RIP #MeToo

[oxmixmudd]

Oh, he's happy to dish it out, but beware of the crocodile tears and cries of "Woe is me!" if the little hypocrite is ever asked to take it.

Actually, you do not understand. They are not cries of "woe is me" in the sense that you would like to portray (and mock for that matter). The harm to your soul and conscience are my concern. A person cannot be as vicious and heartless as many of you are on this site without serious consequences to your soul, your innocence, your spiritual heart. My hope has been to raise your awareness of what you are doing and to find a means of pricking your conscience before you have seered it to the point you no longer have one.

I am not a fool that would bare his soul publically for no purpose. I had hoped you, pix, cp, those I approached in that manner, could be changed from the current darkness that drives the bile you spill on others on these pages.

[lilpixieofterror]

Actually, you do not understand. They are not cries of "woe is me" in the sense thatvyoubwould like to portray (and mock for that matter). The harm to your soul and conscience are my concern. A person cannot be as vicious and heartless as many of you are on this site without serious consequences to your soul, your innocence, your spiritual heart. My hope is to raise your awareness of what you are doing and to find a means of pricking your conscience before you have seered it to the point you no longer have one.

I am not a fool that would bare his soul publically for no purpose. I had hoped you, pix, cp, those I approached in that manner, could be changed from the current darkness that drives the bile you spill on others on these pages.

[Mountain Man]

I said that conservative churches often create environments that are conducive to abuse.

I know what you've said. I also know that you have presented zero objective facts or studies to support your assertion that abuse of women is encouraged in "many conservative churches", which was your original claim. Just because you've convinced yourself that it must be true doesn't mean a darn thing. And come to think of it, I really don't know what you mean by "conservative churches".

When a man is told his wife should submit to him, it creates an environment where abuse is more likely. She is now 'wrong' if she challenges his decisions, or refuses to do what he demands. Different men will react at different levels to that circumstance or will insist on this 'submission' with different intensities, but when the expectation is that the wife will do what the man says, it is a very different dynamic than the environment where the two work it out together and come to a mutual decision that respects the needs and desires of both. The former encourages abuse. The latter does not.

I suppose this might be possible in theory, especially if such teachings are not given proper context and balanced with Biblical admonitions for the husband to love and care for his wife, but you have presented nothing to convince me that "conservative churches" in general do not present balanced instruction, and that abuse of women is inevitable and commonplace. As I said, if your personal experience leads you to believe that this is the case then you need to pick better churches.

[lilpixieofterror]

I know what you've said. I also know that you have presented zero objective facts or studies to support your assertion that abuse of women is encouraged in "many conservative churches", which was your original claim. Just because you've convinced yourself that it must be true doesn't mean a darn thing. And come to think of it, I really don't know what you mean by "conservative churches".


I suppose this might be possible in theory, especially if such teachings are not given proper context and balanced with Biblical admonitions for the husband to love and care for his wife, but you have presented nothing to convince me that "conservative churches" in general do not present balanced instruction, and that abuse of women is inevitable and commonplace. As I said, if your personal experience leads you to believe that this is the case then you need to pick better churches.

[Mountain Man]

Actually, you do not understand. They are not cries of "woe is me" in the sense that you would like to portray (and mock for that matter). The harm to your soul and conscience are my concern. A person cannot be as vicious and heartless as many of you are on this site without serious consequences to your soul, your innocence, your spiritual heart. My hope has been to raise your awareness of what you are doing and to find a means of pricking your conscience before you have seered it to the point you no longer have one.

I am not a fool that would bare his soul publically for no purpose. I had hoped you, pix, cp, those I approached in that manner, could be changed from the current darkness that drives the bile you spill on others on these pages.

It's okay, it's not like I didn't expect you to hypocritically justify your own use of insults while self-righteously condemning others. You do it so often and so blatantly that it doesn't even shock me anymore.

[Mountain Man]

Frankly, what he's describing sounds more like a cult than a church, so if this is something he regularly observes firsthand then it begs some troubling questions.

[lilpixieofterror]

Frankly, what he's describing sounds like more a cult than a church.

[oxmixmudd]

I know what you've said. I also know that you have presented zero objective facts or studies to support your assertion that abuse of women is encouraged in "many conservative churches", which was your original claim. Just because you've convinced yourself that it must be true doesn't mean a darn thing. And come to think of it, I really don't know what you mean by "conservative churches".


I suppose this might be possible in theory, especially if such teachings are not given proper context and balanced with Biblical admonitions for the husband to love and care for his wife, but you have presented nothing to convince me that "conservative churches" in general do not present balanced instruction, and that abuse of women is inevitable and commonplace. As I said, if your personal experience leads you to believe that this is the case then you need to pick better churches.

No, you dont know what I have said.

I said this:

Unfortunately, when it comes to the abuse of women, many conservative churches adopt policies and attitudes that encourage it rather than deter it.

You translated that statement into:

abuse of women is encouraged in "many conservative churches"

They are not the same stament MM. They are not even remotely the same statement. Are you simply careless or are you unable to comprehend the difference?

If it is the latter, then let me know and I'll do what I can to help you understand the vast difference between them.

As to your second paragraph (which ny itself could have been a good launching point for real discussion), yes, many conservative churches are unbalanced in the juxtaposition of "husbands love your wives AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH" and "wives submit to your husbands."

But there is more to it than that.

[Mountain Man]

"Many conservative churches adopt policies and attitudes that encourage abuse of women rather than deter it."

"Many conservative churches encourage abuse of women."

I don't see how these are not equivalent statements.

[Mountain Man]

...many conservative churches are unbalanced in the juxtaposition of "husbands love your wives AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH" and "wives submit to your husbands."

Last time I'll ask, and then I'm done with this thread: Where is your evidence to support this assertion?

[oxmixmudd]

"Many conservative churches adopt policies and attitudes that encourage abuse of women rather than deter it."

"Many conservative churches encourage abuse of women."

I don't see how these are not equivalent statements.

Ok. However, given that you dont, I would say that would be perhaps the crux of many of our disagreements.

I can create an environment that has the exact opposite effect of my intentions. Your summary puts abuse as the intent of the teaching. My statement does not. And there is a huge difference between actually teaching abuse and creating an environment that has that effect through ignorance or unbalanced teaching.

I know of some fringe conservative churches that actually teach husbands to be abusive to wives, but that is not what I'm talking about, and yes, often they are essentially like a cult.

What I am talking about is that just emulating the ancient patrarchical order in the church creates an environment that diminishes women and encourages abuse. It doesnt do that by actually teaching abuse. It does that simply by being patriarchal and through that reaping its consequences: diminishing the worth and value of women in the church itself.

But far to often, the installment of the patronizing attitudes to women has more far reaching effects. Men taking on attitudes that lead to various forms of verbal or even physical abuse as they attempt to make sure the 'proper' order is maintained in their home.

Gifted women being marginalized because they are women and thus cant teach mixed groups, or function as elders or pastors.

In some undercurrents, young women are discouraged from attending college, because their proper 'place' in the world is to be the 'helpmeet' for the husband and to stay at home and care for the kids.

[lilpixieofterror]

Ok. However, given that you dont, I would say that would be perhaps the crux of many of our disagreements.

I can create an environment that has the exact opposite effect of my intentions.

I know of some fringe conservative churches that actually teach husbands to be abusive to wives, but that is not what I'm talking about, and yes, often they are essentially like a cult.

What I am talking a out is that just emulating the ancient patrarchical order in the church creates an environment that diminishes women and encourages abuse. It doesnt do that by teaching abuse. It does that simply by geing patriarchal and through that diminishing the worth and value of women in the church itself. That is the minimal way it is encouraged.

But far to often, the installment of the patronizing attitudes to women has more far reaching effects. Men taking on attitudes that lead to various forms of verbal or even physical abuse as they attempt to make sure the 'proper' order is maintained in their home.

Gifted women being marginalized because they are women and thus cant teach mixed groups, or function as elders or pastors.

In some undercurrents, women are discouraged from attending college, because their proper 'place's in the world is to be the 'helpmeet' for the husband and to stay at home and care for the kids.

[oxmixmudd]

Last time I'll ask, and then I'm done with this thread: Where is your evidence to support this assertion?

What sort of evidence would you accept?

I've already pointed you at the ess and the issues it raises. Simolicio raised the issue of Patterson and others like him. Would you accept stories of abused women that find themselves abandoned by their church leadership? Would you accept videos of sermons by popular leaders in conservative circles that encourage attitudes that can lead to abuse. Do you want psycologiacal studies of the effect of fundamentalist ideals on females raised in such churches?

[Mountain Man]

What sort of evidence would you accept?

I already told you, idiot: studies or statistics or other objective evidence. Sorry, but your anecdotes and "just so" stories won't cut it. I accept that abuse of women happens in churches just as it happens in society at large; however, I don't accept your bald assertion that it is encouraged by the teachings of "conservative churches" (a term which you still haven't bothered to define).

Since it appears you're going to keep running in slippery circles, I'm done.

[lilpixieofterror]

I already told you, idiot: studies or statistics or other objective evidence. Sorry, but your anecdotes and "just so" stories won't cut it. I accept that abuse of women happens in churches just as it happens in society at large; however, I don't accept your bald assertion that it is encouraged by the teachings of "conservative churches" (a term which you still haven't bothered to define).

Since it appears you're going to keep running in slippery circles, I'm done.