Jump to content
IGNORED

So, I guess Michael Pearl is not strict enough


salex

Recommended Posts

On ‎11‎/‎01‎/‎2016 at 8:57 AM, laPapessaGiovanna said:

the God they describe is a terrifying, capricious, controlling being, full of hate and nastiness, much nearer to Satan than to then omnipotent,  benign god that loves his people.

Holy shitballs, these people are seriously scary.  I'd much rather go to the depths of hell and live with Satan himself than live with their idea of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I always get the feeling, that they feel like they ARE God. Since no human being is able to interprete His will perfectly or live perfect lives, because we are all imperfect and only see part of the truth. I mean even the prophets and apostles failed. But they say they know it all. So I guess that means they´ re perfect and even better than Peter or Jesaiah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The patriarchy enthusiasts like to portray themselves as modern day Abrahams, but all they want to do is arrange marriages btw the young & fertile. A very troubling obsession. In the Bible we learn that Abraham married his half-sister, Sarah. Isaac married his cousin, Rebekah. Jacob married his cousins, Leah & Rachel (sisters). Are the modern-day patriarchs arranging weddings within their “kinsmen”? God’s purpose for the patriarchy was to create the nation of Israel that would one day produce the Messiah. What is God’s purpose for a patriarchy now? Are any of the modern-day patriarchs nomadic shepherds? And where is the Biblical evidence of a father ever selecting a bride for his adult son?

What a strange way of looking at marriage, as if it can be somehow “perfected” by human intentions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They would have loved the way my great-grandparents got married.  Both fathers were sitting on a park bench.  One said he had a son, the other said he had a daughter, they agreed that their kids should get married, then went home to tell the kids.  My great-grandfather apparently objected, but his father said, "too bad, I already made an agreement".  They were married for 63 years - but my grandmother didn't think that her father even loved her mother.

Of course, my family wasn't Christian.  Has it occurred to these people that most of the folks who practice arranged marriage aren't Christian?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Florita said:

The patriarchy enthusiasts like to portray themselves as modern day Abrahams, but all they want to do is arrange marriages btw the young & fertile. A very troubling obsession. In the Bible we learn that Abraham married his half-sister, Sarah. Isaac married his cousin, Rebekah. Jacob married his cousins, Leah & Rachel (sisters). Are the modern-day patriarchs arranging weddings within their “kinsmen”? God’s purpose for the patriarchy was to create the nation of Israel that would one day produce the Messiah. What is God’s purpose for a patriarchy now? Are any of the modern-day patriarchs nomadic shepherds? And where is the Biblical evidence of a father ever selecting a bride for his adult son?

 

What a strange way of looking at marriage, as if it can be somehow “perfected” by human intentions.

 

Exactly! God had a very specific purpose for the lineage of the Hebrew people, it's why all those names are mentioned in the Bible. God was fulfilling prophecy. And it's why just a handful of men are specifically named as patriarchs in the New testament. There is deeper meaning and power that comes with the teen patriarch, far beyond the literal definition of "father ruler". I think to put themselves on the same pedestal as the patriarchs of the Hebrew people is tantamount to blasphemy. We have Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...And Von and Doug Phillips, and their 21st century cronies. Even Adam isn't mentioned as being a patriarch, right?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, salex said:

This particular patriarch believes his married sons (and their families) are to continue to follow the father's instructions and work for the father.  http://letthemmarry.org/articles/the-path-to-marriage/nuclear-family?rq=married%20sons 

Salex, your patience and fortitude is enviable! I coul only skim it but correct me if I'm wrong, but in India the son takes care of the parents later in life. The daughters marry into families, often by arranged marriage, and she is there to serve the husband and his family. I have read articles about these young women being mistreated and beaten by their mils. So he is not as original as he thought. 

 

Have you you seen the so called memes? There is a bajillion. This one is catchyimage.thumb.png.62d6259461c11a07fbb4f4a8 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not usually a delicate person, but this shit is seriously triggering me. I'm not even sure why. I guess I'm not ready to accept that there are people this nuts living and sharing their crazy ideas in the United States.

Some day, these guys and the Taliban are going to realize they are made for each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, salex said:

This particular patriarch believes his married sons (and their families) are to continue to follow the father's instructions and work for the father.  http://letthemmarry.org/articles/the-path-to-marriage/nuclear-family?rq=married%20sons 

I get a creepy Warren Jeffs vibe off of that. He's trying hard to wring a law out of the OT that would grant him all-encompassing control of his extended family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Florita said:

I get a creepy Warren Jeffs vibe off of that. He's trying hard to wring a law out of the OT that would grant him all-encompassing control of his extended family.

Think of who would agree with him... Steve Maxwell? the Ardnts?  Jim Bob?  The Botkins?  How many of the men we snark on follow this one way or another?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of Jacob, he asked his uncle for Rachel (and got Leah too, which was kinda payback for the identity switch he pulled on his own father :P) on his own initiative, without his parents being involved at all, since he'd run away from home so his brother didn't kill him.  Point being, it's a pretty major contrary example to parentally arranged marriage.  (Not that Rachel and Leah seemed to get much say in the matter, if any :()

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, onlyme said:

Rebecca was asked if she wanted to go with Abraham's servant to meet Issac. Maybe he didn't have a choice, but she sure did. Abigail went behind her husband's back and told king-to-be David that her husband was an idiot. Hannah made promises to Eli without her husband's permission. Elisabeth told Abraham that her servant needed to go and when Abraham went to God to complain, God sided with Elisabeth. Ruth basically proposed to Boaz. 

The fantasy these hyper patriarchs have isn't even in the Bible. 

To add to this, Jesus was concerned about His own mother's care as He hung dying on the cross, women were the first humans He appeared to after His ressurection, He saved an adulterous woman from being stoned to death,  He allowed (some believe that same woman) a female to pour expensive fragrance on His feet and wipe His feet with her long hair, He had a conversation with an adulterous, despised half-Jewish female *gasp* ALONE in broad daylight,  He brought a preteen girl back to life,  He healed and spoke to a woman He singled out in a crowd to note she had touched the hem of His clothing--out of sheer faith, He used a poor widow's sacrificial giving in the temple to as an example to school haughty Pharisees, His dearest friends were Lazarus and his sisters Mary and Martha, and when He told His disciples not to prevent letting little children from approaching Him,  He didn't single out the boys from the girls.  When He told the parable of the lost coin,  a woman was the main character of His story. (Incidentally, Rahab the prostitute is part of Jesus' ancestry. )

I don't find evidence of Jesus being mysogenistic or patriarchal.  He said Himself that He came to set the captives free. Jesus was no woman-hater, to be sure!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CyborgKin said:

In the case of Jacob, he asked his uncle for Rachel (and got Leah too, which was kinda payback for the identity switch he pulled on his own father :P) on his own initiative, without his parents being involved at all, since he'd run away from home so his brother didn't kill him.  Point being, it's a pretty major contrary example to parentally arranged marriage.  (Not that Rachel and Leah seemed to get much say in the matter, if any :()

He actually uses then as an example of betrothal because if this verse:

Arise, go to Paddan–aram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother's father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother's brother. 

He completely misses the whole preceding section though, Esau clearly choose his own wife, and it seemed the expectation from Rebecca was that Jacob would also, and it was her distress that lead Isaac to tell Jacob to go marry one of his cousins. And I wouldn't call it betrothal at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Rachel loved Jacob. Maybe I'm just being hopeful, but he certainly did love her. 

Poor Leah was the victim of her father. She obviously had no choice, nor Jacob, since he was duped. And then to spend the rest of her life feeling insecure about whether she was ever truly loved. My heart goes out to Leah. 

What Laban did was never commended. And in character he showed himself to be a manipulator that sucked everything he could get out of everyone. And he wanted them to stay and "build the family business" and Jacob said he'd had enough of that whole thing, took his family and runnoft. 

If anything, Laban is the closest example of what this so called "patriarch" is shooting for. I guess it is in the Bible! 

But Free Jinger is obviously a site where no one knows the Bible and has no interest in arguing Biblically. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's don't forget that rachel sold her sexy time with Jacob to Leah for mandrakes. So much for Jacob being in charge of her (or his own for that matter!) sexuality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, onlyme said:

I think Rachel loved Jacob. Maybe I'm just being hopeful, but he certainly did love her. 

Poor Leah was the victim of her father. She obviously had no choice, nor Jacob, since he was duped. And then to spend the rest of her life feeling insecure about whether she was ever truly loved. My heart goes out to Leah. 

Me too, Leah's story breaks my heart.

Abraham sends a servant to select a bride for Isaac from his relatives. The servant prays and asks God to show him which woman God has chosen for Isaac (Genesis 24:14), and God shows him and it is Rebekah and the rest is history...

Again, the patriarch did NOT select the bride for the son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Florita said:

Me too, Leah's story breaks my heart.

Abraham sends a servant to select a bride for Isaac from his relatives. The servant prays and asks God to show him which woman God has chosen for Isaac (Genesis 24:14), and God shows him and it is Rebekah and the rest is history...

Again, the patriarch did NOT select the bride for the son.

Not only that, but the servant spoke to Rebekah and got her approval before her father! Scandalous!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Florita said:

Me too, Leah's story breaks my heart.

Abraham sends a servant to select a bride for Isaac from his relatives. The servant prays and asks God to show him which woman God has chosen for Isaac (Genesis 24:14), and God shows him and it is Rebekah and the rest is history...

Again, the patriarch did NOT select the bride for the son.

And the engagement ring the servant gave her?   A nose ring. 

:dramallama-nanner:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, typo brahe said:

I love the fact that he seriously seems to believe that we think his site has thousands of readers.

I love the fact that he thinks we're all twitterpated about him, when there have been almost no posts about him. Dude, you're just not that important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the phrase "all atwitter" can be more accurately used to describe Mr. Ohlman's voyeuristic obsession with all things youthfully conjugal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He clearly hasn't looked around the site. Three pages in how many days? Please. That's barely a notice for us. :pb_rollseyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Vaughn --

So "thousands" of your cult members have been flocking over here to see what's up? Right.:2wankers:

Re: your assertion that "God's Truth can stand up against any and all comers." God's Truth may be able to stand up to all but your phony "theology" can't which is probably why you haven't linked directly to FJ in this latest post.

Atwitter? As Marion says, that more accurately describes you and your obsession with your kids' sex lives. You're a pervert, Vaughn, plain & simple. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.