The Wit and Wisdom of Daniel F. Rice

The Wit and Wisdom of Daniel F. Rice
or,
"It Make Me Wonder What Your Covering Up For"

I received the first of "Professor" Danny's emails in the middle of the night — 2:14 on Easter morning, to be precise. He was referring to my online article, Endventure.

After some Googling, I discovered he's a professor at Northwest University, a Christian college. He must have "earned" his degree at a Christian college, because he thinks "it make me wonder what your covering up for" is how real college professors write. (Note that he doesn't seem to know that "christian" is a proper noun, yet accuses me of lying about my Christian past.)

I'll give you the moral of the story in advance: "Never try to argue with a fundamentalist; but if he starts it, give him enough rope to hang himself."

From: useyernoodle@hotmail.com
To: smithbrad@nventure.com
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 2:14 AM
Subject: read your article

Yo - Smith.
Have you taken a course on logic yet?
If so, perhaps you might go over those points on logical fallacies.
If not, perhaps you might take one at your local community college.
I will hand it to you that you actually succeeded in employing every logical fallacy in the book.
Oh brother. Get a life my friend. Me thinks you do protest too much. It make me wonder what your covering up for. Maybe pain, maybe something else. The least you could do would be to come up with something original. Your arguments are antiquated, barely even quasi-intellectual, and worst of all, limp -- eeeewwwww. You are all over the map. Ya lost me in your empty verbosity.
Many words do not make a more compelling argument. Your ex-christian facade is probably more like, never a christian. Why should you care if people believe what you don't want to? How does their error diminish you?
You certainly aren't gonna change them, so like, what's your point? Ya gonna get a gun and shoot 'um? You're sounding pretty scary there fella. You evidently have way too much time on your hands.

Better luck next time.
Dan ;-)

From: useyernoodle@hotmail.com
To: smithbrad@nventure.com
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 1:43 PM
Subject: yup that's the one

Dear Brad,

Yes, that is the article. I should have reference its details. Sorry. My bad.

What led me to ask that question? Two things: 1) The tone of your article. It sure seems to me (as an objective passer-by - I just happened onto your article), that there is more than disagreement with christian ideas in your debunking efforts. It sounded like contempt, even hatred. It felt inherently hostile and pejorative, almost like you are trying to rationalize away their claims and to provoke others to angry action to stop those stupid, dishonest, dangerous christians from spreading their lies and deception any further. 2) The second reason comes from what I said before about your "proofs" of why you think christianity is whacked. Your attempts to debunk christianity were passionate enough but it missed the mark of intelligent analysis. Few, if any, of your arguments were cogent. They just did not ring true. It felt to me like you were grasping for straws and ranting. A passionate argument does not make something true. Your references to christians were far too general and you used premises that you cannot prove. A logical argument must be both valid and sound. Yours did not have those necessary qualities and because of that you contradicted yourself repeatedly. Your premises were frequently flawed and not often well defended, and basically your arguments were antiquated, tired, insipid, weak, and all your points have been sufficiently addressed countless times throughout history. Maybe not sufficiently for you, but I am not sure you are looking for answers to your objections. Your article had the tone of something more like a preaching mode rather than an investigating mode. There is too much there for me to address in a humble e-mail. It seems to me you would be more effective if you used one argument at a time and developed that more fully. Your approach was rather a shotgun approach, an indicator of imprecision in your thinking, and a dead give away for an emotional person.

Having said that, it felt to me like you had "other" agenda under the surface, and that your agenda was coming from pain -- or at least from one who has had a pretty disappointing experience with christianity -- or perhaps you have behaviors in your life that you won't give up, or can't give up, and have been told by christians that you are going to hell for them. There was a bit of personal desperation in your tone - even panic. In short, there seems to be a larger driving force underlying your article. You really don't like that hell idea, but why does it matter to you what people believe about hell -- but for some reason it does matter to you. You seem to have that bone stuck in your throat. Why? (You don't need to answer that question for me, but you might want to answer it for yourself.) I gather that you would love to see christianity go away completely. If that is true, then what other alternative is there but to see that christians go away completely also. What is christianity without the people? The two would seem to be inseparable. I guess the only way for that to happen is to either change all the christian's minds, prevent christians from speaking in public, lock them away from polite society, or kill them all -- then -- burn all the bibles and christian books, christian art, church buildings, confiscate all church property, rewrite all the history books, reeducate the entire western world and expunge the memory christianity from humankind. That seems like a lot of work. :-) It is either that, or find some way to peacefully coexist with them. For all their failures, christians are humans too -- yes or no? And, if they are as misled as you believe, then it seems to me that they should be objects of pity rather than objects of hatred and contempt. What other logical alternatives are there? Ghandi said, "Become the change you want to see in the world." Just something to think about.

Best to you,
Daniel

From: smithbrad@nventure.com
To: useyernoodle@hotmail.com
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: yup that's the one

Does this mean that those Christians who speak out, with emotion, against the "errors" of non-Christians would like to...

...prevent them from speaking in public
...lock them away from polite society, or kill them all
...burn all the anti-Christian books and anti-Christian art

...etc.? Is this what you consider to be the automatic motive of an individual who disagrees strongly with the beliefs of a large group of people?

I have to tell you, Dan, that I don't believe you. While I can't argue against your criticism of my poor writing skills or my lack of formal education, I don't believe that a Christian strong in his belief system would find himself slumming anti-fundamentalist websites at 2 am on Easter morning, and he certainly wouldn't take the time to write to the author, a total stranger, to state that his motives are suspect. Such behavior would be the epitome of Shakespeare's "protesting lady."

I believe that what led you to read such a lengthy article in its entirety, then write to me in the middle of the night to tell me that my reasoning is flawed and emotional (without addressing a single issue in the article, such as the so-called inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture, the many precursors of the Christ-myth or the lack of Biblical support for the fundamentalist version of hell) is a collapse of your own already-weak belief system.

(If such a charge seems harsh given that I really know nothing about you, then you have an inkling of what it feels like to be told I am lying when I state that I was a fundamentalist Christian for most of my life — an "ex-christian facade" as you put it.)

This is why I posted the article online. There are many for whom Christian fundamentalism has been a deep disappointment, and those are the people I wanted to reach out to.

Sometimes a foundation is so weak and unsound (a house built on sand, so to speak) that it must be cleared completely before a viable structure can take its place. It was my hope that I could share what I have learned with individuals who were feeling the way I once did, when the errors of fundamentalism became too many to ignore.

This is why I wrote: "Rather than use this evidence to 'prove' anything to those who are attached to their fear-based theologies, my purpose in posting this page should be to provide sanctuary to those who have always known, despite what they have been taught to the contrary, that God is good, and loving, and righteous — and that God's moral standards are at least as high as our own."

What you are correct about is that those who have been misled are, indeed, "objects of pity rather than objects of hatred and contempt." I apologize if the latter appears to you to be my primary sentiment, as that was never my intention.

From: useyernoodle@hotmail.com
To: smithbrad@nventure.com
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: yup that's the one

Dear Brad,

Believe what you may about why and how I came across your website, or what you imagine my belief system might be. It makes little, if any difference. As for fundamentalism. I am not interested in that sort of approach to religion. From your description of your history with them, they apparently have some issues that will likely take some time to get beyond. I am, however, sorry for your bad experience, whatever that might be, but taking refuge in a host of alternative myths will not cure what happened to you. I do, in fact, read lots of rants on the Internet, whether it is of special interest to me or not. On the rare occasion, when I read something particularly "labored," I will send a comment to the author. You are not the first. The responses are pretty much the same. Each author is defensive, they try to guess where I might be coming from, usually try to insult me in some obtuse manner, and most remain smug about what they say they believe. I have never received a gracious or open response. I suppose that is their own business. My only concern for your Internet presentation was about the manner in which you attempted to present your arguments. There is nothing more mysterious in it than that, and there is nothing new in the way you have replied to my comments. It is pretty common. Let's not forget that my reason for writing was not about your beliefs, nor about your bad experience with fundamentalism, but about your presentation. Logic is a good thing. You might look into taking a class sometime. I wish you the best in your personal faith-quest. Farewell.

Daniel

From: smithbrad@nventure.com
To: useyernoodle@hotmail.com
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 1:57 AM
Subject: Re: yup that's the one

"I just saw 'First Love' and I was blown away. At the end, all I could do was sob ... and pray. I became a Christian in 1971, and these guys were right there in my life ... making a major impact!" — Daniel F. Rice, Seattle

http://explorationfilms.com/folders.asp?action=display&record=37

Dan, I can hear the cock crowing for the third time. Or are you going to tell me there's another Daniel F. Rice in Seattle with an interest in Christianity and a penchant for seeing his name on the Internet?

Or perhaps that is you, but you're not precisely a fundamentalist?

I agree, fundamentalism does have a very precise definition, which is why I was careful not to paint with a broad brush when defining it in my article:

"The Fundamentals was a 12-volume set commissioned by Milton and Lyman Stewart, written by 64 contributors (among them C.I. Scofield and W.J. Eerdman) and published in 1909, in order to 'set forth the fundamentals of the Christian faith' (from the preface). The word 'fundamentalists' found its way into print for the first time in 1920, coined by Curtis Lee Law in the New York Watchman Examiner."

The five fundamentals set forth by the brothers Stewart, to which the Assemblies of God still adhere, are:

inerrancy of Scripture
the deity of Christ
substitutionary atonement
Christ's resurrection from the dead
Christ's return at the Second Coming

Regardless of what you would like to pretend to believe, the Assemblies of God is a Christian fundamentalist institution — one of the worst, from my personal experience.

I suppose I could have gone into even greater detail than I did, listing which Christian denominations do and do not fall within those guidelines. I did, in fact, attempt to include as much detail as possible in the article, for which you criticized me as being too verbose. Methinks thou dost complain too much.

But aside from my choosing not to list the five fundamentals in the article: Do you reject one, some or all of the fundamentals of Christianity? If so, perhaps my brush was not broad enough in condemning merely the fundamentalist brigade of Christianity.

I'm finding a wealth of Internet postings that make me wonder if this has all been one big put-on. Do you have any idea what a public ass you keep making of yourself? "Get someone who can talk constitantly intelligent, minus the attitude." Did you write that on purpose? Are you the Andy Kaufman of Christian apologetics?

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/nov98.html

Write this down before the next time you attack a total stranger on intellectual grounds: "Find someone who can speak (not talk) consistently (not constitantly) intelligent..." No, that doesn't work, either. The entire sentence appears to have been written by an intoxicated person. "Find someone who can write (it was, after all, posted and not spoken) intelligently, on a consistent basis."

You're attacking strangers for what you perceive to be intellectual shortcomings, yet doing so with all the grace and skill of slapstick comedy. "It make me wonder what your covering up for." Makes, not make; you're, not your; and you ended the sentence in a preposition.

In fact, if you were to remove an article of clothing for every grammatical error in this thread of emails alone, you'd be down to your shit-stained Hanes long before I started to find you annoying.

Please let me know where you obtained your degree, and how much it cost. I'm only about a thirty minute drive from Northwest University, and I get the impression their hiring standards are not all that stringent.

From: useyernoodle@hotmail.com
To: smithbrad@nventure.com
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: yup that's the one

Dear Brad,

Challenge logic? Yes, I did that. Attack strangers? Never my intent. I sincerely apologize for giving the impression that I was ever attacking anyone's person in any way. Again, not my intent either then or now. I will take a lesson from this exchange and will endeavor to improve all of my communication skills.

You may speculate whatever you wish about me, or quote everything I ever said, or label me whatever you desire, or lampoon my poor use of grammar -- that is, of course, your prerogative. But to use these things as a defense against my complaint about the use of logic on your web page is to employ fallacies of distraction, to change the subject, to denigrate the source, and to miss the point -- however poorly I may have presented that point. Such things do not address matters of logic. Logic is the central subject in my first contact with you and nothing else. If you wish to continue a discussion about logic, that may be a possibility. If not, I am not much interested in exchanging insults or speculations about each other's character. I fail see how that could ever be helpful. I will not return another reply, you are welcome to have the last word.

Daniel

From: smithbrad@nventure.com
To: useyernoodle@hotmail.com
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: yup that's the one

Thanks for your permission to quote you, as I plan to do so extensively.

I don't believe it's necessary for you to improve your communications skills, Dan. You communicated your arrogance, derision and condescension in a perfectly explicit manner. What you need to work on is governing your desire to hurt people, but more importantly, you need to work on your intellectual dishonesty.

As a Christian, you may or may not be a fundamentalist. It's apparent to me that you must be, because there was nothing illogical in my presentation of the fundamentalists' long-time misrepresentation of the truth. It's clear that you have a problem reconciling the religious beliefs to which you've devoted a good portion of your life with the facts as I have presented them, and this caused you to lash out in a thoroughly hostile and condescending manner. You communicated your frustration perfectly.

The evidence of your intellectual dishonesty lies in your inability to recognize that you consistently engage in the very lack of logic that you accused me of using:

To employ fallacies of distraction: "Ya gonna get a gun and shoot 'um? You're sounding pretty scary there fella. You evidently have way too much time on your hands."

To change the subject: "It make me wonder what your covering up for. Maybe pain, maybe something else."

To denigrate the source: "Your ex-christian facade is probably more like, never a christian."

To miss the point: "Why should you care if people believe what you don't want to?"

This question exemplifies what I see as consistent dishonesty from you, as it's clear (from this question and from so many of your statements, such as telling me that fundamentalism, which I defined precisely in the article, has a precise definition) that you did little more than skim the article. I stated very clearly that I was addressing those who have lost faith in fundamentalism, not those who continue to cling to it.

This is why I'm convinced that your brand of Christianity is of the frustrated, angry sort with which I am so intimately familiar. Only a fundamentalist would attack a writer on the grounds that the writer failed in his logic, without having actually read the piece in question. And only a fundamentalist who sees the precarious cracks in the foundation of his belief system would fail to defend a single of the dozens of valid points condemning fundamentalism (instead equating the sheer weight of evidence with verbosity).

But let's pretend, in order to show you why I consider your unsolicited opinions to be hostile and mean-spirited, that you are not a frustrated fundamentalist. Let's pretend that you are simply a liberal-minded, social-Gospel evangelical, and that few or none of the five points of fundamentalism play a role in your belief system.

In this case, your Gospel tenets would include helping those who are weaker or less fortunate than yourself, and treating others the way you want to be treated. Therefore, your first email to me might have looked something like this:

"Brad, I read your article and, not being a fundamentalist myself, I cannot argue in favor of the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture, or against the mountain of historical evidence which suggests that Jesus Christ and the many Messiah-models which preceded him had their origins in such ancient superstitions as the worship of the Zodiac. However, I believe that there are ways in which you could have presented your case in a much more condensed, logical manner..."

But it doesn't make much sense to write an email like this, does it? For example, if I, "as an objective passer-by ... just happened onto" an artist's website — danielriceart.net, for example — what purpose would I have in politely explaining to you how you missed the mark? It makes more sense to keep passing, rather than start giving you advice in the middle of the night.

Now I'm going to drive home to you what I mean about treating others the way you want to be treated, Dan. Imagine if, instead of a thoughtfully-worded email, I addressed you and your website the way you addressed me and mine:

"Yo — Dan. Have you taken an art course yet? If so, perhaps you might go over those paintings and sculptures on artistic integrity. If not, perhaps you might take one at your local community college. I will hand it to you that you actually succeeded in employing every aesthetic mistake in the book. Oh brother. Get a life my friend. I think you try too hard to impress. It makes me wonder what you're covering up. Maybe lack of recognition and attention, maybe something else. The least you could do would be to come up with something original. Your art is antiquated, barely even quasi-creative, and worst of all, limp — eeeewwwww. You are all over the map. Ya lost me in your overdone flamboyancy. Many colors do not make a more compelling piece. Your artistic facade is probably more like, never an artist. What's your point? You evidently have way too much time on your hands. Better luck next time. — Brad ;-)"

If I wrote that email to you, then explained that I send such emails all the time, then complained that "I have never received a gracious or open response," then stated that "I did not expect a gracious response," then had the audacity to claim that it was "never my intent" to attack you, and then finally, in a feeble attempt to save face, offered to discuss art with you in the future ... would you not conclude that I was a mean-spirited, dishonest, mental midget?

This has been my sole motive in pointing out to you your unconscionable disregard for the English language, your use of personal attacks, and the lack of logic you employ during the very act of accusing me of the same: to show you the importance of treating others the way you want to be treated.

You must learn to treat those who are mentally weaker than yourself with at least a minimum of dignity, and when it comes to your intellectual superiors, you must learn not to attack what you do not have the cerebral capacity to understand.

If you do not learn these simple skills, you will continue to publicly embarrass yourself.