We’re not doing this thread right for you? OK then. Clearly you know best.
5 Likes
No, it isn’t. The answer to, “is this public personality evil, or just stupid?” is “It does not matter.” The people involved are not worth thinking about that way, and the actions you need to take in either case is the same: turn them off, vote against them, ridicule and shame those who support them.
And, occasionally, rebuke those who would waste your time speculating about the internal states of monsters.
10 Likes
It’s a stoner thought experiment, but here used not so much with insight, curiosity or goodwill as to stifle the topic of discussion and lecture others.
There are ways to ask questions without patronizing others and which would get a real response. But that’s not their intention, obviously.
4 Likes
That’s a sadly uncharitable reading of my comments.
1 Like
Perhaps you need less nuance. Or more nuance. Charitable nuance? Nuanced charity?
1 Like
Perhaps we can ask this guy-
4 Likes
I believe its primary tenant is a foetus.
9 Likes
Ah, but this is a concern troll who previously posted "I’m sorry that some POC need to lash out at me for my (lack of?) skin color, but their need for someone to blame doesn’t actually make me to blame. "
Why am I not surprised that they’re continuing their lecture.
4 Likes
That’s simultaneously f’ing hilarious and deeply sickening.
It’s like those homophobic pastors preaching fire and brimstone about how gay people are evil, and sick, and all that. But who once in a while pretty much give away that they themselves are attracted to people of the same sex, and the real issue is that they’re infuriated with themselves and don’t understand that not everyone has same-sex attraction.
“I’m the straightest goddamn pastor in the world, and even I am tempted! Everyone is. Because if most straight people aren’t tempted, that means I’m gay! And gay people are evil! So, actually I’m straight, and these feelings I’m afraid of are something everyone must feel equally ashamed and fearful of! Otherwise, I’m not righteous, I’m just repressed and ignorant and fucking up people’s lives pointlessly.”
6 Likes
I thought the primary tenet of Quiverfull Theology was that God wants Christians to have as many children as possible, in order to raise a theocratic army and destroy wicked cities.
4 Likes
My eleemosynary gestures, let me show you them.
3 Likes
Your last paragraph is a perfect encapsulation of the situation.
2 Likes
Well, there was a time I used to think that way. I’ve “seen the enemy, and he was me”, to mutilate a turn of phrase.
1 Like
I’ve been reading the Torah with a group led by my rabbi. It’s pretty interesting to read these bits with a knowledgeable teacher.
We just got done with the part where Job’s daughters rapes him because she thinks the world is ending and they will need to repopulate it. They are not only not punished for this but rewarded for it, but because their motive is pure it is forgiven.
I would say in general the treatment of women in the Old Testament is disturbing; they do not own their own bodies. Like, Sarah AKA Sarai is featured in a couple of stories being passed off as Abraham’s AKA Abram’s sister so it’s okay for her to be raped, whereas if they’d told the truth that she was his wife it would not be okay. I get that there was some old timey rule that made sense to them about why a sister could be raped and a wife not, but it’s awful to read how little control these women had over their own bodies.
That anyone would look to these stories for guidance on how to treat a sister or wife is repugnant.
9 Likes
You’re thinking of Dominionism, a strain of fundamentalist Christian doctrine that seeks to make the United States a Theocracy, either through political will or military force.
Quiverfull is pretty much exclusively concerned with reproduction and “traditional” gender roles.
The two philosophies often go hand in hand, but they’re distinct — not all Quiverfulls are Dominionists, and vice versa.
1 Like
So, they’re admitting they don’t really believe God sees all?
2 Likes
By no means am I sympathizing with the Duggars, but can we call Josh Duggar a “child molester” when he was a 14-yr old kid at the time, feeling up girls his own age? To me, that sits more in the “young teen who hasn’t learned boundaries” area.
Would he make the distinction when talking about others?
1 Like
I believe one of the victims was an infant.
Besides, molestation isn’t age-specific.
Dominionism is where Christians want America to become a Christian nation and extinguish any secular or Muslim states (eventually Israel). Quiverfull wants persons to breed Christian soldiers , they are not the same thing but there’s a hell of a lot of overlap. Not all dominionists are breeders, but most all Quiverfull are dominionists.
2 Likes
