“Wives submit to your husbands”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

There’s actually a pretty convincing argument that many of the epistles were not written by Paul, but by an author claiming to be Paul, which was a pretty common practice at that time! Contrast Paul’s views on women in Corinthians with Ephesians and I believe Timothy- the Paul writing these letters also seems to be coming from a different time period in church history which I find fascinating.

See Bart Ehrman

That’s what I learned in Catholic school too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

There’s actually a pretty convincing argument that many of the epistles were not written by Paul, but by an author claiming to be Paul, which was a pretty common practice at that time! Contrast Paul’s views on women in Corinthians with Ephesians and I believe Timothy- the Paul writing these letters also seems to be coming from a different time period in church history which I find fascinating.

See Bart Ehrman

Okay, that’s interesting. But get to the bottom line: Do you reject the authority of the epistles (whether authored by Paul or someone claiming to be Paul)?

You’re well within your rights to do so, but that also puts you outside of every mainline institutional Christian church (and the vast majority of non-denominational churches).

So now what? Do you tell the bride and groom and OP you don’t agree with the use of this particular verse? Do you let them have their faith?

DP: I would make sure the bride and groom read the whole thing in context, not just one line, and talked to a pastor to understand what it actually means. Because it does not mean that the husband is in charge of everything no matter what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

There’s actually a pretty convincing argument that many of the epistles were not written by Paul, but by an author claiming to be Paul, which was a pretty common practice at that time! Contrast Paul’s views on women in Corinthians with Ephesians and I believe Timothy- the Paul writing these letters also seems to be coming from a different time period in church history which I find fascinating.

See Bart Ehrman

Okay, that’s interesting. But get to the bottom line: Do you reject the authority of the epistles (whether authored by Paul or someone claiming to be Paul)?

You’re well within your rights to do so, but that also puts you outside of every mainline institutional Christian church (and the vast majority of non-denominational churches).

So now what? Do you tell the bride and groom and OP you don’t agree with the use of this particular verse? Do you let them have their faith?

What do you mean it’s “interesting?” It’s not trivia, it’s a piece of context that puts the entire authority of these texts into question. And it puts whether you should take them literally into question at the very least.

The biblical texts are documents that were chosen in a very specific time and place by a very specific group of people with their own agendas. They didn’t fall out of the sky. Christianity does not require turning off your brain in such a profound way that you ignore context completely. No church determines my relationship with Christ- my own mind and soul do.

Not even sure why you suggest telling the bride and groom anything.

As to your last sentence, this whole thread is about a Bible verse read at a wedding.

To your broader point, that the epistles were determined to be authoritative by a specific group of men in a specific group of time, you are correct. But that’s also true of the Gospels.

If the contextual process for selection into the New Testament undermines the authority of the epistles (a perfectly logical position to take), it does the same for the Gospels and you kind of have a bigger problem to deal with then what Paul may or may not have actually authored and the substance of what the epistles say.

If only your own mind and soul determines your relationship with Christ (perfectly fine position to take) perhaps you can stop telling everyone else what their relationship with Christ and the New Testament scriptures should be?

dp.. the entire Bible was put together by a bunch of men who decided which books they wanted to be in the Bible and which they didn't. They were "inspired" by God to do so, but that doesn't make them infallible.

BTW, the Gospels don't talk about wives submitting to their husbands. They mostly talk about what happened with Jesus and what He said.

It was Paul, a zealot, who wrote that in the letters.

So do Christians live by Paul’s words? I know many fundamentalists do but others don’t? I’m genuinely curious

[Anonymous]

So many people say that Jesus taught to “love your neighbor “. I have found that there are radically different definitions of the word love in different sects of religion and amongst people. There ARE people that consider it loving to shun someone for example. How can that be reconciled ?

[Anonymous]

Was it a Muslim wedding? Or Orthodox Jewish?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

There’s actually a pretty convincing argument that many of the epistles were not written by Paul, but by an author claiming to be Paul, which was a pretty common practice at that time! Contrast Paul’s views on women in Corinthians with Ephesians and I believe Timothy- the Paul writing these letters also seems to be coming from a different time period in church history which I find fascinating.

See Bart Ehrman

Okay, that’s interesting. But get to the bottom line: Do you reject the authority of the epistles (whether authored by Paul or someone claiming to be Paul)?

You’re well within your rights to do so, but that also puts you outside of every mainline institutional Christian church (and the vast majority of non-denominational churches).

So now what? Do you tell the bride and groom and OP you don’t agree with the use of this particular verse? Do you let them have their faith?

What do you mean it’s “interesting?” It’s not trivia, it’s a piece of context that puts the entire authority of these texts into question. And it puts whether you should take them literally into question at the very least.

The biblical texts are documents that were chosen in a very specific time and place by a very specific group of people with their own agendas. They didn’t fall out of the sky. Christianity does not require turning off your brain in such a profound way that you ignore context completely. No church determines my relationship with Christ- my own mind and soul do.

Not even sure why you suggest telling the bride and groom anything.

As to your last sentence, this whole thread is about a Bible verse read at a wedding.

To your broader point, that the epistles were determined to be authoritative by a specific group of men in a specific group of time, you are correct. But that’s also true of the Gospels.

If the contextual process for selection into the New Testament undermines the authority of the epistles (a perfectly logical position to take), it does the same for the Gospels and you kind of have a bigger problem to deal with then what Paul may or may not have actually authored and the substance of what the epistles say.

If only your own mind and soul determines your relationship with Christ (perfectly fine position to take) perhaps you can stop telling everyone else what their relationship with Christ and the New Testament scriptures should be?

dp.. the entire Bible was put together by a bunch of men who decided which books they wanted to be in the Bible and which they didn't. They were "inspired" by God to do so, but that doesn't make them infallible.

BTW, the Gospels don't talk about wives submitting to their husbands. They mostly talk about what happened with Jesus and what He said.

It was Paul, a zealot, who wrote that in the letters.

So do Christians live by Paul’s words? I know many fundamentalists do but others don’t? I’m genuinely curious

Yes, many Christians follow Paul's words, especially the conservative ones, but many also don't seem to think for themselves and ask questions. I find too many preachers preach to not "question the word of God", but what they really mean is, "don't question the preachers".

And I say this as someone who went to church for 40 years, taught Sunday school, and studied the Bible with pastors who have degrees in theology. I have all kinds of books about studying the Bible and whatnot.

I went to a pretty conservative Christian church, and they taught the "wives submit to your husbands" the way most Christians understand it.

A while ago, I heard a non denominational pastor explain the passage within the context of the time it was written, and I found it eye opening. No other pastor had looked at the context, just took those verses at face value.

I look at the Bible through the lens of the time it was written.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. Here is the whole verse:

Ephesians 5:22-33 NKJV. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

christians, particularly the males, always forget the second half of those verses.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[b] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

People need to also understand the context of why that letter was written. At the time, arranged marriages was still a thing, and women often did not respect their husbands, causing an acrimonious marriage.

This is a letter from Paul, a zealot. This is not a teaching from Christ. I know many Christians think Paul was an extension of Christ's teachings, but he was still human, prone to error, bias and influence from the culture of his time.

Take it all with a grain of salt. Women and men should honor and respect each other. That is what makes for a healthy, happy marriage.

-married woman of 20+ years.

I agree with you wholeheadertly which is why I asked if the preacher quoted the rest of the text upthread.

I read through this thread just far enough to see if somebody posted the whole thing. Yes, there are instructions for the husband that the original post didn’t bother to mention.

I agree with you, PP. Honor and respect each other. There are plenty of marriages (religious and otherwise) where that doesn’t happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

OP is an idiot and isn't even familiar with the Kimg James version of the Bible

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

OP is an idiot and isn't even familiar with the Kimg James version of the Bible

+1. Ephesians 5:22

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

I'm stating that Christians who don't look at the Bible in context of when it was written (and by whom despite how "inspired" it is by God) are missing the forest for the trees.

Saying that the Bible is infallible because the Bible says so is circular logic. Any man can claim that what he says is inspired by God and then stick it in the Bible. That's how cults are made.

I don't disregard everything in the Bible. I just read it with a grain of salt, knowing that it was written in a time when slave owning was legal, and women were considered second class citizens, neither of which we approve of today (though I'm sure some people would love to go back to that).

Or, are you saying that owning slaves is fine? Because the Bible states for "Slaves to obey your masters".

Any faith is going to be circular. That is precisely what makes it a faith! If you outright reject it as a faith or are only viewing it as persuasive philosophy, ok, great.

But then the whole thing collapses on itself. Including whatever parts you like. Poverty in the time of Jesus meant something completely different than it does today. I suppose that one could thus read the Sermon on the Mount and the beatitudes “with a grain of salt” and dismiss those, right?

I do not read the Bible as saying chattel slavery is fine.

There are two truths in the Bible that we are to follow: "Love God with all your heart, your mind, your soul", and "Love your neighbor". That's all encompassing, IMO. The epistles were letters instructing members of the early church on how to conduct themselves based on Jesus' teachings and within their culture of that time.

The Beatitudes support those two truths above and are blessings for those who suffer for their faith.

I'm not saying none of this applies to us today, but they should be read with the lens of the time.

The passage "slaves obey your master" as written is tacit support of slavery. So, are you saying that slavery is ok? Is non chattel slavery fine, then?

No, slavery is not fine, and no actual Christian would say that it is, but back then, it was acceptable.

Times and culture change, though Jesus' message does not. But, His message had nothing to do with wives obeying their husbands.

Biblical slavery was different from chattel slavery of the west…. There is a very fine point to be made here, but this is not the convo for it.

Jesus was shockingly unconcerned with the political affairs of man. He was ultimately rejected as messiah for it and eventually crucified for it.

Jesus also said that we should render unto Cesar what is Cesar’s. Was that tacit approval of dictatorial egomaniacal emperors? Of course not! So, I think you are playing a dangerous game when you (or the historical church) suggest that Biblical orders of obedience and care within the context of [empires/slavery] is a tacit approval of [empire/slavery] (or anything else). I think the most any of us can say is that is was an order to submit to any given station in life (or perhaps that liberation from oppression was not Jesus’s mission).

Yes, Jesus said that to love God and your neighbor were the two greatest commandments. But He did not say they were the only commandments. And He also said immediately thereafter that the whole law and prophets build off the foundation of the two great commandments.

That suggests to me that the two great commandments build a foundation for more. Not that it stops with the timelessness of the two great commandments. Which is what I think you are saying.

But if it is a foundation for more (the law and the prophets) what is that more?

I always find this logic perplexing.

Those letters tell people to obey their masters and their leaders. Does that mean that Hitler should've been obeyed and submit to him?

Jesus didn't care about worldly possessions, so when He said "give to Cesar's what is Cesar's", it was in the context of someone asking Him what he thought about paying taxes to the Roman empire. His response: I don't really care, do you?

Again, it wasn't Jesus who said for "wives to submit to their husbands" or "slaves obey your masters". That was Paul, and the reality of the time when slavery was part of the culture. The reality of that time also had women as second class citizens.

But, people twist the words in the Bible and don't read it in context. Just as slave owners used that verse to justify owning slaves, so to do some use the "wives to submit to their husbands" to subjugate women. That is not what Christ taught.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

I'm stating that Christians who don't look at the Bible in context of when it was written (and by whom despite how "inspired" it is by God) are missing the forest for the trees.

Saying that the Bible is infallible because the Bible says so is circular logic. Any man can claim that what he says is inspired by God and then stick it in the Bible. That's how cults are made.

I don't disregard everything in the Bible. I just read it with a grain of salt, knowing that it was written in a time when slave owning was legal, and women were considered second class citizens, neither of which we approve of today (though I'm sure some people would love to go back to that).

Or, are you saying that owning slaves is fine? Because the Bible states for "Slaves to obey your masters".

Any faith is going to be circular. That is precisely what makes it a faith! If you outright reject it as a faith or are only viewing it as persuasive philosophy, ok, great.

But then the whole thing collapses on itself. Including whatever parts you like. Poverty in the time of Jesus meant something completely different than it does today. I suppose that one could thus read the Sermon on the Mount and the beatitudes “with a grain of salt” and dismiss those, right?

I do not read the Bible as saying chattel slavery is fine.

There are two truths in the Bible that we are to follow: "Love God with all your heart, your mind, your soul", and "Love your neighbor". That's all encompassing, IMO. The epistles were letters instructing members of the early church on how to conduct themselves based on Jesus' teachings and within their culture of that time.

The Beatitudes support those two truths above and are blessings for those who suffer for their faith.

I'm not saying none of this applies to us today, but they should be read with the lens of the time.

The passage "slaves obey your master" as written is tacit support of slavery. So, are you saying that slavery is ok? Is non chattel slavery fine, then?

No, slavery is not fine, and no actual Christian would say that it is, but back then, it was acceptable.

Times and culture change, though Jesus' message does not. But, His message had nothing to do with wives obeying their husbands.

Biblical slavery was different from chattel slavery of the west…. There is a very fine point to be made here, but this is not the convo for it.

Jesus was shockingly unconcerned with the political affairs of man. He was ultimately rejected as messiah for it and eventually crucified for it.

Jesus also said that we should render unto Cesar what is Cesar’s. Was that tacit approval of dictatorial egomaniacal emperors? Of course not! So, I think you are playing a dangerous game when you (or the historical church) suggest that Biblical orders of obedience and care within the context of [empires/slavery] is a tacit approval of [empire/slavery] (or anything else). I think the most any of us can say is that is was an order to submit to any given station in life (or perhaps that liberation from oppression was not Jesus’s mission).

Yes, Jesus said that to love God and your neighbor were the two greatest commandments. But He did not say they were the only commandments. And He also said immediately thereafter that the whole law and prophets build off the foundation of the two great commandments.

That suggests to me that the two great commandments build a foundation for more. Not that it stops with the timelessness of the two great commandments. Which is what I think you are saying.

But if it is a foundation for more (the law and the prophets) what is that more?

I always find this logic perplexing.

Those letters tell people to obey their masters and their leaders. Does that mean that Hitler should've been obeyed and submit to him?

Jesus didn't care about worldly possessions, so when He said "give to Cesar's what is Cesar's", it was in the context of someone asking Him what he thought about paying taxes to the Roman empire. His response: I don't really care, do you?

Again, it wasn't Jesus who said for "wives to submit to their husbands" or "slaves obey your masters". That was Paul, and the reality of the time when slavery was part of the culture. The reality of that time also had women as second class citizens.

But, people twist the words in the Bible and don't read it in context. Just as slave owners used that verse to justify owning slaves, so to do some use the "wives to submit to their husbands" to subjugate women. That is not what Christ taught.

maybe throw away your Bible and use common sense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

I'm stating that Christians who don't look at the Bible in context of when it was written (and by whom despite how "inspired" it is by God) are missing the forest for the trees.

Saying that the Bible is infallible because the Bible says so is circular logic. Any man can claim that what he says is inspired by God and then stick it in the Bible. That's how cults are made.

I don't disregard everything in the Bible. I just read it with a grain of salt, knowing that it was written in a time when slave owning was legal, and women were considered second class citizens, neither of which we approve of today (though I'm sure some people would love to go back to that).

Or, are you saying that owning slaves is fine? Because the Bible states for "Slaves to obey your masters".

Any faith is going to be circular. That is precisely what makes it a faith! If you outright reject it as a faith or are only viewing it as persuasive philosophy, ok, great.

But then the whole thing collapses on itself. Including whatever parts you like. Poverty in the time of Jesus meant something completely different than it does today. I suppose that one could thus read the Sermon on the Mount and the beatitudes “with a grain of salt” and dismiss those, right?

I do not read the Bible as saying chattel slavery is fine.

There are two truths in the Bible that we are to follow: "Love God with all your heart, your mind, your soul", and "Love your neighbor". That's all encompassing, IMO. The epistles were letters instructing members of the early church on how to conduct themselves based on Jesus' teachings and within their culture of that time.

The Beatitudes support those two truths above and are blessings for those who suffer for their faith.

I'm not saying none of this applies to us today, but they should be read with the lens of the time.

The passage "slaves obey your master" as written is tacit support of slavery. So, are you saying that slavery is ok? Is non chattel slavery fine, then?

No, slavery is not fine, and no actual Christian would say that it is, but back then, it was acceptable.

Times and culture change, though Jesus' message does not. But, His message had nothing to do with wives obeying their husbands.

Biblical slavery was different from chattel slavery of the west…. There is a very fine point to be made here, but this is not the convo for it.

Jesus was shockingly unconcerned with the political affairs of man. He was ultimately rejected as messiah for it and eventually crucified for it.

Jesus also said that we should render unto Cesar what is Cesar’s. Was that tacit approval of dictatorial egomaniacal emperors? Of course not! So, I think you are playing a dangerous game when you (or the historical church) suggest that Biblical orders of obedience and care within the context of [empires/slavery] is a tacit approval of [empire/slavery] (or anything else). I think the most any of us can say is that is was an order to submit to any given station in life (or perhaps that liberation from oppression was not Jesus’s mission).

Yes, Jesus said that to love God and your neighbor were the two greatest commandments. But He did not say they were the only commandments. And He also said immediately thereafter that the whole law and prophets build off the foundation of the two great commandments.

That suggests to me that the two great commandments build a foundation for more. Not that it stops with the timelessness of the two great commandments. Which is what I think you are saying.

But if it is a foundation for more (the law and the prophets) what is that more?

I always find this logic perplexing.

Those letters tell people to obey their masters and their leaders. Does that mean that Hitler should've been obeyed and submit to him?

Jesus didn't care about worldly possessions, so when He said "give to Cesar's what is Cesar's", it was in the context of someone asking Him what he thought about paying taxes to the Roman empire. His response: I don't really care, do you?

Again, it wasn't Jesus who said for "wives to submit to their husbands" or "slaves obey your masters". That was Paul, and the reality of the time when slavery was part of the culture. The reality of that time also had women as second class citizens.

But, people twist the words in the Bible and don't read it in context. Just as slave owners used that verse to justify owning slaves, so to do some use the "wives to submit to their husbands" to subjugate women. That is not what Christ taught.

maybe throw away your Bible and use common sense?

Great idea!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

DP, where is this coming from? What denomination are you a part of?

The New Testament epistles are almost universally* viewed as inspired by the Holy Spirit and authoritative teaching of God by Christians. I’ve never met any Christian belonging to a mainline denomination, whether liberal or conservative, that dismisses the NT epistles as non-authoritative.

*qualified only because I’m guessing there is some random sect that rejects the epistles.

dp.. after 40+ years of going to church, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, books about the Bible, and studying with pastors, I've come to the conclusion that the men who dictated that the Bible is "inspired by God" were men from a time period that treated women as second class citizens because that's the way the culture was, and they didn't want to upset the culture. Jesus tried that, and the Pharisees didn't like it.

Someone posted above, I believe a passage from Galations, where it was stated that in Heaven, there is no husband/wife relationship. That tells me that such relationships are not so important that bond transcends into heaven, which means that it's not all that important from a salvation stand point.

IMO, a lot of the "do's and don'ts" were written within the context of the culture of the time.

The Apostles, and Paul, may have been inspired by God, but they were not God; they were just men prone to influence and bias just like any other human being.

King David, Abraham, Moses... all were inspired by God but they too were not infallible. Why would these men who put the Bible together be any less infallible?

Ok. So you reject the NT epistles as authoritative (and perhaps also the Old Testament). Perfectly fine for you to do, but you are not an institutional Christian and you are arguing what? That the every mainline Christian denomination is wrong to find teaching authority in the epistles?

I'm stating that Christians who don't look at the Bible in context of when it was written (and by whom despite how "inspired" it is by God) are missing the forest for the trees.

Saying that the Bible is infallible because the Bible says so is circular logic. Any man can claim that what he says is inspired by God and then stick it in the Bible. That's how cults are made.

I don't disregard everything in the Bible. I just read it with a grain of salt, knowing that it was written in a time when slave owning was legal, and women were considered second class citizens, neither of which we approve of today (though I'm sure some people would love to go back to that).

Or, are you saying that owning slaves is fine? Because the Bible states for "Slaves to obey your masters".

Any faith is going to be circular. That is precisely what makes it a faith! If you outright reject it as a faith or are only viewing it as persuasive philosophy, ok, great.

But then the whole thing collapses on itself. Including whatever parts you like. Poverty in the time of Jesus meant something completely different than it does today. I suppose that one could thus read the Sermon on the Mount and the beatitudes “with a grain of salt” and dismiss those, right?

I do not read the Bible as saying chattel slavery is fine.

There are two truths in the Bible that we are to follow: "Love God with all your heart, your mind, your soul", and "Love your neighbor". That's all encompassing, IMO. The epistles were letters instructing members of the early church on how to conduct themselves based on Jesus' teachings and within their culture of that time.

The Beatitudes support those two truths above and are blessings for those who suffer for their faith.

I'm not saying none of this applies to us today, but they should be read with the lens of the time.

The passage "slaves obey your master" as written is tacit support of slavery. So, are you saying that slavery is ok? Is non chattel slavery fine, then?

No, slavery is not fine, and no actual Christian would say that it is, but back then, it was acceptable.

Times and culture change, though Jesus' message does not. But, His message had nothing to do with wives obeying their husbands.

Biblical slavery was different from chattel slavery of the west…. There is a very fine point to be made here, but this is not the convo for it.

Jesus was shockingly unconcerned with the political affairs of man. He was ultimately rejected as messiah for it and eventually crucified for it.

Jesus also said that we should render unto Cesar what is Cesar’s. Was that tacit approval of dictatorial egomaniacal emperors? Of course not! So, I think you are playing a dangerous game when you (or the historical church) suggest that Biblical orders of obedience and care within the context of [empires/slavery] is a tacit approval of [empire/slavery] (or anything else). I think the most any of us can say is that is was an order to submit to any given station in life (or perhaps that liberation from oppression was not Jesus’s mission).

Yes, Jesus said that to love God and your neighbor were the two greatest commandments. But He did not say they were the only commandments. And He also said immediately thereafter that the whole law and prophets build off the foundation of the two great commandments.

That suggests to me that the two great commandments build a foundation for more. Not that it stops with the timelessness of the two great commandments. Which is what I think you are saying.

But if it is a foundation for more (the law and the prophets) what is that more?

I always find this logic perplexing.

Those letters tell people to obey their masters and their leaders. Does that mean that Hitler should've been obeyed and submit to him?

Jesus didn't care about worldly possessions, so when He said "give to Cesar's what is Cesar's", it was in the context of someone asking Him what he thought about paying taxes to the Roman empire. His response: I don't really care, do you?

Again, it wasn't Jesus who said for "wives to submit to their husbands" or "slaves obey your masters". That was Paul, and the reality of the time when slavery was part of the culture. The reality of that time also had women as second class citizens.

But, people twist the words in the Bible and don't read it in context. Just as slave owners used that verse to justify owning slaves, so to do some use the "wives to submit to their husbands" to subjugate women. That is not what Christ taught.

maybe throw away your Bible and use common sense?

No one is stopping you from doing that. Just hope you have the same respect for those who chose to live according to the scripture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We went to wedding this weekend where the main reading was “wives submit to your husbands”.

I fear for that bride.

Lot of people just use standard wordings without giving it a thought, doesn't mean anything. If it was important for them, they would've re-wrote it in a more personal manner.

[Anonymous]

I will not pay for any wedding with that crap in it! Thankfully my kids are very anti misogyny and homophobia!