Not immediately. I didn't claim there was one. There is a difference between having a balance and insisting that one is inferior.
About christianity, people who are out to make a point (people who want to bash, and fundies wanting to boss around women) only ever mention one side of the coin and use that to claim all christians are misogynistic.
The NT says that wives are to sumbit to their husband, AND that men have to love /respect their wives like Christ loved the church and gave themselves completely to their wives.
When both parties play their role, there is no inferiority. And looking at a more comprehensive analysis, of the related scripture, it is not unreasonable to conclude that there is no inferiority or 'submission' in the sense of inferiority.
Of course, I would not expect you to agree, given that you are determine to reach a given outcome. You'll just take half a sentence by a literal meaning without context and make conclusions.
You are doing the same as the nutters, only your motivation is different.
I'm sorry but Wives having to submit to their husbands is codified inferiority.
So no, not all Christians are misogynists, just the ones who do what the bible tells them.
That link is just more babble by people trying to explain away the nasty parts of their religion, which is a good thing by the way; I want people to be embarrassed by their scriptures and to try to weedle their way out of their intended message, but please, don't piss on me and tell me its raining.
That all sounds nice, but since God won't come down here and speak for Himself, it always ends up being a small group of people who claim to speak for God telling everyone else what to do. And since the people in charge are almost always men, women always get the shaft in that deal.
Complementarianism is like communism: it's a nice idea in theory, but when put into practice by imperfect people, it always ends up being a vehicle for oppression.
Doesn't Complementarianism in the most basic definition mean different roles within a marriage? Complimentary, for example biologocly speaking a woman would have to be that mother as she is the one who gives birth, she could also be the one to feed the baby, as she has the breasts to do so, while she is doing this, the husband is out hunting doing whatever he is doing to support the family, isn't that Complementarianism in it's most basic form?
Submission is submission this much I agree with, but not all religions agree with that and that isn't a key factor of Complementarianism. So again, context and generalisations.
Am I going to be called a sexist for saying that most women have maternal instincts and want to have a baby at a certain age, and most men have paternal instincts where they want to provide for their family and protect them?
To return to my aforementioned communism analogy, no, a one-party system and an oppressive, dictatorial government are not theoretically an essential part of communism, but communism somehow always ends up that way.
In much the same way, submission, while not theoretically essential to complementarianism, always seems to work its way in there. Has there ever been a complementarianist system that didn't result in one side getting to tell the other side what to do? And has the side with all the power ever been the women?
As far as I can tell, complementarianism's oppressive sexism rate is holding steady at 100%. And that's enough proof for me that it's a bad thing.
I just found it inaccurate to state that couples that have agreed to certain roles in the family "always" end up having the woman being submissive. Is that something you find true?
It's not something that I want to stretch over for another few posts, but sweeping statements like that are wrong and we shouldn't be "taking it in the spirit..."
I actually agree with you, but I don't think it's something to derail the conversation over right now, that might change, if it becomes the crux of someones argument, but for now it doesn't seem to be.
Is it an oxymoron to state that all sweeping statements are wrong?
So, I dated this one girl few years ago, but then she moved to California to become famous. We are still friends,tho...
Now, to address your issue Blade96, you should really look at it as a blessing in disguise. You wouldn't wanna be with some lunatic who can't go to rock concerts, anyway.
I think you should get some bagged milk and throw it at him when you see him. It will make you feel better.