
>> I wasn’t talking about typos. And correct, it’s a shame that a native speaker, who probably is mono-lingual too, isn’t capable to express himself/herself clearly or, at least, better than an ESL person like me.
You must have missed the part where I noticed that her post, the one you objected to, was grammatically flawless.
Now go suck on your humble pie, you ignorant and over-confident twat.

Porphyry said
Why are we being subjected to this ass-hat? Seriously.
Nothing in his posts merits our time or consideration. He is ignorant, self-righteous, glibly and gratuitously insulting, manifestly and proudly antisemitic.
So you keep attacking my persona and my image, despite pretending to talk to somebody else. I believe you should be muted for 30 days based on your comments.
As I said, post a god damn quote from my comment that is antisemitic.
Until then, keep your foul mouth shut and stop insulting people in an indeed gratuitously way.
Just one sentence will do.
I might give it consideration.
One.

>> As I said, post a god damn quote from my comment that is antisemitic.
Here: “Oh, I’m an antisemite, I would think, maybe I can shed some light on the subject.”
Do you not think that counts as antisemitic?
>> keep your foul mouth shut and stop insulting people in an indeed gratuitously way.
You really aren’t in a position to lecture me. And my insults are entirely warranted.

Porphyry said
Here: “Oh, I’m an antisemite, I would think, maybe I can shed some light on the subject.”
Do you not think that counts as antisemitic?
Of course not. Saying so doesn’t make the statement antisemitic in itself. I might’ve said it sarcastically. Please try again, scoundrel.

If it was sarcastic, you can say so. (But of course, saying something that is unapologetically antisemitic, then getting grumpy at people for missing your . . . special . . . brand of humor is its own sort of stupid.)
But everything that followed to justify it was transparently antisemitic.
And then there was your attacking Judith’s perfectly good English. And all the other personal attacks (me as gullible, BDE as whatever it was you think he was, and so on).

>> keep your foul mouth shut
And one more thing on this. I didn’t say anything that couldn’t be aired on the BBC. I was deliberately calibrating my language both to your repeated provocation and to this forum.
If you want me to show you foul-mouthed, I could. And every word of it would be earned. Whatever contempt I have expressed to you so far is considerably less than what I actually, and quite defensibly, feel toward you.
But I’m not interested in getting a lecture on civility in discourse from you, who have called one or another forum participant, “low IQ,” gullible,” “cultist.” “scoundrel,” “Satanic,” “a shell of a human,” “a mockery made by Satan”.
Don’t piss on my leg, then act shocked when I respond with profanity by demanding, “What the f*ck is wrong with you?”
Behold I show you a mystery…
Why would you spend money in order to penetrate a paywall supporting a scholar you claim to hate, openly present obnoxious, stupid opinions and when challenged, bristle, hurtling insults and attacks?
If I made up a list of things to do, that wouldn’t even make my top twenty.

Although the question is not directed toward me, I do find it an interesting one.
All speculation, of course, as one can’t get into the head of another, and from all indications, in this case, it would certainly not be a positive thing to do. To be honest, just reading his posts makes me feel soiled and in desperate need of a shower.
I’m sure if he responds to this, which I really hope he doesn’t, although to be perfectly honest I couldn’t care less, it’ll be met with the same scorn he unleashes at every possible opportunity. As that old song of Mason Proffit says, “that don’t bother me at all.”
I can only imagine he’s an internet troll who gets his kicks not on ** you do not have permission to see this link ** but by trying to rile things up. On the About page of his blog, he actually calls himself this. However, it is possible that he’s just being sarcastic.
I’m sure it won’t be lost on any that he wants us to visit his blog and to like his posts! Truth, it seems, wins out over manners, which he seems never to have been taught or learned over however many years he’s happened to have lived.
It’s not the first time we’ve seen people come confident they are going to prove Bart wrong. And although they’ve been every bit as arrogant, they did, to their credit, show a lot more civility. Wasn’t it just a month or so ago that we had someone who had just started looking into some particular thing and already had shown how Bart was mistaken? No qualifications of any kind as far as I can tell. Just their assertions. Believe them or else. If not, it is at your peril!
Bart has a huge following, so dansanta2003 believes he can use this forum alongside his winning personality and charm to attract people to his blog.
To go back to the purpose of this here thread…
First an old friend…
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And then an interview with another person, a minister this time, who also had her crisis of faith but remained inside. I was very touched by this conversation. I’m endlessly fascinated by those who made a different choice than me. I have not abandoned the idea that there may be something I can learn from them. I would be interested in other folk’s responses.
** you do not have permission to see this link **

I really enjoyed the conversation. It helped that I liked both people in the conversation: Paul, for his willingness to listen and non-judgmental attitude, and Becky for being honest with herself and giving such a moving testimonial.
And there were so many sentiments expressed which I concur. The need to extend grace to oneself as if not one would have a hard time extending it to others. Becky’s saying that everything she knew was partial and incomplete and how amazed she was that this was a sentiment expressed by one of the authors of the Bible.
I also love the idea of estuaries, which I’d never heard of before; they sound like brilliant places.
I think we all need to find meaning in our lives but do believe it can be found in different ways. I’ve always taken to T.S. Eliot’s line from Ash Wednesday about having to construct something upon which to rejoice.
I don’t expect there are any easy answers as to why someone going through a crisis of faith stays while others find it impossible in good conscience to remain. I suppose a whole vast menagerie of factors play a role.
And not everyone has such a crisis. For me, the crisis wasn’t with Christianity but with a particular form of it. Once I got over that, I was a Christian for years before drifting away from it. The attempts I made to return came to naught largely as the result of my inability to see Jesus other than the apocalyptic preacher that I think Scriptures show he was.
I also love the idea of estuaries, which I’d never heard of before; they sound like brilliant places.
Apparently this has been going on for a while. These folks are open to varied and dissenting voices. There are always non-believers included in the discussions although the demographic weighs towards believers of various stripes. I thought very seriously of attending one that took place in Asheville, NC back in the spring that involved some of these same folks but life events prevented me. What they would say is rather than joining them I should start one myself. I do like the idea of folks sitting together in a room rather than it always being a Zoom call. (But then I was one who always liked live group meetings at work even as that became less and less manageable.)
I can no longer relate to the Jesus of Faith. But it was Prof Ehrman who introduced me to the Jesus of History in his early book, ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Prof E gave me a way to relate to Jesus historically and critically. I have always been grateful for that connection which endures to this very day. I was fortunate to be able to express that to Prof E personally in one of his Smithsonian events many years ago.
I don’t expect there are any easy answers as to why someone going through a crisis of faith stays while others find it impossible in good conscience to remain. I suppose a whole vast menagerie of factors play a role.
This is a continual source of fascination. It’s why I am always curious to hear other people’s stories. I guess we all spend our lives trying to explain ourselves to ourselves. My minister friend and I grew up in almost identical conditions. Why is he still “in” and I’m not? I think we look upon one another as the “road not taken”. He says he considers me a “seeker” but I cannot imagine ever going back. It would take some as yet unimaginable life experience or personal transformation. I would not be the same person I am now. Part of it is that I simply don’t believe it’s possible to “go back”. Once you leave the garden the way is forever barred by the Cherubim. The question becomes, will there ever be a destination for me that resembles the life of faith? And there I must say I don’t believe there is a final destination. Always we peel the layers of the onion. There is no final truth. All we have is the quest for the truth.

This is a continual source of fascination. It’s why I am always curious to hear other people’s stories. I guess we all spend our lives trying to explain ourselves to ourselves.
I’m fascinated by it as well.
My minister friend and I grew up in almost identical conditions. Why is he still “in” and I’m not?
What would be your best guess?
He says he considers me a “seeker” but I cannot imagine ever going back. It would take some as yet unimaginable life experience or personal transformation. I would not be the same person I am now. Part of it is that I simply don’t believe it’s possible to “go back”. Once you leave the garden the way is forever barred by the Cherubim.
Although I wouldn’t say my going back was impossible, if I were to be honest, I’d say the odds are like those of being struck by a meteorite.
One of the things I’m certain of is if it I did return, my life would not in the least be affected. So, even putting aside for a moment the reasons I left, the fact that it would not make any difference should give me pause.
And there I must say I don’t believe there is a final destination. Always we peel the layers of the onion. There is no final truth. All we have is the quest for the truth.
My church was big on us possessing the truth. (Of course, we had it and no one else did.)
I really think the best any of us can do is to find the truths that make our own lives meaningful.
BJH1960 said
My minister friend and I grew up in almost identical conditions. Why is he still “in” and I’m not?
What would be your best guess?
Well…
Perhaps his early investment in the life of being a minister?
His childhood family life was not as benign as mine. Perhaps his sense of escape over against my own sense of loss?
He married during college. His religious life was strengthened by his life with his partner who was also very religious.
Fundamentally he found other closely knit communities during ministry while I was somewhat cast adrift. (My connections frayed while his did not.)
Interesting when I try to spell it out like this how little any of it had to do with education or rational analysis.

I expect much of what we believe is a result of factors other than rational analysis, although we are probably reluctant to admit it. I suspect we’re operating on a set of presuppositions that we might not be aware of.
Being estranged and set adrift from one’s community is so tumultuous. It can, however, provide an opportunity to freely entertain and examine ideas that were previously squashed as they had been discouraged or forbidden.
I’ve always appreciated Kierkegaard’s “People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.”
I was very fortunate that after being basically excommunicated from the church I was part of to be warmly welcomed into the community at the Baptist college I had begun to attend. And even though it was a decidedly evangelical setting, the two professors in my major were quite liberal. As anthropological linguists who had spent much of their careers overseas, they enjoyed exploring various views of the world. I could not have asked for a more supportive environment in order to try to figure out things for myself.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)
