Hi Dave,
By dissecting and describing my post you are doing me a huge favour, believe it or not. So many long years have I wanted to know how the fundy mind works. Now you lay it open and bare for me to see and analyze.
1. You twist my words and intentions to mean quite different things from the actual case.
2. You base your argument on this distorted understanding.
This contributes enormously to my research. Thank you, Dave!
Ruby
Ruby, your comment here is remarkably accurate -- as a description of what you did to Dave's comments. Consequently, one might wonder if "the fundy mind" you were referring to is your own. Dave's certainly no fundamentalist, as you would know if you'd actually read some of his essays and dialogues (and read them with a fair and open-minded approach).
Jordan beat me to it. There needs to be a definition of "fundy" and how on earth this applies to Dave.
When I was in school, we called this "the pot calling the china black".
One can only try. I predicted there was likely much more to this than two words that I could have phrased better, which were misunderstood (and apologized for by me). Sure enough . . .
But for those who think atheism is more rational (or the class of atheists as a whole, more rational) than Christianity (not to mention more charitable than Christians), or who are considering atheism, take a close look at this.
I hasten to add that I don't claim that RubySera is representative of a thinking atheist (I wouldn't want to insult atheists-at-large in such a manner), but OTOH there are many like her out there, and this is stuff that we Christians have to be aware of and deal with.
Dave, sorry, it looks like you are feeling bad about something I never thought. I will try to respond more fully. I do not, and did not, think of you as the devil incarnate, or unspeakably evil. I believe humans are inherently good. This includes you.
There is much you misinterpret. I will copy your quote then make my comment.
1. Dave said: I was not mocking at all.
I did not use the word “mocking.” I said “skeptical.”
2. Dave said: This is implied in the fact that I concluded my own not very stellar example of religious background.
No it wasn’t. I said skeptical because I meant skeptical. The term “mocking” never occurred to me. However, I cannot prove it if you choose not to believe.
3. RubySera says I was "being skeptical about another person's interpretation of his own life experience.
I stand behind that.
4. Dave says: My point was that there was likely some deficiency in how John was taught the Christian faith, because, as a rule, those who are taught it properly, don't get into all the trouble that he did
Yes, I know this is what you are saying. And herein lies my complaint. You reject that John was a true Christian. The only way you can reject that is by judging his subjective experience. Fundamentalists normally do this to all the people they disagree with. That is why I am using it as an example. I am advising seekers not to take this kind of charge seriously. This is not a personal attack on you or any other individual. However, you will believe as you choose.
5. Dave said: The second thing was my use of the word "deficient." I meant it strictly to imply to the teaching he received. But I can see how, grammatically, it is possible to think that I was referring to John as a person. I was not.
This clearly refers to the teaching he received. No misunderstanding there.
6. Dave said: That will prove (if so) that there is more to it than a few badly-chosen words.
Hopefully it is clear by now that it was NOT “a few badly-chosen words” that I had a problem with.
7. Dave said: First of all, one observes my making very clear that I am not questioning John's sincerity (first five words).
Those words are meaningless when you go on to fault his upbringing for his present position. Suggesting that one is the sum total of his/her upbringing is an insult to the intelligence. It suggests John does not think. That he operates like a pre-programmed robot. My fault with the Old Order Mennonites is not their culture.
8. Dave said: If not, why does RubySera continue?
Because she is not talking about Dave Armstrong at that point. She is talking about fundies in general.
9. Dave said: But by omitting the second paragraph, RubySera could have a field day in distorting my intentions
Dave, I did not “omit” the second paragraph. I read no more than the one paragraph I quote. You are making far too much of this. Nor do I say that the Old Order Mennonites are any different from any other Christian
I'm having problems posting this. I will try again. Dave, I apologize if duplicates get posted.
Dave, sorry, it looks like you are feeling bad about something I never thought. I will try to respond more fully. I do not, and did not, think of you as the devil incarnate, or unspeakably evil. I believe humans are inherently good. This includes you.
There is much you misinterpret. I will copy your quote then make my comment.
1. Dave said: I was not mocking at all.
I did not use the word “mocking.” I said “skeptical.”
2. Dave said: This is implied in the fact that I concluded my own not very stellar example of religious background.
No it wasn’t. I said skeptical because I meant skeptical. The term “mocking” never occurred to me. However, I cannot prove it if you choose not to believe.
3. RubySera says I was "being skeptical about another person's interpretation of his own life experience.
I stand behind that.
4. Dave says: My point was that there was likely some deficiency in how John was taught the Christian faith, because, as a rule, those who are taught it properly, don't get into all the trouble that he did
Yes, I know this is what you are saying. And herein lies my complaint. You reject that John was a true Christian. The only way you can reject that is by judging his subjective experience. Fundamentalists normally do this to all the people they disagree with. That is why I am using it as an example. I am advising seekers not to take this kind of charge seriously. This is not a personal attack on you or any other individual. However, you will believe as you choose.
5. Dave said: The second thing was my use of the word "deficient." I meant it strictly to imply to the teaching he received. But I can see how, grammatically, it is possible to think that I was referring to John as a person. I was not.
This clearly refers to the teaching he received. No misunderstanding there.
6. Dave said: That will prove (if so) that there is more to it than a few badly-chosen words.
Hopefully it is clear by now that it was NOT “a few badly-chosen words” that I had a problem with.
7. Dave said: First of all, one observes my making very clear that I am not questioning John's sincerity (first five words).
Those words are meaningless when you go on to fault his upbringing for his present position. Suggesting that one is the sum total of his/her upbringing is an insult to the intelligence. It suggests John does not think. That he operates like a pre-programmed robot. My fault with the Old Order Mennonites is not their culture.
8. Dave said: If not, why does RubySera continue?
Because she is not talking about Dave Armstrong at that point. She is talking about fundies in general.
9. Dave said: But by omitting the second paragraph, RubySera could have a field day in distorting my intentions
Dave, I did not “omit” the second paragraph. I read no more than the one paragraph I quote. You are making far to
Looks like there is a limit how much I can post. I will post the last part separately.
9. Dave said: But by omitting the second paragraph, RubySera could have a field day in distorting my intentions
Dave, I did not “omit” the second paragraph. I read no more than the one paragraph I quote. You are making far too much of this. Nor do I say that the Old Order Mennonites are any different from any other Christians. My problem with Christianity is its theology, as I clearly describe in my blog.
Again, Dave, you can believe or disbelieve what I have written here. I have explained my intentions and my meaning to the best of my ability. I stand before God.
I determine a fundamentalist mainly by attitude toward God/Bible, world/other and self/humanity. Theos, Cosmos, Anthropos.
Delete what you don't like, Dave. I have no intentions to return. Too much other stuff to do. Sorry for the hassle. I hope my intentions are now clear. If you combine the two last posts before this one you will get the gist of what I meant.
Dave says: there are many like her out there, and this is stuff that we Christians have to be aware of and deal with.
I had meant to ask: How do you intend to deal with it?
I guess I'll have to return to see your answer.
I wrote at RubySera's blog:
"If you act this way towards a Christian who has nothing but good faith towards you, doesn't say you (or ay atheist) is necessarily going to hell, or that you are all bad people, I can't imagine how you would act towards people who actually believe the things I am falsely accused of . . ."
She responded:
To Seekers:
Armstrong's comment above is the typical response of spiritual predators. Note that he uses terms such as "not necessarily" when relegating people to hell. They do not "necessarily" do it but it is quite probable that they will do it for all the cases they personally confront. Likewise, they do not "necessarily" say *all* of us are bad people. Again, the chance that they will call the individuals bad whom they personally confront are large. This is what they wish for us to take home with us. It's the "guilt trip" technique. In order to retain clear vision, to think straight and clear, we must disregard all such talk and "reasoning."
To Dave:
The truth will speak for itself. I started correcting your misconceptions (on your blog) but decided not to bother. It's all written out for anyone who wishes to investigate. No need to litter the internet with more words. As you can see, I am not attacking you as a person; I am merely using your writing as an example of what seekers are likely to encounter among fundamentalists in general. In order not to violate copyright law I had to name my source. Otherwise, I would not have named you.
I replied in turn:
As you can see, I am not attacking you as a person
No, of course you're not attacking me. You're only calling me a liar and lying about me left and right. I'm not a fundamentalist. I don't think you are a "bad" person." I don't think John is a "bad" person (meaning particularly wicked, etc.). If I ever say anyone is "bad" I would mean it in the sense that we are all sinners. I made that very clear.
I said "not necessarily" about hell because I'm a Christian, and we believe that some people go to hell! I don't know who will go. There is no way for me to know about any particular person ending up in hell.
Why this is objectionable is completely mystifying to me. This is in contrast with a position taken by many Calvinists, where every atheist will go to hell for sure, or every person who hasn't heard the gospel. I don't believe that. And I don't based on the Bible (Romans 2).
You're the one calling names and attributing nefarious motives, I am not. You write a post condemning me for supposedly trashing John and casting aspersions upon his own self-report when I did not do so, and I explained that I did not. But that's not good enough for you.
Now you go right ahead and write stuff casting aspersions on MY self-report and condemning me by calling me names like "spiritual predator." Do you not see the rank hypocrisy in that?
it is quite probable that they will
(cont.(
do it for all the cases they personally confront.
I don't do it [say someone is going to hell] to anyone. I haven't done it to you or John. So this is a lie. You are lying, pure and simple.
Again, the chance that they will call the individuals bad whom they personally confront are large.
I haven't done that with either you or John or any other atheist. But I have indeed pointed out where you are misrepresenting my positions, as currently. I've called you on that particular bad act, because it is lying and therefore wrong. You have enough information now to know it is wrong.
This doesn't make you a "bad" or "wicked" person through and through, but you are reacting irrationally and emotionally and attributing to me all sorts of things that aren't true, simply because I am a Christian and willing to defend my beliefs and critique atheist beliefs.
The truth will speak for itself.
Yes it will. I'm fully confident of that.
If this is the sort of thing that you think is a wonderful example of your approach to those who differ from you, then so be it. It's all documented.
But I take great pains to note that your unethical behavior at present is not typical of all atheists, whereas you speak in stereotypical terms about my alleged bad conduct and attitudes representing "fundamentalists."
Dave, my sincere apologies. I read my post again and I see I do use the word "mock."
>1. Dave said: I was not mocking at all.
I did not use the word “mocking.” I said “skeptical.”
This is untrue. In the paper you cited a paragraph of my analysis of John's deconversion, then you wrote:
"They make themselves vulnerable, they bare their souls, hoping for understanding. Instead of understanding they are mocked for being the way they are."
This clearly refers to my comment about John which is right above it. Only a dunce would think otherwise. Perhaps you overlooked that, but it is there, so I was correct.
> The term “mocking” never occurred to me. However, I cannot prove it if you choose not to believe.
Well, that's fascinating, since the word is there. I believe that the word is there and that it clearly was meant to refer to my treatment of John.
>You reject that John was a true Christian.
This is incorrect. I never did that, and I have, many times, denied that I believe this. Being critical of the version of Christianity someone was taught is not the same as denying that they were a Christian altogether. He was. This is what I believe. I don't know what's so complicated about it.
Fundamentalists normally do this to all the people they disagree with.
Yes, they do that a lot, and I always disagreed with it, which is why I never do it and did not here (since I'm not a fundamentalist!; I'm a Catholic). If I say someone is not a Christian, I mean it in a doctrinal sense. E.g., if they deny the Trinity, they are not Christian, by definition, according to the historic creeds of Christianity. That's not a "personal" judgment, either. It is a statament of fact, based on a sensible definition of what Christianity (doctrinally-speaking) is.
Hopefully it is clear by now that it was NOT “a few badly-chosen words” that I had a problem with.
Then I don't know what it was, because clearly, you have misinterpreted other things I did and what I believe, too. There is nothing here (ethically) for you to object to, other than the expected disagreement about atheism / Christrianity.
>7. Dave said: First of all, one observes my making very clear that I am not questioning John's sincerity (first five words).
Those words are meaningless when you go on to fault his upbringing for his present position. Suggesting that one is the sum total of his/her upbringing is an insult to the intelligence.
I didn't do this, either. Man, it seems like you would hit the truth once in a while, if only by accident. I was simply questioning that his upbringing was very Christian in the full sense of the word, if he got into that much trouble.
Nor did I ever say that his upbringing totally made him who he is. That would be ridiculous because it wold come back to hit me just as much: I was a practial agnostic and secularist, didn't go to church at all for some 13 years, got into the occult, had all sorts of beliefs contrary to those I hold now, etc.
>It suggests John does not think. Tha
(cont.)
. . . That he operates like a pre-programmed robot. My fault with the Old Order Mennonites is not their culture.
Never did this, either. John's problem is not that he doesn't think, but that he thinks incorrectly, from where the Christian sits. And he could not respond rationally to my critique. All he could do was insult and call me names like "arrogant idiot" and (over and over) a "joke" etc. If that isn't insulting someone's intelligence, what is? But I think he thinks. Anyone with two advanced degrees does. He just doesn't do it much when he responds to me.
>8. Dave said: If not, why does RubySera continue?
Because she is not talking about Dave Armstrong at that point. She is talking about fundies in general.
The entire post was clearly using me as an example of all the terrible traits you critique. No other conciusion can be reached. Thus, in the last two paragraphs, you write:
"People who talk in the tone of voice Dave Armstrong talks are among the most dangerous people to listen to. The problem with not listening to them is that they will get emotionally vicious. They will make personal attacks. They will threaten that bad things will happen. Those are a few of the things they will say.
"I call them spiritual predators because that is exactly what they are. They attack, maim, and torture. Only when they have their victim completely within their power to do release the pressure. It is possible to escape even then, but it is extremely difficult and dangerous."
All of this includes me, as a typical example of the class of folks you are talking about. it can't be any other way, because it starts out "People who talk in the tone of voice Dave Armstrong talks", then goes on to list a bunch of horrors. People like me act in a certain way. That includes me, too.
>9. Dave said: But by omitting the second paragraph, RubySera could have a field day in distorting my intentions
Dave, I did not “omit” the second paragraph. I read no more than the one paragraph I quote.
Well, that amply explains your butchering of context! You never read the context to begin with. LOL This is too much. It's like you're deliberately doing everything possible to demonstrate how NOT to rationally critique someone else's words and argument. It's hard to believe anyone could be this wrong, this judgmental, and this illogical about someone else's stated opinions. Perhaps this is a joke?
>Dave says: there are many like her out there, and this is stuff that we Christians have to be aware of and deal with.
I had meant to ask: How do you intend to deal with it?
By reason and persuasion, just as I always do, and as I have done here. As an apologist, my job is to show that Christianity can stand up to critiques and that we can also offer solid, rational critiques of competing views, without having to personally attack people in order to do so. I don't attack people. I like people, no matter what they be
(cont.)
. . . believe. I attack what I believe to be false ideas and doctrines. People may believe these for any number of reasons. I don't judge them. I simply disagree with things that are contrary to Christianity.
Nor do I delete things.
If you don't think I am a bad person, then you won't use me as a typical example of a class that you describe as wanting to "attack, maim, and torture."
Hi RubySera,
> Dave, my sincere apologies. I read my post again and I see I do use the word "mock."
Thanks. I appreciate it. You know, I think if we could just understand some basic facts about each other better, I really think we could get along fine. Your apology shows me that you do have a spirit of wanting to believe the best, not the worst of people. So I'll hope for the best after my latest round of explanations.
Looks nice, keep working! eskorten kaufvertrag garten ambo kino stuttgart
I have come to believe that RubySera is addicted to approval. Unfortunately for her she couldn't find it in her faith. Ironically she has found it in a way from un-believers who would immendiately turn on her if she didn't tow their line.
Commenting by HaloScan
