MSGID: 1:153/757.0 16fd047d   
   REPLY: 1:135/392 db4fd6ef   
   TZUTC: -0800   
   CHARSET: LATIN-1   
   > CP wrote --   
   >> > Then there the women who marry a man to have a kid, then dumps the man and   
   > wants alimony to support them.  Or the man merely as a sperm donor.   
   >>    
   >> Thank you, Murphy Brown for putting this into everyone's minds as an option.   
   > .   
   > Plus the government that pays women for each kid they pump out, so no   
   > need for a father in a house.   
   > So boys have no (or few) males as role models.  Or the wrong ones.   
      
   Oh, & don't we see the results of this, in rising crime statistics. . . :(    
      
   I spent one summer working with inner city kids -- & such HELL they went    
   through -- boys & girls -- pretty much none had a dad they knew.   
      
   Sickening what their moms did (for 'survival'?) like having johns come to her    
   ghome & even pay her to force the child(ren) to watch as he defiles their    
   mother, sometimes abusively.   
      
   One 7-year-old, an annual top troublemaker at that day camp, per ongoing   
   staff, had a look in his eyes as I imafgine the returning VietNam vets did   
   (No! Do NOT dare tell me about Hell. I ****ing KNOW!"   
      
   I had no special skills, but my heart broke for him, as I knew this attitude    
   wasn't part of the plan at his creation/birth.  I prayed, daily, for him &   
   the  others, over the 6 weeks, I noticed big changes in him.  I also had to   
   take on  the role of male authority once, on a day trip, when I & he were left   
   in the  van while the others did an esdcational walkabout that I couldn't & he   
   wouldn't do.   
      
   He tried to sneak out (to run off who knows where) & I just gave him my best    
   "Dad Voice"(I was 17; had no idea I had one.) & said, "Turn around, go back   
   to  your seat & sit down NOW."   
      
   He stopped trying to open the door, turned to me meekly, said, "Yes, sir," in   
   a most subdued tone, & sat quietly until they all returned.   
      
   Leadimng me to theorize that the two-parent model is a hardwired expectation   
   in us at birth.  Will take research by those in the psychology education   
   fields to proof it.   
      
   > At one time single mothers (and I don't include widows in that) were   
   >looked down upon, but in the last 60-70 years its more and more acceptable and   
   > seems odd if its not that way.   
      
   True. But most still could recognize when such a widow (especially a young   
   one) was honestly struggling in a positive direction, & respected her more for   
   it.   
      
   >> I go by those who have an unbroken chain of interpretation -- the People of   
   > the Book (Jewishj practicers of Judaism)   
   > I go by context.   
   > What was being presented before and after whatever text.  IOW not picking   
   > and choosing to prove or disprove some point or other.   
      
   This, too -- my context is the entire set of books gathered together as a sub-   
   theme or time, & the entire Bible, too.   
      
   But this is, I admit, more about human decisions as to what was God-inspired    
   specific to their homiletic interests.   
      
   I read & I trey to understabnd explicitly what the original writer/speaker   
   was  intending as meaning, & what the original target audience most commonly   
   would  have understood the meaning & contexct to be.  Only then am I free to   
   compare  to my current milieu of time & culture.   
      
   I do much the same in reading Aesop or other long-known/read writings.   
      
   Paul says at one pint & I believe it: (I'll paraphrase to how I understand   
   it): "All written things that are written with serious & honest intent, &   
   rewritten  several times to capture exactly the author's well-considered   
   thinking are  inspired by God/Creation & useful for the honest believer to use   
   for personal  reflection & growth, as well as useful to help educate others   
   per the same.   
      
   for comparisoin, here's the original in thefamiliar to most KJV: 2Tim. 3   
   Verses 16 to 17   
   [16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for    
   doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17]    
   That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.   
      
   The original Greek word "omni scripturo" is not capitalised nor in any way    
   implying a specific subset of "all things-written"; "things-written" in that    
   time did not include pulp fiction, FB commenting, nor protest placards. It   
   was  as I expanded in my test above.  Carefully considered multiple times &   
   ways,  before setting pen to expensive paper, or lambskin.   
      
   >> For me, it says what it says & the Bible means what it means. Certainly you   
   > can apply the parts that are uiniversal to any time or circumstance, as it's   
   > intended.   
   > Concur.   
      
   & that covers religion in a nutshell, without breaching the intent of the no    
   religion rule in here, eh?   
      
   I even accept the Satanic Bible under "omni scriptura" but one, as with    
   anything, must read it carefully, in context, & determine using common sense   
   &  knowledge of times & cultures that are applicable to the specific reading.   
      
   Those who do this have decided, as a sect of "Satanic Church members" that   
   the  concept of Satan is more about making personal choices, commensurate   
   with  responsibilities & an awarenessd of natural & human consequences.   
      
   Others, who read only the surface, conclude it's a Bible promoting evil &    
   killing black cats at midnight.   
      
   I've yet to see/read a copy, but I expect I'd lean more to the former's    
   interprtations.   
      
   I'm in no hurry or need to read it at all, actually. I have more interesting   
   &  relevant books to read that I can accept as included in the "omni   
   scriptura"  that Paul told young Timothy of.   
      
   What I find most interesting in the Timothy letters(epistles) is Paul telling    
   him not to be chasrtened by others' view of his youbg age (i.e. good thinking   
   & teaching isn't restricted to "the elders" but to present your ideas   
   respectful  of their(elders') established culture & expectations regarding a   
   young lad  speaking on matters of political &/or e=religious import.   
      
   This aspect is often missed who only use the books of Timothy to teach that    
   there's Biblical precedent for calling a non-parent "father" as a title of    
   respect.   
      
   I see it differently, but I get where they're coming from, 'though I will   
   only  refer to them as "sir" out of respect for age & education; "father" is   
   reserved for my biological & heaqvenly fathers (both connected by the 5th   
   commandment)   
      
   Oops. . too much? Sorry -- I get thoughts & I just riff with them even as   
   they  pull up semi-related ones. . . (my mind isn't pure linear; I've been   
   told,.  complimentarily, that I think like a woman.)   
   --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-5   
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 15/0 30/0 80/1 90/1 103/705 105/81 106/201 120/340   
   SEEN-BY: 123/131 124/5016 129/305 330 331 134/100 153/105 135 141   
   SEEN-BY: 153/757 7715 154/10 203/0 218/700 221/0 1 6 226/30 227/114   
   SEEN-BY: 229/110 206 307 317 400 424 426 428 452 664 700 240/1120   
   SEEN-BY: 240/5832 266/512 267/67 280/464 5003 282/464 1038 292/854   
   SEEN-BY: 301/0 1 101 113 123 317/3 320/219 322/757 335/364 341/66   
   SEEN-BY: 342/200 396/45 423/120 460/58 633/280 712/848 770/1 920/1   
   SEEN-BY: 2452/250 5020/1042 5058/104   
   PATH: 153/757 280/464 301/1 229/426