This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
(A Response to Criticism of “Pacifism, BTW”) by Zevi I’d like to publish the little note below because it is a great example of things I could have made clearer in something I published called “That’s Pacifism; not spelled ‘t-e-r-r-’ btw” or something like that. I’m working from the assumption that if one person says it, three people thought it, and not only that but this note expresses criticisms that other people have stated more-or-less, and does so clearly and gracefully: [Dear Jimterror-bombinatorN’t], greetings. i don't have much time- gotta get to work this morning. a couple of things.. i wrote XXXXXX and tried to explain to her her wrong in the matter between you two. but in fairness i think i should say that you are wrong about her relationship with ron loomis. i know for a fact that they have been good friends for quite a while and that is totally separate from the fact that he works with cults. her communication with him has nothing to do with cults. so that was a slander. and also, how can you possibly justify hacking into her email and proclaim it so publicly without shame? that is a crime that you could get in a lot of trouble for. she was wrong to be speaking about you when you were showing her kindness, but that could never justify doing what you did and then telling everyone you did it. i hope you two can repent to each other and make things right. have a blessed day, [XXXXX] I thank you for speaking with so-and-so. You didn’t have to do that, but thank you. I understand that a busy schedule can make careful reading difficult, but it appears to me that on a number of counts you have found things in the publication that are simply not there. I fail to see how anything that I stated about so-and-so’s relationship to Ron Loomis was inaccurate, especially seeing that you re-state half of what I said in your very own note. In the publication the only thing I am aware of mentioning about their “relationship” was that she was “secret best friends” with him, and that they were in semidaily communication. Perhaps you were aware of this relationship, but I was not, and when I inquired as to whom she needed to communicate with so frequently, she was evasive, and didn’t tell me. She kept the persons identity a secret from ME. Maybe saying that they were “best” friends is an exaggeration; I take responsibility if that is untrue. You do not say this, but several other people have let on that I accuse s&s of being a “spy” in the publication. After re-reading the publication a few times, I can’t find that accusation anywhere. However, the facts of the situation do lend themselves in that direction. Let me give you a hypothetical fictitious scenario by way of illustration. Say, you had an old friend that lived in Micronesia. You visited that friend, who also happened to work for the government of Micronesia. While you were there, you were trusted with proximity to government information, and took pretty much free reign in the office of your friend. You fished around their room, read private things on their desk, etc. Meanwhile, you also had a much closer relationship with a high ranking official in the KGB, and told them things (whether true or not) that had a compromising effect on the national security of that small, insignificant country. Wouldn’t any self-respecting country try you for espionage? You might not have been spying on purpose; you might have just made observations about one friend (however unsound), and re-stated it to another friend because you were friends. Generally speaking, that’s a common practice among friends. But because The Soviet Union has a nuclear arsenal and Micronesia only has plastic air-pistols, giving the Rooskies the false impression that
Micronesia is a bellicose rogue nation bent on terrorism might have the tendency to make Micronesia a little uncomfortable. It might not be very likely that the Soviet Union would choose to bomb Micronesia back into the ocean, but by virtue of the fact that you were accessing information of significance for national security, and passing the information to the KGB, would you not be guilty of espionage? Does it matter whether the KGB had designs on getting information about Micronesia, or what your motivation was in passing the information along, whether out of malice or pure venting your discomfort? I didn’t say that her communication to him has anything to do with cults. I said that her communication to him had to do with things about ME. It has to do with things that were in my bedroom, things I said in private to people I thought I could trust, and so-on. Their relationship might not be based on the fact that he has professionally crusaded against small unconventional religious groups for nearly three decades, but it doesn’t negate the fact either. One does not cease to be a crusader when speaking with select individuals. I am uncomfortable having information that is extremely misleading to the point of being incriminating being given to a cult expert, who could then use that information to fuel his crusade. People that are against cults gather information about cults, and conceivably about “cult apologists”, which is how some of Mr. Loomis’ colleagues might choose to categorize me. I did not elaborate on her motivation for coming here, nor on her motivation for painting the picture that she did of me to Mr. Loomis. I said that I was cynical about it, and for the record, I never ruled out the possibility that it was purely grossly neglectful lack of circumspection and carelessness. Or lunacy. I just simply don’t know what would motivate someone to do that. Thirdly, nowhere did I state that I hacked into anyone’s email. I said that the email was on my computer, because she used my computer to type and send it. How finding something on one’s own computer constitutes a “crime” escapes me at the moment. I didn’t hack into her email. Lastly, I just want to say that the way I handled the situation has given at least one person who is very important to me personally feelings of discomfort. Perhaps there are failings in my actions that I am unable to see, and that you and a few others cannot necessarily see clearly enough to describe it accurately, but know that you intuit something wrong about it. The reason I published what I did was to do damage control for what I consider to be a very dangerous lie about me. I was trying to protect myself and those I love from people who are eager to persecute those with views that do not conform to normative conservative Christianity. (For the record conservative Christianity nauseates me to such an extent that if I allowed myself to dwell on it for too long I would probably come down with an ulcer or literally vomit). If in some way I haven’t acted uprightly in the way I went about this, I would appreciate some sound reproof about it, because I want, like any true seeker of Righteousness wants, TO BE REPROVED. The only people (although it is the far more numerous category) who do not genuinely appreciate sound reproof are the proud, and the children of darkness, who flee from the light of reproof (or are made “uncomfortable” by it) because THEIR DEEDS ARE EVIL. I don’t want to negate the value of intuition. It doesn’t, however, help me to see where I’ve erred in this instance. So if you love me, try a little harder to see exactly where I went wrong, and try to explain it to me in a way that helps me to see it. Or just pray for me. The whole situation has been very difficult, and someone coming here that can with a few (or with hours and hours of) careless words make me feel like my whole life and work is in danger of being completely uprooted and thrown down makes for many temptations that don’t add up to turning the other cheek. Still, I know that true security lies in turning the other cheek, but sometimes I need help knowing how exactly to do so. So be a good person and help me. The whole situation brings this proverb to mind: Surely the serpent will bite without enchantment, and a babbler is no better.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.