Monday, January 6, 2014

Q. Why has David Ould posted in his "join in the discussion" section of his blog...references to Theodora's postings...when he censored her and took away her right of reply?

I don't know Calam but I hope it's not to :
1. use a position of spiritual authority to dominate or manipulate another person or group
2. encourage the exclusion or intimidation of an individual 
Of course it can't be using communications like emails to harass because there is no mention of emailing in the discussion section...well not that 1 can see anyway.
But if  that's how Complementarian men seek to treat women ....then leave me out of the whole Complementarian thing!
I ask you...what man personalises a debate ... rather than focusing on the ideas presented...and then posts that the person commenting has called him a liar and bully ....without substantiating this with her comment... and then censors her after claiming he's an advocate of free speech... and then puts her name up in the discussion section to encourage his like minded allies to attack her without her right of reply? God help the woman who has to complement someone like this! Bloody disgusting! Actually borders on vile!

join the discussion…

Q. Why would David Ould ...ordained and the head of a parish ...privately email a woman on numerous occasions after he chose to censor her on his blog ...after he declared that she called him a liar and a tyrant?

A. Because she posted the real censored comment on this blog!

The comment can  be read here
Thanks for this and your blog.

You are right . I was foolish to think we could engage in a rational discussion.

David Ould is clearly also an avid reader of this blog. Unfortunately I don't think he gets satire, he emailed me at 7.28PM on 4 January criticising me for choosing to:

"make friends on a site that promotes no serious engagement but, rather, encourages the most vile language about and treatment of those who they disagree with. Even a brief review of that site should embarrass you. Or perhaps it doesn't - which speaks volumes"
Geez Bill...."promotes no serious engagement" is a bit harsh ... I thought I did a pretty fair job at "keeping the bastards honest"...especially when I believe...those who hold themselves in high esteem... use their intellectual theological arrogance as a form of  spiritual abuse ?

This was the first of 4 censorious emails which I encouraged him to continue (hinting they might make good material for further postings etc.). Unfortunately they now seem to have stopped!

Of course if David Ould's motives were as honourable as he claimed none of this would have been necessary. Rather than conducting a personal vendetta on the internet, the appropriate way to proceed would have been a less public and formal letter to the diocese concerned outlining his concerns in a rational and logical way and asking them, as the appropriate decision makers to look into the matter. I can't see any mention of such correspondence on his blog.

Most employers would have reigned him by now but he seem it keep trying to escalate his campaign as you have noted here.

I've heard of people being sacked for circumventing due process like this in other organisations! Certainly trying to intimidate those who question his approach seems over the top!

Ah ha ha ha...go on Fiona...don't you know that Sydney Anglicans promote people who are rude and offensive
...oh and as for employers reigning David Ould in....didn't you see his interaction with Michael Jensen ...who felt leaving the link to Bishop Macneil's sermons on David's blog was a bit tacky. David responded by saying...

If somebody today asks “what’s the fuss all about” then it appears that is now the only place they can still get all the material to answer that question since either Dr Macneil or her church have taken what looks like deliberate steps to prevent her theology being in any way explored by those with a valid interest.

So Angelina...what's all the fuss about Fiona's comments being posted on this they can be explored by those with a valid interest?

Nothing ....if you believe in freedom of speech...but it is concerning that David Ould  needed to seek her out via email...He was the one who chose to say she called him a liar and a bully... And fancy David knowing that Calam is a vile simpleton  ...who has nothing of substance to offer... or any position of influence... to contribute to the spiritual and emotional abuse of other Christians like this...

I only hope that the buildings that Gerald designs have an infinitely more robust foundation and structure than his theological “argument”.

The Lions Club ... appears to be something you’d be far more comfortable with than trying to press your own position into Anglican, let alone Christian and Biblical strait-jackets.

But I am quite open about having clear contempt for his position which is heretical and in straight opposition to the Gospel. I don’t think it’s wrong to express contempt for such a position, for Gerald and others like him put forward a theology that sends people straight to Hell and so if we do not respond with some form of anger I fear we don’t really understand the gravity of what is being discussed.

I may be a dunce but I know exactly what can happen when a fundamentalist lets the  Christian Biblical straight jacket slip....It's called scapegoating! And this blog is meant to be embarrassing...because in my mind fundamentalism does not save!

Saturday, January 4, 2014

Sydney Anglican, David Peterson, appoints a new person to work with those... who Sydney Anglicans reject

Anthony Venn Brown reports that Sydney Anglican, David Peterson, has found yet  another young man to fill Haydn Sennitt's shoes at Liberty Christian Ministries Inc.

Well come on Anthony...Sydney Anglicans can't encarcerate gays and lesbians... like their GAFCON mates... so Liberty Christian Ministries Inc is the next best's a way of appeasing and maintaining a relationship with those who persecute gays.

David Ould criticises the removal of Dr Macneil’s sermons from a church website ...but condones censorship on his own blogsite

A reader of this blog foolishly thought that she could critique an article written by David Ould... and more foolishly thought that her differing viewpoint would be respected. What resulted were accusations made by David Ould, and ultimately, the censorship of the person trying to explain her point of view.

So what's next Angelina...blackmail or maybe litigation?

I don't know Roseanne...but below is the alleged censured posting from David Ould's blogsite

Fiona FraserJanuary 3, 2014 at 10:29 PM

Sorry - made an error last time around.

I have made several postings on David Ould's website critiquing his methodology.

Unfortunately he has deleted my last posting. Ironicially my posting was a response to his claims to support freedom of speech. He claimed I had called him a "liar" and a "tyrant".

I will attach the deleted posting here (complete with spelling errors). Not once do I refer to him as a "liar" or a "tyrant" although perhaps he has taken a message on board....

The deleted post was as follows:

Not sure what happened to my last post where I replied to your assertion re. Freedom of speech, but will try again.

With such freedom (and it is a very powerful freedom in this age of the internet) comes responsibilities. We still (at the moment at last) have some legal restrictions to this freedom. For instance it is no at the moment legal to use this freedom to incite racial vilification.

You have represented your views as the views of the Anglican Church, and you keep arguing about the “facts” of the case when as we finally established here a couple of posts ago, you have but one interpretation. Others HAVE posited alternate interpretations on your blog and in other places. You simply will not accept their arguments. That’s fine - but please be honest and don’t keep insisting that no one has offered an alternative view. It’s just they haven’t offered an alternate view that satisfies you. And as I keep having to point out - fortunately, you are not the person appointed to make decisions about Dr McNeil’s appointment.

Your flawed approach is clearly demonstrated in the way you have leapt to the erroneous conclusion that I have an alliance with Dr MacNeil. You cannot assume this simply on the basis that I once attended a church where Dr MacNeil currently serves. I went to university with and was once briefly acquainted with Tony Abbot but it would be a huge step for you to claim to know my political allegiances on this basis.

In my humble view (and I acknowledge this is bit a personal view) it is highly mischievous to attempt to sabotage the legal process by which Dr MacNeil has been elected bishop and cast dispersions on the reputation of a highly respected and distinguished Minister of the Church simply because of your interpretation of part of one sermon that you found somewhere on the web. I’m sure if I read your sermons I would find lots of things I didn’t agree with to which you would rightly respond “so what”!

You will no doubt have a different view and continue your campaign. You may fool some but ultimately it is all a bluff.

People used similar tactics to hold up the ordination of women that were hurtful and distressing to many of those involved. But they were ultimately unsuccessful. Many people (including some of those who formerly opposed women's ordination) now benefit and thank God for the ministry of women.

You will also be unsuccessful ultimately but it is such a shame you try to hold back the church because of your own insular outlook on these issues. This has a very negative impact on the church’s reputation and alienates many people including me.

I find it very difficult to see the church I once loved being absorbed by very unsavory disputes such as this. I have sat by in silence through much of it, but believe there is truth in Edmund Burke’s words "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” I therefore cannot remain silent 

Published here on Calam's blog in the same mindset as David Ould, when he says...
Ten years of writing at Stand Firm has taught me that the very best way to fight these battles (and it certainly is a battle) is to get the information right out there. And the best information is the words that theological liberals (or conservatives from Calam's point of view) in the church write and proclaim.

Don't that Sarah Macneil know anything...Everyone knows that when you're a woman you can't remove posts .... because it's the right of them know them ones with them penises... to whittle away and bring them women down a notch or two ... it's called Sydney Anglican submission!

So Calam ...what's the Sydney Anglican stance on a guy with two he automatic archbishop material...and do the rest of the men many questions?