I really appreciate these 2 thoughts:

1) There is a fundamental difference between the never changing nature of God, and the ever changing perception of him. Do not ever confuse these two things.

2) The ability for us, as human, to alter how we perceive God is not a primary threat to Christianity, but rather it is the core of it. Our ability to change how we perceive God is what it means to have a conversion experience.

And I know you’re exactly right. However, that doesn’t mean that how that perception changes is right. If my thought process changed to “God wants us to kill people with weird birthmarks” it doesn’t make it so. The conversion experience must align with some rudimentary Christian beliefs. But what measure do we use to do so?

I often lurk here because I find YAR startling. From the demands of reading feminist literature to the LGBTQ faq and yet rare references to anything religious is just…it’s just absolutely baffling and infuriating. Make no mistake about it, I fully believe many who frequent here have little interest in the Gospel at all and whenever and wherever I get the impression that others will use the Gospel to further their own ends I’ll call it out, whether they be on the right or the left or anywhere inbetween.

Lastly, and perhaps the most perplexing, is the frequent calls for “dialogue”. I continue to insist that dialogue is not want anyone wants (The answer to what we want is “our own way”). Once again, I didn’t make a personal attack on anyone nor create anything that I thought was an unsafe space. You think I’m hostile when I simply disagree.

Once again, Robert’s post was about as insightful as anything I’ve read on YAR.

What that implies, though, is that God, being beyond our understanding, “owns” a level of truth that we cannot grasp as humans. We can only see parts of that truth and comprehend it in our finitude.

This is perhaps the best damn I’ve ever read on this blog. The fact it got turned into a discussion about God’s scrotum or lack there-of simply furthers my belief that some people have an agenda they need to see met before the Gospel can be discussed. That terrifies me. Mr. Martin had a lot to say, said is concisely, backed it up Biblically and with his own opninion, and once again YAR devolves into how we should culturally and socially respond to this before a Bible is cracked open.

As I have always stated, if you have an opinion, and back it up with the Bible, even if I disagree I will respect it. But make no mistake, I have never respected someone’s Biblical or Christian worldview garnered from some outside source and I find that asking anyone to do just that to be completely ridiculous, misinformed at best, and probably dangerously reckless. So if you’re on a gay pride float at a parade or burning a cross on someone’s front lawn, and if you’re waving a Bible while you’re doing it, my internal “bullshit alarms” just start blaring.

I think the challenge is knowing when we’ve reached that point, when the advantages of race and gender no longer distort our society. I don’t know when we’ll get there, but I can promise you one thing-we will know we are there when women and people of color no longer tell personal stories of discrimination and racism. Until then, the battle goes on.

TimN-the trolling question is an interesting one. As a new commentator, I confess I enjoyed having a ideologically unique sparring partner in TimB, and I was impressed how he chose to engage in dialogue over the course of the thread. Obviously, I also understand and worry about constructing a hostile community. Just thought I’d throw in my 2cents.

It sounds like she played a key role in the struggle for women in leadership. I wonder what barriers the young women she mentored are struggling to overcome today?

That is a fair question. I’d imagine that the struggles go beyond the use of inclusive language but are infinitely more subtle. I wonder, sometimes, if the problem may be of our own making, similar, in fact, to the problems facing the unity of the larger Christian church. The more we spend time pointing out our differences, the less we spend time rejoicing in our similarities. This is a similar problem with the problem of race in the US. Rather than calling ourselves “Americans”, we add the nomenclature “black” or “white” or “Asian” or “African”. Rather than pointing out these differences of ethnicity, wouldn’t it be better to celebrate that we are all here, together?

Martin Luther King, Jr., is famous for quoting

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Could that not be adapted for gender issues as well? Judge me not by the kinds of chromosomes I have but by the content of my character. So long as we continue to point out the differences, I fear we’ll always be stuck in discussing gender differences.

I don’t know the answer to this problem. To quote another famous person, I fear it is “above my pay grade”. But one thing I do know is that, regardless of gender, humanity as a whole was created in the image of God and, as best as it is possible for me to do, my hope is to treat all members of humanity as images of the Creator.

Thanks for taking the time to share about your Mom. It sounds like she played a key role in the struggle for women in leadership. I wonder what barriers the young women she mentored are struggling to overcome today?

Jean has rightly pointed out that women have been “walking away from this space” (with a few exceptions) for quite a while now. This thread is yet another example of why YAR isn’t always a safe for women.

As the only active admin on this site I really struggle with how to deal with this dynamic. I chose to leave Tim “somasoul” Baer’s inflammatory comment up despite his “delete me” taunting, because I felt like its vitriol was so self-contradictory it spoke for itself. I think this may have been the wrong approach.

Wikipedia defines trolling as:

[posting] inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response

After hearing from a friend that Tim B/Somasoul was bragging on Facebook about causing a “shitstorm” here on YAR, I think that parts of Tim B/Somasoul’s participating in this thread constitute trolling. Our guidelines clearly state that trolling is not acceptable.

Tim B/Somasoul has consistently walked the line on this site between trolling and genuine participation in conversation. We’ve had these discussions with Tim in the past, both in person and by email. I revoked his rights to write here on YAR, but have continued to allow him to comment freely based on his assurances that he would change his ways. Yet in this thread he’s back at it again.

Tim B/Somasoul, I’m sure you’ve had lots of pain in your life that you need to vent, but I think its time you stop doing it on this blog. I’m sure you’ll want to go on at length defending yourself and you’re welcome to do so as much as you want in this thread, but I’ll be moderating any future comments you write and trolling won’t be tolerated.

Here’s the obit…

http://www.themennonite.org/issues/10-15/articles/Miriam_Martin_conference_minister_dies_at_64

And, despite all that, when she died, she was a Conference Minister in the Atlantic Coast Conference, a repeat board member for the Mennonite Church Board, on the board of The Mennonite itself, licensed and ordained, a person who had been on the board working towards merging GC and MC, etc.

While she did all this, never once did she complain about God being called “He” or “Him”. So, to me, it seems that the use of the pronoun can be overcome by women. My mother was one of the pioneers of women leaders in the Mennonite church and she didn’t have to change our language to do it.

Just my take on it. :-)

As for my question, it was not meant to be incredulously asking, but honestly asking. As you point out, I have not read feminist literature or anything like that and have not been privy to a lot of information about the conversation. Obviously, I’m aware of the conversation or I would have not felt it necessary to at least give an explanation as to why I was using the pronouns I was using.

As to your “crux”, we agree more than you know. My use of the male pronoun as I have said was not to elevate one gender above another (although I can see, historically speaking, why it could be taken as such). A follow up question back to you would then ask as to whether the burden to make up for that history of the ungracious use of maleness in talking about God should be entirely upon the people using the male pronoun or if there is a need for some grace to be given on the part of the women participating in these conversations? While I understand that there is historical hurt, are we not supposed to be a body built on grace, mercy, compassion and forgiveness?

For my part, I do try to not specifically call out God as male and, in those cases where I know I might, I make sure I explain that it is not intended to oppress women. While it is not evident in this one interaction, I do avoid the male pronoun where it is unnecessary and try to be more inclusive. However, I would turn it around and request that those women who have been recipients of that hurt over the years take a close look at their reactions and determine if there is a need for grace and forgiveness. Is there room in the conversation about God to forgive those hurts of the past where it is obvious that those who are using male language are not intending to oppress in its use?

You correctly perceived, Robert, that I was not intending to attack you. Rather, I thought it may be helpful for you to know how some in your intended audience respond. I think several people up the line highlighted that this is useful information if you’re hoping to reach people with your thoughts and enable others to engage you on the things that matter to you.

It’s hard to take your “REALLY, why would you be offended?!” question seriously. This suggests to me you’ve not invested yourself in reading feminist literature or asking feminists you know about this basic issue. The gendered references for God discussion has been active in the U.S. context for at least 50 years.

Here’s the crux of it for me: God is neither male nor female. Or God is both male and female. That’s all. To use one gendered pronoun exclusively is simply incorrect and it’s the basis on which the church has been destroying women’s souls and bodies, not to mention smothering our voices, for centuries.

The reason that you would be a racist is because there really is a tremendous divide between black and white achievement in the real world. Pretending that white privilege doesn’t exist, that white males are discriminated against, is perpetuating injustice. If our society had a long history of structural oppression by people of African descent over people of European dissent, then the opposite would be true, and you could switch white and black and not be a bigot.

I could spend a really long time explaining the differences between our worldviews that play into your post. I don’t have the time right now to do all of them, but I want to highlight one theological and glaring heresy which seems to be at the heart of your argument.

Your last line is

And yet, that hurt doesn’t give us license to alter how we perceive God. God remains God whether or not we like Him.

Two things:
1) There is a fundamental difference between the never changing nature of God, and the ever changing perception of him. Do not ever confuse these two things.

2) The ability for us, as human, to alter how we perceive God is not a primary threat to Christianity, but rather it is the core of it. Our ability to change how we perceive God is what it means to have a conversion experience.

It’s not that God has ever loves us less or more whether we are a professed Christian or not, but the conversion experience is a change in our perception.

Nicodemus most certainly believed in YHWH but was in need of his perception of God to be radically changed.

The early church changed it’s perception of God drastically on the issue of circumcision. It’s also worth noting that this change in perception of how God was working went contrary to both the scripture that they new and even Jesus himself - “I came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel”. It was made only on the continued revelation of the Holy Spirit.

Even the initial understanding of the death of Jesus on the Cross as the end of the story was a mis-perception of the nature of God. One that Jesus was changing.

Again, it’s not that God has changes, but rather our perception of him that changes. As we have all admitted freely in this discussion, humans are incapable of fully describing God. The use and abuse of language to describe God is primarily our problem. Which is why it’s essential for us to be able to change our understanding of God. In fact, I might say it’s core to the Gospel message.

After reading your post, I’m really saddened by the gulf of understanding between us. I hope we can both grow from this, if maybe not in our timing, at least in God’s timing.

Yes I’m offended when economic and political systems only function to keep old white guys in power rather than serving the poor and sick…..because I’m a Christian.

If I were to say this but change the word “white” to “black” I’d be called a racist. This is the sort of thing I often lamblast liberals for. There’s no less than 2 sets of rules at play at any given time. Whether or not you play by them determines how much of a bigot you are.

Yes I’m offended when my sisters are made to feel second class citizens, by language or action, whether it is in society of church…..because I’m a Christian.

Women have traditionally been in the church in larger numbers than men. Prior to 1900 the “He” language wasn’t an issue. It’s only the modern woman who doesn’t understand her place in this world. And by “her place” I don’t mean some convoluted premise men have devised for her. Women are pulled in a hundred different directions, pick up any woman’s magazine and you’ll see articles declaring that if a woman doesn’t stay home with her children she’s neglecting her duties or if she goes back to work after a birth she’s a traitor to the woman’s movement. She’s told be happy with her body in magazines that only feature woman no larger than size zero. In comparison men are expected to go to work everyday, mow the lawn, and stay out of jail. Not much has changed for us dudes. But the world is a lot different for Western women. I can’t help but think these theological issues are determined by these secular cultural shifts.

Also, taking into account the “second class citizen” factor some women feel (I’d say a small percentage of women) though I can’t find any data on this, I find that people “feeling” something about God is a bad direction to aim a/the Church. If someone feels God can’t save humanity does that make it so? If I dislike your name “Alan” does that mean I can change it? This is stupendously baffling to me, that someone can change the history of the faith because they feel offended or slighted. If you can back it up theologically do so.

Lastly, I find conservatives tend to boil everything down to the least common denominator “They’re illegal so send them back” or “They attacked us so we can attack them…” Doing this means conservatives do not to take into consideration the effects of their actions. Likewise, liberals tend to participate in reclassification. “We love justice so if I can make vegetarianism a justice issue then we all have to buy into it.” Both present formidable challenges. And both make it difficult to discuss the Bible because I find both are using the aforementioned techniques to justify whatever the hell they feel like.

Lastly, and on Mr. Martin’s post, he declares that God is

something

. Loving. Compassionate. Merciful. Strong in wrath. [fill in the blank]. God is many things (we agree, right, Alan?). So if God is something who are we to make an attempt to change what Godself [HA!] is based on our own particular needs or desires. The Bible is clear. God is who He is. From the meeting with Moses to Jesus’ declaration “I AM!”, it has not been up to us to define. The changing of the language is all about meeting our own needs, and you admit as much:

sisters are made to feel second class

These changes have nothing do with understanding God, but with our own hangups in dealing with the Creator. Mr. Martin said it best:

There may be baggage surrounding some of the historical ways in which God has been referenced. This baggage, through no fault of God’s and through no DIRECT fault of those means of referencing, can cause hurt, emotional and spiritual, to some.

And yet, that hurt doesn’t give us license to alter how we perceive God. God remains God whether or not we like Him.

First let apologize for making some assumptions about you. I was caught up in the rhetoric and catchphrases that you were using such as “liberal agenda”, “political correctness”, “crazy ‘openmindedness’”. Combined with the clear disdain and dismissiveness that you have used them with, I made some assumptions about your political persuasions and power that your life situations have given you.

Perhaps I was wrong about these assumptions.

Likewise, when you said:

I find your leftist agenda as despicable as I find rightest agendas within the church. I’ll tell you why you scare me, and why I find leftist (and rightest) agendas deplorable; you’ll use the text to defend your own opinion and positions.

I think you have misunderstood me. If you want to play the ‘left-right’ card, for the record I am a registered republican in the state of Kansas, so that should tell you a couple of things right there. People have called me many things over the years, but saying that I have a ‘leftist agenda’ is certainly not one of them.

What’s more, you still don’t seem to understand the difference between care for other Christians who are in lower positions is society and your distorted and politically charged understanding of the ‘left’ and ‘political correctness’. Yes I am offended when people engage in systematic racism…..because I’m a Christian. Yes I’m offended when my sisters are made to feel second class citizens, by language or action, whether it is in society of church…..because I’m a Christian. Yes I’m offended when economic and political systems only function to keep old white guys in power rather than serving the poor and sick…..because I’m a Christian. If these happen to match up with those on the political left, fine, but I believe in these things because I’m rooted in the Gospel. In the same way that Glen Beck has misunderstood and distorted the term ’social justice’ it feels like you’re are misunderstanding and distorting my views (on this blog at least) and the views of others similar to me. Again, this may not be your intent, but it’s definitely how you’re coming across. If I’m wrong about this, show me different.

In this discussion, you argue for honesty in the agenda that everyone has, yet you maintain that you are neither left or right. However, comments like the one above betray you and clearly out you as very conservative. Even if you might reject the ultra-fringe of the Tea Party, you clearly have shown yourself to be solidly within the beliefs, and at least have accepted the rhetoric, of the political right in the U.S. Presenting yourself as somehow neutral is disingenuous.

As I’ve read your posts, I’ve tried to challenge myself to take you serious, especially since it hasn’t been that long since I’ve held similar beliefs to the ones your espousing. I’ve also tried to admonish you as a brother. Don’t mistake my concerns and corrections for rejection of you or hatred to you. But from where I sit these days, the church needs people like you to really re-think some things. And let me tell you, from living in a small town where I hear blatantly and unbelievably racist things on a regular basis, the real change that this world needs has to begin and include those people who are in positions of power. You and I are the key, buddy.

In all honesty,
may God’s peace be with you.

Incidentally, it seems to me that using gender-neutral language is a start towards fostering a realistic appreciation for the mystery of God.

I agree with you that we should appreciate the mystery of God. For indeed, God is mysterious and incomprehensible. However, I don’t believe this is the reason for the switch to gender nuetral language. If it were you would hear nary a peep from me. The switch stems more from a 20th century understanding of modern feminism than good theology. Those who use the language identify their outside interests at once and show where their true loyalties lie. I don’t believe those interests are the church’s interests.

Anytime you see someone promote gender nuetral language the argument that follows goes like this: “The Phallo-centric systems of oppression that reduced women to living within the hetero-maleness cultures of the….” This is all modern psycho-babble that really doesn’t mean anything. I’d say such things are harmless, but it makes dangerous, reckless theology. We’re all still shocked at the Christianity of the past based on European culture or Puritanism or Nationalism and how poorly those beliefs actually materialized the Gospel. We are equally aghast at White Nationalism’s use of the Bible. Yet here we are using the same techniques to justify the way we believe. We build churches around this nonsense, denominations around it, and ministries around it.

It doesn’t promote good Bible reading or understanding. It’s a cheap way to make the Bible understandable to the reader without comprehension. Literalists use the same technique for a different purpose. They cannot understand the text so they cheapen it’s worth.

Go figure.

One thing that’s convinced me that pronouns DO matter is how radical it sounds and feels to me when someone uses feminine pronouns for God.

As for Article 1…

As I read your post, I starting meditating on the following dilemma: do we profess certain beliefs about God because we literally believe them to be true, or do we profess certain beliefs about God because we believe they promote a better society.

Personally, I am becoming less interested in saying anything about God that I don’t believe to be literally true…which severely limits what I can say.

The pronoun discussion seems to indicate that people no longer believe in God as literally as they once did. When we call God “He” it embodies God in a literal form that we can understand. When we alternate use of “He” and “She,” “Father” and “Mother,” God becomes mysterious, beyond literal comprehension.

I’m not sure if it’s enough to say that “language is inadequate” to describe God. Perhaps the “mind is inadequate” to understand God, or even to know if there is a God.

Incidentally, it seems to me that using gender-neutral language is a start towards fostering a realistic appreciation for the mystery of God.

I agree that it is important to use biblical language like ‘father’ or Abba in reference to God. (there are other people who would disagree with me on this point). I think of God as father often, and use it in prayer. I think that there is a problem when we exclusively use the male pronoun, because I think the Biblical case that God has testes is very weak, that both male and female are created fully in God’s image, and I think that in Greek and Hebrew the male pronoun is more gender neutral than it has become in modern English.

But I confess that I am comfortable incorporating modern understandings into my reading of the Gospel. I argue with the Bible. The Bible is the experience of God written down by human people, and the text is shaped by the sexism and racism and scientific understandings of its day. I am willing to consider that the core of the Gospel message of Christ may work at cross purposes with particular Biblical texts, and I think that the gendered language about God in the Bible reflects the sexism of the Biblical time period, and does not demonstrate the best of the love of Christ or love of neighbor.

I am not trying to hide this position. I acknowledge that if I took the Bible more literally, I would end up at a different place.

However, I think its unfair to say that I (or all people on the right, for that matter) are in this for power reasons. I do try to understand others, and I appreciate your willingness to share your views honestly.

First the concept of not calling God “Father” or “Him” truly disturbs me. The Bible uses this language nearly exclusively (Not “inclusively” since we’re busy playing with words here). I ponder how one can be offended at “Him” when referring to God yet still choke up enough strength to open up the Book. I picture, in my brain, looks of horror on your faces as Jesus prays “Abba”, scribbling it out, and writing “Godself” in its place. I’m just baffled.

Second, the argument is that God is neither male or female, Biblically speaking (despite the whole “Abba” business, the Abraham parallel, the repeated references to God as Father, etc, etc). So to make up for this imperfection in the text, to remain true to the source, the solution is to invent whole new non-Biblical words to describe the accuracy of the Bible (Or, perhaps, to make it fit our own wishes)? I guess the theory being that since the text doesn’t convey what the text should convey would should rewrite the text to make it convey what we think it should thus the re-writing will be more Biblical than the actual Bible. I find this line of reasoning absolutely rediculous. I find the defense of it pure insanity.

And from that similarity, let me say to you as a peer; you’re reaction and hostility to this discussion has WAY more to do with your own insecurities than it does what we’re actually talking about.

Then you’d be wrong. I find your leftist agenda as despicable as I find rightest agendas within the church. I’ll tell you why you scare me, and why I find leftist (and rightest) agendas deplorable; you’ll use the text to defend your own opinion and positions.

I suspect many on this blog roll find the “racist” attitude of tea paritiers and anti-illegal immigration activists deplorable. You believe, and perhaps rightly so, that those folks use the Bible to defend their positions. From my seat I see the left doing the same thing. They have an agenda and they’ll make the Bible fit it with whatever crazy, backward, interpretation they can find. And if others don’t buy into it, you blow them off (The right does this too. “Vote Republican or….”).

I see it all the time. The crazy “open-mindedness” is all just cover for the same group think people have demanding on each-other for thousands of years. There’s no real interest in understanding others, there’s only interest in your own goals. At least rightests like Ayn Rand admitted it. With the left its all smoke and mirrors.

As for Jean’s comment, I honestly didn’t feel attacked. Compassionate and concerned, though: what about what I said caused offense?

As for using the most Biblical language… that’s an interesting point. Whether or not integrated pronouns should be used is one thing, but we should always strive towards making sure we don’t lose site of the Biblical. IIRC, Anabaptists were once called “People of the Book”, yes?

You know, looking over this, I wonder what folks will say when I finally put up my reflections on Article 2. ;-)

I admit I read your last line about fallen human language describing the infinite, and I think ’so why wouldn’t we use the language that causes least pain?’ but I think it is legitimate to say ‘thus we must use the most biblical language’. (He is obviously most Biblical).

Tim B,
I don’t notice anyone attacking Robert as if he had committed an atrocity (Robert, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong). Reading back over the comments, Tim N. and Robert had a back and forth, Jean offered a somewhat dismissive comment (the closest thing to an attack on Robert), several people reprimanded her, and then a lot of people jumped on you for being angry/over the line.

As one of those liberal’s you speak of, trust me, I don’t just want ‘dialogue’ and ‘conversation.’ I think that your disgust at those who support gender neutral language about God is wrong, I think ignoring the power disparities between men and women is inappropriate, I think that political correctness is almost always a virtue, not a vice, and I hope that you come to see the error of your ways. I’m happy to engage in continued argumentation, and will try to avoid name-calling, shutting down, and pointing fingers.

Now, to respond to your queries:

1) My justification for use wasn’t solely on tradition. I do question the tradition but do so by indicating that establishing a new tradition of “godself” or some sort of neuter is equally insufficient to describe God. So, rather than trying to do that, I fall back on the comfortable simply because it’s convenient. Is it correct? Probably not, but I’d hope that people of grace would be willing to give me the grace to make that fumble while we try and figure out stuff.

2) There is, literally, no references in scripture of “God the Mother” or “God the Daughter”. That is what I intended. Yes, God is described in feminine terms in MANY places throughout the canon, but nothing quite so deliberately as “Father” and “Son”. Christ, himself called God his “Father”. So, we can refer to God in feminine terms, but the specific identifing “names” of God in the canon are male. In deference to Scripture, I choose the male pronoun. And again, this is not because I think maleness is better than femaleness (if I did, my wife would have something to say ;-) ), but simply because there is not something sufficient in the English language that describes God that will both capture God’s nature and avoid additional baggage from the historical tradition.

I choose the male pronoun simply because there really is nothing else better and, while we can debate until the cows come home all sorts of different ways, the nature of God defies any of them as being sufficient. So… a fallen human language used by fallen humans trying to in a finite way describe the infinite. Yeah… see how that works out. ;-)

That being said, I have some disjointed thoughts to throw in the mix

1)@robert. I too have shared the same impulse to defend the gendered use of God. The problem is your justification of it’s use by using tradition. A core part of Anabaptism is the impulse to to call tradition into question and reject things that are not Biblically based. That’s a pretty weak argument. Which brings me to my next point.

2) You said,

We cannot deny the scriptural references, though to God the Father and God the Son, both male nomenclatures for our deity. We don’t have God the mother or God the daughter in scriptural reference, but we have those references

Please clarify this for me. It sounds like you are saying that there are no scriptural references that refer to God as female. Am I reading that right? Because that is simply not the case. There are all kinds of feminine references to God. I hope I read that wrong.

3)@TimB. First let me say that I am truly sorry for however you were hurt to bring up the kind of bitterness that you’re expressing. I don’t what it is but it must cut very deep for that kind of disgust and bitterness to come out.

However, I do think you’re misunderstanding a couple of things though. First, don’t confuse Christian accountability and care for sisters and brothers in the faith who are different than us as ‘political correctness’. The concept of political correctness is based in ‘Human Rights’ language and concepts. What we’re talking about here is more based in Christian mutual aid and care, which is a very different thing. They might both cause us to have very similar actions, but I think you’re putting some of you’re own neo-conservative political hangups onto people and concepts where it doesn’t belong.

It’s also worth noting that the charge of being disgusted with ‘political correctness’ can really only be leveled by people who are in positions of power who do not feel the effects of racism/sexism/classism/discrimination/or anything else to which ‘political correctness’ would apply. And I say this as as someone who is 6′3″, 350 lb, white, male, upper-middle class, in the U.S., and is working in a position of power as a pastor. All of those things allow me to live in such a way that I don’t have to care about anyone else…..unless I choose to.

My guess is you and I are more alike than you realize. And from that similarity, let me say to you as a peer; you’re reaction and hostility to this discussion has WAY more to do with your own insecurities than it does what we’re actually talking about.

I’m also sure that my challenging on this will make you even more angry….because it would probably make me angry too. Take a moment to do some self-reflection before coming after me in your next post.