User talk:Harvestdancer/Gastrich Archive

Our Dialogue

My message on his talk page.

Gastrich, in contrast to your self-important paranoia, I do not hate you. I've been trying to help you with every criticism I've made. All of them. When I say "don't tell us it's important, tell us WHY it's important", that's not hatred, that advice. You've repeatedly talked about me being anti-christian. I'm not, so please stop lying about me. I'm very religious, and despise the abuse of religion. If you love God so much, stop abusing him. Stop sinning against Jesus. You don't need multiple accounts, and the admins aren't saying it's good that you have them. They are saying that it appears you aren't absuing them in ways they can't handle. God doesn't approve of lies.Harvestdancer 15:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

User 24.205.87.206, you don't delete comments from talk pages the way you did. This is not hate speech, it's my attempt to reach out to Gastrich.Harvestdancer 21:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

His response on his talk page

Harvestdancer, I have emailed you about your offer. I'd prefer to discuss it with you in private.--Jason Gastrich 21:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

My response on his talk page

Actually, this is very much an appropriate place to discuss it. But I will also respond to your email.Harvestdancer 21:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

His first email to me

I read your message in my discussion page on Wikipedia. I felt that you may be genuine, so I wanted to ask you a question. In your opinion, as you seem very interested in me and reforming me, please let me know what you think I should do in order to repent and follow God more closely. As a Christian, I'm always interested in growing spiritually. I repent when the Holy Spirit convicts me and when mature brothers/sisters in Christ encourage me to do so. In your case, I never thought you were genuine and I never thought you cared about me growing spiritually and living a godly life, but if you are, then go ahead and let me know what you think I need to do. I'm open to your exhortation. Sincerely, Jason

My first email to him

All religion is important to me, and all I ask of someone is that they follow the faith they claim. I cannot advise you as a fellow Christian might, but I can tell you what I see. And yes, I am interested in reforming you so that you might follow your faith more closely.

A more lenghty email will follow while I organize my thoughts.

His second email to me

I'll be awaiting your next email.

As you can probably imagine, if we had this conversation in public, it would be distasteful for me to list the things I do to follow Christ. It would also be seen as boasting and it wouldn't be what Christ intended me to do. These are a couple of the reasons why I preferred a private dialogue with you.

Now, I'm fairly certain you only know a few things about me and you'll be giving me some advice about them. I can understand this and listen to them. I hope you understand though that there is a lot you don't know about me and many have demonized me for a handful of things that they don't like; even going so far as to make character judgments about me based on half-truths and such, while ignoring every good thing that I've said and done.

Just so you know, here are some of the things I'm constantly doing:

1. Writing a weekly devotional message (devos.jcsm.org)

2. Broadcasting a weekly devotional message (ada.jcsm.org)

3. Writing new Bible lessons and articles (biblelessons.jcsm.org)

4. Debating unbelievers on belief and Bible issues (debates.jcsm.org)

Or course, non-Christians could care less about those things. Nonetheless, for them to characterize me as someone who couldn't care less about people and God is absurd. This is why I generally ignore such nonsense.

Regards, Jason

My second email to him

I had to think for a while before writing this. Fortunately I went away for the holiday weekend and that gave me lots of time to think. While I will have criticisms, I'm trying very hard to not make them too personal.

You are aware that I'm a non-Christian theist, and I seldom have cause or reason to advise people of other faiths, but religion is important to me, as is spiritual growth and development. I regret that you asked only for spiritual advice, but I will answer the best I can.

And I have been trying to help, though it does not seem like it at times. My debate challenge was not made for no reason. I specifically chose a topic uncommonly discussed (open versus closed cannon) and picked for myself the closed side because I felt it more likely to be the side you would choose and I wanted you to debate an area not familiar to yourself. That is not a directly spiritual concern, although my own faith leads me to help in non-spiritual ways as part of my own spiritual path.

I half remember a phrase I heard a long time ago. The Jewish have a saying "the common man reads the torah and is benefited, the learned man reads the talmud and is benefited." The point is what is sin and what is spirituality? At it's most basic level, for those who cannot access any higher spirituality, then a list of rules is sufficient, but there is much more. A sin is anything that separates one from God, and there are many ways to do that.

You are familiar with the great theologan C. S. Lewis? He has written what is, in my opinion, some of the best Christian literature, both fiction and non-fiction. There is a book in particular that I am thinking of, The Screwtape letters. It is a series of letters from a senior devil to a junior tempter, advising him on the proper tempting of a human.

Both the senior and junior are disappointed when the human decides to attend church, but neither feel that the situation is lost at that point. While the human could lose interest (which is the easiet outcome for them) there is the potential to develop the sin of spiritual pride which they find delicious. Developing this type of hubris is a challenge for them, but they consider the potential reward to be worth it if they succeed. The trick is to have their subject feel proud that his spirituality is superior to those around him for one reason or another. One method is "Christianity and..." in which case they add some other issue to their religion. Another is a boastfulness of works.

A sure way to turn people from God is by the bad example. That is why St. Paul warned against the appearance of evil. In the military, we have a similar saying, the appearance of impropriety. Just a few bad apples, like at Abu Ghirab, are all it takes to make the entire military look as bad as the few who were improper. That is why we work hard to ensure not only that what we do is proper, but that it even looks proper. The effort is to make sure that we don't look like we're doing bad things.

But we don't try to make it look like we're trying to be better than others either. The effort is to appear clean but not cleaner than thou. Relating it back to religion, the effort is to be good but not to try to appear that you are trying to be better than others. In your email to me, you made a point about not wanting to appear boastful, but many people during the time I have known of you have remarked on boastfulness.

You have the appearance of boastfulness.

This may or may not be deserved. Your heart may be to serve God, or to appear that you are serving God, but you have the appearance of wanting to be seen serving God more than you have the appearance of serving God. Things done in the spiritual pride of boastfulness are not done in service to God, no matter what the doer may say on the matter, they are done in service to the selifish ego. The televangelists of the 1980s did more harm to Christianity in recent times than any other action.

Is this appearance warranted? Do you want to appear to be great?

When people accuse you of boastfulness, one of the things they point to is the reaction you have to your critics. Not all your critics are anti-theist, not all your critics are anti-christian. Another thing they point to is the tremendous effort of persuation to convince you to stop using the title "Dr" when posting on Usenet, a habit you still have in email. Your recent writing of a Wikipedia article about yourself and another about your ministry has only fueled the accusations against you. Another is your removal of all critical comments from any page you have control over.

I once left a comment in the guest book at JCSM informing you that a particular link was broken. It wasn't a negative criticism against you or your site, merely pointing out that some other external site was no longer working. You did remove that comment. You do leave all positive comments though. The visitor who is unaware would be led to believe that all who see your site praise you. The same cannot be said of your Wikipedia talk page because people can see past edits if they care to investigate, but apparently at least part of the principle is the same. Even insisting that all criticism, constructive or otherwise, be taken to email would lead some to conclude that the only statements you want publicly aired are praiseful ones. This isn't the first time you've responded to a critic by wanting the whole conversation taken to email.

Do you desire to be seen as great? If you do, that would be glory to you instead of to God. I hope that is not the case.

His third email to me

Unfortunately he did a line by line response this time.

I had to think for a while before writing this. Fortunately I went away for the holiday weekend and that gave me lots of time to think. While I will have criticisms, I'm trying very hard to not make them too personal.

You are aware that I'm a non-Christian theist, and I seldom have cause or reason to advise people of other faiths, but religion is important to me, as is spiritual growth and development. I regret that you asked only for spiritual advice, but I will answer the best I can.

And I have been trying to help, though it does not seem like it at times. My debate challenge was not made for no reason. I specifically chose a topic uncommonly discussed (open versus closed cannon) and picked for myself the closed side because I felt it more likely to be the side you would choose and I wanted you to debate an area not familiar to yourself. That is not a directly spiritual concern, although my own faith leads me to help in non-spiritual ways as part of my own spiritual path.

Thanks for the request. Perhaps one day I can debate you. I've been very busy lately, though.

I half remember a phrase I heard a long time ago. The Jewish have a saying "the common man reads the torah and is benefited, the learned man reads the talmud and is benefited." The point is what is sin and what is spirituality? At it's most basic level, for those who cannot access any higher spirituality, then a list of rules is sufficient, but there is much more. A sin is anything that separates one from God, and there are many ways to do that.

You are familiar with the great theologan C. S. Lewis? He has written what is, in my opinion, some of the best Christian literature, both fiction and non-fiction. There is a book in particular that I am thinking of, The Screwtape letters. It is a series of letters from a senior devil to a junior tempter, advising him on the proper tempting of a human.

I've read some of C.S. Lewis and I like him a good deal. I've even read some of his fiction novels (Narnia).

Both the senior and junior are disappointed when the human decides to attend church, but neither feel that the situation is lost at that point. While the human could lose interest (which is the easiet outcome for them) there is the potential to develop the sin of spiritual pride which they find delicious. Developing this type of hubris is a challenge for them, but they consider the potential reward to be worth it if they succeed. The trick is to have their subject feel proud that his spirituality is superior to those around him for one reason or another. One method is "Christianity and..." in which case they add some other issue to their religion. Another is a boastfulness of works.

A sure way to turn people from God is by the bad example. That is why St. Paul warned against the appearance of evil. In the military, we have a similar saying, the appearance of impropriety. Just a few bad apples, like at Abu Ghirab, are all it takes to make the entire military look as bad as the few who were improper. That is why we work hard to ensure not only that what we do is proper, but that it even looks proper. The effort is to make sure that we don't look like we're doing bad things.

But we don't try to make it look like we're trying to be better than others either. The effort is to appear clean but not cleaner than thou. Relating it back to religion, the effort is to be good but not to try to appear that you are trying to be better than others. In your email to me, you made a point about not wanting to appear boastful, but many people during the time I have known of you have remarked on boastfulness.

You have the appearance of boastfulness.

I'm very confident in God and in the blessings He has given to me. I try and avoid arrogance and I rarely boast about my own abilities without immediately giving God credit. However, to some, it may appear that I am arrogant or possibly even boasting. I much rather boast of Christ and what He has done for me, though.

This may or may not be deserved. Your heart may be to serve God, or to appear that you are serving God, but you have the appearance of wanting to be seen serving God more than you have the appearance of serving God. Things done in the spiritual pride of boastfulness are not done in service to God, no matter what the doer may say on the matter, they are done in service to the selifish ego. The televangelists of the 1980s did more harm to Christianity in recent times than any other action.

Unfortunately, except for being completely silent and even complacent, there is no way to prove to my critics that I am humble. If I mention how I take time out of every week to write a weekly devotional (which also conists of linking it, turning it into a web page, and emailing it), then I'm seen as boastful. However, mentioning something like this (and there are many things like this) prove that I'm certainly not in Christian ministry to draw attention to myself. Just look at my devotionals and you'll see a heart that loves God and others. Link: devos.jcsm.org

You don't understand what a difficult position I'm in. I can't underscore what I said above enough. There is absolutely no way to prove to a critic that I am humble. If you have some ways for me, then I'd be happy to hear them.

Is this appearance warranted? Do you want to appear to be great?

I'm not striving to look any certain way. I love God and others. I do all I can to spread the gospel and love to those in need.

When people accuse you of boastfulness, one of the things they point to is the reaction you have to your critics. Not all your critics are anti-theist, not all your critics are anti-christian. Another thing they point to is the tremendous effort of persuation to convince you to stop using the title "Dr" when posting on Usenet, a habit you still have in email. Your recent writing of a Wikipedia article about yourself and another about your ministry has only fueled the accusations against you. Another is your removal of all critical comments from any page you have control over.

Contrary to the opinion of some, there was no funny business in regard to my honorary doctorate. There was no trade for an OCCM membership. There was no money exchanged. Therefore, I felt truly honored with the doctorate.

In recent days, I've come to question Shepherd Bible College and even Dr. Tio. I cannot get in touch with him. I'm concerned about the status of his college. Therefore, I've been starting to withdraw my use of the title.

On the other hand, I have worked hard to earn my Ph.D. and I'll "walk" in May. This will be an earned doctorate and not an honorary one.

As far as criticism is concerned, I don't like being criticized. I'm more sensitive than you realize. I've simply grown thick skin. Nonetheless, if I have a page under my control, I'd rather not be criticized on it. There are plenty of other avenues my critics can use to criticize me.

I once left a comment in the guest book at JCSM informing you that a particular link was broken. It wasn't a negative criticism against you or your site, merely pointing out that some other external site was no longer working. You did remove that comment. You do leave all positive comments though. The visitor who is unaware would be led to believe that all who see your site praise you.

Did I fix the link? Probably so. The guest book was a place for people to say what they like about JCSM. It wasn't a place for criticism. We received so much spam on it that we finally shut it down.

The same cannot be said of your Wikipedia talk page because people can see past edits if they care to investigate, but apparently at least part of the principle is the same. Even insisting that all criticism, constructive or otherwise, be taken to email would lead some to conclude that the only statements you want publicly aired are praiseful ones. This isn't the first time you've responded to a critic by wanting the whole conversation taken to email.

I feel that I've spent ample time in the public eye answering critics in public. I spent many months on usenet. If you search the archives, you'll see.

I'm an overachiever. I like progress. I see lengthy public conversations, where my critics generally dominate in numbers and vitrole, a waste of time. I also see my critics as people who are highly unlikely to have a change of heart about me. Therefore, I feel that my time is best spent elsewhere and on other endeavors that will be more fruitful for the kingdom of God.

Do you desire to be seen as great? If you do, that would be glory to you instead of to God. I hope that is not the case.

I don't desire to be seen as great. I have made mistakes over the course of my life and I have paid the price. However, I still daily strive to be like Christ and to take His Word as far as I can.

Feel free to continue this dialogue or elaborate on things.

By the way, I honestly thought that you lived with your parents. The letter to your parents was meant to be honest and forthright. Since you apparently don't live with them, I guess I could see how you could think it was designed to offend, but it wasn't.

I considered asking you some things about your behavior, but I don't think that's the purpose of this conversation; at least not yet.

My third email to him

I'm glad you wrote back. Honestly, I feared that you wouldn't, even though I tried to couch my criticism in as impersonal a way as possible. I realize how sensitive you are. You tell us every time you insist on taking criticism out of the public arena and into private email.

I'm also glad that you are familiar with C. S. Lewis. Therefore there is no reason to worry about any subversive behavior on my part when I recommend one of his book, because I really do feel you would benefit by reading "The Screwtape Letters." It is probably the best book he has written, and has come closer than any other writing to bring me back to the religion of my parents.

So the problem is how to appear humble? It is not necessary to shut up to appear humble.

Writing a devotional, emailing it to those who requested it, and posting it to your website ... there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and doing that does not make you appear boastful. So why do people accuse you of boastfulness in connection with that? Because you take every opportunity to tell people that you are writing a devotional, emailing it, and posting it. It's not the writing, emailing, and posting that make you appear boastful, it's the telling.

You have a message to get out, but your message is being obscured by what others perceive to be the commercial that comes with the message.

But how to appear humble? Well, in addition to avoiding the appearance of boastfulness, there are two things you can actively do to appear humble, and neither of them are "shut up."

First, it is Christian belief that none of us are perfect. Even if you subscribe to "once saved always saved", even being saved doesn't make you perfect. We all err. If someone were to accuse you of thinking you are perfect, that's easy to counter because according to christian belief none of us are perfect.

But have you ever admitted to a specific mistake? Have you ever admitted to a specific fault?

Those to admissions are the two things that will counfound those who accuse you of arrogance. And I don't mean admitting to mistakes or faults from before you were saved. I mean admitting to mistakes and faults right now. Not in the past, but current.

For instance - I am arrogant, I'm stubborn, and I'm about as subtle as a jackhammer.

That, however, is only a start.

If you have questions for me, go ahead and ask.

His fourth email to me

Unfortunately he did a line by line response this time as well.

Hi Jason,

My replies are below. First, though, I appreciate your even-handed comments in the Talk:Typosquatting page. I just read them and they reminded me that you wrote me the other day. I support what you wrote and either you or someone else should make that contribution that you suggested.

I'm glad you wrote back. Honestly, I feared that you wouldn't, even though I tried to couch my criticism in as impersonal a way as possible. I realize how sensitive you are. You tell us every time you insist on taking criticism out of the public arena and into private email.

I'm also glad that you are familiar with C. S. Lewis. Therefore there is no reason to worry about any subversive behavior on my part when I recommend one of his book, because I really do feel you would benefit by reading "The Screwtape Letters." It is probably the best book he has written, and has come closer than any other writing to bring me back to the religion of my parents.

I have that book, so I'll put it on my list of books to read. Do you think the movie that is released today will be true to the book's story? I've heard good reviews, so far.

So the problem is how to appear humble? It is not necessary to shut up to appear humble.

Writing a devotional, emailing it to those who requested it, and posting it to your website ... there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and doing that does not make you appear boastful. So why do people accuse you of boastfulness in connection with that? Because you take every opportunity to tell people that you are writing a devotional, emailing it, and posting it. It's not the writing, emailing, and posting that make you appear boastful, it's the telling.

I see. To me, certain critics are looking for things about me that they can criticize. It appears to me that they would criticize me for the color of my shirt, so if I were to avoid talking about my ministry, I can't see how that would help do much good; except draw less people to the ministry.

Incidentally, I feel that I mention the things you mentioned very infrequently. Do you honestly think I go on and on about them? Are you referring to the time when I used to post on usenet? I don't post now, so has my image improved? If you're correct, then one would think that it has because I haven't been "boasting".

You have a message to get out, but your message is being obscured by what others perceive to be the commercial that comes with the message.

What do you mean by commercial?

But how to appear humble? Well, in addition to avoiding the appearance of boastfulness, there are two things you can actively do to appear humble, and neither of them are "shut up."

First, it is Christian belief that none of us are perfect. Even if you subscribe to "once saved always saved", even being saved doesn't make you perfect. We all err. If someone were to accuse you of thinking you are perfect, that's easy to counter because according to christian belief none of us are perfect.

But have you ever admitted to a specific mistake? Have you ever admitted to a specific fault?

I'm sure I have. I feel I have just as much as others have on the internet. Wouldn't you say so?

Let's consider an example and maybe you'll see why I don't "confess more sins" on the internet.

After Farrell Till got suspended from the JCSM Forum, he registered under two different usernames to post. I had to block both of them. In order to play a (poor) joke on him, I spoofed his email and posted a message pretending to be him.

Well, I ended up apologizing for that and I've never heard the end of it since that time. It has been posted in numerous forums and an email about it is even on http://durangobill.com/JasonGastrich.html .

So, if that is any indicator on how my critics accept my apologies, why would I ever want to apologize in public to them (or within earshot of them)? Just some things for you to think about.

Those to admissions are the two things that will counfound those who accuse you of arrogance. And I don't mean admitting to mistakes or faults from before you were saved. I mean admitting to mistakes and faults right now. Not in the past, but current.

For instance - I am arrogant, I'm stubborn, and I'm about as subtle as a jackhammer.

That, however, is only a start.

If you have questions for me, go ahead and ask.

I certainly don't want to be arrogant. If you know of a recent act of arrogance, please let me know and I'll certainly consider how I should apologize.

God bless,

Jason

My Fourth Email to Him

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.