"Complementarianism" says men and women have separate roles, and men are the ones in charge. Among the nearly 800,000 words in the Bible, one sentence seems to contain white evangelical thinking on this matter. It’s from a letter the Apostle Paul wrote to his protege, Timothy: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”

Bad theology leads to moral decay.

And Paul wrote that regarding a specific incident that had happened at a certain church he had established.

Context is everything!

Bad theology leads to moral decay.

White evangelicals made up a large portion of the Jan 6 insurrectionists. See the link below connecting misogyny with violence.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/more-capitol-insurrectionists-histories-violence-against-women_n_60c0f897e4b0b449dc34e0cf

(From a white male, evangelical, conservative, Trump loving, bible believing, nobody)

There are many parts of the bible that place men over women.



Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. 2. Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 3. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.




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.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.




Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.




I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.


These things are not merely the invention of Paul, but rather they come from his knowledge of the Old Testament.



To the woman He said:

“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”


This was God's commandment from the beginning.



“Now take Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister to Me as priest, Aaron and Aaron’s sons: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty.


It was Aaron and his sons, not his daughters, who were to serve as priests before God.

As a matter of fact I could list 50 (or more) passages that tend towards misogyny throughout the bible, see here, (https://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm) and here (https://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl1.htm).

It is unfortunate that both critics and proponents usually leave out the positive roles played by women throughout the bible.

Some Examples:
Deborah, judge of Israel who sat with princes. Judges 4-5 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+4-5&version=NKJV)
Huldah, prophetess sought out by King Josiah, without discrimination. 2 Kings 22:11-20 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+kings+22%3A11-20&version=NKJV)
Hannah, mother of Samuel, bringing sacrifices and making decisions at home 1 Samual 1-2 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samual+1-2&version=NKJV)
Rehab, savior of Joshua's spies, mentioned in the genealogy of Christ Joshua 2 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua+2&version=NKJV), Joshuah 6:22-27 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua+6%3A22-27&version=NKJV)

Lets not forget that wisdom in Proverbs, which is "more valuable than rubies" is a feminine quality. The host of women in the New Testament are vital to the building of the Christian Church and serve many roles. The Church is the bride of Christ, and we are told to love our wives as Christ loved the church, even unto death.

Isiah 66:12 God is like a nursing woman.
Genesis 1:27 Males and females created in God's image.
John 15:26 The Holy Spirit is described as a helper, much like Eve (and the trinity is God)
Philippians 4:3 Paul tells the church at Philippi to help the women who helped him.

Christ himself is described as a servant, is the servant inferior?

I think that the women being inferior to men is read into the bible. If we take an account of the historical nations, the nation of Israel gave women rights and protections that simply were not present in the laws of other nations...even throughout the vast majority of history.

We decide that these qualities are better or worse, but it is the character that God cares about, not the sex. It is faith before status, and consistently so.

The complementarian view is not so simple as misogyny, but rather that different people play different roles. Within the church, a woman is not allowed to teach over men or serve as deacon, elder, pastor, etc. Why is it so bad that women are not allowed in this one area of life? Are you wiser than God, than the scriptures, than the prophets of old?

Galations 3:28 tells us that before God we are all equal. Regardless of sex or station.

Men and women are different and serve different roles in the church and in the family, but these different roles help to make up the whole image of God.

Men and women are different and serve different roles in the church and in the family, but these different roles help to make up the whole image of God.
Yes! And it is now nearly halfway through 2021. Since Bible times, the world has changed in so many ways, especially regarding women. Women no longer are at home 24/7/365. Businesses welcome them as employees. Women have the right to vote in the U.S. and in other countries. Women have accompanied men into space. Women serve in the military. Women are accomplished artists and writers. Women are involved in politics and sports, and have made lasting impressions. Even Mensa, with open arms, welcomes women as members! And that's only the bare bones of women's talent (certainly far beyond baking brownies and roasting a Thanksgiving turkey).

And Paul wrote that regarding a specific incident that had happened at a certain church he had established.That is absolutely untrue. Paul's statement was, "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over men." He is plainly describing his usual practice, and he then gives his reason for his practice. If context is everything, then you should have considered the context to begin with.

InfoJunkie's reply was good and generally well-supported until he unfortunately went in this direction. "As a matter of fact I could list 50 (or more) passages that tend towards misogyny." At any rate, as I said, Paul clearly gave his OT basis in the 1 Timothy passage.

The statements of Athos and WG have no Bibllical support whatsoever.


one sentence seems to contain white evangelical thinking on this matter.
That's true so long as you intend to completely ignore the dozens of other statements on the issue. But I'm amazed you even refer to the Bible since you do not consider it to be reliable to begin with. Why even go there?


Businesses welcome them as employees. Women have the right to vote in the U.S. and in other countries. Women have accompanied men into space. Women serve in the military. Women are accomplished artists and writers. Women are involved in politics and sports, and have made lasting impressions. Even Mensa, with open arms, welcomes women as members! And that's only the bare bones of women's talent (certainly far beyond baking brownies and roasting a Thanksgiving turkey). None of which is at issue.

Lastly and unsurprisingly, the description by Athos of "complementarianism" is sadly wrong. It should be described, as the word suggests, "Complementarianism is a theological view in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, and religious leadership." Also unsurprisingly, he directed his criticism only at white (racist on his part?) evangelicals while being strangely silent about Muslims. Wonder why?

That is absolutely untrue. Paul's statement was, "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over men." He is plainly describing his usual practice, and he then gives his reason for his practice. If context is everything, then you should have considered the context to begin with.

The statements of Athos and WG have no Bibllical support whatsoever.
A bit of context is needed here. Some women at one (or more) of the churches in Corinth were treating congregational meetings as an opportunity for socializing -- as if they were at the grocery store or at the mall. This idle conversation brought confusion into church meetings. Thus, verses 34-35 were a warning to chatty women to be silent during services and congregational meetings.

In 1 Corinthians 11:5, Paul asserts that women prophesy and pray aloud in church, and he doesn’t silence them or condemn them. In that verse, Paul also says we women should wear a head covering, as do married Muslim women who each wear a hijab as a symbol of the sanctity of her marriage.

Men who are accused of never listening by women now have an excuse — women’s voices are more difficult for men to listen to than other men’s, a report said.

https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/men_have_trouble_hearing_women/

Maybe Paul knew what he was talking about. Use to be- never play more than two songs on the radio, when a woman's voice was involved. Backed by Science.

A bit of context is needed here. Some women at one (or more) of the churches in Corinth were treating congregational meetings as an opportunity for socializing -- as if they were at the grocery store or at the mall. This idle conversation brought confusion into church meetings. Thus, verses 34-35 were a warning to chatty women to be silent during services and congregational meetings.1 Timothy 2 does not have a verse 34 or 35. The text in question is verse 12. It is not about chatty women. It is about women in leadership. "...to teach or to have authority over a man..." His rationale is found in the next verse. " And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed." So his reasoning is that women are more easily deceived than men. You might not agree with that, but that is his position. It has nothing to do with problems at Ephesus or chatty women.

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed." So his reasoning is that women are more easily deceived than men.
You would think the above text would put an end to this discussion...it will not.
That's why I didn't bring it up.

@WG; The world is a changin, people are changing, and it's not for the better.

You would think the above text would put an end to this discussion...it will not.
That's why I didn't bring it up.
It's an allegory anyway. P.S. All she had to do was blink her pretty lashes and sweetly suggest Adam take a bite. And he did. Thus, it took all the guile of Satan to tempt the woman, but it took only a woman to tempt the man.

@WG; The world is a changin, people are changing, and it's not for the better.
I don't know where you live. I'm sorry you aren't having a good experience. The people in my neck of the woods are getting nicer and nicer.

It's an allegory anyway.The text under discussion is not an allegory. Might add that Jesus spoke of Adam and Eve as real people. There are a number of good reasons to believe it is quite true.

Ever study "mitochondrial Eve"?

The text under discussion is not an allegory.
waltero was talking about the Fall. I responded to his quote but didn't quote what he quoted since it was easily seen.

Might add that Jesus spoke of Adam and Eve as real people. There are a number of good reasons to believe it is quite true.
Jesus knew very well it was an allegory, and for his uneducated listeners always repeated such stories with characters intact.

Ever study "mitochondrial Eve"?
Yep, as Wikipedia quite nicely explains it, "The name "Mitochondrial Eve" alludes to the Biblical Eve, which has led to repeated misrepresentations or misconceptions in journalistic accounts on the topic."

Sure, Women want a traditional man but don't want to be a traditional woman.

Sure, Women want a traditional man but don't want to be a traditional woman.
There is no such thing as a "traditional man". Whatchu smokin', Willis?!

I don't know where you live. I'm sorry you aren't having a good experience. The people in my neck of the woods are getting nicer and nicer. Oh, I stand corrected. The World is a lovely place. It won't last another ten years!

Oh, I stand corrected. The World is a lovely place. It won't last another ten years!
People have been saying that for millennia. The people in Jesus' day decided the world would end during their lifetime. "An American pastor, Kenton Beshore, claims he has hard-and-fast evidence that the rapture will happen in 2021. His credibility is only slightly undercut by the fact that this is his second try: his first end of the world was supposed to happen in 1988. And it... didn't."

The world doesn't produce men anymore, that is true. But there are plenty of traditional men to choose from.
Girls just want to have Fun.
What's a "traditional man"? Ozzie Nelson? Desi Ricardo? Rody Rogers?

What's a "traditional man? A man who places women on a pedestal and provides for.
I deleted that part of the post, I didn't want to get into it. Look at women's Lib, such hate...such is life.
Hurrah forme and F**k everybody else...Welcome to the brave new world. The world is in Caos.

I hate to ask this but how do you know Jesus considered Adam and Eve to be an allegory?

You certainly demonstrated you have never studied mitochondrial Eve.

(From a white male, evangelical, conservative, Trump loving, bible believing, nobody)

There are many parts of the bible that place men over women.

There follows pages and pages of misogyny from the Bible. Thank you so much for proving my point.

Also, your loving Trump is noted. That supports an idea I have of the connection between the Jan6 insurrection and white evangelicals. More on that some other time.

I hate to ask this but how do you know Jesus considered Adam and Eve to be an allegory?
How do you know the story of Noah is true? Or the Tower of Babel? Or Jonah and the great fish? Each one had a hidden meaning and was told in order to pass on a bigger truth.

You certainly demonstrated you have never studied mitochondrial Eve.
Oh, if you only knew!

I asked, "...how do you know Jesus considered Adam and Eve to be an allegory?" Your answer is, ""How do you know the story of Noah is true? Or the Tower of Babel? Or Jonah and the great fish? Each one had a hidden meaning and was told in order to pass on a bigger truth." Oh well. Plainly you have no way of knowing.


Oh, if you only knew!I assure you I do. You have no idea.

I will ask this, I'm sure, in vain. How do you know this is true? "Each one had a hidden meaning and was told in order to pass on a bigger truth." The Bible certainly never says such a thing, so how do you know that's true?

First Athos says white evangelicals believe his misinformed version of complementarianism because of only one verse. Then someone else supplied a number of verses, so now he says, "There follows pages and pages of misogyny from the Bible." So it's white evangelicals believing on the basis of only one verse, and yet now there are "pages and pages" of such verses? And it all adds up to, in his view, misogyny. But I thought that was what the white evangelicals believed? Is Athos a white evangelical now?

He is plainly confused.

First Athos says white evangelicals believe his misinformed version of complementarianism because of only one verse. Then someone else supplied a number of verses, so now he says, "There follows pages and pages of misogyny from the Bible." So it's white evangelicals believing on the basis of only one verse, and yet now there are "pages and pages" of such verses? And it all adds up to, in his view, misogyny. But I thought that was what the white evangelicals believed? Is Athos a white evangelical now?

He is plainly confused.

You are the confused one, my friend.

Here is what I said, "...one sentence seems to contain white evangelical thinking on this matter. It’s from a letter the Apostle Paul wrote to his protege, Timothy: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”

You will see that nowhere did I say it was the ONLY verse. Your reading comprehension hasn't improved. The tons added on by Infojunkie only went to prove my point.

To further alleviate your confusion, I will answer your question. No, I am not a white evangelical.

Now I must send you back to your room in the basement. You really should stop stalking me. It's not the manly thing to do - nor womanly, for that matter.

First you said it was a white evangelical belief based upon "one sentence". Your actual untruncated statement was this. " Among the nearly 800,000 words in the Bible, one sentence seems to contain white evangelical thinking on this matter." Someone else pointed out that your suggestion was simply wrong, so now you decide to agree that the Bible is full of supposedly misogynistic (your view) scriptures. Well, you can't have it both ways. To have made your original suggestion was ridiculous from the start, and your bias was clear from your distorted description of complementarianism.

Can always tell when you feel insecure. You start with the personal attacks. Try sticking to the subject matter. If you don't want your statements evaluated, then you are at the wrong place.

Ever since Adam and Eve’s disobedience and their rejection of God’s authority over them, men and women have been subject to conflict in their relationships. Women have a natural desire to control men, while men have the strength and will to do the same to women.

Watch out, Children rebelling (Arghh, God/Bible strikes again!) against parents ruling over them...backed by the courts.

Ever since Adam and Eve’s disobedience and their rejection of God’s authority over them
Nope. God gave them free will.

I will ask this, I'm sure, in vain. How do you know this is true? "Each one had a hidden meaning and was told in order to pass on a bigger truth." The Bible certainly never says such a thing, so how do you know that's true?Oh well.

Waltero said, "their rejection of God’s authority over them." You replied, "Nope. God gave them free will." In what way are you saying they did not reject God's authority in the exercise of their free will?

Waltero said, "their rejection of God’s authority over them." You replied, "Nope. God gave them free will." In what way are you saying they did not reject God's authority in the exercise of their free will?
They behaved like we all do when given freedom -- we don't remember that one little constraint, that "but don't".

Oh. I see.

Oh. I see.
Like my grampa use to say in response to that statement, "'Now I see,' said the blind man!"

InfoJunkie's reply was good and generally well-supported until he unfortunately went in this direction. "As a matter of fact I could list 50 (or more) passages that tend towards misogyny."


I was meaning to point out the misuse of scripture to support ill founded ideas. The bible isn't misogynistic because you can find instances of OT law or NT rules that seem to support misogyny, but rather you need to look at the whole of scripture regarding a subject before you can have an intelligible discussion about this.

Having rules that are in regard to one sex or another isn't misogyny. A prejudice against women would be misogyny. After looking at the whole of scripture, you would find ancient Israel one of the most enlightened countries in the history of the world. I think wondergirl would fault me on this, however, its 2021 after all and women have great talents!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lastly and unsurprisingly, the description by Athos of "complementarianism" is sadly wrong. It should be described, as the word suggests, "Complementarianism is a theological view in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, and religious leadership." Also unsurprisingly, he directed his criticism only at white (racist on his part?) evangelicals while being strangely silent about Muslims. Wonder why?

I second this.

Athos has many unanswered questions. It must be easier to not think through your ideas than to have them critiqued.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


In 1 Corinthians 11:5, Paul asserts that women prophesy and pray aloud in church, and he doesn’t silence them or condemn them. In that verse, Paul also says we women should wear a head covering, as do married Muslim women who each wear a hijab as a symbol of the sanctity of her marriage.


Lets put this in view:


Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

This is the conclusion Paul gives after explaining that women are under men and men under God. He discusses head coverings as a symbol of having authority over you. The bible teaches us to operate in peace and not to rebel against authority simply to be rebellious.

He asserts nothing except to "judge amongst yourselves" concerning these things, and "we have no such customs" regarding these things. They are neither the domain of sin or church rules, but rather that the purpose of such customs have a biblical and logical basis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


It's an allegory anyway. P.S. All she had to do was blink her pretty lashes and sweetly suggest Adam take a bite. And he did. Thus, it took all the guile of Satan to tempt the woman, but it took only a woman to tempt the man.

It was woman who was deceived. The man was with her, and heeded the voice of the woman and ate, he was however, not deceived by the serpent. I'm pretty sure "all the guile of Satan" couldn't tempt Christ, even so, there was way more guile than that which was deployed on Eve.

I don't know where you live. I'm sorry you aren't having a good experience. The people in my neck of the woods are getting nicer and nicer.
Are you deceived? The world has been "getting worse" in the sense that people are rejecting God, that evil is known as good, that the consequences of war and famine affect more and more, that people prefer deception over truth........
I guess your idea of good is how many people are nice to you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jesus knew very well it was an allegory, and for his uneducated listeners always repeated such stories with characters intact.

If this is true, then the doctrine of original sin is meaningless, and the doctrine of the second Adam is a lie. Further, you are calling Christ a liar, his genealogy would have been known to him and he allowed the apostles to believe it was historically accurate and all to support an allegory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


There follows pages and pages of misogyny from the Bible. Thank you so much for proving my point.

Also, your loving Trump is noted. That supports an idea I have of the connection between the Jan6 insurrection and white evangelicals. More on that some other time.

I said "tend towards misogyny," thus illustrating my first point, that you have little understanding as to what the bible actually says about women.

Yet you still avoid the question "Are you wiser than God, than the scriptures, than the prophets of old?" How is it that you have some magical knowledge of the past and spirituality that was not imbued to the rest of mankind?

You continually place your wisdom over all evidences and all texts that confound you. "Those who trust in themselves are fools, but those who walk in wisdom are kept safe." Proverbs 28:26
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes! And it is now nearly halfway through 2021. Since Bible times, the world has changed in so many ways, especially regarding women. Women no longer are at home 24/7/365. Businesses welcome them as employees. Women have the right to vote in the U.S. and in other countries. Women have accompanied men into space. Women serve in the military. Women are accomplished artists and writers. Women are involved in politics and sports, and have made lasting impressions. Even Mensa, with open arms, welcomes women as members! And that's only the bare bones of women's talent (certainly far beyond baking brownies and roasting a Thanksgiving turkey).

Your view of history is simplistic and confounded. History is in large part the collaboration of both men and women; not some war of the sexes that you finally won. The world was hard, very hard, and it took both men and women to make what it is today. In Israel women were allowed to own things, become leaders in society, be in the lineage of inheritances, were given legal recourse against lies and misbehaving men. This was not true in the rest of the ancient world.

We are talking about one simple rule, leadership in the church. Not the talents of women and their place in the world. The bible agrees with you on most of that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


How do you know the story of Noah is true? Or the Tower of Babel? Or Jonah and the great fish? Each one had a hidden meaning and was told in order to pass on a bigger truth.

Also things Christ lied about? He believed such things or he lied. There is no biblical or historical truth to rejecting these things.

But I guess you are now the arbiter of truth. You can look at a document and discern what did and didn't happen, through what means though? Do you have a crystal ball?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm finished, all caught up.

Well and accurately stated.


But I guess you are now the arbiter of truth. You can look at a document and discern what did and didn't happen, through what means though? Do you have a crystal ball?The great unanswered question. By what means does WG make these assessments?

Like my grampa use to say in response to that statement, "'Now I see,' said the blind man!"Did gramps also mention anything about the necessity of being able to support statements you make, or the value of being able to answer serious questions?

Did gramps also mention anything about the necessity of being able to support statements you make, or the value of being able to answer serious questions?
Nope. He was an evangelical Christian and a Republican.

First you said it was a white evangelical belief based upon "one sentence". Your actual untruncated statement was this. " Among the nearly 800,000 words in the Bible, one sentence seems to contain white evangelical thinking on this matter."

"... one sentence SEEMS TO CONTAIN...". I wonder why I ever bother to explain things to you when you are so bad at reading comprehension, even when the meaning is plain. My sentence in no way excludes any other misogynistic Bible statements. If you can't see that, I don't think anyone can help you. It truly makes me wonder about your claim to be an educator. That's not an insult, it's the plain truth.

So sensitive!! Well, you're back to the personal attacks. You were proven completely wrong and it seems to bug you. At any rate, I'll post your quote again and others can decide for themselves. "Among the nearly 800,000 words in the Bible, one sentence seems to contain white evangelical thinking on this matter." So you were saying, it would seem, that out of 800K words in the Bible, that one sentence seemed to contain "white evangelical" (hmmm...no black evangelicals???) thinking on the subject. You were simply wrong just like you were wrong in what was likely your prejudiced description of complementarianism.

So sensitive!! Well, you're back to the personal attacks. You were proven completely wrong and it seems to bug you. At any rate, I'll post your quote again and others can decide for themselves. "Among the nearly 800,000 words in the Bible, one sentence seems to contain white evangelical thinking on this matter." So you were saying, it would seem, that out of 800K words in the Bible, that one sentence seemed to contain "white evangelical" (hmmm...no black evangelicals???) thinking on the subject. You were simply wrong just like you were wrong in what was likely your prejudiced description of complementarianism.
You quoted Athos, then deliberately, by tangling it up, misstated and then misinterpreted his quote.

In what way? Please be specific.

In what way? Please be specific.
He didn't say "only one sentence". That's the sense you gave his quote when you rephrased it and twisted it.

To be perfectly clear to literalists reading these threads, he should have added a transition phrase used when giving an example: "one sentence in particular seems to contain...."

I never used the word “only”. It would seem that you are the one mischaracterizing, would it not?

I would agree with your suggestion. Much clearer.

I never used the word “only”. It would seem that you are the one mischaracterizing, would it not?
Your rephrasing assumed the "only."

You do know what they say about the word “assume”? Seems appropriate here. Still his mishandling of complimentarianism should have concerned you. It didn’t. Wonder why?

You do know what they say about the word “assume”?
The assuming was on your end, so I didn't mention it so as not to embarrass you after you agreed with me and complimented me.

Seems appropriate here. Still his mishandling of complimentarianism should have concerned you. It didn’t. Wonder why?
I wasn't following that part, just the grammar stuff.

The assuming was on your endSo now you think you know what other people assume? Grasping of straws??


I wasn't following that part,I know that you will never say a critical word of your liberal buds on this site. You prefer assuming that you know what others assume and thus mischaracterize what they say. Hopefully you will wake up some day.

So now you think you know what other people assume? Grasping of straws??
You said exactly what you assumed Athos had said. But he hadn't said what you assumed he did.

I know that you will never say a critical word of your liberal buds on this site. You prefer assuming that you know what others assume and thus mischaracterize what they say. Hopefully you will wake up some day.
Tal, Athos, tomder, paraclete, and I have known each other for at least 20 years, had met on another Q&A site, had happily interacted long before politics got to be an issue on this site.

The bible isn't misogynistic because you can find instances of OT law or NT rules that seem to support misogyny, but rather you need to look at the whole of scripture regarding a subject before you can have an intelligible discussion about this.

Not SEEM to support misogyny, but DOES support misogyny. Your 50 examples were proof enough. The whole of scripture does nothing to undermine it's misogyny. Saying something positive about women does not eliminate the charge of misogyny elsewhere.


Having rules that are in regard to one sex or another isn't misogyny.

Other than biology, rules are misogynistic when they are based on gender.


A prejudice against women would be misogyny.

That's as good a definition as any.


After looking at the whole of scripture, you would find ancient Israel one of the most enlightened countries in the history of the world.

Being less misogynistic than other countries (if that's what you're claiming) does not change the misogyny in the Bible. It's like saying Joe murdered two people so he's less of a murderer than Sam who murdered three people.


Athos has many unanswered questions.

If a question is put to me, I may or may not answer it depending on the reason for the question. In your case, I don't know of any questions you have asked me. You've hardly ever been on this page.


It must be easier to not think through your ideas than to have them critiqued.

Insulting others is not a good way for you to start here. I'm at a loss to understand why fundamentalists are so quick to hop on the nasty train when they are challenged. (I'm assuming you're a fundamentalist - correct me if I'm wrong).


This is the conclusion Paul gives after explaining that women are under men and men under God.

This is an incredible way to present an argument that Paul (the Bible) is not misogynistic! You conclude that women are under men (per se misogyny) and then go on to prove it with head coverings as symbols, etc. I'm sorry, but the self-blindness of what you are saying is breathtaking.


He asserts nothing except to "judge amongst yourselves" concerning these things, and "we have no such customs" regarding these things. They are neither the domain of sin or church rules, but rather that the purpose of such customs have a biblical and logical basis.

If this is you claiming that Paul is not misogynistic - a most ineffective claim - you still have those 50 Biblical examples to deal with.


It was woman who was deceived. The man was with her, and heeded the voice of the woman and ate, he was however, not deceived by the serpent.

You left out that Adam was not deceived because he was not tempted by the serpent. Pretty big omission, isn't that?


I guess your idea of good is how many people are nice to you.

Your idea of conversation is to insult the other person.


If this is true (that Christ saw genesis as an allegory), then the doctrine of original sin is meaningless

Here's a little tidbit about original sin. As we all know, Augustine was the first to promote original sin. He said it came from the semen during sexual intercourse. He also believed unbaptized infants went to hell. There's more on that topic, but I'll leave it for you to ponder.


Further, you are calling Christ a liar, his genealogy would have been known to him and he allowed the apostles to believe it was historically accurate and all to support an allegory.

No one is calling Christ a liar. But he did tell a lot of stories that were not literally true, and to make a moral point. Which genealogy did Christ "allow" his apostles to believe it's historical accuracy?


I said "tend towards misogyny," thus illustrating my first point, that you have little understanding as to what the bible actually says about women.

Yet you still avoid the question "Are you wiser than God, than the scriptures, than the prophets of old?" How is it that you have some magical knowledge of the past and spirituality that was not imbued to the rest of mankind?

You continually place your wisdom over all evidences and all texts that confound you. "Those who trust in themselves are fools, but those who walk in wisdom are kept safe." Proverbs 28:26

This whole section was directed toward me. Insult after insult, question after question never asked, telling me how confounded I am - note how these are all ad hominem statements - the refuge of the defeated. I'm only surprised you didn't threaten me with some Bible verses. The other guy usually does that.


Your view of history is simplistic and confounded.

When in doubt, insult. Oh, the irony!


In Israel women were allowed to own things

WOW! How liberal! Bunch of darn lefties.

No matter how you cut it, Israel was a patriarchial society. The Adam and Eve story is clearly the patriarchs unintentionally describing why women are secondary citizens. It was unintended but it's there anyway, being such a deeply rooted part of that society.


We are talking about one simple rule, leadership in the church.

Does that include OT polygamy?


Also things Christ lied about? He believed such things or he lied.

Noah, Babel, Jonah? No third Possibility? Like a story making a point?


There is no biblical or historical truth to rejecting these things.

They are stories, myths, fables. No one is rejecting them Biblically, only as literal fact.


But I guess you are now the arbiter of truth. You can look at a document and discern what did and didn't happen, through what means though? Do you have a crystal ball?

No comment. What's the use?



I'm finished, all caught up.

No, you are not all caught up, and light years from bring finished. You have hardly begun.

You said exactly what you assumed Athos had said. But he hadn't said what you assumed he did.Except that the only way you could show that was to falsely insert the word "only" which I never said. You have been caught by "assume" in your desperate effort to support your liberal buddy.


Tal, Athos, tomder, paraclete, and I have known each other for at least 20 years, had met on another Q&A site, had happily interacted long before politics got to be an issue on this site.So that's your excuse? You make assumptions about assumptions rather than let even a whisper of criticism arise for your long term buds? And this discussion is not even about politics.

It was woman who was deceived. The man was with her, and heeded the voice of the woman and ate, he was however, not deceived by the serpent.
BOTH were deceived!!! As I posted earlier, all Eve had to do was blink her pretty lashes and sweetly suggest Adam take a bite. And he did. Thus, it took all the guile of Satan to tempt the woman, but it took only a woman to tempt the man.

BOTH were deceived!!Nope. "For Adam was formed first , then Eve; 14 and[B] it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was led astray and fell into sin."

Your comments on this board do not carry the weight of scripture. Good grief.

Nope. "For Adam was formed first , then Eve; 14 and[B] it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was led astray and fell into sin."

Your comments on this board do not carry the weight of scripture. Good grief.
Adam ate of the fruit from the forbidden tree. Adam wasn't deceived by the wily serpent. He was deceived by a mere woman.

What if he would have said to the woman, "No thanks, dear"?

He was deceived by a mere woman.Sez you. Sorry, but your words do not equate to scripture, and that's especially true coming from someone who says that Paul, John, and Jesus were all gay. Incredible.

Of course you should notice that you are also alleging that Eve was both deceived AND a deceiver herself. Hmmm.

Sez you. Sorry, but your words do not equate to scripture
Genesis 3:6-13

Yes, Eve was both deceived and deceiver. How did she not trick Adam into eating the forbidden fruit? "Oooooo, Adam! It's so sweet and crunchy and full of flavor." She didn't bother to mention it was from the forbidden tree, so he stupidly and cluelessly took a bite.

Genesis 3:6-13You post a reference which say absolutely nothing about Eve deceiving Adam.

Oh well. Enough of this lunacy.

You post a reference which say absolutely nothing about Eve deceiving Adam.

Oh well. Enough of this lunacy.
She handed him forbidden fruit (but didn't mention that's what it was). She. Deceived. Adam.

Sez you but not the Bible.

Sez you but not the Bible.
If she didn't deceive him, he was one [deleted].

"6When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it."

I guess she didn't deceive him. All she had to do was hand it to him (with her knowing that it was forbidden).

Ah Athos, Going fishing.


Bad theology leads to moral decay.(Begins with the assumption that the tradition is fundamentally contaminated).

Moral theology in the United States today is in crisis. Fractured and polarized, the ascendant methodologies are only preoccupied with power both in theory and in practice. If the teaching authority and tradition of the Church are to be understood as hopelessly compromised by patriarchy, homophobia, and so on—such that they can and should be something other than central to the discourse—then a discipline other than theology is setting the terms of the practice.

Women may assist in the decision-making process, the ultimate authority for the decision is the purview of the male in marriage, courtship, and in the polity of churches.

What must be believed is that revelation is entrusted to the apostolic Church, and through many ups and downs the tradition is guided by the Holy Spirit and roughly, over time, we discern more and more how to live out the vocation of followers of Christ until he comes again.

Women may assist in the decision-making process, the ultimate authority for the decision is the purview of the male in marriage, courtship, and in the polity of churches.
Marriage is a partnership. The wife doesn't "assist". Husband and wife work together as equal partners.

What if the husband is incapable of fulfilling his role?

But what must be believed is that revelation is entrusted to the apostolic Church
And the apostolic Church is where? what?

And, waltero, what is your source for your very comprehensive post?

What is your source for saying the husband and wife are equal partners?

What is your source for saying the husband and wife are equal partners?
It's 2021. They are equal partners. Both drive. Both care for the children. Money is controlled by both as a unit. Both do household chores, cooking, laundry, grocery shopping. The success of the marriage doesn't (shouldn't) depend on one or the other, but depends on them working together as a team.

Uhm…I meant from the Bible.

Uhm…I meant from the Bible.
We've come a long way from Bible mandates, written millennia ago in a totally different culture, regarding marriage.

So you don’t accept the Bible.

So you don’t accept the Bible.
Do you still ride a donkey? Does your wife fetch water several times a day at the village well? Were your sons circumcised when they were eight days old? How many long, flowing robes do you own? Do you attend services at the temple every Saturday? How many fish did you catch this week?

Do you still ride a donkey? Does your wife fetch water several times a day at the village well? Were your sons circumcised when they were eight days old? How many long, flowing robes do you own? Do you attend services at the temple every Saturday? How many fish did you catch this week?

Lololol......


Your comments on this board do not carry the weight of scripture.

Her comments carry far more weight than MISINTERPRETED scripture.


Oh well. Enough of this lunacy.

Sez the chief lunatic here.

Do you still ride a donkey? Does your wife fetch water several times a day at the village well? Were your sons circumcised when they were eight days old? How many long, flowing robes do you own? Do you attend services at the temple every Saturday? How many fish did you catch this week?So in your world, the wearing of robes and fetching of water are somehow the moral equivalents of how God views marriage? Why am I not surprised?


Sez the chief lunatic here.Still cranky after being called to task on your complete misrepresentation of complementarianism and your foolish comments about the 1 Timothy passage? Poor Athos. Being wrong seems to bother you so much.

So in your world, the wearing of robes and fetching of water are somehow the moral equivalents of how God views marriage? Why am I not surprised?
Keep up! You misrepresented my post and changed the subject yourself.

Women may assist in the decision-making process, the ultimate authority for the decision is the purview of the male in marriage, courtship, and in the polity of churches.

Dude, if we had tried to live by that we would have starved to death. I'm terrible at making money, always have been. I have two degrees. I wouldn't trade the knowledge for anything but so far their earning power has been about $25 a year in royalties from a book I wrote in 2005.
My wife has three degrees, one in dietetic technology and two in nursing. She's been the breadwinner since 1986. I, on the other hand, excelled at caring for the kids. We hade a bipolar daughter and I was much better at handling her than my wife was. So I was the stay-home parent for 20 years. I became one of the girls in town and buddied around with the other moms. Since my wife was the one bringing home the bacon, she was the primary decider about how it got cooked, so to speak. I was fine with that and she has a wisdom that I could only dream of.
Both Moses and Jesus said the two are "one flesh." How often does your left nostril lord it over your right one?
One flesh = equal partners.
And I thank God for that.

Dude, if we had tried to live by that we would have starved to death. I'm terrible at making money, always have been. I have two degrees. I wouldn't trade the knowledge for anything but so far their earning power has been about $25 a year in royalties from a book I wrote in 2005.
My wife has three degrees, one in dietetic technology and two in nursing. She's been the breadwinner since 1986. I, on the other hand, excelled at caring for the kids. We hade a bipolar daughter and I was much better at handling her than my wife was. So I was the stay-home parent for 20 years. I became one of the girls in town and buddied around with the other moms. Since my wife was the one bringing home the bacon, she was the primary decider about how it got cooked, so to speak. I was fine with that and she has a wisdom that I could only dream of.In what way did that violate a wife submitting to her husband?

My wife and I share in the decision making. She defers to me frequently, and I do the same with her. It helps a great deal that we share a genuine commitment to Christ and so wish to walk the same path.

Keep up! You misrepresented my post and changed the subject yourself.So you do realize there is a difference. Thank goodness for that. Of course it does make your response seem rather strange.

Poor Athos. Being wrong seems to bother you so much.

Lololol. Besides being so wrong and so nasty on so many matters, you are a great source of comic relief on these pages. Thank you.


Below quote - Jl asking DW re DW post above.


In what way did that violate a wife submitting to her husband?

Answer from DW.


she was the primary decider about how it got cooked, so to speak. I was fine with that and she has a wisdom that I could only dream of.

Sorry, DW, for answering on your behalf but I didn't want to wait a month for you, and Jl has trouble comprehending writing.

They are equal partners. Eve is not addressed as a separate person until after the Fall. Adam naming Eve conveys his authority over her and in turn over all the living. Man and wife become Adam and Eve

Eve is not addressed as a separate person until after the Fall. Adam naming Eve conveys his authority over her and in turn over all the living. Man and wife become Adam and Eve
What happened to Lilith? In Genesis 1, man (Adam) and woman (Lilith) are created at the same time, but then Genesis 2 establishes Eve as the product of Adam's rib.

What happened to Lilith? I'm not into fiction. But it looks as if she is Making Her Mark In Popular Culture

There is nothing in the general topic of submission that would preclude the wife making decisions. "she was the primary decider about how it got cooked, so to speak. I was fine with that." But even at that, DW (or anyone else, for that matter) describing his family situation does not establish God's plan for the family. For those of us who are Christians, we turn to the Bible to settle that issue.

You still have not addressed why you purposely distorted the meaning of complementarianism. If the past in any indicator, I imagine that you won't. Nor have you explained why you are so intent on bashing only WHITE evangelicals. How about black or Latino evangelicals? Why did you reserve your criticism for those WHITE evangelicals, but you failed to include Muslims who are genuine oppressors of women, and also failed to mention orthodox Jews?

Excuse me, but your bias is showing.

Ad hominem:
A rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue.
-Wikipedia



White evangelicals made up a large portion of the Jan 6 insurrectionists.




Also, your loving Trump is noted.




Your reading comprehension hasn't improved.




Now I must send you back to your room in the basement.

------------------------------------------------------


I wonder why I ever bother to explain things to you when you are so bad at reading comprehension...




...note how these are all ad hominem statements - the refuge of the defeated.




Sez the chief lunatic here.




Besides being so wrong and so nasty on so many matters, you are a great source of comic relief on these pages.




Jl has trouble comprehending writing.


These are there parts where you are attacking the character of the person, would you like another list showing where you have created diversions?

Me calling you a hypocrite would not be ad hominem but rather a statement of fact about your actions regarding this debate.

Me saying you are misinformed are not ways to attack your character, but to show you where you information is fallacious.

Me saying you are confounded, is not a diversion, but rather to emphasize the point of confusion you authored.

Info, you summed it up very well with this statement. "Athos has many unanswered questions. It must be easier to not think through your ideas than to have them critiqued." Athos becomes practically enraged any time his statements are challenged. That's unfortunate. We all make mistakes and have to backtrack at times. The best solution is a simple, "I was wrong."

I'm not into fiction. But it looks as if she is Making Her Mark In Popular Culture
Lilith was depicted as Adam's first wife in the Alphabet of Ben Sira, a work that became part of Jewish tradition sometime around 1000 CE. According to this interpretation, their marriage eventually failed and she left, prompting God to create Eve.


Ad hominem:
A rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue.
-Wikipedia
And introducing the AskMeHelpDesk champion ad hominem poster -- JL!

And introducing the AskMeHelpDesk champion ad hominem poster -- JL!You might note that Info, unlike you, could show MANY examples. Now it's your turn. Hint: Pretty sure you won't be able to, but we'll see.

Can you not see that your statement is a perfect example of an ad hominem attack??? That's priceless. In your attempt at a personal attack, you have become the personal attackER.

You might note that Info, unlike you, could show MANY examples. Now it's your turn. Hint: Pretty sure you won't be able to, but we'll see.
Should I cull from only this thread, or may I harvest from others?

Part 1


Not SEEM to support misogyny, but DOES support misogyny. Your 50 examples were proof enough. The whole of scripture does nothing to undermine it's misogyny. Saying something positive about women does not eliminate the charge of misogyny elsewhere.


There you are quite wrong, misogyny is a prejudice against women. Prejudice, implies intent. To find the intent, you must first examine scripture as a whole regarding the subject in question, not take it piecemeal and say "look at what I found here"

Its kind of like loopholes in the law. You may say this law takes all the X rights away. But when you read the body of law, you will find there are other laws written that limit and enhance said law. Really, the law takes X rights away under circumstances in law V and W, provided: Y and Z. Much different characterization.



Other than biology, rules are misogynistic when they are based on gender.


Biology is irrelevant. Biology is not the domain of actions. Biology is a body of knowledge and an area of study. It cannot by definition be misogynistic.

Having a set of rules that applies to one gender and not the other is not evidence of prejudice.

Is having a private place for women to undress (locker rooms or dressing rooms) misogynistic?

Lets look at some sexism against men in today's America:

The Draft applies to men and not women.

Paternity Laws largely favor the mother, while custody, and maternity are a given for the mother, the father must use the courts to acquire even visitation.

Rape is defined as a penetration of the anus or vagina without consent in the US. A women can rape a man without ever legally raping him, it is sexual assault, not rape. Examples: here (https://www.foxnews.com/us/arkansas-high-school-teacher-25-slept-with-4-teen-boy-students-2-in-same-night-cops-say), here (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9204534/teacher-jailed-sex-with-student-in-classroom/), and here (https://www.insideedition.com/co-worker-says-shes-not-surprised-teacher-was-accused-sleeping-student-51110). Not to mention the slew of false accusations of rape women hold over men, roughly 1 in 10 reported rapes is later found to be false, while often ruining the person's job, marriage, life, etc...

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 protects women, not men.

Domestic violence against men is a real problem: The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence) asserts as much as 40% of all domestic violence victims are male. Yet we don't have any men's shelters or laws that protect men. As a matter of fact, men's claims are more often ridiculed or not taken seriously by the police or the courts.

We could go on about the social side of things too, but you get my point. Is this all misandry? Is this the progress we've achieved since bible times?



Being less misogynistic than other countries (if that's what you're claiming) does not change the misogyny in the Bible. It's like saying Joe murdered two people so he's less of a murderer than Sam who murdered three people.


This is a false equivalency. You keep asserting misogyny, without proof of prejudice.

Your example would be better stated: "Joe murdered two people so he's less of a murderer than Sam who killed three people.

Then you might ask, why did he kill them? They may be justified, or accidental, or in the course of war. You are looking for intent behind the actions.

The OT laws largely protected women against the predations of unruly men, gave them legal protections against the actions of their husbands, and gave them rights that were unseen in the rest of the world. All this while leaving room in society for women to rise to rulers, judges, and crafts(wo)men. This doesn't imply prejudice, the intent may well be the opposite.



This is an incredible way to present an argument that Paul (the Bible) is not misogynistic! You conclude that women are under men (per se misogyny) and then go on to prove it with head coverings as symbols, etc. I'm sorry, but the self-blindness of what you are saying is breathtaking.


This was an argument against wondergirl. She plainly stated "Paul also says we women should wear a head covering" among other things. This is not the implication of the passage in question. It is to show that these beliefs are natural, but, under the law and under the domain of the church, there are "no such customs."

Rejecting hierarchy doesn't make it go away. This is the point often missed by the rebellious. A new hierarchy will form in its place: We are, by nature, hierarchical creatures (as is 99.9% of the animal kingdom). We can reject the current system of power, but a new one will form in its place. If we are not careful restructuring hierarchies, then we may well find we have built a new one that is oppressive and ill functioning. You can see this play out on the stage of geopolitics in real time or view history through this lens, and watch different societies restructure unto oblivion, oppression, starvation, and so on.

Feel free to do as you please!! Just bear in mind what an ad hominem attack is. "Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Perfect example. "And introducing the AskMeHelpDesk champion ad hominem poster -- JL!"

Part 2


you still have those 50 Biblical examples to deal with.


As in the fashion of my first example: see Here (http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/women%20and%20the%20law%20in%20ancient%20israel.ht m), and here (https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html), and here (https://www.compellingtruth.org/womens-rights.html).



You left out that Adam was not deceived because he was not tempted by the serpent. Pretty big omission, isn't that?


In Genesis it says that the man was with the women, and she gave to him the fruit. Any further reading into this is futile, the details simply not there. Later in Genesis we are told the man was not deceived. For whatever reason he took the fruit anyways, and was condemned as well.



Here's a little tidbit about original sin. As we all know, Augustine was the first to promote original sin. He said it came from the semen during sexual intercourse. He also believed unbaptized infants went to hell. There's more on that topic, but I'll leave it for you to ponder.


Refutation of this argument here (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2081.htm).

As far as Augustine being the first, hardly. He may have invented the terminology, but these ideas predate him by a lot. Justin Martyr believed that sin was brought about only by actions, Tertullian, 2 centuries before Augustine asserted that original sin was passed through souls, being formed by their fathers' and mothers' souls. Sirach (200 BC) blames women for death entering the world while The Wisdom of Solomon (100BC) blames the devil for sin entering the world. Even in Genesis it says "the imagination of a person’s heart is evil from his youth." In the Psalms, David says "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

This concept has been in development since times immemorial.



No one is calling Christ a liar. But he did tell a lot of stories that were not literally true, and to make a moral point. Which genealogy did Christ "allow" his apostles to believe it's historical accuracy?


Luke 3:23 has a genealogy that goes all the way back to Adam. Matthew 1 only goes to Abraham, but even so, Abraham's lineage in Genesis 11, goes to Adam.

He's not a liar, he just said a lot of things that aren't true.

Here are some other stories Christ told:



“Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your ancestors who killed them. So you testify that you approve of what your ancestors did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

He believed in Abel and Zachariah on the same evidences.



Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”




“There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out.




Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”




“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”




He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’

You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”


Need I go on...He believed the Old Testament in its entirety and taught on these things throughout His ministries.

He was either lying or crazy.



No matter how you cut it, Israel was a patriarchial society. The Adam and Eve story is clearly the patriarchs unintentionally describing why women are secondary citizens. It was unintended but it's there anyway, being such a deeply rooted part of that society.


Patriarchy is not the question, having a patriarchy doesn't mean misogyny. I defer back to my thoughts on hierarchy.

Women were not second class citizens, as stated over and over again, they had many rights and duties not seen elsewhere. They were only restricted in matters of family and worship. They were even given a series of vows in the marriage ritual describing their property rights and other promises by the husband. This was even evidence in court in case of a dispute. A few simple rules like "they cant worship the same" or "they needed a man's permission" doesn't negate the fact that they were protected and cherished. A man who abused his responsibility (it wasn't a right to be over a woman) was punished accordingly.

Furthermore, "unintentionally" means NOT MISOGYNY...it requires intent.



They are stories, myths, fables. No one is rejecting them Biblically, only as literal fact.


Then go on, use fact to refute these things....So far you have simply said Christ didn't mean what He said...



But I guess you are now the arbiter of truth. You can look at a document and discern what did and didn't happen, through what means though? Do you have a crystal ball?



No comment. What's the use?


Both you and wondergirl take a piece of history or a piece of the scriptures and divine its meaning through some unknown mechanism without known facts to support an ideology you hold as truth. Why is your "reason" superior to the reasoning and wisdom of historical sources?

Do you have a crystal ball where you can look into history and decide what actually happened?

Are your ideas "truth" over the ideas of long ago society?

If you aren't using facts or logic, then you are simply asserting it on your own authority. You can do better, you seem pretty smart.

In Genesis it says that the man was with the women, and she gave to him the fruit. Any further reading into this is futile, the details simply not there. Later in Genesis we are told the man was not deceived. For whatever reason he took the fruit anyways, and was condemned as well.Very well said. Speculation is not proof.


Both you and wondergirl take a piece of history or a piece of the scriptures and divine its meaning through some unknown mechanism without known facts to support an ideology you hold as truth. Why is your "reason" superior to the reasoning and wisdom of historical sources?Absolutely true. Their basic approach certainly seems to be, "Believe this because I say so." And thus WG ends up believing David, Jonathan, Paul, John, and even Jesus were gay, and that despite an avalanche of evidence to the contrary. Post 25 scripture passages where hell is spoken of as real, and you will incredibly be accused of cherry picking.

These are there parts where you are attacking the character of the person,

The "attacks" are true. Jl deserves a piece of his own medicine that he so frequently dishes out.


Me calling you a hypocrite would not be ad hominem but rather a statement of fact

See my first sentence above.


Me saying you are misinformed are not ways to attack your character,

Of course it is - "saying" does not make it so. You need to think about that.


but to show you where you information is fallacious.

Your opinions are not enough to claim anyone/anything fallacious.


Me saying you are confounded, is not a diversion, but rather to emphasize the point of confusion you authored.

Interesting statement that is not only ad hominem, but also untrue - two faults you criticize in others but reserve as legitimate for yourself. As I say, interesting.

Jl deserves a piece of his own medicine that he so frequently dishes out.Except that you are always strangely unable to point out any of these places where I am dishing out "medicine". I think you consider it to be insulting when someone simply does not agree with your views and points out where you are wrong. There is, for instance, the issue of your misrepresentation of complementarianism which you have not addressed, or your insistence on singling out "white" evangelicals when there are black, Latino, etc. evangelicals who believe the same teachings. And for that matter, you didn't even mention Muslims who certainly genuinely do oppress women. It's this impression you give that you seem to be above having to explain yourself that is really "interesting". And then you start tossing out insults instead of explanations. Very interesting indeed.

Except that you are always strangely unable to point out any of these places where I am dishing out "medicine".
Here are a few dished out to me because I didn't agree with you:

You can't be honest and it gets old.

Why not knock off the dopey answers and try to be a little serious?

Sure looks like lying to me.

There you are quite wrong, misogyny is a prejudice against women. Prejudice, implies intent. To find the intent, you must first examine scripture as a whole regarding the subject in question, not take it piecemeal and say "look at what I found here"

That's called cherry-picking. Which is exactly what you're doing while denying it should be done.


Its kind of like loopholes in the law. You may say this law takes all the X rights away. But when you read the body of law, you will find there are other laws written that limit and enhance said law. Really, the law takes X rights away under circumstances in law V and W, provided: Y and Z. Much different characterization.

Don't play the lawyer - you're not qualified. You have truly bungled the attempt.


Biology is irrelevant. Biology is not the domain of actions. Biology is a body of knowledge and an area of study. It cannot by definition be misogynistic.

You're agreeing with me. Thank you.


Having a set of rules that applies to one gender and not the other is not evidence of prejudice.

Obviously not ALL rules, Captain Obvious.


Is having a private place for women to undress (locker rooms or dressing rooms) misogynistic?

Like Jl, you're playing with semantics and missing the point. See again my reply above.


Lets look at some sexism against men in today's America:

To what point? You're deflecting/diverting by bringing in an issue not being discussed. Yet, you blame me for the very same tactic! Heal thyself, Physician!


Rape is defined as a penetration of the anus or vagina without consent in the US. A women can rape a man without ever legally raping him, it is sexual assault, not rape. Examples: here (https://www.foxnews.com/us/arkansas-high-school-teacher-25-slept-with-4-teen-boy-students-2-in-same-night-cops-say), here (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9204534/teacher-jailed-sex-with-student-in-classroom/), and here (https://www.insideedition.com/co-worker-says-shes-not-surprised-teacher-was-accused-sleeping-student-51110). Not to mention the slew of false accusations of rape women hold over men,

WOW! You really hate women, don't you? I had no idea. Helps to better understand you. It's not pretty.


We could go on about the social side of things too, but you get my point

Boy, I sure did get your point. It's funny how these posts often reveal hidden attitudes people possess on a deep level. That's not ad hominem, it's simply observation.


Is this all misandry? Is this the progress we've achieved since bible times?

If you're denying progress re women since Biblical times, you're worse than you've revealed here. But I don't want to put words in your mouth. Are you denying progress since bible times?


You keep asserting misogyny, without proof of prejudice.

The proof is in the Bible, as you yourself originally asserted before you decided to backtrack. (Shades of Republicanism. I must ask, as an admiited Trump lover, are you a republican? Don't answer if you don't want to - it's not part of the discussion).


Your example would be better stated: "Joe murdered two people so he's less of a murderer than Sam who killed three people.

Then you might ask, why did he kill them? They may be justified, or accidental, or in the course of war. You are looking for intent behind the actions.

Note the use of MURDER. Murder, by definition, is never justified or accidental or in war.


The OT laws largely protected women against the predations of unruly men, gave them legal protections against the actions of their husbands

That does NOT absolve misogyny. You're confused about justifying one because of another. Think about it.


, and gave them rights that were unseen in the rest of the world.

"Unseen in the rest of the world". Hmmm, I suppose you can support that statement?


All this while leaving room in society for women to rise to rulers, judges, and crafts(wo)men.

Again, see my reply to this false analogy above. Here's one for you - Frederick Douglas was a well-respected black man. Therefore there was no black slavery. Not perfect, but you should get the point.


This doesn't imply prejudice, the intent may well be the opposite.

You're hung up on intent. Misogyny is never well-intentioned, otherwise it would be called something else.


Rejecting hierarchy doesn't make it go away. This is the point often missed by the rebellious. A new hierarchy will form in its place: We are, by nature, hierarchical creatures (as is 99.9% of the animal kingdom). We can reject the current system of power, but a new one will form in its place. If we are not careful restructuring hierarchies, then we may well find we have built a new one that is oppressive and ill functioning. You can see this play out on the stage of geopolitics in real time or view history through this lens, and watch different societies restructure unto oblivion, oppression, starvation, and so on.

Talk about diversion! Is this some arse-backwards support of OT patriarchy? And therefore, misogyny?

In Genesis it says that the man was with the women, and she gave to him the fruit. Any further reading into this is futile, the details simply not there. Later in Genesis we are told the man was not deceived. For whatever reason he took the fruit anyways, and was condemned as well.

Lol - "further reading into this is futile". From the Bible expert who cannot even see that the Adam and Eve story is not literal. Soon he'll tell us the color of the fruit and why that carries great significance to the present day. Sorry for the sarcasm, but it really gets absurd when trying to discuss the Bible with literalists.


As far as Augustine being the first, hardly. He may have invented the terminology,

Not exactly, what I said was: He was the first to PROMOTE the idea. But ok.


these ideas predate him by a lot.

Not "a lot" - very few. Tertullian and the Wisdom of Solomon are not Biblical. Is it now ok if I use non-Biblical sources? In the past, that has been a major criticism of anything I write. The other "sources" for original sin are, as usual with Bible references, quite a stretch to make a point.


This concept has been in development since times immemorial.

"Time immemorial"? Exaggerate much? What HAS been in development since before and since the Enlightenment is the idea itself. Augustine, btw, had some very weird ideas, but not here for discussion. Suffice to say,"original sin" is nowhere mentioned in the Bible - a favorite argument of fundies.


Luke 3:23 has a genealogy that goes all the way back to Adam. Matthew 1 only goes to Abraham, but even so, Abraham's lineage in Genesis 11, goes to Adam.

Which one did Christ "allow"?


He's not a liar, he just said a lot of things that aren't true.

Surely, a typo on your part.


Here are some other stories Christ told:

What follows are several Bible verses that A) prove I'm evil, B) prove all Info's claims, and B) prove I'll go to hell.


Need I go on...

No, you need to begin using your intelligence, not a substitute of blind belief because the Bible tells you so.


He believed the Old Testament in its entirety and taught on these things throughout His ministries.

Of course he did. The stories were as valid during his time as they were previously.


He was either lying or crazy.

Be careful what you say about Jesus. He may send you to hell for eternity.


Patriarchy is not the question, having a patriarchy doesn't mean misogyny.

Nobody said it MEANT misogyny. What it does is allow misogyny.


Women were not second class citizens, as stated over and over again, they had many rights and duties not seen elsewhere.

You're reverting to the argument that rights that have nothing to do with certain wrongs eliminate those wrongs. Think about it.


A few simple rules like "they cant worship the same" or "they needed a man's permission" doesn't negate the fact that they were protected and cherished.

Misogynists are quite capable of protecting and cherishing. If only you could truly understand what you're saying as you dig deeper and deeper into the confusion of your own making.


A man who abused his responsibility (it wasn't a right to be over a woman) was punished accordingly.

Punishing wrongdoing does not eliminate misogyny. I know what you're trying to say, but you're not accomplishing what you want.


Furthermore, "unintentionally" means NOT MISOGYNY...it requires intent.

Wrong. I does NOT require intent. It can be carried out with the best intent in the world - it is still MISOGYNY.


Then go on, use fact to refute these things.....

The problem has nothing to do with my refutation. It has EVERYTHING to do with your
unreasoning attempt to worship a book written 2,000 years ago.


Both you and wondergirl take a piece of history or a piece of the scriptures and divine its meaning through some unknown mechanism without known facts to support an ideology you hold as truth. Why is your "reason" superior to the reasoning and wisdom of historical sources?

I use the exact same mechanism you do when discussing the Bible - or anything else for that matter. We both use our minds. Next, we differ in our approach. I question in order to understand. You do not - you simply accept the written word without question. WHY you do that is a matter for psychology, not reason. The primary reason for your acceptance is that you were born into that belief. After that, it's psychological. The answers are within you.


Do you have a crystal ball where you can look into history and decide what actually happened?

No, I have a brain that I use to examine what I want to examine.


Are your ideas "truth" over the ideas of long ago society?

Without a doubt, YES! Some of yours are, too. I'm sure you don't believe in a flat earth or that the sun revolves around the earth. At least, I hope not.


If you aren't using facts or logic, then you are simply asserting it on your own authority.

Both you and Jl have used this argument. My assertions use facts and logic to reach conclusions. You assert the literalness of the Bible based on your own authority to believe what that very Bible tells you to assert. That is your right, your choice, your assertion, your authority - no one else's. But facts and logic, it is not.

"You can't be honest and it gets old." You were going down the road of your ideas about Genesis 3 resulting in "no more binary". I called you on it and you refused to simply be honest and admit that your contention was wrong.

"Why not knock off the dopey answers and try to be a little serious?" This was the dopey answer you gave. "Oops, sorry -- forgot you don't understand anything beyond that." (speaking of literal) I would admit that "dopey" was a poor choice of words.

"Sure looks like lying to me." That was in response to your silly defense of your Genesis 3 contention. It did indeed look like lying.

All of the above came from your dishonest contention that Genesis 3 resulted in homosexual and transgender people. No such thing is ever said or even intimated. So it was not because you didn't agree with me which, I think, you full well know. It was because you were being completely evasive. None of those were ad hominem contentions. They were all based upon responses that you had made previously. And in none of them did I resort to name calling.

Athos, I can see you are misunderstanding me. Let me explain my reasoning regarding intent.

Misogyny
1. hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, manifested in various forms such as physical intimidation and abuse, sexual harassment and rape, social shunning and ostracism, etc.
2. ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against women; sexism.

Can you hate without intent? Can you dislike or mistrust without intent? Can you intimidate and abuse without intent? Can you harass without intent?

I assert that this is impossible. You can do it misinformed, ignorant, trepidatiously, and a slew of other adjectives. However, not unwillingly or unintentionally.

Lets examine "institutionalized prejudice," it seems more related to this topic.

Institutionalized
1. created and controlled by an established organization
2. established as a common and accepted part of a system or culture

The first definition seems irrelevant, as prejudice is not controlled or created by an established institution.

The most relevant definition of misogyny, relating to ancient Israel, seems to be something like "ingrained prejudice against women established as a common and accepted part of a system or culture."

How can one be unintentionally prejudiced? How can one be hostile towards an other's sex accidentally? It comes down to this: Either they hated women, thought less of women, and thought men superior, or they didn't.

How you think about something is the intent. If the thoughts are not there, then there is no intent. If they didn't feel and think a certain way about women, then they are not misogynistic.

The flavor of the OT laws is to uphold the family and to protect women; to cherish them and make room for them in society to flourish. Thus their intent is not prejudicial, and thus not misogyny. How they went about it may be good or bad, but that is a far more complex debate.

Now I challenge you to show me where biblical views regarding women engender hatred, mistrust, or dislike concerning women...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having a rule that discriminates against women is not any kind of misogyny, having a rule that discriminates against women because you hate them is misogyny.

Intent matters.

Things like murder are separate from manslaughter because intent matters, discrimination from whatever-ism because intent matters.

A law that disproportionately affects an individual group over another is not prejudice unless the intent of the law was to affect one group over another while harboring hostility and judgement of said group.

The actions are not misogynistic as much as the intent is...why did he ban women from entering? Not Did he ban women from entering?
That is the question of misogyny.

Ever since Adam and Eve’s disobedience and their rejection of God’s authority over them, men and women have been subject to conflict in their relationships.


Nope. God gave them free will.
As soon as the Evil One insinuates himself in the garden, it is to disengage, dislodge, the relationship between Adam and Eve, cause them then to be immediately opposed to the very design and role for which they have been fashioned, and as a result of that, down through that line and down through the ages, marriage itself remains under attack.

Better?
We've come a long way from Bible mandates, written millennia ago in a totally different culture, regarding marriage. Marriage is a partnership. The wife doesn't assist". Husband and wife work together as equal partners. The model for and the measure of a husband’s love is quite simply Jesus Christ.

The great issue is the matter of Christ and the church, and the love of Jesus for his own. In many ways, the Bible is a story of God choosing a wife for himself. The point is simply this: that it is only in the gospel that the great quest for this kind of unity actually ever is going to take place. If our marriages do not display the union that God intends as a result of paying attention to the instruction God provides, then you cannot have a united church with disunited husbands and wives.

If you are loving one another, if you are submitting to your husband, if you are loving your wife, then although you do nothing else, you are proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Athos-

Regarding the rest of your comments, skipping the useless responses:



Like Jl, you're playing with semantics and missing the point.

Its not so easy to dismiss my point. You have stated that disallowing women from pastoral office is misogynistic, and that misogyny is connected to violence.

If you're trying to imply that the unequal access to the pastoral office is misogynistic, then my statement stands. If you're trying to discuss why or why not women should be allowed, then refute the commandment on the grounds of biblical authority, scientific fact, or some other relevant domain.



Note the use of MURDER. Murder, by definition, is never justified or accidental or in war.


This is precisely my point, that prejudice is never justified, but discrimination is. Semantics matter.



That does NOT absolve misogyny. You're confused about justifying one because of another.


You must first demonstrate where the bible shows a hatred and dislike of women to even accuse misogyny.

I believe you are equating discrimination with prejudice. One is the action, the other is the intent. 2 separate domains.



"Unseen in the rest of the world". Hmmm, I suppose you can support that statement?

Read through the Wikipedia page regarding Legal Rights of Women. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_rights_of_women_in_history#Mosaic_law) You will see that the Jews treated their women better than nearly all ancient cultures, and most pre-modern cultures. The main exception would be Egypt. They seem to have a pretty accepting view of women in their laws. I might point out that their laws are strikingly similar to much of Israeli law. Maybe one affected the other?



You're hung up on intent. Misogyny is never well-intentioned, otherwise it would be called something else.


That's the point. The Mosaic law had good intentions, thus was not misogynistic.



Not exactly, what I said was: He was the first to PROMOTE the idea. But ok.

The idea was called many things prior to Augustine...they have been discussed for at least 200 years prior to Augustine; given apocryphal sources, it has been an idea in discussion for 200 years prior to that. There are even some obscure sources in Talmudic tradition that discuss these ideas 500+ years prior to the apocryphal sources. You can use any sources you like, as long as you use sources. I provide them when I can, and try very hard to support my arguments with full context and evidences.



What follows are several Bible verses that A) prove I'm evil, B) prove all Info's claims, and B) prove I'll go to hell.

No, what followed, was several quotes from Christ stating that the scriptures were as real to Him as an encyclopedia is to us. You reading more into these verses is on you. You cannot say He played along to teach a moral lesson when He says ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” He either is speaking established fact, was a liar or was crazy. There is no middle ground.



Nobody said it MEANT misogyny. What it does is allow misogyny.


In that case your prior point is moot. Allowing misogyny is a feature of freedom. In order to have the ability to think freely, one must allow the possibility of misogyny. What you're saying now is that the patriarchy allows misogyny while before you were saying this is why misogyny exists in that society. You even went on to explain that because of the reasoning of the patriarchs, misogyny is "such a deeply rooted part of that society."



We both use our minds.


That, again, is my point. You use your minds without examining evidences and arguments regarding the topic of debate. You mischaracterize and debase original texts to support the ideas in your minds. You ignore historical fact and common wisdom to support the ideas in your minds. You should learn with the intent of enriching your mind. Your mind is not the mechanism in which to discover the world around you, but rather the world around you should be the fertile ground in which your mind is allowed to reason and to strengthen belief and virtue.

Like Jl, you're playing with semantics and missing the point.The "go to" excuse Athos uses when he runs out of arguments. It's as though the "point" can somehow be separated from the meaning of the words and sentences used to describe it.

If you are loving one another, if you are submitting to your husband, if you are loving your wife, then although you do nothing else, you are proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ.
If the husband is physically handicapped (or becomes so) or is diagnosed with a mental illness (usually shows its face in the early 20s) or is tested and found to be on the autism spectrum (can't make decisions, is unable to make reasonable purchases for the home and pay household bills, is socially nowhere and refuses to interact with people), then what? Working together as partners in a marriage (no submission required) is proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Working together as partners in a marriage (no submission required) is proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.You cannot ignore the clear mandate of the Bible and then claim to be proclaiming the Gospel. At some point you must stop confusing your own ideas with the teachings of scripture.

I will say that submission and domination are not the same thing. The wife's job is to respect and submit to her husband. It certainly does not mean she has no responsibilities or opportunity for input. The husband's job is to love his wife in the same manner that Christ loves the church. And thus we see the true picture of complementarianism.

You cannot ignore the clear mandate of the Bible and then claim to be proclaiming the Gospel.
What is the Bible's definition of "submission", "submit to her husband"?

If I tell you what it is, are you going to accept it?

If I tell you what it is, are you going to accept it?
ACCEPT it??? Are we in the Scouts or 4-H here?

I guess that means "no".

What is the Bible's definition of "submission", "submit to her husband"?

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

I guess that means "no".
This Q&A site is here for discussion, not to proselytize.


“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Now, please give examples of how a wife is supposed to submit.

And what if the husband cannot be or can no longer be the head?

This Q&A site is here for discussion, not to proselytize.There is no point in discussing something that you have no intention whatsoever of following. What would be the point?

There is no point in discussing something that you have no intention whatsoever of following. What would be the point?
Follow? I'm required to "follow" whatever you answer? That would be me submitting, I guess. And if I don't follow, I'm destined for hellfire. *sigh*

I asked reasonable questions. How does a wife submit? Examples please.

And what if the husband cannot be or can no longer be the head?

Follow? I'm required to "follow" whatever you answer? It certainly seems that, in your view, you are under no obligation to follow the commands of the Bible. That being the case, I have no idea why you would want answers to questions. Would it be to argue and dispute?

God has given wives a clear command to submit to their husbands. Like every area of life, the marriage relationship is tainted by the consequences of sin, but Christ is exalted when husbands and wives live according to the pattern that God has provided in His Word.

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” I think it is fair to say that that is clear. That is clear. And it flies in the face of political correctness. Because it flies in the face of political correctness, it is not uncommon to find Christians who are embarrassed by this statement, who then are defensive and apologetic. And the reason for that is not because it is impossible to understand; it is because it’s virtually impossible to misunderstand—that the verb to submit is a pretty clear verb, translated elsewhere by Paul, of course, as “obey.” Hence, in the order of the marriage service, the question is addressed to the wife, “Do you promise to love, honor, and obey? Will you submit to this man who’s supposed to love you in this particular way?” Now, all of that is founded in the purposes of God.

It just means what it says. Submission is the humble recognition of God’s divine ordering of society. Society cannot function as God established it without the principle of submission being both understood and applied. So, for example, this is not a principle that is unique to marriage. It involves children. Children are to submit to their parents. When you read in the book of Hebrews you realize there that church members are to submit to their church leaders. When you read Romans chapter 13 in the opening verses, we’re told that we as citizens are to submit to our authorities.  And so, too, “wives … to your own husbands.

It certainly seems that, in your view, you are under no obligation to follow the commands of the Bible. That being the case, I have no idea why you would want answers to questions. Would it be to argue and dispute?
Okay. I get it. You don't know the answers to my questions. That's okay. I hope someone else in this thread will respond.


God has given wives a clear command to submit to their husbands. Like every area of life, the marriage relationship is tainted by the consequences of sin, but Christ is exalted when husbands and wives live according to the pattern that God has provided in His Word.

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” I think it is fair to say that that is clear. That is clear. And it flies in the face of political correctness. Because it flies in the face of political correctness, it is not uncommon to find Christians who are embarrassed by this statement, who then are defensive and apologetic. And the reason for that is not because it is impossible to understand; it is because it’s virtually impossible to misunderstand—that the verb to submit is a pretty clear verb, translated elsewhere by Paul, of course, as “obey.” Hence, in the order of the marriage service, the question is addressed to the wife, “Do you promise to love, honor, and obey? Will you submit to this man who’s supposed to love you in this particular way?” Now, all of that is founded in the purposes of God.

It just means what it says. Submission is the humble recognition of God’s divine ordering of society. Society cannot function as God established it without the principle of submission being both understood and applied. So, for example, this is not a principle that is unique to marriage. It involves children. Children are to submit to their parents. When you read in the book of Hebrews you realize there that church members are to submit to their church leaders. When you read Romans chapter 13 in the opening verses, we’re told that we as citizens are to submit to our authorities. And so, too, “wives … to your own husbands.
I still have no idea what you mean when you use the word "submit". 1) Please give three examples. 2) And what if the husband cannot be or can no longer be the head?

Actually I’m saying that there is no point in explaining these things to someone who already has her mind made up and generally has no real interest in what the Bible says.

Well, the submission that is called for is to be voluntary rather than enforced and is to be joyful rather than begrudging. Voluntary rather than enforced and joyful rather than begrudging.  First of all, that the call is to “submit to your own husbands,” not to everybody’s husband. Secondly, “as to the Lord.” As to the Lord. you’ll remember he (Paul) said, “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.” When he gets to the issue of children, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord.” When he gets to bondservants and masters: “Obey your earthly masters … as you would Christ … doing the will of God from the heart.” So in other words, the whole issue within the framework of marriage, then, is that the desire of the woman to submit to the Lord is revealed in part in her submission to her husband. That’s what it means, “as to the Lord.” “Part of my responsibility,” says the wife, “to you, Lord Jesus Christ, is to live under your lordship. And because I’m going to live under your lordship, I’m going to submit to this guy.

Not perfect, horribly imperfect in many ways, dumber than a brick in certain areas,” and so on. This is just her own private conversation; she’s not saying this out loud.

Very well said Walter. I would only add that the Ephesians passage begins with an exhortation to submit one to another, probably with the idea that we put the other person’s welfare before our own.

Actually I’m saying that there is no point in explaining these things to someone who already has her mind made up and generally has no real interest in what the Bible says.
What a colossal insult!!! I'm a PK, was a Lutheran school teacher, Sunday school teacher/adult Bible class teacher, AND was born on Martin Luther's birthday (but different year).


Well, the submission that is called for is to be voluntary rather than enforced and is to be joyful rather than begrudging. Voluntary rather than enforced and joyful rather than begrudging. First of all, that the call is to “submit to your own husbands,” not to everybody’s husband. Secondly, “as to the Lord.” As to the Lord. you’ll remember he (Paul) said, “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.” When he gets to the issue of children, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord.” When he gets to bondservants and masters: “Obey your earthly masters … as you would Christ … doing the will of God from the heart.” So in other words, the whole issue within the framework of marriage, then, is that the desire of the woman to submit to the Lord is revealed in part in her submission to her husband. That’s what it means, “as to the Lord.” “Part of my responsibility,” says the wife, “to you, Lord Jesus Christ, is to live under your lordship. And because I’m going to live under your lordship, I’m going to submit to this guy.

I still want at least three examples. Please.

And what if the husband cannot be or can no longer be the head?

A colossal insult? So you are saying that if the Bible clearly teaches that wives are to submit to their husbands then you will accept that?

if not, then perhaps it was a colossal truth?

Chrysostom was the archbishop of Constantinople, one of the early church fathers. He was the archbishop in the fourth century; he died in 407 AD. And he had his own comments on Ephesians 5. And at one point he made this observation, or he asked this question: “Hast thou seen the measure of obedience?”—referring to the call to the wife to submit to her husband. “Hast thou seen the measure of obedience? Hear also the measure of love. Wouldst thou that thy wife should obey thee as the church doth Christ? Have care thyself for her as Christ for the church.”


I would only add that the Ephesians passage begins withNoted.

What Paul is saying here is this: that just as Christ has loved the church—so as to give himself up for her, so as to fashion her in such a way that she will appear finally in all of her magnificent glory and splendor—the responsibility of the husband’s love is about that more than anything else.


I still want at least three examples. Please. Take look at Post 110.

A colossal insult?
Yes, your nasty comment to me.


Take look at Post 110.
There are no examples there except to "submit".

An example is: George asked his wife Susan to bake oatmeal raisin cookies. She baked them that afternoon and thereby submitted to George.

It just means what it says. Submission is the humble recognition of God’s divine ordering of society. Society cannot function as God established it without the principle of submission being both understood and applied. So, for example, this is not a principle that is unique to marriage. It involves children. Children are to submit to their parents. When you read in the book of Hebrews you realize there that church members are to submit to their church leaders. When you read Romans chapter 13 in the opening verses, we’re told that we as citizens are to submit to our authorities.  And so, too, “wives … to your own husbands.


There are no examples there except to "submit". You are not seeing because you are not believing (possible)?

Nasty comment? No. Just the truth as your non response clearly shows.

Nasty comment? No. Just the truth as your non response clearly shows.
And what does YOUR non response show?


You are not seeing because you are not believing (possible)?
If your Bible class teacher asked you for an example of a wife submitting to her husband, what would you say?

My understanding that long experience has shown that you care more about your liberal views than the views of the Bible.

My understanding that long experience has shown that you care more about your liberal views than the views of the Bible.
You are very wrong.

an example of a wife submitting to her husband, what would you say?


Submit:
Accept or yield to a superior force or to the authority or will of another person.

Wouldst thou that thy wife should obey thee as the church doth Christ. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. Maybe you should forget everything you have learned, Everything you think you know about life, God, and the Bible.
Clear your mind and start afresh. Pray that God reveals himself to you.

Submit:
Accept or yield to a superior force or to the authority or will of another person.

Wouldst thou that thy wife should obey thee as the church doth Christ. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
A real-life EXAMPLE!!!

An example is: George asked his wife Susan to bake oatmeal raisin cookies. She baked them that afternoon and thereby submitted to George.

I certainly hope I am wrong. I see no reason to believe otherwise, but perhaps you will surprise me. I do wish you well.

I certainly hope I am wrong. I see no reason to believe otherwise, but perhaps you will surprise me. I do wish you well.
What exactly are my "liberal views"?

Liberal is bad; conservative is good?

You are a well-educated, accomplished woman, and yet you claim to need examples to understand what the widely known word "submit" means. It all gets old and tiresome. You believe the Bible unless, of course, it disagrees with you, and then you don't believe it unless asked when, again, you claim to believe it. And on and on it goes.

A day is coming, dear WG, when every mouth will be stopped.

A real-life EXAMPLE!!!Your speaking Of A life I No Longer Subscribe To.
This can not be done outside the Gospel of life. 

In Genesis 3 we have the record. The serpent comes and deceives Eve, and she listens to the serpent rather than listens to Adam. Adam in turn listens to Eve instead of fulfilling his responsibility to lead Eve, and neither of the two of them listen to God. And the result is disastrous. It’s disastrous.

So God says, “Here’s how it’s gonna go from here, folks. Let me tell you how this will work.” To the woman he said, I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing. There would have been no pain in childbearing. There would have been no reason for any kind of anesthetic help. There would be no epidurals. No. No, no, no. In pain you shall bring forth your children. It’s one of the implications of the fall of man. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband. Instead of desiring to submit to your husband, you’ll just try and assert your leadership over your husband. That’s how it’ll go. “But he will rule over you.” Whether that means he will rule over you the way that he should or he will rule over you in a desire to dominate you according to his own desire, I’m not certain. I think probably the latter rather than the former. Here is where the Bible comes into play.

We can think about our world in terms of the good, the bad, the new, and the perfect. Good, bad, new, perfect. Good: God’s creation. Perfect, absolutely good. Bad: the fall of man, rebellion against God. The new, when Genesis 3:15 is fulfilled in Jesus: “The offspring will bruise his heel and he will crush his head.”

In other words, in Jesus we have a second Adam. The first Adam disobeyed, rebelled, created chaos. Christ comes as a second Adam, and he obeys where Adam fails. He takes the judgment that Adam deserved. So that what, as a result of the fall, is distorted and broken, the Lord Jesus then renews and repairs. So that Christian marriage, according to the pattern and plan of God, is only possible in Christ.

It’s not possible to even approximate to this, because by nature, I don’t want to love my wife the way Christ loved the church. That’s going to take a tremendous amount of effort, and a lot of other stuff too. And you don’t want to submit to your husbands. Goodness gracious!

So why would we do it? Well, because God says we would do it. Well, how would we do it? “Holy Spirit, breath of God, breathe your life into my miserable little existence. Fashion me according to your purposes. Make it possible for me, in my marriage, to give something of at least a flashlight in the darkness through all the bits and pieces—through the times of success and failure, the disappointments, the bad parts of the journey, the times when we’ve almost ruined it completely, but here we are, we’re still alive, we’re still here. And we’re saying, ‘Lord Jesus Christ, help me now. I don’t know how much longer we’ve got left in this amazing experiment of marriage down here. But help me then to do what your Word says.’

Can’t make it any clearer than that Walter. Well done.

Your speaking Of A life I No Longer Subscribe To.
This can not be done outside the Gospel of life.


You totally misunderstand my request for an example.

Like this:

Susan has a high-paying job and wants to buy a 2021 Kia Seltos. Jim, her husband, wants her to buy a 2021 Ford F-150 (guess why!). Susan submits to him and buys what he wants her to buy. Or, Jim becomes a vegan and tells Susan she must prepare only vegan dishes for both of them. Susan is not at all fond of vegan food, but submits to Jim.


Can’t make it any clearer than that Walter. Well done.
His post was as clear as mud and not at all what I asked for.

You are a well-educated, accomplished woman, and yet you claim to need examples to understand what the widely known word "submit" means. It all gets old and tiresome. You believe the Bible unless, of course, it disagrees with you, and then you don't believe it unless asked when, again, you claim to believe it. And on and on it goes.
And on, and on and on!


not at all what I asked for.Why don't you ask yourself? It appears as if you have not a clue!
You can follow that sinful nature or you can give it up and follow Jesus. You have free will (which you continually point out).
Submit to Jesus is Voluntary.

And on, and on and on!
In other words, you guys have absolutely NO idea what the word "submit" means in Bible terms. You're just saying the word over and over again.

Why don't you ask yourself? It appears as if you have not a clue!
You can follow that sinful nature or you can give it up and follow Jesus.
It has nothing to do with following anyone's sinful nature!!!

How does a wife show with her deeds that she submits to her husband?

Submit = obey.

Knowing even now that this will do no good whatsoever for someone who cares not one whit about the meaning of "submit", I put this forward just so I can say I did. In the unlikely event you really would like to know, there is ample material below.

The Meaning of Hupotasso (Submission)

Hupotassō is the Greek word from which we get the terms relating to submission in marriage. In the New Testament it usually appears as submit, subject, or submissive. The definition from two Greek dictionaries is given below.
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
hupotassō G5293
to subordinate; reflexively to obey: – be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.

Thayer’s Greek Definitions
hupotassō G5293
1) to arrange under, to subordinate 2) to subject, put in subjection 3) to subject one’s self, obey 4) to submit to one’s control 5) to yield to one’s admonition or advice 6) to obey, be subject


Strong's #5293: hupotasso (pronounced hoop-ot-as'-so)from 5259 and 5021; to subordinate; reflexively, to obey:--be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.


Thayer's Greek Lexicon:̔́hupotassō1) to arrange under, to subordinate2) to subject, put in subjection3) to subject one' s self, obey4) to submit to one' s control5) to yield to one' s admonition or advice6) to obey, be subjectPart of Speech: verbRelation: from G5259 and G5021Citing in TDNT: 8:39, 1156


Usage:This word is used 40 times:Luke 2:51 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/25025/eVerseID/25025/opt/inter): "Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother"
Luke 10:17 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/25381/eVerseID/25381/opt/inter): "even the devils are subject unto us through thy name."
Luke 10:20 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/25384/eVerseID/25384/opt/inter): "that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice,"
Romans 8:7 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/28124/eVerseID/28124/opt/inter): "against God: for it is not subject to the law of God,"
Romans 8:20 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/28137/eVerseID/28137/opt/inter): "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but"
Romans 8:20 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/28137/eVerseID/28137/opt/inter): "willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,"
Romans 10:3 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/28192/eVerseID/28192/opt/inter): "their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."
Romans 13:1 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/28268/eVerseID/28268/opt/inter): "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no"
Romans 13:5 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/28272/eVerseID/28272/opt/inter): "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but"
1 Corinthians 14:32 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/28711/eVerseID/28711/opt/inter): "And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets."
1 Corinthians 14:34 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/28713/eVerseID/28713/opt/inter): "unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the"
1 Corinthians 15:27 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/28746/eVerseID/28746/opt/inter): "For he hath put all things under his feet. But when"
1 Corinthians 15:27 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/28746/eVerseID/28746/opt/inter): "when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted,"
1 Corinthians 15:27 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/28746/eVerseID/28746/opt/inter): "are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him."
1 Corinthians 15:28 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/28747/eVerseID/28747/opt/inter): "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son"
1 Corinthians 15:28 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/28747/eVerseID/28747/opt/inter): "Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that"
1 Corinthians 15:28 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/28747/eVerseID/28747/opt/inter): "also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God"
1 Corinthians 16:16 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/28793/eVerseID/28793/opt/inter): "That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with"
Ephesians 1:22 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/29229/eVerseID/29229/opt/inter): "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave"
Ephesians 5:21 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/29326/eVerseID/29326/opt/inter): " Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God."
Ephesians 5:22 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/29327/eVerseID/29327/opt/inter): "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord."
Ephesians 5:24 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/29329/eVerseID/29329/opt/inter): "as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives"
Philippians 3:21 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/29443/eVerseID/29443/opt/inter): "he is able even to subdue all things unto himself."
Colossians 3:18 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/29536/eVerseID/29536/opt/inter): "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."
Titus 2:5 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/29914/eVerseID/29914/opt/inter): "chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the"
Titus 2:9 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/29918/eVerseID/29918/opt/inter): "Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all"
Titus 3:1 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/29925/eVerseID/29925/opt/inter): "Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be"
Hebrews 2:5 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/29983/eVerseID/29983/opt/inter): "For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof"
Hebrews 2:8 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/29986/eVerseID/29986/opt/inter): " Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under"
Hebrews 2:8 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/29986/eVerseID/29986/opt/inter): "under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left"
Hebrews 2:8 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/29986/eVerseID/29986/opt/inter): "But now we see not yet all things put under him."
Hebrews 12:9 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/30222/eVerseID/30222/opt/inter): "shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and"
James 4:7 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/30345/eVerseID/30345/opt/inter): " Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee"
1 Peter 2:13 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/30413/eVerseID/30413/opt/inter): " Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake:"
1 Peter 2:18 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/30418/eVerseID/30418/opt/inter): "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only"
1 Peter 3:1 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/30426/eVerseID/30426/opt/inter): "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not"
1 Peter 3:5 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/30430/eVerseID/30430/opt/inter): "God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:"
1 Peter 3:22 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/30447/eVerseID/30447/opt/inter): "authorities and powers being made subject unto him."
1 Peter 5:5 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/30471/eVerseID/30471/opt/inter): "Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another,"
1 Peter 5:5 (https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/30471/eVerseID/30471/opt/inter): "unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility:"

All that and no real-life examples. (Yes, I too can google and find all the same nothingness you did, JL.)

Real-life examples:

Darlynn wants a baby. Matt says no. Darlynn submits to her husband's wishes and no longer asks.

Huey wants sex every Saturday morning at 9:30. Ingrid finds activities for their kids to do unsupervised during the time needed. Ingrid submits to her husband's wishes.

Except you didn't. Why? Because you don't care, and because you probably can't look up NT Greek words.

What you posted, JL, DID NOT AT ALL answer my plea to provide real-life examples. You simply defined the word and parroted others regarding the word "submit". PLUS, you threw in insults.

How does a wife show with her deeds that she submits to her husband?let’s be clear: when the Bible talks about submission, it has nothing to do with ability. It’s not about ability. It is about order. It’s about God’s order.
A real-life EXAMPLE!!! unless we believe in the absolute authority and infallibility of the Bible, there is no basis for us to propound these truths, to believe them, and to live in the light of them. The whole issue of submission, and therefore of authority, is very, very clear in the Bible (real-life). And so we start from the premise that the Bible is the Word of God. our identity as men and women is not tied to whether we’re in a relationship or not. Our identity is not in relationship to whether we are married or we are single. Our identity is, first of all, as made in the image of God, and then, secondly, as redeemed by the grace of God—those of us who are in Christ. And we also tried to make sure that we understand that this whole section, as Paul says, is about Christ and the church.

let’s be clear: when the Bible talks about submission, it has nothing to do with ability.
I'm not talking about her ability; I'm asking for examples of behavior.

So how would you know a woman is submissive?

what we’re dealing with when we talk in terms of this submission is, if you like, the kind of submission that is my hand to my head. It’s imperative that my hand is in submission to my head. In fact, if this starts to go, it may be an indication of convulsions, it could be a case of some kind of atrophy, whatever it might be—something is broken, something is wrong. There’s no sense in which it is a matter of inferiority; it is the order of things.

what we’re dealing with when we talk in terms of this submission is, if you like, the kind of submission that is my hand to my head. It’s imperative that my hand is in submission to my head. In fact, if this starts to go, it may be an indication of convulsions, it could be a case of some kind of atrophy, whatever it might be—something is broken, something is wrong. There’s no sense in which it is a matter of inferiority; it is the order of things.
You're very frisky -- hopping, skipping, and jumping over my question -- How would you know a woman is submissive?

Ah, I just found an answer! She's a Stepford wife, from the novel by Ira Levin -- a term used to describe a servile, compliant, submissive, spineless wife who happily does her husband's bidding and serves his every whim dutifully.

Unless we believe in the absolute authority and infallibility of the Bible, there is no basis for us to propound these truths, to believe them, and to live in the light of them.
Ah, I just found an answer! She's a Stepford wife, from the novel by Ira Levin -- a term used to describe a servile, compliant, submissive, spineless wife who happily does her husband's bidding and serves his every whim dutifully. (I knew you had it in you)
I'm glad you found the example you were looking for. you still owe yourself two more, change the channel and you will know the real-life answers to your question.
 

This is right on!

I will re-post it (provided WG is done refuting God's Word?)...Don't want Athos missing out.


Originally posted by:InfoJunkie4Life

Athos-

Regarding the rest of your comments, skipping the useless responses:


Quote Originally Posted by Athos
Like Jl, you're playing with semantics and missing the point.
Its not so easy to dismiss my point. You have stated that disallowing women from pastoral office is misogynistic, and that misogyny is connected to violence.

If you're trying to imply that the unequal access to the pastoral office is misogynistic, then my statement stands. If you're trying to discuss why or why not women should be allowed, then refute the commandment on the grounds of biblical authority, scientific fact, or some other relevant domain.


Quote Originally Posted by Athos
Note the use of MURDER. Murder, by definition, is never justified or accidental or in war.
This is precisely my point, that prejudice is never justified, but discrimination is. Semantics matter.


Quote Originally Posted by Athos
That does NOT absolve misogyny. You're confused about justifying one because of another.
You must first demonstrate where the bible shows a hatred and dislike of women to even accuse misogyny.

I believe you are equating discrimination with prejudice. One is the action, the other is the intent. 2 separate domains.


Quote Originally Posted by Athos
"Unseen in the rest of the world". Hmmm, I suppose you can support that statement?
Read through the Wikipedia page regarding Legal Rights of Women. You will see that the Jews treated their women better than nearly all ancient cultures, and most pre-modern cultures. The main exception would be Egypt. They seem to have a pretty accepting view of women in their laws. I might point out that their laws are strikingly similar to much of Israeli law. Maybe one affected the other?


Quote Originally Posted by Athos
You're hung up on intent. Misogyny is never well-intentioned, otherwise it would be called something else.
That's the point. The Mosaic law had good intentions, thus was not misogynistic.


Quote Originally Posted by Athos
Not exactly, what I said was: He was the first to PROMOTE the idea. But ok.
The idea was called many things prior to Augustine...they have been discussed for at least 200 years prior to Augustine; given apocryphal sources, it has been an idea in discussion for 200 years prior to that. There are even some obscure sources in Talmudic tradition that discuss these ideas 500+ years prior to the apocryphal sources. You can use any sources you like, as long as you use sources. I provide them when I can, and try very hard to support my arguments with full context and evidences.


Quote Originally Posted by Athos
What follows are several Bible verses that A) prove I'm evil, B) prove all Info's claims, and B) prove I'll go to hell.
No, what followed, was several quotes from Christ stating that the scriptures were as real to Him as an encyclopedia is to us. You reading more into these verses is on you. You cannot say He played along to teach a moral lesson when He says ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” He either is speaking established fact, was a liar or was crazy. There is no middle ground.


Quote Originally Posted by Athos
Nobody said it MEANT misogyny. What it does is allow misogyny.
In that case your prior point is moot. Allowing misogyny is a feature of freedom. In order to have the ability to think freely, one must allow the possibility of misogyny. What you're saying now is that the patriarchy allows misogyny while before you were saying this is why misogyny exists in that society. You even went on to explain that because of the reasoning of the patriarchs, misogyny is "such a deeply rooted part of that society."


Quote Originally Posted by Athos
We both use our minds.
That, again, is my point. You use your minds without examining evidences and arguments regarding the topic of debate. You mischaracterize and debase original texts to support the ideas in your minds. You ignore historical fact and common wisdom to support the ideas in your minds. You should learn with the intent of enriching your mind. Your mind is not the mechanism in which to discover the world around you, but rather the world around you should be the fertile ground in which your mind is allowed to reason and to strengthen belief and virtue.

provided WG is done refuting God's Word
How has WG refuted God's Word?


I'm glad you found the example you were looking for. you still owe yourself two more, change the channel and you will know the real-life answers to your question.

You have no sense of humor -- nor do you recognize irony when you read it.

His post was as clear as mud and not at all what I asked for.
An example is:
1)  George asked his wife Susan to bake oatmeal raisin cookies. She baked them that afternoon and thereby submitted to George.

Like this:
2) Susan has a high-paying job and wants to buy a 2021 Kia Seltos. Jim, her husband, wants her to buy a 2021 Ford F-150 (guess why!). Susan submits to him and buys what he wants her to buy. Or, Jim becomes a vegan and tells Susan she must prepare only vegan dishes for both of them. Susan is not at all fond of vegan food but submits to Jim.

3) Darlynn wants a baby. Matt says no. Darlynn submits to her husband's wishes and no longer asks.
4)Huey wants sex every Saturday morning at 9:30. Ingrid finds activities for their kids to do unsupervised during the time needed. Ingrid submits to her husband's wishes.
5)She's a Stepford wife, from the novel by Ira Levin -- a term used to describe a servile, compliant, submissive, spineless wife who happily does her husband's bidding and serves his every whim dutifully.  
Is this what you were looking for (look above)?
You need focus. Jesus is our example. Jesus Christ is the king of the universe and obedience demands that we submit to his rule. To be obedient to God we must submit to Jesus Christ.


JL (quote)You are a well-educated, accomplished woman, and yet you claim to need examples to understand what the widely known word "submit" means. It all gets old and tiresome. You believe the Bible unless, of course, it disagrees with you, and then you don't believe it unless asked when, again, you claim to believe it. And on and on it goes.
WG, when you pick up the Bible believe it is God's word. Eliminate your own understanding, allowing the Word to take hold of you. It is your faith that brings truth (the word) to life.

Eliminate your own understanding, allowing the Word to take hold of you.
And give me an example (NOT the meaning) of submit. What specifically do I do when I submit?

What specifically do I do when I submit?
You do it of your own free will...giving up (put to death) free will, in exchange for the will of God.

You will have to pray about it, allowing Jesus to be your guide.

You do it of your own free will...giving up your free will, in exchange for the will of God.

You will have to pray about it, allowing Jesus to be your guide.
Give up my free will for what? (Didn't the Creator give us free will?) And this isn't about giving my free will to God. The question on the table has to do with a wife submitting to her husband. How? Why? When?

Didn't the Creator give us free will?
Yup. He gave us Breath of life as well.


And this isn't about giving my free will to God.
I understand. Feel free to choose your own will over God's. Why ask me for examples, just use the ones you already gave.

Yup. He gave us Breath of life as well.
The question on the table has to do with a wife submitting to her husband. How? Why? When?

Stop being obstinate.
The question on the table has to do with a wife submitting to her husband. How? Why? When? Previous posts will inform you. If not, read your Bible.

The whole person is the soul, not just part of it. Man became a living soul when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (Genesis 2:7), and when man dies his body goes back to the dust from whence it came (Ecclesiastes 12:7 & Job 34:15), and the spirit (ie., the breadth of life) goes back to God who gave it.

He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him

Either they hated women, thought less of women, and thought men superior, or they didn't.

Now I challenge you to show me where biblical views regarding women engender hatred, mistrust, or dislike concerning women...

I never said Bible culture reflected hatred of women. But I do agree with the part of your statement above that it reflects "thinking less of women" and "men thinking themselves superior". The verses below clearly show superiority and mistrust of women.

Here are some examples you asked for:

Genesis 2. God directly breathes life into Adam but Eve is created from Adam's rib. Adam names Eve. All three are indicative of Adam's superiority.

Genesis 3. God decrees that Adam shall rule over Eve.

Genesis 4. God permits men to have more than one wife. Solomon had over 700. No woman is permitted more than a single husband.

Genesis 19. To protect his visitors, Lot allows his two virgin daughters to be raped. Accepted behavior by Lot.

Exodus 20:17. The wife is regarded as a piece of property of her father. At marriage, transfer of ownership goes to her husband.

Leviticus. No women priests.

Deuteronomy 22. A woman must be a virgin before marriage. Men don't have to be.

Deuteronomy. A husband can divorce his wife. A woman cannot divorce her husband.

1 Corinthians. A husband is the head of his wife.

Ephesians. Women should submit to their husbands in everything.

1 Peter. Women are the weaker vessel.

Plus Paul's admonition previously noted.

These clearly show that women are considered second class citizens alhough they can certainly be loved and cherished.

Previous posts will inform you. If not, read your Bible.Exactly correct, Walter. Anyone who truly wants to know has enough material to know several times over by know. Everything else would appear to be just a smokescreen. Hopefully I have misread something there.

Second class citizens?

26 (http://biblehub.com/galatians/3-26.htm)For you are all childrenm (https://biblehub.com/nlt/galatians/3.htm#footnotes) of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 (http://biblehub.com/galatians/3-27.htm)And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes.n (https://biblehub.com/nlt/galatians/3.htm#footnotes) 28 (http://biblehub.com/galatians/3-28.htm)There is no longer Jew or Gentile,o (https://biblehub.com/nlt/galatians/3.htm#footnotes) slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 (http://biblehub.com/galatians/3-29.htm)And now that you belong to Christ, you are the true childrenp (https://biblehub.com/nlt/galatians/3.htm#footnotes) of Abraham. You are his heirs, and God’s promise to Abraham belongs to you.

The 1 Peter passage, untruncated and non-paraphrased, reads thus. "Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered."

Note the many women greeted in Romans 16. 1 (https://biblehub.com/romans/16-1.htm)I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servanta (https://biblehub.com/bsb/romans/16.htm#fn) of the church in Cenchrea. 2 (https://biblehub.com/romans/16-2.htm)Welcome her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her with anything she may need from you. For she has been a great help to many people, including me.3 (https://biblehub.com/romans/16-3.htm)Greet Priscab (https://biblehub.com/bsb/romans/16.htm#fn) and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4 (https://biblehub.com/romans/16-4.htm)who have risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. 5 (https://biblehub.com/romans/16-5.htm)Greet also the church that meets at their house.Greet my beloved Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia.c (https://biblehub.com/bsb/romans/16.htm#fn)6 (https://biblehub.com/romans/16-6.htm)Greet Mary, who has worked very hard for you.7 (https://biblehub.com/romans/16-7.htm)Greet Andronicus and Junia,d (https://biblehub.com/bsb/romans/16.htm#fn) my fellow countrymen and fellow prisoners. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.8 (https://biblehub.com/romans/16-8.htm)Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord.9 (https://biblehub.com/romans/16-9.htm)Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and my beloved Stachys.10 (https://biblehub.com/romans/16-10.htm)Greet Apelles, who is approved in Christ.Greet those who belong to the household of Aristobulus.11 (https://biblehub.com/romans/16-11.htm)Greet Herodion, my fellow countryman.Greet those from the household of Narcissus who are in the Lord.12 (https://biblehub.com/romans/16-12.htm)Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, women who have worked hard in the Lord.Greet my beloved Persis, who has worked very hard in the Lord.13 (https://biblehub.com/romans/16-13.htm)Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me as well.14 (https://biblehub.com/romans/16-14.htm)Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brothers with them.15 (https://biblehub.com/romans/16-15.htm)Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all the saints with them.

I think you don't understand complementarianism. It does not imply spiritual inferiority at all.

Wondergirl-

Submission does simply mean obey. Your example is valid with the F150. I had a similar situation with my wife just a few months ago.

We got a HHR a few years ago. It wasn't really either of our choice vehicle. It just happened to be something we could afford, and we were in a pinch, so we got it.

The HHR served us well. I decided (not we) to sell the thing, it has been accumulating issues faster than I can fix them. I've put some money in it making it run right and look good, I thought it was a good time to sell. Right now it is sitting on an auto lot for sale.

I decided on a GMC Vandura. My wife would prefer something else. In reality, she is just happy to have something she can drive while I'm at work. She is willing to submit to my authority, and trust my judgement.

My concern is for her. This is a reliable vehicle that is safe for her. But there were other considerations. I needed something bigger for my company. I needed something I could haul with occasionally. Since we got the van, she has been pleased, and I have been able to increase our income and decrease some of the stresses I have.

She made this easy for me, because, she is submissive. Someday, I hope to get her the nice little new car she wants. This goes both ways. A wife should be submissive to her husband, while a husband should be submissive to God. God tells me to take care of my wife and consider her happiness and well being. I don't tell her how to run her life, she makes her own decisions, as a woman, as a free person. However, this household is my responsibility, and I take that seriously. I make sure there is always enough money that we don't get put out. I make sure that if she is doing something I think is wrong, that she knows. My job is not to control her or to dominate her, but to guide her and love her and be there for her. She respects this, and me, and tends to be submissive in that manner. I trust her judgement, and consider her always, but I'm the one who gets the final say. Usually she gets what she wants, because I get the final say, she would readily give up what she wants for what I want.

If we had the money to get 3 cars, or I didn't need the larger vehicle, then I would have let her go car shopping, but that was not the case. For better or worse, I got the decision, and the consequences. I'm not always right either, and she's quick to point that out. This gives me respect for her and what she has to say. I do not discount her wisdom, she is often wiser than me, and I respect this about her. I often change my thinking about certain things because of her. I cherish her and care for her deeply. But without submission, this would be difficult. We can't share the same life and both dominate, when that happens, we are no longer sharing the same life, but rather sharing the same space and living our own lives.

How is that for an example?

Yayyyy...Athos is back!



Genesis 2. God directly breathes life into Adam but Eve is created from Adam's rib. Adam names Eve. All three are indicative of Adam's superiority.

Genesis 3. God decrees that Adam shall rule over Eve.


This does not prove men are superior, but rather that they have been given authority. Two very different things.



Genesis 4. God permits men to have more than one wife. Solomon had over 700. No woman is permitted more than a single husband.

Genesis 19. To protect his visitors, Lot allows his two virgin daughters to be raped. Accepted behavior by Lot.


The Genesis 19 story about Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot would have allowed it, however, it didn't happen the men were struck with blindness, and God burned the city to the ground. But I get the point. A better example lies in Judges 19-21. The story is similar, however, the concubine given to the men was abused until morning and died. This caused a war, and that city was burnt to the ground. Their wickedness was repaid.

These are both great stories that emphasize sin. Not the shortcomings of the law. It is true that this was accepted behavior, it was the "decent" thing to do regarding their hospitality rules, but also true that it is not correct behavior by the law.

The law clearly states that sexual immorality is punishable by death. In both cases, there was much death as a result of these actions. These are stories whereby we can see God's grace with dealing with the sinner, while still understanding His law regarding the sin. Lot was later raped by his own daughters and his legacy, Moab and Ammon, are constant thorns in the side of the Israelites. Isaiah 1 Tells us that sin begets destruction, and greater sin begets greater destruction. Sin breeds sin. I might also point out, that the Genesis story was prior to the law, it had not yet been given by God to Moses.

The facts change slightly with the Levite. The rule of law has been established in the land of Israel by the time of the Judges 19 story. The wickedness of the city is much the same as that of Sodom and the facts surrounding the encounter with the mob is much the same. There were no angels there to protect the Levite, however, and mob was assuaged by the wife of the Levite. This resulted in her death. The circumstances leading up to this, are vastly different though. It was the father in law (probably) that sent out his daughter (the Levite's wife), she was unfaithful to the Levite, and that's how he ended up at her father's house.

These are stories of how destruction befalls sinners, and how God's mercy can work through the sin of man. These are not exemplifications of sin and a righteous society.



Exodus 20:17. The wife is regarded as a piece of property of her father. At marriage, transfer of ownership goes to her husband.


Exodus 20:17 simply says one should not desire what isn't his...it is part of the 10 Commandments.

Exodus 22:17?

Here a man may lie with a woman and the father has the right to allow a marriage or disallow a marriage, given she is not betrothed to another. That was the penalty for the act, the man must marry the woman, and would never be able to seek a divorce, as this would give the wife more power over a weaker man. The consent of the woman is not considered, that is left to the family to decide. If she was raped, the father may deny the marriage, and the man fined for his actions, paying the father the dowry price. If it was consensual the father may allow the marriage, and still receive the dowry. This was the freedom granted to the cities and the families, to decide amongst themselves how to handle certain issues. There were also other laws restricting this, if the woman was kidnapped, then the kidnapper was to be put to death. It must also be understood, that women were usually betrothed at a very young age, and that the penalty for rape of a betrothed woman was death.

She is still a human, with rights in the law. She is, however, under the authority of her father, and then after marriage, under the authority of her husband.



Leviticus. No women priests.

This does not denote women as inferior, but rather, that men and women had different duties. You can't be president, why? You are not allowed. Is this discrimination some -ism against you? Should everyone be allowed to be president? There are laws that govern structure to have order and function within a society.

In 1 Corinthians 12 it is explained as analogy to the body. "But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it."

This applies to anyone. The bible teaches us to have peace with our station in life, that to be rebellious is sin, that the law is to be followed, etc. Even in this, we are one in Christ, and equal before God.



Deuteronomy 22. A woman must be a virgin before marriage. Men don't have to be.

This applies to the dowry. If a woman was a virgin, then the dowry was set. A girl who was not a virgin was either a widow, or already had the dowry paid by a previous suitor (Divorced or otherwise not married). Men did not have dowries, they were expected to have already made a living for themselves and enough extra to purchase the dowry as proof of their financial readiness to have a wife. There were other laws that limited this also.



Deuteronomy. A husband can divorce his wife. A woman cannot divorce her husband.


Although true, a woman was not without recourse. She could force a man to divorce her by being contentious, or having by some uncleanness about her. Furthermore, divorce was a bad thing. It was sin that was allowed under the law. It wasn't anything that should have been done by either party. It was seen as a terrible thing that should only be done under the worst of circumstances, not something that should be granted as a right under the law.



1 Peter. Women are the weaker vessel.


Women are the weaker vessel, that is why God commands men to protect their daughters and wives.

I know no body likes to talk about this, but it is biology.

Inferior and superior are relative terms.

The structure of Mosaic laws is that all men and women are under the authority of the law.

The law delegates certain responsibilities to men.

The law delegates certain responsibilities to leaders.

The law delegates certain responsibilities to religious practice.

Men are under the authority of leaders.

Women are under the authority of men, but because both are under the authority of the law, they are equally protected by the law.

The law allows certain sins and punishes others.

The law allowed the authority of a leader to impact the authority of other men.

It was a rather beautiful system that gave room for the tribes to govern themselves, under the law, cities under the tribes, and men to govern their families under the laws of the cities (or the land of the tribes where there were no cites).

It was your responsibility to govern properly, or you would face consequences. Corruption would happen, as in the Judges 19 story, and other tribes would war over this, and rightfully so.

P.S.

It is also true that Christians do not have live by these laws. The OT is a series of promises between God and Man regarding the governing of Israel. It is a book of histories of the chosen people of God. It is so much more than that, but not a rule book for Christians.

Wondergirl-

Submission does simply mean obey. Your example is valid with the F150. I had a similar situation with my wife just a few months ago.
Terrific example, InfoJunkie! I'd call her "submission" as simply being agreeable to your needs. It sounds more like you are equal partners with fair give and take.

God permits men to have more than one wife. We should not assume that everything done by a godly person in the Bible is automatically approved of by God. All of these men and women were clearly sinners. The Bible is unique amongst ancient documents in that it presents its heroes as very “human.” David, Solomon, Samuel, Abraham, Sarah, Moses and others are definitely presented as sinners who, in some cases, committed horrible mistakes. Therefore, if I comment on whether “white lies” are OK, the fact that Rahab told one is not really relevant to the question of whether it is okay to do such a thing. We must look to specific Bible commands and principles, not to individual stories to determine what is right behavior. We can comment on whether or not Rahab?s actions were sinful, but Rahab?s or Jacob?s or
Isaiah?s actions are not a standard for us to use in determining correct ethical or moral behavior.


In other words, you guys have absolutely NO idea what the word "submit" means in Bible terms.
How does a wife show with her deeds that she submits to her husband?


Maybe the reverse of this might be told?  So we might recognize that, in the selfsame way, for a husband to declare that Jesus is Lord demands that he serves his wife and by doing so makes it clear that he is serving Christ. In Ephesians 5, Paul addresses the wives in 40 words; he uses 115 in instructing the husbands. That might give us some hint of what’s involved here. Husbands are commanded to love their wives? Commanded to love! (this is not unique here), -you’ll remember that the older women are to help the younger women to train them how to love their husbands. So in other words, this notion of love is not the victim of human emotion; it is rather the servant of our human will —that the real issue for both the husband and the wife is whether we are going to bow our knee, bend our will, to what the Bible says or whether we are going to try and go on our own.

Terrific example, InfoJunkie! I'd call her "submission" as simply being agreeable to your needs. It sounds more like you are equal partners with fair give and take.


Call it what you will, but my wife submits to my will more often than not. She is submissive by nature. I have to be careful to not abuse this.

Of course we are equal, we are one flesh, we operate as a unit before the law and before others. My needs are her needs first.

She really wanted something different though, and my will was submitted to. She obeyed me when I told her that this will not be a contentious thing between us. She now understands why we needed this over what she wanted and makes no qualms.

Of course we are equal, we are one flesh, we operate as a unit before the law and before others. My needs are her needs first.
And you will often satisfy her needs too, even if they conflict with yours.

She obeyed me when I told her that this will not be a contentious thing between us. And she recognizes the Voice of Authority. ;-)




The real issue for both the husband and the wife is whether we are going to bow our knee, bend our will, to what the Bible says, or whether we are going to try and go on our own.

And she recognizes the Voice of Authority. ;-)
Ah, another cherrypicker!

She obeyed me when I told her
Then she recognizes the Voice of Authority. ;-)
The real issue for both the husband and the wife...
Ah, another cherrypicker!

You will never think rightly about marriage until you are convinced of the divine origin of Scripture.


And you will often satisfy her needs too, even if they conflict with yours.

You (WG) are going at it, just as a pragmatist.

Remember the fictitious story of the individuals who had all arrived in the realm of heaven, and Peter and some of the others were getting the men as organized as they could. And the fellow stepped forward and said, “Now, what I want you to do is, I want you to just get yourselves organized here. I’m going to put you in two groups. Over here on my left I’d like to have all the men whose wives, frankly, dominated them in their earthly pilgrimage, whose wives ruled the home. And then over on my right-hand side I’d like to have all the men who exercised leadership and jurisdiction in their earthly pilgrimage.” And there was just a huge shift over to the left-hand side, just droves and droves of men. And when they had finally assembled themselves, Peter looked, and there was just one man standing over here. And Peter said, “You’re probably quite lonely over there. How come you’re there?” And he said, “My wife told me to stand over here.”

You will never think rightly about marriage until you are convinced of the divine origin of Scripture.
Let me know when you reach the 54th wedding anniversary of a very happy, cooperative marital partnership.

The way you (WG) go at it, is just as a pragmatist:
When you live in the real world, that's the only way to be.

This does not prove men are superior, but rather that they have been given authority. Two very different things.

You have supported my position. Authority is not given to those who are seen as inferior, or to those who are mistrusted.


The Genesis 19 story about Sodom and Gomorrah,..... Sin breeds sin. ....... I might also point out, that the Genesis story was prior to the law, it had not yet been given by God to Moses.......... Levite. The rule of law has been established in the land of Israel by the time of the Judges 19 story................................ There were no angels there to protect the Levite, however, and mob was assuaged by the wife of the Levite. This resulted in her death. ..... These are stories of how destruction befalls sinners, and how God's mercy can work through the sin of man. These are not exemplifications of sin and a righteous society. ....................... the man must marry the woman, and would never be able to seek a divorce, as this would give the wife more power over a weaker man. ..... The consent of the woman is not considered ..... to be put to death. It must also be understood, that women were usually betrothed at a very young age, and that the penalty for rape of a betrothed woman was death.

The above sampling should be read in toto by anyone interested in the subject. It is the most ridiculous defense of his position imaginable. It wanders all over the place except in rebutting the essential question. There's a lot about sin, law and death - but nothing about denying the lower status of women.

Infojunkie wants us to believe all his wordiness does just that - denies the inferiority of women without actually saying so. It's a common tactic of evangelicals - quote large amounts of the Bible until the original controversy is lost in all the words.


"And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it."

Quoted in full to reveal the bizarre stupidity (no other word fits) of how evangelicals support a position no matter how remote from the actual subject. The author (Bible author) is comparing women to the "unpresentable" parts of the body. Is anything else needed to see how this Bible author thinks of women?


The bible teaches us to have peace with our station in life, that to be rebellious is sin, that the law is to be followed

An excellent example of infojunkie supporting the position of the inferiority of women. The Bible teaches to accept the inferiority ("have peace with out station in life"). NOT to accept the inferiority is to be rebellious and sinful!!!


Although true, a woman was not without recourse. She could force a man to divorce her by being contentious, or having by some uncleanness about her.

An incredible explanation for the inferiority of women that "although true", infojunkie shows how a woman could get even.


Women are the weaker vessel, that is why God commands men to protect their daughters and wives. I know no body likes to talk about this, but it is biology.

"Nobody" (evangelicals) likes to talk about this because it clearly shows women to be inferior - unless "weaker vessel" means SUPERIOR!


There is no one who finds it more difficult to accept the truth than those who are already emotionally committed to easily disproven ideas.

The structure of Mosaic laws is that all men and women are under the authority of the law.The law delegates certain responsibilities to men. The law delegates certain responsibilities to leaders.The law delegates certain responsibilities to religious practice.Men are under the authority of leaders.Women are under the authority of men, but because both are under the authority of the law, they are equally protected by the law.The law allows certain sins and punishes others.The law allowed the authority of a leader to impact the authority of other men.


Saying the inferiority of women was codified in law does not change the fact of that inferiority nor how the Bible world treated women. The law simply reinforced what the tribal rulers (or God) had already decided.


It is also true that Christians do not have live by these laws. It is a book of histories of the chosen people of God.

Then why do Bible evangelicals cite these laws as in force today?

Speaking of semantics, you do realize that the word "history" had a very different meaning then compared to now?

You will never think rightly about marriage until you are convinced of the divine origin of Scripture.
The way you (WG) go at it, is just as a pragmatist:The only way you can go at it, then, is just as a pragmatist: that there are certain principles here that might be helpful for us, and so on—some ideas, some concepts. I can apply them if I choose, I’ll disregard them if I want. There’s nothing here that is of divine authority; there’s nothing here that makes me have to do anything at all. I mean, I might see that it’s valuable to love my wife as Christ loved the church, but there again, I don’t really like to do that most of the time, and so why should I? Well, of course, you shouldn’t—unless God’s Word is true.
When you live in the real world, that's the only way to be Do you understand Nothing? Why do you operate as if you live in this world? Christ Jesus is not of this world and neither is his Church. This should not be the world you subscribe to. You do understand that this world is going to pass away???
You believe the Bible unless, of course, it disagrees with you, and then you don't believe it unless asked when, again, you claim to believe it. And on and on it goes This is WG to a "T."

Augustine said, “If you believe what you like in the gospel, and you reject what you don’t like, it’s not the gospel you believe, it’s yourself.” So, if you believe what you like in the Bible and reject what you dislike in the Bible, then it’s not the Bible you believe, it’s yourself.

At the end of the day—a man or a woman will only become convinced of the authority of Scripture by Scripture itself. You cannot appeal to a higher authority than the one who has written the Scriptures. So Scripture interprets itself. J. C. Ryle: “Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word [of God] in our hearts.” The witness of the Holy Spirit working by the Word of God and with the word of God and within our hearts. In other words, the same Spirit that inspired the Word illumines the Word and convinces us that it is the Word. That’s how. And that is actually only how.

Infojunkie wants us to believe all his wordiness does just that - denies the inferiority of women without actually saying so. It's a common tactic of evangelicals - quote large amounts of the Bible until the original controversy is lost in all the words.


Athos has trouble with words...he tends to skip most of them to get to his point.

Man, I thought I had you in real discussion, now I see I've lost you again.

There are 783,137 words in the King James Bible. More than most languages. It takes months and months to have a rudimentary understanding of any given language, years to master it, and then you may have only 40-50,000 words you truly understand.

If you spend some time studying the bible, you will learn something. There is more knowledge and wisdom there than in any dictionary or textbook. The topics are deep and profound with lessons a child can understand.

Athos, you keep telling me all the faults in the bible, maybe you should take a look at it, really take a look, maybe even read the whole thing, then you wouldn't have to go around pretending you know something you don't.

There is no blindness to my faith, only to the heresies you preach. Yes you are a preacher, knowing what is good and evil, what's right and wrong, gleaning many truths from something you don't even have to read.

I'd almost swear you have an aversion to truth. Its all relative to what you believe, I guess. Proverbs states it best "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise."

The way to understanding is to look beyond your own stupid head. (Not ad hominem, we all got a stupid head, but you have to see that before you'll learn anything).

Good luck guys, I'm out.

Athos has trouble with words...he tends to skip most of them to get to his point. Man, I thought I had you in real discussion, now I see I've lost you again.

The words of a loser. No defense of his position, just a nasty charge against me. Typical.


There are 783,137 words in the King James Bible. More than most languages. It takes months and months to have a rudimentary understanding of any given language, years to master it, and then you may have only 40-50,000 words you truly understand.

As usual, no discernible point in the above re the issue at hand.


If you spend some time studying the bible, you will learn something. The topics are deep and profound with lessons a child can understand.

Then how to explain someone like you who has learned little, even those sections a child can understand.


Athos, you keep telling me all the faults in the bible

No, just the parts you refuse to see. A child could understand them.


maybe you should take a look at it, really take a look, maybe even read the whole thing, then you wouldn't have to go around pretending you know something you don't.

The real pretender here is pretty obvious. You can't rationally rebut what I've said, so you strike out and throw insults instead of offering truth. Like many evangelicals, your understanding of the Bible is on the shallowest level, and serves only to feed your prejudices.


There is no blindness to my faith, only to the heresies you preach.

Unable to prove your point, the inquisitor in you surfaces. Now it's heresies. What's next? Burning at the stake?


Yes you are a preacher, knowing what is good and evil, what's right and wrong, gleaning many truths from something you don't even have to read.

No, not a preacher. Just someone who has read the Bible with common sense and a far greater understanding than you have with your blind faith and need to have your biases confirmed. That is obvious to open-minded readers of this exchange.


I'd almost swear you have an aversion to truth.

You just can't stop with your insults, can you? A common tactic of yours. Sadly.


Its all relative to what you believe, I guess.

No, you guess wrong. It depends on the meaning of the words and stories and moral lessons, a skill you have not mastered.


Proverbs states it best "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise."

Lol. You don't want to duel Proverbs with me. You're unarmed for that battle.


The way to understanding is to look beyond your own stupid head. (Not ad hominem,

A suitable farewell. "Not ad hominem", you say. Kind of proves my point about your lack of understanding the meaning of words, doesn't it?


Good luck guys, I'm out.

I'm surprised it took you so long to admit defeat. There are many sources of good information re the Bible, but my guess is you prefer to wallow in your misunderstanding.

Understanding you is helping me to understand the Jan 6 Trump insurrectionists. Many similarities between you and them.

Understanding you is helping me to understand the Jan 6 Trump insurrectionists. Perfect example of the employment of the ad hominem fallacy.

Suggesting that a person's role in the church or family determines his/her worth is foolishness. An infant has no leadership role, but is certainly as valuable as the parents. This is true in many areas of society. Is the boss of greater worth to God than his secretary? For that matter, are the men in a church who are not employed in church leadership of less value than the men who are so employed? Of course not.

As to the Bible's affirmation of the equal worth of women, consider these.




Luke 8:2. Jesus did have female disciples, practically unheard of at the time. “The Twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3 Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.” See also Mark 15:41 and 16:1.
Acts 2: On the birthday of the church, the prophecy of Joel makes it very clear that women would be used in ministry. “In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.”
John 4:39. Jesus uses a woman, who is living with a man not her husband, to bring the Gospel message to an entire village. “Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony. “
Romans 16:1. A woman, Phoebe, was used to deliver Paul’s letter to the Romans, a job which would not have been carelessly assigned.
Romans 16:3ff. Of the first 5 people Paul greets, 3 are women. At least 10 women are mentioned in that long section of greetings.
Luke 2:36. A woman named Anna was a well-known prophetess and was living on the Temple grounds.
Acts 16:13. A woman named Lydia was the first convert in Europe. The first church in Europe met in her home.
Acts 17:34. When Paul lists some of the early converts in Athens, he makes sure to mention one woman by name (Damaris).
Acts 17:4. In Thessalonica, Paul sees a number of people won to Christ. This included, he made sure to note, “quite a few prominent women.”
Acts 17:12. The same is true of the young church in Berea. “As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.”

Note. It is hard to imagine why the supposedly misogynistic Paul would have gone to the trouble of mentioning women unless he valued their inclusion in the early church.


The book of 2 John is written to a woman. Note verse 13. “The children of your sister, who is chosen by God, send their greetings.”
Gal. 3:26ff. Here Paul clearly affirms the equal spiritual worth of men and women. “26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Luke 10:38. Jesus allowed women to participate as disciples under His instruction, a situation unheard at that time. “38 As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. 39 She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. “
Acts 18:26. Here God uses a ministry team, who is listed with the wife’s name coming first, to instruct a powerful preacher named Apollos. “26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
Luke 24:2ff. It was a group of women who discovered the empty tomb and made the first announcement of the resurrection. “ They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7 ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” 8 Then they remembered his words. 9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.

Posted by Athos to infojunkie

Understanding you is helping me to understand the Jan 6 Trump insurrectionists.


Perfect example of the employment of the ad hominem fallacy.

Not even close. Go back to reading what logical fallacies are. You missed bigly with this one.



Suggesting that a person's role in the church or family determines his/her worth is foolishness

Here we go again. No one has suggested any such thing.


As to the Bible's affirmation of the equal worth of women, consider these.

They have all been considered and, if you had carefully read what I posted, you would have discovered that I agree women could be and were "cherished and protected". You made the same error infojunkie made: I.e., conflating the value of women with their lower status, as if one cancels out the other.

Having ears, they heard not.

It gets tiresome explaining plain language to those who don't have ears.

Not even close. Go back to reading what logical fallacies are. You missed bigly with this one.Nah. I hit the nail on the head. You attacked Info personally rather than attacking his arguments. Comparing him to the 1/6 rioters was completely absurd and had no bearing on anything he had said. "Understanding you is helping me to understand the Jan 6 Trump insurrectionists."


Here we go again. No one has suggested any such thing.
You mean other than you? "You have supported my position. Authority is not given to those who are seen as inferior, or to those who are mistrusted." The lesser role women play in authority has nothing to do with being either inferior or mistrusted. But if you are now saying that a woman can play a different role in leadership and still have the same worth and value as a man, then fine. We agree on that.


you would have discovered that I agree women could be and were "cherished and protected"You might have said that, but I haven't. I'm not going at all in the direction of "cherished and protected". I'm going in the direction of having the same worth and value as men, all of which agrees with the idea of complementarianism which you mishandled (and misspelled) right from the beginning.

BTW, what in your view is a "white evangelical"? You use the term constantly. It needs defining. And how are "white evangelicals" different from other evangelicals, other than, of course, skin color?

BTW, what in your view is a "white evangelical"? You use the term constantly. It needs defining. And how are "white evangelicals" different from other evangelicals, other than, of course, skin color?
They used to be called fundamentalists, but that was getting a bad rap, so they grabbed onto the term evangelical (The word comes from the Greek word, “evangelion,” which means good news or gospel.) to make themselves sound more acceptable. The ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America), which was formed in 1988 after breaking with the Missouri-Synod Lutherans during the '70s, is talking about removing the "E" (and what it now stands for) from their name.

Bad theology leads to moral decay.True dat.  
Look at the Centers of theological inquiry in America today, they have relocated to universities over the past half-century, drawn away from seminaries by more plentiful appointments—along with larger salaries, larger research budgets, and more graduate assistants. Many theology departments have been pressured to mirror the norms of the secular academy. Criteria for what counts as good scholarship, teaching, and service have gradually ceased to have reference to the tradition and the Church. Increasingly, these criteria have pushed theology to morph into the ostensibly neutral study of “religion,” especially as shaped by the disciplines of sociology and history.

in the Bible, one sentence seems to contain
Bad theology? Your theology is contaminated. Your belief system, or theology, determines your deeds. The fundamental beliefs of Christianity should be the product of classical logic based on the evidence of Scripture, tradition and personal experience.

Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach (huh, why..women have to be taught this???) what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

I'm sure you understand now...glad to help.

What part of this would you not agree with?

"Evangelicalism is a worldwide trans-denominational movement within Protestant Christianity that maintains the belief that the essence of the Gospel consists of the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, solely through faith in Jesus's atonement. Evangelicals believe in the centrality of the conversion or "born again" experience in receiving salvation, in the authority of the Bible as God's revelation to humanity, and in spreading the Christian message."

Also found this. What part of it do you disagree with? "Fundamentalism regards biblical inerrancy, the virgin birth of Jesus, penal substitutionary atonement, the literal resurrection of Christ, and the Second Coming of Christ as fundamental Christian doctrines.

This remains unanswered. "BTW, what in your view is a "white evangelical"? You use the term constantly. It needs defining. And how are "white evangelicals" different from other evangelicals, other than, of course, skin color?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism

I guess I must give up on trying to have any real discussion on complementarianism which was the misspelled and ill defined original topic here.

You attacked Info personally rather than attacking his arguments. Comparing him to the 1/6 rioters was completely absurd and had no bearing on anything he had said. "Understanding you is helping me to understand the Jan 6 Trump insurrectionists."
Read what I italicized in your quote above and then continue reading below.


Both infojunkie and the insurrectionists have a belief that is not true and stick to that belief in the face of undeniable proof that it is not true. Infojunkie re the status of women in the Bible, and the insurrectionists believing that the 2020 election was stolen by Biden.


Both believe in the strongman theory of history. Infojunkie in a God who slaughters great numbers of people to get his way, and the insurrectionists who worship an ego-driven madman who tried and failed to be an autocrat running the USA.


Over time, the God who acted maniacally was discarded. In the end, the ego-driven madman was deserted by his hand-picked legal enforcer and also discarded.


But both groups of followers have continued to believe in what was discarded and/or ended. Both groups are badly informed/educated and lack critical thinking abilities.


An insurrectionist, who is an evangelical minister, claimed on-camera that “Trump is anointed by God”. It's hard to imagine a more bizarre statement.


None of this is ad hominem. It is simply the result of dialogue and observation. You still misunderstand what logical fallacies are.


(PS - When you run out of ideas to debate me, try pointing out misspelling typos).

Both believe in the strongman theory of history. Infojunkie in a God who slaughters great numbers of people to get his way, and the insurrectionists who worship an ego-driven madman who tried and failed to be an autocrat running the USA.


Over time, the God who acted maniacally was discarded. In the end, the ego-driven madman was deserted by his hand-picked legal enforcer and also discarded.Your point is valid only if a person accepts these wild, inaccurate observations as valid. The God you suggest was "discarded" is still very much alive and very much followed. It was an ad hominem attack, pure and simple.


When you run out of ideas to debate me.
Actually I've asked several questions which you have avoided, one of them repeatedly. The questions were asked in the same post that you quoted from, so you certainly saw them. Why the dodge?

I'll repeat them for what is now the third time. What in your view is a "white evangelical"? You use the term constantly. It needs defining. And how are "white evangelicals" different from other evangelicals, other than, of course, by skin color?

Might add this. Is your definition of an evangelical, white or otherwise, in line with the commonly accepted definition, or is it driven by what certainly appears to be your hatred of them?

I'm also interested in why you intentionally misrepresented the concept of complementarianism. I've asked about it repeatedly and you have not addressed it.

Kind of hard to debate someone who doesn't like to answer questions.

The God you suggest was "discarded" is still very much alive and very much followed.

Unfortunately, that's true that that God is still being followed, primarily by fundamentalists. Better they should follow the God of the New Testament.


Actually I've asked several questions which you have avoided,

I don't avoid them, I just don't bother with them.


What in your view is a "white evangelical"? ..... And how are "white evangelicals" different from other evangelicals, other than, of course, by skin color?

Is your definition of an evangelical, white or otherwise, in line with the commonly accepted definition, or is it driven by what certainly appears to be your hatred of them?

I'm also interested in why you intentionally misrepresented the concept of complementarianism. I've asked about it repeatedly and you have not addressed it.

And you wonder why I don't answer your questions? Could your questions be any nastier?

Why do you want me to answer your questions? What is your reason?

I don't avoid them, I just don't bother with them.I guess that's as good a dodge as any. Look, you're free to do as you please, and I'll respect that. But don't complain about someone running out of ideas for debate when you refuse to engage those ideas.

I guess that's as good a dodge as any. Look, you're free to do as you please, and I'll respect that. But don't complain about someone running out of ideas for debate when you refuse to engage those ideas.

A) I'll do whatever I want to do.

B) I notice YOU haven't answered the question I asked. Is that a dodge from you?


Why do you want me to answer your questions? What is your reason?

The reason I ignore your questions is because you are not trustworthy. Some time ago, when I answered a question from you when you said you would also answer the question, you refused to answer when your turn came. You said my answer wasn't an answer, so you decided not to answer.

Another reason for your being untrustworthy is how you manipulate quotes from members by adding a word or re-phrasing the quote to change the meaning in order to support whatever your position is. I'm surprised you do that because it's so damn obvious when you do. WG has called you out on this many, many times. As I have.

I think you're an evangelical, and I think of evangelicals (not every one) like Trump followers. You both treat facts as things to be flatly denied when it suits you. Trump, of course, is the master.

The reason I ignore your questions is because you are not trustworthy. Some time ago, when I answered a question from you when you said you would also answer the question, you refused to answer when your turn came. You said my answer wasn't an answer, so you decided not to answer.

Another reason for your being untrustworthy is how you manipulate quotes from members by adding a word or re-phrasing the quote to change the meaning in order to support whatever your position is. I'm surprised you do that because it's so damn obvious when you do. WG has called you out on this many, many times. As I have.

I think you're an evangelical, and I think of evangelicals (not every one) like Trump followers. You both treat facts as things to be flatly denied when it suits you. Trump, of course, is the master.More excuses and more non-answers.


Some time ago, when I answered a question from you when you said you would also answer the question, you refused to answer when your turn came.I don't believe that is true.

It's a very simple proposition. 1. What is your definition of a white evangelist? 2. Are white evangelists different in beliefs from non-white evangelists? 3. Why did you distort the meaning of complementarianism in your initial post?

That's about the fifth post of those questions. Like I said, if you don't want to answer, or are unable to answer, then that's fine, but don't complain about a lack of ideas for debate.


Why do you want me to answer your questions? What is your reason?Already answered that. Look at post 169. But that's fine. I don't mind answering for a second time. Not real sure what you mean by a "white evangelical". Also unclear how being "white" affects that person's theology as opposed to, say, a "black evangelical" such as Voddie Baucham who is an evangelical with whom I find a LOT to agree with.

The question on complementarianism is asked simply to see if you believe you have a bias in the issue on white evangelicals, because your description of the term was certainly inaccurate and seemed biased to me.'

Now I've answered your question. Let's see if you'll answer mine.

Already answered that. Look at post 169.

I looked at post #169 and it's not even from you. It's mine.

You did not explain WHY you asked the questions - except for below.


The question on complementarianism is asked simply to see if you believe you have a bias in the issue on white evangelicals

No, I have no bias.


your description of the term was certainly inaccurate and seemed biased to me.

My description was accurate. I can't help what seems biased to you. You have to work that out yourself.

Good grief. Post 169 is my post. Look again. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=848177&page=9&p=3870329#post3870329

I just explained why I asked the questions above. You did not answer again, so I'm done with it.

Any description of complementarianism which does not include the word "complement" is not accurate. You have no idea what it means. Your description was ludicrous, and you can't even now define it.

Oh well. I did try.

Good grief. Post 169 is my post. Look again.

I did look again and you are correct. It's my error.


I just explained why I asked the questions above. You did not answer again, so I'm done with it.

If you are referring to the question asked in #169, you still have not answered WHY you are asking the question.

As to complementarianism, it was answered in #179 above


Any description of complementarianism which does not include the word "complement" is not accurate.

That is your opinion, and it is incorrect.


You have no idea what it means.

My description, hardly ludicrous, was right on target. Your not approving it is your problem, not mine.

Still no answers. Oh well.

Complementarianism has as its root the word “complement”. Can’t be understood or properly described without it.

Any description of complementarianism which does not include the word "complement" is not accurate. You have no idea what it means. Your description was ludicrous, and you can't even now define it.
The definition of a word does not include the word being defined -- according to my 4th grade teacher, Mrs. Hedrick.

The root… not the word.

The root… not the word.
Nope. Do not define a word by using that word in any way, shape, or form.

"Complementarianism is the teaching that masculinity and femininity are ordained by God and that men and women are created to complete each other."

Bad theology leads to moral decay.

What are we talking about here? What is Bad Theology???

I came across this.

1. What anything is, is determined by what it is to God. Things are to us what we are to them. Light is most pleasant to the healthful eye, but nothing is more pernicious when it is diseased; food, in certain conditions of the body, will be as prejudicial as poison, and poison as beneficial as food. And there are who "call evil good and good evil," etc. And, similarly, God is to us what we are to Him.

2. In itself the gospel is God's spell, a message from God possessed of a charm. He that hath ears to hear it will be won by it; but "the wicked, who are like the deaf adder, will not hearken to the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely." In the gospel, God appears in all the attractive attributes of His grace, that He may regain the alienated affections of His rebellious children.

I came across this.
Please put those two points iinto short simple sentences.

With all due respect to your fourth grade teacher, the web's definition of the term is as follows. "Complementarianism is a theological view in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam,[1] that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, and religious leadership."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism#:~:text=Complementarianism%20is %20a%20theological%20view,used%20to%20denote%20thi s%20view

One way or the other, it is hardly the biased description given earlier.

BTW, I did not mention "defined". I said, "Can’t be understood or properly described without it.". You need to readjust your glasses.

With all due respect to your fourth grade teacher, the web's definition of the term is as follows. "Complementarianism is a theological view in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam,[1] that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, and religious leadership."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism#:~:text=Complementarianism%20is %20a%20theological%20view,used%20to%20denote%20thi s%20view

One way or the other, it is hardly the biased description given earlier.

BTW, I did not mention "defined". I said, "Can’t be understood or properly described without it.". You need to readjust your glasses.
That's the theological explanation of the word. The word different was used first with complementary FOLLOWING IT as added explanation. Wikipedia is smart enough to do it that way. The author of that explantion probably had Mrs. Hedrick too.

Please put those two points into short simple sentences.
The theology that has been described, is in fact contaminated?
This entire topic is irrelevant...it is not backed by the Word of God, aka the Bible.

You do know that we are a Bride? It's not like those of us are not going to be submitting ourselves to Jesus!
If I'm not mistaken, you understand it is easier submitting to Jesus, but not your husband?
Solution: If you don't like the idea of submitting to a man, don't get married?

WG, what a load of nonsense. It was used in the definition plain and simple. Sorry about that Mrs. Hafflebone (or whatever it was).

You do know that we are a Bride? It's not like those of us are not going to be submitting ourselves to Jesus!
If I'm not mistaken, you understand it is easier submitting to Jesus, but not your husband?
Solution: If you don't like the idea of submitting to a man, don't get married?Good points, Walter. The wife, in her submission to her husband, is actually submitting to Jesus in the sense of doing that which pleases Him.

WG, what a load of nonsense. It was used in the definition plain and simple. Sorry about that Mrs. Hafflebone (or whatever it was).
Yes, it was used in the description but was never defined in that Wikipedia article. All that sentence says is that complementary roles are different. So what does THAT mean?

Yes, it was used in the description but was never defined in that Wikipedia article.It was defined clearly.

It was defined clearly.
As I said earlier, that's the theological explanation of the word.

Here's another, and it likewise uses "complement" in it's definition. Poor Mrs. Hafflebone. "Complementarianism is the theological view that although men and women are created equal in their being and personhood, they are created to complement each other via different roles and responsibilities as manifested in marriage, family life, religious leadership, and elsewhere."

https://www.theopedia.com/complementarianism

Have to include this from the Babylon Bee. For the humor impaired, it is meant to be funny.

Complementarianism: Because of innate, God-given differences that are good, men are vastly superior to women and are therefore their masters in all aspects of life. Thus, men and women have different but “complementary” roles at home and in the church, such as men doing everything of any importance and women doing chores and being quiet.
Egalitarianism: The belief that there is no distinction between the roles of men and women in the church or society at large—we’re all just one giant, happy, genderless blob. The slightest suggestion that men might be gifted differently than women is anathema, and the offending party shall be drawn and quartered, per the bylaws of the United Egalitarian Council.

This one comes from the site definitions.com. It is, "Complementarianism is a theological view held by some in Christianity and other world religions, such as Islam, that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, religious leadership, and elsewhere."

This one comes from the site definitions.com. It is, "Complementarianism is a theological view held by some in Christianity and other world religions, such as Islam, that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, religious leadership, and elsewhere."
Same as Wikipedia. Doesn't define the root word.

But it does use the root word in the definition. I'm sure Mrs. Hafflebone is apoplectic.

But it does use the root word in the definition. I'm sure Mrs. Hafflebone is apoplectic.
Yes, as am I. That's a HUGE no-no. You don't define a word with that word.

A carrot is a long, orange-colored carrot-thing.
Baptism is what an ordained minister does when he baptizes someone.
Jesus' miracles were miraculous.

Knowledge of humanity passes through masculinity and femininity. In other words, we can't understand ourselves individually as men or women if we don't have each other. When the author of Genesis says that "the Lord God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man," and "brought her to the man," he revealed God's critical intention--man was to have a partner like himself in dignity but also different from him in every way--especially on a physical level. And the author tells us that the man himself recognized this as a good exclaiming "at last, this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh!"

Knowledge of humanity passes through masculinity and femininity. In other words, we can't understand ourselves individually as men or women if we don't have each other. When the author of Genesis says that "the Lord God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man," and "brought her to the man," he revealed God's critical intention--man was to have a partner like himself in dignity but also different from him in every way--especially on a physical level. And the author tells us that the man himself recognized this as a good exclaiming "at last, this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh!"
Excellent post, waltero! Well said and written!

Well said and written! Looks like Grammer check is Doing its Job.
I'll try not to get so excited, and keep my posts short and to the point.

Should add:

Humans aren’t just made in God’s image, they are called to be his image in the world.

Did God create Jesus? God created Jesus before creating Adam. The Bible calls Jesus “the firstborn of all creation” by God. The Son is the image of the invisible God. Jesus made a choice to submit to the Father as His head...Family life (a thing of the past)...Not "a thing" anymore...spells doom for this world!

Should add:

Humans aren’t just made in God’s image, they are called to be his image in the world.

"Made in the Image of God"...a person can run with that for only so long. When were we called?

When Jesus called us to love one another. The reason we will love others best when we love God most is that love in its truest, purest form comes only from God, because God is love (1 John 4:7–8). Love is a fundamental part of His nature. We are able to love Him or anyone else only because he first loved us (1 John 4:19).

Sorry, I spend two or three hours editing my posts. I had deleted this.
When were we called?
When Jesus called us to love one another. Uh, OK. I think there's more to it than that. Maybe we can touch base on that later?

Did God create Jesus? God created Jesus before creating Adam. The Bible calls Jesus “the firstborn of all creation” by God. The Son is the image of the invisible God. Jesus made a choice to submit to the Father as His head...Family life (a thing of the past)...Not "a thing" anymore...spells doom for this world!

We are called to be his image in the world.
God is actually a Family.

@WG, Is marriage considered a two-way street?
equal partners with fair give and take. Jesus made a choice to submit to his Father, as His head. Don't you get it; "We are called to be his image"...trinity if you will.
Was Jesus about fair give and take?

Did God create Jesus? God created Jesus before creating Adam. The Bible calls Jesus “the firstborn of all creation” by God. You were doing pretty well until this. John 1 clearly contradicts your statement. "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." The Colossians passage also says, "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

Jesus being the "first born" is not a reference to His creation. It is a reference to His pre-eminence, in the same way that the first born had the highest "rank" in the Jewish culture.

Deep Subject.
Before he was born in Bethlehem, Jesus lived as a spirit in heaven.
John 6:38 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

Micah 5:2 2"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."


In the beginning was the Word I don't fully grasp the concept, but it is something like:
"Where was the Word before it was spoken"?

God is in us, but we are not "of God." We become Sons of God, whence the word is spoken, from out of our mouth/life. 

Jesus was not the spoken word.

@WG, Is marriage considered a two-way street?
Yes, or my husband and I have messed up big time for 54 years!

In your opinion, what are the two ways?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." The Colossians passage also says, "He is before all things, and in Him, all things hold together." Translated Logos: In the beginning was Wisdom, and Wisdom was with God, and the Wisdom was God.

Jesus was not the spoken word.
Clearly, wisdom is not a person, that's a figure of speech. But the Bible says there is a person who is wisdom. “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1 Cor. 1:24) Wisdom is a who more than a what. Jesus is Wisdom. Jesus referred to Himself as “the wisdom of God”


Was Jesus about fair give and take?
Yes, or my husband and I have messed up big time for 54 years!
I wouldn't say big time.

I don't think "wisdom" is an acceptable translation for logos.

Jesus is indeed referred to as both the wisdom and power of God, but He is much more than that. He is an eternal person and is fully and eternally God.


Was Jesus about fair give and take? Yes, or my husband and I have messed up big time for 54 years!Very few things are more dangerous than to suggest that theology is based upon our own personal experiences. Christian beliefs are based upon the statements of the Bible.

Christian beliefs are based upon the statements of the Bible.

What Christian belief is based on God exterminating the entire human race except for Noah?

What Christian belief is based on God saying, "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks"?

God saying, "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks"?God said that? Pretty sure you're wrong on that one.


What Christian belief is based on God exterminating the entire human race except for Noah?You have misunderstood my comment. I was simply saying that Christian truth is based upon the Bible and not upon our personal experiences. I certainly did not say that every single statement of the Bible establishes a doctrine of some sort. But your example would certainly validate the doctrinal truth that God is not only a God of love and mercy, but also a God of judgment, a truth that can be clearly seen as early as Genesis 3. I realize you don't like that, but it is clear and widespread in both the NT and OT.

God saying, "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks"?


God said that? Pretty sure you're wrong on that one.

I thought you claimed the Bible was written by God. Do I have that wrong?


your example (i.e., the Flood) would certainly validate the doctrinal truth that God is not only a God of love and mercy, but also a God of judgment

So you DO accept that God exterminated the entire human race? How did he judge babies and children deserving extermination?


I realize you don't like that

It's not about what I like or dislike. It's about the meaning of the words.

In fact, a discussion of Genesis might be fruitful. I might start a thread with that in mind.

I thought you claimed the Bible was written by God. Do I have that wrong?You do indeed. I've never said that.


So you DO accept that God exterminated the entire human race? How did he judge babies and children deserving extermination?I've never denied it. It is plainly taught in the Bible, and I accept it.


It's not about what I like or dislike. It's about the meaning of the words.
It has nothing to do with the meaning of words. The meanings are abundantly clear. You don't like what they say and so don't accept them, but to suggest that the meaning of the words is unclear is completely wrong.

Still wondering why, in your description of complementarianism, you failed to include the word "complement", or failing that at least include the concept? You plainly cannot adequately convey the meaning without including that. Why didn't you?

Very few things are more dangerous than to suggest that theology is based upon our own personal experiences. Christian beliefs are based upon the statements of the Bible.
No theology at my house is based on personal experiences. Just the opposite, in fact -- "the two shall be as one" so that's how we operate. I do what he can't and he does what I can't, and we pool our resources to make sure everything gets done/has been done properly and in good order.

It does not say the “two shall be as one.” It does say the wife is to submit to her husband. Says it several times. Also, in the same passage you misquoted, it says marriage is between a man and a woman. Why do you reject that??

It does not say the “two shall be as one.”
Mark 10:8.

It says marriage is between a man and a woman. Why do you reject that??
I don't reject that.

that's how we operate. "Don't do as I do, do as I say"...your response to Titus 2:3-5?

Mark 10:8 does not say that.

you do reject it when you try to include two men or two women, something Jesus did not do. He clearly limited marriage to a man and a woman.

"Don't do as I do, do as I say"...your response to Titus 2:3-5?
Yep, that's what we do at my house. When his health and negativity prevent him from doing something, I'm there for him to get the job done.

I thought you claimed the Bible was written by God. Do I have that wrong?


You do indeed. I've never said that.

Fair enough. I had that wrong.


So you DO accept that God exterminated the entire human race? How did he judge babies and children deserving extermination?


I've never denied it. It is plainly taught in the Bible, and I accept it.

Wow - that is one sick God you believe in. Slaughtering babies and children doesn't seem like much of a difference between that and dashing their brains against the rocks. I suppose you accept that, too. You even seem proud of it.


It has nothing to do with the meaning of words.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the meaning of words! That's what words are - symbols with meaning.


The meanings are abundantly clear. You don't like what they say and so don't accept them,

No normal human being would accept them. Any human being who does like them is as sick as the monstrous God who did the deed. Of course, they are a piece of fiction borrowed from another culture that was before the Israelites. WHY they are in the Bible is another question. That might be a good subject for a Genesis discussion.


but to suggest that the meaning of the words is unclear is completely wrong.

No one suggested they were unclear. Heaven forbid! They couldn't be any clearer- or sicker.


Still wondering why, in your description of complementarianism, you failed to include the word "complement"

There was no need to include the word - it was in the title and eminently clear what it was. What I posted was also eminently clear - even supported by Paul.

Your criticism of not including the word "complement" in the description is never a good way to define/describe a word - using the word in its own definition is verboten. "Red is the color of red". Get it?


or failing that at least include the concept? You plainly cannot adequately convey the meaning without including that. Why didn't you?

Because my point was made. That women are subject to men. Any other possible aspects of complementarianism were not germane to my post. Get it?

You do not like God. Duly noted.

the meaning of words is clear. We agree, so fine. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

You just missed it on complementarianism. You wildly misrepresented it.

"Don't do as I do, do as I say"...your response to Titus 2:3-5?
Yep, that's what we do at my house.

Let's jump back 50 years, I suppose the truth holds true then as it does now?

Let's jump back 50 years, I suppose the truth holds true then as it does now?
Please explain or restate your question.

You do not like God. Duly noted.

I do not like YOUR God! Duly noted?


You just missed it on complementarianism. You wildly misrepresented it.

Then why did Paul exactly support my statement?

Please explain or restate your question.
No need to answer, I get it. Titus 2:3-5- is irrelevant (50 yrs ago as well as today) in your house.

No need to answer, I get it. Titus 2:3-5- is irrelevant (50 yrs ago as well as today) in your house.
Titus 2:3-5 is VERY relevant in my house!

My God is not concerned about who you like/dislike.

You simply missed it.

[Jesus] clearly limited marriage to a man and a woman.
Why didn't he marry?

My God is not concerned about who you like/dislike.

That's pretty obvious. Your God is not concerned about anything except as a figment of somebody's imagination.

(Note to self: Why am I having this discussion?)

Jesus getting married was not the purpose for which He came.

Jesus getting married was not the purpose for which He came.
He was a carpenter for years. He could have easily married. Maybe He wasn't interested in women.

He could also have become a Pharisee. He could have done many things which would have detracted from why He came. Having a wife and family would have caused problems.

He could also have become a Pharisee. He could have done many things which would have detracted from why He came. Having a wife and family would have caused problems.
I didn't say anything about family. He didn't start His ministry until He was 30 -- plenty of time before that to marry. I married at 21. How old were you?

Are you the Son of God and destined to die on the cross for the salvation of man??

Are you the Son of God and destined to die on the cross for the salvation of man??
So He had a human mother and father. Why not a wife too -- who could have stood at the foot of the cross with His mother, together watching their beloved family member suffering beyond human knowing and then dying, having been wrongly labeled a criminal?

Why not a wife too
Because the Church is his Bride.

Some of whom went out to get more oil...don't miss out!



Are you the Son of God and destined to die on the cross for the salvation of man?
In a way, yes.

Because the Church is his Bride.
It wasn't when He was here on earth.

It wasn't when He was here on earth.
Your light is getting dim WG, running low on oil, are you?

Jesus is God, as we are Jesus, as woman is Man...we should freely Submit, to our head.

GOD was added to...not subtracted but added to.
GOD is + 100%, Jesus / Jesus is + 100%, Man / Man is +100%, Jesus / Woman is +100%, Man.
(God) Jesus became Sin...GOD became something he is not...GOD was added to.

Jesus Christ - the Perfect Reflection of God John 1:14-18 It is Christ alone who has revealed God the Father to man. It is written that "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.

Your light is getting dim WG, running low on oil, are you?

Jesus is God, as we are Jesus, as woman is Man.

GOD was added to.
GOD is 100%, + Jesus / Jesus is 100%, + Man / Man is 100%,+ Jesus./ Woman is 100%, + Man...Submit to your head.
GOD became something he is not...Jesus became Sin.
I feared your oil was low -- and still is. None of what you said here is correct.

You've put the teachings about Jesus into a blender and turned that blender on high.

You've put the teachings about Jesus into a blender and turned that blender on high.
I knew you'd like it. My understanding of the Trinity. After this life, the only thing left Standing is Jesus!
Everything we have or ever going to have is Jesus. all life begins and ends with Jesus. God's Word was sent into the Darkness, It will not return to him emptyhanded...GOD was added to.

You might not understand what I have stated, above. I was hoping it might give you an idea of your (a wife) role in Marriage...doubt you will subscribe to the idea; Man being the head in marriage -Just as Jesus is head of man - and GOD is head of Jesus.

hopingit might give you an idea of your (a wife) role in Marriage...doubt you will subscribe to the idea, Man being the head in marriage -Just as Jesus is head of man - and GOD is head of Jesus.
Oh, he's the head until he can't handle something and confidently passes it over to me. Thank goodness I've never had to do automotive work or figure out what's wrong with one of our computers.

Oh, he's the head until he can't handle
The crying, B***ing, incessant nagging, etc. ;-)

How did he judge babies and children deserving extermination?We Know how God Judges. God, is the God who justifies the wicked...it is not a gradual process, it is an instantaneous event- whereby one is declared righteous by God.

The question you should be asking: How can a Righteous God justify the guilty?

If the responsibility of the judge is to acquit the innocent and condemn the guilty...what in the world is going on? In the doctrine of justification, God is actually acquitting the guilty! He is justifying the ungodly. God is the God who justifies the wicked.

This World stands Condemned, we live in a condemned cell.  Those who Judge according to this world will be judged by this world...good luck with that.

Athos: How did he judge babies and children deserving extermination?

We Know how God Judges. God, is the God who justifies the wicked.
Those babies and children were wicked?

WG, What does that mean? what are you getting at???
Yes. That's why they have access to Heaven, after all, heaven is going to be full of sinners don't cha know?


God, is the God who justifies the wicked.

Or did God send his Son down here to bleed and die up on a cross, so that he then may accept people into heaven on the basis of the fact, that we tried to be as kind or as good as we possibly would?


Maybe you could search the scriptures, and point out where I've diverted from the truth? It would help me (maybe even you). I like to bounce it off others, hoping to gain a better understanding. The fact that you rarely if ever quote scripture, doesn't help, leaving me with my own understanding. JL always quotes Scripture(big help). I think you have a heart for God (as well as this world...bad). Athos can't be trusted...he desires his flesh over Jesus crucified.

from Waldo
You might not understand what I have stated

The understatement of the year.


from Athos
How did he judge babies and children deserving extermination?

You failed to answer this one, Waldo. It refers to the Flood.


from Waldo
Those babies and children were wicked?

No, Waldo, they were not wicked. They were babies.


from Waldo
Athos can't be trusted.

Hmmm. Maybe because in your mind I ask those pesky questions. Like the one about children being exterminated that you can't or won't answer. The only thing you answer with is your now boring Wacko Waldo gibberish.

Go back on your meds, wait a few days, and return when your mind has cleared.

If you wish to learn the truth(?), you should search out the answer to your question here- How can a Righteous God justify the guilty?

If you wish to learn the truth(?), you should search out the answer to your question here- How can a Righteous God justify the guilty?

Of course I'm interested in the truth. I don't think you are since almost every one of your posts is gibberish and not understandable. Even your co-religionists don't understand you.

Here's the question - How did God judge babies and children deserving extermination? So far you have been unable to answer it. I'm not surprised. Yet, you come up with this - How can a righteous God justify the guilty?

Do you even have the slightest clue what you're saying? Trying to say? Or are you simply avoiding answering by posting pseudo-Biblical gibberish.