Book Challenge By Fundy Wife!

[ClaraOlive]

I don't mean to come across as a misogynist, but I had always thought that women would be less likely to deconvert than men. If I listed the reasons, I would sound misogynistic, but women do seem to be involved to a greater degree than men in church activities (except, of course, in leadership roles).

 

Seriously, it's pretty lame to claim you don't mean to come across as misogynistic BUT...

[monkeygirl]

I just finished Jesus Interrupted - great book. Granted, I'm reading it post-deconversion, but it really brought to light a LOT of the issues I've always had with christianity and just never did get answered. My hubby is also working through it (much slower), and although I would say by my old standards he's no longer a christian, I think he'd still say he was - although he's so close to a full deconversion it's just a matter at this point of dropping the title. These books are great at finding those flaws that churches try so hard to cover up from the fundies.

 

 

Wow, that sounds just like my husband. I feel very fortunate that we've been able to go through this process somewhat together though I was started earlier and got here faster, we both just go about things differently.

I don't mean to come across as a misogynist, but I had always thought that women would be less likely to deconvert than men. If I listed the reasons, I would sound misogynistic, but women do seem to be involved to a greater degree than men in church activities (except, of course, in leadership roles).

 

 

I understand and I am a very emotional person so I guess I don't seem like the likely suspect. I guess I've always been a doubter but I just followed the crowd when it came to religion.

[monkeygirl]

I don't mean to come across as a misogynist, but I had always thought that women would be less likely to deconvert than men. If I listed the reasons, I would sound misogynistic, but women do seem to be involved to a greater degree than men in church activities (except, of course, in leadership roles).

 

I would take gender out of it and say that more emotional people are less likely to deconvert.

 

The logical arguments are weak, but the feelings are what people get stuck on. Noone likes that sinking feeling in their gut that they might be wrong about something, and everyone likes the spine-tingling sensation of being right and pure and one with the universe. It's just harder to argue against personal experience.

 

 

Yep, but feelings aren't truth. Even though I'm rather emotional I know my emotions only show me where I am, not reality.

[Shyone]

I don't mean to come across as a misogynist, but I had always thought that women would be less likely to deconvert than men. If I listed the reasons, I would sound misogynistic, but women do seem to be involved to a greater degree than men in church activities (except, of course, in leadership roles).

 

Seriously, it's pretty lame to claim you don't mean to come across as misogynistic BUT...

Aren't men and women different in this regard? Is the acknowledgment of difference misogyny? I was trying to avoid listing the differences, but

http://www.oregoncounseling.org/ArticlesPapers/Documents/DifferencesMenWomen.htm

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Aren't men and women different in this regard? Is the acknowledgment of difference misogyny? I was trying to avoid listing the differences, but

http://www.oregoncounseling.org/ArticlesPapers/Documents/DifferencesMenWomen.htm

But then why have almost all of the most irrational leaders of fundamentalism been men then like Pat Roberston, Jerry Fallwell, Billy Graham, Rick Warren etc?

[Shyone]

 

 

Aren't men and women different in this regard? Is the acknowledgment of difference misogyny? I was trying to avoid listing the differences, but

http://www.oregoncounseling.org/ArticlesPapers/Documents/DifferencesMenWomen.htm

But then why have almost all of the most irrational leaders of fundamentalism been men then like Pat Roberston, Jerry Fallwell, Billy Graham, Rick Warren etc?

I didn't mean to imply that women are more irrational than men. Do you think, though, that given the context (religion) that there is an implicit assumption on the part of most congregants that men should lead, and so they find someone that is willing and able to lead, and is sufficiently irrational to swallow the whole thing?

 

Pearson was such a man, but not irrational enough it seems.

 

As time goes on, and women clergy become more common, this "distinction" may fade.

[RabbleRabble]

I don't mean to come across as a misogynist, but I had always thought that women would be less likely to deconvert than men. If I listed the reasons, I would sound misogynistic, but women do seem to be involved to a greater degree than men in church activities (except, of course, in leadership roles).

 

Seriously, it's pretty lame to claim you don't mean to come across as misogynistic BUT...

Aren't men and women different in this regard? Is the acknowledgment of difference misogyny? I was trying to avoid listing the differences, but

http://www.oregoncounseling.org/ArticlesPapers/Documents/DifferencesMenWomen.htm

 

It's not unreasonable to wonder if you ARE misogynistic if you are dismissing the issue with the one simple explanation that every man for ages has used to describe why men do one thing and women do another. There were many differences brought up in that article, but as always when someone sees a difference (such as the ratio of men to women leaving Christianity) the first thing blamed is the emotional nature of females. Yes we do tend to use our emotions more in the process of decision making, but that doesn't seem to be the end all to it. There are many emotionally charged reasons to outright reject the christian god.

 

There are so many factors that play into this. Consider societal influences as well. While little boys are raised with a certain expectation and encouragement to push boundaries and question authority (so they may become little leaders), little girls are usually not given that same advantage. This is especially true in religious families. I don't think the parents even realize what they are doing.

 

It just feels like you've taken the easiest most at-hand explanation without really examining the issue.

[HRDWarrior]

Do women tend to be a bit more emotional - yes, but a LARGE part of that is also cultural. There are some differences in how our brains react to things, but for logic to be that wiped out it's probably not a gender thing, but more of an individual thing. In addition, if it is true that more women are drawn to religion, then statistically, there'd be more women available to deconvert.

 

Plus, there are a number of emotional reasons for someone to deconvert - heck, you could take my own character of God reasoning and say it was a more emotional reason than others could have been.

 

Then again, I have been accused of being an unemotional woman by a psychologist, so who knows.

 

Additionally, a lot of religous practice puts women in a more subservient role - a woman who is raised and geared towards being an equal, or who's personality is strong enough to survive it, will never be comfortable in the more fundie type religions. Women who have been abused, raised to think they are inferior (even subtlely), or have a "herd mentality" may find it a bit more comforting to have a designated role to fill, that was not of their own choosing. Granted, this is mostly speculation based on my own experience, but it seems like the strong women I know just are not happy in the fundie religions and will eventually find a way out unless someone brow beats them enough to affect their personality (which I have seen happen).

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

I have been told I am very logical for a girl. I will admit that I often find myself wanting to smack some of my female 'sisters' when they start living up the female stereotypes - whether it pertains to religion or not. It gets to the point that on blogs or debates a lot of people don't take you seriously - or are genuinely shocked to read a well formed, logical and scientific response (not here, other blogs) from a female.

 

Its rather like the stereotype/ tendency for African Americans or Hispanics to be religious and very few to be atheist. I am sure that statistically there are more white males %wise that are atheist/ agnostic than the other minority groups. But that doesn't mean that black people think differently than white people inherently. It means that they are culturally bound to believe (at least superficially). I know some young black co-workers of mine had never met someone who outright didn't believe in God and it hadn't really occurred to them that it was an option. I think that when girls are brought up fundy christian that it is harder for them to break out because it has a rather damaging effect on our self esteem and personal power. All the nice things they might say about the godly woman does not overshadow the underlying fault of original sin and the propensity to tempt man into lust. The enforced hierarchy from a young age is difficult to overcome. Men have it a bit easier in that they are called out to lead their homes, lead in church etc and have it affirmed that they are qualified to do these things. Its still hard, I am sure, but it is a different background.

 

Culturally in America its hardly any better. Women are given 2 basic roles to fulfill - the slut or the bitch. Smart women are often thought of as elitist, sexually open women are viewed as sluts, liberal women/ feminists are bitches, ditsy materialistic girls are a bit of both. Role models for men seem a bit better (could be wrong) cause at least they get much cooler action heroes .

 

I left Christianity for a lot of emotional reasons, but doing so was also logical. It is illogical to remain in a system that makes you feel utterly inadequate, ashamed and guilty. whether its a female thing or a human thing, I am glad I have both a very strong emotional and logical side to help me make decisions.

[ClaraOlive]

http://xkcd.com/385/

 

I've also been told that I'm very logical "for a girl", but who proclaimed that the default position for women is illogical in comparison to men? When there are so many women leading productive lives and making a positive impact on society, should we really be stereotyping them as less rational and logical then the men who are similarly productive simply because they're traditionally allowed to express their emotions more?

 

If we were to accept stereotypes (women like emotional chick flicks, eat for comfort and like shopping for clothes), men love to point to those things as some kind of proof of being less logical and rational. Yet even when you really compare them to the equivalent male stereotypes, there's nothing less rational about them. Say that men stereotypically like action movies. Come on, have you seen Transformers? Can you really say that there's anything more rational about having one's emotions stimulated in the form of adrenaline from seeing things blow up than having one's emotions stimulated in the form of sentamentality from seeing someone fall in love? IMO, both are mind-numbingly dumb, illogical entertainments- and there's nothing wrong with being mind-numbingly entertained, but let's not pretend that one is for rational people and one isn't. Eating for comfort? Tell me that beer isn't a comfort food. And look at all the men who make illogical buying decisions- the never used weight set, the boat he really couldn't afford, the investment in his best friend's idiotic business plan... this isn't any smarter than a closet full of shoes.

[monkeygirl]

http://xkcd.com/385/

 

I've also been told that I'm very logical "for a girl", but who proclaimed that the default position for women is illogical in comparison to men? When there are so many women leading productive lives and making a positive impact on society, should we really be stereotyping them as less rational and logical then the men who are similarly productive simply because they're traditionally allowed to express their emotions more?

 

If we were to accept stereotypes (women like emotional chick flicks, eat for comfort and like shopping for clothes), men love to point to those things as some kind of proof of being less logical and rational. Yet even when you really compare them to the equivalent male stereotypes, there's nothing less rational about them. Say that men stereotypically like action movies. Come on, have you seen Transformers? Can you really say that there's anything more rational about having one's emotions stimulated in the form of adrenaline from seeing things blow up than having one's emotions stimulated in the form of sentamentality from seeing someone fall in love? IMO, both are mind-numbingly dumb, illogical entertainments- and there's nothing wrong with being mind-numbingly entertained, but let's not pretend that one is for rational people and one isn't. Eating for comfort? Tell me that beer isn't a comfort food. And look at all the men who make illogical buying decisions- the never used weight set, the boat he really couldn't afford, the investment in his best friend's idiotic business plan... this isn't any smarter than a closet full of shoes.

 

 

 

Yeah, those are quite silly.

 

 

Even though I'm rather emotional like I said earlier I know emotions aren't truth. I am someone who needs every detail I can get my hands on and things HAVE to add up. I was a Christian for so long because I went to a Christian school and when I was young I was taught lies about evolution, the Bible etc. I was totally brainwashed to think Christianity was logical. In my early twenties I became a big time doubter because I was realizing that much of what I had been taught at Christian school and by my parents was not matching up with the real world. By that time I was married and didn't feel right looking to deep into Christianity because I was already committed to a Christian husband. I think for a long time I let fear control me even though I did express to my husband multiple times I had a hard time believing Christianity to be true. Finally I couldn't take it anymore, I let go of my fear and read a ton of books. Christianity didn't add up in the least so i tossed it out the door.

[monkeygirl]

I would love to hear updates about what your wife thinks of Misquoting Jesus, so make sure you give us some updates!

[★ Citsonga ★]

http://xkcd.com/385/

 

I've also been told that I'm very logical "for a girl", but who proclaimed that the default position for women is illogical in comparison to men? When there are so many women leading productive lives and making a positive impact on society, should we really be stereotyping them as less rational and logical then the men who are similarly productive simply because they're traditionally allowed to express their emotions more?

 

If we were to accept stereotypes (women like emotional chick flicks, eat for comfort and like shopping for clothes), men love to point to those things as some kind of proof of being less logical and rational. Yet even when you really compare them to the equivalent male stereotypes, there's nothing less rational about them. Say that men stereotypically like action movies. Come on, have you seen Transformers? Can you really say that there's anything more rational about having one's emotions stimulated in the form of adrenaline from seeing things blow up than having one's emotions stimulated in the form of sentamentality from seeing someone fall in love? IMO, both are mind-numbingly dumb, illogical entertainments- and there's nothing wrong with being mind-numbingly entertained, but let's not pretend that one is for rational people and one isn't. Eating for comfort? Tell me that beer isn't a comfort food. And look at all the men who make illogical buying decisions- the never used weight set, the boat he really couldn't afford, the investment in his best friend's idiotic business plan... this isn't any smarter than a closet full of shoes.

 

Stereotypes bug me too.

 

I know my wife doesn't fit the stereotypical woman's mold, so it irritates me when I hear guys talk about something a woman did and then claim that all women are the same. No they're not.

 

Likewise, I don't fit the stereotypical man's mold, so it also irritates me when I hear gals talk about something a man did and then claim that all men are the same. No we're not.

 

And it's pointless to point out things like this with some people. For example, I once overheard a co-worker claiming that all women are the same, being one way until getting married and then changing as soon as they say, "I do." When I pointed out that my wife didn't change when we got married, he asked how long we were married. When I answered that it had been three years, he then said something like, "Oh, you have to wait until you're married five years." LOL! He had just claimed the change takes place as soon as saying, "I do," but when proven wrong he moved the goalpost to five years later!

 

(Incidentally, now it's been 13 years, and my wife is still pretty much the same person that I married back then. I'm the one who has changed, since I came to the realization that the Christian worldview is bullshit, but even so, for the most part I'm still the same guy I was before.)

[Centauro]

I would love to hear updates about what your wife thinks of Misquoting Jesus, so make sure you give us some updates!

 

 

For sure there will be updates. Hopefully this week we will again sit down and read.

 

I think the first 3 sessions made am impression. We have not read for over a week, and I think she is avoiding it.

I sensed a real tension and anxiety when we had our other sessions. Our discussions during those sessions were calm, but her comments were defensive. Where someone may have responded by saying they had never thought about that kind of situation when the bible was developed, she chose to attack Ehrman personally, spiritually and professionally.

That was an indication that Ehrman was hitting a nerve. She has not mentioned any readings, either me reading the bible or her reading Ehrman.

I guess it will be up to me to start the ball rolling again, and I have no problem with that.

[Guest]

I would love to hear updates about what your wife thinks of Misquoting Jesus, so make sure you give us some updates!

 

 

For sure there will be updates. Hopefully this week we will again sit down and read.

 

I think the first 3 sessions made am impression. We have not read for over a week, and I think she is avoiding it.

I sensed a real tension and anxiety when we had our other sessions. Our discussions during those sessions were calm, but her comments were defensive. Where someone may have responded by saying they had never thought about that kind of situation when the bible was developed, she chose to attack Ehrman personally, spiritually and professionally.

That was an indication that Ehrman was hitting a nerve. She has not mentioned any readings, either me reading the bible or her reading Ehrman.

I guess it will be up to me to start the ball rolling again, and I have no problem with that.

 

She is not happy that you've been right, and does not have the ability to admit she has been ignorant of many, many things in her "perfect" religion. I'm sure she thought you would be the one "owned" in these "study sessions". It may take a long time for these initial wounds to heal over enough to continue, if she even will continue...the truth hurts they say, right?

 

Still, really good news!

[RabbleRabble]

I'm really on the edge of my seat to see how things turn out with this.

 

I'm not surprised that she is avoiding it for now. It's hard to come to terms with the thought that when you look at the bible from a secular standpoint suddenly everything is NOT self-explanatory. That you can't just give a truth-seeker the Bible and see them convert.

 

I've been thinking about giving this book to my fundy father. He tried to convince me that the perfection of the bible is a proof of God. When I disagreed and pointed out that there are more than enough contradictions to see that it isn't perfect, he said that most of those were just a misunderstanding of the original Greek. I don't think he's ever tried looking at the Bible from a position other than This-Is-The-WORD-of-God.

 

He asked me to email him and start talking about what I see as contradictions. However, I really don't want to waste my time just to hear more apologetics.

 

Anyway, I didn't want to make this about me. I just wanted to let you know that I'm reading and rooting for you. What I read here may affect my decision one way or the other.

[Centauro]

I would love to hear updates about what your wife thinks of Misquoting Jesus, so make sure you give us some updates!

 

 

For sure there will be updates. Hopefully this week we will again sit down and read.

 

I think the first 3 sessions made am impression. We have not read for over a week, and I think she is avoiding it.

I sensed a real tension and anxiety when we had our other sessions. Our discussions during those sessions were calm, but her comments were defensive. Where someone may have responded by saying they had never thought about that kind of situation when the bible was developed, she chose to attack Ehrman personally, spiritually and professionally.

That was an indication that Ehrman was hitting a nerve. She has not mentioned any readings, either me reading the bible or her reading Ehrman.

I guess it will be up to me to start the ball rolling again, and I have no problem with that.

 

She is not happy that you've been right, and does not have the ability to admit she has been ignorant of many, many things in her "perfect" religion. I'm sure she thought you would be the one "owned" in these "study sessions". It may take a long time for these initial wounds to heal over enough to continue, if she even will continue...the truth hurts they say, right?

 

Still, really good news!

 

 

Well, it seems to have added some doubt to her world view. In the previous posts I have stated that I have avoided the position of calling myself right and used the word "probable". That has really made a difference on how she has responded.

Much less certitude when she has responded, as I always brought up the "possibilities" of what may have happened 2000 years ago. She seems confused on how to counter this kind of approach, as her world is black and white and absolutes are what she needs. And you are right, it does not make her happy.

[Guest Davka]

Be gentle, Centauro. You're shaking the foundations of her world, and that's not an easy place to be in. It will likely take time for her to process new information as it seeps through the cracks. I de-converted before my wife did as well. She is no longer a fundy or even really a Christian, but she still holds some degree of belief, and I respect that. The transition was a bit rocky at times, however.

 

Hang in there. It sounds like you're doing good.

[Centauro]

Rabble...In my experience, pointing out contradictions in the bible has had limited or little effect.

Many of the hardcore fundies I have dealt with, are so well read in their apologetics, that they can reel off the usual party line when defending bible contradictions. They are very good at harmonizing these also.

What has been a pleasant surprise has been how they react to Ehrman's HISTORICAL accounts of the origins of the bible.

It is perplexing to them, because it is approached outside their theology. Ehrman is not telling them what to believe, he has no problem with what anyone wants believe, neither do I. But if you are basing your beliefs on scripture as inerrant and literal, his data will certainly give you pause, if you are objective.

My stand against my wife's fundamentalism has nothing to do with what she wants to believe. I don't care. My goal is to have her see through my eyes for a change (impossible goal? ) and live and let live with regards to other peoples choices of spirituality or lack there of.

If that leads to her questioning her faith, so be it.

 

I think getting that book for your father might be a good thing. Check it out..and good luck.

 

 

Davka....I am trying to be gentle and not push it. In all honesty, she has so much invested in this church and her fundamentalism that I don't believe she would give it up. She is a master at compartmentalization. I honestly believe that has been the thing that keeps her sane. She is a hardcore fundy. One day she may be pissed because I didn't go to church and the next it will be like it never happened. It works for her I guess.

But I will keep your words in mind for sure. Hopefully this week we can read. I may mention it tonight..

[monkeygirl]

I was telling my father in law about Bart Ehrman and when I mentioned Paul's forgeries he said, "be careful this guy could be diabolical."

 

Bart Ehrman is all over the internet in debates, seminars and interviews. He is super nice and very likable. At some point you may want to see if she will watch some of those interviews. Bring some trust to the source.

[monkeygirl]

Also pulling out the Bible and pointing out the different stuff is really good.

 

This one really rocked my husbands world. Throughout Matthew the author is really trying to point to Jesus' fulfilling prophecy. Below is an example, but the author makes a mistake. The OT passage Jesus' is fulfilling is a form of poetry often used during that time, apparently the author didn't know this and he has Jesus doing something that seems quite ridiculous in order to 'fulfill prophecy".

 

 

 

Matthew 21:1-6

 

As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away."

 

4This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:

5"Say to the Daughter of Zion,

'See, your king comes to you,

gentle and riding on a donkey,

on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' "[a]

 

6The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. 7They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them.

[RabbleRabble]

Rabble...In my experience, pointing out contradictions in the bible has had limited or little effect.

Many of the hardcore fundies I have dealt with, are so well read in their apologetics, that they can reel off the usual party line when defending bible contradictions. They are very good at harmonizing these also.

What has been a pleasant surprise has been how they react to Ehrman's HISTORICAL accounts of the origins of the bible.

It is perplexing to them, because it is approached outside their theology. Ehrman is not telling them what to believe, he has no problem with what anyone wants believe, neither do I. But if you are basing your beliefs on scripture as inerrant and literal, his data will certainly give you pause, if you are objective.

My stand against my wife's fundamentalism has nothing to do with what she wants to believe. I don't care. My goal is to have her see through my eyes for a change (impossible goal? ) and live and let live with regards to other peoples choices of spirituality or lack there of.

If that leads to her questioning her faith, so be it.

 

I think getting that book for your father might be a good thing. Check it out..and good luck.

 

Thanks Centauro. I thought talking about various contradictions would probably turn out to be an exercise in futility. As you say, the historical approach seems most likely to be the best one.

 

I'm glad you mentioned motive. It's part of the reason I'm hesitating to give him the book. This particular conversation was from a while back when I came out as an atheist and found myself buried under a deluge of "proofs" of God. I don't want it to appear that I'm running away by not answering him, but at the same time I don't want to get into a long drawn out discussion involving apologetics. I'm also not interested in trying to deconvert him. He actually is a better person since he started taking his Christianity seriously and converted to my mother's denomination. (another "proof") Still, he might benefit from a less literal view of things.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Also pulling out the Bible and pointing out the different stuff is really good.

 

This one really rocked my husbands world. Throughout Matthew the author is really trying to point to Jesus' fulfilling prophecy. Below is an example, but the author makes a mistake. The OT passage Jesus' is fulfilling is a form of poetry often used during that time, apparently the author didn't know this and he has Jesus doing something that seems quite ridiculous in order to 'fulfill prophecy".

 

There are quite a few fabricated prophetic fulfillments in the NT, where the authors took OT texts completely out of context in order to construct said fulfillment. Indeed, Matthew is notorious for this.

 

In case you missed it, you may be interested in checking out my posts starting at #55 (page 3), where I went through a few of them.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I thought talking about various contradictions would probably turn out to be an exercise in futility. As you say, the historical approach seems most likely to be the best one.

 

Everyone's different, so different things will affect us differently. For me, contradictions in the Bible are what got me started questioning, but it wasn't from someone else pointing out the contradictions, it was from me doing a parallel study of the gospels and seeing for myself how they really aren't compatible in a number of places.

 

What really solidified my disbelief, though, was seeing that the so-called prophetic fulfillments in the NT are often fabricated by taking OT texts out of context (and sometimes rewording them). This discovery came not too long after the contradictions started bothering me, because I figured that the best argument for Christianity was the fulfilled prophecies, so I studied those to see if they were reliable (I had "studied" them before, of course, but not critically, just as one believing them to be factual, so it wasn't in-depth). Lo and behold, after examining the original contexts, I found that the prophecy argument is a crock.

 

The historical approach may be your best bet, but that depends on the individual. For me personally, I'm not sure if it would have opened my eyes, simply because I considered the Bible to be historically accurate and I had been brainwashed to think that secular history pertaining to Christianity was revisionistic, and thus not trustworthy. If it hadn't been for internal inconsistencies in the Bible, I would probably still be a believer today, but thankfully I've been out for a solid 6 years (7 years if counting from when I first started doubting).

 

Go with your instinct regarding what will work best in your situation.

[Centauro]

 

Warning: Rant Mode ON..

 

I really unloaded this morning. I can hardly type right now I am so hyped right now.

 

We did not read last night. This rant has nothing to do with Ehrman or my reading the bible.

 

An "unequally yoked" household can be tenuous. Mine is. In my home I have bible crap all over.

We get christian junk mail from every conceivable non profit christian organization. Christian music is constantly playing and my wife attends at least 2 bible studies a week and reads daily.

Last night I asked about a donation my wife made to a national christian organization. I didn't care about the donation, I was just doing some home accounting. She got defensive, accusing me of "over reacting".

I calmly said I was just talking numbers, getting a handle on expenses etc. I have never ever criticized her gift giving. Later in the evening she brought it up AGAIN, saying I was defensive and negatively commenting on this organization. I got pissed. I told her that fundies are so touchy from any, ANY, conversations from people "of the world" (non christians) about what they do. I sometimes feel like I am walking on eggshells, always guarded about what I say and how I say it. They enjoy free speech, yet I cannot express ANY fucking opinion, fact or whatever, without a fundy feeling like they are being attacked. I am so tired of this shit.

 

I woke up today still pissed. Of course, wife was reading her bible with her morning coffee. I was quiet and had my coffee in another room. She came in and asked me if I was going to be quiet all day(asked in a defensive tone).

 

I unloaded. I told her my life fucking stinks. I live in a house where I have constant tension, fear of being misunderstood, and always guarded with my words and humor. I feel like a stepford husband, a robot, forced to paste a perpetual smile on my face and fake like everything is wonderful and god will provide all we need. This morning, I could not hold it in. I just blurted out, my life stinks....it just plain stinks and I cannot foresee me living the rest of my life (what I have left, as I am 60) like this. I won't make it emotionally and physically.

She wanted to talk, I told her I could not right now. Of course, she had limited time, as she had another bible study to attend this morning. FUCK!!

 

This shit is making me crazy. It felt good to vent, and I think I made my point. She was a bit sheepish when leaving the house to go to church. I am out of here for the day and going to do something fun.

Treating me like an outsider for so long takes a toll. Things won't change, because I am "of the world, the enemy".

She will compartmentalize this and be good for awhile, but this will happen again. It always does, and I am sick of it. This is what fundamentalism does to people. It is so tiresome....

 

Thanks for letting me rant.....I'm otta here for the day.