Prosyletizing Long-Lost Friends

About one month ago, I checked that particular email address' in box (I do this once a week or so). In it was an email from someone whose first name (but not last name) I recognized. It turned out to be from a woman who grew up with me and lived down the street just a few doors. She was someone that I liked but I knew she was never interested in me beyond as a friend (at best).

Anyway, I was happy to receive her email and even though I knew it meant nothing we corresponded a few times. I learned that she was now living in Tulsa, OK and I traced the website for the company she worked for to confirm a suspicion I had about her beleifs (since hshe had veered towards proselytizing me on one of our exchanges). I hadn't heard from her in a few weeks when she sent me something last week that made me feel... not sure exactly. Torn, sad, annoyed. It was one of these "Christian proselytizing" emails wherein you are supposed to reply to it and pass it to 10 others as well.

I was annoyed since I felt she was "testing" me to see if I would have the "correct" answer. Now, I generally keep my philosophical views to myself; I don't try to convince people of my correctness and their incorrectness. I certainly don't try to convince someone whom I have not even laid eyes on in over 15 years and whom I haven't had a meaningful conversation in over 20 years that the path they have chosen is the one to hell. But, I did like her as a person then and I wanted to keep liking her as a person now.

So, I replied by writing, "Well, here is my reply, but this looks too much like a 'test' for me, [first name]." My email software randomly selects an email signature for each email; this one was actually appropriate. It was a quote by Galileo Galilei that said something along the lines of, "I refuse to beleive that a God that has given me a brain and the ability to use it desires for me to ignore it."

Well, she her reply was one of, "If you die right now will you go to heaven?" and other sorts of things. I should have ignored her, but I replied with a simple, "Thanks for confirming that."

Her final reply, which I have ignored, was strangley amusing and frustrating at the same time.

"Maybe I misinterpreted your email. Did Galilei believe?"

I got the impression she didn't know who Galileo is/was.

	Lol Yeah more shit. (none / 0) (#1)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Aug 13th, 2002 at 08:13:26 PM PST

	Know how you feel, I've got all these church goers knocking on my door all hours of the night. Bother the hell of me. I started to have fun tho I invite them in for pizza with satan. I some times just say I am a satanist and slam the door. One time I came to the door with a a book of shadows and threw it at them... ok that was cruel but it was 4:00 am. Don't get me wrong I have no problems with the bibles peace ful teachings but when it ruins my peaceful sleep and semi peaceful life then its time to make a stand.

	Saying you're a satanist is so 80's (none / 0) (#4)
	by KingAzzy on Wed Aug 14th, 2002 at 11:00:25 AM PST

	If you are having a problem with bible thumpers, and I can see how that would be a problem in Tulsa, then you should consider moving somewhere more hedonistic and blasphemous. Los Angeles is a good example. It would be quite rare to have a bible thumper get in your face around here. Plus, all the good looking women from middle America always end up moving out here. Quite a nice selection of hunnies.

	Bible thumpers? (none / 0) (#6)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Aug 14th, 2002 at 12:20:45 PM PST

	Isn't it what the Second Amendment is for?

	You are too nice. (none / 0) (#2)
	by walwyn on Wed Aug 14th, 2002 at 08:48:35 AM PST

	About 6 months ago I was receiving similar stuff from a family member, who should have known better. Anyway after the third such email I hit "reply to all" (a list of about 40 souls) with a link to this. I've not received any more of these "pass it on" emails since.

	I Guess... (none / 0) (#3)
	by doofus on Wed Aug 14th, 2002 at 10:59:02 AM PST

	...you're right. But I've saved that link.

	Actually, (none / 0) (#5)
	by because it isnt on Wed Aug 14th, 2002 at 11:50:53 AM PST

	you could do worse than bookmark the good reverend's page directly. It has the Kissing Hank's Ass story in pamphlet form (tell all your friends!). There's also a parody parable of The Watchmaker, where the watch lying in the middle of a field turns out to have had a really large amount of evolution behind it when you do the research, and didn't just appear out of nowhere. There's also a lovely parable about the Physician and the Priest, which tells us when traditions aren't necessarily bad things. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	as for 'Kissing Hank's Ass' (5.00 / 2) (#7)
	by nathan on Thu Aug 15th, 2002 at 12:37:50 AM PST

	While it may be a good satire against the practices of obnoxious American Fundos, it doesn't say much one way or the other about religion. Except by implication. It suggests that all religion (Christianity in particular) is comparable to the raving of the Fundo who hassles you on the bus. I suppose it's a good thing that the pamphlet was written, though. It shows that anti-religious bigots can be just as idiotic as the worst Fundos on their worst days. The problem of faith is difficult, there's no question. In The Violent Bear It Away, Flannery O'Connor tackles the issue of religion becoming the epicentre of evil. The whole world of the book is permeated with religious psychosis. Rather than confront themselves, the novel's protagonist Tarwater, caught up in a tide of inherited magical-religious obsessions, collapses into murder and insanity. Hank's pathetic dupes in "Kissing Hank's Ass" make the same mistake as did Tarwater. Rather than ask questions of faith, they took it as a mystical system to replace critical thinking[1] and their own obligations as free human beings. This is religious only in the trappings. In my opinion, "[p]ut not your trust in princes..." applies to books too. Talking about God is not necessarily a religious thing to do. Don't convince yourself that a similarity in subject is equivalent to a similarity in content; most people who are religious do something more meaningful about it than going door to door and falling down in auto-induced hallucinations. [1] Smart-ass rejoinders along the lines of "I thought that was what religion was!!! LOOOOL!!!" will be ignored. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	sorry, I'm tired (none / 0) (#8)
	by nathan on Thu Aug 15th, 2002 at 12:39:42 AM PST

	Should be "confronting himself" rather than themselves in the third paragraph. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Offtopic. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
	by tkatchev on Thu Aug 15th, 2002 at 10:45:08 AM PST

	Does anybody else notice how similar "LOOOOL!!1" is to "DROOOOOL..."? -- Peace and much love...

	I think of something different (5.00 / 1) (#10)
	by jvance on Thu Aug 15th, 2002 at 01:54:34 PM PST

	Whenever someone uses "lol" I imagine a large dog sprawled out on a blanket in front of a fireplace, panting. I guess if it were a bull mastiff, there'd be considerable drool involved too. "ROTFLMAO" elicits images of rootering a clogged toilet and extracting a large cat. -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR