Posts
Monday, July 28, 2008
Quick update
I am posting this on behalf of Matthew. There will probably be other people posting updates for him for the next month or so and he will post when he can. At least with this update, everyone won't have to sift through 450+ comments!! So, hang on to your new $2 bookcase because we will be back soon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
251 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 251 of 251Dude, there are to many "Kim"s in all this craziness for my comfort!
I saw this
>>What happens if we get to the pearly gates and find out we were wrong after all? What if the Prespetyerians [sorry for the awful spelling] had it right all this time?<<
And I could only think of the South Park episode where everyone is in Hell. "But I'm Catholic!" "But I'm born again!" And St. Peter is all "Yeah, sorry, we were looking for Mormon on this one."
And then they send Saddam to Heaven to be with the Mormons because it is more punishment than Hell.
I watch way to much tv.
Although I've never pretended to be sweetness and pie, I can guarantee you nothing I said was "vial" - heck, I don't even know how to say something "vial" :-)
I can be mean if I want to, but I don't need to do so on the Internet with a crazy lady. What I have said though has contradicted her, and questioned her, and I said she backpedals and manipulates and that what she does does not pass the Jesus test and she can pretend all she wants but God knows what has been said to her, He knows what she has manipulated and altered, and He knows what is in her heart just as He knows what is in the hearts of Catholics. We all know that in Candyland, contradiction and questions equal "vial threats to her person and family".
I personally have no need or desire to "threaten" her; she is not that important. She is a distraction. I save my true disdain for those that deserve it, those who actually impact the world in which I live. She's not even on the radar there.
Her "love" of Catholics is like the torturous confessions of those who believed differently than their ruling monarch. Put on a stretching rack, anyone will say anything, just to make it stop. It doesn't mean it's true, it only means that in order to end the pain and misery, they'll say what the powers that be want to hear. There is no truth in their "confessions" and there is no truth in Candy's professions of "love". Saying something often enough does not make it true; not to people who have nothing to lose.
How about the Simpsons episode where the Catholic heaven is much more fun than the protestant heaven? Classic.
Kim, I must have missed that episode. I'm gonna need to find it on YouTube; that's fabulous!
The show is obviously a joke, but that's exactly my point. Everyone thinks that they have the ONLY true religion. Is God really so narrow-minded that he would have created only ONE way to properly worship him? And if that were the case, that there was only ONE right way, wouldn't have outlined it better in the Bible?
I strongly suspect that there are going to be a lot of shocked people in heaven. I can't believe that only one religion is going to get in. I truly believe that heaven is going to be a mix of Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, Jews, Muslims....you get the picture. It's just ludicrous to condemn an entire religion and its followers to hell b/c they choose to worship God in a different way that you.
Angie, I give all the credit to Candy. She is my inspiration when I aspire to prove that I am not "that" kind of blogger. I never want to be the one who makes life out to be all sugar and cream and puppy dog tails. She's certainly not the first or only blogger to present a rose-colored view of her life, but to me, she's the worst offender. I don't delude myself into thinking that people look up to me, but nevertheless, I don't want anyone to get the impression that I only post the good things. I never want someone to hold themselves up to ridiculously impossible standards b/c I only posted the "pretty" parts of my day.
Yes, I love my husband and kids very much. Yes, I keep a generally tidy home. Yes, I like to cook wholesome, from scratch meals for my family. But there are days when I nag at my husband to pick up his damn socks and there are days when I want to toss my kids out the window. There are days when I'm just too lazy to unload the dishwasher and my kitchen is a disaster. There are days when I don't get the bed made until I get home from work at 5:30. There are days when darn it, I just don't FEEL like cooking and we order pizza. But I don't think that makes me a lesser mom, wife, or Christian. It just makes me human.
Um, yeah....so that was way more than you wanted to know about my philosphy of blogging.
And Candy has those days too, but she'll never admit to it. She has created this perfect facade for the world (or at least the blogging world) to see. I honestly believe that's why she doesn't let anyone get "too close". She doesn't want anyone to see what really goes in their lives, especially with the kids. They have practically no relationship with family, she keeps her kids with her in church, the kids never seem to be doing much except table time or watch her exercise.
It's a dangerous world out there for her. People have opposing views and live real lives. Her life is a mixture of the made-up realm and what she'd like for it to be.
I guess if it were not for her condescending posts and comments, her manipulation of comments and her downright lies (hello, Candy, a comment is not "vile" just because it opposes you -- I have read much more hatred spewed out of your mouth than I've read anyone write about you), I could feel sorry for her. But, I don't. I feel sorry for those kids, though.
I definitely feel horribly bad for her children. The fact that she keeps them so close is scary, and not right, but we all have the right to parent as we choose, I guess.
Her reasoning is most likely exactly what others have said. If her kids interact with anyone other than her and wunderhubee (did I spell that one right?) they may get thoughts in their head that were not programmed by mom & dad. They may start to see that there is a world outside their tiny, controlled existence.
The fact is though that they will see this eventually anyway. They can't be chained inside that house. There will come a time when those children are exposed to something other than what they've been spoon fed by their parents, and then what? They will have no skills to cope. No ability to reason. No way to use their minds to make a determination.
Which is exactly why I said earlier that as badly as I feel for them, I am grateful that I do not live in their community. As adults, they will not be able to function in their society. They will not be able to have personal relationships with people because they simply won't know how. Doesn't exactly sound like a good life for anyone, does it?
They will rebel. At least one of them - probably the oldest who has already lived his whole 8 years with the label "strong willed" and who knows what comes with that label in such a controlling home.
Well, I am waiting. It's 11 a.m. here and no Candy post yet for today. Let's see, I am guessing it will be an "I'm Busy, Busy" post. She must be nursing her kombacha or harvesting some homemade bacteria yogurt plus all of that exercising and homeschooling.
Whew, I get tired just thinking about all she does!
I really hate to align myself with Candy in any way, but I do have confess that I prefer to keep my kids with me during church, as well. I'm also not a fan of the "reserved for parents of small children" seats in the back, nor of the nursery (which my mom refers to as the "bawl room").
My issue, though, isn't that I'm afraid of my children learning something sinful (ie, something different), just that I feel that it's teaching them that church is a place to play. At some point, your kid has to stop going to the nursery and start sitting in church. What then? And there's no way you're getting me to sit in back--darn it, I like to see what's going on! We consistently sit in the front three rows and have never had an issue. My son is a year and a half, and I repeatedly get compliments on how well-behaved he is. If he can sit (basically) still for an hour, then certainly a three year old can. I want my children to see church as a place of reverence, a place to worship God--not a place to play and mess around.
So, that's my lecture for the day. Actually, after my "philosophy of blogging" post, it's probably my second lecture. Forgive me, everyone. Mea culpa. (There ya go--more of that heathen Latin for ya. You know, that heathen Latin upon which so many other languages are based.)
But Amanda, aren't you a heathen catholik? Because a Catholic Mass is a bit more child-friendly than services at a church like Candy's. With Mass, there's stand up, sit down, kneel, shake hands, and walk around the church for communion. The sermon is usually under 15 minutes.
At Candy's church, the service is most likely a full hour or even longer of preaching, with a little music at the beginning and end. Much more difficult for small children to sit though. I guess the pilgrims managed, though.
Keeping your kids with you in church isn't anything negative, I don't think and I know for me, that wasn't what I was commenting on at all - not in and of itself, at least. It's more the larger picture.
As a child, I spent summers outside the house with all the kids in the neighborhood. We ran around non stop and played. We interacted with other kids, other parents, other families. We had sleep overs. I know these days neighborhoods don't exist as they did then, and they're not as safe as a whole, but still.
And, her oldest is 8. Do you think she lets him play with the neighbors, without her being right there? Do you think he gets to have a pizza night sleepover in the living room of his best friend's house? Do you think he even has a best friend?
I can see wanting to protect your kids and raise them with your values, but they cannot be raised in a bubble. They need peer interaction. They need interaction with other adults. They need this so they can learn HOW to interact and relate to people. Unless she plans on them never leaving some cult like compound, there will come a day when they have to converse with an employer, a peer, a man standing on the corner...and they simply won't know how. Given Candy's stance on most things, I can imagine them looking at that man on the corner with disdain immediately because he has a crucifix around his neck rather than looking at him as someone who may need directions, or a kind word or a simple hello.
I agree. Keeping your children with you in church is not a bad thing. My DD8 stays with me in church A LOT. What I have issue with is when the children are not allowed to interact (whether it be church or wherever) with others because they have something to hide. I personally wonder if it is not more about keeping her kids from saying something about what goes on behind closed doors to an outsider. I think hers is fear-induced on that level moreso than on the level of preventing their exposure to opposing viewpoints, although I believe that to be a secondary reason.
Highdesert, I just read your comment over on KTH. Great post
My kids stay with me at Mass - but our sermons aren't fifteen minutes! More like half an hour, 45 minutes if you include the Scripture reading part.
It's not about keeping them from bad influences, it's about worshipping as a family.
I know I've posted about Dake before, but this simply boggle my mind:
I believe Dake to be wrong about "planet heaven," his view of the trinity (3 Gods, instead of 3 in 1), and the gap theory. Other than that, there are minor things here and there that I've found that I disagree with, but other than that, I think his notes are fabulous.
So, he doesn't understand the CREATION OF THE WORLD and gets THE FOUNDATIONAL DOCTRINE of Christianity, the Trinity wrong... but other than that his notes are fabulous???
I really wish someone would ask her why she likes Dake so much, since he doesn't believe Once Saved Always Saved either.
It is very irresponsible to recommend a book that you KNOW has egregious errors to others who look up to you (however misled they may be.)
Okay, so there have been 212 comments to his post so far. A post which wasn't even written by Matthew, so who wrote it? And where is Matthew? Was he in the hurricane? Or the earthquake? Is he okay?? Sorry to keep asking but I just found it odd that no one else had...
And another one: I haven't been on here for a whole day because I've been listening to my new CD (Cave of the Heart) ;D
Oh, and as for people who ridicule Catholics "out of love"... well, that knid of reminds me of the abusive husband or boyfriend who beats his wife/girlfriend because he loves her SO much... puh leaz!!!
Erika, I guess I wasn't concerned b/c at some point in the comments (don't ask where!), he mentioned that he might not be posting as much due to work commitments. (It would seem that, unlike Candy, his life does not revolve around his blog. How DARE he! LOL.)
I'm guessing the person posting in his stead is his wife, but it's strictly a guess. (And it doesn't matter a whole lot, really.) I do look forward to the guest commentator.
Have any of you been following the comments on Amanda's (not our Amanda) site? She is claiming behaviors aren't Christian, yet she is going off the deep end herself.
Funny, isn't it, how Candy seldom, if ever "defends" herself, but so many of her minions act on her behalf.
Isn't that how false prophets get started? They delegate the dirty work to their followers to see if they'll do it? And, those that follow blindly are especially blessed and given prime roles in the hierarchy of the false church?
Don't mind me, I am just being sarcastic (oh noes) because I find this all so damn hilarious. Amanda (not ours) is creating blog posts about how people should behave, etc. and basically being Candy in Canada - all based on the recent activity on KTH; none of it happened on her blog, that's for sure. Maybe her blog hits have been low and she needs a higher hit count to matter?
I just find it interesting on so many levels that so many people ride the coattails of others. Especially in this case - why would anyone want to ride those particular coattails?
I've been editing images all day; my brain is mush. Please, know that that is my excuse for posts that are going off in all different directions.
Oh, Amanda is just a wannabe. She wants to be Candy II so bad she can hardly stand it! I doubt she has gotten all of the "vile" filth spewed at her that she claims in her post about commenting guidelines. Whatever, Amanda (not our Amanda)!
I love all this "Amanda, not our Amanda". We could rechristen her ANOA, I suppose.
Can someone link her blog? I can't see Candy's blog from my work computer.
here
ANOA is totally like Candy, just from reading her blog for a few minutes.
But I have to say, and this is back on the subject of spell check and proofreading -- Amanda says "I am a keeper at home as encouraged in the Scriptures, and I feel it is my highest calling and PRIVILEGE to fill this important roll!"
Role. Roll.
Proofread what you write, please. If you have time to write long blog posts, you have time to read it again and proofread it.
End rant
I feel it is my highest calling and PRIVILEGE to fill this important roll!
Oh, come now. Maybe God entrusted her with the filling of a very important pastry.
Heck, if all of Candy's comments from Cathluks come in vials, why not?
Wow. Talk about a Candy-Clone. It's almost enough to make me go by Mandy, just to not be confused with her.
On today's post ("You have nothing to say, quit talking!") I left the following comment: "I agree wholeheartedly, but I suspect from a different standpoint." Which will no doubt go over her head.
Did you see the series of article on the right? "Removing the vail". Which, as it turns out, is a verb (not a noun, dear ANOA) meaning:
"1. to let sink; lower.
2. Archaic. to take off or doff (one's hat), as in respect or submission"
I guess I do have to give the Minions credit; because of them, I've learned several new words (and their correct use).
Oh, ANOA and her spelling, or lackthereof, skills. And, she is homeskooling her chitlens. It scares me.
I have nothing against homeschooling; we've been there before at this site. But, if the teacher can't teach, whether at home or in a school setting, said teacher has no business doing so. How can a mother correct her child's spelling if she can't do it correctly herself? I can't wait 'til another good grammar disaster comes along, and with ANOA, there are plenty. I've read her blog for a while and she is a flip-flopper; John Kerry got the designation from her. Her belief system changes with the wind. You should read her posts about Christmas around the holidays if you get a chance. She started out all "it's a pagan celebration that we don't participate in" to "Merry Christmas Everyone". All in a matter of weeks.
Seriously, these people crack me up. And, you know what? It's not really their religious conviction that tickles me, it's their inability to actually have one, but to go off the deep end about whatever they currently think, or whatever their role model (Candy, in this case) thinks. It's sad, really.
Most evil Catholics I know know what they believe and why. That doesn't change with the wind for them, or after hearing a new interpretation of scripture.
There must be something in the air, I posted commenting guidelines today too!
http://milehimama.blogspot.com/2008/07/word-about-comments.html
BTW, can someone tell an HTML dummy how to embed links so they aren't so difficult to read in comments?
MileHiMama's Comment Policy
To get that:
[a href="http://link url"]Name of Link[/a]
except instead of [], use <>
Tia, don't you mean ROLL model?
MHM, go here
Under "to link".
Instead of their "test.svg" put in your link. And in their "Click here to open the SVG file" put the text that you want to show up (like "here").
Believe it or not, that was the best link I could find when I googled. It's hard to show on here, b/c if you enter the code, it does it's job and shows up as a link, not code.
Swimmer's explanation was better. I should have left it to the pros.
K, I'm gonna try it:
regarding the Dake being fabulous except for his erroneous views on the Trinity, Creation, and Salvation, Candy posted this in her "rapture" post.
You see, just as Satan tried to create his own counterfeit savior of the world, he also is creating his own counterfeit Bibles. He’ll put in just enough truth in these Bibles to draw many people in, but there will also be some deceptions interwoven in these translations. Jesus warns of this type of deception, when He told us that “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” In other words, only some of the Bible needs to be corrupted, and the corruption will eventually work it’s way through its reader’s very spirit.
whoo hoo! It worked. Now if I can just remember it!
More Candy mind boggling:
Proof that 1 John 5:7 does indeed belong in the Bible
1. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, 200-258 A.D. quotes this passage as being written by John.
2. It was quoted by Vigilus of Thapsus in the 5th century.
3. It's in the Codex Montfortii.
4. It's in the Latin Vulgate.
Umm.. those sources she quotes as "proof"?
Catholic. And, re: the Latin Vulgate, she also had this to say:
They will fall into these cults because of their ignorance of the Word of God, or because they are reading the new Bible versions that have been translated from extremely errant manuscripts translated by ignorant or ungodly people
(These cults being cults that bow down to Mary and Jesus statues, guess who she's talking about there?)
My curiosity got the best of me, so I went to read at Amanda's site. She really is a Candy-wannabe. She even edited Elena's links like Candy edited my catholic.com link with something like {link removed for cult content} or something like that. LOL
Anyway, haloscan is acting really wierd, and I don't think my comment went through to her, so I'm going to keep it here for safekeeping and try to send it on through later.
Oh, Amanda, Candy has taught you well.
I have one question for you. If Candy has received threats of bodily harm toward her or her family, why doesn't she show all of us by publishing it?
If you, Candy or any of her other readers don't like my religion, I honestly don't care. When any of you say that we Catholics just get riled up because we know you have the truth and we're frustrated by that, yes, I am completely offended because you are very mistaken on that point, a point that you all keep trying to throw in our faces. What keeps my attention focused on all of this is the need to have respectful two-way communication with Christians who don't have this sick need to tell me they know more about my religious practices and beliefs than I do. I am a practicing Catholic that knows what I believe. I do believe in the Eucharist, I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins, I am a sinner who does go to confession when I can but confesses my sins to God each day in prayer, and I tithe because the Bible tells me to, not because I think I can buy my way into heaven. What I do not need is an endorsement from you or even your stamp of approval. As a Christian woman, I do not see how it could please God to spend my time trying to disprove someone else's beliefs. Candy (and you and whoever else) can spread their gospel messages high and low. I am great with that- what I am not great with is religious prejudice, and you can deny it all you want, but that is what this is. Candy said something in her comments about "You Catholics..." That is just one tiny example. If you don't see it, you need to lift your "veil."
Glad my explanation helped (though I am far from a pro), but you only need the http:// once, otherwise it sends you to a different site, so in the quotes you would have (for example): http://www.google.com
You see, just as Satan tried to create his own counterfeit savior of the world, he also is creating his own counterfeit Bibles. He’ll put in just enough truth in these Bibles to draw many people in, but there will also be some deceptions interwoven in these translations. Jesus warns of this type of deception, when He told us that “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” In other words, only some of the Bible needs to be corrupted, and the corruption will eventually work it’s way through its reader’s very spirit.
You know, sometimes it amazes me how little faith she has in God. If God can allow Moses to part the Red Sea, then I think that he could probably find a way to convince me that I was reading a flawed translation (if such a thing really exists). I just do not understand how reading the NIV instead of the KJV is going to lead someone down the firey path to hell. If the Holy Spirit can speak to her and help her interpret the Bible, then the Holy Spirit can speak to me and point me to the right Bible.
The notion that there are thousands of lost souls b/c they read the wrong Bible is ridiculous. I think God's so darn happy that you're making an effort and ARE reading the Bible, that he couldn't care less what version you're reading.
I also love how she said in her "who I am post", "I don't believe you have to read the KJV to get to heaven", but in other posts essentially tells you that you're filling your brain with Satan's words if you read any version BUT the Authorized 1611 KJV.
Seriously, how does she keep all her stories straight? It make my head spin!
Long time reader of this, and I very well may have missed a previous conversation abou this, but I'm so confused: why the KJV? What makes it so apparent to her that this the only correct translation? I'm a heathen Lutheran, so I am probably full of mis-conceptions, but I was never brought up to believe that the Bible was the inherent word of God Himself, from the heavens, and absolutely not up for debate. We learned that there were many translations that happened, and, of course, things get lost/misinterpreted in that process.
*Gasp* A Lutheran in our presense! The horrors!
I do believe that the original, Hebrew and Greek bible is the original, unerrant word of God. I believe he spoke through the writers and said things just as he wanted it said.
Unfortunately, things get lost in translation. Like when a Mexican asked my dad, "What does 'down to earth' mean?" How do you explain something like that?
In Candy's world, only the AUTHORIZED 1611 KJV is the real Bible. ONLY those translators were inspired. Every other translation is corrupt. They do things like spell "saviour" without the "u". (I refer to it as "The Sacred U".) You can find all sorts of sites saying way KJV is the ONLY Bible; they offer up all sorts of examples. To me, though, when I read those sites, all I can think of is, "Are you SERIOUS?" As far as I'm concerned, it's just nitpicking. Here's one such site. Judge for yourself.
I asked her once, why, if God could inspire the translators of the KJV, he couldn't also have inspired the translators of the other versions, but of course it never got published. (How dare I question her absolute authority?)
Like I said, when it comes down to it, her lack of faith in God is astonishing.
I'm unsure why she's doing anothe KJV only post. She has several, including still up on her sidebar. I can only think that she must get a lot of Google hits off that (and that's why, IMO, she does so many homebinder posts.)
Erika--
I am glad that you are enjoying "Cave of the Heart." Am I safe in assuming that you also enjoy listening to "Table of Plenty?"
Either my comment did go through to "the other" Amanda or she reads here because the woman blocked my access to her blog. LOL
Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse, but I have to say something. Candy's dear friend Amanda is an absolute kook. There, I've reduced myself to name-calling, but I'm really ticked. From what I remember of reading her blog before I sent her my comment that I posted above, she was saying that those of us challenging Candy have nothing useful to say. In fact, I think she said we were being "stupid." I shared exactly how I view the situation and why I feel the way I do, and she doesn't respond, and even goes as far as to block me from reading her blog. In my opinion, when you do a public blog and make statements like she has, you are opening yourself up to questions, and when you slam the door on someone like she did on me, she is being nothing but closed-minded. (Not that I really thought she was open-minded in the first place I guess.)
;D yep
I am taking a pledge. I will not listen to 1611 KJVers unless the women spouting it off are dressed in appropriate, modest, feminine, 1611 apparel.
Like this:
1611 Dress
or, perhaps, this:
Puritan Woman
I feel it is my highest calling and PRIVILEGE to fill this important roll!
Oh, come now. Maybe God entrusted her with the filling of a very important pastry.
-----
Amanda, you are a riot. Thanks for making me laugh so early in the morning. Now I'm having to wipe cornflakes off my computer.
Can anyone tell me if the prayzpartays ever show the Michael Card "One Faith" vid from YouTube?
that would be a good one...
I heard it today on you tube.
I still think I should have a party...
Let me just say that in regards to Candy and her minions, lately ANOA specifically...in her own words:
Basically, in respect to proving your point, the facts regarding all these statements and the like are...
IRRELEVANT!
IRRELEVANT!
IRRELEVANT!
IRRELEVANT!
IRRELEVANT!
IRRELEVANT!
IRRELEVANT!
My work here is done. (For a while, anyway).
Seriously, how does she keep all her stories straight? It make my head spin!
****
Obviously she doesn't...as is evidenced by her many contradicting posts and comments....
OK, ya'll. It is a very big day around here leading into a very big weekend. My beautiful, wonderful, loving, perfect niece is turning 16 and we are having her surprise party tonight! Lots and lots to do for that. And, we will be spending the weekend on a boat, at a lake, away from home.
So, please, whatever you do, save some of the good stuff to share with me when I get back. I read ANOA's blast towards Elena this morning (I won't even go there about the "sick" and needing help thing, but can we all say "projection") but I'm sure I'll be gone by the time Candy posts today and I'll miss all that fun! Or, that boredom if she chooses today to be a perfect housewife again.
aww...sweet sixteen.....Happy Birthday to your niece...hope you all have a great time.....
Post a Comment