Identity Theft

"Concern trolling" predates the Internet. Consider, for example, the "lifelong" letter to the editor. I'm sure if we dug through 19th-century newspaper archives, we'd find letters to the editor that begin, "As a lifelong member of the Whig Party ..." and go on from there to express concern about and disapproval of all things Whiggish.

This bit of duplicitous dirty-trickery probably dates back to Roman times. It wouldn't surprise me if archaeologists found the first-century equivalent of a letter to the editor written by a Sadducee that began, "As a lifelong Pharisee ..."

Wikipedia's definition of a "concern troll" is, delightfully and predictably, tagged as "disputed," but I find it useful:

A concern troll is a pseudonym created by a user whose point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in Web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns." The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.

The concern troll's disingenuous claim of belonging attacks essential matters of identity. The CT's dubious assertion of membership is not motivated by a desire to belong to the group, or by a genuine respect for what that group is or what it stands for. The CT, instead, is posing as a member in order to change the identity and the definition of the group, and thereby to undermine it.

It's a common tactic, but an effective and corrosive one, which is why the whiff of concern-trollery raises red flags and unlikely claims of membership or identity tend to be viewed with extreme suspicion.

Consider, for example, the case of the wonderful Anne Lamott, author of the spiritual memoirs Traveling Mercies and Grace. Lamott is as Jesus-y an evangelical Christian as you'll ever meet. It's impossible to read those books without acknowledging that her life is shaped and guided by what we evangelical types call a "personal relationship with Jesus." Yet many evangelicals would view her impish impiousness and, even more so, her progressive politics, as wholly alien to evangelical Christianity. There's a sense, in other words, in which she clearly seems to be an evangelical Christian and a sense in which she clearly seems to be something else.

The question "is Anne Lamott an evangelical?" is, at least partly, a matter of semantics, since it necessarily raises the follow-up question of how we define "evangelical" (a notoriously difficult and slippery question). But it doesn't feel like a matter of mere semantics for anyone involved. Lamott says she is, and this claim is, for her, an important aspect of her identity. Others who find her politics literally anathema tend to view her claim with suspicion, fearing that it may be the deceptive tactic of the concern troll and a threat to an important aspect of their identity.

I can appreciate both points of view. I can certainly relate to Lamott. I've had a long and public lover's quarrel with my own evangelical Christian heritage and I know what it is like to have one's claims of identity questioned and challenged, to be told that one doesn't really belong. But I've also had enough experience with the bogus claims of concern trolls who have sought to undermine other aspects of identity that are important to me -- from modern-day Dixie-crats to the sham environmentalism of Bjorn Lomborg and his ilk -- that I understand the gatekeepers' suspicions as well.

All of the above is a long preface to my thanks for the many thoughtful and honest points of view expressed in comments to the previous post regarding the dispute over Mormonism's relationship to Christianity. The Mormon choice to identify as "Christian" does not seem to me a likely or an easy fit, but it also does not seem to me to have anything to do with the malicious dishonesty of the concern troll. It strikes me, rather, as being motivated by a desire to claim a share of the cultural acceptance and legitimacy that Christianity enjoys here in America. As such, even if one views this claim as mostly vicarious, it pays a compliment of sorts to Christianity. It would be churlish of me, as a non-Mormon Christian, to respond to that compliment with a blanket rejection.

So while I remain a bit unsettled by and about this claim, I think it's helpful to recognize the role semantics plays in this question as well. As the back and forth in comments to previous post demonstrates, there are senses in which the claim can be viewed as accurate and senses in which it can be viewed as inaccurate.

That being the case, and me being in the unfortunate position of Not Knowing Everything, it's probably best to conclude without a conclusion and move on to other topics.

How's that for anticlimactic?

Comments

[mmack]

Fred,

As a lifelong poster at Slacktivist . . .

[cjmr]

...in which Fred proves that he really does read all the comments in his comments sections. Including the ones wondering where Fred is.

Well played.

BTW, IMHO, "I've had a long and public lover's quarrel with my own evangelical Christian heritage"? Best line ever.

[cjmr]

damnit, I left the italics on!

[cjmr]

I'm trying to fix the italics and the spam filter doesn't want to let me.

[cjmr's husband]

As a lifelong concern troll, I must take exception with...

[A Kennedy]

The problem for me lies kind of with the following. Say I were to say, "I love my mother," and you were to tell me "no you don't. You may claim to love your mother, but you don't really." That's what it feels like (or perhaps worse) when someone tells you you're not a Christian. It's not really necessarily some cynical grab for "respectability." It's more like saying, "I love the Christ," and having people say, "no, you don't."

[Otter]

I think we all have to come to our own conclusions. Mine is that Mormons who in general claim to be part of a greater Christian tradition are probably legit, or at least honest. On the other hand, a Mormon politician who publicly lays out only the parts of his religious philosophy that agree with a certain virulent subset of Christianity in order to demand their support, is a concern troll. Or, in Romney's case, a damn con man.

[Rosina]

But if you (the hypothetical you) are saying "I love the Christ, who is a space alien who came to this world in a flying saucer with a replicator machine and some spiffy weapons, and merely assumed the body of a man to disguise the fact that he is a many-tentacled creature..."

Then I think that someone who believed in Christ in the sense that Christians usually used, might be right to deny having any connection with you. Particularly if this hypothetical you then proceeded to tell them that because they believed in Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God the Creator of Heaven and Earth, rather than in the many-tentacled offspring of many-tentacled creatures on the planet Glurp, that they couldn't call themselves Christians at all, being totally wrong about the nature of Christ. In fact you (A Kennedy, not hypothetical you) would probably agree that if that were Christianity, it is not of any form known to religion on earth.

The impossible question doesn't seem to have the answer that we (the insiders) must accept anyone who says they belong, regardless of how bizarre their beliefs. Nor that we should refuse to admit anyone who doesn't believe in the decisions reached by a majority of elders in a small Swiss canton in 1618 (the other elders being expelled from the Church as heretics without even being allowed to finish their tea and biscuits). The impossible answer is to draw the line in just the right position of admission and exclusion.

[A Kennedy]

Then I think that someone who believed in Christ in the sense that Christians usually used, might be right to deny having any connection with you. Particularly if this hypothetical you then proceeded to tell them that because they believed in Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God the Creator of Heaven and Earth, rather than in the many-tentacled offspring of many-tentacled creatures on the planet Glurp, that they couldn't call themselves Christians at all, being totally wrong about the nature of Christ. In fact you (A Kennedy, not hypothetical you) would probably agree that if that were Christianity, it is not of any form known to religion on earth.

But that's NOT what Mormons believe. Nor is it what Gnostics believe. Yet both of these groups are considered (perhaps not by you, but by others here, possibly including Fred), "not Christian." If I were to say what I really felt about Christ, if it weren't so personal to me, I'm sure many would say, "you're not a Christian." This despite the fact that I believe that Christ was i) the son of God, ii) historically incarnated in Jesus, and iii) much as He is described in the canonical Gospels. Indeed, I have never heard of a Mormon who would disagree with me on ANY of the three points mentioned above, so why all the talk about Mormons not being Christians?

To me, it's absurd as the previously popular argument about whether Barack Obama is "really" black.

[Blackadder]

As a lifelong non-Christian (really) I must say that Mormons do appear to be Christians from the perspective of an outsider, as do Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers, and so forth, although I realize there are mainstream Christians who reject all these groups. I grew up in West Virginia near a substantial Mormon temple and we had what was probably a fairly high proportion of Mormon students for a non-Utah school system. I don't recall that any of the Protestant students, most of whom no doubt attended "small c conservative" churches, ever seemed to regard the Mormons as anything but fellow Christians. I'm not sure the issue was ever specifically raised though.

[A Kennedy]

Kindly change the "Christ was" in the previous to "Christ is." Thank you.

[Bugmaster]

But if you (the hypothetical you) are saying "I love the Christ, who is a space alien who came to this world in a flying saucer with a replicator machine and some spiffy weapons, and merely assumed the body of a man to disguise the fact that he is a many-tentacled creature..."

Sign me up.

Ia ia ! Jesus ftaghn !

[A Kennedy]

although I realize there are mainstream Christians

OK, seriously, what is a "mainstream Christian?" The only group I can think of that would have any reasonable historical claim to this title at all are Catholics. Is that who you mean?

[MikhailBorg]

Say I were to say, "I love my mother," and you were to tell me "no you don't. You may claim to love your mother, but you don't really."

A K, I have often had that happen in my personal relationships. I express my emotions poorly, because of a multiple-decade affair with stoicism. As a result, my partners often attempt to guess what I'm thinking and feeling. This is okay unless I inform them that they're mistaken, and I was in fact feeling Y, not X, and they then attempt to insist, "no you weren't, you were feeling X, I could tell."

I hate for someone else to tell me what's going on in my own head, especially after I've just informed them otherwise. But I've been working on better self-expression, and the problem seems to be going away.

Sorry: I should have started this out with "As a lifelong stoic..."

[Blackadder]

I consider Catholics and large formal Protestant organizations to be "mainstream Christians," A Kennedy. It's meant as a sociological description and not a slur against smaller or more offbeat organizations.

[A Kennedy]

I consider Catholics and large formal Protestant organizations to be "mainstream Christians," A Kennedy. It's meant as a sociological description and not a slur against smaller or more offbeat organizations.

I don't take it as a slur. Sorry, I wasn't meaning to put you on edge. That said, what is your justification for calling these bodies, and only these bodies, "mainstream Christianity," and endowing them with the privelege of deciding who is and is not "Christian?" Wouldn't looking at what the dictionary says "Christianity" means be a better idea?

[J]

This is all the wretched legacy of Plato and his Christian friends: The insistence on sharp distinctions. More deeply, the insistence that every real thing has an ideal, "pure" spiritual form. "Somewhere, on some plane of existence," says the Platonic/Augustinian/Aquinan (sic/sic?/sic?), "There is a Model Christian. If we just sit down and think about it hard enough, we'll be able to figure out his [rest assured, they are thinking of a HE here] precise characteristics. Then we can measure up each and every other actual living person to see how they compare."

...And a wave of toxic philosophy and history descends therefrom. You have an ideal version of a woman--surely it must be Mary--and so all real women are whores. You have an ideal version of scholarship--and so dissenting viewpoints get the axe, the tongs and the fire. You have a revolution in society--and so all "revisionists" and "counter-revolutionaries" get sent to Siberia.

By contrast, go for next vacation someplace like Brazil and sit in on a Candomble ritual. Or else visit a tiny rural church in Mexico or Guatemala way down south. Weird the way they have all those Catholic icons right alongside the clay statues of the old corn gods and [i]orinxia[/i] charms isn't it? Are these people Catholics or pagans or . . . what? The traditional Western mind reels trying to grasp it. Or else the white-bred catechists cluck their tongues and mutter, "Syncretism." As if ALL religion wasn't to some degree syncretic.

The more I learn about--well about ANYTHING--the less useful I find these kinds of windy, earnest talks about who or what is or is not a "real" anything. Plato was a nice writer but wrong: Everything is mixed up with everything else. There is no "ideal form", there is no "purity". Just accept it and come back to earth with the rest of us.

[Robb]

Well, so much for my suggestion that Fred would ever "concern troll" in the comment threads. Even though I was somewhat facetiously speculating, I'm glad to know I was wrong.

As a lifelong second-rate intellectual I take issue with . . . wait, I am a second-rate intellectual. Dammit.

[indifferent children]

> I express my emotions poorly, because of a multiple-decade affair with stoicism.

I soooo have to use that line. It sounds much better than, "I express my emotions poorly because I'm a man."

> That's what it feels like (or perhaps worse) when someone tells you you're not a Christian.

Forget the betentacled aliens for a second; what about a Hindu who says, "I don't believe in Jehova, Jesus, salvation, or damnation, but I am a Christian." Do we get to tell *him*, "No you're not." At what point does our attempt to bend over backward, accommodating anyone's right to self-identify, turn into a complete destruction of meaning?

[A Kennedy]

what about a Hindu who says, "I don't believe in Jehova, Jesus, salvation, or damnation, but I am a Christian." Do we get to tell *him*, "No you're not." At what point does our attempt to bend over backward, accommodating anyone's right to self-identify, turn into a complete destruction of meaning?

Here's the point: no such Hindu exists. We're talking about the right of Mormons to call themselves Christians (and, parenthetically, some other groups like Gnostics). If someone said, I don't believe in Christ, but I'm a Christian, I'd be really surprised, but even I would want a darn good explanation before I called that person a Christian. But we're talking about Mormons, who DO say, "I believe in Christ, in the historical Christ Jesus, and I worship Him and see Him as the Way to salvation." Come ON!

[A Kennedy]

... And Jehovah's usually spelled with a terminal "h."

[Blackadder]

I call Catholics and large Protestant denominations "mainstream" because they have many members and have existed for a long period of time, A Kennedy, but I'm not endowing them with any particular "rights" at all. I don't really care which groups the Pope or Billy Graham finds acceptable as Christians. I also offered my own opinion that Mormons do indeed seem to be Christians, which I think means we agree...

[Geds]

which I think means we agree...

But it's Thursday, which means...

"Oh, Reginald...? I disagree!"

*zooms off*

[indifferent children]

> Here's the point: no such Hindu exists.

You have missed my point. I am positing that outsiders (us) do get to reject someone's claim of self-identity. We are not necessarily being bigoted or unfair by deciding that someone has misappropriated the term "Christian".

Perhaps Mormons should be considered Christians. I lean mildly 'against', since I think that Monotheism is one of the defining traits of Christianity. However, I reject the notion that outsiders are not allowed to judge others' claims to group identity.

[Ursula L]

Here's the point: no such Hindu exists. We're talking about the right of Mormons to call themselves Christians (and, parenthetically, some other groups like Gnostics). If someone said, I don't believe in Christ, but I'm a Christian, I'd be really surprised, but even I would want a darn good explanation before I called that person a Christian. But we're talking about Mormons, who DO say, "I believe in Christ, in the historical Christ Jesus, and I worship Him and see Him as the Way to salvation." Come ON!

I've run across some interesting bits of confusion along these lines.

Generally, it comes from Hindu's, working from a polytheistic perspective, seeing Christianity as just one more way of worshiping. They may incorporate worship of Jesus into their spiritual life as appropriate - such as considering themselves "worshiping" in a Christian manner when in a Christian church for a friend's wedding, and not seeing that as being particularly contrary.

On the other hand, from the perspective of someone raised Christian, for someone to worship in a Hindu temple one day, a Christian church the next, and then in a different Hindu temple after that, doesn't really compute.

I've also seen Christians get a very odd understanding of the Hindu concept of the different gods being different parts/aspects of the Divine - trying to interpret this in a way similar to Christian trinitarian concepts, with the different aspects of the trinity closely entwined, essentially monotheistic, while the Hindu concept tends to be a polytheistic understanding - the gods are related/connected in a certain way, but there are definitely multiple different gods, which aren't interchangeable. (There isn't a big difference in a Christian addressing a prayer to "heavenly father" versus "Jesus" - there is a big difference in a Hindu addressing a prayer to Laxmi versus Krishna versus Ganesh, etc.)

[Spalanzani]

Rosina: "But if you (the hypothetical you) are saying "I love the Christ, who is a space alien who came to this world in a flying saucer with a replicator machine and some spiffy weapons, and merely assumed the body of a man to disguise the fact that he is a many-tentacled creature..."

As a lifelong member of the human race, I have concerns about the mocking tone of this example.

[A Kennedy]

As a lifelong member of the human race, I have some grave concerns about our anti-tentacle bigotry. I mean, I'm as much a human being as everyone else -- watching the mobile image projector, making products for consumption by other human organisms, and providing nutrition to my young are a big part of my day.

But the other day, I was at the alcohol consumption structure with my "good buddy" Ted, and he was talking about how silly tentacle Jesus was. I don't think this is what we humans, we bipedal, binocular creatures should be thinking. After all, how do we know tentacle Jesus isn't coming to give us many candies? How do we know that so called "weapon" he carries isn't just a rainbow ray? We do not.

I, as an ordinary human who never sheds my skin, believe that we should give tentacle Jesus a chance. Allow him to mingle unsupervised with our young. Provide him with easy and open access to our power generation stations. Attend his daily speeches and listen in unnatural silence to what he has to say. Only in this way can we hold on to the human values of truth, justice, and not having our body energy consumed to power kill-bots.

[cjmr]

I was wondering, where the #(*%$ is hapax? This is just her kind of discussion. I haven't seen a comment from her in well over a week.

[A Kennedy]

As a lifelong member of the human race, I would not be too concerned about Hapax. I am certain that she is fine. I am likewise certain that she will reappear soon and be PERFECTLY NORMAL, with no unusual changes to her personality and / or internal organs.

That is all.

[cjmr]

Except, umm, A Kennedy, I really am worried about hapax.

[Geds]

As a lifelong member of the "people who get looked at funny whenever they open their mouths" club and a card-carrying member of the "People Who's Voices Hurt Other People's Ears Club," I'm starting to worry about you Comrade Kennedy...

[indifferent children]

Hey, wait a minute. Hapax was never PERFECTLY NORMAL before. Something fishy is going on here.

[A Kennedy]

Seriously for a moment, I'm not sure there's reason to be worried. To be honest, we are only an internet forum, and things outside the internet, like, say, a romance, a house purchase, or even a really good book can quite legitimately claim someone's time and keep them off. We really shouldn't expect anyone to comment. This is not a halfway house, and people don't have to check in every day.

[eavesdropper]

I once read an interview (I think) with Anne Lamont in Christianity Today, the main purpose of which seemed to be finding an occasion for the interviewer/commenter to say "Aha! She's a unitarian." I found that approach to be in poor taste.

[A Kennedy]

Ho ho ho, Mr. Geds, you are always the cut-up.

Um... not that my species is intending to cut you up in order to study your internal anatomy.

Um.... what do you mean, my species?!?! After all, I am just one of you, a simple hominid of the species Homo sapiens. Oh, you are always the jokester, Mr. Geds.

[mcc]

The further the conversation goes in this direction the more I feel prone to just argue that basing one's identity on a label is inherently invalid.

Aside from this Fred says two things in this post that I found interesting:

Fred toward the beginning says this:

The CT's dubious assertion of membership is not motivated by a desire to belong to the group, or by a genuine respect for what that group is or what it stands for. The CT, instead, is posing as a member in order to change the identity and the definition of the group, and thereby to undermine it.

Which is actually a really good definition of the concern troll phenomenon. Thing is, Fred later says this, as if to contrast:

Lamott says she is, and this claim is, for her, an important aspect of her identity. Others who find her politics literally anathema tend to view her claim with suspicion, fearing that it may be the deceptive tactic of the concern troll and a threat to an important aspect of their identity.

The thing is what you're really describing here is the same thing. The second paragraph here is, very much, about people trying to change the definition of "evangelical"-- although "change" is probably the wrong word here, since "evangelical" doesn't have a terribly established meaning right now to change from. Basically Lamott-- and Fred, for that matter, in other contexts-- are trying to set the definition of an evangelical such that people like Fred and Lamott are evangelicals, and "others" are simultaneously trying to set the definition of an evangelical such that Fred and Lamott aren't. This isn't incompatible with Fred and Lamott sincerely considering themselves evangelical; it's based on Fred and Lamott having a different idea of what "evangelical" should mean than the other group. And this isn't strictly speaking about semantics, either-- the disagreement isn't technically over what the word should mean, but over who should receive inclusiveness in a certain group, in what direction a certain community should be steered. The disagreement is whether Fred and Lamott are fundamentally or religiously "doing the same thing" as the other evangelicals even though they don't hate the gays, or whatever. It's of course correct that this is not an example of anything that can or should be described as "concern trolling". But I think it's also worth keeping in mind that at the same time it isn't really separable from "changing the definition" of the group.

[A Kennedy]

although "change" is probably the wrong word here, since "evangelical" doesn't have a terribly established meaning right now to change from.

I'm sorry to do this, because I often hate when people ignore the connotative meaning of a word and just rely on the dictionary, but I believe the following is trenchant (From Mr. Random House):

adjective 1. Also, e·van·gel·ic. pertaining to or in keeping with the gospel and its teachings.
2. belonging to or designating the Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the Scriptures, esp. of the New Testament, in opposition to the institutional authority of the church itself, and that stress as paramount the tenet that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in the atonement of Christ.
3. designating Christians, esp. of the late 1970s, eschewing the designation of fundamentalist but holding to a conservative interpretation of the Bible.
4. pertaining to certain movements in the Protestant churches in the 18th and 19th centuries that stressed the importance of personal experience of guilt for sin, and of reconciliation to God through Christ.
5. marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause.
–noun 6. an adherent of evangelical doctrines or a person who belongs to an evangelical church or party.

[eavesdropper]

Oops. Lamott not Lamont. Now that I spell her name right I can provide a link to the article I mention above.

[cjmr]

@A Kennedy,

Duly noted. I certainly hope that hapax is fine and is just off getting her kitchen remodeled after the fire earlier this year or something. Meanwhile, if you ever disappear from Slacktivist for longer than normal for you, I'll pretend not to give a crap what may have happened to you.

[mcc]

I'm sorry to do this, because I often hate when people ignore the connotative meaning of a word and just rely on the dictionary, but I believe the following is trenchant (From Mr. Random House): ...etc

I dunno if that really gives us an "established definition", strictly speaking. Sounds to me like there is some pretty wide variation in those five options.

Now, what I want to say is that if Lamott & co. want to call themselves evangelical, then that dictionary entry gives them license to do so, because there's an entry in that list which clearly describes them. The "others" obliquely referred to above want us to limit our definition of the word "evangelical" to Random House's Option #3 and Option #3 only, which is not reasonable. Maybe the groups of people described by option #2 aren't exactly the same set as the group described by option #3, but who cares? Both groups have a claim to the word. If we look at it this way, then Lamott & co are not trying to "change" the definition of the word evangelical, but the Option-3-Only-ists are.

(Of course I think it's possible to go too far with that, if someone claimed you don't get to describe someone as "evangelical" just because they're enthusiastic then they'd possibly have a reasonable point.)

[Geds]

From Mr. Random House

As a lifelong hearer and/or user of the English language, I can tell you that Mr. Random House is a jerk. I'm given to understand that he also molests collies. I know this because I worked for Mr. Random House for ten years between 1992 and 2002.

You can trust me. I'm on the internet.

[A Kennedy]

although "change" is probably the wrong word here, since "evangelical" doesn't have a terribly established meaning right now to change from.

Hey now, don't get upset. I'm not saying you shouldn't "give a crap" about Hapax... I just mean that people don't have a requirement to be here, and there's really no reason to think something bad happened to her.

[Geds]

Do you ever start to feel like you just can't win no matter what you say around here, A Kennedy?

[Steve]

That being the case, and me being in the unfortunate position of Not Knowing Everything, it's probably best to conclude without a conclusion and move on to other topics.

Wuss.

Okay, I feel compelled to post this:
http://www.lovers-quarrel.com/lq.asp

This is Fred's friend that he's written about many times here...at the time of Dwight's death he was trying to get an online magazine going by the title of Lover's Quarrel (same meaning as Fred's).

[A Kennedy]

Do you ever start to feel like you just can't win no matter what you say around here, A Kennedy?

Frequently. But I tend to attribute it to my lack of knowledge about how the Internet works, which I'm trying to fix.

[Lurker]

I hate to sound like a concern troll, but for me as a Finn, and as a member of one of our two national churches, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, the word "evangelical" as used in the USA sounds rather weird. You know, the continental German evangelisch means about the same as Lutheran. Now, when I called myself (in the US) a member of an Evangelical Lutheran church, I most likely gave an impression of being a fundamentalist, which I am decidedly not. Even for the folks in the Missouri Synod that sounds a bit too heavy for their taste. :-)

[MikhailBorg]

Well, according to online dictionaries, "evangelist" comes from Greek and means "one who spreads good tidings / the gospel".

Of course, the word's had plenty of time to mutate a bit since its origin.

[straight]

Anne Lamott is not a concern troll because she doesn't (as far as I've seen) jump into the public sphere saying "as an Evangelical Christian, I think we Evangelicals ought to do X." What she does is tell stories, mostly her own stories, in a very compelling way. And part of her story is that she believes in Jesus in terms that many evangelicals recognize. And part of her story is the influence of people in her life who definitely are evangelicals.

She did a wonderful bit on This American Life (this one: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=104) where she says her secular friends look at her and say "You're not a Christian," to which she responds, "Yes I am. I'm just a bad Christian. I believe all that stuff, but I'm not yet able to live it."

[A-Diz]

Can the other topics include tentacles, Fred? As a lifelong mostly-lurker who reads all the comments, I have concerns about the tentacles-in-posts to tentacles-in-comments ratio on this blog.

[Blackadder]

I share those concerns. :op