tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post4993497947749107395..comments2023-09-30T10:36:23.154-05:00Comments on Accidental Historian: HospitalityGedshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-1918399864331133982008-07-04T00:33:00.000-05:002008-07-04T00:33:00.000-05:00See? I knew that my ever so tiny cadre of semi-lo...See? I knew that my ever so tiny cadre of semi-loyal somewhat-regulars would come through!<BR/><BR/>And, um, there wasn't any editing here. James seems to have washed his hands of me and threatened me with eternal hellfire, so we're safe and the protections probably won't have to go up again.<BR/><BR/>And, really, it wasn't so much unpleasant as annoying as hell. Part of the problem is that I've been ready for random confrontations with various Christians ever since I departed, but I wasn't so much expecting anything here, and certainly not from the direction from whence it came. However, this has encouraged me to put together what I like to call The Field Guide to North American Evangelists. I think there's an entire mindset that needs to be explored.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I do actually want to reply to the various points, and I'd like to do it more cleverly than this, but I can't come up with any way to do it...<BR/><BR/>1. Damn skippy (um, that's "I agree emphatically" in my language).<BR/><BR/>2. I was going to reply to the Pascal's Wager thing, but the sophistry about Social Darwinism had left me convinced there was no reason and I was sick of the whole thing anyway. However, yeah, Pascal's Wager is definitely a weak argument. In addition to the traditional arguments against it (what if god doesn't care, what if you pick the wrong god), it's one of those arguments that means exactly the same thing if you reverse the premise. I could say to the theist, "Hey, let's say there is no god. You're gonna feel pretty stupid that you followed all those arbitrary rules when you're rotting in the ground," and call it Geds's Wager and it's the same thing as Pascal's. Of course, my version makes less sense on the basis that if there is no afterlife there's no feeling of stupidity, but, hey...<BR/><BR/>3. I'm told that if you don't have a Blogger ID, the site balks if you try to just enter a random name. My objection in this case was the ambuscade-esque nature of the many posts pretending to be an interested third party who just happened to wander by followed by the unexpected, "See you in August," which was a non-veiled reference to the wedding. I kind of wonder if it was supposed to create paranoia, but it pretty much got thinking, "Oh, really?" And that was when I realized that I was overreacting to something that was fundamentally pathetic.<BR/><BR/>Also, totally with you on the Noah/Ham thing. Although there are a bunch of places in the Bible where people are arbitrarily punished for the actions of others. For instance, there's the book of Exodus...Gedshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-29693458421391046672008-06-29T10:44:00.000-05:002008-06-29T10:44:00.000-05:00Wow, a little flooding comes along, I forego my us...Wow, a little flooding comes along, I forego my usual Sunday morning perusal of Accidental Historian, and look what I miss! Sorry, Geds, I know it has been unpleasant for you. <BR/><BR/>I make a better lurker than a commenter, as I seldom have more of substance to say than, "Great Post!" But I would, with your permission, like to respond to a couple of things that were brought up in comments. <BR/><BR/>1. This "Tab A into Slot A, not Slot B" business: Actually, many hetero couples practice, and enjoy, anal sex. And oral sex. It is pretty reductive to define a relationship down to genitalia. Men are more than their penises, women are more than their vaginas, and a marriage or other relationship is usually more than the sex practices the couple engages in.<BR/><BR/>2. Pascal's Wager is a pretty weak-sister argument for <I>anything</I>. It appeals to the chickenhearted, not to the passionately convinced. It's no better than crossing your fingers. And it gives you only a 25% chance of going to heaven anyway!<BR/><BR/>3. Anonymous commenters -- I can see doing it once by accident, but to do so repeatedly, when you are in fact known to the blogger but withholding your identity, that's just cheating pure and simple. Geds, I too use a <I>nom de net</I>, but feel confident that you and I have never met in person. I enjoyed your comments on slacktivist, and followed you over here.<BR/><BR/>BTW, it's always bugged me that it's <B>Noah</B> who gets drunk and exposes himself to his children, but it's Ham who gets punished for it.<BR/><BR/>Feel free to edit this comment for length, content, or what have you. It's your site.stingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03703422829076246992noreply@blogger.com