Seriously Steve 4: Judging and Hating

[Coconut Flan]

9 minutes ago, Bastet said:

Maybe I shouldn’t be considering this one of the defining tenets of twenty-first century Christian fundamentalism. 

You shouldn't because it's a tenet of most or maybe all non-fundie evangelical groups.  

[Bastet]

12 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

You shouldn't because it's a tenet of most or maybe all non-fundie evangelical groups.  

I guess I consider all evangelical groups fundamentalist then. 

[JermajestyDuggar]

I’ve noticed a lot of evangelicals have started sounding quite fundie in the last few years. It’s like some of the lines are starting to blur a bit. 

[Coconut Flan]

26 minutes ago, Bastet said:

I guess I consider all evangelical groups fundamentalist then. 

Actually they aren't identical.  Fundies are more restrictive than evangelicals.  

[Bastet]

12 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

Actually they aren't identical.  Fundies are more restrictive than evangelicals.  

  I didn’t say they were all identical, only that I consider all evangelical to be fundamentalist. The group Jinger joined is different from the one she left in ways that keep neither from being fundamentalist. 

[Coconut Flan]

2 hours ago, Bastet said:

  I didn’t say they were all identical, only that I consider all evangelical to be fundamentalist. The group Jinger joined is different from the one she left in ways that keep neither from being fundamentalist. 

If you're able to look at the groups objectively there really is a distinction.  My evangelical neighbors can sniff out a fundamentalist church very easily and would be offended to have themselves viewed as being fundamentalist.  That's also a distinction Jinger is trying to get people to understand.  I think people confuse their political views and their religious views also.  It's OK, but the people in the various groups can see and understand the differences.  I'm in neither group so it's no matter to me and I've tried often enough to get people to see the distincion and obviously not succeeded with everyone that there's only a little bit of energy left to keep trying.  Maybe it's a problem of seeing the various dividing lines the religious groups have set themselves or perhaps acknowledging that they have that right.  

[Bastet]

25 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

If you're able to look at the groups objectively there really is a distinction.  My evangelical neighbors can sniff out a fundamentalist church very easily and would be offended to have themselves viewed as being fundamentalist.  That's also a distinction Jinger is trying to get people to understand.  I think people confuse their political views and their religious views also.  It's OK, but the people in the various groups can see and understand the differences.  I'm in neither group so it's no matter to me and I've tried often enough to get people to see the distincion and obviously not succeeded with everyone that there's only a little bit of energy left to keep trying.  Maybe it's a problem of seeing the various dividing lines the religious groups have set themselves or perhaps acknowledging that they have that right.  

  I can get where you are coming from, but I see Jinger as having moved from one fundie church to another and judging by what has been written about her move, most non fundie people would agree with me. The fact that people within that world slice things more thinly is only to be expected, especially given their tendency to regard small differences as definitive.   
  Jinger moved to a hard core predestination cult with many theological differences from where she started, but from the outside it’s just another flavor of woman and other hating fundie.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Bastet

[Coconut Flan]

Well by the people who study the religious groups she's moved from fundie to evangelical.  By people in those groups she's moved from fundie to evangelical.  I think a lot of people on this forum would agree with you though.  When you want to talk fundies, almost everything can be made to look fundie.  

[Bastet]

2 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

Well by the people who study the religious groups she's moved from fundie to evangelical.  By people in those groups she's moved from fundie to evangelical.  I think a lot of people on this forum would agree with you though.  When you want to talk fundies, almost everything can be made to look fundie.  

Check the paragraph added while you were writing. 

[Coconut Flan]

54 minutes ago, Bastet said:

from the outside it’s just another flavor of woman and other hating fundie.

That's a definition you are putting on fundie that doesn't exist in their framework.  That would make the Eastern Orthodox church fundie while it's a separate denomination.  It's also as much a political construct as a religious construct.  

I think our root problem is that I believe we should follow the groups and the researchers categories and definitions (in the words have established meanings view of things) while others may want to choose their own definitions which may not be universally accepted.  

For example I haven't met a fundie yet who wasn't patriarchal.  So on that point we concur.  On the other hand I have met plenty of people (men especially) who are patriarchal and aren't religious fundies.  One of my most recent encounters was with a patriarchal atheist.  Since there is overlap in the venn diagram, but not a complete correspondence, it can't be the defining characteristic of the group.  

Edited May 11, 2023 by Coconut Flan

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, Coconut Flan said:

That's a definition you are putting on fundie that doesn't exist in their framework.  That would make the Eastern Orthodox church fundie while it's a separate denomination.  It's also as much a political construct as a religious construct.  

I think our root problem is that I believe we should follow the groups and the researchers categories and definitions (in the words have established meanings view of things) while others may want to choose their own definitions which may not be universally accepted.  

For example I haven't met a fundie yet who wasn't patriarchal.  So on that point we concur.  On the other hand I have met plenty of people (men especially) who are patriarchal and aren't religious fundies.  One of my most recent encounters was with a patriarchal atheist.  Since there is overlap in the venn diagram, but not a complete correspondence, it can't be the defining characteristic of the group.  

  It’s not the only characteristic of the group.  It’s also the lack of acceptance of a whole range of people, including lgbtq and the governing idea that whatever they believe comes from God and cannot be disputed (which excludes the patriarchal atheist).  Yes, mine is not a definition that is in their framework; the framework i and many others use puts them together with fundamentalist Muslims and ultra Orthodox Jews, and it’s a framework that throws light on all three groups. 
  I agree completely with your second paragraph. (I am generally a admirer of your posts!)I am looking at fundamentalists as a worried outsider; my concerns are over the congruences I see, and that is sufficiently common that it has perhaps changed how the label fundamentalist is used. 
  On a separate but related note: Some people in a reddit thread I follow see the religious landscape becoming more polarized much like the political one. The Southern Baptist Church lost half a million members over the past year. One redditor wrote that the ones left are farther to the right. My perception is that the church used to be more broadly based. My family has many Republicans who have had the ground shift under their feet with the Trumpification of the Republican Party. They feel homeless. I wonder if something similar has happened to those missing Southern Baptists. It’s not as if the mainline churches are flooded with SBC refugees. 

Edited May 11, 2023 by Bastet

[Hane]

@Bastet, a while back one of us posted a link about the Southern Baptist Convention and how it flipped from rather egalitarian to sexist in the ‘70s. It happened when SBC leaders glommed onto opposition to the ERA and Roe v. Wade and its higher-ups aligned themselves with Reagan and the Republican Party.

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, Hane said:

@Bastet, a while back one of us posted a link about the Southern Baptist Convention and how it flipped from rather egalitarian to sexist in the ‘70s. It happened when SBC leaders glommed onto opposition to the ERA and Roe v. Wade and its higher-ups aligned themselves with Reagan and the Republican Party.

  The Republicans in the family could deal with this, but Trump appalls them. (One was appointed judge by Romney and was upset I wouldn’t vote for him out of gratitude. On the other hand, my now 101-year-old ex mother-in-law shocked the family Republicans by voting for Obama. Go Nana!)

[GreenBeans]

5 hours ago, Bastet said:

The fact that people within that world slice things more thinly is only to be expected, especially given their tendency to regard small differences as definitive.   

It’s pretty similar to fundie parents with eleventy kids arguing they are not quiverful, because “they are not part of a quiverful movement.” Semantics.

[Bluebirdbluebell]

I agree with @Bastet that some extent many "mainstream" groups are fundamentalists. Most fundies don't identify that way.  As for Jinger, John MacArthur's views on mental health are slightly less kooky than L. Ron Hubbard's (scientology). To me any religion that interferes with ability to get medical help (including mental health) is at least slightly fundamentalist. 

I don't care if they believe they're fundie. Especially if they say we're are going to hell, because we've never belonged to their denomination.

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

I absolutely believe that Stevehovah believes knows everyone else, except himself and the Maxhell family, are going to Hell.

Actually I absolutely believe that Stevehovah knows he is going to Heaven and the rest is his family is probably -- but only if they follow all of Stevehovah"s Mexhellian rules.

Stevehovah has a mighty big opinion of himself

[hoipolloi]

30 minutes ago, Red Hair, Black Dress said:

I absolutely believe that Stevehovah believes knows everyone else, except himself and the Maxhell family, are going to Hell.

Actually I absolutely believe that Stevehovah knows he is going to Heaven and the rest is his family is probably -- but only if they follow all of Stevehovah"s Mexhellian rules.

And I know that Stevehovah is going to be extremely surprised when he gets to wherever heʻs going after death. 

 

[anniebgood]

I can't imagine having Stevie as a parishioner is easy for their pastor. If he participates in any Bible Studies would he say you're wrong and going to go to hell because you interpret the verses wrong? He's so certain of how his way is the only way. 
It will be a surprise when he goes to where ever he's headed for. The disservice he did his daughters is enough for me. I am glad they escaped his clutches. 

[Bluebirdbluebell]

1 hour ago, anniebgood said:

I can't imagine having Stevie as a parishioner is easy for their pastor. If he participates in any Bible Studies would he say you're wrong and going to go to hell because you interpret the verses wrong? He's so certain of how his way is the only way. 
It will be a surprise when he goes to where ever he's headed for. The disservice he did his daughters is enough for me. I am glad they escaped his clutches. 

I don't know if Steve's going to hell. I think he will be surprised, disappointed, and angry that so many people he considers "heathens" will be in heaven.

As for what he did to daughters, I think raising all kids to be fundie is a disservice. Marrying daughters off super young and pushing them to keep giving birth no matter what is just as bad. Finding them a new "headship" doesn't necessarily "free them". See most of the other fundie families on Free Jinger.

[Bluebirdbluebell]

This week's Seriously, Dad? is called Mistaken Identity and it's from May 17, 2023. 

First Paragraph:

Quote

Most have greeted someone they know with the wrong name. However, it is even more embarrassing to warmly greet someone by name and discover they are a different person entirely, and you have never known them. 

I think either is embarrassing. It depends on circumstances.

Quote

Hey, we are human and can easily make those sorts of mistakes. Right?

Sure. 

Second Paragraph:

Quote

However, the worst of the worst is to not “recognize/know” God for Who He really is as revealed in Scripture. Many have shared their understanding (picture) of God, and sadly, that isn’t the God of the Bible. Their God is all loving, merciful, and forgiving Who excuses, understands, and winks at their sin. That is a god of their own creation, only partially correct. The God of Scripture is also just, holy, and righteous. As such, God hates and must punish sin. 

One reason the bible is best-seller is that the main character (God) changes throughout the course of the book. He stops flooding the Earth after Noah. He gradually seems to become more merciful and kind. It's not uncanonical to say God is loving and merciful.

Third Paragraph:

Quote

“These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes” (Psalms 50:21).

According to this article (link):

Quote

Psalm 50: The psalm is a warning to the pilgrim of Zion to avoid hypocrisy and formalism before God. 

Hypocrisy and Formalism are things Steve should probably watch for.

Fourth Paragraph:

Quote

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21).

Arguably this passage is saying that not all Christians will go to heaven, but others who are not Christian will since they don't call Jesus "Lord".  Nice!

Anyway we get it. This week is week 2 of Steve explaining people who aren't Christians, right-kind-of-Christians, etc. won't go to heaven. Leave the judgment to God, Steve and write about fatherhood next week. (Also use writing to support quotes instead of just making them free paragraphs, although I did get what Steve was getting at.)

Edited May 17, 2023 by Bluebirdbluebell

[ElizaB]

What I think is funny about Steve’s baby watching tv example is that I feel like he used it as a jab at working moms. I’ve been both a working and non working mom and the funny thing is my kids watch way more tv when I was not working then when I was. They didn’t have a tv at daycare and then in the evening I wanted to spend time with them. When I stayed home with them I was always ready for a break and would turn on the tv. 
 

also, perhaps I’m wrong but weighing in on the evangelical vs fundi debate. I was  always under the impression that evangelicals had the goal to spread their religion and fundi means very strict in behaviors. You can be both or one. For instance the Amish are very fundi ; however, they are not actively trying to get more church members so they are not evangelical. Very modern mega churches who actively try to spread the word would be evangelical but not fundi. The maxwells would be considered both.

 

 

[anniebgood]

Didn't Jesus say he came to be the new covenant and that the old was abolished? Steve's God is the angry OT God, not the loving God who comes to us through the Holy Spirit. 

He needs to read Hebrews 8:7-12 again. Steve should think about a caring, loving God not the brimstone and city destroying one. 

Edited May 17, 2023 by anniebgood
rented fingers

[feministxtian]

Steve has created God in his (Steve's) image. Hard, nasty, mean, controlling. What a horrible way to go through life. 

[SassyPants]

40 minutes ago, feministxtian said:

Steve has created God in his (Steve's) image. Hard, nasty, mean, controlling. What a horrible way to go through life. 

I do not understand why anyone would want to spend eternity with a God like that. I would never attend a church that preaches hate, fire and brimstone from the pulpit. I go to church for inspiration and guidance, not screeching on about all the bad things that people are  thinking and doing.

[Bluebirdbluebell]

This week's Seriously, Dad? and it's from May 24, 2023. 

First Paragraph:

Quote

When I am “engaging” someone and if they indicate they are a Christian, I will usually ask if they read the Bible. 

"Indicate" implies they do something other than say "yes".  Are they using smoke signals? Interpretive dance? Since you don't approve of Catholics (good luck if DeSantis is elected), I doubt Steve considers the sign of the cross an indicated. 

Quote

This week one answered, “not as much as I should.”

They are probably Christians then since they think they should be reading the bible more.

Quote

This is a very common answer, just below “no.” 

If you asked me, I would say I read enough since I see scripture in your blog.

Quote

Their answer to that question reveals something about where they are spiritually and how they might be encouraged.

Probably true since if they think they should read the bible, then they probably are a)Christians or b) wanting to be Christians. Possibly leaving religion, but still indoctrinated.

Second Paragraph:

Quote

Jesus told Nicodemus (John 3:7) that he must be born again. That means there must be a spiritual birth for a person to come into a relationship with Christ. Then after the birth, there must be growth, and that comes by feeding on the Word. The “milk of the Word” is essential. It is amazing, boundless, and to be craved.

Steve you could have just quoted your favorite verse again. We've heard this over and over: Peter 2:2 : "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:"

Third Paragraph:

Now I wasn't reading ahead, but here Steve quotes his favorite and section:

Quote

“Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious” (1 Peter 2:1-3).

Thank you for saying it yet again. Really treading new ground there.

Quote

If a baby doesn’t desire milk, that is not good.

Yes, all people require food, which is something you struggle with.

Quote

Also, we should be concerned for anyone’s spiritual life if they don’t desire the Word.

I suppose we can't stop you from praying, but not everyone wants the Word. It should be up to them. This again is not something that just Steve struggles with, too many churches preach everyone should be part of one religion: theirs.

Fourth Paragraph:

Quote

May we all love and consume God’s Word everyday. It is amazing beyond measure.

I'm glad it makes you happy, but it won't make everyone happy. You can't force love, Steve. Some people will never love reading the bible, especially for spiritual insight. (Some people enjoy reading for cultural significance or in a literary way or even in just enjoying the stories way.)

Steve, we've heard all of this before. Try to come up with new things, pertaining to fatherhood. Your daughter is getting married next weekend so I can let this lazy column slide. We will be watching closely to see what you write next.

Edited May 24, 2023 by Bluebirdbluebell