No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Discuss Biblical and theological support for concept that Bible teaches equality between sexes.

Moderator: Metacrock

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by KR Wordgazer » Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:07 pm

ZAROVE wrote:Oh and if you want to be a KJV Onlyist in this, why not also look at how the words were used in the 1600’s? Is not like the KJV Bible was written in Modern English, and often the words, such as “Multiply thy Sorrows and Conception” would sound very different to the 17th century reader than to today’s audience.
I am not a KJV-onlyist, Zarove; I was remarking that it was odd that the KJV-onlyists do not read this verse for what it actually says in the KJV.

So-- I looked up that word "conception." The Hebrew word appears three times in the Old Testament, and each time the KJV translates it "conception." Here are the other two occurrences:

Ruth 4:13: "The Lord gave her [Ruth] conception, and she bare a son."

Hosea 9:11: "Their glory. . . shall fly away. . . from the womb and from the conception."

The Hebrew word is "herown," and the lexicon gives it the meaning "pregnancy; physical conception." When the KJV translates this word, both of the other times it translates it, it refers specifically to conceiving in the womb in order to bear children. Therefore it cannot be said that the word had a different meaning in King James English than "to become or be pregnant." Certainly it had that meaning in the original Hebrew.

The word "multiply" is the Hebrew "raban," and it means "to increase or give increase to, to become numerous, to enlarge, to make many." It is used many times in the KJV and nearly always conveys a meaning of "increase."

I repeat, this is what the original text actually says.

I did some research on what some of the church fathers thought it said. They were usually quite willing to read a whole bunch of stuff into the text that it does not actually say; not least of which is that "I will place enmnity between her seed and your seed" is a reference to the Immaculate Conception of Mary. You will forgive me if I prefer to read what the text actually says.
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by KR Wordgazer » Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:20 pm

Zarove, I was really very puzzled by this:
Even from a Biological perspective, your claim makes no real sense. Primates in general have a sluggish reproduction cycle next to equivalent weight Mammals, and Humans are no different in this regard. Most would say this is because of the complexity of the Brain, in addition to the Mass. Humans are actually a Large Animal. Not the Largest, but large. But they aren’t too large to cut the Gestation down to 6 months, and indeed some Viable Foetus’s exist at that early even in Humans, its just Rare.

However, human Gestation takes 9 months. If I had a woman and actually got her pregnant as soon as possible after she gave Birth, I’d still only be capable of at most 1 Child every 9 months barring Twins. This is a very, very slow sort of Reproduction, rendered slower by the fact that you have ONE Child per pregnancy on average. Worse, most women do not become Pregnant right away after giving Birth, even in antiquity. There is usually a year or so gap between them at least. Contrasted to Cats, who often have litters of between 4 and 8 Kittens, and can breed two litters per year, this is actually pretty small.

Following your Logic, the Pre-Cursed woman would become Pregnant Less Often. How much less? If you cut it in half, you get a woman capable of pregnancy once every two months, meaning that if your trying to have a lot of Children, as they did in the Ancient World, you end up with far fewer. That brood of 18 becomes 9, and about half will die before they have their own Children.

So what you end up with is a diminished capacity to rapidly fill an environment with Humans. This reduces survivability.

Its just not Viable from a Biological perspective that Women would be infertile more often given that they on average have only one child that takes nine months to Gestate.

I confess that I am unable to figure out from this, whether you take the Genesis 2-3 story as literal fact, or figurative story. You seem to want to take a position somewhere in the middle.

If you take Genesis 2-3 as literal fact, then before the Fall, the woman was safe in the Garden. There were no predators. All the animals ate grass. There was a Tree of Life which (the text makes clear) was something the man and woman would eventually have eaten from and lived forever, if they had stayed in the Garden. Survival through having lots of children was hardly an issue, was it? Adam and Eve would have been perfectly fine if they had only had a child every five to ten years. With a lifetime of immortality in which to "fill the earth," what on earth would be the problem?

If you take Genesis 2-3 as figurative, then the Curse expresses a statement of a lost ideal, an articulation of the "human problematic" or the problem of being human-- that the world is not as we feel it should be, nor are we as we feel we should be. It is a lament about the difficulty of life in a world of thorns and thistles, painful and too-frequent childbirth, male domination and female dependency, and a need to cover ourselves and hide in shame from God. An ideal state in which women had no pain in childbirth, and no debilitating pregnancy-on-the-heels of-pregnancy that sapped the strength and shortened the lifespan, could very easily be being expressed in this verse, regardless of what later interpreters made of the story. (I may not be an ancient Hebrew, but I am human, and a woman. A simultaneous desire to have children hand-in-hand with fear of pregnancy and a wish to be pregnant less often, seems to be to be-- with some exceptions-- a universal female condition. And after all, one of the main ideas behind Genesis 2-3, however you take it, is to articulate the universal state of what it is to be human, is it not?)

But in your post, instead of choosing a foundational position for how to read this story, you seem to want to pick and choose first one, then the other. You seem to take Adam and Eve as real people, but the Garden as a myth. You want to set pre-Fallen Adam and Eve in a world full of danger, predators and harm. It is only in this context that it makes no logical sense for a woman to have fewer childbirths in an unfallen state. But this mixture of two positions regarding this passage, it seems to me, is what makes no logical sense.
Wag more.
Bark less.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by ZAROVE » Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:41 am

Kristen, my point is how an audience in 1611 would have understood the entire phrase , not what the specific word means. As I was telling Metacrock, and I know neither of you will listen, your idea that the Curse includes the increase in the number of Pregnancies would have been seen as an odd Curse. Women wanted to have Multiple Children in Antiquity, and didn’t really see this as purely about themselves. It was about the continuation of their family, which always trumped the individual in the Ancient Near East, and far East for that matter. To be cursed with an increase in fertility is to not be cursed at all, but Blessed. The Curse was simply not a viable punishment if this was the case.

I’ve also stated I never saw Adam and Eve as Immortal. The Text doesn’t say they were created as such, and as clear as it is to you, the Tree of Life was NOT partaken of yet. For all we know they weren’t yet permitted near it. Or perhaps its fruit had not come about.

And your claim of “Painful and too frequent Childbirth” is still nonsense to the people who wrote the text. Why would an Ancient Hebrew 4500 years ago, even a woman, understand Constant Childbirth as a Curse given their mentality and culture at the time? Your approaching this entirely as a Modern woman, living in the modern western world. The Text is not a Modern Text and was not written in the Modern world. Your projecting an entirely modern bias into ancient History. He writers would never have thought of your “Too often Childbirth” complaint. Of course Metacrock says I’m wrong so we’ll see what actual Talmudic passages he can post. (Even though the Talmud was itself written centuries later, and is not contemporary.)

And your still trying to make this a discussion on what I believe rather than what I know about the Hebrew Language. Simply put, the verse doesn’t mean that there will be more Pregnancies. Its exactly like the El Shaddai thing where you want it to be a feminine name for God and likely still think to is and will stick to Metacrocks explanation. This is about you wanting to read the text to suit your preset agenda. But the text doesn’t render it this way, and whenever the Curse is mentioned again, no one else references the all too often Childbirth. Paul even says women are saved in Childbirth.

The passage simply doesn’t refer to what you think it does, and that’s basically all I am arguing.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by KR Wordgazer » Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:59 am

Zarove, you keep asserting and re-asserting that a woman in ancient Mesopotamia would never consider it burdensome to be pregnant every year, year after year, feeling her body slowly weakening with the stress, knowing that the chances are high that one of the pregnancies will one day kill her. I say that this is a universal female condition without birth control, and would have been seen that way then by women, regardless of how happy and proud they were of the many children they bore. You keep asking me to show you texts but you furnish none, as to why this passage does not mean what it actually says. So why don't you give me some, and then let Metacrock give you some? I don't think you can prove anything more than that there are different interpretations of this passage, but hey, give it a shot.

As for the "Shaddai" reference, you seem to think that if you just keep repeating yourself over and over, I will eventually say, "Oh, Zarove, you're right and I was wrong." But you've given me no sources that refute the connection of this word to the ancient word for "female breast," though Metacrock has given you many that support it. Why should we simply accept your authority on these things? What is the source of your authoritative scholarship, please?

One more thing. You keep claiming I'm biased and that I'm reading into the passage from my bias. But bias is a universal human condition, isn't it? You are also reading what you want to read into the passage, and choosing to take whatever sources you have (which you have not yet shown us) as authoritative and to reject the plain meaning of the passage. What you have to show is not that I am biased and that you are not, but that your reasons for your reading trump my reasons for mine. In the absence of such reasons, the plain sense of the text in the original language is a pretty high standard to overcome.
Wag more.
Bark less.

Kane Augustus
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 2:25 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by Kane Augustus » Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:08 pm

KR Wordgazer wrote:Zarove, you keep asserting and re-asserting that a woman in ancient Mesopotamia would never consider it burdensome to be pregnant every year, year after year, feeling her body slowly weakening with the stress, knowing that the chances are high that one of the pregnancies will one day kill her. I say that this is a universal female condition without birth control, and would have been seen that way then by women, regardless of how happy and proud they were of the many children they bore. You keep asking me to show you texts but you furnish none, as to why this passage does not mean what it actually says. So why don't you give me some, and then let Metacrock give you some? I don't think you can prove anything more than that there are different interpretations of this passage, but hey, give it a shot.
It seems evident to me that women were at the very least implicitly aware -- but more likely explicitly -- that continued pregnancy eventually would have deleterious effects on their physical health, and most likely emotional misgivings, too. This is at least somewhat evident by the very fact that cultures predating ancient Mesapotamia, cultures like the ancient Egyptians and Chinese peoples, had lavish and extensive forms of birth control (e.g., wooden condoms :shock: ), and calanders charting menstral cycles.

More to the point though, people everywhere, and in all cultures, have been fascinated with sex and all its pleasures and there is not a shred of evidence that supports people engaging in sex purely for reproductive purposes. Hence it is reasonable to note that Quiverfull mentalities are misinformed.

I will write more later.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by ZAROVE » Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:53 pm

Kristen, I knw that Metacrock has enabled you to just continue in believing this sort of rubbish, and you will just see me as a man puhsign dominance over women, so its pointless in talking to you because you rpoefer yoru feminist ideology over anything remotely connected to viable study, and Truth must be made subordinate to Ideals, but lets hink for a moment about what I have said rather than the dismissals.

Zarove, you keep asserting and re-asserting that a woman in ancient Mesopotamia would never consider it burdensome to be pregnant every year, year after year, feeling her body slowly weakening with the stress, knowing that the chances are high that one of the pregnancies will one day kill her.

Actually I refuted the argument that the stress would one day kill her. Her body was likely a whole lot more sturdy than even most mens in the Modern world. Women and men in this time lead a very different lifestyle, they were a breed that could till the fields, give birth the same day, and go back. They weren’t anywhere near as weak as today’s women, just like the men could lift swords that were well over 40 Pounds in battle. This was a different Era, and a different world. There is also the fact that your trying to project a western value system onto these women, in thinking they believed like you in their individuality. They didn’t. Individualism had not come along in Ancient Mesopotamia. They were ultimately Tribal minded, not individually minded. Giving Birth to numerous Children would make more sense in terms of continuing family line and supplying familial support than having only a few. Your acting as if these women had a mentality that placed their own desires first in their lives, which would not have been the case.
I say that this is a universal female condition without birth control, and would have been seen that way then by women, regardless of how happy and proud they were of the many children they bore.
Your evidence is what? Personal feeling as a woman?
I myself am very, very different form most men of my own Era, though Metacrock thinks In a typical southern male who hats women’s equality because I’d feel controlled. I also know from studies that while there are universal attributes to Humanity and the Sexes, there is also vast differences in terms of Culture. Heck, some Cultures venerate Suicide, and others have no problem with polygamy.


So I’m going to need a lot more than just your word on this, I’ll need documentation from the culture itself.


You keep asking me to show you texts but you furnish none, as to why this passage does not mean what it actually says.

Every time I supply evidence I’m ridiculed. it’s not like your going to buy it anyway, you’d say its “The Patriarchy” and Metacrock will show up and find someone else who disagrees and that will be the evidence that’s True. We’ve done this before.

So why don't you give me some, and then let Metacrock give you some? I don't think you can prove anything more than that there are different interpretations of this passage, but hey, give it a shot.

And of course the interpretation that doesn’t agree with you will be ignored and dismissed as “Patriarchy” because your view is the correct one that looked deeper into the Bible, and my view is purely base don some sort of inherent sexism. So no, it’s not worth a shot, when your up against those who absolutely refuse to accept their position is wrong, it never is. In that way your no different than the Atheists I’ve had to deal with wh adamantly insist they aren’t Religious. They never listen to my actual argument and just seek out their own “reasoning” on it.

You really don’t care about the Truth in this matter, its completely about validating your own opinion.

I mean, look at anyone who discusses the Curse apart from the whole “Egalitarian” rot. Anyone from Augustine to John MacArthur. Its never discussed. Metacrock hasn’t exactly been forthcoming with Talmudic references either. Why is it that such an obvious part of the Curse would be overlooked for so long?





[qiuote]
As for the "Shaddai" reference, you seem to think that if you just keep repeating yourself over and over, I will eventually say, "Oh, Zarove, you're right and I was wrong." But you've given me no sources that refute the connection of this word to the ancient word for "female breast,"[/quote]

That’s because Metacrock did that for me. Nothing connect it to Female Breast even in what you presented, only “Breast” , and even that’s speculative. Does it never occur to you that your reading “Breast” as feminine because of a Bias? As I’ve said numerous times, “Breast” is not a word that is inherently feminine. Women are not the only sex that has Breasts. Your assumption that El Shaddai means “The Breasted One” is based entirely on your desire to read “Breast’ as an object exclusive ro women so that you can take a principle name for God and make it female to make yourself feel better, and has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word El Shaddai.

Its sole based on your need to find feminine names or aspects for God and accepting any claim that one exists.




The reason I bring it up here is because the same problem exists in your other arguments. Your too busy trying to impose your current views on the scripture and will use any scrap of anything to vindicate your claims.

though Metacrock has given you many that support it. Why should we simply accept your authority on these things? What is the source of your authoritative scholarship, please?

Kristen, one of the thigns I pointe dout to Metacrock was that the “Plenty of soruces that support it” thathe gave actually proved me right. Read the El Shaddai thread, and this time Hoenslty. Again, your seeing what you want to see, and that is that Zarove the evil sexist is wrong and Metacrock is a hero who prove d me a fraud.

But the Truth is, he didn’t show any soruces that proved anything but what I had already said. We don’t know the exact root for Shaddai, but you and he act as if it cme from Shad menaign Breast and this is a poven absolute Fact. Nothing in the word means “Female Breast used ot nurture the Young”, that’s a completely modern reinterpretation. And again, the actual word is Masculine.

Yoru original claim was that oen of the principle names for God was actually feminine, El Shaddai meaning the Breasted One, about how God suppies us with nourishmnet ike a Mother giving ,ilk form her Breast. Butthis isn’t supported by the words origins itelf, an isn’t supported by anything Metacrock presented other than the Blue Letrr Bible quoting Harriet Lunsty.

Its simply foolish ti think a Hebrew word endign in Ai would be a Motherly image though because it’s a Masculien ending. Do you try to call upon a Mother Image by refrign to the Mother figure as “He”? That’s the equivolent here.




If you re-read the El Shaddai thread and remve the “Metacrock is Great but Zarove is bad and evil, and I like the fac that God is a woman” glasses, you’d see that my whole problem with how the word is interpreted is not roote din some sort fo intrinsic sexism and Metacrocks arguments aren’t as storng as hes pretending them to be.


But you don’t want to loose this, you want El Shaddai to be a Feminien name for God as it make syou feel good. You’ve already admited this you prefer. But preference doenst make reality.



One more thing. You keep claiming I'm biased and that I'm reading into the passage from my bias. But bias is a universal human condition, isn't it?
No. It can be overcome.



You are also reading what you want to read into the passage, and choosing to take whatever sources you have (which you have not yet shown us)
I did show you soruces, and no, I try to udnertand it as it was written, not to fit some agenda.


Just repeating the Lie Metacrock told that I gave no soruces at all and he gave a lot of scholars doesn’t make it so.



as authoritative and to reject the plain meaning of the passage.

See, this is what I mean. You take yoru reading as “The plain reading” and somehow Im using a mental game to sidestep it. But if yours is the plain reading of the text, why did no one before the 20th Century ever come to this conclusion about it?

Before you ask for sorces, I can’t prove a Negative. I cant hwo you soruces don’t exist.


What you have to show is not that I am biased and that you are not, but that your reasons for your reading trump my reasons for mine. In the absence of such reasons, the plain sense of the text in the original language is a pretty high standard to overcome.

OJK, fine, yoru using the plain reading int heorigional text and Im using a bias reading base dupon my biases against women.


Can you show me the mountian of Rabbinical documents speaking of how women will become pregnant more often as the result fo the Curse on Eve? How about Hebraic writings from before the first Century? Anything? Anythgin at all?

Because a large poart fo my argument is that what your calling the plain reading of the text is really not. You even admit this when you say “Let slook deeper in the Bible” which is often used as a ploy to act as if part of the text is overlooked.

But if this is indeed the plain reading, why did no one notice it before 20th century writers?

Would’t it be logical to assume that at leats a few peple woul have, in the last 4500 years, mentioned Eve’s increased fertility as part of the Curse at some point?


If the reading is so plain, why didn’t they?

User avatar
tinythinker
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:16 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by tinythinker » Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:35 pm

ZAROVE wrote:Kristen, I knw that Metacrock has enabled you to just continue in believing this sort of rubbish, and you will just see me as a man puhsign dominance over women, so its pointless in talking to you because you rpoefer yoru feminist ideology over anything remotely connected to viable study, and Truth must be made subordinate to Ideals, but lets hink for a moment about what I have said rather than the dismissals.
Do you honestly think this makes you sound like you are being reasonable or that this suggests that you are interested in actual discussion? It comes across as rude, aggressive and dismissive. You make the claim it is pointless in talking to KR, then you write a whole page of rebuttal. So who are you writing to? What is the point? Given your acknowledgment of the difficulty you are having in communicating with folks like KR, rather than simply blaming her and her attitudes for this impasse it might be worth reflecting on your motivations in casting aspersions and then continuing on to assert the superiority of your views as opposed to rehashing what's already been debated several times.
Adrift in the endless river

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by ZAROVE » Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:39 pm

Tiny, your own Biases Favour her cause, keep in ind. Im dismissive because I know nothguib thr evil patriarichal southern male Zaroe says matters. Kristen wants to beleive this rot and will becsuse it makes her feel good, an dyou see me as the aggressor purley becsuse yorur sympathetic to what she represents.


That said,


If you really need outside sources ( as opposed to the ones Metacrock already provided which proves me right) try these by the way.


http://www.hebrewletters.com/item.cfm?itemid=45299


Note: I know you’ll read part of this as confirmation of your Bias, but just because it says “Provider and sustainers” doesn’t mean “Womans breast as she provides and sustains her baby”. Men were providers and sustainers, too, and nothing conotate nursing.



Here is another.


http://www.el-shaddai.org/whatdoesitmean.asp

This is another article on it.

http://pediaview.com/openpedia/El_Shaddai


Note, this one even mentions Harriet Lutzky, and says she’s a Professor of Psychology, not a Hebrew Scholar. Her “Evidence” was base don her own biases, but picked up by those who want to show off their tolerance and diversity and how modern they are.

Before her, no one connected El Shaddai with motherly imagery.

Here are a few more Jewish Sources.

http://www.ou.org/torah/tt/5762/vaera62 ... atures.htm


And


http://www.ou.org/torah/article/covenan ... on_history


And heres more.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... html#Names


Do I really need more?


The only people promoting this “motherly’ nonsense for the term are those who want to sound politically correct, but it is linguistically rubbish. I actually studied Hebrew, by the way, so my Authority is at least better than others here. (Unless Kane has also studied it.)





The other thing I could do is to post several other things form Strongs Concordance to Hebrew Lexicons, but I doubt you’d read them, They’d be long, technical, and in the end you’d accuse me of overlooking something or twist some part of it to suit your preferred belief.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by KR Wordgazer » Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:58 pm

Zarove, you're insulting me again. I see no reason to reply to any of this until you change your tone. Let me make it clear where the insults are.

You say Metacrock has "enabled" me to "believe rubbish." So I couldn't have come up with any of my opinions on my own; I need Metacrock to tell me what to think-- also I will swallow any "rubbish" Metacrock hands me. I am incapable of discerning a good argument from a bad one.
because you rpoefer yoru feminist ideology over anything remotely connected to viable study
So I deliberately choose deception because it makes me happy, and I don't care about scholarship.
And of course the interpretation that doesn’t agree with you will be ignored and dismissed as “Patriarchy” because your view is the correct one that looked deeper into the Bible, and my view is purely base don some sort of inherent sexism.
I did not make such a value judgment about you. I have NEVER called you sexist. I know I have said things in anger, but I know I never called you sexist. I may have said you were biased, but I also admit that I am biased, as all humans are.

Whatever Metacrock said is between you and him.

But you are making a value judgment about me and deciding that you know what my true motives are.
you want El Shaddai to be a Feminien name for God as it make syou feel good. You’ve already admited this you prefer. But preference doenst make reality.
Again you tell me what I think and interpret my motives for me. It is unfortunate that our earlier conversation was wiped out in the forum hack, because I actually said to you that I was not wed to the idea that El Shaddai had to refer to breasts. However, I can't prove this because it's gone. Also gone are my repeated and futile efforts to make peace with you, to agree not to discuss egalitarianism any more with you, and to focus on what we could agree on-- none of which you ever responded to.

Now, even though I really shouldn't after the tone you just used with me, I will address the one substantive thing you did say.

No, I don't believe Mesopotamian women were just like me. They may very well have been "hardier" than women are today, although of course they were also subject to diseases that have since been eradicated. Yes, I believe they wanted to have more children than I want today. Yes, I believe they saw pregnancy as a whole as a good thing. I still don't see how that negates the idea that this passage says "I will multiply your sorrows AND your pregnancies" as part of the Curse. Despite the tendency of interpreters to replace the word "and" there with "in" or "of," every source I read says that "sorrows AND pregnancies" is what the actual Hebrew says. Yes, I do think that the ability of a woman's body to have more frequent pregnancies than her health can sustain, is part of the curse. Yes, I think it quite likely that, however much they wanted and welcomed more children, they wouldn't enjoy the fact that too-close-together pregnancies can kill-- no matter how "hardy" you are to start out. Kane Augustus is right-- there is evidence of the existence of birth control in most ancient societies, including that of Mesopotamia. Yes, I think women availed themselves of it.

But it really doesn't matter to me whether we agree on this or not. I am once again extending the olive branch, though last time I did, it did no good. Can we agree to disagree, and drop this matter? It's illogical and unproductive to continue this. You can't browbeat me into changing my mind-- and yes, your posts are coming across as attempts to browbeat, not as respectful discussion in which I am allowed to have a point of view that differs from yours.

I propose that we forgive one another and bury the hatchet. You can post whatever you like about Complementarianism in any thread you start yourself.l I can post anything I like about Egalitarianism in any thread I open myself. We agree to stay out of one another's threads. In threads that are started by others in this Egalitarian section, we ignore one another's posts (it's easy to do, simply list me as a "foe" in your profile and you don't have to read anything I write unless you click on it deliberately).

On the non-egalitarian forums, we can interact with one another normally and courteously, as friends who have agreed to disagree on one issue and not to discuss it any more between ourselves.

I don't see how I could make a fairer offer. Will you agree?
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
tinythinker
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:16 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by tinythinker » Thu Oct 21, 2010 2:29 pm

ZAROVE wrote:Tiny, your own Biases Favour her cause, keep in ind. Im dismissive because I know nothguib thr evil patriarichal southern male Zaroe says matters. Kristen wants to beleive this rot and will becsuse it makes her feel good, an dyou see me as the aggressor purley becsuse yorur sympathetic to what she represents.
The most pithy reply is often the most accurate and useful, which in this case is BULLSHIT. Your language is clearly belittling and disrespectful. I have been on message boards for a dozen years, and I am known for calling a spade a spade. I have criticized many regulars on these forums on their attitude or the way the presented something, especially Metacrock and Sgt Tomas, even when I agreed with the point they were making, because how an idea is presented is important. When I was on boards like CARM I was mostly an atheist, and I was and am a student of evolution, and I had no problem politely pointing out stupid, rude, or ineffective atheist and evolution arguments or replies with kindness. I have also been honest about what I think, and I do not apologize for having an opinion. I have been open to rebuke when I have gone overboard with my own behavior, when I lost my temper or when I was being rude or dismissive, and I have received and seriously considered criticism of my ideas. I do not claim perfection, or to be superior, but I have built a reputation for these things for over a decade, and your defensive posturing doesn't change that. I see your post as being disrespectful because the language in it is disrespectful.

ZAROVE wrote:That said,
Ah, no. You aren't going to fling that shit at me and then move on as if it were nothing. I am not here to argue over your interpretations of Biblical traditions and how some views have hurt women, a topic which has already been exhausted and run over again and again. I was suggesting the value of reflecting on some of the issues in communication on these forums so the dialogue could move on in more fruitful manner for all involved. I do think you have at times posted material worth considering, and some I have agreed with. If I thought you weren't making any useful contributions I wouldn't have bothered reaching out. But if your method of operation is going to be to insult people and blame them for not liking the attitude you display in threads like this one, I will have to reconsider that decision. This community was founded on the notion that everyone should respect one another and that everyone has something useful to offer, not as just another forum where people hurl ad hominem as the opening and closing of their arguments.
ZAROVE wrote:If you really need outside sources ( as opposed to the ones Metacrock already provided which proves me right)...

Note: I know you’ll read part of this as confirmation of your Bias...

Her “Evidence” was base don her own biases, but picked up by those who want to show off their tolerance and diversity and how modern they are...

I actually studied Hebrew, by the way, so my Authority is at least better than others here...

The other thing I could do is to post several other things form Strongs Concordance to Hebrew Lexicons, but I doubt you’d read them, They’d be long, technical, and in the end you’d accuse me of overlooking something or twist some part of it to suit your preferred belief.
Do you honestly believe these statements wouldn't sound paranoid and arrogant unless someone disagrees with your position? Do you really think it's all on everyone else? Amazing.
Adrift in the endless river

Post Reply