Do Fundies all practice what they preach?

[August]

5 hours ago, fundiefan said:

Churches also get to pick & choose who they help. When it's a social system, we pay taxes to support those in need, period. Our personal opinions don't come into play and we can't dictate where those tax dollars go. A church can refuse to help based on their narrow view of life (how many will help a gay youth on the streets; a single mother; a pregnant, drug addicted woman with no interest in having a child...denied an abortion then left to fend for herself and the child). Tax funded safety nets don't pick and choose. Churches do.

Exactly! And the govt can ask for private information and truly assess need, so it's not only blind, but appropriate. But of course the churches would prefer to make sure only the people who play the game right get anything, and that they know how tenuous that help is.

[feministxtian]

6 minutes ago, Mercer said:

In my opinion, though, it would be more appropriate to provide help during that transition such as offering affordable childcare while she works, lending her a nice outfit for job interviews, offering to help her polish her resume, helping her figure out her transportation to her job, etc. rather than just giving her a financial handout for the rest of her life.

The program that hubby and I are in through Goodwill provides all these things, including gift cards for gas, groceries (if needed) help with utility/rent bills, and in some cases providing $ for driver's licenses and registration. Since the $ is actually from a federal grant, there's no discrimination. 

[Coconut Flan]

My only experience with a fundie widow and anything approaching full church support was she and the kids were moved into a rental owned by a church member, she was given food from the church foodbank, school fees were waived for the remainder of the school year, and within 3 months she was being set up on dates with church members with an eye to getting her married off again quickly.  I think any woman who thinks the church will support her and the kids indefinitely needs to get into finding out exactly how the church helps widows and dependent children. 

 

[August]

On 19 August 2016 at 8:50 PM, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Tbh I don't know how optional submission is different from letting someone else do the heavy lifting in the relationships.  Decisions have consequences and input without any agency in the final call seems like it would be easy to manipulate to get one's way while avoiding any responsibility.  

I wouldn't be in a relationship with a man who needed submission, nor would I duck out of the hard part of life and leave that solely on his shoulders.  

how do you reconcile that?

Yes, excellent point! You said yourself you want control but don't want the responsibility. How is that fair to him?

[desertvixen]

@Mercer, you hit the nail on the head.  Practical help that's aimed at helping people get back on their feet is what's needed.

[IntrinsicallyDisordered]

I am enjoying this thread very much.  My experience has been that many (not all) Christians/churches want to help, but only if they deem you worthy or you're willing to become what they want so they can hold you up as an object lesson.  The secular tax/benefit system is rife with problems, but at least they're not going to deny you based on a "moral" objection.   I am not fundie myself but have had fundie friends and neighbors that experienced this personally.

My father finally left couple years ago, leaving my disabled, almost retirement aged mother and a grown but disabled autistic brother who still lives at home with nothing in the bank and no other resources.  The Catholic church, for which my mother has volunteered for almost 30 years, has been kind but their help has been limited to the occasional gift card for groceries and gas and I think a Christmas tree.  I have helped her get signed up for health insurance, counseling, food stamps, etc; she was already getting LIHEAP so that was a relief. 

@August, I have to say, your "location" cracks me up everytime I see it.  Oh the arguments I would have with Catholic apologists over this kind of nonsense!

[December]

21 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

within 3 months she was being set up on dates with church members with an eye to getting her married off again quickly

That sounds like something out of a novel from the 19th century or something 

Still, nice they were able to help her out at all.

On 8/23/2016 at 9:23 AM, fundiefan said:

Churches also get to pick & choose who they help. When it's a social system, we pay taxes to support those in need, period. Our personal opinions don't come into play and we can't dictate where those tax dollars go.

Yeah, I knew someone who donated to charities of his religious denomination specifically to stop the money from being used to help gay people. I don't know how someone could think a person's sexual orientation should disqualify them from getting some food at the soup kitchen, but apparently that's important to some people... 

[Palimpsest]

21 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

My only experience with a fundie widow and anything approaching full church support was she and the kids were moved into a rental owned by a church member, she was given food from the church foodbank, school fees were waived for the remainder of the school year, and within 3 months she was being set up on dates with church members with an eye to getting her married off again quickly.  I think any woman who thinks the church will support her and the kids indefinitely needs to get into finding out exactly how the church helps widows and dependent children. 

Here's another example of that.  Heather of lazydranch/Simple and Deliberate put herself and her children under the protection of her church elders when her macho man husband died.  

The church did give some help with the children and I think there were insurance moneys and benefits in the mix so they did not have to support her fully.  She had a whole year to grieve before they thrust a younger church member at her to take her off their hands.  I've always felt sorry for Phil who took on several children and a still grieving widow.  http://lazydranch8.blogspot.com/search/label/Dealing with Grief

Heather is very shallow about many things.  I followed her blog for the longest time.  I started by hate reading because she gave the daughter adopted from Liberia (probably not so legally) the pseudonym Brown Sugar.  She was determined to stay at home with the younger children at all costs and expected the church to help her do that.  

However, I never wanted to mock her posts on grief.  She updates more on Facebook these days.  Heather and Phil are still married and seem to be doing OK today.  Most of the older children are married now too.

[ladyamylynn]

8 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

Here's another example of that.  Heather of lazydranch/Simple and Deliberate put herself and her children under the protection of her church elders when her macho man husband died.  

The church did give some help with the children and I think there were insurance moneys and benefits in the mix so they did not have to support her fully.  She had a whole year to grieve before they thrust a younger church member at her to take her off their hands.  I've always felt sorry for Phil who took on several children and a still grieving widow.  http://lazydranch8.blogspot.com/search/label/Dealing with Grief

Heather is very shallow about many things.  I followed her blog for the longest time.  I started by hate reading because she gave the daughter adopted from Liberia (probably not so legally) the pseudonym Brown Sugar.  She was determined to stay at home with the younger children at all costs and expected the church to help her do that.  

However, I never wanted to mock her posts on grief.  She updates more on Facebook these days.  Heather and Phil are still married and seem to be doing OK today.  Most of the older children are married now too.

I agree, Phil never seemed like a great match for Heather initially. And those poor kids, especially the two from Liberia, probably needed much more time between "dads" than they got. 

[EmiGirl]

I know a girl who left an abusive relationship. Her church would help with bills and food for her and her kids, but she wasn't allowed to attend church functions outside of morning worship because she might lead a young man astray because she was too pretty. 

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

4 hours ago, EmiGirl said:

I know a girl who left an abusive relationship. Her church would help with bills and food for her and her kids, but she wasn't allowed to attend church functions outside of morning worship because she might lead a young man astray because she was too pretty. 

This makes me so angry. 

[Cleopatra7]

It seems like the only kind of social safety network fundie churches have for SAHMs having trouble is to encourage them to marrying ASAP. In terms of what to do if said SAHM has an abuse marriage, the answer seems to be "become more joyful" which is no answer at all. This illustrates why churches can't be the only social safety network in this country. Even those churches that do have lots of assistance programs can't meet the needs of every poor person in their community. For churches to completely replace social welfare programs, parishioners would have to tithe a huge amount of money, and it would have to be mandatory; a ten percent tithe isn't going to fund a hospital. When fundies or libertarians say churches should be in charge of social services, what they really mean is, "I'm okay with people who belong to groups I don't care for dying, because I'm tired of subsidizing their worthless selves through welfare programs."

[BackseatMom]

And what about the absolutely critical social services that are designed to protect the vulnerable from misuse of power and headship? CPS, domestic violence programs, our network of mandated reporters for young and old alike - that must be very threatening to a group that believes that men have the right to whatever they like. Can you even imagine a Fundy church funding a program to help wives and kids leave a bad situation?

[Cleopatra7]

58 minutes ago, BackseatMom said:

And what about the absolutely critical social services that are designed to protect the vulnerable from misuse of power and headship? CPS, domestic violence programs, our network of mandated reporters for young and old alike - that must be very threatening to a group that believes that men have the right to whatever they like. Can you even imagine a Fundy church funding a program to help wives and kids leave a bad situation?

The first battered women's shelters were founded by self described radical feminists at a time when many churches didn't consider domestic violence a real problem. Even today, many churches are telling members in toxic relationships not to get divorced because it makes Jesus cry. Two weeks ago or so, the Wartburg Watch had a long post on this subject and there were over 700 replies. I don't think conservative churches have adequate answers when a "godly marriage" is toxic and abusive.

[Mercer]

1 hour ago, BackseatMom said:

And what about the absolutely critical social services that are designed to protect the vulnerable from misuse of power and headship? CPS, domestic violence programs, our network of mandated reporters for young and old alike - that must be very threatening to a group that believes that men have the right to whatever they like. Can you even imagine a Fundy church funding a program to help wives and kids leave a bad situation?

I agree, and an additional issue is that no organization constructed by a church could ultimately ever have a mandate to force anyone to do anything they didn't want to. If a parent or spouse disagreed with the church's decision, they could simply leave and find a new church, and continue to be just as abusive and/or neglectful as they were before. The church has no power to demand compliance beyond people's level of choosing to buy in, nor should it. Some churches may exert psychological control over their members, but that is both wildly unhealthy and too hit-or-miss to form a system of governance around.

So again, it comes back to needing a uniform system of secular government and laws that apply to everyone. It's great for religious organizations to help people, but they cannot and should not be the police or CPS.

[smittykins]

3 hours ago, BackseatMom said:

And what about the absolutely critical social services that are designed to protect the vulnerable from misuse of power and headship? CPS, domestic violence programs, our network of mandated reporters for young and old alike - that must be very threatening to a group that believes that men have the right to whatever they like. Can you even imagine a Fundy church funding a program to help wives and kids leave a bad situation?

Of course not.  She's supposed to submit more, stop trying to "rule over him," and give him more sex.  That'll keep him happy. 

[feministxtian]

On 8/18/2016 at 2:26 PM, true believer said:

 To answer the thread title question, no, all fundies do not practice what they teach.  Like every other religious group, there are those who are pretenders, who lie, cheat, etc who pretend to be what they are not.  We call them wolves in sheep's clothing.

No True Scotsman...or why I left organized Christianity behind after not getting satisfactory answers to my questions. 

[Toothfairy]

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 5:14 PM, AmazonGrace said:

No.

It's a HELL NO. 

Fundies practicing what they preach is like politicians saying they don't lie and have your best interests. 

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

7 hours ago, Toothfairy said:

It's a HELL NO. 

Fundies practicing what they preach is like politicians saying they don't lie and have your best interests. 

Fundies are not all the same. Just as FJites are not all the same. Please remember that fundyism isn't a hive vagina, or the phallic equivalent. 

[Mercer]

I don't think any human being is fully consistent with their beliefs and practicing what they preach. Real life is simply too messy and complicated for ideals to always fit the grey situations we find ourselves in.

That said, I think the more extreme the belief system, the harder it is for a person to be consistent. The more you insist that every detail of your principles must be timeless and unchanged, the harder it is to adapt to changing situations. The tougher your rules are to live up to, the more likely you'll be forced to compromise them.

Christian fundamentalists certainly aren't all the same, but any type of fundamentalist is going to have an inherently harder time being fully consistent with their beliefs than someone more middle-of-the-road and adaptable, so I think they do have a much lower likelihood of ideological and behavioral consistency than the average person.

[WendigoAgogo]

So many questions. How do you follow a guidebook to life so to speak, that is missing chapters and so full of contradictions?

Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)

Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)
 

How does one let their light shine in order that people can see it while simultaneously hiding it and keeping it a secret so that only god knows what you've been up to? Even Houdini couldn't have pulled this one off.
 

According to the bible, you should judge all things, but also judge nothing until the lord comes. So its for THE LORD to judge unless you decide you are spiritual in which case, judge your little heart out. In fact, judge EVERYTHING.  Que????

1 Cor 2:15 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV)

1 Cor 4:5 "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."

If you decide you are dealing with a fool, since you can make that judgment being a spiritual person but also not make that judgment at all, do you answer not the fool in question or go ahead and answer him?

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

 

It appears that Judas rose from the dead just like Jesus so why isn't that discussed in greater detail? I mean, the man died twice for crying out loud! Surely the fact that he hung himself and also imploded is worthy of more than just a brief mention? If somebody hung himself and then came back and suddenly had his bowels gushing out in front of me, I can't imagine I'd shrug that off so casually!

"And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field." (MAT 27:5)

"Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)

 

Are we all hopeless sinners, or not? I can see why people go for the "We're all disgusting sinners" angle as that gives you a much better position from which to control people. Still, are we, or aren't we?
JO1 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

 

Was it really gods intention for us to live life feeling like unworthy, judgmental sinners? Talk about setting a person up to be a depressed failure. Why would he send himself to earth in order for himself to die for us in order to save us from himself when we were made in his image? Is it because he too is a judgmental sinner? I can't speak to the sin aspect, but he sure was judgmental. Have you ever noticed how many people he killed in the bible? He was getting his smite on from day one. Also, what's with the cruel pranks? 'Hey you, kill your child". ' No wait, haha just kidding.'

What really gets me is that god killed hundreds of thousand of people in the bible and satan only told someone to eat an apple and killed about ten people total but he's the bad guy in the story? Wouldn't it be interesting if we had it all backwards? I mean satan is given credit for leading folks astray in every way possible and doing all manner of horrible things. Wouldn't it blow your mind if the satan of the bible was actually god and the biblical god was actually satan?

That would explain the deliberate obfuscation, the swath of dead left in his wake, terrorizing people by making them thing they have to kill their children, and so forth.  Imagine judgement day comes and god says, "How on earth was he able to fool so many of you with a poorly written book? Look at the things that book lead you to justify and do? You used that book to subjugate and abuse women and children, justify wars, ignore the poor, judge each other mercilessly, slowly destroy this wonderful planet I gave you, and all other manner of awfulness. You spent your entire life feeling unworthy despite the obvious greatness that is the gift of my creations and you sincerely thought you were doing the work of a kind and loving god?  Despite the constant inner conflict you still chose to keep following this guy? Even when it made no sense whatsoever? You gotta be kidding me! Seriously?"

I could do this all day. So many questions...

 

[SilverBeach]

@WendigoAgogo, we coexist pretty peacefully here on FJ, atheists, agnostics, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan (sorry if I left anybody out). 

You are most certainly entitled to your thoughts, but a lengthy referendum on God and the bible? May not go over too well here. It's all secondary to our collective hatred of the damage caused by fundamentalism.

I am a Christ follower myself, but I don't denigrate the beliefs of any other members. Differences are OK.

 

[WendigoAgogo]

12 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

@WendigoAgogo, we coexist pretty peacefully here on FJ, atheists, agnostics, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan (sorry if I left anybody out). 

You are most certainly entitled to your thoughts, but a lengthy referendum on God and the bible? May not go over too well here. It's all secondary to our collective hatred of the damage caused by fundamentalism.

I am a Christ follower myself, but I don't denigrate the beliefs of any other members. Differences are OK.

 

I apologize if you or your beliefs felt denigrated in some way. I pointed out some valid contradictions that have never been resolved for me. I'm not sure how you think that's unfair.  I also expressed some thoughts I've pondered over time and had discussions about with people of all religious bents. My what if's are not intended to sully or defame anyone elses beliefs. I genuinely wonder about these things and don't think they are outside the realm of possibility. Ill admit that when I first considered the idea that a great switch had occurred, I was pretty troubled by it, but I don't think that discomfort automatically equals scorn/denigration.

[SilverBeach]

@WendigoAgogo, I never characterized any of your post as being unfair. Yes, I do think it was denigrating, at least at the end. Even that doesn't bother me, I know we have all sorts of beliefs or not here. That is my point. You are new, and can say whatever your heart desires, but the culture is such here that we aren't divided by personal beliefs. I guess I am talking about respect for the beliefs of others, that's all. Unless its crazy fundamentalism of course, then have at it! Welcome to FJ, I mean that. 

[Palimpsest]

@SilverBeach, I thought @WendigoAgogo's post was fine.  I saw a series of rhetorical questions and not denigration.  

Lengthy discussions and debates about religious beliefs have always happened here.  Interestingly, we seem have more people who identify as Christian (and sometimes even as Fundie) than we did in the old days.  There have been plenty of heated debates here over the years too.

I'm an atheist. I'm very critical of some aspects of Christianity and extreme Fundamentalism in general.   I try to limit my criticism to what I think are ugly beliefs and erroneous teachings.  I don't mock or attack other member's faith or get personal about it.  Neither did the post you are objecting to.

My oft stated mantra is that I try to respect true faith if I see it - even when I do not share that faith.  It is hypocrisy I can't stand.

And, welcome, @WendigoAgogo.

 

I'm also rather disappointed that our OP didn't come back to continue our discussion.  @true believer, are you there?