Fellow Christians, what does this passage mean to you?

DamnYankee said:
I've proved you wrong on another thread so you started this one. Several have noted this. Stop being so fucking dumb.
Click to expand...

Really, where? Copy and past it here... It did not happen. Answer my question then and lets see where you stand on the issue...
 
Jarod said:
I disagree, one phrase says they are to submit to each-other, then limits it to "in fear of God." Then it goes on to once again say that women are to submit to husbands without any limiting language and without mentioning any obligation of a man to submit to a women, this time without any limiting language. Why say it twice for women and only once for men? Why limiting language when men's obligation is involved and not when women's obligations are involved?

THen add other places in the Bible where it calls women the "weaker vessel" and such.
Click to expand...

??????.....this isn't something you can disagree on......I linked you the original text.......the sentence has one verb in it.....that verb tells both men and women what they must do.....you cannot pretend it's different language for each sex because it's the same.....fucking......WORD........now you may not like that, but you're stuck with it.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
except there isn't different verbage for each......it says "submit" to one another.....the same verb is used for what is required of men and what is required of women.....to claim they are two different things is not only inaccurate, but in light of the fact it's been pointed out to you, incredibly dishonest......
Click to expand...

The entire sentence structure is different. Ugh. I am not coming up with some whacko idea here, the majority of American churches teach what I am complaining about.
 
Dixie said:
Many Christian-based denominations do this already, but what you won't find, are female Mullahs and Clerics. You see, in Islam, a woman is a stupid animal, like a goat. It would be silly to expect them to follow religious teachings from a goat, don't you agree?
Click to expand...

It is because of this type of passage that they dont all allow women to be priests. They have to be subservent nuns in the Catholic Church.
 
I am shocked that you guys dispute the reality that mainstreem churches preach that women are to be subservent to men.
 
Lowaicue said:
Yes, but it was some dumb snake! Would you give an instruction to a woman and expect her to obey???

'Don't eat the apple.'NO. Don't eat the apple. DON'T eat the apple.

'Fur chrissakes, woman, leave the friggin apple alone.

Jeez! What can you do?

I KNOW you thought it looked pretty but I told you NOT to eat the bloody thing!
Click to expand...

LMAO
 
Jarod said:
The entire sentence structure is different
Click to expand...
????....no....

the majority of American churches teach what I am complaining about.
Click to expand...

and no......

interesting.....baptist.org is an actual site......though the other three aren't.......I didn't see anything there that bolstered your arguement, though since the Baptists do tend to be anti-woman there might be something there somewhere........of course that only covers about 17% of Christianity so you're still a bit short.....
 
Why do women traditionally promise to Obey there husbands while husbands do not promise to obey wives?
 
Jarod said:
Catholicchurch.org
Leaningrightschurch.org
Baptist.org
Churchofchrist.org
Click to expand...

Wrong dumbass. I was raised in the Catholic church. Not once did they ever preach that women should be subservient. But thanks for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that what I stated was correct.

Douche bag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top