Friday, March 27, 2009
Arietty said...
My comments on Abortion:
Annie C. said "at a minimum, having a child would have meant losing all support, emotional and physical." It is not usually the pregnant woman who is anti-child it's a society that values a child based on how well the parent can support it without relying on the faceless taxpayer. People get so outraged at the idea that their tax dollars might go towards a teenager buying diapers for her baby via welfare but don't seem to blink at 1 trillion dollars spent on war.
I like reading non-christian pro-life material because it seems to focus more on the value of each human being and less on screaming murder. If anyone is interested here's a few:
Feminists for Life
www.feministsforlife.org/PLAGAL: Pro-Life Alliance for Gays and Lesbians
prolifegays.blogspot.com/Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
www.godlessprolifers.org/home.htmlPagans for Life
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/8383/Friday, March 27, 2009
taijiya said...
I too have difficulty seeing any automatic progression from contraception to abortion; after all, contraception exists to prevent pregnancy, and preventing pregnancy is the most efficient way of preventing abortion!
(Full disclosure: I am about as far removed from being "pro-life" as is humanly possible. IMO, the circumstances attending an individual's reasons for preventing or terminating a pregnancy are far too intricate for anyone outside the situation to correctly assess.)
BTW, this is my first comment here, though I've been reading for awhile.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Jon said...
Wow! I have not read every post here, but I do find them fascinating. I did find it interesting that of all the comments I have read, they all seem to be from women. How about a man's perspective?
I don't have time right now for everything I'd like to say, so I'll keep it short and simple.
I agree with many of the comments that birth control via condoms or "natural family planning" cannot be synonymous with thwarting the will of God. God will do what He desires and that includes allowing a condom to fail or ovulation to occur at an unpredicted time.
I do have some concerns with the birth control pill, although not an expert, I have read that some pills can cause an implanted, fertilized egg to abort. Although, not wanting to be overly judgemental, that could borderline on a form of self-abortion.
Secondly, one aspect of the fruit of the spirit is self-control (Gal 6), and that includes our sex-life and reproduction. Sex was made for enjoyment and not just reproduction, just as sex was made for reproduction and not just enjoyment. Self-control comes into play when decisions need to be made regarding how sex is going to affect the parties involved. As much as people like to say that once the motors are revved, it's "impossible" to stop, I disagree. Just have one of your kids run into your room just as intercourse is about to commence, and I guarantee, the brakes will get put on, which is why usually we lock the door.
As much as making love should be spontaneous, it should be planned as well. If pregnancy is not desired, then wear a condom, or wait until the fertile time is past. In some ways, just like waiting for the honeymoon night increases the enjoyment (yes, I'm an abstinence till marriage proponent), putting off sex in agreement as a married couple, can add to the enjoyment later. Especially if as the guy, she chooses the moment and time (seduces you). And there is nothing wrong with seduction in a marriage (read the Song of Songs/Solomon).
Even the bible tells us that a married couple can abstain from sex for a specified period of time, albeit it's in the context of prayer and fasting, but the point is there is one example when the bible says abstinence in marriage is appropriate. If it's appropriate then, why not at other times, like when a mother's health is not good?
My wife and I would like to have another child, but she's dealing with some thyroid issues which elevates her heart rate and causes all kinds of other problems. So we are choosing to "put if off" until she is feeling better. We still plan on having sex, but it will be a little more controlled. That also means I have to exhibit self-control over my hormones and drives until she is ready. Unfortunately self-control is one of the first aspects of the fruit of the spirit to disappear and a lack of self-control is probably the biggest contributor to all of societies woes.
Wow, I'm sorry, I'll get off that soap box. This was supposed to be short.
Thirdly, I disagree with lumping together Mary Pride, Nancy Campbell, and the patriarchal movement. I am familiar with each and agree with some of each and disagree with other aspects of each. I do believe that although there are similarities, I think they are each a separate part of the whole, and this is where the problem starts to come to light. Anytime you base your "truth or reality" upon what others have written and their interpretation of Scripture you are in danger of misunderstanding what the bible really says. Your personal study of Scripture guided by the Holy Spirit, and not Nancy Campbell, will lead you to the truth. The bible says that God's Word is truth and that the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Truth who will guide us to the truth. Jesus said He was the way, the TRUTH and the life, and that once we come to know the truth, the truth will set us free!
Unfortunately Christians today have done much of the same things that the Pharisees did in Jesus' day. And boy did Jesus rail against the Pharisees. Like the Pharisees, Christians have taken the True words of God and created barriers around them, because of their fear of violating them. And the more fences you put around the "Law" (that's the term for what the Pharisees were doing), the farther away from the source you get. It's alot like playing the telephone game where you whisper in one person's ear something and they whisper it to the person next to them and by the time the last person repeats what was said to them it is usually totally different than what was originally said. Unfortunately that's what happens in many Christian circles. We become followers of Mary Pride, Nancy Campbell, Michael Pearl, or a host of others out there rather than being a follower of Jesus Christ. Even the apostle Paul said the same thing in Corinthians. "For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?" (I Cor. 3:4).
Now there are gifted people who can explain the Scriptures more clearly than what you or I may understand, but we must pray for discernment and ask God to confirm if that is true or not. There have been many a conference that I have attended, including one by Colin Campbell (Nancy's husband) by the way, that I have just agreed to disagree with some of the premises presented, and yet walked away feeling enriched and encouraged, because there were some good things that I heard and agreed with. I was not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater just because I disagreed with some of the points or doctrine presented.
As I already stated the Holy Spirit will guide us to what is true. The Bible says, "Test EVERYTHING. Hold onto the good. Avoid every kind of evil." (I Thess. 5:21). Even the people at Berea didn't trust what the Apostle Paul himself said at face value. The bible says the people diligently searched the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17:11).
One reason I don't like "movements" whether they be "purity balls", "quiverfull", "feminists for life" or whatever, is because usually they are birthed because someone had an axe to grind. And as a result they promote a certain agenda. Instead of just living the life of a biblical Christian and letting our light shine in whatever sphere God has placed us, we have to "flaunt" a specific point of interest. I find myself having to fight against that all the time. If someone asks me for my opinion or position on a certain issue, I will give it, but very rarely will I "push" my agenda on someone else. If asked I may respond passionately about what I believe, but pray that if I am in the right, then God will convince the other person, and if I am in the wrong, then I will be convinced by the other person. But other than that, I live out my convictions the best that I can with what God has given me.
That's enough for now, and way more than I originally intended to share. I apologize and if you would like to hear my opinion on anything else you can email me at pastor.hayashi@yahoo.com and I'll respond. Or I might respond to another of your posts as I have time to read them.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Anonymous said...
Jon said "If pregnancy is not desired, then wear a condom, or wait until the fertile time is past." Leaving aside the fact that condoms (and the pill) aren't 100% effective, the people who follow that "just wait until the fertile time is past" dictum have another name: parents. I have an aunt and uncle who practice and even teach the rhythm method at their church. They have 8 children.
I know that wasn't the point of your post, but I can't stand to let bad information just sit there uncorrected. Carry on.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Jadehawk said...
How about a man's perspective?
that reminds me: for an example how badly exiting fundie christianity can end, and for a man's perspective on the situation:
allforfreedom.blogspot.com/read it and weep :-(
I do have some concerns with the birth control pill, although not an expert, I have read that some pills can cause an implanted, fertilized egg to abort.
it can't. not even the "morning after pill" can do that! the only pill that can do that is RU 486, which is a completely different animal. however, it is conflated with the first two as part of the anti-birth-control agenda. (since you were also talking about agendas...)
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Anonymous said...
In the old days, back when a condom was the only form of non-abstinence birth control, and frankly back before electricity was everywhere, my great grandmother had 6 kids. Only 6, over the course of 18 years, each roughly 3 years apart. Furthermore, only one died in childhood. How did she manage that? The answer is in the Bible. Abraham's son Isaac was not weaned until he was 3. As breast-feeding advocates will tell you, breast-feeding tends to suppress ovulation. That's the way God designed you. You weren't meant to have a baby a year! You were meant to feed your child at your bosom until they were out of diapers before another child was even a possibility!
And since a "child" was considered an adult by 13, you never had more than 3 or 4 kids around at once. Multiple families were common, so a young mom might well have older women around to help. Older boys were already learning trades, and probably bringing home a small paycheck. This is a far cry from isolated women trying to raise a dozen kids while her husband works his butt off!
Now that being said, I think modern birth control has saved many women's lives, making them able to be mothers and sisters and wives to their families. Furthermore, any poverty expert will tell you that the ability to plan your family is the cornerstone of escaping poverty both here and in less-developed nations. It stands to reason that if you have only so many dollars, you can more easily take care of a few than many!
Birth control is not about only being pregnant at your convenience. It's about respecting that YOU are a life, created by God, just as much as an embryo if not more.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
aimai said...
aimai says:
For people having trouble getting the system to let them log on with a pseudonym just put your "name" at the top and bottom of your comment. It will help the conversation immensely.
As for the pastor who explained to us all that he can pick and choose what he likes from a smorgasboard of religious notions and writings I think he has missed something very pernicious and scary about the stories that he has been reading here. The right to pick and choose and decide which commandments to follow, and how, is offered primarily to men--married men--and not to women. That's the whole point of these women's stories. Their husbands assumed headship and after that all the choosing and thinking and deciding belonged to the husbands. Even if the community as such--the other married women and their husbands and their pastors--thought it was kooky or wrongheaded. This is the entire reason that tiny gestures of independent thought and action are treated by these husbands and by the movement as a kind of "rebellion" or "les majeste" (sorry I can't put the accents in here.) The notion that the husband stands in place of god and king is a very old one and it is the reason why rebellion against king and husband were both forms of *treason.* Rebellion against the husband was actually called "petty treason."
I, too, would like to hear from men who have left the movement but I'm not all that interested in hearing from a guy who simply doesn't get the basic facts at issue: no man is a god to his family and no man should ever accept that job, even a little bit. Its a very quick road to abuse and idolatry.
aimai
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Erika Martin - Stampin' Mama said...
It's always boggled my mind that the conservative group thinks that birth control is trying to take control of God's planning of your family.
Do they really think He's fully in control of everything BUT that???
If they think God is so in control of everything, then why do they think that's the one area that God has no control over? Surely, you'd think they would understand that if God really wanted them to get pregnant, that no amount of condoms, IUDs, pills, etc. could stand in His way. But for some reason, they forget this part.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Anonymous said...
Grandma here...
Just felt I had to share this little story, and a few thoughts...since we are doing some serious thinking here:
Even in the secular world this male dominance thing is strong and 'regusting'.
Just look at women's magazines...we are told how to lose weight, look attractive for our men, be sexy, build up his ego (like he doesn't have enough) cook all his favorite foods, keep a perfectly neat and orderly house (with no outside help). All this while he generally slouches around in his off time and gets fat and lazy..."Honey, bring me a brewski..." and controls the TV...which is usually on 24/7 to sports or some such drivel.
Remember Archie Bunker, and Edith? If you are too young to remember them, here's a short synopsis: He's a bigot with a beer almost always in his hand, spouting forth all sorts of political BS, in his undershirt in front of the TV, always yelling something at Edith, his spouse, who is portrayed as a total nincompoop, who always has an apron on, always fawning over him, rushing wildly to wait on him hand and foot...GAG ME! And so, to lighten this up a bit, I humbly submit this joke:
Three American Indian men (Mostly matriarchal in their societies), all recently married, met in a neighorhood bar on the rez and had a few beers together.
They began to talk about their wives...
"I told my wife the first week we got married that it was going to be up to her to do all the cooking, because I am lost in the kitchen. The first week I didn't see any changes, but the second week she really began turning out some good grub. Now she's a fine cook!"
The second man answered..."Yeah, that's good. Pretty much what happened at our house...I told the wife she was going to have to do all the cooking and cleaning. No change, then all at once, it all improved."
The third man then replied...
"I told my wife she was going to have to do all the cooking, the cleaning, the shopping, the yard work, all of it. The first week I didn't see anything different. The second week, no change. By the third week, I could see a little out of my left eye!"
Saturday, March 28, 2009
EK said...
Just so, Grandma! Your post carries lots of wisdom.
When (secular) feminists look at Christian patriarchy and compare it to the (secular) patriarchy they despise and have worked against for so many long years....they have the clear vision to see that these two patriarchies are indeed part and parcel of each other.
Those of us who are/were inside American fundamentalism have been raised to believe there's a difference between the two patriarchies because one is purely for the benefit of men (worldly) and the other is ostensibly of and for God.
But having read much more deeply into the Scriptures (and read many balanced books on all sides of the issue), I now believe (as I believe Molly/Adventures in Mercy might) that there is no such thing as (New Testament) Biblical Patriarchy, and that the only reason cisolated verses have been construed to give men "leadership," "headship," and "authority" over women is that centuries of male theologians and pastors have a vested interest in so construing them!
The "Biblical" patriarchy is revealed to be just as self-serving and carnal as the non-Christian patriarchies of the past 5,000 years!
Now I just laugh when Christian fundamentalists rail against the big, bad feminists and say feminists are responsible for "The Breakdown of the Family," the Girls Gone Wild party and hookup culture, and all other ills.
Pardon my French, but to that I say: NOT BLOODY LIKELY!
Many feminists recoil at the exploitative, male-dominated secular culture that tries to push women into objectified sexual roles meant for male pleasure. Many feminists speak out against pornography and prostitution. Almost every major feminist school of thought of which I'm aware DESPISES (rightly) those awful women's magazines you mention. And, many feminists are doing the good works (which I believe Jesus would heartily endorse, based on his actions AND teachings) of helping the poor, the voiceless, the downtrodden, the sick. Now, anytime a woman (or man who claims to be Christian) swears off feminism, I look at them curiously and say, "Really? Why on earth would you admit to not wanting equal human rights for half the world's people?"
By the way, your joke gave me a good chuckle (although disclaimer: I don't condone violence against men anymore than I do that against women!)
Keep on posting.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Anonymous said...
I'm sorry, I haven't read all the comments so I may be repeating things that have already been said, but two things :
- First, women make something like 400 eggs throughout their lives. Given that, if you consider even abstinence to be anti-life, what's the difference between having 18 children or having 2 ? That's still over 300 eggs that died unfertilized.
And that doesn't get into the billions of sperm cells men make during their lives. If God intended them all to fertilize an egg, well... How does that even work ? See number of eggs per woman's life above.
And you know how cloning is theoretically possible, maybe practically so within a hundred years. At that point any cell would become a potential baby. Should those babies also be born, in an ideal world ?
- And second, I remember being surprised when you talked about your childbirth problems in another post, you said that God had left you an uterus so he wanted you to have children... But God HADN'T left you a uterus ! A doctor had to fix it so you didn't lose it ! Sure, maybe God was working through the doctor's hands when he healed you, but then... wasn't he speaking through the doctor's mouth when he told you not to have any more children ?
- Third (yes, I said two things, my mistake) : life is wonderful, but too much life destroys life. See : cricket swarms. Algae that fill up lakes and suffocate the fish. Cancer.
You need balance.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Morgan said...
As an anthropologist I study different ways of human life. We know now that, prior to the invention of farming, women had much fewer children. In those days (in general, I'm simplyfing) a woman would gather food during the day, often carrying a baby in a sling. The excercize from not having a car and being mobile would lower her percentage of body fat, as would nursing. This would make her less fertile. And so hunter-gatherers have fewer children than farmers or 'modern' people who don't use birth control. Basically, our bodies were never intended to bear 8 or 10 children: that's why it's so exhausting and damaging. Using some kind of birth control is going back to the number of children we can easily raise and bear.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
aimai said...
Hi morgan,
I'm an anthropologist too! Gives us a different perspective, I think, both on the biology and the sociology of religion!
aimai
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Anonymous said...
Wow, the comments made here make for some interesting reading! As for birth control leading to abortion, isn't that kind of an oxymoron? Birth control logically would lead to less babies being conceived, which would lead to less abortions. I am a Christian, and I actually wish birth control would be used more, if it lead to less abortions.
As someone before me said, women ovulate about 400 times, and it would be impossible to make babies with them all! For one thing, some have lethal genes in them and so would end up naturally miscarrying; and to have the others, the total time of the pregnancies would last beyond the lifetime of the woman. She would have to have a lifespan of 200-300 years if she started having babies as soon she was out her own mother's womb.
Also, I don't find the QFs ideas of making 'arrows' anywhere in the Bible. Its just not there. So I think the QF movment is reading stuff into the Bible, and taking stuff out of context. There are many pro-women verses that they need to acknowlege, and the verse that says "believers are to submit to each other."
I am sorry that the QF movement gave you a messed up idea of Christianity.
Real Christianity is far from that, it is freeing.
The QF's ideology is flawed; one cannot 'make arrows' for God, to become God's is a choice that must be made by each and every person, on their own. Christians cannot be 'mass produced," they are made by a choice and repentence.
One last thing, did you know that there are Christians called egalitarian Christians? They believe in mutual submission in marriage and that the wife has every say in the marriage as much as the man. They acknowledge males and females being fully equal in the kingdom of God, based on what the Bible says.
Lydia
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Jennifer said...
I have a hard time even wrapping my head around the idea that using ANY birth control is somehow part of an abortion mentality. There's at least a bit more logic to the argument I've heard from pro-lifers against the Pill: that it is an "abortionate" method of birth control because while its main function is to suppress ovulation, it also has the back-up function of preventing implantation if an egg should somehow manage to sneak by and get fertilized. So a woman on the Pill is taking the risk that she will "kill" a fertilized egg. By this logic, however, it seems to me that pro-lifers should refrain from driving cars: if you drive a car, there's always a chance that no matter how careful you are, a child could run out in front of your car and be killed. If the Pill is an abortionate form of birth control, then the automobile is a murderous form of transportation.
I heard that argument about the Pill way back when on some talk show in the late 80s or early 90s (Oprah? Donahue?); the guest was a rabid fundamentalist pro-lifer, Randy someone. Even back then, long before I (or most people?) had heard of QF, I thought that there had to be a hidden agenda: ban the most effective form of birth control, and you're going a good way towards tying sex to reproduction and women to the home.
I was able to free myself from the "all abortion is murder" mentality I was raised with (mainstream evangelical) when I came across Exodus 21:22 which says that if a man injures a pregnant woman so that she miscarries but she herself is OK, then he has to pay a fine, but if the woman dies, then he is put to death. That seemed to me clear-cut proof that God did not consider a fetus a full human life. When I later came across a special fundamentalist-oriented version of the Bible that rendered the first part of this verse as "he injures a pregnant woman but both mother and baby are fine," it just confirmed it for me: the fundamentalist camp was trying to cover up the fact that the only place in the Bible which talks about the value of fetal life actually says it's worth less than a woman's life. If the Bible doesn't agree with the ideology . . . they change the Bible.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Jadehawk said...
bah! please please stop spreading the rumor that the pill can prevent implantation! the pill makes your body think you're pregnant, so that it doesn't ovulate. that means that if somehow an egg would get produced anyway, it would end up in an uterus all set up for pregnancy, not one that can't receive an egg! that's why you still have a period even when on the pill: during the week that you don't take a pill/take a placebo, your body is discarding the uterine layer that was there because your body thought there was an egg growing in it! (if there IS an egg growing in it, then the amount of hormone released naturally because of that would prevent the layer from shedding, so that the egg wouldn't get expelled with the layer).
Sunday, March 29, 2009
an atheist in the bible belt said...
I think it's interesting that some have mentioned being Christians and while believing in a more egalitarian marriage structure.
How would these people explain this verse?
Ephesians 5:22- 24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the HEAD OF THE WIFE as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in EVERYTHING.
The gender difference in these verses and elsewhere is not ambiguous. You can't read that and say that it actually means that believers are supposed to submit to one another without regard to gender. You can say that you choose to overlook some parts of the Bible or that gender will possibly be unimportant in heaven, but you certainly can't say that the Bible calls for equality in daily living.
I think that telling an abused woman to stick it out in hopes that God will work in her husband's heart as long as she continues to submit is dangerous and repressive. I also think that it is clear that the Bible expects such behavior.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Arietty said...
"an atheist in the bible belt" I quite agree with you. I've long said that trying to make the bible be about gender equality or an egalitarian marriage requires much contortion and squashing of verses. I know people can't bring themselves to say "the bad stuff is there because of the culture of the day". It is a big fear to actually say that the bible might not be the Divine Word of God because once you say that all manner of things come into question and you have lost your blueprint for life and God's plans for you. One day I just woke up and realized I no longer saw the bible that way at all. Lydia referred up thread to christianity as being "freeing" and it made me think that I really have never experienced it that way. Exciting, yes. Freeing.. no, not really. Maybe there is something I am missing and I am open to discovering what that is. For the moment however what *was* freeing was no longer having to fit all my questions and beliefs and experiences into the bible blueprint, an endeavor that was becoming increasingly labored. From God-mandated genocide in the old testament to men being the head of women well.. the pressures off. I no longer have to strain shit through muslin and call it sweet.
Just the fact that we have to have a name for what should be normative--"egalitarian marriage" is weird. I understand what christians are up against and why they need to work very hard to call that kind of relationship biblical. Roles in marriage is a given in christian circles, you have "complementarians" who say that men and women are equal but have different roles that compliment each other. In order to actually get rid of the idea that God has specific roles based on gender you have to stop believing the bible.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Vyckie said...
Arietty ~ the same thing happened to me ~ all at once I realized that the bible is no longer "The Word of God" to me ~ and frankly, I don't care what it teaches about men and women and marriage.
Maybe this needs to be a separate post ~ "I've been thinking that the bible really does teach subordination of women ~ not that it matters to me anymore..."
Could be interesting ...
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Charis said...
Jadehawk,
I've looked at drug description which is enclosed with birth control pills. Here is an example for Alesse 28 Tablets click here You will find this right on Page 1 "Clinical Pharmacology" "Mode of Action":
Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the
endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)
One can research the "Mode of Action" for any hormonal birth control. These package insert drug descriptions are readily accessible online.
Monday, March 30, 2009
aimai said...
Arietty,
Fantastic comment. All the comments have been fantastic and thought provoking and I love hearing that Vyckie might consider a spin off post on some new issue raised in comments. My husband, with whom I've been discussing the blog, suggested that maybe Vyckie and her readers might find it interesting (if painful!) for Vyckie to post up some of her published pro-quiverful pieces along with some commentary or reflection on what was actually happening in her life or why she came to reject that particular point of view.
As someone up above said I check the blog a couple of times a day because it is such a powerful exploration of women's experiences generally, and women's experiences in a particular right wing religious community specifically. Even the most difficult and arcane parts of the experience have their parallels in the outside/non christianist world so even at the moment that I'm reading about some experience I've never had, I have to acknowledge that I've seen or had a parallel to it just living as a woman in American society. What I'm trying to say is that you and Laura and your commenters, especially Arietty, Charis, and others who have walked this path, are really doing something incredibly important in not only busting out of your prison but shining a light backwards on the broken bars as a light to your children and to other women.
aimai
Monday, March 30, 2009
Charis said...
Lydia said: "I don't find the QFs ideas of making 'arrows' anywhere in the Bible. Its just not there" ENDQUOTE
The concept of children as arrows and having a "Quiver Full" comes from this passage:
"As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.
Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate." Ps 127:4-5
Monday, March 30, 2009
Charis said...
an atheist in the Bible belt asked:
"I think it's interesting that some have mentioned being Christians and while believing in a more egalitarian marriage structure.
How would these people explain this verse?
Ephesians 5:22- 24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord..." ENDQUOTE
Two points.
1. In Greek, there is no verb in Eph 5:22. So one needs to start reading (at least) with Eph 5:21 "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God, wives to your own husbands... husbands love your wives even as Christ loved" Do you see that "submitting yourselves to one another? That speaks of a mutually submissive attitude between all Christians which is not to stop when they become husband and wife. Paul goes on to flesh out how this submission will look like for husbands and spends many more verses addressing husbands than wives (nourish, cherish, as his own body, sacrificially as Christ loved the church and laid down His life for her, etc).
2. I question whether the passage was ever even intended to describe fleshly marriage? Paul explains in verse 32 that he is using marriage as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and the church. "This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church." The church is referred to as "the bride of Christ", so the male members of the church need to submit to their "husband"=Christ too.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Vyckie said...
Aimai ~ thanks for your very kind and encouraging words. Sometimes I feel pretty hesitant about what we are doing here ~ because I feel like we've taken on something HUGE and I wonder if I'm really up to it!
You and the other regular commenters here make all the difference for me. You all are SO encouraging and it inspires me to keep writing ~ there is really SO MUCH that I want to tell!
I know Laura is encouraged too ~ she's living a nightmare right now ~ and hearing from others who have BTDT and can clearly say, "Good for you ~ you're doing the right thing!" is a real boost to her ability to get through this struggle.
Your husband's idea to share some of my old writings and comment on them from my new perspective is one that I've actually been considering. Angel recently told me that if you Google my married name "Vyckie Bennett" ~ "It's like taking a total tour de crap!"
Maybe that's what I'll call the series: Vyckie's Tour de Crap.
LOL!!
Monday, March 30, 2009
Jennifer said...
Re. the pill and implantation:
Jadehawk, I certainly didn't mean to imply that I AGREE with the logic of those who say the pill causes "abortions"--I think the rest of my post makes that clear. Nor did I think I was spreading a rumour: my information about the pill preventing implantation (as a backup to suppressing ovulation) was something I remembered being told by the very pro-contraception nurses at the public health clinic that set me up with my first free birth-control prescription at 18. It was welcome news, too--I was so petrified of getting pregnant that if I'd thought the pill was any less failsafe, I would have made my poor boyfriend keep wearing two condoms!
Anyway, the point I was trying to make was simply that even IF the pill might prevent the implantation of the extremely rare egg that might get fertilized, anyone who shuns it for that reason should also, to be morally consistent, refuse to take the risk to human life that's posed by driving a car.
Monday, March 30, 2009
an atheist in the Bible belt said...
"Wives should submit to their husbands in everything" is a gender specific statement that is never matched by any statement telling husbands to submit to wives. Instead, husbands are to act like "white knights" to their wives- teaching them (but never vice versa) and protecting them. Some people may consider this loving or self-sacrificing behavior, so that you could put it under the category of submitting to one another, but the tasks given to men are still those of LEADING their wives. That's what my parents did for me when I was a child (and I appreciate that), but I'm not looking for a husband who's going to be another parent to me.
If you feel that one passage is insufficient to show the Bible's view on women, I hope you'll look up the following verses. I know that people will say "there's cultural reasons" or "it was addressing a specific church", but maybe it's excuse making when you find yourself having to justify why passage after passage doesn't really mean what it seems to say.
1 Corinthians 11:2-10
I Corinthians 13:34
Ephesians 5:22-24
1 Timothy 2:11-15
Deuteronomy 22:20-21
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Numbers 5:12-31
Monday, March 30, 2009
Charis said...
an atheist in the Bible belt,
No comment on the Old Testament stuff since we are not bound to keep "the law". Your New Testament verses are a summary of all the "hard passages" about women which have been used oppressively. (typo- 13 should be 14 here- 1 Cor 14:34). They were all written by Paul and even his contemporary- Peter- said that Paul's writings are hard to understand and are sometimes "twisted". Does this ring true about how the verses you listed have been used?
"as also our beloved brother Paul... has written to you as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." 2 Pet 3:15-16
Monday, March 30, 2009
Anonymous said...
Atheist in the Bible Belt-- I think the problem is that there is a fundamentalist way of reading the Bible, that starts from certain presuppositions. Starting from those presuppositions, you get a certain way of reading ALL of the Bible. But there are other ways of understanding the Bible that change the whole way it is read.
Fundamentalists (and atheists, too) usually read the Bible like a "memo from the Boss" which is supposed to read the same way to us ("plain-sense") as it did to the original audience. Read this way, it is not just the truths of the Bible, but the whole cultural context in which the Bible was transmitted, that are supposed to be preserved. If we take our own understandings of what a text means, and without reference to what it meant to the original audience (such as whether it was challenging them to slowly but surely move away from the strict patriarchy or bloody tribalism they had always known), we will, beyond doubt, find the Bible primitive, tribal, patriarchal and bloody.
But the Bible is not a "memo from the Boss," and the cultures in which the Bible was written are not being given divine sanction. We are not supposed to perpetuate the cultures in which the Bible was received, as if they were part of the truths conveyed by the Bible!
With this understanding, research is necessary to ascertain how the Bible would have been understood in the original cultures. God's gradual, redemptive work in each culture thus becomes apparent. God is working in and through human culture, not giving it some sort of blanket approval just because He spoke to people within the assumptions they were making at the time. Understand the assumptions, and you understand where God was trying to lead the people. And it was always, slowly but surely, AWAY from patriarchy and prejudice, and TOWARDS equality, freedom, and compassion.
KR Wordgazer (having to post as anonymous again because I can't figure out how to do otherwise)
Monday, March 30, 2009
lauren said...
I think it's an illogical progression to say that acceptance of birth control leads to acceptance of abortion. The decision to limit the number of children one conceives, versus the decision to end the life of an already-conceived baby in the womb, doesn't seem to be related. Perhaps someone who supports contraception might do so for the same reason they support abortion, but another person might support contraception for precisely the opposite reason: to prevent abortions. It certainly may be true that society was slowly, "eased into" the proliferation of abortion by the widespread use of contraceptives, but that reflects the weak-mindedness of the people who were thus desensitized, not the inherent evil of the original concept.
For the record, I'm a pro-life atheist. I believe that, scientifically, human life begins at conception, not implantation, and that life should be protected from the moment of conception. I see no problem with, and I myself practice, means of birth control which prevent conception. But IUDs or chemical methods such as the Pill can and often do allow conception, only to flush out the newly-conceived embryo before it can implant. For that reason, I find those forms of birth control to be immoral. It has nothing to do with anything religious, but simply with my regard for all human life. Here is a good article on the subject:
l4l.org/library/mythfact.htmlI'll freely admit that I'm not an expert on the topic, and if I found evidence which I believed effectively contradicted the concept that human life is in existence in a zygote prior to implantation, I would certainly be willing to consider it.
Thanks, Arietty, for posting those links - I discovered the Pro Life Atheist & Agnostic League a few months back, and was encouraged to find that there were other, "pagans" like myself who valued unborn human life.
)
Someone said, "the people who follow that "just wait until the fertile time is past" dictum have another name: parents."
When used correctly, natural family planning has a success rate almost identical to that of chemical birth control (over 99%). Just like any maintenance-based contraceptive method, though, its observance has to be precise (likewise, birth control pills' effectiveness drops drastically unless they are taken on an exact schedule). There are great devices out there nowadays for making NFP much easier - my favorite, with which I have personally had great success, is the LadyComp (google it). The fact remains, though, that in rare cases ANY form of birth control, even if used 100% correctly, can fail. And in those cases, I believe that parents much take responsibility for the results of their actions. By choosing to engage in even protected sex, I understand that I am taking the risk, however small, of becoming pregnant. If I found that small risk completely unacceptable, my husband or I (or both of us) would undergo surgery to virtually eliminate the risk.
Erika Martin, you stated, "It's always boggled my mind that the conservative group thinks that birth control is trying to take control of God's planning of your family. Do they really think He's fully in control of everything BUT that???" I would suggest that they are not willing to follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion. Why, if you truly believe in, "getting out of god's way" and letting him perform his will, would you bother to wear seatbelts? Carry insurance? Eat a healthy diet? Avoid playing in traffic? All of those actions potentially thwart god's plan to do good in one's life in spite of that person's negligence, right? I've even known of, "quiverfullers" who believed that the mindset worked both ways - that not only should a couple try to prevent having children, but that they shouldn't actively try to conceive (or overcome obstacles to conception), either.
Anyway, I'm rambling . . . to reiterate, I don't believe that the choice to use contraception (not to be confused with abortifacients commonly classified under that term) has any necessary connection to the abortion mindset. I adore my 4 children, but I do not plan to have any more - and the one statement does not contradict the other. This decision is not only for (but does include) selfish reasons on my part, but for the well-being of my existing children.
Monday, March 30, 2009
an atheist in the Bible belt said...
We may not be bound to keep the law, but by Christian theology, God is immutable. The God of the OT has the same character as the God of the NT. Are you telling me that he has "changed his mind" about the value of women so that the laws of the OT are not reflexive of his character? After all, the law of the lord is perfect.
I'm not sure if you're trying to insult me by equating me with the "untaught and unstable" or if you're telling me that people who use the verses in a misogynistic way are twisting them. Although I know that it is a simplistic argument, it still seems valid to me to point out that it seems odd that God would make the words that he inspired appear to say one thing while meaning the opposite, so that the simplest Christian would take the wrong message from them. Perhaps the medieval Catholic church was right to only give the brightest and most studied the ability to read the Bible?
Please don't assume that I am unlearned in the cultures under Biblical law or at the time of Jesus. I completely disagree with KR Wordgazer that the Bible shows a progression away from patriarchy and prejudice, however, it is a difference of opinion (probably irreconcilable at that) and not because I am Biblically uneducated and insistent on reading everything as if it were for a modern audience. However, I do see a clear difference in "endorsement" between a story about a patriarch with two wives (not saying it's ok for modern Christians to model the same family structure) and a directive to the church that is inspired by God. Why not throw away any commands of God that we can excuse as being "part of the culture"? I mean, you name it and someone else can justify how it was only applicable for a certain situation.
I could get into a lot more detail, but especially considering that both sides have already apparently done a good deal of study on the matter, I think that the salient points have been made and I'd rather focus on Vyckie's and Laura's stories than get into a more thorough debate, at least on their website.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Charis said...
aaBb wondered: "I'm not sure if you're trying to insult me by equating me with the "untaught and unstable" or if you're telling me that people who use the verses in a misogynistic way are twisting them. ENDQUOTE
(Do you mind if I abbreviate your screen-name?)
No insult toward you intended at all! If anything, I am "insulting" myself as I lived in a lifestyle which twisted the verses to my own destruction, and though I'm sure my husband felt powerful in a manic sort of way, it was not healthy for him nor our children either, so those verses were all twisted to our own destruction.
so definitely the second option of your quote above...
and I have to add that I made a decision to trust God's character-to believe that HE loved HIS daughters every bit as much as HIS sons- before I ever found ways to read Paul that are not misogynistic. Finally I learned (I was taught) of His love for me and of His grace and mercy not by preachers, books, and church, but by personal experiences.
Like you, I could not accept that a God of LOVE would make HIS Word inaccessible to all but scholars who can study and understand “historical context”. God’s Word is accessible to common people, not by “man’s wisdom… they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:13-14) If you are interested, I have written about a way of reading Paul which removes the misogyny by reading the passages through a grid of Paul's use of metaphors which have always been and still are accessible to anyone who can read (or hear reading of) the Bible. Apostle Paul is NOT a Male Chauvinist!
Monday, March 30, 2009
jemand said...
lauren, I'm always amazed by the people who think they can set themselves up as the arbiters of all truth. Granted, it's more common in religion but atheists can and do get in the game themselves. You stated that you would be open to new information and might change your view if you were convinced the zygote was not human. However, other women HAVE that view! Their information, their interpretation, their moral values, all are of the opinion that the small risk of slightly reducing implantation chances is morally acceptable, possibly even morally good. However, if you had your way they would not be able to chose that. No. You want control of their bodies, their minds, their opinions. The law must follow YOU, and we must convince YOU in order to have our freedoms. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. My freedom does NOT depend on you. It depends on ME, and MY decisions, and MY choices for my body.
You can take a newborn and raise it yourself, thus it is immoral to kill it. However, that isn't possible prior to birth, thus the freedom of the woman to come to her own values, priorities, moral decisions comes to the forefront. Convince her, yes, but the onus is not on HER to convince YOU to "give" her freedom. I'm all for the work in the previous links that aims to reduce stigma, increase actual choices and make life easier for women with inconvenient pregnancies to keep their children, but at the end of the day it must remain only an offer. Freedom must be preserved.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
LotusGeek said...
So, I'm a REAL rarity on this blog in general, and this topic specifically - an atheist AND a (shudder) MAN!!
But, just before you've fully formed your stereotype of me yet, here's a bit more background info:
** Married 24 years - to the same woman
** Five wonderful kids (3 girls, 2 boys - ages: 18G, 15G, 12B, 10G, 9B)
** Raised family as atheist/Unitarian Universalist, and taught "Sunday School" there! (I love study of religions, and religious history, so it made sense)
So, I'm not the typical atheist profile, especially on the "number of kids" front. Also, I've got some experience with conception, birth, etc. with 5 kids.
First, let me say that I feel that I am NOT qualified nor is it my right to tell a woman what to do with her own body, so I would never attempt to impose my convictions on a woman when it comes to an abortion. However, *personally*, my wife and I could never have an abortion (hence the five kids). Now let me share some thoughts on birth control.
My wife and I did not use birth control so that we could conceive our first two kids; however after that we did use the pill - and 2 years later conceived our first son, *while on the pill*. After that the pill caused my wife some medical problems, so we switched to condoms - and promptly conceived kid 4. After she was born my wife's OB/GYN suggested a new pill that wouldn't cause the problems she had earlier - and we conceived kid 5 right afterward. Fun, huh? (Incidentally, I had a vasectomy after #5 to ensure we had no more contraceptive failures)
So, to those of you who are religious and worried about thwarting "god's will" - are you so lacking in confidence in your god that a little pill or bit of rubber can cause "him" to be thwarted from causing you to conceive if it's "his will"? And if you're not religious, it is basically the same thought - if you're going to have a kid, you're going to have a kid - the pill nor condoms are 100% effective, to which I can confidently and repeatedly attest.
But, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong
--Rock, aka LotusGeek
I'm not going to get into the debate on when a clump of cells becomes a baby - that's a whole different can of worms. But I think that, for those of you against the idea of the pill, condoms should be a perfectly viable alternative.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
pro-choice atheist said...
I agree with Jemand.
Lauren, you stated that the pill *often* works by preventing implantation, which is just not true. The pill is extremely effective at preventing ovulation. The idea that the pill is an abortifacient is a myth propagated by the anti-contraception crowd. The pill (and IUDs) provides a very effective way to control their own reproductive lives, which is why those who want to control women despise them so much. (Remember also that the pill and Mirena IUD are also used for medical conditions like endometriosis, and I don't think that can reasonably be considered immoral.
I don't really get how an atheist can justify the idea that a zygote is a mini-person with exactly the same worth as a developed, born person. If you believe in ensoulment at fertilisation then that view is more justifiable, but that is obviously a religious belief with no scientific evidence whatsoever.
I'm sorry; that view is one of my pet hates. I am extremely suspicious of the motivations of atheists who are against the pill and IUDs - which can be used without, say, an abusive partner knowing, which condoms and natural family planning can't. There is just no basis for the non-religious to believe that a fertilised egg is any more a person than an unfertilised one.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Anonymous said...
Yo, pro-choice atheist,
I don't think it's a myth. The first person to ever tell me that the Pill was also though to prevent implantation was the director of my local Planned Parenthood Clinic. I checked the paperwork that came with my pill box and, lo and behold, there it was in black and white. This was in 97 though...and from what I've heard, since they've not been able to prove it yet, it's still just conjecture so they took it out. My liberal friends are under the impression that they took it out so that the pro-life community wouldn't get their undies in a wad over it.
So...I don't think it's a conservative conspiracy at all.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Jadehawk said...
charis,
you made me check, since I've never seen those statements when I did my original research about 10 years ago. now a lot of pages have that statement(though half the time they notes that this is an untested hypothesis) Either they did new studies, or it's a"better safe than sorry" method a bit like the fact that the FDA took out Thimerosal out of vaccines even though it was harmless: people were making noise, and the FDA went the safe route. But I understand now where you're all coming from.
Jennifer,
I'm sorry for jumping on you, this is just a major pet peeve of mine.
since we're on iffy issues of birth control and failure of implantation... there's been research that suggested that NFP can increase the danger of miscarriage. there's conflicting evidence, so it's not a sure thing, but i figure i better throw that out there, for the sake of information.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Jadehawk said...
bah, I actually ended up going to PubMed and looking at some recent research in regard to pills and implantation. results:
progestin (levonogestrel) has been tested extensively(the studies i looked at were from 2003 - 2007), and it absolutely does NOT prevent implantation. not in rats, not in monkeys, not in humans either. Neither does the Mirena IUD, since it is really an implanted progestin dispenser, nothing more.
the reason the warning is on the label is because it was thought that theoretically, it might do that. but studies clearly show that if progestin fails to prevent ovulation and fertilization, implantation happens as often as without the progestin (keep in mind that 20% of all fertilized eggs don't implant even in natural conditions)
Apparently very high levels of estrogen (way above what the pill contains for normal use) can prevent implantation, so it shouldn't be used for emergency contraception if you don't want to prevent implantation.
something called "Mifepristone"(an anti-progestin), and "Tamoxifen"(an anti-estrogen) is used as emergency contraceptive and prevents implantation. avoid it if you care. (this is not the Plan B pill, btw)
The copper IUD, especially when used as an emergency contraception, can prevent implantation. avoid if you care.
so there you go: progestin-only pills or IUDs are the way to go if you don't want to worry about failure to implant.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Anonymous said...
I am responding to those who a glad to be free from the bible and it's supposed rules. Has no one here ever heard of GRACE? It is am amazing concept. Read Paul's epistles...also read The Grace Awakening by Swindoll. The situations that these people are talking about are because humans take the word of God and distort it to fit their agendas. When you learn about grace it is an amazing freeing experience. I believe that Satan's most powerful weapon against God is taking God's own words and twisting them so that man uses God's supposed ideas to hurt their fellow man. This includes women and children.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
jemand said...
My mom was asked to help read over the information given at a local clinic, to make sure it was clear and understandable. There was much talk about the difference between progestin only plan B and progestin and estrogen mixtures for emergency contraception. It was stated that the one containing estrogen could possibly, although never conclusively proven, stop implantation. However, progestin doses have been given to women with higher than average likelihood of losing their pregnancies through miscarriage, in order to increase the likelihood of KEEPING them! Since the clinic was only dispensing the progestin only pill, my mother recommended they take out the confusing language about them both, and only talk about the progestin pill, which has no risk of "aborting" even unimplanted embryos. I wonder if this effect has anything to do with the removal of the "may stop implantation" phrases from the literature.
But apart from all that, I object MOST strongly to the attitude that *I* must convince everyone else I deserve freedom. Nope. It's the other way around, others need to convince me on how to USE my freedom, if that is something they feel strongly about. But on questions about my own body, when the responsibility is non-transferable, I prefer not to argue facts first (such as there really is no risk in most hormonal methods of stopping implantation), but rather first point out the arrogance of making someone else responsible for convincing EVERYONE to allow them freedom. I don't need to go beg and convince and argue, etc, that is exactly the behavior Laura and Vykie escaped from in the patriarchy, and it's no better when coming from an atheist than the patriarchy.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Charis said...
Jadehawk,
Thank you. The research you posted above was comforting to me, as was LotusGeek Rock's experience of birth control "failure". My daughter and daughter-in-law are using hormonal birth control, much as I attempted to dissuade them and encourage a barrier method. They both dismissed my concern about that "mode of action" of fertilized eggs not implanting (and they are both Christians studying to be PA's, and seemed convinced that its ethical). Personally, I have a very sensitive conscience, and I view a fertilized egg as my potential grandchild. I do believe the ones who spontaneously abort have souls and are in heaven (I've had 3 that I am aware of).
Thursday, April 02, 2009