Mark Driscoll

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

It seems that you've added a new category to the catalog of abuses.

From here on out, I don't think that anything else you can ever say will have any merit for me.

But he never said it was abuse. You are completely misunderstanding him. He just said that that a person's psychological response is categorically similar. He's absolutely right.

Basically, what he's saying is that if people are treated a certain way (and that way can be nicely, meanly, abusively or anywhere else on the spectrum of ways to treat people), then they come to expect that treatment even if they don't necessarily deserve it. For instance, if you treat someone nicely all the time, then that person will come to expect that you and others will treat him nicely all the time, even if he doesn't deserve it. Similarly, if you treat someone abusively all the time, then that person will come to expect that you and others will treat him abusively all the time, even though he doesn't deserve it. See, I just compared treating someone abusively with treating someone nicely because the psychological response to both forms of treatments follows the same pattern.

Similarly, Chaz is stating that if men are treated with man-bashing culturally and are used to it, then they won't bat an eye and in fact might be drawn to the sort of man bashing that Driscoll preaches. The same is true of children who grow up in abusive environments. A child who grew up abused is more likely to marry an abusive person because that is what they know and that is what they are familiar with. A child who grew up in a loving, stable environment is similarly more likely to marry a loving, stable person because that is what they know and that is what they are familiar with. It's simply a psychological response to what a person mentally considers to be the norm. It's his or her psychological response to what he or she knows.

 

[chaz345]

It seems that you've added a new category to the catalog of abuses.

From here on out, I don't think that anything else you can ever say will have any merit for me.

Except that I didn't actually call anything abuse, I said that the reaction inside a man hearing something that's not male bashing is SIMILAR to that of an abuse victim hearing or experiencing something for the first time that's not abuse.

 

[chaz345]

But he never said it was abuse. You are completely misunderstanding him. He just said that that a person's psychological response is categorically similar. He's absolutely right.

Basically, what he's saying is that if people are treated a certain way (and that way can be nicely, meanly, abusively or anywhere else on the spectrum of ways to treat people), then they come to expect that treatment even if they don't necessarily deserve it. For instance, if you treat someone nicely all the time, then that person will come to expect that you and others will treat him nicely all the time, even if he doesn't deserve it. Similarly, if you treat someone abusively all the time, then that person will come to expect that you and others will treat him abusively all the time, even though he doesn't deserve it. See, I just compared treating someone abusively with treating someone nicely because the psychological response to both forms of treatments follows the same pattern.

Similarly, Chaz is stating that if men are treated with man-bashing culturally and are used to it, then they won't bat an eye and in fact might be drawn to the sort of man bashing that Driscoll preaches. The same is true of children who grow up in abusive environments. A child who grew up abused is more likely to marry an abusive person because that is what they know and that is what they are familiar with. A child who grew up in a loving, stable environment is similarly more likely to marry a loving, stable person because that is what they know and that is what they are familiar with. It's simply a psychological response to what a person mentally considers to be the norm. It's his or her psychological response to what he or she knows.

EXACTLY. Thank you for clarifying more clearly that I could have.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

EXACTLY. Thank you for clarifying more clearly that I could have.

No problem!

 

[JanniGirl]

LOL. Man-Bashing culture. Too funny. Never before experienced a lack of man-bashing. LOL

 

[JaneFW]

@ nope

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

Dismissing us in that sort of manner is just one example of man-bashing. Whenever men have grievances, they are laughed at and ridiculed as is demonstrated by Janni's post above this one among other things. Why are men laughed at when they have a grievance I wonder? Why is a man laughed at and dismissed on mainstream television when his wife chops off his penis? If the roles were reversed do you truly believe anyone on television would be laughing and joking about it? Why is a male laughed at and dismissed if he is a minor and is sexually assaulted by a 35 year old teacher, but a female in the same situation is coddle and her abuser is brought to swift justice? Why is a man fearful to get help for the domestic violence perpetrated against him but a woman in the same situation is far less fearful? The answer to those questions is what Janni laughed at and dismissed. Open your eyes and look at our culture.

Not addressing posts and being dismissive and sarcastic doesn't get you very far when in your very response to the post you put one nail in your own sides coffin.

 

[JaneFW]

Your assumption is incorrect. I wiped out a snarky post and did the symbol and the word "nope" to remind myself that I am not doing this. Now I'll wait for your apology for assuming the worst of me.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

Your assumption is incorrect. I wiped out a snarky post and did the symbol and the word "nope" to remind myself that I am not doing this. Now I'll wait for your apology for assuming the worst of me.

Thank you! Wait, are you saying my initial assumption was correct then since you did remove a snarky post? Now I'm confused. But I'm glad you removed your snarky post anyhow! I removed the "two posts above mine" part and only included Janni's in my reply.

 

[JaneFW]

To repeat the content of the post would be to overwrite my intention to not go there, and as I repented of it and removed it, you don't actually get to comment on what it would have said!

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

To repeat the content of the post would be to overwrite my intention to not go there, and as I repented of it and removed it, you don't actually get to comment on what it would have said!

Fair enough. I'm sorry for having underestimated you and for having assumed that you were agreeing with Janni! Thanks for not posting the snarky post!

 

[Romanseight2005]

I don't think they are masculine or feminine.

agreed.

I think that God did make us male and female and the parts that are alien are sin.

Saying that, I think that they tend to line up better with the traits that are encouraged in women.

Are you saying that those are wrongly encouraged in women, or that they should be encouraged in men?

Those feminine traits are not necessarily of the Spirit.

Are you saying that since they are encouraged, the character that is in line with the fruit of the Spirit, tends to develop in women more, but are not of the Spirit? (Just trying to clarify what you are saying)

I think that it makes it very easy to "gang up" on masculinity by our society. It also makes it tough for a man with strong masculine traits to surrender himself to what are often miss perceived as feminine qualities.

My fruits don't look like my wife's (thank God), and they shouldn't. Most of what I've seen has been about equal parts: Drive Jesus out of the Church (don't have a hearing ear relationship) and drive men out of the Church (they are especially sinful, and dirty, and masculine).ungodly it all is.

Please tell me what you mean here. What's in equal parts?

 

[I Art Laughing]

That post is so truncated I am going to answer it separately Romanseight.

First, God made us male and female, we are made in His image. Is my former nature, my former conversation not alien to Him. I would say yes. Parts of me are alien to Him, those parts are wood, hay and stubble and they are going to be burned up.

Second, I think that in the modern church it is much easier and more acceptable to dress up the old nature of women. The weaknesses and virtues of women (their old natures) are being lauded for the most part. Their flesh "cleans up" better so they often get a pass when it comes to submitting to Christ, dying to self and putting off the former conversation. What is going to be burned up on the way to the Tree of Life doesn't seem to our society to be as evil as what men need to lose. This leads to a lot of unrepentant hearts in my opinion.

Finally, we all want to be in charge. Women have apparently won the "high ground" in the doctrinal debate. Their emotionalism easily becomes unassailable by logic, correction or anything else. They are in the trap of the enemy. Men are abdicating, they are going to stay away from the church and the women that are populating them. I don't blame them, it is a no win situation. They are emasculated from the pulpit AND in the fellowship. I think that a lack of submission in the church and in the home is a veritable cancer in the body of Christ and I fault nobody for wanting to flee it.

What troubles me is that when men leave the Church due to the toxicity they think that Christ is through with them. They have been framed into a matching corner with the women. Made useless across society and rapidly approaching the same position in the church of women. It makes me angry, it makes me sad.