So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[Charles]

So, tell me what you think it's saying. But, please, try to use proper citation.

I think it is saying what the words are actually saying: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

What parts of it are you having difficulties understanding?

What is wrong with the citation? You need to show it and not just make a claim.

[Cow Poke]

I think it is saying what the words are actually saying: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

What parts of it are you having difficulties understanding?

I have absolutely no difficulty understanding any of it, and I can actually use proper citation!

Do you actually have a point?

What is wrong with the citation?

You use "Ephesians 5, 22-24" - the proper citation would be Ephesians 5:22-24". If you're going to pretend to be a bible scholar, you could at least not look so ignorant doing it.

[Charles]

I have absolutely no difficulty understanding any of it, and I can actually use proper citation!

Do you actually have a point?

Yes. Your claim that "This in NO WAY is an "I'M THE BOSS" passage." seem to contradict the text when it says: "Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." Note the "in everything". It may not allow for everything dependent on how you interpret "as the church submits to Christ" but it does not really challenge the idea that women should submit to their husbands.

You use "Ephesians 5, 22-24" - the proper citation would be Ephesians 5:22-24". If you're going to pretend to be a bible scholar, you could at least not look so ignorant doing it.

Wow! I am doing it how it is actually done in my country and you call me ignorant for that? I think you would run into a problem once in a while if you had to discuss in a foreign language too. If using "," instad of ":" is the best you can do in order to challenge my point I think you are a little desperate. Should we focus on the essential parts?

[Mountain Man]

I think we should just read it in context:

Ephesians 5, 22-24

Context would of course include the several verses that follow which command the husband to love his wife the way Christ loved the church, an exhortation which implies a selfless, sacrificial love.

Historical context would also help you understand that the 1 Timothy passage along with a similar passage in 1 Corinthians was Paul giving instructions for orderly worship and not because he wanted to see women subjugated.

But I know you're here to produce heat instead of light, so of course you're going to disingenuously pluck these passages out of context while falsely claiming that you're considering them in context.

[Cow Poke]

So, let's go back to this, if you don't mind....

I think we should just read it in context:

Ephesians 5, 22-24

Why stop there? (And, for cryin' out loud, if you're going to quote scripture, please learn to use proper citation! )

Why go on? The following part does nothing to change what was said.

I didn't catch that you were failing to understand my "why stop there", and I admit it's understandable that you thought I meant "stop reading there". What I actually meant was, since you said "I think we should just read it in context", "context" not just about "what comes next", but what precedes it, as well as who's speaking, to whom are they speaking...

IN CONTEXT, Chapter 5 is about "walking in love". Verses 1-22 are general instructions to the followers of Jesus.

Then, verses 22 - 33 deal more specifically with marriage. Verses 22-24 focus on the wives, then verses 25-33 address the husband.

You seem to want to take the "wives" part out of the context of the entire discussion on living in love, and how to do that in marriage.

[Cow Poke]

Yes. Your claim that "This in NO WAY is an "I'M THE BOSS" passage." seem to contradict the text when it says: "Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." Note the "in everything". It may not allow for everything dependent on how you interpret "as the church submits to Christ" but it does not really challenge the idea that women should submit to their husbands.

I dealt with this in my previous post.

Wow! I am doing it how it is actually done in my country and you call me ignorant for that?

My apologies if your country teaches you incorrectly.

[Cow Poke]

Context would of course include the several verses that follow which command the husband to love his wife the way Christ loved the church, an exhortation which implies a selfless, sacrificial love...

I think that is totally lost on Charles. He prefers to see this as "I'm BOSS!!!" Perhaps he has issues.

[Charles]

Context would of course include the several verses that follow which command the husband to love his wife the way Christ loved the church, an exhortation which implies a selfless, sacrificial love.

And they challenge the idea about who submits to whom?

Historical context would also help you understand that the 1 Timothy passage along with a similar passage in 1 Corinthians was Paul giving instructions for orderly worship and not because he wanted to see women subjugated.

Historical context would help you understand that this is how you interpret it.

But I know you're here to produce heat instead of light, so of course you're going to disingenuously pluck these passages out of context while falsely claiming that you're considering them in context.

You have not provided further context or at least failed to show how it changes what was actually said. The fact that a husband should love his wife seemingly does not change the fact that she should submit to him. Pointing that out is producing heat?

[Mountain Man]

[Mountain Man]

The word "submit" does not imply subservience but support. My pastor describes it as the way a pillar serves in a submissive roll to hold up a roof. But notice that the roof could not stand without the support of the pillar.

[Charles]

You seem to want to take the "wives" part out of the context of the entire discussion on living in love, and how to do that in marriage.

No. But you have not shown how this changes the statement that the wife must submit. The fact that the husband should love his wife does not change the idea that she should submit. Or?

[Charles]

The word "submit" does not imply subservience but support. My pastor describes it as the way a pillar serves in a submissive roll to hold up a roof. But notice that the roof could not stand without the support of the pillar.

Any written source to support this?

[Cow Poke]

And a critical part of the CONTEXT is "who is speaking" and "to whom is he speaking".

Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus:...

This is, of course, instruction to the Christians, not the anti-Christian bigot nannies.

[Charles]

And a critical part of the CONTEXT is "who is speaking" and "to whom is he speaking".

Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus:...

This is, of course, instruction to the Christians, not the anti-Christian bigot nannies.

And yet you still have not really found your way past the submission stuff. I suppose the "anti-Christian bigot nannies" is a cover up for that?

[Cow Poke]

No. But you have not shown how this changes the statement that the wife must submit.

Paul is writing to Christians about "walking in love" -- that's the context of Chapter 5. His advice is for wives to submit to their own husbands "as to the Lord". Just as they chose to submit to Christ when they became Christians, they should submit to their husbands in that same manner.

The fact that the husband should love his wife does not change the idea that she should submit. Or?

There is nothing in the instruction to the husband that the "submission of the wife" makes him the boss -- in fact, it places tremendous responsibility on him. In fact, the wife is not commanded to love her husband, but he is commanded to love her, "as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her".

So it changes things a whole lot from your perverse misunderstanding.