Ordinarily, I would agree with Shemp on this, and simply call it a thread. But, since there are a number of people reading this for whom this might do some good, I'm responding here on this point.
It needs to be understood that Kathy does not Believe. When I attended Church, one of the things I kept fighting was the notion of Bible Study being the rote memorization of verses, and the choreographed recitation of "facts." I wanted to actually read and discuss what the Bible was saying. If we were going to study the Bible, we needed to read not just what its supporters had to say, but what its detractors said, and why they said it. Either you confront the evidence and make up your mind from there, or you have to admit you believe nothing.
Belief requires more than blind faith. Belief mandates a confrontation with the evidence, and not as you wish to view it, but as it truly is. It can be an ugly, bitter process, but if you have any honesty at all, you have to take it on. This is why Galileo is well regarded while his detractors in his day are considered to be beneath contempt. Galileo made his observations, recorded them, even demanded they be challenged. His detractors engaged in the lowest form of mendacity and cowardice, and while they held sway for a few years more, I don't know of too many who can, off the tops of their heads, list even one of those who demanded that Galileo declare that the Sun revolved around the Earth, as opposed to what we now know is true.
What Kathy does is listen to someone drone on about what the "party line" ought to be. Then, like a dutiful little drone, she heads out and repeats it, repeats it, repeats it. "If I say it enough, they will believe." And if you're dealing with someone who's weak, lacking skills in critical thinking, or simply looking for someplace to belong, eventually, they will. They, too, will become another drone, and they will repeat what they've heard, until they find someone else who will follow along.
It ignores fact. It ignores the real world. But, those who follow this line gain something. They gain control, either over another person, or over some element in their lives which they think they can't control any other way.
Sling can tell us about control over another person. Her husband brutalized her for years, and did so in the name of Jesus. In the meantime, (and this should have been mentioned before, and I'm ashamed that I didn't), there were pastors, deacons, parishioners, all of whom knew what was happening, all of whom knew it was wrong, but in the name of Jesus, kept silent. I've seen it happen, and it's very rare for someone to speak up and put a stop to it because supposedly, if we just pray enough, the evil will stop.
That's not how it works. Evil is stopped when it is confronted. Evil is stopped when it is brought out into the light, and dealt with as evil, not as "sin." We don't pray that child molesters quit molesting kids. We call the cops, they are arrested, they are tried, they are convicted, they are sent to prison. We act like adults and take action.
But more importantly, we don't assume that our goodwill is enough to deal with the problems we face. We stand up and face the facts. The goal is not our maintenance of control; the goal is the greater good for everyone. It means we subordinate our desires to what works to the greater advantage of the majority. (Sorry, but that's the way it really works, and probably the way it should work.)
This is at the center of Civility. It is what makes it possible for us to keep a civilized society, and to advance as a people. And while this will irk some, I should also point out that it's why much of Western Civilization, (though clearly not all), is moving forward.
I'm sure Kathy has strong views on the Pledge of Allegiance. No doubt she'll tell us that the phrase "Under God" belongs to the pledge. She'll tell us that the United States is unique, because we're the only nation brought together "Under God." (I know these arguments well. I used to present them myself.)
Except that it was added in the 1950's, primarily as a response to Madelyn O'Hare's victory in the Supreme Court. There was also the "Red Threat" which we're told needed to be addressed, but I fail to see how attaching religious meaning to what was intended to be a secular declaration of loyalty to the national ideal was supposed to accomplish that. (If anyone knows the answer to that one, please tell us.)
I'm not opposed to religious belief. I still hold to some myself. But when my beliefs are confronted by facts, my faith in God mandates that I go not with what I think ought to be, but what the facts demand they be, ironically, even if it means my rejection of God for lack of evidence.
Oddly enough, when I put my faith to the test with the "Tithe Test," as has been described in other threads, I didn't find my bank account overflowing. If anything, I found I had to scramble to find enough money to feed my family. Frankly, if my faith had any impact on the results or the lack therein, then I fail to see how this does anything but illustrate that God is a bastard of the first order. How can anyone have enough faith? It's not going to happen. The Bible itself tells us this.
This is the real Gospel, as I understand it: You will have hard times. God will be with you through them. At the end of your life, if you believe, you will enter His kingdom. No other warranty exists beyond that. And trying to turn God into some sort of magical Sacred Santa is the same sort of evil which Kenneth Copland and Benny Hinn are guilty of. I know nothing else, and this is in spite of (or perhaps because of) having studied the Bible for the better part of 20+ years.
Considering Atheists live happier lives, and are more confident of their place in this world, and in the next, I have to wonder who's got it right. If I had to guess, it wouldn't be Kathy, whose behavior when suffering is, at best, inexplicable. Considering the number of Atheists I know who are civil, kind, honest, decent people, and the number of Christians I know who are cruel, hateful, deceitful, and vile, the only thing I can say is that I've been better off since I left the Church that I was when I was kneeling at the altar, alone, begging a God who clearly had a different agenda than I did to do such things as heal my wife, help me feed my family, or to even find a job that would at least pay the frigging light bill.
Peggy, by the way, was not healed by God. She had an ovary that was precancerous, but we didn't know that until her doctor, a man of science, performed the operation to deal with her endometriosis and her fibroid tumors. And please don't tell me about the miraculous coincidences involved in all of this. There was nothing miraculous in my wife's excrutiating pain which went on for months, the Pastor who told us he was praying for her, (even as he was trying to prey on her), a man who demanded our money, but couldn't even lift a finger to direct us to someone who could help a family without health insurance get the medical attention necessary to save my wife's life. In other words, the Church which would not do what the Bible says it was supposed to, but the Secular society which did. (And, BTW: the doctor wound up doing it for Peggy for free. We had to apply for Medi-Cal, and in the end, some rubber-stamp punk downtown refused to authorize payment. He said a woman could just suck it up, or words to that effect, and the doctor, bless him, simply told us to not worry about the bill, even as we offered to pay it. If I remember right, he's an agnostic. So much for those "Evil Atheists"...)
Faith requires a test. How do you know what you're doing is right? I have yet to ever see as effective a means as the basic scientific method. We observe, we hypothesize, we test, we observe and codify. It works. It's what helped Jenner create vaccines for Smallpox, it's what put the Wright Brothers into the air, it's what made the Internet possible. (Just ask JJ about that last part, and the value it's played in daily life. Or Phil Plait. Or just about anyone on this board.) It is not an act of faith to continue doing things which do not work. That is called Insanity. And I do not wish to continue being crazy.
I do not wish to be abused any longer, either by others, or by my own hand. I will either do what works, or I will seek out that which does. And in spite of Kathy's declaration of "humility before the Cross," I see no evidence of that in her repeated bleats which follow the same abusive strain. She has become an automaton, repeating the same damned and damnable things over and over again. I know this road, and I got off it before I hit the dead end I know is ahead. You either know how you're getting out, or you ask someone before you get yourself in trouble. I'm done with it.
Either you deal with the real world, or it will deal with you. The latter, I assure you, is very, very unpleasant.
One last thing: Paulie, a little whisky on that tooth should help. It might not help the pain, but it ought to be fun trying.