Would it have mattered if Jesus and Mary Magdelane (sp) was married?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now, where does it say that to have the subordinate position is inferior? Doesn't Christ say, that the greatest among you must be servant to all?

So I guess slaves should have been happy with their station. After all, they were servents of whitefolk.

Then again, the Bible never condemns slavery.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Now, where does it say that to have the subordinate position is inferior? Doesn't Christ say, that the greatest among you must be servant to all?

So I guess slaves should have been happy with their station. After all, they were servents of whitefolk.

Then again, the Bible never condemns slavery.

Now, why do you want to make slavery an issue of race. Slaves were historically of all races. You are throwing baskets of red herring all over the issue Imran.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Where does it say that the woman must love her husband? How is any of this misogyny?

It is the husband that is held as the only power in the relationship. The husband is charged with responsibilies to love their wives and treat them good. The wife is not, because she is assumed to have no power and she needs to be taken care of because she cannot do so for her own.

Same stuff is said in the Koran. All it leads to is the belief that men are superior to women.

[Ben Kenobi]

Now as for my previous quote, from 1 Cor 7:2, still Apostle Paul here.

But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.

This is a fundamental equality, in the husband belonging to his wife, as a wife belongs to her husband, and contradicts the earlier notion that even as one is subordinate, that this confers a lesser value.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle
Now, why do you want to make slavery an issue of race. Slaves were historically of all races. You are throwing baskets of red herring all over the issue Imran.

Cause that is what it was in North America where Ben is from. And, furthermore, Christendom has, historically, been centered in Europe... where the people are, indeed, white.

You can replace 'whitefolk' with whatever you want... same thing applies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
This is a fundamental equality, in the husband belonging to his wife, as a wife belongs to her husband, and contradicts the earlier notion that even as one is subordinate, that this confers a lesser value.

So that one part overrides the other parts which confer inferiority to the women? Because it says the husband belong to the women, all those other words conferring an inferior place to the woman don't matter?

Please...

Once again, similar stuff in the Koran, but we see where that has led in the Mid East.

[Ben Kenobi]

It is the husband that is held as the only power in the relationship. The husband is charged with responsibilies to love their wives and treat them good. The wife is not, because she is assumed to have no power and she needs to be taken care of because she cannot do so for her own.

Where does it say that? It says that the two become one flesh, so there is no longer two, but one.

How can there be only one with power, and one without, if the two are now one?

That's the point here. It's really hard to understand because it is so radical, and different to what we think of things.

In a marriage anything the husband would do to his wife, also is done to himself. This is why Paul talks about men loving themselves, and not wanting to harm their own bodies.

For to hurt their wife is no different than for a man to hurt himself.

Secondly, if we take the position that the subordinate is no less valuable than the head, then it is possible for both to be equal in value, but different in function.

Same stuff is said in the Koran. All it leads to is the belief that men are superior to women.

Where does the Koran say, each woman is to have her own husband, as if the husband was owned by his wife?

[Capt Dizle]

The Bible says what it says Imran; please take notice, your subscription has been canceled.

[Ben Kenobi]

So I guess slaves should have been happy with their station. After all, they were servents of whitefolk.

Then again, the Bible never condemns slavery.

Marriage is entered into voluntarily. Slavery is completely different.

So that one part overrides the other parts which confer inferiority to the women? Because it says the husband belong to the women, all those other words conferring an inferior place to the woman don't matter?

Where does it say that a subordinate position is inferior?

That was my earlier question and is essential to your point. Christ does not see things the way men see things, and that the lesser in status is no lesser in value.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




Marriage is entered into voluntarily. Slavery is completely different.

Not when the Bible was written, it wasn't...

[Imran Siddiqui]

How can there be only one with power, and one without, if the two are now one?

Because they don't really mean that two become one, do they? Woman are charged with obedience and men get to make the decisions and, oh, they are told they should be nice to their wives as well.

if we take the position that the subordinate is no less valuable than the head

That's an idiotic position. The subordinate MEANS being less valuable.

Where does the Koran say, each woman is to have her own husband, as if the husband was owned by his wife?

Koran 30:21 - Among His proofs is that He created for you spouses from among yourselves, in order to have tranquility and contentment with each other, and He placed in your hearts love and care towards your spouses. In this, there are sufficient proofs for people who think.

Allah created spouses for males and females. If God created your spouse for you, then each spouse owns the other.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Marriage is entered into voluntarily. Slavery is completely different.

As Rufus points out, it decidedly wasn't. Fathers married off their daughters without taking their views into account. This sort of thing went on until the Renaissance when marriage for romance came into vogue.

Where does it say that a subordinate position is inferior?

hrist does not see things the way men see things, and that the lesser in status is no lesser in value.

Hence my slave question. I guess they should be happy where they are, because lesser in status doesn't mean they are lesser in value. No reason for them to rise up and overthrow the slavery system or anything.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The thing about all those quotes is: not one of them quotes Christ; they're all from Paul's letters.

Honestly, I think Christianity might have become a beautiful religion if Paul hadn't gotten a hold of it. Now it's not even Christianity -- it's Paulism.

I believe we can safely say that PAul was just a man with lots of opinions and that the important part of Christianity is what Christ said not what Paul said.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But what did Christ actually say?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That seems pretty clear to me. He is affirming marriage, rather than condoning unions outside of marriage.

Ned had a very interesting article about early Israeli culture. Often people would "get married" when there was no rabbi around and "marriage" was simply said to happen when a couple had sex. The first girl you screwed was your wife and any other girls you screwed made you guilty of adultery (bizzarly a special exception was allowed for hookers; meaning guys could screw hookers without commiting adultery).

The fact that a couple were having sex meant they were married not that the rabbi had blessed it or that the state had granted a licence.