On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 15:20:02 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

On Friday, November 29, 2013 1:15:21 PM UTC-6, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 14:04:44 -0500, Hank�

wrote:



On 11/29/2013 10:11 AM, John H. wrote:

On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 05:53:53 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:



On Friday, November 29, 2013 7:32:47 AM UTC-6, John H's spoofer wrote:



He said, "... the Bible instructed Christian women to be subservient



to their husbands, ..."











So, I don't see a lot of philosophical separation between some Muslims



and some Christians. Both of them are Neanderthal.







The scripture doesn't say to be 'sub--servient' it talks about respect to both husband and wife... Sorry you can't or at least don't want to see that.



Ephesians 5:22-33



New International Version (NIV)



22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.



25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church� 30 for we are members of his body. 31 �For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.�[b] 32 This is a profound mystery�but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.



Thanks for correcting the dip****, Tim!



John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!





Context please. Which dip****, John?



I have no idea. I'm so confused I don't know Billy Graham from the

Pope at this point.

Oh that's ok. A lot of people really didn't know who they were voting for, either...


Ewww...that was a good one!

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

On Friday, November 29, 2013 12:29:13 PM UTC-5, True North wrote:

Hey Dickson, didn't hear you bragging about your OctoberFest polka playin' gig this year.

Did the good folks in Kitchener finally wise up and find a band that could play and look decent for family entertainment?

I've been paid . It was great.

Then, there's next year.

On 11/29/13, 6:12 PM, Tim wrote:
On Friday, November 29, 2013 9:52:22 AM UTC-6,
The quote is very clear...that wives must *submit* to their husbands.

*Submit* does not mean the same thing as "respect," as you are trying to

claim here. You are making a bull**** claim. Submit means being

subservient.

"The husband is the head of the wife..."

What do you think that means? It means the wife is to do as she is told


You ar3e obviously thinking that 'subjective' is another term for being a 'slave' which is clearly not representitive of the scripture. but you can believe that if you wish.



I think the meaning of the word "submit" in the context of that word as
used in your bible is pretty clear. It means, as the OED says, "to place
oneself under the control of a person in authority or power; to become
subject, surrender oneself, or yield to a person or his rule."

That is the *first* definition given in the OED. The second and third
definitions are pretty much the same.

The etymology of the word "submit" with many references predates the
King James Bible, so the meaning of the word was well-known to the
literate hundreds of years prior to that translation and compilation.
Plus, there are plenty of contemporary religious writers who have
offered up definitions of that phrase, and they all pretty much have the
same meaning...that the "husband is the boss, and the wife must do his
bidding in all things." All, of course, except the christian apologists,
who spend their time trying to misinterpret the meanings of fairly
simple and well-understood words.

Women were and, sadly, are second-class citizens, "scripture" says, to
be ruled by men. Just add that to the many reasons why a growing number
of educated "christian" women are not "obeying" what their churches tell
them to do in this regard.

Your objection is just another example of how christians use their bible
to back up whatever they think it means.


--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On 11/29/13, 6:20 PM, Tim wrote:
On Friday, November 29, 2013 1:15:21 PM UTC-6, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 14:04:44 -0500, Hank�

wrote:



On 11/29/2013 10:11 AM, John H. wrote:

On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 05:53:53 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:



On Friday, November 29, 2013 7:32:47 AM UTC-6, John H's spoofer wrote:



He said, "... the Bible instructed Christian women to be subservient



to their husbands, ..."











So, I don't see a lot of philosophical separation between some Muslims



and some Christians. Both of them are Neanderthal.







The scripture doesn't say to be 'sub--servient' it talks about respect to both husband and wife... Sorry you can't or at least don't want to see that.



Ephesians 5:22-33



New International Version (NIV)



22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.



25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church� 30 for we are members of his body. 31 �For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.�[b] 32 This is a profound mystery�but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.



Thanks for correcting the dip****, Tim!



John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!





Context please. Which dip****, John?



I have no idea. I'm so confused I don't know Billy Graham from the

Pope at this point.

Oh that's ok. A lot of people really didn't know who they were voting for, either...



I did. There was no way I was going to vote for "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"
and his dumber than **** running mate Sarah, or Mr. 1% Romney.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On Friday, November 29, 2013 5:47:42 PM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/29/13, 6:12 PM, Tim wrote:

On Friday, November 29, 2013 9:52:22 AM UTC-6,

The quote is very clear...that wives must *submit* to their husbands.



*Submit* does not mean the same thing as "respect," as you are trying to



claim here. You are making a bull**** claim. Submit means being



subservient.



"The husband is the head of the wife..."



What do you think that means? It means the wife is to do as she is told





You ar3e obviously thinking that 'subjective' is another term for being a 'slave' which is clearly not representitive of the scripture. but you can believe that if you wish.







I think the meaning of the word "submit" in the
context of that word as used in your bible is
pretty clear. It means, as the OED says, "to place
oneself under the control of a person in authority or power; to become subject, surrender oneself, or yield to a person or his rule."


You "think" That's what it means? Man, that's concrete!



That is the *first* definition given in the OED. The second and third

definitions are pretty much the same.



The etymology of the word "submit" with many references predates the

King James Bible, so the meaning of the word was well-known to the

literate hundreds of years prior to that translation and compilation.

Plus, there are plenty of contemporary religious writers who have

offered up definitions of that phrase, and they all pretty much have the

same meaning...that the "husband is the boss, and the wife must do his

bidding in all things." All, of course, except the christian apologists,

who spend their time trying to misinterpret the meanings of fairly

simple and well-understood words.


Wow, Harry, I didn't know you were such a theologian. Do you have a MDiv?


Women were and, sadly, are second-class citizens, "scripture" says, to

be ruled by men. Just add that to the many reasons why a growing number

of educated "christian" women are not "obeying" what their churches tell

them to do in this regard. Your objection is just another example of how Christians use their
bible to back up whatever they think it means.

Harry, why should bother with my own faulty interpretations, seeing you're doing a great job of it. I'll listen to you from now on.

?;^ )


I suppose I should tell my wife that and be prepared to look for another place to live.

On Friday, November 29, 2013 5:56:35 PM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/29/13, 6:20 PM, Tim wrote:

On Friday, November 29, 2013 1:15:21 PM UTC-6, John H. wrote:

On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 14:04:44 -0500, Hank�



wrote:







On 11/29/2013 10:11 AM, John H. wrote:



On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 05:53:53 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:







On Friday, November 29, 2013 7:32:47 AM UTC-6, John H's spoofer wrote:







He said, "... the Bible instructed Christian women to be subservient







to their husbands, ..."























So, I don't see a lot of philosophical separation between some Muslims







and some Christians. Both of them are Neanderthal.















The scripture doesn't say to be 'sub--servient' it talks about respect to both husband and wife... Sorry you can't or at least don't want to see that.







Ephesians 5:22-33







New International Version (NIV)







22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.







25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church� 30 for we are members of his body. 31 �For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.�[b] 32 This is a profound mystery�but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.







Thanks for correcting the dip****, Tim!







John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!











Context please. Which dip****, John?







I have no idea. I'm so confused I don't know Billy Graham from the



Pope at this point.



Oh that's ok. A lot of people really didn't know who they were voting for, either...







I did. There was no way I was going to vote for "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"

and his dumber than **** running mate Sarah, or Mr. 1% Romney.


Harry, you're an exception. You knew what you were voting for. Twice.

?;^ )

On 11/29/13, 7:15 PM, Tim wrote:
On Friday, November 29, 2013 5:47:42 PM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/29/13, 6:12 PM, Tim wrote:

On Friday, November 29, 2013 9:52:22 AM UTC-6,

The quote is very clear...that wives must *submit* to their husbands.



*Submit* does not mean the same thing as "respect," as you are trying to



claim here. You are making a bull**** claim. Submit means being



subservient.



"The husband is the head of the wife..."



What do you think that means? It means the wife is to do as she is told





You ar3e obviously thinking that 'subjective' is another term for being a 'slave' which is clearly not representitive of the scripture. but you can believe that if you wish.







I think the meaning of the word "submit" in the
context of that word as used in your bible is
pretty clear. It means, as the OED says, "to place
oneself under the control of a person in authority or power; to become subject, surrender oneself, or yield to a person or his rule."


You "think" That's what it means? Man, that's concrete!



That is the *first* definition given in the OED. The second and third

definitions are pretty much the same.



The etymology of the word "submit" with many references predates the

King James Bible, so the meaning of the word was well-known to the

literate hundreds of years prior to that translation and compilation.

Plus, there are plenty of contemporary religious writers who have

offered up definitions of that phrase, and they all pretty much have the

same meaning...that the "husband is the boss, and the wife must do his

bidding in all things." All, of course, except the christian apologists,

who spend their time trying to misinterpret the meanings of fairly

simple and well-understood words.


Wow, Harry, I didn't know you were such a theologian. Do you have a MDiv?


Women were and, sadly, are second-class citizens, "scripture" says, to

be ruled by men. Just add that to the many reasons why a growing number

of educated "christian" women are not "obeying" what their churches tell

them to do in this regard. Your objection is just another example of how Christians use their
bible to back up whatever they think it means.

Harry, why should bother with my own faulty interpretations, seeing you're doing a great job of it. I'll listen to you from now on.

?;^ )

No, I am not a theologian, but I did have as a college roommate for an
academic year a fellow who got his master's at Union Theological
Seminary, and was ordained an Episcopal priest. He got me to go to
Sunday Episcopal services on campus because, he claimed, they served the
best Sunday student breakfast and had the best-looking coeds at their
services. He was right on both counts.

He and I argued some on issues religious. We're still close friends.

I have an M.A. in English, and my concentration was in etymology. As for
your interpretations, you're just proving my point, that biblical
interpretation is in the mind of the beholder. There's nothing wrong or
intellectually dishonest about that, as long as one admits it.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:41:42 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 11/29/13, 7:15 PM, Tim wrote:
On Friday, November 29, 2013 5:47:42 PM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/29/13, 6:12 PM, Tim wrote:

On Friday, November 29, 2013 9:52:22 AM UTC-6,

The quote is very clear...that wives must *submit* to their husbands.



*Submit* does not mean the same thing as "respect," as you are trying to



claim here. You are making a bull**** claim. Submit means being



subservient.



"The husband is the head of the wife..."



What do you think that means? It means the wife is to do as she is told





You ar3e obviously thinking that 'subjective' is another term for being a 'slave' which is clearly not representitive of the scripture. but you can believe that if you wish.







I think the meaning of the word "submit" in the
context of that word as used in your bible is
pretty clear. It means, as the OED says, "to place
oneself under the control of a person in authority or power; to become subject, surrender oneself, or yield to a person or his rule."


You "think" That's what it means? Man, that's concrete!



That is the *first* definition given in the OED. The second and third

definitions are pretty much the same.



The etymology of the word "submit" with many references predates the

King James Bible, so the meaning of the word was well-known to the

literate hundreds of years prior to that translation and compilation.

Plus, there are plenty of contemporary religious writers who have

offered up definitions of that phrase, and they all pretty much have the

same meaning...that the "husband is the boss, and the wife must do his

bidding in all things." All, of course, except the christian apologists,

who spend their time trying to misinterpret the meanings of fairly

simple and well-understood words.


Wow, Harry, I didn't know you were such a theologian. Do you have a MDiv?


Women were and, sadly, are second-class citizens, "scripture" says, to

be ruled by men. Just add that to the many reasons why a growing number

of educated "christian" women are not "obeying" what their churches tell

them to do in this regard. Your objection is just another example of how Christians use their
bible to back up whatever they think it means.

Harry, why should bother with my own faulty interpretations, seeing you're doing a great job of it. I'll listen to you from now on.

?;^ )

No, I am not a theologian, but I did have as a college roommate for an
academic year a fellow who got his master's at Union Theological
Seminary, and was ordained an Episcopal priest. He got me to go to
Sunday Episcopal services on campus because, he claimed, they served the
best Sunday student breakfast and had the best-looking coeds at their
services. He was right on both counts.

Well, by golly, that right there makes you the expert you think you are on all things theological.

Damn near another Rev Jesse hisself!

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

On Friday, November 29, 2013 6:41:42 PM UTC-6,
No, I am not a theologian, but I did have as a college roommate for an

academic year a fellow who got his master's at Union Theological

Seminary, and was ordained an Episcopal priest. He got me to go to

Sunday Episcopal services on campus because, he claimed, they served the

best Sunday student breakfast and had the best-looking coeds at their

services. He was right on both counts.

Of course there would be an alternate motive for going.


He and I argued some on issues religious. We're still close friends.



I have an M.A. in English, and my concentration was in etymology. As for

your interpretations, you're just proving my point, that biblical

interpretation is in the mind of the beholder. There's nothing wrong or

intellectually dishonest about that, as long as one admits it.



I'm glad you told me. THANKS! But, you don't believe in the book anyhow. so why make a big deal out of it? I mean, why are you trying to interpret something something you don't believe in anyhow?

In article , says...

On 11/29/13, 7:15 PM, Tim wrote:
On Friday, November 29, 2013 5:47:42 PM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/29/13, 6:12 PM, Tim wrote:

On Friday, November 29, 2013 9:52:22 AM UTC-6,

The quote is very clear...that wives must *submit* to their husbands.



*Submit* does not mean the same thing as "respect," as you are trying to



claim here. You are making a bull**** claim. Submit means being



subservient.



"The husband is the head of the wife..."



What do you think that means? It means the wife is to do as she is told





You ar3e obviously thinking that 'subjective' is another term for being a 'slave' which is clearly not representitive of the scripture. but you can believe that if you wish.







I think the meaning of the word "submit" in the
context of that word as used in your bible is
pretty clear. It means, as the OED says, "to place
oneself under the control of a person in authority or power; to become subject, surrender oneself, or yield to a person or his rule."


You "think" That's what it means? Man, that's concrete!



That is the *first* definition given in the OED. The second and third

definitions are pretty much the same.



The etymology of the word "submit" with many references predates the

King James Bible, so the meaning of the word was well-known to the

literate hundreds of years prior to that translation and compilation.

Plus, there are plenty of contemporary religious writers who have

offered up definitions of that phrase, and they all pretty much have the

same meaning...that the "husband is the boss, and the wife must do his

bidding in all things." All, of course, except the christian apologists,

who spend their time trying to misinterpret the meanings of fairly

simple and well-understood words.


Wow, Harry, I didn't know you were such a theologian. Do you have a MDiv?


Women were and, sadly, are second-class citizens, "scripture" says, to

be ruled by men. Just add that to the many reasons why a growing number

of educated "christian" women are not "obeying" what their churches tell

them to do in this regard. Your objection is just another example of how Christians use their
bible to back up whatever they think it means.

Harry, why should bother with my own faulty interpretations, seeing you're doing a great job of it. I'll listen to you from now on.

?;^ )

No, I am not a theologian, but I did have as a college roommate for an
academic year a fellow who got his master's at Union Theological
Seminary, and was ordained an Episcopal priest. He got me to go to
Sunday Episcopal services on campus because, he claimed, they served the
best Sunday student breakfast and had the best-looking coeds at their
services. He was right on both counts.

We used to call the bishop, who was also Chief of Chaplins for the US Navy, whenever their
was a christining, first communion, confirmaiton or marriage when in the DC area. Lots of
people know people who are affilated with a religion.

He and I argued some on issues religious. We're still close friends.

Who calls who? I'll be it is you calling him and him not having time to listen to you.

I have an M.A. in English, and my concentration was in etymology. As for
your interpretations, you're just proving my point, that biblical
interpretation is in the mind of the beholder. There's nothing wrong or
intellectually dishonest about that, as long as one admits it.

So you are the one who submits to your Dr., Dr., Dr. wife? Does she tell you to get the wash
done before she comes home and when she wants dinner on the table?