User talk:Harvestdancer/Gastrich Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Our Dialogue[edit]

His Fifth Email to Me[edit]

He keeps doing a line response instead of a complete response.

Hi Jason,
My replies are below.

Harvest Dancer wrote:

I've heard both good and bad about the movie, but I think it will be overall good. The bad report comes from someone who had not read the book. It will certainly be better than the old BBC version, much like The Lord of the Rings was better than the old animated version. But I would move The Screwtape Letters as close to the top of your list as studies would allow.

I'm not urging you to confess sins. I'm urging you to come clean when you make an error. This isn't the same as the situation with Farrell Till.

My prime responsibility is to confess my sins to God. If I offend another person, I can apologize to them publicy or privately. I have nothing telling me that all of my sins need to be confessed in public. Do you think I publicly confess my sins less than other Christians? I know lots of online Christians and I don't think they do.

Yes, people do continue to go on about the Farrell Till gay urges email. There's a reason for that. The reason is because that particular incident was not just a mistake, but a very bad thing to do. Thus far I have not mentioned any specific actions taken. I have tried to keep this as neutral as possible. But the Farrel Till email will be remembered for a very long time because it was a major transgression. Some acts get you remembered more than others.

In your opinion, why is it any worse than Farrell Till getting suspended from my forum and when he was asked not to return for a week, he returned under an assumed name? And when that name was suspended, he signed on with another assumed name? Both times, this assumed name spoke very highly of one Farrell Till. However, nobody reminds him of this major transgression.
It simply isn't fair. The way some unbelievers treat me online is completely awful and miserable. It doesn't take a keen eye to recognize it, either. Some have called it "character assasination" and they are not far from the truth.

One reason it is so remembered is you refuse to let other, smaller points go. I've seen you cling to a losing argument several times. Do you want people to mention the Farrell Till less? There's a good opportunity waiting for you at Infidel Guy.

At this point, I expect very little integrity or godliness from the unbelievers I meet online. I've set the bar very low for them. It's truly the only way to having a ministry online.

When discussing the left behind series and the new movie, you opined that there is no reason that biological agents can't be the source of the plague in Revelation. That's actually a good argument, but you got sidetracked on a less important point. You tried to argue that the biological weapons *ARE* the plague.

Biological weapons carry the biological agents that cause the plague.

If you say "Oh, yeah, you're right. The weapons carry the agents that carry the plague", you've just admitted an error on a minor point that allows the major point to go forward - that the plague thus caused can be the plague in the Book of Revelation. It even makes your argument stronger in the long run.

Plus the ability to admit such an error is also a sign of humility.

I suppose I see what you mean. I see this as splitting hairs, though. Frankly, I can barely even remember this conversation. I'm surprised that you do and I'm surprised you think things such as these are a big deal.

When you cannot admit even minor errors, it makes the major ones loom greater in peoples minds, especially one where you were forced to admit error. Water doesn't flow uphill.

This statement was taken out of context. I think you and everyone else knows what I was saying.

Biological weapons carry the agents that cause the plague. Not all evolutionary scientsts are atheists.

I know this and I've said as much in public.

When you don't admit those, people remember the typosquat of Infidel Guy or the Farrell Till email. When people do remember them, I've seen you respond many times that those who oppose you are opposing God.

Really? When have I said this? I can't remember automatically defaulting to this like you're alleging. I do feel that, at times, when I'm talking about God and the things of God, people oppose me and the scriptures and they're opposing God (not simply me). I never talk about this as you characterize it, though. At times, though, there are some who are opposing me when I'm doing the work of the Lord or speaking God's Word of truth.

That ... is important. When I said "the commercial" it is because I was searching for the correct word. People do see you as selling the website and yourself rather than God.

Some people. Not most people. Most people understand that I'm trying to spread the good news as far as it will go. Never thing that Usenet or the IG forums are the majority. JCSM's mailing list and supporters far outweigh the critics that you're talking about.

People see you trying to drive up traffic for the sake of number of hits instead of seeing the message about God on that website.

This is another unprovable thing. Since increased traffic means BOTH increased hits AND increased exposure to the gospel, what now? How can I prove I'm ONLY trying to get people to see God's message and NOT trying to increase hits? The likely answer: I can't.

One criticism is that it is all about the numbers; number of visitors, number of pages, number of emails sent out, numbers on everything.

Sure, that's one criticism. Rest assured, there are countless criticisms and I can't and won't be responding to them all. Imagine if I did! I have far more work to do than I am able. I certainly can't answer ever critic with a keyboard or else it would take every minute of my time.
Keep in mind what I wrote above. In my life and my ministry, the supporters and pro-JCSM people far outweigh the critics. You and my critics don't see this. It really doesn't bother me, though.

Yet you can't put a number on faith like you can the number of pages, including a number of pages about which the authors of those pages don't want you to post.

As I said above, there is no way to show I'm only trying to expose more people to God because that also means increasing the total hits/visits to JCSM. For me, it's a lose/lose situation and for the critic, it's a win/win.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is a problem brewing only slightly smaller than the Farrel Till problem was. Doing the right thing would mean cutting your number of pages by 20,000, but it also means you are doing the right thing.

That's your opinion. That encyclopedia is public domain. I haven't broken any laws by putting it on my site as I have done.

When you say that those who oppose you are anti-God, it makes people think you are claiming a relationship with God that no Christian has the right to claim.

It's obvious that I don't mean that.
Don't forget to reply to my message about your review. You wish to lecture me about changes that need to be made and integrity. It would be very wise to take your own medicine, bite the bullet, admit you never read my workbook, and delete your fake book review.
God bless,

My Fifth Email to Him[edit]


I tried to help you, but your current antics on Wikipedia, openly disregarding the RfC, especially since the temporary block on your main account is lifted, makes me wonder if you can be helped. You bring discredit upon Jesus. The way to serve Jesus and the way to bring people to Jesus is to stop driving people away from Jesus and stop doing wrong in his name.

Tu quoque is not a Christian principle. That is one of the reasons the Farrell Till incident sticks in people's minds. Sure he did wrong. You call it unfair? The paradox of decency is that you must tolerate the existance of the indecent. If you want to be good, you have to be better than those who aren't. If you want to be right, you have to be better than those who are wrong. If you want to be a saint, you should be better than the sinner.

Better than - but not holier than thou. You must set a personal example. Farrell Till doesn't have that burden. Sure, that's not fair. But he's not a missionary.

But you complain about Farrell Till assuming phony identities and resuming unde a new name? How about Dr. Turtleton, God's Child, HRoss, LinkChecker, TonyT5, Turkmen, and Wiggins2? Tu quoque is not a Christian principle. You want to be good? You must be better to be good. But you're not even doing good - you're not only ignoring the RfC, you're flagrantly violating it.

Most people don't understand that you're trying to spread the good news. Most people understand that you're trying to spread YOU. You do want to be seen as great, the great preacher spreading the word, everyone turning to the great preacher to hear the word from him, everyone saying great things about the works done by the great preacher, all in the service of the lord of course.

Which is why you have such an obsession with numbers. How many pages does JCSM have? Why is that important, especially since a large number of those pages are simply one picture on a page of a trip to the zoo? The number of pages doesn't enter into it, and the number of click-throughs you get doesn't enter into it. The number of people who receive your email devotional does. That is the relevant number, not the over 100,000 pages on your website.

Sure, you plagarized from the public domain, or did you? Who did the work of html-ing the encyclopedia? Who put hyperlinks throughout the encyclopedia? And who, after doing all of that, has requested several times that you remove the copied pages from your website? The host of the Catholic Encyclopedia knows that you think Catholics aren't Christian, and is twice offended that you stole form them. They have told me that they tried to ask you to remove the content and you refused.

Why copy from someone you think damned anyway? I can see your rationale, and it is incorrect. You think it doesn't matter what you do to them because they're not saved - but it does matter. For you to be good, you must be good.

Your attemt with regards to the review on Amazon was transparent. You are trying to make me think we have a deal - if I remove the reveiw, you will remove the plagarized Catholic Encyclopedia. But you didn't say that you would. Instead you are trying to make me think that you said you would. That way, after I remove the review, and then say that you should keep up your side of the bargain, you will protest quite innocently that there was no bargain and that you need that plagarized work as a tool for your ministry.

If you want that bargain, say so directly. Since one of us has a record of dishonesty, I think that he should go first and remove the encyclopedia.