Doug Phillips is a Tool & Vision Forum is Dead - Part 7

[westchamps]

I think Hero can use the $$$ to get adeqate councelling to heal from her experiences with Doug. As far as I understand, she worked for his family without getting a proper salary and insurance, so the money could cover that too and I hope she will use some of it to get a good education, something that Doug encouraged her not to get.

This woman is over 30 and spent her 20's, the decade where most people work hard to build a good foundation for the rest of their life (getting an education, finding a spose, build a cv, start a home), being an unpaid maid / sex toy to a cult leader.

She is at least ten years behind most of the people in her generation and has no education and a blank cv. She will need money to get ahead and start a normal life.

How do you know how educated she is? She did just get married to a man who I assume has a job and makes money. I doubt she's going to be living on the street unless she gets what I presume will be an asking settlement price of several million dollars. Still doesn't address exactly how it will act as a salve to her emotional wounds.

[Clementine]

How do you know how educated she is? She did just get married to a man who I assume has a job and makes money. I doubt she's going to be living on the street unless she gets what I presume will be an asking settlement price of several million dollars. Still doesn't address exactly how it will act as a salve to her emotional wounds.

What does "she is married to a man who makes money so she doesn't have to live on the streets" has to do with anything?

[westchamps]

Really?

I happen to be from the Conservative Christian homeschooling subculture, so I know what people say when there are no unbelievers around.

I don't know what "people" you're talking about, but you don't know what I say when there are no unbelievers around.

It's a safe bet that you've used words like Jezebel, hell, damn, and fool to refer to someone at the very least.

Fool, yes, the others, no. And since when was the word Fool considered bad language?

And why this particular game of holier than thou over something as trivial as strong language?

I guess it's not as trivial to me as it is to you.

[westchamps]

I am too tired at the moment to deal with 99% of what you just said and the complete lack of understanding of what patriarchal Christianity does to women but I will say that the last sentence gives me a clear indicator of how very little you do know about the history of feminism, and let's face it, history in general.

Busted. I know very little about the history of feminism. Does this make me "anti-intellectual"? Strangely, I don't feel as though a big part of my life is missing because I don't know the history of feminism. I do know that wherever there is an aggrieved woman and a TV camera, Gloria Steinem isn't far away.

[Tesseract]

Busted. I know very little about the history of feminism. Strangely, I don't feel as though a big part of my life is missing because of it.

There's a shocker. :roll:

[lipstickgoalie]

According to that definition, I am definitely not anti-intellectual. Does that mean I can no longer be a Fundamentalist Christian? Learn something new every day.....

Are you a biblical historian? From an actual accredited university? What qualifications grant you expert status on the subject of the bible? Or religious history? What denominations constitute the mainline? What were some of the earliest defining writings of the fundamentalist movements? Aside from linguistics, what were the other concerns of the early movement? What are some of the major denominations opinions on evolution, and what were those same denominations opinions in the early 20th century?

Most importantly do you believe linguistic expert opinion that several sections of the New Testament including the Gospels purported to be written by a single author are in fact not written by the same person but rather were compiled over the span of a hundred or more years? If that wasn't clear, the Gospel of Paul was not written by Paul but rather was written by multiple authors. Agree or disagree?

I am not a practicing Christian but it have a sneaking suspicion that I know more about the history of fundamentalism than you. I have a sneaking suspicion you fancy yourself to be the smartest guy in the room whether or not that is ever the case.

[lawfulevil]

LADYPERSONS OF THE CHRISTIAN PERSUASION: WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE BETTER CHRISTIANS (according to our new troll)?

It's easy! Simply replace the swear words in your posts with (noun), (verb), (adjective), (adverb), (determiner), (preposition), or whatever other part of speech is appropriate. All clean! Once you've made sure that once again butter won't melt in your mouth, just wait and a handy-dandy Godless Heathen (myself or one of the other Hellbound Jezebels) will be along to fill in the blanks, so to speak!

Free Jinger: All the fun of Mad Libs, now with even more swearing!

[lipstickgoalie]

Busted. I know very little about the history of feminism. Strangely, I don't feel as though a big part of my life is missing because of it.

I find it really interesting that you cut my last paragraph from the quote. Why did you choose to do so?

[Tesseract]

LADYPERSONS OF THE CHRISTIAN PERSUASION: WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE BETTER CHRISTIANS (according to our new troll)?

It's easy! Simply replace the swear words in your posts with (noun), (verb), (adjective), (adverb), (determiner), (preposition), or whatever other part of speech is appropriate. All clean! Once you've made sure that once again butter won't melt in your mouth, just wait and a handy-dandy Godless Heathen (myself or one of the other Hellbound Jezebels) will be along to fill in the blanks, so to speak!

Free Jinger: All the fun of Mad Libs, now with even more swearing!

LOL, perfect! Because, naughty, bad words are so much worse than wrapping utter crap in creamy milk chocolate.

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

See my response a dozen or so posts after yours.

Thanks for responding. I get that, I really do. But you will be inundated with questions, comments, and criticism until the sheer volume makes you give up and walk away. And then you will be called a flouncer. You won't be the first.

Like I said, I have reasons for being here, and I even enjoy it on some levels. But the thing I hate most is not being able to post my opinions as much as I would like. Something to this affect is oft quoted here: "we welcome all views here, but be prepared to defend them if they're fundie crap." I don't have the time to argue that much :-). It stinks, but it is what it is.

And I can't believe you have posted about as much in a day as I have in three years or so.

[Anise]

I don't know what "people" you're talking about, but you don't know what I say when there are no unbelievers around.

So would you say, then, that you do not prefer to be generalized with the various Conservative Christian/patriarchal/quiverful/fundamentalist/homeschool subculture members I have known?

Fool, yes, the others, no. And since when was the word Fool considered bad language?

Matthew 5:22

I guess it's not as trivial to me as it is to you.

I care about abuse and injustice in the world. Not only does strong language rate low on my mental list of concerns, but it often seems an appropriate response when civil language fails in the face of the horrific. I wish I could swear more effectively because I do not have the words to properly describe Doug Philips.

It is so shallow to seem wholesome simply by avoiding certain words rather than true strength of character or spirit. I am not interested in appearances- they are deceiving.

[westchamps]

What is with all the scare quotes?

Back to the conversation about fundamentalists being anti-intellectual you just illustrated my point. Fundamentalists believe that they have the same amount of knowledge as experts in biblical scholarship, linguistics, and ancient historians. (Just to name a few fields.) Context is everything. How language shifts and changes and translations are even more problematic. To say that anyone can read the bible without any "interpretation" as you put it, or any context as I would put it, is anti-intellectual and irresponsible.

Funny, I seem to recall something called the Reformation having that as one of the issues.

How, pray tell, is one to "understand" the Bible if one cannot simply read it and believe that it means what it says? I'm assuming you have an answer?

By the way, I've been called a lot of things because I am a Bible believing Christian, but "irresponsible" for thinking I could read the Bible on my own and get any meaning from it...well, that is a first.

[westchamps]

Wow. Condescend much?

Wow. Sensitive much? Sorry I couldn't drop everything I was doing at my job today to come back here every 15 minutes looking for your response so I could immediately respond to it. :roll:

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

Yes. If even half of what she says in there is true, it's disgusting. But, wasn't there enough information known already to know that Doug's behavior was disgusting?

I do think there are some pretty big holes in the credibility of the picture she is trying to paint of herself as some sort of sex slave. Like, for example, the number of years that she supposedly was coerced and forced to put up with this behavior that was so terribly offensive to her, and yet she continued to interact with him and the family for years during all this, never tried to break free until 2012? Sorry, it doesn't pass the smell test to me, doesn't paint a very convincing picture that it was all one-sided on his part and she was an unwilling participant through it all. If she was able to break free in 2012, why not in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 or 2011?

Maybe one of you women can explain to me what it is about $$$$ that can magically take away the pain of "sexual abuse"? If things really and truly went down just like she stated in her complaint, she should have filed criminal charges against him. Filing for monetary damages is just....gross, in my opinion. If she really was abused, how can money make those emotional scars go away? And how will Doug having to pay out a monetary settlement keep him from abusing some other woman in the future, if in fact he did abuse this woman? If he really did criminally abuse her, shouldn't she be trying to see him behind bars instead of trying to collect $ from him? Sorry, it just makes me feel "ick". I'm expecting any day for Gloria Steinem to sign up as one of her attorneys.

Oh, I really, really, really disagree with you here, westie. I have never been abused in a physical or sexual way, but I have been mentally and emotionally abused. If you haven't experienced it, you may not understand how badly it can mess you up. I started out as one of the people who thought Doug was primarily responsible, but that Lourdes held some culpability, as well. I'm singin' a different tune. I'd like to punch Doug Phillips in the face. And I feel strongly that she was utterly victimized. The reasons why have already been expressed by others here. Thank god she broke free.

[westchamps]

What does "she is married to a man who makes money so she doesn't have to live on the streets" has to do with anything?

Presumably the man she married had a house with a roof and stuff that they can live in together.

[westchamps]

Are you a biblical historian? From an actual accredited university? What qualifications grant you expert status on the subject of the bible? Or religious history? What denominations constitute the mainline? What were some of the earliest defining writings of the fundamentalist movements? Aside from linguistics, what were the other concerns of the early movement? What are some of the major denominations opinions on evolution, and what were those same denominations opinions in the early 20th century?

Most importantly do you believe linguistic expert opinion that several sections of the New Testament including the Gospels purported to be written by a single author are in fact not written by the same person but rather were compiled over the span of a hundred or more years? If that wasn't clear, the Gospel of Paul was not written by Paul but rather was written by multiple authors. Agree or disagree?

I am not a practicing Christian but it have a sneaking suspicion that I know more about the history of fundamentalism than you. I have a sneaking suspicion you fancy yourself to be the smartest guy in the room whether or not that is ever the case.

Guess I have to ask the question again since I didn't get an answer the first time.

"According to that definition, I am definitely not anti-intellectual. Does that mean I can no longer be a Fundamentalist Christian?"

[westchamps]

I find it really interesting that you cut my last paragraph from the quote. Why did you choose to do so?

If you're referring to why am I here, I suggest you do some more reading, I addressed it in another post.

If you're referring to something else, then I probably cut it out because that's not the part I was responding to.

[westchamps]

Thanks for responding. I get that, I really do. But you will be inundated with questions, comments, and criticism until the sheer volume makes you give up and walk away. And then you will be called a flouncer. You won't be the first.

Like I said, I have reasons for being here, and I even enjoy it on some levels. But the thing I hate most is not being able to post my opinions as much as I would like. Something to this affect is oft quoted here: "we welcome all views here, but be prepared to defend them if they're fundie crap." I don't have the time to argue that much :-). It stinks, but it is what it is.

And I can't believe you have posted about as much in a day as I have in three years or so.

Thanks for your concern. I don't give up easy. They're alternately all planning to ban me, ignore me or eat me, and are all in high dudgeon. I think it's kind of funny, actually. Because of the reaction, they're making me actually want to stick around a while. :lol:

[lipstickgoalie]

Funny, I seem to recall something called the Reformation having that as one of the issues.

How, pray tell, is one to "understand" the Bible if one cannot simply read it and believe that it means what it says? I'm assuming you have an answer?

By the way, I've been called a lot of things because I am a Bible believing Christian, but "irresponsible" for thinking I could read the Bible on my own and get any meaning from it...well, that is a first.

I have absolutely no idea who's you could read the history of the Reformation and come away with that concussion but whatever.

The use of the word irresponsible was deliberate. I don't believe for a minute that the tenants of much of fundamentalist Christianity, specifically those that advocate for submission were meant to be literal. There is a reason Jesus taught primarily in metaphor, and I don't think the majority of fundamentalists can even define metaphor much less understand the fact that the bible was not written and compiled by god and that thousands of years of translation means that it is highly unlikely the are getting somewhere even near the accurate words of Jesus. Because again, anti-intellectualism. And I have known more than a handful of people who were highly intelligent in other areas but shockingly un informed when it becomes about their lowness religion. And I think that not to learn both sides of any issue is responsible.

[westchamps]

So would you say, then, that you do not prefer to be generalized with the various Conservative Christian/patriarchal/quiverful/fundamentalist/homeschool subculture members I have known?

Hard to say since I don't know the people you have known. Same as you don't know me and have no idea what I say when unbelievers aren't around.

Fool, yes, the others, no. And since when was the word Fool considered bad language?

Matthew 5:22

The Bible is full of admonishment and instruction regarding fools. I hardly think the word would be used so much if it was a bad word.

It is so shallow to seem wholesome simply by avoiding certain words rather than true strength of character or spirit. I am not interested in appearances- they are deceiving.

To that I would only say:

Matthew 12:34

You offspring of vipers! How can you speak good things when you are evil (wicked)? For out of the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks.

[lipstickgoalie]

If you're referring to why am I here, I suggest you do some more reading, I addressed it in another post.

If you're referring to something else, then I probably cut it out because that's not the part I was responding to.

Yes you self righteous twit, you did answer the question but if you will note I asked yet again BEFORE you made that post. And while I am at it you cut the part about Gloria Steinem and exactly HOW you were wrong. Not super ethical in my book.

And as far as your not knowing about the history of feminism, well why is feminism such a bugbear with fundamentalists such as yourself? You admit to knowing nothing about it but it didn't stop you from casting aspersions now did it. At least I learn about the things I am passionate about. I highly suggest you read the history if feminism before you criticize it or cast aspersions. But again, am not going to hold my breath.

And I never got any recognition that you were wrong. Be a man.

[westchamps]

I have absolutely no idea who's you could read the history of the Reformation and come away with that concussion but whatever.

The use of the word irresponsible was deliberate. I don't believe for a minute that the tenants of much of fundamentalist Christianity, specifically those that advocate for submission were meant to be literal. There is a reason Jesus taught primarily in metaphor, and I don't think the majority of fundamentalists can even define metaphor much less understand the fact that the bible was not written and compiled by god and that thousands of years of translation means that it is highly unlikely the are getting somewhere even near the accurate words of Jesus. Because again, anti-intellectualism. And I have known more than a handful of people who were highly intelligent in other areas but shockingly un informed when it becomes about their lowness religion. And I think that not to learn both sides of any issue is responsible.

In the absence of agreement that the Bible is the Divinely inspired Word of God, the rest of what you said is all noise to me.

[Anise]

Hard to say since I don't know the people you have known. Same as you don't know me and have no idea what I say when unbelievers aren't around.

Nothing you have said thus far has impressed me with any great difference.

The Bible is full of admonishment and instruction regarding fools. I hardly think the word would be used so much if it was a bad word.

On the other hand, it wouldn't be the first time that Jesus went beyond the examples in the Old Testament.

To that I would only say:

Matthew 12:34

You offspring of vipers! How can you speak good things when you are evil (wicked)? For out of the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks.

To me, that verse does not appear to be discussing strong language, but rather evil people speaking the appearance of good. More apt in Doug Phillips's case perhaps?

You do not need to keep up this conversation. I can see you are quite stretched thin. I do however have one thing I particularly want to say:

How do you suppose that people like Bill Gothard or Doug Phillips became ministry leaders? They didn't swear, they said the right sort of thing and quoted from the Bible, they wore the right sort of suits, and they led their employees or fellow elders in prayer with the right sort of resonate tenor that made people feel warm and holy inside. They had the image of a happy family- a submissive wife at home and enough children- or appeared to exemplify Christian celibacy. Meanwhile, one sexually molested the young women working in his ministry and the other forced himself on the kindhearted woman who helped his wife for nothing in return. When confronted with the reality of their heroes, followers often deny it all, claiming these facts are malicious lies, or they say that this leader must have changed since they knew him or they claim that they were suspicious all along. They cannot face that they were deceived by the mere appearance of goodness. But after all, didn't Jesus himself say that wolves appear among the flock in sheep's clothing?

[westchamps]

Yes you self righteous twit, you did answer the question but if you will note I asked yet again BEFORE you made that post. And while I am at it you cut the part about Gloria Steinem and exactly HOW you were wrong. Not super ethical in my book.

Yep, you asked it about 100 times and about 99 of them were before I had even gotten to your first time asking, in the line of posts I was responding to one at a time, when I got done with my job for the day.

And Gloria Steinem is a journalist not a lawyer. My world is crushed because I got that wrong. But, you really shouldn't be surprised, after all, I did say I know very little about the history of feminism.

And as far as your not knowing about the history of feminism, well why is feminism such a bugbear with fundamentalists such as yourself? You admit to knowing nothing about it but it didn't stop you from casting aspersions now did it. At least I learn about the things I am passionate about. I highly suggest you read the history if feminism before you criticize it or cast aspersions. But again, am not going to hold my breath.

I didn't say I know nothing about feminism. I said I don't know much about the history of feminism, aka it's origins, etc. I'm not going to get into a discussion with you about feminism. I'm having too much fun in the discussion about "patriarchy", don't want to overdo it.

And I never got any recognition that you were wrong. Be a man.

Funny how you are so opposed to traditional expressions of "manliness"....except when it involves you being right and a man being wrong. Then, the "manly" thing to do is admit you were in the wrong. Revealing of you.

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

Thanks for your concern. I don't give up easy. They're alternately all planning to ban me, ignore me or eat me, and are all in high dudgeon. I think it's kind of funny, actually. Because of the reaction, they're making me actually want to stick around a while. :lol:

Well, you are braver than I. I will watch :-)