>Hi Mike,
>
>>>I think I am either not being clear enough or people just cannot get past their pre-conceived notions.
>>
>>I can't get past this Bible Verse:
>
>Gosh.. Sorry you have a brain-clog. <g>

May the jury note this sentence.

>>1 Timothy 2:12-15
>>"...suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithsstanding she shall be saved in childbearing."
>
>Right. And, as I've suggested, oh about at least ten times now there are some cultural issues and so forth at work here as well as some basic doctrinal issues.
>
>The problem I keep seeing here Mike is that this seems more of an excuse for you to rationalize your position than much of anything else. The only thing I see here would be a prohibition from having a woman pastor and absolutely nothing else.

"Nobody is so blind as one who wants not to see" - wish I knew the origins of this sentence. They could be biblical, or pre-biblical, I guess.

"...nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" - I figure the meaning of the word "usurp" is not culturally biased and tainted. From what I know, it means "inlawfully take a position which rightfully belongs to another". You can usurp a throne, or power. So what, the inner meaning of the sentence that the "power over man" belongs to an unnamed entity, and only women are usurpers if they try to take it? How could you not see that?

>>Leviticus 20:16
>>"And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast."
>
>I see.. So then beastiality is good for society? I fear your moral compass is fatally broken of you believe this.

I see... bestiality is bad for society, but your good book says only women should be killed if caught. How come? The guild of shepherds was too powerful at the time of publishing, or had a strong lobby in the right places?

This is shifting the subject, DD. We're not talking about bestiality per se, we're talking about Christianity's position regarding women. So what do you do, you get an example where the book says (only) women should be punished for bestiality, you go on about bestiality, happily abandoning the subject and going your merry way trying to prove Mike is out of his mind for pointing this out. What else did you want to achieve with

"Let me ask you a question? Do you regularly drink poison?"


>I hardly think you do but we all seem to be wanting to excuse behavior that is equally deadly for societies. I can't force someone else to not drink poison if they so choose but I surely can assert that it would be deadly to so do. The same goes for beastiality. Historically, by the time a society has gotten to where it will tolerate this kind of moral behavior it's only a short period of time before that society has ceased to exist.

Oh, so it was OK when done by men, because they weren't mentioned in the penal section. It was obviously very dangerous for the society only when women did it.

Any misrepresentation is unintentional and comes from my lack of discussion skills.