I just read part 3 of his deconversion story that basically was about his church baseball team. Honestly, I saw nothing in there as to why he left Christianity apart from being led astray and/or some type of "dark night of the soul" that led to burn out.
The fact of the matter is baseball has nothing whatsoever to do with theology, and I think mixing this in his story falls more into the emotional category rather than the critical thinking category. His church baseball team has nothing to do with the credibility of Christianity.
Same with the comments regarding with the false accusation that he was "never a Christian".
Getting into the "ass controversy" means he was desperate to find something to change the subject, it is a NON issue overall. Focusing on that irrelevant issue means the chance for a real discussion in the future are slim.
So far I have not seen anything along the lines of "His best arguments" versus "Christianity's best arguments"...until then (if ever) the deconversion story will sit in the emotional and straw man realm.
I truly feel bad for dagoods because it seems like he went through some emotionally troubling things as well as a theological foundation that was not suited to handle controversy. The image that comes to mind are those stories of a 15 year old boy at Christmas who finds out that Santa doesnt exist and he reacts by having a nervous breakdown and refuses to trust anyone since his parents had 'lied' to him all that time.
From an objective point of view there is nothing whatsoever that would suggest he was never a Christian and it is clear he was and is a good man and carried some of its moral truths with him when he deconverted.
To be fair, he has stated that he would be giving more actual reasons for his change of heart in future installments.
But he has put up such a stink and is being so unreasonable towards me (basically I can't disagree with anything without being accused of intolerance and unsavory behavior) that this dialogue is dead and in a casket with three feet of concrete on top of it.
How ironic that DagoodS' friend Micah's comments about others (Christians, no doubt) amply apply to DagoodS in this instance:
"I suspect that you, like me, also encounter impossible-to-reason-with folks online all the time, in other topics as well. The Wired is a strange place... one learns to deal with them (or else, become just as annoying). 
"
From DagoodS' blog:
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 here
http://debunkingchristianity.blo...06/03/
wwjd.html
and here.
http://debunkingchristianity.blo...hats-
trump.html
Using the same reasoning, we could claim that genocide is both justifiable and loving. ‘Cause Jesus (who always loves) did it.
(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.
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?)
You listed a number of verses, stating they indicate we should avoid divisive people. How is calling someone an “ass” avoiding them?
I could equally point out that you are to not speak evil, but peaceably. Titus. 3:2 Worse, in humility, you are consider others better than you are. Phil. 2:3. Are you saying that a pompous ass is better than you?
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 die 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?”
I look at what is the most I can do for the other, the opposing methodology is what is the least the person has to do for the other.
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.
Just because you have a right to do it, does that mean you must do it?
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.
Which is a well and good way to present a deconversion. But not my form…
(cont.)
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.
=================
ME:
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.
If you don't like the reasoning, then refute 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.
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.
The well is so poisoned by now that I can't say anything. Are you that desperate to avoid an open, honest discussion?
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.
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.
Is there anyway to Email Dave Armstrong?
See the bottom right of the sidebar. But I cannot promise to answer apologetic questions, as I state there. If it is something very brief, I'll do my best.
Of course, if it is something fairly important that needs to be private, one always makes exceptions . . . .
So Dave, are you going to stop by and see Gerry Matatics when he comes to town?
http://www.gerrymatatics.org/200...g/
20071001.html
Well, I may run out of things to do and stop by. I got a letter in the mail today about it. I met Gerry and we talked a good 45 minutes after one of these talks.
He was running down Vatican II then. Now he runs down the Catholic Church, period.
@DagoodS
Re: "ass"
You just, very politely and at great length, called DA an ass, without you using the word,
Dave, being a man of few words, chose to avoid the long explaination and used a technical biblical term to describe a fellow Chistian's behavior.
This has nothing to do with genocide. It has everything to do with non-christians holding Christians under a microscope, finding that we are sinners, and declaring Christianity null and void.
BTW: you advertise yourself as a "deconverted" christian. Thus its fair for DA to ask, "what kind of christian"? Advertise yourself as just one more atheist and it is fair for you to say. " What I was is nothing".
If you read Dagoods latest article regarding his disgust with the problem of divorce, you will be amazed at what you read.
I am convinced that dagoods infact has an interpretation of Scripture that is shockingly in line with Catholic theology. He could actually be open to Catholicism and not even realize it.
Commenting by HaloScan
