So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[tabibito]

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

By a world where it is considered legitimate to vilify a person because his grandfather six times removed knew someone who did something to a person known to the vilifying one's grandfather six times removed? Not so much.

[Tassman]

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.

Good luck with that.

Your problems will be far worse

I'll risk it.

[tabibito]

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

You would prefer a more biblically aligned expression perhaps? "being conformed to the world instead of being transformed by the renewing of the mind" or some such?
Politically correct might be a newish term, but it is an age old process.

[Terraceth]

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.

I'm actually not sure some of the quotes it pulls out are accurate. For example, this:

"Wives are to obey their husbands.
There is a natural order in human affairs such that wives obey their husbands, and children their parents [Col. 3:18, 20], because it is just that the lesser serve the greater.
(Decretum gratiani, Case 33, q IV, C12)"

Sadly, there seems to be no English translation of the full Decretum Gratiani online. But the Latin text is. So, what does Case 33, Question IV, C.12 have to say? Here is a link. Here's Google Translate's rendition:

"To be an apostle nor for a time, in order that worldly clamor, to prayer, willed that the consent of the spouses, except from one another in the flesh was defrauded of his due.
2 here also. Council of Arles [c. 22.] read"

Okay, it's not that great of a translation (it appears to be something about spouses praying together). But it's pretty obvious that even considering the weaknesses of the translation, it's saying something different than what Tassman's page claimed. Another questionable quote is when it claims Martin Luther said "Women ... have but small and narrow chests, and broad hips, to the end that they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children." Where did he say this? It doesn't say. And a search for this online just turns up more people citing this quote (usually in the context of a list of controversial things Luther supposedly said), but no one actually saying where it was from. This of course doesn't necessarily mean it's a false quote, but a quote constantly being used without anyone saying where it was said is highly suspicious for being false.

Here's another claim where the source doesn't back it up:

Leading scholars accepted Aquinas's teaching that women had a higher water content than men and that this made them sexually incontinent.

The source given for this is "St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q92, a1." The problem? This isn't actually said there. In fact, searching on the Internet for this, much like the Luther quote, only turns up people saying Aquinas said that but without any actual source for it. Actually, that's not quite true, I did find a place that listed a source for it it... but then I looked where it claimed it was, and it wasn't there!

Perhaps there was a goof-up with the sources, and it meant to cite that portion of the Summa Theologica in regards to the article's separate claim that "The great Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas taught that women were defective men, imperfect in both body and soul. They were conceived either because of defective sperm or because a damp wind was blowing at the time of conception." First, that still leaves unsourced the above quote. Second, this is an imperfect representation of what Aquinas said. For a response to that, see here. But even if one does not accept the argument offered there, the "imperfect in both body and soul" claim is not stated by Aquinas in the cited passage.

And these are all times when it actually did point out a source. If it can't get things right even when it does have a source to point to, why should I find it credible in the many areas where it makes an assertion without any source?

[tabibito]

Apostolus nec ad tempus, ut uacent orationi, nisi ex consensu uoluit coniuges inuicem carnali fraudari debito. Hinc etiam in II. Concilio Arelatensi [c. 22.] legitur:
Looks like a reference to 1 Cor 7:5 - apostolus being related to the Greek verb apostelein (to send out), not the noun apostolos (apostle). That would be an admonition for neither husband nor wife to withhold sexual relations except by mutual consent. [edited to add: POSSIBLY apostelein... ]

"St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q92, a1."

Objection 1. It would seem that the woman should not have been made in the first production of things. For the Philosopher says (De Gener. ii, 3), that "the female is a misbegotten male." But nothing misbegotten or defective should have been in the first production of things. Therefore woman should not have been made at that first production.

Reply to Objection 1. As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2).

On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female.

In his reply, Aquinas details the objection, and the detractors claim that he said it (which he did - as a quote of an objector.) But in the second part, where he makes the reply, Aquinas rebuts the claim, saying, "woman is not misbegotten ..."

[Mountain Man]

No doubt Tass will be along at any moment to concede that his source is in error and that he should have done a better job vetting it. Any moment now. Aaaaaaany moment...

[Joel]

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.

This list of things has been responded to before, and you just keep repeating without addressing the objections. Interesting strategy.

[Cow Poke]

This list of things has been responded to before, and you just keep repeating without addressing the objections. Interesting strategy.

It's all the boy's got! He's an anti-Christian bigot who gets his material from an anti-Christian bigot website, and they don't have a section for "here's what you do if your intended target blows your arguments out of the water".

[Roy]

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).

I learn something every day!

[Cow Poke]

I learn something every day!

Back when Bill Cosby was my hero () I loved his Saturday Morning cartoon - Fat Albert --- "And be careful, or you may learn something before it's done!"

We can't say "fat" anyway.

[Tassman]

This list of things has been responded to before, and you just keep repeating without addressing the objections. Interesting strategy.

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

[tabibito]

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

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:


39_full.jpg

[tabibito]

Of course, if that one isn't good enough, there is always Chrysostom's comment about Junia ...
And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even among these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! How great is the devotion (φιλοσοφία) of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!*

[JohnHermes]

You get both extremist on both sides. Man and Woman haters. So true you can be nice to a woman and a feminist will go bananas and tell you you're a sexist pig who doesn't' see women as "equals". And you get men who "hate all woman" and blame no one but everyone else.

[One Bad Pig]

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