|
Post by km on Aug 24, 2010 17:06:48 GMT -5
Martha Peace's "kind reply" to a young woman who is suffering bulimia: Q: I have a "secret" sin that no one knows about. I control my weight by making myself throw up after I eat. I feel really foolish and embarrassed and don't want anyone to know. What do you think? A: Making yourself throw up after you eat is what medical doctors call bulimia. Bulimia is wrong for two reasons: First, it can cause serious medical problems such as damage to your esophagus and your teeth. Second, it is a sin because overeating is gluttony, throwing up is a lack of self-control, and wanting to be thin so badly that you are willing to sin is idolatry. It is likely that you feel guilty and embarrassed about this, but, since God "gives grace to the humble," I strongly suggest that you get help from the elders in your church. They, likely, will send you to a medical doctor for an examination and also will assign a godly, older woman in the church to disciple you and hold you accountable. Sinful eating patterns tend to be habitual and the change must not only be outward but also in your heart by what you think. God wants us to be grateful for the food we have and not to abuse our bodies. He also does not want us to eat in a gluttonous manner but by His grace to put on self-control.
Reading this made me want to throw something at her and hug the poor girl. I sure hope that the "medical doctor" the elders send her to is caring enough to get her some proper counseling. There is nothing worse you can do to someone who already lives in shame, wishing she had enough self-control to stop eating the way she does, who daily makes new promises that she will stop her sinful behavior, who lies in bed every night fearing she may just not be saved, than to offer such "counseling". And send her to a room full of men to talk about her most shameful secret? There are no words for that advice.... marthapeace.com/qa/questions.html That's the kind of thing that gives "pastoral counseling" a bad name.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 24, 2010 17:05:28 GMT -5
And the other thing was this oft-stated notion that Christian girls are always more beautiful than non-Christian girls. I have encountered that in less suppressive Evangelical groups. Really? Really??? People say this often? Wow... I mean, I expect there's often a subtext of "white Anglo-Saxon girls are always more beautiful than non-white girls" when people say this. I'm sort of shocked that people actually say this...
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 21, 2010 21:41:21 GMT -5
Oh, and PS, I agree that it's good to have you back, madame.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 21, 2010 21:39:06 GMT -5
Vyckie: I'm not entirely sure that I agree with your assessment about the Duggars. Sure, Jim Bob seems like a relatively gentle guy, but... Patriarchy in marriage is not only about the marriage relationship, but about the rearing of children. Patriarchy is absolutely practiced when it comes to the children. This is why we talk so much here about the Duggar girls being so burdened by serving the family all the time, and by fulfilling mothering roles that the mother doesn't have the capacity to fulfill all on her own.
Also, I think the mere fact of having 19 children is kinda...patriarchal in practice. This was brought home most clearly to me when I saw the episode about Josie's birth. Yes, Jim Bob got upset, and yes, he obviously loves her... But what struck me most of all was that this was so...strictly her lot in life--that is, nearly dying in order to bring another "arrow for the Lord" into this world.
Per abuse: I've been seeing some interesting conversations on the web lately about how there is often love that coexists with abusive relationships--and that this is why it can be so difficult for some people to leave them. So, I do think they have some family practices that are abusive, and I think this is true whether or not Jim Bob is gentle and loves his wife.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 21, 2010 8:48:02 GMT -5
Thank you for that link. I find it fascinating that when patriarchalists challenge the rigidity or extremism of another patriarchalist they never go very far. It's ' those people over there who over do it' or who read the scriptures wrong, but 'not me, who believes almost everything those other people do and go almost as far but not quite that far...See how reasonable I am?' Yet they say almost the same things, and for almost the same reasons. The author here doesn't doubt for a minute that patriarchy and headship and submission and authority are all very important and that the OT should have such tremendous influence on our lives even under the new covenant, but simply thinks that Lindvall has 'gone too far'. And this seems to happen all the time. If it were me, the fact that I was aligned and associated with people like this would give me pause and make me reconsider my thinking. But, yeah, these people love to go on and on and on about how so-and-so is "caught in the bondage of legalism" in spite of the fact that there is very little difference between the critic and the critiqued in the eyes of just about everyone else. In my experience, QF people love nothing more to decry the slightly-more-hardline among them as "legalistic." I guess the reasoning is that this gives them the sheen of "moderation" or something... Not that they need to appear moderate, mind you, what with being crucified daily with Christ and all that.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 21, 2010 8:40:44 GMT -5
I have an awful time reading ANYTHING by these teachers because of the excessive use of the word authority. There must always be one who is "in authority". For more on Lindvall, here's an "assault on Lindvall" by a very patriarchal person. myweb.tiscali.co.uk/largerhope/Courtship%20&%20Betrothal%20Essays/God%20in%20the%20back.htmLindvall says that God sits in the backseat while Daddy owns his daughter's hearts and dictates what they should and shouldn't do. Sons are extensions of their fathers. He teaches that obedience means adopting father's beliefs, Biblical interpretation, etc.... Even extrabiblical notions. Failure to do so is rebellion and he advises parents to shun sons who rebell. When he advises parents to shun (adult) sons who rebell, he doesn't even listen to the children's side of the story. He doesn't think he has to, because there is no mention of listening to the rebellious son's side in that passage where parents are instructed to stone rebellious children. Daughters belong to their daddies. There is no talk whatsoever about mom. This man is beyond ick! They forget things like...the parable of the Prodigal Son. It's unfortunate that people like this are more interested in OT passages about stoning and retribution.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 20, 2010 23:44:48 GMT -5
You know, I'm surprised people don't say more about Lindvall around here. How big of a deal is he in these circles anyway? And how widespread is the whole "betrothal" thing?
I remember someone mailing some Lindvall tapes to me when we were both adolescents/young teenagers... And thinking, "oh, well, of course, this seems like the most logical extension of courtship." Ugh...
And then I knew these family friends who got rid of their TV for years because Lindvall convinced them that TVs are like idols... And an alien civilization just making contact with us would assume we worship the television because all the chairs point at it... This was an actual point.
Oh, and there was also the thing about not letting his kids play sports because... Competition is bad? What was that one about? It seems antithetical to the kind of free market ideology/libertarianism that one assumes he also believes in, but eh...
I recently went to Lindvall's website. Despite being a little less tech-savvy than what we see out of bigger names like Doug Phillips, I see he's still promoting his brand of extremism everywhere he turns. And he seems...harsher to me than many?
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 19, 2010 20:38:33 GMT -5
I think I fall in love with Kristen a little bit more every article... Me too. She is awesome.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 17, 2010 13:15:55 GMT -5
I'm anxious to hear more as well! Thanks for posting.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 17, 2010 7:47:26 GMT -5
Hmm... I don't know, humbletigger. People down South say the a/c brought economic productivity and flourishing to our region because the heat is so oppressive down here that it's difficult to work without it.
I'm signing on with those who are uncomfortable with overly intrusive friendships. I'm also very introverted, and I would never make it in any kind of communal living space...
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 16, 2010 21:24:23 GMT -5
'cause cease and desists and restraining orders are soooo incredibly effective innit. Tess is writing her story in the past tense. Meaning we don't know the whole thing, and probably admonitions about how she should've though to file a complaint are unhelpful. There is absolutely no need to be asinine or rude to me, km. She said that he would never stop, therefor, my question was completely valid, and your response completely out of line. I said CANT you, not COULDNT you, which is PRESENT tense, not PAST tense. This is high school stuff. Are you Tess? I thought you were km.. thats what your handle says, at least. Furthermore, you are not in a position to tell others what to ask, or how to talk to others. Manners would behoove you. I have been waiting for Tess's story to air since I saw the announcement on the homepage, and I should not have to curb my honest, heartfelt questions for a woman who has suffered for fear of some angry little woman hiding behind a computer screen trying her best to police me because she somehow feels like she should be able to tell others what to say. Please be aware that whatever you have to say to me from this point on will be ignored, because you have time and time again, proven yourself hostile for no apparent reason, fancying yourself as some sort of authority on everything, who therefor has a right to police everyone on everything. You do not. Redirect your anger on those who are deserving of it, those that did the initial harm on you, not everyone else. I refuse to waste my time on you. Be aware that you are one of the chief reasons that I do not post on here very much - for bullshit just like this. Good day. Um... Huh?
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 16, 2010 12:23:03 GMT -5
Cant you file this under harassment, Tess? Get a lawyer and have him do a cease and desist? Get a restraining order? You'd think someone would recognize the pattern by now. 'cause cease and desists and restraining orders are soooo incredibly effective innit. Tess is writing her story in the past tense. Meaning we don't know the whole thing, and probably admonitions about how she should've though to file a complaint are unhelpful.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 15, 2010 18:31:21 GMT -5
Oh my god. I'm so glad you took the kids and got out. That's disgusting that he said that to your children.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 20:26:12 GMT -5
Branham's followers were not stupid. They were baited and caged. I think this is a really important point.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 17:40:14 GMT -5
WOW! This is some of the best writing ever on the internet, because it's so heartfelt. You know, the neo-cons who got us into our two current wars say that we are fighting the jihadists who treat women like second class citizens. I really didn't think that any Christian sect treated women as badly as radical Islam sects. All of this talk about "modesty" is why women in Afghanistan wear burquas in 100 degree weather. Christian sects like Burnham or Gotham's appear to have a lot in common with radical Islam. What really got me was when I read on this website that some women subjected to spiritual abuse in Christian cults had to wear headcoverings. I understand that many Muslim women wear the hijab and I'm quite used to it. But when was it a requirement for Christian women. Maybe someone can correct me, but I don't recall anything in Christian history or dogma which required females to wear headcoverings. I think fundamentalism in general has quite a lot in common with itself. And I don't really think it's about the hijab either...
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 17:09:42 GMT -5
I am dealing with a situation with my daughter's choice of clothing. A mom came to me and said they were playing a game and my daughter bent over and cleavage was revealed. She was fine standing up it was just when she bent over. This mom said she wanted to protect her man. My problem is why is it always a women's fault? What about the man who was looking with lust. Shouldn't he be rebuked for looking and lusting? In the 'regular' world men are either openly piggish or very embarrassed at being caught looking when a girl bends over and accidentally exposes her cleavage in that way. Why is it in the 'church' world men aren't embarrassed at all but look upon it as a free pass to ogle and then throw up their hands and eschew all blame for their actions? It's so ass-backwards. To me the proper response to a woman who complains that her husband is looking down the blouse of my daughter is to rebuke the husband for ogling my offspring. He should be ashamed of himself. Absolutely. It never ceases to amaze me when this is interpreted instead as the young girl not living up to her role as her "brother's keeper." Ugh... I prefer the real world.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 15:28:20 GMT -5
Would that we could redirect all of that strength-of-will women and girls possess! We could surely do away with a whole host of things which oppress us. Surely we could. Seems to me that this is something that this blog is working precisely to do.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 15:26:10 GMT -5
Really? Because, okay, I don't really want to argue about it, but I'm surprised you see it as controversial? If there is a presumption of goodwill here, then what is the problem with simply suggesting: "Your identity is yours. Mine is mine. Identify (or not) however you wish, but don't be dismissive about those of us who are not ready or willing to dispense with our various identities." This is my position in a nutshell. Yes, I got dismissive too. I have a bad habit of responding in kind and/or trying to get "justice" in conversations, and this gets tiresome if you are on the receiving end. I apologize for being dismissive by stamping you with the "genderqueer" label. That part is on me. Oh, I didn't mean that I object to you taking whatever identity you feel comfortable with and running with it and I'll call you whatever you choose to be called because it matters to you. I just, as a matter of strong personal opinion, don't believe it's helpful in the long run to break us all down into our little boxes and categories in that way (and we could have a thousand hour long discussion about why I think you are wrong about why I believe this and still get nowhere so please let's not). But you disagree on the issue and find the labels and identifiers useful so do what you want. If it helps, the correct sexual identity label to wrap around me is 'heterosexual female'. Please try not to choke me with it. Okay, then maybe I misunderstood your initial response to this. I did hear it as another dismissive rendition of "can't we all just get along?" P.S. "Genderqueer" is not a sexual identity, but a gender identity. It tends to encompass people who do not identify explicitly or completely with one of the two binary genders. But I am happy to go with "heterosexual female" as I have in interactions with you thus far. In the end, by the way, I'm not sure identities are all that helpful either, eh? I don't think they're any kind of end goal in themselves. I just think they are and will be until people are no longer affected by disparity or oppression in any way. Which is to say: Never.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 14:54:25 GMT -5
km - I cannot have this conversation with you, I'm sorry. There cannot be a meeting of the minds here and I don't want to argue with you about it. We've both said what we needed to say I think. At least I am done with the disagreement. Really? Because, okay, I don't really want to argue about it, but I'm surprised you see it as controversial? If there is a presumption of goodwill here, then what is the problem with simply suggesting: "Your identity is yours. Mine is mine. Identify (or not) however you wish, but don't be dismissive about those of us who are not ready or willing to dispense with our various identities." This is my position in a nutshell. Yes, I got dismissive too. I have a bad habit of responding in kind and/or trying to get "justice" in conversations, and this gets tiresome if you are on the receiving end. I apologize for being dismissive by stamping you with the "genderqueer" label. That part is on me.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 14:17:54 GMT -5
"I have also known a lot of straight people in my time who didn't understand LGBTQ struggle and who would often say, "I don't really get it... I don't identify all that much with my sexuality or my gender or anything," and I have to tell you... This is a frustrating thing to hear from a person who has not been oppressed on the basis of gender or sexuality."
In all fairness, I should also say, I have been one of these people. Before I came to terms with who I was, I did this a time or two.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 14:00:16 GMT -5
Of course, I do hang with a pretty open crowd. Yeah, I was about to say... It probably depends on where you are geographically located as well. Here in the South, I don't find gays and lesbians to be quite as open or understanding.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 13:21:44 GMT -5
sigalaris: Thanks very much for providing the quotes. I don't have them handy, but it's important to me that people see the words for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 13:17:46 GMT -5
Correction: There's a gay one in California. I have never seen such a thing. Anyway, really? We're all going to dispense with our labels when we become more evolved as humans? So, you're not particularly attached to your identity as a woman, then? Nope. I defy classification. I am a woman in gender. I do not act from an identity of 'womanness'. I act from an identity of 'personhood'. I always have. It's just innate to my consciousness and has been since childhood. And interestingly I have found that although men don't seem to have a problem with it, women hate that about me. Like I'm not sufficiently one of them or not taking up my proper place in the sexual warfare or something. But I don't really care. This is fair enough. I don't have a problem with it, though I often hear what I think you're describing classified as genderqueer. Anyway... I don't particularly care how individuals identify, but I think it's problematic to expect others to dispense with identities they have come to through social oppression. Fine for individuals, certainly... But I probably don't need to go into the ways in which ideals about a "color blind" America are ahistorical and offensive? We can never transcend our historical circumstances in my opinion, and identities are all a part of these for us all. ETA: I might also add... "Homosexual" is not exactly a label that people took up in order to define themselves. It was a term denoting mental illness and social inaptitude. That it got taken up as an identity at all has to do with social oppression, and the need that people have for community with those who have shared experiences. Every identity has a history, is all I'm saying. I'm kind of a poststructuralist about many things and, as such, don't believe in a great many universal truths... But I can still identify as bi/queer without needing to be convinced that I was born that way or that it's my innate essence. And without seeing any need to transcend it.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 11:16:37 GMT -5
I have seen people write something like "LGBTIQQ" as well. That said, I've also heard said that the "LGBT" community doesn't exist because the Ls and Gs hate the Bs, and all three of 'em hate the Ts. I've certainly gotten my share of hatred for being T. Labels. I long for the day when the labels just disappear and people are just whoever the hell they are and don't 'identify' as anything at all. People were talking about 'the Christian directory' where you can find anything you want and be sure it's a Christian business. Well, there's a gay one too. Again with the labels... I hate that whole us/them separation. Correction: There's a gay one in California. I have never seen such a thing. Anyway, really? We're all going to dispense with our labels when we become more evolved as humans? So, you're not particularly attached to your identity as a woman, then?
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 11:10:42 GMT -5
I have seen people write something like "LGBTIQQ" as well. That said, I've also heard said that the "LGBT" community doesn't exist because the Ls and Gs hate the Bs, and all three of 'em hate the Ts. I've certainly gotten my share of hatred for being T. Yep, you're definitely right that there is no inclusive community. That said, I guess we'll all be executed in Rushdoony's utopia, eh? I group them together for this kind of discription, since Rushdoony wouldn't have known (or cared) about nuances like this.
|
|