So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[One Bad Pig]

The church accommodated itself and its teachings to the State. That is readily discernible from the historical accounts of the Constantinian Church, and was (if anything) reinforced by the reformation churches in their own spheres of influence and being influenced. The early church, prior to becoming socially acceptable, did in fact accord (in stark contrast with its surrounding cultures) women equal status with men.
One readily demonstrable point dates to the sixth century:


[ATTACH=CONFIG]35508[/ATTACH]

Crossan & Reed's interpretation is possible, but speculative. Assuming the damage is deliberate (it's possible, given the other damage to the figures, that the specific damage noted is merely coincidental in placement), there is no way to tell who defaced the image or why. Crossan is, of course, known for his imaginative interpretation of evidence.

[Cow Poke]

...What has NOT been responded to is why the Christian Church got this wrong for most of its history....

And, when asked to back up this allegation, you point to an anti-Christian bigot website.

Tass, assuming you're right (and that's a really far out assumption), we are not responsible for "long ago" - we are responsible for the lives we live now.

If you wanna play stupid games, I could ask, regarding homosexuality being a mental disorder, "why the medical community got this wrong for most of its history (up until 1973)...." See how that works?

[Cow Poke]

In a move which has surely shocked no one, Tassman has managed to flat out ignore that his favored source is highly questionable.

Of course, because it's where he gets his worldview.

[Mountain Man]

Tass, assuming you're right (and that's a really far out assumption), we are not responsible for "long ago" - we are responsible for the lives we live now.

As I always say, it's not my responsibility to defend how other people interpret the Bible, I only have to defend how I interpret it.

[Joel]

today. What has NOT been responded to is why the Christian Church got this wrong for most of its history. Women were overtly suppressed for centuries and this was justified in the name of the very scriptures now claimed to say the opposite. If you disagree then provide examples of the equality of opportunity and civil rights for women in Christian societies before

No, I (and others) responded to these things that you keep listing. Evidently you somehow missed all those posts.

Very briefly here:
For most of the 2000 years, the vast majority of men and women could not vote, own property or take public office.
And everyone in the family (man, woman, and children) had to work constantly (mostly agriculture) to survive. Among most of people, work was pretty equal.

As for positive examples, I had given the example that for most of the 2000 years the vast majority of men and women were uneducated. When education became possible for more people in the early renaissance, the renaissance thinkers advocated for education of both women and men, and did educate women.

[tabibito]

Crossan & Reed's interpretation is possible, but speculative. Assuming the damage is deliberate (it's possible, given the other damage to the figures, that the specific damage noted is merely coincidental in placement), there is no way to tell who defaced the image or why. Crossan is, of course, known for his imaginative interpretation of evidence.

In principle, agreed. Likelihood of alternative explanations for the damage is, by my assessment and in this particular case, remote. Crossan's assessment of the likely motives on the other hand, is (again by my assessment) very much open to question.

It is possible that an heretical sect was responsible for creating the icons, or even added Theoklia's icon to a preexisting icon of Paul. Nonetheless, the explanation of iconography (height and posture) is (to the best of my knowledge) accurate, and, regardless of origin or background - there was at least one group that valued Theoklia (if no other) as equal in position to Paul.

[One Bad Pig]

In principle, agreed. Likelihood of alternative explanations for the damage is, by my assessment and in this particular case, remote. Crossan's assessment of the likely motives on the other hand, is (again by my assessment) very much open to question.

It is possible that an heretical sect was responsible for creating the icons, or even added Theoklia's icon to a preexisting icon of Paul. Nonetheless, the explanation of iconography (height and posture) is (to the best of my knowledge) accurate, and, regardless of origin or background - there was at least one group that valued Theoklia (if no other) as equal in position to Paul.

The height idea is questionable; I know of no instance where someone was deliberately depicted lower in order to indicate a subordinate position. Bestowing a blessing by making the sign of the cross done by a woman, however, is unusual.

[Tassman]

Tass, assuming you're right (and that's a really far out assumption), we are not responsible for "long ago" - we are responsible for the lives we live now.

If you wanna play stupid games, I could ask, regarding homosexuality being a mental disorder, "why the medical community got this wrong for most of its history (up until 1973)

[Cow Poke]

Simply throwing the same ignorant crap against the wall is not debate, Tassy. You need to come up with some new material.

[rogue06]

Simply throwing the same ignorant crap against the wall is not debate, Tassy. You need to come up with some new material.

00000000000000a00a.gif

The lad does have the annoying habit of constantly and annoyingly repeating the same opinion again and again.

[Tassman]

Simply throwing the same ignorant crap against the wall is not debate, Tassy. You need to come up with some new material.

And yet you still haven't managed to address the issue. Namely, that the 'objective morality' revealed by the divinely-inspired 'Word of God' in the bible has been interpreted quite differently by successive generations of Christians according to the evolving social moral mores of the day. In short, society determines moral values and Christian biblical interpretations adjust accordingly. The role of women throughout Christian history being a case in point.

[Mountain Man]

The role of women throughout Christian history being a case in point.

And you're just going to ignore the fact that your source for this claim was thoroughly debunked?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post617930
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post617933

[Cow Poke]

And you're just going to ignore the fact that your source for this claim was thoroughly debunked?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post617930
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post617933

The boy careth not for the trutheth. As long as he can be an anti-Christian bigot, he'll accept any source he can find.

[Tassman]

And you're just going to ignore the fact that your source for this claim was thoroughly debunked?

[Mountain Man]

You think that caring for the family and home was deemed a "second class" occupation? Go read Proverbs 31 and then try to tell me that a homemaker was looked down upon.

And do you know why Paul instructed women to be silent in church? Go see if you can figure it out with a quality source. I'll give you a hint: It wasn't because women were seen as second class citizens.

The Bible says nothing against women owning property or voting, and being subordinate to male leaders in the church is not to say they were subservient or looked down upon.

Got any more chestnuts that need cracking?