|
Post by whatkindofwoman on Nov 14, 2009 22:25:54 GMT -5
No offense, but I strongly disagree with this. Rachel is the type who would use a letter of apology as ammo for the cause. Hmm. Good point. (pearls before swine?) And if she went public with such a letter...then...yuck. I retract my suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by xara on Nov 14, 2009 22:29:14 GMT -5
Without putting words in Vyckie's mouth, I think I can understand what she means: she doesn't want to do anything that could be perceived as stooping to their level. There is a book that helped me so much. I think its by Melody Beattie (could be Pia Mellody~ I get both names mixed up and both are great) about recovering from codependency. Abusive, dysfunctional relationships breed codependency. The path to healing often feels like complete rebellion or craziness. For example, if you have "submissive" and "rebellious" (or something else) at two opposite ends of the spectrum ~ extremes ~ finding balance FEELS like you are doing something wrong because you are heading towards the opposite of what you are as you move to the middle and find homeostasis. For a submissive woman to move towards balance feels like she is rebellious because she is moving towards very unfamiliar territory. I hope I am making sense. Be patient with yourself, Vyckie. The way I've understood it best is to have the grace on yourself that you would have on friends in similar situations. Be the friend you need. You are healing, recovering, and it takes time. As you seek balance, the only way you will know what is healthy for you is to experience that road between extremes. It WILL mellow out and become stable. Don't worry about what others will think of you ~ at the end of the day it's between you and your choices, what you want, between you and God. If none of this is helpful, please ignore. But I know how you are feeling. Hugs to you! I also agree with the above. In addition, as humans we are creatures of habit. Like any habit thought patterns can be hard to break and it is easy to revert back to well established paths. It is like a river. It is possible to divert a river into a new path, but it takes a lot of work until the new path becomes firmly enough established that it is easier for the water to follow the new path than it is the old one. If the engineers trying to move the river cease to pay attention to the water, it is likely to revert. That doesn't mean that it won't move over time, just that for a time both paths are likely. Be patient with yourself. You are going through massive changes. *Hugs* Edited to add: Also I agree with those who think Rachel would use such a letter against you.
|
|
|
Post by whatkindofwoman on Nov 14, 2009 22:36:25 GMT -5
okay, sorry, I can see that the "letter of apology" notion was...let's say...dumb.
|
|
|
Post by whatkindofwoman on Nov 14, 2009 22:58:54 GMT -5
god wants to bless me with another baby and that having one is a mighty work for the lord. I was thinking today about Rachel's "bearing children is an act of worship" assertion. And it occurred to me that taking adequate care of the ones you already have ought to be commended as an act of worship, too! Why does only the conception of NEW children get so much attention? In addition, I was thinking about this famous QF verse: "...Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. " Why is this observation turned into a command to collect children? If "blessed is", or "happy is", is a command, then how about Ecclesiastes 10:19, which says "wine makes life merry"? Ooh, wine makes life merry! Drink a lot of it! Why would you not want to be abundantly blessed by God with the blessing of wine? Speaking of the blessing of wine, it's actually in the (QFer's burden) Proverbs chapter 31: "Give strong drink to him who is perishing, And wine to him whose life is bitter. Let him drink and forget his poverty And remember his trouble no more." Now that sounds more like an imperative than "blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them".
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 15, 2009 0:25:29 GMT -5
Whatkindofwoman, that's really funny! All these groups are so often against any kind of alcohol, too! ;D
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Nov 15, 2009 1:50:12 GMT -5
it really rips out their argument against social safety nets or giving money to poor people "they'll just spend it on booze."
Well, looky that! You're text from god commands you to give those with poor and bitter lives alcohol so they can feel better! So why are you whining again?
Lol.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Nov 15, 2009 7:57:51 GMT -5
okay, sorry, I can see that the "letter of apology" notion was...let's say...dumb. Quit apologizing, will ya? I understand the reasoning behind your suggestion. Unfortunately, the people Vyckie is dealing with are...icky. So normal human decency and classiness won't work. She'll have to be on the look-out for underhanded tactical maneuvers.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 15, 2009 19:41:06 GMT -5
They're mostly in the major cities. Visit Toronto and you'll find three churches with rainbow stripes on their signs within a mile of each other. It's my understanding that in general, Congregationalists, some branches of Lutherans, and United Methodists are all "liberal" denominations. But most of the time you won't know they're Christians because they won't advertise the fact-- they are not trying to evangelize you.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 15, 2009 19:52:36 GMT -5
However, I know that a lot of moderate Christians do tend to go stealth about their more controversial beliefs in order to "witness" to people, and it's deceptive and not OK. I'm curious about this, Kisekilia. How exactly would you define "going stealth"? I mean, it wouldn't be socially acceptable for a normal person to go around laying all their beliefs about every topic out on the table with everyone they talk to. And I doubt you're saying that it's not ok for say, a Greenpeace advocate to keep quiet in a roomful of Libertarians in order to avoid unwanted debate. When you use the context of "witnessing," are you talking about a person actively talking to people about religion, or just trying to live as a good Christian? And are you referring to a Christian being deliberately deceptive about something they believe when asked directly? Or do you mean something else?
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Nov 15, 2009 21:13:06 GMT -5
They're mostly in the major cities. Visit Toronto and you'll find three churches with rainbow stripes on their signs within a mile of each other. It's my understanding that in general, Congregationalists, some branches of Lutherans, and United Methodists are all "liberal" denominations. But most of the time you won't know they're Christians because they won't advertise the fact-- they are not trying to evangelize you. *raising hand* Methodist here, and admitted heretic. I don't feel the two are mutually exclusive, a belief which I'm sure lends credence to the opinions of some who say Methodists can't be Christians at all. Fortunately, I've grown out of worrying about whether or not others believe I'm a Christian. That's a decision made by fiat, not popular vote. Note: in reality you'll find a wide range of beliefs even in Methodism, from fundamentalist to, well... me. And even beyond that. I'm sure the same is true in varying degrees in most denominations.
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Nov 15, 2009 21:35:16 GMT -5
KR, I'm referring to people who deliberately market events as minimally religious in order to attract non-Christians, but then either spring religious content on people once they get there or use the event as an opportunity to invite people to more overtly religious events. I think religious groups should be honest about when there is a religious agenda behind an event they're hosting. By "witnessing", I mean actively trying to promote Christianity to people. Basically, if one is going to actively try to evangelize people, one should be honest about one's intentions.
|
|
|
Post by sigaliris on Nov 16, 2009 8:01:17 GMT -5
Another aspect of "going stealth" that always bothered me was the way that we were encouraged to "befriend" people just so we could "evangelize" them and get them involved in our group. We were supposed to show all this interest in them and find out their story and their problems so we could use those to leverage them into accepting Jesus as the solution to the pain in their lives. Once they made a commitment and joined the group, we were supposed to phase out our friendship and turn them over to the leaders to manage their lives. I know for a fact that this caused a real sense of betrayal in a lot of people. They joined because they thought they had these wonderful caring friends, and then it turned out their so-called friends didn't really care about them as people. The official justification for this was that what they really needed was Jesus and the community, not our personal friendship, and we had to move on so we could be free to do the other works God had for us. It seems so utilitarian, treating people like objects.
We also didn't present an accurate picture of community life until they were already hooked. We never gave them a little handout that would inform them that if they joined up, they'd have to spend a gazillion hours a week going to prayer meetings and doing community service, that they'd be expected to give up school or jobs if that conflicted with their duties, that they'd have to change their wardrobe, quit watching TV, stop dating, spank their children and shoehorn them into rigid sex roles. We never told them that their new leaders would tell them where to live and who to marry and what to do with their spare time. In fact, there were specific instructions that it would be wrong to "reveal our plans" to "the enemy." And yet, at the same time, the leaders outright lied and denied that there were any secrets. They claimed to be totally honest and forthright, but they weren't. That's what I think of when I hear the words "going stealth."
|
|
|
Post by grandmalou on Nov 16, 2009 10:44:05 GMT -5
I can totally relate with this, Sigaliris: BTDT and by jinkies, it hurts! "I know for a fact that this caused a real sense of betrayal in a lot of people. They joined because they thought they had these wonderful caring friends, and then it turned out their so-called friends didn't really care about them as people. The official justification for this was that what they really needed was Jesus and the community, not our personal friendship, and we had to move on so we could be free to do the other works God had for us. It seems so utilitarian, treating people like objects." M'Kay...we really need that barfing smiley now...
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Nov 16, 2009 13:31:51 GMT -5
We also didn't present an accurate picture of community life until they were already hooked. In my experience, the potential new convert is often presented with a salvation message that says accepting Jesus is the ONLY thing you need to do to get to heaven. Then AFTER she "prays the prayer" and the converter can add her to his brag book, she's told to come to church. Most of these never show up at all. Research stats on new converts after a Billy Graham crusade. If she does come to church, she's put in a Bible study and introduced to all the things that sigaliris mentioned. I have mixed feelings about this- not about the purely legalistic parts, but about the expected actions of a new Christian. In some ways, yes, accepting Jesus IS the only necessity for salvation. But the new Christian is supposed to be filled with the Holy Spirit and become a new creation... that doesn't have to mean rushing to the nearest church... but what of the person who prays sincerely at the time, yet never shows an indication of Christianity (fruits of the Spirit and so forth)? I know that some seeds fall on shallow ground... but isn't telling such people that they are saved the ultimate deception, giving them false assurance of salvation? What really irks me on the Christian side is that if the new convert doesn't come to a church on her own, the followup on her (their new Christian sister!) is minimal at best. And if despite her conversion experience, she gets a followup call and doesn't want to come to church, they just write her off- they don't try to develop a relationship with her outside church. Either she was never really saved or else the Holy Spirit will eventually make her realize she needs church. Likewise, once she gets into the church, to have a RELATIONSHIP with anyone, she needs to get involved with Bible studies, with women's groups (oh how I hate Christian women's groups), with training to become a leader/evangelizer herself. The relationship and the support is always dependent.
|
|
em
Full Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by em on Nov 17, 2009 13:59:06 GMT -5
"Give strong drink to him who is perishing, And wine to him whose life is bitter. Let him drink and forget his poverty And remember his trouble no more." Hello, new favorite bible verse. Hehehe. But in seriousness, Vyckie, don't be so hard on yourself. There's nothing wrong with standing up to people who are being rude to you. I'm not one to fight back or start an arguement or anything like that, but I think if somebody is not treating you well you have the right to speak up. You don't need to be a doormat and take whatever abuse jerks like those women throw at you just so that you won't offend anyone. You didn't call them bitches or tell them to go to hell or anything mean like that, so don't feel bad. As for the brain flips ... hm. Wonder if it's like how you can still ride a bicycle even if you haven't in a long time. Your body remembers it and how to do it. Maybe the brain works the same way when it comes to thoughts too sometime.
|
|
syfr
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by syfr on Nov 18, 2009 0:10:53 GMT -5
The Episcopalians are another liberal denomination; the Congregationalists can be found in the UCC. Please note that individual congregations will vary. Also, if they are calling themselves "Anglican" in the United States, they are a conservative breakaway from the Episcopal church, and not recognized by the Anglican Communion.
As a liberal Christian, my ideal witnessing is to have someone come up to me and say, "You are such a nice person - taking care of other people, and being a good person. Why do you do that?" and then me saying, "Well, some of it is my faith," and then explaining more if the other person wants to know. And if it never happens, some hungry people will have been fed, and naked people clothed, &c.
Also, I don't want to convert people. I don't mind explaining my beliefs, but it seems rude to tell someone else that I know the right way, and what's best for them. I left the One True Church (Catholic) so who am I to tell someone else what faith-path is right for them?
P.S. "One True Church" is snarky.
|
|
|
Post by whatkindofwoman on Nov 18, 2009 0:55:09 GMT -5
I'm in Utah--"one true church" has a different meaning here.
|
|
|
Post by setfree on Apr 4, 2010 8:12:38 GMT -5
Whoa. There is so much I relate to here. I know a lot of quiverfull women who will try to pretend they are so happy, and they'll tell you so, yet they all look extremely miserable, hardly ever smile, and they bully other women. I think they bully other women to make up for the lack of any kind of control they have in their marriages. Yes. This was my experience. I wanted to say to her, "You are in a prison of your own making, with chains you've forged yourself, and you want every other woman to be in there too, to validate and justify your experience." My failure to comply was met with such anger and frustration when i just would not play the game. And this! In my experience, there's another manifestation besides bullying other women: it's developing pathologically obsessive relationships with eldest children, especially sons. I've known more than one woman whose eldest son served as a demi-husband with whom the woman felt she could express herself. It allowed her to have some modicum of authority in the relationship, whereas with her actual husband she wasn't allowed to act as anything but his appendage. This meant, unfortunately, a lot of stifled sons who were never given the emotional freedom to leave home - and it meant hell for the young women they liked. This was MY hell. This was my mother in law. ... they beat the only pulpit they are allowed to have: that of encouraging other women to submit to the patriarchal system. So true, Journey! Elisabeth Elliot, Nancy Campbell, Mary Pride - they all remind me of this dynamic. My QF ex-friend was intelligent, sensitive, dynamic ... she lectured and chastised me, I couldn't believe the emotional violence and just assumed she must be getting that from her husband - but within a few years she was a faint shell of her former lively self.
|
|
|
Post by setfree on Apr 4, 2010 8:36:03 GMT -5
Um, Jeb. When your sign off your posts saying "play nice now", I want to go pull someone's hair. (I don't usually go round yanking the hair out of my friend's heads.) Just wondering, why do you say this? I'm thinking it could be some cute southern thing, or do you have some anxiety that others on this forum are going to get into a scrap?
|
|
jeb
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by jeb on Apr 4, 2010 11:48:42 GMT -5
setfree said: "Um, Jeb. When your sign off your posts saying "play nice now", I want to go pull someone's hair. (I don't usually go round yanking the hair out of my friend's heads.) Just wondering, why do you say this? I'm thinking it could be some cute southern thing, or do you have some anxiety that others on this forum are going to get into a scrap? "
I say many different things when I sign off, setfree, including "Be good to yourself" and "Enjoy your day" and "All the best" and I'm not sure what all. If you take the time to read my posts you would probably find a lot more then "Love one another" to be pissed off about. I just have a habit of trying to end on a high note or saying something to make people smile . . . maybe even laugh, eh?
And the reason I have a southern slant in some of the things I say is that my first wife was from Mississippi and I lived down there for many years. So, even though I'm from Toronto, Ontario, Canada, my years in the south still flavour some of my speech.
But as far as I'm concerned, setfree, if you don't care to 'Play nice now' you sure don't have to, eh? Do your own thing and be as happy or miserable as you choose.
John
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for they shall never cease to be amused.
|
|
|
Post by setfree on Apr 4, 2010 20:57:47 GMT -5
Oh good, I'm glad you won't mind if I break down and do a bit of hair-pulling from time to time. I have read your posts Jeb, but haven't found anything to be pissed off about??? Is there a particulat post that tells your story, I'd like to know more of where you are coming from.
|
|