tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post4312745715373731030..comments2024-01-25T00:50:10.679-05:00Comments on Thoughts from a Sandwich: My Deconversion Story – In Which we Learn that Casey Sometimes Strikes OutDagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-31911703333584737362007-09-21T18:29:00.000-04:002007-09-21T18:29:00.000-04:00Why am I getting that creepy feeling that DagoodS ...Why am I getting that creepy feeling that DagoodS is playing the role of Galileo and Dave the Grand Inquisitor? In this case the Inquisitor seems a bit more astute (than the dark-ages original) but is as demanding, if not more, of complete explanation/confession. Both represent their arguments formidably and even though neither may ultimately be able to achieve many conversions, they are articulate, intellectually stimulating and thought-provoking. Don't throw in the towel.romanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15988548647887978919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-74174805712788421972007-09-21T16:47:00.000-04:002007-09-21T16:47:00.000-04:00Not so great writing from me since "lead" should b...Not so great writing from me since "lead" should be "led".Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-87461532059380291942007-09-21T16:46:00.000-04:002007-09-21T16:46:00.000-04:00"Cause dancing led directly to sex."I thought we w..."Cause dancing led directly to sex."<BR/><BR/>I thought we weren't supposed to have sex because it lead to dancing.<BR/><BR/>Great writing DagoodS, as usual.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-36914589235646846952007-09-21T16:29:00.000-04:002007-09-21T16:29:00.000-04:00**You anticipate what I am going to say, caricatur...**You anticipate what I am going to say, caricature it, predict the future, misrepresent my reasoning processes. **<BR/><BR/>He may have misrepresented you, but I wouldn't say he's presented a caricature of it. Many responses I've seen to his line of reasoning match how he presented the typical response. <BR/><BR/>As it is, I have seen Christians say that since Jesus had sharp words for certain people, it's okay to have sharp words. And I've seen other Christians say that line of reasoning puts people equal with Jesus, and that we don't have the right to judge in that fashion, because we are not Jesus.OneSmallStephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08189124855157679020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-19444845685698913432007-09-21T11:32:00.000-04:002007-09-21T11:32:00.000-04:00Feel better now Dave? Good grief man, have you an...Feel better now Dave? Good grief man, have you any heart?***https://www.blogger.com/profile/00817633642709889447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-43719614202181666992007-09-21T09:50:00.000-04:002007-09-21T09:50:00.000-04:00The trouble is that you don't determine how a pers...The trouble is that you don't determine how a person of a different persuasion ought to respond to you when they disagree. That's my problem and burden; not yours. I have an "intellectual right" -- so to speak -- to critique however I see fit. <BR/><BR/>If you don't like the reasoning, then <I>refute</I> it, instead of bitching about it, receiving "attaboy" backslaps from your buddies (i.e., the usual Internet superficial silliness) and chipping at the assumed edges and center before I have even begun.<BR/><BR/>But you don't want that spirit of open discussion. You want all these restrictions and rabbit trails and allowing others to read my mind to determine that I am supposedly utterly closed and dogmatic (while atheists are, of course, open-minded because they rejected Christianity) -- double standard big-time --, and to claim that you understand Christianity and biblical interpretation (having forsaken Christianity) better than I do, and to get legalistic about a single word (clearly because of the baggage of your fundamentalist past that I never went through). You anticipate what I am going to say, caricature it, predict the future, misrepresent my reasoning processes. <BR/><BR/>The well is so poisoned by now that I can't say anything. Are you <I>that</I> desperate to avoid an open, honest discussion?<BR/><BR/>This is the point. If it is THAT threatening to you to have your reasoning scrutinized, then I am not interested anymore. I don't want to cause you personal misery and agony (surely you get enough of that from all these clowns saying you never were a Christian), and I'm not all that impressed with folks who have so little confidence in their positions that they have to throw up all this obfuscation in order to hijack serious discussion before it even begins.<BR/><BR/>I really didn't expect to see this from you; it's a huge disappointment, but hey, as you know, from my perspective, I never did think atheism had a chance in a rational discussion up against theism and Christianity, so all the obscurantism and speculation about my views (real and alleged) and myself comes as no surprise in the broad sense of the intellectual deficiency and incoherence and implausibility of atheism.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-20780191695604620362007-09-21T08:32:00.000-04:002007-09-21T08:32:00.000-04:00I’m sorry, Dave Armstrong. I did not realize that...I’m sorry, Dave Armstrong. I did not realize that you desired a response as to your reasoning. If you are interested, I deal with this issue <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/03/wwjd.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/02/whats-trump.html" REL="nofollow">here.</A> <BR/><BR/>Using the same reasoning, we could claim that genocide is both justifiable and loving. ‘Cause Jesus (who always loves) did it.<BR/><BR/>(And then you indicate that the circumstances of Ancient Near East were “different.” And I ask for your objective standard as to when does “different” justify genocide, not to mention archeological proof as to the differences between the Midianites and the Hebrews. Then you reply that Jesus was under the new covenant, not the old, and I reply what parts of the old covenant were not loving. You reply that God is also Just, and not simply loving, and I reply that you hamstrung your own argument because Jesus was also Just, and we are not, so using Jesus as an example, rather than following Jesus’ words, is bad methodology.<BR/><BR/>Do you honestly want to bother going through that whole dance one more time in the millions of times the same has been discussed in internet debates?)<BR/><BR/>You listed a number of verses, stating they indicate we should avoid divisive people. How is calling someone an “ass” avoiding them? <BR/><BR/>I could equally point out that you are to not speak evil, but peaceably. Titus. 3:2 Worse, in humility, you are consider others <I>better</I> than you are. Phil. 2:3. Are you saying that a pompous ass is better than you?<BR/><BR/>In my opinion, we are seeing two different methodologies as to the application of Christianity. I looked at the other person and think, “If Jesus considers that person worthy to <B>die</B> for, and I am to consider them worth more than my own life—how should I treat a person with that much value?” Others look at the other person and think, “What can I call them, and technically justify it as not a sin?”<BR/><BR/>I look at what is the most I can do for the other, the opposing methodology is what is the least the person <I>has</I> to do for the other.<BR/><BR/>As a Christian, I recognized that Jesus used harsh terms for other religious leaders, like White-washed tombs. I also recognized that Jesus probably knew more than I did about what to say or not and still love. All I knew is that he commanded me to love even my enemy. I found that I could do so, and NOT call them an ass, rather than try to justify it in light of the verses I have cited. <BR/><BR/>Just because you have a right to do it, does that mean you must do it? <BR/><BR/>Dave Armstrong, I am not surprised you are leaving off. When I first started this, I did not know exactly how it would pan out. As it does, I think it is not exactly what you were looking for. You apparently wanted a broad outline of my Christian doctrine and theology, with a follow-up as to the arguments that deconverted me.<BR/><BR/>Which is a well and good way to present a deconversion. But not my form…<BR/><BR/>Perhaps when I (finally) get to that particular point, I will fire off a (boring) blog entry as to my particular doctrine at the moment before my deconversion, and then you can feel free to join back in.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-9947553812834546162007-09-21T07:00:00.000-04:002007-09-21T07:00:00.000-04:00If it is any consolation (and it won’t be) from my...<I>If it is any consolation (and it won’t be) from my step-mother I got, “You have spit on your mother’s grave.” Not the best moment of my life.</I><BR/><BR/>From my mother-in-law, I got "you are living in sin with my daughter because your marraige vows were made to a God you never believed in, and your marraige is illegitimate"<BR/><BR/>That one got me really angry. That is the only time I ever got upset with her. But that was painful.HeIsSailinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09154368305822276669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-85190666832833537442007-09-21T00:32:00.000-04:002007-09-21T00:32:00.000-04:00There is no guarantee that it will get any better....<I>There is no guarantee that it will get any better. It may be that this is the best there is. I hope not, but now you have me nervous!</I><BR/><BR/>Meh, that was all pretty much initial reaction to my announcement. Though I doubt the sentiments have changed, at least it's not repeated every time I see them.<BR/><BR/><I>Do you become immune to “No True Christian”?</I><BR/><BR/>If you mean, emotionally immune, well, I was never that deeply affected by it; I know what God meant to me at the time, and nobody can tell me about it with more authority than myself.<BR/><BR/>If you mean, as I suspect, can one ever reach a point where that argument can no longer be applied to them, I suspect the answer is "no". People can <I>always</I> apply rhetoric, and the No True Christian logic is a rather tightly-looped bit of circular reasoning... No True X can do Y; we know this because if you were able to do Y, you were not a True X.<BR/><BR/><I>Like you, I have never heard this in real life (and I hang out with Calvinists!) but on-line—all the time.</I><BR/><BR/>I suspect that you, like me, also encounter impossible-to-reason-with folks online all the time, in <I>other</I> topics as well. The Wired is a strange place... one learns to deal with them (or else, become just as annoying). :)<BR/><BR/><I>If it is any consolation (and it won’t be) from my step-mother I got, “You have spit on your mother’s grave.” Not the best moment of my life.</I><BR/><BR/>Nice. :)<BR/><BR/>I don't consider the things my parents said to have been particularly hurtful, just the sort of self-justification that one can hardly help when trapped in that mindset.Micah Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02255468220431639344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-26631510678511794232007-09-20T22:58:00.000-04:002007-09-20T22:58:00.000-04:00Hi DagoodS,Very well, then. I'll stop critiquing n...Hi DagoodS,<BR/><BR/>Very well, then. I'll stop critiquing now and stop reading further installments. It's obviously too sensitive to you and I'd like to discuss other things, so I will desist. <BR/><BR/>Your other argument is rather simple to reply to. I already have. You haven't dealt with my reasoning. You simply restated your opinion, but it is no better now than it was the first time. If Jesus can describe someone as a "viper" when they richly deserve it, then I can call someone a donkey when they richly deserve it. Sin can be rebuked. That is quite biblical.<BR/><BR/>If I sinned in doing so, then so did Jesus. If Jesus didn't, then there are times one can do this and I didn't sin, either, since I have more than abundant reason to call this person an ass. <BR/><BR/>Not only can it be rebuked, but we are commanded again and again to avoid divisive people who engage in worthless conversation: <BR/><BR/>For men will be lovers of self, . . . proud, arrogant, abusive, . . . implacable, slanderers, . . . swollen with conceit . . . Avoid such people . . . <BR/><BR/>(2 Timothy 3:2-5) <BR/><BR/>. . . nor to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith . . . vain discussion . . . <BR/><BR/>(1 Timothy 1:4,6) <BR/><BR/>. . . avoid disputing about words which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. <BR/><BR/>(2 Timothy 2:14) <BR/><BR/>But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned. <BR/><BR/>(Titus 3:9-11) <BR/><BR/>Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to <BR/>the doctrine ye have learned; and avoid them. <BR/><BR/>(Romans 16:17) <BR/><BR/>Have nothing to do with stupid, senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. <BR/><BR/>(2 Timothy 2:23) <BR/><BR/>If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. <BR/><BR/>(1 Timothy 6:3-5)<BR/><BR/>There are tons of passages with biblical rebukes. According to your mentality, you wold have to say that all of them are sinful and improper and unethical. For example:<BR/><BR/>Philippians 3:17-19: Brethren, join in imitating me, and mark those who so live as you have an example in us. For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is the belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. <BR/><BR/><I>Dave Armstrong, I am telegraphing that I believe you will be disappointed in our discussion.</I><BR/><BR/>And that is why it is doomed and I have already gotten out of it. Your choice.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-19662889448835707642007-09-20T20:05:00.000-04:002007-09-20T20:05:00.000-04:00Using Pharisees as a justification for calling ano...Using Pharisees as a justification for calling another person names? Those legalistic fundamentalists are nodding and slapping themselves on the back with approval of this tactic.<BR/><BR/>Come on! This is hardly even <A HREF="http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2006/05/could-have-fooled-me.html" REL="nofollow">original.</A> (Although I ask a good question in that blog. “Just because you have a right to do it, do you <B>have</B> to do it?”)<BR/><BR/>Dave Armstrong, I am telegraphing that I believe you will be disappointed in our discussion. I have considered, off and on, writing my deconversion story. Your offer to critique it was obviously just the spur I needed to do so. Thank you.<BR/><BR/>But Part of my job entails predicting outcomes. The smart money is predicting that you will find that I had the wrong sort of Christianity. That is not terrible interesting to me. Whether I was, in your estimation, 99% correct or 99% incorrect, <B>it is my past.</B> Absent a time machine, there is nothing I can do about it.<BR/><BR/>If that is the conclusion, as I strongly suspect it will be, I can only shrug. (Remember, I think ALL Christianity is theologically incorrect, so telling me [again] my former belief was wrong is not exactly a news flash.)<BR/><BR/>I can only move forward; not backward. So where do I go from here? I would think the best route would be to inspect what you claim is the most “correct” Christianity; presumably yours. <BR/><BR/>And as I look at yours, I am not convinced. Calling someone an “ass” is not prone to generate peace. It is not edifying. Rom. 14:19. It is not loving another. It is not loving your enemy. It is not helpful for building up others. Eph. 4:29.<BR/><BR/>But I guess none of that means much to you. You think you are justified to do so, and will hold your ground in that regard, no matter what. (Again, the legalistic fundamentalists nod their heads in approval.) <BR/><BR/>I see this eventually ending with you telling me that my Christianity is wrong. I shrug. You then inform me your Christianity is correct. I look at it, and likewise shrug. If that is “correct” Christianity, I was unconvinced by it when I believed in a god. I am sure to be even less convinced now that I do not.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-15265978209181518642007-09-20T20:04:00.000-04:002007-09-20T20:04:00.000-04:00Zoe, hugs back. But you already knew that…Micah C...Zoe, hugs back. But you already knew that…<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Micah Cowan,<BR/><BR/>There is no guarantee that it will get any better. It may be that this is the best there is. I hope not, but now you have me nervous! *grin*<BR/><BR/>Do you become immune to “No True Christian”? Like you, I have never heard this in real life (and I hang out with Calvinists!) but on-line—all the time. I know of no way to peal back my skull and demonstrate that, at one time, my Christian switch was turned to “on.”<BR/><BR/>If it is any consolation (and it won’t be) from my step-mother I got, “You have spit on your mother’s grave.” Not the best moment of my life.<BR/><BR/><BR/>heather,<BR/><BR/>I was lucky. I have to wonder how many other times people either directly, or indirectly questioned whether I was a Christian. This probably was not the first time. It just happened to be the time that it hit home. Hard. So it had little to do with keen insight or grace on my part. A good (lucky) moment. I am glad it happened, because I have been the better person for it.<BR/><BR/>Part of my fear with this narcissistic indulgence is that I cringe, thinking I am trying to portray myself as some sort of saint, or superhero. I am not. I can only sincerely hope that my interaction with others, previous to this, would confirm my concern about loving others.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-84391573914821403572007-09-20T18:11:00.000-04:002007-09-20T18:11:00.000-04:00To show the affinity of "ass" as "donkey" one can ...To show the affinity of "ass" as "donkey" one can think of the term "asinine" that comes from the same root. <BR/><BR/>So, e.g., I've often been known to use "asinine" when I am disgusted with something (my mother uses the word quite a bit, too):<BR/><BR/>"That was absolutely asinine what he did."<BR/><BR/>This is scarcely different from my recent utterance:<BR/><BR/>"He is a pompous ass." <BR/><BR/>An ass acts in an asinine fashion (just like we say "it is a human fault" when someone messes up because we presuppose that all people have flaws and tendencies to sin).<BR/><BR/>Anyone who knows my writing (and there is a ton of it) and my style, knows how I was using the word. You can search my 1700 papers online and you'll never find me saying the more common expression of ass (with another word added), let alone any more "serious swear words". I don't write that way. I don't talk that way at all (out of respect towards those who are offended). Therefore, it is no "rationalization" -- as you say -- for me to explain as I did. I was simply showing the sheer silliness of the groundless charge that I was being vulgar.<BR/><BR/>For heaven's sake, if Shakespeare's usage (and the Bible's, too) doesn't make some term respectable and permissible, what does?Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-64166394235143453042007-09-20T18:02:00.000-04:002007-09-20T18:02:00.000-04:00Hi DagoodS,I'm afraid you still labor under a lega...Hi DagoodS,<BR/><BR/>I'm afraid you still labor under a legalistic conception of what love is and what it entails, from a Christian perspective.<BR/><BR/>Simply using sharp language to describe someone who is acting stupidly is not automatically a lack of love. That is far too simplistic. There is such a thing as a biblical rebuke. Jesus called the Pharisees "vipers" and "whitewashed sepulchres; full of dead men's bones." Paul only semi-joked that an opponent should castrate himself. Elijah mocked the false prophets and false gods on Mt. Carmel.<BR/><BR/>I called an anti-Catholic a "pompous ass" because he was definitely acting in that fashion. It's too long of a story to delve into and no one cares anyway, but if you knew the sort of things he had been doing, I believe you wold agree the description was fully justified.<BR/><BR/>Now remember, the anti-Catholic Protestant does not regard me as a Christian at all. Ironically, then, I can relate to you guys being hurt by folks saying you never were a Christian. That's bad enough (and I don't say that about you and don't have to, acc. to my theology) but imagine someone denying you are a Christian when you definitely are one (and in my case, one who has devoted himself to defending Christianity as my profession: at considerable cost).<BR/><BR/>This guy whom I called an ass had a person with whom he does his blog write the following against me:<BR/><BR/>======================<BR/><BR/>Thos: [ecumenical Protestant]<BR/><BR/>Am I right in taking your comment as a conclusion that Dave Armstrong is not a Child of the Lamb?<BR/><BR/>Rhology: (Alan Maricle: anti-Catholic Protestant)<BR/><BR/>Correct. He doesn't believe in a saving Gospel. Why is he any different than a Muslim... ooops, bad example. Why is he any different than a Moonie or a Hindu?<BR/><BR/>----------------------------<BR/><BR/>So I can totally relate to being lied about in this fashion. Your Christian critics lie about your past. My present is being lied about by fellow Christians.<BR/><BR/><I>I was directly thinking of your dancing on the line of “I was calling you a donkey not a butt” rationalization</I><BR/><BR/>Why do you feel compelled to regard it as a rationalization? It's a perfectly acceptable use of the word, according to current dictionaries. Is it my fault that some folks don't understand that "ass" can mean donkey as well as rear end? That's not my fault. I'm a writer, and I may use a few terms that some people are unfamiliar with. But it is no rationalization at all. It is a straight explanation right out of the dictionary, with the backup of Shakespeare and John Calvin and Charles Dickens.<BR/><BR/><I>Out of perpetual curiosity—Is it “loving your enemy” to call some one a “donkey” but not “loving your enemy” if you call them a “butt”?</I><BR/><BR/>Again, a rebuke does not mean one doesn't "love their enemy". I deny that this person is my enemy at all, as a fellow brother in Christ, but he regards ME as an "enemy" and in darkness and an apostate and traitor and going to hell, etc. That is the pomposity and behavior that is absolutely accurately described as acting like an ass. <BR/><BR/>I deny that it is a lack of love. Granted, someone who speaks in similar fashion may indeed harbor bitterness and a lack of love i their heart, but I do not, and the word "ass" does not prove that I do. If it is a lack of love, then Jesus also lacked love, and you know that this is not possible in Christian theology. When Jesus overturned the moneychangers it was in love; a dramatic attempt to get them to reform their ways. It wasn't from a lack of love.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you'll still see this as a rationalization. I can't stop that. Perhaps it is inevitable, given your background and the abuses you suffered in the name of Christianity. All I can do is explain it as I see it from my Christian point of view.<BR/><BR/>As for the donkey vs. butt question, I refrain from using the latter usage precisely because it does offend people and is considered vulgar still by many, and I try my best not to do so, within reason. <BR/><BR/>The meaning of "donkey" has a far more respectable pedigree, which is precisely why I cited Shakespeare and Dickens and the biblical usage. Lots of words have two meanings. Does that mean we can't use some of the meanings because some folks don't know that? No. <BR/><BR/><I>It's much easier to make the distinction in British English, where AIUI, generally the term ass refers to a donkey (which is why it's in the KJV bible), and arse refers to someone's hind portions. :)</I><BR/><BR/>Great point. I am highly influenced by English writers, I think; my favorite writers being Lewis, Chesterton, and Newman, so perhaps that would explain my choice of words, knowing a bit more about the background, and also explain why some (fundamentalist) American hearers automatically assume that it must be in the other sense.<BR/><BR/>There are plenty of Christian sites that use far more salty language than I do, believe me. I deny that I use any salty language at all in my writings, because I deny that ass (meaning donkey) is that. It is not. It's a pointed remark (absolutely), but not vulgar or profane, etc.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-25330573806488921612007-09-20T17:23:00.000-04:002007-09-20T17:23:00.000-04:00It's much easier to make the distinction in Britis...It's much easier to make the distinction in British English, where AIUI, generally the term <I>ass</I> refers to a donkey (which is why it's in the KJV bible), and <I>arse</I> refers to someone's hind portions. :)Micah Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02255468220431639344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-91903994464175028282007-09-20T16:57:00.000-04:002007-09-20T16:57:00.000-04:00That’s actually kinda funny, Dave Armstrong.As I w...That’s actually kinda funny, Dave Armstrong.<BR/><BR/>As I wandered over to your blog to see how the comments are coming, I stumbled on your entry of justifying calling someone an “ass” because Shakespeare used the term, and according to the Bible, it is a term for a donkey. (Among other reasons.)<BR/><BR/>It reminded me of those instances in which we got so, so close to sinning, but not…quite…crossing the line. I was directly thinking of your dancing on the line of “I was calling you a <I>donkey</I> not a <I>butt</I>” rationalization when I wrote this entry. The similarities between that explanation and what I had observed were the inspiration for including my history with “legalistic fundamentalism.” <BR/><BR/>I am glad you avoided the legalistic tradition. But distressingly, I must note that the same legalists that I grew up with would have gladly approved of your using the word “ass” and yet, for all the technical, apparent reasons, not quite reaching “the sin.” While you may not have the tradition, you both sound the same to me. <BR/><BR/>Out of perpetual curiosity—Is it “loving your enemy” to call some one a “donkey” but not “loving your enemy” if you call them a “butt”?DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-37271505138005442422007-09-20T16:21:00.000-04:002007-09-20T16:21:00.000-04:00**I vowed to never, NEVER act in such a way that a...**I vowed to never, NEVER act in such a way that another person would feel it necessary to ask me, “Are you a Christian?”**<BR/><BR/>I think this reaction from you is key -- there are those out there who, upon being questioned if they were a Christian, would become incredibly indignent and say that the "unbeliever" has no right to question them. The whole mote in the eye verses the beam and so forth. But your self-analysis shows a tremendous amount of grace, in that you were able to see what they were asking. In fact, you anticipated why they asked. <BR/><BR/>**Regrettably, both then and now, I would have to concede I did not get “Love one another” correct.**<BR/><BR/>I read this in a very telling fashion as well -- given all the sins you listed that a Baptist would focus on, it all seemed to focus on the small things that were almost easily fixed. If drinking is a sin, you simply don't drink (much harder if an alcoholic, yes). If dancing is a sin, don't dance. THose are easy to control. Loving another, even the most horrible person ever? That is much, much harder, and not all that easy to control, given how instinctive emotional reactions are. And what I read from this comment as well is that anyone who would say you weren't a Christian would be focusing on the beliefs you lost, or the behavior you now wanted to "freely indulge" in, such as drinking or dancing. You seem to see the bigger picture in this type of Christianity. <BR/><BR/>But when most do list off the sins they commit ... how often is "I failed to love someone" on that list?OneSmallStephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08189124855157679020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-47620905467812921772007-09-20T15:56:00.000-04:002007-09-20T15:56:00.000-04:00Definitely, definitely, my favorite so far from th...Definitely, <I>definitely</I>, my favorite so far from this series. I should prolly go grab some Good N' Plenty or Jordan Almonds (my preference over popcorn ;) ).<BR/><BR/><I>One of the most common things to hear as a deconvert is “You were not a true Christian.”</I><BR/><BR/>This was the first thing I was told, by the pastor of the church I had been attending/active in for less than a year. The actual words were, "you never had a personal relationship with Jesus", but the meaning is equivalent.<BR/><BR/>Of course, not a single person who actually knew me ever ventured such an opinion. Though I did get other interesting things, such as from my Dad, "it's never an intellectual decision; something caused a radical change in heart", or my Mom, "is it possible your love for other things has choked out your love for God?" (that one's a <A HREF="http://micah.cowan.name/2006/03/29/religion/the-day-i-questioned/#comment-4" REL="nofollow">comment on my blog</A>).<BR/><BR/>Naturally, many Christians are of the opinion that <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman" REL="nofollow">No True Christian</A>, who had had a deep and personal relationship with Christ, could ever deny Him.Micah Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02255468220431639344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-89946835596757335932007-09-20T15:37:00.000-04:002007-09-20T15:37:00.000-04:00Regrettably, both then and now, I would have to co...<I>Regrettably, both then and now, I would have to concede I did not get “Love one another” correct.</I><BR/><BR/>Who does? Join the crowd. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for Part III of your story, in which you recount (in gory detail) the legalistic fundamentalism that is almost as foreign to me and remote from my own experience (thank heavens) as atheism. Too bad you couldn't get involved in a Christian tradition that actually had some common sense and encouraged thinking and reflection, the arts, culture, social involvement, etc.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-76271053963852842332007-09-20T15:33:00.000-04:002007-09-20T15:33:00.000-04:00Wait...is hugging a sin? *smile*Wait...is hugging a sin? *smile****https://www.blogger.com/profile/00817633642709889447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-73219262436670124512007-09-20T15:32:00.000-04:002007-09-20T15:32:00.000-04:00(((Dagoods)))(((Dagoods)))***https://www.blogger.com/profile/00817633642709889447noreply@blogger.com