Talking The Talk

[ShackledNoMore]

I wanted to add another post, but this will leap so wildly off the Ohio State/Illinois topic, that I figure I'd better spin off another thread.

 

Here are the quotes to establish context:

 

Well, you know, it's not that god can't make Illinois win AND take care of the starving kids, but those babies are the worst kind of vile scum--that little incident with their ancestor and the talking snake and all.

 

The kids brought this suffering upon themselves.

 

Now Illinois vs. Ohio State, that's another matter. Tribalism is what god does best! This isn't a matter of the suffering we brought on ourselves because of our sin, it's a matter of god giving trivial perks to his chosen. Why he cares which team will win and fixes the game so his choice wins, and what satisfaction he gets out of doing this, I don't know. Why Ohio State is normally unstoppable and he inexplicably picked THIS minute, and decided to answer THIS prayer, no doubt ignoring the prayers of Ohio State fans when OSU had dominated before, I don't know. But I know he had a damn good reason, "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men."

 

By the way, I liked the fanfare.

 

Go God! Go Illinois Football!

 

 

SNM, you talk the talk like a pro. Whew! I'm beginning to see why I had such major run-ins with Christian leaders and authority figures all my life. Talking the talk is what it's all about. Walking the walk is fine so long as it fits the schedule and all. Pains in the asses like me just aren't supposed to exist. That's why you gotta break the will of a kid before age 12 months. That way you can be sure they won't question your authority when they learn to talk.

 

Anyway, the things you say in your post are the exact things that would start up my questions. Why? Because it sounds like you actually know something I don't. Here are the kinds of questions they would raise in my mind (maybe what follows can be viewed as an imaginary letter to a pastor, assuming you made that statement as a pastor):

 

1. Aren't black babies just as good as white babies? We are always taught that God loves all the people equally. Why do you say "those babies are the worst kind of vile scum"? And if you're not too mad at me for asking that... Was Eve's sin worse than Adam's? Please don't get mad at me, but Adam should have "stood up for his faith" when Eve offered him the forbidden fruit. He wasn't man enough to do this but Eve is punished harder. Why?

 

2. What is tribalism and why is God good at it? Isn't tribalism about dividing people? And aren't we supposed to like everyone equally? Why would God show special favours if we are supposed to like everybody equally? In other words, why do you call tribalism good?

 

I appreciate that you admit your limits of knowledge about the more difficult questions. Lots of people pretend to know stuff they don't. I'm glad to see an honest person. I hope you have time to answer my questions. I am sorry for being so ignorant but I am sure you can enlighten me.

 

Wow. First off, talking the talk IS what it's all about. I didn't realize it at the time, either. Make a big noise about jesus, talk it up all holy and high and mighty, be sure to infect your kids, family, and those around you, and you'll be a successful xian. You can fornicate, you can divorce, you can get drunk, just do it discreetly, don your facade of self righteousness, and if you get caught act penitent, claim weakness of the flesh, and that now you're forgiven.

 

If I was actually trying to impersonate a xian, I might have softened some of the language. Something like "sinner" or "wretch" might have seemed a bit more familiar than "vile scum." "Original sin" instead of a reminder of the folly of a talking snake. Instead of the word "tribalism" I would have said something like "god's chosen," or "god's elect." Tribalism has bad connotations, that fully apply, but don't cast as good a light on your efforts to peddle you xianity as talking about "god's people."

 

I remember being asked by a black lady why jesus wasn't black when I was still a xian. I did what a lot of good xians would have done, and compartmentalized. I said that it was arbitrary what race jesus was. I can't believe I said that: we all know that jesus was supposed to spring out of "god's chosen people." Well, a pastor may have given a "better" answer than me, at first, but of course these pastors and church leaders did NOT know something you didn't, they were just talking with cocky self assurance as though they did.

 

So if I were the hypothetical pastor, I would have started talking about original sin, to answer your first question. And because xianity is misogynistic, and I'd probably buy into that as the pastor, I'd tell you some nonsense about how Eve's sin was worse because she was led astray first and TEMPTED Adam. I'd probably stick to my guns if you tried to persue it further. Then I'd point out that men and women fell from grace and were both punished, that men had to toil in the fields while women bore the pain of childbirth, etc.

 

For question two, I'd have to talk about how the Jews were god's chosen people back in OT times, and that now, under the new covenant, all those who receive christ are now his chosen people. Even though it wouldn't be true, I'd tell you that this didn't divide people because god's "gift" was available to all. Answers were probably slightly different in your version of the cult than they might have been in mine. I'm sure the hypothetical pastor would end up becoming impatient and minimizing or dismissing you as you pressed on with your questions. The reason? They'd be GOOD questions and their answers are based on smoke and mirrors.

[R. S. Martin]

Thanks for starting this thread, SNM. I'm getting rather sleepy and respond properly but wanted you to know I appreciate that you took me seriously and took the time to explain.

[R. S. Martin]

First off, talking the talk IS what it's all about. I didn't realize it at the time, either.[/b] Make a big noise about jesus, talk it up all holy and high and mighty, be sure to infect your kids, family, and those around you, and you'll be a successful xian. You can fornicate, you can divorce, you can get drunk, just do it discreetly, don your facade of self righteousness, and if you get caught act penitent, claim weakness of the flesh, and that now you're forgiven.

 

<snip>

 

Well, a pastor may have given a "better" answer than me, at first, but of course these pastors and church leaders did NOT know something you didn't, they were just talking with cocky self assurance as though they did.

 

THAT clears up a LOT from my past.

 

So if I were the hypothetical pastor, I would have started talking about original sin, to answer your first question. And because xianity is misogynistic, and I'd probably buy into that as the pastor, I'd tell you some nonsense about how Eve's sin was worse because she was led astray first and TEMPTED Adam. I'd probably stick to my guns if you tried to persue it further. Then I'd point out that men and women fell from grace and were both punished, that men had to toil in the fields while women bore the pain of childbirth, etc.

 

Okay hold it right there.

 

1. Eve was worse that Adam because she tempted him. But what about his responsibility for his own behaviour?

2. Eve was punished with painful childbirth. Adam was punished with having to toil in the fields. Sounds fair. But this isn't even half the story.

 

It's the whole story so far as Adam is concerned but as for Eve? She, vile creature that she is, is damned to a life of servitude to her husband with includes, above and beyond bearing his children in great pain every single time he impregnates her, with labor in the field and servitude to him AS HE SEES FIT.

 

Because the preacher and most of his male followers ARE Adam, (and few have truly reincarnated into the second Adam which is Christ and even Christ sat in the livingroom giving lectures to the weaker gender while the cook was slaving away in the kitchen) he doesn't see the gross overpayment of sin Eve and all her daughters are forced to pay. IF men are the great business people they claim to be they can see the terrible imbalance. If they are the selfish creatures they love to claim to be (so they can perpetuate the cruel religious enslavement of women and children in the name of utter depravity) then they are voluntarily blind to the imbalance.

 

All of this adds up to one thing: The women's movements in patriarchal religions in recent centuries were looooong over-due.

 

I'm sure the hypothetical pastor would end up becoming impatient and minimizing or dismissing you as you pressed on with your questions. The reason? They'd be GOOD questions and their answers are based on smoke and mirrors.

 

I guess this is why the one pastor I did pressure pretty hard (we actually had an emergency meeting with a third party present to deal with the problem) did nothing better to answer my question about how salvation works than promise a sermon four months down the road. And when the sermon finally came it did not even address my question.

 

SNM, would you explain exactly what the "smoke and mirrors" phrase means or is based on? I keep coming across it on these forums and I think it may have something to do with magicians and circuses but I don't know. Circuses and magicians would have been taboo in my cult.

[ShackledNoMore]

I'm not sure this matter of servitude is even advertised by xians as any form of punishment. It seems like a consequence of the warped mindset that women are somehow inferior to men. Even before the fall Eve was created basically as a toy for Adam. She would have been subservient even before she ate the fruit! It's a pretty deeply ingrained prejudice!

 

Here's another interesting thought: in modern times, the pain of childbirth has been mitigated, for many women at least, thanks to spinals, drugs, anesthesia during c-sections, etc. At the same time, many more women find themselves toiling in the workplace. Given the high percentage of people alive now compared to all the rest of history (especially if you're a new earth creationist and give the rest of history only 6000 years, during most of which the world was sparsely populated) there are a lot of women to which the original rules don't seem to apply. Did gawd change his mind about the nature of Eve's punishment?

 

I'm pretty sure that the term "smoke and mirrors" did originate from magician tricks, and later generalized to mean an insubstantial or deceptive explanation.

 

Circuses were OK in my cult, but magicians were one of those inconsistent things with no rhyme or reason. Sometimes you'd hear they were of the devil, yet once we had a xian magician at our youth group to spread the word through his magic act. I think they must have thought there were True Magicians™ and sleight of hand artists. But I don't know. I never understood why Samantha Stevens is fine and Harry Potter is pure evil, either.

[R. S. Martin]

I'm not sure this matter of servitude is even advertised by xians as any form of punishment. It seems like a consequence of the warped mindset that women are somehow inferior to men. Even before the fall Eve was created basically as a toy for Adam. She would have been subservient even before she ate the fruit! It's a pretty deeply ingrained prejudice!

 

I SEE!!! I never realized this. I thought it was part of her punishment because of the fall. My OT prof was a woman about my age and we identified on various levels. However, she was a feminist and I was not. I guess I either had too many more serious problems or did not understand the role gender issues played in my problems. Very many of my problems seemed to come directly from my mother and sisters, and in my family mom seemed to rule the roost.

 

I never got the feeling that women were inferior to men. I got the feeling that men needed some protection from the pecking hens. My mother wasn't the only pecking hen I knew. I hated it when women ridiculed or put down their husbands in front of visitors. Some of my female relatives and neighbours seemed to take special pride in doing this and their men would meekly sit by as they did it. The men seemed to think that somehow or other they deserved the treatment. This seriously bothered me but I was helpless to protect them. I tried once in a while to slip in a word in their defence but all to no avail. It only added fuel to the fire.

 

One incident in particular stands out in my mind. My great-uncle by marriage was seriously crippled by rhumatoid arthritus. He and his wife (my grandmother's sister) were planning a trip with a group of others that would involve walking, except that he could not expect to participate fully because of his illness. I offered to loan him my binoculars so he could at least view the scenery from the vehicle while his wife traipsed off with the other sight-seers. My great-aunt, objected loudly about how he was quite content to just sit and watch from the van. I thought to myself, "How do you know how he feels? I want to hear it from him personally." I couldn't say this. I think I ended up loaning him my binoculars and that he appreciated it.

 

Then I also saw the opposite extreme. Once I heard my mother's single sister confide in my mother that men generally know better about things than women do. My aunt was talking about her own personal affairs and an impending decision. My mother sort of just grunted a reply. I knew my mother well enough to know she did not agree that Dad knew better about things than she personally did. She would sometimes give in just because the Bible said the man was the head of the home. Or at least, I assume that was the reason. But she knew how to play her cards and if she really wanted something she had enough health issues to get what she wanted when she wanted it.

 

Back to my OT prof. Possibly she grew up in a less chaotic community where the gender roles were more clearly delineated and the "women submit to men" rules were part of the culture, no questions asked. That would have made for a more clear-cut feminist with a more clear-headed goal, I would think. I was just one confused woman. And by the time I ended up in her class I had taken control of my life and had already stood up to so much male authority that, so far as I was concerned, women's issues were just so much noise. What you say here makes me reconsider.

 

Here's another interesting thought: in modern times, the pain of childbirth has been mitigated, for many women at least, thanks to spinals, drugs, anesthesia during c-sections, etc. At the same time, many more women find themselves toiling in the workplace. Given the high percentage of people alive now compared to all the rest of history (especially if you're a new earth creationist and give the rest of history only 6000 years, during most of which the world was sparsely populated) there are a lot of women to which the original rules don't seem to apply. Did gawd change his mind about the nature of Eve's punishment?

 

I'm beginning to understand some of the mutterings of the married men among my people when I was younger. Mutterings about women not knowing their place and not being content with their God-ordained lot. It seems God did not change his mind so much as that women rebelled and no longer obeyed. It was Satan taking over the world. Look at all those worldly churches whose women are working! It can mean only one thing: The world is going to the DOGS!

 

Okay, that's my words but the meaning was clear.

 

They did allow us single women to take jobs outside the home. I guess it took financial strain off their shoulders. But the married women were not allowed to work outside the home unless they had very liberal husbands and practically did it under cover of darkness. Good friends and neighbours sometimes turned a blind eye to the odd childless woman who was driven to desperation by being housebound and nerves dictated that she get out of the house a few times a week.

[R. S. Martin]

Even before the fall Eve was created basically as a toy for Adam.

 

This makes it all the more ludicrous that Adam is not made to take responsibility for yielding to temptation and eating the forbidden fruit. Whoever heard of a man blaming his toy for seducing him to sin?

 

Oh yes, right, Christians are not responsible for their actions. Only problem is, Adam was not a Christian.

 

The story is warped and we're not going to fix Christianity with these posts.

[ShackledNoMore]

I'm beginning to understand some of the mutterings of the married men among my people when I was younger. Mutterings about women not knowing their place and not being content with their God-ordained lot. It seems God did not change his mind so much as that women rebelled and no longer obeyed. It was Satan taking over the world. Look at all those worldly churches whose women are working! It can mean only one thing: The world is going to the DOGS!

 

Okay, that's my words but the meaning was clear.

 

They did allow us single women to take jobs outside the home. I guess it took financial strain off their shoulders. But the married women were not allowed to work outside the home unless they had very liberal husbands and practically did it under cover of darkness. Good friends and neighbours sometimes turned a blind eye to the odd childless woman who was driven to desperation by being housebound and nerves dictated that she get out of the house a few times a week.

The outside world must have seemed almost surreal to you from the setting you grew up in.

 

I met a guy from an obscure, rigid form of the cult once. They did drive cars and stuff, but the women dress "modestly" and they all wore long hair. He explained to me that it was biblical. In fact, I had long before noticed that Paul liked long hair, and that women in my church blithely ignored his inspired direction on the matter. It helped me along on my questioning of things, why did MY cult own the Ultimate Truth™ when we ignored Paul's hair fetish and his cult didn't? Of course I later realized that his cult was guilty of picking and choosing, too. The women were very clearly subordinate to men in his sect. I'm ashamed that I reasoned that this was OK because it was biblical.

[R. S. Martin]

The outside world must have seemed almost surreal to you from the setting you grew up in.

 

You know what. I've been beating myself up over the fact that I didn't break away twenty years earlier, back when I came of age at 20 or 21. But this is why I couldn't. At 20 I had practically no exposure to the outside world. By 40 I had quite a bit. My sister and I were living alone and independent. The community basically ignored us so we could live as we pleased. I think they ignored us for a reason. They knew I was unhappy. They knew if they got too close that they would step into a hornet's nest and nobody wanted that. Leave sleeping dogs lie. And my sister was an invisible child, a total recluse, and not at all interesting. I had the redeeming ability of telling interesting stories to entertain people. My sister did not. She was great with children and made many a long trip to visit our cousins who had children. But nobody visited us back so she got discouraged making long trips to visit people. So it was just the two of us. These days she is living alone in a basement apartment in the town in the middle of the horse and buggy community. I with my brilliant intellect am out of the way so she gets to try her own ideas. This has prompted her to bloom and connect with other Old Order Mennonite single ladies who also live in her town. She babysits for a Roman Catholic family with two little girls, whom she has cared for since they were babies. She has traveled to the US with them as nanny. She adopted my philosophy of child-rearing (which I developed from self-help books and my work at the public school and passed on to her as we struggled with our relationship). I am so proud of her in this regard.

 

However, back to when she and I were living alone and independent. For the first five years I worked as noon hour supervisor at the local school. After that I worked for roughly five years as babysitter for a modern Mennonite family in a town about a forty-five minute drive by horse and buggy from where we rented our farmhouse. During that time I loaned a lot of books from the public library and learned Myers-Briggs. I wrote to addresses all over the US and Canada and finally contacted a local Myers-Briggs interest group. They met monthly from Sept. to June.

 

Over the course of several years, this group became my alternate community. At one point, about four of my siblings attended these meetings. I "evangelized" my entire family. I believed Myers-Briggs explained our family's problems, and esp. how and why I did not fit in. It was on the basis of my Myers-Briggs type that I stopped attending family gatherings. I hated the family gatherings and all I needed was a valid excuse not to attend. I emphasized and re-emphasized that this was my one and only reason, and they finally bought it.

 

Via the Myers-Briggs group I was introduced to Christmas parties where alcohol was served. They also served fruit juice. For our meetings we met in a Lutheran church, which introduced me to a regular church environment, albeit on a week day. The Christmas parties were held in a private home, which introduced me to an upper class city home. I also cleaned in city homes as cleaning lady but being at a party with music playing is different from cleaning an empty house.

 

All my life I had been exposed to "outsider" society when we went to see the doctor or dentist. Because I was born with low vision and other eye problems, I was taken to doctors in the Big City (where I now live) from early childhood, and had more exposure to outside society than some of my siblings. Also, our church school system was not yet in place when I started school in 1963, so I attended public school for five years. My mother's older sister and her husband joined the modern Mennonites when I was very young. He died of diabetes when I was 13. I, along with my family and Old Order aunts, uncles, and cousins, attended his funeral at the modern Mennonite church, which is a "regular" church. However, in all these cases where I was exposed to outsider society, the outsiders were always on the fringes, in the minority, "the other." It was easy to maintain the illusion that we were "the people," that were it not for us the world would stop rotating and the apocalypse would occur before midnight.

 

At the Myers-Briggs meetings, and especially at the Christmas parties, I was finally able to experience a little bit of outsider culture. It's funny, but learning to eat with another culture is extremely tricky. One need only read about the explorers and anthropologists to get a sense of that. Finding out that outsiders handled food with their fingers and put it to their lips, and even licked their fingers with their tongue--all of this just like we farmer-folk did--was quite an enlightenment. The ladies were somewhat more dainty about it; they had their lipstick to worry about. But still....

 

The Myers-Briggs group sometimes had speaks come in. One of these was a professor from the local university, where I am now studying. He happened to be a counselor and I knew that I needed counseling. I just didn't have the courage to look up a stranger in a strange culture. After hearing him speak I had the courage to call him and that started that. He wasn't what I needed but I didn't know enough to say no so he got a lot of my money. Finally I was so mad one day when I left that I looked up another counselor at an interfaith agency closer to my home. The counselor I was assigned to happened to teach part time at the other university. It was through him that I got university calendars. I didn't know a thing about universities or applying for university education but I studied the calendars and followed instructions and got accepted.

 

I failed to mention one specific woman from the Myers-Briggs group. She took me under her wing from the beginning. She sometimes went to Toronto and took me along for the trip a few times. Once she went for a two or three-day course so we stayed at a hotel overnight. Fast-forward about twelve years. I am now living across the street from her. I graduated from the first university and am hoping to graduate from the second one. So you see, I was gradually initiated into the mainstream culture. Chances are that I will never change my dress. I don't have many pictures of myself but there are a few in this album.

[ShackledNoMore]

I didn't know that they had Myers-Briggs groups that meet socially. I could see where that would work--I think I identify well with other INTPs, and it seems like other types would identify well within their group as well.

 

This may seem odd to you, since your dress is merely a function of your background, but to me it seems like something that almost gives you a unique flair. Imagining the reactions you get, and having seen the way you think and express yourself, I have this picture that people you know and interact with don't even notice that you're not dressed in typical Canadian garb, while the OOM clothing probably gets you quite a few curious glances from strangers.

[R. S. Martin]

I didn't know that they had Myers-Briggs groups that meet socially. I could see where that would work--I think I identify well with other INTPs, and it seems like other types would identify well within their group as well.

 

It was just a batch of local people. I think maybe it started with a workshop where they learned it--probably in connection with their careers or professional lives. Then they decided to meet regularly and kept it up for several years. I just happened to drop into the picture during that time. And it changed my life. We had quite a variety of types--several ENFPs, an INTP, a few other NTs, an ESFP. I thought at the time that I was INTP. I was different from the other INTPs but I figured that was due to my life experience. After ten years of being INTP, I finally got into a safe enough relationship where I dared be myself to the extent that I found out that I was an INFP. That accounted for all the differences between myself and the INTPs.

 

Your wording "I identify well with other INTPs" prompts me to question whether perhaps you're an F, too, rather than a T. Not that it matters...

 

Imagining the reactions you get, and having seen the way you think and express yourself, I have this picture that people you know and interact with don't even notice that you're not dressed in typical Canadian garb,

 

I think you're right. One day I happened to be in a physiotherapy place when an OOM man and his teenaged son were also there. I felt comfortable with the other "regular" people and I felt like it was "my" place so for some reason I did not tense up. Thus, I was able to observe the two men. Were they ever up tight! And I also noticed how the people of the centre treated them differently from the rest of us. That's when I knew that I had successfully crossed The Line. I was now one of the City People (regardless of my dress) and I was glad. I'm glad you can see it too.

 

while the OOM clothing probably gets you quite a few curious glances from strangers.

 

Perhaps. However, the OOM community is just north of town and the people regularly do business here in town. There are a number of horse barns or tie-up places where they can park so it's not like I come with a totally strange garb. What is strange about me is the areas where I hang out--in institutions of higher education. I very seldom see the OOM. And that's best for me. I get anxiety attacks when I see them. (I wrote this part first before the above.)

 

Also, since I dropped the head-covering I no longer come across as definitely OOM. I dropped it for that very purpose because I felt I was misrepresenting them by being places and doing things they would never do.

 

The other thing is that unique religious dress is a common sight in this town. Hindu and Muslim women are common. Yesterday I saw a woman in an outfit and I don't know where to place her. Probably some kind of Muslim but not the regular kind. Most of them wear a shawl or head-covering of some sort that hides their neck, but this woman's head-covering covered her shoulders all the way down to her elbows. Most of them have dark skin but this lady was black.

 

When I first came to school I felt extremely self-conscious with my religious dress. I had no desire to change but everything was new for me. However, I saw the Muslim women and at the time they wore dresses. These days many of the girls wear long pants. I identified with the Muslim ladies in dresses and consoled myself that I wasn't the only oddly dressed woman on campus.

 

So if strangers want to take "curious glances," there's a fair number of us here of whom they can do so. As for myself, my vision is so low that I don't notice the glances if there are any.

 

The one person whom I have noticed glancing sharply at me was a woman dressed a lot like myself. I think she is new in town and feeling like a scared kitten. Probably trying to decide whether I am friend or foe. Just knowing she's scared tells me not to be afraid of her. At first I was afraid of her--afraid of the judgment and religious hatred she had brought into my safe haven. But if she's scared, maybe I can befriend her and escape the judgment and hatred. She must have moved in just this past month or so.

[ShackledNoMore]

Do you test as an INTP? I admit, there is something vaguely non-INTP-ish about you, but it's hard to put my finger on exactly what it is. If I swap out one of the other measures it doesn't seem to make the Myers-Briggs personality type fit any better either. I'm wondering if you possess elements of both the T and F type.

 

As for me, I'd have to say I truly am a T. Not only do I test strongly as a T, but I believe the description fits me well, too. It's not that I don't have feelings, warmth, empathy, etc.--I may even tend to be glurgy with the right triggers, but nevertheless, I just tend to operate out of my head rather than my heart.

 

---

 

I have seen a great deal of variation in the way muslim women dress in my area, from the full-tilt burqa showing only their eyes to only slightly modest pants suits. islam also has a pretty good following among Blacks, so I hear. My guess is that the woman you say may have been a regular muslim (well, whatever a "regular" muslim may be).

 

The woman who dresses like you, have you tried to gingerly, carefully feel her out? It's possible she's a kindred spirit, or not. It seems like it would certainly be interesting, and maybe even potentially fulfilling to find out.

 

I'm also curious as to why you dress as you do when you are now free to dress either as you do or as one of the City people. I know there are certain things I like about me because, well, it's me--I identify with it, it fits. My beard (or goatee, depending on the time of year), for example. I've long grown past any need such a symbol to assert my autonomy, as well as caring one way or the other whether people take positively or negatively to it (generally speaking, people/women in these parts prefer a clean shave, although my wife is an exception). In fact, now that the less infrequent gray strand is asserting itself a lot more in my beard than on the top of my head, I have reason why I might want to shave! But it also somehow shows who I am and where I've been, and has in a sense become part of me. Does that make sense, and does something similar apply, or is it different for you?

[R. S. Martin]

Do you test as an INTP? I admit, there is something vaguely non-INTP-ish about you, but it's hard to put my finger on exactly what it is. If I swap out one of the other measures it doesn't seem to make the Myers-Briggs personality type fit any better either. I'm wondering if you possess elements of both the T and F type.

 

As for me, I'd have to say I truly am a T. Not only do I test strongly as a T, but I believe the description fits me well, too. It's not that I don't have feelings, warmth, empathy, etc.--I may even tend to be glurgy with the right triggers, but nevertheless, I just tend to operate out of my head rather than my heart.

 

I guess you read the post too fast. I looked at it again and I see I buried the F pretty deep in the paragraph among all the other stuff but it's there. INFP seems to be my real type. Yes, I think I'm pretty strong on both T and F. On the INFP forum where I spent several months I found myself wanting to analyze stuff far more intellectually than most people did. The part where I find myself differing significantly from female INTPs is when it comes to sharing human interest and experience; they tend to be rather "dry" when I would like more "involved" feelings. They can learn to say all the right things but it's not the same. On the other hand, I can learn that they don't have the ability to express it no matter how sincere they feel so it's okay. I just have to take a deep breath and remind myself, then it's okay.

 

I have seen a great deal of variation in the way muslim women dress in my area, from the full-tilt burqa showing only their eyes to only slightly modest pants suits. islam also has a pretty good following among Blacks, so I hear. My guess is that the woman you say may have been a regular muslim (well, whatever a "regular" muslim may be).

 

Okay, maybe we don't have a large variety of Muslims here, at least not in my part of town. Once, a few years ago in the grocery store, I saw a person (I assumed it was a woman) who had the face all covered in black except for the eyes. Is that what a you call the "full-tilt burqa"? It was kinda scary. A man accompanied her and she seemed unsure or unable to walk straight on her own. Posssibly that had a negative effect on me, too--a very unusual (inhumane?) appearance in a person who couldn't walk alone would have combined to evoke an uncomfortable feeling in me. In addition, she was a very large person, if I remember correctly.

 

 

The woman who dresses like you, have you tried to gingerly, carefully feel her out? It's possible she's a kindred spirit, or not. It seems like it would certainly be interesting, and maybe even potentially fulfilling to find out.

 

Haven't had a chance yet. She's Amish, according to the pattern of her head-covering or prayer veil or whatever you call the cap. Not horse and buggy Amish, but some kind of car Amish. I wonder if she has a husband or if she's alone. The men can blend in better with their dress than the women so I might have seen him and not known it. Also, the men are more liable to have driver's license, or to be gone with the vehicle....well, you know what that's like more than I do. I never lived with a motor vehicle.

 

I'm also curious as to why you dress as you do when you are now free to dress either as you do or as one of the City people. I know there are certain things I like about me because, well, it's me--I identify with it, it fits. My beard (or goatee, depending on the time of year), for example. I've long grown past any need such a symbol to assert my autonomy, as well as caring one way or the other whether people take positively or negatively to it (generally speaking, people/women in these parts prefer a clean shave, although my wife is an exception). In fact, now that the less infrequent gray strand is asserting itself a lot more in my beard than on the top of my head, I have reason why I might want to shave! But it also somehow shows who I am and where I've been, and has in a sense become part of me. Does that make sense, and does something similar apply, or is it different for you?

 

No I am turning quite gray-headed myself (that pic is two years old), and it's a totally different matter. I tried to explain somewhere I think but I'll try a different approach. I think most people, no matter what culture they're from, have some kind of dress they wouldn't be caught dead wearing. So what if you found yourself a refugee against your will and wishes in a culture that dressed in that garb that you cannot wear? Would you wear it so long as you had something of your own culture left to wear?

 

That's basically where I find myself. So yes, I may be free to wear it but I think I am also free not to wear it at this point of my life.

[ShackledNoMore]

I had a little one or two hour "training" session several years back which was essentially a Myers-Briggs class. The instructor said that people mostly, but not always fall fairly obviously into one end or the other of each of the four categories. She also said that in cases that are split it is often not the harmonious synthesis of strengths you would think, but more a conflict between the two opposing qualities. That seemed a little counter intuitive to me, but I don't have much else to go by on that. My only close split is P/J, and that's also the least influential of the four scales for me, but it seems to work for me.

 

Okay, maybe we don't have a large variety of Muslims here, at least not in my part of town. Once, a few years ago in the grocery store, I saw a person (I assumed it was a woman) who had the face all covered in black except for the eyes. Is that what a you call the "full-tilt burqa"? It was kinda scary. A man accompanied her and she seemed unsure or unable to walk straight on her own. Posssibly that had a negative effect on me, too--a very unusual (inhumane?) appearance in a person who couldn't walk alone would have combined to evoke an uncomfortable feeling in me. In addition, she was a very large person, if I remember correctly.

It sounds like you are describing what I called a "full-tilt bruqa" from the description of the lady in the grocery store. If it was baggy, covered the rest of her body, and didn't really show the form of a female at all, then I'd say that's what it was.

 

I hate to sound like I'm judging another culture, but obviously if I have a problem with the degree that we relegate women to second class citizenry in our own western xian culture, I find it offensive when it is deemed inappropriate for women to even be seen in public. It also seems mighty hypocritical. I've often seen women dressed like the one at your supermarket with husbands wearing short sleeve shirts and maybe even short pants. Is it to say that men can't control themselves if they see even an ankle or patch of face? That's totally preposterous. Yes, I would also call it inhumane, as you suggest.

 

So what if you found yourself a refugee against your will and wishes in a culture that dressed in that garb that you cannot wear? Would you wear it so long as you had something of your own culture left to wear?

Maybe this is because I've been through a deconversion which is related to my having probed many more sacred cows than most people, but I don't think I'd have much of a problem adapting to the dress of another culture. Well, within certain limits. If everyone wore clothes that were terribly impractical it would be a difficult adjustment. Not a philosophical one, it's just that I'd resent the hassle. Or if they dressed terribly ornately, but then I'm happy to dress pretty plainly relative to my own culture. On the other hand, if men carried purses, or wore dresses (kilts?) or even if everyone went around buck naked for that matter, I don't think I'd have any problem. It's just that looking at a culture and the styles they wear, well, I think of it kind of like cursing. I may curse sparingly in my own speaking, but I can't even imagine getting overly worked up about anyone else's language--they're just words. Likewise, the clothes people might wear in other cultures--they're just clothes.

 

This has been an interesting conversation/thread so far. I don't know for sure that I remember any quite like it. It's been a two-way conversation between you and me, but right out here on the forum! And it has been more of a conversation than a thread, having taken a direction of its own as conversations do, rather than holding to a topic. It reminds me a little of the movie "My Dinner With Andre." The entire movie consists of two guys having dinner with each other and talking. That's it! It's deep enough to be interesting, but not intense enough to scare the viewers off. And the movie audience members are the spectators! I almost expect someone to pop in briefly to offer us more coffee! I don't know how much longer this conversation will go on before it dies out on it's own--maybe it's very close, maybe it has quite a bit more life, but it crossed my mind to send a PM offering to continue it over e-mail, if you preferred. But then the whole conversation has been public, so why should I send a PM to suggest that? I think I like this conversation right here in this forum if you do, and the other readers do, and I see that it's gotten some views. I think that it's hit on some excellent ideas that are right at home in the ex-c forums.

[R. S. Martin]

I had a little one or two hour "training" session several years back which was essentially a Myers-Briggs class. The instructor said that people mostly, but not always fall fairly obviously into one end or the other of each of the four categories. She also said that in cases that are split it is often not the harmonious synthesis of strengths you would think, but more a conflict between the two opposing qualities. That seemed a little counter intuitive to me, but I don't have much else to go by on that. My only close split is P/J, and that's also the least influential of the four scales for me, but it seems to work for me.

 

Given that hours-long presentations can be given on each of the sixteen MB types individually, a single training session cannot really get into the deeper theoretical nuances. It sounds like what she gave you was just the ABCs, or basic lay-out, of Myers-Briggs. Just to give you an example of the implications, IPs are actually dominant Js while IJs are actually dominant Ps. However, the J/P dichotomy refers to the function that is extraverted. Since introverts extravert their secondary function, their dominant function is introverted.

 

Are your eyes glazing over? Mine would be but I will complete this thought in case anyone gets anything out of it. This means that for IPs (INTPS and INFPs) the dominant function is either introverted thinking or feeling. The P refers to iNuition, which is the secondary function for these types and is extraverted. Thinking (T) or Feeling (F) are Judging (J) or decision-making functions. Their extraverted counterparts are ENTJ and ENFJ. (The J refers to T and F, which are extraverted in these types.) Introverted F (IF) and introverted T (IT) are very different from extraverted T (ET) and extraverted F (EF). They manifest very differently in observable behaviour and attitude.

 

What all these types (in these two paragraphs) have in common is dominant F and dominant T. (There are four other dominant F and four other dominant T types--the sensing types, but we won't look at them now.) T and F are the decision-making functions. The introverts who prefer dominant decision-making functions (INFP and INTP [also ISFP and ISTP but we're not talking about them]) will probably not put their voices out there unless asked, and they might not be all that eager making decisions that involve other people. Their desks and offices might be a mess of slip-shod piles and cluttered chairs. BUT DON'T YOU MESS WITH THE PILES.

 

(I don't want anybody even tidying up my piles because I know what is in each pile--it just looks like a mess; it really isn't. Many and many a person has expressed amazement at how organized I am. When asked for a piece of information I dig into my bags and books and pull it out. That's my specific type of INFP for you--I like the comfy feel of clutter, but I want it to be perfectly organized underneath as in alphabetical/numerical/categorical or whatever other order you can organize stuff on the level that really counts. Where clothing is concerned, words like seasonal and indoor/outdoor come to mind. Hmmm. Maybe that's my tertiary function STJ kicking in. I think I had to operate by it most of my first twenty-odd years of life because it was more acceptable than INFP.)

 

Extraverts are more likely to be great at organizing people and/or events as well as their environments. I don't fully understand how the minds of ENFJs and ENTJs work. I tend to be intimidated by them and the barking orders and absolute rules. The Fs can't stand my nonexistent understanding of social mores and the Ts can't stand my absolute ignorance of the rules.

 

To put the IPs into perspective, I think you will find that most of us seem not to know or care all that much about how things are done--up to a point. We will absorb everything that is going on around us even if we appear to be totally detached. We will mull this over inside of us and analyze it, and weigh the pros and cons. As more information comes in we add it to the mix. With sufficient time to ponder the pros and cons relative to what we know and value we will have an opinion on the matter. When asked for it, we may or may not share it. But no one is going to push us over on it. That is where our "J-like" behaviour comes in. My "messy" piles, for example, are non-negotiable.

 

If I have to put them behind doors or inside drawers I will find ways to maintain the organization with envelops and labels, or boxes and labels, etc. Markers and tape were made for a purpose, you know.

 

IJs (INTJs and INFJs) are supposed to be really strong on order in the outside world. I once had a classmate who identified as INFJ. She was applying for a Masters program in social work. She had an appointment to meet with somebody regarding the application but she had forgotten a certain item she was supposed to bring to the meeting and therefore had to cancel the meeting. I suggested she might be able to meet without it. She said, "That would be less organized than I like to appear." I liked her and therefore respected her discomfort. All the same I could not then, nor can I now, identify with this need to "appear organized."

 

"Improvize" is my watch-word." I like to know that I can improvize in life and death situations with less than a moment's notice. If I can do that, then I know I'm capable of looking out for myself. On the other hand, perhaps organized people would not find themselves into life and death situations so often as I do. Perhaps they never cross streets except at intersections with lights, and then only when the light is green. Thus, to "appear organized" might mean for her to seem competent and worthy of a degree in social work.

 

I know she's the kind of lady who would like everybody to be comfortabley seated with a cup of tea so we can talk. I'm the kind of person who, if I see someone I want to talk to and have something I want to say, I will forget all outward appearance and just focus on saying what I'm trying to say.

 

That gives you a quick once-over of the differences between IF and EF, with strands of thought applicable to other types and functions.

 

Okay, maybe we don't have a large variety of Muslims here, at least not in my part of town. Once, a few years ago in the grocery store, I saw a person (I assumed it was a woman) who had the face all covered in black except for the eyes. Is that what a you call the "full-tilt burqa"? It was kinda scary. A man accompanied her and she seemed unsure or unable to walk straight on her own. Posssibly that had a negative effect on me, too--a very unusual (inhumane?) appearance in a person who couldn't walk alone would have combined to evoke an uncomfortable feeling in me. In addition, she was a very large person, if I remember correctly.

It sounds like you are describing what I called a "full-tilt bruqa" from the description of the lady in the grocery store. If it was baggy, covered the rest of her body, and didn't really show the form of a female at all, then I'd say that's what it was.

 

The moment passed so quickly and I was over-whelmed by so many impressions that I don't remember about the rest of her clothing, except that she was fully covered, or even her partner except that he was male.

 

So what if you found yourself a refugee against your will and wishes in a culture that dressed in that garb that you cannot wear? Would you wear it so long as you had something of your own culture left to wear?

Maybe this is because I've been through a deconversion which is related to my having probed many more sacred cows than most people,

 

I don't think I know about your story at all. Where is it?

 

but I don't think I'd have much of a problem adapting to the dress of another culture. Well, within certain limits. If everyone wore clothes that were terribly impractical it would be a difficult adjustment. Not a philosophical one,

 

I'm not talking about philosophical. I am talking about psychological. I don't care what other women wear. Nor do I have a problem with minor adjustments. I've made major changes (not all of which show in that pic). Generally, outsiders are not enough aware of the meaning of the details to be aware of the major changes I've made. There is no plain Mennonite church that would accept me the way I appear in the picture I linked. I would have to make changes to be accepted in any plain Mennonite church in this area. First and foremost, I'd have to put on a head-covering. Second, I'd have to make minor changes in my dress and apron. Before I did any of those things I'd have to decide on a church. Otherwise I'd make the wrong changes. No Amish anywhere in the world (that I know of) would have me--not with my flowery clothing. It has to be plain for them as in broadcloth.

 

I don't know about all the others, but the culture system I come from, we're talking about people who measure pride by whether something is sewn by hand or by machine, whether it is stiched on the inside or outside. For me to make the changes necessary to fit in with the Amish or Mexican Mennonites (another culture) would not be such a big deal if that was supposed to be the end of the trip. But I knew that in order to get the education I wanted I'd have to keep going till I was "all the way in the world." In fact, the changes I've made by now are as big as I would have had to make. I just didn't want to make these changes up front and I didn't want anybody telling me what changes to make or when.

 

it's just that I'd resent the hassle. Or if they dressed terribly ornately, but then I'm happy to dress pretty plainly relative to my own culture. On the other hand, if men carried purses, or wore dresses (kilts?) or even if everyone went around buck naked for that matter, I don't think I'd have any problem. It's just that looking at a culture and the styles they wear, well, I think of it kind of like cursing. I may curse sparingly in my own speaking, but I can't even imagine getting overly worked up about anyone else's language--they're just words. Likewise, the clothes people might wear in other cultures--they're just clothes.

 

Yes, I get the impression you think I have a problem with what other people wear. I don't. Whether I wear it or whether others wear it are two different things. Ever heard the line: Clothes make the man? In other words, clothing have an awful lot to do with identity. And in a way I guess that touches on what you mentioned in an earlier post about wanting to keep your beard (or was it goatee; sorry I don't know what all the different facial hair on men are called) with the gray hairs because it shows where you've been. It's part of who you are.

 

I notice that you do not mention how you would feel about dressing like an Amishman in the event that you lived in an Amish community. I think that might be relevant here. If you lived in a large community where they drive black cars, you could adopt the black car and their outward appearance and become part of their community life just as much as I have become part of mainstream society, without making any lifestyle or religious changes. Would you do it? Why or why not?

 

This has been an interesting conversation/thread so far. I don't know for sure that I remember any quite like it.

 

I've seen other threads that were mostly, or perhaps all, just an exchange between two people. Since conversations take on the characteristics of the people conducting them, and since you and I have never before had a one-on-one, it logically follows that there has never been a conversation on exC exactly like this one.

[R. S. Martin]

I'm beginning to realize you were trying to wrap things up with Post 13. Sorry for not getting it. I didn't really know how to respond to it yet I felt guilty not to. Maybe some day I will learn how to end things graciously. I do appreciate your taking the time to discuss my questions. Thank you.

[ShackledNoMore]

I'm beginning to realize you were trying to wrap things up with Post 13. Sorry for not getting it. I didn't really know how to respond to it yet I felt guilty not to. Maybe some day I will learn how to end things graciously. I do appreciate your taking the time to discuss my questions. Thank you.

No, I wasn't wrapping things up. I just hadn't gotten to a response yet. I was busy enough the past day or two for just one or two shorter posts in other threads. I was planning on adding another post tonight pretty soon.

[R. S. Martin]

Okay I look forward to it. I do enjoy the conversation.

[ShackledNoMore]

Just to give you an example of the implications, IPs are actually dominant Js while IJs are actually dominant Ps. However, the J/P dichotomy refers to the function that is extraverted. Since introverts extravert their secondary function, their dominant function is introverted.

 

Are your eyes glazing over?

Yes they are!

 

I can identify with the piles. I am a pretty big slob. I never really appreciated until I no longer lived alone that there is an underlying organization to my piles and mess. My wife good-naturedly keeps things from being too messy. I don't know how she puts up with me. I feel a little embarrassed and ashamed that she's responsible for our superficial organization. But there was another side to our differences in organization it took a long time to figure out. At first, I couldn't understand why I couldn't find things any better in a neat house than in a sloppy one. Gradually, I realized that our methods were polar opposite. Our drawers are booby trapped! My drawers were NEVER booby trapped when I was single! I couldn't understand why she'd get antsy when I'd clean. It's because I'd gut the monstrous clutter that nobody could see, and create monstrous piles in the process which would eventually get whittled away and cleaned up. Any visitors might think the house is a lot neater if they visit us than if they had visited me when I was single, but I feel like the closets and cabinets and draws are filled up like a volcano and ready to burst! It drives me crazy!

 

I also think I'd agree with you about EN*Js. I've grown less patient over the years about those who have a need to control others. I'm particularly libertarian when it comes to interpersonal dealings: you don't hurt me, I don't hurt you, and otherwise the other person is free to proceed as they wish--no barking of orders. I'm not easy to shock or offend with behavior I might disapprove of or consider out of the norm or "against the rules." Giving or receiving advice, fine, but I can't fathom why I would possibly want to impose my will or someone else, or how I could not detest another's desire to impose his or her will on me.

I don't think I know about your story at all. Where is it?

My ex-c testimony is here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=12341

 

It's a little long. I don't delve into sacred cows a lot there in general (although it DEFINITELY involves challenging the sacred cows of my religion), but once you start taking on sacred cows, I think it sort of becomes part of what you do.

Yes, I get the impression you think I have a problem with what other people wear. I don't. Whether I wear it or whether others wear it are two different things. Ever heard the line: Clothes make the man? In other words, clothing have an awful lot to do with identity. And in a way I guess that touches on what you mentioned in an earlier post about wanting to keep your beard (or was it goatee; sorry I don't know what all the different facial hair on men are called) with the gray hairs because it shows where you've been. It's part of who you are.

A goatee is facial hair on the chin, often or usually, I think, with a moustache. If I mention a beard vs. a goatee, the beard implies a "full beard" with facial hair covering the majority of the parts of the face where it naturally grows.

 

Actually, I figure if you and I swapped backgrounds, there would be a chance that I would not completely change the way I dress, just like you. I'm not sure. Maybe there would be a 50/50 chance? I don't know how the connection with identity would come into play, but I think it is there to a greater or lesser degree for most or all of us.

I notice that you do not mention how you would feel about dressing like an Amishman in the event that you lived in an Amish community. I think that might be relevant here. If you lived in a large community where they drive black cars, you could adopt the black car and their outward appearance and become part of their community life just as much as I have become part of mainstream society, without making any lifestyle or religious changes. Would you do it? Why or why not?

That depends. If I lived in an entire country of Amish, I'd probably wear the standard clothing. I'd mind more if I lived in a place like Florida or Arizona than if I lived in a place like Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Ontario, simply because of practical reasons: the heat would be a little oppressive for black clothing in the South but not in the North. If I lived in an Amish pocket where everyone else wore "traditional" mainstream clothing, I don't see any reason why I'd adopt Amish clothing. If the clothing implied a religious statement I would not be so willing to toss my regular clothing as I would if it didn't. But generally speaking, I guess I'd need to be more or less pressured into a change of wardrobe by my surrounding society. Sounds like I'm waffling a little, doesn't it? I guess I'm not completely sure. On one hand I really think it's arbitrary, within limits, how we dress. On the other hand, I guess my identity is involved.

 

For the record, I think that some of the attitudes about clothing in my own culture are rather absurd. We're a lot more prudish than the Europeans. And I certainly would not wear high heels if I were a woman.

Since conversations take on the characteristics of the people conducting them, and since you and I have never before had a one-on-one, it logically follows that there has never been a conversation on exC exactly like this one.

There's one statement spoken like a true "T!"

[ShackledNoMore]

Okay I look forward to it. I do enjoy the conversation.

Me too.

[R. S. Martin]

I don't have time to respond to everything but want to respond to the clothing issue. First...

 

Since conversations take on the characteristics of the people conducting them, and since you and I have never before had a one-on-one, it logically follows that there has never been a conversation on exC exactly like this one.

There's one statement spoken like a true "T!"

 

Confession: This is not original with me. I've heard versions of this statement for other settings. I assume most of us can adapt common concepts to present situations and I do use T and F, I'm sure. Otherwise it would be easier to figure out my dominant function. You're pretty sharp on this, considering that all you have is but one training session. Do you use it a lot for work or something? Or maybe it's just natural interest?

 

Actually, I figure if you and I swapped backgrounds, there would be a chance that I would not completely change the way I dress, just like you. I'm not sure. Maybe there would be a 50/50 chance? I don't know how the connection with identity would come into play, but I think it is there to a greater or lesser degree for most or all of us.

 

Enough people have "left the church" (plain churches for mainstream society) to provide a general report. So far as I know, there are no stats available but it seems the vast majority do make the complete change in clothing. Most of them make the transition when they are in their twenties. However, there are women who never make much of a change in clothing. There is a woman about my age who grew up in the same church as myself. For a short period we attended the same very liberal Mennonite church where people showed up in shorts and sandals in summer. She and I showed up in cape dresses and head-coverings. She told me she would feel like she dishonors her mother and sisters if she drops the head-covering. She let her teenaged daughter dress in pants like other girls at the public school.

 

There are other things that are harder for some people to change than dress. Losing the PA German accent can take several generations. People speak fluent English but I can sometimes pick up the accent in people whose parents or grandparents spoke it. It has something to do with the way people pronounce their vowels and certain consonants, esp. "l" as in the word "hello" which is used in both languages with a different pronunciation of "l." The English L is fuller, while the PA German L is flat. I never heard anyone else comment on this but I notice it all the time and often I can tell which language a person is going to speak based on the inflection of the L in their greeting.

 

Thought structure and vocabulary is another thing I've noticed that tends not to change, esp. in the first generation of leavers. One day on the bus I heard a mother say to her little son, "It's spritzing." (Roll the "r," and change the "s" into the German "sh" sound and you've got a genuine German pronunciation; that is how she pronounced it--perfect PA German accent except for the Anglicized "ing" suffix.) I guess a few drops of rain were coming down. Anyway, that grabbed my attention in a big way. I don't know how many languages would use that word "spritzing," but that is our PA German word (Anglized form) for sprinkling or spitting rain. She was dressed like mainstream society but she could be a direct descendent of an OOM, second or third generation apostate. Or first generation. I REALLY wanted to ask her who she was but I didn't quite have the courage.

 

I've noticed that certain values also tend to hold over from the old culture. Can't think of an example off the top of my head.

 

I had an interesting experience several years ago. I was doing a study of people who had left a visible minority religious group for mainstream society. Via word of mouth I was put into contact with a prof in the US who was doing a similar study. His name told me he could possibly be of plain Amish background but one never knows; he could be several generations removed. We had several email exchanges. I also got to see his interview questions because I was in contact with one of his subjects. I looked at those questions and something inside of me clicked. "Those questions were composed by a person who has been through the experience!" And the emails--they were the language of one whose first language was PA German. I confronted him on the matter and he confessed that he was from a Plain Amish background. He willingly became one of my research subjects.

 

This was after being away from the plain Amish for perhaps forty years. He told me most people don't know that he can speak PA German. Neither he, nor my local profs, could explain how I could tell from his emails that his first language was PA German. He's an English prof so I figured he might know what linguistic technicalities I might have picked up on. Nobody knew and neither do I. It may have been a combination of name, vocabulary, thought structure, and question content. The point of this is that there is far more to the transition than changing dress.

 

But the question was about dress. And yes, most people do change. But a few of us women don't. And possibly a few men. Because the change for men is smaller, it's more difficult to measure the changes men make. Any "worldly" man can dress in button-down collar shirt and dress pants with suspenders for everyday wear. To differentiate between him and the plain Mennonite man, one has to be intimately familiar with things like width of suspenders and colour of shirt and pants and styles of shoes and clothing, etc. to know if he's within the rules of a specific Mennonite church. I am more familiar with the rules for women's clothing than men's clothing. I know very little about the Amish; there are none in my immediate area.

[R. S. Martin]

I will now address the parts I didn't have time for last time.

 

At first, I couldn't understand why I couldn't find things any better in a neat house than in a sloppy one. Gradually, I realized that our methods were polar opposite. Our drawers are booby trapped! My drawers were NEVER booby trapped when I was single! I couldn't understand why she'd get antsy when I'd clean. It's because I'd gut the monstrous clutter that nobody could see, and create monstrous piles in the process which would eventually get whittled away and cleaned up. Any visitors might think the house is a lot neater if they visit us than if they had visited me when I was single, but I feel like the closets and cabinets and draws are filled up like a volcano and ready to burst! It drives me crazy!

 

Is she a J? Is "organization" for her having stuff behind closed doors and drawers? Does content and deeper categorization not matter so much to her? My mother was a stickler for both having thing behind closed doors and drawers AND having it organized according to category. My Dad and his mother were slobs and I take after them.

 

I don't think I know about your story at all. Where is it?

My ex-c testimony is here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=12341

 

It's a little long. I don't delve into sacred cows a lot there in general (although it DEFINITELY involves challenging the sacred cows of my religion), but once you start taking on sacred cows, I think it sort of becomes part of what you do.

 

As you know by now, I read it and sent a pm. Too bad your friend reneged on his resolve to "get rid of God" when he couldn't verify god's existence. You mentioned that you didn't see any of the internal contradictions of the Bible during that month that you sought so sincerely to find God. What makes it all the more palpable for me is that you approached the topic with the most positive attitude possible and God did not materialize. This thing has NOTHING to do with wanting to believe; it has everything to do with God not being there.

 

Maybe your testimony was long but even so, the end came up as a surprise. I had gotten so used to entering another subject, or encoutering yet another "sacred cow," when you got to the end of one question. I very much enjoyed reading it and saw many parallels between your journey and my own.

[ShackledNoMore]

You're pretty sharp on this, considering that all you have is but one training session [Myers-Briggs]. Do you use it a lot for work or something? Or maybe it's just natural interest?

I don't use it at work, per se (except for the single session training course my management offered): I prefer my job to involve being a geek over interacting with people. Still, I think of the Myers-Briggs as maybe a minor interest or diversion: I've mused over it, read a couple of pamphlets and websites, and amused myself with predicting others' types, which I found can be done fairly well even with the passing knowledge I have.

There are other things that are harder for some people to change than dress. Losing the PA German accent can take several generations.

I think the language thing is just that. It's hard to change your language and not leave any traces. I only know a handful of people who really speak two dialects well. And it's an admirable accomplishment to speak a second language learned after childhood so that an astute native speaker can't tell it's not your native tongue. (Thurisaz impresses the socks off me with his mastery of English, by the way--I do wonder if you could tell English is a second language in a telephone or face to face conversation with him. I cannot tell from his writing.) I think it is not so much a cultural thing that the old linguistic habits are not easily lost, but a language learning thing. There are a couple of back woods West Virginia-isms that I had to purge from my own speech--it was my grandmother that was raised in West Virginia as a girl!

One day on the bus I heard a mother say to her little son, "It's spritzing."

"Spritz" or "spritzing" (with Anglicized pronunciation, of course) is a perfectly legitimate English word. It means to spray, as with a spray bottle, such as in "spritzing the houseplants." I have never heard spritzing used the way the woman had, but I would have figured it out easily enough it if I had heard it.

Is she a J? Is "organization" for her having stuff behind closed doors and drawers? Does content and deeper categorization not matter so much to her? My mother was a stickler for both having thing behind closed doors and drawers AND having it organized according to category. My Dad and his mother were slobs and I take after them.

You know, I think I got my wife to take the test one time, but I'm the one who really likes to go around taking those kinds of tests. I'm trying to remember how she tested. I think she's a J. I think I would peg her as a J. I have more trouble pegging a person P or J than I do for the other preferences. Content and categorization "of stuff" is not so important to her, not as much as to me. I did kind of think, though that either Ps or Js could be neat or sloppy.

As you know by now, I read it and sent a pm. Too bad your friend reneged on his resolve to "get rid of God" when he couldn't verify god's existence.

It is too bad. When we were questioning that month, he went to the pastors with his doubts. I did not. I don't think he ever made the leap of directing his questions to "unapproved" sources (books, people, eventually websites, etc.). A few years back, he was marveling about the flimsy evidence there was to support evolution. He fully expected that I, godless skeptic that I am, would be as fully assured that evolution is the product of a few desperate crackpots and that there is no solid evidence to support it as he was. He no doubt expected that I had somehow visited this as a hurdle as I thought things through. He was fully convinced that there is broad consensus on the utter implausibility of evolution among apologists and honest thinking unbelievers alike! And the kicker? He is a VERY smart guy--I know it doesn't sound like it from this one paragraph, but he is! The thing is, of course, is that he has ONLY read apologetics claiming that evolution is implausible. And he has taken their word, rather than truly examining things. In a way I feel very sorry for my friend and his blue pill, but I'm also aware of the advantages of the blue pill. He's been expert all his life at remaining just xian enough so that things go comfortably and smoothly for him with his family, society, and the world.

You mentioned that you didn't see any of the internal contradictions of the Bible during that month that you sought so sincerely to find God. What makes it all the more palpable for me is that you approached the topic with the most positive attitude possible and God did not materialize. This thing has NOTHING to do with wanting to believe; it has everything to do with God not being there.

It seems amazing I didn't see the contradictions during that month, doesn't it? Somehow, I still wasn't at the point where I was really looking for them! I'd been lied to my whole life so earnestly about how there was not a single contradiction in the bible. It was almost like my friend taking for granted that there is no scientific evidence for evolution. I must have read about one gospel per week, interspersed with other NT books, not in parallel, not comparing the same accounts in different gospels, not considering that they were different! I wish I would have been more astute about these things at the time--it would have made things a lot easier. I think it was after my deconversion that the double think and compartmentalization were available to be recognized.

 

I just had to bold that last part, by the way, because it hits the mark so well.

[R. S. Martin]

You mentioned that you didn't see any of the internal contradictions of the Bible during that month that you sought so sincerely to find God. What makes it all the more palpable for me is that you approached the topic with the most positive attitude possible and God did not materialize. This thing has NOTHING to do with wanting to believe; it has everything to do with God not being there.

It seems amazing I didn't see the contradictions during that month, doesn't it? Somehow, I still wasn't at the point where I was really looking for them! I'd been lied to my whole life so earnestly about how there was not a single contradiction in the bible. It was almost like my friend taking for granted that there is no scientific evidence for evolution. I must have read about one gospel per week, interspersed with other NT books, not in parallel, not comparing the same accounts in different gospels, not considering that they were different! I wish I would have been more astute about these things at the time--it would have made things a lot easier. I think it was after my deconversion that the double think and compartmentalization were available to be recognized.

 

I just had to bold that last part, by the way, because it hits the mark so well.

 

The social scientist in me loves it that you did not see any of the internal contradictions, etc. (I understand the psychology of not seeing them. They are all rationalized away. Your brain was trained to read this way.) This is the strongest proof I know of that can be gotten for God's nonexistence. Christians love to charge us with not wanting to believe. But you searched with your whole being, your whole mind, your heart, your strength--everything you had--to prove that God WAS THERE. There is no way you could have improved on wanting God to be there, on wanting to believe, on doing a more positive search. That is what amazes me--it boggles my mind...I guess I did the same kind of intense searching, come to think of it. Yet God wasn't there. Not for you, not for me. Not for many, many others who trusted with their whole beings. But I think your month of intense focus and study put this to the spiritual test like nothing else could have done. And for God not to show up in such a case is simply not okay.

 

It would be interesting to know what kind of evidence you were looking for that was not forth-coming. This is rather embarrassing--if I want to talk about being a social scientist, the question about evidence should come at the beginning, not the end, right? Oh well...

[ShackledNoMore]

It would be interesting to know what kind of evidence you were looking for that was not forth-coming. This is rather embarrassing--if I want to talk about being a social scientist, the question about evidence should come at the beginning, not the end, right? Oh well...

I was really just looking for anything compelling that would corroborate the case for god. I was leaving it up to him, if he was there. Those imaginary conversations that people have with god, but they say that they're tangible and real? If they HAD been tangible and real, rather than just a matter of faith that god was talking to me, that would have done it. If he appeared to me, if he told me to stick my hand in his side, so to speak, that would have done it. But here's what else would have done it at the time: I believed that my own skepticism would prevail if either evidence or the true hand of god was not forthcoming. I was open to the possibility that he could magically reveal himself to me in that "still small voice" or whatever subtle way he was supposed to do it in such a way that I would truly believe, "work a miracle in my heart," and I'd KNOW, like I was told was supposed to happen. Of course the "me" of today would have demanded a higher standard of evidence, but that would have done it for me then even without an apparition, or without dramatically healing my friend (the missionary's son) of the incurable terminal disease from which he was suffering. If scientific discoveries had always corroborated the bible instead of deviating from it, I'm sure I never would have been questioning god's existence in the first place.

[R. S. Martin]

Jesus promised: “If you had faith the size of a^ mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you. (Luke 17:6)

 

It seems to me you had faith at least the size of a mustard seed. What you were asking for was not as impossible as uprooting a tree and planting it in the sea with a prayer. You weren't even asking to have a single hair turn colour (Matt. 5:36). All you were asking was that God whisper in your ear or touch your arm to let you know he existed, something any human would do. Yet nothing happened.

 

I think this helps me better understand some of my own deconversion. The Bible, esp. the Beatitudes, clearly promises peace to those who follow and obey the Word of God. My church claimed to stand in the authority of God and promised that obedience to its rules and teachings would bring the peace of God to one's heart.

 

When we walk with our Lord

In the light of his Word

What a glory he will shed on our way

While we do his good will

He abides with us still

And with all who will trust and obey.

 

Trust and obey!

For there's no other way

To be happy in Jesus

But to trust and obey.

 

I trusted and obeyed for forty years and it didn't work; happines/peace eluded me completely and life was unbearably miserable. So I took things into my own hands and disobeyed. Then I started feeling happy--whether in or out of Jesus was and remains an open question. I never saw that as part of my deconversion because it only led me to a more liberal church, but it probably was part of my deconversion. It did break the power the Church had on my mind and from there it was only a matter of time to my actual discarding of Christianity itself.