@Frank Apisa,
You would obviously apply your asserted insults and sneers at any woman who disagreed with you as it is so habitual. You simply do not understand that your assertions are not proof of anything and are the opposite of responding. You are talking about women who co-operate with you to your satisfaction and convenience and are approved of by your appraisal.
The implication of the thread is that you are morally superior to Jesus because you condemn slavery, which is uncommonly decent of you I must say, and He didn't according to your information. Although I will admit that you sometimes qualify that, chicken out, by referring to those who recorded for posterity what He said or what they said He said.
Just as the Founders didn't condemn the slavery we know about in North America for political reasons, i.e. unity was impossible if they had done, so also the early Christian writers had a mission which would have had no hope of success had they condemned slavery. The movement would have extirpated by the gentile tribes around them in short order.
Why do you suppose Roman law never condemned slavery? And most of our basic legal principles as well as the names and general architecture of the institutions which enshrine them derive from Roman Law. The important principles are often given Latin names.
I can't see any other reason for your thread than to justify your licence to breach the Christian code of sexual morality. And the strange thing is that you already have that freedom regarding anything in the Christian code which is not covered by the law. Which is obviously not enough for you and you seek to have us approve of it. Possibly all copy it.
I remember from before you flunked off A2K in a fit of thrumming indignation and petulance that you referred to an orgy you were involved in pretty boastfully. I myself have engaged in such activities but I would never seek to have my behaviour approved of. I am actually quite ashamed of it. I must have been at the time because only those involved ever knew about it. I certainly would not start impugning Jesus to justify it.
You should read better stuff than ladies' magazines. They are designed, as are their TV equivalents, to flatter ladies into believing themselves not a perfect disgrace to the human species. As Eve is reported to have been.
Try Neumann's analysis, following Jung, of the Good and Terrible Mother archetypes in every culture we know of. The Gorgons, the Medusas, the Sirens, the Amazons, the Argive Helens, the Sabina Poppeas, the Pompadours, the Kalis, the Coatlicues, the Rangdas, the Chicomecoatls--oh me oh my--the list is enormous. Joan Collins as The Bitch entering a posh reception with two fit young men with their knees showing through the holes worn through their jeans.
The Virgin Mary is the Good Mother archetype. There's only one of them and the Aztecs alone had thousands of Terrible Mothers.
I think they are lovely little darlings but they need to be watched. An opinion shared by all the intelligent men I have ever met either in person or in the pages of the best books. And quite forcefully by the the many who had their necks thoroughly wrung and their pockets turned inside out and had to take the blame as well.
But I am glad you have got your domestic scene organised properly. Some young men reading here must be so comforted by your ideas that their eagerness to get their necks into the noose has been extended recently, in some areas at least, into new, I won't say virgin, territory. I hope it is as plain sailing for them all as you are assuring them that it is.
the customer replied that he was a sick son of a bitch and the employee replied that he told him he was sick.
