So sad but so right and brave of her to take action to shield herself and her children. Standing with her in prayer!

I had not had a chance to see your post until just a short time ago. So right on and important that you should post it now.

I know there are some who are critical of Dr Dobson (who is retired from Focus on the Family) but through the decades that pastors were silent about men being abusive and addictive to pornography, he was giving a clarion call to these problems. If he hadn't been on the National council on child pornography and gave a clarion call about how evil it is and how extensive it is, the council would have been buried in silence. He also spoke to women about "Love must be tough". If I recall correctly he was the only prominent Christian man at that time to bring these issues up.

These problems have not gone away nor been solved. Pray that we may be alert, discerning, and sensitive to those around us (and even those in the clergy) who are involved in these sorts of things.

@ Jerry:

It appears Saeed has been caught up in the evangelical celebrity complex (Franklin Graham) so we are likely to hear only managed content. Note that Franklin Graham's PR mouthpiece is Mark DeMoss, recently spinning the narrative for Mars Hill church during the Driscoll fiasco. Not to mention as the mouthpiece for Hillsong church in the follow up Driscoll fiasco. See a pattern here? If you are going to follow this story, put on a poncho and high boots because it is going to be coming down heavy.

Also, where is Gram3? I miss her comments.

Persephone wrote:

Re James Dobson, he actually is a dreadful resource for abused women. This article lays out why. http://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2015/05/06/james-dobson-on-domestic-violence-women-deliberately-bait-their-husbands/

I also discount what he says since I found out that he admitted in one of his books about hitting his dog with a belt.

Eagle wrote:

Personally after watching him through the Obama years I wonder how James Dobson would have lived in ancient Rome/Greece with all the perversions and cultural issues there. Not just him but many others as well.

I won’t defend Dobson for either his relationship advice or his culture warring, but it’s not fair to make historical comparisons like this. Evangelicals of Dobson’s generation were raised with the assumption of a “Christian nation” whose cultural and external moral obligations were thought to be universal. Christians living in the Roman Empire were under no such delusions.

What kind of a Father is Saeed? I know that if I had not seen my children in three and a half years, my first stop in America would have been Boise and not the Billy Graham Conference Center. Plus, he stayed there for 6 days.

@ Jerry:
We were never meant to know. She shared this with her prayer group and one of them made it public. So I doubt your questions will ever be answered. It is almost impossible to explain to people what living with an emotional abuser is like. It is like living in a black OP and it can take years of separation to even begin to process normal.

To try and explain often makes it worse. In this case, she is not a sympathetic figure. My guess is the type of Christian community they are surrounded by, she wont have much support.

She will have to make a case why he should not be allowed to take the children out of Idaho. In the circumstances, that won’t be easy to do.

Jerry,I hope you are not implying she is lying. I do NOT believe she is, and I know there are many like her who are living in painful silence. She is incredibly brave and incredibly wise to do what she is doing. And remember, this whole situation was leaked, not her fault that this originally got out to the public.

If you read my post, I said I am not saying she is lying, there just certain aspects of her posts that don’t completely add up to me. So without further clarification, it is hard to understand some of the questions I raised. He certainly could have abused her for the first 10 years of their marriage. If it did occur, than she is certainly taking wise steps. Just not sure how the abuse and pornography allegations she made occurred while he was in prison. That part doesn’t add up to me.

Eagle wrote:

James Dobson is his own worst enemy. He is a culture warrior who needs an enemy and demonizes his opponents in the process.

He also seems to suffer from “Hardening of the Attitudes”.

And Has-Been CELEBRITY Syndrome. Being one of GOD’s GOP Kingmakers during the Reagan years, then on the outs with Billary (no nights in the Lincoln Bedroom for YOU!), then Holy Kingmaker again during Dubya Bush, then on the outs with the Obamanation of Desolation. In, Out, In, Out…

Ken P. wrote:

What kind of a Father is Saeed? I know that if I had not seen my children in three and a half years, my first stop in America would have been Boise and not the Billy Graham Conference Center. Plus, he stayed there for 6 days.

Building his Brand and making the Connections for The Celebrity Comeback Trail?

Jerry wrote:

Ok I see they spoke by skype or phone. But again, he really holds no power. He is locked up. Why not just hang up the phone or refuse to talk? What abuse was he inflicting over skype that she could not easily stop. I am not saying she is lying, it just doesn’t completely add up to me.

Did you read this part of Naghmeh’s Facebook post?:
“Three months ago Saeed told me things he demanded I must do to promote him in the eyes of the public that I simply could not do any longer. He threatened that if I did not the results would be the end of our marriage and the resulting pain this would bring to our children.”</em)
Do you think she's lying, or do you think is it okay for evangelicals to use threats and blackmail to force their wives to promote their public images?

Nancy2 wrote:

Do you think she’s lying, or do you think is it okay for evangelicals to use threats and blackmail to force their wives to promote their public images?

Oops – I hit the wrong key at the end of the quote. The above is my question – not part of the quote!

@ Jerry:
Jerry, a few years ago, I was made aware of a very secret loose network of former pastors wives who were abused and left, leaving most destitute. They found each other on the internet and even use fake names with each other, they are that careful. Their husbands are believed and they live in constant fear of losing their children if they dare go public. So, they are known as bad women who left. Their husbands have hundreds of character witnesses. Much like Tony Jones had Rachel Held Evans by default. People listen to them.

Their former husbands have stages and stage personas that are loved by the pew sitters. And the followers will rally around them.

Abuse happens in secret. Abusers are some of the most clever people in the world who live double lives.

Jerry wrote:

Why not just hang up the phone?

She has said in a more recent story that he was threatening to divorce her if she didn’t play along with whatever he wanted (including advocating for him in public).
Maybe she was afraid that hanging up on him would cause similar repercussions.

I was verbally abused by a few family members for many years, even now, especially my older sister.

Some of her verbal abuse took place over the phone. I didn’t start hanging up on her during her verbal tirades until recently. I don’t know if this is true of Naghmeh or not, but in my case (which may be true of her), I was brought up by a mother who believed very strongly in traditional gender roles (gender complementarianism).

That involved her believing that women should be polite to a fault and endure discomfort and abuse from people; be un-assertive; lack boundaries.

I was taught by my mother it would be un-loving and rude to slam the phone down on anyone, even in the midst of verbal abuse.

So for years, I endured long, ranty, profanity laced, terribly insulting, hurtful phone calls off my sister, though those calls were painful and hard to take, and I did not enjoy them at all. Perhaps Naghmeh was raised to have similar views of how women should behave, even in the face of abuse.

On top of that, a lot of Christian women are taught to view their husband as their ‘head,’ authority, or boss, so they are to submit to the guy, no matter how horrible he is behaving. Maybe there is an element of that in their relationship.

I took some heat for posting the article about his abuse of her on FB the day that people were going nuts over his release. My post was pretty well balanced too- I just wanted people to remember the whole story and not deify the man. Nevertheless, I got a private email suggesting that posting the story was distracting from the larger cause that was pastors suffering for their faith.

That email (from a trusted friend) really hurt my heart.

More directly on subject, this whole situation has me cautious to talk about it. I want people to be careful about supporting this man while not putting his wife in a difficult spot. Making big news about her private emails that were made public without her consent makes me uncomfortable. While I think many of us know where this is headed, she needs the space to work that out. I don’t want to sacrifice her well being in the name of highlighting the abuse.

Reading her FB page has been a trip down memory lane. Trying to support my ex-wife while at the same time trying to protect myself from her. Trying to have a gracious spirit and push for reconciliation. That was a lot for me to work through, and I see her working through it carefully and slowly. I wish it was more clear how the Christian community could support her well during this time when she is processing all of this. If only it could be more private, but her husband’s fame is going to make that difficult.

She appears to be a very strong woman.

dee wrote:

In these sorts of situations, all the facts are rarely known since abuse rarely takes place in the presence of witnesses.

This is also very true in regards to verbal abuse.

I had noticed starting a few years ago (upon reflection) that the only times my sister verbally abused me is when we were alone.

She was only okay in lashing out at me in front of her other victim, her boyfriend (they lived together).

But (and this was very disconcerting to me), in front of our parents, aunts, etc, she would act very pleasant and friendly towards me.

I then read a book about verbal abuse, not too long ago, who confirmed that in all her years of study on the topic and seeing patients, most of the time, most verbal abusers only abuse in private.

(Her book dealt mostly with married couples, but is applicable to other relationships.)

If and when a visitor stays with the couple for a visit, the victim spouse reported to her that the abuser was on his best behavior, the abuse stopped. But the moment the visitor leaves and they are alone again, the verbal abuse resumes.

I would imagine this is also true of other types of abuse.

The abuser comes across as a pillar of society to members of his church, his workplace, and neighbors, and only shows his mean streak in private to his target (which is usually the spouse).

Niteowl wrote:

As to James Dobson, I have no respect for him after reading about his beating a twelve (ed.) pound dog with a belt, his view on child discipline which amounts to abuse and his hatred for gays and blaming women for being abused and having gay kids.

My thoughts exactly.

Lydia wrote:

So I doubt your questions will ever be answered. It is almost impossible to explain to people what living with an emotional abuser is like.

I am related to one or two (my sister is one). I didn’t even realize until a year or two ago that she was a bully / verbal/emotional abuser.

I even had some online friends warn me several years ago that she was abusive, but I was so in denial or whatever back then, I could not believe it. Now I see what they mean, though.

Sometimes you can be a target of abuse and not even realize what you are going through is abuse until years later.

There are some things about the whole Iran thing that do not seem to line up also. I am thinking that if this man is what his wife says he is, and if he continued abusive behavior while in prison even, then perhaps some of the things the Iranians accused him of could perhaps been justified accusations. I do remember that apparently time after time US diplomacy did not get anywhere in this case, and while this may or may not be significant I think we need to take a step back and listen if the Iranians want to tell their side of the story.

And yes, I know it is Iran, but still…..

Jeff S wrote:

. Trying to support my ex-wife while at the same time trying to protect myself from h

Bingo. That sums it up nicely.

@ dee:
Thank you!

Jeff S wrote:

I got a private email suggesting that posting the story was distracting from the larger cause that was pastors suffering for their faith.

The “larger cause” is a pastor suffering for their faith? His wife suffering abuse by her pastor husband is not worth being concerned about. That is a really sad example of the state of Christianity and it’s desire for attention and celebrity. And for what? I just don’t see God being interested in His name in the lights or on billboards or being used to prop up men who want celebrity and fame for themselves. God does not need it . . . or do most people think He does need and want that kind of fame and celebrity like a rock star?

dee wrote:

Yes, it does and it is obvious to many of those reading your comments that you are suspicious of Naghmeh.

Some of his concerns have already been addressed.

You explained to him that some of the verbal abuse or kinky web site stuff he was viewing was via Skype or a cell phone he had.

I’ve already explained in a post or two for him how verbal abuse works, and why a verbally abused person may not hang up the phone during a verbal lashing.

I can understand if this guy thinks some parts of Naghmeh’s story sound odd (i.e., questions like, “how is it possible someone in a jail in Iran be abusing his wife in the USA”), but it sounds like he is actively trying to avoid believing her. As though he does not want to believe she may be telling the truth.

He says he thinks she’s not lying, so what is he saying, he thinks she is deliberately misleading? Leaving facts out? She’s exaggerating things?

What would she have to gain from misleading, exaggerating or intentionally painting her husband in a bad light?

I think someone else here mentioned her private correspondence about the abuse was leaked to the public by someone else (not her).

I don’t know quite how the Iranian prison system works, but American inmates in America get access to weight lifting yards, television shows, and dirty magazines and libraries.

Maybe Iranian prisons have some perks and benefits like that too. Someone already said that was true of American prisoners in Iran, they got special treatment.

okrapod wrote:

I think there is a lot of difference of opinion as to what constitutes verbal abuse.

If you’d like an definition of what constitutes verbal abuse, please see the book

The Verbally Abusive Relationship by Patricia Evans:
https://books.google.com/books?id=XWgxgogz3aAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false

Here are a few highlights of what verbal abuse can consist of:

Verbal abuse is not just an occasional, or one-off, nasty comment by a person to another.
Verbal abuse is characterized as a pattern, and it comes in different varieties. Verbal abuse is usually done in private, with no witnesses to hear/ see it.

Verbal abusers are like physical abusers, in that they are using verbal abuse as a means of controlling another person, they are not just lashing out momentarily because they had a bad day at their job today.

While verbal abuse can involve name calling and put downs, there are other, more subtle types of verbal abuse, which Evans describes in her book.

Jerry wrote:

and I was intimately involved enough in the situation to know that if any one was verbally abusive in that relationship it was the woman. Some times the accuser is a manipulative liar.

You may want to read the Foreward to this book (see page 12; the author notes that it’s usually men who are the verbal abusers, not women):

The Verbally Abusive Relationship
https://books.google.com/books?id=XWgxgogz3aAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false

In my family, one of my verbal abusers is a woman (my sibling).
However, in marriages (of theone man, one woman variety), it would appear it’s usually the husband, not the wife, though some wives can be verbally abusive to husbands.

I’m reading in between the lines here, but you seem to be saying you don’t believe women who claim to be abused by their husbands.

Your sympathy and initial hunch is to think women crying “abuse” are faking it, exaggerating -?

Why would any woman who is being abused by her husband (or any kid being abused by a preacher) want to confide in anyone about her abuse, or report it to the police, with attitudes like this going on?

Someone else already pointed out her claims of abuse were said in private (in an e-mail or facebook note or something), and one of her circle released her private note to the public.
So, she wasn’t even releasing this information to the broad public.

As I said most of my doubts were to her claims of abuse while he was in prison.. If he had those modern coveniences, than my questions are answered. Woman sometimes want to fake it because they want to gain power in the situation. I.e. Custody. Again I have seen this happen. I am not saying this is the case most of the time. But it is the case some of the time.

Nancy2 wrote:

But, for the most part, Muslims seem to have a very low regard for women.

I hope this is not off topic, but with the influx of a million refugees into Germany over the last year, overwhelmingly muslims, there is a very real problem of the ‘attitude problem’ of young muslim men in particular to western girls.

The mass groping of New Year’s Eve in Cologne is well-known, but there is anecdotal evidence of this being much more widespread than this, including problems in schools.

Of course this is not universally true of all muslims, but Merkel seems to losing touch with reality as what is happening on the ground, and this is becoming a real cause for concern. What you would like to believe is the case, and what is actually the case can be two very different things, and a kind of mis-lead idealism can be dangerous. It’s a case of those in authority not wanting to believe anything serious is amiss.

dee wrote:

Perhaps you are not keeping up with the news since this has been adequately answered in the media. Saeed, along with the other American prisoners, were not being treated like an average Iranian prisoner. They had access to Skype, etc.The US was involved in a deal to give the Iranian government a boat load of money and the Americans were treated better than most prisoners in Iran.

Do you have a source for this? I have never met either Naghmeh or her husband. I have no idea what went on between the two of them. This story is so bizarre that I don’t know what to believe.

The abuse worsened when he was in prison? Seems odd. He doesn’t immediately go home to see his kids? Seems odd. The specific instance of verbal abuse I have seen is that he threatened her with divorce if she didn’t continue to advocate for him. She then stops advocating for him and upon his release files for divorce? seems odd.

I am more than willing to admit I have doubts about both of their stories and that does not mean I am insensitive to abuse victims.

Jerry wrote:

Woman sometimes want to fake it because they want to gain power in the situation. I.e. Custody. Again I have seen this happen. I am not saying this is the case most of the time. But it is the case some of the time.

Just often enough to dirty the waters. Just often enough that you can’t automatically side with the woman every time.

And the styles of abuse differ. Men are more likely to be direct and physical. Women are more likely to be indirect and psychological. And there are ways (generally called Mind Games) to utterly destroy your victim as a functioning human being without ever making physical contact, raising your voice, or being anything but Sweet and oh-so-Polite.

The name “Saeed Abedini” does not imply someone whose American background/acculturation goes back several generations. If Saeed is “Old Country”, whether Christian or Muslim, he would have been raised/immersed/acculturated in a surrounding traditional culture where Men Rule and Women Submit. (Up to and including “Woman! Do as I say or I Beat You!”) Growing up with an attitude like that is very hard to change.

@ Jerry:

We have all seen situations like you describe, and some of us here have been unjustly accused of various things ourselves, if not abuse something else. Once one has themselves been unjustly accused their outlook on how to consider allegations changes.

I too do not automatically believe every accusation of abuse, but I do take them all very seriously and I do think that they all need to be investigated. No claim of abuse should be dismissed out of hand and prior to adequate investigation. And no accused person should automatically be declared guilty prior to adequate investigation.

This case looks credible. Evidence will surely be forthcoming. Both sides will be heard. In the meantime it should not be swept under the rug without good evidence for doing that. Pooh pooh is not a good response at this time in this situation.

Jerry wrote:

How did he have regular phone and internet access in an Iranian prison? He seems to have almost better accommodations than an American prison.

I found the following article – keeping in mind the possible quality or lack thereof of info found on the internet, and whether or not it has any applicability to this particular situation.

From: http://www.religionandspirituality.com/view/post/12039206976500/Inside_Irans_prison_hell/

Monday, February 25, 2008 at 1:01am
Inside Iran’s prison hell

Excerpts:

“Political prisoners are allowed five to 10 minutes for phone calls between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Tehran time. Phone privileges must be arranged daily and are affected by the number of prisoners signing up and whom they call outside Iran.”

“Someone wanting to speak for a longer period of time can request up to one hour, borrowing or buying time from another prisoner. Allowance varies from prison to prison. ”

“Prisoners are not denied phone privileges as often as people like to believe, because this is where the regime gets raw information.”

“When a prisoner is uncooperative, phone privileges may be revoked. Cooperative prisoners are routinely granted longer conversations with radio or TV shows by the prison head. Some prisoners favored by the IRI Intel in the last few years are known to carry cell phones and have Internet access in their room. “

okrapod wrote:

No claim of abuse should be dismissed out of hand and prior to adequate investigation. And no accused person should automatically be declared guilty prior to adequate investigation.

Exactly. I did not get the impression that Jerry was dismissing anything out of hand. He merely said that something doesn’t quite seem to add up, which is an impression that I share. All we’ve heard is one voice.

For all we know, Saeed is a monster. Or maybe Naghmeh is a scheming schemer. The operative phrase being, of course, ‘for all we know’. We really don’t know much of anything (and at this point, why should we), and we’re running all over the place with it.

These people are in a very fragile and vulnerable state. In my opinion, they should be keeping this private, but then, I’m an old-fashioned boy.

A man is not ‘men’, a woman is not ‘women’, a couple is not ‘couples’. In the lack of information, we are indulging in the classic error of logical typing here.

In any case, this couple has been through the wringer…

Pythagoras wrote:

The specific instance of verbal abuse I have seen is that he threatened her with divorce if she didn’t continue to advocate for him.

That this was one specific detail mentioned does not mean there was not other instances and types of verbal abuse taking place.

sgage wrote:

These people are in a very fragile and vulnerable state. In my opinion, they should be keeping this private, but then, I’m an old-fashioned boy.

They were keeping it private. Someone outside the two of them released the information without their knowledge.

Pythagoras wrote:

The specific instance of verbal abuse I have seen is that he threatened her with divorce if she didn’t continue to advocate for him. She then stops advocating for him and upon his release files for divorce? seems odd.

Thus far, she has consistently pushed for reconciliation. She has not filed for divorce. She has filed, as near as I can tell, to prevent the children from being re-located. She has specifically said it was not for divorce.

Even at that, it wasn’t about divorce. It was about a husband threatening a wife. When he said “Do [xyz] or I will divorce you”, that is abusive, even if the wife WANTS the divorce (which, thus far, she doesn’t).

In my own life, my wife threatened me with divorce in order to control me. She told me “either I will leave or just kill myself”. At that point, I already wanted divorce, but I was fighting it because I did not think it was the Godly thing to do. The pain *that* statement cause was unbelievable, especially given how hard I was working to try to make things right. Not because I didn’t want to divorce, but because the person I was doing my best to serve and treat with kindness was trying around and using threats to force me to obey her.

The point is, abuse is about trying to control another person. Loving husbands and wives don’t do that. They don’t say “do [xyz] or else”. It shows a power and an entitlement on his side, and that she exists in his mind to serve him and meet his needs.

Hopefully, thinking about it this way will show it is less odd than it might at first appear.

@ okrapod:

The book explains the dynamics of the situation and what constitutes abuse.

I don’t care about cultural differences. In some situations, they are irrelevant. Abuse remains abuse, regardless of country of origin or different religions.

That persons in ‘religion X’ or ‘nation Z’ think that a man routinely threatening his wife verbally or putting her down daily is acceptable does not excuse the behavior or make it moral.

I’ve read reports in the news over the past month that some of the Muslim refugees overseas have been fondling western women in public, supposedly because they believe non-consensual touching is okay.

I’m not going to allow those individuals off the hook for this by saying, “it’s a cultural difference, so it’s okay; who am I to judge, or to enforce my cultural standards on them,” or what not.

Pythagoras wrote:

I agree.It is however the only one specifically claimed.

Why do there have to be more specific incidents reported for us to believe the wife?

Jeff S wrote:

Pythagoras wrote:
It is certainly possible that lots of verbal abuse was taking place. It is also certainly possible that no verbal abuse was taking place.
These possibilities are not equal in probability. It is far more likely that she was telling the truth and correctly reporting the abuse she sustained. She has very little to gain by making this up, and a lot to lose by doing it.

But why are we even talking about probabilities? We have essentially no facts. It’s just speculation. Can’t we wait until the facts come out before we pile on? Something about this whole thread is a bit troubling to me…

Bridget wrote:

Did she file for divorce or legal separation? Have you ever worked with abused women who were living in fear of death, loss of livlehood, loss of children, loss of reputation? There is no “normal” response when a man or a woman is trying to disengage from an abuser. Her actions seem reasonable if she has fear of some sort.

1) She filed for legal separation, in most states this functions in practice like a divorce but without a dissolution of the marriage. Assets and debts are not yet divided up.

2) Yes I have worked with abused women and men. I disagree that there is no “normal” response for someone trying to disengage from an abuser. In fact some of her actions are quite “normal” e.g. filing for separation, filing temporary restraining orders etc. especially if she is in fear. However the only person who at risk of losing their reputation, livelihood, or children seems to be the husband.

okrapod wrote:

sgage wrote:
A man is not ‘men’, a woman is not ‘women’, a couple is not ‘couples’. In the lack of information, we are indulging in the classic error of logical typing here.
I can’t find where I said that. What am I missing here?

Not you personally, okrapod – I’m talking about the general tenor of this thread. Please note that I began my post by quoting you in order to agree with you!

Jeff S wrote:

Pythagoras wrote:
It is certainly possible that lots of verbal abuse was taking place. It is also certainly possible that no verbal abuse was taking place.
These possibilities are not equal in probability. It is far more likely that she was telling the truth and correctly reporting the abuse she sustained. She has very little to gain by making this up, and a lot to lose by doing it.

I’m not sure how you could quantify the probabilities but if you have done the math I believe you. I am also not sure how I could know what she has to gain or lose or if that even matters.

Jeff S wrote:

You don’t think she’s at risk to lose all of these things?

If she is telling the truth she is not at risk at losing any of those things. If she was making false allegations she would be at very little risk of losing those things because of the nature of verbal abuse. It occurs most often in private. It is rarely recorded, rarely written and rarely witnessed. As such it would be impossible to prove your innocence of such an accusation which would leave the false accuser’s reputation intact. PLEASE NOTE: I don’t think she is making false allegations. I also don’t think her husband is an abuser. I DON’T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED!

Niteowl wrote:

As to James Dobson, I have no respect for him after reading about his beating a twelve (ed.) pound dog with a belt, his view on child discipline which amounts to abuse and his hatred for gays and blaming women for being abused and having gay kids.

Karma and her sister Comeuppance are relentless, and like terminators from the future, they cannot be reasoned with. Nor will they stop until Themis’ balances are reset.

@ abigail:
And I think she is very wise. BOTH of them have probably changed a great deal in the last 4 years. Depending on your point of view, both may have changed in good or bad ways. I think protecting herself legally in case the changes are bad, is very smart.

abigail wrote:

Folks…..She was separated for almost FOUR YEARS and in that time she got strong enough to say…enough!

Amen! Sometimes it takes a long time like it does for deprogramming from a cult. When clarity is achieved, action to separate normally follows.

sgage wrote:

What’s troubling to me is that we have not heard one word from the husband, and yet he’s accused, tried, and convicted.

Read the comments or talk to people about this. Most of the comments side with him and assume she is making it up.

sgage wrote:

What’s troubling me is that we’re applying ‘probabilities’ to an individual case

When someone claims abuse, we as the community HAVE to react. This doesn’t mean we rush to judgement, but we cannot ignore it either. We are bound to protect and defend victims. Again, to do nothing is to side with the abuser. Always. So we can’t do nothing and claim to be impartial.

sgage wrote:

What’s troubling me is the politicization of a couple that has been through incredible stress, who are unique human beings, and not examples of this or that.

I agree, this is troubling. I wish this had not gotten the public exposure that it has, and I don’t want her to become locked into a “symbol” for anything. It’s a tough line to walk with her husband so visibly in the spotlight.

sgage wrote:

If you don’t see the piling on, you are among those who have already tried and convicted the husband, a man from whom we have heard nothing.

Not “tried and convinced”. The one thing I have done is to give her statement credibility, and warn other of the praise we may heap on her husband. No one has convinced the husband. As far as I know, he is still free and enjoying great publicity and respect from many.

sgage wrote:

On the basis of what, ‘probabilities’?

On the basis of having seen and heard victims of abuse go through this time and time again and knowing what they need is to be believed.

sgage wrote:

That’s not justice.

Doing nothing when someone needs our help can hardly be considered justice.

sgage wrote:

NOBODY is saying Naghmeh is lying.

Actually, a lot of people are saying exactly this. Perhaps not on this page, but elsewhere on the web? Yep.

sgage wrote:

We just need to hear from the other side. Actually, we don’t. These people some time out of the limelight to work things out (or not).

And if he has the power and she does not, who does this favor? It isn’t her. This is how abused women lose their children. Because good people stand aside and say “we don’t know, we won’t take sides”. Remember, if he is an abuser, all he wants is for you to ignore it and let him do what he will. It’s only victims that ask others to get involved.

And really, she hasn’t, other than prayer, but what will we do when/if she does?

Here are a couple articles which give a bit more information, for those who are having a hard time understanding how an imprisoned man could be abusive:
http://www.religionnews.com/2016/01/23/wife-of-u-s-pastor-imprisoned-in-iran-hopes-to-rebuild-marriage-saeed-naghmeh-abedini/?utm_content=buffere1af2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Later, she said, the couple communicated directly on a
number of occasions by phone or Skype. During that time, Naghmeh
said, her husband became increasingly abusive, possibly because
of his long confinement. She declined to elaborate on the
nature of the abusive behavior.
….
During most of her husband’s time in prison, Abedini served
as the public face of the campaign for his release. But their
private conversations, she said, became ever more fraught.
“I just couldn’t understand – the more I fought for him the
more abusive he was becoming,” she said.

http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/local/2016/01/27/naghmeh-abedini-releases-public/79401320/

Tragically, the opposite has occurred. Three months ago Saeed told me things he demanded I must do to promote him in the eyes of the public that I simply could not do any longer. He threatened that if I did not the results would be the end of our marriage and the resulting pain this would bring to our children.

Jeff S wrote:

Our culture hates victims. We punish people for being victims and scrutinize them in the worst way. It takes guts and/or desperation to put yourself out there

Oh, bingo again. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your insights. Our culture does not even recognize the fact that it hates victims. This makes it very easy for deceivers who are darn good at what they do.

Jerry wrote:

As I said most of my doubts were to her claims of abuse while he was in prison.. If he had those modern coveniences, than my questions are answered. Woman sometimes want to fake it because they want to gain power in the situation. I.e. Custody. Again I have seen this happen. I am not saying this is the case most of the time. But it is the case some of the time.

When you say, “woman sometimes want to fake it” that is stating “sometimes the woman is lying” which implies,”maybe Naghmeh is lying”.

When you say, “most of my doubts”, you are implying that she is not being truthful.

“If you read my post, I said I am not saying she is lying, there just certain aspects of her posts that don’t completely add up to me.”

If “don’t completely add up” to you is NOT implying she is lying, then what does it imply?

Bottom line from your own words, you think she’s lying (in whole or in part). You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but at least own it.

Pythagoras wrote:

However the only person who at risk of losing their reputation, livelihood, or children seems to be the husband.

2 words: Tony Jones.

@ siteseer:

I think you are correct. But since nobody knows exactly what he is accused of wanting her to do within that framework nobody can determine whether he was within reasonable limits to expect that of her or whether what he wanted was so unreasonable as to be abusive. And that is why I think we have to make no judgment calls about anything at this point. Maybe never. It is her call, and the court’s call, not ours.

@ Lydia:

I really appreciate your kind words.

okrapod wrote:

nobody can determine whether he was within reasonable limits to expect that of her or whether what he wanted was so unreasonable as to be abusive

This is where I will disagree. It doesn’t matter what he expected of her. The point is that he threatened her for non-compliance.

If you threaten divorce for something even completely reasonable, then you have crossed a line into abuse.

The only reasonable questions would be

a) did it happen

and

b) was it systemic and a pattern of abuse.

We all do blow it sometimes and make threats in a heat of passion. The difference is that an abuser really does feel entitled to have his/her way and use another person to get it. It’s not a one time “accident”, but a description of who he/she is at the core.

When she reports that she hoped he would change and was disappointed that he hasn’t, this speaks a lot to point b. And to point a, everything she has said and the way she has said it carries enough credibility for me to initially believe her.

@ Muff Potter:

When regular, non-fundagelical-bubble people hear of what he did to a little dog, is it any wonder they want nothing to do with Dobson or his god?

okrapod wrote:

Jeff S wrote:
If you threaten divorce for something even completely reasonable, then you have crossed a line into abuse.
I don’t know Jeff. You and I have both been through divorce. In my marriage there were lines that if crossed would lead to divorce. And this was clearly said between us. Criminal activity for example. I do not think it is abusive to draw lines which are not to be crossed. I think some people call that boundaries.
I am not saying that about this couple we are discussing but merely saying that I do not think that threatening divorce is by definition abusive in all cases.

Oh, you are absolutely right. Divorce is a reasonable boundary to protect yourself. To declare it a consequence is reasonable and good. To use is to control another person is not, and always abusive.

“I will divorce you if you do not support my ministry” is abusive. “I will divorce you if you fail to work as bookkeeper for my business” is abusive. “I will divorce you if you defraud your company and steal money” is not.

So hopefully that clarification helps.

@ Lydia:

You have a much nicer way of putting it Lyds. There are times when I express it more like Kurtz would upriver.

jerry wrote:

But again, 95 percent is a number which “they talked to”. Most men aren’t going to report it in my experience. So I don’t necessarily buy that stat. But agree with you. abuse is abuse.

Most women don’t report abuse, either.

I felt this applicable to this thread (it’s from a satirical news site, and contains one or two lewd words):

Woman Probably Just Made Up Rape Story In Order To Get Threatening Emails
http://www.theonion.com/article/woman-probably-just-made-rape-story-order-get-thre-52255

Again I wasn’t doubting her claims of abuse, I was doubting her claims of his prison situation which would in turn cause me to doubt everything she was saying, including the abuse. I don’t know how to be any more clear about this.

jerry wrote:

There are lying and scheming woman that use the “term abuse” as a club to gain control in custody. I have seen it with my own eyes. Woman are no less sinful than men. I have seen many verbally abusive women, and I have seen verbally abusive men. It is not gender specific. I don’t know that it happens more to woman or not. I would assume most men don’t admit to being verbally abused. It isn’t very macho to say I am being abused by my wife.

I know of abuse on the part of women, both physical and verbal, in fact to people very close to me. As for statistics, none of these cases were reported or are known of beyond the people involved. When it comes to men and women, neither sex has a corner on being abusive. Anyone who thinks women do not abuse has been blissfully spared some very ugly scenarios. In fact, there is a support website for men going through this http://shrink4men.com/about/

@ Victorious:

I appreciate the dialog as well. I am very passionate about this subject, and I’m grateful for a place to be able to participate in these kinds of discussions 🙂

jerry wrote:

But again, 95 percent is a number which “they talked to”. Most men aren’t going to report it in my experience. So I don’t necessarily buy that stat. But agree with you. abuse is abuse.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to get across in your posts in this thread.

Are you wanting us to doubt all wives who claim to be abused, or to doubt Naghmeh in particular , because in your understanding of life, some women abuse women men?

I think most abusers are men,not women.

Women are not socially conditioned in secular or Christian culture to use control via force or abuse to get the upper hand or place of privilege in marriage or other relationships.

Women are actually punished socially or discouraged from being assertive, aggressive, forceful, direct, abusive, loud, etc. to other people.

These same traits, though, are often encouraged in boys and men – by families, some churches, music videos, movies, TV shows.

I am not a men’s activist type of guy, but nor do I think that men have the corner on verbal and emotional abuse. I have seen it too many times from women as well. I do feel like there is a bit of a blanket assumption that men are abusers, and women are victims on this thread.

Proverbs 18:13,17 “He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him.” “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him.”

Proverbs 26:9 “Like a thorn that goes up into the hand of a drunkard is a proverb in the mouth of fools.”

It’s funny to me that Christians often (erroneously) say that people step away from Christianity because they want to sin when in fact, Christian “leaders” have the “work of Satan” to basically excuse virtually any behavior. For them, Christianity holds the license to sin.

See: CLC’s response on the SGM article
See also: Franklin Graham’s Facebook post about Saeed

“Woman sometimes want to fake it because they want to gain power in the situation. I.e. Custody. Again I have seen this happen. I am not saying this is the case most of the time. But it is the case some of the time.”

Jerry, it is the case very, very rarely, just like when kids report they have been sexually abused. There are the occasional false reports, but the bulk of them, whether we choose to believe the victims or not, are true. A woman who is brave enough to admit that her husband/partner is abusing her has everything to lose-her credibility, her reputation, her self-respect. Some won’t believe her, others will pity her, and few will step up to help her. My mother was physically and emotionally abused by my father for the 20 years of their marriage. This was back in the days when the cops would come by, tell my mom to make him a nice steak for dinner, while she was holding a wet towel up to her black eye and holding her broken glasses. We were all terrified of him. Quite a few of our friends had figured it out, but you just didn’t interfere back in the 60s. Although my mom had a happy second marriage, she never fully recovered emotionally from the abuse. Witnessing it for as long as I could remember, I haven’t either. I prefer to believe reports before discounting them, and I am proud of Naghmeh for having the courage to take actions against her abuser.

I saw my mother attack my father once. I don’t blame her, but he was not the one who got physical. When you have seen it you believe it. I have seen women who have made what I would call a lifestyle of tearing people apart verbally, but I am sure nobody ever ‘reported’ it. Who would? ‘ She talks mean to me all the time.’ What man would report that and to whom? And is that against the law? Is there a civil right to be free from having somebody talk mean to you? But I think that is a pattern of verbal abuse, and I just hate to see men get so much blame when the stats are all based on ‘reporting.’

Nancy2, a ha. That would explain it right there. In one of the linked articles I read, originally Nagmeh and the kids were to fly to North Carolina to reunite with Saeed there (I think her parents did). Instead, he’s there for 6 days before flying to Boise. Only then does he see the kids, but not her. Not only that, but the day he arrives she files for separation to keep the kids in Idaho. I can only wonder about the phone calls going back and forth between the coasts during his stay at the center.

Bridget wrote:

So are you saying that you believe that in “reality” women are abusers (emotional, physical, and verbal) just as much as men, and the abuse by women just isn’t reported?

I am saying that verbal abuse by women is almost certainly underreported by the men they abuse. I don’t believe I made any guesses as to what the percentages might be.

What isn’t adding up in my mind is Saeed’s seemingly physical well-being.

Over the last couple of years, I have spent many a sleepless night praying for his health after reports of increasing physical beatings and reports of him being near death with internal injuries.

I don’t intend to minimize the stress and physical discomfort of an Iranian prison. I am sure imprisonment and looming threat to life is hellish. What I haven’t seen reported is anything to support the allegations with reports of Pastor Saeed being given life-saving medical treatment. It’s the first thing I was listening for upon his release, to find out if they got to him in time to save his life.

Instead of those reports, I see him walking off the plane in Asheville on his way to The Cove with Franklin. Head scratcher.

It makes me wonder if that part of his story is true or false or exaggerated.

If false, and I am speculating here, perhaps he wanted Naghneh to portray his health as in worse condition than reality. If so, perhaps that is something she would not do. .

I can understand that if his health was poor, it might be used to negotiate his release. But if his health wasn’t in as dire a condition as reported in the news, perhaps he wanted Naghemh to portray it as such.

I could easily imagine that scenario if, indeed, my speculation is valid, and how she might refuse to participate in a lie and how he might threaten her over it … All speculation, I know. He wanted release, he thought using a report of his poor and failing health was his ticket out, she refused, he threatens her…

Jerry wrote:

Ok I see they spoke by skype or phone. But again, he really holds no power. He is locked up. Why not just hang up the phone or refuse to talk? What abuse was he inflicting over skype that she could not easily stop. I am not saying she is lying, it just doesn’t completely add up to me.

Jerry, it totally adds up if you are familiar with the dynamics of abuse. While I assume your comments are based on ignorance not malice, they can still be hurtful to women stuck in emotionally abusive marriages. “Why didn’t you just…. hang up the phone… call the police… leave him… ?” These are questions that plague every victim of domestic abuse whether psychological/emotional only or physical. A Cry for Justice is a good blog to peruse if you are interested in educating yourself.

Mike wrote:

Or was brought up/involved in a complementarian church/denomination

A difference that makes no difference.
“Just like Shari’a, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”

PaJo wrote:

I have a friend now whose adult son is doing the “if you don’t do xyz/accept me as I am/pay my outstanding debts, i’m going to kill myself.” This is clearly (to me) a controlling thing, and the family is being whipsawed by this threat.

My brother tried the exact same shtick after Mom’s death in ’75, with two exceptions: (1) instead of “pay my outstanding debts” it was “let me do whatever I want” and (2) “I’ll go join Mom and it’ll be All YOUR Fault!” (This example of Filial Piety coming from the same kid who when cancer invalid Mom was calling for assistance just turned his stereo up full volume so he wouldn’t have to hear her.)

Heavy Mind Games, played for keeps.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy: last I looked, there were over 80 legal Sharia courts in England. This is not good news for women in areas of custody and finances.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

No wonder Naghmedshe got a court order in an American court; if things get ugly, the kids are also Iranian under Jus Sanguinis and Saeed has every right under Iranian law to take them. (Especially since Iranian Law went full Shari’a after their 1979 Revolution.)

Yes. I was thinking that if Saeed managed to get the children out of US territory, it would be over. I would imagine Naghmed was thinking along the same lines. Especially if the threats she claimed he made are true ~~ she has already disobeyed him by not following his orders.

Guys you should read the thread over at Phoenix Preacher about this issue.

http://michaelnewnham.com/?p=24517#comments

Thank you both for your responses to my question re: suicide threat as controlling mechanism. I have taken your responses down and will send them to my friend before the next incident arises. Maybe this will be some of the good that has come from your pain.

Divorce Minister wrote:

I was raised to believe ANY physical abuse is ALWAYS unacceptable.

Verbal and emotional abuse are also very damaging.

okrapod wrote:

But I think that is a pattern of verbal abuse, and I just hate to see men get so much blame when the stats are all based on ‘reporting.’

Women don’t usually get the message from culture that it’s okay to be assertive and domineering as much as men do. So you’re not going to see them using verbal or physical abuse to control a male partner as often as the opposite.

okrapod wrote:

I am saying that verbal abuse by women is almost certainly underreported by the men they abuse. I don’t believe I made any guesses as to what the percentages might be.

Another thing I’ve read over and over in various books or blogs about domestic abuse and so on is that physical abuse by men against a female partner is almost always begun with verbal abuse.

Most men are more physically strong than most women, so I think women have more to lose here.

I’ve also heard this line a time or two online (possibly attributable to Gavin de Becker; it’s been awhile since I read his book):

“Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”

One site has it as:

“Most men fear getting laughed at or humiliated by a romantic prospect while most women fear rape and death.”

Jeff S wrote:

I cannot recommend the book “Boundaries” by Townsend and Cloud enough. This book has helped me identify controlling behavior and how to appropriately deal with it.

That one is good, and any about any book that deals with codependency / people pleasing, such as
The Disease To Please: Curing the People-Pleasing Syndrome by Harriet B. Braiker

There are many other good titles on these topics, some by Christians, some by authors who I’m not sure of what their religious views are.

@ Eagle:
Wow. Here is part of a comment one person left on that post (bold print emphasis, mine – not the commentor’s):
“I no longer attend Calvary Chapel for many reasons. My husband, who is born-again, also became an abusive husband.”……..”I believe he suffers from a PTSD-like condition due to the traumas of his past. I also believe that Calvary Chapel teachings of submission and headship encouraged my husband to become abusive over the course of many years. I understand the fear this woman has. No one who knows my husband would ever believe he could be abusive. My husband has a public personality and an entirely different private personality.”……” I am still with my husband, because I am a Christian, and honestly, I do feel sorry for him because of his past. I’ve inherited a large amount of money, and all of the abuse stopped as soon as I inherited it. Interesting, isn’t it? One of the reasons I left Calvary Chapel is that during marriage counseling the pastor told me that I had to give my husband my entire teaching salary, my entire State Teachers Retirement pension, and any money I inherit to my husband . Even if my husband lost it all, the pastor said that my money was all my husband’s to do what he wanted with it. Abusive men are all about having control, and giving my husband my entire income and inheritance would have just increased his control over me.”

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I don’t have the time right now to spend hours tracking every site with every statistic on it but here is this page:
http://www.safevoices.org/statistics.php

The folks A Cry For Justice blog probably have a lot of links to resources with that kind of information.

I think Dee linked to a page up thread with info on this. Snippet:

The landmark National Violence Against Women survey, conducted in 1995-1996, does provide some data.

It found that women with male partners experience the highest levels of violence (20.3 percent), followed by men with male partners (15.4 percent), women with female partners (11.4 percent), and, finally, men with female partners (7.7 percent).

A few smaller studies, however, provide conflicting data…

@ Daisy:

Those stats could mean that women are significantly more likely to be abused, or they could mean that men are far less likely to report abuse, or they could mean than when somebody is abused to a level of injury which they report it is more likely to be the female who is injured to that extent. They could also mean some combination of those factors, which I think is likely.

I googled Calvary Chapel, Boise and explored their website. ……….. Found this.
http://www.ccboise.org/search/node/Gender%20roles
Snippet: “v. 3 The Head – This was a way to ascribe authority of one over another. Man is Christ – Paul makes clear that ultimate authority over mankind and, specifically the men in the church, is Christ (Matt. 28:18, Phil 2:10-11). Head of Woman – Paul affirms the social order of God-given authority to the man. “

@ Daisy:

Yes, both are damaging as well. However, “emotional abuse” is a very elastic term meaning different things to different people. Physical abuse is easier to see and detect. But that does not make it worse than emotional abuse. Just makes it clearer.

Nancy2 wrote:

Even if my husband lost it all, the pastor said that my money was all my husband’s to do what he wanted with it

That is insane, and entirely not Biblical! My opinion of Calvary Chapel has bottomed out.

dee wrote:

I believe complementarianism/authoritarianism could/does lead to an increase in reports of abuse

Yes! The men attracted to complementarianism tend to be ones with emotional issues and are “easily deceived” into thinking that God has put them in charge (talk about an ego boost). This lack of selk esteem plus the Evangelical Male Entitlement Mentality makes it easy to fall into abusive behavior.

Abi Miah wrote:

Persephone wrote:
Also, where is Gram3? I miss her comments.
Me, too. I’ve noticed Velour has not posted in a long time, either.

Or Sopy.

@ Patriciamc:
Yes–I’ve been missing Sopy also.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I think you have been sold a lot of b.s. Perhaps you might want to look into Iranisn history and culture? The *kind* of harem you’re talking about is most typical of thd Otyomsn dultand. And fwiw, Zoroastrian beliefs snd customs are still part of daily life in Iran and msny Central Asian counties. Parts of Iranian marriage ceremonies are, even now, drawn direvtly from pre-Islamic religion and culture. (Also true of pretty much everything aboutPersian New Year – Nowruz, though it is often spelled in other wsys.)

French artists became fasvinsted by, among other things, haremd post-Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt (psrt of the Ottomsn Empire at that time) and came up eith no rnd ot fantastic, ultra-sexy depictions thst havd pretty much 0 to do eith the truth, then or now. The 19th c. was the heydsy of Orientslism, in art and lit., and boy, did the colonizing nations (France snd England) get a lot of things wrong.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
The cultures of the Arabian Peninsula in Mohammed’s time certainly allowed enough freedom for a woman like his 1st wife, Khadija, to have become a wealthy merchant. Mohammed was a promising young man (as a merchant), and that’s one reason she martied him.

She is also credited as being the 1st to have believed his message, but that was later on.

She was, btw, significantly older than him.

All that said, there were many different cultural groups (religious, too) on the Arabian Peninsula at that time, and not all have left written records, so generalizations (like the one i just made sbove!) are probably unwise.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Well, i can’t help wondering why the person who said this was ignoring the many, *many* wives and concubines of David, Solomon, and other ANE rulers mentioned in the OT? Why would Persia have been *the* source of this, umm, “custom”? Maybe because we trnd to pick snd choose our ideas, at least some of the time? Certainly, if the book of Esther is at all historically and culturally accurate, the ancient rulers of Persia were following the lead of the Pharoahs and petty kings like David, and (maybe) not the other way around?

Charged so guilty. Ouch.

Who wants a jury of their peers when the peers have already deemed you guilty without hearing from you?

Back in Iran!

When there is an allegation there should be an investigation.

Correct?

@ Q:

I’m amazed (and saddened) when a Christian woman shares with friends, family, or her church that her husband has been abusing her that the first reaction of many is to question her, doubt her, or attribute nefarious motives to her.

Daisy wrote:

I’m amazed (and saddened)

You’ll cheer up, over actor.

Daisy wrote:

I’m amazed (and saddened) when a Christian woman shares with friends, family, or her church that her husband has been abusing her that the first reaction of many is to question her, doubt her, or attribute nefarious motives to her.

This is a red herring.

When there is an allegation there should be an investigation.
Correct?

Q wrote:

When there is an allegation there should be an investigation.
Correct?

There wasn’t an allegation. There was a prayer group from which someone shared private information.

Q wrote:

That was a large group of people.

Do you know how many people were in the group? My understanding is that one person in the group shared publicly what was meant to stay private.

Q wrote:

She has accused him of multiple abuse allegations, and has filed for separation and is attempting to lock him out of his house.

That is understandable if she fears him and what he might do.

Bridget wrote:

She has accused him of multiple abuse allegations,

So you agree she has accused him of multiple allegations?

Q wrote:

@ Q:
Are you really that uninformed?

Is this addressed to me? If so, please inform me if I am uninformed. What facts do you have that would be a reason to not believe Naghmeh? She may not have wanted any of this made public, but her husband is in the public eye, so there is not much chance of keeping it private. I hope they can work out the problems and find healing. In the meantime, I can understand why she has proceeded as she has.

Q wrote:

Bridget wrote:
That is understandable if she fears him and what he might do.
Would Sarah do that?

These are two different situations. I am not comparing the two. Sarah had no recourse in her day. She was considered property. She had no choice. And Abram was a coward to do what he did. I don’t remember God telling him to act as he did. Do you.

Bridget wrote:

Abram was a coward

Really, The father of our faith was a coward?

Bridget wrote:

These are two different situations

Okay.

One did not obey her husband and one did. I wonder who was under more pressure, guess which one and guess who God affirmed.

@ Bridget:

You said Abraham was a coward.

I guess Lot was hideous also?

Q wrote:

Bridget wrote:
These are two different situations
Okay.
One did not obey her husband and one did. I wonder who was under more pressure, guess which one and guess who God affirmed.

God may have affirmed Sarah, she did nothing wrong. Why should she be harmed because of her husband’s folly. But that does not mean that Naghmeh has to do what Sarah did. Naghmeh needs to do what the Lord wants her to do. There were women in the OT who didn’t obey their husbands and were affirmed by God. There was a woman in the NT who lied along with her husband and was struck dead.

Bridget wrote:

If so, please inform me if I am uninformed.

Would Sarah who called her husband lord do what Naghmeh has done?

Q wrote:

Would Sarah who called her husband lord do what Naghmeh has done?

As I said above, Naghmeh needs to do what the Lord is telling her to do now. Sarah is not her God.

Q wrote:

Bridget wrote:
she did nothing wrong
Hmm…

hmmm . . . she sinned on the order of the father of your faith

Good night, Q.

Charged so guilty. Ouch…

When there is an allegation there should be an investigation.
Correct???

okrapod wrote:

political changes in Sudan,

Oops. I believe it was Somalia.

numo wrote:

The cultures of the Arabian Peninsula in Mohammed’s time certainly allowed enough freedom for a woman like his 1st wife, Khadija, to have become a wealthy merchant.

I thought she was a wealthy widow.

The following link gives the latest position on Sharia courts in the UK@ Lydia:

@ Q:
I have yet to see a jury trial on abuse. It is usually one judge in family court. And most judges, in my experience as an advocate, don’t acknowledge emotional or spiritual abuse. That is why people discuss it so much. It is a real thing yet hard to adjudicate. It is not against the law to be a deceptive cruel jerk that controls through mind games.

Niteowl wrote:

As to James Dobson, I have no respect for him after reading about his beating a twelve (ed.) pound dog with a belt, his view on child discipline which amounts to abuse and his hatred for gays and blaming women for being abused and having gay kids.

I’m totally with you on this. The man is a bully & an abusive bully at that.

@ molly245:
First is something to be proud of, right?

zooey111 wrote:

I’m totally with you on this. The man is a bully & an abusive bully at that.

And before the Pearls & Ezzo, he was GAWD’s Oracle about childrearing.

And GOP Kingmaker during the Reagan Era and both Bushes, strutting through the corridors of Power in DC.

Tina wrote:

Answer: Because they had been conditioned to stay and they had been conditioned to believe that something very bad would happen if they tried to run. When someone controls your every move, that does something to you. You know you are dependent on them and you will do anything to keep from displeasing them

And if the victims were raised in Christianese Purity Culture, their abuser has popped their cherry making them Utterly Worthless anyway, Used Goods (or other Purity Training Class Imagery) instead of Pure Virgins.

okrapod wrote:

Is Q a muslim? What is with this OT and NT business re Sarah?

You may well ask. I have been wondering the same thing for some time now.

Q wrote:

When there is an allegation there should be an investigation. Correct?

When someone implies that a woman is making up being abused by her spouse, that should be called out, correct?

okrapod wrote:

Is Q a muslim? What is with this OT and NT business re Sarah? Is he espousing the idea that christians are required to actually sin on the orders of some other christian? On the other hand is somebody saying that Saeed asked Naghmeh to sin? What did he ask her to do? Am I losing my mind trying to make sense of all this ??

I’m not sure where Q is coming from, quite, but some Christian gender complementarians point to Sarah as an example they think women ought to follow.
Sarah is mentioned here:
http://newlife.id.au/bible-study-notes/1-peter-3_1-6/

Tina wrote:

Answer: Because they had been conditioned to stay and they had been conditioned to believe that something very bad would happen if they tried to run.

Exactly. I tried explaining this yesterday to a guy on another forum (that Eagle linked to), and all this guy kept saying was, “after a husband throws the first punch the wife should call the police that will take care of it.”

I tried telling him that in many abusive marriages, that won’t happen because the abuser has so stripped the woman of her self esteem, she will think she deserves the punch. There are other reasons a victim would not think to call the cops or be too afraid to.

I could not make the guy on the other blog understand that.

dee wrote:

But they will learn that even heroes sin.

I’m not sure Q understands that concept. He reminds me of a former pastor who chastised me for pointing out that Moses had faults, was even a murderer. The pastor thought we should never say such things of men of the Bible.

dee wrote:

God is the Father of my faith. Abraham is one of the many witnesses to the Father of the faith.

Exactly.

@ Daisy:

Yes, but. Jesus said do not be called rabbi/teacher and then in the great commission he instructed his disciples to go out and teach. Jesus said don’t be called father, and Paul seems not to have heard that since he called himself a spiritual father. Jesus said whatever about leaders but then he/the Spirit gave instructions in the NT as to how people are to view leaders as well as instructors.

If the truth of the scripture you have quoted lies in a literal application of those exact words and no more or less than that, with no further understanding of what he was saying, then the bible is full of contradictions. There are either contradictions or there are explanations.

Victorious wrote:

I’m probably in the minority here, but that is why I’m in favor of no-fault divorce. Used to be adultery was the only way one could get a divorce, but that too was unprovable since there were no witnesses.

I am stumped by this.

I have seen this attitude pop up on Twitter and other sites. People are having a fit that some people are wanting to believe that Neghmeh was abused on her say-so.

As most abuse takes place in private (abusers are careful to keep it hidden), how is a victim who is in fact being abused supposed to get justice or recourse?

I don’t see where other crimes or sins are treated with such heightened skepticism.

Was it this thread or one previous where I told a skeptic, how would you feel if you were mugged in broad daylight, went to the police about it, and the cops were incredulous that any muggings happen in the day and so they refuse to listen to you or file any sort of report?

I’ve yet to see what Neghmeh benefits from making any of this up. She gets a lot of criticism online is what she gets, and a small smattering of support. But mostly nay-sayers.

Daisy wrote:

I never said the Bible contains contradictions.

I know you did not. I am not saying that. I am saying that the scripture you quoted cannot be taken the way some people do unless they are willing to admit that their understanding of that scripture means that there are contradictions in scripture.

I should have been more clear about that.

Let us put this in some perspective. It is not only claims of verbal abuse that many people treat with some skepticism. It is also a lot of claims of alleged crimes that investigators and prosecutors look at. It is also insurance claims which people file. Veterans benefits claims require submitted evidence. Social workers do home visits and establish files of ‘evidence.’ I have heard more than one commenter on this very blog say that claims of conversion need to produce evidence of a changed life-what is that if not show me the evidence? And when some kid in school who is in trouble for fighting claims that the other kid started it nobody just takes that as gospel, people inquire about witnesses. And one must not fail to consider an extremely popular opinion in our nation that both the media and the government are lying to us. No way is skepticism limited to issues of abuse.

The adage of ‘do not believe anything of what you hear and believe only half of what you read’ has some real merit.

Abuse claims should be met with compassion and concern-always. But caution also has its place.

Did you guys realize that on today’s date January 29, 1964 the movie “Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” was released.

I am thinking we should have a follow up called “The Celebrity Pastor Or How I Learned to Embrace the Totalitarian Dictator who is My Senior Pastor.” 😛

okrapod wrote:

Abuse claims should be met with compassion and concern-always.

But this is the truth of it. I see more nasty comments hurled at those who claim abuse than compassionate ones. And staying on the sidelines in the name of “let them work it out in private” is that standard church response.

Mostly, I don’t think those claiming abuse are looking for people to be judge and jury on their case. They are looking for friends, prayer warriors, and kindness.

From personal experience, I wasn’t looking for righteous judgement. I wasn’t even looking for advice. Those who told me “You must divorce her” hurt me almost as much who told me “you cannot divorce her”. I was just looking for people to say “Wow, that is very terrible what you are going through. I’m so sorry this is painful, I know it must be a real struggle to work out what is right and honoring to God. I’ll be praying for you. Would you like to go out and grab a bite to eat? I’ll be I can find a sitter for you?”

The one person who helped me the most getting through my own divorce never once said if he thought I should go through with it or not. But he opened his door to me any time I needed it. He was on the phone with me most every night. His family frequently and my son and I over for dinner. He listened to me and asked questions. And he validated what I was experiencing was painful and it was reasonable that I was hurt by it.

dee wrote:

My daughter got in trouble in high school for saying Billy Graham was a terrible father. She was quoting Billy Graham himself from his autobiography. The teacher said she should never say that about a great man. She told him that Billy Graham was great but he was a sinner as well. I was pleased with her response. It was real-not sugarcoated.

Good for her! And good for her for thinking quickly on her feet!

Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

No idea whether Q is a Muslim. I think he’s just a troll. (For now, I’m assuming that Q is male, mainly because of his obvious contempt towards Bridget and Daisy. Could very well be female, but “male” is my working hypothesis.) He comes on here implying that we’re all being unfair to poor, poor Saeed, and muddies the waters by citing Sarah’s obedience as an example of how Neghmeh ought to Obey Her Lord/Husband™, no matter how he treats her.
I think his blather is designed to make us lose our minds. Or at least distract us from discussing Saeed.

I was a bit suspicious of Q a few posts back when he/she/it/they commented that he/she/it/they did not like my suggestion of noting the good churches out there. This person didn’t give a reason, but I thought it was a bit odd. Why object to noting the good churches unless you don’t like the fact that there are good churches.

Jeff S wrote:

@ Jerry:

Just stop. Learn more about abuse before you presume to know what it’s like to be in her shoes and what normal behavior is when you are the victim of abuse. Nothing she said or has done is out of sync with what you would expect of someone in her position.

I agree completely, Jeff. Her behaviour fits the profile of a victim very well. Also, there is nothing about Saeed’s behaviour that would give us reason to dismiss her allegations.

Patriciamc wrote:

Why object to noting the good churches unless you don’t like the fact that there are good churches.

Good point.

okrapod wrote:

Jeff S wrote:
And staying on the sidelines in the name of “let them work it out in private” is that standard church response.
I know that some people do not like the idea of ‘let them work it out in private’ but and also, when we dealt with our issues the major thing that I wanted was privacy-for people to stay out of my business. So I am thinking that this is an individual call-public vs private. The thing with going public is that once it is out there it is out there forever. Something which has been said can never become unsaid, even if it is proven false. Not everybody feels either way, and that is each person’s call.

It absolutely is the call of the people involved. That is a matter of respect, and no- if a victim wants people to stay away, then stay away. This is one reason I’m a little hesitant to talk about this situation specifically, because it doesn’t seem (from what I’ve read) that she really wants this to be a public conversation. Maybe she does. But if she doesn’t, she should be given the dignity to work out her own struggles with whomever she trusts to struggle along side her. For our part, we should just be careful how much power we give to her husband.

What I was talking about is when a victim goes public and people say “we don’t want to get involved- work it out yourself”, which is more often than not the case. Well, until someone files for divorce. Then it becomes everyone’s business 🙁

Lowlandseer wrote:

https://fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/

Sorry forgot to post it

The problem is the line with religion and state in Islam. The devil in those details. Why another court needed? Big picture, long term should be a concern. But that isn’t politically correct, I know: o)

Forgive me, I am an old feminist :o)

Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

No idea whether Q is a Muslim. I think he’s just a troll. …
He comes on here implying that we’re all being unfair to poor, poor Saeed, and muddies the waters by citing Sarah’s obedience as an example of how Neghmeh ought to Obey Her Lord/Husband™, no matter how he treats her.

Either a Saeed Fanboy, Sock Puppet, or Male Supremacist who don’ like Uppity Wimmen.

Victorious wrote:

Most often used advice is that victims should (at some point) be careful to leave a “paper trail.”

That is my first piece of advice to victims. And communicate by email as much as possible and write as if a judge is reading it.

@ dee:
Thank you!

Lydia wrote:

@ Jeff S:
Just being believed is so big I cannot overstate it enough.

Yes. Exactly.

I remember some feelings vividly, even today. I didn’t even know if what I was feeling was *valid*. I assumed (because that’s what everyone told me) that my feelings *weren’t* valid, and if I was more like Jesus I wouldn’t be in pain.

More than anything, I sought the freedom to accept that what I felt was painful. I spent so much time trying to talk myself out of believing that I was in pain, that to have someone else believe it was HUGE.

I remember, though, when I was in that period of struggle, being scared of Christians. Because at any point as I was meeting someone and opening up to them, I knew the wall could come up where they stopped caring about me and started being more concerned with my situation. Where they would suddenly be critical of my decisions and experiences, and at that point I didn’t matter any more. They’d rather ignore my pain if they could have their belief about me. And underlying that was a denial of me. A denial that what I experienced was painful. A denial that it wasn’t OK.

I really, truly, honestly felt like the “Godly” way meant emptying myself of anything that could think or feel. Being hurt just meant I was too worldly. I struggled so much trying to “take up my cross” and empty myself of anything that was Jeff, and in the end, I couldn’t do it. So when those precious few came along and said “I believe you, and it isn’t OK”, it was as if they were telling me that it was OK to be me. That it was OK to feel pain when someone hurt me. That Jeff was valuable as he is to God.

I wrote a song about this, and while the song is actually not very good musically (one of my regrets as a songwriter), I still value the lyrics a lot. This was basically my emotional processing that it was OK to be me, and it was OK to want to not hurt.

Does it matter who I am?
They told me it was ok
That the way that I was made to be
Should all be wiped away

I tried to lose that part of me
And swallow my desire for peace
But I never overcame my hope
That one day I might be free

I could not let all that I was be emptied and destroyed
A sacrifice to bring no hope- just one more broken toy

But a still small voice called out to me
And said I’m forever his
That he loved me and he knew me
And desired that I live
He wanted me to be loved
He wanted me to be whole
He created me to be who I am
And he was in control

For so long I believed the lie
That I was nothing more than just sin
Instead of a life that’s been restored
With a heart that has been cleansed

Called out from the darkness, now to this new kind of life
No more to walk in shadows- we are dancers in the light

And that quiet voice still calls to me
And says I’m forever his
That he loves me and he knows me
And desires that I live
He wants me to be loved
He wants me to be whole
He created me to be who I am
And he is in control

Your voice is growing stronger and I hear you speak to me
You tell me that I always was your plan
So I lift up all that I have to worship and adore
To thank you for who I am

Your strong voice calls out to me
And says I’m forever yours
That you love me and you know me
And gave me life forevermore
You want me to be loved
You want me to be whole
You created me to be who I am
And you are in control

Jeff S wrote:

Pythagoras wrote:

It is certainly possible that lots of verbal abuse was taking place. It is also certainly possible that no verbal abuse was taking place.

These possibilities are not equal in probability. It is far more likely that she was telling the truth and correctly reporting the abuse she sustained. She has very little to gain by making this up, and a lot to lose by doing it.

This is the part that many people don’t understand.

Bridget wrote:

She most certainly lied to Pharaoh on Abram’s orders. She said she was Abram’s sister and was taken into Pharaoh’s palace and made Pharaoh’s wife while she was married to Abram. Does your Bible say something different?

I heard an argument once that this might have come from a cultural clash between Mesopotamian/Semitic tribal culture (Abram) and Egyptian (Pharoah). Went like this:

First, in Abram’s culture wives were expendable. His “cowardice” at throwing Sarah at Pharoah while she was still married to him would be normal and even expected for him. Save the man by expending the woman.

Second, in Semitic tribal culture Sisters had higher status than wives. Wives were property/breeding stock from Outside the Clan, Sisters were Clan Kin. Abram might have thought highly enough of Sarah to adopt her as his Sister, raising her status to Close Kin. (Which then makes him throwing her at Pharoah higher on the “save my own ass” spectrum.)

Being as how Sarah’s position as Sister (instead of a mere wife) would be a point of prestige, Abram would have stressed this to Egyptians of importance. If this was not an Egyptian custom, Pharoah (or whichever official was in charge of procuring for his harem) might have figured “she’s his sister, not his wife — in any case, they’re just Khabiru nomads from the Eastern desert.”

Forrest wrote:

This is the part that many people don’t understand.

Especially when hubby is a Persecuted Hero of the Faith who’s now hobnobbing with the Christianese rich and powerful (like Franklin Graham). He’s now one-upped in a position of Power with Powerful Friends in High Places. And it’s for The Cause.

Q wrote:

Would Sarah do that?

Was Sarah ever in a situation that would illustrate to us what lengths she might have gone to to protect her children?

More to the point, we are not followers of Sarah. Would Jesus want a mother to protect her vulnerable children? I have no question in my mind that he would, he designed us that way.

Jeff S wrote:

So when those precious few came along and said “I believe you, and it isn’t OK”, it was as if they were telling me that it was OK to be me. That it was OK to feel pain when someone hurt me. That Jeff was valuable as he is to God.

Yep. I ask them how come you don’t think you are of as much value as your abuser?

Jesus hung on the cross for the abuser, too. If that does not mean anything to them, it is not the victims fault. Victims have no ability to confer salvation. They have to realize that they cannot change the other person.

If only pastors did not try to convince them otherwise.

Lydia wrote:

Jeff S wrote:
So when those precious few came along and said “I believe you, and it isn’t OK”, it was as if they were telling me that it was OK to be me. That it was OK to feel pain when someone hurt me. That Jeff was valuable as he is to God.
Yep. I ask them how come you don’t think you are of as much value as your abuser?
Jesus hung on the cross for the abuser, too. If that does not mean anything to them, it is not the victims fault. Victims have no ability to confer salvation. They have to realize that they cannot change the other person.
If only pastors did not try to convince them otherwise.

I was told by a well regarded woman at the church (in fact, I’d even led the worship at her husband’s funeral) that I had not loved my wife with “agape” love, because if I had, our marriage would not be failing. She told me “agape” love does not fail.

And of course, there were multiple people to remind me to love my wife the way Jesus loved the church. And what did he do for the church. He DIED for the church.

Not only was I wrong to hurt, but I was wrong in not being able to fix someone else. Wrong for not being able to be her savior.

That was so painful, and it’s the reason I am so passionate about this subject. I want no one else to go through what I did, and I very, VERY much wish to share with them the life I have today. I am beyond blessed, happy, and just continually overflow with joy. This is what I want for others, and the poison the Christians around me were selling does not lead to this. It leads to death.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

It is held that Khadija – a widow twice over and a wealthy trader – initiated the marriage proposal herself.

http://www.al-islam.org/articles/khadijah-daughter-khuwaylid-wife-prophet-muhammad-yasin-t-al-jibouri

@ Jeff S:

I really, really related to your post. I have gone through the same thing, but with other details – I once had depression, still have anxiety / anxiety attacks, the long grief I went through when my mother died.

A lot of Christians I went to in person, even some of my family, taught me it’s wrong to admit to having emotional pain, being needy.

I got the message I was to stuff all the painful feelings down and pretend they were there. Some Christians were more concerned I handled the pain in a “godly, biblical” way than they were in being a comfort to me and so on.

I totally related to your post. I’ve been there, but in different situations.

Victorious wrote:

And some have noted the importance of deleting the history on your computer if you are researching domestic abuse resources. A control freak might monitor your computer use.

Books I have which have chapters on domestic abuse sometimes advise the reader, “If you are in an abusive relationship, you might want to hide this book from your partner, or else if your partner finds it, they may be angered to discover you reading it.”

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Second, in Semitic tribal culture Sisters had higher status than wives. Wives were property/breeding stock from Outside the Clan, Sisters were Clan Kin.

This -and some of the other stuff you wrote- sounds vaguely similar to books I had to read about Muslims back in sociology classes in college and some anthropology class.

@ Jeff S:

I am so, so sorry. I’m sure some of the Christians who told you that stuff probably (I hope) meant well, but even well-intentioned comments can hurt or cut deeply. I am soooo sorry.

I can just imagine Naghmeh must be seeing, reading, or hearing similar comments by Christians that hurt or frustrate, and I am so sorry for her too. 🙁

@ Lydia:
I take it you mean the passage where Jesus talks about turning the other cheek?

A lot of Christians tend to forget about the later incident, where Jesus was slapped unjustly by a temple guard. Jesus challenged the guard on the action, he did not turn his cheek.

From John 18:
Then one of the Temple guards standing nearby slapped Jesus across the face. “Is that the way to answer the high priest?” he demanded.

23 Jesus replied, “If I said anything wrong, you must prove it. But if I’m speaking the truth, why are you beating me?”

Jeff S wrote:

Whatever you call him

“and he was called the friend of God” James two 23

Jeff S wrote:

Proverbs 26:9 “Like a thorn that goes up into the hand of a drunkard is a proverb in the mouth of fools.”

How very suitable, Jeff! Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Christianity aside: In the secular world if anyone says they are in danger from another person, they have the right to ask for a restraining order. Even then women are killed too often because the accused did not obey the restraining order.
Speaking as one who had been a social worker it is not often that a woman makes a false accusation. I have seen some wicked men claim to be innocent as new born babes. I have never heard any man admit to being the cause of a divorce but they too often blame the wife and try to get out of paying child support and answer the questions of those they meet.
One of things that makes you want to scream and tear your hair out is men who have molested their own children (admitted and court convicted) be reconciled to their families by the state.
If this Saeed is into pornography (not to mention what goes unreported in Muslim countries) I would think his wife is being naive to trust him around their children. And we’re talking about Idaho…………
As for the fellow on this blog who says he was falsely accused by his ex-wife, would he be so kind as to have her tell her side of the story on this blog.
I have seen women who were horribly abused. One that comes to mind is a woman who had her jaw shot off and a hole in her neck (will be disfigured the rest of her life) by her husband who got off scott free and ran off with his girlfriend.
Sometimes these women are so beaten down they don’t have sense enough to get out to protect their children.
There are wolves in sheeps clothing in the churches. As J. Vernon McGee said “you can put a pig in a 3 piece suit and take him to church but let him go and he rolls in the mud”
If someone is in danger and says so… do what you can to see that the person gets some sort of protection and sort out the details later. Don’t for damn sure take the time to make Jerry feel convinced that there’s a problem before doing anything

Q wrote:

@ Jeff S:
I agree.
Yet God protected him and Sarah and blessed them.

God has protected many a person in his or her folly/sin. And he has redeemed and entire people in it.

That doesn’t really provide prescriptive behavior for us.

Sara’s situation is similar the present one in any way that I can see.

We have a woman who has asked from us nothing more (that I know of) than kindness, understanding, and prayer as she struggles with what it means to serve God in a difficult situation. I think we can give her that much.

@ Jeff S:

I could not bring myself to call Abraham, the father of all who believe, a coward.

If you’re invited to Jeff and Q’s wedding… don’t go and warn the spouses to be.

@ Lowlandseer:
Exactly. According to tradition, Mohammed was in her employ. She liked his work, and then she proposed.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
a number of the pharoahs married their sisters, though when that began, i don’t know; would have to check.

BC wrote:

Just a thought:
She made sure that legally he is not to take the children out of Idaho.
Various times when I was in graduate school it was common to see Muslim middle East foreign male students woo American girls. They would marry them if they wanted to stay in the U.S. However they often would take their child, children back to their families in the country they were from to be raised Muslim. The American mother could go too but was not allowed to take the children back to the U.S.

Like Betty Mahmoody. Her book “Not Without My Daughter” was made into a film of the same name, 1991.

@ okrapod:
thank you!

Bridget wrote:

Yes, in this case he was. You need to read up on the father’s of our faith. They were a mixed bag just like you and me. They were not without sin.

This is so true! One thing that I find perplexing is when people try to turn the fathers of the faith into “heroes”. This misses the whole point of the gospel message. There are no Bible heroes aside from Jesus. The fathers (and mothers) of the faith were human beings, exactly like us. They had shortcomings, blind spots, and sin. They were products of their cultures. What was different about them? FAITH. “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” This does not mean that everything Abraham (or the others) did was right or is a good example. This is why we need to keep our eyes on Jesus, we are followers of Jesus, not followers of his followers. At least that’s the way it’s meant to be.

Q wrote:

and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.”

And Abraham was frightened by a fear . . . which is why he lied about Sarah.

@ Victorious:
Great points. Not sure we can even begin to contemplate just how pagan and violent it was back then as a way of life. Not to mention the norm of using hyperbolic and idiomic language to communicate. The danger is when some try to teach the descriptive events as prescriptive.

The irony is we are follow and emulate Christ, not Abraham. Not Sarah. Even us gals are to follow and emulate the male Jesus. :o)

Q wrote:

How will Naghmeh know, since Sarah is not an example?

There is this wonderful thing we have! It’s called The New Testament. Check it out sometime!

OutsideLookingIn wrote:

It’s funny to me that Christians often (erroneously) say that people step away from Christianity because they want to sin when in fact, Christian “leaders” have the “work of Satan” to basically excuse virtually any behavior. For them, Christianity holds the license to sin.

It IS weird. It is like they they think they have a free pass card and well, sinners sin, so no big deal cos I am forgiven and well, God put me here. I would not be here if God had not PUT. ME. HERE. This attitude just made me nuts when I saw all the power plays, deceptive behavior and looking the other way when cruel things are done to people in churches. They have rationalized this for so long they seem to have seared their souls.

Some folks I know want a new moniker because “Christian” is just too embarrassing anymore. It puts them in the same category as a Mark Driscoll or Mahaney and it is getting old. And it can mean anything.

And I am a believer in Jesus, too. It is NOT HIS FAULT!! :o)

siteseer wrote:

Q wrote:
How will Naghmeh know, since Sarah is not an example?
There is this wonderful thing we have! It’s called The New Testament. Check it out sometime!

Hmm. In the NT, if we HAVE to follow the example of women only, I want to emulate Joanna or Suzanna. They got to travel around with Jesus.

numo wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
the term “breeding stock” is troubling, imo. We’re talking about human beings, not a herd of cattle.

Welcome to the world of Patriarchy, full quivers, and 200-year-plans for your Dynasty.

Muff Potter wrote:

Dang straight he was afraid! In fear for his life at the hands of tribal chieftains who thought nothing of bloodshed in order to acquire more females

“Tribal chieftains” with the attitude of Herd Bulls.

When reading Thomas Cahill’s Gifts of the Jews, I was struck by the concept that ha-Torah and Tanakh were given to “uplift” us to Transcend the Animal. Not directly stated, but Cahill gives us a pre-Torah religious sexual ceremony atop a ziggurat in either Babylon or Ur (from the same culture Abram came from). The image of the “worship” struck me as two-legged pre-Human animals bugling in rut.

Daisy wrote:

Usually the husband is to play the “Jesus” role to the wife, but if abuse by the husband towards the wife is in play, then many Christians or churches expect the wife to play the solid rock, shining example, Jesus figure. It’s odd how that works.

Heads he wins, Tails she loses.

dee wrote:

There is a difference between father (little f) and Father (big F.) Abraham is the the father of many nations as God promised. Unfortunately, those many nations are at war with one another due to the sin of Abraham impregnating Hagar.

It’s the biggest Middle Eastern tribal Inheritance Blood Feud in history.
(And I’ve been in an Inheritance Fight — they get UGLY.)

Lydia wrote:

siteseer wrote:
Q wrote:
How will Naghmeh know, since Sarah is not an example?
There is this wonderful thing we have! It’s called The New Testament. Check it out sometime!
Hmm. In the NT, if we HAVE to follow the example of women only, I want to emulate Joanna or Suzanna. They got to travel around with Jesus.

St. Joanna is a favorite of mine. She went where Jesus was–to the cross, and to the tomb (where he wasn’t!). She didn’t go it alone–she went with the others. She couldn’t do everything but she did what she could. According to tradition, she was the wife of Herod’s steward, Chuza. She could not stop Herod’s beheading John the Baptist…but she did recover his head and give it a decent burial. I have great admiration for her and the others like her (like Suzanna).

It’s also interesting to note that Joanna provided means of support for Christ and the disciples (Luke 8) and that when she and the other women returned from the empty tomb to report what they had seen, the disciples considered it nonsense, but good old Peter ran to the tomb to see for himself.

Q wrote:

@ Victorious:

Perhaps you should look at the context of 1 Pet. 3 where Sarah is mentioned.

I’m aware of the context. What in those verses would you like me to focus on other than the fact that Sarah called Abraham “lord?”

Can you at least see that when Sarah called Abraham “lord” it was in the context of sarcasm and her laughter because of their ages?

Victorious wrote:

Can you at least see that when Sarah called Abraham “lord” it was in the context of sarcasm and her laughter because of their ages?

No, it wasn’t sarcasm, it was unbelief. It was naturally impossible.

It’s repeated in the NT in 1 Pet. 3 not as an example on what to call your husband but as a model for NT believers to be like certain OT saints, especially Sarah, in inner beauty, modesty, and submission to their husbands.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Unfortunately, those many nations are at war with one another due to the sin of Abraham impregnating Hagar.

I’m not sure it’s Abrahams fault, they do have a choice.

But this does bring up an interesting point on joint submission, “Abraham heeded the voice of Sarai”, so in a sense they were in it together, joint submission. Later Sarai blames Abraham for the whole thing “My wrong be upon you!”. If it is solely on Abraham one of his sins would be not being the spiritual leader, saying no, and relying on God.

Q wrote:

Perhaps you should look at the context of 1 Pet. 3 where Sarah is mentioned.

Why do you keep using Sarah as an example that married women are to use?

All Christians (male and female, single and married) are to pattern themselves after Jesus Christ, not Sarah.

Q wrote:

No, it wasn’t sarcasm, it was unbelief. It was naturally impossible.

I called it sarcasm but for the same reason you did… “she laughed at such a preposterous possibility because of her and Abraham’s age.”

It’s repeated in the NT in 1 Pet. 3 not as an example on what to call your husband but as a model for NT believers to be like certain OT saints, especially Sarah, in inner beauty, modesty, and submission to their husbands.

So you are choosing which examples we are to follow in 1 Pet. 3 and which ones were not meant for us to follow? We don’t have to follow Sarah’s example of calling her husband lord, but can we braid our hair? Can we wear gold rings? Are married women the only ones who model inner beauty, modesty and submission?

Or aren’t all believers called to conduct themselves in a manner that will be an example to the unsaved world?

See here….

1Pet. 2:12 Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation.
1Pet. 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,
1Pet. 2:14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
1Pet. 2:15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.

It’s conduct and behavior that’s the focus of the passage and it’s not exclusive to wives.

@ Lydia:
Some folks I know want a new moniker because “Christian” is just too embarrassing anymore. It puts them in the same category as a Mark Driscoll or Mahaney and it is getting old. And it can mean anything. And I am a believer in Jesus,too. It is NOT HIS FAULT.

WOW!! I’m on the same page there!!

@ Victorious:

Well at least he waited for confirmation that time. 🙂

If Q is a covert op trying to push the thread into irrelevant Theological minutiae, he succeeded big time.

Not how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin —
How many mints Pastor Furtick goes through at Elevation.

Back to the Abedini issue. Do you suppose it is too late to send him back to Iran? We could maybe write an apology to Iran or something for declaring him a hero martyr and all.

Seriously I would like to know whether some of the big names who were so anxious to call him a hero knew that he had that prior conviction. There may be enough edible crow here to feed a lot of folks.

@ Q:

In 1 Peter he is talking about believers who are bound in some way to unbelievers. Just thank God you are not a converted slave to an unbelieving master in the 1st Century and be done with it. :o) Or in an arranged marriage.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

Sorry HUG. I’ll stop.

My main points are, I wish this was done out of the press and I think it’s best to hear from the man before he is condemned.

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash. ‘Tis something, nothing:
‘Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands.
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed.

@ Q:

The man is free to speak now. He certainly has the stage for it. I just want her to know I believe her and am sad at the way it came out. She will feel serious pressure from the big names in evangelicalism.

Did anyone see the article CP with Franklin Graham?

http://www.christianpost.com/news/franklin-graham-saeed-naghmeh-abedini-marriage-problems-healing-prayer-156278/

He says “I can tell one thing for sure — not everything that has been reported in the media is true”

Lydia wrote:

The man is free to speak now.

I’m not sure. I think when accused it advised to confront the person immediately (flew to Boise), obtain a lawyer, who will advise, remaining silent (no he said she said), and the TRO cases will pprobably be heard pretty quickly and there’s not a lot time to prepare.

Q wrote:

My main points are, I wish this was done out of the press and I think it’s best to hear from the man before he is condemned.

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash. ‘Tis something, nothing:
‘Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands.
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed.

I’m sure Nagmeh shares your wish it was done out of the press, as well, but sometimes -oftentimes- things do not happen in the ideal way. It’s how we respond in those times that shows what we are.

In your scenario, one of the subjects must be condemned and the other held righteous. You seem to be more comfortable condemning the woman and holding the man righteous. I do not subscribe to your black and white thinking. In the real world, we are all mixtures of positive and negative attributes. I can believe and support Nagmeh while hoping the best for Saeed.

As far as “good name” – “none is good, save one, that is, God” (Luke 18:19)

and to further expound

Psalm 62:9
Men of low degree are only vanity and men of rank are a lie; In the balances they go up; They are together lighter than breath.

A “good name” can become an idol if one must suppress truth to retain it. Better to simply seek each day to show love and to follow Christ.

Nancy2 wrote:

But, for the most part, Muslims seem to have a very low regard for women.

I don’t know about that statement. I might more say, “men in patriarchal societies and positions have a certain view on how women should behave/react/perform”. I wouldn’t want to give some orthodox or fundamentalist folks a free pass and only make blanket statements about Muslims. From all our discussion here about comps and egals, you could equally infer, “American evangelicals seem to have a very low regard for women”. And I know saying that wouldn’t sit right with you. **and yes, where is Gram3? I have saved many of her comments. Please give her my love. I have noticed a big ‘falling away'(TM) of long-time salty commenters at TWW this last year.

Nancy2 wrote:

Like what. Could he be a little more specific?

If Franklin G has personal knowledge of what is true and what is not, when and how did he get this knowledge? Did he, and the other big names in religion and politics who have championed the Saedi cause know about the man’s history all along? If so they are deceivers who have let/led the public to believe what does not seem to be true about this man’s character. Did they not have a clue? If so they are themselves deceived. It is too bad that they are not women. All that being deceived would be such good sermon material for the compmeisters.

Haitch wrote:

where is Gram3?

I’ve seen others ask this question of late. I’m relatively new to TWW, but as I recall Gram3 (I believe it was Gram3, but might be wrong) announced in a blog comment late last year that she was taking a break from the blogosphere.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
The Saudi royal family is enormous; you keep making remarks like this and i don’t see the point.

Haitch wrote:

From all our discussion here about comps and egals, you could equally infer, “American evangelicals seem to have a very low regard for women”.

Yes, many of them do.

@ okrapod:

I so agree with this.

Bridget wrote:

Haitch wrote:
From all our discussion here about comps and egals, you could equally infer, “American evangelicals seem to have a very low regard for women”.
Bridget wrote: Yes, many of them do.

Oh, but only the subordinate “roles” in which we function! We are, after all, ontologically equal, while only functionally subordinate!
Uhhhhgg!

@ Q:
Why are you trolling this thread? Is it just for kicks?

Jerry wrote:

If you read my post, I said I am not saying she is lying, there just certain aspects of her posts that don’t completely add up to me. So without further clarification, it is hard to understand some of the questions I raised. He certainly could have abused her for the first 10 years of their marriage. If it did occur, than she is certainly taking wise steps. Just not sure how the abuse and pornography allegations she made occurred while he was in prison. That part doesn’t add up to me.

Why does Jerry appoint himself as judge and jury to Mrs. Abedini? He seems to be starting with the assumption that she is probably lying, and that she has to prove that she is telling the truth. There are a lot of “Christian” men like this, including the men at a friend’s church who kicked her out for leaving her abusive husband. Even ending up in the hospital was not sufficient evidence for them. I have another friend who was also excommunicated for separating from her husband to protect herself because he refused to pay any taxes.

With regard to Jerry’s statement that Mrs. Abedini must be lying because an Iranian prison would never allow Internet or Skype access, how does he know that this is true? And his statement that she should have just hung up if he became abusive is ridiculous. When your husband, no matter how abusive, is being held a hostile country, to hang up could cause great harm to the possibility of him being released.

@ numo:

I’m not trolling. I don’t see some things the same, not groupthink. I’ve attempted to get the thread back on topic. I’ll take a break.

@ okrapod:
If they’re anything like the Friends of T. Jones, i doubt they care one way or the other.

Q wrote:

I’ve attempted to get the thread back on topic. I’ll take a break.

I’ll do the same. 🙂

Max wrote:

OK, I’ve read enough about “Pastor” Abedini. Does anyone know how he came about that title?

I can’t find any info on his education. Wiki simply says that he is an “ordained minister”. You don’t even have to have a GED to become an “ordained minister”. All you have to do is say that you are committed to God and the church and get a letter of recommendation from a friend!

Some info from. http://www.christianheadlines.com/news/5-things-christians-need-to-know-about-the-persecution-of-pastor-saeed-abedini.html

“1. How Did Pastor Saeed Become a Christian?

Pastor Saeed has dual citizenship, but Iran does not recognize his American nationality.”

Nancy2 wrote:

Pastor Saeed has dual citizenship, but Iran does not recognize his American nationality.

If he took his children to Iran, he could easily keep them from ever coming back to America.

@ Nancy2:
http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/timeline-of-the-saeed-abedinis-ministry-arrest/43632.htm

This had info about his ordination.

Here is the school.

http://wordpress.aeaministries.org

Bridget wrote:

Here is the school.
http://wordpress.aeaministries.org

The history of aeaministries http://wordpress.aeaministries.org/history/
has a recent newsletter which mentions several blogs. I went to the one entitled, “The Generous Husband” to find this “servant-leader” position of the husband.

•God made husbands servant leaders, with Jesus as our example. Men lead for the benefit of their wives, not for their own benefit.
•Leadership always carries a heavier responsibility and price than following.

http://www.the-generous-husband.com/2013/07/17/what-i-believe/

Nancy2 wrote:

Pastor Saeed has dual citizenship, but Iran does not recognize his American nationality.”

Jus Sanguinis vs Jus Soli.

The fact Saeed is an ethnic Iranian makes him Iranian under Jus Sanguinis.

elastigirl wrote:

all this Abraham and Sarah stuff and emulating their supposed role modelship…

I put all this in the ‘hold on loosely’ category. all of it is sketchy, obscured by the etching sands of time & far removed place (if not redaction).

Man-oh-Manischewitz you said a mouthful of truth there elastigirl, and I like your metaphor of sand and time. It allows me a certain measure of credence to stand on my previous speculation regarding Abraham’s supposed ‘sin’. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if it turned out that Sarah engineered the whole thing and talked Abraham down from a course of belligerence that may have gotten them all killed.

Aimee wrote:

Often the worst kind of abuse hides in the form of godliness.

I’ve always found that those who claim to be the most godly are actually the biggest sinners. I learned that lesson as a teen in a Calvinist church (PCA – thank God I doubted their man is good, woman is bad nonsense).

siteseer wrote:

Why do people feel so confident to state what Satan or God would like? Do they have some kind of inside line?

They listen to God with one ear, Satan with the other, and then speak out both sides of their mouth?⁉️

Q wrote:

@ Victorious:
The scriptures I am referring to are specifically written to wives, or in the egal world at least women. And the next set of verses is written directly to husbands or at least men. Why make a distinction?

The overall pattern for Christians to follow regardless of their gender is Jesus Christ – not Sarah.

As a never-married woman, all your blathering about Sarah supposedly being a role model (for married women?) doesn’t register with me anyway.

And if I ever marry, it will probably be to a Non-Christian because I don’t trust 99% of self professing Christian ones (some of the present males on this blog, such as Jeff aside, who are decent people) as far as I can throw an elephant.

Especially not the Christian guys who are obsessed with male headship and being authoritarians over a wife, even if they try to sugar coat this control by calling it “servant leadership.”

Viva la being single – and not feeling obligated to follow and adhere to every little teaching Christians insist one must, either. It does have its perks.

Daisy wrote:

He’s trying to convey that is what some men in some religion traditions think about women, or how they treat women (and I’d have to agree with him on that). HUG can correct me if I’m wrong on any of that.

That’s what I’m trying to say.
Using very strong language to show the attitude these guys have.
(For instance, I didn’t come up with the term “penis home” for woman. And I didn’t try to pass it off as Godly. Now meditate on the attitude it implies.)

Nancy2 wrote:

http://wordpress.aeaministries.org/membership-services/
I explored the site. Apparently, all it takes to become a member is an application and a personal check. Click on the link and you will see that the AEA offers a “spiritual covering for every member”. Go to the bottom of the page and click on “Learn about the Credentialing Process ……..”

Just like a Diploma mill.

Do you get to be a Bishop, Apostle, or Pope if you send a big enough check?

@ Muff Potter:

Sort of like Abigail? You gotta wonder how many lives Abigail saved with her wise decision.

numo wrote:

This is certainly a weird thread. Harems and all.

I met someone once, a Western woman, who had lived in a harem and spoke very positively about her experience (had to pick my jaw off the floor, but there you go) I know where you are coming from with some of HUG’s ‘breeder’ comments etc – and I 100% believe that HUG doesn’t think at all this way towards women. But it is hard to read sometimes, and honestly, sets off a bit of a sick feeling for me, knowing that there are those who ascribe to those views and live accordingly. I think for someone coming in here to read later and not knowing the context for a comment on (search terms coming up) “Piper’s wife spewing throne room” it would read as pretty disturbing. Which actually, knowing about the incident really really was. And also being reminded of it. I don’t have an easy answer – some of this stuff sears into my mind and I would rather not be reminded of it. But I also wouldn’t like to see those with large followings be let off the hook. #Piper’s numerous kooky tweets #Driscoll should have stayed ‘homeless’ in his blog descriptions (etc etc)

Jeff S wrote:

I was told by a well regarded woman at the church (in fact, I’d even led the worship at her husband’s funeral) that I had not loved my wife with “agape” love, because if I had, our marriage would not be failing. She told me “agape” love does not fail.
And of course, there were multiple people to remind me to love my wife the way Jesus loved the church. And what did he do for the church. He DIED for the church.
Not only was I wrong to hurt, but I was wrong in not being able to fix someone else. Wrong for not being able to be her savior.

This sounds identical in principle to Word of Faith. In their unbiblcal world, it is always your fault for not having enough faith/love etc. and victims become guilty because they are victims.

@ Aimee:

Hi, Aimee. I wanted you to know that I noticed your comment. I’m sure you have a story to tell. I hope you are free to be transparent. I assume you at least have a modicum of freedom, since there is a photo attached to your name.

I’m sure it’s been a rough road. I am sorry for the pain, shame, humiliation, loss, and I assume injustice of the whole situation.

I hope you have found friends, allies, a support system, and love with skin on.

@ Haitch:
Where did this woman live?

@ Lydia:
You’ve been saying this sbout my comments ever since I 1st got here, about 5 years ago. We are both free to speak here, yes? There’s no shame in that!

Now, as I’ve said before, it’s probably best for me to just not comment on your comments, since it seems thst things invariably go downhill when i do respond.

Pax,
numo

Haitch wrote:

I know where you are coming from with some of HUG’s ‘breeder’ comments etc – and I 100% believe that HUG doesn’t think at all this way towards women. But it is hard to read sometimes, and honestly, sets off a bit of a sick feeling for me,

When I found TWW, I could tell HUG was joking right off the bat. Doesn’t bother me one bit, and I’m a female with a bit of a temper. No offense to HUG, but I’ve been around smart-mouths my whole life. Been known to stick a few jabs myself.

Nancy2 wrote:

Doesn’t bother me one bit

Bully for you, but I explained how it triggered me sometimes, and I get a physical reaction. Please don’t negate or minimise me. There was no criticism implied of HUG himself, he can say what he wants and usually does. I mostly like his sense of humour and have been known to think later of something he has written and laugh out loud (then look around furtively to see if anyone noticed me). Knock your socks off HUG, in no way would I want to imply censorship or shaming. I’ve given you a hard time in the past, I know. Lydia – I have no idea what you are saying re: “the left” – this is not a political discussion and I don’t think binary in terms of right or left anyhow. Peace out.

Nancy2 wrote:

When I found TWW, I could tell HUG was joking right off the bat.

Joking in the sense of South Park, with the subtitle “THIS IS WHAT MALE SUPREMACY ACTUALLY BELIEVES”.

Doesn’t bother me one bit, and I’m a female with a bit of a temper. No offense to HUG, but I’ve been around smart-mouths my whole life. Been known to stick a few jabs myself.

I became a smart-mouth because in my situation growing up, smart-mouthing was the only outlet I had. And blog-commenting is good practice for wordsmithing.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

I figure they got burned BAD or Worse and got stuck in full-honk revenge mode against anything female.

My cousin is one one such type – he’s hard to be around because of the venom about women that comes from his mouth. That being said, I usually don’t let him off the hook when he starts his hate-fest in front of polite dinner company as I figure silence is agreeance. Everyone else would sit there in polite shock/horror. Unfortunately the last time he tried to feel me up as I was hugging my aunty goodbye. It was done so publicly and yet sneakily. I was unable to punch him, but when I got home I rang my aunty and told her never do I want to see him at a function when I’m there. So apart from his mother he just lost his other ally, as I was a rare person who would listen to him, go outside and have a smoke with him (I don’t smoke usually) etc. Until that moment I had thought he was worth still engaging with, despite his hate talk towards women – he was depressed, alcoholic, out of work and lived in a factory.
Anyhoo, why did I say all that? I think we all do that, swing wildly against the opposite sex (sorry, leaving SSA out of this discussion) when we’ve been hurt, then eventually come back into balance. Everyone’s timing is different. It’s sad when some don’t, and stay out on the precipice, because there’s an immaturity that remains. They’re holding back their own growth and healing. Life is about aiming towards wholeness, yes? I’m listening to my own words here also. Enough talk about my cousin, he leaves me with a bit of a sick feeling inside too.

You’re alright HUG, and I’m glad you heard what I had to say, and numo too. Thanks.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
In other words, the whole thing is incredibly juvenile. Why anyone with an ounce of creativity would want to be stuck in a 3d grader’s mind, I’m not sure, but I’m tired of it. They could actually be much more creative within those limits, but they stick to either being insensitive or gross or both. The show died a long time ago, really.

@ numo:

It’s been a long time since I’ve seen South Park. I’m not a fan of bathroom humor, so I could do without the potty humor on the show.

I thought the episode where they razzed Lucas or Spielberg over the last Indiana Jones movie was terribly tasteless, and not in a funny way.

Out of the early episodes I remember, I like the one where Cartman was a cop, the “dance off” episode where the kids kept saying, “you got served,” and the show where the dopey, nerdy school counselor (who was anti-drugs) got high (or drunk?) and sang the Pat Benatar song “Heartache to Heartache.”

@ Daisy:
The manosphere types have the internet, which makes it all orders of magnitude worse.

Daisy wrote:

dill weeds

I love this expression, I’m adopting it…

You people are the ladocean Church, you think you are wise, but you are poor wretched blind and naked. There is not a real believer among you. I pray that you will open your eyes to the truth, but the truth is you won’t until you face true hardship and persecution. You can call yourselves Christians but you’re fruit is rotten, remember that every branch that does not produce good fruit will be cut off and cast into the fire.

Gosh. I guess that “Averagejo” missed his turnoff to the stoning……

@ Averagjo:
Feel better?

numo wrote:

@ Daisy:
The manosphere types have the internet, which makes it all orders of magnitude worse.

Any Loud Crazy with a Net connection makes the Loud Crazy all orders of magnitude worse.