Christian Movement Says Husbands NEED To Keep Their Wives In Line

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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

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

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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 Him

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

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Religion is about control.

---

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

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

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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 p

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

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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

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

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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

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

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Stalking, much?

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

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

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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

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

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

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.

---

Christians are less inconsistent than you think. The rule, at least in the Christian circle I used to be associated with, is that all the severe and stringent rules in the OLD testament can (and should be) ignored. That's new testament theology as laid out by Saint Paul: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant_Theology

I can look up some bible verses if you want, but it's basically stating that since the death of Jesus people can be reconciled to God by the fact that their sin has been paid for, and so they don't have to live their lives by all the strict OT regulations.

But the definition of sin has not changed, so things like the Ten Commandments are still somewhat relevant. So too, arguably, are passages where homosexuality is described as an 'abomination' - God's not likely to have changed his mind on that. Keep in mind that the OT is still the word of God, it's just been superseded by the NT.

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

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

Most of the strict stuff about food is due to poorly understood health concerns related to said food. And the stuff about clothing is related to not mistaking one group of people for another group of people you might be at war with. Strict codes about relationships and reproduction were due to survival mode in a resource poor desert.

These are all moot points nowadays.

Interestingly, Christians actually were fairly pro-women early on. It was a better option for Roman women to secretly practice Christianity as they could participate, passages barring women from entering churches were surely introduced later. Though Saint Peter really was a misogynist.

Also most Christian European countries had rules that a fetus wasn't a human until the quickening, just for the convenience of impoverished families already unable to feed the mouths they had. It wasn't until the 1700 and 1800s that health care was modernized, doctors rediscovered the hippocratic oath which forbade remedies to pregnant women, and the rest is history.

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

Thanx, KPO and Byte, those were interesting and informative. I didn't know some of that, tho' I knew about the old and new testament stuff. The reasoning behind discounting the old testament seems very convenient, to me, but the reasoning behind food (which I knew) and clothing (which I didn't) and such makes more sense. It's too bad people so immersed in their beliefs can't use common sense at the same time, but then one of the basic INTENTIONS of most religion is to do people's thinking FOR them, which is the basis of power, and so it goes.

And thank you, Magons; that was wonderful. Seen its equivalent many times, and it always makes me smile.

I think I'll let Thomas Jefferson speak for me when it comes to ALL "religions": "There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half of the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."

Rap is just repeating his same idiotic tripe, so no response is necessary. As is Geezer; my issue with his remark was his claim that I "troll" certain cites; I've proven my point.

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

I think I'll let Thomas Jefferson speak for me when it comes to ALL "religions": "There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half of the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."

Rap is just repeating his same idiotic tripe, so no response is necessary.

---

Jefferson had some unkind things to say about Muslims, Niki.

And as for my 'idiotic tripe', I don't blame you for not responding. You can't, and still have a shred of honesty about you.

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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

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.

---

One would ask you to provide an example of when she has given Islam as "pass" for such things - but then, we know better then to expect a modicum of honesty from a trolling little zealot douche like yourself.




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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

I think I'll let Thomas Jefferson speak for me when it comes to ALL "religions": "There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half of the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."

---

Jefferson had some unkind things to say about Muslims, Niki.

---

Jefferson also had some funny ideas about slavery and whoremongering. He really knew how to keep his black property folk on his plantation, just like today's Democrats do. Maybe Niki knows how many bastard children he populated Virginia and France with.

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

Story, don't bother. We all know Rap's methodology, and it's not worth addressing his silliness. What Jefferson had to say about Islam/Muslims is totally irrelevant, aside from it being very amusing that I wrote that what Jefferson said pretty much reflects what I feel about ALL RELIGIONS. That includes Islam, which Rap is apparently incapable of realizing.

It's just silliness, and all part of Rap/Jong/Geez's desperate need to find SOMETHING nasty they can say back to me. Keeps 'em busy, I guess...

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
I think I'll let Thomas Jefferson speak for me when it comes to ALL "religions": "There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half of the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."

---

Questionable quote, per Monticello.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/superstition-christianity-quo
tation

Quote:

---

As is Geezer; my issue with his remark was his claim that I "troll" certain cites; I've proven my point.

---

Troll as in fish for. The number of times you cite such sites makes it pretty self-evident you look at them on a consistent basis trying to net stuff critical of conservatives.



"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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

It's hardly a sin though, considering the amount of bias in MSM such as Fox, that someone would want to look elsewhere for a bit of balance.

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

This...























or this...?





OK Al you win...



As you can see da married womens know their place and do whatever piratenews asks them to!

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

in your fantasy, matey

thanks for posting the ads, reminds us of how shit the past was

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:


Christians are less inconsistent than you think. The rule, at least in the Christian circle I used to be associated with, is that all the severe and stringent rules in the OLD testament can (and should be) ignored. That's new testament theology as laid out by Saint Paul: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant_Theology

I can look up some bible verses if you want, but it's basically stating that since the death of Jesus people can be reconciled to God by the fact that their sin has been paid for, and so they don't have to live their lives by all the strict OT regulations.

But the definition of sin has not changed, so things like the Ten Commandments are still somewhat relevant. So too, arguably, are passages where homosexuality is described as an 'abomination' - God's not likely to have changed his mind on that. Keep in mind that the OT is still the word of God, it's just been superseded by the NT.

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

---

Sorry KPO, this does nothing to demonstrate consistent thinking. You cannot speak for all Christians, any more than the Christians who call for wife abuse at the beginning of this thread. That is because people who call themselves Christians believe a variety of things, and argue amongst sects on many aspects of interpretation, not to mention the following:

the virginity of Mary
whether the Eucharist is symbolic, or the wine really does turn to blood and the bread to flesh (as I was taught)

Even saying the Ten Commandments are law and unchanging, but most of the rest of the OT is not law is inconsistent.

And the issue really comes down to the fact that texts were written thousands of years ago by men who were products of their time and were writing wisdoms and laws applicable thousands of years ago. So some of the writing feels relevant for todays world, and some of it does not. What it clearly isn't, some divinely inspired text.

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

Quote:

---

And the issue really comes down to the fact that texts were written thousands of years ago by men who were products of their time and were writing wisdoms and laws applicable thousands of years ago. So some of the writing feels relevant for todays world, and some of it does not. What it clearly isn't, some divinely inspired text.

---

I agree. In my opinion, MEN wrote virtually every religious text, ergo there is an inherent bias in every one. A human bias and a male bias both.

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

Just stumbled on this site while researching surving a "Christian" mentally abusive rrelationship and turns out that I love Firefly too. Any I don't know how these discussion bforums work....I do see that this happened over six months ago. But I wanted to say thanks for starting this topic and to the majority of the people who shared their thoughts and wisdom. Won't bore you all with the details but I married into a very strict Nazarene family and was belittled and controlled (from the food I ate, the clothes I wore, to what I was allowed to think) for five years before I got out. Religion was an easy way to control someone who grew up a minister's daughter. Though I was never spanked, there are many ways "to put a woman in her place". I left 16 yrs ago with my 5yr old son and despite being in a healthy relationship now, I still have moments that creep up on me from the past...moments when I realize I'm not as cured as I think of it. Today was one of those times and honestly reading this thread helped me more than any others. So thank you all so much for sharing :-)



Jenjen

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

I'm glad you got out. Thanks for sharing with us.

Feel free to participate wherever, though it gets a little rough in the politics section. If you love Firefly, though, the general boards are full of people who will pour over all 14 episodes endlessly looking for new takes, insights, or ideas. A show like Firefly about independence and free-spirits among both men and women is just what many of us need to see.

Also, you're not alone. I've known other women who were brought up in environments where religion was used to abuse and force conformity. They have broken free and are smart and happy and self-confident. They found both self-sufficiency and acceptance. Keep up the good fight.

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

Yep....

"Christian Movement Says Husbands NEED To Keep Their Wives In Line"

The headline of this Enquirer magazine swore to tell you the truth about the Obama's Secret Lives.



I know you're afraid of the real media today Niki, but you seriously could do better than quoting a highschool book report from Salem.

Love ya girl,
6

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yep....

"Christian Movement Says Husbands NEED To Keep Their Wives In Line"

The headline of this Enquirer magazine swore to tell you the truth about the Obama's Secret Lives.



I know you're afraid of the real media today Niki, but you seriously could do better than quoting a highschool book report from Salem.

Love ya girl,
6

---

Seek help, nutjob.




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

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JENJEN374:
Just stumbled on this site while researching surving a "Christian" mentally abusive rrelationship and turns out that I love Firefly too. Any I don't know how these discussion bforums work....I do see that this happened over six months ago. But I wanted to say thanks for starting this topic and to the majority of the people who shared their thoughts and wisdom. Won't bore you all with the details but I married into a very strict Nazarene family and was belittled and controlled (from the food I ate, the clothes I wore, to what I was allowed to think) for five years before I got out. Religion was an easy way to control someone who grew up a minister's daughter. Though I was never spanked, there are many ways "to put a woman in her place". I left 16 yrs ago with my 5yr old son and despite being in a healthy relationship now, I still have moments that creep up on me from the past...moments when I realize I'm not as cured as I think of it. Today was one of those times and honestly reading this thread helped me more than any others. So thank you all so much for sharing :-)



Jenjen

---

You are most welcome - there's a lot of similar discussions about when religion crosses the line into abuse, and even abuses against religion by government, such as what happened with that whole Mormon vs Baptist fight in Texas a while back, as the Baptists subverted local Govt into an attack on the civil rights of a Mormon community...
If you're unsucessful archive-dredging you can always ask, also.

Mind you, better get your armor plate out, as is this is an unmoderated, free for all, anything goes kind of forum, and many of the local denizens (myself included at times) are not the nicest of people, no.

That said, human/civil rights, personhood, and how societies, governments and religions often conspire to subvert or deprive them is a pet peeve of mine and a topic I know a whole damn lot about, and one reason I expound at length on such topics usually (and often to the annoyance of some) is for the exact reason what transpired here, that someone "outside" the forum might stumble upon it and find it useful, even if they never make this known.

Anyhows, welcome to our little pirahna infested wading pool.

-Frem

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