Discussions with other people
I seem to end up talking about religion with people I barely know. But then, most of my friends are atheists. The people I've gotten in discussion with are all Christian (I will refrain here from making any generalizations about why only Christian people ever try to talk to me, a relative stranger, about religion. 8) )The stuff I said is always in plain text. Other people's words look like this.
Feedback on my Web page before this essay went up:
On Fri, 8 Nov 1996 DadofTia wrote:
I was browsing through various sites early this morning and ended up on your home page. Read some of your reflections. Just wanted you to know that I'm impressed.Thank you!
If you have time to answer, I would be interested in what role, if any, religion has played in what you've experienced. You may have covered that in some of the writing that I didn't get a chance to read.
No, actually, the sprirituality essay is sitting, waiting for me to have time to sit down and finish it on paper. It's such a complex topic.
I'm not sure exactly how religion has specifically influenced this part of my life because I've been kind of ambivalent about it for a while. My mom and her parents are Catholic, my dad's family is Methodist/Baptist from a small North Carolina town where there isn't considered to be much difference. So I attended both churches/Sunday schools depending on where I was, plus nearly memorizing this BIG book of Bible stories one grandmother gave me. Mom gave up on taking me to church after my first Communion, setting an interesting example I suppose, and though I kept attending Sunday school when I was in North Carolina, by middle school they were telling us all about Martin Luther vs. the Evil Catholics and I wasn't very tolerant of my other religion being bashed. So I stopped attending there. I don't consider those being causes of "losing my faith" but they happened around the same time.
My abuser grandfather is a church-going Catholic, and my therapist did suggest that this might have had some influence on the fact that I lost my gut acceptance of Christianity within the years after I think the abuse started. I also feel that I was a little bitter against God for not answering my prayers for my parents not to divorce. But for much of middle school, I read everything I could get my hands on about witchcraft, and tried to practice some cobbled-together mishmash of Goddess worship (not Satan worship) from what I could gather from the children's section of all the libraries I had access to.
That I gave up by early high school and was pretty much an agnostic. I'd like to believe in a spiritual system but I've never been able to feel faith in any one of the ones I know about, and I have a basic knowledge of most of the world's major ones. I don't entirely know if this is some kind of damage resulting from being abused by a supposedly God-fearing man, or just some thing resulting from the way I think (liking proof and logic to things before I believe in them, to the point where taking anything on faith is very difficult.) I am scared of dying; thinking about that makes me panic incredibly, but I have not been able to convince myself of the existence of any kind of immortal soul. What a mess. 8(
Oh well. Writing this out for you will probably be a good start to exapnd on for that essay I have notes for somewhere (that one was inspired by a discussion in my children's lit class about religious symbols in fantasy novels, like L'Engle's _A Wrinkle In Time_ and C.S. Lewis's Narnia books. I'd read them for years and never saw Christian symbols, despite the background of both authors, but classmates pointed some out immediately.
In any event, it was a pleasure to read some about you. You have a sharp mind and will no doubt continue making valuable contributions to society.
Well, thank you.
Suzanne***** Suzanne -
I spent the weekend in western Pennsylvania doing a multi-denominational workshop for pastors and church leaders (and also getting the chance to see Falling Water, which is one of the more striking of Frank Lloyd Wright's architectural designs). When I signed on this morning, it was a pleasure to receive your e-mail. I appreciate your having taken the time to share some of your thoughts and experiences.We live in an intriguing time with large percentages of people very interested in the spiritual but with declining percentages (especially of young adults) interested in the church as an institution. One of the things I find myself doing in some of the workshops I lead (though that isn't the topic for most workshops) is helping pastors and church leaders start to recognize that most people really don't care about the denominational distinctions which have existed for years.
_A Wrinkle in Time_ and the Narnia books are excellent reading whether a person buys into the Christian symbolism or not. I have always especially loved the Narnia books. As you probably know, C.S. Lewis was a very interesting personality who was a British professor and came to Christianity later in life than most people do.
Since you have some Catholic as well as Protestant roots, you might enjoy checking out the writings of Matthew Fox, a Catholic priest and scholar who is frequently in trouble with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. While he's Catholic, he recognizes that God is by no means limited to any religious structure. He integrates teachings from eastern religions and even from witchcraft! His books _Original Blessing_, _The Coming of the Cosmic Christ_, and _Creation Spirituality_ are all thought-provoking. _The Coming of the Cosmic Christ_ is the one in which he does the most to integrate teachings of various faiths. His overall approach is very different from traditional Catholicism, and he's currently very popular reading in liberal Protestant seminaries. If you can't locate anything by him and are interested , let me know; and I'll send you a copy of Cosmic Christ.
Your reflections on the abuse and its relationship or lack of relationship to your questions about religious faith were helpful to me. The research I'm doing is related, in part, to developing strategies for use in churches (and some other settings) which would make people less likely to be the victims of abuse or other violence and also less likely to be the cause of abuse or other violence.
No, I'm sorry to say that I don't remember how I got to your home page! My curiosity takes me into so many different things that I rarely remember. And actually I very rarely respond to someone's home page.
From a newsgroup discussion on censorship:
On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Psyberduck wrote:
Might I just interject for a second? There is a *huge* difference between religion and porn here, even in the context of this issue. Namely, the idea of decency. While you might not like religious discussions, any you may be offended by some religious comments, I'd be more than willing to bet you're more comfortable about letting a child be exposed to a discussion about Christ than, lets say, a naked picture of a woman in a blatantly sexual pose.Honestly, I'd want to talk about religion with my future children as much as I would want to talk with them about sex -- in neither case would I want them to run unprepared into the issues surrounding either. I am not a Christian, so I would want to talk to my kids about God and the majority beliefs of this country and that it is OK not to share them; I do not believe in sheltering kids from sex so that they will find the forbidden to be attractive. (And some religious ideas, like Saint Paul's misogynism in the Bible, I do find positively indecent.)
TV is rated according to content. a sexual situation is not appropriate for a child to be watching. However, religion is not offensive in the same way, nor does it expose a child to something that they aren't yet ready to deal with, or at least shouldn't have to deal with.
So telling a child (or young teen) that her father is going to hell because he's not of the same religion that she and her mother are is something a child is ready to deal with, or should have to deal with?
Keep in mind that I'm not attacking you personally, but the idea of persons being responsible for themselves has been proven failable.
So the equally fallible people in the government should be respnsible for everyone?
Suzanne***** On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Psyberduck wrote:
I wouldn't reccomend running into either discussion unprepared either, but are you going to show your children pictures of male/female bondage when you explain sex to them? I'm not talking about sheltering them from the topic of sex, I'm talking about sheltering them from porn. As for Paul's view of women, that's a whole other topic altogether. Let's just say that it's not something to focus on in your view of Christianity. The Jury's still out there.I wouldn't show them bondage pics, but I would talk about sex practices that are considered abnormal. After talking about that, I would not consider looking at porn to be something that is going to scar them once they know what it is and that it's fiction, posed pictures and such.
But again, porn's just a wee more "in your face" than religion,
I can think of some examples where religion is very "in your face". Like your posts.
in your example. And I've also found people having an easier time >ignoring a preacher or witness than I imagine they do ignoring porn picts.
I have a much more difficult time ignoring a preacher who's trying to convert me than porn pics that I am not being forced to look at.
Hey, if you think we really don't need laws, go ahead and campaign for anarchy. If humans were really responsible, we wouldn't have many of the laws (or any) that we do now. Yeah, the majority of us can restrain from kiling, raping, or robbing someone on our own, but the law is still there, because not everyone is responsible enough.
No one stops killing, raping, or whatever major crime because there's a law. The laws exist so we can have a legal right to punish the people who do wrong to others, who do it because they are messed up already, and not because they saw a naked woman or man when they were little.
Suzanne***** On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Psyberduck wrote:
This is related to the Internet, btw, so no flames about off-topic posting. I began with this quote for a reason. There have been several comments about how there is no standard for ethics by which we can judge material on the Net. I'm gonna go out on a limb here, but I believe it's because we've forgotten the Standard for *all* ethics. We've lost sight of the Falconeer. With out Him, "the centre cannot hold". God layed down the Standard in the Bible. I know a lot of you think that it was just a book written by a bunch of men with nothing better to do, but if we don't get our ethics from Him, where do we turn? Where do you think we got our ethics to start with?Allah? Buddha? Krishna? (I am not a member of any of these religions, so please forgive me if I am mangling the doctrine.)
The Internet is world-wide. The whole world is not Christian. Not even the whole U.S. is. We don't all believe in the Christian God, and we don't all believe the same stuff about what is ethical.
Suzanne***** On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Psyberduck wrote:
Do you really think it's only the old folks who want this stuff off the net? And the purpose is not to smother art, but to protect kids from stuff that is anything *but* art.Some stuff people consider porn others do consider art.
And oh, I plan one raising my kids to be free-thinking. But I still wouldn't want them being exposed to a naked person in a sexual pose. True, I plan on closely monitoring my child's activity (though, we're talking *several* years from now before I have to worry about this stuff), but in taking responsibility form my kids, should I just give one big "Forget you" to all those kids whose parents aren't responsible enough to do all you just suggested?
Yes. We have different ideas on how to raise kids. My mom was not uptight about porn -- I saw naked people in sexual poses in pictures in her magazines. At age eleven. The only thing it's done to me is prove that it didn't do anything negative to me.
You've got a point, but isn't it also our job to take care of other's souls?
No. We were put on Earth to make our own decisions, or we wouldn't have free will to do it with. You cannot run other people's lives for them; not even God controls our thoughts.
Suzanne***** On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Psyberduck wrote:
But the point is not to ban discussions of sex, abberant or otherwise,It's a part of who I am, like law to a lawyer. It makes its way into my writing quite frequently. It colors my perceptions and responses, as would any hobbies or areas of expertise. If I spoke of everything in terms of chess, would you consider my hobby to be "in your face"? Yes, I would.
Suzanne***** On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Guildenstern wrote:
But if we're looking a for a good set of rules that work. They exist. The Bible. And a relationship with God is a pretty darn good way of getting through this life. So although the world (which is the theater for the WWW) doesn't believe in Christianity, it is a valid set of rules for the Internet. Just thought I'd add that. Bye.Have any of you people ever heard of the principle of "Separation of church and state"? It is one of the things this nation was founded on, so that the religious persecutions that drove some of the first settlers to the New World would be less likely to happen in this nation. And it means that because Christian morals say something is wrong is not sufficient reason to outlaw that something. God is not a valid based for U.S. net censorship.
Suzanne
***** On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Psyberduck wrote:
Then I guess I am. But it still seems to me to be a different sort of "In your face" than porn. Course, now we're fooling with semantics!"In your face" merely implies that something is making itself known to you when you don't want it to be. You don't want porn, I don't want the Biblethumpers who used to come on campus, hand out New Testaments and ask everyone if they were saved (or just flat out tell them they were going to hell). You probably have an easier time avoiding porn than I did living on campus, walking to class, and avoiding those people. So it is entirely possible for religion to be "in your face." Posts citing Christian doctrine as the sole reason why the Internet should be censored/restricted kinda feel "in your face" for me.
Semantics are pretty important, I think -- witness "pro-life" and "pro-choice" instead of "anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion". Both sides would say that the simplest descriptions don't completely cover their positions on the subject, and so the labels they have chosen for themselves become very important in defining their positions.
But then, my B.A. is in English. 8)
I believe Christianity has a great deal to do with ethics in general.
For Christians. Ethical systems predated Christianity (ancient Greek philosophers, for example). Some people prefer to take inspiration from different sources. For that matter, some people agree completely with the basic tenets of Christian behavior without being Christians (ever read the Jefferson Bible? Thomas Jefferson took the Gospels, cut out all the miracles and things he considered "superstitious" and pasted the rest in a book. The resulting portrait is of Jesus as a non-divine, non-resurrected guy who went around preaching a good set of morals. Kind of Confucius-like, really (Jefferson's Jesus, not Jefferson himself.)
Suzanne***** On Sun, 6 Apr 1997, Suzanne M. Saunders wrote:
entirely possible for religion to be "in your face." Posts citing Christian doctrine as the sole reason why the Internet should be censored/restricted kinda feel "in your face" for me.Not the only reason in my mind, but I see your point.
For Christians. Ethical systems predated Christianity (ancient Greek philosophers, for example). Some people prefer to take inspiration from different sources.
Well, if your gonna go with Greek philosophy, they were even more uptight about sex than some Christians, if memory serves (body is imperfect, spirit is lofty, etc.).
For that matter, some people agree completely with the basic tenets of Christian behavior without being Christians (ever read the Jefferson Bible? Thomas Jefferson took the Gospels, cut out all the miracles and things he considered "superstitious" and pasted the rest in a book. The resulting portrait is of Jesus as a non-divine, non-resurrected guy who went around preaching a good set of morals.
I haven't read it, but I'm familiar with it. Kinda misses the point, if you ask me, but it does get the teachings across.
***** On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Psyberduck wrote:
I have a question, though. If I had tried to persuade you all that Greek philosophies or something besides the Bible should be our standard, would any of ya'll have gotten as riled up? Be honest, now.Yup -- I remember Plato saying somewhere in _The Republic_ that music and poetry were too dangerous to be allowed free rein in the ideal country he was describing. There's gonna be stuff that I feel is wrong in any system, because any systen is written by someone who is not me. 8) And my system would not be perfect for anyone else (I haven't even perfected it for me!); people I know and love sometimes have trouble with some of the things I think are right and wrong, and vice versa. I don't believe that humans have free will but are not supposed to exercise it in deciding for themselves what is moral.
I guess I just have trouble with the idea that the supposedly infinitely merciful Christian God will automatically limit salvation in his eyes to "whosoever believeth in Him" and exclude the most moral people who didn't. Doesn't seem at all merciful. Humans have more mercy than that. Some of them. But I have worse problems with the practices, not even getting to the theology, of other religions. The freedom of worship of this country includes the right not to be bound by the standards of a religion you don't share.
Suzanne***** On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Psyberduck wrote:
Yes again. It [separation of church and state] was also written to keep the church from charging taxes, etc.Yes. This is a good thing -- should Episcopalians be able to charge Baptists taxes?
Good. Even if you aren't a believer, you gotta admit, the "founding fathers" had some Christian influences.
They also often held slaves and considered it moral. Should we do that?
much as I'd like to) that you all drop to your knees and accept the Lord right here in front of your screen. What I'm saying is that we've
That's good, or I might be tempted to be extremely rude. 8)
for laws in this country right before us. If it's good enough to base a country on, can't we at least consider it as a source for some sort of standard on the Net?
Christianity was only one of the things that this country was based on, and standards for the Net based only on Christianity are leaving out the principle of speparation of church and state, also part of what this country is based on.
Anyway, the net is not American! If every person in this country knelt right now and accepted Christ, that would still not give the U.S. any power over the rest of the world, which is most certainly not all in agreement with Christian standards. Those who believe have no right to reduce others' free will to choose what else they might wish to believe.
Suzanne***** On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Psyberduck wrote:
Well, if your gonna go with Greek philosophy, they were even more uptight about sex than some Christians, if memory serves (body is imperfect, spirit is lofty, etc.).Some were, some weren't. Being as how Athenian Greek society believed that you have sex with your wife for procreation and other men for fun, though there were women for pleasure too (there's a story about a female ancient Greek prostitute named Phryne, who for some reason or other was put on trial for blasphemy. When asked for her defense, either she or her lawyer was supposed to have pulled down the top of her tunic to show her breasts and said "This is the defense," the idea being that her form was too perfect to allow her to blaspheme against the gods. So obviously they weren't all uptight. 8) )
I haven't read it, but I'm familiar with it. Kinda misses the point, if you ask me, but it does get the teachings across.
It all depends on the "gospel of faith" vs "gospel of works" issue -- is believing in Jesus or behaving morally the important bit?
Suzanne***** On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, Suzanne M. Saunders wrote:
> Some were, some weren't.Fair nuff. (didn't think I needed to quote that whole passage:) )
It all depends on the "gospel of faith" vs "gospel of works" issue -- is believing in Jesus or behaving morally the important bit?
Galatians 2:15-16 "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' [quoting Peter] know that man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ."
and again in Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been save, through faith-and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no man can boast."
***** On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, Suzanne M. Saunders wrote:
I guess I just have trouble with the idea that the supposedly infinitely merciful Christian God will automatically limit salvation in his eyes to "whosoever believeth in Him" and exclude the most moral people who didn't. Doesn't seem at all merciful.My view on it is like this: if you were drowning (sp?) in the middle of a vast ocean, and God came along and threw you a life raft, if you choose not to take it, for whatever reasons (you think you could swim without it, don't realize you're drowning, etc), it's not because He didn't love you. As humans, we turn our backs to God when we defy Him. Yet even though we turned away from Him, He never gave up on us. He sent His Son to be the life raft, even though we though we could swim under our own power. That's His mercy. He's shown his mercy to you. Whether you accept it or not is up to you.
Humans have more mercy than that. Some of them. But I have worse problems with the practices, not even getting to the theology, of other religions. The freedom of worship of this country includes the right not to be bound by the standards of a religion you don't share.
Granted, though it seems that there are fewer & fewer things that unite us Christians anymore. But for all the differing theologies, traditions, practices, ceremonies, etc, one thing remains the same. God gave up His Son, Who had never sinned, to take our punnishment. And eternal life is ours if we but accept His sacrafice, and trust Him with our lives.
Amen for freedom of religion, though. Some of my Christian brothers & sisters would call this practice bad, but Christianity is supposed to be a choice, not something forced.
(This is a guy I knew from the local group usf.misc, and hadn't always agreed with.)
Hello Suzanne,I just read some of the material on your geocities homepage, including the letter to your grandfather and coping with life in 1996.
I want to thank you for making your personal thoughts, experiences, and feelings available to me. It has helped me.
Your words have stirred numerous feelings and caused me to think of numerous responses and/or explanations. If you want them, let me know.
One unsolicited response I will offer: there is a love available to you that is utterly complete and sincere. It is my hope that you find it, because I think it is the only way to begin to deal with the types of problems you face. I wish I could show it to you, but I am one least able to.
On Sat, 19 Apr 1997, Randy wrote:
I just read some of the material on your geocities homepage, including the letter to your grandfather and coping with life in 1996. I want to thank you for making your personal thoughts, experiences, and feelings available to me. It has helped me.Um, you're welcome. Glad to be of service. 8) This always feels odd for me -- the page is more like a way to break my own silence but it's difficult to think that anyone else much cares.
Your words have stirred numerous feelings and caused me to think of numerous responses and/or explanations. If you want them, let me know.
Hmm. I usually have no problem with responses, but there's a bit of my insides which rails at having things "explained". Just the expectation of having someone impose their own worldviews on my entirely different experience (not that you would necessarily do so, but I have a paranoid expectation that most people will, reinforced by the dynamics of alt.sexual.abuse.recovery and its periodic invasions by the "Get over it!" brigade.) I'm willing to read your thoughts if you're willing to type them, though.
One unsolicited response I will offer: there is a love available to you that is utterly complete and sincere. It is my hope that you find it, because I think it is the only way to begin to deal with the types of problems you face. I wish I could show it to you, but I am one least able to.
If by that you mean God (which by our ealier discussions seems likely), I have an unfinished essay which, hopefully this summer, will be put in shape to go up there which goes through a lot of my problems with religion. One of my previous therapists did suggest that my problems with believing in God were caused by having been abused. It's more likely that dealing with my problems on my own might cause me to have an inner peace that might allow me to feel comfortable believing in God, that that a belief in God could come first.
Suzanne***** At 12:58 PM 4/19/97 -0400, Suzanne wrote:
If by that you mean God (which by our ealier discussions seems likely), I have an unfinished essay which, hopefully this summer, will be put in shape to go up there which goes through a lot of my problems with religion. One of my previous therapists did suggest that my problems with believing in God were caused by having been abused. It's more likely that dealing with my problems on my own might cause me to have an inner peace that might allow me to feel comfortable believing in God, that that a belief in God could come first.Don't you think that if you could've done it on your own that you would've done it by now? You've been trying really hard to deal with your issues on your own, and it's just not working. I was at a point in my life where my choices and my self-leadership had led me to a hell that I never want to go back to again. It was at that point that I HAD to acknowledge that I screwed things up on my own, and that is when I said, "OK God, I'll let you drive for awhile because I'm obviously screwing up bigtime." (Not that you're screwing up, but I think you get my point.) That was about 7 years ago.
One of my favorite songs is "People Need The Lord." In it, it says that when we get to the end of our broken dreams, people need the Lord. That is so true for me. And believe me, it's not easy to acknowledge this because I'm a very intelligent person who has always been self-reliant. Even to this very day, I still have problems trusting Him, but when I do, there is a freshness and hope to my life that makes it worth living again.
And just in case you think I'm getting pious on you, I need to let you know that I'm not a "good person." I continue to screw up, hurt people, and hurt myself. I continue to make sex the central focus of my life, and I've hurt my girlfriend and the other females I get close to with my sexual consumption. I am far from having arrived. (Oh, and BTW, I've had about 6 years of counseling - didn't really help me either.)
Please tell me if I'm "preaching" at you. I hate it when I see others do that. I am simply trying to relate to you my experience, in as non-religious a way as possible! I'm suggesting a relationship (with Him), not a religion.
Randy
***** On Sat, 19 Apr 1997, Randy wrote:
Don't you think that if you could've done it on your own that you would've done it by now? You've been trying really hard to deal with your issues on your own, and it's just not working.Note that most of the essays on that page are six months to a year old -- I haven't had time to write much since then. My emotional situation has greatly improved since then, for various reasons ranging from moving out of the apartment full of filth my then-roommates kept, to going on anti-depressants.
And I have read alt.sexual.abuse.recovery for three years, alt.abuse.transcendence for two, and the More Than Survival mailing list for one. The people who have faith (Christian God or whatever other fiath) as a part of their lives honestly do not seem to heal faster or have fewer problems to go through than the atheists and agnostics. Perhaps "God helps them who help themselves" is the applicable principle.
at a point in my life where my choices and my self-leadership had led me to a hell that I never want to go back to again. It was at that point that I HAD to acknowledge that I screwed things up on my own, and that is when I said, "OK God, I'll let you drive for awhile because I'm obviously screwing up bigtime." (Not that you're screwing up, but I think you get my point.) That was about 7 years ago.
This is a *huge* sticking point for a lot of abuse survivors -- things were so out of our control in our childhoods that many of us have a great aversion to letting *any* control out of our own hands. Even to that of God. From a child's point of view, "Look what God let happen to me already!" Screwing things up on our own seems like the lesser of the two evils.
One of my favorite songs is "People Need The Lord." In it, it says that when we get to the end of our broken dreams, people need the Lord.
Child abuse survivors often didn't have a chance to have dreams -- they weren't broken, they never formed. Some therapists feel that survivors are stuck at the level of emotional development they has reached when the abuse started. It isn't a chance to fail ourselves and find support -- mostly we never learned to expect or trust support. I have heard this expressed on alt.sexual.abuse.recovery as the "God is a big Perp" (perpetrator of abuse) feeling.
One has to fix oneself at least partially before one can approach God without those same feelings one had when the human abuser(s) approached. (Approaching on those terms would not be faith, it would be like staying with an abusive partner just because they have power over you, not because of love for them.)
is so true for me. And believe me, it's not easy to acknowledge this because I'm a very intelligent person who has always been self-reliant. Even to this very day, I still have problems trusting Him, but when I do, there is a freshness and hope to my life that makes it worth living again.
Freshness and hope for me have rarely come from relying on others. Survival, sometimes, but only I could lift myself up past mere survival to actual hope.
Suzanne
***** Suzanne,
You are either too biased or lack enough perspective to see the error of some of your attitudes. For example, to think that because you have had a reprieve in the last 6 months shows victory over an emotional trauma that has been with you for years (what, almost 15 years now?) is at the best premature and at the worst foolish. The statement about God being the perpetrator illustrates that you've bought a deception. You believe the lie that your own heart and others have told you about God, rather than truly knowing Him. Even if you don't believe in Him, couldn't you at least form the proper model???Your responses are typical of one with zero spiritual awareness. That is sad. Someday, you and I will know the truth, and for your sake I hope that my worldview is the one in err. And if it is not, then I hope that your heart will be changed before it is too late.
I know these things I am saying may inflame you a little, but maybe that's good. Believe me, my intention is not to be mean.
I will leave you with this. We have at USF one of the most trustworthy men I have ever found in my life. His name is Dr. Ken Pothoven and he is a professor in the math department (former chair). Yes, he is a Christian, too. He is a very soft-spoken, humble, and gentle man. His office is on the third floor of the Physics building - take a right at the top of the stairs and then find his office in the cluster down the hallway to the left. If you ever get to the point in your life where you don't know if there is ANYONE you can trust, try him: any topic, anytime.
Let me also say this, Suzanne. I love you. Even though your hardness of heart makes me angry, I still love you.
***** Just when I thought we were having a calm discussion, Randy Yates wrote:
You are either too biased or lack enough perspective to see the error of some of your attitudes. For example, to think that because you have had a reprieve in the last 6 months shows victory over an emotional trauma that has been with you for years (what, almost 15 years now?) is at the best prematureTrauma at the level described on the web page, just over two months last summer. Trauma at any level, about four years. Memory of what happened, with or without emotional problems relatable to it, about six years. Forgetting/denying it happened for a long time is quite common. When one's respite is three times the length of one's deepest traumatized period, it does seem a bit of a cause for hope. 8)
And yes, I am biased. No, I don't lack perspective. I have better knowledge of my own life than anyone, and better perspective on my own problems than anyone but a psychology professional experienced in incest/sexual abuse issues or perhaps another survivor.
worst foolish. The statement about God being the perpetrator illustrates that you've bought a deception. You believe the lie that your own heart and others have told you about God, rather than truly knowing Him. Even if you don't believe in Him, couldn't you at least form the proper model???
Huh? What use is pretending to believe? Seems pretty hypocritical to me.
I didn't say God *was* the perp -- as I don't truly believe in him, I obviously don't feel that he did anything to me. But if I did have that kind of faith, that's the sort of objection that would be brought up by my heart. It is the objection I have seen over and over again in the experiences of others on the newsgroups and mailing lists I read. And well, with the amount of broken trusts in survivors' pasts, is it any wonder that believing our hearts (for those who can even manage that much belief) feels safer than faith in anything else?
I know these things I am saying may inflame you a little, but maybe that's good. Believe me, my intention is not to be mean.
So the way to lead people to Christ is to piss them off at the preachiness of Christians? Honestly, I think that's the biggest problem a lot of non-Christians have with the religion is the way they are treated by some Christians for not sharing the faith. Someone near my apartment has a bumper sticker which says "O Lord, save me from your followers!"
find his office in the cluster down the hallway to the left. If you ever get to the point in your life where you don't know if there is ANYONE you can trust, try him: any topic, anytime.
I am not really all that likely to come to a point where going to a complete stranger is easier to do than trusting the wonderful friends who supported me through last summer. But thanks for the info, anyway.
Suzanne
Home | Writing | Bio | Resources & Bibliographies | Links