General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel

No, I refuse that outright.Contracycle's charge:

quote:

---

Equally, there is not much point in initiating or entering any discussion if, as in the case of the thread with Arachnophilia, calling for the support of a position results in the thread being closed. Thats directly contrary to the stated principles of the board, yet neither explanation nor apology has been forthcoming.

---

As you may or may not remember, contracycle did call for support. Repeatedly. In fact, he called for so much support, after support had already been given in excess, that the thread just became one request for evidence after the next. Which was pretty damned annoying.On top of that, contracycle kept arguing his position after clear evidence had been provided by multiple members that his assertions were obviously wrong. He was espousing a position that was undefendable: one cannot defend a negative statement. Saying "no bronze age culture had a concept of collective hospitality" is nice, but it;s about like arguing there's no god. All you can prove is that one has not been found, not that none exist.And in this case, when one was pointed out to him as support that possibly a bible story regarded hospitality collectively, he balked at it and refused to answer. And just kept arguing his point. Further, when a list of myths and stories with similar setups regarding hospitality (although most no collective) were presented. a LONG list. He failed to see the point that if a story contains many elements similar to a certain type of myth, it probably is one whether or not it expresses it the same way.Further, it was demonstrated that not only was his assumption completely wrong (the text was not bronze age, as he was arguing), but that my position has been regarded as orthodox for nearly two thousand years. Heck, I quoted the talmud, midrashim, and Josephus.And he still kept asking for evidence, when he had not presented anything of worth himself. He presented two essays on bronze-age economy. But as I just pointed out, they don't exactly apply. And so the thread just became him asking for more and more and more evidence, and not accepting any of the massive amounts presented to him. It's about the same argung transitional fossils with a creationist. "Nope, that doesn't count. No, neither does that one. Or that one. Still nope."It was annoying, and did not further any kind of academic discussion. Asking for evidence for assertions is all well and good, but not as a technique to "win" arguments by frustrating your opponent until they get tired of arguing with you about the evidence they already have presented.He was also guilty of repeated ad hominen attacks in that particular thread. If you can't win the debate, attack the debator. Now, I will admit to one myself. I *DID* call him an idiot, once towards the end. But it was because he showed GROSS unfamiliarity with the topic he was arguing. He made a couple of claims that demonstrated he did not the difference between the torah and the talmud, and the fact that the torah is the same exact thing as the christian penteteuch, and then based an argument on it. He of course returned with a much nastier attack. I really should have known better. http://EvC Forum: Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19 Contracycle is not willing to debate in good faith, nor accept any evidence from the opposition, nor post any himself. He simply wants to agitate and "win" his arguments.If he could demonstrate that he is willing to participate here in an orderly and polite manner, and also debate in good faith, I might consider it. But then there wouldn't be much debate, would there?

---

אָרַח

how does that follow from "Mistakes are made?"mistakes are made is not only a statement of fallibility, but that, well, mistakes WERE MADE. anyone can read the thread for themselves. there's a link right there. if i'm misrepresenting something, it should be fairly obvious. strawman. my claim was that most common opinion on the matter by far was that myth was one based around treatment of outsiders. i never once claimed for instance that sodom even existed. i don't care. this is not exclusive from a disaster explanation myth, as it would be the explanation for the disaster. really? from the thread in question.

quote:

---

Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 109a

​

The men of Sodom waxed haughty only on account of the good which the Holy One, blessed be He, had lavished upon them...They said: Since there cometh forth bread out of (our) earth, and it hath the dust of gold, why should we suffer wayfarers, who come to us only to deplete our wealth. Come, let us abolish the practice of travelling in our land.

---

quote:

---

Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer

​

Rabbi Ze'era said: The men of Sodom were the wealthy men of prosperity, on account of the good and fruitful land whereon they dwelt... Rabbi Nathaniel said: The men of Sodom had no consideration for the honour of their Owner by not distributing food to the wayfarer and stranger, but they even fenced in all the trees on top above their fruit so that so that they should not be seized; not even by the bird of heaven... Rabbi Joshua... said: They appointed over themselves judges who were lying judges, and they oppressed every wayfarer and stranger who entered Sodom by their perverse judgment, and they sent them forth naked...

---

quote:

---

Josephus, Antiquities I: 194-5

​

The Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and declined all intercourse with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance."

---

quote:

---

Genesis Rabbah, Parashah 50:7

​

R Menhama in the name of R Bibi: This is what the Sodomites had stipulated among themselves. They said, As to any wayfarer who comes here, we shall have sexual relations with him and take away his money.

---

quote:

---

Nahmanides (Ramban) Commentary on Genesis, 13th century

​

Their intention was to stop people from coming among them, as our rabbis have said, for they thought that because of the excellence of their land... many will come there and they despised charity... they continued provoking and rebelling against Him with their ease and the oppression of the poor... In the opinion of our Rabbis, all evil practices were rampant among them. Yet their fate was sealed because of this sin - i.e. they did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy - since this sin represented their usual behaviour more than any other. Besides, since all peoples act righteously towards their friends and their poor, there was none among all the nations who matched Sodom in cruelty.

---

quote:

---

Eze 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

---

quote:

---

Luke 10:10-12

​

But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, "Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you." Notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

---

it's pretty obvious to ANYONE that according to the traditions, sodom's sin has to do with treatment of outsiders: guests. now, you can say that's impluasible all you like, but you can't show one shred of evidence in favor of your position, can you? and yet i have a source up there, josphus, who is nearly 2000 years old.that, and it's setup like a hospitality tale. disguised visitors who then bring reward or punishment for treatment. it's like i was to tell you a joke. if it starts "knock knock!" it's probably a knock-knock joke, not a priest-rabbi or a chicken-road joke. even if it involves a priest and a rabbi helping a chicken cross the raod. jesus, you can find it on GOOGLE. ahem.YOU brought it up. you. not me.does it really bother you that much that you have to keep bringing it up months later? boo-hoo, the admins hate me? but i wanna be a jedi master!you lost. your argument was wrong on multiple levels, and you filled that thread with nonsense and argumentative crap. not to mention personal attacks and malice. they closed it because your behavior. now get over yourself, act like an adult, and respect the admin's decisions. now, you have one of three choices:

• politely request for the thread to be reopened, or better yet, propose a new one
• drop it and get over the fact that you were wrong, or
• get lost.

no, we don't know anyone like that, do we? i think it was YOU who said "You're an arrogant fucker for someone who's claims have been consistently dismantled." i did. i even pasted it above, just in case you missed it. you were too busy arguing to notice, i think. now, uh, where's your evidence? want me to propose a thread? i'll do it. except for the part YOU quoted that even said "mistakes are made." how does "mistakes are made" translate to "infallible." usually saying "we make mistakes" meands the oppositie of infallible. look:

quote:

---

Main Entry: infallible
Pronunciation: (")in-'fa-l&-b&l
Function: adjective

​

1 : incapable of error :

---

yes, well, in this case it doesn't seem to have been a mistake, does it? look, i've been suspended before. a lot of people have. i've been threads that were closed before i could get my last words in.BIG DEAL. you know, you act as if this place is yours. it's not. i don't think you're in the position to make demands of any kind, or tell the moderators the sorts of things you do. like it or not, they are the bosses. if you don't like it, go do somethign else with your precisious time. it's just a message board, it can't possibly matter THAT much.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 06-09-2005 08:23 PM

---

אָרַח

Moose, how about this? I'll propose a thread (thought not a great debate), in which contracycle can present his evidence on this particular topic, how genesis 19 cannot refer to hospitality.You and the other admins can then judge his ability to be here by the nature of his discussion in that thread. If he fails to show evidence, and resorts to his usual ad hominems and nastiness, feel free to throw the book at him. But if he conducts himself in a mature and rational fashion, let him stay and debate as normal. That way, he can be exra-sure that his punishments are based solely on his own behaviour and attitude.I'd be willing to submit to the same standard of course. Feel free to punish me for not showing evidence (which I have already done in THIS thread now) or for resorting to general nastiness (which I have also probably alread done in this thread now).I would, however, like that thread closely watched by both the admins and the other members, who should feel free to participate and call us on things. Sound fair Moose, Cont?

---

אָרַח

Well, yes, I gathered all of that. I know the various issues at hand, and compleely understand the fact that moderators are human beings.I'm just at a COMPLETE loss as to how contracycle is deriving a position of infallibility from statements like this. Probably a good point. I was thinking that it might be in everyone's best interest if others could step in now and then to say "now, hold on a sec" when one party makes some king of grievous oversight. However, considering contracycle's reactions (or lack thereof) to something similar in the last thread, the point may be moot. Upon insisting that no directly similar stories existed, several people stepped in to remind him that one had already been mentioned. Repeatedly.So uh, lemme take some time and consider it. If it's a great debate, I want it VERY closely moderated. Although it honestly will not be a debate contracycle can win: he's insisting that a group of people at a certain time had no concept of something. There's no way to prove the abscence, really, especially in spite of so much counter-evidence.

---

אָרַח

yeah, i was confused too. ah well: agreed.

---

אָרַח

considering that the book was originally compiled by jewish scholars, i think that's forgivable. and mind you, this is not "a group" of jewish scholars.this is a range of people, including biblical authors, secular historians (josephus), the talmud, and external midrashim. that about covers all of the bases on jewish opinion, from about 200 bc to 1800 ad or so.for reference, genesis was compiled around 600 bc or so. that puts one of the source withing 400 years. so your archaeological data can say whatever you think it says, but they people who wrote the book clearly thought it meant this, at about the time it was written. oh really? well, as they say, turnabout is fair play. let's have some evidence. i've provided a little more than a half dozen sources (which, btw, could have been in your beloved wikipedia, if you had looked. or google, for that matter). i've also provided in the thread a contextual basis for interpretting the story this way: it bears elements strongly similar to hospitality testing myths. i've also provided the correct cultural context, and several very good reasons why something such as hospitality would have been generalized.what does your "archaeological reading" say, exactly? if it's "bronze-age" anything don't bother. you've repeatedly shown your gross ignorance with the subject matter in that area.for reference, let's review:

• genesis's latest elements date to 600 ad or so
• genesis was compiled well into the iron age
• genesis was compiled, and probably written, by a society that lived in a major metropolitan city. or possibly captivity of a foriegn nation.
• the torah = the first 5 books of the christian bible. it says the same thing, i promise.
• the talmud is not in the bible. there's no room for it's 35,000 pages or so.

now, in the previous thread, you demonstrated that you were not aware of these relatively simple facts regarding the story. why bother debating if you don't know the basics? irrelevant. i can find just as good in the bible, too. but it has nothing to do with story of genesis 19. especially the one which was the same exact story, that you repeatedly denied even existed. yeah, that was real weak. two gods kill a whole town for not accepting them with hospitality. no offense, but NO SHIT. jewish opinion is anything but definitive. the talmud's about as full of disagreement on all sorts of things. it's almost as bad as here. yet, i have never heard another take on this story (the THEMATIC aspects of it, i mean) from any source. your first piece of evidence, perhaps, would be showing something from jewish opinion that reads it another way. archaeological research cannot show that opinions did not exist. writing from the time, however, can show that certain opinions did exist. and this one exists in extra-biblical sources for almost the entire age of the story. what archaeological evidence are you even talking bout? strawman again. i never said there's a consensus. heck, i'll be the first to admit that there's a whole group of people who read it differently: christians. they think it's about homosexuality. but that's just a translation problem. the words used in the story don't indicate gender. so "the men of city" and the "men" in lot's house should really people "citizens" and "people." and there's no reason to assume that "know" in this case is the sexual euphemism "know" although SOME of the opinions above clearly read it that way.anyways. what i DID say was that most of academic and rabbinical world regard the story as a fable about the treatment of outsiders. which is equatable to hospitality on a larger scale. have you got right region and period yet?and, i should like to point, a lot of time, records ARE the contributing factors to the archaeological picture. suppose, hypothetically, that we had found no records of mammoth in france. no remains, nothing. but we have a picture of one at lascaux. which would be the more compelling evidence? do you think there might have been mammoth there? granted, it might indicate the migration of the people, and not the mammoth.but it's the same with genesis. lots of genesis is babylonian, for instance. does your archeaological picture include babylonian tradition? the whole debacle could have been avoided if you could have conducted yourself like an adult. not just in that thread, but afterwards. one does not petition the administration to get what they want by attacking them.This message has been edited by Admin, 06-10-2005 08:47 AM

---

אָרַח

i don't think i've seen you make a single post on here that doesn't rail against the entire muslim world. perhaps you should look a little closer to home.

quote:

---

Numbers 31:17-18

​

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

---

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 20:10-18

​

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.

---

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 7:1-2

​

When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

---

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

---

אָרַח

i'm glad you recognize this.you haven't encountered much actual debate because your comments come across one of two ways:
1. well, duh. we all know the fundamentalists are dangerous.
2. oh look, another wacko railing against islam.

---

אָרַח

post number 93, above:

quote:

---

If CS's thread does get off the ground. He should be required to address holmes' refutation of the "war verses".

---

---

אָרַח

yes.but if you don't want to debate with them, debate with me. i DO study the bible. most of my debates here are religious ones -- you'll notice i'm currently involved in a biblical debate in the "great debate" forum.see that in my signature? that's hebrew. you can tell me all about my ignorance of the subject when you tell me what it says and why it's funny.what's further, james, is that i am a christian. and as christian, your comments offend me. you see, one of the reason i became a christian was because i believed in the things christ said. and christ said that we are not to condemn or judge others. someone who condemns or judges in the name of christ is therefore a hypocrit, something else jesus commonly spoke out against. you will notice i countered your comment with the words of christ.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-23-2005 02:28 PM

---

אָרַח

i'm sure that's aimed at me.do you have a different interpretation of "judge not, lest ye be judged?"

---

אָרַח

funny, i have. you're dodging it. (jar is also a christian, just so you know) like "love your neighbor" or "judge not, lest ye be judged?" no, one cannot be a true christian if the judge others -- their words betray them. because clearly the only people who are REALLY christians are the ones that believe the specific way you do, that jesus wrote all of the bible himself. that's why we have four gospels that don't always agree, don'tchaknow.

---

אָרַח

percy, there are a lot of christians here who don't cause problems. walking into a religious forum and calling for the exclusion and condemnation of homosexuals is about like walking into in the science ones and claiming that people don't really understand why evolution has no proof.-- it warrants debate, because it's a bit of a silly assertion to those who know better. "then jesus is a bigot" is actually the logical conclusion of his completely unfounded assertion that jesus spoke against homosexuality (meaning in leviticus, which is not by jesus).we should not be required to respect or indeed tolerate hypocrisy that is completely against the religion itself, let alone common sense, and let alone ones that insult and condemn others. his comments are in violation of known BIBLICAL laws:

quote:

---

Luk 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

---

quote:

---

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

---

quote:

---

Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.

---

quote:

---

Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

---

quote:

---

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

---

why should we treat this any different than someone proposing things in violation of the laws of physics?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-23-2005 03:57 PM

---

אָרַח

sure, faith, i agree. but asserting that jesus condemned people for homosexuality -- or anything -- is calling jesus a bigot.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-23-2005 04:39 PM

---

אָרַח

feel free to post your disagreement in the appropriate thread.