Is it any wonder why some would prefer Trump over Hillary (or any other politician). Trump might be a Bold faced liar but I think people prefer that over a Backstabbing liar.
Who is better equipped to be president; an Idiot or a Lawyer? We know why Hillary wanted to be President, why do you think Trump desired to be president? Maybe in 20/20 you guys will play ball (doubtful). I'm sure it must have felt like an "in your neck" moment when a "female" lost to a so called idiot...Don't take it so hard...it's not you, its Hillary.

Just as some would prefer anyone other than the dufus, of course there would be those that would prefer anyone other than Hillary. Personally I preferred Biden back then, but obviously that didn't happen. It would have been interesting though how HC would have dealt with a republican senate and house though, probably been impeached in a week, like the dufus would be if the senate flips in 2020, and the dufus gets re elected.

Quote:

---

Time for you to admit it. You support Trump in spite of his strange behavior because he proclaims he is anti-abortion (which anyone who has followed Trump from his NY days knows that is simply a matter of convenience designed to attract votes).

---

I've said many times that my hopes for Trump were that he would appoint federal judges who would respect the Constitution and the rule of law, bring about a healthy economy, and balance the budget. So far it seems that I'm 2 for 3. If he were not opposed to abortion, I would not vote for him.

Quote:

---

As to Hillary, you're conflicted about the role of women in society - a woman president is a bit too much for you. We surmise this from your previous post here commenting how the Bible would advise re a present-day position concerning a woman.

---

Wow. Talk about nonsense. I would have no problem with a female pres, especially if she was a Margaret Thatcher clone. The Bible speaks against women having authority over men in the church or being the "lead teacher". It says nothing about a female president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I've said many times that my hopes for Trump were that he would appoint federal judges who would respect the Constitution and the rule of law, bring about a healthy economy, and balance the budget. So far it seems that I'm 2 for 3. If he were not opposed to abortion, I would not vote for him.

---

Three Pinocchios. You said you wanted conservative judges.

Quote:

---

Wow. Talk about nonsense. I would have no problem with a female pres, especially if she was a Margaret Thatcher clone. The Bible speaks against women having authority over men in the church or being the "lead teacher". It says nothing about a female president.

---

Four Pinocchios. Do you think women should be preachers just like men?

Quote:

---

judges who would respect the Constitution and the rule of law

---

I.e, conservative judges.

Quote:

---

Four Pinocchios. Do you think women should be preachers just like men?

---

You need to come out of your fantasy world. I have consistently said the same thing on this board.

Not sure why we are suddenly talking about female preachers, but with that topic, no, I don't think women should preach in the same capacity as men, nor male preachers always preach in the same capacity as women. I just go with what Paul said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I just go with what Paul said.

---

Paul lived until 64 or so A.D. This is 2019.

Quote:

---

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jlisenbe https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom...post-right.pngI just go with what Paul said.



Paul lived until 64 or so A.D. This is 2019.

---

some things are timeless .

Quote:

---

This is a load of crap and you know it. Goldman Sachs et al falsified packages of mortgages and sold them as AAA securities KNOWING they were toxic. Everything you wrote as a cause is nothing but phony right-wing talking points trying to excuse Wall Street.

---

The Federal government has long exercised massive control over the housing and financial markets;including its creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For years irrational lending standards were FORCED on lenders by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) .
The CRA forced banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. That is just a fact . The loans were then filtered through Freddie and Fannie at taxpayer's expense ; which purchased, and guaranteed loans made by lenders and whose debt is itself was implicitly guaranteed by the federal government. The banks ,in an attempt to salvage some kind of profit out of this arrangement, wrapped up bundles of subprime loans and sold them to Fannie and Freddie whose primary mandate was to "promote home ownership," not to apply sound lending standards. There are other factor like cheap money policies by the Fed . But you get the idea. Free market principles would've prevented GWOT .

And that brings me to il Duce . He was the father of this disaster .
Cuomo was Housing and Urban Development (HUD) director under Clintoon . He helped trigger the financial crisis by pushing Fannie and Freddie to buy more subprime mortgages to increase home ownership among the poor. Many of those homeowners eventually defaulted, and the mortgage-backed securities market later collapsed. Don't believe me ? Read the very liberal Village Voice's take .
https://www.villagevoice.com/2008/08...e-and-freddie/

What is really disgusting about that human piece of excrement is that then as NY AG ,he aggressively went after the banks he forced to make the loans .

Quote:

---

You didn't mention it but Obama's DOJ could have tried harder to indict the criminals, but it caved.

---

If there was malfeasance then the emperor should've prosecuted .Why didn't he ? Don't you think that is a legitimate question to ask ?Could it be that as a community organizer he strong armed banks into making the loans ? see 'Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance''.
In that case ,on behalf of ACORN ,Obama sued Citibank charging discrimination in lending .Citi settled for roughly $950,000 .That settlement was only the tip of the iceberg. When Citibank, in April 1998, sought federal approval for a merger with Travelers Group, it only got OK from the Clintoon administration after it promised ito provide $115 billion bad loans.Intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars of bad loans and contributions from America’s financial institutions.Promises were made by others to the tune of $600 billion between 1993 and 1998.

It was easy to blame Bush and greedy capitalism for the financial melt down ;and I have already given Bush the blame he deserves . Both he and Bubba kept score on how many poor now owned homes . Bush kept the policy in place on his watch. But make no mistake . It was the aggressive progressive socialist polices of Bubba ,Cuomo, and the emperor that were the real cause of the crisis .

Free market principles were abused by big banks and it's called old fashion greed. I mean who offers variable interests rates and deferred ballon payments to low/average income people unless they plan to take over the property and sell it again to another poor victim when conditions cannot be met? That's not a free market principle, thats extraction of wealth or putting an unreasonable obstacle on the younger generation, most of them average wage earners.

Profits over people is not a free market principle, it's an excuse to screw over people because it's profitable. The feckless government had it right, put people in houses but forgot to regulate the dirty tricks that hardline greedy capitalists come up with. That's why big money HATES regulation. Let me add to the to big to fail axiom...to big to jail!

Don't believe me? Take all those rich guys and send 'em to jail and see what happens to banks and consumers when the economic structure collapses. Greed has no ideology. Mo' MONEY is God!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The Federal government has long exercised massive control over the housing and financial markets;including its creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For years irrational lending standards were FORCED on lenders by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) .

---

Good Lord. You're so wrong in so many ways. The CRA existed decades before the crash. Why did it take so long? This is one of the chief false causes put out by the right wing.

Quote:

---

Free market principles would've prevented GWOT .

---

Then why did Bush immediately go to bailouts? Free market principles would have destroyed the world economy, making the 30's depression look like a bump in the road. The rest of that paragraph above (not included) is so much hogwash.

Quote:

---

Many of those homeowners eventually defaulted, and the mortgage-backed securities market later collapsed.

---

It collapsed because the securities were CRIMINALLY RATED AS AAA. Goldman sold them KNOWING they were toxic. Lloyd Blankfein, ex-ceo, had the balls to tell Congress that Goldman was correct in marketing toxic securities while getting rid of those same securities it held in its own portfolio because they were toxic. (Read that twice if it sounds weird. It is weird). Holder settled for fines when what was needed was jail time for the bank crooks. Fines mean nothing to the big banks.

Quote:

---

If there was malfeasance then the emperor should've prosecuted .Why didn't he ?

---

He did. Penalties were fines.

Quote:

---

Don't you think that is a legitimate question to ask ?Could it be that as a community organizer he strong armed banks into making the loans ?

---

Not a chance. You're way off the mark with this as is the rest of that paragraph. .

Quote:

---

It was easy to blame Bush and greedy capitalism for the financial melt down ;and I have already given Bush the blame he deserves . Both he and Bubba kept score on how many poor now owned homes . Bush kept the policy in place on his watch. But make no mistake . It was the aggressive progressive socialist polices of Bubba ,Cuomo, and the emperor that were the real cause of the crisis .

---

Absolutely amazing how you righties continue to indirectly blame the poor for something they had nothing to do with. Blaming socialism, Cuomo and Obama for the crisis boggles the mind. OBAMA WAS NOT EVEN PRESIDENT WHEN IT HAPPENED!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

no, I don't think women should preach in the same capacity as men, nor male preachers always preach in the same capacity as women.

---

Care to clarify that sentence?

Quote:

---

Paul lived until 64 or so A.D. This is 2019.

---

So you're saying we should throw the entire NT out the window since this is, after all, 2019? What a strange belief.

Quote:

---

Care to clarify that sentence?

---

Clarification? OK, I'll offer two.

a. 1 Tim. 2:12. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.

b. Titus 2:4&5. so that they (older women) may train younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, chaste, good homemakers, under the control of their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited.

The first is a prohibition while the second is a clear command. In our modern, 2019, often ineffective church, both are frequently ignored due to, I suppose, cultural influences. When I look at this sick culture we live in, I wonder why the church would consider allowing it to influence us. It's supposed to be the other way around. As Paul puts it in Philippians, " that you may prove yourselves to be blameless and guileless, innocent and uncontaminated, children of God without blemish in the midst of a [morally] crooked and [spiritually] perverted generation, among whom you are seen as bright lights [beacons shining out clearly] in the world [of darkness], 16 holding out and offering to everyone the word of life."

Were these edicts from God, or from ancient man declaring they were from God. No snark, I honestly want to know.

Quote:

---

Were these edicts from God, or from ancient man declaring they were from God.

---

As I'm sure you know, there is a wide variety of beliefs about that. If they (and the rest of the Bible) is indeed God's word, then it should be listened to above all else. If it is just the words of deceived ancient people. then it should be thrown away. It's an important question. In fact, it is probably THE important question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Clarification? OK, I'll offer two.

a. 1 Tim. 2:12. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.

---

A clear statement of your belief in the superiority of men over women. Helps to explain your disdain for Hillary Clinton.

Quote:

---

WG: Paul lived until 64 or so A.D. This is 2019.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So you're saying we should throw the entire NT out the window since this is, after all, 2019? What a strange belief.

---

I simply reminded you what year this is -- full of human interactions and architectural structures and modes of transportation and styles of clothing Paul would never have dreamed of. Yet his words hold true (but we too readily toss out those words that don't work for us), such as Gal. 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

A philosophical argument which leads us nowhere. I can just tell you there appear to have been few successful governments led by women. From the Biblical perspective getting right back to Genesis, it is said woman will try to rule man but he will not let her, why should the weaker vessel rule, because she speaks more words?

Genesis 3

¹⁶ To the woman he said,“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

If you accept the word of God then he made it plain who should rule

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

A philosophical argument which leads us nowhere. I can just tell you there appear to have been few successful governments led by women. From the Biblical perspective getting right back to Genesis, it is said woman will try to rule man but he will not let her, why should the weaker vessel rule, because she speaks more words?

Genesis 3

¹⁶ To the woman he said,“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

If you accept the word of God then he made it plain who should rule

---

Exactly! Just as we accept and obey this word of God:

Leviticus 19:19, “Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”

Quote:

---

A clear statement of your belief in the superiority of men over women. Helps to explain your disdain for Hillary Clinton.

---

Actually, it was a clear quote from scripture. It says nothing about men being superior over women. You have so much anger and hate that it clouds your judgement. You really should consider laying that aside.

Quote:

---

I simply reminded you what year this is -- full of human interactions and architectural structures and modes of transportation and styles of clothing Paul would never have dreamed of.

---

Pardon me for saying this, but I can't help but doubt that you were merely pointing out what is glaringly obvious to everyone over the age of four. He lived in a culture different from ours, but the truths he spoke of cut across all cultures. The most obvious take on your comment was that you were implying that in our modern age, we don't need some of the antiquated concepts that Paul wrote about, but perhaps that was not your intent. Still, you think they did not have to work through the same human interactions we have to work through?

Quote:

---

Yet his words hold true (but we too readily toss out those words that don't work for us), such as Gal. 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

---

Why not simply believe them both? The Galatians passage teaches that nationality, social status, or gender are not marks of superiority. We are all equal in worth and importance in Christ, which is a glorious truth and one which was revolutionary in Paul's day as well as ours, but we do not all have the same roles to play. There is no contradiction there. Rather, they are complimentary truths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Actually, it was a clear quote from scripture. It says nothing about men being superior over women. You have so much anger and hate that it clouds your judgement. You really should consider laying that aside.

---

You confuse anger and hate with objective truth. I'm not surprised by your use of such a tactic.

To the point - You wrote, "Actually, it was a clear quote from scripture". I thought you believed scripture. Do you believe this quote you offered which is from 1 Tim.?

You also wrote, "It says nothing about men being superior over women". Then why are women forbidden to teach when men are not so forbidden. And why are women forbidden to exercise authority over men? Both statements are very clear in placing women in a subordinate position to men.

You still appear to be conflicted re the role of women in society. Your Bible says one thing, and the present day finds many women exercising authority over men. Some even teach.

To be honest I have enough problems with what modern man is talking about half the time. So much so that the words of the ancients is beyond me for the most part. I suppose the church can do as they please within their own church, but e

ven Christians disagree among themselves on how we apply the words of the bible and frankly that same disagreement is present in most religions. I think the law of the land though overwrites any and all religious laws, rules, or doctrines, and for sure the dufus gives religion little consideration when he does his thing in government or his business.

I would go so far as to say he definitely exploits everything to his own advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

To be honest I have enough problems with what modern man is talking about half the time. So much so that the words of the ancients is beyond me for the most part. I suppose the church can do as they please within their own church, but e

ven Christians disagree among themselves on how we apply the words of the bible and frankly that same disagreement is present in most religions. I think the law of the land though overwrites any and all religious laws, rules, or doctrines, and for sure the dufus gives religion little consideration when he does his thing in government or his business.

I would go so far as to say he definitely exploits everything to his own advantage.

---

So this is why your constitution doesn't confer the power to make laws regarding religion, nice try

Quote:

---

You confuse anger and hate with objective truth. I'm not surprised by your use of such a tactic.

---

You have no objective truth, only your opinion. Your comments certainly seem to me to be hate and anger driven.

Quote:

---

To the point - You wrote, "Actually, it was a clear quote from scripture". I thought you believed scripture. Do you believe this quote you offered which is from 1 Tim.?

You also wrote, "It says nothing about men being superior over women". Then why are women forbidden to teach when men are not so forbidden. And why are women forbidden to exercise authority over men? Both statements are very clear in placing women in a subordinate position to men.

You still appear to be conflicted re the role of women in society. Your Bible says one thing, and the present day finds many women exercising authority over men. Some even teach.

---

You are drawing conclusions from the text, but it does not explicitly address any issues of gender superiority.

Your disagreement is not with me but with the Bible.

Quote:

---

I think the law of the land though overwrites any and all religious laws, rules, or doctrines

---

As far as law goes, that is correct, but if the Bible is really God's word, then nothing overwrites it. Besides, much of western law is based on the moral standards of the Bible and the existence of God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

As far as law goes, that is correct, but if the Bible is really God's word, then nothing overwrites it. Besides, much of western law is based on the moral standards of the Bible and the existence of God.

---

Does that also apply to those that do not believe the bible is the word of god but accept the premise that it has good values? Or is it because Paul said let it be law? The bible shares many good principles and values with other religions so it would seem that Good Orderly Direction is not exclusively Christian.

Quote:

---

You still appear to be conflicted re the role of women in society. Your Bible says one thing, and the present day finds many women exercising authority over men. Some even teach.

---

God is the Creator of the world and the humans who inhabit it (Genesis 1). From the very beginning, God designed the world and people to “function” a certain way. When society doesn’t follow the principles that God gives us in the Bible, life simply doesn’t work as well. God’s the only One with the insight into how life functions to our best benefit, and He shares that wisdom with us in His Word. The Bible is described in Hebrews 4:12 as “alive and active.” This means, in part, that the Bible is as applicable and relevant today as it was when it was first written.

Where there is no honor of God, a society will fail to respect His creation, and people will suffer as a result.

Quote:

---

it has good values?

---

How do you determine what is good?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

How do you determine what is good?

---

Love. Does it promote love, selflessness? Many religions have the Golden Rule as a central teaching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltero

God is the Creator of the world and the humans who inhabit it (Genesis 1). From the very beginning, God designed the world and people to “function” a certain way. When society doesn’t follow the principles that God gives us in the Bible, life simply doesn’t work as well. God’s the only One with the insight into how life functions to our best benefit, and He shares that wisdom with us in His Word. The Bible is described in Hebrews 4:12 as “alive and active.” This means, in part, that the Bible is as applicable and relevant today as it was when it was first written.

Where there is no honor of God, a society will fail to respect His creation, and people will suffer as a result.

---

Who wrote that? Not saying it's not true but rather to explore where they got it from. What does that have to do with a draft dodging morally befreft individual sending my kids to die in a war that brings him personal gain?

Quote:

---

How do you determine what is good?

---

If it's good for ME! I have never had a problem knowing what's best for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Love. Does it promote love, selflessness? Many religions have the Golden Rule as a central teaching.

---

Great response wish I would have thought of it in those terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Your comments certainly seem to me to be hate and anger driven.

---

The hate is all yours. You are projecting, my friend.

Quote:

---

You are drawing conclusions from the text, but it does not explicitly address any issues of gender superiority.

---

Of course, I am drawing conclusions from the text. A conclusion is rarely explicit - that's the nature of a conclusion. It simply needs to follow the rules of reason and logic which inevitably lead to the conclusion. Children learn this by the age of 4 or 5. They don't have the vocabulary of reason and logic, but the method is quite clear at an early age.

Quote:

---

Your disagreement is not with me but with the Bible.

---

This is another familiar - and false - argument from you. If you agree with the Bible, then my disagreement is with YOUR belief. Your failure to stick up for your Biblical beliefs is stunning. You either A) don't believe the Bible teaching re woman as expressed in the quote you gave, or, B) you believe but are unable to defend that belief in today's understanding of women.

Quote:

---

This is another familiar - and false - argument from you. If you agree with the Bible, then my disagreement is with YOUR belief. Your failure to stick up for your Biblical beliefs is stunning. You either A) don't believe the Bible teaching re woman as expressed in the quote you gave, or, B) you believe but are unable to defend that belief in today's understanding of women.

---

1. Yes, it's my belief, but it comes from the Bible, so if you disagree with it, you are in disagreement with the source. It is a completely logical position to take.
2. There is no "sticking up" to be done. There is nothing to defend.
3. I believe that women are the absolute equal of men in worth and value. Their role in the church is different. That is where you are completely missing it. You reach an unwarranted conclusion unsupported by the text which addressed the role of women in the church but says nothing about men being superior to women.

Quote:

---

Love. Does it promote love, selflessness? Many religions have the Golden Rule as a central teaching.

---

Why do you believe that love and selflessness are good? Are you making an appeal to religion?

Quote:

---

Why do you believe that love and selflessness are good? Are you making an appeal to religion?

---

Sounds more like an appeal to the better nature of man to me! Not to speak for WG, but she did reference the Golden Rule as a central teaching of many religions.

Quote:

---

Why do you believe that love and selflessness are good? Are you making an appeal to religion?

---

Man has free will. He can choose to be loving and unselfish. He doesn't need religion and a moral code for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

1. Yes, it's my belief, but it comes from the Bible, so if you disagree with it, you are in disagreement with the source. It is a completely logical position to take.

---

My disagreement is with YOU. If you need to include the Bible in that disagreement, that's fine with me. The disagreement remains.

Quote:

---

2. There is no "sticking up" to be done. There is nothing to defend.

---

What you need to defend is your position re women. If you wish to narrow your position to their role in the church, that's fine with me.

Quote:

---

.I believe that women are the absolute equal of men in worth and value.

---

That's not what your Bible quote says. Yet you maintain that you believe the Bible quote. The conflict remains.

Quote:

---

Their role in the church is different. That is where you are completely missing it. You reach an unwarranted conclusion unsupported by the text which addressed the role of women in the church but says nothing about men being superior to women.

---

My conclusion is neither unwarranted nor false. Here are the words for women - "not permitted to teach" and "not permitted to exercise authority over men". How you can construe from these words anything but the subordination of women to men (in church, if you must) is not possible.

Quote:

---

What you need to defend is your position re women. If you wish to narrow your position to their role in the church, that's fine with me.

---

No, I don't need to defend that. Your argument is with the text of 1 Tim. 2:12.

Quote:

---

That's not what your Bible quote says. Yet you maintain that you believe the Bible quote. The conflict remains.

---

Again, the text said nothing one way or the other about the equality of men and women. It only speaks of roles. There is no conflict.

Quote:

---

My conclusion is neither unwarranted nor false. Here are the words for women - "not permitted to teach" and "not permitted to exercise authority over men". How you can construe from these words anything but the subordination of women to men (in church, if you must) is not possible.

---

It's very simple. I just go with what the text says. Women are not to teach or exercise authority over men. It does not say that women, as a group, are subjugated to men. Women, in fact, are not subject to the general authority of men. A wife is subject to her own husband, but not to someone else's husband, just as a husband's love for his wife is unique to her and not intended for all women. You are simply reading your own prejudices into the text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No, I don't need to defend that. Your argument is with the text of 1 Tim. 2:12.

---

Well, you ARE consistent in refusing to engage in discussion on the matter by leaving it to the Bible which, of course, cannot respond.

Quote:

---

I just go with what the text says. Women are not to teach or exercise authority over men.

---

Thank you. At least you admit that much. It's a start.

Quote:

---

A wife is subject to her own husband, but not to someone else's husband

---

But she is. That's EXACTLY what your quote says. Shall not exercise authority over MEN. Plural.

Quote:

---

just as a husband's love for his wife is unique to her and not intended for all women.

---

With this reading, you're out in left field - stretching the meaning to a place it was never intended to go.

Quote:

---

You are simply reading your own prejudices into the text.

---

Not so. I am reading the text based on the meaning of the words.

(This is another tactic I notice you use. When you're out of ideas, you revert to charging the other side with biases and prejudices).

Quote:

---

But she is. That's EXACTLY what your quote says. Shall not exercise authority over MEN. Plural.

---

I can only assume you are joking. That, in fact, is exactly NOT what the text says. Saying that women are not to exercise authority over men is a million miles from saying that all women are subject to all men. If I say I cannot exercise authority over the governor of Georgia, that certainly does not have the meaning that the gov can exercise authority over me. Your argument is total nonsense.

Quote:

---

With this reading, you're out in left field - stretching the meaning to a place it was never intended to go.

---

Think a little. It was a comparison. Saying that the husband is to love his wife is NOT the same thing as saying he should love ALL wives. Saying that women cannot exercise authority over men in the church is NOT the same thing as saying that all men have authority over all women. It's a crazy interpretation.

Quote:

---

leaving it to the Bible which, of course, cannot respond.

---

I assure you the Bible can respond. Try reading it. It defends and explains itself quite well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Think a little. It was a comparison. Saying that the husband is to love his wife is NOT the same thing as saying he should love ALL wives. Saying that women cannot exercise authority over men in the church is NOT the same thing as saying that all men have authority over all women. It's a crazy interpretation.

.

---

Talking about crazy interpretations, what you are arguing for is apartheid, separate development. Men have been given a leadership role. Some have abdicated

Quote:

---

It's very simple. I just go with what the text says. Women are not to teach or exercise authority over men. It does not say that women, as a group, are subjugated to men.

---

That makes absolutely no sense!