Do Righter Cynthia McClaskey Attacks Bible and Baptists

[DrJamesAch]

Do Righter Cynthia McLaskey Hebrew Blundering of Genesis 25:21

[Promoting other websites? If there is a discussion for HERE, please start it. If you want free advertising for a KJVonly site, have the honesty to pay for it]

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

more info please

Doc...I can't say as I've ever heard of this woman....care to elaborate on her "transgressions" in a bit more detail? And do I detect by the red text that Dr. Bob just publically rebuked you for something? By the way...I like your website (but that is a seperate issue). I also appreciate your "balancing" presence here. It is always good to have someone who is more knowledgeable and articulate than oneself around. I appreciate you even if others don't. It is always interesting to observe how some otherwise gracious people may respond to a bold presentation of the truth.

Now...as I said...tell us about Cynthia McLaskey and her issues.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[DrJamesAch]

Do Righter Cynthia McLaskey Hebrew Blundering of Genesis 25:21

[Promoting other websites? If there is a discussion for HERE, please start it. If you want free advertising for a KJVonly site, have the honesty to pay for it]

It was not an advertisement for my website, it was simply a link to an article that I just happened to write, and me siting it is no different than anyone else site other websites in support of their arguments, and quoting numerous copyrighted material without permission from the authors which is not covered under Fair Usage. Is this a for-profit website? Or is it a 501(c)(3) religious corporation/church because I don't see the display for it?

The article was more about a critic against Baptists who vilifies ALL Baptists whether they are KJV or not.

And I did not know that I had to pay to link to my site because I do not sell anything on my website, nor do I advertise on my site (links are my site are simply favorite websites, those linked on the site are not paying me to advertise).

7. No solicitation or advertising of any kind. Our message boards are for discussions, not to sell goods or services. If you would like to advertise, please contact us for an advertising package

So that is a pretty low-blow to accuse me of being dishonest when I don't see anything on your website, nor did you link anything to a specific forum policy that prohibits it. Just because I disagree with Calvinism does not give you the right to accuse me of being dishonest. You are basically accusing me of a crime which is a serious defamation of character. I understand that you don't like my opinions about Calvinism and the KJV, that's your prerogative, but when you start attacking my character as if I purposely attempted to defraud your website financially merely because you dislike my views is crossing the line.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Also curious if you advised Rick Norris (Logos) about the same "advertising rules" that you just said to me:

"My new 100 page booklet entitled KJV-only Myths About Archaic Words is now available at www.lulu.com It is a greatly expanded and revised edition of a chapter on archaic words in my book The Unbound Scriptures. That section on archiac words was less than 20 pages. This booklet provides evidence that answers several inaccurate KJV-only claims about archaic words. This new booklet includes over 30 pages of examples where the KJV updated, revised, or made simpler renderings in the 1568 Bishops' Bible of which it was a revision. It also includes an example list of words found in one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles that were not used in the KJV." http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=58932&highlight=unbound+scriptures

Just a little bit sick of the double standards on here.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss......BOOOOOOOOOM! Ouch...that's gonna leave a mark!:tonofbricks:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[DrJamesAch]

sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss......BOOOOOOOOOM! Ouch...that's gonna leave a mark!:tonofbricks:

Bro.Greg:saint:

I'm just getting started. Wait till you see my next article!! Will be up by the end of morning (daylight for you)

 

[Yeshua1]

Also curious if you advised Rick Norris (Logos) about the same "advertising rules" that you just said to me:

"My new 100 page booklet entitled KJV-only Myths About Archaic Words is now available at www.lulu.com It is a greatly expanded and revised edition of a chapter on archaic words in my book The Unbound Scriptures. That section on archiac words was less than 20 pages. This booklet provides evidence that answers several inaccurate KJV-only claims about archaic words. This new booklet includes over 30 pages of examples where the KJV updated, revised, or made simpler renderings in the 1568 Bishops' Bible of which it was a revision. It also includes an example list of words found in one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles that were not used in the KJV." http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=58932&highlight=unbound+scriptures

Just a little bit sick of the double standards on here.

Maybe its because he uses sound logic and real facts?

 

[Don]

Maybe its because he uses sound logic and real facts?

I believe the BB rules don't allow for exceptions. If we allow one person to post links and advertise, then we must allow all, regardless of whether we like what they've written.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Maybe its because he uses sound logic and real facts?

The "Dr." had to do some digging to find a four-year-old post to whine about.

The "Dr." should grow up.

Some of us are sick of the "Dr." and his whining and wish he would just go away.

The "Ignore" feature works great except when people quote him.

 

[Rippon]

I also appreciate your "balancing" presence here. It is always good to have someone who is more knowledgeable and articulate than oneself [sic]around.

You have major discernment issues GPS.

It is always interesting to observe how some otherwise gracious people may respond to a bold presentation of the truth.

Like I said,you have major discernment issues. "A bold presentation of the truth" is far from the truth.

 

[DrJamesAch]

I believe the BB rules don't allow for exceptions. If we allow one person to post links and advertise, then we must allow all, regardless of whether we like what they've written.

Excellent point!
[snipped another attempt to divert from the "point" of the thread into a Calvinism debate. Tiresome and juvenile.]

 

[DrJamesAch]

The "Dr." had to do some digging to find a four-year-old post to whine about.

The "Dr." should grow up.

Some of us are sick of the "Dr." and his whining and wish he would just go away.

The "Ignore" feature works great except when people quote him.

You made that clear about me from day one before I even posted anything about Calvinism because I offended your dear antifundamentalist friend Jeri Massi, who thinks that all Baptists are perverts and child molesters. You defended an astrology worshiping Buddhist lover and then shut your mouth when I busted you out for lying about not knowing who she was.

 

[Rippon]

Excellent point!

It has been made very clear on this board that this forum is being used to suck in fundamental Baptists in an attempt to persuade them over to Calvinism without actually telling them that the forum has a Calvinist bent and an anti KVJ bent.

You obviously don't know about DHK and Skan,among others when it comes to soteriology.

There is certainly an anti-KJVO element here.

Calvinism is not widely accepted in the majority of fundamental Baptist churches

All too true.

so forums like this are a clandestine means of sneaking in the doctrines of TULIP

How sneaky! Shh...don't tell anyoone else!

and making sure that anyone who has a solid grasp on the argument with the ability to decipher the true implications of Calvinism or the KJV argument gets censored.

And you are the master decoder,huh?

Do I have the intention of convincing others that Calvinism is wrong? OF COURSE I DO, I believe it to be one of the most destructive doctrines in Christianity.

And the inversion of Calvinism is correct?! You hold the keys to TRUTH in your little hands?

If Calvinists are so...

If you are so all-fired-up about it --then start your own forum.

 

[Mexdeaf]

You made that clear about me from day one before I even posted anything about Calvinism because I offended your dear antifundamentalist friend Jeri Massi, who thinks that all Baptists are perverts and child molesters. You defended an astrology worshiping Buddhist lover and then shut your mouth when I busted you out for lying about not knowing who she was.

A simple reading of this link will show who the "liar" is-

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=86108&page=2

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Yawnnnnn!

Maybe its because he uses sound logic and real facts?

That is a matter of your VERY subjective personal opinion. While I know your buddy Rippon accuses me of having "discernment issues" (frankly, I am not too concerned with what he thinks) I believe that Doc's logic is sound and God-honoring and that his facts are solid and verifiable from what I can see. That is MY opinion. I believe it to be objective...but I know you will think it otherwise. Oh well. Thankfully...it is not my job to MAKE anybody think or believe anything. It is my "job" to honor my God and be as true as possible to His Word.


Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[DrJamesAch]

A simple reading of this link will show who the "liar" is-

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=86108&page=2

Yes! Good place to start, in particular post #14 where I respond to you denying knowing who I was talking about, then tried to clean it up after I busted you out. But, not only were you dishonest, but your attitude shows how you and others have been toward me from the very first posts that I posted, and then have the NERVE to act like I have been the aggressor.

 

[DHK]

Do you all think that the new C/A forum was so difficult to find by accident? And that all the main opponents against Calvinism have their threads closed or buried in a separate forum while the Calvinists threads are permitted in the general forums? Oh but of course the Westminster Confession is allowed to be discussed because its about a creed and confession but not about Calvinism, even though one poster specifically labeled the contention over the creed an issue about Calvinism TWICE in the very opening paragraph. Even many Calvinists had noticed this and spoke up about it.

The fact that this hypocritical standard is not only being applied but supported by many Calvinists shows a gross willingness to use deceptive and deceitful means to promote their ideology so long as the ends justify the means and that speaks VOLUMES about their character.

I am not a Calvinist.
But I can speak to some of your complaints.
The discussion of a Confession or Creed whether Calvinist or not, is not about Calvinism. It is about Confessions. If a poster takes that thread off the topic of confessions and turns it into Calvinistic doctrine, then he is in the wrong for derailing the thread.

What if the thread was about the Catholic Catechism? Would it be about the "Catechism" or the discussion of Calvinism? Or even the discussion of "Purgatory"? One cannot derail the thread by taking the discussion away from the topic of "Catechism, Creed, Confession, etc." and start railing on any specific doctrine. They are in the wrong. Stick to the topic at hand. Make sure your posts are directed to the OP.

If a thread is closed it is often because the poster's have gotten out of control. Read the rules. Post in grace, respectively, taking into consideration others. Love your neighbor as yourself.
This may be a debate forum, but it is not necessary to be an embarrassment to all the world that is reading it. I or any other moderator shouldn't have to come here and edit half the posts, or do which is much easier--just close the thread. That is the primary reason threads get closed--not because they are Calvinistic or non-Calvinistic, but because the language being used is over the top, disrespectful, antagonistic, offensive, insulting, etc. It need not to be that way.
Post in grace. If the rules are not clear then please read them again.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Yes! Good place to start, in particular post #14 where I respond to you denying knowing who I was talking about, then tried to clean it up after I busted you out. But, not only were you dishonest, but your attitude shows how you and others have been toward me from the very first posts that I posted, and then have the NERVE to act like I have been the aggressor.

Ach,

Stop whining. That and twisting the words of others is not becoming of someone who has a "doctorate", who has supposedly memorized the entire New Testament, and to top it off, is a missionary in Israel.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

I don’t suppose there is much hope of turning this conversation back to Cynthia McClaskey and her attack on not just Baptists, but all Christians.

Religion's Cell
Doctrines of the Church that lead to Bondage and Abuse
Cynthia McClaskey

Religion's Cell by Cynthia McClaskey is a masterful exploration of the ways in which organized religion has, through the centuries, systematically denied woman her proper role in the church and the world. McClaskey moves forward with detailed and extensively referenced explanations of how man, in seeking to retain power and authority in both religion and the world, has relegated woman to a subservient position in both areas, in violation of God's intended plan.

I have to admit I read that description and thought, “Here is another feminist attacking Christianity and God’s word.”

But then I went to her website and read her blog, especially her article, “Red Flags We Ignored.”

It sounds like she was a member in a church similar to some of the IFB churches that have scared my own past. This woman deserves to be listened to.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Wow, the more I read the more I like this woman.

I found the article I think we were supposed to link to at the start of this thread.

Gen. 25:21 reads: “Isaac pleaded with the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was barren; and the Lord responded to his plea, and his wife Rebecca conceived.” Rashi (1040-1105) first notes that the meaning of vaye’tar (pleaded) is “to pray much and earnestly. Many biblical quotations support this meaning of the word.” He then seizes on a peculiar expression in the Hebrew text, noting that le-nokhach ishto, although commonly translated as “[pleaded] for his wife,’ literally means ‘opposite his wife,’ which is the basis for the Talmudic suggestion that ‘Isaac prayed in one corner and Rebecca in another.’ ” Not only has Rashi explained to the reader the literal meaning of the Torah’s words, he also has conveyed a visual representation of the room in which Isaac and Rebecca prayed. We can well imagine that later on many Jewish couples, plagued by infertility, took up praying positions in opposite corners of the room, in line with Rashi’s explanation.” — Jewish Literacy, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, p. 183.

Cynthia then goes on to say:

Throughout my time in a fundamentalist religious sect, the men were given the preeminence over women. I was taught that the man’s prayers had the preeminence over that of the woman. Women were second class human beings because they were women. I was taught that a man had to have the control over the women in every instance of her life. By implication, I was also taught that God would not hear the prayers of the woman unless their was a man standing over her as head. . . .

And then she goes on to show how scripturaly this is not true, and she is right.
I have to say I agree with her. Men and women are equal before the lord and both of their prayers are heard. The idea of Isaac and Rebecca praying together, across from one another in the same room is a much more powerful and I beleive accurate image.