I will make no direct reply to what you said earlier, save one. I have dismissed that from my mind so as not to allow my emotions to foolishly overcome me. I feel compelled to make at least some reply to what has been said since, for I fear that despite Schala's kind defence, J Esq's words will cast me in a perpetual negative shadow for some, and that I would ill endure.
Let me also point out that Daniel is staying pretty calm here, when in contrast you're retorting with "How dare you" and "what gall..." If you want to flame him, take it to a PM. Personally, I'm going to ask for your post to be deleted. Daniel's bad about hijacking threads, yes. He rambles and goes off on a tangent. But no one forced you to reply to his statements. That was your choice.
Aye, no one forced me. But that's the way people like Daniel advance their agenda. They make claims that are so audacious, and contrary to all evidence, that they sometimes succeed in dumbfounding the other side into silence. .
Strangely enough, that is precisely what happened to me just here. I was cowed into silence by what you said, unable to reply because it defied all logic I could bring forward, save for decending into emotional outcries - which I felt would be a fool's course. I say truly, certain of your beliefs - most especially self-determination and belief in the self - are just as ghastly to me as what you see as oppression, and are just as illogical to my mind. Your last comments rattled my mind with anger for a half-day, in fact, and felt very much like a personal attack. Remember this. Yet shall I convert you by condemnation? May it never be! By your beliefs, however, you cannot believe in absolute truths - or are you not a relativist, only a limited relativist? - Thus, appealing to your views, I would beg you not to presume that you are the only one that sees logic in their ideals, and lack of it in others, and that absolute truth lies only in your side. And that if there are flaws in the views of others, yours of history may as well be skewed. To do so would remove scientific impartiality, and become the view of a religious person - a religion of science.
I don't know if you care about anything in life, teh Schala. I should imagine you do. And you should imagine that I do. I would never allow some religious revisionist like Daniel Krispin to come out and declare on a public forum that Christianity has never, ever oppressed women. That sort of talk is beyond indecent. It is criminal. Dante lost no love in condemning those who were apathetic, who refused to take a stance. .
I have chosen a side, and taken a stance. I am simply refusing to personally attack those who share a different view. I am no revisionist - if truth be told the very interpretations of the scripture verses you put forward are those that are considered revisionist - and hope to some day read the Bible in Greek, and so know the true meaning of the words, rather than what is given merely in translation. Until that time, the words of my father, who does know the Greek, will have to suffice. Moreover, I must trust to those wiser than I in the study of scripture, than what my own limited wisdom in studying it yields. And that tells me that what what our modern minds read are not always so simple. Just for example, take the first about the uncleanliness of Mary after giving birth to Mary. In fact, this is Jewish, not Christian. It is Mosaic law, and neither is it sexist - it is a cleanliness law dealing with blood, and is in fact hygene in an unhygenic age. Men, after all, were circumsized for similar reasons. I'm sure that Legend can back this up. Yet to a modern reader, without considering the view as a whole, it does indeed appear sexist. I will give you so much - a wise man can make such an error. But reading a single verse, and taking it as it stands, is not valid scientific analysis.
His condemnation of them ran very deep, and in more recent years I have understood why. Neutrality, indifference...these are the ways of people who have no resolution in their convictions. I could no more sit back and let Daniel lie to you all than I could sit back and let a kidnapper steal my children. Some things are important enough to fight for, to fight against the evildoers even at the risk of drawing rebukes from bystanders like you. And so, in the end...perhaps it isn't the case that nobody forced me to reply to Daniel's nonsense. My own sense of purpose forced me. When you know what you are about...the way ahead is often clear.
And as for my "How dare you!" and other emotional remarks, let me remind you what it is he said:
No teaching in Christianity devalued women ever.
The word "lie" does not convey the malice his statement contains. The word "malicious" does not convey the utter falseness of it.
My resolution in my beliefs is absolute, and I would die for them. Indeed, some things are worth fighting for, but what are these?
Be mindful, for I would say similar things of certain of your beliefs. In fact, I personally believe, and you will find this most strange, I am sure, that feminism is both selfish, and in fact is that which devalues women. But I am gauging my audience, here. On Chronicles, where there is a higher percentage of religious people, I am far swifter to speak against, say, evolution, than I would here, for I am respectful, even if not admissive, of their beliefs.
And neither word conveys the magnitude of the crime. How can merely saying a lie be a crime in a society of free speech? Not by provision of law, aye, but by provision of character. By all that is decent within us, some things ought never to be spoken. Some lies are too evil, some words are too powerful. If people took up his sentiment and echoed it, do you know what would come of that? The culture would shift in his direction. His extreme religious conservatism would seep further into the mainstream. Women would find themselves being drawn back in to the cultural holocaust that consumed them for generations. They would be shut out from more than just the Dallas Cowboys and the Navy SEALS. They would be shut out from the life that you so take for granted for your male self..
There are certain things, however, that women by virtue of strength and temper cannot do, even as men are, or should be, forbidden from certain things. There is a distinction between the two, and I would be aghast if this hallowed difference were to fade. I would rather that women are held in equal regard not for performing the tasks of men, but for performing their tasks. In fact, I am among the most respectful of women kind, never decending to base speech regarding them. I will not ever descend to sleeping with a woman outside of marriage, for this would disgrace both her and me - chiefly her, which would be my greatest concern.
And as for lies... be careful. Remember that I hold self-determination to be a lie, the deepest and darkest problem in all the history of mankind. 'And you shall be as gods, knowing good from evil' - I hold this to have damned mankind. The magnitude to me, thus, of one claiming themselves apart from God cannot be matched, and is responsible for all the dissolusion, death, and suffering of mankind, and if followed shall lead to anarchy and self-destruction. I would use the very same words you did for sexism. Moreover, I hold it to be a form of slavery, one that binds not half a race, but an entire race - an invisible slavery, but thralldom nonetheless. What of that? And yet you hold to it as you belief. Shall I call you into account, then, and denying its effects hold you as being an equal partner to the devil in the deception and destruction of the world? No. I hold my position, maintain it and speak it for what it is, but will not force it upon an unwilling world.
I should be most disappointed if you lobby to have my post deleted. But it is your choice. Frankly, I don't blame you. If I could silence Daniel Krispin through legal means, I certainly would. But this is the General Discussion board, of all places, the place where no other discussion belongs, and I hope the administrators remember that when they weigh your petition..
Legal means are indeed harsh - I would not wish, for my part, to have yours deleted. Let it stand, there should be no fear from it. But if you seek to silence me, you are betraying your own freedom of speech, based on what is only your own view of righteousness. Remember, you are treating your view as adamantly as a religious one. I can understand that - certainly it would be the greatest of hypocrisy to deride you for it! -but I think you must know that for yourself, as well.
Enjoy your bible study. I hope you read some of those passages I mentioned in my earlier post. They have a lot to teach.
Look, Esq. You derided me on the other thread that I began for being tactless, and unwise in the speaking of my knowledge. Yet naught that I have ever done so much as nears the caustic attitude you have shown. Yes, you believe strongly in what you do, and I must at needs respect that. But remember that for all your cunning mind, you are not the master of all wisdom and knowledge, and that perhaps in history there are things that even you have not yet understood. There are many of us here who are students of history, you are not alone in it. Do not make the mistake of thinking that your view of it is impartial, untainted, and the only truth - even in this matter.
And the Bible has indeed much to teach, but one by themselves cannot comprehend it. That is why we have teachers teach us, who had teachers teach them. In matters of religion, we cannot trust only what we ourselves discern of the Bible, for we know the limitations of our own mind.
teh Schala wrote:
Esq, it's one thing if you disagree with Daniel's opinions. However, you are attacking him personally, and are attacking much more than his views. I feel compelled to mention that.
Your tongue is growing very sharp. I would advise you reign it in before it stabs you...
This is not about Daniel Krispin's opinions. This is about liberation of the truth. Now, I know you're predisposed not to like me because I'm going after someone whom you consider to be a fellow Christian, and I am giving him no quarter along the way, but look at it from my point of view for a moment. Here is a man who is implacable, a relic right out of the middle ages. It is imperative that people not be deceived by his claims. Do you believe him? Do you believe that "No teaching in Christianity devalued women ever"? .
Since you seem to hold yourself in even so high a standing in your own sight, I will give you Pilate's question: what is truth? Can a human know it? Why do we live, why do we die? Why are the laws of physics as they are? We are constrained by the world. You are strong in your belief, but science has this one flaw: it can breed the arrogance of thinking of knowing everying. As a Christian, I say I will never be able to know the absolute truth in this world, and I must view all things as through a dim mirror.
And yes, I am a relic of the Middle-Ages, nay older. Of the turn of the first millennium, of 300, when Rome grew to trust itself and the works of its hands, its rulers proclaiming themselves gods. I, hopefully, stand as the scattered believers did - and they did not falter, not in the face of such persecution as has scarcely be seen in history. In light of such examples, how much less can I do, and yet retain the name of Christian? True belief in an ideal demands absolute belief in it, to the exclusion of all else. You plainly are so in regards to these things you have spoken of, as am I to Christianity. I do not hold that an evil thing, however, for despite being unchangeable, I can still respect you - and respect is a far better concept than even tolerance.
Even if you are ideologically closer to him than to me, this is one instance where you have to hold your nose and acknowledge that Daniel was wrong. But what if I had not made my stinging counter-counter rebuttal? Then you would have no reason to disagree with a fellow Christian. A lie would take seed, in your mind and in the minds of others, and who knows how it might grow? .
Silence is tacit acceptance. Daniel must be opposed not for the sake of defeating his ideology--in which case I would certainly do this on a PM--but for the sake of exposing his worst lies to the people who are susceptible to believe in them. I take this onus upon myself, because most people do not have the willpower or the talent to go up against him; that's why he's so dangerous. .
You claim me a danger, and put me in the position of an enemy so as to devalue my position. That is a rhetoratician's tactic, it was Hitler's tactic - who too held certain things of his opponents to be lies - and I will not fall prey to it. We have found ourselves to be fortresses at either end of a great field, it seems - and now you begin a war of propoganda? You have put me into the position of an enemy, which I have never yet done. You claim to stand for decency and truth, correct? Did not the Inquisition? They too were assured of their righteousness. Over it all, though, it seems you are wishing to begin a war, or at least engage in a conquest of ideals, which I have no wish to counter - I know it will change nothing to strike at yours - but must stand against. I am sorry if you feel that my claims at defence, and think them to be a clever ploy, but you account too much to me: look back over the posts, and all I have ever said is a denial of accusations against my religions. What else is this than defence?
It is true that, through the lens of Daniel Krispin, Christianity is a vile thing. But you will find that I am much more gracious and well-wishing a person almost all the rest of the time. It's simply rare to encounter such a man as him, and his malice exposes my capacity for malice too. Don't believe him when he says that he speaks without enmity. The Devil too speaks with a honeyed tongue. Judge his ideas..
Interestingly, your condemnation of me as being a 'dangerous person' sounds like what Hitler would have said of the Jews. He too was a good rhetoratician. You are saying 'don't believe Daniel' and so and and so forth. But how can you say this? You are not speaking by logic, but by emotion. I do indeed have no enmity against you. I have enmity with the beliefs you hold, that cannot be denied, but nothing against you.
Malice? Have I yet shown outright malice? I have denied your accusations, and you have taken this to mean complicity by connection of religion. That, if I'm not mistaken, is considered one of the chief fallicies in so far as logic goes - claiming one to be false by connection to an ideal. I have called into question the nature of your rhetoric, it is true, but I have not yet said aught malefic against you, and in that claim of malice you have erred, for it speaks of something that never happened.
I do regret the damage done to my reputation by being so forceful about this. I know how society has raised you and all the rest of us to say “Can’t we all just get along together?” rather than getting our hands dirty by dealing with the painful, pressing issues in our world. But you have to get past that. We all have to grow up someday, and deal with the world as it is. You know, I bet Crono made a lot of enemies by picking up that sword of his. The feminists of the twentieth century earned the contempt of most of society…but they also earned women more rights than they had ever known. That’s what you have to do. You have to kick people in the butt, get them angry, get them out of their complacency, and direct their anger into seeing the truth. I broke through Daniel’s faulty logic, and exposed his lies for the filth that they are. If that annoys people, then so be it. I will always defend the truth of Christianity’s role in oppressing women, because I want to live in a world where it doesn’t matter what gender you are.
To have broken faulty logic with logic equally flawed is no grand thing, do not be so proud of yourself in your glory of oration. Indeed, I did not use logic at all, merely made several statements, not particularly placed together in a form that would warrant the title of logic. Now brace yourself, for I will ask you a question in reply. Are you prepared to answer for the crimes of the relativists, for those who think to advance society? If I and Christianity must answer for these, then must you and those of your camp answer for Hitler, and for Stalin. They must answer for as many bloody crimes as well. Ah! All of humanity is guilty in blood. None is innocent. Not you, not I. So, very well, put me on trial for it, I will be ready. But you must be ready also, then, to take the stand after me.
In short, though, I think you have betrayed your own principles in this. You claim a scientific mind, yet have spoken Ad Hominem, through distraction, by jumping on bandwagons, and various other fallicies. I wager that at least half of the principal ones may be found present in your arguments. You have turned your back on relativism, and taken the stance of an absolutist - which, coincidentially, I hold all people to be, regardless of what they claim, so it is no surprise to me. In the other thread, you spoke of your superior wisdom and tact in making use of your knowledge, that you have long outgrown speaking in a superior way, yet have betrayed every point you made in that - admittedly well written treatise against my form - and descended to the worst of what you said you once were. I will forgive you for this, and assure you that, though you will near certainly not believe me, I will bear no lasting ill-will in any other thread we meet in. Time will prove this true, however.
I hope that through this I have spoken with admonishion and with a calm tongue. My apologies if it was otherwise.
