|
Post by ellie on Jun 8, 2015 6:06:53 GMT -5
That one's easy -- just look for the denim skirts, and you've found the right picnic! Er well, you might end up in the wrong spot - that's only half the uniform! Pair it with white runners and the hair up-do and then you can feel at home. Yes don't forget the bun. Wouldn't want to end up at the orthodox Jewish picnic by mistake.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 8, 2015 7:59:53 GMT -5
I want to know if its an act of vanity to shave, or to pull hair out of my nose and ears. Pulling the hair from your nose sounds like an act akin to flagellation! And it can lead to some uncomfortable infections as well. There is a source (no I cannot recall where) that claimed either Michelangelo or Galileo braided their nose hair! So there is a style tip for free!There could be other adjectives that would be a better description!
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Jun 9, 2015 11:51:37 GMT -5
I want to know if its an act of vanity to shave, or to pull hair out of my nose and ears. I also want to know if I'm professing-not-possessing to take more than one shower a week living here in drought-afflicted California. There are professing women who don't shave/wax their mustaches while their husbands do. Not sure if they think it is a vain thing to do or if growing their hair long applies to their faces as well.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 9, 2015 12:06:47 GMT -5
I want to know if its an act of vanity to shave, or to pull hair out of my nose and ears. Pulling the hair from your nose sounds like an act akin to flagellation! And it can lead to some uncomfortable infections as well. There is a source (no I cannot recall where) that claimed either Michelangelo or Galileo braided their nose hair! So there is a style tip for free!There could be other adjectives that would be a better description! Like irresponsible, or just silly? Are we talking about my two-minute showers or my daughter's, whereas the whole evening must be scheduled.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 9, 2015 12:06:51 GMT -5
I want to know if its an act of vanity to shave, or to pull hair out of my nose and ears. I also want to know if I'm professing-not-possessing to take more than one shower a week living here in drought-afflicted California. There are professing women who don't shave/wax their mustaches while their husbands do. Not sure if they think it is a vain thing to do or if growing their hair long applies to their faces as well. At least be fair when you feel moved to make an asinine and rude post like this. Like black stockings it's not unique to just "professing women".
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 9, 2015 12:10:27 GMT -5
"withlove" - your post makes a joke of your board name.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 9, 2015 12:12:56 GMT -5
I want to know if its an act of vanity to shave, or to pull hair out of my nose and ears. I also want to know if I'm professing-not-possessing to take more than one shower a week living here in drought-afflicted California. There are professing women who don't shave/wax their mustaches while their husbands do. Not sure if they think it is a vain thing to do or if growing their hair long applies to their faces as well. Well that's just wrong. Immodest efforts to be modest always are. Recalling every Biblical image of light and glory, I loved reading John Muir's descriptions of Yosemite National Park in 'My First Summer in the Sierra'.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 9, 2015 12:13:41 GMT -5
"withlove" what a joke of a board name. Ah you're all grumpy this morning. Go pat you cat or something.
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Jun 9, 2015 12:14:49 GMT -5
There are professing women who don't shave/wax their mustaches while their husbands do. Not sure if they think it is a vain thing to do or if growing their hair long applies to their faces as well. Be fair when you feel moved to make a rude posts like this. Like black stockings it's not unique to "professing women". You're right--it isn't unique to them. I was responding to Lee in what I thought was the context he was using (the professing world). Since he mentioned professing. I don't even know if he is one of the friends or not. But I will say that if I see a woman with a mustache who isn't professing I assume that it is not an issue of vanity...rather...just not caring or fear of the social stigma of women shaving or not wanting to keep up the maintenance. Being one of the friends for most of my life makes me think that a professing lady with facial hair might have different reasons from non-professing ladies for keeping it.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 9, 2015 12:23:09 GMT -5
You're right--it isn't unique to them. I was responding to Lee in what I thought was the context he was using (the professing world). Since he mentioned professing. I don't even know if he is one of the friends or not. But I will say that if I see a woman with a mustache who isn't professing I assume that it is not an issue of vanity...rather...just not caring or fear of the social stigma of women shaving or not wanting to keep up the maintenance. Being one of the friends for most of my life makes me think that a professing lady with facial hair might have different reasons from non-professing ladies for keeping it. You are continuing to make a joke of your board name.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jun 9, 2015 12:53:45 GMT -5
I want to know if its an act of vanity to shave, or to pull hair out of my nose and ears. I also want to know if I'm professing-not-possessing to take more than one shower a week living here in drought-afflicted California. I would think the answer to that would be whether you do things out of necessity, or because you love yourself? Some people are obsessed with looking perfect, whereas others do things just to stay clean. That's not vanity!
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Jun 9, 2015 14:26:51 GMT -5
I'm sorry you feel that way, and that once again I seem to be without love. If there were profile pics here of ladies with facial hair, I would have the sensitivity to not bring it up. I was making a comment without singling anyone out. Facial hair on women is a natural phenomenon, and if we keep it because we feel that comfortable with our bodies, that is fine, and possible admirable. If we keep it because we feel pressure to do so, when we would feel more comfortable without it, that is a sad situation. There are definitely people who have very neat hair, and enjoy shopping for their clothes, shoes, and handbags...they are interested in their appearance, and I would not call them vain. They do not use makeup and they do not remove their facial hair. Because of how they take care with the rest of their appearance, it seems pretty obvious that there is a church influence involved.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 9, 2015 14:42:33 GMT -5
If there were profile pics here of ladies with facial hair, I would have the sensitivity to not bring it up. I was making a comment without singling anyone out. Facial hair on women is a natural phenomenon, and if we keep it because we feel that comfortable with our bodies, that is fine, and possible admirable. If we keep it because we feel pressure to do so, when we would feel more comfortable without it, that is a sad situation. There are definitely people who have very neat hair, and enjoy shopping for their clothes, shoes, and handbags...they are interested in their appearance, and I would not call them vain. They do not use makeup and they do not remove their facial hair. Because of how they take care with the rest of their appearance, it seems pretty obvious that there is a church influence involved. If I put the following picture on my profile, would you retract the rude statements you have made?
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Jun 9, 2015 14:55:17 GMT -5
If there were profile pics here of ladies with facial hair, I would have the sensitivity to not bring it up. I was making a comment without singling anyone out. Facial hair on women is a natural phenomenon, and if we keep it because we feel that comfortable with our bodies, that is fine, and possible admirable. If we keep it because we feel pressure to do so, when we would feel more comfortable without it, that is a sad situation. There are definitely people who have very neat hair, and enjoy shopping for their clothes, shoes, and handbags...they are interested in their appearance, and I would not call them vain. They do not use makeup and they do not remove their facial hair. Because of how they take care with the rest of their appearance, it seems pretty obvious that there is a church influence involved. If I put the following picture on my profile, would you retract the rude statements you have made? That facial hair is trimmed and neat and doesn't seem to me to be there because of outside pressure or despite it being unwanted. It seems like it is wanted. I've said that being comfortable with our bodies enough to keep facial hair is fine and possibly admirable. The person pictured above shouldn't have a problem with what I said. Is it you? I hope you can see that I didn't say anything offensive about women having facial hair.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 9, 2015 15:12:03 GMT -5
I'm sorry you feel that way, and that once again I seem to be without love. If there were profile pics here of ladies with facial hair, I would have the sensitivity to not bring it up. I was making a comment without singling anyone out. It's not about me and how I feel, it's about your posts, posts that make a joke of your board name. You DID single people out, in more than one post.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 9, 2015 15:57:53 GMT -5
That facial hair is trimmed and neat and doesn't seem to me to be there because of outside pressure or despite it being unwanted. It seems like it is wanted. I've said that being comfortable with our bodies enough to keep facial hair is fine and possibly admirable. The person pictured above shouldn't have a problem with what I said. Is it you? I hope you can see that I didn't say anything offensive about women having facial hair. This poor lady (it's not me) got tired of plucking facial hair every morning so she decided to let it grow.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 9, 2015 16:42:10 GMT -5
That facial hair is trimmed and neat and doesn't seem to me to be there because of outside pressure or despite it being unwanted. It seems like it is wanted. I've said that being comfortable with our bodies enough to keep facial hair is fine and possibly admirable. The person pictured above shouldn't have a problem with what I said. Is it you? I hope you can see that I didn't say anything offensive about women having facial hair. This poor lady (it's not me) got tired of plucking facial hair every morning so she decided to let it grow. You are assuming she plucked it because she didn't want it?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 9, 2015 17:50:00 GMT -5
This poor lady (it's not me) got tired of plucking facial hair every morning so she decided to let it grow. You are assuming she plucked it because she didn't want it? I read the article about her experience, so I don't need to make such an assumption.
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Jun 9, 2015 18:45:44 GMT -5
That facial hair is trimmed and neat and doesn't seem to me to be there because of outside pressure or despite it being unwanted. It seems like it is wanted. I've said that being comfortable with our bodies enough to keep facial hair is fine and possibly admirable. The person pictured above shouldn't have a problem with what I said. Is it you? I hope you can see that I didn't say anything offensive about women having facial hair. This poor lady (it's not me) got tired of plucking facial hair every morning so she decided to let it grow. Ok, I can empathize with that. I'm not judging women for having facial hair. I'm concerned about environments which make them feel bad about either keeping or removing it. Above, I said that one possibility for a person keeping the hair is because she doesn't want to keep up with the maintenance (from what you say, the woman pictured falls under that category). I would venture to guess that every woman who regularly deals with body hair, let's say even just on her legs, can understand that perspective. Although plucking on the face daily would be much more pain much more often than most of us have to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 10, 2015 0:37:19 GMT -5
I dated a brunette once who told me her hair went totally gray in her twenties. Later she became a blond.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 10, 2015 0:39:55 GMT -5
Is it a sin to dye your hair? Did Jesus die for us to moralize over outward appearances? In some cults, its not just a matter of moralizing, its a criteria to determine the sheep from the goats.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 10, 2015 10:52:07 GMT -5
Getting back to the original point of the discussion, here's a list of some common traits found in all groups with cultish behaviors. This excerpt came from an article relating to the Jehovah Witnesses. Being honest, do you see anything in these four different categories that resembles the 2x2's? www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/fear-cult-mind-control.phpBEHAVIORAL CONTROL •Regulation of individual's physical reality, for example, what clothes, colors, hairstyles the person wears •Major time commitment required for indoctrination sessions and group rituals •Individualism discouraged; "group think" prevails •Rigid rules and regulations •Need for obedience and dependency THOUGHT CONTROL
•Individualism discouraged; "group think" prevails •Need to internalize the group's doctrine as "Truth" •Black and White thinking - Good vs. Evil, us vs. them, inside vs. outside •Use of "loaded" language (for example, "thought-terminating clichés"). Words are the tools we use to think with. These "special" words constrict rather than expand understanding, and can even stop thoughts altogether. They function to reduce complexities of experience into trite, platitudinous "buzz words." •Only "good" and "proper" thoughts are encouraged •No critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy seen as legitimate •No alternative belief systems viewed as legitimate, good, or useful INFORMATION CONTROL •Use of deception •Deliberately holding back information •Distorting information to make it more "acceptable" •Outright lying •Access to non-cult sources of information minimized or discouraged •Books, articles, newspapers, magazines, TV, radio •Critical information •Former members •Keep members so busy they don't have time to think and check things out. •Compartmentalization of information; Outsider vs. Insider doctrines •Information is not freely accessible •Information varies at different levels and missions within pyramid •Leadership decides who "needs to know" what and when EMOTIONAL CONTROL •Spying and reporting on other members •Extensive use of cult generated information and propaganda •Newsletters, magazines, journals, audio tapes, videotapes, and other media •Misquotations, statements taken out of context from non-cult sources •Confession •Make the person feel that if there are ever any problems, it is always their fault, never the leader's or the group's. •Excessive use of guilt •Excessive use of fear ◦Fear of thinking independently ◦Fear of the "outside" world ◦Fear of enemies ◦Fear of losing one's "salvation" ◦Fear of leaving the group or being shunned by group ◦Fear of disapproval •Phobia indoctrination: inculcating irrational fears about ever leaving the group or even questioning the leader's authority. The person under mind control cannot visualize a positive, fulfilled future without being in the group. •No happiness or fulfillment outside of the group •Terrible consequences will take place if you leave: hell, demon possession, incurable diseases, accidents, suicide, insanity, 10,000 reincarnations, etc. •Shunning of leave takers; fear of being rejected by friends, peers, and family •Never a legitimate reason to leave. From the group's perspective, people who leave are "weak," "undisciplined," "unspiritual," "worldly," "brainwashed by family or counselor," or "seduced by money, sex, rock and roll."
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 10, 2015 11:02:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 10, 2015 12:01:01 GMT -5
Getting back to the original point of the discussion, here's a list of some common traits found in all groups with cultish behaviors. This excerpt came from an article relating to the Jehovah Witnesses. Being honest, do you see anything in these four different categories that resembles the 2x2's? www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/fear-cult-mind-control.phpBEHAVIORAL CONTROL •Regulation of individual's physical reality, for example, what clothes, colors, hairstyles the person wears •Major time commitment required for indoctrination sessions and group rituals •Individualism discouraged; "group think" prevails •Rigid rules and regulations •Need for obedience and dependency THOUGHT CONTROL
•Individualism discouraged; "group think" prevails •Need to internalize the group's doctrine as "Truth" •Black and White thinking - Good vs. Evil, us vs. them, inside vs. outside •Use of "loaded" language (for example, "thought-terminating clichés"). Words are the tools we use to think with. These "special" words constrict rather than expand understanding, and can even stop thoughts altogether. They function to reduce complexities of experience into trite, platitudinous "buzz words." •Only "good" and "proper" thoughts are encouraged •No critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy seen as legitimate •No alternative belief systems viewed as legitimate, good, or useful INFORMATION CONTROL •Use of deception •Deliberately holding back information •Distorting information to make it more "acceptable" •Outright lying •Access to non-cult sources of information minimized or discouraged •Books, articles, newspapers, magazines, TV, radio •Critical information •Former members •Keep members so busy they don't have time to think and check things out. •Compartmentalization of information; Outsider vs. Insider doctrines •Information is not freely accessible •Information varies at different levels and missions within pyramid •Leadership decides who "needs to know" what and when EMOTIONAL CONTROL •Spying and reporting on other members •Extensive use of cult generated information and propaganda •Newsletters, magazines, journals, audio tapes, videotapes, and other media •Misquotations, statements taken out of context from non-cult sources •Confession •Make the person feel that if there are ever any problems, it is always their fault, never the leader's or the group's. •Excessive use of guilt •Excessive use of fear ◦Fear of thinking independently ◦Fear of the "outside" world ◦Fear of enemies ◦Fear of losing one's "salvation" ◦Fear of leaving the group or being shunned by group ◦Fear of disapproval •Phobia indoctrination: inculcating irrational fears about ever leaving the group or even questioning the leader's authority. The person under mind control cannot visualize a positive, fulfilled future without being in the group. •No happiness or fulfillment outside of the group •Terrible consequences will take place if you leave: hell, demon possession, incurable diseases, accidents, suicide, insanity, 10,000 reincarnations, etc. •Shunning of leave takers; fear of being rejected by friends, peers, and family •Never a legitimate reason to leave. From the group's perspective, people who leave are "weak," "undisciplined," "unspiritual," "worldly," "brainwashed by family or counselor," or "seduced by money, sex, rock and roll." Of course you see things relating to the 2x2s. That's because these lists are designed to make you think that certain religious groups are cults. As I've mentioned before; your lists are all published by agenda-based evangelical Christians with an ax to grind.
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Jun 10, 2015 13:51:20 GMT -5
Whathat:
Yes, the purpose of the lists are to show how groups are cults. The list-makers of course would have that as their agenda. Which as an independent person, I can't see how that is a bad agenda. But if they do have malicious agendas against churches rather than to help people (or in addition to)...
we should still be able to benefit from the lists by taking looking at items listed which apply to a group and thinking about whether they are causes of concern.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 10, 2015 15:09:44 GMT -5
Whathat: Yes, the purpose of the lists are to show how groups are cults. The list-makers of course would have that as their agenda. Which as an independent person, I can't see how that is a bad agenda. But if they do have malicious agendas against churches rather than to help people (or in addition to)... we should still be able to benefit from the lists by taking looking at items listed which apply to a group and thinking about whether they are causes of concern. Actually that is not an accurate statement of the agenda. The central agenda is to show that their ideology, mainstream Christianity, is correct and all other ideologies are deficient. Meanwhile groups using their ideology are as prone to problems as are groups using mainstream Christian ideology. For example, Old Order Mennonites, Brethren and other conservative Christian groups have many of the same problems as the f&w's do. But they're not called "cults" because they follow Trinitarian Christianity. Can you tell me that Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, are any more dysfunctional than Pentecostals and Baptists? That hasn't been my experience with JWs. I don't like them at my door Saturday mornings, but that's irrelevant. If the lists had scientific merit, you'd find experts in sociology, non-religious ones that is, publishing such lists. But they don't. IMO, the better strategy is to deal with the individual concerns, and drop the 'name calling'. The 'name calling' does not foster dialogue or produce anything productive. To give you an example, I find that discussion on the idea of 'boundaries' in clergy-laity interaction is a very useful construct when considering the friends or any church and how and where things break down. It gets people talking about their individual needs, problems in a more constructive way. Type 'boundaries' into amazon.com and you'll find a number of books on the topic. It isn't even the things that are on the lists that are the issue so much. It's the idea that you can somehow process a group against such a list and come out with an overall designation like cult, sect or holy church. That does not work.
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Jun 10, 2015 15:52:44 GMT -5
Whathat: Yes, the purpose of the lists are to show how groups are cults. The list-makers of course would have that as their agenda. Which as an independent person, I can't see how that is a bad agenda. But if they do have malicious agendas against churches rather than to help people (or in addition to)... we should still be able to benefit from the lists by taking looking at items listed which apply to a group and thinking about whether they are causes of concern. Actually that is not an accurate statement of the agenda. The central agenda is to show that their ideology, mainstream Christianity, is correct and all other ideologies are deficient. Meanwhile groups using their ideology are as prone to problems as are groups using mainstream Christian ideology. For example, Old Order Mennonites, Brethren and other conservative Christian groups have many of the same problems as the f&w's do. But they're not called "cults" because they follow Trinitarian Christianity. Can you tell me that Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, are any more dysfunctional than Pentecostals and Baptists? That hasn't been my experience with JWs. I don't like them at my door Saturday mornings, but that's irrelevant. If the lists had scientific merit, you'd find experts in sociology, non-religious ones that is, publishing such lists. But they don't. IMO, the better strategy is to deal with the individual concerns, and drop the 'name calling'. The 'name calling' does not foster dialogue or produce anything productive. To give you an example, I find that discussion on the idea of 'boundaries' in clergy-laity interaction is a very useful construct when considering the friends or any church and how and where things break down. It gets people talking about their individual needs, problems in a more constructive way. Type 'boundaries' into amazon.com and you'll find a number of books on the topic. It isn't even the things that are on the lists that are the issue so much. It's the idea that you can somehow process a group against such a list and come out with an overall designation like cult, sect or holy church. That does not work. I suppose I have been naive in not researching the backgrounds of the lists...I had gathered that mental health professions who deal with exit-counseling were the authors, not churches. Lists like this have been and continue to be helpful for me in my exit. I don't think they have made me view other churches more positively in comparison necessarily. I don't know very much about other denominations. I just have been helped to see things which have been detrimental to me put into words. I'd love for others to be helped like I have been by them, and so don't like to think of the lists being disregarded. But I'd like to hear more about other ways to bring awareness to the items listed.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 10, 2015 16:19:06 GMT -5
If I put the following picture on my profile, would you retract the rude statements you have made? That facial hair is trimmed and neat and doesn't seem to me to be there because of outside pressure or despite it being unwanted. It seems like it is wanted. I've said that being comfortable with our bodies enough to keep facial hair is fine and possibly admirable. The person pictured above shouldn't have a problem with what I said. Is it you? I hope you can see that I didn't say anything offensive about women having facial hair. Fixit ~ Anybody who experiences this problem of excessive hair growth due to hormonal imbalance can usually find treatment for it, if they so desire, as the article below brings out. The condition is known as hirsutism.
www.healthline.com/health/excessive-or-unwanted-hair-in-women#Treatment4
|
|