Now I’m beginning to think false teachers might even refer to nuns and priests who abuse children as well as some Christians who even condone such abuse and Christians who condescend to others’ sufferings. Let alone bother to show a studied understanding for other people’s problems and vices. Like I think there could be a real empathy deficit in Christianity.
This can even extend to family members and why such abuse or at least vices goes on with some Christians even condoning it. I even think this lack of sensitivity might partly explain why some people leave the Church or at least doubt it. Not to mention the inability to understand why people have those vices and show empathy’s really jarring. As well as the possibility that the people they like more are just as sinful/problematic/fallible.
One could talk down to one person but be either ignorant of or even tolerate somebody else’s vice like it’s either a form of favouritism or real lack of empathy in the form of serious control issues. The relative who mocks somebody else probably got emotionally neglected as a child (their mother may’ve stonewalled them), got into bad influences and are even possibly depressed.
And the person who talks down to somebody else might also be either in the wrong or have some control issues that makes them go easy on abusers. That might also be true for the Catholic Church at large and why abusive behaviour was condoned for such a long time. It even has a number of otherwise vice-prone popes, most notably Rodrigo Borgia.
The fact that almost anything affiliated with the Catholic Church (as well as some churches in general) seems to be easily taken advantage of by abusers and people who never check in their behaviour like Magdalene laundries and the like is alarming. I could be speaking from experience but when a Christian schoolteacher laughs at Joseph being raped by somebody’s wife never mind that there are men who do get abused by women in reality (Princess Diana was even mean to Prince Charles) that it seems Christians really have an empathy deficit.
As well as a lack of awareness of the false teachers in their environments and the inability to know why abusiveness exists even when it’s needed to lessen or understand it more.
Though it’s not wrong to follow fashion trends, I suspect there has to be a reason why others are told to avoid it or at least minimise on depending on it for so much. One could easily blow thousands of money on making your own clothes instead and that of others. And the odd fact that for most of the part, folk and clerical clothing don’t as much or at least as drastically as secular fashion trends do (though in some cases, when it comes to missionaries, the fashion sense gets changed for the better on their behalf*).
Nun clothing has remained fairly similar** over the ages even though it’s changed in some cases. After if the principle’s to avoid what’s hated or forbidden in your religion, it’s better to stick to what seems dowdy but effectively distinctive. (I think even some religious texts have a similar idea so.) It’s not wrong to follow fashion trends and it’s not wrong to be influenced by anything else. The real issue’s that either you need to be pickier with your influences or reject trends for good.
*Ireland’s also an odd exception but in that it’s got to do with economic reasons though some Irish dance groups still stick to traditional costumes more.
**Similar things can be said of football/soccer uniforms and to some extent, certain nursing and doctor uniforms too.
Though it’s not wrong to follow fashion trends, it can be both economically detrimental and contrary against your beliefs. If your religion dictates you to dress modestly, it’s not that you don’t have time to wear shorts but it’s something you only wear on a few circumstances (like indoors and sports). Same with minidresses and miniskirts.
As for the practical side, it’s not just a matter of wastefulness but also that it can be costly constantly following trends when you have other priorities (including making the clothes you want or like to wear). It’s not wrong to want to wear trendy clothing but there’s a reason why basics have staying power. They’re similar and outlast any season due to its myriad practicalities.
It’s not wrong to follow trends but that it’s really not worth your time especially if you not only follow your own principles but also your community’s values, especially if they’re against them. (There’s a reason why nuns dress the way they do.)
Though it’s not technically and principally wrong to wear such outfits, there are times where somebody might be coerced to wear these not so much out of truly religious obligation but as a desire to control or manipulate them out of unhappiness and anxiety that leads the wearer to suffer a lot more. I even been through this when it came to at least a few controlling relatives (especially on my mother’s side) and they seemed to want me to wear worldly outfits.
(That makes my misguided anger at my granny making me wear such a dress seem reaonsable and I got the consequence or karma.)
Though it’s not wrong to be dressed by others, at other times it feels like being done against your will like hazing (I’ve been through something similar before and so do others). Sometimes it might be a much worse factor making somebody dress in a way that’s even condemned in the Bible and by others as a form of witchcraft even, I’m not making this up as to make others better understand this.
Immodesty itself’s not bad in and of itself but I think it’s best left conditional in the sense of cooling off and to do certain things like certain sports for instance. But at other times resist the urge to dress against your will and beliefs.
Keep in mind some people don’t always sexually abuse out of paraphilia, this is more of a thing of a specific sort that’s just as bad in some regards. One of these is grooming. This involves desensitation to certain disgusting things which acts as a precursor to actual child sexual abuse. Michael Jackson did it and so does Satan.
Or to put it bluntly, even without the sexual abuse it can still be a bad influence. Whether if it’s somebody being hazed as to bear degrading acts or people learning to tease from witnessing or observing their frenemies. Or people acting out because they got abuse. It does feel like that.
And why we should at least try to either avoid or at least minimise it as well as learning from it.
That’s something I suspected all along whether in learning about bullying in sports or men as victims of domestic abuse, it does happen. It even happens a lot of times in the Bible and something that should alert more Christians to the possibility that men can get abused. Leaving Neverland was a warning in a way.
Especially when it comes to two men admitted to being abused by a certain popstar. And that some nuns are just as guilty of abusing children as priests. I vaguely remember a story about a nun burning somebody. And a film where a nun abused girls in her care. There were even books about it.
That men do get abused and hazed a lot in sports and the army should alert and concern Christians more as it happens in the Bible too.
Something that Christians should really take note of and not trivialise as it’s even recorded in the Bible at least twice. Samson got his eyes out by a woman. Joseph got abused by somebody’s wife. The fact that many more men might be abused by women is something that should be taken more seriously.
Princess Diana should be the biggest warning. She even taunted and beat up Prince Charles whenever he prayed. This should be a sign that says even women can be abusive to men and people in general. There are people saying that they got abused by nuns. And women also haze people too (especially in cheerleading).
And something Christians should take an interest in to better understand these things and helping out abused victims of any sort.
I remember having a schoolteacher who joked about Joseph being raped. She thinks women can’t rape or abuse men never mind it happens anyways in real life. I even think Joseph, though not the original battered man, should be the best known example. He got abused by his brothers and then by somebody else’s wife.
And there are many more men turning out to be abused by women. There are white men who say how violent their Japanese ex-wives are. Princess Diana was even violent to Prince Charles. That men can get raped or sexually abused (heck hazing contains sexual and emotional abuse, proof that even athletes and cheerleaders do get bullied).
Something that should make more since in why Potiphar’s wife abused Joseph.
Since I know hazing (and if you will bullying) exists very often in cheerleading and sports and sexual abuse does exist in sports as well, that’s something Christians need to understand as well. If I’m not mistaken, there was a study stating that most footballers are underpaid and others are even abused. Racism and sexism happens in sports.
Cheerleader and jocks get bullied and desensitised to degrading activity whenever they’re hazed. And something that resembles temptation in the sense that abusers lurk anywhere. They could even be friends and others won’t notice. I even said that Satan’s like a Manic Pixie Dream Girl. And since there are men who get abused by women, this is even recorded in the Bible.
And the thought of a Manic Pixie Dream Girl who hazes and humiliates people is something that should motivate Christians into taking hazing more seriously as with men getting abused by women.
Whilst I think many Evangelicals think it’s how God planned things but when it comes to understanding the nature of vice they should put more effort in it. This includes an interest in therapy, psychology and medicine and historically speaking at least in Europe, there was and still is a proud tradition of monastic medicine with nuns and priests trained to handle diseases. There might be Christians in medicine, psychology and therapy.
But not enough to address other things more effectively, let alone in a way normal people understand. The need to understand people involves much more work and effort into knowing how and why they’re like that. People who idolise dogs (or any other beast a lot), if I’m not mistaken and from what I remember, are likelier to be socially isolated (or have an avoidant attachment) and this plays into old stereotypes of spinsters and their lapdogs.
(Keep in mind the idea of dogs as pure companionate animals wasn’t there yet, let alone universally and consistently accepted.)
Or people who tend to be condescending likely have really low self-esteems and overcompensate. Perfectionists having serious anger issues and so on. It’s going to be hard understanding people and the root causes of their vices but rewarding in knowing how and why such vices came to be.