“Wives submit to your husbands”

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

I grew up as a cafeteria Catholic (we have t-shirts and everything) and decided years ago that I will disregard much of what was written by Paul. I'll leave it to other to tie themselves into knots trying to make sense of his letters that have been used for centuries to justify autocrats, slave owning, spousal abuse and the patriarchy in general. F that.

If it's a wedding I'm invited to, I'm going to assume that the new couple is throwing this line into the ceremony to placate a cranky old person who may be paying for the wedding.

[Anonymous]

Lol. No.

[Anonymous]

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?

This.
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.

This is simply an incorrect interpretation.

I simply love when posters on DCUM tell me I’m wrong with zero follow up or a thought of their own. It really convinces me of how wrong I was. 🙄🙄🙄

[Anonymous]

The whole passage

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

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.

[Anonymous]

I’d recommend Beth Allison Barr’s book: “The Making of Biblical Womanhood” for a deep dive into this topic.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up as a cafeteria Catholic (we have t-shirts and everything) and decided years ago that I will disregard much of what was written by Paul. I'll leave it to other to tie themselves into knots trying to make sense of his letters that have been used for centuries to justify autocrats, slave owning, spousal abuse and the patriarchy in general. F that.

If it's a wedding I'm invited to, I'm going to assume that the new couple is throwing this line into the ceremony to placate a cranky old person who may be paying for the wedding.

Do you see yourself as a practicing, professing Catholic or more ethnically but non-believing Catholic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d recommend Beth Allison Barr’s book: “The Making of Biblical Womanhood” for a deep dive into this topic.

I find her unpressurized. She also doesn’t understand basic statistics and I couldn’t unsee that part of her, so I judge her more harshly for it. A weakness on my end, but I can’t take her seriously.

[Anonymous]

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".

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The world absolutely runs better when women are submissive

The majority of men are in power and yet the world is still a mess.

There would be no war if we could get men to stop being in charge

[Anonymous]

Jesus did not see women in any way inferior to men, but He understood the culture of the time. The first people He presented himself to were women; He told Martha that it was better for Mary to hear Him preach than work in the kitchen.

As history is told by the victor, so too is the Bible told from the perspective of those who had most of the power when it was written, ie, men.

Just as racist people used the verse "slaves obey your masters" to justify owning slaves, some men continue to use the "wives obey your husbands" verse to subjugate women, and of course, they often forget about the second part of the verse where it states for husband to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, ie, put the wife before their own needs. But, too many men don't follow that part but expect women to follow the first part.

Typical.

[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?

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.

[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?

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.

So you pick and choose