Friday, September 7, 2007

Handling Candyland commenters

Not being able to comment myself any more on Candy's blog, or even in a meaningful way so that she can read it, I guess I will just save time and put all of my commentary here to begin with. Candy merely saved me the step of giving her a courtesy comment.

Anyhoo, here are some of the comments that she is receiving and if I could reply, this is what I would ay.

I was taught by a friend in the ministry that the shape of a bishop's mitre was meant to symbolise the flames of the Fire of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
Alison 09.07.07 - 7:50 am #

Interesting Alison. Some of my sources said that the two parts of the mitre represented the old testament and the new testament, both of which the bishop is supposed to preach and teach to the flock! Of course the apostles had to receive the Holy Spirit before they could do that, so it all seems to fit together! Thanks.


I'm reading the article titled xmess and lady-day and here is a line

The festivals of Rome are innumerable; but five of the most important may be singled out for elucidation--viz., Christmas-day, Lady-day, Easter, the Nativity of St. John, and the Feast of the Assumption. Each and all of these can be proved to be Babylonian.

What the heck is Lady day?

How is the birth of St. John Babylonian? I think Swylv (who generally gives me the impression that she hangs on every word Candy writes) means the dates are very similar to Babylonia feast dates? No clue and I have a feeling Swylv has no clue either.

Swylv Homepage 09.07.07 - 9:23 am #


Wow, that's astounding, I had no idea!
Shannon 09.07.07 - 9:28 am #

Well then Shannon you're in good company. Candy has no idea either!


I in no way disagree with this ... but it needs to be taken a step further.
Yes, Roman Catholicism IS The Resurrected Mystery Babylon Relgion, but when Protestantism began it wrongfully adopted some of the practices of "The Great Whore", probably to make their "new religion" more attractive to Catholics in order to get more converts. But it was no different than what the Catholics did to make Christianity more attractive to the pagans by adopting pagan traditions.
The observance of sun-day worship, easter and x-mess being the main carry overs from Catholicism, all of which find their root in Mystery Babylon.

Did you know that easter and x-mess were hardly celebrated in the USA before the 1870's? I didn't know that and it's something I recently learned...The Puritans who first settled our great country were suspicious of these "holi-days" because of their pagan origins. Before the 1870's these "holi-days" were celebrated by only a few states in the south, but not by the nation as a whole. I, personally, find that to be very interesting

God does indeed tell us to come out of her (Rev. 18:4)...and OUT means OUT, ALL the way OUT...

"Learn NOT the way of the heathen" (Jer.10:1)

"Whom ye obey, his servants ye are." (Rom. 6:16)
stephanie Homepage 09.07.07 - 10:45 am #

I actually like Stephanie. She's out there, but I like her pioneering spirit.

One thing I note about Candy and a number of her readers is that there is a history of abuse in their past somewhere. In Stephanie's case it is her husband who suffered the abuse. It's simply an observation, but I think that once your life has been so out of your control, there is a strong need to take control back. What is more controlled than having a book with directions that you can follow to a T? Of course the bible is NOT written as a rule book, but I certainly understand why these folks have the need to use it that way. Stephanie's blog is a good example of what I mean.

I doubt that you will publish this - but I think that your readers should at least be aware that the upside down cross seen behind the Pope is the symbol of the Papacy. St Peter, the first Pope, was crucified on an upside down cross and that event is remembered in the usage of the upside down cross.
Grace Marie 09.07.07 - 11:18 am #

Good point Grace.


To just expand a little on what Grace Marie said so beautifully, I was taught back in a Protestant grade school that it is a common practice of Satanists to take sacred symbols and attempt to make them profane. That is why you tend to see many parallels in the symbols of both Satanism and Christianity.
KitKat Homepage 09.07.07 - 11:30 am #

Exactly Kat!


I have heard all this before but this picture tutorial has helped to put it all together! Thanks so much.
Andrea from Ohio Homepage 09.07.07 - 11:31 am #

I wonder exactly Andrea this tutorial put together for you? That pine cones are evil? The sun is satanic? I'm not getting what the problem is for you people; however, it seems to me if you have ANY SYMBOLS of trees, plants, or animals in your home or books, you best be purging them because I'm sure some pagan somewhere, sometime, worshipped them!


Peter was not "the first pope" there was never any pope in the Bible. That office is entirely man-made. The more I am learning as a Christian the more I am wondering about these holidays that we tend to hold so dear.
Tracy 09.07.07 - 1:14 pm #

Oy. It takes a certain level of unsophistication I guess to be a member of the Candyland cult.


Candy, I am a protestant (in fact, I go to the exact type of church you go to- independant fundamental baptist) and I have the same beliefs about how you obtain salvation. I am curious how you feel about the verses in the Bible which say that the way you can tell if someone is preaching from the spirit of God is whether they preach that Jesus came in the flesh...and that anyone who does not teach that is the anti-christ. Also, the fruit of the spirits are love, joy, peace, tenderness, gentleness, etc.... Do you know any Catholics? I do...and the ones I know are very loving, very devoted to their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Candy, I know that they have a lot of rituals that we do not agree with. I do not agree with everything in the Catholic church, but there is one thing that we all do have in common- and that is that we all believe that God came down from Heaven as a man, Jesus Christ, who died on the cross to save us from our sins. We all believe that without His blood, we would have no remission of Sins.
And isn't this the most important thing of all? I just wonder why you seem to be so dead set at condemning these people to Hell? I love my brothers and sisters in Christ who happen to be Catholic. I do not agree with many of their traditions but I do agree with the one thing that matters the most. The other issues are secondary. Don't you think?
bethany Homepage 09.07.07 - 1:59 pm #

Excellent comment Bethany! You'll probably be banned, but good effort!

Bethany, I'm not "damning" anyone to hell. God is the judge of that.

Exactly! So until He appoints you to the job perhaps you should stick to your breadmaking and yogurt creations!

I'm surprised that you still read here, after the nasty things you've gossiped about me all about the net. (Google picks them up, you know).

LOL! Oh yes I do know. I've been telling you! I don't blog this stuff necessarily for your attention Candy - I blog to get picked up by the search engines!

I think you need to stop trying to please the world and Christ, and choose one - who's your real master?

Back attcha. You have a cultish following of unknowing, and uneducated young Christians who think you can walk on water (for 75 minutes aerobically while the kids are doing Algebra 1 happily in their rooms by themselves - puhlease) and you come down with an iron fist on any thoughtful, factual comment that might just dare to contradict whatever it is you posted. It seems to me Candy you're the one playing to the audience. Beam/ eye and all of that!


White Daisy said...

Please add my new blog to back on V.T.C.L. TY!!

Candy strikes again....See how she was quiet for awhile but all of a sudden lays another big bashing against Catholics? Now she knows this WILL get her readership up there! Very well orchestrated on her part. NOT!

We all should be coming together in Gods name not tearing each other apart. Candy does infact seem to twist situations out of context for her own purposes. We are ALL mommies here! Let's build each other up & support one another.

Candy is once again blogging thing that is disrespectful but then when challenged she will get defensive & say she was the one being attacked. We know better now don't we? All of the Catholic mommies have been respectful. Candy doesn't let anyone get a word in.

She is blindly leading her "followers" & has no clue of what she speaks of in regards to the RCC. She will continue to post many RC fallacies & will be mean spirited to those who disagree. Especially the Catholic mommies in the blog world OR the Christian mommies who defend you.

How many times do I need to say this? People like Candy turn people off of Christianity. Period.

Take care! :)

White Daisy said...

Forgot to post my blog directly:
Under The Prairie Moon~

Bethany said...

Elena, I gave her a chance today. I really did. I went to her blog, and I apologized to her for having been here and talked about her. And now she has banned me and lied about me. I'm not that surprised, but I was hoping that maybe she would see and understand what was going on.

She saw the word "dumb" in my post, and automatically thought it meant I was calling HER dumb. While I was implying that her actions were being dumb, I don't think she's dumb at all. I don't know why she would think that. I think she's very clever,...I mean, how could someone continue to deceive so many unless they were very cunning?

Here is the comment she made:
Bethany, I have chosen to ban you from commenting on my site further, as I've been watching this two-faced game you're playing today, and it sickens me. You come to my site claiming to be a loving Christian, then you go to other sites and downright call me names such as "dumb," and GOSSIP. I didn't read all of it, it just sickened me to see the untruths and the gossip. Stop feeding your flesh in this way, or it'll only get worse. Go to your Bible concordance, and look up the term "talebearer."
Candy | Homepage | 09.07.07 - 4:50 pm | #

I think the reason she banned me is NOT because of the comments (because she had already read them and I had already apologized for them), it was because she cannot argue with the truth. She must censor it.

Here is the comment she did not publish:

When a Christian sees a brother fallen, is he not to offer a helping hand? I REFUSE to let RC's, JW's and others flail in an incorrect view of Christianity. If the common person weren't so biblically ignorant, maybe this wouldn't be such a big issue.

I agree with you that we should help others to come to understand the Bible, Candy, and I respect your desire to help Catholics see that certain traditions aren't based on the Bible. However, it is when you post something (like in this post) based on assumption of what you think someone believes, instead of posting what they actually believe, and then responding to it, I believe that is called a "straw man" in debates.

You're creating a statement that has no basis in reality, and is easy to refute, then arguing against it, leading others to believe that Catholics actually are satanists, or pagans, when that is actually not true. Do you think it is right for you to give this impression of them when they tell you time and time again, "Candy, that is not what we believe!"?

For instance: If someone was saying that your beliefs are rooted in paganism, based on simple things, like the fish symbol on cars, wouldn't you be offended? If they said, "Baptists like Candy have been deceived...look at this fish symbol that you see often in their lives...that same fish symbol you can see here, or here, or here, in pagan ceremonies, etc, therefore, Candy and everyone like her are in a false religion, or babylon."
Wouldn't you come to that person, and tell them, "No, that's not what i believe? You haven't got it right at all!"?
Now, if you had told them, "No that's not what I believe", and then they responded, publicly, saying, "Sorry, you've simply been duped. I can't help it. Read the Bible." What would you say to that? Would that not be offensive to you?
And if you continued to tell them, look, I don't worship fish! The fish represents Christ, the "fisher of men"!
And what if this person continued to say, "Well, I'm sorry, but you just don't know what you're talking about, because the fish was worshiped by many pagans in the day, and then it was picked up by Baptists. Sorry you have been duped, Candy."
Are you telling me you wouldn't be in the least outraged at how your beliefs had been twisted?
What I am saying is, please, do debate Catholics about what the Bible says if you're so inclined, because there is nothing wrong with that. What I am arguing is that you shouldn't first insult them, and then try to argue with them with arguments that are based a false premise. There are enough things to argue about without having to come up with all of this history and background which isn't really proven. Do you see what I am saying now? I am not trying to be mean at all..I just want you to understand what people are getting offended by.
Hope you have a good evening, by the way. :) I'm glad we finally have talked in person...makes me feel much better. Belated happy birthday to your 1 year old. :)

White Daisy said...

I did a little google on Lady Day Elena.

**In the Christian calendar, Lady Day is the Feast of the Annunciation (25 March) and the first of the four traditional Irish and English quarter days. The term derives from Middle English, when some nouns lost their genitive inflections. "Lady" would later gain an -s genitive ending, and therefore the name means "Lady's day."

In England, Lady Day was New Year's Day up to 1752 when, following the move from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar, 1 January became the start of the year. A vestige of this remains in the United Kingdom's tax year, which starts on 6 April, i.e. Lady Day adjusted for the lost days of the calendar change (until this change Lady Day had been used as the start of the legal year).

The logic of using Lady Day as the start of the year is that it reckons years A.D. from the moment of the Incarnation, which is considered to take place at the moment of the conception of Jesus at the Annunciation rather than at the moment of his birth at Christmas. See also New Year.**

Bethany said...

I just sent her an email:

"In the spirit of fairness, why don't you post the comment that I made at Elena's blog, so that others can see what I actually said?

Go to your Bible concordance, and look up the term, "deceiver""

Kelly said...

I love the picture she paints of her Catholic commentors that she declines only to keep the profanity and hatred from her readership.

I have posted many times things which were simply "Actually, the Catholic Catechism states _____" and she won't post it.

Annie C said...

Question: I've noticed that she and some of her followers are now calling Easter and "x-mess" Pagan "holi-days". I've noticed this on some of the other extreme fundamentalist sites as well. Has anyone else noticed this? Is it the start of a new trend or movement, much like the banishing of Halloween?

anna-sophia said...

As a Catholic I appreciate the fact that someone out there is tackling the "Candy issue", but I've kept up with this site and am downright ashamed at some of the childishness that comes across. Refering to "you people" and telling someone they are in "good company" is demeaning at best and petty at worst. I am ashamed to see a fellow Catholic handle these issues in such a harsh and seemingly (personally) defensive manner.

Candy, for all her seriously misguided beliefs still manages to keep her composure when debating, and does so without ad hominems.

Unfortunately you keep comming across with a dry, resentful tone and a bit too sarcastic. I'd love to see this blog debate Candy (or at least post responses to her) in a more "Catholic" and charitable way.

Elena said...

I appreciate your comment Ana-Sophia. You should note that for the past few weeks when Candy just stuck to her homemaking/homeschooling posts this blog remained inactive. In fact, when I thought hse might be refraining from her form of "apologetics" I was willing to close this blog down for good. In fact I did take it to PRIVATE only on Monday.

When Candy said yesterday that she was going to post a Catholic article, I told her that I was going to bring this blog and the boycott back if she did. I kept my promise.

Yea you know, I usually refrain from the personal remarks, but her blatant attack on my faith today after my warning and the fact that she did not publish my comment that was full of true facts and information and then banned me for it tells me that it's going to take a bit more than the touch of angel wings to respond to this lady.

The gloves are off.

anna-sophia said...

I think that hits the nail on the head. There is no getting through to her. But there certainly is call to show those who would be willing to hear the truth of Catholicism, the one, true church of Christ.

Elena said...

Absolutely! Ever check out my other blog?

Swylv said...

For the record....I learned the terms xmess and ishtar from .... over a year before I stumbled upon Candy's weblog...I found her weblog thru someone who started a HMB series then quit and referred us to her site...and I was pointing out the fact that she is so into exposing falsehoods in catholicsm yet she herself keeps "christmas" and "easter" of course Christians say they are doing it in in remembrance of Jesus....why not celebrate Passover and Sukkot instead.... and this comment in no way was meant to "bash" anyone (you or Candy)...but I was hurt to find you think I am some clueless yuppy follower....the only ONE I follow is Yeshua...There can be only ONE

motherofmany said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Elena said...


I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt.

I have been following your posts in particular throughout the Samuel Gipp book study? Have you ever studied anything about Catholicism from a Catholic source? Or is everything you know abut the Catholic church through Candy or Jack Chick sites?

Kelly said...

If I remember correctly, swylv is married to a Catholic. Although I do apologize if I'm getting you confused with another frequent Candy poster. :)

Swylv said...

my DH is not a catholic - he's a Nonny (that's non-believer) although he has had a relationship with Jesus in the past, but has walked away - I am praying he will turn back to Jesus anyday now -

also what I do know about the catholic church is that mary is just a woman, she can't help you. and why would anyone pray to her or any other dead saint....when Jesus gives us permission to come directly to HIM in prayer...

also I think most of my comments on the understandable History of the Bible reading just copied and pasted quotes or paragraphs I found interesting.


Elena said...

my DH is not a catholic - he's a Nonny (that's non-believer) although he has had a relationship with Jesus in the past, but has walked away - I am praying he will turn back to Jesus anyday now -

I hope so too Swylv. I will remember your special intention in my prayers.

also what I do know about the catholic church is that mary is just a woman,

And actually the Catholic church agrees that Mary is and was a mortal woman. A simple, poor Jewish girl. However I think we can all agree that she was given an extraordinary honor in carrying our Lord Jesus Christ in her body, nourishing Him at her breast and then raising Him to manhood. She must be an extraordinary woman to have been chosen for such an awesome task don't you think?

she can't help you. and why would anyone pray to her or any other dead saint...

The term "pray" here does not mean worship. Most of the time it means "talk to" as in old English. I'm sure you are familiar with the term "pray tell" from high school or college lit classes. If I saw, "Pray tell Swylv, what is your favorite color?" I'm not worshiping you! We are simply conversing.

As for the saints being dead:

The dead saints are far more alive than we are, and aware of earthly events (see, e.g., the "cloud of witnesses" described in Hebrews 12:1). Revelation describes those in heaven having "the prayers of the saints" (5:8, 8:3-4), and an angel presenting these to God (8:3-4). What is an angel doing with our prayers, pray tell (no pun intended)? In Revelation 6:9-10, we see dead human beings praying that God would judge the evildoers (an "imprecatory" prayer, such as found in Psalms 35, 59, 69, 79 and in Jeremiah 11:18 ff., 15:15 ff., 18:19 ff., etc. ). If they can pray for those on earth, then they must be aware of earthly happenings (Heb 12;1); therefore we can make requests of them in prayer. It's all eminently biblical. Jeremiah 15:1 implies that Moses and Samuel could still pray after they had died.

when Jesus gives us permission to come directly to HIM in prayer...

We pray directly to Jesus all of the time! The entire mass is a prayer to Jesus!

also I think most of my comments on the understandable History of the Bible reading just copied and pasted quotes or paragraphs I found interesting.

As Candy never allowed me to comment on the series, you might find my take on the Understandable History of the Bible of interest.


Elena said...

Ooops.. I don't know what hth means?

Kelly said...

I think hth is "hope this helps."

And sorry for confusing you swylw. I know there was one frequent commenter at Candy's who has a Catholic husband.