Keeping in mind this duty of love, and building on the preceding verse (21) that introduces this passage in Ephesians—“Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ”— John Paul II interpreted these passages slightly differently: in a context of “mutual submission.”
Although there’s an apparent contradiction in such language, since two people or things can’t be “put under” each other in the same respect, in this understanding we can interpret submission not as an ordering of authority but as the mutual regard and self-giving love that both husband and wife must practice in marriage. Paul is simply expressing that idea in two different ways, corresponding to the analogy of marriage with the relationship between Christ and his Church.
also, the first verse is just calling everyone in the world to pray
Why does Eve get the blame for the snake’s lie when both she and Adam agreed to eat the fruit?
Why are women expected to be submissive to their husbands? You disgustingly pretend it’s a two-way street, but it’s not. The bible disproportionately favors men.
12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”
13 Yahweh God said to the woman, “What have you done?”
16 To the woman he said,
“I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth.
You will bear children in pain.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
17 To Adam he said,
“Because you have listened to your wife’s voice,
Explicitly, Eve gets the blame, and Adam is chastised for listening to a woman.
Its a two way street
No, it is not. The old testament includes many laws for women that do not apply to men, such as being compelled to marry their rapist.
1 Peter 3:
In the same way, wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, so that, even if any don’t obey the Word, they may be won by the behavior of their wives without a word, 2 seeing your pure behavior in fear.
Does he mention husbands in the same chapter? Why, yes! And it confirms that women are inferior:
You husbands, in the same way, live with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor to the woman as to the weaker vessel
Stop ignoring misogyny. Stop serving a death cult.
Church doctrine and tradition
But it has always been wrong. So why does it continue?
they werent
They were. They were bought and sold. Non-virgins were treated like defective goods.
The more you defend the heinous shit, the more intolerable you reveal yourself to be.
Genesis 3:17 Yet truly, to Adam, he said: “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree, from which I instructed you that you should not eat, cursed is the land that you work. In hardship shall you eat from it, all the days of your life.
Adam is at fault for being tempted into sin.
Verse?
1 Peter 3:2 as they consider with fear your chaste behavior.
Colossians 3:19 Husbands, love your wives, and do not be bitter toward them.
No, he’s at fault for listening to his wife. Is Eve at fault for listening to the snake? No, she gets blame directly.
Stop defending misogyny.
Verse?
Read your own goddam bible. And again, use full sentences. I have to do twice as much work figuring out what verse you’re even asking for. Fucking shitstain.
Deuteronomy 22:
28 If a man finds a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, grabs her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the lady’s father fifty shekels of silver. She shall be his wife, because he has humbled her. He may not put her away all his days.
Do you know how I found that? I typed “rape victims sold to rapists verse” into a search engine. So easy, even you could probably do it.
1 Peter 3:2 as they consider with fear your chaste behavior.
Women feared their husbands beating them, raping them. Husbands feared their wives… withholding sex. That’s what you call a 2-way street?
Colossians 3:19 Husbands, love your wives, and do not be bitter toward them.
Uh huh. Which shows a distinct difference compared to the language of the verse immediately before that one:
Wives, be in subjection to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
That’s verse 18. Does verse 19 say, “husbands, be in subjection to your wives”? Lol, no. Misogyny plain and clear.
It has not been wrong
It is absolutely wrong to assume that a person cannot teach due to their sex or gender.
Verse?
Use your words. Fuck it, use a search engine. But the passage I already quoted above from Deuteronomy is one example. It doesn’t matter whether christ came to “fulfill” these heinous laws, why were they ever written at all?
Genesis 3:14 And the Lord God said to the serpent: “Because you have done this, you are cursed among all living things, even the wild beasts of the earth. Upon your breast shall you travel, and the ground shall you eat, all the days of your life.
Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who does not have a betrothal, and, taking her, he lies with her, and the matter is brought to judgment
This isn’t rape, just having sex outside of marriage with a non virgin
That verse implies that the husbands, impressed by the righteous behavior of the wife would turn to Christ.
Only men can become priests but women can become nuns, and by extension have leadership roles in the church. There are 3 or above women in the council that vets bishops.
Mark 10:5 But Jesus responded by saying: “It was due to the hardness of your heart that he wrote that precept for you.
Keeping in mind this duty of love, and building on the preceding verse (21) that introduces this passage in Ephesians—“Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ”— John Paul II interpreted these passages slightly differently: in a context of “mutual submission.”
Although there’s an apparent contradiction in such language, since two people or things can’t be “put under” each other in the same respect, in this understanding we can interpret submission not as an ordering of authority but as the mutual regard and self-giving love that both husband and wife must practice in marriage. Paul is simply expressing that idea in two different ways, corresponding to the analogy of marriage with the relationship between Christ and his Church.
also, the first verse is just calling everyone in the world to pray
Absolute bullshit. The bible is relentlessly misogynistic.
I just showed you how it is not
No, you didn’t.
Why does Eve get the blame for the snake’s lie when both she and Adam agreed to eat the fruit?
Why are women expected to be submissive to their husbands? You disgustingly pretend it’s a two-way street, but it’s not. The bible disproportionately favors men.
Why can’t women preach?
Why were daughters considered property?
Fucking liar.
Genesis 3:
Explicitly, Eve gets the blame, and Adam is chastised for listening to a woman.
No, it is not. The old testament includes many laws for women that do not apply to men, such as being compelled to marry their rapist.
1 Peter 3:
Does he mention husbands in the same chapter? Why, yes! And it confirms that women are inferior:
Stop ignoring misogyny. Stop serving a death cult.
But it has always been wrong. So why does it continue?
They were. They were bought and sold. Non-virgins were treated like defective goods.
The more you defend the heinous shit, the more intolerable you reveal yourself to be.
Adam is at fault for being tempted into sin.
Verse?
1 Peter 3:2 as they consider with fear your chaste behavior.
Colossians 3:19 Husbands, love your wives, and do not be bitter toward them.
It has not been wrong
Verse?
No, he’s at fault for listening to his wife. Is Eve at fault for listening to the snake? No, she gets blame directly.
Stop defending misogyny.
Read your own goddam bible. And again, use full sentences. I have to do twice as much work figuring out what verse you’re even asking for. Fucking shitstain.
Deuteronomy 22:
Do you know how I found that? I typed “rape victims sold to rapists verse” into a search engine. So easy, even you could probably do it.
Women feared their husbands beating them, raping them. Husbands feared their wives… withholding sex. That’s what you call a 2-way street?
Uh huh. Which shows a distinct difference compared to the language of the verse immediately before that one:
That’s verse 18. Does verse 19 say, “husbands, be in subjection to your wives”? Lol, no. Misogyny plain and clear.
It is absolutely wrong to assume that a person cannot teach due to their sex or gender.
Use your words. Fuck it, use a search engine. But the passage I already quoted above from Deuteronomy is one example. It doesn’t matter whether christ came to “fulfill” these heinous laws, why were they ever written at all?
Genesis 3:14 And the Lord God said to the serpent: “Because you have done this, you are cursed among all living things, even the wild beasts of the earth. Upon your breast shall you travel, and the ground shall you eat, all the days of your life.
This isn’t rape, just having sex outside of marriage with a non virgin
That verse implies that the husbands, impressed by the righteous behavior of the wife would turn to Christ.
Only men can become priests but women can become nuns, and by extension have leadership roles in the church. There are 3 or above women in the council that vets bishops.
Mark 10:5 But Jesus responded by saying: “It was due to the hardness of your heart that he wrote that precept for you.