So British were… Christian now? Some were, sure. But only in the later first century.

Rome only invaded the isle in 40 c.e or so. Paul was on the other side of the world. He may have been “aware” that they existed, but he certainly wasn’t influenced by them. And frankly given how he didn’t write them any letters… I find that dubious.(he died around 65ad, and the letter furthest west was to Rome.)

You said “until WW2”. Britain was Christian within that wide timeframe you provided. I know for a fact from my own family history that wasn’t the case.

You keep trying to say that’s okay because husbands are supposed to love their wives. But that’s not equality, it’s misogyny.

It’s not supposed to be equality by the white, western secular definition of it. A woman can also choose not to marry, as to which she’d be subject to the same authority structures as men. Marriage is choosing to submit to a man of your choice. The Bible and Christianity doesn’t have to conform to 21st century white society. In fact, Christianity has basically always opposed society, everywhere and anywhere. In USA ‘Republican’ circles, it condemns their greed and selfish attitudes. In USA ‘Democratic’ circles, it condemns their fornication and rebelliousness. In China, they don’t take issue with the views of marriage, but do take issue with the charitable aspects and demands of Christianity. At times in history Husbands didn’t love their wives, at other times, wives didn’t obey their husbands. There is no historical point in time or person other than Jesus where this has been practiced properly. In fact, men cannot be perfect like Jesus is, but it’s what’s expected of them. And this is all from the fall:

Genesis 3:16

To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”

He also says that Christian’s are slaves to Christ

I don’t have an issue with this. Far better than the alternative - being a slave to Satan.

It doesn’t matter if masters are to love their slaves or husbands love their wives.

It definitely does matter.

“But I’m a loving husband” doesn’t make controlling and subjugating your wife okay.

A loving husband doesn’t control and subjugate his wife. Your sentence here doesn’t make any sense at all.

The Bible doesn’t tell men to control and subjugate their wives. It tells them to love (agapos) them, lead them, and guide them.

In europe, arranged marriages were normal until ww2

At least in the UK, that’s just not true. It was a thing nobility did, but it anyone who wasn’t generally married for love. Even the Bible documents marrying for love on separate occasions in old testament times.

So. if obedience and love (or service, since you brought that up,) are the same and equivalent things… why make distinctions. Why not say “husbands obey your wives?”

Service, obedience and love aren’t the same things. A good policeman serves his community, but he doesn’t submit to them. A lot of the time, service does involve hearing out their opinion, and loving them, but not submission. If two partners were to submit to each other, how does it work when the wife orders her husband and her husband orders her to not order him, in which she returns by ordering him to not order her to not order him, and so forth? Which one is in the right here?

So yeah. seems very patriarchal to me. Jesus doesn’t obey the chruch, or submit to the church. He commands it, and “the church” is to submit.

Exactly. But he serves the Church by interceding for them, granting miracles, teaching them, and most of all, going through torture and pains, even that of death, to save them. He is patient and ever-forgiving with us. He doesn’t forsake us no matter how much or how badly we screw up. And Husbands are ordered to do the same.

I’m not denying that this is patriarchal - there is an element of patriarchy to Christian families. But I wouldn’t use the term patriarchy due to it’s secular undertones where it’s perceived that the man doesn’t display Christ-like love for his wife. God laid out the structure that the husband is the head of the wife and that God is the head of the husband. Across the Bible, even by some extent in the book of Genesis, Marriage is depicted as a picture of Christ and His Church. That’s what marriage is - it’s a picture to show us our relationship to God. The Church is the Bride of Christ.

Keep spamming. I doubt it’ll lessen your chances.

?

Remember. They’re to obey their fathers. Who would be arranging marriages well before they reached marital age.

And then they’re married, they’re to obey their husbands. young girls were not making these decisions. Their parents were.

This didn’t really happen in Christendom.

There’s still no verse where Paul says to obey women in the same way that women are to obey men. I’m sorry. Husbands are to obey wives in the same way wives are to obey husbands.

Husbands don’t necessarily obey their wives in the same way. Husbands are given a greater task of “loving their wives as Christ loved The Church”

Ephesians 5:23-33

For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 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. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

This definitely cannot be ignored, the implications of this command must be broken down.

Husbands are to serve their wives, not the other way around:

Mark 10:45

For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Husbands are to be willing to die for their wives. Not just in taking a bullet - that’s too easy - but dying to your own passions and desires everyday for the comfort of your wife - because you love her and do this out of love.

I should also emphasise the meaning of the word love here:

ἀγαπάω (agapos, verb for agape ἀγάπη)

This isn’t the same word as sexual love (eros). In fact, it’s basically exclusively used to describe the love that God has for us.

ἀγάπη is very sharply defined also:

1 Corinthians 13:1-13

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

So it’s not the secular view of a patriarchal system, but a self-sacrificing Christlike husband whom the wife trusts and obeys.

He doesn’t tell women to submit to men, he tells wives to submit to their husbands. Both male and female children submit to their parents. Of course he doesn’t tell parents to submit to their children, that’s essentially lunacy.

Also there were very few women who were unmarried, culturally, at that time, the role of women were to mary and attend to their husband’s house and raise their children. No where does he contradict that.

Generally it’s traditionally believed that Mary Magdalene didn’t marry. Consecrated virgins (nuns) were also a thing

Paul defends the decision of women not to marry

1 Corinthians 7:8-9

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Yes, I do see that, but that’s within a marriage setting. Completely different to if a man she isn’t married to refuses to hire her as an accountant because she’s a woman.

In the way it is written, the commandment applies to both. “And the husband should not divorce his wife…” Is basically an abbreviation for the previous point, the note still applies. Essentially it’s like saying “the same applies for the husband”.

Jesus actually applied it to men:

Matthew 5:31-32

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

And further on, His full teaching:

Matthew 19:3-9

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Two mature adults getting along? Kids are forced to have those parents and their siblings as well. Don’t see why husband and wife should be an exception

How do you measure justice?

Largely, because it assumes that every single person part of the religion is there voluntarily, which is demonstrably false.

If you’re vying for leadership, you are definitely there voluntarily.

Secondly, it DOES affect me. There is an active effort to erode the separation of church and state, meaning Christian values are being actively imposed on those who do not claim any affiliation with Christianity. Southern Baptist, being the largest denomination in the south, is increasingly active in politics.

That’s a separate issue - here it seems people want to impose secular values on the way the Southern Baptists do things. You can’t have it one way (In most cases, I do condemn the imposition of Christianity on the general secular public)

And lastly, I 100% agree that people within a religion should make absolutely no attempt to control the lives of those NOT within their religion. But that is not what we see.

I agree to a point. I think it is okay for Christians to be involved in politics, and a lot of those Christians would have their opinions and views originate from their philosophy which is rooted in Christianity. So these will be ideals that life is sacred, that the marginalised and oppressed should be uplifted, that people should be forgiven, etc. However, I wouldn’t see why things like adultery, polygamy, homosexuality, fornication or idolatry between consenting adults should be prohibited. If people want to be free to destroy themselves and make bad decisions, they have the right to do so as long as it isn’t harming others

Divorce is equally prohibited.

1 Corinthians 7:10-14

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Paul goes out of his way to name both sexes.

Well, just say you did fall out of love or have an argument. For the sake of your children, you should remain together

That’s why you marry someone you love and enjoy being around. You commit yourself to them.

I’m not talking about indigenous religions here, I’m talking about Christianity. It forbids divorce equally whether it be a man or a woman who wishes to separate

Obey their husbands, yes. Doesn’t have much to do with secular job roles

There isn’t correlation between an ecclesial issue and secular issue. Christianity forbids women to hold authority over men within the church. However, this doesn’t have anything to do with secular politics, ie, a female prime minister/president doesn’t contradict this. You can have no issue with female political figures or women in other places within secular environments, but disagree with them being appointed in Church leadership.

Same can go for other issues such as same-sex marriage as well, adultery, premarital relations, etc.

I am not a part of your religion. So why should it affect me? The ecclesial structure of churches doesn’t affect you. If you want to form a religion where consenting converts are obliged to beat each other up and be beaten up and steal each others cars, why should I object

That’s what I said, before COVID. After that they decided not to bother anymore.

Although this is mainly western society pre-constantine. In places like Asia and the Arab world there was no advantage in pretending, quite the opposite. So it’s more pure there.

Extremely weird behaviour. Although that was the case until around before covid (in some places it’s still ongoing but it rapidly declines, churches led by atheists also rapidly die out)