Mike,

>>>Your argument is only relevant to the example you presented.
>>Well duh!! <g>
>>And yours were universal in scope??
>
>No, my point was that in the examples that I presented, they don't hold true. You simply brought up a couple examples where they do hold true. Scientifically, there is nothing logical to deduce from what you've posted.

Doesn't prove your point either I'd think...

>
>>>I've read the 1st Timothy. Nothing suggests that its claims that women are a sub-gender of men is out of context. It is sexists through and through as far as I can tell. Agreed? If not, please point of where it suggests that women are equal to men, and what your personal thoughts of the matter are.
>>Nope, not at all. The Bible is plainly clear that there is total equality between men, women, Jews, gentiles and such.
>
>Doug, I'm talking about 1st Timothy. YOu said the 20 20 rule. Does that not fail in the 2 chapter of 1st Timothy?

You must not have read the many <g> messages I've written where I've told you that the chapters and verses were added later for the purpose of memorization (and reference).

So, no, not at all. You seem to be constructing artificial barriers here and all I'm suggesting is that you don't do this. You'll find things a lot easier to understand if you follow my advice.

>>When do you think you'll actually start listening and thinking about whay I write Mike? <g>
>
>I think the exact opposite was demonstrated above.

For once. <g>

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the thoughtful responses but sometimes... <g>