follow A Selection of Varied Topics

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

I've been banned!! Great joy!

My latest trawlings through the internets have resulted in my joining the infamous band of brothers [and sisters] who have been banned from commenting on the blog of the Bayly Brothers. I saw their blog mentioned as being an easy place to get banned from [I've been there before] and wondered how many questions I could raise before the hand of authority was lifted against me. 


I found this toothsome little post and was more interested in the comment section than anything. My comments are away at the end of the comment page....
When previously reading the Bayly's blog, I've been struck at how almost all of the comments are from 'preach it, brother!' male-types. The dissenting opinions come about equally from men and women, and it seems the women are usually banned pretty promptly.  I am actually going to repost my comments and those of the blog owner:  


[I had chimed in about a woman who spoke about against patriarchy, and another commenter promptly said it was nothing more than could be expected from someone who had lived in sin]

"My husband and I have been together since we were 20, were married at 22..."
"....I would, however, agree that the lifestyle Nyka describes--living in sin with marriage maybe following, "

I see no reason, from her words, to assume that Nyka was 'living in sin' before her marriage. Shame for assuming that someone whom you disagree with on one point is guilty on another.
Bravo, Rachel, for being willing to testify that patriarchy is not the conclusion that all who seek God finally come to. 

>>...patriarchy is not the conclusion that all who seek God finally come to.
Actually, it is. Or rather, patriarchy is The Order God established in the Garden of Eden prior to the Fall, and all who believe in the Triune God and submit to His Holy Word reject anarchy and feminism, instead embracing patriarchy with love and joy as an act of worship of our Lord Jesus Christ.
All the church throughout all time has affirmed God's order of patriarchy. Also, all the church throughout all history has found it hard to be obedient to this order, as they also found it difficult to be obedient to it in New Testament times. This is the reason for the commands of Scripture that wives must submit to their husbands and the commands also forbidding woman to teach or exercise authority over man.
Love,

>> Actually, it is.
Really? I'm not sure I know ONE person [in my daily contact with other people] who embraces patriarchy, much less the style you and your supporters claim is God-ordained. But I do know many people who I believe really are seeking God: most of them are equally repulsed by feminism and patriarchy/patriocentricity.
>> All the church throughout all time has affirmed God's order of patriarchy.
The fact or statement that something has been affirmed throughout 'all time' [~2000 years] does not make it valid [or invalid].
I've had several conversations with other Christians about whether the command to submit and not lead is given to wives about their husbands, or to women about all men. [I actually have usually taken the view that where the translation says 'in authority over a man', it does mean MAN and not just husband. People try to tell me that is a wrong translation, and it really means 'man' in the sense of husband. ]


>>Really? I'm not sure I know ONE person [in my daily contact with other people] who embraces patriarchy...
Actually, most people still do embrace patriarchy. You're fooled by their embarrassment to admit it in our wicked day.
As to the "kind" of patriarchy this or that man embraces, there are no kinds at all. Only questions of implementation. And the implementations we at Baylyblog recommend are quite soft and gentle and effeminate compared to those of all of history in all cultures and all religions before our time. Baylyblog is a kinder, gentler patriarchy for our rebellious day.
>>The fact or statement that something has been affirmed throughout 'all time' [~2000 years] does not make it valid [or invalid].
Yes, this is the way modern rebels see it, but it's the very opposite of Christian faith which commands pastors who are always men to "Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you" (Timothy 1:13, 14).
Please do not oppose patriarchy again, here, or I will be forced to guard this command and truth of God by denying you future commenting privileges.
Love,
If the command and truth of God is really in danger from my comments, then God is a lot weaker than I've always thought.

I'd love to reply to your other statements, but I think that would lead to this comment not being allowed to remain at all.

[Incidentally, you don't need to worry about denying me commenting privileges, I won't be back. Thank you for allowing me to make the comments that I have.]

9 comments:

Elizabeth said...

I read the post and all of the comments... ridiculous! The responses to your comments and those of Rachel and Nyka, as well as JJ (basically, anyone who contradicted their views) did not actually RESPOND to the points made in the comments-instead there was illogical or misdirected judgment, OR a response to the points which was just as senseless. The sarcasm and quoting of songs was actually disrespectful and childish… the defense of sarcasm was just as ridiculous. I found your comments well said and you presented yourself in a manner far more mature than the Bayly brothers themselves (or at least, Tim Bayly). That was very courteous of you, that last comment. "Actually, most people still do embrace patriarchy. You're fooled by their embarrassment to admit it in our wicked day"…? that particular statement is actually somewhat laughable to me. I agreed with all of your points, especially "Something else: 'Baylyblog is a kinder, gentler patriarchy for our rebellious day'. If the patriarchy of the olden days was the right thing...why are we- WHOOPS, SORRY"! Interesting/frustrating/entertaining post :). Thanks for sharing!

Erika Martin - Stampin' Mama said...

Wow. If that's a kinder, gentler form of patriarchy, then what's the opposite look like. Passive aggressive much? Yeesh! So they actually have a name for their form of patriarchy? It's no surprise that it goes by THEIR last name. *shakes head*

Lady Brainsample said...

Bravo, Bethany!!

rachel said...

I had forgotten about that comment I left! Nice to see someone kindly responded to me. How sweet. :)

Thank you for your coherent and rational and smart responses to their vitriol. The Bayly blog is some of the worst stuff out there and even a short visit leaves me sick to my stomach.

You are awesome. :)

Tragedy101 said...

I was sorry to hear of this unfortunate event.

As you know I was banned from a blog, recently, because without a "real name" I jeopardized "critical thinking" from winning out.

At least you were unbanned, I have not seen so much leniency from those on your own side of the debate. They speak of "spiritual abuse" as if they are not equally capable of it. That they don't seperate commenters into "Us" and "Them".

It is acceptable to insult, attack, demean anyone who is not one of "Us".

Mr. Bayly never demeaned you by calling you names; never demanded more information about you personally, before allowing further comments; he even acknowledges that some of the differences are semantical: the significance of a given word or phrase is perceived differently by him and regular followers of his blog than by you and others.

[Semantics, I think, are some of the biggest issues in an argument, many times.]

So I'd have to say he seems more honest and loving than some I've met. That is just my opinion though.

Bethany said...

Wellwell....I've gotten a lot of response on this post, thank you all for commenting, I really DO read and ponder comments although I'm monumentally bad at responding to them.

The comment thread was closed, after a couple of commenters appeared on the scene and asked some telling questions of Tim Bayly.

Bayly actually wrote another post on the subject, which started some more discussion, very little of which was to the actual point at hand. Link here:

http://www.baylyblog.com/2010/12/tim-again-because-weve-removed-the-comment-feed-on-our-main-page-its-impossible-to-know-where-active-discussions-are-occu.html#more

That post was closed as well, finally.


Tragedy, I was very irritated over your being banned from the blog in question. It was not the appropriate response: but I'd take issue with your appraisal of Tim Bayly's response [from a thoroughly biased viewpoint]. Bayly's last direct comment to me made it very clear he thought I was in rebellion and leading others to hell. Though I suppose he could be doing so in a loving way....

Tragedy101 said...

Sorry, Bethany, I was mistaken.

That is much more demeaning than anything anyone has ever called me. I don't think anyone has ever compared me with the Devil, either lovingly or otherwise.

The Cult Next Door said...

Well spoken, Bethany!

BTW...Congrats on the win with the robot!!! Have loved following the progress on fb :)

Bethany said...

Thank you so much :) Glad you enjoyed the robot goings-on, it's been a truly epic season!

By the way, I'm not sure if I ever told you how much I appreciate your blog. 'Out of the Silver Chair' is so very apt, too. It's an analogy I've used more than once in attempts to explain the grip patriocentricity has on its victims.