How you can "disagree" with Bill's interpretation of my statements after
claiming NO personal understanding thereof seems inconsistent...

...until I see the Brice byline, at which point it falls consistently into
place: your purpose seems to be argument for its own sake!  Are you taking a
class in debate or something?

I, Tracy, was simply pointing out, once again, that the perfectly good book
of mythology is clearly designed to support a thoroughly patriarch(ic?)al
lifestyle.  The passage cited is a perfectly good example: it ain't for the
wimmen folk, they're simply ignored; the editing committee was obviously
bereft of female input.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brice Yokem [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 12:37 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: OT: the enlightenment thread
>
>
> I think what Tracy is trying to say is that many parts of the
> Bible put
> women in a position of servitude to men.  I remember one part
> that says
> something like a husband is head of the household, as Christ
> is head of the
> Church, and another part that a woman's job is to take care of the
> husband's physical needs (his "burning", IIRC).
>
> ----------------
>
> Bill -
>
> Thank you for explaining what you 'think' Tracy was 'trying' to say.
> I don't agree with your statement, but it is clear what you mean.
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *