|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 12, 2010 1:16:24 GMT -5
Wow, I'm glad this is helpful to people, and I so appreciate all the comments! My husband got his graphic design degree yesterday (Yay!), and I've still got a houseful of relatives here for the graduation-- but I'll respond more fully as soon as I can.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 6, 2010 1:03:41 GMT -5
That is a beautiful poem, Tapati. Raw and honest and real.
Your segment was very good-- painful to read. "Cat's in the Cradle" resonates with me, too-- though my father was present in our lives when he was sober, when he was drinking his body was in the room but he was not. He had turned into someone else. The broken promises were hardest to bear-- made when he was sober, only to be forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 4, 2010 14:20:34 GMT -5
Addressing another of Seekingtruth's points:
She said:
I do agree that Onan’s sins involved fraud, greed, deception and covenant-breaking.(very much like Ananias and Sapphira in Acts which also cost them their lives). Gen 38:14b “(Tamar) saw that Shelah had grown up, and had she had not been given to him as a wife.” Yet, Shelah was not killed nor did he have his sandal removed nor was spat upon. An interesting note is that Jesus came through this lineage, and Tamar is listed in the Messiah’s genealogy (Matt 1:3) (albeit through Tamar‘s father-in-law, ick).
The part about removing the sandal and spitting was part of the law given through Moses. This story is about Judah-- 600 or more years prior to Moses. The custom of having the brother of the deceased marry the widow was clearly already in place, as was the notion of covenant-keeping (we see it already in the time of Abraham), but I think it's an anachronistic reading to expect the specific penality Moses gave for refusing to marry your brother's widow, to appear in the Judah-Tamar story. The fact that Shelah did not have his sandal removed and was not spat upon, has no significance, therefore-- the penalty of the law was not yet in place. The fact that he was not killed-- well, what was it that he wasn't killed for? True, he didn't spill his seed on the ground, but he also didn't marry her and then break his covenant with her. Which thing that he didn't do, resulted in his not being punished? I think that insisting that it had to have been that he didn't spill his seed on the ground, is assuming too much. Clearly the culture knew about this form of birth control, because Onan used it. Can we really assume that Onan is the only one who ever used it, because he was the only one ever mentioned as using it? If God was punishing men right and left for spilling their seed on the ground, the Bible neglects to mention it-- nor is there any specific prohibition against this action anywhere in Scripture. If God didn't want men to spill their seed on the ground, wouldn't He have taken the trouble to give an express command about it, rather than just slapping a penalty on someone without warning?
However, there are lots of prohibitions against covenant-breaking, and lots of expressions of God's displeasure over covenant-breaking, throughout Scripture. Abraham clearly knew what a solemn thing a covenant was, as did his sons and grandsons. What Onan did was clearly a very blatant form of covenant breaking-- which is clearly prohibited by Scripture. I'd rather assume the penalty was for breaking a known prohibition than an unmentioned (and never mentioned again) one.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 3, 2010 19:01:30 GMT -5
Quoting Tapati: Amazing the amount of misinformation you were under; post-natal depression is not related to whether or not a woman uses anesthesia, nor does anethesia result in "blue and gasping" babies-- as I'm sure you are aware now. But it's so sad when this kind of thing gets spread around to make women feel guilty for using anesthesia. Bearing up under suffering that can't be helped is courageous; feeling that you must bear suffering that could be avoided is guilt-manipulation. The state of our knowledge had changed in the intervening years, especially regarding post natal (and other types of ) depression. But the anesthesia most in use in the 70s when I had my kids was Scopolamine and it did have nasty side effects, especially for the baby. I'm glad that pain management during labor is much better now and not dangerous for the child. www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=10226Good grief, Tapati! They mixed morphine and one of the components of belladonna to give to women in childbirth?! I really didn't know. How horrible! It just goes to show how far anesthesiology progressed in the 20 years between then, and when I gave birth. I guess my anesthesiologist was probably worth the astronomical fee he charged. Anyway, it sounds like you were better informed than I thought. I hope I didn't give offense; sorry!
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 3, 2010 18:56:25 GMT -5
Thanks for your response, Seekingtruth. At the moment I only have time to address this: **Regarding “faithfulness it takes to trust God in family planning.” and comparing it to “The same passage says that thorns and thistles will be multiplied in the fields.” I am so confused. God’s Word does NOT speak negatively of having children like thorns and thistles, except for Ecc 6:3... Please look at Genesis 3:16 again-- Try the KJV or a Hebrew interlinear-- many of the modern translations seem to miss this. Here's a link to an interlinear that might be helpful: www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen3.pdfOne of the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin was that her "conceptions" (in the Hebrew that word does mean getting pregnant) would increase-- and that her sorrow (trouble, difficulty) would increase with it. Then it says that the actual childbirth would be difficult as well. Then in verse 17, to Adam God says that thorns and thistles would be increased and that his difficulty would be great because of it. Yes, there is a difference in that God didn't say the woman's body was "cursed" in the same way the ground was "cursed." But the multiplication of pregnancies was going to be a sorrow. Surely you have seen the health problems that a woman develops when she keeps having pregnancy after pregnancy? It is a sorrow to her body-- she is capable of conceiving beyond the ability of her body to healthily sustain. This is what I think Genesis 3:16 is talking about-- not that the children are like thorns and thistles-- that's not what I meant at all! But is it "trusting God in family planning" to just let this pregnancy-after-pregnancy ability of the woman's body, take its natural course?
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 3, 2010 18:35:54 GMT -5
Medical interventions (especially epidurals) were frowned upon because they enabled women to avoid the curse, which was somehow against God's will. God wanted women to suffer in childbirth, and they were defying him by trying to make it less painful! And I'm sure these men all worked out in the fields to grow the food they ate, without benefit of tools, right? Cause that was Adam's curse, and... Eh, you know the rest. Yes, the rank hypocrisy is outrageous. Men could do anything they liked to remove weeds and thorns from their crops, but women were supposed to just submit to pain in childbirth. Disgusting. Sierra, are Branhamites mostly agricultural? Do they allow the use of weedkillers, fertilizers, harrowers and the like?
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 2, 2010 23:20:03 GMT -5
Quoting Tapati: Amazing the amount of misinformation you were under; post-natal depression is not related to whether or not a woman uses anesthesia, nor does anethesia result in "blue and gasping" babies-- as I'm sure you are aware now. But it's so sad when this kind of thing gets spread around to make women feel guilty for using anesthesia. Bearing up under suffering that can't be helped is courageous; feeling that you must bear suffering that could be avoided is guilt-manipulation. To Sierra: I feel for you, and believe that as you continue to let yourself heal, the reasons you feel as you do will come to you, so that you can re-reason yourself out of these kinds of thought patterns. For instance (to counter a message you grew up learning), you don't have to have a baby to be complete as a woman. You can choose to recognize the old message as a lie and actively resist it by giving yourself a new message. "I am complete as a woman right here, right now, just by being who I am" or something along those lines, might be helpful to tell yourself in front of the mirror every night.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 1, 2010 0:29:45 GMT -5
But.. something often confused me. I used to look at the worldly families in our church. Two kids, endless after public school activities, mom worked full time, they watched seemingly any movie and dressed in all the latest fashions, they were by every definition immersed in The World. And what puzzled me was that they seemed very happy! The kids weren't even rebelling in that they had great relationships with their parents, did well in school, the families seemed to get on very well. They just were not falling into chaos and drugs and teen pregnancies as predicted. This genuinely threw me for a loop. Heh, heh. That sounds a lot like my teenager, Arietty. I don't work full time, but nearly so (30 hours a week), and my daughter isn't in endless activities, but that's largely because of her own personal choice. She'd rather have free time to be with her public-school friends (her two closest ones are also Christians). There's no need for her to rebel-- she is treated like a reasonable human being, capable of understanding the reasons for the common-sense restraints we do put on her. With the exception of those, she can do as she likes. (This is not to say she never breaks the rules, but when she does, the consequences are logical and not harsh.) She understands that she's worth too much to damage herself with drugs, and she has too much self-respect to let a guy, or a group of peers, lead her anywhere she doesn't feel right about going. I don't see where any biblical passage says to isolate your children from "the world." It does say clearly, though, not to "exasperate" them. I'm so glad we got out of the cult we were in before our kids were very old!
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 31, 2010 19:21:36 GMT -5
I have been reading the discussion here with great interest. If no one minds, however, I would like to get back to the development of FAQ that engendered this interesting exchange. I've been working hard over the last few days to address the issues that Seekingtruth raised, with a view towards improving the way the FAQ addresses the concerns of Quiverfull women. I'm now ready to ask for input from forum members. Below are Seekingtruth's points, which I have included verbatim unless my answer to one of her points would be identical to my answer to another-- in which case I have deleted material that would result in redundant answers. After each (italicized) point she raised, comes my response. I would appreciate input from all readers, particularly those who are ex-Quiverfull, as to whether a particular point needs to be added to the FAQ. The FAQ is already five typewritten pages long, so any help anyone can offer on what needs to be added and what could be removed or condensed, would be very much appreciated. So here goes: ***** One of the things that struck me most about birth control was that being involved with it was aligning myself with an evil organization, Planned Parenthood, that promotes promiscuous behavior, virtually insuring that there will be consequences of plenteous unintended pregnancies ending them by the murder of the innocent babies as well as rampant STDs. I did not want to be a part of this. The Lord showed that the same anti-baby, me-first mentality had become part of my thinking and He said "Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them." (Eph 5:11)”It seems to me that it would be a distraction from the real issue, to address the question in my FAQ as to whether or not PP is an “evil organization.” The real issue is whether using birth controls allies one with Planned Parenthood or not. Since birth control has admittedly been around since at least the time of Onan, birth control, in and of itself, cannot be considered to be the exclusive realm of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was certainly involved with the development and distribution of hormonal methods of birth control, but there are certainly other effective methods besides these. However, addressing the issue of hormonal birth control, there is a logical question of whether using something developed by an organization you disagree with, automatically allies you with that organization or means that you endorse all of the practices of that organization. If all birth control pills were Planned Parenthood products, and buying them resulted in profit to Planned Parenthood, that would be one thing. But Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization-- and birth control pills are not products belonging to Planned Parenthood. The light bulb was invented by Thomas Edison, and his company is now called General Electric. Are we allying ourselves with GE every time we buy a light bulb, regardless of whether or not it is a GE light bulb? Are we, in buying a light bulb, stating that we agree with Thomas Edison’s worldview and are followers of his beliefs? Obviously not. And when it comes to Planned Parenthood and hormonal birth control, the same logic must apply. Ephesians 5 also tells the husband to agape-love his wife. Is birth control or sterilization part of that agape-love?What is agape-love? Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says, “Agapeo [verb form] is the characteristic word of Christianity. . .Christian love has God as its primary object, and expresses itself first of all in implicit obedience to his commandments. . . Christian love is not an impulse from the feelings. . . but seeks the welfare of all, and works no ill to any.” The question, then, is whether, regardless of the impulses of the feelings, birth control is what is best for a particular family in a particular set of circumstances. A husband who agape-loves his wife seeks to know her needs and what is best for her welfare. Given the absence of a clear command from God not to use birth control (which clear command does not exist anywhere in the Bible), the use of birth control, in and of itself, cannot be considered to be fundamentally contrary to the welfare of the wife or family. Therefore, a husband showing agape-love would consider his own family’s particular circumstances and needs, and would carefully listen to the expressed needs of his wife, so that they could make a decision together about whether birth control or sterilization would be right for their family. The OT scriptures do reflect that Onan was killed by God specifically because he wasted seed, else otherwise it would only have been a public humiliation in the removal of his sandal and being spat upon in the face (Deut 25:5-10) In my FAQ I addressed specifically the comparison of Deut. 25:5-10 in explaining what the actual difference is. I said: The context of this passage is Onan’s unwillingness to fulfill his duty in that culture to his brother’s widow. Onan married his brother’s widow and “went in unto“ her as a husband to a wife-- but then emitted on the ground, “lest that he should give seed to his brother. This is sometimes compared with Deuteronomy 25:7, where the consequences of refusing to take a brother’s widow as wife are not death, but only public shame. But the situation in Deuteronomy 25 involves only refusing to marry the widow. What Onan did was much worse. He went ahead and married her, but then selfishly refused to raise a child that would be considered legally his brother’s and not his own. It wasn’t that he didn’t want children; it’s that he wanted children only for his own profit! But the woman could not marry anyone else. His act consigned her to childlessness whether she liked it or not. And it was a great deception for Onan to pretend to do his duty to his brother outwardly, but then to go back on it in the privacy of the home. It was not for simple birth control that Omar was judged by God. It was for fraud, greed, deception and covenant-breaking. The birth control was the means by which the crime was committed. The birth control itself was not the crime.The main point I was making is that it is a far worse thing to enter a marriage covenant and then refuse to keep the terms of the covenant you have made, than to simply refuse to make a covenant in the first place. It is this, and not the use of birth control, which really differentiates the two passages. I need to know whether I was too wordy, or in some other way not clear? Various other OT scriptures Lev 21:17-20; 22:20-22,24; calls damage to male reproductive organs a "defect" and those with "defect" were not allowed to present offerings. Castration of animals is likewise called a blemish. Isn't is moreso a blemish for US being that humans are made in the image of God? Lev 25:11-12 tells the penalty if a wife grabs another man's genitals even if protecting her husband from death -- her hand to be cut off. Thank the Lord we are living in the days of the NT and the New Covenant, but be reminded it is still important to glean the "principles" from the OT.I assume this is meant to convey that male sterilization is in some way a “defect” comparable to the Leviticus passages. These passages were directed only to Aaron and his sons with regards to their priestly function. None of the ordinary citizens of Israel were allowed to make offerings at all. The point was that those making offerings, and the offerings themselves, needed to be whole and complete as a way to honor God (offering God a lame animal rather than a healthy one was a form of cheating, for instance.) All of the “defects” mentioned are actual external damage to some part of the body. Note that the person who had any such condition was still fully accepted among God’s people and still allowed to eat of the holy bread with the other priests; he just could not offer offerings at the altar. A lot of the commands in the Old Testament are external pictures of inward truths. Jesus later made it clear that God’s real concern was purity on the inside, not physical wholeness on the outside. In any event, the passage really isn’t about a “principle” that infertility (even self-caused) is a “defect.” Low sperm count, even if it had been understood then, would not have qualified as a “defect” because the external male organs were not damaged. A vasectomy does not damage the external male organs and thus would not be considered a “defect” under Levitical law. Worldly sex tends to be selfish. Holy sex is unselfish. There is obviously at least one way to be sinful even in the marriage bed or else there would not be the admonition of "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and .... let the marriage bed be undefiled." Heb 13:4 It was not written as an epitaph indicating that "anything goes." Could artificial birth control/sterilization possibly defile the marriage bed? This should be considered.Hebrews 13:4 actually specifically defines what “defiling the marriage bed” means. The passage says, “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” We must be careful not to add to God’s word. What defiles the marriage bed is sex outside the marriage covenant. As for “holy sex” being unselfish-- indeed it is. It is about the mutual celebration of love in each partner giving to the other. The entire book of the Song of Solomon is a celebration of this kind of love. The loving couple does not focus on the conception of children as the focus of their sexual love, but instead on the mutual joy they can bring one another. When there are organizations out there like Couple to Couple League (NFP) and the Billings Method which promote a healthy way of "family planning," why shouldn't a Christian couple consider this as a possibility? We do not know the future and should never presume to know if God will change our hearts in the future. Artificial birth control and sterilization have consequences (the warning lists and contraindications are considerably long as our bodies were not designed to act as if they are pregnant 24/7 for years), some temporary, some permanent, some requiring future surgeries (ie hysterectomy rate after tubal ligation is VERY high - www.tubal.org/VGHPTS.htm ), some dangerous to ourselves and offspring, some emotional, and sometimes fatal.There is no reason why a Christian couple shouldn’t consider all the methods available, and choose the one that they feel is safest and most effective for their particular family, in their particular circumstances. There is no command of the Lord in this matter. It would certainly be unwise for them to choose a method that will be physically harmful to them. But they should research this carefully, and consult several reputable medical sources, before deciding. Just because married couples do not use birth control does not mean they will always have MANY children. Examples: Sarah and Rachel had one or two. Hannah and Mary had six or seven. For some, it will (Susanah Wesley and her 19 offspring, 9 of whom died as infants. She herself the youngest of 25). However, reading Ecc 6:3 "If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, 'Better the miscarriage than he.'"True, some women will not have a lot of children even if they don’t use birth control. I think yours is the voice of reason here, rather than those Quiverfull voices that tell the woman she is somehow cursed of God if her natural fertility is less than another woman’s. I agree that Ecclesiastes 6:3 is a good, balancing verse that many in Quiverfull seem to ignore. Having children is not as important as “that the soul be filled with good.” But if a woman is led to believe that her ABUNDANT fertility is a direct result of God’s favor, what is she to think but that even comparatively less fertility (not to mention actual infertility) signals God’s displeasure? But the message of the Book of Job should speak loud and clear, where it is now often ignored: it is a mistake to equate blessings or lack of blessings with a person’s righteousness or lack thereof. What do we do with the "be fruitful and multiply" commands from God? (Gen 1:28, 9:1; 2:23-24; Matt 19:5) for Jesus came not to erase the OT but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-19). If the Word has not been specifically fulfilled or negated then they would seem obviously to still be in effect (examples: sin of bestiality is only found in OT, but still viewed as sin, whereas the eating of certain foods was sinful in OT,but is allowed, unless a stumbling block, in the NT).God did tell Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply-- and yet Paul was by his own choice, unmarried and childless. Was he disobeying God? Is it not rather that the command is to be considered to be given to the human race as a whole (and as a whole, we are certainly fulfilling it!), but that individuals may be called, one to one thing, one to another, in the Kingdom of God? A God-centered marriage, one where the husband is agape-loving his wife will bear fruit, of many types, including the faithfulness it takes to trust God in family planning. God wants to BLESS us and this includes having children He sends to us. We are incapable of making a baby, only He is, but we are able to deny Him the option. He asks us to choose life and to be fruitful. In what ways will we do so? He gives us the choice.What does it mean to “trust God in family planning”? The passage in Genesis 3 that I referred to, “I will greatly increase your conceptions,” indicates that “trusting God” and “letting the woman’s body conceive as often as it will” may not be synonymous at all. The same passage says that thorns and thistles will be multiplied in the fields. Is a farmer “trusting God” with his farm when he decides to just let it grow as it will, weeds and all? Or is he letting nature dictate what his crop is going to look like? What if “trusting God” actually means praying for wisdom and discernment as to when it is best to use birth control, and when we should actively seek to conceive? Perhaps He desires our “fruitfulness” to be of a different kind than having children, as He did with Paul. Can anyone say Paul was not fruitful? And yet he never had children, and he considered this his gift, with the understanding that it could be a gift also given to women (1 Cor 7:7 & 34). Yes, Paul was single-- but should we tell God that He is not allowed to call a married couple to a life together without children (for a season, perhaps, or even permanently), so that they can be dedicated to some other fruitful work? Is there a passage in scripture where God declares He would never desire this? **** So there it is. Any help anyone can give would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 31, 2010 11:49:04 GMT -5
Humbletigger, I appreciate your words very much. I am an adult child of alcoholics who left home to be drawn into a Christian cult. I have been accustomed to thinking of myself as an "addictive personality." I never thought of it as a defect, but as a disorder which I will never completely be free of, yes. I guess that's the same as what you say in that we will always have to deal with the trauma we went through. But I find it healing to stop thinking of myself as an "addictive personality." Thank you. As for whether having an emotional disorder or mental illness makes you "defective," I know that is a common perception in society, but I think it's one we need to steer away from. We no longer think of people with physical handicaps as "defective," and I doubt you think of people with mental illnesses or handicaps as "defective," either. It's an image we have to fight against-- those of us who are affected by emotional trauma no less than those with other issues. Coleslaw, that's very interesting. It does seem to be the case that restrictive, isolating rules in one area have equivalents in other areas too.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 31, 2010 11:33:38 GMT -5
KM, you're a wonder. I have no opinion on whether or not you should delete anything-- it's up to you, as far as I'm concerned-- but you were speaking from your heart then, and you're speaking from your heart now, and I find your heart to be warm and deeply feeling. Hugs to you. Sierra, that's interesting how they had a doctrine that a wife didn't need to submit to an unbelieving husband. I believe that's directly contradictory to Peter's advice in 1 Peter 3 (given to Christian women living in Greek patriarchal society), which was in effect to yield to him and not try to nag him into Christianity. Branhamism, more even than other cults, really picks and chooses which scriptures to read and which to ignore, doesn't it? Rebecca, I loved your post! Your writing style is excellent, did you know? Your metaphors are witty and poignant and really help the reader understand. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 31, 2010 0:00:20 GMT -5
I really enjoyed the opening post. I've been working on my next essay, identifying "hierarchy and control" as it applies to QF, and this is an aspect I think I need to include-- that some husbands feel as controlled as their wives do, only for different reasons.
I think about how my parents must have felt when I entered the Maranatha cult. They really only had a few choices, since I was bound and determined to join. They could forbid me to join-- and would probably have lost me entirely for a good number of years. They could express their concern but let me have my own way in the hopes of keeping some relationship with me-- which is what they did. Or they could have joined the cult themselves, which would have been unthinkable for them.
But I was in college and no longer living with them. How much more difficult, then, are the choices of a spouse! Brad could have exercised his "Christian male authority" and forbid his wife to join Quiverfull-- but such an idea was abhorrent to him, and would have seriously damaged the marriage. He could have let her have her own way but tried to refuse to have anything to do with it himself-- but how do you approach a spouse who won't have sex with you if you use a condom? Brad wasn't going to force her, so it was either go along with her ideas, or forget sex. So unless he wanted a sexless marriage, the idea of refusing to have anything to do with QF was out. There were probably other areas like this as well, where choosing to have nothing to do with it was far more problematic than it might appear.
His other option was to join the movement which is what he chose-- but definitely under coercion. He was caught between a rock, a hard place, and a brick wall. This is not to say he is not responsible for his own choices, but I have a great deal of compassion for the kind of choices he was being forced to make.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 30, 2010 23:50:18 GMT -5
Actually, an interesting thing I've noticed--because of my DH's background I know a lot of people who grew up within this culture (some still practicing, some not) and the overwhelming thing I've noticed is drug and alcohol abuse being really really common. I was actually quite shocked when we first met that so many people in his family and that he'd grown up with had been at one time or another had serious substance abuse problems and I've seen this in other families as well. Is this fairly common, or is mine just a unique experience? I've noticed this as well. I wonder if there is any statistical data to back it up? I think QF often attracts addictive personalities into its dysfuctional ways of living. It's no surprise that the children of these homes exhibit addictive behaviors of their own.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 28, 2010 0:42:42 GMT -5
My little boy is better now-- thanks for the good wishes!-- though he'll have to stay on antibiotics for a while. I really appreciate all the input on this thread. The details about Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood are very interesting indeed. I knew some of this, but not in this much detail. I still don't have time to go into specifics on Seekingtruth's arguments point by point tonight-- but I did want to ask one thing. I thought I made it very clear in my FAQ why I thought the Onan passage was not about birth control being a sin-- and I specifically compared it to the passage in Deuteronomy she uses in defense, and explained why the Deuteronomy passage does NOT show that Onan's sin had to have been "wasting his seed." Was I just not clear enough? Did other people also not get the point I was making about Onan? Do I need to reword it so that my point comes across better? Because it seemed odd to me that Seekingtruth raised a point I thought I had already addressed, as if I had not addressed it. Seekingtruth, I'd appreciate your input on this, too. Was my point not clear-- or did you just disagree with it, and if so, why? Thanks in advance for your help.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 25, 2010 23:44:31 GMT -5
I would like to reply to some of the points raised by Seekingtruth-- but tonight I got kind of derailed by discovering that my younger kid was sick enough to need to go to immediate care, and there having him diagnosed with strep throat. And then it took me an hour at the pharmacy to get his prescriptions filled, and then a delicate balancing act to get them all down him without triggering his nausea. . .
I hope to have some time soon to get back to this. In the meantime, thanks to all of you for your comments!
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 25, 2010 11:54:50 GMT -5
Personally, i think it's generally divisive and rude to talk about the Christian God as if he exists...but I'm definitely in the minority on that, and it's not in the rules here. On the other hand, it is definitely rude to talk about "Christians" as if only fundamentalist and evangelical Christians are the only ones, and I'm pretty sure we have a consensus against that. I think that in any group where a particular point is in dispute, it's rude to present your own position on that point as if it were not in dispute. In a forum where both atheists and theists are members, that would make it rude to talk about God (the Christian understanding of God or otherwise) as if he existed, and also rude to talk about the non-existence of God as if that were established fact. On a theist-only or atheist-only forum, this would be different. The rudeness has to do with ignoring the lack of consensus, as if those who disagreed with you were not present in the discussion. As far as making blanket statements about largely disparate groups-- that's rude in any context, I think.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 24, 2010 22:38:59 GMT -5
being a non-Christian, i have studied the Bible religiously [pun intended] and have come to the same conclusions. but whenever i pointed them out to people, i was told i was wrong, that only a "True Christian" can read the Bible and correctly "interpret" it's meaning. and when i asked about *that* - because i'm told that the Bible is the "true, inerrant and exact word of God", i'm told i just DON'T UNDERSTAND. sigh. so, thank you! it's A) good to know that i was right [so far as that goes] and B) have a source i can point to! i hope i can get through to a few people Oh, my word, Denelian. I'm not sure how much of an impression my FAQ will make, since people who believe like this tend to use a completely different principle of interpretation (however it reads to them, without any reference to culture, history or context, is the "true" meaning). Frankly, your friend is more likely to question whether I'm a true Christian than whether her reading is correct-- but if she is open at all to the method I use, the "Quiverfull and the Bible" FAQ linked to in that post would be a good introduction to more logical, consistent interpretation principles. But even if she isn't open to that, here's a passage that even she will have trouble getting around: Luke 4:9-12. "And he [the devil] set him [Jesus] on the pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, 'If thou be the son of God, cast thyself down from hence, for it is written, He shall give His angels charge over thee. . .' And Jesus answering said unto him, 'It is said, thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.'" The "plain sense" crowd and I should be in agreement on this-- the Bible says not to foolishly expose yourself to risk of death, as if God somehow owes you a divine intervention. Your friend should pray for a miracle that changes her condition, not try to force God to give her a miracle by risking her life. I hope that helps. It's very worrisome, when someone takes a position like your friend has taken. Edited to add: Oh! And thanks, everyone, for your nice comments! ;D
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 23, 2010 23:18:04 GMT -5
Thanks, Ex-Adriel. I think you're a sweetheart.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 23, 2010 17:25:46 GMT -5
I'm not sure why there has to be a controversy on whether something is disrespectful/offensive or not. If someone finds it so, isn't that enough? I have been feeling like I'm being told, "You are overreacting, you shouldn't feel that way," which has been triggering me, to be honest. I used to be told quite a bit that I shouldn't/had no right to feel certain ways. . .
I'm not angry at anyone or anything, and I know no one meant anything by it-- but I did want to express myself on this. (Though I've also been kind of scared to speak up, but feel I need to, as part of my own healing process.)
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 20, 2010 15:56:09 GMT -5
Coleslaw, I didn't think you'd take the question as directed to you, since clearly we've been talking all along about what Angelia said.
What she DID say was that the God "El" was the god of "Christianity," that Vyckie should renounce "Christianity" as being the religion of this god "El," and that the "sheep" in the fold of Christianity were bleating "whatever it takes" in agreement with the "jealous" nature of this god "El." She very definitely identified the group she was talking about as "Christianity," with which I identify. I was not just reading things into her words, when I found her post offensive.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 20, 2010 14:28:13 GMT -5
That sounds like a good approach, Coleslaw-- so I'll ask:
What specifically have I done in my life that shows any endorsement of death or harm (or threat of death or harm) to children or families, as a way to coerce people back into Christianity? What specifically have I ever done or said that even indicates a desire that anyone who has left Christianity, be coerced back into it?
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 20, 2010 12:48:33 GMT -5
Coleslaw, as you know, there are a lot of Christians who believe atheism means having no morals. I'm sure you don't enjoy it, that they believe that-- or what such a belief says about you, as a person. Such a belief doesn't say anything about me as a person. BTW, technically I'm still a Methodist. So I really do have no morals. Ok. But if someone were to say that about atheism, here and now on this forum-- would you be bothered at all? Would you speak up in protest? If you wouldn't, then I guess that's just something we don't have in common. ;D (Doctrinally, I'm a Methodist, though "technically" I'm Independent Christian-- so we do sort of have at least that name that in common. )
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 19, 2010 19:00:57 GMT -5
I remember a few months back, a person came to this forum and spent a lot of time talking about "what atheists believe" about the origins of the universe and a number of other topics. A good many atheists found it "not fun" -- as in offensive-- to be told what atheism, and those philosophical systems containing atheism, were supposed to be all about, regardless of what they themselves thought about the matter. What I am expressing now is neither more nor less than was expressed then. I don't think Angelia was trying to tell you what Christians believe. I think she was talking about what she believes. I can understand your being offended if someone says that as a Christian you believe that God will kill your children if you offend God. I think what Angelia was saying is that as a pagan she sees El as a vengeful, jealous God, not that she thinks you do. Coleslaw, as you know, there are a lot of Christians who believe atheism means having no morals. I'm sure you don't enjoy it, that they believe that-- or what such a belief says about you, as a person. I'm sure it bothers pagans when people think paganism is about worshiping demons, drinking the blood of owls, dancing naked under the full moon, and sticking pins in dolls representing your enemies. Angelina, you seemed to me to be saying two things about me as a Christian-- that I worship a god who kills children (knowingly or otherwise-- one of which reflects very poorly on my character and the other on my intelligence), and that I was bleating "whatever it takes" to that god, about Vyckie and her children. In the friendliest way that I can, I'm trying to say that this did (I hope quite understandably!) bother me, and that I strongly feel this is a misrepresentation of Christianity, and consequently of me. I have walked my own hard journey out of coercive, ugly religious beliefs. I want to be believed, that I have indeed come out of them, and not be tarred with that brush all over again.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 19, 2010 17:30:53 GMT -5
Thank you, Sierra. Yes, I was pretty sure it was pagan, Jemand, but I was still pretty floored by it. Though I do think that the version of God as presented by coercive, fundamentalist cults like The Message is an evil, twisted version, it's not fun to have someone say that the religion I practice is no different. What does fun have to do with it? I can think of a lot of things that are not fun that are also good - root canals, balancing my checkbook, mammograms, long plane rides to get to someplace that is fun being a few examples. I'm not saying Angela's post fits in this category, but describing her post as "not fun" is irrelevant to its truth or falsehood, or usefulness or uselessness. I don't see what the problem with Angela's post is, myself. I don't agree with her, but my not agreeing with a post isn't the measure of whether it should have been posted. It's interesting to me to see how her religion views El, the Canaanite god. I see Angela's post as being similar to other posters' recommendations for herbal remedies. I'm not going to take the advice, but I'm not going to take offense at it, either. I remember a few months back, a person came to this forum and spent a lot of time talking about "what atheists believe" about the origins of the universe and a number of other topics. A good many atheists found it "not fun" -- as in offensive-- to be told what atheism, and those philosophical systems containing atheism, were supposed to be all about, regardless of what they themselves thought about the matter. What I am expressing now is neither more nor less than was expressed then.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 19, 2010 15:39:52 GMT -5
Thank you, Sierra. I'm pretty sure that's pagan, kr. Yes, I was pretty sure it was pagan, Jemand, but I was still pretty floored by it. Though I do think that the version of God as presented by coercive, fundamentalist cults like The Message is an evil, twisted version, it's not fun to have someone say that the religion I practice is no different. I wasn't aware that some forms of paganism present all of Christianity in this light. It makes me sort of understand how a Muslim might feel when Christians insist that Islam is a religion of terrorism. It's hard to have someone tell you what your beliefs are and have them bear no resemblance to what you actually believe. It upsets me, but I still want to respond without judgment towards Angelina, as best I can, because I don't fully know where she's coming from, and I do know how much pain the malpractice of my faith has caused and continues to cause.
|
|