... well, maybe not the full thousand pounds of regret, but you've got to start somewhere.

And I'm starting with a comment I erased because a friend told me the comment "insinuated" that the women of our church are nothing more than eye-candy.

Actually, I erased the comment because it communicated disappointment with an event which didn't happen (he told me later that the event wasn't even "scheduled" until the next Sunday; but pardon me for judging by the big, blue, inflatable elephant that Sunday, which would make one expect that Sunday to be the scheduled day!) The "insinuation" (in which I said that several of the women there are 'centerfold-worthy') was simply attached to the disappointment.

I'm sorry that my friend thinks you're stupid enough to attach "an entire existence in a state of spiritual-unworthiness" to the being 'centerfold-worthy'–especially when stated in a parenthetical subordinate-clause as it was–but my friend was stupid enough to have been steered entirely off the point(s) ... that a) the movie he showed was very-depressing and b) one must remove the log from one's own eyes before adjusting the specks in friends' eyes.

I think that a 'centerfold-worthy' woman could possibly be as good a business-person, -as good a physician, -as good a scientist and -as good a wife as any other woman. Saying a woman is centerfold-worthy is similar to saying a man is sexually fit ... it doesn't change his professional-standing much—Bill Gates probably is; Donald Trump probably is; Joe Francis probably is; heck, I might be!

If I were in a conflictive mood, I'd point out how his appearances at Mars Hill Propositionals frequently-without his wife 'insinuate' that he would leave her if Mars Hill suddenly required its leaders to be single (I don't know; however the Catholic church came up with it ... maybe something about Jesus saying, "One man cannot serve two masters"; although there's a possible loophole available if 'serving his wife' falls in line with 'serving the church').