So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[Mountain Man]

The point Chuck is missing is that one can read that passage the way he wants only if we ignore the context. Verse 21 telling Christians to submit to one another soundly refutes any notion that wives are to be subservient.

[Cow Poke]

The point Chuck is missing is that one can read that passage the way he wants only if we ignore the context. Verse 21 telling Christians to submit to one another soundly refutes any notion that wives are to be subservient.

EGGzackly - the whole passage is for Christians on how to live lives that please God. That's as foreign to Tassy and Charles as women's fashion is to a rock.

[seer]

....soundly refutes any notion that wives are to be subservient.

I'm not sure why moral relativists would have a problem with submission of women to men, after all that is what we find with our closest primate cousins. It seems to be genetic...

[Cow Poke]

I'm not sure why moral relativists would have a problem with submission of women to men, after all that is what we find with our closest primate cousins. It seems to be genetic...

And since Tassman has already declared "I think we can agree that young children and babies fare better with their mothers", he appears to believe women are special. But he has a walleyed conniption because some of us want to TREAT them special. It has to be SO confusing to be a liberal.

[Charles]

The point Chuck is missing is that one can read that passage the way he wants only if we ignore the context. Verse 21 telling Christians to submit to one another soundly refutes any notion that wives are to be subservient.

And yet, as you of course know it goes on to say:

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

But, like I mentioned, theology is sometimes the art of making the text say the opposite of what the words actually do say. Seems you are the one ignoring context.

[Cow Poke]

Seems you are the one ignoring context.

Try seeing the verses you ripped out of context in the context of the entire subject matter - all of Chapter 5.

[seer]

And since Tassman has already declared "I think we can agree that young children and babies fare better with their mothers", he appears to believe women are special. But he has a walleyed conniption because some of us want to TREAT them special. It has to be SO confusing to be a liberal.

Leftist men are not gentlemen.

[Charles]

No, it's perfectly suitable for commentary.

Yet you have not made any comments on my point as to why the commentary did not really work. Just claiming it does so when I have given reasons as to why it does not seems a little weak.

[Cow Poke]

Leftist men are not gentlemen.

It would appear so, because they're too busy trying to appear to represent the women they say need no special attention.

[Cow Poke]

Yet you have not made any comments on my point as to why the commentary did not really work. Just claiming it does so when I have given reasons as to why it does not seems a little weak.

I've actually pointed you to the OVERALL CONTEXT of the matter, which you choose to ignore. You can argue all you want over commentary - the real issue is the Word of God.

[Bill the Cat]

Leftist men are not gentlemen.

2r9j93.jpg

[Charles]

I've actually pointed you to the OVERALL CONTEXT of the matter, which you choose to ignore. You can argue all you want over commentary - the real issue is the Word of God.

I have not ignored the OVERALL CONTEXT. What you seem to miss is that the overall context is made up of the parts it exists of. It is a litte too convenient to just ignore the parts you don't like by pointing to context. It makes me wonder why those words were even there if they are not meant to say anything along the lines of what they mean in everyday use of the words.

And you still have no comment on the commentary and my points against it. Trying to change subject with your "the real issue is the Word of God" statement? It is rather telling that you simply cannot adress the point. Interesting.

[Mountain Man]

And yet, as you of course know it goes on to say:

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

And yet, as you of course know it goes on to say:

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

[Cow Poke]

I have not ignored the OVERALL CONTEXT.

With a vengeance!

What you seem to miss is that the overall context is made up of the parts it exists of.

Wow.... I think you're proving you don't know squat about context. The "parts" are PART of it, but there's so much more.

It is a litte too convenient to just ignore the parts you don't like by pointing to context.

So, like "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"? It doesn't work like that.

It makes me wonder why those words were even there if they are not meant to say anything along the lines of what they mean in everyday use of the words.

Yeah, you don't get "context".

And you still have no comment on the commentary and my points against it.

And you still ignore the overall context of the passage - the "bigger picture", so to speak, of which those verses you ripped out of context were only a part.

Trying to change subject with your "the real issue is the Word of God" statement?

Trying to get you to focus on the overall context, not just the part you want to cherry pick.

It is rather telling that you simply cannot adress the point. Interesting.

The MAIN point is that this is a PASSAGE about how Christians should live, and there are parts of that that address the roles of men and women within that context.

[One Bad Pig]

Try seeing the verses you ripped out of context in the context of the entire subject matter - all of Chapter 5.

Charles is apparently not all that interested in context.