|
Post by whiteclover on Oct 20, 2010 16:54:32 GMT -5
No, you're not alone.
I've been adverse to calling myself a "Christian" for a few years . . . partly because of not wanting to be associated with narrow-minded judgmentalism, but also because it has SO many meanings worldwide that it's been rendered meaningless.
The "Christians" in my world are highly offended. I'm sure it's the unpardonable sin, as they see my view as denying Christ Himself.
|
|
|
Post by whiteclover on Oct 7, 2010 11:33:20 GMT -5
Even more shocking, that believing it WAS my responsibility was called, "co-dependancy." I was so frustrated! The Christian marriage books had literally TAUGHT me to be codependent! It was such a freeing thing to be able to let my husband be angry and in pain (over the absolute disaster he had caused with his addiction and mental issues) and NOT feel like it was my fault, or my job to clean it up. It is so amazing to read these kinds of posts here and discover this same phenomenon was happening to women everywhere. I love reading about it, too, but I don't know if "love" is the right word. Certainly relief and validation to finally know it was not my rebellious and heretical thinking, it was REALLY happening and it was REALLY wrong. Did your husband really get angry and pained after creating a disaster? My ex-husband would simply detach from whatever catastrophe, large or small, he'd caused and blame-shift, usually on me. Didn't matter what it was: the weather, his employment, his disability, somehow I was responsible for every crisis. The day after my ex-husband left me, I went to the police station to report him as a missing person, that possibly he'd met with harm after stomping out of the church with a vagrant the night before. And I raced home to "make up" and "console" him when he answered the home phone when I did a last minute check to see if he'd turned up. (He was gone by the time I arrived; his clothes and personal effects were gone.) "I" made him sin . . . I caused his hoarding . . . I wouldn't take him to town so it was MY fault he didn't buy me Christmas presents for years . . . and I did the divorce, the paperwork and paying for it, because "divorce was a sin" and he never sinned.
|
|
|
Post by whiteclover on Oct 5, 2010 17:45:45 GMT -5
An E-Free church was that weird? I heard it from Gothard people, that white flour will kill you. I thought E-Free was pretty mainstream. Live and learn. Ah, but "this" E-Free church subscribed to Gothard's teaching and were wholly into it. Justflyingin, I'm not sure where exactly they got their info from re: companies and brands. Word of mouth, maybe, from sources elsewhere who were "in the know" and therefore they took as Gospel truth? Some of it was silly . . . like the little moon symbol on Tide, so they were owned by the Moonies . . . and Safeway was owned by a specific 'cult' . . . and one of the local convenience stores sold Hustler so we couldn't buy our gas there. One of our elder's sons actually worked at one of these companies. It was considered unconscionable. I asked "the powers that be," how then are we to remain untouched by the world? Following their own logic, I challenged them not to shop at the local grocery store because it sold Lysol and vanilla, cheaper substitutes for alcohol. I challenged them to return their (generous) income tax refunds to the gov't because it was funds received through alcohol sales and taxes. (Our liquor stores are gov't regulated.) It fell on deaf ears, because that's . . . well . . . different, somehow.
|
|
|
Post by whiteclover on Oct 5, 2010 12:29:24 GMT -5
Were you hearing this at church or at Home school conventions? I guess I've only been to one but I think it was just a Christian ed convention. Of course, this was 20 years ago. I've never been to a home school convention. If it was at church, what kind of church was it (exactly)...Sovereign Grace, Baptist, Pentecostal, Bible, etc.? At church, and more specifically at ladies' Bible studies. Sometimes, there'd be little "notices" on the bulletin board telling us of the subversive and wicked activities of certain companies and that we should boycott those brands and even avoid certain stores and businesses altogether. It was an Evangelical Free church. I've never been to a homeschool convention, either, even though I homeschooled for 22 years. I have belonged to several homeschool forums, though, and were often "advised."
|
|
|
Post by whiteclover on Oct 4, 2010 11:35:18 GMT -5
EXCELLENT article!
Re: white bread and its affiliate crimes and laws.
I remember going to visit one of the deacon's wives. In the process of making us a cup tea (probably chamomile, bulk, from a "co-op"), she opened a cupboard to reveal shelves filled with canned vegetables and fruit, soup, ravioli, and Spagettios!
I was shocked and horrified. All poison. All from companies owned by satan worshippers and cults.
Where was her garden? Her jars of home-canned beans, tomatoes, and apples?
I thought, well, she is young . . . and not quite godly yet.
But a DEACON'S WIFE? Why hadn't someone informed her of the standard holy wives were to maintain? I felt so betrayed.
Re: doctors and illnesses.
Symptoms were NOT real. The more you dwelled on the pain, the fever, and the vomiting, the more you were relenting to the "spirit of death." Do not speak of your illness. Do not go to the doctor because doctors were "speakers of death" and would only reinforce the "deceptive" symptoms by telling you what your ailment was and offering a bogus treatment to make money for himself and the companies from which he was getting a kickback.
Any illness or injury MUST be denied and "walked off." Pray. And the woman was ultimately responsible for the "illnesses" in her brood, including the husband, for not praying enough, or not praying in tongues, and for acknowledging the illness.
To add to the list . . .
Finally able to . . .
Go to the hair salon and get a decent hair cut and even a little colour.
"Letting" myself be sick . . . and taking care of myself in the event . . . with a little sleep, a tablet or two from the doctor, and some (canned) chicken soup.
Care for and enjoy my home, even doing a little home decorating, without being judged as materialistic.
Buy potatoes
Grow flowers. LOTS of flowers.
|
|
|
Post by whiteclover on Oct 1, 2010 13:01:12 GMT -5
I wouldn't think it's at all like the concept of nirvana at all either. Isn't nirvana the heavenly state acquired through a total detachment from all things worldly that brings a peace in and of itself?
Interesting that the "Christian" doctrine of "dying to self" almost imitates a "heathen" concept.
I wish I still had the "bilge," as Tess called it, so I could document with direct quotes. "Dying to self" was such a biggie, but I also wonder if it wasn't part of the arsenal to ensure silence, lack of discernment, and robotic following. If you've been denied the ability to feel or express pain, and to suppress it when you do, you can't recognize injustice or abuse, and consequently don't speak up for fear of being rebuked for dissension. If you don't bring up the fact that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, no one else will notice the deception and manipulation.
|
|
|
Post by whiteclover on Oct 1, 2010 10:52:33 GMT -5
Tess, you described my life to a "t."
Happiness was not an option.
The ultimate goal was joy, and joy was "within," and to be totally separate from sinful and wicked happiness, which was delight in the world and its trappings. If you displayed any frivolous, spontaneous emotion, and if you ACTUALLY felt it, something was desperately wrong in your heart. Smiling was fine, especially in the context of tragedy or injury or loss, as it indicated a heart totally settled in God, not on any temporal, physical events. Pain was denied.
And "dying to self" was the ultimate goal.
No feelings, no needs, no wants, no goals, no visions. Just trying to arrive at a place of "deadness," where nothing hurt anymore and there was no more disappointment. And plenty of guilt and "self-flagellation" when you failed.
|
|
|
Post by whiteclover on Sept 27, 2010 12:21:26 GMT -5
I am a product of sheltering and isolation.
I was not allowed to date and the only male standard I had was my controlling, abusive father.
I went to Bible college at age 18. I met a boy. I married the boy. I divorced "the boy" 32 years later.
But he was a "good boy," right? I met him at Bible college, he was a "Christian," and his whole family were "Christians." It was a dream-come-true for a desperate-to-be-a-mom-and-wife.
I had NO social skills, no powers of discernment, no teaching except "thou shalt not think."
At the age of 50, I met a man. And promptly went through all the teenage angst of waiting for phone calls, getting dressed up, and learning to be myself, whoever that was, after 50 years of being under someone's oppressive thumb.
I could have saved myself 32 years of agony with even a thimbleful of "exposure to the world."
|
|
|
Post by whiteclover on Sept 27, 2010 11:03:52 GMT -5
What "a beautiful road it is," indeed.
My homeschooling journey is very similar, except that it spanned 22 years and finally ended with a thud.
Any questions I posed were met with rebuke and reprimands to renounce my heretical beliefs and yes, if you didn't believe in literal 24/7 creationism, you were well on your way to hell, taking your poor defenseless children with you.
The mothers in my homeschool group were also clique-ish and judgmental, dividing themselves into groups depending on their level of "righteousness" and based on their denominations and curriculum. Most distressing to me was the way they ALL dissed the "leader," a "non-believer" who was homeschooling because of medical issues with her daughter.
She planned every meeting by herself, arranged every field trip. With no thanks. And no help. None of the moms were allowed to "partner" with an unbeliever, especially one who occasionally said the S word.
For years, she was my best friend.
That experience was one of many that showed me "the way out."
PS. Here, too, about the cheese. And boughten bread, Campbell's soup, and Tide detergent.
|
|
|
Post by whiteclover on Sept 25, 2010 10:39:23 GMT -5
] Whiteclover, that raises another question. How could a "beef heifer" be a "good mammy to her calves"? She won't have any calves, will she? Doesn't "beef heifer" mean she'll be killed before she has a chance to breed? Or is this my ignorance showing? I think Branham was using "beef" as an expression - albeit perhaps an ignorant one - to say that the heifer looked like "good stock," or that she had lots of meat on her bones because she was docile and wouldn't run around and lose weight. Yes, it's doubtful that this conversation with "Jeff the rancher" ever happened, or happened as Branham told it. But I think we can all agree that what's really disgusting is not Branham's ignorance of cattle ranching, but the fact that he was advising young men to seek out a woman to marry as though they were buying livestock. Some heifers are replacement heifers, indeed to become breeding stock for "making more beef." But eventually, after they've served their purpose become "kill cows" or "canner cows." My RancherMan had a chuckle over this. NO heifer would submit to such treatment, unless she was a dairy cow or had (his words) been messed with. In other words, been handled a fair bit. In actuality, for range cows to BE good mothers, they need a little bit of "wild eye." Or else, they'll just stand back and let their babies be taken by wolves or bears with nary a twitch. No fight. No resistance. Branham's ignorance is still a problem to me, as so many of these slick speakers know nothing about which they speak and hope their rapt audience is as ignorant as they are as they make comparisons and analogies that are untrue and make NO sense in real life. They capitalize on the "visual" so their hearers will think, "Ah, that's SO true." Subtly, they are sold the principle of having a docile (non-thinking and weak-willed) and dumb (silent) wife that will produce many offspring. No one questions the validity of the speaker. And, yeah, what Sierra said.
|
|
|
Post by whiteclover on Sept 24, 2010 13:26:47 GMT -5
Quote from the article.
And I noticed the old fellow always looking right in the face of a heifer before he went to bidding. Then he turned her head and looked back and forth. I followed him along and watched him, and he looked her up and down. And if she looked all right in statue, then he’d turn and look her in the face, and sometime he’d shake his head and walk away. . .
“I don’t care how she’s made up; she might be beef plumb to the hoof; but if she’s got that wild stare in her face, don’t you never buy her.”
This has been bothering me since I read it.
I live on a 30 000 acre ranch. We have upwards of 2000 heifers. Beef heifers.
If you can get close enough to ANY of these bovines to "turn her head" and "look back and forth," you are WAY too close to her and will find yourself on the receiving end of a hostile kick. Or else she's been sedated. Or she's dead.
They ALL have that WILD stare in their eyes.
So, unless "Jeff the Rancher" is buying 4-H heifers that have been halter-broke, it ain't gonna happen.
Just lacks authenticity. From my neck of the woods.
|
|
|
Post by whiteclover on Sept 23, 2010 10:17:41 GMT -5
Was it not possible that you just came in a bit later? Of course, at the risk of its being said that you deliberately came in later to avoid those holy front rows.
|
|
|
Post by whiteclover on Sept 23, 2010 9:19:40 GMT -5
I was looking at some of the pics on that website and YIKES! Bad memories! The front rows were always reserved for the holy rollers, it seems, even in the groups you were in. We were taught, at one point, that ONLY the front couple of rows were "anointed." If you didn't choose to sit there, you were faithless, disobedient, quenching the Holy Spirit, or harbouring a "spirit of fear."
|
|
|
Post by whiteclover on Sept 23, 2010 9:13:08 GMT -5
I recognize Father Denton, as well. He's been a part of my life for over 50 years, albeit in different forms with different names: pastors, elders, "special speakers", and ex-husband.
It's one thing I noticed immediately in my New Life, and at the beginning, I was both disconcerted and amazed. Was this how men on the "outside" behaved, looking me in the eye, smiling, and nodding in agreement at my contributions to conversations? Treating me with respect, not condescension or ignoring me altogether?
I could hear the naysayers from my Old Life saying I was a Jezebel, and these men could only be worldly and intent on one thing. Their integrity, kindness, and respect was merely a front to hide the wicked purposes in their hearts.
At first, I thought I'd "be in trouble" after these visits with my new man's friends, family, and peers, for opening my mouth when I hadn't been invited to speak. I'd cringe in the truck or the bathroom, waiting for the boom to fall. But he reassured me that his friends are well-mannered and NORMAL people, and I am a person worthy of respect. Was that so strange, he'd ask.
Um. Yes.
|
|