[In a thread entitled "Submission vs. Controlling"
In our culture, when someone calls someone else "controlling," there is no need to see their hearts and minds. They are rendering a judgment on someone else - and that judgment is negative. The term "controlling" has a wholly-negative connotation in our modern, feminized society.
I have simply made two points. 1) What feminists consider to be "wrong", no matter how culturally accepted, is not likely to actually be wrong upon inspection of the word of God. 2) Anyone who labels another person as "controlling" is judging them personally - NOT making a judgment that the word of God makes.
I can label you a "liar" or "adulterer" and not be "judging you." The Bible tells us both of those things are wrong in God's sight and we all know what they mean. I cannot call another person "controlling" without personally judging them because being "controlling" is not something that God has defined as a sin.
So I am not a judge, merely a reporter.
43 comments
What a fucked up twisted way to say, "I'm a jackass, and my god is a jackass, and we are all moronic jackasses". You're a jackass. We get it. We got it long ago that you are all hypocritical, irrational, unintelligent jackasses.
I can label you a "liar" or "adulterer" and not be "judging you." The Bible tells us both of those things are wrong in God's sight and we all know what they mean.
Explain, then, why we see so many different definitions of "adultery" from fundies the world over.
So in essence you admit that at no stage are you actually thinking for yourself and instead, you use a book to do the thinking and decision making for you.
Well done. Let me know how that works out for you.
I think the idea here is that God's own word, alleged to be infallible (although, I can't help but be aware of several cases of Talmudic nullification by a small swarm of establishors of guilt; the requirements for making sure that a disobedient son really is deserving of execution come to mind), has already performed judgement on deception and adultery. The sharp-line follower is more messenger than judge. Since no such condemnation of control is detected, though, then the speaker IS judge, not messenger.
I guess the best analogy is a king who sends a messenger to a far-off duchy to recite from memory a condemnation of the duke's deeds. Contraeverything fancies himself as the messenger, God as the king, and us as the (supposedly) corrupt duchy.
"I can label you a "liar" or "adulterer" and not be "judging you." The Bible tells us both of those things are wrong in God's sight and we all know what they mean. "
In order to label anybody anything, you must first have judged them to be such.
And you also have to prove they are what you say they are, or you are bearing false witness, and the bible tells us that bearing false witness is a big no-no.
I read through most of that thread. Contra is arrogant and condescending - so overweening that even the other fundies can't stomach him. Most fundies, regardless of where they stand on the issues, at least pretend to value humility.
Not so for this fool who counts himself wise.
The best responses were by Holy Mole, who said, "It could be for the same reason that thieves always lock their doors? I've met guys like that. They feel that everyone is just like them but has NO reason to be (except for them)."
...and by PastorPhil, who responded to Holy Mole with this:
"That is sometimes true. I knew a pastor who would not allow his wife to go more than 5 miles from their home without calling him. She would call him the the middle of a Staff meeting and he'd give her the third degree. "With whom, for what, how long, will dinner be ready at the same time, etc etc etc." Turns out he was fairly dishonest in his won unaccountable dealings and was outed by a deacon eventually. The church fell apart."
What feminists consider to be "wrong", no matter how culturally accepted, is not likely to actually be wrong
I cannot call another person "controlling" without personally judging them because being "controlling" is not something that God has defined as a sin.
XD
"It's not judgemental for me to call people names at all, but when those dirty evil femmie-nazzies call men ruling over their womb/vagina-carriers with violence and coercion 'controlling' or 'abusive', they're WRONG!"
This shit cannot seriously be real.
I think he's claiming that being controlling is not a bad thing because his god doesn't define it as a sin. Being labeled controlling is then a personal judgment or opinion, and doesn't carry any biblical weight.
This is really the heart of fundamentalism. If god doesn't like it, then it's wrong no matter what society says. If god doesn't care, then it's fine no matter what society says. That is scary.
Can I have some soup with this word salad?
However, you don't seem to be very pleased if somebody else, particularly a non-christian, controles you. Hypocrisy?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
