|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 19, 2010 15:04:32 GMT -5
So hard for you and those poor kids. Wishing you and them much healing and continuing recovery. Your writing is very powerful because it's so understated. We catch a glimpse of Nate watching TV while you're in terrible pain, and you don't need to tell us any more.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 18, 2010 11:08:41 GMT -5
Pollypinks, I'm not sure why you addressed that last to me, as though we were in disagreement about these issues; we are not. I agree with everything you just said. All I meant was that Paul meant something specific by what he said there in the passage in Galatians Autumn cited. I totally agree that the New Testament does not teach dominionism, and she's absolutely right that the Scriptures teach that people cannot and should not be forced into beliefs. But that is not what this particular passage in Galatians is about; Paul is talking specifically about a group of people who were saying that non-Jewish converts to Christianity had to keep the whole Jewish law in order to be accepted by Christ. I advocate for reading each passage of Scripture in its whole context and not adding meanings that weren't originally intended by the author or understood by the first audience. The historical, cultural and literary context must be taken into account for each and every passage, or we are doing the same thing the fundamentalists do. But Autumn, I completely agree that when the writings are read as a whole, they are against Dominionism.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 17, 2010 12:45:21 GMT -5
Barberaw-- that's a good verse. Thanks for pointing it out. Whatkindofwoman-- yes, as a matter of fact, that is pretty much the direction this essay is going; but it also tries to make it clear that the New Testament really is dropping a new paradigm into the status quo of the times, one of mutual service and humility as equal-status members of God's family (which supercedes earthly family). Older cultic Christian movements, such as the shepherding movement (which I was involved in in college and after) use the whole idea of "God's family supercedes earthly family" to isolate members from their loved ones and put them under the control of church leaders. QF/P's tactic is different. It makes the nuclear family (to the exclusion of non QF/P relatives, however) equivalent to God's family and the Kingdom of God. Because of this emphasis, the point about God's family NOT being equivalent to a human "pater familias" and his wife and children, is a very important point here. If I were to refute the teachings of a shepherding-type cult movement, I would be pointing out how our primary allegiance is to God, not to church leaders, emphasizing the Scriptures about giving love and honor to our parents, and focusing on the overbalanced teaching of church-primacy rather than on the overbalanced teaching on family-primacy. Either one can be misused to give humans illegitimate control over others-- but neither one represents the whole counsel of the Scriptures. As for Michael Kruse, I use his website because he is a scholar who has done extensive research on this issue-- and his research is confirmed by other scholars who use the "Grand Story" or "metanarrative" hermeneutic (which I subscribe to largely because it dovetails with the way my professors taught me to read and understand literature when I was getting my English degree, as the most logical way to find the intended meaning of any piece of writing). Here is his (very unassuming) blurb about himself; he serves on the Presbyterian United States Missionary Council. I expect his academic qualifications are extensive, but he appears to prefer to talk about his cat. krusekronicle.com/about.html
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 14, 2010 23:48:40 GMT -5
This verse grabbed my attention. You have been severed from Christ those of you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. Galatians 5:4 My first honest reaction was that verse means that Christians shouldn't strive to take over a government and force their laws on the others around them. When I looked up the verse in my Oxford Study Edition of The New English Bible I wound up confused, because Paul seems to be saying that if you are circumcised you must keep the whole covenant... Color me confused. I think, Autumn, that what's throwing you off is that the words "justification" and "law" have specific meanings within Paul's teachings and in the context of the book of Galatians. By "justification" he means getting right with God. By "law" he means the Jewish law as set forth in the Old Testament. I hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 13, 2010 0:22:08 GMT -5
Coleslaw-- ok, thanks for clarifying. I agree with you there, now I understand better what you're saying. I understood you were not Jewish yourself-- otherwise I would not have discussed these ideas without deferring to a Jewish person's understanding of them. But I think you've made some very good points. (I have reformed and orthodox Jews in my family, btw
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 12, 2010 22:01:12 GMT -5
Ok, Coleslaw-- but isn't it true that most Jews would say that they keep the law because they are God's people, not the other way around? In other words, they were chosen first, and then given this way to live. They were not given this way to live in order that they might prove themselves worthy to be chosen.
For Jews, just as for Christians, what it really boils down to is the grace and mercy of God, not how well they keep the law. That's why the safety nets are there in the first place, isn't it?
The main difference is that after the earliest days of Christianity, most Christians were Gentile converts. Jews who grow up following the law are not going to find it nearly so burdensome as Gentiles, to whom the cultural aspects of it are foreign restrictions. Its sort of the same as I feel about certain Japanese foods. Given a hypothetical law against eating sea urchins, I would say, "No problem. Sea urchins are not something I ever considered eating anyway." But a Japanese person might say, "No more sea urchins! But they're a delicacy-- my favorite treat!"
This would partially account for a different perception between Jews and Gentiles about how hard the law is to follow.
Another reason for the difference, I think, boils down to the teachings of Jesus himself. As Nikita said earlier, Jesus raised the standard of keeping the law to focus more on internal attitudes, which are much harder to control than outward behavior. When the law is looked at as Jesus taught, keeping it becomes much harder. Jesus taught his followers to look at our behavior in the light of God's holiness, rather than simply whether they met the external criteria of behavior of the law.
So no, I don't think there was a sort of retroactive justification after the fact, that Jesus came because the law was too hard to follow. Jesus came and himself set a standard for following the law that was too hard. But neither Judaism nor Christianity is ultimately about obtaining the favor of God by following law. The favor is freely given first.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 12, 2010 20:33:41 GMT -5
Then I'm confused, Coleslaw. Part of what you said was,
What I said was a completely different explanation than the one you just gave above. What I said that is is possible to say one "follows the law" if they consider the safety-net features for when they don''t keep it, as part of the law itself. But this still means that no one actually keeps the law -- not without utilizing these safety nets.
In any event, Christians say Jesus fulfilled the law, not that he abolished it.
But if all you meant was that Christians have a different idea of keeping the law than Jews do, them I'm not sure what you were getting at. Can you explain further?
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 12, 2010 19:44:02 GMT -5
Aww, thanks, Nikita.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 12, 2010 19:26:41 GMT -5
Good points, Journey! And you also have to let them be kids and understand the difference between "I'm not doing what you said because I defy you" and "I'm not doing what you said because I don't understand, or I don't know how, or I'm not yet capable." Or even "I meant to do what you said but my mind got distracted from it, just like you get distracted sometimes." Errggh!
With regards to Amaranth's question and the resulting discussion-- I think what it comes down to is: what is law, and what is legalism?
When we're talking about law, there's a question about exactly how the law of the Old Testament applies to Christians. Most Christians would say that the ceremonial-sacrificial laws are fulfilled in Christ, so we need not do sacrifices anymore; also that certain laws were meant just for the nation of Israel, such as the holidays. What most Christians think of as the law we should follow is the moral law as contained in both the Old and New Testaments. And as Nikita said, the point of the law is supposed to be love; that all of the law is summed up in the two commandments to love God and love one another. All the rest is about how such love is to work out in practice.
I think that when Christians and Jews talk about "keeping the law," they mean it in two different ways. From what I have been able to ascertain, most Jewish people have an understanding of the law which includes safety nets for when it is not practiced perfectly. The law for them includes the Day of Atonement, which is mostly observed now as a day to apologize and make restitution to one another for wrongs committed during the year. Jewish people who are doing their best to keep the law, and also mess up and then follow the rabbinical teachings about apology and restitution, feel that they are keeping the law. And that is what was usually meant by "keeping the law" as spoken of in their Scriptures as well.
What a Christian means by "keeping the law" means keeping the moral law to God's standard of perfection. Never messing up. Never being selfish or unloving or uncharitable. Never neglecting something that's a moral obligation. It is in this sense, not the Jewish sense, that they say no one can keep the whole law. The Christian then turns to the atonement of Christ rather than to the Jewish atonement laws, to make up for mistakes.
But what legalism is, is focusing on the outward structure of the commandments, rather than the love for God and others that they're supposed to be all about. Legalism often also means getting even stricter with the commandments than the Scriptures actually say. When Jesus told the Pharisees, "you tithe mint, dill and cumin, but neglect justice and mercy and faith" (Matt 23:23), that's what he was talking about. The law does not actually command tithing the smallest of herbs. Israel was commanded to tithe from "your grain, your new wine and oil, and the firstlings of your flocks and herds." Deut. 14:23. The Pharisees were actually adding additional things to the tithe, in order to make extra sure they were doing it right. And they were so focused on tithing better than everyone else, that they were ignoring the whole point of the law, which was justice, faith and mercy.
When Christians say we can't keep the whole law, so we need to have mercy on one another-- they aren't talking about legalism. And of course, since the essence of the law is love, and love includes mercy, what they really mean is that being legalistic actually prevents them from keeping the true law even as well as they could keep it, if they weren't focused on the external practices and on making the requirements even harder than necessary.
But I don't think a loving God truly expects us to meet perfection any more than we expect our kids to.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 12, 2010 14:12:13 GMT -5
I've heard this from other parents, too-- the regret for the harshness that they thought was God's will. I'm so sorry you were duped this way, livingforeternity. I will pray for your relationship with your oldest son. Thanks for the sweet compliement to me in your post!
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 12, 2010 0:54:29 GMT -5
I'm glad you like it so far. From what I've been reading, hierarchy as a way of thinking about human relations was so entrenched in ancient Greco-Roman thought that the early Church fathers, who were of course Greek and Roman, were largely unaware of the New Testament's implications that all individuals are equal before God. The philosophy of a "great chain of being" from great to small, was rooted in Platonic and Aristotelian thought, and the rediscovery of the Greek philosophers in the Middle Ages served to imbue medieval Christianity with the same ideas, resulting in such doctrines as the "divine right of kings." But there is evidence that the earliest expressions of Christianity were counter-culturally egalitarian-- which is one of the things that caused their persecution by authorities who feared the implied threat to the power structures of the ruling cultures. By the time of Constantine this trend in Christianity had almost entirely disappeared. The historical information I've been gathering is really very fascinating. Some of this is touched on briefly in the next sections of the FAQ.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 1, 2010 15:11:06 GMT -5
Usotsuki, I think there are some good similarities between Christianity and Buddhism-- but what is being described here as "Christian" looks a lot to me like a Gnostic form of Christianity, which was rejected from orthodoxy in the second century. The idea that the "world" is bad, that all pleasure or happiness is bad, is contrary to the accepted "orthodox" Christian position that all that God created is good, that God's love richly provides us with all things to enjoy, that all pleasures were originally God's idea and sin is actually just the twisting of something good into something harmful to the self and others.
Christ never told his followers to withdraw from the world or consider life in the body as evil. He wanted his followers to be actively engaged in loving, giving, and helping others. "Death to self" is not supposed to be about complete self-abnegation, but about letting go of things we hold onto that are actually damaging to us. And it's certainly not supposed to be about one person dying to self and someone else getting to suck her dry while he indulges himself!
Nirvana is supposed to be about detachment, but the Kingdom of God as described by Christ and his early followers, really isn't.
(Of course, then you'll see the very same people using Christ's "Kingdom of God" idea as an excuse to perpetrate "culture wars" that give the church political power! How can it be both "take over the world" and "detach completely and hide from the world"! Inconsistency, anyone?)
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 28, 2010 12:00:56 GMT -5
Sierra just said pretty much what I was about to say. It is certainly a legitimate expression of my own Christianity to stand up and denounce practices of other believers that are just plain morally wrong, and indefensibly so, no matter what Scriptures they use to back up their practices.
Sometimes Christians and their churches play too nice-nice. Just because a church claims the Bible supports what they do, and that they're sincere in that belief, doesn't make what they're doing ok or mean that we have to cover for them or pretend not to see when real wrong is being done.
Whether or not we can say, "these are not true Christians," we certainly can say, "This is wrong, we don't believe the Bible supports it, and we consider this group to be in sin and will have nothing to do with them unless they repent and stop teaching what is plainly morally wrong."
That goes for Above Rubies and their child-abuse in God's name, and Christian Domestic Discipline, and whatever form of Christianity Tess' husband was using to support his practices. If his own group was not in agreement, but did not denounce his abuse and disfellowship him, I still certainly can denounce him, and I can encourage my own church to do the same.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 27, 2010 19:26:04 GMT -5
Defendant, thank you for injecting this: "Exercise Dominion! Please Jesus! Take over America! Using Tools You Probably Have Around the House!" because I really needed the comic relief. Wow, was that hard to read. I hardly know what to say. I found myself identifying with your mom, how mad she got at that (can't think of a word strong enough) you were married to, and yet how helpless she must have felt since you thought you had to stay with him.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 25, 2010 13:40:10 GMT -5
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. Yes, I certainly agree. However, Branham words are treated as the direct voice of God himself. Such a display of real human ignorance ought to be pointed out to Message members. Of course, they'll refuse to believe it. What poisonous little hypocrites. If they were really trying to live "holy" according to their own cult's standards, they wouldn't talk about what female flesh they want or don't want to see. They wouldn't want to see any. To them, all a woman is, is a piece of flesh.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 25, 2010 0:48:48 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?
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 25, 2010 0:43:41 GMT -5
Hooray! Adam got just enough rope to hang himself with! I hope your father's true colors are about to be shown too. (insert devilish-grin smiley)
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 25, 2010 0:41:32 GMT -5
It's amazing the lip service these kind of men give to "equality" of women before God, when you see how they really feel about, and treat, real women.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 20, 2010 23:22:34 GMT -5
I really think that Branham should be reincarnated as a heifer cow. Sierra, your story almost made me weep. The very thing about you that makes you such an incredible person-- the strength and independence that made you a survivor-- are the very thing you were taught to devalue. You were a swan cygnet, eating your heart out because you were too "ugly" to be a duckling. *hugs*
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 18, 2010 22:30:42 GMT -5
Very true, Nikita. I've been thinking about this, and I think that what NLQ really is about is a place to unite against a common enemy: spiritually abusive fundamentalism, in whatever form it might appear.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 16, 2010 14:58:02 GMT -5
Good post, Vykcie. I will say that not only is each of us at a different point in our path out of spiritual abuse, but that for each of us, that path is personal and unique.
If I may show my geekiness here for a moment-- "Is NLQ Christian, or is NLQ atheist?" sounds a lot like what the Vulcan authorities asked Spock: "Are you Vulcan, or are you Human?"
The answer, of course, is simply not as simple as the Vulcan authorities wanted it to be, and for Spock to have answered "yes" to either one would have been to deny his own unique individuality.
NLQ, the website for people finding their way out of restrictive categories, should not itself be categorized.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 15, 2010 22:11:18 GMT -5
Aww, Nikita. I know how you feel. Ruth, I'm so glad you were able to do what you did. And I'm betting anything you were afraid of the police and all-- but your father had put you in such terrible position that ANYTHING seemed better than going back under his thumb. He deserved to lose you.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 15, 2010 10:56:11 GMT -5
Vyckie, I notice that the new opening "Note" doesn't appear in the text that appears on the home page. It appears when you click on "Full Story" -- but by the time the reader clicks on "Full Story," she will have already read the beginning of the post and will go on from where she left off, not seeing the opening "Note." Also, since it's in italics, the spots where I put in italics are actually turning off the italics and then turning them back on again. Assuming you intend the whole "Note" to be in italics, I would recommend putting the words "can" and "can't" in bold, in the sentence with the word "televisions" in it, and in the sentence following.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 14, 2010 14:12:32 GMT -5
Calluna said: It would behoove, those of us who escaped to not critisize those on the fence and be gentle and kind with them. And yes, I would of left a lot sooner if I had found resources that were gentle and concerned about the people still caught up in these systems instead of berating them.I think Nikita is making a good point-- the anger that is being expressed is towards the Duggars as the Royalty, the poster family, of this movement. Not towards every QF family that is struggling along and trying to hide from themselves the fact that it just isn't working for them the way the Duggars seem to be sailing through it. Perhaps what needs to be communicated on the blog is that the Duggars are using the mass media to actively promote this lifestyle, and some of what they are saying, when you look at how they actually live, is false and deceptive advertisting. Just like when a fast-food company shows you a TV image of their carefully photoshopped hamburger with its perfect slice of red tomato and its lettuce with the little bead of dew standing on the edge. The burger you get in the store doesn't look anything like that. And when an image is presented via media that doesn't match reality, the truth needs to be told. Hopewell is trying to tell the truth about the difference between what the Duggars promote and what their actual lives really look like. This is not about "let's judge the Duggars and find them wanting," which is what has happened to so many of us that when something even sounds like that towards someone else, it gives us a bad taste in our mouths. But this is about "Let's see if this lifestyle, even in Duggars' own lives, is everything they claim it is." I think a little caveat at the beginning of Hopewell's post would make this difference clear, and ease misunderstandings between us here, too. Just because the Duggars are being subjected to such scrutiny, does not at all mean that Calluna need fear being subjected to the same.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 13, 2010 22:45:07 GMT -5
Good points, all three of you. I guess what it comes down to is that once you've decided someone exists for your benefit, you have made them not as fully human as you are. And when someone isn't fully human, you can treat them as less than human without it bothering you. I suspect that if Ruth's parents had ever stopped and really thought about it, they might have been appalled at themselves. But self-blinding is a very common, very human thing to do. I suppose part of the reason I'm so upset by it is that if I had not gotten out of Maranatha, I might be doing the same things to my own kids right now. I like to think I would have stopped short of it, but who knows?
|
|