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.
See more
See less

RIP #MeToo

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by simplicio View Post
    You act as if the Body of Christ is a secular institution, dependent on the statistical analyses! At one time monks spent time hunched over desks copying scripture, now we need monks pouring over spreadsheets trained in the arts and science of statistical analysees.
    The claim that X belief causes A action is a claim that can be scientifically tested and objectively confirmed. Plenty of Churches and religious groups run hospitals, are those not places where science takes place too? It is a very easy experiment to perform. Science is just another way to study God’s creation.

    The Church does not run on empirical evidences. Oxmix allowed the discussion to move to flawed social science studies, dependent on the statistical analysees (and other gladly followed) and there it stayed for pages!

    One piece of anecdotal evidence is enough for me: The male pastor who insisted that he and his church were doing a fine job policing abuse. the next day, women from the pews came forward, secretly, anonymously, and cautiously, to provide many stories of abuse. The male pastor and the women congregants, who was right, given the radically differing perceptions? The man of course, he has theological training and the authority of a teaching office?
    And I can dig up anecdotal evidence that says the opposite. There’s a reason the definition of anecdotal is:

    (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

    The reason (I suspect) that you don’t want the objective facts is because objective facts are harder to dispute. Thing is, abusers exist everywhere in all facets of life. From the classic deadbeat to the upstanding member of the community. The only way to prove the claim being made is an scientific analysis and guess what? There is none.

    The tale of the woman with two black eyes going to Paige Patterson was not about complementarianism, it was about a sheep going to a shepherd. Misericordia, misery in the heart often finds itself going to the pastor, but finding......inspiring stories about saving the soul, but nothing for the soul in need standing before the pastor.
    Hate to tell you this, but your own church was well aware of its molesting priest among its ranks and rather than dealing with the problem, they simply sent them to a new church while silently paying off victims. This is much worse because unlike the SBC, where there is not much upper authority, the RCC leadership was compliant in the abuse. If you were consistent, in your logic, you would be equally condemning, but you’re not.

    Following the Pharisses, the American church is discussing the finer details of washing hands and the limits and extent of the qorban (a reference to Mark 7 in case anyone wants to see if the New Testament has anything to offer the Church in America)
    Why are you still Catholic, with the above abuses? FYI, I’m not a Baptist, theologically I mostly align with Methodist.
    Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 02-13-2020, 06:25 AM.
    "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 lilpixieofterror View Post
      The claim that X belief causes A action is a claim that can be scientifically tested and objectively confirmed. Plenty of Churches and religious groups run hospitals, are those not places where science takes place too? It is a very easy experiment to perform. Science is just another way to study GodÂ’s creation.



      And I can dig up anecdotal evidence that says the opposite. ThereÂ’s a reason the definition of anecdotal is:

      (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

      The reason (I suspect) that you donÂ’t want the objective facts is because objective facts are harder to dispute. Thing is, abusers exist everywhere in all facets of life. From the classic deadbeat to the upstanding member of the community. The only way to prove the claim being made is an scientific analysis and guess what? There is none.

      [qoute]The tale of the woman with two black eyes going to Paige Patterson was not about complementarianism, it was about a sheep going to a shepherd. Misericordia, misery in the heart often finds itself going to the pastor, but finding......inspiring stories about saving the soul, but nothing for the soul in need standing before the pastor.
      Hate to tell you this, but your own church was well aware of its molesting priest among its ranks and rather than dealing with the problem, they simply sent them to a new church while silently paying off victims. This is much worse because unlike the SBC, where there is not much upper authority, the RCC leadership was compliant in the abuse. If you were consistent, in your logic, you would be equally condemning, but youÂ’re not.



      Why are you still Catholic, with the above abuses? FYI, IÂ’m not a Baptist, theologically I mostly align with Methodist.[/QUOTE]

      The anecdote about the differences in opinion between the male leader, who sees no problem, and the woman church member who has the opposite view is enough in and of itself to give us cause to consider. In that particular case the needs of the woman was not being met, the role and duties of the pastor was not properly carried out. The objective fact here is that women see a problem while the role of the Church is to deny that there is a problem at all.

      In other news, related news, Snoop dog apologized for his comments (or more accurately, a limited apology) to Gayle King. As I noted before in this thread, one common reaction which me too highlights is the reactions to a woman who has the audacity to speak out, against any perceived criticism which a rape allegation brings. So much so, that it is almost a universal.

      What objective facts? The discussion breaks down, one side sees a problem, while the other side sees no problem at all!

      Why am I still Catholic, even after all those scandals? "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" The Catholic Church certainly ignored the problem, staking out positions which ran through the instittion. But they have also prayerfully examined themselves and have since staked out a position, made a stand, a repentence if you will, which is a change in course, a change in attitude.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by simplicio View Post
        The anecdote about the differences in opinion between the male leader, who sees no problem, and the woman church member who has the opposite view is enough in and of itself to give us cause to consider. In that particular case the needs of the woman was not being met, the role and duties of the pastor was not properly carried out. The objective fact here is that women see a problem while the role of the Church is to deny that there is a problem at all.
        Anecdotal evidence is not objective, it’s based on opinions and quite frankly, can be dismissed. Investigation, science, and fact is what we should base our views in. See, we have a member of the SBC right now who has taken part in the SBC for years. Why don’t you ask CP what he would do in a similar situation. Do you think he would think it was okay? I really doubt it and thus the problem with anecdotes. You can make them say whatever you want, what is required here is scientific fact and well, none has really been produced.

        In other news, related news, Snoop dog apologized for his comments (or more accurately, a limited apology) to Gayle King. As I noted before in this thread, one common reaction which me too highlights is the reactions to a woman who has the audacity to speak out, against any perceived criticism which a rape allegation brings. So much so, that it is almost a universal.
        That doesn’t deal with a word I said.

        What objective facts? The discussion breaks down, one side sees a problem, while the other side sees no problem at all!
        Nope, it breaks down to:

        One side is emotionally reacting and the other side wants objective facts.

        You’ve made your position quite clear, you’re emotionally reacting and don’t want objective facts to get in the way of a good story. I’ve seen panic button approaches to solving problems that does nothing. Earlier in my career, the military ran into a problem with sexual assault among its ranks and hit the panic button and implemented changes. Guess what? The problem still exist and hardly has been affected because lo and behold, hitting the panic button doesn’t work. That’s why we need facts, not emotion. Anecdotes are emotion, not fact.

        Why am I still Catholic, even after all those scandals? "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" The Catholic Church certainly ignored the problem, staking out positions which ran through the instittion. But they have also prayerfully examined themselves and have since staked out a position, made a stand, a repentence if you will, which is a change in course, a change in attitude.
        And what are the objective facts? What are the changes? Can these changes work in a decentralized community?
        "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 lilpixieofterror View Post
          Anecdotal evidence is not objective, it’s based on opinions and quite frankly, can be dismissed. Investigation, science, and fact is what we should base our views in. See, we have a member of the SBC right now who has taken part in the SBC for years. Why don’t you ask CP what he would do in a similar situation. Do you think he would think it was okay? I really doubt it and thus the problem with anecdotes. You can make them say whatever you want, what is required here is scientific fact and well, none has really been produced.



          That doesn’t deal with a word I said.



          Nope, it breaks down to:

          One side is emotionally reacting and the other side wants objective facts.

          You’ve made your position quite clear, you’re emotionally reacting and don’t want objective facts to get in the way of a good story. I’ve seen panic button approaches to solving problems that does nothing. Earlier in my career, the military ran into a problem with sexual assault among its ranks and hit the panic button and implemented changes. Guess what? The problem still exist and hardly has been affected because lo and behold, hitting the panic button doesn’t work. That’s why we need facts, not emotion. Anecdotes are emotion, not fact.



          And what are the objective facts? What are the changes? Can these changes work in a decentralized community?
          And you inadvertently pointed to the problem facing the church today: Some problems cannot be dismissed, the woman with two black eyes is an objective fact and reality that exists within the church. And any attempt to pretend that it is not a problem is precisely the mistake the Catholic Church made.

          You glibly dismiss the story which is a real life and objective example which centers on this discussion, and that ties back to the original OP of Rogue which started this thread. Snoop Dog is playing the role of the Christian pastors when confronted by such an allegation.

          The objective fact at the heart of the OP is that an abuse allegation was made, and what followed was found in the countless stories of the me too and church too stories. And those stories are of women who suffered abuse.

          And no great irony (!) is that what started out as a condemnation of the libs uneven response as hypocritical boils down to a couple hundred posts showing that Christians are guilty of precisely the thing which the OP skewered the secular libs for!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
            Irony at its finest. If you were 1/4th as smart as you think you are, you’d realize that conservative church =/= Patriarchical in nature or that Patriarchical comes in flavors and extremes that maybe all different, seems to escape your notice too.
            Also the fact that the vast majority of human societies throughout history and the world today are patriarchal, so it seems to be a bit of a case of confusing correlation with causation. It's not like we have a wealth of other cultures to study to judge their affect on the male/female dynamic.
            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 NorrinRadd View Post
              For me it's especially disappointing to hear this about Pentecostals, both because I am one, and because some of the major Pentecostal denominations have affirmed egalitarianism for well over 100 years.
              Yeah, Assemblies of God are egalitarian, and some others. I would have to admit my reference to Pentacostal actually refers more to independent charasmatic groups and a few secondary pentecostals, not the Pentecostal USA or AOG.

              Though the influence of people like Piper or Driscoll or others is there as well. With the charasmatic movement there has been a lot of cross pollination as it were of ideas between pentecostals and other non pentecostals.

              One thing I know. After more than 44 years active in various conservative congregations in NC and surrounding areas finding a conservative evangelical church that supported women as elders was in fact unexpected and for me a one of a kind situation.

              The norm has always been. From independent baptist, SBC, charasmatic SBC, presbyterian, Wesleyan, charasmatic house churches, bible churches, even a AOG confregation, women submitting to husbands and men only as elders and pastors has been the focus of the teaching on these matters.

              Where that has not been the normal case is in Methodist congregations.

              (I am a singer and through that have had many strong connections to multiple congregations over the decades)
              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 02-13-2020, 07:36 AM.
              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 Mountain Man View Post
                Also the fact that the vast majority of human societies throughout history and the world today are patriarchal, so it seems to be a bit of a case of confusing correlation with causation. It's not like we have a wealth of other cultures to study to judge their affect on the male/female dynamic.
                Feminism or matriarchy are not the only alternatives to a strong and extreme form of patriarchy. While patriarchy is dominant, most are not of an extreme form. You seem to be using only a strong feminist ideology to analyze the situation!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                  And you inadvertently pointed to the problem facing the church today: Some problems cannot be dismissed, the woman with two black eyes is an objective fact and reality that exists within the church. And any attempt to pretend that it is not a problem is precisely the mistake the Catholic Church made.
                  And you fail to grasp the differences. The SBC isn’t a governing authority with a head that can enact broad and sweeping changes. The RCC can. Protestant churches are not Catholic and run differently, even the ones with a governing authority allow more theological drift than I’m sure the RCC allows and they only have authority over a tiny percentage of churches. Do tell, how do you plan on implementing broad, sweeping changes, to a decentralized group with very little control, over the whole? I’m open to suggestions.

                  You glibly dismiss the story which is a real life and objective example which centers on this discussion, and that ties back to the original OP of Rogue which started this thread. Snoop Dog is playing the role of the Christian pastors when confronted by such an allegation.
                  I didnÂ’t dismiss it at all, I asked for:

                  How common is this?
                  What proposed changes can happen?
                  How do you know these changes will work?
                  How do you plan on implementing changes across a decentralized group?

                  Sorry that I think like an engineer, but you can condemn all you want, but you canÂ’t do a thing without an understanding of the problem, a solution to the problem, how these changes will actually work, and how to implement changes across the group as a whole. Stuff which well, you havenÂ’t done beyond plenty of emotional reacting.

                  The objective fact at the heart of the OP is that an abuse allegation was made, and what followed was found in the countless stories of the me too and church too stories. And those stories are of women who suffered abuse.
                  And guess what? Abuse happens anywhere, for any reason, at any time. It isn’t limited to a single social group, to a single identity, etc. Rich women, with rich husbands are abused, poor women, are abused. Abuse is everywhere and exist among all social groups and status. That being said, that doesnÂ’t tell us:

                  - signs to look for
                  - commonalities of abuse
                  - abuse prevention
                  - abuse reporting

                  Nor does it explain your plan for implementing changes across a decentralized group, with no central authority.

                  Condemn all you want, emotions are not going to answer a word I said.

                  And no great irony (!) is that what started out as a condemnation of the libs uneven response as hypocritical boils down to a couple hundred posts showing that Christians are guilty of precisely the thing which the OP skewered the secular libs for!
                  Hate to tell you, but abuse exist everywhere. What’s your plan, what is your objective facts that your plan will work, and your implementation plan to apply it for a broad group, with no central authority.
                  Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 02-13-2020, 07:47 AM.
                  "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 Post
                    Yes - a conservative literal reading of the Bible on male and female roles in the family and the church is a patriarchy Pix.
                    Now you are effectively accusing the Bible of "encouraging" or "fostering" the abuse of women. Do you really want to go there?
                    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 simplicio View Post
                      You seem to be using only a strong feminist ideology to analyze the situation!
                      I'm sure it makes you feel better to believe that.
                      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 lilpixieofterror View Post
                        And you fail to grasp the differences. The SBC isnÂ’t a governing authority with a head that can enact broad and sweeping changes. The RCC can. Protestant churches are not Catholic and run differently, even the ones with a governing authority allow more theological drift than IÂ’m sure the RCC allows and they only have authority over a tiny percentage of churches. Do tell, how do you plan on implementing broad, sweeping changes, to a decentralized group with very little control, over the whole? IÂ’m open to suggestions.



                        I didn’t dismiss it at all, I asked for:

                        How common is this?
                        What proposed changes can happen?
                        How do you know these changes will work?
                        How do you plan on implementing changes across a decentralized group?

                        Sorry that I think like an engineer, but you can condemn all you want, but you can’t do a thing without an understanding of the problem, a solution to the problem, how these changes will actually work, and how to implement changes across the group as a whole. Stuff which well, you haven’t done beyond plenty of emotional reacting.



                        And guess what? Abuse happens anywhere, for any reason, at any time. It isn’t limited to a single social group, to a single identity, etc. Rich women, with rich husbands are abused, poor women, are abused. Abuse is everywhere and exist among all social groups and status. That being said, that doesn’t tell us:

                        - signs to look for
                        - commonalities of abuse
                        - abuse prevention
                        - abuse reporting

                        Nor does it explain your plan for implementing changes across a decentralized group, with no central authority.

                        Condemn all you want, emotions are not going to answer a word I said.



                        Hate to tell you, but abuse exist everywhere. WhatÂ’s your plan, what is your objective facts that your plan will work, and your implementation plan to apply it for a broad group, with no central authority.
                        Two black eyes is a good place to start when looking for signs. How many examples of women with bruises are needed? One is too many.

                        Yes the SBC has a rather unique position, it has been likened to a loose coalition of similar independent churches. But women basically stampeded the power structures (and I specifically chose that term) of the SBC demanding change, a change of culture. Part of the cultural change which Christians demanded was the all to common inability to recognize a problem even exists. Because one example is too many

                        I am not referring to, or appealing to, emotion. That pastors can see a tangible example and not act is scandalous, that a pastor sees no problem while women come forward stating that there is a real problem is a scandal, that the same phenomenon happens in many churches is a scandal. Churches, parachurch groups, even outside the church, it is a problem.

                        The fact that the pastor sees no problem while women in the pews, whom he has responsibility for, see it very differently suggests a radical disconnect from reality for that pastor. That in itself is a good sign that there is a real problem in that church. Sophisticated theories are not needed, unless (or until) the problem is even recognized..

                        The Catholic Church plodded along, oblivious to the problem that came in more than one here and one there. The Catholic Church plodded along, oblivious to the fact that they had failed in their pastoral role in ministering to victims. The Catholic Church plodded along, oblivious to the long established church structures on a macro level had failed in its ministerial role.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                          Two black eyes is a good place to start when looking for signs. How many examples of women with bruises are needed? One is too many.
                          Most abuse signs, are not going to be that obvious. It can be subtle and nearly impossible to detect. Heavy make up, long sleeved shirts, or large sunglasses are often used to cover up bruises. It’s very rare that abuse will stand out. Second, you’re emotionally reacting. That doesn’t answer the problem solving or implementing change I asked you about.

                          Yes the SBC has a rather unique position, it has been likened to a loose coalition of similar independent churches. But women basically stampeded the power structures (and I specifically chose that term) of the SBC demanding change, a change of culture. Part of the cultural change which Christians demanded was the all to common inability to recognize a problem even exists. Because one example is too many
                          That still doesn’t answered what I asked, the SBC had very little to no control in the day to day operations of SBC churches, so how could they make broad, sweeping changes, when they have no power to do so? You’re doing this thing again where you react emotionally and don’t think. The best they can do is ask, but they can’t force changes to be implemented at the church level. So I ask again, how do you plan on putting your unspecified plan into action when there is no central authority to push down changes?

                          I am not referring to, or appealing to, emotion. That pastors can see a tangible example and not act is scandalous, that a pastor sees no problem while women come forward stating that there is a real problem is a scandal, that the same phenomenon happens in many churches is a scandal. Churches, parachurch groups, even outside the church, it is a problem.
                          Still reacting emotionally? Again, you didn’t answer a word I said, the SBC isn’t a central body, so tell me your plan and your plan to make it work across a decentralized group? I’ll wait vs your emotional reactions, without thought or plan.

                          The fact that the pastor sees no problem while women in the pews, whom he has responsibility for, see it very differently suggests a radical disconnect from reality for that pastor. That in itself is a good sign that there is a real problem in that church. Sophisticated theories are not needed, unless (or until) the problem is even recognized..
                          Repeating yourself, emotionally reacting, and not answering anything I said does your case no favor. It’s clear you already made up your mind and could care less about facts, evidence, planning, or implementing anything. Just say, ‘I want to condemn and could care less about facts’? It would save me a lot of time.

                          The Catholic Church plodded along, oblivious to the problem that came in more than one here and one there. The Catholic Church plodded along, oblivious to the fact that they had failed in their pastoral role in ministering to victims. The Catholic Church plodded along, oblivious to the long established church structures on a macro level had failed in its ministerial role.
                          And again...

                          The RCC is a centralized church, with control over the affairs of its churches across the world. The SBC isn’t. Why do you fail to understand that?
                          Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 02-13-2020, 09:00 AM.
                          "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 Mountain Man View Post
                            Now you are effectively accusing the Bible of "encouraging" or "fostering" the abuse of women. Do you really want to go there?
                            No I'm not, any more than I would be accusing the Bible of encouraging or fostering slavery if I said that mid 19th century readings of the Bible in defense of slavery were wrong.

                            Patriarchal systems underlie the majority of human history. The reason is simple - men are more aggressive and men are stronger (on average). Women have been oppressed and abused in them for the majority of human history. The reason there is simple as well. Men are stronger and men are more aggressive. The fact the Bible was written from within a patriarchal system is neither surprising nor problematic, it just is. But the fact that the cultural elements of patriarchy underlay much of the teachings about the husband wife relationship and church authority, that natural tendency for men in power to abuse women under subjection remains a problem. Such a system fosters the abuse of women because of what human nature is.

                            The Gospel itself offers a counter to human nature - but only to the extent the individual is able to shake off both their own sinful nature AND the influence of the culture in which they exist.

                            So Ideally, faith in Christ should be sufficient to mitigate the patriarchal pressure.

                            But rarely is the ideal of what faith in Christ can do realized in a large percentage of any Christian congregation. And that is what is at issue here.

                            So a societal, or church, culture that combats the historical reality of men subjugating women offers a strong counter to the problem as well, one that is less dependent on the self-discipline and self-control of individual men. And churches that do not adopt a strong emphasis on the literal interpretation of scripture as it regards the relationship between men and women both in marriage and in church authority also reduce the impact of that natural tendency for men to exert power over women, and thus reduce the capacity to foster abuse.

                            That's just the reality that exists MM.
                            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 lilpixieofterror View Post
                              Most abuse signs, are not going to be that obvious. It can be subtle and nearly impossible to detect. Heavy make up, long sleeved shirts, or large sunglasses are often used to cover up bruises. It’s very rare that abuse will stand out. Second, youÂ’re emotionally reacting. That doesn’t answer the problem solving or implementing change I asked you about.



                              That still doesn’t answered what I asked, the SBC had very little to no control in the day to day operations of SBC churches, so how could they make broad, sweeping changes, when they have no power to do so? You’re doing this thing again where you react emotionally and don’t think. The best they can do is ask, but they canÂ’t force changes to be implemented at the church level. So I ask again, how do you plan on putting you unspecified plan into action when there is no central authority to push down changes?



                              Still reacting emotionally? Again, you didn’t answer a word I said, the SBC isn’t a central body, so tell me your plan and you plan to make it work across a decentralized group? I’ll wait vs your emotional reactions, without thought or plan.



                              Repeating yourself, emotionally reacting, and not answering anything I said does your case no favor. It’s clear you already made up your mind and could care less about facts, evidence, planning, or implementing anything. Just say, ‘I want to condemn and could care less about facts’? It would save me a lot of time.



                              And again...

                              The RCC is a centralized church, with control over the affairs of its churches across the world. The SBC isn’t. Why do you fail to understand that?
                              Yes, most signs are not as obvious as two black eyes. But the fact remains that the example of two black eyes failed to alert the pastor of the problem, declaring it to be a good! Which is a sign that there is a problem.

                              You ignored my point,which I highlighted. One goal of the church too/me too is a cultural shift, a profound change such that a woman with two black eyes will prompt a pstor to a realization that there is a problem. There such a thing as a culture of abuse, a culture which tolerates abuse.

                              While you call for objective facts, the objective fact I keep presenting is dismissed as emotionalism, which emphasizes my point, the failure of the church to act when confronted. We pulled down the statue of Joe Paterno due to a failure to act, we condemn Catholic leaders due to a failure to act. If a single example which is so obvious that it is over the top as two black eyes cannot prompt Christians to recognize that there is a problem, the example of the male pastor insisting what a great job he did while woman had the opposite story....... Hey, why not have that male pastor be the model to follow? I think most would see the error in that.

                              I wonder if you are expecting a concise list of codified rules which would make the problem disappear. And I don't have that, me too and church too does not have that. But most importantly, the church itself does not have that.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                                Yes, most signs are not as obvious as two black eyes. But the fact remains that the example of two black eyes failed to alert the pastor of the problem, declaring it to be a good! Which is a sign that there is a problem.

                                You ignored my point,which I highlighted. One goal of the church too/me too is a cultural shift, a profound change such that a woman with two black eyes will prompt a pstor to a realization that there is a problem. There such a thing as a culture of abuse, a culture which tolerates abuse.

                                While you call for objective facts, the objective fact I keep presenting is dismissed as emotionalism, which emphasizes my point, the failure of the church to act when confronted. We pulled down the statue of Joe Paterno due to a failure to act, we condemn Catholic leaders due to a failure to act. If a single example which is so obvious that it is over the top as two black eyes cannot prompt Christians to recognize that there is a problem, the example of the male pastor insisting what a great job he did while woman had the opposite story....... Hey, why not have that male pastor be the model to follow? I think most would see the error in that.

                                I wonder if you are expecting a concise list of codified rules which would make the problem disappear. And I don't have that, me too and church too does not have that. But most importantly, the church itself does not have that.
                                The above post demonstrates:

                                1. Emotional reacting.
                                2. Holier than thou.
                                3. Lack of facts.

                                What we don’t see:

                                1. Facts.
                                2. Implementation plans.
                                3. How you can change a heavily decentralized group, that doesn’t answer to a single person or group.

                                You can yell, “Two black eyes!!!” All you want, that doesn’t answer anything I said and is simply emotionalism. Facts, figures, plans, got one or is this just more of your self righteous ranting?

                                Things can not change, without gathering the facts, understanding the problem, finding solutions, understanding the solutions, and knowing how to make the solutions work. Throwing out self righteous condemning might make you feel better, but it won’t solve your problem. Try approaching the issue as an engineer or scientist and less as someone wanting to throw out self righteous condemning.
                                Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 02-13-2020, 09:17 AM.
                                "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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                108 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                307 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                357 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X