Bye ... and why ...

[dhalitsky]

To the AB -

The time for a warning to be issued concerning personal attacks was when Al Hartman first impugned my motivations, not after I simply returned the favor.

Of my "more than once" co-respondents here at the BB (Al, Marcia, Tom, Mark, summer, and Joe S), only Al has felt it necessary to impugn motivation.

Marcia is correct - the discussion can continue at other BBs.  In fact, as I have mentioned before, there is a very good BB to which fundamentalists/evangelicals. agnostics, and atheists all post.  Personal attacks there are considered part of the freight, but much good discussion also goes on.   Since the  fundamentalists and evangelicals at this BB are way out-numbered and could use some help (specially from the hearts of Mark, Marcia, and Joe and the brain of TomM), I will give instructions for posting to this BB to Marcia via private email, and she can pass them on, or not, as she sees fit.  (PS - Mark, Marcia, and Joe - in my opinion it is no aspersion on your intelligence that you choose to "think" with the heart first when it comes to religious matters, so please don't take it that way.)

What really amazes me is the suspicion that I am so against the Paulist version of Christianity because of his views on homosexuality.  Marcia asked me about this in an email, phrasing the question delicately. and TomM just asked me the same thing in slightly different words.

So it may be worthwhile to close by reprinting Marcia's email to me and my response to her, as I have below.   There is no need to editorialize further; what I learned from my ex-wife can be learned by anybody with an open heart and an open mind - ignore the sin, love the sinner, and dismiss Paul as nothing more than a HIGHLY neurotic usurper of the REAL good-news (Godspell) brought to us by ChristJesus.

In other words, once you have read the email interchange below between Marcia and myself, all you really have to do to understand my views on ChristJesus is to ask yourself - really ask yourself - why my ex-wife never missed Mass one week in her entire life, insofar as I know.  And if the only answer you can come up with is:
"She was covering her bets", then shame on you, not on her.

Blessed are all of us in Christ. regardless of how and why he has entered our hearts.
David Halitsky

-----Original Message-----
From: marinier@canada.com [mailto:marinier@canada.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 9:36 AM
To: David Halitsky
Subject: personal question

Hi David,

Please do not be offended by my personal question.  Is there
something about your lifestyle that would 'support' the reason why
you do not like the apostle Paul and his epistles?
I agree that others hold to a similar opinion as you do.  At least
they did when they wrote the books and publish the articles that
they have.
I will respond to the BB posts sometime today, but I was curious
about another matter.

Blessings,
Marcia


-----Original Message-----
From: David Halitsky [mailto:dhalitsky@www.cumulativeinquiry.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 9:39 AM
To: 'marinier@canada.com'
Subject: No - not in the sense I think you intended


Hi M -

No.

My first wife was an ex-call-girl. This was not the
reason we split up; I knew the facts of her life
before we married.  The abuse in her childhood which
led her to her "profession" also led her into what I
call "episodic alcoholism" of the worst kind - she
would be stone-cold sober and a perfect mother to her
three children for weeks at a time, and then "disappear
for an evening or a night, to be found sleeping outside
the door in the morning.

She went to Mass every week while she was "working" in
her "profession" and I asked her once how she could
reconcile her religious beliefs with what she chose to do
for a living.

She said that in confession, the priest would say
"Avoid the near occasion of sin."  And she felt that she
was obeying this instruction by never having a repeat
customer.  

The whole marriage was a very painful experience in many
ways, but it did lead me to see that Paul's Christianity
is not sufficiently robust and subtle to handle the
varieties of true religious experience one encounters
in today's world - far too judgmental, far too narrow.

Best regards
David

[M2]

To the AB -

The time for a warning to be issued concerning personal attacks was when Al Hartman first impugned my motivations, not after I simply returned the favor.

Of my "more than once" co-respondents here at the BB (Al, Marcia, Tom, Mark, summer, and Joe S), only Al has felt it necessary to impugn motivation.

Marcia is correct - the discussion can continue at other BBs.  In fact, as I have mentioned before, there is a very good BB to which fundamentalists/evangelicals. agnostics, and atheists all post.  Personal attacks there are considered part of the freight, but much good discussion also goes on.   Since the  fundamentalists and evangelicals at this BB are way out-numbered and could use some help (specially from the hearts of Mark, Marcia, and Joe and the brain of TomM), I will give instructions for posting to this BB to Marcia via private email, and she can pass them on, or not, as she sees fit.  (PS - Mark, Marcia, and Joe - in my opinion it is no aspersion on your intelligence that you choose to "think" with the heart first when it comes to religious matters, so please don't take it that way.)

What really amazes me is the suspicion that I am so against the Paulist version of Christianity because of his views on homosexuality.  Marcia asked me about this in an email, phrasing the question delicately. and TomM just asked me the same thing in slightly different words.

So it may be worthwhile to close by reprinting Marcia's email to me and my response to her, as I have below.   There is no need to editorialize further; what I learned from my ex-wife can be learned by anybody with an open heart and an open mind - ignore the sin, love the sinner, and dismiss Paul as nothing more than a HIGHLY neurotic usurper of the REAL good-news (Godspell) brought to us by ChristJesus.

In other words, once you have read the email interchange below between Marcia and myself, all you really have to do to understand my views on ChristJesus is to ask yourself - really ask yourself - why my ex-wife never missed Mass one week in her entire life, insofar as I know.  And if the only answer you can come up with is:
"She was covering her bets", then shame on you, not on her.

Blessed are all of us in Christ. regardless of how and why he has entered our hearts.
David Halitsky
...

David H,

Personally, I am sorry to see you go.

Re. to your question "why my ex-wife never missed Mass one week in her entire life ... "
I do not know unless I ask her.  I could speculate but it would only be speculation.

In my Roman Catholic days I did not miss Sunday Mass until I got married.  Then it was down to Christmas, NewYear, Easter, Weddings and Funerals.   Now I only go to attend a funeral/wedding of a friend/relative.

I would disagree with you on one point.  You said, "PS - Mark, Marcia, and Joe - in my opinion it is no aspersion on your intelligence that you choose to "think" with the heart first when it comes to religious matters, so please don't take it that way."
Yes, the heart does enter into the matter, hence my desire to know the facts about your situation before drawing a conlcusion about your perspective.   I do not choose to think with my heart.  When I became a Christian (and just before) I really started to "think".  Before that I tended to just accept what was fed to me.  Christ has renewed my humanity.  All of my thinking without my heart led me accept Geftakys indoctrination as gospel truth, yet in my spirit I had many indications that something was wrong.

Anyway, this is the short response.  Hope we can continue this discussion.
God bless,
Marcia

[summer007]

deleted.

[Oscar]

Dave,  I don't think Tom M. meant you had to leave.

I don't think so either.  

"I agree with you Al did come on just as strong in his origional post to you. "

Fair enough, I should have warned Al too.

The key is to discuss Ideas, not personalities.  The argument that "you" "Christians" "Muslims" think so and so and therefore it is wrong is fallacious.

If folks discuss ideas, that sort of thing is avoided.

Thomas Maddux

[dhalitsky]

TomM -

Thanks very much for taking the time to post that.

Done deal, meaning I hope it can be put in the past all around.

There IS one matter of rhetorical courtesy which I would like to take up with you.

When you make a comment such as the one in which you said that Walter Raushenburg said all there can ever be to say about social interpretations of the Gospel, I do not think to challenge your claim.  I assume that TomM is both brilliant and honest and would not say something that is seriously in error.  (Everyone can be wrong on the details, particularly when working from memory.)

Vice-versa. when I make a comment to the effect that Otto Bismarck instituted social welfare programs in 19th century Germany purely for the selfish interests of the new German Reich headed by Wilhelm I, I don't think  you should treat this as merely an "allegation" that needs to be substantiated by me with some type of scholarly reference.  There are any number of standard texts which discuss this point in some detail, and I am sure some online material as well.

Please note: this is NOT a personal attack.  I just would like to feel that you make the same assumptions about me that I make about you (well, maybe not the "brilliant" part but at least the "honest" part.)

Also, plese note that in the above, I am not talking about the point you make constantly concerning the authoritative tradition backing up one view of Scripture versus the lack of tradition backing up idiosyncratic views of scripture (such as my own.)  This is a fair point for you to make, in my opinion.  

It's the other kinds of cases in which I make a historical remark whose content is generally accepted to be either true or at least successfully arguable in a good college debate.

Blessed are we all in Christ, regardless of how he has chosen to enter our hearts.

David

[al Hartman]

This post has a threefold purpose:

Dave,  I don't think Tom M. meant you had to leave. I agree with you Al did come on just as strong in his origional post to you. I'm not saying either one of you is right or wrong. Just my fair observation. I do like it when you post your difficult questions and as of late you really stir the board and peoples thought processes. I hope you'd reconsider and stay. Maybe Al came on too strong origionallly, but he seemed to want to join in the discussions with you the past few days. I guess it was too late and resentments had been felt by both.    Summer.

Summer,
     Thanks for your observations.  As is so often the case, you are right on the money.

"I agree with you Al did come on just as strong in his origional post to you...                  Summer "

Fair enough, I should have warned Al too.

The key is to discuss Ideas, not personalities.  The argument that "you" "Christians" "Muslims" think so and so and therefore it is wrong is fallacious.

If folks discuss ideas, that sort of thing is avoided.

Thomas Maddux

Tom,
     Consider me warned.  I don't believe you spared me a warning for friendsip's sake-- we both flubbed.

An apology to Al -

Al - I am truly sorry for posting material that could be interpreted as an attack on you personally, rather than an attack on a position which you often seem to instantiate.

You have done me no harm, and I hope that I have done you none.  As I have said many times here, this board is more worth posting to than many others because people here have paid a spiritual price for their current beliefs, whatever they may be.

David,

     Thank you for your gracious apology.  I confess that it should not have been necessary.  My remarks, while sincere and heartfelt, were unwarranted.  They were well-intended, but ill-spoken.  I offer no excuse.  I was wrong to have posted the things I did, and I humbly ask your forgiveness, as well as that of any other who was offended by my words.

     It was never my intention that you should not post here.  That may be hard to fathom, given the things that I said.  Nonetheless, it is true.  My harshness was directed at you, a man I scarcely know, but not at the content of your posts.  Chastened, I invite you to reconsider posting on this board.

     I may in the future attempt to explain what motivated me to such a verbal assault (at present, I am still sorting it out), but it is not germane to this post.

     I confess I was wrong, I apologize and ask forgiveness, I repent of such behavior.

God bless us all,
al

[dhalitsky]

Al -
 
Thanks.  I would have felt bad for a long time if an acquaintanceship
which began with a mutual reminiscence about Abou had to wind up
in such a bad kway.
 
I know I felt a whole lot better after I took a moment to compose my apology
to you - not so much a "turn the other cheek" kind of thing - I ain't that
noble nor good.
 
More like - we meet so few good people in our brief transit thru this life;
it's good to be able to tell one of them the way one feels.
 
Anyway, I look forward to seeing you on the AB.  
 
Whether you believe it or not, I feel for the first time in my life like
I do have SOME relationship with ChristJesus, and even though it is
not what you would want it to be, it means a whole lot to me.
 
Best regards
Dave

PS-
That relationship with Him that I just mentioned - I don't
think I would have let it develop if it weren't for the AB
 
Again, best regards
Dave

[summer007]

Dave