Death is an aspect of life that makes godless intellects squirm.
Certain questions are unavoidable when death comes knocking.
Heathen are particularly ham-handed when they handle those questions.
** UPDATE **
Apparently, Jill is not pleased that I quoted her.
If you like my blog even a little bit, then you should know I do Christian Comedy live shows! It’s all the faith and fun you read here, but on stage, it’s even more hilarious. Hire me for your next corporate bash, church event, or school function, and let’s make it a night of laughs with my unique brand of Christian Comedy!
Three Little Pigs in Shakespeare is available as a children’s book. Get the illustrated story based on my viral comedy routine from Amazon. Makes a great gift for the word-lovers in your life.
You gonna keep lurking forever or are you gonna join this exclusive clique?
Stop procrastinating. Click This.
79 Responses
Haiku is NOT my forte, but I shall try.
Kindness kills the truth
Gorillas are without souls
Sorry this is painful
There, I hope I have settled the matter.
Whoops. Too many syllables in the last line.
May I recommend “Sorry that it hurts” ? 🙂
She did say haiku is not her forte…
On a list of skills
All humans should learn to do
Haiku is dead last.
I agree with you.
Insanity did just fine.
Syllables don’t matter.
I see what you did there.
I did the same thing as you.
Just a bit different.
Sorry if I’m repetitive, but I do think that the issue that is arising primarily comes from a lack of context – people don’t know the years long relationship you (JB) have with KIA.
I understand that your repost of KIA is founded in the fact that he’s banned you, so I have no issue with the repost with commentary. I also think that a majority of your commentary is good at pointing out that KIA’s answer is just fluff that doesn’t really even constitute a thoughtful answer based on fact. What gets a little fuzzy is the tiny jabs that are fluff in themselves: “It’s beautifful” “Congrats” and the jabs at the haikus for example.
Granted, those are funny things. They also serve to polarize sides: People who agree with you will more strongly continue to agree with you and people who disagree with you will more strongly disagree with you. The moderate lurkers (if there are any) are faced with two opposing forces from the jabs. They are more likely to agree with you because it’s funny (which, is is a sucky reason to agree with you) and they are less likely to agree with you because it’s kinda mean (which is also a sucky reason to disagree with someone).
I guess it all depends on your purpose for what you’re doing – I can’t clearly saying you’re wrong or “in sin” or whatever, but it’s also not clear what your purpose is (as Jill kind of pointed out… I apologize if you answered her, I didn’t catch it in the skim and it was a lengthy discussion :P).
Anyway, I’m off to craft a brilliant insult to make Amanda cry… you know… since i just scolded you for posting jackassery out of context ^_^.
I second your obsevation, Dylan.
I’m not sure JB answered Jill (at least not clearly and directly), either.
…I’m guessing either he didn’t think she was really asking or he missed her question amid the many other words she used…
Guess she needs to listen to the podcast! 😉
Thanks for the second. I’ll second your confirmation of my observation.
I do understand “missing” the question among the plethora of questions. It is very frustrating to respond to at least 3 aspects of a long post/comment and then get accused ignoring another question that seems subsidiary. I mean I get – I try to give the accuser the benefit of the doubt, because it is a side effect of internet commentary. It’s just frustrating on both sides when it happens, because it feels like your being ignored.
Giving the podcast a listen wouldn’t be the worst thing for her to do. But now that I know you’ve seen this – I’ll have to wait another week or two to insult you. You know, for maximum tears. ^_^
You’re assuming your insult will succeed. Very smug.
Have you joined the “Support Group For the 21st Century” yet?
If not, you need to. You’re already doing A WONDERFUL job “supporting” the “support” of others.
#Supportive
“What gets a little fuzzy is the tiny jabs that are fluff in themselves…”
This is a fair point, Dylan. I am guilty of hypocrisy and I will own that.
Part of the problem may be my comfort level with my blog readers (or podcast listeners). I talk to readers as if they’re friends. My commentary regarding haikus is the same whether I’m talking to KIA or my own flesh and blood brother. The difference is, my brother returns fire in kind.
I am consistent in this perspective. I’ve never made atheist “meanness” the center-point of our discussions.
“They are more likely to agree with you because it’s funny…”
This is absolutely right and stings like crazy to hear you say it. The only response I have is I need to be absolutely sure I’m telling the truth. Agreeing with someone just because they’re funny is sucky thinking indeed. What sucks worse is agreeing with a funny person who isn’t telling the truth.
Part of the problem may be my comfort level with my blog readers (or podcast listeners).
That makes sense – I get that you’re not trying to talk to “The Internet” and you are addressing the regulars (and Pskaerlghe). I think that’s why I can’t flat out say “You’re wrong” because, in context, I don’t think it’s wrong.
The only response I have is I need to be absolutely sure I’m telling the truth. Agreeing with someone just because they’re funny is sucky thinking indeed. What sucks worse is agreeing with a funny person who isn’t telling the truth.
Eh, I’m not even convinced that it’s a whole lot worse. Bad thinking is bad thinking. If I come to the right conclusion from bad premises, I can easily get thrown off when my premises are shown to be bad…
After writing this out, I don’t think we disagree… because it still is “worse”… I’m just repeating you in different words…. yet I still feel compelled to leave it with these caveats. Whatever. I’m not editing it any further. ^_^
Dear Mr. Branyan,
Not knowing you or your site, I would not ordinarily comment here, but I saw you had copied, in its entirely with my full name attached, a comment I had posted on KIA’s board. I therefore feel a certain level of personal involvement. I am not sure why you took KIA’s response to me and graded it as if you were a first year philosophy instructor who had been liberally supplied with blue ink, but I am sure doing it gave you pleasure. Nor do I understand your animus against the ancient and noble poetical form called the haiku. Perhaps because David chose not to use it in writing his psalms?
What I did not like is that you seemed to have cast me, in your critique, as the honest seeker of truth who has been fobbed off with trifling answers. In this, you are wrong. I invited KIA to join me in musing about the implications arising from an animal who so nearly approaches the qualities we associate with soulhood. It was an invitation to a brief philosophical speculation in which there are no wrong answers and in which one doesn’t lose points for a provisional reply. I think you misunderstood the purpose of my interaction with KIA. Had I wanted authoritative church teaching on whether Koko’s intelligence made her capable of original sin, I would have asked my priest. Sometimes there is more to be learned from an exploration of someone’s thoughts.
Nonetheless, thank you for the demonstration of evangelical hardball. Overall, I think I tend to prefer “Catholics Come Home.”
Dear Mz. Smith,
I meant no insult casting you as an honest seeker of truth! My apologies. It was wrong to respond to your “philosophical speculation in which there are no wrong answers”.
I did indeed misunderstand the purpose of your interaction with KIA. I thought you were attempting to find some kind of truth. You have set me straight.
Thank you for the demonstration of self-righteousness indignation. Overall, I think I tend to prefer…well..anything else.
I do not in general mind being quoted. I have noticed that many people who take a guest’s comment from another board often delete the person’s name. This is not a legal requirement; merely a courtesy. It is disconcerting to find a discussion between KIA and me at his website used by a total stranger as fodder for derision on a board unknown to me. That the derision was directed at KIA made it no less unpleasant.
You have made it clear that you have no interest in dead gorillas, and who can blame you? One wonders why you took the trouble to interject yourself in to a discussion you must surely have known would not interest you any more than conjecturing how many angels dance on the head of a pin. A less charitable person would wonder if you saw it as a golden opportunity to get some easy laughs at KIA’s expense. Or perhaps it is Ridicule the Atheist day, and nobody told me.
You wonder why I would be interested in anything KIA has to say. Because I often find him interesting? Because his insights derive from a philosophy which I don’t share yet which I do not find valueless? Because it is sometimes fun to discuss ideas with someone who, although he does not subscribe to the Baltimore Catechism, shares my passion for biology? Because my religious training doesn’t require me to view him as on the spiritual level of Son of Sam’s dog?
I am indeed self-righteous. But in this instance I was more irritated than indignant. You cast me as a serious questioner in order to ridicule what you saw as the defects in KIA’s replies. I did not like being used for this purpose.
Again. I apologize for casting you as a serious questioner. I will not make that mistake again.
You admitted to not knowing me so I’ll give you the reasoning behind my methods. Atheists are free to write whatever they want about faith, theology, Christianity and the status of dead gorilla souls. KIA and his cohorts are quite vocal in their “derision” for me. They are openly hostile toward the Christian faith as well. Since atheists are a sensitive bunch, they often get their feelings hurt and block my comments on their blog space. So I take screen shots of their posts (to avoid misquoting them) and interject my commentary in the margins of their own words.
I’m happy to hear any objections to the arguments or comments I write. Usually, there are no objections to the arguments. Instead, I get scolded for being mean. I dare you to ask KIA about his current theology. I double-dare you. “KIA, what is your current understanding of the nature of ‘God’?”
If the day comes when your irritation subsides and you realize that you and I are supposed to be on the same side, we might be able to have a civil conversation. In the meantime, I’d encourage you to re-read Pastor Mike’s writings paying special attention to the way he talks about Jesus Christ. KIA mocks your faith and you’re “irritated” with me.
The fool says there is no God. On my calendar, every day is Ridicule an Atheist day.
LOL! I’m not sure if you’re in trouble for speaking the truth about an atheist or for failing to care enough about a dead gorilla?
Either way, you just keep doing what you do. It’s like a breath of fresh air in a stale room.
Jill doesn’t know me very well.
She doesn’t understand that when she says, “You’re derision hurts my feelings”, I take that to mean, “You have hit the nail on the head.”
I can understand why she’s upset about being quoted alongside KIA’s incoherent pablum. That would be humiliating. I imagine it’s akin to waking up from a night of drinking and discovering a dead clown in your bed. Then asking that clown if gorillas have souls.
Hi John. Your derision didn’t hurt my feelings because I wasn’t the object of it. If we continue to correspond, I am sure that day will come. Having explained twice why I didn’t like your quoting me in that context, I will not try again. Needless to say, I reject your analogy, but I try very hard not to see any of God’s children as dead clowns. Should one ever appear in my bed, I will ask it about Koko’s soul while I await the arrival of the coroner’s van.
Come, let us try to be civil. Of course I am well aware of the fact that KIA spent many years as a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian, and that he now finds himself unable to believe. I believe that he was written extensively about the reasons for his loss of faith, and I have not read all of it. Just as I have known many people who came to faith in adulthood, I have also known many who, for a number of reasons, come slowly to a realization that they were paying lip service to creeds to which they could no longer give honest assent. I set a high premium on intellectual honesty, and the person who walks away from his church rather than stay and pretend he still believes is due my respect.
My own dear father, whose religious beliefs were a little vague, felt that agnostics and atheists have a duty to shut up about their unbelief rather than disturb the faith of children and old ladies. I think this is an unreasonable expectation. I find it natural that people should write about why they lost their faith, the influences that led them that way, and the relief (sometimes tinged with regret) they feel upon becoming honest with themselves. And, speaking for myself, I find it interesting.
KIA has asked me searching questions about what I believe, and what meaning I find in my Christian faith. I actually found answering him a valuable exercise in defining my beliefs and what they mean to me. I am aware that some deconverts ask questions only to mock the answers they are given. That has not been my experience with KIA. Some deconverts do speak about our Lord in ways that pain the Christian conscience, but again, that has not been my experience. Asking me if I am aware of modern scholarship casting doubt on the historicity of Christ is not mockery; it is simply a question. Pointing out sections of the Old Testament that deal with genocide and slavery is not blasphemy; I struggle with these sections myself, as must any thinking Christian. Asking me how I reconcile my acceptance of evolutionary theory with my belief in a supernatural Creator is not, and is not intended to be, insulting.
My Catholic faith does not require me to view people who have lost their faith neither as hostile adversaries nor as enemies of all that is good. Nor does it require me to view them as self-deluded fools. Pope Francis writes that in dealing with unbelievers, “I do not approach the relationship in order to proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect him and I show myself as I am. Where there is knowledge, there begins to appear esteem, affection, and friendship. I do not have any type of reluctance, nor would I say that his life is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a judgment about the honesty of that person; even less, if he shows me those human virtues that exalt others and do me good.” I find his shining charity inspirational.
And now may I ask you a question. Clearly the reason underlying your chosen form of interaction with KIA is not to reclaim a lost sheep. If your goal was to promote his return to faith, you would not bait your hooks in such a way as to drive him further away. So, is your purpose simply quid pro quo? He insults your faith, so you’ll insult him? If he’s going to mock Christians, then you’ll respond my mocking him? Or is it to inoculate the faithful against the contagion of disbelief by depicting the unbeliever as so foolish as to deserve ridicule and disrespect? Or is it simply to amuse your readers?
You and I believe in the same Lord. But your reference to being on the same side troubles me because it suggests that unbelievers are on a different side, one toward which I am expected to feel enmity. This goes against a lifetime of Christian teaching about compassion, respecting the dignity of the human person, and reaching out in charity to those with whom we disagree.
” But your reference to being on the same side troubles me because it suggests that unbelievers are on a different side, one toward which I am expected to feel enmity. ”
Unbelievers ARE on a different side. Your commentary is precisely why I write this blog. Somebody has to speak up against the wickedness of godless thinking and you are obviously unwilling to do so.
“My Catholic faith does not require me to view people who have lost their faith neither as hostile adversaries nor as enemies of all that is good.”
Right. You seem to have no problem with enmity toward me though. Is your Catholic faith familiar with how the Bible describes those who turn their backs on Christianity? Look it up. (It’s Hebrews 6…)
“Nor does it require me to view them as self-deluded fools.”
Ezekiel 13:3, Psalm 14:1, Psalm74:18-22, Matt. 7:26, Rom. 1:21-22, 1 Cor. 3-19
Does “Your Catholic Faith” come from the Bible or do you just kind of feel your way along?
Keep listening respectfully to KIA’s tales of Christian abuse. You and he can share your views on the evils of evangelical hardball. You keep “Your Catholic Faith” and KIA can keep “His Agnosticism” and the two of you can agree that I’m the bad guy.
John, I have no personal enmity toward you. I didn’t like what you did, and my initial response was made at a time when the surprise of seeing my name on your website was particularly acute. I understand that we are not going to see eye to eye about this–either about how we should view people who have lost their faith, or about how a Christian should treat them. I want to make it clear, as I wrote to mrsmcmommy below, that had I not found my correspondence with KIA quoted here and dissected for laughs, I would not have presumed to voice a criticism.
I sense in your comments a certain disdain for my Catholic faith (which I do not make up as I go along). But, yes, we read the Bible, especially the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Lost Sheep.
I am still curious about your intention in writing as you do. Do you believe that those who abandon the Christian faith are reprobates beyond redemption?
Jill, the Holy Spirit laid it upon my heart to share this article with you…
Please keep in mind who the Lord has called you to love, and humbly consider why your are more concerned about defending unbelievers than your own brother.
https://culturesatwar.wordpress.com/2015/07/14/proud-member-of-the-morality-police-at-your-service/
Hi Mrs. McMommy. Thank you for the link to the article which I read carefully. It was kind of you to send it. There are a couple of points I want to try to make. The first is that my faith teaches me that I am called to love everyone in so far as I am able, and that, like the Good Shepherd, I should have a tender regard for those who have wandered away. Faith is a gift, not a meritorious act, and if faith isn’t fostered, it can be lost. Knowing how careless I have been at times in treasuring my own faith, I can’t find it in my heart to blame people who have lost theirs.
I think perhaps there may be a theological difference between my denomination and some others. As a Catholic, I am not taught to regard a brother who falls away from the faith as wicked or as deserving my anger and contempt. I am taught to remember that it could have been me, and to be merciful.
I think this is why I found John’s treatment of KIA to be shocking. I want to make it clear that I would never have considered it my business to tell John how he should treat unbelievers had my own correspondence with KIA not been posted on this site. Only that fact made it, in my view, legitimate for me to express my distaste. I do not believe that mockery is ever effective in restoring someone to belief in our Lord (if that is John’s intention), but I would not have defended KIA (who is capable of defending himself) had I not been put in the position of appearing to join in the ridicule.
The other point–and I am trying really hard not to sound all noble–is that while I owe a special love and loyalty to my brothers and sisters in the faith, that should not ever result in my defending something I believe to be wrong. Just as I don’t automatically take my daughter’s side when she has a dispute at work, I should not automatically side with a Christian who I believe is treating an unbeliever unfairly. I guess my point is that I shouldn’t automatically be on anyone’s side except God’s.
I appreciate your concern, and I hope this explanation helps a bit.
John has many Catholic readers, Jill. I don’t think this is a “denomination” difference. It’s about parenting style.
You are choosing to be a permissive parent. And, like many permissive parents, you’re sacrificing the Authoritarians in order to win points with the child.
Disagreement between parents is fine. But when you announce to the child that you disagree, so he knows you’re the Fun Parent Who Loves Him The Most, you are doing damage. I believe you you have good intentions. But you’re confused if you think keeping the child happy is a sign you’re doing your job right.
Let me assure you–if you don’t tell KIA the truth about his sinfulness, you’re not doing your job. What you consider “loving” is actually cowardice–like sweetly tucking KIA into a bed in Hell because you don’t want to scream “GET UP!”
Mocking isn’t hatred. Jesus used mockery. None of the Christians here hate KIA. I didn’t even hate him when he started making sexually loaded comments toward me, as some sort of twisted punishment for asking about his faith. I don’t despise the poor man.
But, yes, it most definitely is HIS fault that he’s lost. KIA refuses to accept help because he doesn’t want to follow the light. He doesn’t WANT your compass because he’s not interested in going the same way you are.
Maybe John’s warning is KIAs last hope. But turning off your flashlight and pretending KIA is anything other than a rebel against God certainly isn’t helping him.
Hi mrsmcmommy, thank you for your reply. I think we simply see this very differently. KIA is someone I talk to now and then; I don’t know what is in his mind and heart, and I don’t know what caused him to lose his faith. I think you may be taking the position that any loss of faith is always a sign of wicked rebellion. I think that in some cases it may be; I don’t think that is invariably true. Because faith is a gift, I don’t think we can force ourselves to believe. When someone has lost his faith, I don’t understand how threatening him with the fires of hell is going to make him assent to a creed he no longer believes to be true. How could it?
I am not sure I totally understand your parenting analogy. Are you saying that Christians must present a united front in dealing with an unbeliever? Even if I agreed with that in theory, I could not conscientiously support a united front that I I think is using deplorable tactics. Even within a family, there are times when one parent cannot morally countenance the other parent’s approach to discipline. I would not have allowed my husband to physically abuse our daughter.
Jesus mocked the pharisees. I can’t recall instances of our Lord holding a particular individual up to ridicule and inviting the crowd to join in. I can’t recall His taking an individual’s conversation with someone else and subjecting it to sentence by sentence derision. I can’t recall His ever suggesting that repentance comes from being held up to public mockery.
It could be argued that KIA’s philosophical statements are fair game for dispute. But how does this explain John’s treatment of KIA’s prose style? His snide comment about looking forward to future haikus? His ridiculing the idea that a highly intelligent gorilla could be worth talking about? I believe you when you say that you have no animosity toward KIA. I am not so sure that everyone else on the board is as well disposed. When someone is held up to scorn as a worthless person whose writings are worthless rubbish, it does not tend to bring out the better angels of our natures.
I enjoyed reading a sampling of your posts.
You don’t know what is in KIAs heart, but you get the sense about what’s in the heart of John Branyan? Is that correct?
I don’t think I gave an opinion about what is in John’s heart. My comments were directed toward his outward conduct. I asked John in a previous comment about his specific purpose in writing as he does; he did not reply (and there is certainly no reason why he should–he does not owe me any explanations). Can you read through the screenshot with John’s annotations, and not conclude that his purpose was ridicule–not only of KIA’s thoughts but also of his poetry, his prose style, and his interests?
I can understand, theoretically, believing that someone who has apostatized and who now writes about his unbelief has forfeited any claim to civil treatment. Or believing that KIA has been obnoxious and deserves to be laughed at. Or believing that the commandment to return good for evil doesn’t apply to our dealings with heretics. Or believing that mockery and derision are the surest way to encourage someone to return to the faith he has rejected. Or even thinking that laughing at unbelievers is good clean fun. But I don’t share those beliefs, and I honestly can’t understand why anyone would expect me to. I am puzzled why my dislike for mockery is drawing criticism from fellow Christians. Why would anyone care what I think?
You will note that I didn’t tell John he shouldn’t do this; I wouldn’t presume. He is free to go on ridiculing unbelievers, and I am free to go on not liking it. And as I said yesterday, if my name hadn’t brought into it, I wouldn’t have expressed an opinion. I think we are at an impasse.
You wrote “I believe you when you say you have no animosity toward KIA. I am not sure that everyone else on the board is so well disposed.”
Therefore, you suggested John holds animosity in his heart toward KIA.
We are at an impasse because you believe mocking a person’s belief about monkeys (and their “poetry”) is the same as mistreating the individual. It’s unchristian.
Having a difference of opinion is fine. But sharing your opinion, and then backpedaling and pretending like you didn’t, is cowardly. Just because you didn’t say “I believe you’re acting badly” in those words doesn’t mean your message was unclear. Your opinion is that your treatment of KIA is more loving than John’s. Please at least have the decency to say so plainly. Then, once you admit that you think your ‘tactic’ is better, please understand that’s the reason for the criticism.
You have suggested that sinners can simply lose God, and that it may not be their fault when that happens. This is a huge theological problem. You’ve also cautioned that “threatening with the fires of Hell” could do more harm than good. Another huge problem.
I agree that we can’t force someone to believe anything, which is why I’ll never make you see what’s wrong with your understanding of Jesus. But I can offer you the truth, just as I’ve done with KIA many times, and then the choice will be yours.
Jesus didn’t tell people their poetry was beautiful to make them feel worthy and build up their self esteem. Jesus didn’t suggest to sinners that belief/unbelief was completely outside their control. If you’re teaching anyone they are WORTHY of being respected and/or loved, you are teaching a false Gospel.
That is why you’re receiving criticism.
You may feel you are doing things correctly because the sinners like you. But that’s another possible warning sign. (The Bible speaks about the dangers of being loved by the World.)
Don’t worry, John will never again make the mistake of assuming you agree with him. If he uses your name in the future, he will be very clear that you worship a different Jesus. Your Lord would NOT speak like John under any circumstances. Everyone understands that now.
Readers simply must decide which person’s Theology (yours or John’s) makes the most sense.
I have said all I know how, in effort to help you understand the issue here. But if you choose to remain at an “impasse,” then I simply pray willing to see eventually. I hope you open your eyes to the damage you are doing to The Lost when you argue with those driving out demons, rather than uniting against the demon itself. (Mark 9:38, 39)
In Him,
Amanda (Branyan) McKinney
Amanda, you will undoubtedly not believe me because I think we have reached a point in this interaction that you are not willing to judge me fairly. But my reference was not to John’s heart. I said, ” I am not so sure that everyone else on the board is as well disposed. When someone is held up to scorn as a worthless person whose writings are worthless rubbish, it does not tend to bring out the better angels of our natures.” I was referring to the possibility, even the likelihood, that some of John’s posters who “pile on” are not primarily motivated by concern for the lost. An invitation to join in mockery and scorn is an invitation to the ill disposed to let malice replace Christian charity. I am surprised that you cannot see that.
I think you are presenting a false alternative which, in effect, comes down to this: Unless I agree with John’s treatment of KIA, I am following a false Jesus. If I continue to feel repelled by John’s use of derision, I am guilty of presenting a false gospel. This is both illogical and presumptuous. Unlike you, I have not called into question your honesty, your courage, or your Christian testimony. But I do question your clarity on this issue. Criticism of John is not criticism of our Lord Jesus. Nor is it an invitation to a theology contest in which the readers are invited to cast a vote. Nor is disapproval of a certain style of apologetics taking sides with the devil against the saints. On that reasoning, I should have approved the Inquisition.
I appreciate your continued prayer of which I, and all of us, are in daily need.
You can disagree with John’s tactics all you want. Dylan has offered caution to John in this very thread, and I think he made a fine point.
I didn’t say you MUST agree with everything John says/does. In fact I tried to be very clear about the theological problems your comments have presented. I’m sorry if the length of my post confused things.
Let me reiterate: If you believe lost people are not at fault for “lost faith”, that’s a problem. If you believe the way to engage sinners is to affirm they ARE WORTHY of love, you are presenting a false Gospel.
I hope that clears it up.
“When someone is held up to scorn as a worthless person whose writings are worthless rubbish, it does not tend to bring out the better angels of our natures….”
You don’t say, Jillybean ??! May I just troll here? I have the screenshots. So, so many screenshots! And knives, rusty knives still sticking in my back. Like that line about the, “better angels of our nature” actually made me spit soda out of my nose.
This is one of those times when my Christian charity goes to war with my Christian honesty. Love however, demands the truth. If Jilly were my BFF, someone whom I truly loved, I would be compelled to say something like, “cut the good Christian lady crap, you so aren’t fooling anyone. Also, you aren’t justified by your own alleged goodness!” That’s good news, that is “The Good News.”
Do you have a history with Jill? Or do you mean you have rusty knives in your back from KIA?
Jilly and I do indeed have a history! She did not find my “Christian charity” pleasing either.
Hmmmm… 🤔
Two isn’t a pattern, but I’d be curious to know who else has gotten a light scolding from her.
Surely an Atheist every once in awhile, right?
Riiiight???
Yeah… No.
I was hoping that my history with Gabrielle could remain in the past. I think it is fair to say that we both felt hurt, sometimes deeply, by the actions of the other. I also have the screenshots, and the witness of people who were once on a board with us both. To this day I do not understand why I awoke Gabrielle’s antipathy, and there is no point trying to find out now. If she wishes to slime me now, I am not going to reply in kind. There has already been quite enough of that kind of thing. I think it might be time to forgive each other and move on.
Are you asking for forgiveness?
For any pain I caused her, yes certainly.
I was just asking for clarification because you said “we” need to forgive each other, but you also said you don’t know what you did that caused antipathy. Usually a good apology doesn’t include “there’s no point in trying to find out” why the other person is hurt… *shrug*
I can’t apologize for being the kind of person that another personality finds unlikeable. I got along with everyone else on the board; with Gabrielle, I had trouble almost from the beginning. Sometimes I sensed that she thought I was an elitist snob, insincere, and politically too liberal. I am not sure about this; It is only what I wondered at the time. It would be pointless for me to apologize for any of that.
Over a period of many years, we had numerous clashes. There are times I could have been kinder and gentler. There are times I could have let something go without a challenge. There were times I responded to words I found hurtful by launching my own accusations. I regret all of that. But I do not regret trying to speak the truth as I saw it, only the lack of gentleness and sensitivity with which I did it. I apologize for that. If she doesn’t read this, perhaps you could pass it on.
But she and I should not be on a board together. I had hoped we might politely avoid each other, but her commentary here on my character, as she sees it, told me that I need to not be here. After all, you already didn’t like me even before she started in on me! This is not a spiritually healthy place for me to be.
God bless you.
Jill
I don’t know anything about what happened between the two of you. It sounds like IB may be harboring some bitterness, and I have seen enough integrity from her in the past that I know I can tell her so without her accusing me of “sliming” her and then running away “hurt.”
Here and now, the only thing I’m going off are comments that YOU have left…
You have no reason to apologize for telling the truth. Especially not here. As you’ve seen, we value the truth much much more highly than polite eggshell walking.
Would you like to know what I find distasteful about what you’ve said here so far, or doesn’t it matter?
It’s not that it doesn’t matter. But I think, insensitive though i be, I have absorbed as much negative feedback as I can handle. You thought I was horrid even before Gabrielle shared her perceptions of my character. Any further variations on “Jesus loathes you and so do we” might push me right over the edge into despair. But thank you anyway.
Okay.
——–
P.S. Gabrielle (Insanitybytes): don’t feel as though you need to explain what happened with you and Jill any further. If she was putting words in your mouth, as she has done in the above comment, I understand your frustration.
Holding onto that frustration won’t help anything. But I just want you to know I sympathize with how hard it is to deal with people who announce when they’re taking the high road and honestly don’t understand why it’s off-putting. (I have a loved one who emailed MY ENTIRE FAMILY to air a grievance with one member, and then concluded with, “But I’m going to be the bigger person! Love wins!” Ick. She really, truly thought she was demonstrating ‘love.’ I found her behavior pitiful.)
I’m sorry that you haven’t been given the same latitude given to KIA. Maybe you should announce that you have lost your faith through no fault of your own, and then you will be due extra respect. 😉
Hmm, well here’s what I think. It is offensive to be rejected in favor of people who are actually kind of creepy, like being rejected in favor of Kia. There have been others,too. That’s just plain hard on the pride sometimes.
It’s also kind of offensive to be so misjudged, with words like she’s trying to “slime me,” or she holds all this “antipathy towards me.” That’s really not what’s in my heart at all.
It’s really just kind of painful for me to watch Jilly reject some friendly love, to say things like “we can’t be on the same board together” or you’re just trying to imply, “Jesus loathes you and so do we.” Nothing could be farther from the truth! I want to see Jilly surrounded by actual friends who love Jesus and who will show her that she is deeply loved too, flaws and all.
I really can’t ask for forgiveness, because of I were actually feeling hatred or loathing, I would simply be completely indifferent to her. I am not indifferent at all, I believe Jesus loves her dearly and she really needs to be around people who can convey that truth to her and answer her genuine questions. She has some great questions!
On the one hand, I should totally just mind my own business. On the other hand, hurting people kind of are my business. It’s a real balancing act.
Since you find KIA’s heathen prose so “interesting”, here’s some more…https://wp.me/p8Cwen-5xW
I’m anticipating a thorough “Jill Slap” for deriding KIA’s beautiful soul.
May be time to show her Pastor Mike’s “is your husband your first?” dialogue. The poor thing is still convinced KIA is the hapless victim of theological abuse.
I don’t have the screenshots for that any more.
But I don’t get the sense she is interested.
I have them! I’ll go ahead and post them again. That’s what Pastor Mike likes to do.
You’ll have to update your blog post. (It’s called “Again so soon?”)
Is it wrong to use,
True Disambiguation?
False, though nothing’s wrong?
I feel like Jeremiah is not appreciating my Haiku sufficiently … creating enmity between us. ***sniff***
Jeremiah is code for JB. (Long story.)
Please forgive me, Jill, for pointing something out. I’m risking throwing pearls before you and getting savaged.
Your being self-righteous demonstrates you are among the tribe of Pharisees who crucified Jesus, not as one of His followers or disciples.
If you are finding Kia to be interesting, or prefer his commentary to be more in line with your personal version of how you wish to view the world, I submit the possibility that you think you are Catholic because you’ve gone to church all your life, and wrap yourself in the trappings of the faith; rather than seeking Christ (Truth) and clinging to Him in your spiritual poverty and great need of Him as Savior, King and Beloved.
There are way too many Pharisees, or social Christians in the church, who think so highly of themselves they might as well be atheists, because they would never think of humbling themselves. They’re too busy parading proudly around in their trappings.
Have you ever truly examined your faith, or have you been content with being milk-fed all your life? Going to Mass, and then going out into the world and being a self-righteous, holier-than-thou jerk around everyone is your comfort zone?
You might want to read the writings of some of the great saints. The sayings of the Desert Fathers (Benedicta Ward) is a great place to start. Do you have a bible? Have you ever read it? Or are you satisfied with the tiny snippets read during Mass?
You can’t know God very well if you do not personally read, deeply contemplate and pray His love letter to you.
Please stop wrapping yourself externally in the trappings of the Catholic faith to cover your emptiness and elevate yourself in the eyes of others. It doesn’t work. You have to come to the end of yourself, in order to be a true bride of Christ.
I wish you luck, perseverance and the glorious end of ego and living in the deep love of Christ. Finding Him is worth the pain of losing your ego.
I want you to have the joy of finding Him, now; not waiting until purgatory for you to finally see His face, and understand.
May you be greatly blessed in your journey toward Truth; and stop wasting your time wallowing in the mud with unbelievers, until you are ready and equipped to come back to help them escape out of the muck.
I have hope for you. You are in a very good cradle. Now it is time to truly grow.
In love,
Katy
Katy, I appreciate your kindness and your sincerity. I know that everything you said was intended for my welfare.
If I found pleasure only in the company of unbelievers, I would concede that I have a serious problem with my faith! But I find pleasure in conversing with all sorts of people, of many religious backgrounds and of none. In encouraging Christians to make friends with people of other faiths or no faith, Pope Francis said: ““The fraternity and sharing that we seek to increase will not be appreciated by those who want to highlight divisions, reignite tensions and profit from opposition and differences,… But fraternity and sharing are invoked and longed for by those who desire the common good, and are above all pleasing to God, the compassionate and all merciful, who wishes his sons and daughters in the one human family to be ever more united among themselves and always in dialogue with one another.”
I am aware that KIA is no longer a believer, just as he is aware that I am a believing Catholic. In my limited time with him, he has never mocked my faith or treated me less than respectfully. He has questioned me, and I have answered him, but my answers have not been met with derision. I do not understand the animus that some people feel towards those who once believed and find themselves no longer able to do so. I simply can’t see him, or people like him, as an enemy to be shunned. KIA considers himself to be agnostic rather than atheist, but again I turn to the words of Pope Francis: “I do not approach the relationship in order to proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect him and I show myself as I am. Where there is knowledge, there begins to appear esteem, affection, and friendship. I do not have any type of reluctance, nor would I say that his life is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a judgment about the honesty of that person; even less, if he shows me those human virtues that exalt others and do me good.”
I hope that, in my case, being aware that I tend towards self-righteousness helps me keep it in check. Most of those who are indeed Pharisees deny it uphill and down dale. I have always found it helpful to be well aware of my personal failings!
I have not read many of the desert fathers but I am very fond of St. Francis de Sales.
Thank you again, Katy.
Dear Jill,
I appreciate your answer and kind spirit.
I am still extremely worried for you, and want to follow-up in my concern.
While I understand your dismay at how John Branyan speaks to Kia, I have known his comedic spirit for a little while, also his deep faith. He is trying to wake Kia up.
While I have attempted to be very, very gentle, patient and loving with Kia, as you are, my gentle efforts have been for naught. He has never responded to my responses and answers to his questions without derision and insults. He asks incessant questions, doesn’t listen in the least and keeps trying to tie people up in knots with pseudo-intellectual questions. He’s like a 4-year old that just keeps asking meaningless questions without waiting for the answer. Very attention-seeking, while trying to pose as the most intelligent person in the room. He hadn’t jumped on you yet, because you’re agreeing with him on his own blog.
The very sad thing about Kia, Nan and some of the other agnostics/atheists is when the Holy Spirit distances from them, due to their hatred/disbelief/neglect of God. They have lost the light and Wisdom. They have become like the prideful Nebuchadnezzar who lost his sanity and became like a beast in the field. They cannot see how they have lost so much. John, in a way I cannot do, is trying to show them how irrational their reasoning is, and how lost they are.
John is truly is on your side, even though you might be currently shocked by him. He has dealt with this group for a while, and knows them. Believe me, their true colors will show, eventually. The risk of you getting wounded (snake-bit) is very high if you try to hang out with Kia, et al. Unless you have a charism for helping lost souls find God, you are risking more than you know by hanging out with them in the manner that you are doing. While we hate the sin, yet love the sinner, there are many warnings scattered throughout Scripture about getting caught up in others sin. If you are not strong in your faith, you can lose it, too. That is your greatest grace, and devastating for your soul, for eternity, if you lose it. Don’t play with the evil that has enslaved them – you’ll lose if you’re not strong enough.
I am very worried about you, Jill.
With deep concern and love,
Katy
This priest’s advice might help put it in perspective:
“Ask a Priest: How Can I help My Agnostic Sister?” – RC Spirituality
https://rcspirituality.org/ask_a_priest/how-can-i-help-my-agnostic-sister/
Katie, you are so dear and so sweet. I wish I knew you in real life! I will think carefully about everything you have said. Sending love and prayers to you too.
Jill
PS Do you have your own blog?
Love others, have compassion, empathy, respect? It’s always interesting how these angry ex’s borrow from their “Christian indoctrination” in order to sound morally superior.
Hey! Do you suppose Koko was a CHRISTIAN?!!
I’m sure KIA can tell us.
I hope he does a haiku about it!!
Yes! At least it will be shorter and possibly more intelligible.
Koko know nothing.
Koko Soulless Meat Puppet,
Like godless haikus.
This reads like something Tarzan might say.
Pastor Mel, I’m sure you realize that one need not be any kind of Christian or even religious to have kindness, compassion or empathy. These are common human emotions, reactions and practice. It’s Christians such as yourself in your comment about mine that illustrate it’s you who have co-opted and borrowed them incorrectly as exclusively Christian.
Science does not define the terms Kindness, compassion or empathy.
JB
What did I say about science? Seems you have completely side stepped my comment.
You brought up kindness and compassion, Champ. Those ain’t terms that make sense without religion.
Such wonderfully inexpert tap-dancing around the issue. He’s trying so hard not to acknowledge the well-known point that atheists do not believe in souls. They believe only in the material, but souls are immaterial.
Hi Ron, just how would you demonstrate the reality that souls are immaterial or that they survive the death of the body?
-kia
You can quit trying to lure me back to comment on your blog.
No. Your question to Ron was dumb. It’s like asking for visible proof of something invisible.
Grow a spine and explain your theology.
Have a great day!
Notice that Pastor Mike’s question is oblivious to your statement? He thinks it’s a great question so he’ll keep asking it even after it’s been answered.
Jb (et al.. of course)
I’m surprised and humbled that you would waste your time and effort to still read and consider my stuff worthy of a response post. I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy it. Perhaps you didn’t quite understand what I was getting at.
Question for the crew though: How would one go about establishing the existence of a Soul that survives death?
You can answer me here, although I won’t promise to discuss here… Or more likely, you are invited to answer on my blog. You know where I am and how to find me. Thank you in advance for your participation.
-kia
You blocked me on your blog because you’re averse to civil dialogue.
You never answered the question about whether or not you think people have souls. Let me guess, “that’s none of my business”.
Have A Nice Day!
We have a responsibility to every “living, intelligent creature?” Well, what about the unintelligent ones? Do people and animals only have value and worth if Kia decides to perceive them as “intelligent?” Do chickens have souls? What about turkey pullets? They aren’t too bright…
A bit funny, he also says, this is my “temporary, first draft answer.” Well crap, does that mean he just might chose revoke our souls at some later date? You had a soul but after some farther editing…..
Point of order, IB… KIA never said we have souls. He said “If”…
It’s hard to know what to say in the face of such meaninglessness. Can he really be convinced that he has not only said SOMETHING… But that he has made it convincing? Because, as you pointed out, he really hasn’t said anything and I think that is Painfully obvious. But… Does he somehow think he’s made a convincing point? And if so… How?
I guess what I’m saying is, I don’t understand most people. If it wasn’t for people like you, JB, I would seriously question if I even belong on this planet.
Well, I think it should be noted that KIA was replying to something I had written him. And I, as the recipient, found his answer comprehensible. It is not orthodox Christianity but then neither was my question.
Ah, and that, my dear Jill, is where you both fail. That’s not a put down, but philosophy is supposed to be the handmaid of Christian theology. When it abandons it’s post and tries to create a world on it’s own, you get nonsense or nothing, like his reply to you. For instance, spend some time trying to clearly define what either of you mean by “good.” Was Koko “good?” Are you? What would that mean? How would you defend the idea that you or Koko are “good”? Then ask yourself- does God judge by THAT standard? How would you know? Atheism and her children have no answers for any such important questions. They have nonsense and nothing, like the answers you got. If you think you found meaning in his answers, then I respectfully suggest that it is much like when people find meaning in “Waiting for Gogot”- it is meaning which was not put there by the author. It’s like the face of the man in the moon.