Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
SunnyBeBe

Gimme That Old Time Religion

Recommended Posts

That whole modesty dress thing to me is bullshit. Women should be able to wear what they want when they want to. No matter what a woman is wearing it's not ok for men to treat her like a slut or anything less than the woman she is. I don't care if it's a bikini or a burka, or anything in between, if a man is lusting after a woman/getting all hot and bothered it probably has little to do with her clothing alone.

 

The Duggars are probably the type of family to judge a woman who'd been sexually assaulted by saying "by the way she was dressed she was asking for it" and that is not ok.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

http://starcasm.net/archives/263315

 

This is an argument I can never win with all my Christian friends. Maybe I'm wrong or naive? I am tired of women getting the blame for dressing immodest. I always say, you could cover up a woman from head to toe and a man will still have sensual thoughts. And it's okay for a man to show his bare arms? Seeing all those muscles isn't going to cause sensual thoughts in women? The topic is so one-sided.

I totally agree. Why is it okay for a man to wear pants?  We can then see the shape of his butt and we all know you can see the shape of their oh so private parts if they turn or bend a certain way.  Why don't they wear kilts to protect women from their lustful nature?  Why can the girls show their legs below the knees but they guys have to wear long pants?  

 

So what is the Duggar's thought process?  (Do they even have one?)  Can women not get turned on or lust after a man?  If a sexy man scantily dresses walks by, to the boys yell out Ugg or Adidas?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't grow up fundie but close in some ways, with many aspects of the Duggar lingo and way of life being familiar. Not that this was how it was expressed at church, but basically the mentality behind women having to be "modest" is that in general, men are infinitely hornier than women and more visual creatures, who, left to their own devices, are willing to be far more immoral in thinking about sex and procuring it, so if all the women around them cover up, then they won't have so many urges or the opportunity to act on them.

 

The mentality at play is that if girls do think about sex, it's likely to be in a more romantic context, part of the whole "does he really like me", doodling "JSlave [HisLastName]" in hearts, "first kiss on the wedding day" Prince Charming fantasy they've been sold. Ideally, they'd be thinking about laundry or cooking or their countenance, but "good girls" aren't strictly out to get some. Teen boys and men, OTOH, the thinking is that at their worst, they are super horny and lustful, imagining pretty much every attractive woman they see naked and fantasizing about having sex with all of them. And the more they have it on their minds, the more likely they are to break down and do something "sinful" and since men have penises, well, how can they be expected to control themselves? Hence the rules about modesty and strict gender boundaries.

 

To be fair, even outside of Gothardism, Christianity or any religion at all, some can find a way to blame the woman no matter how heinously men behave (see Ray Rice, Elliot Rodger, the celebrity hacking scandal).

Edited by Dejana
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

To be fair, even outside of Gothardism, Christianity or any religion at all, some can find a way to blame the woman no matter how heinously men behave (see Ray Rice, Elliot Rodger, the celebrity hacking scandal).

I do agree there, but to the Duggar family is the poster child of the sort of people who think that way. Close minded, super uptight, men can do no wrong...it's just their whole attitude about genders. Women better be modest cos those darned unruly men can't control their dicks! It's ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't grow up fundie but close in some ways, with many aspects of the Duggar lingo and way of life being familiar. Not that this was how it was expressed at church, but basically the mentality behind women having to be "modest" is that in general, men are infinitely hornier than women and more visual creatures, who, left to their own devices, are willing to be far more immoral in thinking about sex and procuring it, so if all the women around them cover up, then they won't have so many urges or the opportunity to act on them.

 

The mentality at play is that if girls do think about sex, it's likely to be in a more romantic context, part of the whole "does he really like me", doodling "JSlave [HisLastName]" in hearts, "first kiss on the wedding day" Prince Charming fantasy they've been sold. Ideally, they'd be thinking about laundry or cooking or their countenance, but "good girls" aren't strictly out to get some. Teen boys and men, OTOH, the thinking is that at their worst, they are super horny and lustful, imagining pretty much every attractive woman they see naked and fantasizing about having sex with all of them. And the more they have it on their minds, the more likely they are to break down and do something "sinful" and since men have penises, well, how can they be expected to control themselves? Hence the rules about modesty and strict gender boundaries.

 

To be fair, even outside of Gothardism, Christianity or any religion at all, some can find a way to blame the woman no matter how heinously men behave (see Ray Rice, Elliot Rodger, the celebrity hacking scandal).

 

I grew up in a moderate Christian tradition (certainly not liberal, but nowhere near as conservative as these people or even "normal" evangelicals).  And as I understand it, the argument given above is often not made out of worry that the man will DO something inappropriate necessarily but rather that he might THINK about doing something. Which, I mean, yes, guys aren't animals completely unable to control themselves, but young men do have a natural drive for that that they can't completely help.  

 

The reason the distinction between DOING and THINKING is important is because Jesus' New Testament teachings (Matt 5:27-28) say that, unlike under the law of Moses where adultery was an "act", under the new law that he was bringing to the world, simply LOOKING at a woman lustfully was the same thing as actually committing the act.  So for people who believe that, I can see how emphasizing what you SEE would be important.  So from a religious standpoint that might be justifiable.*  My problem is putting the entire onus on the girls or women.  Yes, I can see saying that girls might not want to dress provocatively, especially in situations that guys (and their hormones) might misconstrue, but that's not the same thing as saying it's ok to blame what a woman was wearing for assault, or that a woman has complete and total responsibility for this.

 

*I'll spare you the seminary-grad nerdery about how that passage should be interpreted.  But suffice to say, shockingly, the Duggars and other hyper conservatives are probably missing the point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I got the idea that looking lustfully wasn't the problem, lusting was.  Like thinking about it all the time, focusing on it.  Like now on porn sites.  At least the porn people aren't doing it as much as looking and lusting.  Perhaps the problem with it really is that they may lust so much they attack.  And whether it's your wife or a stranger, it's not good.

Share this post


Link to post

Reading that passage in the context which surrounds it, it seems that Jesus is saying that thoughts matter as much as actions.  In that same passage he mentions someone who is angry with his brother committing the equivalent of murder even if he doesn't carry through on the act.

 

This was an important concept to his audience at the time, which had been deeply influenced by very conservative religious ideas, the leading proponents of which were the Pharisees.  They were so concerned with not breaking the law that they created sort of a "super-law" on top of the law to make extra certain.  So, if the law said you could only walk 15 meters on the Sabbath, the Pharisaical law would say you could only walk 7 meters, just to make sure you didn't "accidentally" walk too far.  It's this kind of thinking Jesus is combatting here, implying that some Pharisees were so concerned about the act itself that they had forgotten the reason behind the act and were obeying the letter of the law but not the spirit. (In fact, I think this passage may be where that concept originated).  He was trying to bring everyone back to the original intention of the law and consequently freeing the "average people" from the fear and restrictions that resulted from the way of the Pharisees.

 

So, that said, I don't know that he literally means that an angry thought is the same as committing murder, but he is saying that the reverse is not necessarily true: just because you refrain from murdering someone doesn't mean you still haven't done something wrong.

 

[/nerdy seminary-grad lecture]  (But, hey, this IS the religion thread, right?)

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

Help me!! My BFF since grammar school has either changed her religion (raised Baptist) and now she is using the same words that MeChelle uses on Facebook. Here are some examples:

 

blessed

precious

special

bless you

have a blessed day

 

Oh my she was never that into religion but lately I want to say ummm why are you talking like that? It must be a southern thing?? She lives in southern Indiana and I'm still in Chicago.

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly, a lot of those are pretty standard Baptist terms, outside of perhaps New England and Upstate New York. It's jargon that helps people distinguish who is part of the in crowd and who is just visiting. In it's own way, it's useful for people - we are naturally evolved to seek out people and associate with a subset group (our own herd or tribe) but it can be frustrating when someone switches groups and further, acts as if that switch makes them superior to you/old group.

Share this post


Link to post

It's already self-imploding. You are watching Michelle have a nervous breakdown of sorts on national television, as her reason for living is being taken (naturally) from her. And as a movement that spans all denominations and across many beliefs, there is no common set of practices to bind them together or shared set of rituals. You'd be surprised how important those are to making a community and political movement or religious movement work. This while nearly all of the Quiverful families are conservative in belief and practice, it's with a small c, not a capital one. Some vote traditionally Republican. Some for small offshoot parties. Some libertarian. Some refuse to vote at all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

There's a lot to be said that Gothardism is a cult.  It's been argued both internally within evangelicalism and from externally that it is.  The Quiverful movement, however, is a lot more complicated.

Edited by GEML

Share this post


Link to post
in general, men are infinitely hornier than women and more visual creatures who, left to their own devices, are willing to be far more immoral in thinking about sex and procuring it,

It’s funny how people justify this obsession with women’s modesty by saying that it’s because men are essentially eternally teenage boys who can only think with their dicks, and yet men and not women are supposed to be the leaders in a relationship and society at large. I don’t know about you, but I like to think that my leaders are capable of overcoming their baser urges.
  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

It is quite possible to have Halloween and leave out the blood, gore and horror. I personally don't include those things myself, but to totally disregard the happy, kid, costume dress up is yet another Duggar lack of self control and decision making skills...cut it out altogether is their answer to everything. They can have nice pumpkins, jack-o-lanterns, scarecrows, bob for apples and wear NICE costumes, not biblical ones, like princesses and cowboys, etc. This family is unnecessarily severe. I bet Michelle went trick or treating as a kid and even attended some of her friends' Halloween parties.

I agree with all this. I consider myself a conservative evangelical Christian and this is how we celebrate HALLOWEEN, not HARVEST DAY <eye roll>. But then we are also cool with Santa, the Easter Bunny, etc. A funny story, when my husband and I were doing pre-marriage counseling at our church with our pastor, the subject of children and holidays came up and my husband mentioned that he didn't want to raise our kids with the idea of Santa, he thought it was too commercial, took away from the real meaning of Christmas and thought it was like lying to kids (he knows all about it being based on the real Saint Nick). Well, I was really annoyed about his attitude and told him I didn't want to raise little freaks who thought it was sinful to believe in Santa or go Trick or Treating. Our pastor backed me up and my husband came back to earth -- thank God! We are able to include these things and still keep Christ the center of our lives.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Help me!! My BFF since grammar school has either changed her religion (raised Baptist) and now she is using the same words that MeChelle uses on Facebook. Here are some examples:

 

blessed

precious

special

bless you

have a blessed day

 

Oh my she was never that into religion but lately I want to say ummm why are you talking like that? It must be a southern thing?? She lives in southern Indiana and I'm still in Chicago.

 

Honestly, a lot of those are pretty standard Baptist terms, outside of perhaps New England and Upstate New York. It's jargon that helps people distinguish who is part of the in crowd and who is just visiting. In it's own way, it's useful for people - we are naturally evolved to seek out people and associate with a subset group (our own herd or tribe) but it can be frustrating when someone switches groups and further, acts as if that switch makes them superior to you/old group.

I live in the South and am an evangelical Christian (albeit a liberal one). I know a lot of young adults around here who aren't anti-religious but love to make fun of the Christian code language. It's not unusual for my son's girlfriend to tweet something like "Yum, this Snickers Blizzard is so blessed."  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I have an entire set of friends who, when they get together every few years, make it point to get drunk and sing hymns through the night. As adults their lives all took very different paths, but they all know all the words to the hymns they grew up with! Most people, religious or not, find that offensive, but it's not that uncommon in certain subculture sets of people.

Share this post


Link to post

I watched the episode where Zach Bates asked if his girl would court him. (Forgot her name). I. just. Can't. It was what he said to her listing out why he thought she met his approval. It was like he was shopping. And the look on her face! She didn't look happy. She didn't look shock. She just had no expression at all. Maybe with Jill and Derick, it seemed more natural because there was a mutual like and admiration. This girl looked like she had no interest at all, but she said yes. Anyway, that is the problem I have with this courting business. The guy chooses the girl as if she was a dog at the pound. If a boy came knocking at my door and said that to my daughter, I'd kick him out to the curb! A friend was saying over dinner, wouldn't you like it if a guy came and said I am here to date your daughter so one day I can marry her. No! That's a red flag the guy might be nuts. What if he's one of those controlling guys?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I have an entire set of friends who, when they get together every few years, make it point to get drunk and sing hymns through the night. As adults their lives all took very different paths, but they all know all the words to the hymns they grew up with! Most people, religious or not, find that offensive, but it's not that uncommon in certain subculture sets of people.

 

That kinda sounds like fun. I might have to record it and laugh later, but it sounds fun.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, what would have been wrong for Jill and Derick to continue to communicate while he was in Nepal and meet when he returned in a mere two months? The Duggars do not believe in ANY friendships at all between the opposite sex. So, if Derick and Jill wanted to "get to know each other", even at such a physical distance, he would have to put his cards on the table and already decide if he wanted to court, which ='s marriage. There really is no time to "get to know you" in their world. It baffles the mind to try to figure out who you want to marry before you know that person.. just the upside down world they live in. I wonder when Jill will grow up or if she ever will? It would be sad to see her as a 30 year old woman, giggling like a 15 year old who has produced children. The household duties will not mature her, for she has been doing those things since childhood yet remained immature while doing those things... Derick, I think is a shy guy who might turn out to be a little dull for Jill's giggly-childlike ways. It remains to be seen. Their "religion" is mostly invented by themselves...and that man. It one day will implode on them because it can't work for everyone every time.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

What I have to grudgingly like about the Bateses is that after Sarah broke it off with Zach, and he said he didn't really know how to talk to girls, they realized a "getting to know you" pre-courtship friendship phase was necessary.  I can't help but feel like if Jessa and Ben had done that, things wouldn't have gone much farther than that.

Share this post


Link to post

It was posted on another blog that Gothard has started a new program: Total Success Power Teams. I googled it & came across another site, Spiritual Sounding Board. (Sorry haven't figured out how to link sites). I just skimmed thru this site but the author seems to know his Gothard/ IBLP stuff. He couldn't believe Gothard has started something new so soon after all the sexual harassment issues came to light. He even included a timeline. Maybe Boob will be on the Board of Directors.

Share this post


Link to post

That's interesting on several levels. First, that it's so soon to start something new. Second, that BG is repositioning (repurposing?) himself with 21st language. Total Success Power Teams is straight out of a marketing textbook.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, what would have been wrong for Jill and Derick to continue to communicate while he was in Nepal and meet when he returned in a mere two months? The Duggars do not believe in ANY friendships at all between the opposite sex. So, if Derick and Jill wanted to "get to know each other", even at such a physical distance, he would have to put his cards on the table and already decide if he wanted to court, which ='s marriage. There really is no time to "get to know you" in their world. It baffles the mind to try to figure out who you want to marry before you know that person.. just the upside down world they live in. I wonder when Jill will grow up or if she ever will? It would be sad to see her as a 30 year old woman, giggling like a 15 year old who has produced children. The household duties will not mature her, for she has been doing those things since childhood yet remained immature while doing those things... Derick, I think is a shy guy who might turn out to be a little dull for Jill's giggly-childlike ways. It remains to be seen. Their "religion" is mostly invented by themselves...and that man. It one day will implode on them because it can't work for everyone every time.

Which means Jill could've married a rapist or serial killer or abuser. Thank goodness Derrick is a nice guy but passing daddy test is easy as hell along with courting which is a few months

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, what would have been wrong for Jill and Derick to continue to communicate while he was in Nepal and meet when he returned in a mere two months? The Duggars do not believe in ANY friendships at all between the opposite sex. So, if Derick and Jill wanted to "get to know each other", even at such a physical distance, he would have to put his cards on the table and already decide if he wanted to court, which ='s marriage. There really is no time to "get to know you" in their world. It baffles the mind to try to figure out who you want to marry before you know that person.. just the upside down world they live in. I wonder when Jill will grow up or if she ever will? It would be sad to see her as a 30 year old woman, giggling like a 15 year old who has produced children. The household duties will not mature her, for she has been doing those things since childhood yet remained immature while doing those things... Derick, I think is a shy guy who might turn out to be a little dull for Jill's giggly-childlike ways. It remains to be seen. Their "religion" is mostly invented by themselves...and that man. It one day will implode on them because it can't work for everyone every time.

I have a shred of hope that she may mature...Anna manages to evolve and sound like a grown up. Even intelligent at times and she's married to Boob, Jr! Jill is young, whether she is fundie or not--she happens to be more immature than other women her age because of her upbringing but she may come around. Caring for your siblings while being under the thumb of your parents is different than living in your own home, with your own rules and your own children.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I know we have some folks here who are knowledgeable about fundamentalist Christians. So, I have this question. Gothardism appears to have been a bit of a made-up sect with rules written by Bill Gothard that are pretty selectively Scripture-based and then spun a good deal. How is that consistent with true fundamentalism? Gothard seems to have simply codified some behaviors chosen from a particular 20th century period and superimposed them upon Scripture. It is quite interesting to me, and I would enjoy learning more from someone who's been inside. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I only recently began watching the series after seeing some of the early specials years ago, and I have a question about whether the Duggars see marriage as "mandatory." I'm assuming that Bill Gothard teaches that singleness is okay, since he himself has remained so (though he's hardly a model of godly singleness, YIKES). But do the Duggars ever talk about singleness an acceptable or desirable option for their children? It may have gone out of vogue, but I used to hear church people quoting I Corinthians 7:7-8 (see below) and praising the single life as a "higher calling" for those with the "gift of singleness" (e.g. those who can be content living a celibate life). They would talk about how a person without the ties of spouse and children can dedicate him- or herself more fully to God's work, perhaps even to full-time mission work. (On a related note, I suspect that many fundamentalists with the so-called "gift of singleness" have been gay people who feel their only godly option is to remain alone and celibate for life. I've known several never-married missionaries, both active and retired, who I suspect threw themselves into missions partly because they knew that a heterosexual marriage was not for them.)

 

So anyway - can anyone fill me in on the Duggars and singleness?

 

In I Corinthians 7:7-8, Paul writes, “I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.”
 

Share this post


Link to post

I would suspect that it might be fine for a man to stay unmarried, as he could be a teacher, missionary or what have you, but since women cannot have leadership roles, and no real function outside of bearing children (which, obviously is not something a godly single woman would be any part of), their only reason for existence is marriage. Maybe a woman could stay with her family, much as Jana seems to be doing at the moment, in the role of stand-in mother/housekeeper and everything outside of baby-making, but I doubt that would be seen as a higher calling. As others have said, that seems more like a form of punishment, even though some might prefer it, in some ways, to popping out a neverending series of blessings of their own with a man Daddy picked out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Gothardism is an extreme form of fundamentalism, specially Baptist fundamentalism. Fundametalism is a pretty loaded word, and it's hard to use intellegently, if you want to know the truth, because it means so many things to so many people. Every step back from the mainstream church originally followed can be claimed as "getting back to fundamentals" and then there is also the modernist/fundamentalist split of the turn of the century, which is sort of the roots of the tree.

For our purposes, Gothardism is like an acorn that fell off of the fundamentalist side of the Baptist tree. It's a little tiny tree that doesn't get much light, it's fairly stunted and had a sharp growth period during the late 1960-70, but is now fighting for resources and air with a lot of other acorns that have fallen from other trees.

Does that make ANY sense at all?

In Gothardism I think there is a role for singleness, but you must stay under the authority of someone married. It's clearly unbiblical, and clearly ridiculous considering Gothard's own life, but once you reach a certain level with this stuff, reality no longer matters.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you, GEML. It is so interesting to me, and I believe it is relevant to our discussion of 19 Kids. I take my Bible study very seriously and I also live in the city where Gothard had his Institute of Basic Life Principles where youths were abused. I remember the bad effects of that as all faith-iniative service agencies took a hit afterward including those for which I had volunteered. 

Share this post


Link to post

I grew up with personal access to a variety of fundamentalist and evangelical churches - weird story, so I've seen and heard about just about everything. I walked away from most of the squabbles, but I still love most of the people who were involved, and I'm still a person of faith. I don't want people throwing around terms casually or angrily, just because of a personal negative experience. But on the other hand, there is a LOT going on in a household like the Duggars that isn't being shown on TV. Not all of it, when put into context, is all that awful, but some stuff really does make me sad. (Such as their constant insistence that Jana is this rebellious person.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The "single" conversation reminds me of the book Jane Eyre, where St John wanted her to join him as a missionary, but she would have to marry him even though they didn't love each other, because missionaries of opposite sexes couldn't travel together unless they were man & wife.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

GEML touched on the timeframe of great growth (late 60's/early 70's), but I wanted to add that Gothardism came about as a conservative response to the Hippies. The control issues with children become really obvious when put in that context; Gothard was obviously very anti counter-culture and setting up legalistic rule for parents made them less fearful of "losing" their children.

 

So yeah, he capitalized on paranoia and as a result, became a very wealthy pervert....err....man.

 

(clarity edit, although I think we all know who "he" is) :D

Edited by Sew Sumi
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Since gothard is single, is he a virgin? That would be very bad if he told his followers no sex no kissing no touching it until marriage but he doesn't follow his own rules. I don't even think he follows most of the rules he puts out. He's all talk

Edited by Darknight
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

He claims no sex, or even kissing/touching. However, over 30 women have something different to say, at least to inappropriate touching, and a couple claim he kissed them. If he had sex, his partner(s) is/are very quiet...or dead.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

It was posted on another blog that Gothard has started a new program: Total Success Power Teams. I googled it & came across another site, Spiritual Sounding Board. (Sorry haven't figured out how to link sites). I just skimmed thru this site but the author seems to know his Gothard/ IBLP stuff. He couldn't believe Gothard has started something new so soon after all the sexual harassment issues came to light. He even included a timeline. Maybe Boob will be on the Board of Directors.

 

http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2014/10/12/bill-gothards-new-programministry-total-success-power-teams/

 

I found out that fathers sign up for it and they become part of a team. Evidently it’s some sort of accountability group concept where questions are sent out and men have meetings online. The fathers then instruct their families and encourage them to pray and meditate. He told me he was very excited about it and was encouraged about the growth he had already seen in his new program.

 

So it's an email chain. REVOLUTIONARY! Go go Power Rangers...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm just wondering what the rationale is for women not being allowed to wear pants. It strikes me that women only wearing skirts (especially in a male dominated cult) would just make for easier access sexually. That in itself could be construed as being provocative, couldn't it? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

But skirts allow you to pretend that women don't have crotches, and therefore, have no genitals.  Pants draw attention to that fact.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm just wondering what the rationale is for women not being allowed to wear pants. It strikes me that women only wearing skirts (especially in a male dominated cult) would just make for easier access sexually. That in itself could be construed as being provocative, couldn't it?

Its about having gender specific attire. Pants are for males and shirts are for females. Its just that simple. God's army runs best with a uniform and following the legalism keeps the troops in line.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm just wondering what the rationale is for women not being allowed to wear pants. It strikes me that women only wearing skirts (especially in a male dominated cult) would just make for easier access sexually. That in itself could be construed as being provocative, couldn't it? 

“A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God." Deuteronomy 22:5 ESV

 

That verse is from the Old Testament, but here's the 'catch' - when that was written during Moses' time, I don't think anybody wore pants. They all wore robes and tunics, so........if you're purchasing modest pants (not skin tight or otherwise hoocherific) in the women's department, they're women's garments, not men's. If you want to be that OT strict, why not put everyone in robes and tunics. I don't think Moses wore Levi's.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I have it on good authority that Moses wore second hand khaki tunics and used sashes. In fact, the 11th commandment? Buy used, save the difference.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

No no, Moses insisted on name brands. He'd been raised in the palace. It was because of this that his wife Zipporah spat at him, "Surely thou art a bridegroom of blood unto me."

That wasn't really about slaughtering a culture. It was about economics.

(And now you see how Gothard does it! ;) )

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Um, I think that a male has "more" to reveal in pants than a female does. After all, we can see a male's form in pants and or jeans, right? Women's slacks are cut for WOMEN, not men, therefore they are female attire. I also don't think that one would mistake a woman for a man if they wore jeans,, after all, isn't that the point? To look "good" in jeans, ladies? If anything, pants reveal the female form, not to be confused with the male's form, right? And YES, in ancient times, all wore cloaks; no one wore pants for they weren't "invented" yet until around 1500AD. They can twist anything they want and have always done so to suit them, even scripture!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, but women are not ruled by their bestial sexual side the way men are!  We all know that if a man gets even a glimpse of a sexy part of a woman's body, be it a breast, an ankle, a bit of belly, an arm or a thigh, he will turn into a ravening beast and will not be able to control his behavior and will then run amok and debauch at will.  And it will be all the woman's fault for tempting him by her most grievous fault of having a body!

 

Ack, it's too early in the morning for this.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Um, I think that a male has "more" to reveal in pants than a female does. After all, we can see a male's form in pants and or jeans, right? Women's slacks are cut for WOMEN, not men, therefore they are female attire. I also don't think that one would mistake a woman for a man if they wore jeans,, after all, isn't that the point? To look "good" in jeans, ladies? If anything, pants reveal the female form, not to be confused with the male's form, right? And YES, in ancient times, all wore cloaks; no one wore pants for they weren't "invented" yet until around 1500AD. They can twist anything they want and have always done so to suit them, even scripture!

 

Women's trousers still reveal the form and the cleave of the backside; you can't have the wimmins walking around inspiring such lust in righteous men! The same would be true of men's trousers, but men's thoughts about women are much more impure, making a woman in slacks far more scandalous. Also, probably because it would make "boyish" physical activities much easier and more practical for girls/women, and we can't have that!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't mean to insult any teetotalers out there, that is not my objective. Having said that, Mr. Keller's reference to grape juice in the wedding feast at Caana(?) and Jesus performing the miracle there??...well, in those ancient times, there was no clean water supply available. The only source of beverage they had was juices, etc. which water was used to mix and it required time to ferment and kill any bacteria present to be safe to drink. The result was those people were crocked most of the time because wine resulted....The miracle that I was taught that Jesus performed at that wedding feast was that he turned the water,grape juice, etc. in to wine instantly without ANY time to ferment...Sooooo, how can grape juice be a miracle? It would have been ready immediately regardless who prepared it..Also, Jesus partook of the wine, so how is that a sin. We all were taught that He was without sin.

I believe that it isn't a sin to partake of alcoholic beverages within moderation because I don't wish to become drunk and unaware of my actions. having said that, regarding the Duggars, and the like, it goes to the "fact that they seem to have NO personal self control" so they need rigid rules to keep themselves in line in all things.Self control also requires maturity and we all know they are a bunch of kids, starting with their parents..

Agreed and well said!

You are correct about the wine in biblical times and a lack of clean drinking water. At that time, the wine they consumed for everyday drinking was less strong than the wine that is made today, but it certainly was not grape juice -- sheesh, Mr Keller needs to enroll in some seminary classes, stat!! The wine that Jesus made at the wedding in Cana was, as you said, miraculous as it was not only fermented but much more highly fermented than everyday drinking wine, that's why they exclaimed about the wine Jesus made being far more more superior and how at weddings they usually serve the good wine first and save the cheap wine for last, but in this case it was completely the opposite.

I am not a teetotaler, yet I belong to a denomination that is in general pretty legalistic about alcohol. Yet our church and pastor are not, which gives our church a unique <ahem> reputation in the denomination. I get irked when people preach against alcohol because the bible doesn't prohibit it, it teaches not to become drunk while consuming alcohol. Big difference.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

One use of clothes is to mark gender, and gender is a place in the power hierarchy. Those lower in the hierarchy will borrow from the higher status, but officially borrowing doesn't move the other direction. Think women in pants and men in skirts. Also, as (if) gender power differentials decrease, the exchanges will be more equal. When men and women can freely choose to wear makeup, dresses, pink bows, etc. or not, they will likely be receiving equal pay for their work. 

 

Of course, if your purpose on earth is to breed the new Army of God, you'd better know your place and dress for it. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×