|
Post by Sierra on Sept 28, 2010 11:12:05 GMT -5
I did not claim that abusers are less sincere Christians. I don't believe they are. I am an atheist because I, too, experienced Christianity as an inherently patriarchal, damaging system of belief - but I admit that's because my mind has been so poisoned by the Christian patriarchy movement that I remain deeply skeptical of egalitarian interpretations of scripture. They sound nice, but they don't "ring true" because I've been inoculated against them. It makes more sense to me to scrap the whole thing.
My point was to place the onus on the Christian community to de-legitimize the abuse and subjugation of women, and to point out that there are ways of retaining Christianity without condoning either of those things. KR Wordgazer's posts here provide an example of the ways Christians can interpret the Bible contextually to produce a message that is actually liberating. As an atheist, I can only go so far in decrying abuse within the Christian community - my best effort is to point out how Christian doctrines supported my abuse, which is what Tess is also doing here.
I am not saying that abusers are not real Christians, or that real Christians would never abuse. I am saying that no religion has a right to support the abuse and subjugation of women, and it's Christians' responsibility to see that their doctrines do not support it.
ETA: I also think complementarianism is wrongheaded doublespeak. Sincere, yes. Legitimate, no. Upon further reflection, I guess I have been using "legitimate" to mean "socially/morally defensible" rather than "consonant with one's professed beliefs."
I was responding to what sounded like maicde saying that those of us who have grown up Christian would be more likely to accept and/or defend abuse, which I don't think is true. But I suspect maicde had something else in mind, and would really like some clarification.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 28, 2010 12:00:56 GMT -5
Sierra just said pretty much what I was about to say. It is certainly a legitimate expression of my own Christianity to stand up and denounce practices of other believers that are just plain morally wrong, and indefensibly so, no matter what Scriptures they use to back up their practices.
Sometimes Christians and their churches play too nice-nice. Just because a church claims the Bible supports what they do, and that they're sincere in that belief, doesn't make what they're doing ok or mean that we have to cover for them or pretend not to see when real wrong is being done.
Whether or not we can say, "these are not true Christians," we certainly can say, "This is wrong, we don't believe the Bible supports it, and we consider this group to be in sin and will have nothing to do with them unless they repent and stop teaching what is plainly morally wrong."
That goes for Above Rubies and their child-abuse in God's name, and Christian Domestic Discipline, and whatever form of Christianity Tess' husband was using to support his practices. If his own group was not in agreement, but did not denounce his abuse and disfellowship him, I still certainly can denounce him, and I can encourage my own church to do the same.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Sept 28, 2010 13:43:54 GMT -5
Sierra just said pretty much what I was about to say. It is certainly a legitimate expression of my own Christianity to stand up and denounce practices of other believers that are just plain morally wrong, and indefensibly so, no matter what Scriptures they use to back up their practices. Sometimes Christians and their churches play too nice-nice. Just because a church claims the Bible supports what they do, and that they're sincere in that belief, doesn't make what they're doing ok or mean that we have to cover for them or pretend not to see when real wrong is being done. Whether or not we can say, "these are not true Christians," we certainly can say, "This is wrong, we don't believe the Bible supports it, and we consider this group to be in sin and will have nothing to do with them unless they repent and stop teaching what is plainly morally wrong." That goes for Above Rubies and their child-abuse in God's name, and Christian Domestic Discipline, and whatever form of Christianity Tess' husband was using to support his practices. If his own group was not in agreement, but did not denounce his abuse and disfellowship him, I still certainly can denounce him, and I can encourage my own church to do the same. What Kristin and Sierra said pretty much sums up my thoughts on this. And I would point out that it took me three years before I could even contemplate looking at another form of Christian worship to replace the cultic one I had spent sixteen years totally dedicated to. Three years of being triggered big time at the mere thought of prayer or worship or being anywhere near any church at all. The only reason I made the attempt at three years out was because I am very steeped in mysticism and I didn't/couldn't leave that behind. This is my reality. My impression (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Reform churches don't really encourage mysticism and experiential worship but emphasize a more cognitive prayer and worship experience. (I don't mean mysticism as pentecostal btw.) I think frankly if I had not had that mystical underpinning that is as solid to me as the ground I walk on that I would not have been able to make that transition to another worship and interpretation of Christianity, I don't know that I would not have found it necessary to even try. Without mysticism I would have been left with a more intellectual decision on belief and theology rather than the gut one that was an imperative for me. I really believe that is why my faith has never wavered even though I was able to reject the cult and its theology and practice and community. My faith and experience of God were always above and beyond any doctrines and practices of a particular 'brand' of Christianity. I find it's easier to understand the problem when looking outside of Christianity to Islam. What does Islam require of faith? What doctrines are used to subjugate women and can they be separated from the Muslim faith as more moderate Muslims claim or is it just a bedrock fact of that faith, that one means the other follows? And I, from the outside, can't really grasp it fully. I know that moderates sincerely claim that the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam is not the 'correct' one and that you can embrace their faith and have all kinds of touchy-feely goodness toward others and women in particular. I'm not sure how, but I will trust them to interpret for themselves and take them at their word on it. So with Christianity to me. Fundamentalists interpret the scriptures in ways that seem literal and sincere and are not kind to women in general. Moderates and liberals do not interpret them so. Who is right? As a Christian I think the more moderate interpretation is valid and correct and the fundamentalists are sincere but wrong. If you are not a Christian, how do you reconcile this? From the outside, it looks like it is smoke and mirrors going on here. I guess I hope you'll trust us also that although it may not make sense from the outside, that we on the inside can so interpret it and take our word for it. Does that make sense, the way I've explained it? I know what I'm trying to say, I'm not sure I'm successfully communicating it.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Sept 29, 2010 7:43:10 GMT -5
I love this statement! It makes perfect sense. If there is a God, and this God is loving and good, compassionate and just, then an honest atheism would be more pleasing to God than a faith that believes he is the a****** some religious people portray and "serves" that twisted wicked ugly "god". Heretical, I know, but completely logical. Oh, and I want to apologize the Defendant Risings mom and other moms whose daughters were victimized while they felt powerless to help. My murderous comments came from the rage I felt while reading DRs story, and the personal experience of a daughter once involved with an abusive boyfriend. I applaud the pea pelting incident whole-heartedly. I am sure DRs mom a) didn't know the worst of the abuse or would've called the cops and b) was constrained by wanting to try to retain contact with her daughter if at all possible. My guess is that if she had known for a fact that the abuser would cut off all further contact and she would not hear from her daughter for years, she would've used much larger heavier objects than peas to pelt the man with. Like an iron frying pan. Or perhaps smaller but much higher velocity objects, like shotgun pellets. Hindsights 20/20. I know the tightrope a mom must walk when her daughter is under the spell of an abusive relationship.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Sept 29, 2010 22:53:22 GMT -5
aside from the theology and the heartbreaking story:
I just want to repeat what liltwinstar said. I think it's the most important thing, and if I could go back in time and tell it to half the teenaged girls I ever knew I would:
"if she's not happy in a relationship, that's reason enough to end it, right there."
It doesn't matter if he's a nice guy, or if he really really really likes you, or if you acted like you like him and you don't want to let him down, or actually anything else about his feelings. He can do a better job of figuring out his own feelings. What matters to you is if you're happy.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Sept 29, 2010 23:11:35 GMT -5
aside from the theology and the heartbreaking story: I just want to repeat what liltwinstar said. I think it's the most important thing, and if I could go back in time and tell it to half the teenaged girls I ever knew I would: "if she's not happy in a relationship, that's reason enough to end it, right there." It doesn't matter if he's a nice guy, or if he really really really likes you, or if you acted like you like him and you don't want to let him down, or actually anything else about his feelings. He can do a better job of figuring out his own feelings. What matters to you is if you're happy. This reminded me of the post (I don't remember the actual link) in which Vyckie wrote about how her divorce freed not only her but Warren as well to be better and happier. Being miserable in order to try to make someone happy is a bad strategy for all concerned. Anyone who could be happy with an unhappy partner is not well-adjusted to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by amaranth on Sept 30, 2010 7:23:14 GMT -5
From my own experience, I've noticed that personal happiness can be a novel idea in some Christian circles. For example, a friend once told me about a conversation he'd had with his dad. They were talking about careers or something, and my friend said something like "I want to do something with my life that will make me happy." Whereas his dad exclaimed, rather indignantly, "You aren't supposed to be happy; you're supposed to be serving God!" As though the two were mutually exclusive. In a culture where "personal satisfaction in anything=pride=sin" and "happiness=selfishness=sin", I'm not at all surprised that women stay in bad/abusive relationships for far longer than they should. After all, a person's "happiness" is really not the point of the relationship, right? *facepalm*
|
|
amy97
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by amy97 on Sept 30, 2010 8:43:57 GMT -5
I'm only 31 myself, but I've never seen a situation where keeping kids sheltered to the point of immaturity and ignorance actually helped them. People with more experience than me, have you ever seen it do good? Or does it just make people into easier victims than otherwise? I had a very sheltered upbringing, and I struggled with a lot of things in my twenties that most people figured out in their teens. My family was not abusive, and I'm sure their intentions were good. But a little less "protection" might actually have helped me more over the long term. "Don't date, don't work at a job yet, and don't spend too much time socializing, you need to focus on your schoolwork." "You're too young to (drive/ go places on your own/live on your own/learn about finances.)" As if the knowledge to do all this would suddenly descend upon me one day, without effort, and I would live happily ever after. Sheltering people doesn't keep them from making bad choices. It makes them less able to cope with the mistakes we all inevitably make. People won't just magically know how to live independently as adults if they aren't given the chance to develop independence and confidence when they're children and teenagers.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Sept 30, 2010 11:40:05 GMT -5
In a culture where "personal satisfaction in anything=pride=sin" and "happiness=selfishness=sin", I'm not at all surprised that women stay in bad/abusive relationships for far longer than they should. After all, a person's "happiness" is really not the point of the relationship, right? When I was divorcing my ex-husband, both he and a Bible thumping ex-friend told me separately that I was being proud and putting my own happiness before god's desires (that he hates divorce and that divorce is only granted for infidelity). My ex-friend said that happiness did not matter in comparison to obedience to god. My ex-husband said that we needed to put aside our own desires in order to model the relationship of Christ and the church. At that point, I didn't believe in Christianity for entirely non-situational reasons (that is, I didn't stop believing as a result of being hurt by Christians), so this was a totally unacceptable reason to stay married. There wasn't any "I love you and I'm sorry", but only "you need to come back to god and therefore you shouldn't seek a divorce". Although there was a lot more to it than that, I do think that he was sincere about seeing the attempt at obedience to god as being a real reason to stay married to someone.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Oct 1, 2010 0:42:13 GMT -5
Defendant Rising and anyone else who has similar info, I am in search of names, dates, original material or as close as I can get to teachings about domestic discipline as promoted by Christian groups. As you can imagine, people are not forthcoming, even ex-members. There is a growing problem and has been for some time regarding "Christian Domestic Disicpline." Some of it turns into fetishism, and some of it is just outright physical violence. But I can't find much information on it. Can you contact me offline? I would appreciate it if you could send me an email via undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/p/email-cindy.htmlThanks! (You'll eventually read about my findings here at some point.)
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Oct 1, 2010 1:03:30 GMT -5
Defendant, thank you for injecting this: "Exercise Dominion! Please Jesus! Take over America! Using Tools You Probably Have Around the House!" because I really needed the comic relief. Wow, was that hard to read. I hardly know what to say. I found myself identifying with your mom, how mad she got at that (can't think of a word strong enough) you were married to, and yet how helpless she must have felt since you thought you had to stay with him. I had the same thoughts! One thing that I've noted in particular about the QF folks I've been around is a rigid and uncomfortable lack of any kind of spontaneity and humor. My husband and I were discussing some aspect of something -- I don't remember how it came up -- Oh ... how so many leaders in patriarchy and the couples we met have women who rule the roost while their husband's preach submission. He made a comment about how Beall Phillips gets tougher looking with every photo. He was shocked at how tough she seemed in that mind-numbing "Thank You Michelle" video VF published about the Duggars a few months ago. We ended up talking about how the closest thing that any of the people we've known that were up to their necks in this stuff had a "schtick" that seemed to pass for spontaneity. They have a rehearsed mask of friendliness that is much like a saleman's pitch, but it is very flat and one-dimensional. And, God forbid that you tell a joke or do something goofy as I am oft given to do. (I'm not pretentious and can be gross motor clumsy, and with my health issues, I sometimes have literal dizziness.) Even when I'm behaving more formally, I don't have the right posture or I smell funny to the QF types or something. So any time I see this kind of humor and tongue in cheek commentary, I rejoice. It signifies that another person has made the break from living according to the tight scripting of QF conformity.
|
|
|
Post by defendantrising on Oct 1, 2010 9:49:21 GMT -5
The subject line is essentially what Nate and I were taught by the patriarchs. In the books, conferences, homeschooling materials, newsletters, and so on. I told other women this myself. Women of God were not supposed to be "happy."
I believed that I could be (and should be) doggedly miserable--and even physically sick--doing my crushing "duty" under a mean man 24/7 and some day, when I least expected it, the Joy of Christ which surpasses all understanding would hit me like a speeding train. The patriarchs and the Mary Prides and Beall Phillipses and their ilk taught me that God reserved this Joy only for very gentle, very submissive, very faithful, very quiet, very hard-working wives with piles of kids. It was like there was a God Store and He kept the good stuff hidden away in the back for the really sweet uncomplaining women who smiled all the time. It didn't make any sense to me that I had to reject worldly happiness in order to get supernatural Joy but I would not get the Joy if I wasn't already beaming with contentment. But however it worked, If I didn't have that supernatural Joy in my trials and tribulations it was. . .
MY FAULT.
And my husband, who was inclined to blame me for everything anyhow, seized on this teaching--for me, anyway--and reinforced it constantly. There was always room for some good old pagan enjoyment in his life, but that's further on in the story.
The other side of this coin was that there were also teachings in the movement that if your husband was rotten that was your fault too. You were not submitting to him enough, not praying for him enough, not sticking by him enough. I remember reading stuff that indicated that even secret thoughts against your husband were wicked and would make him less of a man of God than he should be. So if my husband did not have Christian Joy in his life that was. . .
MY FAULT.
Self-recrimination is a hard habit to break. My last three boyfriends have all pointed out that I'm a pro at kicking my own ass. I have this tendency to decide, right out of the clear blue, that something is fundamentally wrong with me as a mother, or as a person, or whatever. The bullying theology is gone, but the self-esteem may take until I'm 60 to rebuild.
I wish I had saved copies of some of this bilge. I remember one newsletter I got from one Prairie-er Than Thou broad somewhere out West. One really memorable article was on depression, and the writer said that it was a hoax perpetrated by sinful women looking to justify their own sin and laziness. Godly women didn't get depressed. They just took up their crosses and soldiered on with a smile. I wanted to be like the writer, the strong matriarch pouring righteous scorn on the sad and the sick and the weak. I didn't want to be classed with the scorned.
What's frightening is that this is a religious mechanism to shut off women's early warning systems which GOD AND/OR EVOLUTION GAVE US to tell us something is WRONG. We learn to deny our feelings. We turn into hostage zombies who can't even tell when we're hurting and sick any more. We turn the other cheek until our faces go numb. So when women are finally badly hurt or killed as a direct and logical result of these teachings (you should not be happy, you should suffer for Christ, depression is a myth, suck it up and submit) the patriarchs who disabled our early warning systems (and our mid- and late- warning systems too) can strike a shocked and surprised pose, and say, "well of COURSE we never meant to condone THAT sort of thing. She should have known that's not what we meant and seen a doctor, or the police, or somebody."
Sometimes I did "see somebody" but that somebody was always one of THEM. I have a memory of beating my head against the bathroom wall after a fight with Nate, trying to knock myself unconscious. This won't be in my story because I have no idea when this occurred--it's one of many isolated memories of extreme trauma without a context. Nate watched me and didn't say a word. The next day he took me to a pastor for "counseling" who told me I was demon possessed and Satan was trying to destroy my family through me.
Tess
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Oct 1, 2010 10:19:49 GMT -5
That's exactly the sick way they distance themselves. And women are not the only ones not allowed to be depressed. My husband was only able to admit to himself that he might possibly be depressed when he was about to get thrown under the bus for acting out violently. I was not a good friend to him during his depression, because I was too busy trying to cure him by submission. What a total freaking horrendously unfunny joke! He got no better, and my life got worse and worse. Ugh. His depression stems from growing up the son of fundamentalist missionary/pastor parents. As a child, he subjected his self to their religious rules, and denied his own feelings, and dismantled his own warning system, and learned to not think or feel too deeply about anything. His entire personality was built on repression of feelings and burying uncomfortable questions and being grateful for any crumbs of attention/affection that might fall his way. Finally I decided not to take it anymore, and he admitted he needed help. Now two years or group and individual therapy for him, plus some antidepressants, and therapy for me too- we are living together like two loving adults should live together. Someone earlier wrote about returning to Christianity because they have a mystical bent. I can so relate. If it weren't for the personal mystical experiences I have known, I wouldn't remain in the church. But I really do love what I know as Jesus, and I can't give that up. To do so would be to deny my truest self. But I am still not sure where I will wind up ten years from now. I have such bones to pick with organized American churchianity!
|
|
|
Post by whiteclover on Oct 1, 2010 10:52:33 GMT -5
Tess, you described my life to a "t."
Happiness was not an option.
The ultimate goal was joy, and joy was "within," and to be totally separate from sinful and wicked happiness, which was delight in the world and its trappings. If you displayed any frivolous, spontaneous emotion, and if you ACTUALLY felt it, something was desperately wrong in your heart. Smiling was fine, especially in the context of tragedy or injury or loss, as it indicated a heart totally settled in God, not on any temporal, physical events. Pain was denied.
And "dying to self" was the ultimate goal.
No feelings, no needs, no wants, no goals, no visions. Just trying to arrive at a place of "deadness," where nothing hurt anymore and there was no more disappointment. And plenty of guilt and "self-flagellation" when you failed.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Oct 1, 2010 11:08:39 GMT -5
Old fundie me summed it up thus on a web forum 7 years ago: "Self-esteem is overrated." And that's the idea I had then. And where had I *gotten* such an idea but in church and from my devout family?
|
|
|
Post by MoonlitNight on Oct 1, 2010 11:26:53 GMT -5
The subject line (happiness is of the flesh, and for pagans) is essentially what Nate and I were taught by the patriarchs. In the books, conferences, homeschooling materials, newsletters, and so on. I told other women this myself. Women of God were not supposed to be "happy." I believed that I could be (and should be) doggedly miserable--and even physically sick--doing my crushing "duty" under a mean man 24/7 and some day, when I least expected it, the Joy of Christ which surpasses all understanding would hit me like a speeding train. My mother believes a secular and slightly less extreme version of this. It goes more like "happiness can and should be sacrificed for duty as defined by others who don't care about you." She has a Mrs. Grundy (manufactured in approximately 1940) in her head which guides her decisions. So while her misery was/is not as crushing as what you describe, there is also no Joy of Christ carrot to chase after. I'm not sure what carrot takes its place, or if she even thinks there is one. Religion is amazingly good at convincing us to do terrible things, but other kinds of social norms are almost as good. Thankfully, the "sacrifice happiness for duty" and "serve men just because" training did not take on me. I may not always be so good at figuring out how to make myself and my relationships happy and healthy, but at least I have the gut-level conviction that I CAN and SHOULD be happy and healthy, and that people who care about me should try to help. Tess, thank you for helping me figure out 1) a reason why my mother's training didn't take 100%, and 2) why I love Robert A. Heinlein's books. In my teens I discovered Heinlein, particularly Stranger in a Strange Land. One of the key messages of the book is that you can and should stand up to, or even shock the hell out of others, if that's what it takes to be happy and healthy on your own terms. It probably helped keep me sane during my teen years, to have someone saying that to me good and loud, and as often as I wanted to reread it. Heinlein himself broke out of a very fundamentalist background, so many of his stories are about learning how to think and judge for yourself, and place a high value (e.g. marker of adulthood) on doing so. Stranger probably has that theme the strongest. I adored Heinlein's work from the moment I laid hands on it, and this explains why I love it THAT much. And I think he's pleased, from wherever he is now, to know that he helped me break free.
|
|
|
Post by MoonlitNight on Oct 1, 2010 11:39:49 GMT -5
No feelings, no needs, no wants, no goals, no visions. Just trying to arrive at a place of "deadness," where nothing hurt anymore and there was no more disappointment. Okay, I am not sure if this says something about my understanding of Buddhism (beginner level) or about the concept of moksha/nirvana itself. It's probably that my understanding of Buddhism is inadequate. But that quote above is a good example of what I want moksha/nirvana to NOT be. I've known for years that there was something about the idea that you get to nirvana by letting go of desire and attachment that bugged me, and the quote above is it. Is nirvana the peace of joy, or is it the peace of being dead to caring? Because if it's the second, then it doesn't sound like a good goal to me.
|
|
|
Post by whiteclover on Oct 1, 2010 13:01:12 GMT -5
I wouldn't think it's at all like the concept of nirvana at all either. Isn't nirvana the heavenly state acquired through a total detachment from all things worldly that brings a peace in and of itself?
Interesting that the "Christian" doctrine of "dying to self" almost imitates a "heathen" concept.
I wish I still had the "bilge," as Tess called it, so I could document with direct quotes. "Dying to self" was such a biggie, but I also wonder if it wasn't part of the arsenal to ensure silence, lack of discernment, and robotic following. If you've been denied the ability to feel or express pain, and to suppress it when you do, you can't recognize injustice or abuse, and consequently don't speak up for fear of being rebuked for dissension. If you don't bring up the fact that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, no one else will notice the deception and manipulation.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Oct 1, 2010 13:30:48 GMT -5
Aren't the cores of Christianity and Buddhism more alike than most Christians would admit?
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 1, 2010 15:11:06 GMT -5
Usotsuki, I think there are some good similarities between Christianity and Buddhism-- but what is being described here as "Christian" looks a lot to me like a Gnostic form of Christianity, which was rejected from orthodoxy in the second century. The idea that the "world" is bad, that all pleasure or happiness is bad, is contrary to the accepted "orthodox" Christian position that all that God created is good, that God's love richly provides us with all things to enjoy, that all pleasures were originally God's idea and sin is actually just the twisting of something good into something harmful to the self and others.
Christ never told his followers to withdraw from the world or consider life in the body as evil. He wanted his followers to be actively engaged in loving, giving, and helping others. "Death to self" is not supposed to be about complete self-abnegation, but about letting go of things we hold onto that are actually damaging to us. And it's certainly not supposed to be about one person dying to self and someone else getting to suck her dry while he indulges himself!
Nirvana is supposed to be about detachment, but the Kingdom of God as described by Christ and his early followers, really isn't.
(Of course, then you'll see the very same people using Christ's "Kingdom of God" idea as an excuse to perpetrate "culture wars" that give the church political power! How can it be both "take over the world" and "detach completely and hide from the world"! Inconsistency, anyone?)
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Oct 1, 2010 15:21:55 GMT -5
I think Buddha would totally have supported the ethical teachings of Jesus.
And in my own mystical sense of Jesus, God, heaven, I totally get wanting to be swallowed up in such beautiful goodness and light, sort of Nirvana-like.
But I think that I would remain a distinct personality, enjoying fellowship with this amazing SuperPower of Love and Truth along with innumerable others who love that beautiful goodness-not the end of self but certainly the end of suffering.
But I don't know anything about Buddhism from an insider's perspective, only from a comparative theology perspective, which can never really relate what a religion means to its adherents personally, only summarize the major doctrines, etc.
I should add that many Christians would consider me a heretic for many reason, not the least of which is having mystical experiences with God. The fact that I think God accepts way more people than evangelical interpretations would allow is another reason. So I'm not sure my opinion is a "Christian" pov.
|
|
|
Post by calluna on Oct 1, 2010 17:50:04 GMT -5
Usotsuki, "Death to self" is not supposed to be about complete self-abnegation, but about letting go of things we hold onto that are actually damaging to us. And it's certainly not supposed to be about one person dying to self and someone else getting to suck her dry while he indulges himself! To throw a bit of theological discussion in here, I believe the whole "Dying to yourself" is unbiblical, and taken out of context. Paul, when he said "He died daily", was meaning that his "physical" life was in danger every day for preaching the gospel. I believe there is no support in the Bible for the dying to self doctrine that is pushed by mainline Christianity. Quivering Daughters had an excellent post on her blog about what Loving your neighbor looks like. It was really eye opening to me. Tess, I really look forward to much anticipation to reading your story more. I too appreciated the humor in your last piece. And the pea pelting was awesome! ;D
|
|
|
Post by lucrezaborgia on Oct 2, 2010 19:15:38 GMT -5
One of the key messages of the book is that you can and should stand up to, or even shock the hell out of others, if that's what it takes to be happy and healthy on your own terms. It probably helped keep me sane during my teen years, to have someone saying that to me good and loud, and as often as I wanted to reread it. It took me a bit longer, but I got rid of my abusive ex once I realized that only I can make myself happy and as long as I'm not hurting other people, I will do as I please.
|
|
sarah
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by sarah on Oct 11, 2010 21:40:08 GMT -5
... my friend said something like "I want to do something with my life that will make me happy." Whereas his dad exclaimed, rather indignantly, "You aren't supposed to be happy; you're supposed to be serving God!" As though the two were mutually exclusive. I've seen that exact sentiment on the Generation Cedar blog. In the comments, in response to someone posting that she was trying as hard as she could to be submissive and her marriage was still unhappy, the response was "The purpose of marriage isn't to make you happy, but to make you holy." How terribly sad, that such cold comfort was all they could offer. The thought that marriage isn't supposed to make us happy -- my heart hurts.
|
|
|
Post by lucrezaborgia on Oct 12, 2010 17:06:19 GMT -5
I've seen that exact sentiment on the Generation Cedar blog. I saw that one a few times too. Ugh!
|
|