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: Coming back months later and saying, "In January you said blah blah blah and I was too stupid or chickenshit to call you on it then, but now I'm doing so
Yeah, I can see a bit what you mean here. I did call you on it on the current thread (here). I just had a look at the January thread; we had a bit of an exchange about it there also (part of it is here).
But perhaps I was waiting for when I could hijack a Hell thread.
quote:
mousethief: Partly I'm trying out ideas. Something comes to mind and I float it to see how other people think about it.
Yes, I can understand that. Basically, this is the last of the three options that I gave in my post before this one. "I just throw this in there. If people disagree they can react to it, and that can be the beginning of a good discussion."
There used to be a website about interfaith dialogue (sadly it doesn't exist anymore) that suggested three principles for a discussion between people of different world views to work:- Don't define their world view for them.
- Don't compare your best with their worst.
- Be prepared to celebrate whatever is good in their world view.
I hope you can see that these principles, albeit not perfect, make some sense. In fact, we can see that people who are stirring shit on the Ship (which may very well include Kaplan) go against these principles on a regular basis.
Basically, we're talking about the first of these principles here. When you're floating the idea that Protestantism is about toeing the party line, you're defining my world view for me.
I think the reason why this is included in these three principles is two-fold: it puts people on the defence, and it sets the direction of the discussion in a rather forced way.
When I was younger and more naive, I tried to have discussions on atheists bulletin boards sometimes. They often started like "LeRoc, people are Christian because they're afraid of death" or "LeRoc, Christianity is about oppressing women." I don't think I'll surprise you when I say that rarely a good discussion came out of this (to my disappointment).
One of the things that are easy to do if you start a discussion like this is:
— Protestantism is about X.
— I'm from a Protestant church, and we don't do X.
— You prove the exception to my rule.
(This is exactly what you did in the second link I gave in my first paragraph in this post.) Where is this supposed to go? Do you think that a good exchange of ideas can come out of this? In my experience, the discussion will only get bogged down in meta-noise. And that's in the best of cases.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I thought you were above this. (This sounds a lot like a passive-aggressive "I'm not angry; I'm just disappointed" but there you go.)
[ 25. March 2016, 06:04: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
That's all fair. Mea culpa.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
No worries.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Maybe a better starting point would be, "What I perceive about Protestantism/Orthodoxy/Catholicism is x because..." Someone from those traditions is then free to elucidate what they know from their own experience from a little less defensive position. The I pronoun is useful because it keeps your thoughts and knowledge in your own court.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Maybe a better starting point would be, "What I perceive about Protestantism/Orthodoxy/Catholicism is x because..." Someone from those traditions is then free to elucidate what they know from their own experience from a little less defensive position. The I pronoun is useful because it keeps your thoughts and knowledge in your own court.
Fair do's.
Who was it said, we most despise in others what we most fear in ourselves.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
It was Hermann Hesse.
The actual quote is;
quote:
If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part yourself. What isn’t part ourselves doesn’t disturb us.
A little too absolute for me, I'm not sure it always follows, but definitely food for thought.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I would say --
"If you are annoyed by a person, something in them is a probably a lot like you. We are much more likely to be annoyed by other's faults when they are also our own."
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I'll have to remember this tack next time someone angrily accuses me of stupidity. It's a slightly high-brow-psychological tu quoque.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It was Hermann Hesse.
The actual quote is;
quote:
If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part yourself. What isn’t part ourselves doesn’t disturb us.
A little too absolute for me, I'm not sure it always follows, but definitely food for thought.
It's a nice quote but what evidence of its veracity is there?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Deano, I've always admired your gift for introspection.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The HELL'S going on? mousethief and deano are being cool!
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The HELL'S going on? mousethief and deano are being cool!
Just messing with your head. Don't worry, I'll say something controversial soon and we can get back to normal service.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I s'pose you're allowed time off for bad behaviour.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0