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.

But speaking of; If that turuly is your way of thinking would this be alright if we changed the wording a bit?

" Citizens, submit yourselves unto your government, as unto the current administration.

For the government is the head of the citizens, even as the administration is the head of the government: and it is the saviour of the body."

subservient? Yeah, I suppose that really *IS* what the term means!

uh-huh.

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 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 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?

On 11/29/13, 8:08 PM, Tim wrote:
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?


An alternative motive for "going," beyond the free eats and hot
chicks...I didn't see any. I was agnostic 50 years ago when I was
getting my B.A.

I believe "the book" is a book. As for "interpretation," it is just an
intellectual pursuit. Do you have some actual evidence the bible wasn't
written, translated and rewritten by bunches of guys over a relatively
long time period? You know, some sort of "supreme" writing?

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On Friday, November 29, 2013 7:42:41 PM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/29/13, 8:08 PM, Tim wrote:

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?





An alternative motive for "going," beyond the free eats and hot

chicks...I didn't see any. I was agnostic 50 years ago when I was

getting my B.A.



I believe "the book" is a book. As for "interpretation," it is just an

intellectual pursuit. Do you have some actual evidence the bible wasn't

written, translated and rewritten by bunches of guys over a relatively

long time period? You know, some sort of "supreme" writing?


Hey Harry. I believe 'the book' in just as much as you believe the opposite.. But one thing. You've insulted and will continue to do so, 'the book' and whom it is about , it's writers, its theme, and it's followers far, far more than I will ever think of insulting those who don't believe in 'the book'

But that's ok. We're used to it...

On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:08:39 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

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?


That's my question for atheists. Why fight so hard against something that you firmly believe is
non-existent?

Why not fight against flying pigs?

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

On 11/30/2013 7:47 AM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:08:39 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

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?


That's my question for atheists. Why fight so hard against something that you firmly believe is
non-existent?

Why not fight against flying pigs?

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



It's hate.. and they need someone to blame for their failures...