The Bible states clearly in Genesis 3:16 that the man rules over the woman.
Did anyone follow this guy's "logic"? If so, please do explain to the rest of us who are still mortally confused. A flowchart might be helpful.
Ha! Hilarious. Thanks for posting this. But I can't resist pointing out the obvious: complicated it ain't.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah
Conclusion: gals should submit to guys, 'cause see I'm a guy and I's got superior logic...
Well, on the other hand why should we expect any kind of subtlety from someone who deems Palin a 'good candidate'?
Not going to try to explain it just pointing out a small logical fallacy.
At 3:20 Woman may not rule man because they are not perfect due to the sin of eating from the tree.
He just stated that man is the worse sinner so is not perfect either so man isn't allowed to rule over woman either.
His theory doesn't even make sense if you assume the Bible as Interpreted by the Crazy End of the Republican Party to be historical, unbiased, absolute fact. It'd be easier for me to swallow if he just cited sexually-associated biological and mental characteristics as the reason. Something like "God made man bigger and more aggressive because he wanted man to rule over woman; meanwhile, women are clearly designed for building and nurturing, not leading" would have made more sense. And it would have been somewhat true, if in a broad stroke fashion and a few thousand years out of date.
I know some people think that to be religious you have to give up logic and reason (and sanity?), but it's hard to take them seriously when they say things like this.
Ha! Why should we listen to him? He's just the third eagle of the apocalypse. What do the first and second eagles think?
Right... the argument is why Palin should not be President but this guy clearly states that the ticket was McCain/Palin, with McCain (man) as President and Palin (woman) his subordinate, so logically he got that all wrong because she was never going to be over McCain (in terms of office, of course!)
Actually, a more convincing argument would be that women are better at managing and stewarding, while men, rightly or wrongly, tend to assume leadership so she is in a better position to direct and guide and stop his stupid ass from being too gung-ho, and therefore she the one really in control...!
Anyway, I would refer you all to the Book of J, by David Rosenberg, that argues convincingly that Genesis (as well as Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) was written by a woman, living in or at the time of the Solomonic court, 950-900 B.C.E., who wrote these selections not as a religious or historical treatise but as a literary work that Bloom compares to Shakespeare.
You mean I was the only one sniggering while he talked about why the woman should come beneath the man?
If only we could introduce Eagle3 to Eddie Izzard...
The third eagle and co-prophet has spoken.
I knew the day would come... the "David" who posted above is not the "David" who regularly posts on the Today's Mystery Bird, so I am going to have to revert back to my Phrayngular ego, Copernicus...
OK, now I have a roaring headache. I suggest we lock him in a room with Palin and see who comes out alive.
I suggest we lock him in a room with Palin and see who comes out alive
Surely you mean "see who comes out on top?"
"Adam's sin was worse than Eve's" so OF COURSE it follows that men should rule women. Sure, I can see that logic.
I think we now know from whom Palin gets her talking points.
Oh my , my head hurts, this d00d needs some lessons in logic.
That was absolutely crazy. Religion logic = batshit.
I have tertiary syphilis.