Started by typhonblue, Jul 17, 2006, 04:57 PM
Total Members Voted: 22
Voting closed: Jul 17, 2006, 04:57 PM
I disagree with you. I think Christianity has been twisted into that by the FEMS.
The tenents of Christianity is about loving others as you love yourself and doing the right thing so you are strait with God. There are some that have attempted to use it as a tool to shame men but that is not what the religion is about.
At the same time, it must be pointed out that the bible clearly had commandments for the wife, and they were much more equally exacting than any modern interpretation of law.
Who are you refering to when you say FEMS?
And yet there still is the problematic tenent, "a husband must love his wife as Christ loved the Church and sacrifice for her as Christ sacrificed for the Church."
QuoteWho are you refering to when you say FEMS?I use FEMS in all caps instead of typing out "Feminists" over and over.
If you will put things in a historical perspective at the time Christianity was forming men still held complete sway as head of the houshold, what the father said was like unto law. As a result of this the father was responsible for everything the members of his household did. There are a lot of things that can be taken out of context and used against the faith.
Your argument seems to refute the idea that women should "submit" rather then that men should "sacrifice".
No it doesn't. My argument is that things can be taken out of context and twisted. At this point we are talking about men and their obligations. We have not talked about women and their obligations at this point. You mention the submission of women to men in christianity. An example of this is often twisted by the FEMS to justify orfination of female clergy. There is a part of the resurection story where Jesus appears to some women and he tells them to go tell their husbands where they can find him. The FEMS take this out of context and try to say Jesus is giving them license to preach and minister. In a larger context Jesus is telling them to go get the person that is the final authority in the family, in this case the man so that he can be recognized. I have to appolagize for not being able to cit chapter and vers from the bible it has been years since I went to Sunday School or attended church regularly.
Fair enough. Now how was what I quoted taken out of context and twisted? Is there another, correct interpretation regarding the biblical imperitive that men sacrifice for their wives as Christ sacrificed for the church? Because I've also read the writings of Christian men who seem to interpret that verse to mean, literally, that men provide and sacrifice for their wives' wellbeing.
Yes, but what does it *mean* to be the head of someone you sacrifice everything for?