www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall A Small Favour From An Old, Not Very Active Mmeber.

I haven't been here in months, or perhaps a couple of years. I've been studying Psychology, so, I hope this is not an intrusion. Still, I was, about two weeks ago, banned from another board. I'd not been on it in a whle either but the forum administrator, Metacrock, had invited me back. He knows my views are Traditional (though he does misjudge me in sevral instanes) yet he was rather angry that I'd confront another poster, KR Wordgazer, over her... shall we say "Interesting" views on Egalitarianism.


While I am not askign for Theological or linguistical advise, as I am cerain my linguistical skills in Hebrew far exceeds thier own even though I am not conversant in it, and The Theological arguments they make are poor, and conradict the 2000 year History of Christendom, I only ask that you look over this thread, and perhaps soem others if you feel like it, to see if their other accusatiosn ere true. I was accused of beign arrogant and rude. Of coruse, I think they say this because I disagree wiht the position ro attemto to root out why the theological views are held. One of which is a defense of Contraception, Woedgazer says that part of the Curse on Eve was she will become Pregnant mroe often, and bases this claim on 3:16. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.


I told he that this is True only int he KJV, and that because of the piculiarities of the Jacobean Engish, in Hebrew the phrase wodl read mroe like " I will increae yoru Sorrows when you concienve", meanign Pregnancy will become difficult, not that she will become physiclaly pregnant mroe oftne than her body coudl bare. I alsosai that increased fertilitt woudln't be seen as a Curse in the Ancient World.


She didnt care, and apparnelty I was rude and demeaning. I admit I was frustrated. She had told me never to post in threads she started, as a way to "Keep the peace" but posted in threads I started iwht Impunity, and really sheonly sought ot evade critisism fo her ideas.

But as a part of self evaluation, I will ask the forum members here what they think.


http://www.doxa.ws/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=776


Please read and tell what you see as my bad tone or arrogance, ect...

Welcome back.

I only read the initial posting; I probabably would have been banned too. I would feel no loss if I were you.

Fr Deacon Paul

Zarove,

I can understand your frustration, but when you preface your remarks with this kind of insult:
you can hardly expect to be found *not guilty* of the charge of arrogance and rudeness.

Yes, the logic in the article is shoddy, but the real issue is that you're making a head-on assault on someone's entire world view--and it just happens to be one she passionately endorses and promotes!

The fact is that people seldom study the facts and derive logical conclusions from them--rather, they start with what we might call a "working hypothesis" and look for evidence that will support it. In other words, simply demolishing this woman's arguments is NOT going to make her consider that she might be in error--quite the contrary.

Also, it would have been very helpful for you to have made a clear distinction between the Catholic teaching on birth control and the doctrine of the cults this woman was writing about. Heaven knows, there are lots of people out there that simply assume Catholicism is a cult, and your reply didn't help to clear this up at all. (Indeed you could easily give her the impression that you're actually endorsing these cults!)

For years I had a problem with people taking things I said out of context, so I've learned to be very careful about how I say things--but I still find this a sensitive issue!


Peace,
Deacon Richard

My history woth her may need to be explained. This is not the firts thing zi wrote to her. She had explicitly demanded I not speak to her on the threads she started earlier simply because I noted her arguents are shody elsewhere too. EG, she claims that 1 Timothy Chapter 2 des not, in fact, say wpomen can't be Ministers. When I simply explain that the plain reading of the text is that women do not hold those offices ( and do this for ther passages) she insists that we "look deeper" ect... she became angry and threatened to leave a lot, I finally left the board myself, and when I was asked to come bakck (Because now its dying) I was again assaulted by this psoter in another Thread ( which I htink was deleted in a cyberattack) and she repeated the idea of me nt engagin in her threads. Shortly after that she engaged me in a thread I started about the Scottish National CHurch and hwo it nwo wants ot use Gender-inclusive language. So apparnelty its OK for her to comment in threads I start, but not good fo rme to coment in threads she starts. In that hread she tried to sya she agreed wiht their intent but not wiht what they did, thouh she did laim that oen fo the Nmes for God ws feminine, El Shadai, meaning "The Breasted One" and was baotu how Gosd is liek our Mother, fgiing us Milk. This idea came form Harriet lntzy, whom she never hear dof bu who has had a lot fo infuence in reerence books. I spent three years off and on earnign the Hebrew Language, though, and know full well "Breast" is not automaticlaly feminien and El Shaddai is Masculine. (Feminien woudl be El Shaddiym)

It really doesnt reflect a feminien name at all.

The reason I said he won't listen there was not out of attack, but necause she's not really goin to listen to anythign I say no matter how I present it.

I did try beign s lot nicer earlier on.

This was just the last one, and that comment you just psoted wsn even PMed to me by Metacrock for proof f how Srrogant I was, instead it was ho I was terrible, syaign thing slike "Yoru wrong" and "You dont know Hebrew". Both of which would be obvious.

From what I read of the thread, and of other threads on that board, it is probably best to not post there. For a "Christian thought in the 21st century" board, the moderator/administrator, Metacrock, uses pretty coarse language. Not language one would expect in a proper debate as shown in the last post of this thread: http://www.doxa.ws/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1082&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=10

I don't know if that board's posting editor has a spell checker, but being precise in spelling/typing can help with a debate making it easier to read the meaning without having to guess whether the spelling is meant to mean something different.

Overall, the point of the DOXA board seems to be for the sake of 'Metacrock' to argue his point of view over others who care to register on his board.

just my devalued currency of 2 cents.

Well, I also need to apologise tot he above. I didnt mean to soudn dismissive, which after rereadugn my post I may seem to have. I just meant that it seemed you were under the impression that I was just startign out eiht her on that Thread. This is the thread I was banne don, not my firts encoutner with her.

That said, to Mr. Petarch, I do agree that the board has an unfortunate tendancy to be all abut a speciic viewpoitn fo the Moderator, but I want to know, in earnest, and hoenslty (hence my apology above) if I came off as beign as bad as was claimed.

By the way, to defend Metacrock, he is like me, Dyslexic. So his spellign errors are accounted fr by somethign beyond his control.

I looked at the DOXA site a while back and decided it wasn't worth my time. I look for sites where Christians can be edified through discourse, not places where polemic debates are the rule. I've never seen an online debate change anybody's mind at all. But teaching truth in love often leads people to repent of error. And it doesn't hurt to at least be polite considering our written words are probably read by thousands of people over time.

Just a few thoughts.

μιχαηλ της συστρατιωτης

It is not a board I would feel desiring to frequent, given such polemical and invective replies from its sole moderator. If banned from a board such as that, then shake the dust from your sandals and move on, they will not be saved or swayed by anyone.

μιχαηλ,

Some very good points!

I think before anyone can have a discussion with anyone else, a common ground needs to be established. In a forum like this one, it's more or less implicit that one will have or at least be sympathetic to an Eastern Christian perspective. To try and have any real discussion in an environment like DOXA, however, it would be necessary to find some points of agreement within their overall progressive outlook, and build on those.

Actually doing this would take a lot of patience and charity; it's not for everyone!


Peace,
Deacon Richard