![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Deferential Diagnosis?
Before he left this morning's Jehovah's Witness asked if he could leave behind a tract. I said sure and he slipped it under the door. After returned I retrieved it. It is called 'Enjoy Family Life' and asks if families can really be happy.
The front cover shows a full-colour photograph of a white family in a park, the man holding a parrot, a young boy standing beside him looking and pointing at the parrot (macaw, not a local bird), a woman sitting at the man's feet and a younger girl sitting beside her petting two small dogs. Of course they all look quite happy.
It opens by claiming families today are bombarded by many problems and then saying that we need to know the origin of the family to know why they face problems in the present and how they can be happy. Which of course makes sense - I was never able to enjoy playing chess until I learned the name of the designer and the purpose for which it was made.
The tract establishes that marriage could not have originated from pair-bonding as seen in other animals and perhaps our ancestors because Jesus said humans should not unjoin what God has joined.
The front cover shows a full-colour photograph of a white family in a park, the man holding a parrot, a young boy standing beside him looking and pointing at the parrot (macaw, not a local bird), a woman sitting at the man's feet and a younger girl sitting beside her petting two small dogs. Of course they all look quite happy.
It opens by claiming families today are bombarded by many problems and then saying that we need to know the origin of the family to know why they face problems in the present and how they can be happy. Which of course makes sense - I was never able to enjoy playing chess until I learned the name of the designer and the purpose for which it was made.
The tract establishes that marriage could not have originated from pair-bonding as seen in other animals and perhaps our ancestors because Jesus said humans should not unjoin what God has joined.
(I should point out here that it turns out the inside pages show a happy black family and the back page features an asian man with a child on his shoulders)
Then the tract points out its disagreement with what I have been told is the 80s "Greed is good". Apparently pursuing material possessions does not lead to 'success', which causes me to wonder what they are using success to mean since they apparently do not mean the same thing as the rest of us English speakers. The tract declares materialism to be one of the greatest threats to family life, by which I suppose they mean an excessive concern for possessions and the accumulation thereof, rather than the theory that only the material exists, although I would not put it past the author(s) to mean both.
Here follows a pair of '[p]owerful' biblical proverbs to help show us what is important in happiness. One of them is Proverbs 15:17:
Finally there is their actual advice for good family life. First, that husbands should honour their wives by giving them reassurance and attention. Be concerned for her as if she were an actual human being, yes.
Secondly, that wives should have deep respect for their husbands. See, apparently '[a] wife contributes to family happiness by assisting her husband to fulfill [sic] his heavy responsibilities. This is what was intended, since God provided a wife to to be "a helper for him, as a complement of him." (Genesis 2:18) Can you appreciate the blessing to family life when a wife shows her husband respect by supporting his decisions and cooperating with him to achieve family goals?'
No.
This tract says a man should contribute to familial happiness by treating his wife as an anxious pet who needs soothing and reassurance whereas a woman contributes by being a man's loyal servant and sycophant. Can anyone spell S-E-X-I-S-T? Thought so. How about I-M-M-O-R-A-L?
Speaking of loyalty, the tract of course advises against adultery, of course. Included is a biblical quote telling men to be happy with their wives, no equivalent provided for women. Is there in fact a case in the Bible where the you being addressed is not a man?
Children are to be brought up being taught the right principles and with discipline. Children are likewise advised to obey their parents. After all, we all know what happens to naughty children.
Am I convinced? Well, no. There is an occasional phrase in there that looks good or sensible but most of it is nonsense or immoral. I suppose there is not much room to make your case when limited to a single sheet of paper.
Here follows a pair of '[p]owerful' biblical proverbs to help show us what is important in happiness. One of them is Proverbs 15:17:
"Better to eat vegetables with people you love than to eat the finest meat where there is hate."Which is a fine sentiment except for the amusing implication that vegetables are ever and always an inferior food one is expected to scorn.
Finally there is their actual advice for good family life. First, that husbands should honour their wives by giving them reassurance and attention. Be concerned for her as if she were an actual human being, yes.
Secondly, that wives should have deep respect for their husbands. See, apparently '[a] wife contributes to family happiness by assisting her husband to fulfill [sic] his heavy responsibilities. This is what was intended, since God provided a wife to to be "a helper for him, as a complement of him." (Genesis 2:18) Can you appreciate the blessing to family life when a wife shows her husband respect by supporting his decisions and cooperating with him to achieve family goals?'
No.
This tract says a man should contribute to familial happiness by treating his wife as an anxious pet who needs soothing and reassurance whereas a woman contributes by being a man's loyal servant and sycophant. Can anyone spell S-E-X-I-S-T? Thought so. How about I-M-M-O-R-A-L?
Speaking of loyalty, the tract of course advises against adultery, of course. Included is a biblical quote telling men to be happy with their wives, no equivalent provided for women. Is there in fact a case in the Bible where the you being addressed is not a man?
Children are to be brought up being taught the right principles and with discipline. Children are likewise advised to obey their parents. After all, we all know what happens to naughty children.
Am I convinced? Well, no. There is an occasional phrase in there that looks good or sensible but most of it is nonsense or immoral. I suppose there is not much room to make your case when limited to a single sheet of paper.