Cheryl Schatz

Mark,
I have you on moderation for a reason. You may not continue attacking my language as 16th century, attack my view as pig wash, characterize my right to defend my viewpoint as rhetoric and polemics and you are not allowed to misrepresent what I have said about you not engaging an argument. The only thing you got right in the last post that is on moderation is that I have concluded after asking you multiple times to give your understanding of what shames Christ about the head covering, is that you must have no answer since you continue to refuse to give an answer. Until you actually answer my questions you are proving your own inability to answer by skirting the issue and deliberately failing to answer while mocking my own exegesis which is based on both the passage and historical evidence. If you have no idea why Paul spoke about shaming Christ and you are ignorant in this matter then you need to admit that.

I also have no need to search for quotes from scholars who agree with me since the test for truth is not how many scholars are on one side or another. I am a very busy person and my time is valuable. I do not need to look for a truth test, when I believe the only truth test for an argument is whether it fits with the inspired words of Scripture. If your truth test is what scholar has written his/her view exactly as I have written it, you have the wrong test of truth.

Since you have given me no argument, I have nothing to test your view by. You have also given no reason why my view does not fit with the shame based head covering that Paul forbids and you have given not a single historical argument to back up your claim that the head covering for the woman has its roots in honor rather than shame.

I recommend that you read the rules for my blog if you would like to continue to post here. You are no longer allowed to use inflammatory words to attack my view and my personal literary style. I would also recommend that you actually read what I have written about you rather than reinterpret my words. I would like a good discussion with honest interaction where both sides give their view and defend it. You have not even tried to defend your view because you have not even tried to answer my questions and give your view.

If you follow the rules here for respectful dialog and stop with the personal attacks, I will let your future posts go through. You must also agree to either give your answer to my questions or admit that you do not have any answers. Beating around the bush and attacking my style of communication on your way around the bush is not acceptable. Is this fair enough?