I was the original one to forget to modify Bring. ----- Original Message ----- > > I used the same set of criterion I use for interepreting Trent > Lott's or > > David Duke's words. In many ways, I am using the same > historical/literary > > critical methods that I always use to parse meaning out of the > writen word. > > > > Don't you think that Lott and Duke made much more obvious statements, > that left less room for interpretation? (At least as far as I recall > offhand, but you are welcome to refresh my memory. As I recall those > discussions, I agreed with your conclusions for what it's worth.)
I know that Lott made a statement that was less obvious taking the plain sense of the text. He stated to Strom Thurman that "the nation would have been better if you had been elected president" at his birthday party. Given the immediate circumstances, one could argue that he was merely saying nice things to an old man on his birthday. It takes a fair amount of context to see it differently. David Duke was also fairly clever in the words he used. He talked about reverse discrimination. He talked about unfair advantages with quotas. Taking just the plain sense of the words, one would not necessarily see that he is an incredible racist. > > > > > But I also agree with your wife (hope she is doing well!) that > Moore > > > is not explicitly calling for American deaths, but is most likely > > > playing the role of doomsayer. (And that is what I got out of that > > > portion of your post) > > > > Well, she and I both got the real OT prophet stuff out of it; not > just a > > generic doomsayer. > > Understandable, but I think there is a difference between *playing* at > being an OT doomsayer or trying to talk like one, and having the > sincere beliefs that would make one an OT type doomsayer. The interesting thing about this question is that we really can't read his mind directly. He seems sincere to me. I've met sincere people on both the left and the right with even more wild ideas than his. And, in circumstances that didn't, before I talked with them, indicate that I was about to talk to someone with wild ideas. > With that in mind, I can't see Moore's mention of God in any context > as being anything but a device to lend force to whatever happens to be > dribbling out of his mouth at the time. So, you consider him insincere and careless with words. That could very well be. I was trying to ascertain something that I thought was easier to ascertain: what did the words he say mean. > > > > > As a note, I don't think that the mere mention of God neccesitates > the > > > invoking of blood payment for sin, but is just as likely the hope > of > > > forgiveness for making a mistake. > > > > It wasn't just the mention of God. That alone would not have been > enough. > > And, BTW, by definition, only sins require God's forgiveness. > > I think we both would agree to that Dan, but I don't believe Moore is > playing by the same set of rules. Indeed, I don't think those rules > are employed universally and at all times even by members of this > list. (We do have people who will yank ones chain from time to time > <G>) We do have folks who post outrageous things for effect. But, even if one accepts his statements as just an insincere attempt to gig folks, one can still criticize what he said. For example, George Wallace didn't really believe much of the racist nonsense he spouted, he just wasn't going to get out-n****ed again after losing an election. That didn't make what he said any less wrong. > Sure, but it lends itself to greater impact. If someone were to say > "Goddamn you" in reality it has the same meaning as "Damn You", but > invoking God lends it a bit more power even though people generally > are not going to seriously believe that God is being called to > personally damn a person. > It's just an artifact of culture and speech. If it were a common artificact of speach, then I'd have to agree with you. But, his choice of words were not words that I hear every day. > > I have serious doubts that could be done successfully.<G> OK, so we agree that he does think our actions are "sinful" in the sense that sin can be generalized as a deliberate wrongdoing. > > > > 2) Explain why mistakes need to be forgiven by God...can we go to > hell for > > typo's? > > Hmmmm.........If you made a typo that caused the death of some > innocent party, would you hope to be forgiven or would you just expect > it? (By God) If it were an honest mistake, and not some form of negligence, then I really don't expect forgiveness by God to be necessary. But, since we agree that Moore thinks of the war in Iraq as deliberate wrongdoing, the point is moot. > > > > 3) Explain how blood spilt will earn forgiveness for making a > mistake? > > > > All of these are easily explained by the idea of blood payment > needed to > > atone for evil done. That is why I chose it; it is the meaning that > best > > explains the use of the words. > > > I'm hoping I'm not going to put this in a manner that implies an > insult on my part, so please bear with me on this. > I've seen responses in this thread from athiests to at least > moderately Christian believers, and of them all only you seem to place > much creedence in this "Blood Payment" concept. IIRC you are the only > person who has mentioned it. > Does this mean you believe in "Blood Payment"? > If no one believes in "Blood Payment" then why is it so easy to > attribute it to Moore? But, I know folks who do. I've heard it talked about in a number of circles. The most common phraseology is "what goes around comes around." What you do will be returned to you. Its a generalized view of karma, those evils we do unto others will be repaid unto us. I've seen it stated by folks both on the left and the right. There is a fairly common belief > The admitted athiests on our list and you and I are all products of > the same culture (to degrees), yet our interpretations of Moore's > statement are at variance. Right. Gautam says he is calling for the deaths of our people in Iraq. I'm saying that its not quite that bad, he's just saying that justice requires the death of many Americans after Americans willingly supported evil. I attribute it to the differences in the techniques we use to parse the meaning. I am doing my best the text/historical criticism. As far as I can tell, the logic I've seen used to "defend" Moore is: 1) Reasonable people don't make that type of statement. 2) Although a bit out there, Moore is fundamentally a reasonable guy. 3) Therefore Moore didn't say what I think he said. I said I was open to alternate parsing of the texts. What I got is a suggestion that I shouldn't take the words seriously...they don't have the meaning they appear to. > Is it fair to say that filtering Moore's words though our individual > experience is prone to error? > Are OT memes the best filter for Michael Moore's statements? If you have a better parallel for the words he used, I would be happy to entertain it. The only other one I've seen is a general sense of karma; the evil you do will be visited back on you. Again, let me do a line by line analysis of the quote: <quote> The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. <end quote> The pejoritive terms that Bush uses for those attacking and killing US troops, Iraqi police, Iraqi government officials, Iraqi civilians is wrong. They are really admirable people. They are fighting to overcome an opressive foreign occupation, and they will suceed. There is also an insinuation that they will suceed because right is on their side. The capitolized "REVOLUTION" harks back to the "times they are a changing" revolution expected in the '60s. The reference to the Minutemen hark back to the founding mythology of the US. <quote> I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end. <end quote> First part, accurately states that the majority of Americans supported the war once it began. The only relevance that I can see is to the guilt of the majority of the Americans. Once it began, it began, and support or the lack thereof would have a lot less impact than it would before the war. The second part, I parse as this The sacrifice of children is a necessary but not sufficient condition for obtaining the forgiveness of God and the people of Iraq. Another way to say that is the majority of Americans have supported this evil action, and the sacrifice of their children is required for them to have any chance at all for being forgiven of this evil. The value of forgiveness on an absolute basis is strongly implied here. If you have a different parsing, I'd be curious to see it. AFAIK, all the rebuttles of my interpretationhave refrained from directly analyzing what was written. They were more general arguements. > Does Michael Moore spew crap on a regular basis? Sure, so does David Duke, Pat Robertson, and Rush Limbaugh. I've criticized their crap and I don't see why one needs to say Michael's crap doesn't mean what it plainly says. BTW, no insult was taken. I don't believe in "what goes around comes around", I don't believe that we need to pay a price for forgiveness. But, I know folks who do. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
