E-mail with Kattie Coon

"Kattie Coon", a blog commenter who claims she is orthodox but who relentlessly takes the progressive point of view, had an e-mail conversation with Viola Larson, and when Viola cc'ed me, I joined in. (Kattie Coon is not her real name, and she says her employer requires her to be anonymous on her personal blog.) Kattie has been complaining on her blog that Viola did not post the entire e-mail conversation, but only parts of it, and she thinks that Viola must be trying to hide things. So I am posting the whole thing here.

Read from the bottom. And notice that Kattie set up proposal to do something, with a condition attached, and when Viola chose not to participate, but remain in the status quo, Kattie called that Viola wanting war.


-----------------------------------------------------------

Oh, what a surprise, my comment was deleted. So asking why your employer wants you to remain anonymous is some form of not respecting what your bio says about your employer not wanting you to divulge information? I don't get that at all. Things sure do get intricate. I guess there is no explanation you are allowed to give? It's apparently a very strict employer? I think your rights are being violated. You ought to consider that. If it's true, that is.

________________________________________
From: dmberkley22@hotmail.com
To: kattiew.temp@hiwaay.net
CC: v.larson@att.net; davemoody@mac.com; jimberkley@msn.com
Subject: RE: talking
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:18:43 -0700
Kattie, looking for your answer on your blog, then.

> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:42:13 -0500
> From: kattiew.temp@hiwaay.net
> To: dmberkley22@hotmail.com
> CC: v.larson@att.net; davemoody@mac.com; jimberkley@msn.com
> Subject: RE: talking
>
> Debbie,
>
> Don't walk into my private domain and pick an argument with me. This
> email account was set up for a conversation between Viola and myself.
> She chose to have you all listen in, not me. I made that concession
> to her. I wouldn't have done it on my own.
>
> The ball is in Viola's court. Either she wants to make peace or she doesn't.
>
> If it's war she wants, then this is just the kind of thing that will
> turn my conservative friends away from the Fellowship. I have good
> friends in leadership in another large congregation of the NAP that is
> sending representatives to MN too. There are also people in their
> congregation, not in leadership, interested in hearing my report. What
> would you have me tell them? The truth I hope. Don't answer that
> Debbie, it was rhetorical.
>
>
> Quoting Debbie Berkley :
>
> >
> > But that's the whole question I asked, Kattie. Why should it be
> > secret, even just between you and Viola? You are dodging that
> > question. I'm not asking you to tell me your name, just to tell me
> > why your employer requires you not to have freedom of speech on your
> > own time.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:43:02 -0500
> >> From: kattiew.temp@hiwaay.net
> >> To: dmberkley22@hotmail.com
> >> Subject: RE: talking
> >>
> >> Debbie,
> >>
> >> I'm sure you noticed that I'm trying to negotiate all this with Viola.
> >> Let it be between she and I.
> >>
> >> The blog problem has me baffled. I can administer my own blog, but I
> >> can't make comments without logging in as Name/URL. When I log in to
> >> make comments with my blogger ID it says I don't have access.
> >>
> >> Kattie
> >>
> >> Quoting Debbie Berkley :
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Kattie, I just asked you this question on your blog, and here it is,
> >> > in case you delete it. Notice I'm not asking who you are, only why
> >> > you can't say.
> >> >
> >> > Kattie, why does your employer want you to be anonymous? Surely you
> >> > can answer that question while remaining anonymous. Do you work for
> >> > a CIA-type employer?
> >> >
> >> > We know you live in the USA, and employers in the USA are legally
> >> > required to give their employees freedom of speech on their own
> >> > time. I worked at Microsoft for 11 years, and while being a
> >> > Christian did not help me there, and may have even subtly harmed me
> >> > (it is a determinedly secular corporation), I was not forbidden to
> >> > speak of it on my own time.
> >> >
> >> > Many of us are wondering if you perhaps actually work for an
> >> > evangelical church or organization where you do not want the others
> >> > there to know about the disdain in which you hold groups such as the
> >> > Fellowship. It's hard not to think that unless you explain yourself.
> >> >
> >> > It's also weird that you said I was welcome to comment here, and
> >> > then apparently blocked me. I'm having to use "anonymous" to take
> >> > you up on your welcome.
> >> >
> >> > Debbie Berkley
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:39:19 -0500
> >> >> From: kattiew.temp@hiwaay.net
> >> >> To: v.larson@att.net
> >> >> CC: jim@bethelpcseattle.org; dmberkley22@hotmail.com; davemoody@mac.com
> >> >> Subject: Re: talking
> >> >>
> >> >> Viola,
> >> >>
> >> >> Wow,rebuffed even before the details are spelled out.
> >> >> One of the things I was going to suggest was that we become facebook
> >> >> friends with full access. I have facebook friends who cover the gamut
> >> >> also, and our interactions aren't insulting to each other.
> >> >> Oh well, I guess you can't put the past behind us. I am making
> >> >> overtures of being willing to try, and find a way that we might be
> >> >> able to do that. I won't beg, but I really don't think you
> >> >> appreciated the offer, and I say that because you didn't know where I
> >> >> was headed with this.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm still willing, but I need your promise first.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sincerely, in Christ's name,
> >> >> Kattie
> >> >>
> >> >> Quoting Viola Larson :
> >> >>
> >> >> > Dear Kattie,
> >> >> > I appreciate the offer but that would mean aligning myself with one
> >> >> > person who
> >> >> > dislikes the Christian brothers and sisters I am close to. It
> >> >> would create a
> >> >> > separation in real friendships that I care a great deal about. I
> >> >> > don't live in a
> >> >> > secret world and do not want to now.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I wish you all the best with love in Christ, but I feel extremely
> >> >> > sorry for you.
> >> >> > I have other friends, even on Facebook, who are extremely
> >> >> > progressive. They do
> >> >> > not feel the need to insult me nor I them, we simply disagree and
> >> >> debate the
> >> >> > issues. If you have to hide yourself that is one thing-but to hide
> >> >> > yourself and
> >> >> > at the same time make snide remarks on other blogs about people I
> >> >> care about
> >> >> > puts you in a whole different category.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sincerely in the love of Christ,
> >> >> > Viola
> >> >> > ________________________________
> >> >> > From: "kattiew.temp@hiwaay.net"
> >> >> > To: Viola Larson
> >> >> > Sent: Fri, August 12, 2011 9:22:47 AM
> >> >> > Subject: Re: talking
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hi Viola,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks for writting.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I am willing to share information about myself with you, and you
> >> >> > alone. But I
> >> >> > require a promise from you that you will never divulge any of that
> >> >> > information
> >> >> > with anyone else without first getting my permission.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Kattie
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Quoting Viola Larson :
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Hi Kattie,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What did you want to say in private?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Viola
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

Spiritual Violence

A certain Presbyterian minister says it is spiritual abuse to tell people that if they don't accept God's free gift of love offered through Jesus Christ, they will die in their sins, and they will not live eternally in heaven. This minister says that it is essentially spiritual violence to warn people that the consequences of not turning their lives over to God is eternal death--a loss of the joy they could have forever with God.

What a strange definition of spiritual abuse!

Let's look at an analogy. Suppose there were a road that everyone needed to take. This road has a fork, and one direction leads to a sudden hidden precipice. Suppose further that someone wants to place a warning sign at the fork saying "Look out! If you continue along this direction, you will fall off a precipice and die." Would placing that sign there be mental abuse? Would it be mentally violent? Or would it actually be helpful and saving to the people taking that road?

That is the case with those who want to tell people about God's offer of salvation through Jesus Christ. They want to be helpful and offer what is lifesaving to those who don't have it.

Moreover, it is actually spiritually abusive to deny this offer to people. The minister who claims that God does not exist (he says, "No deity exists. Not Jesus Christ, not Yahweh, not Baal, not Marduk, not Allah, not Zeus, not the Flying Spaghetti Monster, not the Wizard of Oz. None of them exist. All figments of imagination. They are fun. But none are worth the spiritual violence they cause.") does not have a shred of proof to back up his assertion. It all rests on his own faith claim that this world is all there is, his own 21st-century weltanschauung.

He is like the stubborn medieval people who couldn't see that the world was round, so they insisted it was flat. This minister can't see or feel God, so he insists God is not there. And so he becomes spiritually abusive toward his parishioners, and the readers of his blog and newspaper articles, by denying them the saving knowledge of all that God has to offer them.

True spiritual violence is done to people when God's love is kept away from them.