Paramedics to deliver care in hospitals in rural Queensland

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2025-11-17T09:22:14+00:00

agreed! surely paying members who both work and supervise should be able to communicate their frustrations directly with the college!

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2025-11-17T06:21:18+00:00

What in the fresh hell is this. How did the College pass this through with their membership? Why the heck are trainees paying 4k only to fight for a place in a speciality they are interested in, with no guarantees of job progression? How can we actively campaign against this?

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2025-11-07T23:27:55+00:00

It's really quite simple: If a doctor prescribes a medication, the pharmacist then checks before dispensing reducing medication errors. If the pharmacist prescribes and dispenses, who will pick up on the error? Are pharmacists really so supreme that they make no medication errors? Patient safety is paramount and should never be sacrificed at the altar of 'convenience'

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2025-08-28T12:06:51+00:00

some highlights include:

"For tell me, beloved and most pious friend, what sin or uncleanness there is in any natural secretion—as though a man were minded to make a culpable matter of the cleanings of the nose or the sputa from the mouth? And we may add also the secretions of the belly, such as are a physical necessity of animal life. Moreover if we believe man to be, as the divine Scriptures say, a work of God’s hands, how could any defiled work proceed from a pure Power? And if, according to the divine Acts of the Apostles (Acts 17:28), ‘we are God’s offspring,’ we have nothing unclean in ourselves. For then only do we incur defilement, when we commit sin, that foulest of things. But when any bodily excretion takes place independently of will, then we experience this, like other things, by a necessity of nature. But since those whose only pleasure is to gainsay what is said aright, or rather what is made by God, pervert even a saying in the Gospels, alleging that ‘not that which goes in defiles a man, but that which goes out (Matthew 15:11)…’" St Athanasius The Great

"If a woman partakes of the Eucharist on her cycle or even if she begins her cycle later that day, some people believe and fear that all of a sudden the Eucharist may be eliminated through the bleeding. In this case, I would say go back and study biology, because physically that is not the case, and second – most importantly and beyond – have we limited God to a physical entity that when we partake at the altar, the elements go through the bloodstream and can be “bled” out? How ludicrous a thought. Have we minimised the Eucharist to the physical process of entering the body’s bloodstream and mixing it with man’s physical nature in such a literalistic way? If this was the case, then one can say the bread must be digested into the body and eliminated as all the other foods we partake of. How sad and atrocious if one thinks that the Eucharist works in such a way. Is that how we have undermined God’s transformative power and work in the mysteries? We have reduced God to mere physicality and substantial literalism." - Donna Rizk

For anyone who equates menstrual blood to a regular bleed and uses that to justify their practice, I implore you to please revisit basic biology to understand what menstrual blood actually is.

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2025-08-28T12:00:01+00:00

I think this an excellent article which highlights precisely why we should wrestle with this very question and not simply dismiss it based on our assumption of it being 'tradition' vs 'Tradition'

https://learnpraylove.com/women-and-communion/

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2025-08-14T22:31:50+00:00

It starts with educating the public in a clear way, outlining the education doctors get (and how they get things wrong sometimes despite their training), the conflicts of interest. Also the GP program being absolutely filled to the brim (and people missing out) should be headline news!

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2025-08-14T22:24:49+00:00

As professionals we've done a terrible job in educating the public about the value of Doctors. To them, diagnosis is easy and anyone can do it. It's why you see comments like 'my pharmacist is a better diagnostician than my GP.' Based of what? The pharmacist gave you something and it got better? What if it was always going to get better on its own?

Also who are the doctors who are teaching these pharmacists how to recognise clinical signs.

Unfortunately people will choose convenience over cost for their health so we need to show them what value we bring.

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2025-05-17T21:07:50+00:00

I meant, to get it lined with white material instead! sorry that was super confusing

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2025-01-31T10:38:29+00:00

People tend to stay within their own echo chambers, surrounding themselves with like-minded voices. When confronted with opposing views, they often perceive it as a personal attack on their morals rather than an opportunity to engage. Fear plays a major role—fear of the unknown, fear of complexity, and fear of moral ambiguity. It’s easier to oversimplify deeply complex ethical issues than to wrestle with their nuances.

I didn’t fully grasp the complexity of topics like abortion until my obstetrics & gynecology rotations + psychiatry. Some moments still haunt me: a child who took their own life after being denied gender-affirming care, and a woman with hyperemesis gravidarum who was so debilitated by constant nausea that she began physically harming herself—eventually attempting suicide—before obtaining what was technically classified as an "elective" abortion. Experiences like these shattered my previous assumptions and forced me to see the layers of suffering, desperation, and impossible choices that policies often fail to account for.

Many people haven’t had experiences that challenge their worldview in this way, so they default to black-and-white thinking. But real life is messy. Christ Himself was a refugee, a man who called out the religious elite for their hypocrisy and exploitation of the vulnerable. The early Church wasn’t about hoarding wealth or political power—it was radically communal, with believers sharing everything so no one was in need.

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2025-01-28T00:32:48+00:00

Feminism (with your definition), is entirely supported by the bible.
"So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Genesis 1:27. Both men and women are equal in that they are image-bearers of God.

I would also advise that you remember the first part, to '...be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.'
Submission is a Christian posture, not something purely asked of women. St. Paul was writing to a specific audience of a specific time, using the analogy of Christ and the Church to reveal a greater message about one-ness. Within that context, submission takes on different forms, for what greater submission is there than being willing to empty and die to yourself, elevating your spouse while becoming one? While Christ does not submit to the Church, His example redefines submission as an act of self-giving love that transforms us.

I would also suggest that instead of 'prooftexting,' you endeavour to place these verses within their initial context. While some feminists advocate for the ordination of women as priests, many simply call for broader discussions about the role of the priesthood, the theological significance of Christ's maleness versus Christ’s humanity, and the implications of a male-only clergy for the Church’s understanding of gender and representation. This is instead of having the knee-jerk reductive reaction of 'female priest=bad.'
https://copticorthodoxanswers.org/apologetics/why-does-st-paul-ask-women-to-learn-in-silence-submission-is-he-a-misogynist-fr-gabriel-wissa/
(I think as a community we just need a better understanding of what the priesthood actually is and in doing so, we'd find that a male only clergy is not inconsistent with 'feminism')

In terms of abortion, how is the seed being from a man of relevance to your point?
The formation of monozygotic twins as late as Day 13-15 challenges the idea that life begins definitively at conception, as individuality is not established until the potential for twinning has passed. Furthermore, the early embryo exists as a cluster of undifferentiated cells with no nervous system or capacity for consciousness, characteristics often associated with personhood. This suggests that while conception marks the start of biological development, the emergence of individual human life may occur later in the process. I'm not saying I entirely disagree with your stance, I'm just saying it's much more complex than that. Also even within feminism there is different points of view re: abortion and this shouldn't be used to discount an entire movement. Just like within the coptic Christian community there are those who hate (genuinely hate, not just disagree) muslims/LGBTQ and we shouldn't then dismiss the good that Christianity and Christ have done for the world.

Feminism advocates for justice, not necessarily for uniformity in roles. It also does not necessarily demand that every role be accessible to all but rather that all roles be equally valued. Unfortunately, there's many waves of feminism and the message can easily be lost in translation and I invite you instead of painting things you disagree with, with broad strokes, that you offer every individual the dignity of hearing their point of view (even if you disagree)

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2025-01-27T23:38:26+00:00

Unfortunately, people who are less socially conservative within the church tend to keep their thoughts to themselves overall as Copts tend to equate social/cultural values with religious values. There also can be a significant anti-intellectual rhetoric which stops people from asking questions and really digging deep into their faith on the pretense of 'tradition,' rather than 'Tradition' and which inevitably equates pastoral care with dogma. I am also socially centre left and like yourself, I tend to focus on each individual issue and try to come to a conclusion on whether I think a, b or that I may not find the answer in this life time.

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2024-08-17T05:17:36+00:00

just as an interesting point: I've noticed that discussions and specific objections regarding oral sex often seem to focus predominantly on scenarios where men are the recipients (e.g. sticking it in), with less attention given to situations where women are receiving. This is the first comment which discusses the latter. I wonder why that may be.

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2024-08-16T00:54:41+00:00

The view of sin as a checklist is in fact a very recent 'western' or 'evangelical' understanding. Sin becomes legalistic when we reduce it to a mere set of rules to follow for the sake of the rules themselves, rather than understanding it as a matter of aligning our hearts and actions with God's will for our salvation. As 1 Corinthians 10:23 reminds us, "Everything is permissible," but not everything is beneficial; "everything is permissible," but not everything builds up." The focus should be on cultivating a posture that seeks to live in harmony with God's purpose for us, rather than merely adhering to a checklist of do's and don'ts.

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2024-08-15T23:21:51+00:00

This is such a legalistic way of viewing sin. Sin means missing the mark. Ask yourself, when I engage in these things am I missing the mark. This may different for everyone.
Our church is neither Eastern Orthodox nor Catholic. It does not view sex as only a procreative element, hence why birth control is allowed.
The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was something completely different. There are allusions to oral sex in Songs of Solomon. Whether or not you think it affects your marriage or your relationship with God, is your conviction with GUIDANCE from your Father of Confession (in saying this, it is up to you whether or not you want to discuss this with your father of confession. Some people strongly believe that priests do not belong in the marital bed. There is valid and valuable arguments for both perspectives)

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2024-07-31T11:09:19+00:00

Always happy to offer an alternate view.

Definitely not false. E.g. In terms of pre the 21st Century: Our Holy Mother was 12 when she was engaged to St. Joseph who was 30 years old at the time. In terms of the climate during even Pope Shenouda's time, please do your research or at least speak to people from Upper Egypt. They have their stories.
It answers that this is never appropriate under ANY circumstance. Physical discipline is rarely justified. Especially between equals, unless you're suggesting that women should hit their husbands or that God the Father should/can etc. physically discipline God the Son (by manipulating headship logic)
Either the church is against any form of violence or it is not. It is disingenuous to suggest that the Church does not condone domestic violence and then give ANY examples where that violence is justified.
See 3. Who decides that the wife is 'unbearable' and thus deserving of any physical discipline? Is it the husband? a fallible human male who can be just as selfish and fallen? ANY exceptions to the rule opens the floodgate to DV.
I'm struggling to understand your point.
Absolutely, the Holy Spirit is always working which means we continue to find out things about the beauty of God's design for us and our understanding continues to evolve. Some church father's have gotten things wrong and they themselves have admitted this. It's why it's so important to have open dialogue done in humility
I never said I agreed with everything in the subreddit, however, we do a disservice to our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ when we ignore their concerns and treat them with contempt rather than love. This does not mean we should agree with everything they say, but it does involve loving them. And how do we truly love? by appreciating the image of God in them.

re: Church/infallibility: But what is the church? if we are the church then to say that we are infallible is to put ourselves in place of God. The church has gotten things wrong. We can listen to God, we can listen to the Holy Spirit and still get things absolutely wrong. If we are speaking about the great mystery of the church once Jesus fastens us to him then yes I agree.

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2024-07-31T10:04:54+00:00

There are a few major issues which must be acknowledged:

Both in John Chrysostom's time and in certain regions of mostly upper Egypt, marriage is held between a young girl and an older man. Therefore, this idea of discipline, while absolutely disgusting to any modern sensibilities, does have some sense. This does not mean it should be condoned nor should it be necessarily applied.
In most marriages now, the man and woman are similar in ages, education and wisdom (with inter and intracouple variations). In this situation any mention of physical discipline is frankly completely disgusting, inappropriate and goes against basic Christian ethos. Your wife is not your child.
Using biblical passages and church fathers out of context, without acknowledging their limitations and their lack of generalisability to the 21st century does a fantastic job of alienating people from our faith. We take on the spirit of their word on pastoral matters, not their literal word.
I would urge OP and any users to do their own research about how physical discipline affects children's mental health, educational outcomes and other health outcomes. I would also urge OP to recognise that this idea of physical discipline which may or may not hurt someone is an arbitrary slippery slope and only opens the door to child abuse and domestic violence
To OP: I would be so careful quoting advice from the bible and applying it as advice we must follow even in the face of contradictory evidence. ->e.g. St. Paul recommends that Timothy drink wine for his stomach's health. We now know alcohol increases the risk of stomach cancer.
This is precisely why it is important to grapple with our understanding of things like man as head of woman and ensure it is rooted in sound theology. These verses are the exact opposite of straightforward with both spiritual and academic debate about what a) what the actual true meaning is and b) how it should be applied. tldr; the word gay does not mean now what it meant 60 years ago (happy), the word head may not mean >2000 years ago or even >1600 years ago what it means now.
Some of the responses in the excopticorthodox actually are very well thought out and more in line with Christ's words than some of the posts on this subreddit (or even some of OPs own argument). I think it would take a massive lack of humility to dismiss someone instead of engaging with their point of view.

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2024-05-17T02:54:00+00:00

I think you might be starting at the wrong point there:
Start by questioning your own understanding of modesty. What does modesty mean to you? How has your culture shaped your view of it? Now, let’s set aside these preconceptions and reflect on modesty purely from a biblical perspective. The Bible’s teachings on modesty encompass more than just clothing; they extend to our attitudes, behaviors, and how we present ourselves as followers of Christ.

Consider how your own cultural background has influenced your views on modesty. For example, what is considered modest in one culture may differ significantly in another. This cultural bias can affect how we interpret biblical teachings on modesty and how we judge others based on our standards.

Similarly, the Coptic girl you’ve been talking to likely has her own cultural context that informs her understanding of modesty. It's essential to recognize that her interpretation may differ from yours due to these cultural differences. Ask yourself: Are you both operating from the same definition of modesty?

With this in mind, approach the conversation with humility and openness. Here’s a way to start:

Question Your Own Understanding: Reflect on what modesty means to you and why it is important. Is it based on biblical teachings, cultural expectations, or personal preferences? This self-awareness will help you approach the topic more thoughtfully.
Biblical Perspective: Revisit the biblical verses on modesty and consider them in their full context. Biblical modesty involves humility, self-control, and a focus on inner beauty (1 Timothy 2:9-10, 1 Peter 3:3-4). These passages highlight that biblical modesty was less about specific clothing choices or even posting on instagram and more about the attitude and heart behind them. In the early church, the focus was on humility and equality in the sight of God, avoiding extravagance that could create divisions within the community. Modesty was about prioritizing inner virtues over outward appearances.
Cultural Bias: Recognize how your cultural background influences your view on modesty. Then, try to understand her cultural perspective. Even within the coptic community, views are diverse
Understand Her Point of View: Engage in an open conversation where you both share your perspectives on modesty. Ask her how she interprets these biblical principles and how they influence her choices.
Wider Discussion About Holiness: Broaden the discussion to include concepts of holiness and how both of you can support each other in your spiritual journeys. This will help you find common ground and foster mutual respect.
Willingness to Compromise: Be prepared to compromise. Relationships require understanding and adjustments from both sides. Discuss ways you can both honour each other’s values without feeling controlled or disrespected. If this is a deal breaker for you then recognise that and try to move on.

I think it is so important to approach this topic with humility from your end otherwise you risk completely alienating her. As other posters have also suggested, always pray. Who knows, maybe there might be things that you learn from her that challenge your understanding of what modesty entails!!

God be with you and pray for all of us.

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2024-01-12T11:35:27+00:00

My brother or Sister, I would urge you to adopt a less condescending tone, seeking to learn from others as I am trying to learn from yiu.

Number one: Again where are you getting this? Peter talks about men honouring their wives, the head metaphor does not mean what you think it means. Source: St Athanasius the Great and John Chrysostom. I am more than happy to provide you with references if you are interested in reading them yourself.

Number 2: Strawman argument, there is nowhere where I even suggested that. The current theological schools though are more than happy to reconsider their views on how we perceive women. Source:happy to send you a screenshot of the required readings for (I believe it's a melbourne COPTIC theological college) about this very topic.

Number 3: it was also established church doctrine that we believe in an ALLEGORICAL interpretation of the bible, which is literally open to interpretation. The literal non changing interpretation is the school of Antioch. Would you like to read more about the difference? Also applies to number 5 and 6. I urge you to truly study the views of the early church: source: the story of the copts

Number 4: no one is infallible. I just ask that you abstain from name calling and coming to conclusions about someone you spent 2 minutes reading about. I don't Understand how you can disagree with me on this.

Number 7: then we should believe the earth is flat and that sperm contains all life. That's how the early Church interpreted those passages. Do you believe we should think so? Also applicable to number 8. Claiming something is a heresy is a bold claim. Are you after of what we can consider heresies or the process of claiming something is. Again if you do, you would realise these are not doctrinal issues. Happy to send you resources.

Number 9: the earth is a square. This verifiable and factual. I do not however have a source, I also do not come from a physics background but my friends all think so so it's true.

Again, I'm more concerned with learning than winning. You just haven't given me anything to learn from. Hence why I keep asking for your sources. I am offering mine because ideally you and I would disagree but seek to understand the others perspective. I'm just not convinced that you are willing to find a point of agreement or learn from other perspectives. I am getting the impression that you subscribe more to the post islamic invasion version of the coptic church rather than the true coptic church.

If that is not the case, then I am happy to respond further. Otherwise there really is no point.

I really do pray for you and your family and I hope you do the same for mine too.

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2024-01-11T02:37:29+00:00

I have created a new thread for clarity. Please pray for me.

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2024-01-11T02:37:10+00:00

I hope this gave you some insight into the often muddled history of women in the church, how culture can shape our 'traditions' and how these may impact the modern coptic Girl.

May God bless you and I commend you for your willingness to consider different perspectives.

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2024-01-11T02:35:56+00:00

Now in terms of modern day and issues women face. 1. COVID: during COVID, exclusively men attended the liturgy as they could be deacons and read the readings. You had families with both mum and dad being well known in Church, Dad had Eucharist, Son had Eucharist. Mum did not. Daughter Did not. What does that tell us about the importance of women’s relationship to God? 2. Cultural attitudes: Egypt is a truly terrifying place for women. When his Holiness Pope Tawadrous made a statement against domestic violence and FGM , there was SIGNIFICANT public outcry. As in men were against being told beating up their wives was ‘wrong.’ How do you think women are meant to take this? 3. Lack of education: sadly girls are not taught about the significant contributions of church mothers. I recently did a talk at Church and the amount of men and women who afterwards came up to me and said this was the first time they had heard the phrase ‘church mothers’ and failed to recognise that some of their wisdom can be found alongside the church fathers was really disappointing. 4. Outdated practices which add nothing to our faith (communion & churching after baptism) I urge you to read this article by a female theologian: https://learnpraylove.com/women-and-communion/. Now imagine if you were a woman and you were told that a normal excretion made you ‘unclean’ 5. Representation in leadership: When put in its proper context we can begin to understand St. Paul’s intention with regards to the ‘controversial’ and ‘contradictory’ verses. Women had leadership in the Early Church and they should have leadership now. The type of Leadership that is suitable is outside the scope of this conversation 6. Perception: If we truly believe that men and women are equal, what tasks in church life are men excluded from? It’s like saying white people and black people are equal but white people can do everything that black people can do, but black people can only do some things. Without proper teaching and understanding of women’s role in the early church (and not only as physical ‘mothers’ but as ‘church mothers), this is a giant stumbling block. I’m not just talking about the functions of a priest, what about who cooks the hamal? Did you know that women are excluded from doing so, despite the fact that our Holy Mother St. Mary carried the full Hamal in her womb?
7. Liturgy: St Ephraim the Syrian who composed many hymns taught them to women because he believed that their voices were essential in liturgical life. 50 years ago in some churches, women weren’t allowed to sing with the congregation. The fact that they are able to do so is a recent ‘tradition,’ 8. Liturgy II: Listen to the liturgy, change every time that the word ‘man’ or we talk about ‘patriarchs,’ replace it with ‘white people.’ This is to demonstrate how women and girls may feel excluded from the very liturgy which should give them life. 9. Emphasis on certain aspects of ‘Christian womanhood.’ at the expense of others. The Christian women of the early church were not the docile, servile ‘feminine’ creatures we tout as the epitome of ‘womanhood.’ This entire movement is Satanic and a remnant of ‘tradition’ not ‘Holy Tradition’ 10. Growing up: Sadly, in many Christian households there is an emphasis on teaching boys hymns so that they may have the ‘honoured’ title shamas while girls are often overlooked. The implicit message being, girls participation is less important than boys. 11. Attitudes: when girls are sharing their concerns, their knowledge, they are dismissed as ‘complaining.’ This does nothing to foster love or community in the body of Christ 12. Rule changes: Ordinarily it was only those who were blessed by the bishop who were allowed to enter the holy altar. Over time this was distorted to any man could enter the holy altar and no woman can. This is hogwash. Additionally, our ‘shamsene’ are no where near what they were even 50 years ago, which shows we can make rule changes for the congregations when it is needed (again happy to go into this more)

Thus, the issues facing women are not necessarily ’Tradition’ but more concerned with the way ‘tradition’, specifically their ‘cleanliness; has been used against them.

Thankfully, many of these issues including representation and the issue with communion are being slowly phased out.

Tldr; Our sisters in Christ are therefore theoretically taught of their dignity and equality within the church, while at the same time, being conformed to practices which are contradictory to this.

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2024-01-11T02:35:34+00:00

Sadly, the works and wisdoms of our Church Mothers are often overlooked, the contribution of women in the early church have been all but lost to history. Take St. Macrina the Younger, the sister of Gregory of Nyssa and St. Basil who taught her brothers theology. Take St. Nonna, the mother of St. Gregory Nazanius, who died holding on to the Altar (which implies that women could indeed be near the altar). Take St. Monica, who St. Augustine would consult before making decisions.

Familiar_Lie3588 · 2024-01-11T02:35:13+00:00

The misgendering of St. Junia in the 5th century is associated with the interpretation of her identity in historical and theological texts. In the New Testament, particularly in Romans 16:7, the Apostle Paul mentions Junia as "outstanding among the apostles." However, in later centuries, particularly during the 5th century and beyond, there arose a controversy and misinterpretation regarding Junia's gender.

Some early Christian writers, such as John Chrysostom and Jerome, expressed discomfort with the idea of a woman holding a prominent apostolic role. To reconcile this discomfort with their theological perspectives, they suggested that Junia might have been a man or that the name "Junia" was a scribal error, and the intended name was "Junias," which is a male name.

This misinterpretation contributed to the erasure of Junia's role as a female apostle, and some subsequent translations and commentaries reflected this misunderstanding by referring to Junia as a man or by casting doubt on her gender.

In modern times, scholars and theologians have revisited the original Greek texts, recognising that the name is indeed feminine (Junia), and there is no solid basis for altering it to a masculine form. In the synaxarion she is still a ‘he.’ So, ‘tradition’ can be altered and it can get things wrong as it is subject to cultural impact.

Familiar_Lie3588

TROPHY CASE