LOL. Yes, my wife is so oppressed. She has a doctorate and makes twice a much money as I do. She literally can do anything she wants. She chooses to be my wife and the mother of our children.
That doesn't mean that the model of marriage in which wives submit is not oppressive. It is.
------------------------------
Ohorseman said: ↑
Along side that, maybe you could even try to validate priestly blessings for same-sex couples as is the practice in your providence.
Paidiski said: ↑
You are assuming my position on this. I have no intention of arguing for same-sex marriage, in this thread or any other.
---------------------------
Well, yeah, it's against the rules in this forum. Or maybe you disagree with your boss, Clarence Bester.
Anglican Church of Australia
Clarence Bester
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Bester
I was not in this diocese when those decisions were made, and I have not blessed a same-sex marriage. I have sought to be obedient to the call to minister faithfully in my parish and contribute faithfully in my diocese, but that doesn't mean I always agree with every decision or position put forward by others.
And this is off topic to this thread, and you risk running foul of CF's rule against calling out members in a negative manner.
Anglican Church of Australia is about on par with TEC.
In my limited experience of TEC, (most of it gleaned from this forum), it is both more catholic and more liberal in flavour than most of the Anglican Church of Australia.
Thanks be to God for GAFCON.
Ah, yeah, no. I have nothing good to say about GAFCON.
Additionally, if those Greek Orthodox mean so little to you, then certainly you see me, an ACNA layman, as even less.
I'm sure you're a good and faithful member of another denomination. I generally start from a position of respect for others I don't know, and hope they don't prove me wrong.
@Paidiski, you force a mean face on people that they themselves never intended nor want to wear .
I "force a mean face"? I'm critical of positions I believe to be unscriptural, theologically unsound, historically unjustified, pastorally and missionally disastrous, and ethically unconscionable. I can make sound arguments on all of those fronts. If you don't like that, then I suggest you don't start topics in a debate forum and invite responses.
You put this in a debate forum! And you come in here arguing for patriarchy, which is by definition a system which is oppressive to women, (
patriarchy, n: a social system in which power is held by men, through cultural norms and customs that favour men and withhold opportunity from women) and then are offended when some of us take issue with that.
I mean, really?!
Ohorseman said: ↑
I know, that's a lot of verses. And there are more even. Just pick one of the obvious ones and explain to me what you mean, please. How would we understand them differently? They are so plain.
Paidiski said: ↑
Well, take the first one. Wives, submit to your husbands.... Except they leave out the part immediately before that; Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. The submission or subjection was never meant to be one-sided or only wives to husbands, but mutual and both to each.
This is not a mandate for men to control or dominate women, but for mutuality in life.
-------------------------
HOWEVER, I never said that I believed it was one-sided. I am a 52-year-old Christian man that has been married to the same Christian woman for 24 years. I have read ALL the verses in the passage, as well as ALL the verses in the other passages. Rather than asking me what I believe, you forced on me this one-sided position / characterization and then you proceed to chastise me for it. You pretend it be teaching. It certainly is not. And don't say that you were just responding to the first Bible verse I provided. That was a link that listed the verses. Of course we would read the entire passage. For you to pretend that one would not is rather pretentious as well as insulting to that person, as if he were so feeble minded that he does not know to do that. Not only do I read the verses ( that liberal interpreters can twist), I read all of them and I observe the holy pattern, patterns that start at creation and extend to the Second Coming of Christ. Liberal type interrupters can deform this and that, but the pattern is there and these have been talked about and written about for centuries.
You're the one here arguing for patriarchy. You're the one arguing for wifely submission (not up until this point have you indicated that you believe in mutual submission between husband and wife, and your posts in this thread have been mixed, at best, on that point).
If you want to tell me that you actually believe that husbands and wives should be mutual partners in life, sharing leadership and decision making, sharing parental authority equally, both supported to pursue their vocations and their goals, each submitting to the other and not one more than the other, and so on, then great; but that has certainly not been clear from your posts to this point.
In my first post, I start off by saying that I think patriarchy is about responsibility and not power. From that alone, you should AT LEAST suspect that my interest is not to control or dominate women.
You might not personally be interested in control or domination, but you are posting in support of a social structure which allows, encourages and enables men to do just that.
Then I go on to heavily criticize patriarchy - war, bombs, inappropriate content, abortion, gay pride - it's all men's fault. Certainly, by then you should know that I am not praising patriarchy.
I thought you were criticising women's liberation for things like abortion. Not patriarchy. It seemed to me that you were arguing that stronger patriarchy would be a way to reduce abortion (and also things like gay pride). Is that not your position?
Truly, my interest was/is exchanging ideas about how men should take up their responsibilities in accordance to the will of God.
The difficulty is that as long as you cast authority and leadership as
men's responsibilities - rather than the shared responsibilities of all adults - it comes across very much as if you are arguing for men to reduce women's agency and opportunities.
You clearly put forth that a man cannot tell a woman what to do. Then, why would you try to tell me what to do.
Again, this is a debate forum, and you started the topic, inviting debate... For what it's worth, I didn't try to "tell you what to do," but I did argue that undermining the dignity and agency of women is not a helpful path.
Oh, wait, its not you, it's Bible verse - ones that you are deforming and in a way that is grossly out of line with tradition, the tradition that you think is evil and wish to tear down.
So far the only Bible verses we've discussed are the ones about mutual submission, and you tell me you agree with me on that. So which ones are you claiming I'm deforming? By all means, let's debate them.
But too much about women's rights...
In a thread about patriarchy, which is about systematically denying women's rights, that seems pretty well on topic.
It's not that you say we are trash bits. It's how you treat a man that is not gay or on board with your cancel culture agenda. If I were gay, you would validate me. Build me up. Maybe even bless me and my boyfriend and even our gay relationship. After all, there is no male or female... as if that phrase crushes all the other passages that suggest otherwise.
In the nicest possible way, I think you're reading way too much into my posts here.
Yes, I am debating robustly. I am not treating anyone as trash and I work very hard to argue the point not the person. If you feel I have failed in that I would welcome you pointing it out, and I will apologise.
But this has nothing to do with sexuality. It has nothing to do with cancel culture. It has everything to do with a thread which is attempting to explore questions of patriarchy and social systems which are healthy for both men and women, and I am attempting to contribute constructively to that.
If we are not in communion, that means something and you don't really need me to explain it.
In this forum, which is open to all Christians equally, it means very little.
I don't mind if you contribute. But take your "dismantling" work elsewhere. I ask that you stop arguing with my guests so much. You shut them down. I want to hear what they have to say. Maybe you should start a few threads of your own. I understand your position and points clearly and you don't have to keep repeating them.
I don't really think you get to ask me not to debate in a debate thread. We are all members here on an equal footing. I'm happy to stay on topic, and to attempt to be constructive within that topic, but everyone is free to contribute and to disagree with one another. I'm not shutting anyone down, as others are just as free to post and to disagree with one another, should they wish.
As for threads of my own, you might like to stop by the
Egalitarian forum. I had a bit to do with getting that set up.
Oh, and that's my art that no one seems to have noticed. I drew in pencil and then digitally painted it monochromatic style. It's the Lion of Judah. The 3 halos represent the Trinity. Maybe no one likes it because it's too... patriarchal looking, LOL.
View attachment 295983
It's nicely done. I tend not to pay a lot of attention to art; my lack of comment shouldn't be taken as meaning anything in particular.
