So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[seer]

This made me think, if a man were really bent on subjecting his wife, wouldn't he stay home and have his wife produce the income? Why should a man provide for his family if he can make his family provide for him?

Why did think of that! All those 80 hour work weeks!

[Tassman]

But, since you'll do the same ol' dishonest "CP didn't my answer question as is typical" lie.... Was it your Anglican Church School that taught you to be such an incompetent bibble skoller and dishonest , Taxxman?

• The verses you took out of context (22-23) come from an Epistle (Paul's letter to the Ephesians) that was WRITTEN TO CHRISTIANS (1:1 ...to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus), and is not expect to be applied to society in general.
• Further, the verses come from a particular section (chapter 5) dealing with "walking in love" -- how to live the Christian life.
• The section dealing with "submission" appears in the section on how Christians are to treat each other, and applies to all Christians referenced (vs 18-21).
• THEN come the verses you snatched out of context (22-23), and they address CHRISTIAN MARRIAGES, not just "women".
• These women came to be followers of Christ voluntarily.
• The passages deals with how these CHRISTIAN women in CHRISTIAN marriages relate to their husbands.
• It ALSO deals with how these CHRISTIAN men love and cherish their wives "as Christ love the Church and gave His life for it".
• The CONTEXT continues to explain the husband's role in verses 28-30 - In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.

These are instructions to the CHRISTIAN church in general, and to CHRISTIAN married couples specifically, and only a very PERVERTED reading of these passages leads to the conclusion to which you so dramatically and erroneously jumped.

So, other than being a drama queen control freak here because, maybe you have zero authority in your personal or business or marriage life, what's your complaint?

And yet the Christian Church got it wrong for two millennia and suppressed women.

[Tassman]

You seem incapable of understanding this means they can be treated differently.

Men can be treated differently too, but there is no good reason not to treat both man and women with equal respect. Why would you want to treat women differently?

Nobody is saying anything about "ushering them in front of us", you dingbat.

Nor does it do anything to harm it.

Why do it at all?

Perhaps you'd prefer "whited wall" or "den of serpents" or "snakes" or "brood of vipers"? When you're being a jackass, I will point that out without reserve.

I would have thought it possible to engage in discussion without any such negative epithets at all.

You're not clear on much of anything having to do with Scripture.

Try answering the question. Do you accept that women have the right to pursue full-time careers and take leadership roles in politics and business? Yes or no. I ask because Evangelical Christianity seems to emphasize male leadership in the church and in the home and often in the civic sphere as well. This to the extent that women should not have careers outside the home at all. What is your position?

Why don't you mind your own business and allow Christian couples to enjoy their own relationships as they see fit? Why do you have to be such a control freak and tell others how to live?

Evangelicals are the ones that claim the right to tell others how to live; they even try to impose legislation to enforce their views on everyone else.

[tabibito]

there is clear evidence that women also served the church as deacons, apostles, overseers, and teachers.
Christine Schenk, Crispina and Her Sisters: Women and authority in Early Christianity, Fortress Press, Minneapolis , 2017

The churches pretty much ignored those Biblical comments (assuming the comments can be taken at face value) regarding the subordinate role of women for around 500 years - maybe 700 in the case of the Eastern Church. Later developments within the Church of Rome (prior to the 1500s) included such things as church run brothels, and priests taking concubines and frequenting the aforementioned brothels. So - the people who decided (based on disputable records in scripture) that women should not have any significant role in the church - and not only women - were the same that rather spectacularly violated some indisputable prohibitions laid down by scripture.

I will neither join with a church that prohibits women from holding office, nor attempt to prohibit those churches from conducting their affairs in a way that seems good to them - unless they (being outsiders) attempt to impose their views on churches that hold the opposite view. The members of those churches are free to find a church more suited to their beliefs or even to found churches of their own. Churches are (or should be), after all, voluntary associations of like-minded people.

But where does any outsider get the audacity to lay down the rules for a any voluntary association to which he does not subscribe? Assuming of course, that the voluntary association does no worse than offend his sensibilities.

[Cow Poke]

Men can be treated differently too, but there is no good reason not to treat both man and women with equal respect. Why would you want to treat women differently?

I treat them exactly the same, but I'm nicer to women, and there's nothing a like you can do about it, so there!

[Cow Poke]

Nobody forgot anything, Taxxman --- I was mocking your drama queen phrasing of "ushering them in front of us". And you wonder why you're labeled "drama queen".

Try answering the question. Do you accept that women have the right to pursue full-time careers and take leadership roles in politics and business?

Get your big empty head out of your butt and read what I wrote, ya big ninny!

[Mountain Man]

In the military, a superior officer is given preferential treatment. For instance, a subordinate is expected to stand aside and let his superior pass, or when entering or leaving a room, those with senior rank are allowed to proceed first, or if sitting down for a meal, the top rank sits first followed by the those of lower rank. It's a sign of respect and deference, yet when a man treats a woman in this manner, liberals see subjugation. I don't get it.

[Joel]

Evangelicals are the ones that claim the right to tell others how to live; they even try to impose legislation to enforce their views on everyone else.

The modern political Left does that way more.

[Mountain Man]

Tass is fine with Bibilical morality being forced on people as long as he agrees with it. Laws that punish murder and lying in certain situations are A-OK in his book.

[Cow Poke]

In the military, a superior officer is given preferential treatment. For instance, a subordinate is expected to stand aside and let his superior pass, or when entering or leaving a room, those with senior rank are allowed to proceed first, or if sitting down for a meal, the top rank sits first followed by the those of lower rank. It's a sign of respect and deference, yet when a man treats a woman in this manner, liberals see subjugation. I don't get it.

And, in that example, just like the example of a Christian Marriage, the parties are in that system voluntarily, and voluntarily choose to submit.

[Tassman]

I treat them exactly the same, but I'm nicer to women,

So you don't treat women exactly the same at all. You act with noblesse oblige towards women as befitting the superior status of a man towards the subordinate woman.

[Tassman]

Get your big empty head out of your butt and read what I wrote, ya big ninny!

[tabibito]

What you wrote concerning the biblical quotes was: "These are instructions to the CHRISTIAN church in general, and to CHRISTIAN married couples specifically".

But if this is the case how come the Christian Church got it so wrong for two millennia and suppressed women. Until relatively recently women had no voting rights, could not hold executive positions or rule countries (the occasional female monarch excepted) or own property. They were expected to remain in the home and care for their children.

A position held by societies generally, regardless of religious adherence or the lack thereof. In pre-industrial societies, women are not expendable - men are. So high risk activity is restricted to men. Along comes industrialisation, and the social systems that are in place take time to adjust to the new circumstances, with high resistance from traditionalists - regardless of religious stamp.

Even assuming that the passages in question can be taken at face value - and that is highly doubtful - there remain other passages that clearly show women being appointed to positions of authority. Which then throws the whole question of the role of women into the realm of adiaphora ... things not essential to the faith, but permitted. Peter does not put women under the authority of men, he admonishes them to put themselves under submission to their husbands (1 Pet 3:1) - and the rest of the statement shows that the admonition stops short of putting themselves in submission to the husbands' command. That leaves Paul alone making any comment about women being relegated to a secondary role - and for the most part he invokes no higher authority than himself as the author of the requirement. "I do not permit ..." and he never indicates that any of these requirements are the command of God.

[Cow Poke]

What you wrote concerning the biblical quotes was:

I'll add some bolding and underlining just for you....

How bout freeing your cranius from your rectimus and reading what I actually said....

EGGzackly! And since the ripped-out-of-context verses deal with "married couples", I would hope the couple would spend a little time before marriage to cover the "what are our roles" topic. Many successful Christian marriages find the man doing the "home stuff" and the woman pursuing a career.

Our minister of music, for example, has had 5 children with his wife - he stays at home and manages the kids, and they're quite happy with that arrangement. She "submitted" to his desire to stay home and be a Dad, and he "submitted" to her desire to continue a very lucrative career.

Perhaps if you repeat it ONE MORE time, you'll be good?

I'm not the sick control freak you are - women are free to choose their own roles in society.

But, since you'll do the same ol' dishonest "CP didn't my answer question as is typical" lie.... Was it your Anglican Church School that taught you to be such an incompetent bibble skoller and dishonest , Taxxman?

• The verses you took out of context (22-23) come from an Epistle (Paul's letter to the Ephesians) that was WRITTEN TO CHRISTIANS (1:1 ...to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus), and is not expect to be applied to society in general.
• Further, the verses come from a particular section (chapter 5) dealing with "walking in love" -- how to live the Christian life.
• The section dealing with "submission" appears in the section on how Christians are to treat each other, and applies to all Christians referenced (vs 18-21).
• THEN come the verses you snatched out of context (22-23), and they address CHRISTIAN MARRIAGES, not just "women".
• These women came to be followers of Christ voluntarily.
• The passages deals with how these CHRISTIAN women in CHRISTIAN marriages relate to their husbands.
• It ALSO deals with how these CHRISTIAN men love and cherish their wives "as Christ love the Church and gave His life for it".
• The CONTEXT continues to explain the husband's role in verses 28-30 - In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.

These are instructions to the CHRISTIAN church in general, and to CHRISTIAN married couples specifically, and only a very PERVERTED reading of these passages leads to the conclusion to which you so dramatically and erroneously jumped.

So, other than being a drama queen control freak here because, maybe you have zero authority in your personal or business or marriage life, what's your complaint?

[Tassman]

I'll add some bolding and underlining just for you....

How bout freeing your cranius from your rectimus and reading what I actually said....





But, since you'll do the same ol' dishonest "CP didn't my answer question as is typical" lie.... Was it your Anglican Church School that taught you to be such an incompetent bibble skoller and dishonest , Taxxman?

• The verses you took out of context (22-23) come from an Epistle (Paul's letter to the Ephesians) that was WRITTEN TO CHRISTIANS (1:1 ...to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus), and is not expect to be applied to society in general.
• Further, the verses come from a particular section (chapter 5) dealing with "walking in love" -- how to live the Christian life.
• The section dealing with "submission" appears in the section on how Christians are to treat each other, and applies to all Christians referenced (vs 18-21).
• THEN come the verses you snatched out of context (22-23), and they address CHRISTIAN MARRIAGES, not just "women".
• These women came to be followers of Christ voluntarily.
• The passages deals with how these CHRISTIAN women in CHRISTIAN marriages relate to their husbands.
• It ALSO deals with how these CHRISTIAN men love and cherish their wives "as Christ love the Church and gave His life for it".
• The CONTEXT continues to explain the husband's role in verses 28-30 - In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.

These are instructions to the CHRISTIAN church in general, and to CHRISTIAN married couples specifically, and only a very PERVERTED reading of these passages leads to the conclusion to which you so dramatically and erroneously jumped.

So, other than being a drama queen control freak here because, maybe you have zero authority in your personal or business or marriage life, what's your complaint?

You haven't addressed the issue. IF the texts mean what you claim they mean the Christian Church got it very wrong for most of its history. Women were overtly suppressed by the Church and this was justified in the name of the very scripture you claim says the opposite. Until relatively recently women had no voting rights, could not hold executive positions or rule countries (the occasional female monarch excepted) or own property. They were expected to remain in the home and care for their children.