|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 10:48:15 GMT -5
nikita: sorry, it was me who wrote that. I made some kind of mistake with the formatting.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 9:43:04 GMT -5
I think someone else (whose name escapes me right now, and I'd look for her name in the intro section if I had time today, but don't right now) has written here about how she and her family took these teachings seriously for all those years--and believed they should work toward state-sanctioned stonings of homosexuals, etc. But I've also read the quotes directly in the primary documents, as well as in journalistic discussions of the most severe teachings of Christian Reconstructionism. I completely agree. This was what drew me to the Mennonites (not old order or conservative) for a while. They call themselves a New Testament/Sermon on the Mount church. Well, once someone introduces the idea of 'stonings' into a discussion of appropriate responses to wrongdoing, you pretty much know that the gay community is going to wind up on the wrong side of the equation there. I wish people would get their heads out of the Old Testament. The New Testament has enough to keep us busy for eternity without combing through Leviticus and Deuteronomy for legalistic codes of conduct.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 9:20:40 GMT -5
nikita: But I am acquainted with Rushdoony's teachings already, and I know that he advocated state executions in his writing. I'm not really in a place where I can explain the significance of the Q. Anyone else, feel free to take it on. If not, will do from home. Okay, I understand then. It wasn't information that was apparent from what CAH wrote so your statement made no sense to me in context. If he said it elsewhere then that is a different matter. I think someone else (whose name escapes me right now, and I'd look for her name in the intro section if I had time today, but don't right now) has written here about how she and her family took these teachings seriously for all those years--and believed they should work toward state-sanctioned stonings of homosexuals, etc. But I've also read the quotes directly in the primary documents, as well as in journalistic discussions of the most severe teachings of Christian Reconstructionism.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 9:11:05 GMT -5
Or see Cripchick's description of her own queer identify here: blog.cripchick.com/archives/7304It need not always involve polyamory, though, and sometimes people use the term "pansexual" for what she's describing. In any case, it's because it captures important aspects of identity that L, G, B, and T do not for some people.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 9:03:34 GMT -5
nikita: But I am acquainted with Rushdoony's teachings already, and I know that he advocated state executions for LGBTQ people and what he referred to as "unchaste women" in his writing.
I'm not really in a place where I can explain the significance of the Q. Anyone else, feel free to take it on. If not, will do from home.
Modified for clarification.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 7:38:54 GMT -5
Wow, Sierrra... You know, despite not growing up in the Message, I really resonate with your way of interpreting so many of these teachings. I never stopped eating, but I took so many of my parents' fundamentalist ideals very very seriously. I have known people who could co-exist with fundamentalism somewhat healthfully, without taking it to the extremes of self-sacrifice or harm. But I was a very literal child, and I took fundamentalist teachings in a very literal way. My mother never did, but she was also an adult when she became entrenched in fundamentalism. For children, I think it's extremely difficult to take such harsh teachings in stride--and just co-exist with them without being seriously harmed. Not that adult women aren't harmed by it as well, but they would certainly have more defenses ready than anyone could have developed in childhood.
I fortunately escaped that kind of extremist woman-hating theology and subsequent fear of my female-ness, but I developed OCD-like symptoms in response to my parents' focus on the Wrath of God. When I learned about the story of Isaac and Abraham, I worried that God would tell my parents (who were deeply influenced by Pentecostal thinking--and believed that God spoke directly to them) to kill me. And what if He forgot to stop them, and they had to kill me to prove their faithfulness to God? My family was fairly volatile and violent, and I don't doubt that some of this fear also came from the family dynamic. And we also focused on stories about people being punished by God for worshipping idols. Since my parents (in their Pentecostal phase) felt that humans could idolize just about anything, I went around thinking I could be struck down at any moment.
I didn't sleep for most of my childhood. Somewhat ironically (I guess), I now have a Lupus diagnosis and often feel that I could go on sleeping forever, I'm so tired. But I was always afraid. I can relate to that. And I took extreme measures to stave off the fear too.
ETA: Throughout those years of not sleeping, I remember frantically needing to "rebuke Satan" over and over for fear of being attacked in my sleep. It wasn't the average childhood nightmares, I don't think. Pentecostalism and I did not do well together.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 7:15:47 GMT -5
KM, I don't know what your "LGBTQ" stands for. And I'm not sure I understand what you meant by molesters and unchaste women being on the same plane... Ah, sorry, LGBTQ: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer. I explained about the "same moral plane" comment above. I think his list of people deserving execution was pretty indiscriminate and disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 7:13:37 GMT -5
So, LGBTQ folk and "unchaste women" are on the same moral plane as the man who molests his daughter? Ugh... That's despicable. Not quite following you around that bend there. Rushdoony also wrote that LGBTQ people and so-called "unchaste women" should be executed by the state. Same as the perpetrator of incest.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 12, 2010 21:40:15 GMT -5
IF a person was found to be sexually molesting his daughter, this becomes not only a matter for church discipline, but also a crime in which the State is to execute justice on behalf of the victim. So, LGBTQ folk and "unchaste women" are on the same moral plane as the man who molests his daughter? Ugh... That's despicable.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 12, 2010 21:37:28 GMT -5
Presuppositional apologetics!! That was the term I was going for. It's pretty much a Reformed Theology type of apologetics and it doesn't leave much room for other interpretations of scripture or thought. I think that is why it is so hard to reason with people who are being taught in these kinds of Christian groups. Not reason with them about whether God is God, but about anything scriptural or spiritual at all. They know it because they know it. Evidence to the contrary and other interpretations aren't admitted or taken seriously. It's a real problem. Whew. I feel better now. FWIW, I'm very familiar with presuppositional apologetics. Rather than locking you into a particular interpretation, what it does is allow you to see the presuppositions, or unprovable, faith-based foundational beliefs that undergird *any* system. Now, that sounds more interesting.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 12, 2010 21:33:35 GMT -5
KM, You wrote: This isn't un-Socratic. Socrates saw the state as the foundational element in the very same way in which you are positing Christian faith as a kind of foundation. I think it would be more accurate to argue that this is the Socratic method as interpreted by conservative Reformed Christianity. By the way, is this a Dominionist doctrine? Do these people see the state as foundational in any way?
Both Van Til and Clark wrote specifically about how to articulate the Christian faith within this concept that I don't deny is very Socratic. You say that it's more accurate to say this is Socratic method as interpreted by Reformed Christianity. I completely agree with you. Did I give the impression that I was talking about something else. You ask whether this stuff is Dominionist. I guess you have to define what Dominionism means and how you define it. What is Reformed Christianity? As a Christian, in the general sense, I am a dominionist like all Christians. I am Reformed. I especially like how Francis Schaeffer, James Sire, John Frame, and John Robbins do/did articulate presuppositional apologetics. What I reject is the hijacked, distorted, aberrant, spiritually abusive garbage that is now passed off as Reformed apologetics. I think that you can believe the principles, but I completely disagree with how many interpret, present, and carry out these principles. John Robbins HATED this QF stuff, and I understand that John Frame and his associates don’t accept the QF stuff either. They would deny that these men are Reformed and that they model presuppositional apologetics. Those men definitely don’t “see the state as foundational.” Do you mean “the state as foundational” to how to share Christianity with the world, by taking over the government and birthing “Christian America through Covenant Families”? These men I’ve mentioned would refuse this. Actually, Rousas Rushdoony did, too. He actually talked about his fears of what the homeschooling community and the Reformed Church would turn into, and he warned against all that QF has become. He said some problematic things, but he was worlds away from Gary North who did teach that we should take over the government and save the world by birthing. That stuff came from Gary and not Rushdoony, and the two were very different in their views, though Rushdoony certainly paved the way for the problems by paving the way for Gary North. Rushdoony spent his later years battling this garbage and keeping the aberrant teachers out of their literature. Actually, the Dominionists associated with QF would deny that they “see the state as foundational” also. They hate the state, and many of them teach their children that they don’t need driver’s licenses because it’s none of the state’s business. They refuse government assistance and see it as sin. They would also deny that they are working for a theocracy, though that is what they say effectively and it is how they act. I think that one can believe these things and have them not be abusive and aberrant. As I stated earlier, I think that what most people are more familiar with is the Gary North insanity, and there are plenty of people who believe these concepts and are nothing like Gary North, save for the terminology that has been hijacked. The other thing about these men I’ve mentioned – they didn’t live like nuts and didn’t live legalistically. Rushdoony did not think birth control was wrong, for example. He surrounded himself with strong women. He didn’t live in an agrarian compound eating storage food and stockpiling generators. He was not afraid of the culture. That, of course, does not alleviate him of responsibility for the problematic things he did say, and I take issue with many of them. I think that in the long run, the fact that his writing was complicated and long has complicated many things for people, and what he wrote opened more than a few Pandora’s Boxes of problems. He did help create the environment that fostered this weirdness, though he did warn against it and saw is as a major concern. There are many guys who ascribe to reasonable ideas, and they are nothing like Gary North and Doug Phillips. Cindy: I think these people see the state as foundational in quite a different way from that articulated by Socrates. He understood it as the foundational arbiter of how people should live, to the point that, as you know, he submitted to execution by the state rather than seeking sanctuary outside. He saw it in a spiritual way in the sense that "one has to believe in something," and he believed that the citizen had the moral duty to submit to this, the product of the greatest minds of his society (If only society were run this way now...). I am going to try to remember that you are in Canada here, and, as such, have little personal experience with the damage that Dominionists in large numbers can do to Democratic freedom... By the way, Francis Schaeffer set the stage for these things every bit as much as Rushdoony did. He is possibly more insidious in the US because of the fact that the La Bri culture passes him off as a sound Christian theologian for young hipster evangelicals. My liberal evangelical sister was shocked--shocked!--to learn that he advocated abortion clinic bombing and actively promoted Rushdoony (whom she had never heard of). By the way, it doesn't help me to know that Rushdoony lived with strong women when he also advocated the state executions of LGBTQ people and so-called "unchaste women." I kind of don't care how he actually spent his days? Anyway... I do believe that Dominionists of the "City on a Hill" type see the theocratic Christian state as a telos of sorts. It's the end goal, the Kingdom of Heaven brought to earth, the work of God. Socrates didn't understand the state in this way, even if he related to it in an almost spiritual way. Also, what you've said about presuppositional apologetics... Very influenced by analytic philosophy (and analytic readings of Immanuel Kant), which is Not My Area. Not surprised that it fits well with Reformed theology, though. Analytic thinkers and Reformed theologians like to have solid answers that they come about through mathematical proofs and all sorts of other soulless endeavors. Yes, I am biased.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 12, 2010 15:08:47 GMT -5
This is just the Socratic method. It's Socratic method with the added idea that matters of faith can't be proven in the empirical world. We don't know about the intangible world in terms of the empirical world, but we all start from some kind of assumption. (What is faith and how do you prove it?) To say that you have a position on whether that there is a God or not, you had to start with some assumption. They are matters of faith, whether that faith is faith in science, the natural world, human intellect, the goodness of mankind, karma, the universe, or the tenets of religion. It is a kind of circular reasoning, but ideally, it doesn't make logical errors in the execution of that circular reasoning. It also doesn't start out with the desire to demean or demoralize your opponent. You can then say that presuppositional apologetics adds to Socratic method the presupposition that you have to believe in something as a starting point. This isn't un-Socratic. Socrates saw the state as the foundational element in the very same way in which you are positing Christian faith as a kind of foundation. I think it would be more accurate to argue that this is the Socratic method as interpreted by conservative Reformed Christianity. By the way, is this a Dominionist doctrine? Do these people see the state as foundational in any way?
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 12, 2010 15:03:48 GMT -5
Oh, yes, I've seen the Christian directories. Never been pressured to use them exclusively, but I've seen them around.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 12, 2010 14:06:20 GMT -5
I'm waiting for people to start selling Biblical toilet paper and Biblical guides for fixing plumbing. Everything is spiritual, right? You don't need a Biblical guide for plumbing. You just need a Christian plumber: www.anglersplumbinginc.com/This is just one of many if you google "christian + plumbing". Didn't check about Christian toilet paper. Who is it who writes about how Dominionists have their own shadow economy that props up this kind of belief system? The guy who wrote the book about Blackwater, maybe? Or the one who wrote Christian Fascists? I'm not in a place where I can look them up at the moment, sorry. ETA: I think it's in the book about Blackwater/Erik Prince. "Shadow economy" not in the sense of secret conspiracy, but... More the sense that Dominionists have their own versions of everything, and it's quite possible to boycott anyone who isn't Dominionist and get through life. And this is how a lot of these people make their money. They have very very loyal customers.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 12, 2010 14:01:41 GMT -5
Essentially, when you discuss things, you let truth do the work by asking questions that allow people to see the holes in their own belief system. It's not any kind of authoritarian process and it doesn't involve force. The truth is its own best defense, and you kind of sit back and let truth do its work. This is just the Socratic method.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 12, 2010 10:04:33 GMT -5
The "satan attacking" explanation of bad things is preferable to the theology I was exposed to in the Christian school. The majority of the people there were invested in varying degrees in the prosperity gospel. So bad things, problems, stubbed toes, colds, pollen allergies, broken lawn mowers, great-grandma dying in her sleep at 98.....anything not perfect was God punishing them personally for having sin in their lives or not having enough faith. That is way more damaging than believing you pissed off Satan. At least they've been taught that Satan is evil. I don't know. I sorta see them as two sides of the same coin. Even if hard times are seen as an "attack from Satan," they are also seen as a "test from God" within this mindset (i.e., Vyckie understood her own struggles like those of Job--as tests.). Now, would I rather that God punish me for some alleged wrong, or would I rather he play fucked up mindgames with me by allowing horrific things to happen just so I can have a chance to prove my worth? I think they're equally indsidious ways of understanding God, and it doesn't really make sense to make comparisons about one being worse--or better than--the other.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 12, 2010 8:04:33 GMT -5
Here is what I have never understood: It's this idea that God wants Christians to prove their love and obedience by taking up suffering just for the hell of it. Because they are supposed to love God's will for their lives... And I see it in regular old evangelical Christianity just as much as I see it in Quiverfull. It seems to me to set people up for an abusive relationship with the deity whom they understand as God--and the church too. I have a normal evangelical friend (who is politically liberal) living in China who is...not one of the Bible hand-out people (She says China has more Bibles than it could possibly ever need as a result of misguided Western missionaries.). But she is evangelical, and she has a husband who recently cheated on her. In response to this, she says that God promised her some of her "highest highs and lowest lows" as a result of marrying him. My question: Who wants this? Why would anyone voluntarily take on the "lowest lows" of her life? And is this supposed to be a "witness" to "the world"? Because this particular worldly woman just thinks it's self-destructive. And also... She recently had a child. She is college educated (from a prestigious college, no less) and capable of earning more than enough money to support a small family in China. But... But she says she's always felt called not to work while raising her child, and so this leaves her husband--a Chinese factory worker without even a high school degree--to support the family. And, again, I'm thinking... Why? Why does this kind of faith lead people to make decisions that defy common sense but that can also be incredibly harmful? Who would voluntarily choose poverty in China when she has the skills to do otherwise? And why would anyone ever follow such a mean, spiteful, and petty God? I sincerely wish that evangelical Christianity would address this gaping problem with the idea that, "God gives us the tools to be discerning, and one of those tools has to do with making good choices and not blindly trusting in His 'rewards' when we do self-destructive things. Because, damnit, self-destructive choices have consequences. And God doesn't want us to hurt ourselves or our families in order to experiment with the possibility of a 'miracle.'" /*end rant*
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 11, 2010 19:45:50 GMT -5
I didn't realize she was Pentecostal. That does explain some of it, yes. ETA: And, again, she is not Australian. She's from New Zealand, or so says the Above Rubies site. For the most part, I get your frustration about American cultural practices being imposed as normative, as I know that happens all the time in US-centric spaces (And that this site is one since QF is a pretty US-centric movement.). However, I'm not sure that's what was going on here. I wasn't really put off by the sound of her voice as much as by the fact that she ignores other people in her presence. And I used the term "psychopathy" to encompass the cruel things she was saying about others, and the sense of joy she appeared to take in doing so (And because I don't personally put any stock in arguments about "demonic possession."). Obviously, I am not qualified to diagnose personality disorders, but "psychopathy" is one word that we have for people who take pleasure in harming others. So, I get what you're saying arietty, but I also think your call for cultural sensitivity would go further if you got the name of her country of origin right. KM I am quite aware of where Nancy Campbell comes from and her history. I began reading her magazines in 1988 long before she moved to America. I am aware of when she moved from New Zealand to Australia. She identified as Australian with a footnote about her coming from New Zealand for a long time and still does. New Zealand and Australia are even more similar culturally as the US and Canada are and New Zealanders very commonly move to this country. Nancy Campbell lived in Queensland and raised her children there, Queensland being "old school" Australia culturally in many ways. If you don't wish to believe my cultural comments about Nancy Campbell then carry on as you were, however don't accuse me of ignorance. I really do think I am quite well versed in Nancy Campbell, Australia and New Zealand. Hmm, okay. I mean, the "about us" bit on Above Rubies says simply, "We're New Zealanders." But, whatever, I'm not really interested in fighting about that point. And, yes, I am aware of cultural similarities between the two countries. I didn't say I didn't believe you. I said that what you brought up had nothing to do with any of my comments. And it still doesn't. ETA: Put more bluntly: Arietty, I did not and have not said anything about her sing-songy voice or found it to be particularly significant to any analysis that I have proffered here. Calluna did so briefly, but I did not. Of course I believe you. However, I think you're ignoring the fact that people have said quite a few things that have nothing to do with her voice, and addressing everyone who has participated here as if we all said the exact same things. Her voice is not really at issue here to me, except inasmuch as it somehow manages to be quite soft and quite aggressive all at once (That's what I find "creepy." Not the sing-songy-ness of any of it. I didn't even really think about that.). You seem determined to see the whole discussion of her creepiness as having to do with the cultural insensitivity of people here, but I don't think the linguistic traditions of her country are really at issue here. And I probably end up sounding a little sing-songy when I do public speaking myself, yes, as I have a slight US Southern accent. ETA again: I don't even know why I'm seeming to get into a fight about Australian linguistic trends, actually, when I've not mentioned the tonal quality of Nancy Campbell's voice once, except to say that it's soft (and, you know, individual vocal decibel levels are kind of...eh, individual traits/habits not entirely determined by culture, even if films like "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" would like us to think otherwise.).
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 11, 2010 14:48:45 GMT -5
Nope, km, I meant "talk". I'm sure I probably have seen Australian (or New Zealand) Christian women talk somewhere before, but I couldn't point out to you who they were. Apparently, if it's just a cultural thing (which I doubt), they were a lot better at appearing "American" normal than Nancy is. As for Nancy being socially stunted, she does come across as that way on the video. What you mentioned about ignoring everyone else in the room can be a sign of social immaturity (or narcissism) But "socially stunted" is often used to delineate developmental disorders such as autism, and it's on that front that I am very uncomfortable with using terminology that implies judgment.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 11, 2010 7:34:53 GMT -5
The 1950's type of community that we see on those old black and white TV shows. Ladies having coffee and catching up together at the kitchen table, you run out of sugar, and rest assure, your friend Bette next store has some to borrow.... Friday night BBQ's in the back yard with the neighbors. Know what I mean? Has this all ceased in this crazy world? I don't think that it's ceased- I think it never existed in the first place. The "perfect 1950s" are largely a nostalgic invention of the collective American imagination. Things, for the vast majority of people, were a lot worse back then than they are now. If you weren’t a middle class (or above) Christian white man, your life sucked in the 1950s. Back in the 1950s, Bette is regularly beaten and raped by her husband and, literally, has no place to do, as this is before there are any domestic abuse shelters, or even domestic abuse laws. The people who invite you to their Friday BBQ own a small diner where they don’t allow “colored people” in the door and the husband regularly forces the poor single mothers who work there as waitresses to have sex with him in order to keep their jobs, because he knows the social disapproval of their situation means that no one else will hire them. The prevalence of news media means we are exposed to more of the dirty happenings of our city/state/country, but just because we didn't hear about them before doesn't mean they didn't happen. However, all that aside, I can borrow a cup of sugar from at least three of my neighbors and have been to several BBQs over the last few years. Communities like that definitely exist in 2010. This.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 11, 2010 7:29:57 GMT -5
While I don't think I've seen an Australian Christian woman talk (at least, one's never been specifically pointed out to me), unless they're all severely socially stunted, I don't think what people are responding to is just her "Australian Christian"-ness. Do you mean "talk like that"? I'm assuming you don't mean you haven't heard Australian women talk at all... I don't think insults about being "socially stunted" are all that helpful either, for what it's worth.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 11, 2010 7:20:18 GMT -5
Okay I have watched the Nancy Campbell video posted by Sierra in this thread (thank you Sierra). She does not come across as weird AT ALL for what she is--Australian, christian, pentecostal woman in that age group. She is completely typical and I have heard many people who are even more exaggerated in mannerisms than she. Now I know you all want to watch this stuff and think it's psychopathic demons or whatever but you are incorrect. It's a misreading of cultural differences though I think there are similarities in some American pentecostals as well. No one talks like this in the Reform churches! LOLOLOL I didn't realize she was Pentecostal. That does explain some of it, yes. ETA: And, again, she is not Australian. She's from New Zealand, or so says the Above Rubies site. For the most part, I get your frustration about American cultural practices being imposed as normative, as I know that happens all the time in US-centric spaces (And that this site is one since QF is a pretty US-centric movement.). However, I'm not sure that's what was going on here. I wasn't really put off by the sound of her voice as much as by the fact that she ignores other people in her presence. And I used the term "psychopathy" to encompass the cruel things she was saying about others, and the sense of joy she appeared to take in doing so (And because I don't personally put any stock in arguments about "demonic possession."). Obviously, I am not qualified to diagnose personality disorders, but "psychopathy" is one word that we have for people who take pleasure in harming others. So, I get what you're saying arietty, but I also think your call for cultural sensitivity would go further if you got the name of her country of origin right.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 10, 2010 15:02:09 GMT -5
I think what Nikita says here makes a lot of sense. I too have felt a lot of shock on learning that Vyckie gets this question. Nor can I imagine anyone coming up with this kind of question. I wonder where it comes from? Kinda sounds to me like something Jonathan Lindvall would say... But it wouldn't surprise me to learn that it's a soundbite throughout QF communities these days.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 10, 2010 11:41:34 GMT -5
It's almost like the old quip, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" And just as stupid, annoying and infuriating. That's actually an old quip?
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 9, 2010 12:52:36 GMT -5
In any case, whether it's about her speaking voice or not, I think arietty is right: Diagnosing mental illness and/or supernatural possession of any kind is above my pay grade.
|
|