If this is all so, why did Paul say that it is better not to be married? Women being "created to be mothers" is nonsense; women are subjugate to God, but God may call them to do different things. It's like saying "All men are meant to hold down jobs in physical labor because their shoulders are wider."

To say what you say is to say, for instance, that Andrea Merkel, leader of one of the only solvent countries in Europe, is a homewrecker, or that the Queen's head on the penny is a neglect of feminine duty, when her line by and large footed the defence of Europe, or that Catharine Marshall, arguably one of the most emotionally intelligent writers of the Christian faith, is a failure for not having six children, or that Amy Carmichael was a cold fish because she never married. On and on it goes. It's dangerous to confuse basic principles of life with theological truth.

The rules change when women are married, and that's it; Paul uses the same tone of voice because the gospel is essentially emancipating; he states what he states to women after telling the men to not attempt to overthrow Caesar. Men were and are the Caesar in the lives of most women, especially then. Remember Lydia was not mentioned as a mother but as a dealer in purple cloth -- literally a fashion maven. If a woman does not want to serve a man, she should not marry him.

The first thing a living Christian faith recommends itself to is military violence and rebellion: fearless of death, servants and heirs to the most high God, with God as their witness and protector. This is what Paul was speaking to. Women being "saved through childbearing" literally means that they will be able to make good in their married state instead of being mere slaves of men. All points beyond this are secondary facets of natural law and basic principles of live on earth -- not theology. To say it's "Satan's desire" is to ignore reality, and that reality states "Do not judge someone else's servant unless you want to be judged yourself."
www.thequestionoferos.wordpress.com

104. A real man knows when he NEEDS to sleep for more than 8 hours in order to not self destruct physically.
105. A real man knows how to be physically and verbally gentle.
106. A real man should know that he will never be a "real man" and so to have some grace on other men who likely as not have never been trained to be men.

Depression taught me that Christ meant it when He rescued the blind and the lame.

Sir Tony, your posit is stupid and your logic flawed. Take one hundred drinkers and I'll show you two alcoholics. Take one hundred drug users and I'll show you thirty with mental and social problems. And frankly, I don't give a rats ass about Portugal -- it's not my country. However, the decriminalization only pertained to users; dealers and criminals are still treated like dealers and criminals.

Stoned isn't reality. I wish some people knew that.

Tony:

The seed you purchased, I am sure, came from a harmless shop owner on the corner...or perhaps it too was smuggled in by organized crime?

I am always mystified at the lengths people go to to justify idiot decisions. The only ones who believe drugs are harmless are the users themselves; everyone else can tell you're stoned. Trust me. And it simply can not compare to drinking alcohol on anything more than a semantic level. Alcohol is part of the human body (as in it occurs in the human body naturally) and is most often consumed and used without intoxication as part of everyday living.

Illegal drugs are illegal because they degrade human life. They turn good people into morons; sensible people into scatter brains reminiscent of dementia, and way to many people into husks. I'd like you to ask yourself where it would end? Marijuana, in all of its numbskull glory? Cocaine, in its car accidents and drug wars? Crystal meth, with its mugging and bug marks? Or maybe LSD and its schizophrenia?

Very cool. I couldn't find any of this information for British Columbia.

I can't belittle something that doesn't exist; if God doesn't exist, morality doesn't exist. I haven't wronged you or belittled you because "belittlement" by its very connotation is a judgement call.

By your judgement call, you prove that there is indeed a Higher Morality or God, and that this moral motion exists within your mind and causes reaction, however that reaction may be, in the same way your gut responds to hunger or your nose to smell.

Don't try to fend off the so-called "belittlements" with a straw baseball bat.

Interesting how you take so much time to hate something you don't think exists. Where did you develop your concept of evil -- your very use of the words "wickedness" and "evil" would seem to indicate by extension a believe in good; yet, if good does not exist from outside itself, ie, God, then good doesn't exist, and your argument becomes peculiarly irrelevant.

Good and evil are always dictats bestowed from outside; no law exists unless it is given from outside; no judgement has meaning until applied. Weigh it yourself: your argument and rant is baseless and wholly without rational substance.

The whole premise of science is prove/disprove; science not being open to criticism is ridiculous. With regards to my living, as an adult I'm a branding and marketing specialist, and I get a lot of criticism. As a kid, I hunted coyotes for fur, and I'm sure some would criticize that also. That's fine.

But drawing from this scientist's position, one would arrive at the conclusion that in 150 years (five x thirty) the animals will be so minute as to not exist. An animal cannot reduce in size indefinitely, not unless you expect me to believe that we're going to have deer the size of mice. Likewise with reproductive age: the math doesn't line up.

Whether this guy knows his job or not, to me this is the equivalent of checking the weather on the computer vs looking out the window: if the computer says it's raining when it's sunny outside, I'd be a fool to think that it is raining, merely because the computer told me so.