To further elaborate on how you misinterpret my own speaking style. Or rather, writing style...
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.
I mean, Metacrock enables you to continue wiht the beleif system. When I firts noted El Shaddai was not feminien you accepted what I said,then he showe dup and said I was wrong. You imidiatley agreed wiht him, and veen now seehim as a valient prunce rescuing yoru position agsisnt a vile tyrant that is Zarove.
That attitude alone insults me. Metacrock has never studied Hebrew at all, where I have. While I never claiemd to be a Hebrew Scholar, I do know the Language. Yet, I cant use that as the basis of naythign I say, and have to take sriosyly half baked claims you foudn on a website by someone lse hwo is quotign somethign else they have read?
Do you not think thats a bit insulting?
And you imedatley fall back into the same positions.
Enabling is a Psycological term, it is also elastiv. It simply meant here that he allows you to view me as wrong. You also ignroe how many times h'es personally insulted me, of heck for hat matter how oftne you've personally insulted me. My own tne is largley responcive. However, anythgin I sy omes off as way mroe aggressive than it really is because thats how you porefer to see me. Its also enabled byt he fac htat this is a text medium. If I wre speakign you coudl still project motives, but it'd be harder to defend raw aggression, as Im not that angry. Still, your even twisign what I say here.
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.
No, you selectivley choose to beleive peices of information wihtout goign deeper into them because the idea you glean form it appeals to you its a mistake the vast majority of people make.
Speakign of which, why haven't you called Metacrock on the numerous insults he issued to me?
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.
On this I may be wrong. It may have been Metacrock. If so I apologise.
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.
Based on what you've written its fairly easy.
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.
Now htis I do remember. You said plainly you "Prefer" the motherly image to "God of the montain". But preference shoudl never matter in a linguisyical study.
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.
But Im discussing Hebrew and the Theology of the Vurse here. My outrage, in this instance, is ourely motivated by your misapplication of a Hebrew Phrase. Once you realise this,and just how Insuler my actual argument is ( as in it focuses soely on one part of yoru essay, and not the rest, and is based on your misundrstandign a Hebrew phrase) then you may be less angry over it.
I did mention messiah Tain, and the reasonw as he makes grammatical mistakes in English base don his Theological Views. I dislike how words are twisted to mean somethign they dotn really mean to prove a point, especially by someone hwo doens't really now the language they are twisting.
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.
I've said more hran one substantive thing.
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.
Well for one thing, they'd be oblivious to why this was a Curse.
Besies, thats not what the Phrase was intended to convey. In Hebrew a lotof things which link wuth forme words really woudl try to point to the former first. "I will increse your sorrows and your conception" woudl mor elikely be heard as "You will be sorrowful when pregnant" more htan "You will be pregnant mroe often". Its simply not hwo the language works in Hebrew.
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.
But, the Phre in Hebrew would be heard by a Hebrew speaking as mainly focusinf on Sorrows, not multilication iof pregnancy. Basiclaly, Pregnancy will be a sorrowful event instead of Joyous a it was meat to be. Thats the point that is being made here. Not an increase in fertility.
And again, its a LINGUISTICAL point.
Though in this cse it does have Thelogical ramifications.
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.
But you back this ofd nothing but a misinterpreted Hebrew Phrase and a desire to prmote Birth Control. Basically, you start wiht the ocnclusion.
Thats the Logical Fallacy I was attemptign to cite.
Which by the way is also why I dont address the Onan Argument ( which is not invalid) and why I odnt address the Birth Control Issue ( WHich I have no interest in). I am merely not happy wihtthe abuse of the Hebrew Language, and how peopel reshape their Thellogy on thigns they reas into the text rather than a reading of the text.
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.
Which doens't really speak about my point which is linguitical and theological.
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.
They are also comign accross to you as somehign enurley different than they are, an attemto to attakc you prsonally or your position. I am instead simply unhappy wiht the use of a Hebrew Phrae you ont udnestand beign twisted to suit an agenda. Again, once you get htat part the rest becoems much less offensive.
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).
This isnt abotu a Hatchet or you prsonally. Its about me havign studied Hebrew and not liking the prhase beign misinterpreted.
Again, this is not even aboutthe position you've taken on Birth Congrol. Its about hte Hebrew Language and misrepresentation of it.
While yo may not liek this respince, I ask you to perhaos see my postigns in a new light. I am addressing a VERY specific, VERY narrow point. I am nothign is not literal minded, and despite theattacks on me recently, veey precice and Logical. The sole purpose I made of myself here is to address how yo misinterrpeted a singular Hebrew Phrase in a singular passage to arrive at a prefered conclusion.
So rather than take this as an overall condemnation, why not look at it as what it is. A Rather lenghty discussion about the linguistical matters of the Genesis chapter 3 text.
Because thats what I intended it to be.
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?
But his issue for me is not Egalitarian to begin with. it is entirley base don hebrew culture and Language.
All I ask is that this portion of yru argument be retracted as its really not a berty sound argument, as it rests on a Linguistical misinterpretation.