Saturday, July 29, 2006

Dishonesty of CCC

Reemmber the Christian Complamentarian Coalition, from two posts down? They are the one's who are trying to promote the double talk that men and womenin the chruch aer equal, but that duties are such that men do thel leading and women follow. Who is this sweet little friend Donna, who just wants to talk and is so nice? She is actually an agent for CCC and was sent by Mouser to quell the talk of a debae.

On their baord she says:

I decided to take down the quotes because qoting from a pirviate list is not the same as just critiquing their views. They did ask, so what not? Besides this is not the kind of thing I want here, the not right atmophsere.


believer333 said...

yes, sad witness for Christians there. You might want to state firmly that you are not the originator of either the Badge of Honor or the Tavern Forum, and that neither are an egalitarian forum. The Badge of honor is for people who have been mistreated by Christian forums, doesn't matter what kind of belief system the victim or the perpetrator have. And the Tavern, I don't know anything about except that was created by a few individuals for their own free discussion. I heard that it was meant to be private not public. It's private now

J.L. Hinman said...

I have said that.

believer333 said...

I see it in red now. Good deal!

The question is, will the CCC board see it and when they do will they post a polite recant on mis-naming you. That would be the good Christian response.

Anonymous said...

Dear Meta, whoever you really are, let me just say that I found this site quite by accident this morning and am appalled by the insincerity to quote conversations in their entirety... or even the necessity to put quotes by people here to inaccurately assume the intent of their posts to a discussion board. I respectfully ask that you remove my comments, unless you state them in full so that people who might visit this blog of yours can determine by themselves someone's dishonesty. I would also suggest that you read the requirements of the CCC list, so that you understand its purpose, which seems to have been lost in all of this chatter.

Ralph R. Mauch

J.L. Hinman said...

why do you think I'm one of the ECA women? I am not eisaly imtimidated. Mouser will not control what's on my blog like he tries what's on their board, by childish threats of law suits he hasn't a chance of winning. I put a link to the orignial page so readers can see the context. I am not goig to put huge volumes of gossipy bs no this blog.

Mouser has not heard the last of the challenge to debate.

BTW your insistance upon figuring out "who I am." I am not one of the women or a charcter you've met before. I've been posting on ECA board since 202, but i'm not one of the people who you know from the CCC site. I have lawyers, I under fair use rules, I not going to be intimidated. got it?

Corrie said...

Hi Ralph,

I must have missed the part on this blog where you were quoted? I will have to go look for it and see what you are referring to when you say it is "appalling".

Do you know what? I am contantly quoted, out of context and with much mendaciousness on the CCC board. It doesn't matter what I originally said, my words have been twisted and turned around into fodder for you all to feast on in a frenzied fest of fury. (How is that for aliteration?! )

You cannot, imho, be appalled by something done to you and not equally be appalled by the things that are done to others all the time on your list.

If you guys want to lift yourselves up as standards to follow as far as patriarchy goes, then you all had better be good examples. I GRIEVE over what you all do over there in the name of Christ. And what is even more disturbing is that so many of you find it fun to do this to fellow believers.

I would say that you are one of the least offenders as far as bad behavior goes on that list but you will be judged by the company you keep. A companion of fools is quickly ruined. I couldn't stand by, even though I agreed with you all, and allow people to be mistreated in the name of Christ. Even though disagre with the egals, you need to stick up for right treatment of your fellow brothers and sisters.

What is truly appalling is the way a few of the more prolific posts on CCC act. Imho, they have well-earned this kind of public scrutiny. You can't have one without the other.

Corrie said...

I just want to go on record....

I do not refer to God as "she". I refer to Him as "He".

I am not a goddess worshiper.

I am not egalitarian. I am a complementarian but not like the ones on CCC. I do not like to lable myself with the name of "complementarian" because there are so many bad apples and I don't want to be associated with them.

I do not think that women can be pastors or elders in the church. That said, I also don't believe that many people on the CCC grab power for themselves in order to lord it over those under them.

I am an independent thinker. I don't need for the group to "atta girl" me. I have my husband and friends who know me and love me to do that for me.

I do not care what mere men think of me.

I think most people on CCC don't want to be bothered by the facts because they already have their minds made up. Anyone who disagrees with them must be an egal or feminist because they can't be wrong about anything in their own minds.

I will apologize for any slanderous comment in my above post but I can't find any. So, I am open to someone pointing it out so I can make a specific apology.

If anyone cares to know what I believe or think please just ask like a mature, godly adult. Don't ASSUME. And please do NOT ignore the things I say when I tell publicly what I *do* believe. That doesn't look so good. It looks dishonest.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I know that even though I say that I am a complementarian, I will still be accused of being a feminist, egalitarian and goddess worshiper. That is okay. That just reflects more on you than it does on me. I understand the temptation to be stubborn.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Meta, debates are to be about issues, not individuals, and you are right in that critiquing someone's view is what should happen, not critiquing the "person" based on just one view they hold.