| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
You and the lil' squirt should be loving this.
http://tinyurl.com/k2ylwy7 Muslim equality. You gotta love it. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
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. |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
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! |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
On 11/29/13, 8:53 AM, 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. Ephesians 5:22-33 King James Version (KJV) 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 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 by her husband. This same sort of religious bull**** was used to keep women from owning property from thousands of years and to keep them from having the vote. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
On Friday, November 29, 2013 10:52:22 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/29/13, 8:53 AM, 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. Ephesians 5:22-33 King James Version (KJV) 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 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 by her husband. This same sort of religious bull**** was used to keep women from owning property from thousands of years and to keep them from having the vote. Just like your little; concubine, Donnie. |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 10:52:22 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/29/13, 8:53 AM, 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. Ephesians 5:22-33 King James Version (KJV) 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 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 by her husband. This same sort of religious bull**** was used to keep women from owning property from thousands of years and to keep them from having the vote. Submit : accept or yield to a superior force or to the authority or will of another person. Yielding to the authority of a husband does not mean 'being a servant' of the husband. In this country we have learned to treat men and women as equals. But, it is still very common for the man of the house to be the decision-maker when it comes to the big ticket items, such as signing contracts, buying or selling property, etc. Your attempt to make Christians as demeaning to women as Muslims is pure dog ****. Perhaps the lil' squirt will lick it up, but most folks know better. When I'm walking with my wife, we're side-by-side, holding hands. When my Muslim friends down the block are walking, the wife is five yards behind the husband. I've never seen a Christian couple walk that way. Have you? (Never mind, I'm sure you've seen thousands. After all, you're Krause.) John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:05:47 -0500, John H wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 10:11:27 -0500, 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! Tim, first of all, your messages are not being sent through the servers. I'm replying to you through this message because both you and John apparently can't read. I posted: "Southern Baptist Convention's Russell Moore's" words, not mine. If you have a theological beef it is with the Baptist Convention, not me. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! Tim, the spoofer can't keep his spoofs straight. Again, thanks for correcting the dip****. Russel Moore is not the leader of Christians, nor did he write the Bible. Maybe he's just a ****ty interpreter or an outlier like Jeremiah Wright or the 'Rev' Jesse Jackson - both outliers and racists. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
On Friday, 29 November 2013 11:55:02 UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, November 29, 2013 10:52:22 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 11/29/13, 8:53 AM, 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. Ephesians 5:22-33 King James Version (KJV) 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 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 by her husband. This same sort of religious bull**** was used to keep women from owning property from thousands of years and to keep them from having the vote. Just like your little; concubine, Donnie. 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? |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
|
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
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? -- Americans deserve better. |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 09:29:13 -0800 (PST), True North wrote:
On Friday, 29 November 2013 11:55:02 UTC-4, wrote: On Friday, November 29, 2013 10:52:22 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: snipped Just like your little; concubine, Donnie. 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? Hey Squirt!! Wazzup? More derogatory comments, I see. Are you pretending to be 'brave' for us? A 'brave' person with a set of gonads would answer questions when he brings up his bull****. Is it dark up there? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
On Friday, November 29, 2013 2:04:44 PM UTC-5, 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? -- Americans deserve better. The spoofer dip****. Kevin has taken and passed the dip**** test about 271 times, ya know. Not that the spoofer's Kevin, but he's pretty close - mentally anyway! |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
On 11/29/2013 5:05 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 11/29/13, 12:01 PM, wrote: On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 10:52:22 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. These days that means be nice to them on Sunday Morning and give then a few bucks. There certainly are women in this country who tell men to take that "subservient" biblical bull**** and shove it. Is that what happened to you when your wife said there was no way you were getting your name on the title to your house, she didn't want to lose it during your next discussion with the IRS on paying back taxes? I'm assuming that you were addressing your comment to the deadbeat Harry Krause Snerk! -- Americans deserve better. |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
On Friday, November 29, 2013 5:05:04 PM UTC-5, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 11/29/13, 12:01 PM, wrote: On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 10:52:22 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. These days that means be nice to them on Sunday Morning and give then a few bucks. There certainly are women in this country who tell men to take that "subservient" biblical bull**** and shove it. Is that what happened to you when your wife said there was no way you were getting your name on the title to your house, she didn't want to lose it during your next discussion with the IRS on paying back taxes? Heh! |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
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. |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
On Friday, November 29, 2013 11:05:47 AM UTC-6, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 10:11:27 -0500, 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! Tim, first of all, your messages are not being sent through the servers. I'm replying to you through this message because both you and John apparently can't read. Er... "which "John" am I replying to? I posted: "Southern Baptist Convention's Russell Moore's" words, not mine. If you have a theological beef it is with the Baptist Convention, not me. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! I take it you posted that screed so there would be a theological beef, otherwise you would have probably by-passed it... |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
On Friday, November 29, 2013 11:28:27 AM UTC-6, John H. wrote:
Tim, the spoofer can't keep his spoofs straight. Again, thanks for correcting the dip****. Russel Moore is not the leader of Christians, nor did he write the Bible. Maybe he's just a ****ty interpreter or an outlier like Jeremiah Wright or the 'Rev' Jesse Jackson - both outliers and racists. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! Good observation... |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
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... |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
On Friday, November 29, 2013 5:20:02 PM UTC-6, Tim wrote:
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... Poor choice of words. Maybe I should have said 'what' instead of 'who' oh well... |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
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! |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
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. |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
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. |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
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. |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
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. |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
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. ?;^ ) |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
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. |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
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! |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
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? |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
|
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
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. |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
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... |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
On 11/30/13, 12:19 AM, Tim wrote:
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... It's just a book, Tim. There's not a shred of proof that it was written by other than men, or that there was a divine hand in its writing. Anyone in this country is free to believe whatever they wish about it, so long as they don't try to force by law those beliefs onto society or others who believe differently. This country has no state religion. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
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! |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
On 11/30/2013 12:19 AM, Tim wrote:
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... Consider Harry the critic, who has never written a book of any sort, never published anything, never written anything worthwhile, lies about who he is, what he does, what he has, who he knows. Is his opinion of the number one best selling book in the world, worth anything? Is his opinion on anything worth anything? Crikey, he has little interest in, knowledge of, or interesting stories about boats, fishing, or traveling. Here's an example of Krause's writing and story telling skills. "We took the boat to a lunch spot and ate. After that we swam in the Chesapeake and went home." WOW! -- Americans deserve better. |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
On Saturday, November 30, 2013 6:38:52 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:
It's just a book, Tim. There's not a shred of proof that it was written by other than men, or that there was a divine hand in its writing. to you it is, Harry, Some of us live it. |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
On Saturday, November 30, 2013 6:38:52 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:
It's just a book, Tim. Then why do you hate it so? |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
On Saturday, November 30, 2013 6:38:52 AM UTC-6,
This country has no state religion. Well, that's been established for over 235 years. Did you think it would be overturned next week? |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
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... |
Treatment of Females - Does this meet your approval, Krause?
On 11/30/13, 8:34 AM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, November 30, 2013 6:38:52 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote: It's just a book, Tim. There's not a shred of proof that it was written by other than men, or that there was a divine hand in its writing. to you it is, Harry, Some of us live it. No one is stopping you from "living it," whatever that means, so long as you don't force others to believe as you do. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:29 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com