yes and yes. If you haven’t read the article linked above, this blog won’t make much sense to you.
There’s something very unsettling about how difficult it was for this evangelical-reared writer (and somebody like me) to process this and come to the conclusions he came to.
So many of these ideas are so deeply ingrained in me, that no matter how much I begin to recognize and rant about the errors, the mode of behavior they dictate is exceedingly difficult to overcome. It’s like some kind of “thorn in the flesh”…and I question whether this questionable information ammounts to “sin” as much or even moreso than all those things we are so capable of naming with ease.
July 30, 2005 at 6:24 am
Your comments peaked my interest and I read the website you linked. Your response is difficult to understand, would you please go into more details. I would like to understand what you are saying. I am not wanting conflict, I am really wanting to understand your response to the article.
July 30, 2005 at 5:13 pm
I have written a response (and I think it’s pretty good and easily understandable). I think it could open some really healthy discussion. I’d love to share it with you. However, I don’t feel obligation to clarify myself to cyber-phantoms like I do to real life people with names and faces. If you’d like to discuss this further, feel free to drop me an email with your real name and I would be happy to proceed with a real discussion from there.