ooohhhhh ahhhhh yeahhhh
ohhh yeahh ohhh yeah lmao

if they wake me up they better have a good reason or food or they get a kick or an elbow u know where lol

You have that good of aim when you first wake up? Eyes closed...but you can zero in on your target like a champ huh?

You bad to the bone.

air horn

yep as u get older u remember where to aim lol

won't work..the train tracks are a whole ten feet away from my door and my windows are usually open i've learned to sleep through it every two hours on the week days...your air horn doesn't scare me...you'll have to try harder

what if it was a smelly airhorn----like rotten eggs...like they have at the magic store...lol

I don't get why so many guys read this passage and think it means they can do whatever they want and the woman must follow no matter how much she doesn't like it.

Right after he says wives must submit he says, "husbands, love your wife and do not be harsh with them."

So, if you believe women must do anything because of what was said here, why don't you believe in the second half?

If you love your wife, you wouldn't want to hurt them. Thereby the submit part for the wife would be something she would like to do anyway. Maybe just not at that moment.

Kiss is right. I get really tired of men using this passage as a right to treat the women they "love" any way they want to. "Love" is in quotes because I sincerely believe if you do love them, you won't do anything or ask them to do anything that they really don't want to do. If you find you are pushing your wife to do things she really doesn't want to do maybe you should stop and think about how you really feel about her. I can't imagine a man that would honestly say he truly loves his wife and yet makes her feel bad or cheap just to satisfy his desires. Doesn't hers count?

As far as this being sexist, if you actually read and understand what he wrote (especially keeping in mind the times in which he wrote) this is anything but sexist.

Men will give their wives what they want and need if they follow what he says here. Wives will give their husbands what they want and need if they follow it as well. This is telling both sexes to give the other what they desire. My ex and I missed that. I gave her what I wanted and needed from her and she gave me what she wanted and needed from me. Neither of us were happy with what we were receiving and didn't understand why the other didn't understand or appreciate the loving actions we took. What he is really saying here is men and women are different with different needs.

Give the love of your life what they want, not what you want. This applies to both sexes. Women are much more in tune with this than men are which is probably why so many men only see the first half of the passage.

"See, says right there you must do what I want."

"but it says you are supposed to love me and not be harsh."

"I do love you. If you love me you will do what I want you to do."

I believe most women will recognize that for what it is...

The bible says all sorts of things. It's not so hot as a marriage manual.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Are you saying men shouldn't give their women what they want and women shouldn't give their men what they want?

Or are you just discarding this passage altogether?

I'm an atheist. I'm discarding the bible altogether. The issues are so much more complicated and mysterious than men understood 2000 years ago.

Oh, sorry to hear that.

Can't imagine what life would be like with that idea.

Although, I don't think social interactions are any more complicated today than they were 2000 years ago. People are people of any age. the only difference is the environment in which they are raised.

Today it is just easier to talk to people around the world. In that regard, I am kind of jealous of those times. In that, they went everywhere on foot or horse. They stayed much closer to home than we do now. A lot of people commute 40 plus miles to work. That would be a week long trip at minimum back then (there and back and spend time at the destination). In that regard, you can be friends with people that live dozens of miles from you and meet and spend time with every day but don't know the person 2 doors down from you, let alone the guy on the next block.

I guess in that regard you could say life is more complicated today.

I am sorry, you may be right that most women will recognize my post for what it is, but you sure did not, and I don't blame you for that at all. It is my weakness that you perhaps did not go through it with an open mind and paying attention to the logic involved.

I based that post on the following four documented necessary premises:

1. Some women are masochists, and some men are masochists.
2. Men must not be harsh with their wives.
3. Men must be loving and must cherish their wives.
4. Women must submit to their husbands.

The case I described was pertaining only to the case where the wife or the husband is a masochist. I did not make claims over other couplehoods where the wife is not a masochist and/or the husband is not a masochist.

Please note this above well. I don't need to go beyond that for what I have written, and therefore I did not. I ask you to please keep in mind the above four premises as you read on.

We know that a masochist is only happy when suffering.
We know that some masochists are not sadist.
Therefore some masochists do not like to punish others, it gives them discomfort.
If the husband is a masochist, he will ask his wife to beat him. He will then feel pleasure. The wife, if she is not a sadist, will not feel comfortable by beating her husband. But she must submit, so she will, when he asks her to beat him.

In the other scenario, the woman is the masochist. She asks her husband to beat her. Her husband knows fully well that he must 1. love and cherish her AND, necessarily and unavoidably, 2. be not harsh with her.

So in this scenario the husband is between a rock and a hard place: If he beats his wife, he disobeyes Paul's instruction to be not harsh, and if he does not beat his wife, then he disobeyes Paul's instruction to be loving and to cherish his wife.

You see, the wife feels love and cherishment from her husband the most when he beats her (provided she is that type).

Please, the reasoning stops here. Do NOT extrapolate from this, please, and apply the logic presented here to any other couple, in which neither spouses are masochists. I meant to have my readers understand that when I first wrote the first post about this here.

Please try to read this post, because I am quite disappointed and fearful that my reputation is ruined, or at least damaged, because the readers misunderstand the intentions of my writing, and they do that by simply ignoring my message, ignoring parts of the message and only picking up key words in the scanning of it. I believe that's what you did. You then went on to condemn me, my attitude.

Please note that 1. my attitude is not at all shown in this post, or the one with the same logic, previously posted. None of my attitude is included, so please don't make claims over that, by saying things that are damaging to my reputation.

Secondly, you wrote "why did you ignore the second part?" Obviously to those who may have read my first post and now my second post very carefully, I DID NOT ignore the second part. The second part was a very integral part of what formed my opinion on Paul's alleged "wisdom".

When you damaged my reputation, you wrote, "I don't get why so many guys read this passage and think it means they can do whatever they want and the woman must follow no matter how much she doesn't like it." If you read my post, AND understood it, you would have seen that I did not read this passage and thought itmeans I can do whatever I want and the woman muyst follow no matter how much she does not like it.

Yes, according to Paul, AND NOT TO ME, the woman must submit. If you don't think submit means that she must follow, then I don'think you know the meaning of that word that well.

Whether I think a woman must submit or not, my private thought, is not what I wrote in the original post, I just simply expounded on the imperatives of Paul.

But you were even more wrong when you said, that a guy can do whatever he wants. Whether I think that or not, again, is not the issue here (for the record I do NOT believe that a guy can do whatever he wants). The issue is that you got an idea of what you thought and said, while it was far from me to write that. I simply and very carefully followed the constraints Paul advises to couples. You did not notice that I was doing that, so please, next time you read my posts, any one of them, please don't make the mistake of assuming things that I said which I did not say.

For your information, neither Paul, nor I said that a guy can do whatever he wants. He must obey Paul's imperative, in whatever he does, to be NOT HARSH and be LOVING and to CHERISH his wife.

I never swayed from that. Nowhere in my post did I say anything that would have indicated that I think a man must not observe these categorical restrictions in dealing with his wife. I fully kept in my line of reasoning to these principles, and to the fact that a woman must submit. I never added or taken away any categorical restrictions, which Paul hadn't already said. This is a very-very important fact, and I ask you to please not to put words in my mouth in the future, and if you attribute any sort of attitude or general values as to what I have, then please don't write them down in your posts. You will get it wrong again, and I don't have the time to explain to you each time you make such vile and damaging, albeit largely unintentional, mistake to turn others against me.

I hope you understood this explanation. The main points were:
1. Trying to make you understand how the logic worked in my first post.
2. Showing that my logic used elements from Paul's categorical teachings, and ONLY from his teachigns.
3. I showed no attitude of mine. I said nothing of the sort that a man must beat his wife or vice versa, because that is acceptable morally. (I merely pointed out that a man is between a rock and hard place, if he is married to a masochist woman, because he must show he cherishes her, but that she can understand only when he is harsh with her.)
4. I would like you to please in the future not attribute feelings, attitudes, values to me, based on what I said.
5. Please, in the future, if you don't understand what I had just said, don't criticise me for having said that. If you want to criticise someone, you must first understand what he or she said, before you meritfully can say what is right or what is wrong in what he said. You showed here that you don't want to go through the trouble of understanding my expressions before making some critical comments on them. I find that unfair and I kindly ask you to please stop doing that in the future.

Thanks.

O I def think u have to interpret the bible in the context of the culture in which it was written - societies often nomadic and at war, and not all of the apostles were fond of women. women at that time in history were second class citizens, at best

I'll never be one to let a group of men in authority tell me what to do....unless he's writing my check on Friday for work done in an ethical and legal manner

Artlo, my fun comes from not discarding the Bible but instead pointing out absolutely irreconcilable logical mistakes in it. To me that's more fun.

I don'hate the religious. I don't even hate their religions, whatever it is. Could be anything, Christianity, Buddhism, whatever.

What I hate is putting authority before reason. If something is impossible then one should not believe that it is possible. I resent when I see that happen. And resent it big time. That simple.

I devote my life to point out to christians when that happens. I don't even have to ever read the bible. I just look at a passage they quoted, and five times out of seven, there is a blatant impossibility claimed as the honest and irrefutable truth.

I am not partial to christians. I would do this to other religions' followers, and have done so once with a Hindy, once with a Taoist, and twice with a Buddhist, but he counts the two as one. (laugh.)

I just am more frequently exposed to Christian dogma than to that of any other religion.

Ah, and I poke fun at atheists, too, whem they make irreconcilably idiotic remarks. Unfortunately I was born without the human emotion of Loyalty to Friends; I pledge my liege only to its majesty, the logic.

gee thanks! I think I've found one too!

jump up and down on the bed

My atheism is not a matter of choice. It is simply how I see reality. I also am not hostile to religion. Even with all the evil that has been committed in its name, I think it is a good thing. I think it's cheap psychiatry. People need to feel that they are in a good place in the universe. I also think that churches are an indispensable focal points for the fellowship that binds communities together. I don't think religion has any real role in teaching people the difference between right and wrong. Historically, I think religion has been usurped by charismatic people to establish a secondary system of government. "If you don't follow my rules, you will go to hell".

This is not at all what this thread is about. I said my piece, and that is good enough for me.