|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on May 20, 2010 7:18:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by arietty on May 20, 2010 7:44:20 GMT -5
WOW.
What bondage that woman is/was in. What kind of God does she serve if she would lose a child because of a doll in her house? An all powerful (sounds pretty weak..), all loving (uhh.. NO) God? Or a God where the only way to serve him was to navigate all the things we are meant to fear. So much fear.
Even though I was mad at her while reading this I also felt deeply sorry for her. How good you had a husband who laughed when you brought up some of these outrageous things.
|
|
valsa
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by valsa on May 20, 2010 7:59:54 GMT -5
Ugh, the whole "don't adopt because those children suffer the sins of their parents" thing drives me nuts. I truly wonder about the motivation of that interpretation, especially in light of scripture also talking about a child of Godly parents being blessed for something like a thousand generations and those that say that each man’s sin is his and his alone. Considering the gazillion ways to interpret the Bible, the fundamentalist community must have had a reason to come down on the anti-adoption side, which I think is ironic considering instances of positive portrayals of adoption in the Bible (off the top of my head, Moses and Jesus (technically being Joseph’s adopted son))
|
|
maicde
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by maicde on May 20, 2010 8:25:48 GMT -5
Wowee, Shelly! First off, you wrote an excellent article (which evoked a need in me to pull out my cat claws and hurt Cecelia. I absolutely can't stand women like her. I say "women", because they are more destructive then men, to other women who look up to them as an advisor/mentor. Women, in the end, have more power to influence and pull "into the fold" other women, than men do, at least in my opinion). The truth of the matter is that there are women like "Cecelia" running around all over the place with different masks on and with different agendas. Cecilia used the religion/God card to pull other women into the fold and into conformance. Other women use other cards to get women to conform or "fit in." Because women are the more social creatures, we usually are the ones that fall prey to socially conforming with other women, especially as it pertains to be "accepted." It takes a long time to gain one's own footing in life, especially if it was never solid in childhood (to begin with) and then growing into adulthood. Such was my case. I still struggle with this at times and I am now in my late 40's. Secondly, Shelly, I am SO sorry that you were caused a world of pain and insecurity about yourself and your life because of this nutcase running around in a "Christian" uniform. I grew up in somewhat a legalistic household which was dysfunctional in many ways. Some of the things you described reminds me of those things. My upbringing occurred before the Cabbage Patch and Troll Dolls though. Still, when I read about how much pain and suffering it caused you, it brings back emotions that I felt as well. I'd be interested in knowing where Cecelia is now in her life, how her marriage is doing (or not doing), if any of her children are gay (God forbid), if any of her children are living a secular life, if they left "the fold", etc. Thank you for writing this article; you did a wonderful job. I look forward to the next edition.
|
|
|
Post by egalgirl on May 20, 2010 9:02:51 GMT -5
Oh, my gosh...does Bill Gothard [because that's who made up all these ridiculous rules - I grew up with some "Gothardians," as I referred to them when I was in high school!] think that his followers don't actually read the Bible? That he can just throw out Scriptural references and people will accept them because they have a book of the Bible and two numbers with two dots in between them? Example from my high school years: there was a kid in my Sunday School class who was going on and on about music with a 2:4 beat, and how it was unbiblical. So I borrowed the "booklet" that Gothard had out out on Christian contemporary music and actually looked up the references he had sprinkled throughout the book. They were phrases like, "Shout with joy to the Lord," and "Praise him with loud noises and resounding cymbals [drums? ]." Unbelievable. As far as Shelly's post goes...apparently he did the same thing with all of his crazy opinions. Isaiah 53:4-5 says, "4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed." This is a prophecy concerning the coming Messiah, not instructions on menstruation OR how a husband and wife are to conduct their sex lives. GRRRR...... Good Lord! There is nothing spiritual or unspiritual about a freakin' tampon. Or a troll doll. Or a Cabbage Patch doll. They are what they are. Jesus did not come so that we would have a whold bunch of rules to follow, and drive ourselves crazy worrying about whether we have committed infraction #562, and now God's judgement and curses are going to rain down on us. I know I'm preaching to the choir here in terms of how ridiculous all this crap is....
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on May 20, 2010 9:55:07 GMT -5
Oh, my gosh...does Bill Gothard [because that's who made up all these ridiculous rules - I grew up with some "Gothardians," as I referred to them when I was in high school!] think that his followers don't actually read the Bible? That he can just throw out Scriptural references and people will accept them because they have a book of the Bible and two numbers with two dots in between them? So common. >_< Quite the contrary, indeed! He came so that we would no longer HAVE a whole bunch of rules to follow. Also... "...according to their works, do not do. For they say, and they do not do. For they bind heavy burdens, and difficult to bear, and place them upon the shoulders of people, but they will not lift so much as a finger to move them. But all their works they do that they may be seen by people." (Matthew 23.3b-5a, referring to the religious fundamentalists of Jesus' day)
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on May 20, 2010 10:23:51 GMT -5
From the post:
She obviously wasn't looking at Jeremiah 31.29-30 or Ezekiel 18.1-32...
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on May 20, 2010 10:24:31 GMT -5
That's a Christian view of what the verse means. Jews do not consider it a messianic prophecy, but rather as applying to the Jewish people, a view that non-Jewish scholars are beginning to accept as well.
I'm sure they'd agree with you that the passage is "not instructions on menstruation OR how a husband and wife are to conduct their sex lives". There are other verses in the Tanach for that.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 20, 2010 11:29:18 GMT -5
Someone (I forget who it was) once asked rhetorically why fundamentalist Christians insist on interpreting the bible literally where it is clearly being prophetic or metaphoric and then turn around and interpret it metaphorically and prophetically when it is clearly being literal. I had to think about that one, but it is mostly true. I cannot explain it, but there you go.
I'm sure that there are many traditions that have many interpretations of scripture but the worldview/religion in question is Christian (in this instance) so giving a very well known Christian interpretation of that scripture was in line with that. The messianic prophecy for that scripture is the one I was also taught, and is very common in evangelical circles at least. As you mention there are other scriptures about sex and menstruation (in Leviticus probably, although I don't feel like researching it right now) so I cannot imagine the thought processes that were going on in using this particular verse from Isaiah to bolster up legalistic claims about those things. Very strange ideology at work here. But in addressing Christian spiritual abuse it kind of has to be within the worldview of Christianity as it is usually understood. The Chinese have their own 'no sex' 'no washing of the hair' etc traditions regarding childbirth and we don't question their right to do that if they want to. Go Chinese! And orthodox Jews have their own such rules regarding menstruation and all sorts of things. Yay them! But when such things are preached under the guise of Christianity and people are taught that somehow they are sinning if they don't follow some man's interpretation of some Levitical law (or weird use of what is usually understood as a messianic prophecy) then raises red flags to those of us in the Christian circle. So I think we have to make room for that kind of discussion as well as the broader religious/atheist/philosophical discussion that is so wonderful in these forums.
I agree completely with maicide on what Cecelia (and women like her) was doing here. She was on a power/pride trip of the first order and was really enjoying messing with Shelley's head that way. She is the one who knows and will teach you. All hail Cecelia. I hate women like her.
The birth thing really pissed me off. And I say that as a very radicalized woman of the seventies and eighties who took giving birth (not 'delivering') very seriously. A birth surrounded by family, with candles and celebration afterward, that was the ideal. I was able to do that and it was a very positive and dare I say fun thing for me. Five minutes after giving birth I wanted to do it again. Spiritual midwifery, Bradley method, least amount of interference as possible -- it was a reaction to a very paternalistic, overbearing, and condescending age of obstetric medicine. I wanted it my way and I got it my way. Birth is hard work but totally worth it was the mantra, but you took help when it was medically necessary. You didn't put your child or yourself at risk over an ideology of birthing. The baby and your own life come first. That someone would consider a c-section an actual sin is so distorted and cruel as to be unconscionable. That a woman would call up another woman and be all smug about her perfect pain-free birth when the alleged friend had a less positive experience at the same time is a **** move IMHO. And I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Cecelia's 'perfect pain-free' births were not as she presented them to be. As the saying goes, bitch, please.
What strikes me about all these condemnations 'for generations to follow' due to some perceived sin in one's life now is that it so superstitious and for lack of a better word, 'witchy'. (And I am not condemning any wicca or pagan folks here, just pointing out that the standard fundamentalist Christian view of such religion is condemnation and so it is ironic at best that they actually fall into what they condemn, all in the name of Christ.) If I do this, God will do that. It's in the contract. If I don't do 'x' then God will smite my great grandchildren a hundred years from now with damnation or some earthly calamity. A particular doll in your house will cause God to close your womb or kill your unborn child. It's just superstition dressed up in Christian clothes. All those children left without homes just on the word of a pious prick (sorry) who doesn't know Christianity from a hole in the ground -- it makes me furious.
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on May 20, 2010 12:14:28 GMT -5
So it was also God's way when women died in childbirth before c-sections became possible? My c-section saved both our lives; in the old days I would have labored until I died of exhaustion and that would have been the end of it. To say that a c-section is a sin is to say that medical advancement in general is too.
Anyway, how awful to be penned in at every turn by such an intricate web of tiny little rules--like living in a labyrinth. It must take so much extra energy just to get through the day! And all that stuff about what troll dolls do is just straight out superstition; she could just have well been trying to fend off the evil eye.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on May 20, 2010 12:22:16 GMT -5
I suppose in a narrower sense I am engaging in a philosophical discussion.
We have 3 steps here: Step 1 - Isaiah 53 is written to comfort the Jewish people at a low period in their history, and assure them that though they are being treated badly by the gentile nations now, some day those nations will repent and say of Israel
At that point no one had even heard of Christians.
Step 2 - Christians borrow the scripture and reinterpret it as a messianic prophecy, foretelling a suffering individual, not nation, who will also be a savior.
At this point, no one had even heard of Gothardites.
Step 3 - Gothard borrows the scripture and reinterprets it as a metaphor for sexual relations between men and women.
So my question is, what rule allows one to go from Step 1 to Step 2 while not allowing one to go from step 2 to Step 3? Under what circumstances is borrowing and interpreting okay and under what circumstances is is not okay? Because to me, there is no difference in the process that takes you from Step 1 to Step 2 and the process that takes you from Step 2 to Step 3.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on May 20, 2010 12:23:11 GMT -5
Well, yeah.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on May 20, 2010 12:31:32 GMT -5
Powerful stuff. I remember my mom going through this process. It's eerie, really, how familiar this sounds.
My dad was constant source of opposition to the process. He refused to get rid of the TV or stop celebrating Christmas, etc. If his abuse hadn't driven her farther into the church in the first place, I'd almost stop and thank him for it.
|
|
|
Post by nowisee on May 20, 2010 15:54:21 GMT -5
Cecilia is a deeply superstitious person. I wonder what she is up to now.
|
|
|
Post by nowisee on May 20, 2010 16:00:25 GMT -5
In response to Nikita's comment:
"And I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Cecelia's 'perfect pain-free' births were not as she presented them to be. As the saying goes, bitch, please."
Give me some more of that! Honestly, a pain free labor? Did she actually believe what was coming out of her own mouth? Using it to beat Shelly over the head and make her feel inferior...bad girl, very bad girl. I know she knew she was lying and probably enjoyed it.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on May 20, 2010 17:14:17 GMT -5
This article made me think of the book, "Toxic People".
|
|
jo
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by jo on May 20, 2010 18:57:33 GMT -5
My mother was the one diving head first into Patriarchy. My father refused, one of the few things he stood his ground on. I truly believe when Gothard was in huge vogue in the early 80s, mom would have sunk our entire family on that ship of Dad had cooperated.
In 3rd grade, I had my heart set on a Cabbage Patch kid. Mom refused, all the same stuff mentioned with Cecilia. CPKs were *evil* dum..dum..dum.
I was smarter. I asked every grandmotherly old lady in my father's church for 6 months. Mom was smart enough to know her cockoo stuff was not going to be well recieved at our First UMC church and deliberately saved that for her Emmaus and Mennonite circles. The excuse she gave was we couldn't afford the doll.
When one of those precious old ladies finally got my not so subtle cues and gifted me a CPK, mom tried to burn it. Dad realized I would tell and said old lady would be scandalized and offended that her pastor did that.
I got to keep my CPK. It was another 10 years before anyone defied mom on the troll dolls though.
|
|
|
Post by egalgirl on May 20, 2010 20:03:25 GMT -5
I suppose in a narrower sense I am engaging in a philosophical discussion. We have 3 steps here: Step 1 - Isaiah 53 is written to comfort the Jewish people at a low period in their history, and assure them that though they are being treated badly by the gentile nations now, some day those nations will repent and say of Israel At that point no one had even heard of Christians. Step 2 - Christians borrow the scripture and reinterpret it as a messianic prophecy, foretelling a suffering individual, not nation, who will also be a savior. At this point, no one had even heard of Gothardites. Step 3 - Gothard borrows the scripture and reinterprets it as a metaphor for sexual relations between men and women. So my question is, what rule allows one to go from Step 1 to Step 2 while not allowing one to go from step 2 to Step 3? Under what circumstances is borrowing and interpreting okay and under what circumstances is is not okay? Because to me, there is no difference in the process that takes you from Step 1 to Step 2 and the process that takes you from Step 2 to Step 3. I apologize if I have offended anyone here who is Jewish! I was actually planning to add a disclaimer to my post that my interpretation was the Christian interpretation of that passage, but I was running late for an appointment and had to stop typing . My intent was to point out Gothard's habit of grabbing random Scriptures, sprinkling them through his literature, and assuming that people will just take him at his word and not look them up for themselves [sadly, many people do just that!]. Since Gothard claims Christianity, and the "messianic prophecy interpretation" is how Christians commonly interpret Isaiah 53, I am puzzled as to how he got to sex and menstruation. If that's where he arrived at all - based on the discovery I made with his booklet on music, it seems to me that he does not even read half the Scripture that he throws in his stuff [he doesn't actually quote any of them; just cites the reference!]. So I am really thinking, in answer to your question, that Bill Gothard made no such leap or interpretation of that passage. I think he was just B.S.ing and didn't actually know what it said. My personal opinion, anyway... Again, I am sorry if my post came across as offensive or insensitive to you or any Jewish readers who come across this forum!!!!
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on May 20, 2010 22:23:28 GMT -5
I think this is the strongest emotional response I've had to a story here so far.
It's hard for me not to feel consumed with hate for Cecelia. (FWIW, I was adopted).
I agree with Nikita that her religion was a lot like some forms of witchcraft - I've heard similar things from a woman who practices voodoo (or a facsimile thereof).
|
|
|
Post by km on May 21, 2010 8:31:07 GMT -5
I've mentioned that I knew a Perfect Family like Cecilia's when I was young. When they came to visit us once when I was very young (around five), I remember being offended because the children made a big deal out of how they were not allowed to play with most of my toys (In particular, My Little Ponies, Care Bears, Barbies, and, yes, the one Cabbage Patch doll). Also, they screamed to my mother about how I had "cursed" because I said the word "darn."
Later, when I was a teenager, I was attracted to this family in much the same way that Shelly writes of being attracted to Cecilia's family. I remember being mortified because my sister said "oh my god!" one time and thus "used the name of the Lord in vain" when we were around them. And most things that came out of my mouth were problematic too... When I mentioned getting a bank account and credit card (with a small limit) in order to establish a credit history, I learned that they didn't believe in debt. When I mentioned having a crush, I learned that I was engaging in a "dating mentality" that was preparing me for divorce. When I started wearing long skirts all the time (and especially around them), I found out that this wasn't enough because I needed a "double covering" up top in order to sufficiently "keep my brother from stumbling."
I had very similar feelings of inadequacy. It was impossible to keep up with all the rules! Now, I feel robbed for not doing what other teenagers were doing! I totally missed out on having more sex when I was younger!
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on May 21, 2010 11:47:12 GMT -5
Oh, no, at least not to me, and I'm not Jewish. I'm a lapsed Methodist, except that I go to church, so I don't know if that counts as lapsed, but I'm a non-believer who grew up in the Methodist church and who considered converting to Judaism in the past. There are some (or at least one) Jewish posters here but I suspect if they were offended they would have spoken up by now.
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on May 21, 2010 19:35:41 GMT -5
wow!
I have to say that this is one of the most interesting series for me here on NLQ, because the process of being drawn into fundamentalism is deeply fascinating to me. Plus, Shelly, you're a great writer :-)
Especially fascinating to me is how the facade of perfection is used to lure others in, and weaken their self-confidence to make them dependent on those they perceive as their superiors. Psychological warfare at its most insidious
|
|
|
Post by macktivist on May 21, 2010 23:53:31 GMT -5
Wow, Cecilia sounds like a very insufferable, holier-than-thou type of person. I mean, Cabbage Patch Dolls ( ) and Trolls ( ) being the tools of Satan? Those things are uglier than sin, but "evil"... come on. It reminds me of people in my fundie days who thought that Ouija boards were the embodiment of evil. I think that anything mass-produced by in the same factory they make Scrabble boards is not really that scary.
|
|
|
Post by denelian on May 22, 2010 21:02:13 GMT -5
as a pagan, from a pagan family - i agree with the poster who called Cecilia "witchy... superstitious"
not that she was AT ALL pagan-y [NO self-respecting pagan would act like THAT, and those few i've met who HAVE acted like that have shortly found themselves with zero pagan friends - we take our few broad rules seriously] but good GODS with the random rules and fears. just... i wonder, did she watch "Chucky" and other horror films too often?
|
|
|
Post by singingbird on May 22, 2010 21:15:01 GMT -5
So... As a Jewish woman, misinterpretations or different interpretations of Torah don't really bother me. In general, the things that bug me when it comes to theology and interpretations, are when Christians tell me that our interpretations of our book are wrong.
So now that that's out of the way. Here our sexual and menstrual rules: 1. Sex with your spouse is a mitzvah (good deed... though it's a bit more complicated than that more like the good version of a sin. The antonym of sin) 2. Sex with your spouse on shabbat is a double mitzvah. (Shabbat is celebrating G-d's creations AKA life, the universe, and everything. Having sex is following the instruction to be fruitful and multiply and you are being fruitful and multiplying on the day that he took a step back from creating to enjoy his creations. So for you [his creations] to then go and enjoy each other is a true good deed) 3. No sex during menstruation. (During this time a woman is ritually impure) 4. No sex during the week or so after the menses. (At the end of this time the orthodox women go to a Mikvah to ritually cleanse themselves.)
On Ouija Boards: Most of the people I know with an ounce of second sight or interest in the New Age section at Barnes and Noble dislike them because they're like being blind and having a large hole in the front of your house. You don't know who could come calling and you have no way of preventing them from entering. Ouija boards don't have a way of addressing a specific spirit and there isn't a way to invoke it or disspell it, so whatever spirits there are in the area come to it and in to your house with a way of messing with you. There are a lot of jerks out there just like there's a lot of jerks on the internet.
|
|