Cheryl Schatz

Dave,
I thought your summary was bang on correct. I find it an odd thing about Mark. He has no answers for 1 Timothy 2:15 and freely admits that but he is willing to bluff his way through a challenge of my view. Now don’t get me wrong. I am very willing to handle any challenge to my view from those who think there might be a hole in my argument. But I expect honesty in the challenge and I am amazed at how an opposing viewpoint to patriarchy can be attacked in an illegitimate way just because my exegesis of the passage causes them to feel threatened. It appears that I must be knocked down in order for them to retain their privileged position.

I will be happy to answer the challenge. Perhaps one challenger at a time. I also want to make a distinction between challengers. Gengwall appears to honestly want to know the truth and is willing to challenge me from a place of wanting truth. As far as Mark, he answers few questions and when his questions are answered he admits to nothing and leaves for a time just to come back with a trumped up piece of grammar that he cannot prove from any respected grammar book. This kind of argumentation appears to me to be a sign that he doesn’t really care as much for the truth as he does for his own position. I certainly could be wrong about this. But if I am wrong, Mark has done nothing to show me his love for the truth when he presents invalid “grammar” arguments as if his opinion is worthy of being believed without giving valid documentary evidence. I find that incredibly sad that smoke and mirrors used as a bluff can be thought to be a worthy argument. What I think is that those who use a bluff to bolster their position actually make those who love the truth to lose respect for them.