|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 28, 2009 13:01:06 GMT -5
Well said, Vyckie. *applause*
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 27, 2009 17:55:48 GMT -5
Not much to add, Sierra, except continuing to feel so sad for how the little girl you once were, suffered.
I sure know what it's like to feel like you don't fit in with the other kids, and that there's really something wrong with you-- that feeling of being deep-down unworthy.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 20, 2009 18:38:59 GMT -5
Your story continues to pull me in, Tapati, and I feel for all you went through. Awful that Mike would hit you and then blame you for it like that. And then being left high and dry as a family like that by the temple/employer, when you were pregnant! So much for all the love and care that you were led to expect when you joined.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 19, 2009 16:18:00 GMT -5
I've literally still not been able to figure out how the system inside of his head worked/works, even after years of trying to study him, anticipate and meet his needs and please him as a "godly wife" should, and even still today, with the ability to look back on those years...I still don't get it. I remember thinking that I finally understood it, and then I'd blow it in some huge area that to him was unredeemable and I'd be back at square one, starting over, trying to figure out how in the world to please this man (after all, the books all said that the marriage relationship is a mirror of your relationship with God, so if your husband isn't pleased with you, then, well, what does that say about how God feels about you?)... Well, here's one thing that I think could have been happening: when things were going too well, he'd feel threatened that you were beginning to get a little strength back. The sudden "blowing it in some huge area" and being "knocked back to square one" happened because "square one" was the only place he felt truly comfortable with you being. He needed you off-balance, gasping, reaching out for him to comfort you from the devastation he'd just wrought-- so that you'd reach out to him, reaffirm that he the center of your life. He didn't want you to speak in church because you made too much sense, and people liked you too much. That might make you not need him as much. You've probably figured all this out already, Journey-- but a relative of mine was in a cult with a female leader like this. The leader would sometimes tell my relative, "That's it! You've lost your salvation. You're damned eternally now," and then when my relative was back at "square one" in weakness, the leader would claim to have prayed and restored her to God's favor. Horrible. So glad you're free and healing, as is she.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 19, 2009 2:04:35 GMT -5
You are all so sweet. Thanks for your support; it helps more than I can say.
|
|
|
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 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 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 krwordgazer on Nov 15, 2009 0:23:45 GMT -5
I'm really pleased that everyone is so happy with it-- especially you, Vyckie! I hope it really helps Quiverfull women! ;D
Thanks for all the kind words-- they are very much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 13, 2009 23:53:52 GMT -5
I'm going to stop posting and start typing "What KR said" instead. (but seriously... what KR said!!!) Awww. *blushing* Thanks, Amanda.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 13, 2009 23:42:17 GMT -5
It was a beautiful post, Tapati. I feel honored that you are sharing so much of yourself and your history with us.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 13, 2009 16:22:27 GMT -5
KR one thing I always have in the back of my head when reading posts by Christians that sound very tolerant or somesuch.. (not just here, on forums in general) is "but what do they REALLY believe". Because I know that there is an imperative to communicate well and to represent Christ well. Just like Rachel Scott put on a shiny face and sidestepped submission when talking to Behar I know that behind a lot of inclusion talk that Christians use there can be some beliefs that are pretty harsh when not air brushed for public consumption/evangelism. I know many liberal christians love to be inclusive of gays but the truth is they do believe that this is not god's best choice for people. They rationalize it by believing that gay people have often been abused or had hard childhoods (or are in rebellion against their oppressive parents as we just read on this forum). When I hear liberal christians being all tolerant and talking about dialog and Jesus accepting the unloved of society it really icks me out. It is so patronizing, "we accept you because we are all sinners" geez. There are so many ways to fail in Christian's eyes, ways to fail that are failures because stuff in the bible. Being married a few times, this is failure but the more liberal christian will remind themselves of the woman at the well and make sure they are inclusive and welcoming. But you know that they still see it as failure and not god's way.. I have had a few friends in this situation for whom it gradually dawned on them that this is how they were loved by fellow church members.. as sinners who allowed the church to show it's wonderful tolerance. (Personally I think people who have been married a lot of times show strength--strength to get out of bad situations, strength to hope and believe in the next relationship.) Arietty, all I can really say to this is that people do have differences of opinion about how best to live one's life -- but this need not be the same thing as judging those who live differently. Several people on this forum have expressed the opinion that waiting till marriage to have sex is not a choice they really approve. It is the choice I felt was best for me. I don't think they're judging me, even though they disagree. My own feeling about a woman who has been married multiple times has nothing to do with judging her for failed marriages, but if she were a friend of mine, I'd probably try to help her discern if there are any negative emotional patterns that she could resolve, which might help her find a more stable, loving marriage next time-- if she wanted to remarry. No one really wants their marriage to fail, so I don't think there's any judgmentalism in wanting to help a friend find happiness in marriage. As far as gay people are concerned, I don't think that two same-sex people who choose a committed, monogamous relationship are doing something wrong. I might disagree more with a choice by a person of any sexual orientation, to have a different one-night stand every night. But I really do try not to turn my opinions into judgments of others. And perhaps sometimes, with other moderate Christians, you might be seeing judgment when it isn't really there. I guess the difference, with Christians, is that God gets figured into the equation-- that their opinions about how it is best to live are in some way based on what they think God wants. But as long as they're neither judging you nor trying to force their opinions on you, does it really matter if you disagree?
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 13, 2009 16:03:59 GMT -5
Vyckie, I don't think your assessment of yourself as not respecting them as human beings, just because you set them up to break their own expectations, is a correct self-assessment. You say you didn't verbally beat up on Warren because you knew he was a lightweight compared to you. But Rachel had just shown herself to be an extremely devious, and therefore quite intelligent, person. And her friend was just a bully. You weren't being a bully-- she was. To stand up to a bully, it's sometimes necessary to bully them back a bit. To deal with a deceptive person who won't come out and say what she really believes in public, but then tackles you in private, a taste of her own bait-and-switch tactics is more than appropriate.
Don't guilt yourself about it, ok? They weren't Warren, and didn't deserve to be treated as you would treat Warren. You weren't verbally or physically abusive. You merely fought back in the best way you knew how against difficult people who had set themselves up as your enemies. You didn't start that fight; you just finished it. I say, "You Da Woman!"
*cheers and throws confetti*
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 12, 2009 19:42:50 GMT -5
Jeb, I read the article by Shakespeare's Sister, and it really hit home with me. I will definitely be more careful about ways in which I might be communicating marginalization or dismissiveness to those who have been hurt in the name of Christ. I'm reminded of Christian writer Don Miller, and how he set up a "confession booth" in the middle of a college campus-- but the purpose of the booth was for the Christians inside the booth to confess the sins of Christianity, and of themselves as Christians in particular, to those who came in. Here's an article I found online about it-- not written by Miller, but it gives the gist of it. michaelkrahn.com/blog/2008/10/02/donald-miller%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cblue-like-jazz%e2%80%9d-5-confession-is-a-two-way-street/I do think it's a little different, however, when it's not me distancing myself from what Christians have done to others-- but having others attribute certain beliefs and attitudes to "Christians" as a general group, and thus by implication to me. . . Shakespeare's Sister spoke of the KKK, and how she as a white person couldn't say, "they aren't real white people." Absolutely true-- but that doesn't mean she wouldn't say something to the contrary if someone attributed the beliefs and actions of the KKK to "white people" as a general group. I think she'd be quick to say, "but I'm white and I have nothing to do with the KKK!" Which is pretty much what I've been saying. . .
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 11, 2009 17:22:54 GMT -5
I'm beginning to understand why writer Don Miller no longer calls his beliefs "Christianity." He calls them "Christian spirituality," because when people say the word "Christianity," what they often really mean is "hyper-fundamentalist Reformed Protestantism." I don't mean to sound defensive-- but really, it is difficult to hear. KR ~ have you seen this article: www.alternet.org/story/143844/is_blind_faith_in_god_and_the_bible_a_modern_invention/?cID=1362985#c1362985?I don't know why I have such a hard time reading Karen Armstrong's stuff ~ I've been working at "The Spiral Staircase" for over a year now and am only halfway through. I've been tempted to just give up at times ~ but for some reason, I don't. I keep picking it back up and reading for as long as I can stand it ... which isn't very long. I've been thinking lately that I just *don't feel like* believing in God right now ~ or even trying to figure stuff out like I used to. Guess I'm burned out, huh? But then there's this something (I don't know what) that keeps me going back and thinking and rethinking ... ugh. It never used to be a chore to ponder deep things. Vyckie, I hadn't read that particular article, but I am familiar with Karen Armstrong's work. As far as not feeling like believing in or even thinking much about God, that is a very normal feeling. Jeff Zondervan's website on spiritual abuse has a whole library of articles about issues like that. www.spiritualabuse.com/I certainly would recommend continuing to give the whole thing a rest, until and unless you feel yourself ready. *hugs*
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 11, 2009 1:28:20 GMT -5
I'm very frustrated-- it's 10 p.m. PDT, when this show is supposed to be on-- and WETV is showing a show that their schedule says was supposed to have been on at 7:00 pm. Which probably means that in order to see it, I'll have to stay up till midnight, and I just can't. It may be Veteran's Day tomorrow, but I still have to work. . .
Sigh. Maybe I'll catch it on a rerun sometime.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 10, 2009 19:40:56 GMT -5
Hillary, that brought tears to my eyes. Beautiful.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 9, 2009 20:42:45 GMT -5
John, I appreciate the response-- but looking again through the discussion points being made here, what everyone has been talking about as being so illogical and inconsistent is being called by the same name as the faith I identify with. Like it or not, this says something about me as the kind of person who would believe something so illogical and inconsistent. So when I do come up with some decent answers to the questions you say no "believer" has ever come up with decent answers to-- it's confusing to hear you say that you already know those answers. If you already know that these are one set of answers Christians might provide to your questions, then why do you say "Christianity" leads to the inescapable conclusion that God is a sadistic, bloodthirsty SOB?
I'm beginning to understand why writer Don Miller no longer calls his beliefs "Christianity." He calls them "Christian spirituality," because when people say the word "Christianity," what they often really mean is "hyper-fundamentalist Reformed Protestantism."
I don't mean to sound defensive-- but really, it is difficult to hear.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 9, 2009 18:33:38 GMT -5
Well, a lot of people see the 10 commandments as being moral laws encompassed within that "love God and love each other" command.
But don't look at me-- I have long since abandoned the position that the 10 Commandments should be on display in our public buildings. ;D
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 9, 2009 15:48:03 GMT -5
JTN, in answer to this:
The short-and-simple answer is that the laws God set up for the nation of Israel contained various kinds of laws: nation-making laws, which were specifically for that nation at that period in time and were never meant to apply to the church; ceremonial laws which were meant to differentiate the practices of the Hebrews from the idol-worshipping practices of the other nations around it; and moral laws, which are encapsulated in "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself."
Jesus said he had come to "fulfill" the law. Fulfilled law is complete. Mainstream Christians believe that the only laws that now apply to Christians are the ones encompassed within the moral laws of love.
Jeb, with regards to this:
I suspect the people you have talked to have not done much study of theology. There are several schools of thought (and many Christians have the idea that God actually intends us to think for ourselves about these matters, which is why the Bible is a hodgepodge of different sacred writings and not a straight, simple rule book. Disagreement doesn't bother God the way it apparently bothers many Christians!)
My own answers to these questions, in a nutshell, are:
The Adam and Eve story contains so much that is clearly mythical (trees with specific allegorical names, for example), that I don't think it was ever intended to be read as if it were history. It is an account of the human condition. It answers the issues at the heart of being human (sometimes called the "human problematic") encompassed in such questions as, "why is there a difference between the way I think things ought to be and the way they are?" or "How do I deal with my awareness of my own future death?"
Within the framework of that story, certain things become clear:
1. God did and does know that the self-aware beings God made were and are going to rebel against God. He considered the pain we would bring on ourselves, worth it-- because of the joy of relationship with us.
2. God knew all along that the Incarnation and Atonement would be necessary. This means that God was willing to take on the human condition Him/Herself (God is not male or female but encompasses all aspects of both)-- rather than let us humans suffer on our own.
3. God did all this because from God's perspective, suffering is not the same as it is from our perspective. God knows the kind of aware-of-it suffering that self-aware humans do, is the only way for humans to gain character depth, courage, compassion, perspective-- in short, to grow and develop into fullness of being. God thought it important that God, too, suffer. God's own suffering does us real, spiritual good in delivering us from the power of the spiritual/moral traps we are inclined to fall into -- including our tendency to try to control and dominate others. Jesus asks us to let go of those things and live in union with him in his nature so we can be free.
4. God does not tell people, "Do what I say or burn in hell." Hell as a concept doesn't even exist in the Old Testament, and all the mentions of it in the New Testament occur within parables or other symbolic/apocalyptic writings. What the idea of Hell appears to me to be is that people choose their own paths, either life-giving or destructive ones. How the destructive paths will play out in eternity is beyond my ken, but there are truths to be gained from the parables of Hell. There are also plenty of Scriptural reasons to believe that the "burn-in-hell" ideas of the fundies are limited and inaccurate when looked at in light of eternity.
5. The Bible is a group of writings of people who had encounters with God. God always accommodates any revelations of God to the mindset of the people who had the encounter. My own encounters with God are couched within my own limited understanding. I should not be surprised that people who encountered God in 6000 BC would think of God according to their own understandings, savage though they may appear to me. I should not be surprised if Jesus couched his own teachings in words and symbols that the people in Roman Judea would understand.
6. There is no reason to believe that those who have never heard the name of Jesus have therefore never encountered the Holy Spirit. There is even scriptural evidence to support the idea that God meets each individual where that individual is. As a Christian I believe that Jesus is the incarnation of God, in whose life we have life-- but that doesn't mean that his life can't be encountered by seekers who don't know his name.
All this is a very, very nutshell response. But I resist the idea that there is no such thing as consistent Christianity, or that very nature of Christianity is such that a Christian can't think logically about his/her faith and put it together as rationally and consistently as we humans are capable of.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 9, 2009 1:21:23 GMT -5
I plan to stay up late and watch the show Tuesday night. (It starts at 10 pm in my time zone.)
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 7, 2009 23:51:33 GMT -5
G.K. Chesterton, early 20th-century Catholic essayist, once said Christianity is a religion that adds courage to the virtues of the Creator-- because the only courage worth being called courage is when the soul reaches a breaking point, but does not break. A God that has not suffered cannot be said to have courage, or to truly understand suffering.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 7, 2009 14:52:16 GMT -5
I had a thought this morning about Jesus and his teaching of self-sacrificial living. I was thinking about his specific interactions with women-- what did he teach them about self-sacrifice? Women, in that culture, rarely had much opportunity for self-actualization. Did he give them the same self-sacrifice message he gave the crowds in general?
I thought of Mary and Martha. Martha was running around doing all the things a woman was supposed to do when a guest arrives-- preparing a meal, setting the table, serving, serving, serving, even though there is no record Jesus had asked for, or expected, a meal to be served. Mary, on the other hand, went and sat at his feet with the guys, listening to his teachings. Martha came and asked Jesus to rebuke Mary for her selfishness. He refused.
Who was it who was being an example of self-sacrifice?
Martha.
If self-sacrifice was what Jesus' message was all about, don't you think he would have commended her? Instead, he gave Mary his commendation, for "choosing the good part, which will not be taken away from her." He did not appear to think that refusing self-sacrificial serving and acting like she had a place with the men, was either presumptious or selfish on her part. Instead, he told Martha not to be so worried and bothered, because "only a few things are necessary, really only one." And that one thing was being with Jesus and learning from him.
"Come to me, all you who are weary and heavy-laden," he said in another place, "and learn of me. . . and you will find rest for your souls."
Would Jesus be commending the Quiverfull teaching that has women self-sacrificially serving from morning to night? I don't think so. I don't think self-sacrifice was really what his message was about. I think it was about living in love.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 6, 2009 0:02:10 GMT -5
Journey, having finished your story to date, I'm speechless with fury. Spiritual abuse hardly describes it.
I remember in Maranatha Campus Ministries, the patient way the leaders would explain that they were right and you were wrong, and you were in sin just for thinking you might be right. Urg. The nausea is still there.
So glad we're both out.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 5, 2009 23:43:02 GMT -5
Angel, you are amazing. You articulated what you were feeling so well, you turned that cop's thinking upside down. And yet someone who can communicate as good as you, just couldn't get through to your step-father. So terrible. *more hugs from an even more indignant mom*
|
|