A fellow OSer, Monte, began posting stories from the bible. BTW, I am an atheist and think that religion is the root of all evil.
In one post he was describing the exodus of the Jews from Egypt. OK, maybe my comment was a bit over-the-top. It went something like: 'So if god is all powerful, blah, blah, blah, why does he fool around with all of the magic tricks to get the Jews freed. Just free them. I also never understood a holiday that celebrates the death of innocent Egyptian children. Let's celebrate murder. Yep, that's religion at its best.'
He deleted the post but referenced it in a comment: 'FYI: I have removed a comment that was made simply to disparage faith. If one feels strongly anti-religious he or she can post about that on their own blogs. Comments here are expected to be civil. They certainly do not have to agree with any particular point I make or other commenters make, but they do have to rise above overt disdain and disrespect for those who have faith'
OK, so he's a little thin skinned. But why not leave the comment up and let people comment on it.? I sent him a message to that effect but he ignored it.
Another post talked about god delivering 'manna from heaven'. I commented on his analysis of the story. He wrote, 'One final thing I think we need to get out of this story about the manna is the fact that, when God is in control, food abounds even in the wilderness.' I copied this remark into a comment and simply added a question like: 'I guess god is not in control in Africa. What about all of the starvation there?'
He deleted that comment and sent me a message: 'Your comments are not welcome on my blog so I would appreciate it if you would find another outlet for your sarcasm.'
Heck, I think it's a valid question. If you are going to say that food abounds when god is in control what about all of the starvation in this world? Is god not in control? Why not leave the comment up for discussion? I sent him a message asking for an answer to my question about god not being in control and asking why not leave the comment up. He ignored it.
He reminds me of a young priest that taught religion class in my catholic grade school. I asked him how Noah could have possibly gotten polar bears all the way to the Middle East. He sent me to the principal's office. Later that year I asked if Adam and Eve only had 2 sons how was the human race started? Did Cain and Able sleep with their own mother? That got me sent to the principal's office too!
I guess that's how 'men of god' deal with hard questions, delete your comments, tell you that you are sarcastic and try to send you away. What are they afraid of? Open discussion? Not knowing the answer?
I wish I could understand.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
GirlyBoyMama
jay leffew
Amanda Gulledge
Kerry Lauerman
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments
For example, if you wrote a blog about classical music, there would be little point in having people who hated classical music post comments to it. People who hate classical music should go somewhere else.
Likewise, if you dislike religion, feel free to post about that. It's just that the place to do that is not on Monte's blog.
And by the way, he's a nice guy and quite an interesting fellow, with more life accomplishments than any three people put together.
And a good writer too.
That one I can answer for you: yes. there's plenty of food; however, it's the governments/armies *preventing* the food getting to those in need. Keep people starved, even if they can grow their own food, they're not going to be strong enough to harvest, always assuming the govt/army/militia don't tax then to death or destroy/steal the crop before it even reaches the family oven.
Plenty of food, as promised, but it's being diverted/stolen.
Yeah, the Adam and Eve question will get you told off every time. Without fail. No matter which denomination you ask, you will get the glassy stare.
Monte has always been cool, so I've found, but it's his blog, to delete comments as he sees fit, same as you can. ( Also, some site members tend to take it amiss calling people out by name/handle.)
I'm all in favor of having discussions like these, but I think it's my duty to initiate them, not chastise others for *not*. I think religion is the root of much that is tragic, pathetic; I find it exploitative in the extreme. I'm anti-religion, in fact. But I feel no need to bring that to people who are pro-religion. I'm not a war. They are free to believe what they want. Convincing them of the error of their ways is probably not possible, but if it is, it certainly won't be accomplished through mocking and challenging them and looking down on them as the root of all evil. You know?
Monte isn't writing to start a discussion. He's just writing his beliefs. You are relatively new here, so you don't "know" him. But, he's about the only preacher I've ever met that doesn't "preach". Are a lot of his pieces about faith? Yes. But, he's just writing what is important to him and not calling for an open discussion on the matter. I've asked questions of him before and the response is always polite, almost gentile. Perhaps you should first read the tone of a piece before you decide on your tone to comment.
I am Native American... my FAITH is as much a part of me as breathing is BUT that doesn't mean that it's "right" or "wrong" for someone else it means that it is *very right* for ME.
Faith is one of those things that is as individual and unique as a fingerprint.
Mishima66: I don't think my comments were off topic. I though this was a place for discussion.
Hourglass figure: Ok, there is plenty of food. Why doesn't god get he food to the starving people then?
Sandra: I feel the need to make my anti-religion feelings know because they do it all the time. They don;t keep their feelings a secret, I don't want to keep mine a secret.
Julie: These particular posts seem pretty 'preachy' to me.
Scanner: It's interesting that some of you have pointed out that Monte is a 'good person'. I never said that he wasn't.
Cymreag: Amen to that!
Last comment from me: If he doesn't want a discusison why doesn't he turn the comments off for his posts?
Oh, and as for that Cain and Able thing, the Bible says God created Man and then later is says God created Adam. So there were already people running around the world when Adam was in the garden of Eden.
The answer to that is in the answer I gave you originally. Plus, if you go back and read the post, Manna was *only* promised to the Israelites.... and of the Twelve Tribes, there's only *one* in Africa.
I suggest that if you're going to argue about semantics when it comes to the Bible, that you actually *know* the Bible. That way, if you're going to argue with a Christian, you're coming from a position of strength, not weakness.
I simply stated that god must not be in control in Africa. If , as you say, that food does abound in Africa it just cannot get to the starving people, then he must be an even crueler, more sadistic god than I imagined or is characterised in the old testament.
i think it is interesting to see so many people who call commenting on blog posts, "attacking".
personally, i don't get that many comments on my blog. i wish i did. i don't know how to snag an audience. but the point of blogging, for me, is to start a conversation. i don't blog with the goal of getting a chorus of amens.
i also don't think it's reasonable to expect never to get deleted. your blog is your space and if a comment seems out of place, it's your right to get rid of it. i only find it kind of sad, that we are incapable of wrestling with these invisibles the way people used to. all the greatest religious philosophers argued viciously with each other. in this century, we seem to look at faith and consider it "finished". it's property instead of a work in progress.
It's not. It's a place for creative people to display their stuff.
I'm not into organized religion, but I have what I call my own accommodation with G-d. I believe what I believe, and I don't try to tell anyone else that they're right or wrong about what THEY believe. We'll all find out soon enough, if we're patient.
Why are you so compelled to challenge Monte on his beliefs? How does his post affect you in any way? He talks about topics that interest him, that he feels knowledgeable about. He is as much entitled to his beliefs as you are to your unbelief.
You walked into his living room and shit on his carpet - what did you expect would happen?
bstrangely - I guess some people DO blog to get a 'chorus of amens' in their comments rather than starting a discussion.
Bill - I didn't walk into anyone's living room, or private space. He posted this on a public blog with comments activated and I commented.
I have received excrable antisemetic comments on my posts. I chose to leave some as examples, and delete some. My blog, my choice.
You seem so adamant, and that says alot. Relax and post again and you'll do better here. This is not a mean-spirited, hostile place. Words are chosen with care, feelings are respected, posts are "open" but blogs are ours to maintain as we wish. Cheers.
OS isn't the street corner, and Monte isn't yelling about Jesus into a megaphone or trying to start arguments. You don't like what he's saying? You don't have to listen. His blog IS more the online equivalent of his church--he's got the right to delete any comment for any reason at all. Which, of course, is the exact same right you have with your blog, and I have with mine.
There are something like 15,000 OS members, and probably several hundred who blog frequently enough to attract a regular audience. There's no shortage of material here for you to read that ISN'T Monte's.
a blog isn't a church. it also isn't a street corner. i would never go into a church and quibble with the pastor while he's preaching, but i would ask questions of a person who is blogging. it is not disruptive, but it can be offensive. and it's really easy for the blogger to get rid of offensive material... it's not even on par with graffiti.
i think it would be nice to have a sandbox where these kinds of discussions could be had. maybe monte would go for that or maybe he prefers preaching to a choir, but it would be a shame if we just stopped talking about the nature of faith, because atheists and theists can't tolerate each other. as nana says, this wasn't a useful exercise, but maybe it could be if it got a change of venue.
Your comment was rude, antagonistic and inconsiderate. Here are two comments for you to ponder:
1) I can see why you might have felt slighted. Perhaps Monte was offended because he felt you were not being sincere in your query. Maybe a simple, "Sorry, I think my meaning did not come through" would have smoothed the water.
2) You are an opinionated asshat who likes inciting others. Maybe you shouldn't bother crying about it?
So tell me, which of THOSE would you rather get?
Yes, it's a blog. HIS blog. His blog is HIS ROOM here. He can interact, or refuse to interact, with whomever he chooses. See, you are certainly free to disagree with anything Monte says. You can even write a post about it. You can even leave him comments about it. But he has every right to delete your comments if he finds them offensive, ignore your messages if he does not desire to have a dialog with you.
No one here HAS to interact with anyone else. Period. If you think that Monte was rude to you, wait until you meet some of the other denizens of Open Salon. Monte treated you with more consideration and kindness than you treated him Go back and read what you said again if you doubt that.
If you are sincerely trying to figure out why you were treated the way you were, it's been explained over and over again in others comments here as well as my own.
If all you are interested in doing is insisting you did nothing wrong, then I guess you don't get it and you aren't ever going to and I'm done.
Like I said, try studying the Bible.
If you don't understand, then you don't understand.
I'm gone.
Sure, it is a place for discussion, at least when the writer leaves comments turned on.
But sometimes the writer hopes for a certain kind of discussion. In that context some comments are helpful, some are not helpful.
Let's consider a non-religious topic. Let's say that you write a post about your new Harley motorcycle, and you want some input from other motorcycle owners. I come on your blog and say "dude, don't you know that motorcycles are dangerous? You shouldn't even have that thing in the first place."
In that context my comment is off-topic. It's a legitimate issue, worthy of being discussed -- but just not on your blog on that particular post.
That said, it's often possible to raise issues that aren't strictly on-topic if you phrase the comment the right way. For example, if I wrote instead "I'm not a motorcycle owner, and I know that motorcycles can be dangerous. When you were shopping for a motorcycle, did safety concerns (e.g., ABS brakes) affect your decision?"
In that example, I raise my concern, but I do it in a way that contributes to the discussion in a positive way by drawing out the writer's decision process.
Writing a good post is an art. Writing a good comment can also be an art.
This is the most hilarious comment thread that I have seen here in a long time.
JK - a dialog is more than everybody telling the author how wonderful he is and how brilliant he is and all agreeing with the post. Sounds like church or a cult meeting to me. Intellectual dialog with like-minded people sounds like 'group-think' to me. As I said above, it's OK for you to call me out on my position but NOT OK for me to call him out on his.
Lea - yep, his blog, his choice. But this is my blog and I can say what I want, right?
Leeandra - more 'group-think' advice? What a boring place it will be when all comments are just praise and afformations. But I guess if you like preaching to choir or being part of the choir it works for you. That's never been my style.
bstrangely - Amen. What is the point of blogging then?
Bill S. - I acknowledged that my first post was over-the-top.
Hourglass - I was not saying anything about the Bible. Cya, wouldn't want to be ya!
KindofBlue - 'Back off', "fair warning' what is this, The Soprano's? I never said he shouldn't write about his religion. He should write about it and continue preaching to the choir. What I don't understand is post that knowledge in a very public place and then only wanting to discuss it with people who agree with him. I'm sorry, I forgot that he has an M Div or a 'Masters in Magical thinking'. BTW, you are reading my stuff :)
Yuselof - It is a funny string of comments, actually it's the most interesting string of comments I've read on here. Yep, the Grande Dame's of OS are all worked up!
All of these comments have made me think. Maybe I should ask my questions in a more respectful mannor. So here goes:
Dearest, most-reverend Dr. Monte. Although I am not worthy of your time may I ask a question about your post? Could you please enlighten me about a religious holiday the celebrates the, ummm, ummm, the 'untimely passing' of innocent Egyptian children at the hand of a caring, kind, god?
Also, if food abounds when god is in control as you said in your analysis of the 'manna from heaven' bible story, why are there people in africa starving? Is god not in control there?
Now let's all sit around, hold hands and sing Kumbiya
You would likely get a better, more complete, answer from an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi with regards to that particular question than a Christian Minister. I recognize the difference between New Testament (i.e. Christianity) and Old Testament (i.e. Judaism) and I'm a damn heathen.
"Also, if food abounds when god is in control as you said in your analysis of the 'manna from heaven' bible story, why are there people in africa starving? Is god not in control there?"
Wakan Tanka saw fit, in His infinite wisdom, to give humans this thing called "free will". So long as humans are following their free will (wars, genocide, assorted atrocities, etc... ) He is NOT "in control", which rather makes your question moot.
I'm only commenting because I support Monte.
And I assume you do at least believe in
Peace,
Andy - althought your thoughtful comment does not really deserve a response. Here it is:
http://www.fotosearch.com/PHT136/paa136000018/
Spotted - very insightful comment
Tell me... what does Columbus Day signify to YOU? How about Veterans Day? Memorial Day? Thanksgiving?
ALL of them, in one way or another, celebrate the 500 PLUS years of unremitting SLAUGHTER of Native Americans... Non-religious holidays in the United States celebrate things which are FAR worse than Passover... and I'm willing to bet that you celebrate AT LEAST PART of the holidays in question. How SPECIFICALLY is YOUR celebrating 500 years of slaughtering of innocent Native American children "different"' than Passover?
But, here goes...
First, in answer to the questions contained in the title of your blog: He doesn't have to. It's his blog. He doesn't have to answer anyone's questions, and he can delete comments. We all can. Some choose to exercise that prerogative often, some occasionally, and some not at all.
Perhaps he felt that your comments and questions weren't germane to the point he was making with his blog. I really don't know because I don't usually read his blogs. I realize that he is a devoutly religious person, and I don't really feel it necessary to debate religion with him on his blog. I see no point in it.
It looks to me like what you've done here is to combine a meta post, calling out an individual member of the OS community by name, with your views on religion. In the process, you have succeeded in annoying Monte's friends and supporters, who, even though they may not agree with his views, feel that he is a decent person and a valuable member of this community, and you also have obscured any points you may have been trying to make about religion.
That is what I would call a "lose-lose" situation.
You could have written this post without the meta aspects, and I'll bet you would have gotten more positive feedback.
OTOH - you did phrase your questions 'politely', but nevertheless it's plain that you weren't expecting a real 'answer' (you clearly don't think there is one - quite rightly, IMO, incidentally), and therefore were just being contrary.
Hard not to be sometimes, tho...
Which is one reason why I seldom read and even more seldom comment on a number of sites here, sites belonging to political believers who just annoy me and aren't interested in anything I have to say. Thing is, most of them come across as kinda nastyish people, and Monte is sweet (and intelligent), and has befriended many people here, so regardless of what he might say about manna or whatever, it seems awful to 'attack' him (attack being any disagreement or questioning of sacred *faith*) ...whereas Dr. A is much less loveable (but, for all we know, a sweet sensitive person whose feelings get hurt here regularly).
Anyway, with religious posts as with right-wing political posts, I avoid a lot of gets-you-nowhere noise by passing them by and, if I were asked for advice, would recommend other people do likewise ...
MANIFEST DESTINY is the BELIEF that God INTENDED white Europeans to have control over ALL land in North America and therefore the unrelenting SLAUGHTER of Native Americans is justified and encouraged as being a "Christian" and "correct" thing to do because they are "heathens" and God Knows you ("you" in this instance being white Americans) just CANNOT have "heathens" running around contaminating everything.
The thing is... Passover is based ENTIRELY on a SIMILAR belief... the belief that it's NOT "wrong" and is completely justified when the children being killed are "Other Than" those believed to be "chosen" by God.
In the case of Passover... The "other than" were the Egyptians...
In the case of Manifest Destiny and North America... the "other than" were and ARE Native Americans.
Anytime you are "anti" a group of people, you are engaging in bigotry in my opinion.
I agree with Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University, who said that "while atheism is the lack of belief in any god, anti-theism means actively seeking out the worst aspects of faith in god and portraying them as representative of all religion. Anti-theism seeks to shame and embarrass people away from religion, browbeating them about the stupidity of belief in a bellicose god." (from Wikipedia, by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism, or go to the original article # ^ http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/greg_m_epstein/2007/1/less_antitheism_more_humanism.html)
I find it interesting that otherwise gentle people that would never be anti-Semitic, would find it okay to be anti-theistic.
[thanks to Coyote Old Style for finding this]
You are so close to what you are espousing against, and I know you can't see it.
And Monte would never treat you the way you treat him.
My advice to you is to become very specific in your arguments. If someone is arguing for a religious war due to some passage in the Koran or Bible, then fine, criticize away. But, pat, over broad, negative generalizations of religions and religious people makes you a bigot, like it or not.
I am no longer revolted, I am concerned. Maybe you can explain your thinking to me.
As I said, my advice to you is to be very specific in my comments. Comment about individuals and individual actions and motivations. That way you will be on solid ground in your comments.
Good luck.
Maybe you can explain the difference between theism and the KKK. But be careful, 'pat, over broad, negative generalizations of the KKK makes you a bigot, like it or not.'
BTW if you look at my original comments to Monte they were specific criticisms. The commentors that rushed to defend Monte said he was a 'good person' and a 'nice person'...I never said he wasn't. I just don't why someone posts something publically and then deletes critical comments. Then to top it off he writes a post about poeple not commenting and ignoring comments when he does it regularly himself.