Ed H ><> said...
I see a problem here. God doesn't tell anyone to submit to evil. If you submit to evil then you have are creating your own problem.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Anonymous said...
Allison's point up above, and Kaderin's response, does seem to me to encapsulate the problem for those of us not currently believing in the QF lifestyle.
Allison says, more or less: My husband and I are in touch with god, and we are happy, and everyone around us can see we are happy (external proof) and so the lifestyle and the religion are "true" and "good" and blessed by god. And I'm sure that is true--without snark or contradiction it sounds like a great marriage.
All well and good. But then what to make of two marriages based on the same model, and same principles, that weren't "good" and "happy" and "enjoyable.?" Well, you've got a few choices in how you understand the situation of Vyckie and Laura.
1) they were in the right marriage, with the right "head" and they weren't up to the task. So Vyckie and Laura were not real christians, or good christians.
Or, you might think, Vyckie and Laura were good christians trying to live a godly life but mysteriously they got stuck with *the wrong husband* so his headship wasn't enough to make the whole plan work.
Or, you might think, Vyckie and Laura were good christians trying to live the godly life (and I think having eight and eleven children respectively makes a darned good case for both of them at least sincerely trying. I had to try very hard to just have two, myself.)And their husbands were just and godly and good and all that other stuff but that the combination of the two pairs was somehow not working out properly.
What's god's role in this? How do we understand the notion of a godly marriage that isn't working out? Is it really possible for two people to be confirmed and convicted to be husband and wife and to make such a radically wrong choice?
Within a Christian context can it ever be that the right thing thing to do is to separate? Given the supposed authority of Paul (various places) and Jesus (in the statement against divorce) apparently, according to QF practice, no. If the marriage isn't working and the wife (rightly) can't say that her husband is a great and loving head to the household or (hypothetically) if the husband wants to leave his wife they can't do that and still *be* good christians. Furthermore if you read any quiverful writings on this subject women, certainly, are exhorted to remain with husbands who have been guilty of lust, infedelity, sexual abuse of children, and violence towards women and children. In practice, regardless of the sins of the husband towards those in his care, the Quiverful movement considers the job of maintaining the christian household paramount, and the duty to maintain it falls mainly on the woman even if she is the aggrieved party.
As far as I can see from reading over at Above Rubies or in other such sites even in marriages that most of us (and allison, by implication) would consider intolerable the onus is on the woman to keep going. God wants her to. In that scenario god wants her to keep plugging away and her suffering within the marriage is at least proof that she is doing what god wants because the one thing god doesn't want is for her to withdraw from the marriage. The union of the parents, of the married couple, is a higher priority for god than mere happiness for the woman (or the man, presumably).
In that case I don't get what the point of Allison's post is or what evidentiary value her own personal experience has for understanding the experiences of other women who *lived the same life* but with a different and incompatible "head."
Her marriage and her husband's headship is working out very nicely for her. He sounds like a great guy and it sounds like a lovely family. But within the principles of the QF movement (and I know that its a movement and not a church per se) it would make literally no difference to god, and it should make no difference to allison or her husband, if each of them were miserable together or he was abusive to her.
And that, I think, is where the rubber meets the road for many more liberal Christians, Jews, and Atheists and Theists who are posting here. You absolutely could leave a QF marriage and still love a personal Jesus. Or you could still love some god. But you couldn't be in one of those marriages for 25 years, endure what you endured, receive the condemnation and lack of moral support from the community, leave the community and still embrace *that* god who had, for 25 years, been your jailor and your husband's enforcer.
aimai
Friday, April 03, 2009
adventuresinmercy said...
Allison,
I know similar families like yours.
What a joy they are!
What I do wish you would acknowledge, though, is that the specific teachings often promoted in this movement/camp helped contribute to the abuse, if not outrightly approved of it.
Not so much toward the abusive husband---abusive men will be abusive wherever they are (though this camp baptises their need to control and dominate their wives)---but especially in the area of the the woman's meek *acceptance* of the hyper-controlling and dominating behavior of her husband.
I know that for me, I put up with it for MUCH longer than I ever should have, ONLY because I thought it was God's will that I be in submission.
In fact, the very first thing that happened floored me (as we drove away on our honeymoon...that was the first time...I was shocked)...but I was a wife then...and I knew that wives HAD to submit...wives had to do whatever their husbands wanted, because wives were not allowed any personal boundaries.
When we got back from our honeymoon and he commanded that I give up my car, my tv, my guitar, etc, I complied with only a whimper of protest. I didn't have the rights to own things anymore. I was a wife now, and my husband was my spiritual authority. HIS vision for how our home would look, for what we would do with our lives, etc, was to be MY vision. This is what I'd learned in Bible School, this is what all the books said, and besides, he wasn't asking me to sin. Right?
So later, when my husband gave me lists for what I had to clean to perfection before being allowed to go to bed at night, etc, I submitted because I thought that was what God wanted. In fact, if there was anybody who was in sin, I was positive it was ME for feeling so humiliated at being given these long lists. I thought *my* reaction was what was sinful, not my husband treating me like a child.
According to the teachings of this camp, the only time a wife has the right to say no to her husband is when he's asking her to sin. And giving a detailed list of how the kitchen had to be completely sanitized and toothbrush-scrubbed before I could climb the stairs for bed (where he was waiting for me, ready for some action), was not sin. Right?
My heart would sink to my stomach as I climbed those stairs, finally done with my job, and, get this, again, I was sure (thanks to all the books I'd read) that the problem was ME. I would be so ashamed of myself for MY sin at not being a cheerful and amorous wife.
I learned to fake it (because a godly wife NEVER ever says no to her husband in bed---she has no rights to any boundaries when it comes to what he wants, and that includes the most intimate parts of her own body), and I fervently prayed for the real feelings to come (looking back, er, I can figure out REAL quick why I would walk up those stairs in dread...who wants to be amorous with someone who treats you like a child...?)
Who backed up those beliefs of mine? Who taught them to me in the first place?
The patriarchy movement.
So while it's good to openly acknowledge that there are many good families in this movement, it's also important for you to acknowledge the part that your movement had in what happens to the families where dad isn't a healthy person.
I learned all sorts of ways to help my unhealthy husband become even unhealthier, thanks to the patriarchy movement. I was submissive for all those years because of my love and obedience to God. I would have NEVER put up with that stuff had I not thought that God's will was for wives to submit.
If you never say no to a toddler and always give them what they demand, you'll have a monster on your hands in no time flat. Same with unhealthy husbands. But the patriarchy movement taught me the exact opposite, such as,
- Douglas Wilson's "Reforming Marriage" where we were taught that I was the ground and my husband was the farmer and whatever he wanted to grow was what I had to grow.
- Doug Phillip's publication by Phil Lancaster, "Family Man, Family Leader," where men are told that if their wife is always happy with them, they must be doing something wrong, because a good leader will make decisions that his wife doesn't like sometimes. That same book talked about how the husband was in charge of EVERYTHING the wife does, making my husbands hyper-control look pretty wimpy, really---making me think I had it pretty good.
- I learned it from Debi Pearl's "Created to be His Helpmate," where I learned that I was created soley to fulfil my husband's vision, that when he was a "command man" and demanded this and that rudely, I had to do it with a smile. When he was a "visionary," and had crazy ideas, I had to applaud and be his biggest fan. (I'm filing for bankruptcy now. Let's just say the idea's got crazier and crazier and the last one was particularly horrible). I also learned there that suffering quietly in a bad marriage was what women of faith do, and women who don't have faith leave or talk to a counselor.
- I learned from "The Excellent Wife" that I could only give "one appeal" when I disagreed with my husband, and after that, I wasn't allowed by God to say anything more. So when my husband was beating our dog's head into the porch, I was only allowed to ask him to stop once. Any more than that was sin. So I ran upstairs and sobbed my prayers to God to stop my husband. I literally thought, thanks to all of these books, that submission was THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, that me not submitting was a far greater crime in God's eyes than letting an animal be beaten mercilessly.
-I learned from Denny Keneston that a godly woman is a "Hidden Woman," she is somewhere in the background. She serves her husband as if he was an incarnation of Christ--he is her earthly lord.
-From Elizabeth Rice Standeford (or is it Standerford Rice?), "Me? Obey Him," we learn that a woman should obey her husband in everything, even if he tells her to sin, becuase God promises to protect her from the worst of the sin. If her husband tells her not to go to church, she can't go to church. If he wants to go left, she must go left, if he wants to go right, she must go right, etc. (When you are married to a hyper-controlling perfectionist, let me just say that this is really really BAD).
I won't go on, but I have more books I could mention. I think it's important that people in the patriarchy camp stand up and say, "We're not all like that!" But I also think it's important that you acknowledge that many of the "popular" books SUPPORT what happened to these families where things DIDN'T go so well.
These books do not talk about abuse in any sort of detail---many times, they actually condone it. For example, a husband controlling his wife's decisions isn't abusive in these books. Rather, it proves he's a godly leader, and they encourage him to do it even more!
Those within the QF patriarchy camp, if they are opposed to abusive men having carte blanche over their families, must stand up and demand a different kind of reading material, a different kind of family vision than the one that is currently selling like hotcakes.
What happened to Laura and Vyckie is not some odd strange isolated event. What happened to my family was completely invisible on the outside. My husband was a full-time minister, lauded and loved by our congregation, during the entire time all of this was happening!
If those of you in this camp don't stand up against your camps books and teachings that openly FEED these unhealthy families abusive behaviors, but yet still support this camp as being God's way and back up these teachers and their publications, you are, albeit in a smaller way than the book's authors, *helping* to contribute to the abuse.
So, yes, stand up and show the world that there ARE healthy good families in this movement. But also stand up against some of the more popular teachings in this movement that support the very thing you do not want your movement to be associated with.
Molly
Friday, April 03, 2009
Vyckie said...
Hello ~ just a quick little note about the comments.
You all have been so wonderful in keeping the tone of these discussions respectful. I really appreciate that the comments you're sending have been thoughtful ~ such open-mindedness and tolerance creates a place where people from many different perspectives feel welcome and makes it possible for this sort of discussion to actually be helpful and interesting rather than ugly, bitter and counter-productive.
I did have to reject one comment this morning posted anonymously ~ I didn't like having to hit the "reject" button because I think whoever wrote it had a point ~ but I didn't think the sarcasm and cussing were in keeping with the respectful "environment" which I think we're all wanting to maintain here.
Anyway ~ thanks again. Please carry on. ‹(ô¿ô)›
Friday, April 03, 2009
Vyckie said...
Hey Molly ~ AWESOME POST!! Very-well said.
Thank you.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Anonymous said...
Ah, yes, that was me. I'll try again, this time minus the swearing
You should think about writing a couple of rules down so that new commenters know what is acceptable and what is not.
Allrighty then...
Ed H, the Bible clearly tells wives to submit to their husband. Please point me towards the verses in which God amends that to "...except when he's evil"
Not only that, but evil is a broad term. It must be defined, so you must also provide verses which tell us what exactly is ground for disobedience.
Do you remember the story of Abraham? He submitted himself to another's will and tried to kill his innocent child. And a supposedly loving God applauded him for it.
To my moral sensitivities, that is evil.
Friday, April 03, 2009
aimai said...
Vyckie,
I read over my last post, the one right before yours on this thread, and I wanted to say that I apologize profusely for using you and Laura as an example in a thought experiment. I hope you know from my other posts how deeply I admire both of you for your courage and endurance and the thoughtful and honest way you are grappling with your situations. I have blogged for a while on a group blog and even though we don't get a quarter of your traffic I know how weird it can be to have your own ideas, posts, or life discussed in the third person by complete strangers. I am very grateful that you and Laura have permitted such a wide ranging discussion on these issues--a discussion that begins with what we know (or think we know) of your situation but which probably bears only the slightest resemblance to the way you are thinking about your situation. I guess what I'm saying here is that I hope you aren't offended or hurt in any way by the way some of us (and I'm sure I'm the worst offender) have been kicking around the ideas about family, abuse, religion etc... using the names "Vyckie" and "Laura" to stand for a given viewpoint or situation. We know there is a huge difference between the real life Vyckie and the real life Laura and the hypothetical or stylized or representative one we are talking about. I apologize if my hypothetical set of questions, up above, read as harsh or judgemental. I think both of you did everything any woman could have done in very difficult circumstances and I really honor you both tremendously for pulling out and for going public. As Kaderin said elsewhere you and this blog are performing a real public service.
aimai
Friday, April 03, 2009
Anonymous said...
Oh, and I forgot - I'd like to apologize for my tone in the first comment. It's just that Ed's post blames the victim, which is a berserk button for me *cough*
Friday, April 03, 2009
Vyckie said...
"Anonymous" ~ I'm glad you came back and re-submitted your post ;-) I have considered coming up with some sort of "comment policy" ~ but the truth is, I personally have lived under nothing but RULES, RULES, RULES for way too long ~ so for now, I'm pretty hesitant about saying, "This is how it has to be." (BTW ~ my kids really appreciate the totally laid-back atmosphere in our home these days ~ and YES ~ they sometimes do take advantage of it!)
aimai ~ I appreciate your "apology" post above ~ but it's really not necessary. We have sort of an awkward situation in which Laura & I haven't actually stated our positions on a lot of stuff. It's not that we're wanting to leave you to guess ~ only that:
a) We're waiting to "reveal" certain information and thoughts at the proper time in the telling of our stories, or..
b) We are clueless ~ it's a lot to process and there's actually quite a lot that we just haven't had time to really think about yet.
For myself ~ I can tell you pretty succinctly what *I no longer believe* ~ but it's much more of a challenge to say what I do believe now ~ and even that is complicated by the fact that I don't have a lot of confidence in my ability to know anything since I've obviously been VERY wrong before.
The reason I started the "We've been thinking" series is not because I have any set-in-stone opinions about these topics ~ it's because we're wanting to hear some different perspectives to help us sort things out.
So ~ it's a learning process. And I'm really grateful that you all are a part of that process.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Anonymous said...
If someone has a philosophy, and you follow it and suffer, and they say 'you aren't applying it right', then rest assured it's not you, but the philosophy.
A good philosophy wouldn't allow such perversions because they wouldn't be inherent in it.
It's the same thing with cigerettes. Some people don't get lung cancer and live to be 100, and laugh off the warnings. Their experience does not change the fact that smoking exposes your lungs to carcinogens.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Kaderin said...
Vicky
Rules don't have to be authoritarian! Think Pirates of the Carribean: "They're not precisely rules. They're more like... guidelines." (I love that movie! Oh, Jack... *swoon*)
You can phrase rules in such a way that they're less about forbidding things and more about what kind of behaviour is encouraged. I think your comment above did that really well, along the lines of "We want to create an open-minded and tolerant comment section, where ideas can be discussed without strife. So please keep the tone of your comments respectful and avoid swearing"
Or some such
Friday, April 03, 2009
Anonymous said...
@adventuresinmercy
I'm sorry, but a story like that has to prompt someone to ask "What were you smoking, dude?"
I used to be a 'true' believer in god, but I never experienced wierd things like moving lights or moving pots. If I had it might have made it harder to stop believing. As it was the thing that started me on the road to disbelief was an Elder of the church who told me to stop painting because my subject matter was demonic. It was a mermaid! I couldn't really take him seriously after that. Soon he started sounding delusional. Sadly I didn't throw out the baby after that, just the Version of Christianity tm that I was in at the time. It took me a lot longer to get rid of the baby, but I dont' have to pretend that strange and unexplainable things happen for a reason anymore. They are just strange, and probably have a reason based in nature that we just dont' know yet.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Linnea said...
Anonymous writes: If someone has a philosophy, and you follow it and suffer, and they say 'you aren't applying it right', then rest assured it's not you, but the philosophy.
I agree. In fact, I submit that happy, functional, non-abusive patriarchal families are happy, functional, and non-abusive in spite of patriarchy, not because of it.
Friday, April 03, 2009
aimai said...
NPR had an absolutely fascinating piece, on This American Life, about ghost stories. The very first piece was a long and very convincing story about a couple whose house was haunted--the experiences they had, the visions they had. It was all presented in their letters and writings because it had happened during the last century. Well, come to find out that they really, truly, had those experiences *because they were suffering from a kind of coal gas poisoning* that was very common back then. Everything they described, which you, while listening, thought was "inexplicable" except as a true form of ghost or demonic presence, was "cured" when they got their coal problem fixed. Now, as any one can tell you the fact that there was a physical cause for one set of visitations or sightings doesn't mean that there is/will be, a physical cause for all visitations or sightings. But it ought to give us a little pause in asserting that such sightings and visitations are truly paranormal when so many ordinary things can produce identical results.
aimai
Friday, April 03, 2009
Anonymous said...
@ed H ><>
That was a very nice story about all those experiences happening 'just so'. Can I ask, why did god let all those kids die in that plane crash in Montana? Why would he be specially watching after you?
Friday, April 03, 2009
Anonymous said...
Vyckie "~ but it's much more of a challenge to say what I do believe now ~ and even that is complicated by the fact that I don't have a lot of confidence in my ability to know anything since I've obviously been VERY wrong before."
Vyckie, what you describe here is the best place of beginnings.
As a professing Christian, I didn't throw out the baby altogether. But I did ignore it or misplace it for a while as I re-adjusted my thinking. And I needed that time and space as part of my healing.
Self-righteousness and a lack of humility are problems in Christians because they are a problem in people in general.
New believers generally (there are always exceptions) go through a know-it-all stage just like children. I went through my own selfrighteous stage. Looking back, I wonder how anyone could stand me.
Hopefully the new believer grows out of that stage just like most children grow out of it. But how many of us know people who never outgrow it both in the church and outside the church.
In my opinion it is better to acknowledge and embrace the uncertainty than to be dead wrong and defend it with misplaced zeal.
Please take your time working this out.
You'll get no pressure from me.
Mara
Friday, April 03, 2009
Anonymous said...
Jemand said:
But I just want to point out that if atheists didn't think Christians were relying on phony arguments, if they found any valid ones, they would be Christians, not atheists!
Jemand, I understand that you didn't mean this like it sounded, since you said it in the same post where you said you were not attacking Christians-- but it was upsetting to me to hear it said as you said it, when "I don't find Christians' arguments compelling" would have been so much more respectful and less accusatory.
It is simply not true that there are NO valid arguments for Christianity, and that every argument every Christian uses is "phony." You may find the arguments for atheism more weighty and compelling, and you're entitled to do so. But I do feel disrespected by the idea that all the reasons I believe in Christianity are not "valid" and are "phony."
I appreciate everyone who replied to my concerns about misuse of the "No True Scotsman" argument. It does seem to me that if a pacifist can't commit a violent act in the name of pacifism, then stating that Catholics are using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy when they claim child-molesting priests are not representative of Catholicism, is unfair. There is no Christian mainstream or sidestream group which has EVER claimed that their creeds or scriptures give them license to abuse children! And actually, the same goes for spousal abuse in groups like Quiverful. I have never heard a Christian group justify spousal abuse on the basis of scripture or creed, because there is no scripture or creed that gives any such license.
Now, you may say that certain structures set up by these groups (which they do justify with their scriptures) are ripe for abuse, and that the church authorities wink at the abuses, and that would be true-- but these things aren't part and parcel with Christianity, any more than a pacifist who commits violence is being representational of pacifism.
So let's be fair, and use the same standards to apply to all groups. Christianity does not include or justify spousal or child abuse or molestation as part of its tenets. So someone who says these behaviors are not representational of Christianity, is committing no fallacy.
KR Wordgazer
Friday, April 03, 2009
Anonymous said...
Allison says, "I am a Christian, homeschooling, full-quiver-er who is not going to tell you that you weren't a "true" Christian. I'm going to tell you something different.....that there are some women out there in this "movement" (your word, not mine) that are actually living a life of joy and normalcy."
Allison, if you had met Vicky back in the days when she was writing "HOMESCHOOL? OH, I COULD NEVER DO THAT!", wouldn't you have said she was one of them?
Friday, April 03, 2009
aimai said...
KR,
You still don't get the meaning of the "one true scotsman fallacy." And its important because it means you aren't understanding what we are saying. The phrase refers to the refusal of a group to acknowledge that its own members can do wrong by insisting that that person "isn't really an X..." This is what is happening in this conversation vis a vis what "christ" really says or what christianity really is. People on the outside would say that Christianity is what Christians do. Not what they profess--although that is part of it--but what they do. This is both a philosophical issue and a sociological/corporate one.
First, Christianity is what Christians do. Did someone have the authority to declare that Dale and Warren were not practicing christians while they were, in fact, calling themselves Christians? Uh. No. They were entitled to call themselves Christians and they *did* call themselves Christians. And Molly's husband the pastor? He's a Christian too.
If I have a family member who is a pervert and gets arrested for it I don't have the luxury of saying "he's not a member of my family." I might wish he weren't. I might disown him. But I can't just say "oh, he's not really one of us"--especially if I'm not willing to do anything to stop him from living with me, or calling himself a relative, or using my name. And isn't that in fact exactly the same problem the Evangelical church had with Ted Haggard? One minute he's "one of them" and the next he's a non-person? I'd maintain that he was, and is, a Christian and even his flaws and his follies are an outgrowth of his sincere desire to be a Christian. He's not a gay meth addict because he's *not a christian* much as his church would like to dissapear him down the memory hole. He's a gay meth addict because as a Christian he couldn't figure out any legitimate, honorable, way to satisfy his most basic desire to be loved for who he is, a gay man.
And that is one of the problems for Christianity and, really, any disorganized group from a political party to a shoppers club. We congregate together for our benefit and safety, we join with other people in a variety of groups--households, families, towns, book groups, political parties and then we try to maintain some boundaries where we say "these people are not in our group" and "these people are." Christianity is a pretty amorphous group, really, and except within denominations you don't have the right or the ability to declare a person or a sect " not one of us" and to excommunicate them.
So, KR, you and the other soft and cuddly Christians who want to tell us that the brand of Christianity that Vyckie and Laura endured "isn't really christianity" simply don't have the authority to say that. You aren't "in charge" of the definition of Christianity or of knowing Jesus or what a personal god looks like or wants. You are just members of a large, amorphous group of people who are in struggle with each other over the definition of your own holy scriptures and over control of a brand name and an identity that each of you wants for yourselves.
aimai
Friday, April 03, 2009
Allison said...
Anonymous's comments to me (Allison) beg for a rebuttal so here goes. I am a very good observer of people. I used to know Laura. I have watched her over the years with her family, just as I have watched OTHER families and wives and husbands over the years. So I can honestly tell you that, if I had met Vicky back in the days when she was writing for "Above Rubies"-type mags, I would've suspected something was amiss. I knew something wasn't right w/ Laura and Dale long before anything became apparent to outsiders. Her children were lovely but the relationship between Laura and her then-husband was obviously strained. My husband is very affectionate so I am sensitive to that in other marriages. I never remember once seeing Laura and Dale close enough to even brush shoulders. I rarely saw them speak to each other and when they did, it was terse. I never saw them laugh with each other and the only people I saw joy from in that family was the children. Here's another thing....when my marriage was young, I was EXACTLY like all the rest of you women, here pumping your fists in the air, hollering for your "rights" and "freedoms". That was me. I was an ego-maniacal piece of self-righteous crap that the world revolved around....or so I thought. There are terrible things that happened in our home that rival Vyckie's and Laura's stories so I know wherein I speak. And here is what I found out after nine years of struggling to be and do what I WANTED and what I thought should be my right! God made me to need a leader. Just like he made entire countries to need leaders and large corporations and school classrooms to need leaders. Otherwise, chaos ensues. Selfishness rules. What I believe and want and "feel" is what is right in my little world. Yes, my husband rocks! But it wasn't always so and that's because I fought against what God wanted me to be. When I surrendered (oh, y'all must HATE that word!) MY RIGHTS, that is when my life of joy began. Truly. Now, I know many of you will snort and roll your eyes, but that is the truth because God made marriage to be that way. If I am being who God made me to be, even if my husband were a louse, GOD is worth me obeying him. Not being a doormat, but submitting to him. When I put myself and my rights and my desires aside, my husband became a godly man who loves me and treats me like gold. It was not always that way....not because he was a loser, but because I was not who God wanted me to be......and I mean inside and outside. Not this flouncing around, pouting and whining and crying while trying to appear meek and quiet and submissive. True-hearted submission and obedience and joy.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Jadehawk said...
Wordgazer, you're still missing the point. I'll agree with you that child molestation is nowhere in either the bible or the catechism (Catholics don't believe in "sola scriptura"), but spousal abuse is a dilemma that's very much part of Christianity.
Let me go with that pacifist example you used earlier. Imagine a extreme pacifist community, families with children etc. now one day a crazed man breaks into one of the homes of the community. He murders one child and is about to murder another, when an adult member of the community walks into the room. what now? he's in a moral dilemma, from the pacifist point of view. He can break his strict pacifism and save the child, or he can according to his ideal, but then the child will die.
If he choses to act and kills the murderer, his community might expel him for being No True Pacifist because he didn't live up to the ideal and brought more violence into the world. on the other hand, if he does not act, then more liberal pacifist will disavow him and say he's No True Pacifist because his inaction resulted in violence on an innocent. They would be both wrong, of course.
This is what happens when dogma crashes with reality, and this is exactly the problem that arises whithin christianity when one member of one branch does something that another disagrees with, they brand each other as No True Christians
similarly, if the pacifist who was faced with the dilemma decides that pacifism makes no sense, and sometimes violence IS the answer, other pacifist will say that he couldn't have been a True Pacifist to begin with, or else he wouldn't revert to violence so easily. the same way, christians accuse ex-Christians of never having been a True Christian, because a true Christian would never be able to turn their back on god!
It's faulty logic. and it's mostly inapplicable to atheists for the simple reason that the only "dogma" that atheists have is "there are probably no gods at all". so unless we're accusing Stalin of believing in Marx as a diety, your point makes no sense.
I have however seen the No True Atheist when atheists convert to a religion, because some atheists forget that not all atheists are skeptics. it's the skeptics who would most likely never convert out of atheism
Friday, April 03, 2009
Vyckie said...
Oh Allison ~ I can't describe how painful it was for me to read your post ~ because I spent YEARS and YEARS saying and believing EXACTLY what you just wrote. I had a difficult husband ~ and the whole reason that the patriarchy teachings were attractive to me is because I was looking for a way to make life with him more manageable.
I'm happy if your self-negation has led to your husband now treating your better. In my case, it only made my husband feel justified in his tyranny.
Reading your letter was like having a flashback ~ that was me! That's what I was thinking!! OMG.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Anonymous said...
Vicky,
I hope my post didn't come out as non-sensical. What I was trying to say was something like that I did have an idea of the damage of super-dominant men in families, and how much it could damage the psyche of young girls years later. But sometimes I don't write well enough to get ideas across, and it can look like giberish.
Lydia
Friday, April 03, 2009
Kaderin said...
It does seem to me that if a pacifist can't commit a violent act in the name of pacifism, then stating that Catholics are using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy when they claim child-molesting priests are not representative of Catholicism, is unfair.
Hm, yes and no. You have to understand - the context in which the accusation of No True Scotsman is brought up matters.
If an atheist said out of the blue "Catholicism is immoral because priests molest children" and a theist replied "No! Pedophile priests are not represantative of catholic morality", then for the atheist to claim "Aha! No True Scotsman!" would be wrong.
But, as I explained in my first post, there needs to be a positive claim by the theist first, like...
T: "Catholicism leads to a better morality in people, truely devoted catholics never commit crimes"
A: "But what about child-molesting priest? They are devoted, yet commit heinous acts at the same time"
T: "They don't count. No TRUE devout catholic would ever molest a child."
You see? The fallacy is used to discard evidence to the contrary of a first-established claim (or really, the claim doesn't have to be stated explicitly, but it has to be an unchallenged presupposition in the theist's mind), by making it not count. Found this example on wikipedia:
A: Faith is permanent. Once a Christian, you cannot lose your faith.
B: But Mark used to go to church, and then lost faith in Jesus.
A: Yes, but Mark was never a true Christian in the first place.
So the No True Scotsman Vicky and Laura now encountered goes something like this:
Christians believe the following notion: "Anyone who embraces Christianity and follows the Bible is sure to find a better life, filled with God's love and superior morality."
Hearing Vicky and Laura describe their lifes of abuse sanctioned by the Bible leads to them making a statement like...
"That doesn't count. I hope you'll find True Christianity (TM)"
And that, boys and girls, is No True Scotsman. It's not so much an attempt to convince someone else, but also to reassure the speaker himself that his preconceived notions are true. Cognitive dissonance has got to be such a pain...
Hope that clears everything up
PS: As I wrote this Jadehawk and Aimai wrote wonderful responses as well. Curses, foiled once more! Anyway, what they said *points*
Friday, April 03, 2009
Kaderin said...
"I was EXACTLY like all the rest of you women, here pumping your fists in the air, hollering for your "rights" and "freedoms". That was me. I was an ego-maniacal piece of self-righteous crap that the world revolved around"
Well, look at that. Ladies, I think we've just been severly insulted.
How does that quote go? Oh yes.
Feminism is the radical idea that women are human.
It's not ego-maniacal to think you deserve the same rights as someone who was born with a penis. Accidents of birth should not determine one's worth - every person should be judged on their actions and merit. I guess that's the same attitude that overthrew the monarchies and first established democracy. According to you, a mistake, I take it?
And personally, I think it's hysterical to be accused of self-righteousness by that comment of yours. Glass houses and all that.
You have a beautiful marriage. Good for you. And I mean that honestly. But so do others outside your ideology. I think a former commenter put that well - "Just because you survived smoking to be 100 years old, that doesn't mean it's healthy."
If you, personally, think you need guidance in your life and could not live a happy life without it, fine. But don't assume that I or any other woman need it, just because we happen to share genitelia.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Allison said...
Vyckie, I KNEW you would say that! Amazing. Just because you delude yourself into thinking you know my life, you don't. You never will. You do not have my joy and you never did. Keep going the way you are and you never will either, sad to say. You both sound like a couple of bitter women who think you are now enlightened and "free". It's a sad thing to see. Your level of self-righteousness and self-importance is nauseating. I'm done here.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Anonymous said...
You know, it may not be that I "don't understand" the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It may be that I simply don't agree with the way it's being used here.
What I'm hearing you all say is, there is NO definition of a Christian. Anything anyone does, if they say they're a Christian, no matter how "out there" it is, all Christians have to claim them as our own.
In that case, no one can ever say anything about what Christianity actually is, can one? How, then, are Christians going to teach their creeds? Have any standards of behavior? Issue any repudiations of heinous crimes done by someone who claims to have done it in Christ's name? All Christians can do is constantly apologize for the behavior of anyone who ever claims to be a Christian, as if it were the fault of all of us.
Metacrock, who runs the Doxa.ws website, has this to say about the "No True Scotsman" fallacy:
If it is a fallacy to argue that so and so wasn't' a Christian, because Christianity is very diverse and we can't say who is and who is not and the attempt to try is always a fallacy, then it must also be the same fallacy to say "all Christians do x." The idea that Christianity causes all these social harms . . . is also the same fallacy.
It seems to be that the blanket statement that any time anyone says, "this isn't Christian behavior" they are committing a fallacy, is so broad as to be pretty nearly useless-- except as a way to silence any Christian who tries to speak in defense of his/her faith.
KR Wordgazer
Friday, April 03, 2009
Anonymous said...
Allison, I asked you a question, which you did answer, so thank you for that, but exactly how does a question, asked in good faith, beg for a rebuttal?
Friday, April 03, 2009
Anonymous said...
Ok -- after I posted my last comment, I read Kaderin's explanation of context-- which makes all the difference.
Of course if you're going to make some universal statement that "Christianity (or my version of it) always results in people doing/feeling x" then you can't turn around when someone doesn't do/feel "x" and say he/she wasn't a true Christian. To my mind, the fallacy starts as soon as anyone ever says, "[insert ideology] results in [insert universal result]."
But I do disagree that you can just slap someone with this fallacy when they never actually said, "My version of Christianity always has the result x." Which, whether or not it was meant that way, is what I was hearing before Kaderin spoke up.
KR Wordgazer
Friday, April 03, 2009
Anonymous said...
You ladies are really sad....it is sick to read what you say. I knew Laura. She does not seem to be sharing the WHOLE story. Yes, her husband made mistakes, BUT did she never do anything wrong....was she always perfect? come on!!!
Friday, April 03, 2009
emf1947 said...
"It seems to be that the blanket statement that any time anyone says, "this isn't Christian behavior" they are committing a fallacy, is so broad as to be pretty nearly useless-- except as a way to silence any Christian who tries to speak in defense of his/her faith."
So what do you call the people who are baptized as Christians, profess Jesus as Lord, go to church (or home church) regularly, have not been excommunicated or disfellowshipped, and behave in ways of which you disapprove?
Friday, April 03, 2009
Jadehawk said...
Wordgazer:
the whole problem is that the definition of Christianity is simply "founded by Christ, follows the bible". the bible being such a massive hodgepodge of different texts, you can interpret it a million different ways and there's no one who can rightfully say "my way is the right way, and you got it all wrong". hell, until after the inter-christian crusades were all done, there wasn't even a single definition of "christ"!
and because of this uncertainty, every group who considers christ and the bible the basis of its faith can call themselves christian, and no one can rightfully say they aren't. unless god or jesus himself descend from heaven and declare "group x has got it right", there just isn't one correct way to be christian.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Anonymous said...
anon: laura doesn't need to be perfect. it's irrelevant. what is relevant is the gravity of their faults and misdeeds, unless she locked dale in a closet for extended periods of time, his actions against her weigh more than her actions against him.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Kaderin said...
Wordgrazer
Awww. I read your post above and had just typed up a response. But good that you finally see what we mean
Anyways...
Allison
You do not have my joy and you never did.
So you admit that faithfully living the quiverful lifestyle to its full extent did not bring Vicky, Laura and Dan joy and love? That walking this godly path does not, in fact, always work out? Because, you know, you're kinda proving Vicky's (and Laura's) point. Your godly lifestyle would forbid them ever leaving each other, and as such drag out the misery. You are at every turn confirming what Vicky and Laura are claiming.
Your level of self-righteousness and self-importance is nauseating.
...I think you have a plank in your eye. Bigtime.
Anonymous
Your comment reveals that you have not really read this blog. Laura admits to mistakes multiple times - but I guess you can't really see beyond "OMG, they're critisizing my faith"
Friday, April 03, 2009
jemand said...
Anonymous. I assume you are a part of quiverful? If so, than you probably have many children. Imagine two of them are arguing over a banana. One says "Mine, all Mine give me this banana!!!!!" The other says "I'm hungry two, can't we split it?"
As a parent do you give the greedy child three fourths???
Compromise is NOT always the solution, there is NOT always blame on "both sides" it is NOT the victims fault for being murdered, raped or abused. Even if they are female.
and a note to moderation, could we maybe number anonymous posts? I mean I use a pseudonym myself but it's easier to keep the conversation going if I can refer to a post more specifically.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Vyckie said...
jemand ~ sorry, but blogger won't let me alter the posts to add a number on the anon posts. I have considered issuing a threat ~ use a name or pseudonym or your comment won't make it through.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Charis said...
dear Lydia,
I'm not Vyckie. But I very much appreciated your comment and identify with the feminine self-rejection you experienced, as well as the healing and recovery as you were able to see the troublesome passages in a new light.
Shalom,
Charis
Friday, April 03, 2009
Anonymous said...
emf947 -- I don't say "they aren't true Christians." But I do feel free to say, "Christianity doesn't actually teach that it's ok to do that" -- especially if I have good reason to believe such a statement would be accepted by pretty much everyone who professes Christianity (such as, "Christianity doesn't actually teach that it's ok for a spiritual leader to molest kids").
Or if it's only my own version of Christianity that doesn't teach that, I can say, "I don't believe the Scriptures/creeds should be interpreted like that. I think that interpretation is faulty, and that Christianity shouldn't be practiced along those lines."
What I don't do is say, "OMG, Christianity is so awful, because some people who profess it believe or do x." Seems to me that's just as much a fallacy as the other.
(BTW-- let me make a disclaimer that I'm speaking theoretically here, and none of this is about anything that Vyckie or Laura did, didn't, should or shouldn't do. Just in case it could get misinterpreted that way.)
KR Wordgazer
Friday, April 03, 2009
jemand said...
Vykie, sorry the options aren't there... I think it's better to have anonymous than not have them posting at all... so I suppose just let it through. I wish people would choose SOME handle though, even if it's only something like '75n8'
Facilitates conversation!
Friday, April 03, 2009
Jadehawk said...
Wordgazer,
of course you're right that Christianity doesn't teach that it's ok to molest children, but this is why I used that "dogma meets real world" dilemma earlier. Christianity (and all other strict ideologies) teaches certain things and promotes certain structures that then put followers in a dilemma, and the resolution of the dilemma will break SOME part of the dogma. even the child molestation situation does, since a parish is supposed to follow the priest as their spiritual leader, not rise against him. of course, from a sane person's point of view it's ridiculous to put such dogma ahead of the welfare of children... but it's still there
and on a related note: the structures that Christianity sets up are very much part of that particular kind of Christianity, and those are often dangerous structures. the only way to separate faith from those social structures is if faith was "secret", i.e. fully internal and never pronounced to the outside world or even to other believers, i.e. keep the faith, abolish the religious community. and somehow, i don't think there's enough Christians out there who would be willing to go for that. (and a lot of those who do are calling themselves deists because they do not wish to be associated with those abusive structures)
but none of this has anything to do with the No True Scotsman fallacy, since that applies only to people, not to organizations or ideas.
Friday, April 03, 2009
a.b.e. said...
I am a Bible believing Christian. I love God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit. And I want to thank Molly for her wonderful witness to the abuse that occurs in marriages were only the wives are expected to submit.
We need more stories out there by the Vickies, Lauras, Mollys, Charis's and other women who have suffered in one way submission marriages. Christian women have been stripped of their humanity by Christian teachers who don't understand, love or respect women.
Unless stories like these ladies get out to the mainstream media, those Christians who want dominate, control and own women as property will continue to prevail.
God bless you Charis, Laura, Vyckie, and Molly who tell the truth about what can happen in a marriage where only one person has a say.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Charis said...
God made me to need a leader. -Allison
Allison, I'm so sorry you are gone.
Hate to have you leave without hearing that God made you to BE a leader, not to NEED a leader. Go back and read Gensis 1:28-28 in any version you like. You will see God's intention for the man AND woman (male AND female). Can you show me in Scripture where God retracted that? If not, then we rebel to retract it ourselves.
At the FALL, the consequence of sin for the woman "your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you". Its not a command or a prescription. It is descriptive. Men buy tractors and weed killer to ameliorate for the consequences of the Fall, and women use pain killers during childbirth. God has no intention that we embrace husbands ruling over their wives. We are intended to be the king and the queen, equal co-regents.
Please stop robbing your husband of help MEET, Allison! PLEASE study Help MEET/ezer it is an equal power, and that is what God intends you to be. Paul also never calls the man "the head of the household". Go search the Bible for yourself on Biblegateway. You will not find it. Its a christian myth. But he does call the woman that. Its lost in the wimpy translation. Do a word study on the word translated "guide"/"manage" in 1 Tim 5:14. Here, I'll give you a hand with that:
2dig.wordpress.com/oikodespoteo-the-authority-of-a-wife/And Allison, don't you think its really odd how God dealt with Mary, the mother of Jesus if God thought women "need a leader"? He didn't tell her to go check with her dad, or her betrothed. He didn't check with them Himself. He approached Mary- who scholars think was around 15- and asked her if she would be the vessel to carry His Son.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Linnea said...
Well, Allison said she was done here, but in case she's not . . .
Allison, you say that your problem was that you wanted your own way at first, and as soon as you truly submitted, everything between you and your husband became wonderful. I can't tell if you're posting "this is what worked for me" or "this is what everyone should do". But you certainly seem to be implying the latter.
You say you know Laura; did you know her when she was first married? Because if you read her story, it sounds like she was pretty much submissive from Day One. Same with Molly (adventuresinmercy), who has been posting here and also has her own blog.
So what's the deal? Does submission only lead to happiness if you pick the right husband? Or do you think that there are no such things as abusive men, only uppity women?
Friday, April 03, 2009
a.b.e. said...
I'm going to say this even though I've said it before - the word "head" in Eph. 5:23 and in 1 Cor 11 did NOT mean leader or authority in the original Greek.
A lot of scripture that is used as a weapon to subordinate women under men has either been misunderstood, mistranslated, or taken outside of its cultural context.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Charis said...
Anon,
Apparently you missed Laura's humble confession and owning responsibility for her attitude? Read the Bosch thread and comments. If anything, I think she blamed herself too much. She was fed poison (by the one who made vows in front of GOD) and responded by wilting.
Are you Dale's replacement woman? I'm concerned for you. You might want to be careful about your judgments:
"With the measure you use, it will be measured to you" -Jesus
Friday, April 03, 2009
Arietty said...
MOLLY!! Awesome post.
"If those of you in this camp don't stand up against your camps books and teachings that openly FEED these unhealthy families abusive behaviors, but yet still support this camp as being God's way and back up these teachers and their publications, you are, albeit in a smaller way than the book's authors, *helping* to contribute to the abuse." (Molly's words)
I am upset reading all this stuff today where people in happy marriages point their finger at women who were abused and tell them it's their fault for not REALLY being submissive. Or trying to make out that the books don't say you submit to evil. Or Allison saying that even if your husband is a "louse" it is worth obeying God to submit to him. I am sickened and angry.
It all comes down to Molly's post: these teachings are WRONG and happy quiverful families need to recognized how unbalanced they are and how they give permission for abuse. Just because your husband didn't equate leading with tyranny doesn't mean it's not happening over and over again.
Why is this abuse never confronted within these churches? When's the last time you heard a sermon on abuse? And yet it is happening over and over again, it is not some rare event.
If you feel that submitting to abuse from your husband is God's will, that you get some brownie points for submitting no matter what the circumstances then at least ask yourself this: how will you feel when your sons treat their wives this way, treat their wives WORSE than this? Because that is what they are learning deep in their hearts, that is what is being modeled for them. You learn what you live above and beyond what you are told so all the bible verses in the world won't wipe it away.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Anonymous said...