Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Male and female are "one" in the sense that they become one flesh and create new Images of God.
You're taking Galatians 3:28 too far.
Paul is talking about the New Covenant in contrast to the Old.
In the Old Covenant, there very much was "Jew or Gentile", "male or female". There was a real distinction in terms of who the Covenant applied to and how it was applied.
In the Old Covenant, its sign (circumcision) only applied to males; now in the New Covenant, its sign (baptism) is applied to all. Also, the Old Covenant was only open to the children of Israel; the New Covenant is open to all.
I am not even talking about Gal.3:28 mike I am responding to your take on Eph. 5 which you keep misapplying to male and female, when it is talking about Christ and the church.
Some people are beyond the reach of reason, pneuma.
yup, but I like mike though for he at least seems willing to look into some of the things we say. I don't care if he agrees with it or not but he seems to have a willingness to at least look.
yup, but I like mike though for he at least seems willing to look into some of the things we say. I don't care if he agrees with it or not but he seems to have a willingness to at least look.
I like Mike, but I feel sorry for his wife and any female children he may have.
While this seems scandalous to our modern sensibilities; given the context of the time, I don't know how egregiously we ought to view it.
I don't think there's any grounds to say that's worse than the kinds of things that went on in pre-Christian societies.
Is it even worse than what goes on nowadays in our post-Christian society? I think that's certainly debatable.
Context is everything.
No one said it was better or worse than anything that went on in pre-Christian societies, some of which revered and treated women well, some of which decidely did not. Kinda makes one suspect mistreatment of women is a human failing as old as time and regardless of religion and culture, no?
The context is that the Church was party to this behavior. The good part is that the Church would not likely be party to that sort of thing now. But you were trying to say that the Church improved the lot of women when we know that wasn't always true. If the Church always improved women's lots, they would have decried child marriages back then, or not burned women as witches, or allowed husbands to get away with abusing wives.
Mike male and female according to Gods plan has always been ONENESS. It was man that changed Gods plan and promote that change instead of promoting ONENESS as they should have.
I am not even talking about Gal.3:28 mike I am responding to your take on Eph. 5 which you keep misapplying to male and female, when it is talking about Christ and the church.
There is no reason not to take Ephesians 5:22-33 at face value; as literal, practical instructions for husbands and wives.
Nothing against you personally, but I give far more credence to the historic, Catholic interpretation of Ephesians 5 than to yours or whatever gnostic interpretation you hold to.
No one said it was better or worse than anything that went on in pre-Christian societies, some of which revered and treated women well, some of which decidely did not. Kinda makes one suspect mistreatment of women is a human failing as old as time and regardless of religion and culture, no?
Well, the premise of the thread is my assertion that Christianity, specifically the Catholic Church, has done more to uplift and dignify women than any other institution in history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
The context is that the Church was party to this behavior. The good part is that the Church would not likely be party to that sort of thing now. But you were trying to say that the Church improved the lot of women when we know that wasn't always true.
The Church did improve the lot of women en masse, as a general rule. That's my assertion. You can find exceptions to anything as every institution has its share of bad actors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
If the Church always improved women's lots, they would have decried child marriages back then, or not burned women as witches, or allowed husbands to get away with abusing wives.
I'm not willing to unequivocally condemn child marriages as practiced in Catholic societies, nor am I willing to unequivocally condemn witch burning.
The Catholic Faith dogmatically teaches that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her. Therefore, abuse is morally unacceptable and ought to be dealt with.
My wife would like to make it known that she is accepting cash or gift cards as condolences
I will take an hourly rate for slaving away in the kitchen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some people are beyond the reach of reason, pneuma.
