|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Crash's thoughts on Zealot | |||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
My comments to Zealot in the Does the Bible condemn homosexuality? thread have drawn the attention of Percy, who felt they went too far:
Perhaps phrased a bit too strongly? Your longtime constructive participation here buys you some leeway, but I think you perhaps owe Zealot an apology. No reply to me necessary, I'm reclosing this thread. Obviously Percy's free to take whatever position he feels, and if he feels that my comments crossed the line, then in fact I'd prefer he brooked me no special courtesy by virtue of my length of membership. If he or the other admins feel these comments deserve administrative action then by all means, I'm ready to accept it. I find that I cannot in good conscience retract them - until my understanding of Zealot's views on women change - but I thought I might be afforded a moment to try and explain what motivated me to say those things. Zealot advanced a position, clearly stated in the other thread, that would cause any reasonable person to place him on a moral level with an unrepentant rapist. I found his position as I understood it sexist, repugnant, and indicative of a deeply disturbed mind that represented a clear danger to any and all women around him. I responded to that threat with comments that included:
quote: I maintain that this is a reasonable response and one any moral person would have given to someone who posed as great a danger to women as I came to believe Zealot did. Zealot was offered several chances to better explain his position, and nothing would please me more than for Z to present such a convincing case that his views represented reasonable conclusions free of sexism that I had no choice but to retract my statements and apologize. But he has ignored my pleas for him to do so, which can only indicate that he can't refute my conclusions about his thought processes and views on women and rape. Like I said, any time Zealot cares to explain why it's not sexist to believe that it's better for a mob to rape his daughter than to rape his son (or anyone cares to do so on his behalf), I'll be happy to retract my statements about him, and apologize for my negative opinion and incendiary language. In the meantime I'm also prepared to accept whatever sanctions the administrators feel appropriate. [This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-30-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
One_Charred_Wing Member (Idle past 6184 days) Posts: 690 From: USA West Coast Joined: |
After reading the portion of the thread between you and Zealot that got heated and reading your debate on morality in this thread
http://EvC Forum: God is good and evil it's pretty clear to me that right and wrong are a concern to you; so I feel that what you said although edgy was not grounds for more than a warning. I don't quite understand what he was thinking or saying in that arguement myself; he definetely needs to clarify some things. But all things considered about this, I'm on your side. Just a suggestion that could possibly mediate the conflict: You don't have to apologize for feeling strongly about something,that's your right, but maybe you could apologize if the way you presented it offended anyone? Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Good points, B2P. I got a bit carried away in that thread myself. There's something about the story of Lot and his daughters that chaps my ass, and apparently it does the same to Crash.
Similar things have happened in person. I've pointed out repeatedly here at evc that I live in the Deep South, right about at the buckle of the bible belt, and people like Zealot are all over the place here. I get into religious arguments fairly often, but it seems that nothing gets me or the fundies more angry than a discussion about Lot. It really is one of the most disgusting stories in the bible. The only thing more disgusting is when the fundies try to draw moral dictates from such bilge. I can't understand it, and that fact is frustrating and sometimes brings out the worst in me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
One_Charred_Wing Member (Idle past 6184 days) Posts: 690 From: USA West Coast Joined: |
Those Bible Belters make liberal soon-to-be-preachers like me wonder if we'll ever survive the fundies.
A point about Lot even though I don't know the story in its entirety: Just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean you're supposed to do it. Judas betrayed Jesus according to the Bible; does that mean we're supposed to?! In Jesus's parable of the Good Samaritan, 'good' people left that man for dead, are we supposed to?! Just because someone in the Bible does something doesn't mean we're supposed to; some stories are to show us what NOT to do. Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Crash,
I certainly think your response to Z-man in post #259 was a lot more appropriate than the one you offered him later. Okay, he did ask for "Any more insults?" but you took the bait. It's up to you, but there's an opportunity here to make it clear you're the better man. Zealot is just another hopeless bigot who dodges responsibility by saying he follows God's rules. What he stands to gain by these public announcements of his homophobia and misogyny is anyone's guess. This is the guy who compared evolutionists to Jeffrey Dahmer, I recall, and has really never posted anything that deserved more than snide laughter in response. The difference between your behavior and Z-man's is that I know you're responsible and rational, while I know Zealot isn't. regards,Esteban "Two Cents" Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I certainly think your response to Z-man in post #259 was a lot more appropriate than the one you offered him later. What really got me was that post 259 made it pretty clear that I thought his opinion was sexist and offensive; I expected a reasonable person to be like "woah, I must really have misstated my position for Crash to be so offended. I'd better work harder to make myself clear." I fully expected to be corrected and to offer an apology for the misunderstanding. Instead what I got was a surreal "I'm a Christian and you're not" response and an unexplained insistence that raping a man is worse, somehow, than raping a woman. I'm as liberal and tolerant as the next guy, and I believe in acceptance of as wide a variety of opinion as possible, but I don't believe that extends to a position as outrageous as if he had declared himself an unrepentant rapist. And I don't believe that my ultimate response was any worse than what any of us would have said had we been faced with, for instance, someone who declared their great love of rape. There's a number of explanations Zealot could provide, I imagine, that might cause me to improve my assessment of his opinion and himself. But apparently he doesn't care what I think, which is fine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
The story is found in Genesis 19. To put it in a nutshell: Two male angels come to visit the city of Sodom (they were sent by God to investigate wickedness in the city - this point is related in earlier passages). Lot, seeing them at the city gates, immediately introduces himself and invites the men to spend the night at his house. After some hesitation, the men accept and are treated to a feast. After dinner, a mob consisting of all the men of the city bang on Lot's door, demanding that he send the visitors out so that they might "know" them (if you're going into the ministry, I'm sure you know what "know" means in the bible). Lot, in what I perceive to be one of the most cowardly acts ever conceived, refuses, offering instead to surrender his virgin daughters to be done with "as is good" in the eyes of the mob. The mob refuses, insisting they wish to know the men (thus, to fundies, providing proof positive that the wickedness of Sodom was homosexuality). The mob attempts to force its way into Lot's home, but the men are smitten blind by the angels.
God destroys Sodom after allowing the "righteous" (according to the NT) Lot and his family to flee the city and escape harm - all except for Lot's wife (never named, of course, other than prostitutes and harlots, women are seldom named in the bible). She has dared to defy God's order not to look back while fleeing and is instantly turned into a pillar of salt. One wonders why fundie women don't seem to get the message here of how sinful nosiness is. In the extreme sorrow and agony caused by the death of their mother at the hands of God, Lot's daughters, over two nights, get dear old dad drunk and each, in turns, sleeps with dad and gets pregnant. That's the story of Lot. What a guy! EDITED to correct pronoun usage (1x) in the first paragraph and poor wording in the third paragraph. [This message has been edited by berberry, 03-31-2004]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024