aimai
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
Post by aimai on Apr 25, 2009 10:00:08 GMT -5
On Submission and Learned Helplessness: Maybe this really needs its own separate post but I wanted to bring this up here somewhere and I think Vyckie can move it if she wants. The phrase that I'm looking at is “learned helplessness”. Many of you may know the phrase from the work of a wonderful pschologist named Martin Seligman—he wrote a fascinating book called “The Optimistic Child: Proven Program to Safeguard Children from Depression & Build Lifelong Resilience.” Here's the Amazon Link www.amazon.com/Optimistic-Child-Safeguard-Depression-Resilience/dp/0060977094In that book he makes the argument that you can teach people to be more optimistic and more resilient by creating and encouraging in them a spirit of problem solving, an ability to look at a situation as singular, not foretold, and as amenable to control and resolution. The exact opposite, need I say, of the fatalistic and submissive attitude that Vyckie and other Qf'ers have described as normative for women in the QF movement. Recently his name came up in a discussion of the Bush Administration's Torture Regime, which apparently was based on his earlier work on “Learned Helplessness” which is a state in which an animal or a human is broken of their ability to think for themselves or to react. Here's a long quote from an Obsidian Wings Blog Post obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/04/learned-helplessness.htmlciting the NYT article which makes the connection between torture and learned helplessness very clear. [Hilzoy the Blog Post Owner] wanted to highlight a point from yesterday's NYT article on the decision to use torture: "By late 2001, the agency had contracted with James E. Mitchell, a psychologist with the SERE program who had monitored many mock interrogations but had never conducted any real ones, according to colleagues. He was known for his belief that a psychological concept called "learned helplessness" was crucial to successful interrogation. Martin Seligman, a prominent professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania who had developed the concept, said in an interview that he was puzzled by Dr. Mitchell’s notion that learned helplessness was relevant to interrogation. "I think helplessness would make someone more dependent, less defiant and more compliant," Dr. Seligman said, "but I do not think it would lead reliably to more truth-telling." Still, forceful and brainy, Dr. Mitchell, who declined to comment for this article, became a persuasive player in high-level agency discussions about the best way to interrogate Qaeda prisoners." The role of learned helplessness in the development of our torture policies has been reported before. However, it's worth unpacking this a bit.
Learned helplessness works as follows. When an animal, human or non-human, is exposed to repeated trauma that it cannot control, it sometimes just gives up trying, even when, later, it is possible to escape that trauma. Martin Seligman first hit on the idea when doing conditioning experiments with dogs: he gave the dogs shocks in a hammock from which they could not escape, and then put them in a box that allowed them to escape from shocks (which were delivered through the floor) by jumping over a barrier.
Normally, dogs scramble around trying to escape from the shocks, jump the barrier by accident, figure out (after a few tries) that this is how they can escape from the shocks, and then jump the barrier as soon as the shocks start. But the dogs who had been shocked in the hammocks, in which they could neither escape nor control the shocks, didn't do that. They ran around for about thirty seconds, and then just lay down on the floor and whimpered.
In the book in which he describes learned helplessness, Seligman cites an even more striking finding: another researcher held wild rats in his hand until they stopped struggling, and then put them in a water tank that they could not escape from. Normal wild rats will swim for 60 hours before drowning. The rats who had been held until they stopped struggling, however, swam for thirty minutes and then drowned.
Learned helplessness happens to humans too: "Extending the ramifications of these findings to humans, Seligman and his colleagues found that human motivation to initiate responses is also undermined by a lack of control over one's surroundings. Further research has shown that learned helplessness disrupts normal development and learning and leads to emotional disturbances, especially depression." That's learned helplessness. You put an animal, human or non-human, in a situation in which bad things happen that it can neither escape nor control, and eventually it just gives up. And that's what the CIA was trying to do to its detainees.
|
|
|
Post by grandmalou on Apr 25, 2009 10:04:23 GMT -5
All around you were people who weren't listening to you at ALL, and help just around the corner nobody would help you reach. It's just criminal for that midwife to talk you out of getting medical attention. Grandma here: Nobody could help Vyckie because Warren controlled every phone call and turned everybody away except the midwife all those years. Constantly reassuring everyone that they were "doing just fine" and that Vyckie was "just taking a little nap" or was "in the middle of homeschooling and didn't want to be bothered by phone calls..." People have no idea how many times he cancelled lunch dates she had made with friends, etc., using all of these excuses and covering up the real situations...and she was so thoroughly brainwashed and TIRED all the time, and sick, that she never let on to anyone what was happening. Also later told us that it all would have just meant more hassle with him if she had said anything to anybody! When people are being abused, even if it's only VERBAL, the victims are almost always threatened with bodily harm...either to themselves, or their loved ones if they utter a word of what is really going in. BTDT and no, it is not fun...and reading the posts of either Laura or Vyckie now, many years after the facts, makes me want to rise up and do bodily harm to their ex's...and cry! To the general public, the abusive types are almost ALWAYS perceived as "Mr. Nice Guy...who wouldn't hurt a fly"...and supported and even given much sympathy when their family departs after many years of mistreatment...and the family gets "the shaft" and loses many so-called 'friends' right when they were needed the most! As I've stated here before, we should never judge a person until we have walked a mile in her/his moccasins.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Apr 25, 2009 10:21:18 GMT -5
On Submission and Learned Helplessness: Maybe this really needs its own separate post but I wanted to bring this up here somewhere and I think Vyckie can move it if she wants. aimai ~ good post ~ excellent point. But ~ I would prefer if it was its own topic under the members' forum. If I moved it, it would show up as my post ~ so could you please move it over to the members' forum? Thanks ~ lots to consider in all of this and I believe that learned helplessness is a big part of the whole picture.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Apr 25, 2009 10:25:29 GMT -5
Grandmalou, I hope you don't think I was judging. We've been in this same situation with someone in my family for a long time - and all I can do is keep calling, keep inviting (even though she never shows up), keep showing up unannounced, so if she's ever ready to really leave she knows we're still here for her. She's left her husband several times and always goes back after a few days - and it's the same thing, i think - religious indoctrination. Not as extreme as QF but just as powerful.
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on Apr 25, 2009 11:07:54 GMT -5
arietty and vyckie. the posts about how hypocritical it is to "trust in god" about childbirth, but not about finances weren't (for the most part, as far as I can tell) meant to say that you SHOULDN'T accept assistance... only to point out that 1) it's pretty vile to be smug about how you're trusting in God to provide, when often it's the Government/Human Society that providesm and 2) to point out inconsistencies that we'd hope make people realize they were wrong about not using assistance in matters of family size.
no one claims seriously that fundie christians shouldn't use help, especially medical help, for their children. Christian Scientists are probably the most reviled Christian sect exactly because of that (especially because they keep on letting children die in the most torturous ways). Statements like that are usually made in the sense of "you're being unrealistic; might as well stop working and hope for manna from heaven!"
I apologize for that part of that discussion making you feel bad.
|
|
|
Post by stampinmama on Apr 25, 2009 11:21:30 GMT -5
Both of my babies were born at home and I had a wonderful experience with both of them, but a couple months after my daughter was born, I found that my uterus, rectum and bladder had all collapsed. It happened NOT at the time of birth, but gradually after the birth. I was having to push things back inside each time I went to the bathroom. What happened to my mother after 4 kids only took me two kids to get to. A genetic condition of weak muscles. Sure, we have fertile fannies in my family, but we knew enough to know that just because I *can* get pregnant does not mean I *should* get pregnant again. I was put on high dose pills and STILL got pregnant, but miscarried and we were at complete peace with the miscarriage, as awful as that may sound to some. My hubby got a vasectomy and it was one of the best things we did for our family. . I hope you're doing better now. My sister is about to have her third and final baby, and she has the same problem after baby number two. I'm worried for her. She waited almost five years for her third child so hopefully there's been some time for some healing/strengthening. Later this year, she's having corrective surgery. Everything will be lifted and held in place with webbing. She's rather young for the procedure (not yet 30). It amazes me when people don't take this kind of thing seriously. Would they encourage diabetics to eat candy bars and refuse insulin shots? Yes, I'm completely where I should be now. I was 22 when I had my first and 23 when I had my second (they are 13 1/2 months apart). The doctor had talked about eventual surgery, but I decided to go an alternative route and things are back up in their proper spots without having to do the surgery. Of course, not having any more kids certainly helped. Now, if some day I need to have the surgery, I would do it, simply to make sure that my quality of life and my health were better off for it. I like to go the alternative route as much as I can, but I know when I need "the big guns," too.
|
|
|
Post by grandmalou on Apr 25, 2009 11:58:05 GMT -5
Posted by rosa on Today at 9:25am Grandmalou, I hope you don't think I was judging. Oh, no, Rosa, I didn't think that of your post. But was trying to make a point to all who read these comments and posts how overwhelmed the abused must be. And how deceiving it is to the population in general, how people can "find themselves in this kind of a situation"...I've actually had people say this to me, and I'm sure you have too. I feel your pain in not being able to help your loved ones...just the knowing that 'something isn't right here', and not being able to do anything about it...oy, vey! I really appreciated aimai's post about 'learned helplessness', as it explains so very much! Blessings; Grandmalou
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Apr 25, 2009 12:22:30 GMT -5
I apologize for that part of that discussion making you feel bad. jadehawk ~ no need to apologize at all ~ I'm glad that this issue was raised here because I think that it's a big concern for QFers and it needs to be highlighted and addressed. It is tragic that a lot of these moms of many are eschewing medical attention in favor of natural remedies, home births, etc. because they already are feeling defensive about the amount of resources which their larger-than-average families consumes ~ and they don't want to be a drain on the system. I, myself, am in favor of natural medicine, home remedies ~ even home birth ~ but, I also recognize that there's a place for modern medicine ~ the treatment that my girls are receiving for their bone condition is an example of that. The problem comes when QF women are making the choice between natural vs. allopathic ~ not based on what's best for their particular situation ~ but based on what they perceive to be the best representation of their deeply-held Christian faith. In other words, if I go to the doctor and the gov't is stuck with the bill ~ that's going to be a poor witness ~ therefore, let's seek alternatives that we can afford.
|
|
|
Post by themomma on Apr 25, 2009 14:44:27 GMT -5
Wow, I am really enjoying this topic. Thanks Vyckie for getting more in depth with this.
I am NOT criticizing if you are using services. And I surely didn't mean to hurt anyone.
The only reason I brought this up is because the really hard core quiver full family I know, the "we will have kids no matter if we are able to really care for them effectively or not because if we get pregnant, God wants us to have more, we are trusting God for our home business, etc" use services.
It is like an oxymoron.
I am glad they are using services or I am sure the kids would receive even less care than they already do. At least now the kids get stitches (most of the time, sometimes it is just butterflies) and if they are really sick, they will take them in. THey do have other less serious issues that need to be addressed and I am not sure why they aren't addressing them, other than it just takes so much emotional energy to deal with the kids in general, let alone other issues. Now I am getting off on a tangent but they have 1 that must be adhd, 1 delayed speech, behavioral issues, etc.
I am not against using services but don't tell me you are "trusting" God to provide. If you are going out and solicitating clothes from shelters and food from banks, God is not providing. Do I think you shouldn't use these services? NO, please, do whatever it takes do care for your children, but do not tell me God provided.
I liked what someone said, I think it was here. If God is doing all the giving and providing, He would be able to do that in spite of a vasectomy or a tubal.
Personally, I do not believe that God is working that way now in the time of grace.
He is no longer putting Kings in their thrones. During this "dispensation of grace", God is working in a different way. His approach is more hands off than it was in the OT.
This is another reason to "rightly divide" the bible rather than picking and choosing certain scriptures and building a whole "religion" or movement around them.
I know I am going on and on here, but I totally agree with something Vyckie said. The QF/P thing can work for some families if they are FLEXIBLE enough to adapt it to their family situation.
From growing up in the cult (it was a this is the only way to heaven and if you leave you go to hell type) I struggle with, not making a decision so much (I will research and research) but once I have made the decision, it is the "best" and "only" way to go. I am learning that just because it is best for us, it isn't best for everybody.
Some that get involved in the QF have made the decision that it is "the best" and then they are never willing to adjust things when things aren't going so great or quite like they thought they would with this big magical happy huge family. So to the detriment of their kids they hold on to an ideal "leaving it to God" to get them out of situation that their own decisions have gotten them into. Make no mistake, it is definitely decisions they have made. Many Christians use "leaving it to God" to not take personal responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by themomma on Apr 25, 2009 15:06:23 GMT -5
And that reminds me of something else Vyckie said.
I don't think it is necessarily only because of her exs blindness that he wasn't able to support his family.
We live in the midwest and my husband has what is considered by most around here to have a really good paying job. It isn't nearly enough to support a family on, though. He works REALLY HARD but we still are in an income bracket that is below the poverty level. Really around here the only way a man could support his family alone, really support them, he would have to have some sort of uppler level management position. Even the skilled workers around here don't make enough to take care of a family.
If you want to see hoplessness in someones eyes, have them working their butt off and realise that they are NEVER going to make enough money to support their family in a way they want to. Around here unless there are 2 full time wage earners, their are lots of necessities that aren't bought. Fruits, vegetables, vitamins, winter clothing, shoes, socks, healthier foods, glasses, dental care, medical care, etc.
But I digress, AGAIN!
What I was thinking when I started to post was I have seen families that are supposed to be P but I see the mothers bearing the brunt of the burden. The fathers tend to be the "fun" ones in the family. Not so much because they are more fun, but they put (or let the mothers take on) the responsibilties for so many things on the mothers, they take little responsibility for much of anything, aside from working. Not to down play the work they are doing, it is hard work usually, but it works like this.
"Oh, I have been working sooooo hard, but all I can make is $10,000/year. It must be all that God wants us to live on. "
Instead of "getting to it" and maybe moving and finding a similar job that would pay more, they stay in the rut of where they are. If you are going to have 10 kids, find a way to support them.
|
|
aimai
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
Post by aimai on Apr 25, 2009 15:51:48 GMT -5
I see a lot of confusing in the QF movement over what “trusting god” will mean, and how you are to demonstrate it in your life. And it arises from the same basic tautology at the heart of the calvinist/predestination schema. If god is in everything, and investing everything with meaning, and only some are saved, and they are already saved or damned according to god's grace, well—what really is the point of sacrifcing or suffering or demonstrating faith in god through excessive good works or large numbers of children? And lets be clear—the QF movement emphasizes excess specifically—more children, more good works, more thrift, more prayer, more withdrawal from the world. The idea that god is saving just a few of the millions of people we see walking down the street—that their salvation is always fragile and that most people are doomed—is at the root of a lot of QF obsessive behavior. To get back to the trusting god part that's bound to be somewhat problematic if it means that you can't decide for yourself, for example, how many children you are going to have on the basis of your income and your wants for them—new clothes, good schools, health care. The theory that god will provide forces you to budget on god's plan, after all—and it could be infinite riches or it could be continued penury. You don't control it, you just have to accept it. Given that the main focus of QF activity is reproducing expensive, needy, children there's bound to be a crack up at some point. Most people are not going to be able to afford large numbers of children on a single person's salary anywhere, not just in the midwest. Fred Phelps, as we saw if we read that account from his son, turned to farming out his kids to raise money specifically because he couldn't earn enough to support them.
My own sensitivity on the question of government handouts comes because of the confusion in many QF'ers mind between their religious beliefs and straight up Randian capitalism or objectivism. It would be fine with me if QF'ers thought that their children, and everyone's children, deserved (for example) national health care. Or if they fought to pay taxes like everyone else and reap the benefit down the road with SS, SSI, medicare etc... But the QF movement (such as it is) aligns itself with the Birchers and the anti government hysterics and accuses everyone who wants to organize for social good of “socialism.” Cedar Generation spends half her time complaining that government sponsored health care/education/eldercare/child welfare etc... are “socialism” and strictly opposed to the proper role of “charity” which, she thinks, is taken away from her when her neighbors choose to enable some sick kid to get help without begging for it from a charitable organization. (I'm not saying charities don't do great work, they do, but I see no reason why a person in need should be forced to accept religious charity instead of secular government services because of scarcity and need.) If you want to be charitable, be charitable. But lots of the rest of us are fighting to spend our tax dollars on social welfare—instead of war, say, or graft or corruption. And we'd like help fighting that fight instead of having to fight off a largely white anti-welfare mentality that thinks that government social services go to the “unworthy” and the “non white” and those evil “single mothers” when, of course, its there to protect everyone's kids and grandparents from the brutality of the market or the inability of their parents to care for them. Of course another reason that patriarchs and men in the QF movement hate and preach against government services is that government services enable women to leave oppressive family situations and get back on their feet financially. Without welfare, public education, SSI, etc... women would be even more a prisoner of their sole breadwinner husbands than they are now.
aimai
|
|
tabby
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by tabby on Apr 25, 2009 16:16:57 GMT -5
That's the maddening thing. If you buy into the mindset that God will save you from terrible things, you are likely to end up in a terrible place... but you're so far down that any little bits and pieces of relief feel like some kind of divine mercy. You have to look for signs, because you're not getting anything from reality besides a good hard reality check.
Now that I'm out of it... it's like being insane. It really is. Denying oneself help because that would be denying help will come to one... yeah.
|
|
|
Post by luneargentee on Apr 25, 2009 20:42:22 GMT -5
So far, I think the most important point made in this discussion is Vyckie's comment that we DON'T live in Biblical times, we live in the 21st century. The 21st century is overpopulated, polluted, going through a period of global warming (it's warmed and cooled before, it will again), and could easily be destroyed tomorrow by one psycho who has access to WMDs.
Remember the McCaugheys, whose septuplets were born due to medical intervention in the form of fertility drugs, then extreme medical assistance to help the mother carry the babies as long as possible. When questioned as to why they did not abort some of the babies early in the pregnancy to help Mrs. McCaughey and the other babies, Mr. McCaughey said they believed it was God's will. A woman I worked with then, someone I considered a real Christian, said, "I think that if you believe that everything is God's will, God made it pretty plain when they couldn't conceive on their own what his will was."
I can think of so many ways that saying everything is God's will is utterly wrong and the basis of so much fail.
|
|
jeb
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by jeb on Apr 25, 2009 20:59:16 GMT -5
There's a great story that I've seen several places about a Muslim lady who would go out on her front porch every day to pray to Allah. Her next door neighbour was an athiest and when he saw her praying he would, inevitably shout, 'THERE IS NO GOD!!'.
One day her neighbour heard her say to Allah, 'Please Allah, I have no food to feed my children. Please send me some food'. So the athiest went out and bought several sacks of groceries and put them on her porch that night so that when she came out the next morning she would find them.
When she came out and saw the groceries she immediately began giving thanks to Allah, but the neighbour began shouting at her, 'ALLAH DIDN'T BUY THOSE GROCERIES AND PUT THEM THERE, I DID!!'. To which she replied, Thank you Allah for all these groceries and you even got the devil to pay for them'.
I don't even believe there is a devil (even though I've known some pretty devilish folks in my time) but I do love that story.
Cheers, y'all. John
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Apr 25, 2009 22:18:25 GMT -5
Vyckie that's the weird thing about how people expect prophecies to unfold.. the prophesied items must have a wonderful air of a gift around their arrival, or must just appear to keep multiplying like the loaves and fishes. So it's okay to find a box of food on your doorstep but it's not okay to get the same box of food by filling out some government forms. If a family prays for help with finances why doesn't qualifying for food stamps count as an answer to that? Why is government aid outside the realm of God's blessing?
|
|
|
Post by caravelle on Apr 26, 2009 1:25:32 GMT -5
Eh... The story is pretty funny, but as a statement about God and Faith it looks rather nasty to me... What, her neighbor buys her food when she's in need and she calls him the devil ? And she's supposed to be the good person here ? Unless it's supposed to be the opposite and I misread it... On trusting God : this reminds of one of Vickie's early posts (I know I already talked about it, but it really struck me), where she talked about having a uterine rupture, and when the doctor who stitched her up told her not to have any more kids, she thought "God left me an uterus, so obviously He wants me to have more kids". I know it's pointless to ask "Didn't it occur to you that God didn't leave you an uterus, the doctor saved it ? And that if the doctor was God's agent in this, maybe he was God agent in telling you not to have any more children ?", because it obviously didn't occur to you and I know people who "trust in God" usually don't think that way... But it seems so obvious to me !!! Ultimately, as you or someone else pointed out, if God is everywhere then if one looks for His signs as guides one can find pretty much anything one wants... Which means most of the time either you'll be confirming your own biases or you'll be following what was in your interpretation of the Bible in the first place... Although, and this has only the most superficial link to the conversation I know, I had a book about game theory and decision making that said maybe looking for "signs of the Gods" to make military decisions wasn't always that stupid. Because one important element of game theory is that in a game where you have to beat the other, often the optimal strategy has to be random to some extent because otherwise the other side can predict your actions. And what's more random than attacking because you saw a flock of geese flying through the sky ? That's not a very encouraging reason to look for signs in your everyday life though (not that there aren't other, more encouraging reasons of course)
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Apr 26, 2009 7:47:21 GMT -5
Vyckie that's the weird thing about how people expect prophecies to unfold.. the prophesied items must have a wonderful air of a gift around their arrival, or must just appear to keep multiplying like the loaves and fishes. So it's okay to find a box of food on your doorstep but it's not okay to get the same box of food by filling out some government forms. If a family prays for help with finances why doesn't qualifying for food stamps count as an answer to that? Why is government aid outside the realm of God's blessing? Yeah it is interesting, Arietty. Actually, we've never had a box of food appear on the doorstep ~ but just have always had grocery money when I need to go to the store. And I do know that the reason we have money for groceries is because I plan for that ~ because when I became a Christian, I could no longer think to myself, "Well, if we spend the grocery money for this or that, then I can always go to the store and steal food." Still, over the years since that prophecy, it was kind of reassuring to think that God had promised to take care of me and so there's at least one thing that I didn't need to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by justflyingin on Apr 26, 2009 10:29:13 GMT -5
If a family prays for help with finances why doesn't qualifying for food stamps count as an answer to that? Why is government aid outside the realm of God's blessing? It can be, but it isn't supernatural. The box on the doorstep was provided by the neighbor, but since she didn't go and fill out a form and ask the neighbor for food, I'd say it fell a lot closer to the answer to prayer than filling out a form. If you can't accept medical help/advice in the area of your health (and then follow it), then why would you go to the government for their help? It just seems extremely inconsistent to me. For example. A doctor tells you for your health's sake, please refrain from having more babies (so you can live to care for the ones you have), but you think you know better--God will intervene supernaturally if He wants you to stop having babies and He will close up your womb. You are unwilling to do the the 'normal thing' but rather want a supernatural thing to happen. Filling out government forms doesn't display any sense of trust in God. None at all. George Mueller, the great man who lived in Britain and cared for hundreds of orphans, prayed and God provided. I don't know how he did, but no doubt, many people heard of his need. I'm sure the more famous he got, the more people heard and the more people helped. I've never tried to say that applying for medicaid or WIC or food stamps is wrong. It is the father's duty to provide for his kids. If you believe that it is through the government, then that is your choice. I just don't understand how it jives with the free abandon and lifestyle and mindset of "b/c is wrong because I'm not letting God plan it." If you believe in living life with such abandon, then why not in the area of your groceries as well?
|
|
|
Post by luneargentee on Apr 26, 2009 11:41:41 GMT -5
Many people who donate to these families do it as a way to score points with God. Catholic families hope for a child to become a priest or nun because it's like a free ride into heaven, as if the child will make up for their life sins. A person who doesn't go to church regularly or feels that they are coming up short in their devotion, gives food or clothing to a family or organiation that seems more righteous to them, thereby earning God brownie points.
Some people do give with no thought or earning righteousness or working off sin, but I believe that most do not.
|
|
|
Post by xara on Apr 26, 2009 12:09:22 GMT -5
Many people who donate to these families do it as a way to score points with God. Catholic families hope for a child to become a priest or nun because it's like a free ride into heaven, as if the child will make up for their life sins. A person who doesn't go to church regularly or feels that they are coming up short in their devotion, gives food or clothing to a family or organiation that seems more righteous to them, thereby earning God brownie points. Some people do give with no thought or earning righteousness or working off sin, but I believe that most do not. I disagree with this. When I give clothes or books and items to charity it is because I don't wear them or use them or they are the wrong size and are taking up space and causing clutter in my home and I would like to see someone who can use them gain some benefit from them have them rather than just throwing them away. There is no thought of the Divine in my giving. It is merely the thought that there are people who can use things that I have and that I don't use so I pass those things on to someone who can use them. I would rather do that then fill landfills with things that are still usable.
|
|
|
Post by themomma on Apr 26, 2009 14:17:05 GMT -5
Many people who donate to these families do it as a way to score points with God. Catholic families hope for a child to become a priest or nun because it's like a free ride into heaven, as if the child will make up for their life sins. A person who doesn't go to church regularly or feels that they are coming up short in their devotion, gives food or clothing to a family or organiation that seems more righteous to them, thereby earning God brownie points. Some people do give with no thought or earning righteousness or working off sin, but I believe that most do not. I disagree with this. When I give clothes or books and items to charity it is because I don't wear them or use them or they are the wrong size and are taking up space and causing clutter in my home and I would like to see someone who can use them gain some benefit from them have them rather than just throwing them away. There is no thought of the Divine in my giving. It is merely the thought that there are people who can use things that I have and that I don't use so I pass those things on to someone who can use them. I would rather do that then fill landfills with things that are still usable. same for me. In fact there was a family I used to give a lot of stuff to but I saw that they were getting so much "stuff" that it wasn't valuable to them. Everybody gave them so much stuff that it was really overwhelming and they didn't/couldn't take care of it so the kids still didn't really have anything decent because they didn't take care of what they did have.
|
|
|
Post by luneargentee on Apr 26, 2009 20:08:24 GMT -5
Let me make my answer a little clearer: Like other people on this board, I donate a lot of things to Goodwill and other charities. I have passed things on to friends with younger children. I don't do it to score points or feel better, beyond hoping that someone else who is in greater need will be able to use these items (my kids grow so fast that I usually have to buy two sets of clothes every year to keep up; thank goodness my MIL loves to shop for them, too).
However, a lot of people who give to charity don't look at it that way. I know people who volunteer with charities and others who work in thrift stores. Most of the people they receive donations from are nice, but there are a large segment who expect the charity workers to practically fall down and worship them for their munificence.
Also, people who will give directly to those in need often expect some kind of recognition for their kindness. There are people who quietly drop off clothes or food when no one is around. But there are others who want an audience, or they will tell everyone about all the bags and boxes of things they gave away. They may seem to act meek, but they want to be recognized for their kindness.
Having belonged to different churches, I well remember those who never said a word, simply helping as needed, but I also remember those who gave to be noticed.
The story of the widow's mite often comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Apr 26, 2009 20:10:13 GMT -5
I am not against using services but don't tell me you are "trusting" God to provide. If you are going out and solicitating clothes from shelters and food from banks, God is not providing. . Well.. I don't agree with this. It think it limits God to doing magic acts. Someone donated food to those food banks, and gaining access to it is no different than having someone leave a box at your doorstep. Does God not provide through our society? Charity, whether private, church or government is based on a desire to help and care which most believers in a God would say is an impulse based in the divine. I have no problem with someone trusting in God to provide and thanking God for the food bank. Isn't God in everything? Maybe if a person feels like they take more than they give it's an opportunity to make a meal with that foodbank food for another family in stress, a pay it forward thing. America seems preoccupied with judging how deserving people are of receiving any kind of aid. I am horrified to read that Vyckie feels guilty about getting Medicaid for her three girls surgery. It's a different perspective when you live in a country with socialized medicine and such a questions never comes up. That women are choosing dangerous home births because they think it would be a bad testimony to get Medicaid for a hospital birth.. wow. I did have a home birth myself but that cost me 2000.00 as opposed to having a birth center or hospital birth which would be free, thanks to the socialized medicine. One reason I didn't bother having any more at home was to save money and because the birth centers were like having a baby in a luxury hotel suite.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Apr 26, 2009 20:17:07 GMT -5
The idea that god is saving just a few of the millions of people we see walking down the street—that their salvation is always fragile and that most people are doomed—is at the root of a lot of QF obsessive behavior. There are many QF people who are not Calvinists. The Reformed folk just tend to emphasize an intellectual approach and the writing of many articles, LOL. Nancy Campbell of Above Rubies is a pentecostal and they urge folks to have more arrows for evangelism. There are many QF'ers who want more children to win more people to Jesus and haven't a wisp of Calvinism to them.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Apr 26, 2009 20:23:29 GMT -5
I have no problem with someone trusting in God to provide and thanking God for the food bank. Isn't God in everything? Maybe if a person feels like they take more than they give it's an opportunity to make a meal with that foodbank food for another family in stress, a pay it forward thing. Thanks for this, Arietty ~ I think it's important for women to feel okay and supported in seeking competent medical care from whatever source is available. Just for the record ~ the girls' treatment for the bone condition is paid for entirely by the Shriners. They are an awesome organization.
|
|