|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 13, 2010 15:46:39 GMT -5
It's a crime to raise a boy to believe he is one day to become a woman's whole world. Yes, I blame Adam-- but I blame his parents, and this idiotic, idolatrous excuse for Christianity more.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 13, 2010 15:41:37 GMT -5
The thing I can't wrap my mind around-- the thing that just seems impossible to understand-- is that you told your parents what this boy had said and done to you (even leaving aside his utter lack of consideration for anything you were or felt, he insulted your purity. You would think that that would have had some effect on their thinking!) but they completely disregarded it.
I have a teenage daughter. If she told me a boy had treated her like that, I'd be ready to kill him. Instead they insisted you stay engaged to him. Apparently they didn't even care that you had never consented.
They weren't acting like parents, but like slaveholders making a particularly lucrative flesh-trade. It's appalling and almost unbelievable to me that the heart of a parent could be so hard.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 13, 2010 0:55:50 GMT -5
I was one of the snooty judgmental Christians too. Only not related to homeschooling. It was because Marantha Campus Ministries people were "God's Green Berets" and everyone else was too lazy or selfish, or both, to make the sacrifices we did. . .
Yech.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 13, 2010 0:50:01 GMT -5
Journey, I'm so glad you got out! With regards to the question about what makes religious abuse so much worse-- religious abuse is done in the name of an authority greater than human authority. This gives it greater holding power in the life of the person being abused, and greater power of self-justification in the eyes of the abusers. C.S. Lewis puts it well: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under live robber barons than under omnipotent moral busibodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good, will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” (The quote is from this website, which is in some ways a "brother website" to NLQ: thecommandmentsofmen.blogspot.com/ )
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 13, 2010 0:38:16 GMT -5
What the story communicates to me is two people with a complete lack of understanding of (or desire to understand) where the other is coming from, completely disrespecting one another. I don't think the story is funny in the least. The ideal of neighbors helping one another ought to have been a value that both actors in this story had in common. Instead, it becomes a point of division between them. Only one of the neighbors in the story helped the other, so I don't know that the ideal of neighbors helping one another is one they had in common. But I agree with you that the story is not funny. Coleslaw, what I mean is that most religions believe it is God's will for neighbors to help one another. Atheists also usually believe neighbors should help one another. This commonality should have brought them together, not divided them. The Muslim lady should have thanked her atheist neighbor and not spoken words of hate to him. The atheist should have understood that a religious person's belief in God need not include a belief that God always has to send help supernaturally and without human agency-- or indeed, that God would desire anything other in this situation, than that a neighbor would perform an act of kindness. Each had a very small view of the other person and a very judgmental view of the other person's beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 12, 2010 17:09:44 GMT -5
Is that the point of the story? What I got out of it was that actual evidence means zero to believers. What the story communicates to me is two people with a complete lack of understanding of (or desire to understand) where the other is coming from, completely disrespecting one another. I don't think the story is funny in the least. The ideal of neighbors helping one another ought to have been a value that both actors in this story had in common. Instead, it becomes a point of division between them.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 11, 2010 0:07:15 GMT -5
Nikita wrote: And perfect seems to mean having their very womanhood squeezed out of them and micromanaged by some man who has 'authority' over them.And yet if you stand up against having your womanhood squeezed out of you-- you're being "unwomanly."
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 10, 2010 0:22:49 GMT -5
Such a painful story. I know that pain of having no friends too, though my circumstances were different. My heart goes out to that little girl you were!
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 10, 2010 0:12:29 GMT -5
I agree with Arietty. Children aren't people in this lifestyle; they're things. Things for their parents to use.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 9, 2010 0:59:21 GMT -5
Thanks for posting this, LivingForEternity. I hope that it will have a part in preventative medicine against the kind of child-training you're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 9, 2010 0:57:08 GMT -5
No wonder this ended it all. What a disgusting way to treat a daughter.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 4, 2010 18:27:47 GMT -5
I know what my husband would have said in response to this, before he was married:
Who would make a better wife and mother, someone who doesn’t know infra- from supralapsarianism, but does know which side is up on a diaper, or a woman about to defend her dissertation on the eschatology of John Gill at Cambridge but one who thinks children are unpleasant?
He'd have said, "I don't want a wife because I want someone to diaper the babies. I want a wife because I someone to talk to and be my friend and companion. The woman about to defend her dissertation sounds much more interesting. But if she really doesn't want children, she'd probably be happier with another man than me."
As for whether it would make me uncomfortable that a nine-year girl couldn't read, damn straight it would. It would make me furious! Not, as Sproul thinks, because of what other people would think, but because of what it must mean to that poor child to be nothing but a drudge, who can't even escape the bleakness of her days with Alice or Pooh.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 3, 2010 12:05:03 GMT -5
It's my concern that people are essentially put in a place where they feel obligated to bless
Thank you, Cindy. I myself have been coerced, guilted and/or manipulated into giving so often that anything along the lines of "If you were REALLY a good Christian, you'd give!" just gives me a terrible taste in my mouth.
It's not about whether someone is "deserving" or not. It's about whether the giving is allowed to be truly voluntary or not.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 1, 2010 19:10:14 GMT -5
Things that it appears to me the Duggar teens are ACTUALLY free from:
Critical thinking skills to help them see when a magazine article, an advertisement or any form of peer pressure is feeding them a lie.
Experience relating to boys their own age so that they understand them as real people just like themselves, and to see weaknesses and strengths.
Ability to disagree with the status quo.
Independent judgment to see where Dad or Mom might be wrong about something.
Confidence to ask about the Bible, "Is that really what it says?"
Exposure to points of view that might broaden their thinking.
Time to explore who they are and what they actually want out of life.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 1, 2010 19:01:56 GMT -5
I lost my first pregnancy to miscarriage too. I was fortunate in that the only one irrationally blaming me, was myself. What an amazing story. Your prose just pulls the reader in, Defendant Rising.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 1, 2010 14:29:20 GMT -5
What I think is, that every situation has to be examined on its own merits-- or lack thereof. Some of us have experienced churches that have not considered us "worthy" to receive needed aid, because we didn't toe the party line. Others have experienced having our charity milked dry by people like Humbletigger described. It's easy for emotions to get involved because of our own experiences. For myself, I read the post by Shelley C with some emotional reaction of my own. I understood that she was responding to a perceived judgmentalness against her lifestyle-- but I was having trouble not reading a reactionary judgment against mine. You see, I started out as a young married Christian with the idea that we would never go in debt. So when we couldn't afford new tires for the car, we just didn't buy them. Until we slid off the road in a surprise snowstorm and were nearly killed-- and the highway patrolmen said that if we'd drive to the next town and immediately buy new tires, he wouldn't give us a ticket, but our tires were dangerous to ourselves and others and we ought to have been ashamed of ourselves to have been driving around that way. So we went in debt for tires. And the next time we needed something we couldn't afford, we went in debt again. And now, after the loss of my husband's job and three years of student loans that were inadequate to meet our daily needs, we have more credit card debt than we should. And we started out with the idea that our kids would never go to daycare or public schools. But we've never been able to afford private Christian schools, and I've NEEDED to work our entire marriage. So no homeschooling for us. I can make a lot more money as a paralegal than I ever could doing one of those home businesses. And I love my job. And it turned out that there were good, quality daycares that the kids enjoyed, and that the public schools here are high-quality, with dedicated teachers and a strong curriculum. So practicality has won out. We could have been like the family Humbletigger describes, and hoped and prayed that other people would support us in living an idealogical lifestyle that made no practical sense. But it seemed to us that being self-supporting (even if incurring debt) was more in accordance with our Christian principles. So-- I think it's lovely that Shelley C homeschools. And I think it's lovely that we don't. I'm glad she's debt free and I wish we weren't, but I'll be gentle with myself about that. And I think it's rotten that Arietty was poorly treated by her church, and it's rotten that Humbletigger was taken advantage of by people in her church. So I'm for letting each person say their piece, and for trying not to take it personally-- and also for checking my own posts to try to avoid being taken personally for something I didn't mean-- because it's way too easy to do when we're talking about stuff like this. And I hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Aug 26, 2010 21:06:36 GMT -5
Ooh, I can't stand that faith healing stuff. I used to be heavily into that. I'm so sorry about Pearl, I bet you still miss her. I'm still amazed at the twisted molds they forced you into, and how they couldn't see it was killing you.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Aug 24, 2010 22:59:15 GMT -5
Good for you, Kiery. I'm so happy for you.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Aug 24, 2010 22:56:15 GMT -5
I agree, Shelley. I don't need a Burberry coat to feel special, but that doesn't mean I don't deserve one or shouldn't buy one when we can afford it. What a cliff-hanger! I'm on the edge of my seat to learn what Cecelia said when you finally did call her!
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Aug 21, 2010 16:24:25 GMT -5
As always, I'm following your story with great interest, Tapati. I don't really have anything more to contribute at this time except to add to the general hugs.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Aug 20, 2010 14:52:25 GMT -5
*basks in the lovely comments* Thanks, everyone! I truly hope these FAQs will make a real difference in some people's lives.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Aug 20, 2010 14:50:03 GMT -5
Jo, thanks for that story. It is in accordance with what so many other wives and husbands are saying.
I sometimes say it this way on Christian websites, about the Adam and Eve story:
The woman is to be the man's "face-to-face strong aid." That's what "help meet" really means in the original text. The man and the woman together were to rule the other creatures, and thus, the man would not be alone. When the man began to rule the woman, he was relegating her to the status of the other creatures-- thus rendering himself alone again. God had specifically said that this was "not good."
When Christians practice patriarchy, they are taking something God said was "not good" and saying it is God's divine plan. They are perpetuating the bad relationship dynamic created by the Fall, as if it were what Christ came to give us. No wonder it doesn't work!
I'm going to re-post here a comment I made on the blog:
Thanks for the sweet words, Vyckie!
You know, I just made a connection– these teachings are just another form of utopianism. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, people thought they could create utopian societies where all of life’s problems would be solved and everyone would be blissfully happy. The only problem with making people happy was the people themselves. They needed to be fixed and changed and molded to fit the ideal, so the ideal society would actually work. But it never did, somehow. . .
The result? Complete subordination of individual autonomy and worth, to the utopian ideal. And nobody was happy.
Idealized, fantasized perfect happiness, somehow just doesn’t work. Apparently part of the reason is that in order to be perfectly “happy,” what you can’t be is free.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Aug 17, 2010 0:14:55 GMT -5
Tess, you're an incredible writer with a terrific sense of story. I love the way you begin with the climax, and how you're going to give us all the details as it goes along. Your dramatic timing within the segment itself is also amazing. Your ex-husband is unbelievable. My thoughts are with you and your kids for continuing healing from the horrible tyranny you endured.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Aug 15, 2010 1:07:18 GMT -5
Branham was sick, sick, sick. He deserves to go to the hell he wished on everyone else.
That's strong, but it comes out of total outrage for the pain of the little girl that Sierra once was. As a mother myself with a girl who just went through puberty, I could hardly stand to read it.
And all this blaming of the woman is turning Jesus' actual message upside down. He said, "He who looks on a woman in order to lust after her [the Greek word there implies intent, not just an accidental glance], has committed adultery in HIS heart." It was the one who lusted who committed adultery in his heart-- nothing whatsover is said about the woman's heart.
Rabinnical teaching of the time was full of blaming women for men's lust. Jesus put the responsibilty right back where it belonged, on the men who looked with intent to lust, turning women from people into objects. Jesus' teachings were in defense of women. Anyone who twists them into an attack on women is going against his teachings.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Aug 14, 2010 0:42:41 GMT -5
This discussion is very interesting, and I really like Vyckie's FAQ!
It was especially interesting to read your letter to your uncle Ron, Vyckie, when you wrote this:
That’s the Love which frees us from superstitious fear of divine retribution and neurotic self-punishment.
I suppose it's an example of confirmation bias that at this point you didn't really see that Q/F teachings are full of superstitious fear of divine retrubution (if you use birth control or don't home-school, God will be against you) and also self-punishment (in the form of "dying to self" as a reason to enable abusive behavior in Warren).
You did say you were beginning to question and think, though, and that writing to Ron helped. Did your words there make you think at all about Q/F's spiritually abusive teachings? Or did that start later?
|
|