Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00227)

At 4:57 PM 9/5/95, dhedrick@csn.net wrote:
>It is sad when one reads so many compliments to a heart felt
>letter from someone declaring deconvertion.

To Theos-l,

I am sorry but couldn't help but respond on line to Daniel. I apologize in
advance for the use of the particular tradition that I am assuming in the
discussion. If anyone feels like translating this into your own or
theosophical categories I would like to hear your response.

Daniel,

The greatest compliment you could have given to me would have been your
compassion and open ear. You gave neither and, in this, have not witnessed
to the One who gives both.

>It is perversion.

There were indeed many "perverted things" about the process. The perversion
started when I substituted my "humanity" for a set of ideological beliefs
that prevented me from being loving in any sense, and gave me the misguided
opinion that I had the truth rather than the fact that the truth had me.
The perversion continued, as I lied my way through the religious ranks, as
I changed and did have the courage to, as straightforwardly as I ought,
disassociate from the evangelical religious philosophy that I once held.
The deconversion itself was a liberation, a final step in faith beyond
faith, it left me reeling and insecure for a while as I struggled against
old impulses but it eventually led me to believe in grace, forgiveness and
a trust in the universe that I did not experience when I was busy
convincing people of my opinions.

>Obviously it is clear that the same arguments that caused his
>redirection are the same arguments used to validate the origin of
>the bible.

I think you might want to spell this out a bit more. The redirection was
arrived at by the dedication of my mind to God , trusting him that I was
secure in God's love even though I explored ideas that might change me.
Cheif of those ideas was the understanding of revelation and the process by
which the Scriptures were created and inspired. So if you want to tell us
more on how my redirection could have lead me to your position I would
like to know. Don't forget I was in the evangelical camp for over twenty
years so it was not as a result of lack of knowledge of what you are
saying.

>66books. 40authors. One message.

No, no. Read it again. Many messages One Source. And the challenging task
of listening intently to what that Source had to say in our own setting.

>I prayed about the loss and the Lord revealed two
>scriptures to me.
>
>First...John 11:35
>Jesus Wept.

Yes, but did you, weep. Did you allow yourself to be touched by compassion,
to enter doubt and sadness of another and the tumultuous journey out of a
cherished belief that was secure - into a not awfully secure place but a
place where grace is tested. Jesus wept but he also resurrects, he restores
and provides a model for how to be a conscious human being. Go and do
likewise.

>Second...Eph 6:4-5
>For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened,
>and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become
>partakers with the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good Word of God
>and of the powers of the age to come,
>If they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they
>crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and PUT HIM TO AN
>OPEN SHAME.

Thank you for the restoring words. Here are some others that I found
helpful myself. My, Friends, if anyone is detected in a transgression, you
how have received the spirit should go and restore such a one with a spirit
of gentleness. Take care that you yourselves are not tempted. Bear one
another's burden's and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. Gal.
6:1-3 Anyone can play the quote game to their own advantage.

>No one here has honestly and openly investigated the validity
>of the New and Old Testament. And if you had, your rose colored
>glasses caused you to be blinded from the obvious.

Not even true. I suspect that many on theos-l have had some training in
Christian Scripture. I know A. Bain has and I certainly have read through
the text, preached on it and exegeted it sincerely. The problem is you will
very likely write this off as the deception of the Dark One.

>Daniel
>Evangelical Polemist
>1Pet3:15

Daniel did you notice v.16 of your favorite passage? "yet do it with
gentleness and reverence." You are not listening to the whole text for some
reason. Perhaps there is more to your agenda than faith. Your tone is
venomous and in I feel that if that tone persists you will as John says be
written off. I for one do not want to subject theos-l to the inanity of
this sort of discussion. I really do apologize to those who are of other
spiritual beliefs - that you and I have blighted their cyberspace with
such particularize and parochial concerns.

 The Internet should be used to facilitate an exchange of ideas and
perspectives, strongly held ones too, but not a means of religious
campaigning. Please consider those who do not want to hear your message -
of course you could invite them to join you on a Christian List or a a
newsgroup of which there are many. I am not being stupid here I feel that
some might even explore that option.

Under the Mercy,

Art