So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[Cow Poke]

You haven't addressed the issue.

Here, lemme say it again....

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]

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.

have not been observed throughout most of Christian history. How did they get it so wrong?

Until relatively recently Christendom was predominantly built on male-dominated authority structures and women were relegated to the status of second-class citizens. This applies to both the Christian Church in general and the Christian Right which you represent.

The latter in particular tends to be resistant to changing social values and often goes hand in hand with authoritarian family values and a strongly masculine rhetorical tone, as per such Fundamentalist movements as the Quiversful movement.

[Cow Poke]

You are repeating yourself again

Yes, I took a few pages from your playbook. Frustrating, eh? And then you just repeated yourself,

[Cow Poke]

But, since I know you won't quit relentlessly badgering....


Says so right at the beginning of the book. "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus"

You could, of course, argue rather foolishly that these instructions were ONLY to the Christians in Ephesus, but that'd be... well.... foolish.

Says so because, in that section dealing with how Christians should conduct themselves, it begins to address "husbands and wives". Hence, "Christian married couples".

have not been observed throughout most of Christian history. How did they get it so wrong?

You got a cite for that? Or do you expect me to take the word of an anti-Christian troll?

[One Bad Pig]

But, since I know you won't quit relentlessly badgering....


Says so right at the beginning of the book. "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus"

You could, of course, argue rather foolishly that these instructions were ONLY to the Christians in Ephesus, but that'd be... well.... foolish.

Especially since Ephesians was written as a circular letter; the one to the Ephesians just happens to be the one generally copied for posterity (IIRC there are some MSS with the place name blank).

[Sparko]

Tassy is:
1. Assuming that the way women were treated in the past was wrong and they were "subjugated"
2. Trying to blame the church on what society did.

He is guilty of Chronological Snobbery.

[Tassman]

Says so right at the beginning of the book. "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus"

You could, of course, argue rather foolishly that these instructions were ONLY to the Christians in Ephesus, but that'd be... well.... foolish.



Says so because, in that section dealing with how Christians should conduct themselves, it begins to address "husbands and wives". Hence, "Christian married couples".

have

You got a cite for that?

http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gaf_women.htm

[Sparko]

have

Googlefu.jpg

[Cow Poke]

When I stand before the Lord, He isn't going to ding me for what Christians have chosen to interpret to justify anything, Tass..... I'll be responsible for what I've done.

Your problems will be far worse.

[One Bad Pig]

http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gaf_women.htm

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Now THERE's a totally unbiased and even-handed site.

Did you even check to see if what was said here was accurate and in context, let alone check to see if this was the norm and not isolated instances?

Signs point to no.

[Cow Poke]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Now THERE's a totally unbiased and even-handed site.

Did you even check to see if what was said here was accurate and in context, let alone check to see if this was the norm and not isolated instances?

Signs point to no.

And he wonders why I call him an anti-Christian bigot.

[Cow Poke]

http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gaf_women.htm

I was perusing your "source", Tass... it's appears this is from whence you get much of your anti-Cristian bigot talking points.

[tabibito]

I was perusing your "source", Tass... it's appears this is from whence you get much of your anti-Cristian bigot talking points.

It made for an interesting read ... somewhat biased, the wrongs alleged to have been committed by churches are accurate enough, but for the most part mis-assigned to Biblical or Christian teachings, so this little snippet was unexpected.
So even the author of this piece is able to sometimes (on occasions when it is glaringly obvious) discern when the church has strayed from Biblical warrant.
To respond to Tassman's "The instructions ... to the CHRISTIAN church ... have not been observed throughout most of Christian history. How did they get it so wrong?" Even the site that you cite shows an awareness (when it is glaringly obvious) that the Church did in fact get it wrong (maybe for 1600 years or so - the first 300 or 400 years, not so much). As to why - in a word: syncretism.

[Cow Poke]

It made for an interesting read ... somewhat biased, the wrongs alleged to have been committed by churches are accurate enough, but for the most part mis-assigned to Biblical or Christian teachings, so this little snippet was unexpected.

So even the author of this piece is able to sometimes (on occasions when it is glaringly obvious) discern when the church has strayed from Biblical warrant.
To respond to Tassman's "The instructions ... to the CHRISTIAN church ... have not been observed throughout most of Christian history. How did they get it so wrong?" Even the site that you cite shows an awareness (when it is glaringly obvious) that the Church did in fact get it wrong (maybe for 1600 years or so - the first 300 or 400 years, not so much). As to why - in a word: syncretism.

And the fact that the Church is now trying to "get it right"... well... that should be a GOOD thing!

[Christianbookworm]

Syncretism with what? Did the medieval Church think that just because the pagans around them were sexist, that sexism was biblical?