our forum's now chapter likes to slander christian believers over alleged poor treatment of women.
in truth, the bible advanced women's rights in the ancient world, even in a paternalistic society.
here are the results of research into this topic.. num 5.12--the trial of bitter waters (sotah) is a an amazing provision by god for a woman to publicly clear her name (and indict a dysfunctional husband in the process).
Rex,
ps: I must be getting old. If the time of the Judges was such a low water mark then how come their God was so annoyed that they wanted to change the system and get themselves a King?
Mox,
Good point. What concerned me was that two similar accounts exist, neither of which condemns the action of offering the woemn up to the crowd. One I could live with. Rex shows his hypocrisy by making excuses for Lot just because he was officially labeled righteous but not for this Levite party animal.
T.
our forum's now chapter likes to slander christian believers over alleged poor treatment of women.
in truth, the bible advanced women's rights in the ancient world, even in a paternalistic society.
here are the results of research into this topic.. num 5.12--the trial of bitter waters (sotah) is a an amazing provision by god for a woman to publicly clear her name (and indict a dysfunctional husband in the process).
Rex,
You actually seem to have made your own argument for once. Such as it is. That is progress though. You stated:
>This passage, and the one about Lot's daughters speaks to how >important the safety of one's guest was in those days. Guests are >still of prime importance in an arab's household.
Are we to expect the Taleban, who consider Osama bin Laden a guest, to offer their own women up in his place? That seems to have been the practice back in Israel by righteous men such as Lot. Perhaps the FAA should issue regulations that female flight attendants should first be offered to hijackers before further action is pursued?
As for doing my own research on the traditions of the Middle East, of course I have. You dropped neatly into that trap. Did you perchance glean that bit of knowledge from recent TV coverage of Afghanistan? You are right, though, Hebrew customs in many ways did not differ substantially from those of other ancient Middle Eastern people. Women were essentially viewed as being property. That is the only way in which the account of Lot and the one in Judges can be viewed. That is why it is ridiculous to try to apply OT ideas to modern society. We have evolved beyond the primitive notions of the OT. Or would you offer up your daughters or wife (God help her) to appease someone who knocked at your door with a threat?
It may have been a tradition to protect guests, even at great personal expense, but were the guests required to put their own hides first as seems to have been the case in Judges? That aside, if the account is to point up the evil of Israelite society at that point then I simply do not follow how Lot could have been judged "a righteous man" after being prepared to do essentially the same thing. You supply a number of "what ifs" but that is simply to make the Bible conform to your own ideas of what should have been. We are, after all, talking about a guy who, on a different occasion, nailed his own daughters. And let's not forget Judah and his love of hookers. He was a man of great character and was most concerned about his reputation; i.e., that he was always sure to pay for what he got.
That two distinct accounts present two similar scenarios with essentially equivalent reactions indicates that God's people had the same view of women as did everyone else. Or, perhaps, this type of story was a sort of urban legend back then which, like the flood, found its way into print.
If God's standards are so high then why does he change them as human traditions change. Sounds to me like the cart is leading the horses.
T.
our forum's now chapter likes to slander christian believers over alleged poor treatment of women.
in truth, the bible advanced women's rights in the ancient world, even in a paternalistic society.
here are the results of research into this topic.. num 5.12--the trial of bitter waters (sotah) is a an amazing provision by god for a woman to publicly clear her name (and indict a dysfunctional husband in the process).
Rex,
Here's a particularly faith strengthening example of women's rights:
*** Rbi8 Judges 19:22-30 ***
22 While they were making their hearts feel good, look! the men of the city, mere good-for-nothing men, surrounded the house, shoving one another against the door; and they kept saying to the old man, the owner of the house: "Bring out the man that came into your house, that we may have intercourse with him." 23 At that the owner of the house went on out to them and said to them: "No, my brothers, do not do anything wrong, please, since this man has come into my house. Do not commit this disgraceful folly. 24 Here are my virgin daughter and his concubine. Let me bring them out, please, and YOU rape them and do to them what is good in YOUR eyes. But to this man YOU must not do this disgraceful, foolish thing."
25 And the men did not want to listen to him. Hence the man took hold of his concubine and brought her forth to them outside; and they began to have intercourse with her, and kept on abusing her all night long until the morning, after which they sent her off at the ascending of the dawn. 26 Then the woman came as it was turning to morning, and fell down at the entrance of the man's house where her master was,-until daylight. 27 Later her master rose up in the morning and opened the doors of the house and went out to get on his way, and, look! the woman, his concubine, fallen at the entrance of the house with her hands upon the threshold! 28 So he said to her: "Rise up, and let us go." But there was no one answering. At that the man took her upon the ass and rose up and went to his place.
29 Then he entered his house and took the slaughtering knife and laid hold of his concubine and cut her up according to her bones into twelve pieces and sent her into every territory of Israel. 30 And it occurred that everybody seeing it said: "Such a thing as this has never been brought about or been seen from the day that the sons of Israel went up out of the land of Egypt down to this day. Set YOUR hearts upon it, take counsel and speak."
I was most impressed that not only was this Levite dude able to hand over his concubine but he was then, apparently, able to go to bed and get a good night's sleep. A most Lot-ish thing to do, don't you think?
T.
...it was an effective speech.
i was impressed, and thought it only fair to say so here given the recent political discussions.
It was a very good, even surprisingly good, speech. I thought there were two significant omissions:
(i) Reference to Canada. Canada has been a strong and very sympathetic supporter of the US and so deserved explicit mention. Maybe I missed it? The Queen playing the US anthem is noteworthy, but it is far more significant that what is probably one of _the_ most enlightened and humanitarian societies on the planet did the same thing in Ottawa. What the British Royal Family does has little to do with democracy. Fortunately, they are a footnote, albeit an expensive one, to life in Britain. The support from Canada has been overwhelming. Canadians are not Americans.
(ii) I would have liked to have seen a much stronger reaction to the actual and potential violence against Arabs/Muslims in the US (and UK) W should have explicitly warned more forcefully than he did against such acts, while asking for patience in the understandable event that Arab-looking citizens, or foreigners in general, will be subjected to increased scrutiny at airports etc. Violent acts based on race would be hate crimes and so, federal offenses, right? Many Middle Easterners are more secular than westerners, and even if they are not, they should have no fear of reprisals based on where they are from.
T.
perhaps you recall the instance in the bible where samson made a wager with the philistines that they couldnt guess his riddle.
as it turned out they wheedled the answer out of him by his fiancee, but the point is that they had a wager.
since the underlying assumption of the apostasy is that we are not living in the last days of this system of things, and that this world is not facing anything remotely like the biblical apocalypse, at least not any time soon, in the spirit of such antagonism, i would like to propose a similar wager.
Oh Kingly Robertly One,
> I didn't say the financial system had collapsed---yet,
How quaint! The "financial system." Please tell do tell us when "Big Business" does actually go down. Tell us when the Satanic Clergy class of Christendom are finally and fatally gored by the atheistic political elements and when the medical establishment finally pays the price for the pox that it has brought on humanity. In the meantime, why not confine yourself to doing what you do best? Terrorizing small children and potted plants.
T.
ps: I'll bet, dimes to donuts, that you are one of those guys who has a constant wet spot right by his fly? Be honest? Yea or Nay?
....than great britain.
so sayeth gw bush a minute ago.
was that squishy sound the collective moistening of 6 million jw's when they heard that?.
6 of 9 and half a dozen of 3/4 12,
Right. The Dubs decide that, because the US and GB are close allies that they are, well, allies. So when it turns out that they agree yet again that they are allies it proves that the Dubs were right all along. They are allies. Circular reasoning ain't even in it.
T.
i'm not sure what i think about this myself and am curious to hear your opinions.. here is an account from paul johnson's a history of the american people.. ginny.
the origins of the boston tea party had nothing to do with america.
the east india company had got itself into a financial mess.
Amazing,
Margin is a red herring. I never stated or implied that you needed to buy on margin. In fact, the example I gave specifically excluded margin. I said, as you even reproduced what I said, i.e., "assuming no margin." Didn't you read what I wrote?
Really, your post is unfathomable to me. Take a look, say, at a chart of Exodus Communications for the 18 months or so and apply your strategy. The stock has gone from about $90.00 to about 50 cents. Think it will come back?
Your whole argument amounts to saying that until you take the loss by actually selling the stock then there is no actual loss. What if the stock goes to zero? Do you serious think that the people who bought 1000 shares of EXDS at 90 bucks are smugly saying that they haven't taken a loss?
You originally stated that you strategy was the best option strategy an dthat it makes money "no matter what the market does" and that "you can't lose." That is, you stated, in effect, that your strategy carries no risk. I provided realistic counter examples. You admit now that there is risk but persist in posting examples of how your plan makes money, not how it can send you to the poor house. I really don't see any point in going on if the facts don't convince you.
T.
here's another answer for you, julie, i again do your research for you!.
>1chronicles 21:14 70,000 people die by god's hand because david to a census.
i fail to see the enlightenment here.
Rex,
: You, as usual, are just doing your usual dishonest baiting.
And we all thought that you were the board's master baiter.
T.
i'm not sure what i think about this myself and am curious to hear your opinions.. here is an account from paul johnson's a history of the american people.. ginny.
the origins of the boston tea party had nothing to do with america.
the east india company had got itself into a financial mess.
Ginny,
Thanks for the link!
wasasister,
Who's Wade Cook?
Amazing,
Here's a link I found that goes into it in greater detail.
http://www.888options.com/learning/strategies/covered_call.htm
T.
i'm not sure what i think about this myself and am curious to hear your opinions.. here is an account from paul johnson's a history of the american people.. ginny.
the origins of the boston tea party had nothing to do with america.
the east india company had got itself into a financial mess.
Amazing,
Well, you say that you cannot lose. That simply isn't the case. If it were then you could make an infinite amount of money given enough time. The examples you provide seem OK but they don't reflect the actual risks involved. They rely on assumptions that might not hold. That is, you seem to working on the assumption that if you hold long enough you'll be OK. But that is not guaranteed, i.e., you can lose.
Imagine that you sell IBM Calls with a strike price of $100 for $10.00 a share. A contract is 100 shares which means that each contract brings you in $1000. For simplicity imagine you buy 100 shares of IBM at $100 to cover the call. So, you are $1000.00 in hand and have laid out $10,000 for your shares assuming no margin. After a month IBM falls to $80.00 which means that you are now in the hole for $2000 - $1000 = $1000. This doesn't factor in commisions, or the return that you could get from, say, T-bills had you put your 10K there. When the options expire, if IBM is trading at $80.00 you have lost $1000.00 no matter how you look at it. Next you again write calls to cover your 100 shares. This time you get, say $8.00 per share and IBM then drops to $60.00. You are now out a further $1200 for a total of $2200.
The only way your strategy is guaranteed to make money is if your stock is guaranteed to go up. An additional problem is that if your stock does go up, no doubt your persistent call writing will be rewarded by the calls being exercised and so you don't make the profit you might have had you simply held only the stock.
I'm not saying that you cannot make money doing what you suggest. My point is that your statement that you "cannot lose" is not only incorrect but way off the mark.
I don't really see how it is a generality to argue that you have a sure fire way of making money in the markets when that isn't the case, or even close to being the case.
T.
