sox4lifeinPA

yet another reason why number one...number SUCKS

Milton Bradley looks like a great pick up so far... and Bonds is gonna get so pissed off no one is pitching to him, it'll screw him up eventually. I love that everyone's like "He's hitting an insane .515 this year, he's by far the best player in Baseball" yeah, how's his teams record? vintage sammy

hey, at least he didn't say "I want everyone to know that no matter how long things go on, the Reinsdorf's will always be part of the White Sox"

I like sweeney, so I dont like to see him hurt. trade him to the NL...that's my solution to everything

where's "hurricane" or "camo" ? and Old E is the WORST

so you're not claiming this year, huh cdub ?

we're 5-1 in one run games, btw

*in best strong bad voice* "more like a self-gummer"

I can't tell you HOW many people I've thrown out of windows because my teacher told me and I didn't want to disobey... I guess I'm just a yes man at heart

Sorry ladies and Gents, I was off on a gig all day yesterday so I couldn't be apart of the fun. Honestly, there's not a lot I want to respond to, so I'll just raise a toast to God's plan for the elect and non elect and whoever made the "Cwsox for Pope" remark should NOT insult Cdub that way. my pee>pope.... for anyone who doesn't buy into what I'm saying, how could you believe for a second that one man has a higher direct line of communication to God than the rest of us? just saying. and once again, what purpose does the crucifixion serve if there are multiple paths to God?

he'll be fine, or he'll be GAWN. no worries, right DBAH0? edit: I altered the name of the thread for our beatle fans... cu cu ka choo

Bev, how's the military life? glad to hear from you! hope all is well.

yeah yeah... you missed my edit on his post that made him say he loves beastly's wank. oh well, Steve-o's good in my book

I'll check that book out. If it's anything like Marcus borg, I'll hate it, but I'll at least give it a chance. Borg=christianity I'm not ready for. practicing homosexuals as clergy is lightyears past women clergy.

damnit that's true though

that's sick steve....REAL sick

now we're talking. I'm seeing the "story telling and folk lore" side of the OT as of late. They're mostly real events that have been passed down and sensationalized. I think the message, as in the NT, is protected and sanctioned by God, but I need not get wraped up in the did moses' staff turn into a snake. I don't know. I think there are great lessons to tell and it's important to understand where the necessity of Christ comes from, which is a history of "God's people" forsaking their Master. and I think it's clear that the church has come a long way from women being property.

Dude, I totally dominate Just for arguements sake, is Galatians one of the "might have not been written by paul" books? just checking, cos I know there are a few. anyway, in response, to this: I don't think you should avoid the amazing anology of the church being the bride of Christ simply because one can manipulate it in a sexual way. The church needs to be pure and blameless, who doesn't want that vision? I suppose. Like I said before, I think there's biblical precidence for having a group of elders sharing the "burden" preaching and the vision and direction of the church. That group should include women. we square now?

I'm checking out Galatians, and I understand that point. It's helping me see what you're trying to say, but I am skeptical of any church that basis it's practices on a single piece of scripture. see: snake charming pastors, church of christ's acapella worship, etc I'm not saying you're wrong or I'm right. I'm just reiterating what's been said. maybe both can co-exist?

I'm with ya Jim, except we're talking about the new testament now Paul was around circa 50 AD.

just messing with ya, be good

you mean AREN'T spam 3

make sure you include who says it

I want to come up with a list of common sayings by some of our members here. such as Be good's "be good sons and co."

Cdub, I definitely want you to stay in the conversation. I was talking to Miss S4L last night about this stuff. I read her different posts and my response. We unpacked 1 timothy 2 together. She's reading a couple of women's books right now, "the alure of hope" and "every woman's battle". In the latter, it says that the greek word for "authority" (help me on that Cdub) is in reference to sexual authority or in other words, women shouldn't lead men into sexual sin (cos we do a mighty good job on our own). The point is, that that passage which could and is used to prohibit women from preaching, ministering, etc in the church, really has more to do with her appearance and actions than her role in the church. So while I'm not admitting (HA! NEVER! ) that I'm wrong, I'm saying I see things differently. That timothy passage is clearer to me now, I think. In all honesty, while I was in the methodist church my mom was the lay leader of our church. she was in charge of alot of different activities,etc. we also had a woman (and her husbad) leading the youth group, and an associate woman paster. I'm very familiar with women leadership, and I'm not saying it's not acceptable. I'm just saying that the last time I sat and listened to a woman preacher I left with a funny feeling, like something wasn't right. Is that my tendency to dominate as Cdub said? Or was that the Holy Spirit's conviction? honestly I don't know. I don't think women preachers are the undoing of the church, clearly there's not a whole lot to back that up biblically. Phoebe ministered to paul in some way, but I want to be careful of this word "ministered", because I don't believe Phoebe was the head of a church and paul was under her. I believe that the Grace that God has poured on us, is passed back and forth to each other. I can minister to my friends and they can minister to me. yet, it doesn't say that she "has been a great leader over many people"...but it does say "she has been a great help TO many people". semantic? maybe. Sounds like a team work in the Corinth church that meets at their house. I can't get around this one though: In other words, as Christ is the head over the church, husbands are head over their wives. So, how would it be possible for a married woman to be head of a church, yet be under her husband? That's where it just doesn't add up for me. and "well she just is" doesn't cut it. thoughts? because I really don't know.