Gentle Reader:

This is a sociological example of a 21st century phenomenon called a blog war.
I suggest we begin at the beginning...

Has a Towel been Thrown?

This just in from Alan's grey matter:

Christians and Self-Righteousness

How often do you hear the complaint that Christians think they are better than everyone else, that they are self-righteous?It has been something I have been pondering lately. The bible tells us how morally flawed we really are, yet some don't seem to realise it. Often times I think that non-Christians think this because they don't understand when Christians talk of morals and doing the right thing, the Christians recognise that they fail to do the right thing all the time. Christians in fact, will generally recognise how far they fall short to a greater degree than non-Christians. Ironically, this means that the Christians generally will think of themselves as worse people, than the Non-Christians think of themselves.

C.S. Lewis understood this contrast when he said "When a man is getting better he understands more and more clearly the evil that is still left in him. When a man is getting worse, he understands his own badness less and less....Good people know about both good and evil: bad people do not know about either" (Mere Christianity p73) I have to agree, the more I try and improve myself morally, the more I see how sinful I really am. J. Budziszewski wrote about the flip side of this when he talked about "The Revenge of Conscience"

Conscience is not a passive barrier but an active force; though it can hold us back, it can also drive us on. Moreover, conscience comes not from without but from within: though culture can trim the fringes, the core cannot be changed. The reason things get worse so fast must somehow lie not in the weakness of conscience but in its strength, not in its shapelessness but in its shape. Budziszewski goes on to explain why our consciences drive us to justify worse and worse behaviours once we have started down that road. I have often heard it said that one of the reasons Christians don't stand up more against abortion is that too many of them have had one. To admit abortion is wrong would be devastating to them. That is what Budziszewski is talking about. Our conscience gives us a choice to either rationalise our sins further and further, or face the devastation of recognising our sin. The worse our sins, the harder it is to choice the second option and that is the revenge of conscience.

- posted by Alan Grey @ Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Back to the Front

Mock-a-palooza

F.A.G. - Will You Marry Me?
Posted by The Tempest on August 14th, 2006

I’ve finally figured it all out.

Yes, it suddenly makes perfect sense to me.

There can be only one reason this guy won’t stay away from me.

First a question: When you were a young kid and either at school or wherever, there was that little girl (or boy) who always picked on you, pulled your hair, punched you in the arm and you just thought, “I hate that guy (girl).”? Eventually, you grew tired of them and tried to avoid them, only to discover they just wouldn’t let it go?

There’s this crazy ‘mo who’s been pulling this same shit on me lately. I’ll admit, at first it was a somewhat fun little diversion trading jabs. Then it got boring because, as it turns out, all this person wanted to do was punch my arm and stick gum in my hair.

So I tell this “Peppermint Patty” wannabe that I’m bored with it all and I’m going to play jump rope with the other girls.

Two days later, I’m just coming down the slide in the playground and tearing up from the burn I just got on my ass from the hot metal (why oh why did I wear this “My Little Pony” skirt??). Suddenly, up from behind, that little snotwipe yanks my pony tail and then runs off to his mommy’s minivan.

“You little turdcicle!”, I yell as the dilapidated van with the WWJD? bumper sticker pulls away. “Just you wait!”

Fast forward to the present day.

My nemesis is back. Bigger and more annoying than ever. Only now, he’s found religion…and the puzzle is complete…he’s in love with me!!

Eeewww!!!

Really though, what else is there to explain all of his unwanted attention and the fact that he just can’t leave well enough alone?

“Let old bygones be.” — Tennyson

The more I spurn his unwanted (and let’s face it…repulsive) advances, the more fervor he puts into the next advance. Each salvo more repugnant than the last.

“I spurn thee like a cur out of my way.” — Shak.

Re*pul*sive - Cold; forbidding; offensive; as, repulsive manners. - (1913 Webster)

Then it happened. I saw through his crusty, bitter and hateful outer shell and saw the inner Alan. He just wants a hug. He just wants to be loved. He truly had no idea just what kind of man he had inside of him…

I know…I know…What about Steve? Will our marriage be able to withstand this heated one-sided love affair? You bet. Ours is a marriage based on trust, honesty and laughter. And in the end, maybe that’s what this other guy really wants for himself…to find a man who can love him and accept his weird “isms”.

And as Steve and I walk lovingly into the sunset, I pause, glance over my shoulder…
…see him standing there…
…sobbing and shaking…
…and think…
Oh, Alan, “I wish I knew how to quit you!” (*)


(*) — Jack to Ennis, Brokeback Mountain

Continue

A Grey Area Defined

It seems Mr. Grey is starting to get a little shall we say snarky:

Daniel - The Tempest said "Listen, your comments weren't "deleted". Wordpress has had some issues lately. Not that I owe an explaination. I do see one of your comments on my site, so let's just leave the cowardly crap off." Oh you mean that last comment which simply linked here and doesn’t actually say anything? Please. You say wordpress was broken and my comments weren’t actually deleted…Yet there is a lack of notification of this wordpress ‘issue’ on their site.

Why should I believe you? You talk about being a ‘good’ person, but as far as I can tell, your notion of ‘good’ seems to be simply based on your feelings. Essentially, what you are doing is using a word that people with a common Judeo-Christian background use to communicate certain concepts with, yet your own definition of that word is different. What do you really mean by ‘good’? What is the foundation for your morality?

"This whole issue (whatever it really is with you) is tiresome. Why don't we just call détente...you are never going to change us, and we are never going to change you."But I’ve already changed you and you’ve already changed me. This is the nature of discourse and interaction. "There, I'll be the bigger man. I'm turning the other cheek, as it were. I'm throwing in the towel just to end all of this tripe. Are you willing to do likewise? Because seriously, this could go on forever, and quite frankly, none of this is worth my very valuable time. Fun little distraction as it was.# posted by Tempest : 12/8/06 9:48 PM" Lol….if you were going to be the bigger man, why did you continue to post comments? Is this just another of your little manipulative techniques so that you get the last word whilst appearing to be the bigger man? Please Daniel. Manipulating others is poor form.

"Oh, and just to be clear, you came to my page first. You attacked me. You accused me of plagairism without even asking or knowing the facts first. You threw the first verbal punch, then got pissy when I decided to hit back. " You have gotten playing the victim down to a fine art haven’t you. How many times have you posted emails deriding and mocking others beliefs? I can tell you would prefer it if people just sat there and let you continue with your ignorant and mocking attempts to appear clever. That’s not going to happen though. When you posted your plagiarised piece ignorantly mocking Christian belief, I called you on it and you decided to start hurling insults and getting your knickers in a twist. I don’t need to ask for the facts when the facts are there plainly for all to see. You plagiarised a piece and probably felt very self-satisfied and self-righteous about it all. The post itself was evidence enough. That you chose an obviously shallow and incorrect criticism of the bible to copy is even more evidence that you were posting on a topic you know very little about.

"Simply stated, (and I had to learn this the hard way) not everyone you attack is going to have the same control as Revel & Kat. They have patience for people who preach. I, however, do not."Preach? Attack? Yeah, sure. Calling you on plagiarism is attacking. Just like protecting a person being mugged is attacking. Do you actually believe what you are saying? You did the wrong thing, intentionally or not. Deal with it, learn from it, and move on. Just don’t keep going with this somewhat obvious rationalization and manipulation.

"You should not judge me because I am a reactionist. I simply cannot abide being bullied by those who want me to drink the religious Kool Aid." Bullied? Yep. Anyone who disagrees with you, or thinks you have done the wrong thing is ‘bullying’ you. The victim mentality continues. You use that a lot don’t you? It lets you feel all self-righteous doesn’t it? It allows you to continue to mock those you disagree with and pretend to be the victim any time anyone tries to respond. Manipulation, manipulation, manipulation. Let’s see Daniel. The Muslim’s think I am an infidel and going to hell, the Jews think I am a blasphemer and heretic and am going to hell. The atheists think I am deluded or stupid. Many Hindu think I do something bad every time I enjoy a good steak and that I will probably come back in the next life as a cockroach. The world is full of people who think I am immoral, stupid or deluded. It isn’t something I lose sleep over, because I am not so insecure as to be worried about other people’s beliefs which I don’t believe in. I don’t cry and whine about being bullied and attacked whenever someone disagrees with me or thinks their belief is true and mine is not.

"You were the one who turned your baseless accusations of plagairism into a gay-bashing. That, to me, seems as immature as my so-called passive aggressive reactions." You mean after I accused you correctly of plagiarism in a anti-Christian, and then you decided to bring my religion into it and Revel made several claims about Christianity and homosexual marriage. It’s curious how you left those steps of the discussion out. More manipulation I guess…I’m starting to see the pattern. You seem happy to bash Christian’s who disagree with you, yet whine when someone says something even remotely against your own beliefs.

"Bottom line, if you want stimulating conversation and debate, don't start off with accusations of plagairism before knowing the true context. And splitting hairs (by either of us) doesn't add anything helpful to the debate.# posted by Tempest : 12/8/06 10:04 PM" The true context? The true context was that you posted someone else’s work with the only attribution on the post being your own name. That’s what’s known as plagiarism. How much rationalisation can you do? You did the wrong thing, build a bridge and get over it.
posted by Alan Grey : 14/8/06 1:28 PM

Continue

Curiosity and the Kat

Alan's response left me somewhat unfulfilled and his performance was less than satisfying, so I felt I should seek more input by posting this:

I don’t believe I ever suggested that you shut up, on the contrary, I asked you a series of questions and I was hoping you would enlighten us by answering them- which would of course require that you continue to speak. I also provided the biblical references as illustration of the Christian principles to which I was referring. I am respectfully asking that you address my questions and not make assumptions about me personally - if as you say this is about open discourse. I will reiterate the questions for you:

Are you setting a good Christian example by being “blunt” with people you know don’t respect your beliefs? You started this debate when you first posted on the Tempest. Did you do so with the intent to persuade their readership to “see the light” or did you have some other goal in mind? You seem to think that there was some violation of right that occurred but the only right we are worried about is the legal one. Was anything done that was illegal, no. Do we care if you think it was immoral and that a good person wouldn’t do something like that. No.

Is it right for you to call someone a thief? It seems your whole purpose in posting is to shame him publicly in some way and to what end, I’d really like to know. (It won’t work by the way – he has no shame and he’s just playing with you like a cat toy).

Do not accuse a man for no reason— when he has done you no harm. Proverbs 3:30.

Should you not follow Christ’s example? I was suggesting you might try being like Christ and ignore Daniel’s insults. Tempest chose the forum, not me. It was only after he responded immaturely, insulted me repeatedly and then closed my ability to reply to the insults that I chose to post here. What was the point of your post - by that I mean what did you intend the result to be of your action? You seem to be happy that you got Daniel “worked up” but you misinterpret the context. We find you funny. You are providing fodder for our amusement. We could care less about what you think of us or the outcome of this debate (except of course blood shed should be avoided). We are firmly convinced that you cannot be dissuaded from your beliefs and therefore cannot take you seriously. On the other hand, we are always hoping one of you people will stand up and justify your actions in the context of your religion. You know like “Christ told me to post this to save your soul”

As for ...attacks on Christianity, why do you even care? Daniel has his reasons for his dislike of the right wing conservative fanatics and I was raised by one. If you take up their cause, he will just continue to insult you and expose you to public ridicule. Although I will try to remind him to stay away from casting aspersions on your character or manhood. Again why are you wasting your time with this? Go celebrate already:

11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Matthew 5

You said, “Jesus never said we are to not defend ourselves when attacked, just that we aren't meant to respond in kind.” Explain that please and then please explain this passage to me:

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. 43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. Matthew 5.

Can I please have $10,000?

But shouldn’t they be held to the standard of the religion they profess to be part of? You said “Christian's all accept they are fallible and will not be able to perfectly reflect biblical teachings” to me this sounds like an excuse to be as nasty and evil as they want and still claim to be good Christians. Aren’t you guys supposed to be following your own rules? We non-believers don’t have that problem except for, you know, that pesky constitution and uh, laws.

Shouldn’t you as a fellow Christian be more concerned, like Paul, with chastising them than arguing with a self-proclaimed non-believer?

6 Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. 7 In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us. Titus 2:6-8

If their fellow Christians will not call them on their behavior, does that mean they can go around threatening people, desecrating funerals and being generally nasty until judgment day? These actions drive people away from Christianity and aren’t you concerned about that? Isn’t the grand mission to convert everyone to Christianity? How will this be accomplished if you can’t all agree on what Christianity is?

Lastly, please understand, we aren’t trying to be Christians. We don’t want to be Christians. So trying to apply Christian standards to our behavior is pointless. On the other hand, you guys have this big book of stuff you are supposed to be modeling for the world. We’re just suggesting there’s a big group of you all that aren’t doing a very good job. If you want to discuss that further, go for it.

Oh and in this country, our senators work for us and if we want to send them emails - it’s allowed. Brownback is a big boy, he doesn’t need you to protect him from sarcasm. Flooding politician’s inboxes with identical emails is a traditional American political action tactic that is used by both sides. It’s stupid, pointless, but it’s an American right.
posted by Kat B 13/8/06 4:11 AM

Continue

The Beginning of the End?

Daniel begins to tire of the game and posts this on The Tempest:

Truce or Dare?

Posted by The Tempest on August 11th, 2006

This is dedicated to Alan (a/k/a Spanky), the bully who came looking for a fight. Normally I love to write about all the funny things going on in our lives and around the world. There’s so much delicious grist out there and I do so love to laugh.

Every once in a while, however, something happens that slaps you back into reality and reminds you that there is still some ugliness in the blogging world. Unfortunately, for the past several days, this ugliness has kept me beaten down and, as a result, I’ve allowed myself to be baited and distracted. I am very ashamed of myself for this. I know it’s pointless to let someone pick an online fight and stupidly take them up on it. Especially when that particular bully (as it turns out) is known by both of his readers for just that.

While I won’t go into the subject(s) of this persons rants and vicious religious attacks, I will admit I took the bait. Like an idiot, I allowed myself to be called out onto the blogger schoolyard and when the guy tried to take my lunch money, I swung.

Stupid. Stupid. STUPID!!!

I wanted to honestly apologize to the antagonist for whatever it was that pissed him off. As it turns out, that wouln’t have been enough for him, as anyone who isn’t ‘religious’ is his target. He is one of those who just keeps coming back.

My plan this morning was to just let it go and chalk it up to yet another lonely weirdo stuck in front of his computer who hates the immoral world. I wanted to write about something totally unrelated to this person and just move on. Live and learn, right?

Unfortunately, no. He’s taken it to the next level. Using his ‘moral superiority’ to bash me and also turned on Steve. So, instead of continuing to give this person my attention, I’ll let the following response from Steve be the end of it:

“No, Alan, I am not saying everyone else is deluded. But after reading your post, I can pretty much deduce that you are. Nice job of twisting around valid points with that trademark flair of the evangelical.

You quote one site “Beyond Marriage” as the basis for what the “true reformation of marriage is about.” That’s pretty weak, but then again, typical of the evangelical right. Like I said in my post, I don’t believe your fringe element speaks for all of Christianity any more than that site speaks for what all gay people want out of marriage.

And do I believe I can do everything I want? Of course not, and that kind of argument leads me to believe that you are the childish one here. Scary to trust we might be using our own consciences instead of your Bible thumping rhetoric isn’t it? If you have to latch on to either one of us being “anti” something, we are “ant-right wing evangelical”, because I will reiterate again, IMHO it has very very little to do with the teaching of Jesus Christ. You can disagree, that’s fine. This, to me, was not going to be an ongoing dialogue. The basis for the discussion isn’t likely to ever be agreed on.

I give you major props, though, on tutoring those would read your post on Daniel being passive aggressive while delivering passive aggressive in master strokes.

Again, I applaud you. That is an art form in itself.”

I apologize to all of my readers for the past several days of bickering. I will lay down my firey Italian sword (on this subject) and return to writing about what I love.

Continue

A Retort of Sorts

Ah, the battle rages on:

Kat,You are right. I used the word 'dearth' wrongly. It is one of those things you pick up wrongly. Thanks for pointing that out.

As to your other comments, I don't consider myself religious. But thanks for asking. And for your information, there is a difference between being blunt and not having control over your tongue.

Tempest chose the forum, not me. It was only after he responded immaturely, insulted me repeatedly and then closed my ability to reply to the insults that I chose to post here.Tempest himself set the standard when he said that you can't offend someone with the truth. But then, I am starting to suspect you are merely trying to shut me up as opposed to deal with the situation in an even-handed manner.

If you must know, everybody screws up all the time. There are those who can handle being called on it with humility and there are those who get angry and start insulting anything that moves. Christian's all accept they are fallible and will not be able to perfectly reflect biblical teachings. Ironically, this perfectly reflects biblical teachings.

suspicious
1. Arousing or apt to arouse suspicion; questionable
2. Tending to suspect; distrustful
3. Expressing suspicionSeems perfectly clear.

There doesn't seem to be any indication that a person has to be trying to sell me something.I will happily engage in discussion with people who I disagree with. Are you saying that we shouldn't talk to people with different ideas to our own? If so, then why are you bothering to post comments?And when you talk about following "Christ's example", perhaps you should take into consideration ALL of Christ's example and not just the ones you like. I have not made any threats, nor have responded to insults with insults. Jesus never said we are to not defend ourselves when attacked, just that we aren't meant to respond in kind.

Now as to academics, plagiarism and copyright infringement.I think you have your definitions wrong. Plagiarism is about passing someone elses work for your own. Copyright infringement is about using someone elses work when you don't have permission to. This is why it is irrelevant as to what the author "wants".As to why deal with this piece of plagiarism? I have already detailed the situation. I didn't post a column here as a first recourse and I haven't come across Ms Coulter's efforts where i am in a position to know. This post isn't about plagiarism, but about people who try and tell you they try to be a good person and are not anti-christian, but the reality of their actions show what they really mean.

As for your comments about caring...it seems you would like Christian's to sit down, shut up and keep out of the marketplace of ideas which will let people who agree with you control all the things people get to hear. It's not about whether people will get upset at Christianity or me. I fully expect people won't like me. That's why I am not hurt or upset about it. It is about engaging in a discussion, teaching people and generally seeking the truth. Whilst you may want people with different views to your own to shut up, I prefer to have an open discourse.I'm glad you agree that the Tempest was mocking a deriding. That was one of my main points. Good to see we are on the same page.

I'm sure you would like it if I spent all my time dealing with everyone that you disagree with and ignoring the people you agree with. Of course, my point was not to defend those people who email the Tempest, but that his own stated reasoning implicates himself.

As previously stated, I used the word 'dearth' incorrectly and will fix it. I find it curious that you don't address the point, but instead avoid it by using this as a red herring. It seems Kat, that you are simply one of those people who wants anyone who disagrees with them to shut up.

You've learned a few tricks about how to try and get them to shut up, and so you think you have some sort of point. Perhaps instead you should be more open-minded and engage people who hold different views to your own.

FYI. The Tempest seems to have gotten very worked up about my 'opinion' so it hardly seems like he 'could care less'.

# posted by Alan Grey : 12/8/06 12:14 PM

Continue

My Soliloquy

No longer content to just observe, I decided to enter the fray:

I have some questions for you Mr. Grey. Did not God charge christians to be an example to the world? Are you setting a good example by being “blunt”?

If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. James 1:26

Is it right for you to publicly call someone out as a thief?

Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Luke 6:37

Yet you feign indignance at the idea someone would be upset at being accused of stealing.

defamation n.
1: a malicious attack
2: an abusive attack on a person's character or good name

When someone professes to be Christian, I expect them to behave in a manner consistent with the teachings of their religion. You claim to become suspicious of people who behave inconsistently with their words. The hopelessly warped pathetic letter that is the subject of this “debate” attempts to point out, rather sarcastically, the inconsistencies of biblical teachings.

“I generally believe they try to act morally. It isn't till they start acting inconsistently with their claims that I get more suspicious.”

What do you have to be suspicious of? No one is trying to sell you anything, convert you in any way. I wonder why you continue to give so much air time to someone with whom you so vehemently disagree. Should you not follow Christ’s example?

22 He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. 23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds, you have been healed. Peter 2:22-24

“So here we have Daniel, who claims to try and be a good person, being abusive and upset, when it is pointed out to him that he was doing something that even the secular humanist gay rights feminist academics think is wrong?”

The key word being academics, outside of academia, plagiarism is called copyright infringement. As I’m sure you are aware there are acceptable use provisions in the rules of copyright. I have to wonder why you are so bothered by this alleged offense unless of course YOU are the author of the letter. (Probably not, but just checking). The author of the piece has not seen fit to complain about any of the zillion of times this piece has been used although Lorimar (the only 'for profit' use of it) did compensate him. On the contrary, the author probably wants the work disseminated as widely as possible in order to get his message out. In addition, it has been varyingly addressed to Dr. Laura, George Bush and now Senator Brownbeck.

If you’re objecting merely to the sin of plagiarism and believe all who have done so should be “outed” then where is your column on Ms. Coulter and her much more widely documented problems in that regard?

As for Daniel’s passive aggressive attacks on Christianity, why do you even care? I submit that you care about these so-called attacks because you doubt your own belief system. Christ said the world is supposed to hate you. It’s how you know you’re separated from the world, special.

46 I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. 47 As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. John 12:46-48

As for mocking and deriding, duh, that’s called sarcasm and yes, that is the point - to hold hypocrites up to the light and see if they explode.

You say the Christians who insult Daniel may be misguided and not acting according to the bible, but they too believe they are telling the truth. But shouldn’t they be held to the standard of the religion they profess to be part of? Shouldn’t you, as a fellow Christian, be more concerned, like Paul, with chastising them than arguing with a self-proclaimed non-believer? I’m sure Daniel could give you their email addresses.

Romans 2:1-3, 19-21

1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?

19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth 21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?

As for Steve’s comments, I’m not sure how you can characterize his statements as anti-religious. I think they are more anti-psycho Christians.

“It seems Steve's version of 'true christianity' would let him do everything he wants and somehow call this 'love'.”

Holy leap to conclusion, Batman, I don’t know how you got that from them not liking the death threats. Steve’s version of ‘true Christianity’ prevents him from kicking your butt which is probably something he’d want to do. So, I think, therefore, you are wrong in this regard.

And you conclude with the ironic statement: “But there is an incredible dearth of evidence at how destructive the homosexual lifestyle is.”

dearth n.
A scarce supply; a lack:
Shortage of food; famine

I think, on that point, you are correct sir.

Perhaps you should spend more time in prayer and reading your bible (or your dictionary), and you would feel less need to harass those that could care less about your opinion. Unless of course you are just dying for the attention. Vanity, isn’t that one of those problem sins for you people?

Sources:

The American Heritage® dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

The Bible, author unknown, (New International Version)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
# posted by Kat B. : 12/8/06 9:03 AM

Continue

A Flanking Manuever

Apparently, Mr. Grey felt Revel's response did not deserve deletion:

No, Alan, I am not saying everyone else is deluded. But after reading your post, I can pretty much deduce that you are. Nice job of twisting around valid points with that trademark flair of the evangelical.

You quote one site "Beyond Marriage" as the basis for what the "true reformation of marriage is about." That's pretty weak, but then again, typical of the evangelical right. Like I said in my post, I don't believe your fringe element speaks for all of Christianity any more than that site speaks for what all gay people want out of marriage.

And do I believe I can do everything I want? Of course not, and that kind of argument leads me to believe that you are the childish one here. Scary to trust we might be using our own consciences instead of your Bible thumping rhetoric isn't it?

If you have to latch on to either one of us being "anti" something, we are "ant-right wing evangelical", because I will reiterate again, IMHO it has very very little to do with the teaching of Jesus Christ. You can disagree, that's fine. This, to me, was not going to be an ongoing dialogue. The basis for the discussion isn't likely to ever be agreed on.

I give you major props, though, on tutoring those would read your post on Daniel being passive aggressive while delivering passive aggressive in master strokes.

Again, I applaud you. That is an art form in itself.
# posted by RevelKC2 : 11/8/06 10:06 PM

Continue

Enter Whining

Mr. Grey apparently felt strongly enough about the issue to continue posting about it on his own blog:

Wierd People With Chips On Their Shoulders

People who know me, know that I am a fairly blunt person. I tend not to stuff around with flowery phrases and generally speaking, I take people at their word. When I find people who say they believe in being a good person, I may wonder what they mean by 'good', but I generally believe they try to act morally. It isn't till they start acting inconsistently with their claims that I get more suspicious.

Enter 'The Tempest' a blog run by a couple of homosexual couples. Never heard of them before. I only found their blog by doing a search on the Dr Laura email that was used in one of my philosophy texts. What my search turned up was this post, by Daniel aka 'The Tempest'. Daniel had added his own salutation to Senator Brownback, and still claims to have added the first paragraph (even though most of it is plagiarized), but the rest of the letter in it's entirety is a copy of the Dr Laura email. Nowhere did Daniel use quotes or attribute the work to anyone else, in short, this is what is known as plagiarism, that is, a form of stealing.

In my general blunt fashion, I mentioned this to Daniel, and also mentioned that copying hopelessly warped and misleading email was kind of pathetic. Daniel responded by the mature and responsible method of deleting my post, insulting me and then avoiding the issue. A second comment by me, in which I pondered his immature response, was also deleted. At least then however, Daniel added the better, but as mentioned previously, still incorrect disclaimer.So here we have Daniel, who claims to try and be a good person, being abusive and upset, when it is pointed out to him that he was doing something that even the secular humanist gay rights feminist academics think is wrong?

I read further. It seems Daniel has received a lot of abusive email from Christian's and though I can't really speak for them, I am sorry that it has happened. Daniel, however, still seems to be adding to his inconsistencies.

And stop with the “You’re Anti-Religion!” I’m NOT your religious enemy! I never once have said your religion sucks and you’re all a bunch of brainwashed yahoos. I have only said - and will continue saying till my dying day- I don’t want religion in my life.

There is a method of communication called passive-aggressive. This is where the communicator tries to come across as the 'victim', when in reality, they are trying to insult, deride or manipulate you. Daniel's entire post is attacking Christianity and Christians. He compares a Christian run country with Islamic ones. He mocks and derides. The pulls more passive-aggressive tricks saying I honestly don’t write anything that is meant to offend any of my so-called “targets”. You can’t offend someone with the truth.

My favorite part though is where he condemns himself

Unless your religion is actually HYPOCRISY.

You see Daniel. Whilst the Christian's who insult you may be misguided and not acting according to the bible, they too believe they are telling you the truth. And if they believe they are telling you the truth, then why do you get so worked up about it? "You can't offend someone with the truth" remember. Perhaps you should drop this idea of berating others for doing the same thing you are doing. What is that called again? Hypocrisy I believe. Daniel of course, doesn't seem to want to let things go, and continues to be upset that someone would dare point out he was plagiarizing.

Thanks to one of God’s favorite soldiers. He decided to take it upon himself to verbally drag me into the square and (again verbally) publically flog me. All in the name of Christ.

Wow. I 'verbally publically flog[ged]' him.

This guy seems to major on the minors. Overreaction becomes an art to some I guess. Now remember, he isn't anti-religious, especially when he says

Thanks, Alan, for playing Virgil and escorting me around your realm. If it weren’t for good ‘Christians’ like you, the Inquisition would have been dull-dull-dull, wars would be bor-r-r-ing, and I would not have seen the light.

Yep. Inquisition, wars, good 'Christians'. He doesn't sound antireligious at all...Now Daniel's partner, Steve has also given a good example of being anti-religious.

You are deluded, sad, and pathetic. You are no more a Christian than those embryonic cells you fight so vehemently to protect, while on the other hand, turning your back on the wholesale slaughter of peoples American, Arabic and African as well. I was brought up Christian, but I know this faith is not for me, at least not the variety (Southern Baptist) that I knew. But Christianity, TRUE Christianity, based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, have very little to do with the things you say, do, and email. True Christianity values love (remember, “The greatest of these is love?”) above all else. Your desires for molding everyone in your twisted version of Christianity are hideous and devoid of anything even close to love.

Yep. Steve knows what 'true christianity' is and everyone else is just deluded, sad and pathetic. Steve can tell us that Satan was modeled after the pagan god Pan, and hell was manufactured by the church. It seems Steve's version of 'true christianity' would let him do everything he wants and somehow call this 'love'. Steve continues

The hullabaloo by the right wing fringe is that gay marriage will undermine the family and traditional marriage as we know it. BULL#$@!. If I marry my life partner of nearly five years, I can no more undermine the marriage of either of our very supportive heterosexual neighbors’ marriages, any more than moving in next to them has undermined my relationship.

I always wonder when I hear this sort of comment... are they simply being used and duped? Are they uninformed of the true aims of the reformation of marriage? Steve and Daniel talk about love. They may even say they love each other. But there is an incredible dearth of evidence at how destructive the homosexual lifestyle is. I don't about you, but when I think of love I think of wanting the true good of the person being loved, not of wanting to do things to harm them. - posted by Alan Grey @ Friday, August 11, 2006

Continue

The End of the Beginning

Daniel posted this in response to Alan's (now missing) comments on The Tempest:

Back From The Depths
Posted by The Tempest on 10th August 2006
Whoa!! It’s nice to be back in the land of common sense and reality. Huh? You didn’t know I’d gone anywhere?

Sure did. It seems this little fairy was taken into the very depths of hell. It’s true.

Thanks to one of God’s favorite soldiers. He decided to take it upon himself to verbally drag me into the square and (again verbally) publically flog me. All in the name of Christ.

Praise Allah.

For the past 48 hours, I’ve felt like Dante standing next to Virgil on the edge of Hell. Based on the test, I’m standing at the edge of Hell. Take the test here.

The Dante’s Inferno Test has sent ME to the First Level of Hell - Limbo!

Thanks, Alan, for playing Virgil and escorting me around your realm. If it weren’t for good ‘Christians’ like you, the Inquisition would have been dull-dull-dull, wars would be bor-r-r-ing, and I would not have seen the light.

Continue

Right from the Left

In the same vein on the same topic, Revel posted the following:

A Revel-ation

Posted by revelkc on August 9th, 2006

:::The Following Is A Post Written By ‘REVEL’ (Steve):::

An Open Letter to all So Called Christians
I don’t keep up with The Tempest’s emails like Daniel does, he tells me about them in general and some noteworthy with more specifics. I know a lot of people read the blog, and there is a lot of warmth, support, good humor, and praise to be had all around. I, too, agree that faith in the goodness of people is (more or less) well founded. I have a spiritual belief in a power that transcends boundaries we humans would place on it, that pervades everyone and everything in the universe. For the label-obsessed, I most closely resemble a Wiccan. And please don’t get me started on the feeble-minded misconceptions about all things magickal. That’s a whole “nuther kettle o’fish”. So I want to address, personally, those of you so-called “Christians” out there showing what I am sure you have twisted around in your minds as “Christian care and concern.”, telling Tempest, and by association myself, of our eternal fate based on your twisted belief system.

You are deluded, sad, and pathetic. You are no more a Christian than those embryonic cells you fight so vehemently to protect, while on the other hand, turning your back on the wholesale slaughter of peoples American, Arabic and African as well. I was brought up Christian, but I know this faith is not for me, at least not the variety (Southern Baptist) that I knew. But Christianity, TRUE Christianity, based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, have very little to do with the things you say, do, and email. True Christianity values love (remember, “The greatest of these is love?”) above all else. Your desires for molding everyone in your twisted version of Christianity are hideous and devoid of anything even close to love.

And speaking from my spiritual viewpoint, you have obviously been ignoring something that everyone’s version of The Goddess has endowed them with…YOUR BRAIN. Your brain allows you the logic process. The logic process should lead you through what’s known as logical conclusions. Take gay marriage for instance. The hullabaloo by the right wing fringe is that gay marriage will undermine the family and traditional marriage as we know it.

BULLSHIT. If I marry my life partner of nearly five years, I can no more undermine the marriage of either of our very supportive heterosexual neighbors’ marriages, any more than moving in next to them has undermined my relationship. By the way, do you ever even BOTHER to see things from “the other side of the fence”? Have you any INKLING of what it’s like to have religious prejudice used against you? No, in your smug little Faux News Christian Network I doubt you have. And as for children and the family, you can quote as many Dobsons or Falwells as you want to, but gay parents are among some of the most loving, capable and supportive on the planet. And they teach their children not to close their minds, but to keep their minds and their hearts open. Both of those things, in people like you, are shut tight and unlikely to see the light of day.

There are true Christians out there. I know them personally. While we may have our disagreements, they are respectful people who DO try and see the other side of things, not close their minds and hide behind the edicts of the evangelical right. They truly do ask themselves “what would Jesus do”, not just wear WWJD on a neck chain or bracelet.

So I will make a deal with you: save your insipid emails telling us we’re going to Hell, and I will spare you the history of how Satan (modeled after the Pagan God of Nature, Pan) and Hell were manufactured in order to convert the “heathen” pagans. And remember, since fear is born of ignorance, you don’t need to be scared stupid.

Continue

Meanwhile back at the ranch....

The Tempest posted a response to the various Christian wing-nuts that e-mail him regularly:

American Theocracy…Closer Than You Think
Posted by The Tempest on 8th August 2006

Theocracy \The*oc”ra*cy\, n. [Gr. ?; ? God + ? to be strong, torule, fr. ? strength: cf. F. th[’e]ocratie. See {Theism}, andcf. {Democracy}.]1. Government of a state by the immediate direction oradministration of God; hence, the exercise of politicalauthority by priests as representing the Deity.[1913 Webster]

It’s no big secret that I read through my email “religiously”. Yup. There are literally hundreds daily. They tend to range from praise, to “pretty good” to “pour gasoline on yourself, light a match and do the world a favor”. You can imagine, I’m sure. I don’t let them get to me (the bad ones, I mean), but it really shows you there are some folks out there who would benefit greatly from some nice relaxing shock therapy.

Today’s post zeros in on the mail I get from some very angry Christians. From around the world, they send me proverbs and passages from the Bible. (<— I capitalize it as a show of respect.) Mostly, their emails consist mainly of calling me horrible names and telling me I’m going to Hell. (<—I capitalized that just to even the playing field.)

For the record, I know I’m never going to attempt to ‘convert’ you into accepting me just as I am for who I am. Trust me when I say that I know a brick wall when I’m talking to one. On the other side of the coin (I’ll be the ‘bottom’ here), you really need to get it through your heads that I can not - WILL NOT - be converted into a religion. Not gonna happen. Nope. Nuh uh.

And stop with the “You’re Anti-Religion!” I’m NOT your religious enemy! I never once have said your religion sucks and you’re all a bunch of brainwashed yahoos. I have only said - and will continue saying till my dying day- I don’t want religion in my life. I believe in being a good person and my faith is in people. I understand that goes against your belief system and it really chaps your ass. But my faith doesn’t give me cause to pre-judge or hate those I don’t know. My faith doesn’t allow me to wage war against those who don’t pray at the same alter.

Are you listening Osama and Bush?Okay, so that part is said. And it’s on the record.

Then I read on and I notice a pattern (other than the severe lack of “Love Thy Neighbor”) that most certainly does make me cringe. There have been many stating their anticipation of our government becoming far more “God Fearing” and “Evangelical”. I can’t even imagine a more frightening scenario. Oh wait…there are a few examples I can use as a comparison.
Iran
Bhutan
Saudi Arabia
What’s that you say? That could never happen here in America? Ri-i-ight. So just when did you wake up from that coma?
Turn on your TV.
Read a newspaper.
Listen to the candidates and those already in state government or Washington.

The preaching and judging going on from those supposedly elected to represent all of us are slowly but surely leaning their views and actions toward evangelical pontification and away from the will of all their constituents. In many ways, many people in this country are being told,
“If you don’t believe in my God, then you are my enemy and your life and issues mean nothing and you no longer matter. If you’re not willing to pray with me, you and all of your ‘Godless’ like-minded people should shut up and leave the fate of this country to us. God is on our side, not yours.”

I know this hateful message is spreading like a virus, because all of the hate mail I get from people of “faith” seem to express that very message to one degree or another. If you really don’t like my message or ‘belief system’, then don’t read it. I honestly don’t write anything that is meant to offend any of my so-called “targets”. You can’t offend someone with the truth.
I will always write against those who would tell others that they are less human because they don’t pray or ‘believe’. When you use your religion (which I thought was based on peace and love) as a weapon to beat down others, I’m going to pounce.

So, the next time you send a message telling someone (me) to kill themselves just because they (I) don’t kneel before you (e-mailers & Bush) and pray, it’s yet proof that it’s easier to go against even your own religion than to practice what you preach.

Unless your religion is actually HYPOCRISY.

Hypocrisy \Hy*poc”ri*sy\ (h[i^]*p[o^]k”r[i^]*s[y^]), n.; pl.{Hypocrisies} (-s[i^]z). [OE. hypocrisie, ypocrisie, OF.hypocrisie, ypocrisie, F. hypocrisie, L. hypocrisis, fr. Gr.“ypo`krisis the playing a part on the stage, simulation,outward show, fr. “ypokr`nesqai to answer on the stage, toplay a part; “ypo` under + kri`nein to decide; in the middlevoice, to dispute, contend. See {Hypo-}, and {Critic}.]The act or practice of a hypocrite; a feigning to be what oneis not, or to feel what one does not feel; a dissimulation,or a concealment of one’s real character, disposition, ormotives; especially, the assuming of false appearance ofvirtue or religion; a simulation of goodness.[1913 Webster]

Continue

A Series of Unfortunate Events

What happened next well - suffice it to say that an unpleasant exchange occurred between Mr. Grey and The Tempest. Were Mr. Grey's comments deleted from The Tempest? Did Mr. Grey spam comments on The Tempest, we may never know for certain. What is clear is that a certain level of animosity was reached and a flame war was on.

Continue

The Offending E-mail

Dear Senator Brownback:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding stem cells and God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your holier-than-thou speeches, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. For example, when someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. Rick Santorum taught me that. However, I do need some advice from you regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev.24:10-16)? Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Continue

Prologue:

A few weeks ago, the senate debated the stem cell bill that was ultimately vetoed by President Bush. Senator Sam Brownback, a man with rumored presidential aspirations, was one of the primary opponents:

"(USA Today) Senate to address stem cell bills:
The Senate could debate as early as next week a three-bill package that includes a measure to expand federal funding for stem cell research using human embryos. President Bush has threatened to veto the funding measure, which passed the House of Representatives in May 2005. Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and other opponents say it is wrong to destroy human life for any reason, whether it is an embryo for stem cell research or a fetus in an abortion. They say that alternative research on adult stem cells is more ethical and that cloning embryos to harvest stem cells should be banned because it is immoral.”

Lawrence Journal World Congressional Briefing July 11, 2006

In response, the author of The Tempest took an old email that has been used to point out the hypocritical use of the Old Testament by the so-called Christian right and addressed it to Senator Brownback as well as posted it on his blog. He made no claim the work was his own and in fact, those of us who are familiar with this debate easily recognized it for what it was.

Enter Mr. Grey – the author of another blog – Grey Thoughts: Christian Views on Current News-Australian style. He proceeded to accuse The Tempest of plagiarism for posting the email. Now why this particular posting of the email was so upsetting to Mr. Grey – we do not yet know – however, what followed was an epic blog thumping of biblical proportions.

Continue