clarification on using one's name

AndyHolland · Post by **AndyHolland** » Tue 29 November 2005 12:44 pm

Please study what St. Paul is saying closely. Men are expected to suffer the consequences of their speech for the Gospels directly. Women are to remain covered - also for the Gospel's sake.

If a 220 lb. bad guy attacks me, I am a weight lifter. If he attacks you - maybe you will beat him up; but it is easier for me to turn the other cheek. If you beat him up, he will feel badly. If you allow him to beat you up, he would learn nothing.

There was an Orthodox Priest who was in Russia who got the snot beat out of him by some bullies on some occasions. When his wife arrived in the town, he proceeded to allow this again, but then when they went after his wife, he beat the snot out of them. He made them crawl before them as they walked down the road some distance as punishment.

Later some of these brutes converted- becoming Christians, and attended his congregation. It turned out this Priest had been a highly decorated and highly trained war hero and was very physically fit.

It is a man's privilege to defend the Gospels openly, and defend women openly. It is a woman's privilege to defend the Gospels while covered, and allow the man to do the work of the ox.

Would you deny St. Sampson his privilege? Would you deny the OT woman Saint who with cunning cut off the head of a tyrant?

It is not sexist, it is reality. We have different functions and are commanded to behave differently.

andy Holland
Holland-Daze Farm
Somerset PA

AndyHolland · Post by **AndyHolland** » Tue 29 November 2005 12:52 pm

St. Paul: Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.

11:2. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.
11:3. But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God.
11:4. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered disgraceth his head.
11:5. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.
11:6. For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head.
11:7. The man indeed ought not to cover his head: because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.
11:8. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
11:9. For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man.
11:10. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.
11:11. But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.
11:12. For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God.

Respectfully Submitted
Andy Holland
Holland-Daze Farm
Somerset PA

Ebor · Post by **Ebor** » Tue 29 November 2005 1:03 pm

pjhatala wrote:
Arguably only children under the age of 14 should be allowed to post because "a little child shall lead them".

But since many sites require that people using be at least 13 (or have parents permission, that might make the 'Net a much quieter place.

Good one.

Ebor

AndyHolland · Post by **AndyHolland** » Tue 29 November 2005 1:13 pm

"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them."

Anyone here a wolf, a leopard, a kid, a calf, a young lion or a fatling?

OK - I am overweight. As a farmer, the time has not yet come for the wolves to be let in with the sheep. Yet providing prophecy, I'll not hide my head.

Respectfully Submitted
Andy Holland
Holland-Daze Farm
Somerset PA

Ebor · Post by **Ebor** » Tue 29 November 2005 1:32 pm

AndyHolland wrote:
Please study what St. Paul is saying closely. Men are expected to suffer the consequences of their speech for the Gospels directly. Women are to remain covered - also for the Gospel's sake.

Is this to say that an adult woman should some how be 'protected' from taking resposibility for her own words or actions? That they are to not suffer from consequences?

It is a man's privilege to defend the Gospels openly, and defend women openly. It is a woman's privilege to defend the Gospels while covered, and allow the man to do the work of the ox.

I'm sorry, this doesn't seem to have a high view of men or women: ox? umm oxen are ahh, not fully male after all. Women are not to defend themselves? Just what do you mean by "covered"?

Would you deny the OT woman Saint who with cunning cut off the head of a tyrant?

That would be Judith and Holofernes. There's also the case of Yael driving a tent peg into Sisera's head (Book of Judges during the time that Deborah judged Isreal.) And what of Huldah who interpreted in Second Kings, I wonder...

It is not sexist, it is reality. We have different functions and are commanded to behave differently.

And how do you define "sexist"? Some functions are different (biological/reproductive for example) and others are the same: Men can change a diaper too.

Have you checked out your interpretation with your priest?

Fyi, it has often been the case that people on-line with identifiable female names/handles have often in the past been harassed, propsitioned, stalked or discounted as their ideas don't matter since she's "only a woman". The Internet is not a warm and safe place. Why should males be exposed to predation and harassement by someone who takes offense?

Ebor

edited to correct a bad quote section

1937 Miraculous Cross · Tue 29 November 2005 11:11 pm

you know everyone, I certainly appreciate the 'safety' concerns; however, if people just posted with their baptismal name I see no problem here from a safety perspective. You don't have to give your last name, nor the city you live in. It is really more a matter of courteous discourse. If I'm talking to another person, I want to know who they are. Pseudonyms are like masks to hide behind, and I think they do encourage the "pot" shots and derisive comments people make sometimes. I know from my perspective, by putting my name and city out there, it does make me think twice about what I'm writting.

If people want to state their full names and where they live, so much the better, IMHO. However, I'll drop this issue. I just was under the impression that the Cafe was going to adopt the use of at least using baptismal names. If I missed something here, then I apologize to the List for bringing this up again.

1937 Miraculous Death to Klingons.

aka, nectarios manzanero

Ebor · Post by **Ebor** » Wed 30 November 2005 12:22 pm

Well, by some peoples' lights here I wouldn't have a "baptismal" name since I am not EO. I was baptised btw and I have a name .

Then again, what makes an on-line 'handle" or nickname different from a nickname or diminutive in RL?

I grant that often in on-line fora there are posters with what a friend calls "CRT induced personality disorder" that is since they are posting to a screen of crunchons they don't see that there are human beings at the other end. However, there are people who have posted their full names and other identifying information who do not seem to be, ummm, "inhibited" from pot shots and derisive comments either.

"Death to Klingons"? !Ka-Plah!

Ebor