REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Christian Movement Says Husbands NEED To Keep Their Wives In Line

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 00:57
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 20255
PAGE 1 of 2

Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:06 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


New marriage "discipline" movements for the "Christians" among us:

There's the "Christian Domestic Discipline" ( http://christiandomesticdiscipline.com/home.html): Domestic Discipline (DD) marriage is one in which one partner is given authority over the other, and has the means to back up that authority, usually by spanking. The application and practise of DD in each marriage is as unique as the individuals who make up that marriage. There is no “One Ring of Power” in the Domestic Discipline world, to which all DD couples must bow; no singular path to “true DD enlightenment.” What works well for one DD couple may not be a good fit for another marriage. Therefore, you may see many different suggestions espoused on this site and elsewhere.

A Christian Domestic Discipline (CDD) marriage is simply a traditional, male-led, Christian marriage which utilises aspects of Domestic Discipline. It is set up according to Biblical standards.

CDD is the husband loving his wife enough to patiently guide and unselfishly cherish her.

CDD is the wife loving her husband enough to follow his leadership and trust his direction.

A Christian marriage should embody selfless love and true romance.

A Christian couple is to be a reflection of Jesus and His Bride.

This style of traditional male-led Christian marriage may seem unusual in today's "modern", liberal, politically correct, anti-God culture. This unholy culture, with its radically selfish feminism, and wholesale bias against true manhood, launches relentless attacks against traditional Christian family values. MUCH more at http://christiandomesticdiscipline.com/home.html]
Or there's a slight variation, "ChristianDomesticDiscipline.NET:
Quote:
“In order to describe to you what is Christian Domestic Discipline, I’d first like to start with what it is not. Christian Domestic Discipline is not domestic violence. Neither is it abuse. It is an arrangement between two adults who share the belief that the husband is the head of the household and with that position comes the right to enforce his authority.

“Christian Domestic Discipline is not BDSM. It is not a game. While we do not deny its sometimes erotic nature, it is ultimately not for erotic purposes. It is often much different than the domestic discipline you will find outside of the Christian faith.

“A Christian Domestic Discipline marriage is set up according to the guidelines set forth in the Holy Bible, meaning the husband has authority over his wife within the bounds of God’s Word and enforces that authority, if need be, through discipline including but not limited to spanking. He uses his authority to keep peace and order in his home, protect his marriage, and help his wife mature in her Christian walk. In a true Christian Domestic Discipline marriage, discipline is tempered with the knowledge that the husband must answer to God for his actions and decisions in his position of authority.” http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.net/christiandomesticdiscipline
spankinghome.html]

Both claim they are NOT about "domestic violence", of course, instead, "it's for Jesus".

Both sites have specific categories for Husbands and Wives. In each, we either get a scroll down menu or a click takes you to a page with topics. On CDD.com, in the “Husband” category, we’ve got Leadership, Understanding, Discipline. But CDD.net takes it a little further; their scroll down includes: A Woman’s Nature, To Be Cherished, To Be Led, To Be Protected, The Edge. A sampling:

Under "A Woman's Created Nature":
Quote:
Eve was created to be a companion and helper of her husband, Adam. There are lots of clues to suggest that even then Eve was under Adam's authority (i.e. she was created as his helper, she was named by him, HE was held accountable for HER sin, etc.), yet we find that in that role, Eve was wholly and completely satisfied.

It was part of the dreadful curse... that Eve would henceforth desire to rule over her husband. Many assume the "meat" of the curse was that part about Adam ruling over her, but I tend to believe the worst part of the curse was the fact that she would no longer willingly follow his lead. That is what brought contention and drove a wedge between the man and the woman, and that, I believe, is what still makes them unhappy today.

So through this story we can begin to gain some insight into the created nature of a woman. She was created to be a helpmeet, companion, and willing follower of a loving husband. She is still happiest as a helper, companion, and willing follower of a loving man. It is that "desire to rule over her him" that causes much of the confusion.

...you as a man will get all kinds of mixed signals from a woman. It's not that she means to confuse you. She is probably confused herself. She has desires and wants of her own (and our modern culture has certainly taught her that she'll only be happy if she can manage to meet those desires), but her created nature is never fully satisfied outside of the role for which she was created.

That is why a woman will say she wants a Prince Charming, only to run off with the first Black Knight that comes her way. She doesn't understand it is her created nature that is causing the attraction to jerks. What she senses in the jerk is simply masculinity in its darkest form.

In reality, what she needs is a hero....a Knight in Beat-up Armor who understands her needs as a woman and is self-disciplined enough to meet those needs.


A woman's need to be cherished:
Quote:
Tell her she's adorable. Tell her she's precious. Tell her you love being with her. Send her flowers. Give her backrubs. Just don't go overboard and start to seem sappy.

The key to cherishing her is to keep it in balance. If she seems to take it for granted, you've probably leaned too far toward the cherishing end of the spectrum.


I might ask something about why a HUSBAND doesn't benefit from being told he's precious and that I love being with him (both of which I tell my husband), that if anyone ever told me I was "adorable", I'd be offended, and what I think of their idea of "sappy"...

A woman's need to be led:
Quote:
Whether she will admit it or not, a woman needs to be led. Learn to be decisive. Always be willing to take her opinion into consideration, but ultimately you should be the one to decide.


A woman's need to be protected:
Quote:
Another thing you might notice from young ladies is that they'll often try to physically fight or wrestle with you. They will do everything in their power to win, but truly they do not want to win. They are simply testing your strength. In order to feel you can protect them, it helps if you are stronger than them. If at all possible, don't ever let them win these altercations. Your girl will be disappointed if you do.

Some women might similarly test your intelligence or your resolve on certain issues or even your prowess at video games or sports. Again, they are testing your masculinity.

Make sure she wears her seatbelt. Make it a hard and fast rule that she is always to wear her seat belt.

Don't allow her to go out alone at night.

Be possessive of her. Don't suffer other men coming on to her or putting their hands on your woman.

The day my husband makes "hard and fast" rules, doesn't "allow" me to go out alone at night, or is possessive of me, is the day divorce papers get filed!!

"The Edge". This one refers to a book called "Fifty Shades of Grey" about some guy called Christian Grey:
Quote:
The Edge is that little sense of danger that exists around a man that makes him hopelessly attractive to women... that teeny tiny thrill that runs down her spine when she realizes she is not tagging along with a tame kitty-cat, but instead treading softly around a wild lion.

...he is not afraid to lead in the relationship, and he is not afraid to enforce his lead, if need be, by physical discipline.

Most women would be terrified if a man were as rough with her as Christian is with Anastasia in "Fifty Shades". That kind of roughness should only exist in fantasy. However, a little discipline from her man will only make a woman love him more than he'll ever realize. It's just part of her nature.

Oh...my...gawd. It's about SPANKING the woman!! There's a whole section on "My First Time", essays from people about just that; being spanked. Here's a snippet of one. She just experienced her first "test spanking":
Quote:
Hubby also informed me that we are going to be working on a habit I have that he can't stand. He is giving me enough leeway so I am not really stressed about it, and since our 'test' spank, I know what I'm in for if I fail. That alone gives me a strong desire to please him.

So here's the question.....

He feels like I could have handled a lot more then I did, so for future punishments he says he will do worse. As the spanks landed I truly felt like I could take no more, but within seconds I felt we could continue. I think my bottom just needed a few seconds to recover before moving on.

He also informed me that if he had to give me a punishment spank for the offense, it would be followed by weeks of reminder spanks. I noticed myself falling back into that fear again (of "is this right for us" or more so "is this right for my bottom"). Then I remembered that reminder spanks wouldn't be anything like punishment ones.

I can tell you that I have never respected, appreciated, or loved him more then I do in this moment. In return I feel so much love from him. This is why CDD works! This is why God lead us down this path, and this is why I know my marriage will only lead to good things.

My DH took control and told me what to expect if I mess up again. He was very serious, straightforward, and confident. Even if he had no clue about what he was doing he sure did not let me know it. That is why I feel so good about this. Had he wavered or showed insecurity I may have kept pushing to find the limit. This way I didn't have to. He told me exactly where the limit was, and so I am at peace with it. Though I must admit it's a little scary how quickly he picked it up. It went straight from a 'test' spank to "this is what will happen if". He's fast. I, for one, sure am grateful for that.

What I am trying to say is MEN...If you lead she WILL follow, and she will be content in doing so.

By now some have already probably figured it out...
Quote:
What seems to be the most obvious explanation for CDD, one acknowledged by some domestic discipline advocates not tied to the Christian church, is that the practice is a means to justify the fulfillment of a sexual fetish. On a CDD blog, “Sue” writes, “Boy do I wish more of the women in DD would admit to this. It’s a sexual fetish. There’s nothing wrong with it, but they try to make it so much more than it is.”
Quote:
Jim Alsdurf, a forensic psychologist who evaluates and treats sexual psychopaths and is the author of a book on abuse in Christian homes, says CDD isn’t about religion—it’s an outlet for emotionally disturbed men with intimacy deficits.

“No fool in his right mind would buy this as a legitimate way to have a relationship,” Alsdurf says. “A relationship that infantilizes a woman is one that clearly draws a more pathological group of people.” http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/19/spanking-for-jesus-in
side-the-unholy-world-of-christian-domestic-discipline.html]

I'm sorry, but any relationship that infantilizes a woman and gives ownership and authority of her to a man who has permission to hit her, is an unhealthy one, and to make it part of a RELIGION is just plain sick!

Further,
Quote:
When a wife breaks her husband’s rules—-rolling her eyes, maybe, or just feeling “meh,” as one blogger put it—-that can equal punishments which are often corporal but can also be “corner time”; writing lines (think “I will not disobey my master” 1,000 times); losing a privilege like internet access; or being “humbled” by some sort of nude humiliation. Some practice “maintenance spanking,” wherein good girls are slapped on a schedule to remind them who’s boss; some don’t.

ROLLING HER EYES?!?! The end result of a “disciplined” relationship can look alarmingly similar to an abusive one. Wendy Dickson runs an emergency shelter for women and children and she says, “It’s sick“; women beaten in the name God, she’s discovered, are no different from the women she sees every day in her shelter. Battered.

Excuse me while I go

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:22 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


There there...

* pats little Niki on head *


It'll be alright.

Don't fret yourself none.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:28 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I take it you are not capable of intelligent discussion, as that is the only reason I can think of for such a response.



We understand. Don't fret about it. But if you wouldn't mind, leave this thread for the adults to discuss.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:37 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Im a firm believer in spanking wives, whether mine or any other wife Im in bed with.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:47 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

I take it you are not capable of intelligent discussion, as that is the only reason I can think of for such a response.



We understand. Don't fret about it. But if you wouldn't mind, leave this thread for the adults to discuss.



Capable, yes. Interested, not so much. Not on this subject.

You'll twist yourself up over perceived abuse of women by Christians, but don't show anywhere near the same concern for Muslim women when it comes to Sharia law.

Seriously, which of the two religious rules is worse ?

( This is NOT a trick question )

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 22, 2013 10:09 AM

STORYMARK


Because, in Rappy land, as long as there are big bad Mooslims to be scared of, Christians can't be criticized for anything, at all, period.

Sure, no one here has ever defended Sharia law, or defended Islam's crimes against women - but facts don't matter to a zealot like him, and as long as we're not constantly running about, constantly raging about that and ONLY that, nothing else is "interesting" to him.




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 22, 2013 2:02 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


This is just institutionalised abuse, make no mistake about it. What they are advocating is violence against women.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 22, 2013 3:29 PM

MAL4PREZ


Yep, that's some pretty sick stuff. And no way is that "comment" from a spanked woman an actual comment from an actual woman. That was written by the same whack job (get the pun?) who wrote the site. That's what he wishes a woman would think after he pulled this ridiculous stunt.

Hard to believe that men like this still exist. Pathetic.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:19 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


This is the latest fad by the nutty fundies, the use of the Bible to demand that wives submit to their husband. It's all over the Christian sites.

"The reason for this submission is organization. In every group or organization there must be order. In a marriage there are inevitably times when one person must make decisions that affect all others. That weighty task is assigned to the husband. God will hold him accountable. In making such decisions the husband should seek the insight of his wife. He opinion may not determine his decision; BUT she deserves the right of knowing it will be lovingly considered, and it will influence his decision.

One of the great weaknesses in American families today is the failure of the husband to take a loving leadership role. Most wives want it and children crave it. When it isn’t given, there is insecurity and anxiety. It is as bad not to give such leadership as it is to be overbearing and dictatorial.

The wife who robs her husband of that right robs herself and her children of blessings intended by God."
http://www.nelsonprice.com/the-submitted-wife-the-committed-husband/

Or this gem by a husband, writing about what submission really means

http://www.todayschristianwoman.com/articles/2008/september/whats-so-s
cary-about-submission.html

"#4: "Submit" to the leadership of your husband. Just mention the word "submission," and many women immediately become angry and even hostile. This controversial concept has been highly debated and misunderstood.

Some husbands and wives actually believe submission indicates that women are inferior to men in some way. I have known women who think that if they submit they will lose their identity and become "non-persons." Others fear (some with good reason) that submission leads to being used or abused.

Another misconception is that submission means blind obedience on the part of the woman. She can give no input to her husband, question nothing, and only stay obediently barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

What does God have in mind? Here are two passages from Scripture:

Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them (Colossians 3:18-19).

Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body (Ephesians 5:22-30).

These Scriptures make it clear that a wife should submit voluntarily to her husband's sensitive and loving leadership. Therefore, as I voluntarily submit to my husband, I am completing him. I am helping him fulfill his responsibilities, and I am helping him become the man, the husband, and the leader God intended him to be.

Building oneness in marriage works best when both partners choose to fulfill their responsibilities voluntarily, with no pressure or coercion. To become the servant-leader God has commanded him to be, Dennis needs my gracious respect and submission. And when Dennis loves me the way he is commanded to, I can more easily submit myself to that leadership.

I do this with an attitude of entrusting myself to God. In one of his letters, Peter told us that even though Jesus suffered terrible pain and insults, He did not retaliate "but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously" (1 Peter 2:23). When you entrust your life to the Father, it's much easier to be the wife of an imperfect man, particularly when you may have disagreements."

http://www.familylife.com/articles/topics/marriage/staying-married/wiv
es/what-should-be-the-wifes-role-in-marriage#.UcafiNhW2So

Just a few examples.

Forget equality, the Bible (written 2000+ years ago) tells you to submit, ladies.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 22, 2013 10:02 PM

AGENTROUKA


This is disturbing.

"Hey, don't worry about being abused, humiliated or isolated from friends and family if your husband happens to be a bad person. Don't ever attempt to protect yourself or your children if you have a 'disagreement'. It's just God's way of testing you."

Or, hey, "By submitting I can help him become the man God wants him to be." After all, your entire life must be about him and his relationship with God, not in any way your own.


I'm really glad I wasn't raised with religion. There's enough harmful messages out there that aren't wrapped up with the idea of saving my eternal soul from the fires of damnation if I embrace them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 23, 2013 1:53 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Google "domestic dicipline" and you'll find that this is not just a Christian movement. Plenty of secular DD, it appears from the web. Sounds more like mild consensual BDSM play than anything else.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 23, 2013 2:51 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Magons, I couldn't read that stuff, sorry. Still had too bad a taste in my mouth from the first stuff. But, 'yes' to everything you said.

And Mal4, if you really think that's not a woman writing that, hooo, boy, do you not know what's going on! If you don't think there are lots and LOTS of "Christian" women who think this is a great idea, you don't know beans. "The Church" has ALWAYS been about keeping women in their place, so it's a natural transgression, but as Geezer mentions, it's simply S&M with a religious veil pulled over it, and there are lots of women into THAT. Also lots of women get sucked into that mentality without having their religion used to put it in place and sanction it; to do so is egregious beyond belief.

The difference IS the religion, and it's a biggie. Geezer waving it off as nothing is sickening, that this is INSTITUTIONALIZED S&M, with only the man having control, and SANCTIONED by the Church, which is sickening. To pretend this is something other than what it is, simple bullying, even if accepted by the ignorant woman, displays a mentality that should make him ashamed, which of course it doesn't. Any more than, obviously, it offends Rap. Apparently they're still part of that rape culture we need to fix, given their tacit approval.

And yes, of course, since we don't rail about it every hour on the hour, we all "approve" of Shariah abuse of women, and as long as SOMEONE else is doing it, or anything right-wing "Christians" do, is fine by Rap.

In reality, it's just plain sickening; if people want to play at S&M, that's their business; to make it a part of a RELIGION, thereby putting the woman in a position where it's far harder for her to complain or seek help, is beyond unconscionable. Like women haven't suffered and fought long and hard enough to gain the right to determine their own fate, and so much of it against the very religion being used as an excuse for this atrocity!

One of the remarks by experts is that it's a way for "Christians" to legitimize S&M, since "Christians" tend to be more "conservative" (if you will) in their approach to sexuality. That's bullshit, too; if they need an excuse to experiment, let them find another one. This one is disgusting. Be up front about it, don't put a woman in the position of being coerced by her religion (any more than they already ARE), or in a position where, if she chooses NOT to (even after the fact), she faces potential disapproval or otherwise from figures of authority.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 23, 2013 3:40 AM

PENGUIN


Religion is about control.




King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 23, 2013 7:12 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Pretty horrible, I hope Wulfenstar doesn't come across this movement.

On Auraptor's jokey, casual sexism: it's interesting, I can remember a time not too long ago when I would have found it funny. I think sometimes you need to be at the wrong end of bigotry before you can develop a real revulsion to it.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 23, 2013 7:15 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Good. I'm glad you don't find it funny anymore; if we could educate everyone, men and women alike, to not find this shit funny, we'd go a long ways toward making this a better world for ALL of us.

I've got news for you; if you'd been on the butt end of this kind of crap from birth, you NEVER would have found it funny.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 23, 2013 7:16 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:
if you'd been on the butt end of this kind of crap from birth, you NEVER would have found it funny.

No doubt.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 23, 2013 7:19 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Sorry, cross-posting. I'll put it here: What changed for you? I've never noted whether you were male or female, but if you're female, you've been lucky. I have too, actually; I THINK it's because of my size (and maybe how my size effects my mentality or something), but I've suffered far less patronizing, belittling and sexism than I've seen other women around me. I see/hear it and am offended on their behalf, and usually speak up if they don't (tho' around here it's rare enough now and most women WILL speak up, so I don't see OR hear it hardly at all anymore).

ETA: Except here on FFF.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 23, 2013 8:33 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
This is just institutionalised abuse, make no mistake about it. What they are advocating is violence against women.


And that is *EXACTLY* how I feel, to a nicety, when they advocate it in regards to children - now you see my point ?

On top of that, I did absolutely tell y'all this kinda thing was coming, cause all that crap about personhood and womens control over their own bodies and all that rot is in fact a lashing out at the fact that women HAVE rights, most particularly the one the Conservatives really, REALLY want to strip from them... the right to Vote.

I described the plan-in-concept a couple times in detail here as I recall, and this is just more of the same, attempting to shove women back into a chattel status, soon followed by minorities, in hopes of returning to a good-ole-days (that never were) where such people "knew their place".

Believe me, a lifetime spent trying to elevate youth OUT of that abusive legal, social and moral sinkhole of our society makes one very keen on spotting attempts to shove people back in, and particularly rabid about not allowing it to happen.

In essence, this is the same Dobson-Ezzo Black Pedagogy bullshit applied to a husband-wife relationship instead of a parent-child one, while shading the differents between those two in the bargain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisonous_pedagogy

THE SAME GODDAMN THING.
Now do you understand my outrage, my hatred of the people behind this ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 23, 2013 8:38 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
On Auraptor's jokey, casual sexism: it's interesting, I can remember a time not too long ago when I would have found it funny. I think sometimes you need to be at the wrong end of bigotry before you can develop a real revulsion to it.

That, or having to clean up after the damage it does, again, and again, and again....

I think anyone who ever did find such nastiness amusing oughta be forced to watch the inevitable death spiral of someone damaged past helping by this shit, and if they still find humor in it, executed on the spot.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 23, 2013 8:56 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:
Sorry, cross-posting. I'll put it here: What changed for you? I've never noted whether you were male or female, but if you're female, you've been lucky.

I'm not female but I am black. Like you I've been lucky and not faced much bigotry/discrimination directly, but just with a growing awareness of racism in society (thanks a lot to the internet) at some point something snapped... Now it's personal; I no longer have any tolerance for these attitudes towards discriminated minorities be it female, gay, Muslim, whatever.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 23, 2013 9:11 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Frem: Did you harbor some belief that anyone here did NOT see your point or share your outrage about children (tho' there are some of us who aren't as easily given to hating PEOPLE as much as what they DO)?!?

And did you somehow think you were telling us something many of us didn't already know and weren't already saying about the situation with the right and women?? I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't feel precisely the same as you do about children, and it's only some righties here who have been claiming there WASN'T a war on women and women's rights. You are no prophet, sir, and that you revel in hatred is nothing about which to feel superior.

KPO, I honor you for your honesty and your growth. But that we should all grow in our recognition of the need to speak up against such things, and be as courageously honest. I noted at one point that you write from across the Pond, but that's all I knew about you previously.

Brenda: I'VE MISSED YOU! Haven't heard your voice for a while, and wondered if we/I had offended...I'm still watching my Due South, and still enjoying it, by the way ;o). As voices from outside our narrow little world are important to me, aside from the fact that I just plain LIKE yours, I missed you doubly.

We are a society suffering from problems down here which particularly shame me; I hope we can grow beyond them in time. I like to harbor the hope that, where both sexism and racism are concerned, America is going through one of those growth phases where people act out before they move forward. Hey, I'm allowed to dream!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 23, 2013 3:02 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
The difference IS the religion, and it's a biggie. Geezer waving it off as nothing is sickening, that this is INSTITUTIONALIZED S&M, with only the man having control, and SANCTIONED by the Church, which is sickening.


CDD is SANCTIONED by the church? What church? Name one recognized Christian denomination that sanctions this. The fact that they quote scripture to their ends doesn't mean any actual church supports their actions.

This is a few thousand mostly anonymous folks who, per the Daily Beast and Huffpost articles, communicate online and discuss their particular interest. The only difference I can see between them and any other fetishist is that they cloak their kink of choice in religious overtones.

And like any other BDSM play, once it ceases to be consensual, it's abuse.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 23, 2013 3:39 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:
And like any other BDSM play, once it ceases to be consensual, it's abuse.


It seems to me the danger with this movement is that women may be manipulated into consenting because they're taught it's their religious duty to submit.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 23, 2013 3:54 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
And like any other BDSM play, once it ceases to be consensual, it's abuse.


It seems to me the danger with this movement is that women may be manipulated into consenting because they're taught it's their religious duty to submit.

It's not personal. It's just war.


I would guess that some women, or men, are manipulated into submission in any such relationship, whether due to religion, perceived roles, or their personal quirks. That's a risk in any relationship, be it religious or secular - dating, marriage, kinky sex, or whatever.

I'm not saying that bad results can't occur from a CDD relationship - any more or less than any other relationship - but characterizing it as something that's sanctioned by anything but a fringe element of Christianity is bogus.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 23, 2013 5:13 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


The idea of the submissive wife, as per Ephesians 5:22, 24, 33. “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. . . . As the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. . . . The wife must see to it that she respects her husband.” The submission of the wife to the Christian husband is clear. It should be the same submission as that given to the Lord Himself." is increasingly being discussed amongst Christians of many denominations, as the power of fundamentalists, those who follow the Bible literally increases in America and Australia.


Quote:
SALT LAKE CITY — A wife should "submit herself graciously" to her husband, the Southern Baptist Convention declared Tuesday, throwing the weight of the nation's second-largest religious organization behind a controversial belief of Christian conservatives.

Representatives of the 16 million-member denomination voted overwhelmingly to add four paragraphs about the nature of the family to the "Baptist Faith and Message," the central statement of the denomination's beliefs, which had not been amended for 35 years.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-06-10/news/9806100212_1_baptis
t-faith-and-message-rev-paige-patterson-denomination

Quote:
Sacred Scripture clearly teaches that God gives men and women different roles in the Church, the family, and society. Men are intended by God to be teachers and leaders in the Church, the family, and society. Women should not have any kind of teaching role over adult men. Women should not have any kind of leadership role over adult men.

Women may teach and lead children, both boys and girls (even into the teenage years). God gave women the ability to become pregnant, to carry and give birth to children. In this way, God gave women also the primary role in teaching and leading children.

Women may teach and lead other women. An older and wiser woman may be a leader and teacher over other women, especially if they are younger or less knowledgeable than she. But it is not right for a young woman to take a role teaching or leading much older women, (unless those older women are mentally-disabled).

The teaching that men and women are meant to have different roles clearly indicates that changes are needed in our society today.

Women should not be political leaders. In politics, a woman should not be President or Vice President or Senator or Representative or Governor or a State legislator. A woman should not have any elected or appointed political position with authority over men, because it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. A woman should not be Judge in any court of law, because courts have authority over men.

In general, women should not be law enforcement officers, though some exceptions to this rule can be made when a female is specifically needed for certain tasks (e.g. undercover law enforcement work or work involving women prisoners or involving children). Women should not be soldiers. Women should not be military officers with authority over male soldiers.

"Wives, be submissive 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, and is himself its Savior." (Ephesians 5:22)

Here again is a Scripture passage often rejected or misinterpreted because of the influence of secular society. The teaching of Christ is that the husband is the head of the family. The wife is the heart of the family. The husband has authority over the family and over his wife. This is not the worldly authority of giving orders and dominating someone. Rather, it is an image of the loving authority of Christ over His Church.

"Wives, be obedient to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them." (Colossians 3:18)

This passage is often rejected by Christians, because they are following the ideas of their culture rather than the ideas of Christ. Women sometimes say that marriage is a "50-50 partnership," but such is not the teaching of Christ. A woman who seeks power over her husband, who fights with him for control of the family, will ruin her marriage and her family. A wife sins against God if she rejects her husband's authority over her or if she seeks to have authority over him.


From the Catholic Website http://www.catholicplanet.com/women/roles.htm

So yes, there are many different views amongst Christians as well as Muslims,Jews, Buddhists, Hindus et al particularly around how literally they view their sacred texts. It is entirely justifiable that Niki posts her concerns around any aspect of any religion that causes her concern, particularly given how fundamentalism and extremism can creep into the mainstream.

This is more widespread than some marginal fetish group, this is institutionalised abuse at worse, and institutionalised inequality at best.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2013 2:20 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
It is entirely justifiable that Niki posts her concerns around any aspect of any religion that causes her concern, particularly given how fundamentalism and extremism can creep into the mainstream.


Maybe. But when she conflates the actions of a few thousand CDD adherents with Christianity at large, she's not attacking a problem, she's attacking a large and diverse group of people who'd probably agree with her that CDD is wrong.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2013 3:53 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


A movement - as was pointed out before in this thread - that has origins in the teachings of x-tianity and a majority history that extends up to mere decades ago.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2013 4:49 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Pretty horrible, I hope Wulfenstar doesn't come across this movement.

On Auraptor's jokey, casual sexism: it's interesting, I can remember a time not too long ago when I would have found it funny. I think sometimes you need to be at the wrong end of bigotry before you can develop a real revulsion to it.

It's not personal. It's just war.


Only I offered up no sexism in this thread, casual or otherwise.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2013 5:03 AM

BYTEMITE


Pretty sure Twilight and the 50 Shades series are what popularized this stuff among tween to thirty year old women.

Adding Christianity overtones is a new twist. But it was those pieces of tripe that created renewed appeal for these concepts among women and allowed this to become a movement. If it had only been men who wanted this, it would have remained a ridiculous underground thing like The Game. It only becomes a movement if the romantic overtures are successful.

Fundie groups and men who play the victim card in relationships have been waiting for this opportunity, true, but as much blame for this falls on the women who still find some appeal in the outdated notions of chivalry and the male as a "protective guardian."

Unfortunately the women are the ones who will suffer for this, when the romantic ideal gives way to the misogynistic reality. However, despite falling for such an obvious con, I think most of these women actually will be smart enough to get the hell out of dodge when it all goes down. I hate Twilight and 50 Shades, but I must recognize their value as a teaching mechanism for utterly naive people.

Side note: all romantic relationships subvert the identity and better judgement. I don't really understand why people believe them to be such a positive experience, or why they're so over emphasized by pop-culture and modern society. I can only assume it's because the establishment wants people to waste their time with meaningless "dating" and personal problems instead of rising up against more serious issues.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2013 6:22 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Pretty sure Twilight and the 50 Shades series are what popularized this stuff among tween to thirty year old women.

Adding Christianity overtones is a new twist. But it was those pieces of tripe that created renewed appeal for these concepts among women and allowed this to become a movement.


It may have increased the popularity of late, but its been around. I have a highly religious contingent in my family - one side Baptist, the other catholic - and they've lived by this "women obey the husband" notion - to a fault - my entire life. Hell, my Aunt is currently in prison for doing what her husband (also in prison) told her to do.

A cousin of mine got married last week - the entire ceremony was about her responsibility to obey him, and his responsibility to make the correct choices for her.

Creeped me the fuck out.




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2013 6:27 AM

BYTEMITE


Oh, I know it's been around. But it hasn't really been mainstream.

But now there's all these Twilight fans and 50 Shades of Grey fans running around. And you'll never recognize any of them by looking at them.

...Unless the 50 Shades fans are wearing handcuffs as a fashion statement, because... I've seen that. And I knew, because they were reading 50 shades at the time too, and I thought, WHY. WHY DOES THIS HAPPEN.

Still, paranoia fuel.

And they all might fall for something like this. Which, I think, is why these ideas are even gaining traction.

Otherwise there is NO REASON for these ideas to be popular, and I'm not sure I want to live in a world where dangerously abusive ideas like these can become mainstream on their own. I need people to be smarter than that. Don't take it away from me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2013 6:41 AM

AGENTROUKA


I think women who read this drivel deserve some credit. A majority of them probably knows it's drivel and enjoys it as a form of escapism. All the women I know who read either of those described it as such, among them survivors of real-life abusive relationships, curiously enough.

Those vulnerable to being influenced by books like this, to their actual detriment, are probably already vulnerable due to other aspects of their environment/upbringing/social circle/young age.

And I'm saying this as someone who cannot bring herself to read that stuff, even to make fun of it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2013 6:56 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I think women who read this drivel deserve some credit. A majority of them probably knows it's drivel and enjoys it as a form of escapism. All the women I know who read either of those described it as such, among them survivors of real-life abusive relationships, curiously enough.

Those vulnerable to being influenced by books like this, to their actual detriment, are probably already vulnerable due to other aspects of their environment/upbringing/social circle/young age.

And I'm saying this as someone who cannot bring herself to read that stuff, even to make fun of it.


True. Which is why I think things might turn out okay here, with the ones who don't fall for it deftly avoiding the situation, and the ones too young/inexperienced/susceptible will learn some very important lessons if they try it out.

However, it also has to be said that a majority of the people who were reading those books could not possibly have been reading them for the irony. So there is some suggestion of enjoying the themes and indicates a surprisingly wide spread pop-culture belief that those themes are "romantic."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2013 7:47 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Given that the "Christian Domestic Discipline" covers itself with the idea that it is done "out of love for Jesus" and is "ordained by God", why has no church DENOUNCED it? By staying silent, they are essentially allowing Jesus' name to be used to sanction it. One can easily go further, given the history of the "Christian" church--and especially the Catholic one--when it comes to women, and extrapolate that it is convenient for the church NOT to condemn it outright, but to benefit from it by staying silent.

As others have noted, the history of the "Christian" church is replete with the subjugation of women via Church doctrine. Magon's cite of Paul's letter to the Ephesians is QUITE clear on the point, and this movement is nothing more than an extension of that. ANY time religion is utilized to support something, it will have adherents, and it will have more weight than just individuals choosing to do something. To argue that is just silly.

KPO is absolutely on point: "the danger with this movement is that women may be manipulated into consenting because they're taught it's their religious duty to submit". When cloaked in a veil of religion, many things become more powerful, it has been that way throughout history.

It's no more than an extension of "Catholic" beliefs, as what Magons cited clearly shows:
Quote:
The teaching that men and women are meant to have different roles clearly indicates that changes are needed in our society today.

Women should not be political leaders. In politics, a woman should not be President or Vice President or Senator or Representative or Governor or a State legislator. A woman should not have any elected or appointed political position with authority over men, because it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. A woman should not be Judge in any court of law, because courts have authority over men.

... women should not be law enforcement officers... Women should not be soldiers. Women should not be military officers with authority over male soldiers.

... A wife sins against God if she rejects her husband's authority over her


That puts it directly in the category of "SIN" to reject a husband's authority. So if a husband wants to follow CDD, and the wife rejects it, according to Catholic Planet's, Roman Catholic theologian and translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the holy Bible (his credentials here: http://ronconte.wordpress.com/my-credentials-as-a-roman-catholic-theol
ogian/).

I think once you try to argue that it's no different than non-religious S&M, that it's just a bunch of "mostly anonymous folks", or that "some" people will be manipulated, you lose your argument. This "discipline" is a direct extension of "Christian" and Catholic teaching throughout history; to try and divorce it from the religion is disingenuous at best.

And yes, Byte, one commentator made the same leap you did, in fact went further:
Quote:
...here’s where it all leads… Fifty Shades of Gray. Not even trying to hide it; it’s promoting the book and its thesis of sexual domination.
.....
In this particular case, written in very sophomoric Fifty Shades of Grayish vernacular (if you read the book, you know what I mean – “oh crap” and all). I half expected to see pink hearts and smiley faces embedded. Let me just say this: if you enjoyed the juvenile sexual blatherings of that book, you will likely enjoy these sites. Their essays. The lifestyle. The whole issue of spanking for Jesus. Otherwise… yeah.
.....
Again, Fifty Shades of Gray. The whole “rolling her eyes” bit is a running theme in that book and clearly that book is a theme for the whole movement. Which makes the depth and dimension of it about as deep as the dialogue written for Christian Gray and Anastasia, his submissive gal-pal (Half an inch? Quarter? Can there be a less-than-zero measurement?).
When an entire “religious” lifestyle (movement?) is based on themes found in a badly written erotic novel, you’ve got to wonder. If Christian couples are into a little bondage and discipline for the sake of their sexual pleasure, that’s one thing. To frame it as a Biblical mandate (and we are talking about the same religion that uses the Bible to damn gays to hell) seems a little manipulative. A little convenient. Excerpts from http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/06/21/spank-me-for-jesus-christian-m
ovement-says-husbands-need-to-keep-their-wives-in-line/]

Geezer fails also in claiming I "conflate the actions of a few thousand CDD adherents with Christianity at large." Nowhere did I do so. I stated very clearly at the beginning: "New marriage "discipline" movements for the "Christians" among us". It's a movement. Whether larger or small, it's a movement that exists and which I decried. I did not "attack" all Christians, I put up a post about a movement which CLAIMS ITSELF to be a Christian movement and frames ITSELF under religious terms. Simple as that.

As one commentator wrote:
Quote:
Religious conviction makes people do and say crazy things, many of them not remotely rooted in the teachings of Jesus Christ or other icons of people of faith. Sometimes, those people see the light and realize hate and discrimination are not the goals of any true and sincere religion. And sometimes, those people are so threatened at the thought they might lose control over other groups of people, they double-down on the crazy.

Called "Christian Domestic Discipline," the practice is meant to keep wives in line by domestic violence – or, as its adherents call it, just a way to keep a woman in her rightful, submissive place. As The Daily Beast's Brandy Zadrozny reports:

Referred to as CDD by its followers, the practice often includes spanking and other types corporal punishments administered by husbands—and ostensibly ordained by God. Devotees call CDD an alternative lifestyle and enthusiastically sing its praises; for critics, it's nothing but domestic abuse by another name.

Jezebel's Callie Beusman writes about the women being under constant supervision and monitoring by their husbands, who punish the adult women with such child-rearing tactics as time outs and having phone privileges taken away.

This isn't a lifestyle choice. It's abuse, and it's no less illegal because it's being done in the name of religion. It's the same mindset that led to what Ohio authorities say was the enslavement of three women by a local man who beat them, raped them and kept them from leaving the house. A marriage license and daily prayers don't make it fundamentally any different. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2013/06/21/maybe-ex
odus-international-can-save-women-from-christian-domestic-discipline]

ETA: There is no question that this is a small movement currently (and for some very intelligent and meaningful discussion of it between Catholics themselves, you could check out http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=472063). That changes nothing regarding the potential dangers of this issue, as we've discussed. It exists and is supposedly growing:
Quote:
Christian Domestic Discipline is now a growing trend among totally OVER THE TOP religious fundamentalist freaks. http://inyourfaceradio.net/cdd-or-christian-domestic-discipline-anothe
r-fucked-up-religious-movement/#sthash.PVJwpCBu.dpuf]

Quote:
Christian domestic discipline is a growing trend among very conservative Christian groups in the United States. http://voices.yahoo.com/christian-domestic-discipline-growing-trend-46
00547.html]

Quote:
An increasing number of US Christian couples are implementing the principles of Christian Domestic Discipline (CDD)... http://www.onenewspage.com/n/Religion/74vw2esf3/Christian-Domestic-Dis
cipline-teaches-men-to-spank-their.htm#mAK7zRtpsOdLGEzm.99


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 25, 2013 1:40 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer fails also in claiming I "conflate the actions of a few thousand CDD adherents with Christianity at large." Nowhere did I do so.


Really?

Quote:
Given that the "Christian Domestic Discipline" covers itself with the idea that it is done "out of love for Jesus" and is "ordained by God", why has no church DENOUNCED it? By staying silent, they are essentially allowing Jesus' name to be used to sanction it. One can easily go further, given the history of the "Christian" church--and especially the Catholic one--when it comes to women, and extrapolate that it is convenient for the church NOT to condemn it outright, but to benefit from it by staying silent.






"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 25, 2013 2:32 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Niki will vilify Christianity for the exact same thing for which she gives Islam a complete pass.

Shocker!

( No, not really )

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:21 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


You two will write anything to try and get someone's goat, won't you? Too bad you can't make sense in your trolling.

The official "Christian church" is a MINUTE fraction of the number of Christians out there, and if you think it's lily white and pure as the driven snow, you're simply a hypocrite. I have nothing against the religion itself, but how those in power in it have used every religion, I often have disagreement with. I question the actions of many in power in Democracy, that doesn't equate to Democracy at large. You make no sense in your accusations. Never once did I attack "a large and diverse group of people who'd probably agree with her that CDD is wrong." I attacked the MOVEMENT of CDD, and intimated the "church" might find it advantageous to not condemn it. Period.

What Rap said is pure, unadulterated trolling and merely illustrates stupidity beyond belief. Orrr...has anyone ever considered that Rap might be PN's pretending-to-be-somewhat-saner, pretending-to-be-somewhat-more-socially-acceptable sockpuppet? That sentence is STRAIGHT out of PN's repertoire...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:56 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Niki will vilify Christianity for the exact same thing for which she gives Islam a complete pass.

Shocker!

( No, not really )


Not sure why she has such a hate for Christians.

She started out claiming that CDD was SANCTIONED by "The Church" (as if all Christian denominations were a doctrinally unified whole), but when called on it failed to provide any proof.

Now she's going on about how "The Church" (You know, that big unity of stick-figure gay-hating, wife-beating, n****r-lynching Christians - sort'a like a redneck Illuminati, I guess) failed to CONDEMN the CDD movement, which hardly anyone really knew about until the Daily Beast and Huffpost articles within the past week or so (If she didn't spend so much time trolling "hate Conservatives" sites, she probably wouldn't have heard of CDD either). I'd suspect CDD was hardly on any particular denomination's radar until just this week, and most would figure it falls under their previous CONDEMNATION of domestic abuse.

"The United Methodist Church condemns both domestic violence and sexual abuse as violations of a person’s sacred worth. The Social Principles condemn family violence in all forms. They also acknowledge the abuser’s “need of God’s redeeming love.”"
http://umchealthyfamilies.org/in-the-news/social-principles-on-the-nur
turing-community

"On Sunday, Jan. 9, an interfaith documentary that explores faith groups’ efforts to support the victims of domestic violence begins airing on ABC-affiliated stations around the country.

The documentary, I Believe You: Faiths’ Response to Intimate Partner Violence, was made possible with the support of an interfaith group that includes Presbyterian Women of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the New York Board of Rabbis, the Presbyterians Against Domestic Violence Network, United Methodist Women, the Evangelical Church in America, the National Council of Churches and a consortium of Muslim organizations."
http://www.pcusa.org/news/2011/1/7/pcusa-backed-domestic-violence-spec
ial-begins-airi/

"Therefore be it RESOLVED, That we recognize domestic violence as one of the serious moral issues of our time, and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we encourage local churches to be involved in local programs of ministry for those involved in domestic violence, and that we encourage pastors to utilize available resources such as public and voluntary organizations which can aid them in ministering to families touch by domestic violence, and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we encourage the establishment of clear and responsible public policy related to domestic violence, which policy should be effective at the local, state, and national levels."
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1078

"As pastors of the Catholic Church in the United States, we state as clearly and strongly as we can that violence against women, inside or outside the home, is never justified. Violence in any form"—physical, sexual, psychological, or verbal"—is sinful; often, it is a crime as well. We have called for a moral revolution to replace a culture of violence. We acknowledge that violence has many forms, many causes, and many victims—men as well as women."
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/do
mestic-violence/when-i-call-for-help.cfm

"The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America condemned domestic violence at its 1995 Churchwide Assembly in Minneapolis."
http://www.thelutheran.org/article/article.cfm?article_id=347


"Resolved, That the 73rd General Convention of the Episcopal Church call upon state governments to promote and enact statutes addressing the reduction of domestic violence and the protection of victims of domestic violence and child neglect."
http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolution.pl?resol
ution=2000-D073










"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 25, 2013 5:18 AM

BYTEMITE


Niki: There is even more of a religious connection in that the writer of Twilight is very openly Mormon, and the Mormon culture is very much about women as second class citizens who are reliant upon their husbands for everything. (and it comes through in the narrative of that series too)

The "oh crap" vernacular in 50 shades is a holdover from when 50 shades was actually written as a Twilight fanfiction (with typical censored Mormon vernacular), before all the names were changed.

So yeah, very strong connection between all of this as far as I can tell. Adding the biblical twist and the ridiculous "nice guy" philosophical elements is not entirely unexpected.

It's basically combining the worst elements of "I'm a nice guy so you HAVE to choose me over the bad boy," with "I'm looking for true love, someone to protect me" and then they add "OR YOU'LL GO TO HELL" as the bittersweet cherry on top.

Charming. Maybe they'll all pair up together and leave the rest of us alone. Meanwhile I'll pass.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:01 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Thank you, Byte, that was both interesting and informative. Mormon wrote it, eh? I left Mormonism very soon after being "dunked" because of their racism; I wasn't aware their sexism was so prevalent. Given their earlier belief in polygamy, I don't find it surprising.

Thank you, Geezer, it's good to know they condemn domestic violence. I will await word that they condemn CDD specifically, however, as it doesn't consider itself domestic violence OR domestic abuse.

Your point still fails completely, and here's why. I put up a post about ONE ASPECT of Christianity which I believe is bad. I also put up a post about one aspect of Buddhism which I decry just as loudly. Buddhism IS my chosen faith, so by your twisted logic, I must hate IT, as well, since I'm willing to decry the actions of "a few thousand" of its adherents and the Buddhist monk they follow. Your attempts to belittle me, hence, fail.

The difference is that the Dali Lama, the only titular "head" of Buddhism, is quite clear about Wirathu:
Quote:
Dalai Lama condemns anti-Muslim violence in Burma

LONDON, England – With video footage and other evidence continuing to emerge of atrocities against Muslims in Burma, the Dalai Lama has publicly condemned the violence that has left hundreds dead and an estimated hundreds of thousands homeless, IANS reported on Wednesday (April 24th). http://khabarsouthasia.com/en_GB/articles/apwi/articles/newsbriefs/201
3/04/25/newsbrief-04]

Quote:
The Dalai Lama recently spoke with Channel 4 News, passionately discussing the violence against the Rohingya in Burma.

U Wirathu was mentioned, and the Dalai Lama clearly stated that not only is he wrong in his despicable actions, and that all individual life, according to Buddhist Monk traditions, must be valued and honored. "Buddhists must recognize that different people follow different religions...and we must respect all life." https://www.facebook.com/uscampaignforburma/posts/10151623836450948]

Quote:
Many other Buddhists, including the Dalai Lama, have spoken out against the violence and condemned the Burmese monks.

The Dalai Lama, after the riots in March, said killing in the name of religion was “unthinkable” and urged Myanmar’s Buddhists to contemplate the face of the Buddha for guidance.

Phra Paisal Visalo, a Buddhist scholar and prominent monk in neighboring Thailand, says the notion of “us and them” promoted by Myanmar’s radical monks is anathema to Buddhism. http://shambhalasun.com/news/?s=rakhine&cat=1


I decry any religion which is used to abuse anyone. I am hoping authorities in the Christian church speak out against CDD in time, and will happily applaud them when they do. It doesn't matter WHAT religion is involved. So go ahead with your vitriolic personal assassination, it's only in your head.

"If she didn't spend so much time trolling "hate Conservatives" sites, she probably wouldn't have heard of CDD either" is also a blatant lie and you know it.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:26 AM

BYTEMITE


On Twilight author Stephanie Meyer:

Quote:
Stephenie Meyer was born in Hartford, Connecticut, to Stephen and Candy Morgan. She grew up in Phoenix, Arizona, with five siblings: Seth, Emily, Jacob, Paul, and Heidi. She attended Chaparral High School in Scottsdale, Arizona, where her former English teacher remembered her as "bright but not overly so."[12] She attended Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah where she received a B.A. in English in 1997.[13] Meyer met her husband Christian when she was 4 years old in Arizona, and married him in 1994 when they were both 21. Together they have three sons: Gabe, Seth, and Eli. Christian Meyer, formerly an auditor, has now retired to take care of the children.[14]

Meyer is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; she has stated that she is straight-laced about her beliefs and does not drink alcohol or smoke.[15] Meyer had no experience as a writer of any kind and had never even written a short story before Twilight. She had considered going to law school because she felt she had no chance of becoming a writer; she later noted that the birth of her oldest son Gabe changed her mind, saying, "Once I had Gabe, I just wanted to be his mom."[15] Before becoming an author, Meyer's only professional work was as a receptionist in a property company


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Meyer

She wanted to be a lawyer, and then she "realized" that oh no, she needed to be a stay at home mom instead.

Provo gives me the HEEBIES, let me tell you. The whole town is Stepfordia and people who enter BYU come out... CHANGED. And then Provo has connections to the whole juvenile detention camp thing. Some of those issues exist in SLC too, but because it's a bit more diverse and so the government has to make a play at pretending to carter to other belief and ethnic groups. Not in Provo, where it's terrifyingly uniform.

This is the ugly side to Utah. Where the church is secretly the government, and there's all these business connections where people meet at their wards, and it influences everything. And in the church, women don't get into heaven without their husbands, who they're bound to for all eternity. Husbands become patriarchs and gods of their own heavenly planets, women get to be.... Their wives. And they frown on divorce, even in the case of abuse or adultery, and often refuse to grant church divorces, which screws up the lives of believers who want to get married to other people, and every aspect of people's lives is all political and arranged.

I am a tomboy with no interest in marriage or babies and I was raised in this environment.

If it weren't for how great the natural scenery is, I wouldn't want to stay around here.

Additional useful notes:

Quote:
James initially wrote fanfiction under the pen name "Snowqueens Icedragon", with her most notable work being a Twilight fanfiction that eventually developed into Fifty Shades of Grey.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._L._James

Quote:
Fifty Shades of Grey has attracted criticism due to its origin as a fan fiction based on the Twilight novels, with some readers predicting copyright issues due to this connection.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Shades_of_Grey#Origin_as_fan_fiction

Cites just in case to prove the connection.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:32 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


ALL of that gives me the heebie-jeebies too, Byte. I couldn't live there, if it were the most beautiful scenery in the world. Luckily the scenery where I live is pretty fantastic anyway, and the people here work to keep it that way, while at the same time encapsulating a political attitude where I can live in peace. You have my deepest sympathy (and I hope that copyright infringement thing happens! ;o) )

I've never read the book, and obviously now wouldn't be caught dead doing so. All I can say is "shudder!"


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 2:24 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Thank you, Geezer, it's good to know they condemn domestic violence. I will await word that they condemn CDD specifically, however, as it doesn't consider itself domestic violence OR domestic abuse.


How very disingenuous of you.


Quote:
"If she didn't spend so much time trolling "hate Conservatives" sites, she probably wouldn't have heard of CDD either" is also a blatant lie and you know it.




Sources for your recent posts include:

Mediamatters.com
Alternet.org
Rightwingwatch.org
Addictinginfo.org
(where your info on CDD seems to have originated http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/06/21/spank-me-for-jesus-christian-m
ovement-says-husbands-need-to-keep-their-wives-in-line/ )


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 4:25 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I'm not going to argue the issue with you, except to say that MediaMatters highlights things from BOTH sides (ETA: Correction, I was thinking of MediaITE, which is one of those I check occasionally; MediaMatters must have been a link from another story somewhere, dunno where I quoted it), and has recently gone after Obama and the left far more than the right, and I don't read Rightwingwatch; it was a link to a story and I clicked on the link. I do not read Rightwingwatch specifically because of its agenda. I also virtually never go to MSNBC, nor do I watch it anymore, and I avoid the Daily Beast and Huffpost; sometimes articles link to those sources and, if it's well written, I might use the material there.

As I've said before, I START with CNN, Time, Christian Science Monitor and BBC...usually the stories they cover are things which are already posted, but a LOT of my threads come from those sources, or from links on those websites. I've listed some of the other websites I visit daily as well and yes, if I can't find anything of other interest, I check those you listed as well. As well as smaller, local news sites. If you did a tally of the websites I quote, you'd find those you list among them, but not predominant.

Ironically, the original story on CDD was from US News ( http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2013/06/21/maybe-ex
odus-international-can-save-women-from-christian-domestic-discipline), and I quoted part of it originally, then went to the CDD website and I chose to quote mostly directly from it, as well as other articles I found by googling.

Given you have no problem with the MASSIVE number of posts from obviously not just slanted but downright propagandistic "websites" PN links to consistently, as well as Breitbart, Infowars, etc., which seem to be Rap's stock in trade, I find your accusations pathetically weak.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 4:35 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I'm not going to argue the issue with you, except to say that MediaMatters highlights things from BOTH sides, and has recently gone after Obama and the left far more than the right, and I don't read Rightwingwatch; it was a link to a story and I clicked on the link. I do not read Rightwingwatch specifically because of its agenda. I also virtually never go to MSNBC, nor do I watch it anymore, and I avoid the Daily Beast and Huffpost; sometimes articles link to those sources and, if it's well written, I might use the material there.

As I've said before, I START with CNN, Time, Christian Science Monitor and BBC...usually the stories they cover are things which are already posted, but a LOT of my threads come from those sources, or from links on those websites. I've listed some of the other websites I visit daily as well and yes, if I can't find anything of other interest, I check those you listed as well. As well as smaller, local news sites. If you did a tally of the websites I quote, you'd find those you list among them, but not predominant.

Ironically, the original story on CDD was from US News ( http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2013/06/21/maybe-ex
odus-international-can-save-women-from-christian-domestic-discipline), and I quoted part of it originally, then went to the CDD website and I chose to quote mostly directly from it, as well as other articles I found by googling.

Given you have no problem with the MASSIVE number of posts from obviously not just slanted but downright propagandistic "websites" PN links to consistently, as well as Breitbart, Infowars, etc., which seem to be Rap's stock in trade, I find your accusations pathetically weak.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 4:42 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Stalking, much?

Do enjoy; it bothers me not in the least, and illustrates you for everyone else.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:47 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Ironically, the original story on CDD was from US News ( http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2013/06/21/maybe-ex
odus-international-can-save-women-from-christian-domestic-discipline), and I quoted part of it originally, then went to the CDD website and I chose to quote mostly directly from it, as well as other articles I found by googling.


Sorry, but much of what you quoted was from addictinginfo, such as:

"Both sites have specific categories for Husbands and Wives. In each, we either get a scroll down menu or a click takes you to a page with topics. On CDD.com, in the “Husband” category, we’ve got Leadership, Understanding, Discipline. But CDD.net takes it a little further; their scroll down includes: A Woman’s Nature, To Be Cherished, To Be Led, To Be Protected, The Edge. A sampling:..." and on and on.


Quote:
Given you have no problem with the MASSIVE number of posts from obviously not just slanted but downright propagandistic "websites" PN links to consistently, as well as Breitbart, Infowars, etc., which seem to be Rap's stock in trade, I find your accusations pathetically weak.


I ignore most of what PN posts, and the fact that Auraptor sometimes cites Brietbart, etc., does not change the fact that you often do cite liberal-supporting, conservative-denegrating sites. And I didn't even mention the liberal bloggers you also cite so frequently.

If you want to compare apples to apples, give me some 'Conservative' sites I've frequently cited in first posts of threads I've created.






"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 6:04 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Well Christian doctrine, like Islam and Judaism is derived from texts written hundreds/thousands of years ago when the role and status of women in society was extremely different to what it is today. Those who perceive these texts as literally being the word of god want them followed to the letter - well when that letter suits them. So these religions equally define the role of woman as being subservient to men within their holy texts.

So what do religious people do when faced with outdated concepts within sacred texts? This is something I've never really come to terms with. Do you accept some tenets and reject others? Most Christians seem content to eat shellfish, not accept slavery, do not call for the death penalty for people who work on the Sabbath. Yet they can quote the Bible regarding homosexuality and get quite uptight over abortion, despite the rifeness of infanticide in the Bible.

These people that Niki cites are quoting and following the Bible, so why shouldn't Christians be accountable for their actions and explain how they decide teachings in the Bible should be followed and what is no longer acceptable.

Quote:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your radio show, and I try to share
that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to
defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them
that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of
debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the
specific Bible laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates
a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my
neighbours bitch to the zoning people. They claim the odour is not
pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. What do you think would be a fair price for her? She's
18 and starting college. Will the slave buyer be required to
continue to pay for her education by law?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem
is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence
and threaten to call Human Resources.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A
friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify?

Why can't I own Canadians? Is there something wrong with them due to
the weather?

e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself, or should this be a neighbourhood
improvement project? What is a good day to start? Should we begin
with small stones? Kind of lead up to it?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. I mean, a shrimp just isn't the same
as a you-know-what. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle
room here? Would contact lenses fall within some exception?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by
Lev.19:27. How should they die? The Mafia once took out Albert
Anastasia in a barbershop, but I'm not Catholic; is this ecumenical
thing a sign that it's ok?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to
death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep
with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident
you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 27, 2013 2:14 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

What Rap said is pure, unadulterated trolling and merely illustrates stupidity beyond belief. Orrr...has anyone ever considered that Rap might be PN's pretending-to-be-somewhat-saner, pretending-to-be-somewhat-more-socially-acceptable sockpuppet? That sentence is STRAIGHT out of PN's repertoire...



No it isn't, and really? More empty sock puppet accusations ?

Face it Niki, you give a pass at Islam for what you attack " The Church " of doing, when Islam does it on a far grander scale.

Me pointing that out clearly has you flummoxed, and you can't stand to see yourself in the mirror. So you recoil, and yammer on about 'trolling', and sock puppets and such.



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 27, 2013 4:30 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

No it isn't, and really? More empty sock puppet accusations ?

Face it Niki, you give a pass at Islam for what you attack " The Church " of doing, when Islam does it on a far grander scale.

Me pointing that out clearly has you flummoxed, and you can't stand to see yourself in the mirror. So you recoil, and yammer on about 'trolling', and sock puppets and such.


Everyone is prejudiced against something. It is not uncommon for non-Christians to be prejudiced against Christians, because Christians tend to impact their lives.

I admit to some prejudice about Christians, though I try not to express it. I'm prejudiced against groups of men and women that paint one gender as victims and the other gender as evil oppressive monsters. And I loathe politicians.

I disagree with your feelings about Muslims, AuRaptor, but I respect your right to have suspicions. Only by everyone disliking some other group and pooling our efforts together can we cover all the available possibilities.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:17 - 7469 posts
The Rise and Fall of Western Civilisation
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:12 - 51 posts
Biden* to punish border agents who were found NOT whipping illegal migrants
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:55 - 26 posts
Hip-Hop Artist Lauryn Hill Blames Slavery for Tax Evasion
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:52 - 11 posts
GOP House can't claim to speak for America
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:50 - 12 posts
How Safe is Canada
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:45 - 121 posts
The parallel internet is coming
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:40 - 177 posts
Spooky Music Weird Horror Songs...Tis ...the Season...... to be---CREEPY !
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:39 - 57 posts
'Belarus' and Nuclear Escalation
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:29 - 20 posts
confused Lame duck Presidency, outgoing politicians in politics
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:22 - 7 posts
Crazy Muslims in China start riots, FauxSnooze says 'Muslims Target of Deadly Chinese Riots'
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:10 - 16 posts
Putin's Russia
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:09 - 68 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL