Oooh that sounds interesting. Ehrman's book contains a suggestion regarding the problem of suffering.
Kathy I wait with baited breath for you to let us know what Erhmans proposal was.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Hokulele - kurious_kathy Book Challenge
- Thread starter Hokulele
- Start date
Oooh that sounds interesting. Ehrman's book contains a suggestion regarding the problem of suffering.
Kathy I wait with baited breath for you to let us know what Erhmans proposal was.
Someone watch Ocelot for when he passes out please. We know he won't get the answer. Better have some O2 handy.
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,585
I've said it before and I'll say it again. People like KK should be banned from the board. She hasn't shown that she's capable of actually having a conversation or living up to what she said she would do. Why do we let her participate here? It's pointless!
Oh, come on! If nothing else, she serves as a useful example of how oblivious a person in the thrall of a delusion can become.
M.
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Again, Kathy, this is another lie. If you truly cared about anyone else, about what they believed, and how that might impact their eternal souls, you would first take the time to honor your own word, to fulfill promises you make. You do not, and as such, you demonstrate your contempt for people who disagree with you.
You don't share your faith. You chant it, you recite it, you bleat it, you do any number of things, but you do not LIVE it. The Christians I know that I respect have spent their lives trying their level best to do just that. They falter; they fail. And when they do, they admit that they have failed, and ask people to forgive them. They do not appeal to my emotions, they do not try and blackmail me into overlooking their errors. They are honest with themselves, they are honest with me, and in turn, I can be honest with them myself and forgive what errors have been made.
I am not interested in being vindictive or cruel, but quite frankly, Kathy, I think you should have been banned a long time ago for spamming the board. You don't discuss anything with anyone, you simply bleat and bleat and bleat, and in the end, we wind up wasting time and bandwidth. I knew the instant you "agreed" to Hoke's challenge that you weren't about to fulfill it. You never will. Any time anyone has tried to engage you in a rational discussion, you have run like a rabbit, and made claims that you're "too sick," or you're "busy," usually helping the unfortunate du jour. It get old.
In other words, Kathy, you have so little faith in what it is you believe, you don't dare confront anyone who comes to you with fact, with wisdom, with reason. I did, found out I was lied to, and took responsibility for my own life. I changed. I may not be a good man, but I can damned well work towards being an honest one. Failure to do so is on me, not on anyone else.
As I've said, I'm trying to write a book. It's doubtful anyone will read it, and with a recent computer crash, I'm having to reconstruct it all. But I'm going to get it done. But one element that should come through is that in becoming a trucker, I've had to realign who and what I am so I'm in tune with the world as it is, not as I want to think it is. It means the blinders are off, I see what's actually going on, and I'm able to function fully, or at least more fully than I have in the past.
Part of the problem of abuse is that in order to survive it, you have to narrow your viewpoint just to make it through. You change your sight from all you can see to just seeing what it is you need to make through to the next point on the map. At some point, you have to be adult enough to recognize the responsibility for ending the abuse is on your shoulders, and no one else. It means that you have the responsibility to tell pastors that subject you to spiritual terrorism that you're not going to accept it anymore, just as I told my family, my boss, and others.
It means, Kathy, you have to start fighting for what is right.
It also means you have no right to abuse others, as you have done repeatedly on this board.
There's a story about Buddha, and how a boy began taunting and insulting him. He belittled the teacher, until Buddha finally asked him, "My son, if a gift was offered and it was declined, to whom would the gift belong?"
"The one who offered it," the boy answered.
"Then, young man, I decline to accept your abuse," Buddha replied.
Kathy, I decline to accept your abuse.
Good day.
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Marcus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 3,857
Kathy's threads do serve a purpose. A lot of us never get to meet one of the extreme cult-christians in person so it's very educational. If you realize in advance you won't get any actual dialog, observation of the psycology involved can be entertaining enough.
Lrrr
Stealth Hug Ninja
Another fine post, RT. You bring an interesting perspective to all discussions. Too bad it will be met with the "Chorus 'O Crickets" from KK.
supercorgi
Dog Everlasting
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 2,528
Another excellence post RT! You continually amaze me with your eloquence. I wish I could do as well. Best luck with the book you're writing. You have completely overturned my (yes predjudiced thoughts) about truckers. Thank you! We all need to be reminded not to judge a person by their profession, educational experience, etc. Again, thank you! I just wish the fundamentalist christians could be so accepting and not see us all damn to hell because we don't think exactly like they do.
I was raised in a Congregationalist church. I sang in the choir and went to church every Sunday. People like KK make me sort of sick because they think all people are awful (despite what they do or do not do) because of some ancient tale. The god I learned about when I was young (although I no longer believe) wasn't that nasty.
I sort of pity them these fundamentalists since they think that people are so corrupt and can't see the innate goodness in so many people. In thier view the only good ones are the ones who believe in Jesus. One of my good friends is a Muslim woman - she's a wonderful person, loves her children, is good to her friends, etc. but according to KK's religion, she's damned. I find that really, really, really (how many "reallys" can I put in this) repugnant. Even throwing aside rationallity, how could someone condemn good people just because they don't see eye-to-eye with you? What really matters is how you live and how you treat other people. Why can't they see that as more important than how many checkboxes on the salvation road to life that they can check off?
I was raised in a Congregationalist church. I sang in the choir and went to church every Sunday. People like KK make me sort of sick because they think all people are awful (despite what they do or do not do) because of some ancient tale. The god I learned about when I was young (although I no longer believe) wasn't that nasty.
I sort of pity them these fundamentalists since they think that people are so corrupt and can't see the innate goodness in so many people. In thier view the only good ones are the ones who believe in Jesus. One of my good friends is a Muslim woman - she's a wonderful person, loves her children, is good to her friends, etc. but according to KK's religion, she's damned. I find that really, really, really (how many "reallys" can I put in this) repugnant. Even throwing aside rationallity, how could someone condemn good people just because they don't see eye-to-eye with you? What really matters is how you live and how you treat other people. Why can't they see that as more important than how many checkboxes on the salvation road to life that they can check off?
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
No, I disagree. KK, for all her obnoxiousness, has not breached the membership agreement. And if you think that she has breached any clause of the MA, you should report it. Until then, she has every right to come here and say what she likes.
MIKILLINI
Incromulent Logic
- Joined
- May 3, 2007
- Messages
- 2,979
There's no question you have commented on Ehrman's book, but you are either unwilling or afraid to offer an opinion on what Ehrman has suggested as a response to suffering and his solution.
Go check on your previous comments concerning Ehrman's book and tell Me if you see a pattern in how you respond. In fact, your response is virtually the same in all your other posts.
You begin with a comment, like the one above in bold, but then quickly return to "beating the dead horse" of preaching. Am I wrong? Just read what follows below:
You live in fear of questioning God, Kathy. Which means you live in fear.
Can't you respond to Ehrman's solution to the existence of suffering and what you think of that solution?
Last edited:
In a mind control cult inductees are taught methods of suppressing doubt. Mind-numbing techniques such as such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines are encouraged to make members docile. Eventually members learn to initiate these techniques themselves to cope with uncomfortable doubts.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if whilst a member of a religious mind control cult were listening to an intelligent and rational discourse on the problems of fundamentalist religion the words simply skimmed off the surface of the mind whilst the mind controlled victim put of a defence of thinking about something else, repeating the mantras of their own belief and denouncing the evil outsider.
As such if someone in a mind control cult were to hear Erhman's theories (whatever they are - I still don't know) such theories just wouldn't sink in. If Kathy were a victim of a religious mind control cult then all she'd remember about hearing Erhmans proposed response to suffering is thinking about the mantras of her own belief: how the poor man was going to suffer for eternity, how he was leading others into eternal torment and rather tellingly how his marriage was doomed from being unequally yoked.
If Kathy was part of a mind control cult it might seem that one of the main strategies being used to suppress doubts is the control of her relationship. She would be terrified to think for herself lest it be the first step towards the end of her marriage and wider social isolation.
Let’s not be nasty to Kathy. If she were in a mind control cult then choosing to come here to debate her beliefs would simply be a way of showing herself how hostile the world is outside the safe controlled life within the community of her church.
I’m not saying Kathy’s church is a mind control cult. There might be a million other reasons why Kathy cannot demonstrate that she’s actually comprehended Erhmans arguments and dismissed them through finding flaws in them rather than chanting them away with her own mantras. And even if that were her approach one characteristic on its own doesn’t make a cult member. I’m merely using the extreme case as an instructive example.
Kathy we love you. Not because of the authoritarian patriarchal commands of our husbands, fathers, pastors or gods but because we're the same as you. As individuals we're weak and ineffectual beings swept along in the chaotic storm that is our world, but we know from the evidence of our own eyes that together we can shape the world into paradise on earth. Together humanity is an unstoppable force and love is what will bind us together.
We love you Kathy and if we seem irritated at your inability to listen to and comprehend the many flaws in your divisive belief system then it's because we hate the waste of a good life to bad thinking. Don't be afraid Kathy. Whenever you're ready to take the next step, there's no need to be alone.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if whilst a member of a religious mind control cult were listening to an intelligent and rational discourse on the problems of fundamentalist religion the words simply skimmed off the surface of the mind whilst the mind controlled victim put of a defence of thinking about something else, repeating the mantras of their own belief and denouncing the evil outsider.
As such if someone in a mind control cult were to hear Erhman's theories (whatever they are - I still don't know) such theories just wouldn't sink in. If Kathy were a victim of a religious mind control cult then all she'd remember about hearing Erhmans proposed response to suffering is thinking about the mantras of her own belief: how the poor man was going to suffer for eternity, how he was leading others into eternal torment and rather tellingly how his marriage was doomed from being unequally yoked.
If Kathy was part of a mind control cult it might seem that one of the main strategies being used to suppress doubts is the control of her relationship. She would be terrified to think for herself lest it be the first step towards the end of her marriage and wider social isolation.
Let’s not be nasty to Kathy. If she were in a mind control cult then choosing to come here to debate her beliefs would simply be a way of showing herself how hostile the world is outside the safe controlled life within the community of her church.
I’m not saying Kathy’s church is a mind control cult. There might be a million other reasons why Kathy cannot demonstrate that she’s actually comprehended Erhmans arguments and dismissed them through finding flaws in them rather than chanting them away with her own mantras. And even if that were her approach one characteristic on its own doesn’t make a cult member. I’m merely using the extreme case as an instructive example.
Kathy we love you. Not because of the authoritarian patriarchal commands of our husbands, fathers, pastors or gods but because we're the same as you. As individuals we're weak and ineffectual beings swept along in the chaotic storm that is our world, but we know from the evidence of our own eyes that together we can shape the world into paradise on earth. Together humanity is an unstoppable force and love is what will bind us together.
We love you Kathy and if we seem irritated at your inability to listen to and comprehend the many flaws in your divisive belief system then it's because we hate the waste of a good life to bad thinking. Don't be afraid Kathy. Whenever you're ready to take the next step, there's no need to be alone.
KarlG
Muse
I would have to disagree Arth. KK has said many times that she is here to preach and has done so many times. I, and i suspect others, haven't reported these breaches as her presence here serves a higher purrpose (couldn't resist) is an much as it provides an example of the kind of viewpoint that turns many people away from religion. The arguments against her points far outweigh the effects her preaching could have and provide lots of 'learning material' for lurkers and other interested parties who would otherwise never see it.
Ysidro
I'm watching you
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2006
- Messages
- 5,320
You know, I'm going to come out and say it: I do not believe Kathy has read Ehrman. I believe she never had any intention of doing so. I believe she has, in fact, commited what she would consider a sin were it not done in the name of her religion.
She can convince me I'm wrong by telling me what Ehrman's opinion was rather than her opinion.
She can convince me I'm wrong by telling me what Ehrman's opinion was rather than her opinion.
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
I've said as much myself, though I'll admit to not having read Ehrman, (and yes, I'd like to.) I am not at all surprised by this, either.
Kathy lies.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Well we know she hasn't read it. She claims to have got the audio book, so the verb in question would be listen. Nitpicking aside it does seem that she hasn't listened. That said she may well have pressed play and heard it, just not listened.
I hope that one day she's capable of doing so and if she does listen to those arguments, comprehend them and respond to them it'd be great. However it may well be that her current state of mind recoils from processing information which raises doubts. She did say that she found it very hard to listen to.
The trouble with that approach (from her perspective) is that even if she could be certain that Erhman is wrong, doomed and dooming others with his silver tongued lies (without actually listening and comprehending what he says well enough to paraphrase and respond); there's now a whole bunch of people here desperate to know what Ehrman's proposed response to suffering is. Hok's not likely to let Kathy off the hook and tell us so unless Kathy tells us herself and tell's us why she thinks Erhman is wrong, we'll probably have to go and get our own copy and maybe go on to spread his faithless message to those who could be saved.
Last edited:
Ah, so you have read Ehrman's suggestion.
No, but now I'm even more intrigued...
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,801
I can kind of explain a little, but I have to caveat this with a statement that I got this information as an outsider, looking in. The deal with certain sects of Christianity (certainly the Southern Baptists) is that what is absolutely most important, more important than anything else, is that you believe. What you actually do is of completely secondary importance.
In the Vacation Bible School of the local (Southern Baptist) church, the description of the process of becoming a Christian was summed up as:
from here.
As long as you sincerely believe that Jesus is your Savior, you are saved, regardless of what you actually do. As best I can tell, the assumption is that if you have proper belief in Christ and submit to His will, good action will naturally follow, and that if you're not acting properly, it's because you haven't truly accepted Christ. In other words, being a (True) Christian automatically means that you will be a good person (in deed as well as thought).
However, I've encountered a couple acting in very nasty, very manipulative ways in a local church, and in discussion with a churchgoer, the upshot is that it doesn't matter what they're doing -- as long as they believe they're acting in the best interest of the church by what they're doing, and are still fully accepting of Christ as their saviour, they're going to be saved, no matter that they have driven something like 10 families out of the church. (I think that if Satan existed and came to the woman of the pair and said, "I'll make your husband pastor, and you'll get to be the pastor's wife and in charge of all the other women, just let me have the souls of all of the children of the church," she'd jump at the chance; after all, it's a military church, so the church will have a complete "new" set of children in what, three years tops?)
And yet she's going to be saved, and other demonstrably and actually good people are doomed to hell because they don't happen to believe in God the way this denomination does?
Yes. This was how it was explained to me.
I find this idea absolutely repelling. Like you, I think it works the other way around: what you do, and the effect it has on your fellow people, is what's of primary importance. I too can't conceive of a God that will punish you for being a perfectly decent human being just because you didn't buy into the version of God being packaged by one particular branch (out of the many) of Christianity. The fact that Christianity splintered into so many sects should be a clue that either a) God appreciates diversity or that b) there is no God, and that religions fracture because their shape and form is driven by the requirements of people, who by nature separate out into diverse bunches.