Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
RIP #MeToo
Collapse
X
-
My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostYeah, ox has subtly changed his tune on that point (though he won't admit it). It's apparently only nominal church goers who have a problem, but he still wants to blame the church for it."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostYou are truly a gutter level personality. If you are not seriously moderated for this then this place is truly the antithesis of a Christian website.
Points out Jim’s own words = evil!
Hypocrisy, got to love it."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostAll I did was post your own previous statement in juxtaposition to your last post.
This site Sparko fosters hatred and animosity. It rewards hostility and trickery, a nasty snipe is worth more than a pages worth of research into the truth. It punishes those that are honest and truthful and rewards those the are deceitful and dishonest. And there is a band of hooligans here posing as Christians that rip to shreds any decent person that tries to enter into any real discussion.
If it was me, I would not want that to be my legacy or my reward for the time and effort and money I'd be putting into maintaining this thing.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostYou can't justify the affirmation of a false statement from MM by ripping two statements of mine out of context. What you did was affirm a lie. And that is not some minor thing.
This site Sparko fosters hatred and animosity. It rewards hostility and trickery, a nasty snipe is worth more than a pages worth of research into the truth. It punishes those that are honest and truthful and rewards those the are deceitful and dishonest. And there is a band of hooligans here posing as Christians that rip to shreds any decent person that tries to enter into any real discussion.
If it was me, I would not want that to be my legacy or my reward for the time and effort and money I'd be putting into maintaining this thing."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostYou can't justify the affirmation of a false statement from MM by ripping two statements of mine out of context. What you did was affirm a lie. And that is not some minor thing.
This site Sparko fosters hatred and animosity. It rewards hostility and trickery, a nasty snipe is worth more than a pages worth of research into the truth. It punishes those that are honest and truthful and rewards those the are deceitful and dishonest. And there is a band of hooligans here posing as Christians that rip to shreds any decent person that tries to enter into any real discussion.
If it was me, I would not want that to be my legacy or my reward for the time and effort and money I'd be putting into maintaining this thing.
I am at a loss. MM seems to be correct. You are arguing both that conservative churches foster abuse in men and that men who attend conservative churches are less likely to be abusive. All I did was post both of your statements together to show the contradiction.
When someone points out your contradiction, you get mad and accuse them of "affirming a lie"
Let me try it again with your exact words:
Unfortunately, when it comes to the abuse of women, many conservative churches adopt policies and attitudes that encourage it rather than deter it.
Yet your article you linked to and you yourself said:
It says, the more you attend the less likely you are to abuse, with those attending the most are the least likely to abuse.
I am not trying to twist your words, or "affirm a lie" I am trying to understand how you can say that conservative churches encourage abuse but that attending conservative churches make you less likely to be abusive?
Please explain instead of getting mad and insulting everyone. Thanks.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostYou can't justify the affirmation of a false statement from MM by ripping two statements of mine out of context. What you did was affirm a lie. And that is not some minor thing.
This site Sparko fosters hatred and animosity. It rewards hostility and trickery, a nasty snipe is worth more than a pages worth of research into the truth. It punishes those that are honest and truthful and rewards those the are deceitful and dishonest. And there is a band of hooligans here posing as Christians that rip to shreds any decent person that tries to enter into any real discussion.
If it was me, I would not want that to be my legacy or my reward for the time and effort and money I'd be putting into maintaining this thing.Have You Touched Grass Today? If Not, Please Do.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostSounds more like a cult group than most churches I’ve been around. Most of the SBC pastors I’ve been around have wives that are truly a force of nature themselves. It’s noticeable that while the church is his domaine, everyone knows who really is in charge.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post---
I am at a loss. MM seems to be correct. You are arguing both that conservative churches foster abuse in men and that men who attend conservative churches are less likely to be abusive. All I did was post both of your statements together to show the contradiction.
When someone points out your contradiction, you get mad and accuse them of "affirming a lie"
Let me try it again with your exact words:
Originally posted by oxmixmuddUnfortunately, when it comes to the abuse of women, many conservative churches adopt policies and attitudes that encourage it rather than deter it.
Yet your article you linked to and you yourself said:
Originally posted by oxmixmuddIt says, the more you attend the less likely you are to abuse, with those attending the most are the least likely to abuse.
So what we end up with is itself two different and opposing trends in the Conservative Church. The toxicity of the patriachal Conservative church culture actually fosters abuse in nominal members, with the result they have the WORST rates of abuse - almost 8% (per a study of abuse and religion) while simultaneously we see a reduction in the probability of abuse in immersed members, regular attenders (2.8%). BOTH are happening at the same time because the toxic force of the patriarchy is not equally countered in all members of the church. As such, that toxic force has the negative effect of fostering abuse. The force of that doesn't go away in the other members, it just is countered, compensated for.
It is worth pointing out that the statistics for Conservative churches were split, and that the best statistic (2.8%) for committed members is only slightly lower than the statistic for unaffiliated (3.2%) and while I don't have precise numbers from which to calculate a composite statistic (these stats come from a book), for the overall value for Conservative churches to be better than non-affiliated, a non committed number of 7.9% would require the ratio of committed to non-committed members be > 92%*.
Do you know of many congregations with <8% nominal members? The bottom line then is that nearly ALL church affiliations in that study effectively show MORE abuse than the non-affiliated group.
So its a complex picture to be sure, but my point is valid, even though if one naively looks at cherry picked statements, there appears to be a contradiction.
The point being that toxic force exists in Conservative churches regardless of how balanced their teaching is, and regardless of their ratio of nominal to immersed members. Therefore, by adopting and enforcing a patriarchical culture that fosters abuse, Conservative churches adopt polices that foster abuse. But how much effect that policy has on a given member depends on several factors. Nevertheless the POLICY fosters abuse.
I also, in my more substantive posts, pointed out that there are other elements at work in Conservative Churches that provide additional unbalancing infuence. And I pointed to the writings of Piper and Grudem, Tracy (the paper's author) points to some others, and simplicio brought up Paige Patterson.
So if their policies and attitudes encourage abuse, how would attending more lead to LESS likely to abuse?
I am not trying to twist your words, or "affirm a lie" I am trying to understand how you can say that conservative churches encourage abuse but that attending conservative churches make you less likely to be abusive?
Please explain instead of getting mad and insulting everyone. Thanks.
Have I been able to shed some light on it? Do you have additional questions that would help clarify it further?
ETA:
*inequality to determine percentage n of committed members: 2.8n + 7.9(1-n) < 3.2Last edited by oxmixmudd; 02-07-2020, 01:50 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI'll address this in detail below ...
It's only a contradiction if it is taken out of context as I will try to expand on below. Perhaps you just didn't understand how twisted MM was being, but by now you really should know MM's nature is such you need to ensure he is not twisting that persons responses into something he can use to taunt them with.
Yes, but to clarify: Not the whole of their policies - a subset of policies - those that implement and enforce a patriarchical authority structure. It is important that you keep that caveat in mind.
Yes, That is the summary, but if you look more at my more expansive posts, and the texts I quoted from the article, the issue is that there are two forces at work. There is the patriarchical culture, which exerts a toxic (author's words) force that encourages abuse of women. And then there are the alternate and balancing teachings of scripture which if emphasized can mitigate the toxicity of the patriarchical culture. But that is most likely to happen in those that are regular attenders and that receive that teaching and that otherwise are not prone to abuse themselves.
So what we end up with is itself two different and opposing trends in the Conservative Church. The toxicity of the patriachal Conservative church culture actually fosters abuse in nominal members, with the result they have the WORST rates of abuse - almost 8% (per a study of abuse and religion) while simultaneously we see a reduction in the probability of abuse in immersed members, regular attenders (2.8%). BOTH are happening at the same time because the toxic force of the patriarchy is not equally countered in all members of the church. As such, that toxic force has the negative effect of fostering abuse. The force of that doesn't go away in the other members, it just is countered, compensated for.
It is worth pointing out that the statistics for Conservative churches were split, and that the best statistic (2.8%) for committed members is only slightly lower than the statistic for unaffiliated (3.2%) and while I don't have precise numbers from which to calculate a composite statistic (these stats come from a book), for the overall value for Conservative churches to be better than non-affiliated, a non committed number of 7.9% would require the ratio of committed to non-committed members be > 92%*.
Do you know of many congregations with <8% nominal members? The bottom line then is that nearly ALL church affiliations in that study effectively show MORE abuse than the non-affiliated group.
So its a complex picture to be sure, but my point is valid, even though if one naively looks at cherry picked statements, there appears to be a contradiction.
The point being that toxic force exists in Conservative churches regardless of how balanced their teaching is, and regardless of their ratio of nominal to immersed members. Therefore, by adopting and enforcing a patriarchical culture that fosters abuse, Conservative churches adopt polices that foster abuse. But how much effect that policy has on a given member depends on several factors. Nevertheless the POLICY fosters abuse.
I also, in my more substantive posts, pointed out that there are other elements at work in Conservative Churches that provide additional unbalancing infuence. And I pointed to the writings of Piper and Grudem, Tracy (the paper's author) points to some others, and simplicio brought up Paige Patterson.
Because the policy is not the only effect of church attendance at work in the church's members. There are other elements that can have a mitigating effect for some members and not others.
Ok - thanks for pulling back and giving an opportunity for a conversation.
Have I been able to shed some light on it? Do you have additional questions that would help clarify it further?
ETA:
*inequality to determine percentage n of committed members: 2.8n + 7.9(1-n) < 3.2
The conservative churches (not all) have policies that promote the abuse of women but that despite that, the members who attend regularly and are immersed in the bible are less abusive despite the policies of their church.
Is that correct?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostOK let me restate it and you let me know if I got it right or wrong. Note I am NOT trying to twist anything.
The conservative churches (not all) have policies that promote the abuse of women but that despite that, the members who attend regularly and are immersed in the bible are less abusive despite the policies of their church.
Is that correct?My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostYes. That is what the statistics show.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostOK. But aren't those dedicated members the ones who make the policies? Usually the most dedicated members are chosen to lead the congregation as deacons and such. Even if not, if I were in a church that I was involved in and it had policies that I thought were abusive to women, I would fight against them and get them changed.
Now some churches are nutcasey about it. Tracy mentions some of those sorts of teachings. But other situations - like the one simplicio mentioned with paige patterson being indifferent to the wife of a husband with two black eyes telling her he's just happy the man is saved - more or less happen behind closed doors and you'd not know about them unless the wife of the abusive husband 'outed' the pastor or the elders, or an elder that understands the problem got wind of it and made a stink (both of which happen which is why we know about these cases). Understanding this is not easy - she's an abused wife. The pastor is protecting the husband. She talks about it she better have a place to hide (from the husband), and that likely will not be sanctioned by the pastor that is taking the husbands side. She's really sorta on her own then. Her friends are in the church, they are other husband's wives taught to submit to their husbands and church authority as well.
It's not nearly as uncommon as you might think. There are cases like this from SBC, Presbyterian USA, numerous fundamentalist branches and Pentacostals. It's not a trivial thing and it's not a small thing.
But the common 'wind' that tends to push congregations into this sort of thing is that underlying patriarchical teaching of female submission and covering that must be explicitly countered with words like 'submit yourselves one to another' not to take negative effect.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 03:46 PM
|
0 responses
18 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by KingsGambit
Today, 04:11 PM
|
||
Started by Ronson, Today, 01:52 PM
|
1 response
21 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Today, 10:46 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 09:08 AM
|
6 responses
55 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by RumTumTugger
Today, 10:30 AM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 07:44 AM
|
0 responses
20 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 07:44 AM | ||
Started by seer, Today, 07:04 AM
|
29 responses
181 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Today, 02:59 PM
|
Comment