On Christian Forums, in the married section, I’ve been handed perhaps the best example of how women rationalize that they are not against men, but for them, all the while inadvertantly assuming men need them to get a spiritual leg up.
The poster mkgal writes:
If it were believed that men = sexual abuser…..then, why would I be posting about self-control and sexual redemption (I’m not going to speak for others–but again–it seems that the ones that are being accused of believing that men are sexual abusers–as a whole—are the ones that thinking higher of them)……that men *are* capable of loving in a Christ-like way. It would be impossible….would it not (if I were of that belief)? Instead of posting about self-control….I would be posting about “that’s just how men are.”
Perfect! This is the central message of the church. Men….you CAN be good, you CAN be redeemed, you CAN have self control, be encouraged men we women see the potential in you, we love you guys ans we just know that you have this good buried in you that with Christs help…oh and ours too, you can join us here as heirs to the kingdom. She honestly cannot see that this post is anything but an expression of male equivalence. It is the least well masked attempt to show symapthy (women cannot empathize with men) to those poor fallen men that i have ever seen. Ive seen this kind of thing stated boldly and bluntly, and Ive seen it buried in weasel words, but here she encapsulates the exact position that the church maintains today.
Yes, if she believed men were sexual abusers by nature, she wouldnt be talking about their potential to be redeemed.
Redeemed from what?
Uh…..freom being sexual abusers.
So, she does think men are at the core, sexual abusers.
Nope, how can that be when she clearly says they can be redeemed from it.
Anyone able to follow that? If so, help me.