[Milton-L] Re: wow even more attacks via detail crazy glue
nairbasirrah at msn.com
Fri Dec 17 15:07:29 EST 2010
No Mr. Rovia...I've taken quite enough subtle insults for one day. Peppering your unnecessary focus on assessing me with giving me a grade says quite enough about you to tolerate anything further. "ha" "ha" if that's what you wanted. But whatever; it must be fun being ridiculous. Your resorting to calling this "idiotic banter" makes acquiessing to your request unworthy of my time.
It's been very informative to learn the collective interest here in assessing the people who post personally, instead of addressing the matter at hand with mutal respect. Your operative words in your last response are "I don't know" beginning many of your setences.
How appropriaate, yet how sad for your students.
Were you more respectful, I'd be glad to rrespond in extensive detail. But the main points are these:
1a. Satan is referred to very few times in the Bible, but not once in the Genesis chapters regarding Adam and Eve. The Revelation assertion that the serpent was Satan only conveniently applies. If the serpent was Satan, then why did God punish all other serpents? But whatever, you apparently missed that too. 1b.The mission fueling Satan's primary directive in Paradise Lost is no-where to be seen in any part of the Bible. If anything, Satan is an agent of God, sent, with some interesting liberal license taken by him while on the job, to test the strength of mankind in the book of Job, and later to test the virtue of Jesus in the New Testament. Any other references are vague third person commentary. The wild intangabilities of The Book of Revelation nothwithstanding. Again, I was assuming all of you knew this. Don't any of you read the genius research of Neil Forsyth?
2. There is NO RAFAEL. And this is significant. Because the quoted words of Rafael are the key source of historical reference establishing the origin of the entire situation.
3. and most importantly, in Milton's version Christmas occurs IN HEAVEN, and not in the manger in Bethlehem. This is beyond significant. Because it not only establishes an entirely independent story of the creation of Jesus, but it also portrays him not only forseeing his own destiny on earth, but has him DECIDING to do it - which invalidates every passage of the New Testament regarding his trials and tribulations and the on-earth impetus of his own awareness of his own divine purpose. I do not need to cite a list of Biblical chapters and verses to back this up.
4. The notion that God's first attempt at creating a "civilized world" of independently thinking beings - in Milton - is a convocation of millions of homosexual angels. And out of no-where (in book 5 specifically) God announces to them all that he has "begotten" his only son to govern them. Satan does not understand why, gets angry, and revolts. At which time, Sin - a female - bursts out of his head. Satan suddenly becomes bi-sexual and rapes her. She becomes pregnant with "Death" whom she gives birth to in Hell after"the War in Heaven" where she is given the key to the Gates of Hell, which God commands her to keep shut for all time.
Yada, yada....NONE of which has ANY Biblical foundation.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm done doing this for today. Because unlike you, I have better things to do than deal with the mentality of a freshman. Perhaps you meant no offence, but you did offend. Not once have I called anyone's ability or qualifications into question.
Your infatiile method of insulting me with grade-giving is of no concern to me. Given any kind of test regarding Paradise Lost in comparison to established Christian scripture, I have no doubt I would get 90, if not 100 percent every time. "Those that can, do. Those that can't teach."
Please don;t respond, or contact me directly for any reason ever again.
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:04:36 -0500
Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Re: wow even more attacks via detail crazy glue
From: jamesrovira at gmail.com
To: milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
No... there's no personal attack in my response below. I don't attribute to you any characteristics other than a lack of awareness of how your claims are coming across to other readers, with an explanation of why they are coming across that way. I don't accuse you of being petty or stupid. I've also responded with a request for documentation for some of your claims.
The problem with this discussion on your end is that you're being insufficiently precise in your claims, even with the additional clarification that you provide below. I don't know who these orthodox Christians are who would take issue with Milton's PL if they'd only read the Bible carefully and then read PL. I don't know that either the Bible or PL could be read so narrowly as to be made absolutely contradictory on every fundamental point by most readers. I have met some fundamentalist Christians who could perform this task, but they represent a minority of Christians.
I am curious what a reading like that would look like and would like to see it spelled out clearly and in some detail.
The problem with this discussion on my end is that I'm grading Freshman papers. Up to this point, I would rather respond to your posts than read any more freshman papers. But it also means I'm reading your posts like I'd read a Freshman paper. I appreciate that you're attempting to argue a provocative thesis. I also get the impression that your own thesis is unclear even to you, as is the evidence supporting it, if you have any well-defined evidence. I also think that your language is carelessly chosen, obscuring your thesis.
I'd give you something in the C range if you supported your claims by quoting PL and then quoting Christian responses to PL to give some substance to your imagined, offended orthodox believer. Right now, you're getting a D. If you do stick to your 24 hr reprieve from this discussion or refuse to further respond to me, I will not be joyous at all. I will have to stop this idiotic banter and get back to grading freshman papers. I -might- be a little angry with you for that, but the paper I just finished grading was...good. This student has improved. So after I eat a bit of cheese, pour some tea, and check email three more times I'll grade another paper, after which I'll probably take a shower and do dishes before grading another paper. I can only hope that by that time you've responded... before I have to grade another paper.
It's not every day I get to meet a contemporary incarnation of Ion.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Nairba Sirrah <nairbasirrah at msn.com> wrote:
Mr. Rovia...and everyone else...would you please mind backing off the personal attack?
My "even slightly" comment was in regard to Milton's main rhetorical theme, justifying "the ways of God to men." I wasn't talking about the obvious character names and locale. I meant the central narrative. Jesus existing before Jesus was born. Jesus speaking God's sentences from Genesis, etc.
_______________________________________________ Milton-L mailing list Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu Manage your list membership and access list archives at http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Milton-L