Luv2Fall

Love'em!

.....actually, personally, I found him entertaining at times...........didn't offend me.....I've heard worse.

I support the 1st Amendment, but at the same time - I feel that with a particular freedom comes responsibility..........in a "civil" society anyway.

Obviously a given.........in my book anyway.

That's the only way I eat it.................not much of a milk fan.

Can't help but to agree with you. Those who haven't or don't often are making the most noise......... Thank you for your service and stay safe.

Any day in which you wake up and are breathing is a great day.

Wow..............it adds up but worth every penney.

I can see your point. But what I think the study was saying is that women usually do the lions share of the work when it comes to housework and childraising, etc. They have said that being a stay at home mom is comparable to having something like two or three full time jobs. Something like that anyway.. ( Before I am flamed I know there are plenty of marriages where the husbands contribute enormously in everyway and it is all peachy groovy.) The thing is , in a lot of marriages the husbands come home from work and sit down or have quiet time to read the paper or whatever. Meanwhile.. the woman has been home all day cleaning, dealing with sick kids, postwhoring on dz.com and when it's 5, she cooks dinner , helps with the kids homework, cleans up the kitchen, gives the kids a bath, puts them to bed. In other words.......she never gets off of work. So, men may seem to benefit more from marriage than women do . Again.. I know that it is not like this in all marriages. This is only an example. Actually it's the other way around here.

Yep, I'm happy...........hasn't always been a bed of roses............but that's where commitment comes into play. Marriage becomes a bit more complex as time passes due to jobs, children, finances etc. Those things can tax a marriage..........that's reality. Love isn't always a feeling...........work is involved at times. I can't think of too many things in life that are perfect. A bit of maturity doesn't hurt either as will the setting aside or elimination of self-centerness...........purpose the good of one's spouse instead of one's self. Respect for one's individuality, apart from the marriage unit, goes a long, long way. Marriage doesn't mean the elemination of one's individuality......there are two entirely different people involved.......distingish between what has to be for the good of the "unit" from "what it is that you want". Never taking each other for granted is a plus......in spite of the complexity of life and its inherent problems, take the time to let your spouse know how much you love them......how much they mean to you. Take the time to spoil them rotten....after all, they are putting up with our asses lol. Be there for them regardless of how "petty" you may perceive their problem(s) to be...........always be there. Mutual support and understanding is priceless. Compassion.......... Much of the above can be perceived as compromising.........well........sometimes you just have to..........good things aren't always easy.......good things are worth it, however. We can't always be "self-serving". Don't be a doormat, however. Sorry for going off on a tangent, but a good marriage just doesn't happen without decent input by all involved. When all of the above is mutually reciprocated, for the most part, I think happiness will be a natural byproduct of marriage.... Marriage is not for everyone..................one should really know his or herself before making that commitment............not always done but is a good start. I feel marriage is taken way too lightly by few people these days.

Oh but they can, and they have, and it's all about manipulating the language to encourage society's view of homosexuality as being perfectly acceptable and normal. "Gay" . . . "Homophobe" . . . and now . . . "Marriage" . . . They are trying to gain acceptability by hiding behind an acceptable institution. Most people don't disagree with the idea of some sort of contract that allows for equal rights. They object to the institution of marriage being hijacked. Excellent point.

Yes

Hmmmmmmm......interesting signature block so here goes...... A 43512, had sex for it and proud of it.

Why, yes, yes there is. I mean, Margueritas use tequila, which is imported, thus supporting outsourcing and the destruction of the American economy. However, should one consume Jack and Coke, both manufatured here in the good ol' USA, one is supporting local economies and keeping jobs at home. Therefore, it is more patriotic to consume Jack and Coke than it is to consume margueritas. Ciels- Michele Gotta say, Michele, you have put this thread back into perspective. Now to find my bottle of Jack.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.......give me time?

More importantly...do you cut off the crusts? Personally, I think a thread on patriotism that morphs into a politics discussion that morphs into a religious discussion that morphs into a sammich discussion says alot about the United Nations. And about chocolate manufacturers in these modern times. In real life, I'm thinking about Margueritas right about now...... .........my thoughts exactly......except for beverage of choice. The differences between those who consume Margueritas and those who consume Jack and Cokes are astounding........it's neither conducive to world peace nor space travel.

Hey Tom - my personal preference is my Z-1 for the winter and my Bonehead Mindwarp for the summer. Occaisionaly "ms?", if I want to feel the wind on my face, I'll jump the Bonehead even if it's cold. Buy a decent fullface and a decent openface and enjoy the option.

I use both.......but using the Neptune as an audible only. Don't feel quite right relying on a visual that is battery dependent. As for Neptune's general concerns, the updated software has made it a decent altimeter.

If I haven't anything to drink at that moment.

...........and I occasionally enjoy a simple PBJ sandwich.......often to the horror of those possessing a more sophisocated taste.

Well - I left it alone after having been guilty of "theme deverision". Out of the blue, I'm asked these questions so I felt it was only fair to answer them as a personal stipulation was met. .................very well it's only a part of the problem.......lot of other (forgive my non-christian language) shit has entered the equation as to what's wrong with our government. Things aren't quite that simple............

Let's be a bit more accurate by saying "according to Paul" as I didn't write the Epistle..........not trying to be difficult, I just didn't pen this stuff. Language "may be" a barrier. Your first question - my response to your initial question reveal that women CAN speak in Church. As for education, maybe an indirect implication of some sort of perceived subservant position of a woman, has no bearing here. A woman has the right to become as educated as highly she likes. As to your second question............here's a little historical context in which Paul gave this "directive" - The custom of wearing the veil was maintained in the primitive Churches of God. (1Cor.11:16). We see this in the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians. The women of Corinth beset by modern sensibilities, started coming to church without their heads covered. When St. Paul heard of their neglect, he wrote and urged them to keep the veil. According to St. Jerome’s commentary Bible, he finally settled the matter by saying head covering was a custom of the primitive communities of Judea, "the Churches of God" (1 Thess.2-14, 2Thess.1-4), which had received this Tradition from early times (2 Thess.2:15. 3:6). We need to really read the "entire" Bible to sometimes put other peices of scripture into context. Separating the historical context and the specific intent Paul wrote this epistle to the Chuch of Corinth - NO - women DO NOT have to wear the veil that was referenced here. As to your third question - divorces are obtained everyday - no problem - legally that is. I'm not giving "but's", but (there's one lol) there are those who will run with a scripture or two to suit a specific purpose or personal agenda....................taking the same scripture totally out of context in which it was written. Studying church history, customs during the periods in which the "original" text was written and a bit of secular history will reveal a "different Bible" than those who blindly read it. Studying line upon line, precept upon precept gives us a much better understanding of the Bible and can, for the most part, eleminate questions that serve as barriers or stumbling blocks to one's learning or to one's faith. There are those who will grab such verses (as presented to me here) as a way of "degrading" Biblical beliefs/doctrine and those who hold faith in the same...............all because of not being just a little familiar with the "background or premise" in which different parts of scripture were written. Anyway, my apologies if my answers aren't seemly direct enough.........................as a personal passion of mine is (or was as I haven't the time anymore) Theology and related subjects............I have a hard time thinking in simple terms relating to these subjects as there is a lot more involved than what initially meets the eye. I had many questions concerning "inconsistencies" or some crazy notion derived from reading a verse or two so I have made it a point (with some formal training as well) to study and research to Bible. Unfortunately, time is a rather limited resource into truly "digging as deep as I would like".

Background The church at Corinth was founded by Paul on his second missionary journey. Corinth was a principal city of Greece. Apparently, it had become infected with the "evils" which surrounded it in a licentious city. The Greeks were pround of their learning and philosophy, but at the same time were addicted to gross immorality. They were especially found of oratory. Apollos, an eloquent Christian Jew, had come to Corinth and captured the imaginations of the Greek Christians, see Acts, Ch. 18 vrs 24-28. This fact led to the drawing of comparisons between him, with his silver tongue, and other religious leaders. Especially to the discredit of Paul, whose bodily presence seems not to have been impressive. See 2 Cor. 10.10. This probably is the clue to the schimsms in the church, ch.1.11-13. It was the desire of Paul to purify the church from partyism and immorality, which was the primary cause of the writing of the epistle. The first few chapters of Corinthians will explain, in detail, the sins that crept into the Church of Corinth. Paul blames, and endeavours to rectify, some manifest disorders in the church of Corinth; as, #1. The misconduct of their women in the public assembly, who laid by their veils. "This behavior he reprehends, asserts the superiority of the husband yet so as to also REMIND the husband that both were made for mutual help and comfort, ver. 1-16. I Cor. 11-2 Ordinances ='s Oral Teachings Verse 11.3 = "The head of the woman is the man". Paul's teaching here was/is based on Gen. 3:16, and makes it the basis for the wearing of a covering. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The women of the Church of Corinth prayed and prophesied even in their assemblies, v.5. It is generally accepted in the Theological Community that it was indeed an apostolical cannon, that the women should keep silence in the churches (ch. XIV. 34; 1 Tim. II. 12 Paul DOES NOT in this place prohibit this thing,, but reprehend the manner of doing it. "The manner of doing a thing enters into the morality of it. We must not only be concerned to do good, but that the good we do be well done". Some believe these reasons was based on contemporary social costume..most do not. The thing Paul reprehends is the woman's praying or prophesing uncovered, or the man's doing either covered, v. 4-5. The reason on which he grounds his reprehension..........the man that prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonoureth his head, mainly, Christ, the head of every man (v.3) Verse 15: "her hair is given her for a covering. This is not the same word as that used on verses 5-6. The point here is that as the hair represents the proper covering in the natural realm, so the veil is the proper covering in the religious. Verse 16 shows that there were no customs of women worshiping without a covering. It is also "generally accepted/believed" by many Theologians that it is the man who is set at the head of of creation and therein he bears the resemblance of God. The woman, on the other hand, is the glory of the man (v.7). She is the image of God, inasmuch as she is the image of the man. "A woman should do nothing that looks like an affectation of equality, She ought to have power on her head, because of the angels. Power that is, a veil, the token that she is under the power of her husband, as Jews and Christians had the opinion that these ministering spirits (angels) were present in their assemblies. A caution lest the inference be carried too far (v. 11-12). They were made to be a mutual comfort and blessing, not one a slave and the other a tyrant. It is God's will that the man abuse not his "power" in this case. The woman's hair is a natural covering; to wear it long is a glory to her; but for a man to have long hair is a token of softness and effeminacy. At the end of chapter 11, Paul sums up all by referring to the usages and customs of the churches. v. 15. The common practice of the churches is what he would have them govern themselves by. I don't know if the above makes any sense..........Paul was a bit "miffed" at the Church of Corinth when he wrote this epistle. The fact is that Paul seems to contradict himself on this subject. The so-called "limiting passages" are incredibly difficult to interpret. Given their obscurity, no one can be dogmatic as to what Paul really meant when he wrote them. This being so, interpretations that have been given to these texts has shortcomings. I, personally cannot give a "definitive" answer......I can, however, share some of what I knew concerning a thing or two that Paul was concerned with at the Church of Corinth and a little background concerning the church........hopefully giving a better understanding relative to the context in which these verses were written. Now to put this entire subject into maybe a more complete context upon which one can formed either an opinion or to draw their own conclusions concerning either a woman's role in the church/ministry or conduct within a church, the overall teaching of the NT reveals a different picture than one from drawn from fragmented doctrines. The NT is a story that contains a consistent message........the message of the New Covenant. This covenant is not an updating of the Old Covenant...........it does not include a new set of rules to replace the old set of rules. We can only conclude that, authors of "Books" of the NT to include the epistles were influenced, to a degree, by old traditions, one's personality traits and those same influences were apparently found in the early church. As to build to a "more complete context", as referenced above - one only has to read the Gospels of Jesus' recognition of and/or non-discriminatory treatment of women in matters of marriage and divorce (Mark 10: 11,12) and strangely enough so did Paul (1 Co. 7:10). The Gospel's represent the women followers of Jesus as being the first to see/proclaim/preach the risen Christ - Mat 28: 1-10, Luke 24: 1-10, John 20: 1,2 & 11-18. There are numerous more examples of the ever expanding role of women within the church and the proclaimation Christ's message to the world. The above may or may not make sense to you................but it is pretty much how I understand the subject. A quickie concerning this verse as requested by the other poster: "...Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." Mark 10:11-12 In the Book of Matthew Christ states "That whosoever puts away his wife, except for fornication, causeth her to commit adultery". Apparently Christ was teaching that the only reason "permissible" regarding divorce was that of fornication.........to the best of my recollection, according to the original language, that the "unfaithfulness" was a continous thing....not a one time thing. There is much to be said here also...........hell - I remarried, but as circumstances would have it, my first wife was continually doing the nasty while I was in the field while in the Army. There is a lot to be said here, but I think the purpose with which questions were asked has been accomplished..........well....at least on my end.

Yes ma'am....extremely fair and you raise some excellent points. Gotta step out to the grocery store.........to fix dinner tonite.....when all is said and done, I'll answer to the best of my ability.

I'm a fast faller........can hit 176 on my belly. I got a pollycotten Bev suit with swoop cords to slow me down.......but, the suit in and of itself, shouldn't be the "cure". I've been working on my fall rate in street cloths................feel that if you can fall slower without the aid of a suit............you're truly "flying" you body the way you want. My fall rate, in street clothes, is now in the high 120's and lower 130's......takes a while but with practice, you'll get there....I'm not quite where I want to be yet.........flying "flat" will eventually become natural.........just my opinion.