>Haven't had enough yet? <bg>

I had, but I can take more.

>>>Gosh.. Sorry you have a brain-clog. <g>
>>
>>May the jury note this sentence.
>
>Hey. If Mike wants to quote (mis-quote) scripture, at least he should get it right. It would be like be telling you how to pronounce words in your native language. I'd REALLY mess it up. <g> Mike's scriptural mis-understanding messes are along that line. All I'm trying to do is keep him from making too much of a fool of himself. <g>

You're not - instead of correcting the quote right away, you start mentioning brain-clogs.

>>"...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?
>
>I understand what usurp means Dragan. <s> Remember, English is my native language. <g>

"Usurpare" is Latin, and I've seen too many Latin words which have attained very different meanings in (specially American) English. Just had to check.

>What's wrong with not wanting someon to take power from soemone else to who it rightfully belongs? IOW, Paul's statement seems to support your definition. Again, notwithstanding al the cultural stuff...

The point which is not explicitly stated here is "and to whom does that power rightfully belong"?

>>>>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?
>
>Not at all. The men were to be killed as well. You need to read your Bible more Dragan. <g>
>
>Leviticus 20;15 "And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast." (emphasis mine)

Fine - why did you wait so long with this? You chose to mention "drinking poison" and all other stuff.

>I keep wondering when you knuckleheads <g> are going to bring something really knowledgeable regarding Biblical knowledge to the table.

It's more fun to get that knowledge from you :).

>My point is that Mike didn't "get it" - which he proved yet again by mis-quoting another set of verses here. You want to do the same thing and call it good?? <g> Or, don't you think you should go learn what the Bible really says before stick your foot in your mouth as Mike has done here...

I don't think I'd find in it what you have found, so what's the point?

>>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.
>
>You're asserting something not based upon complete knowledge. How foolish do you want to look here Dragan? <s>

I have a complete knowledge of what's written in this part of the thread :).

>>Any misrepresentation is unintentional and comes from my lack of discussion skills.
>
>No problem. But you really do need to gain a little bit more Biblical knowledge I'd think. <g>

You not only know me better than I do, but also know what I should read. Wasn't that book for members only?