The church is the "bride of Christ"- gender-bending metaphor?

reply to post by mamabeth

I'm a sick puppy and this thread (that allows all a right to reply to my query) is an "abomination"? Is that all you can add? I must add though that they were very creatively used five words, and the first time I was confronted with five words ending in "abomination".
Jesus was both fully human and divine (or not?), did He or His male apostles (most not being married) lust?
It is clearly stated in Ephesians 5:22-23 that the church is male dominated (liberal denominations notwithstanding).
Both the men and women in this church are believers for sure, but the "bride" is/are foremostly the male leaders.
How is that sick? (Except for some historical Biblical society customs concerning age, which are merely contextualization, and factual.)
It is only "sick" because modern "Abrahamic faith" interpretations focus on a gender dichotomy which their own texts betray.
They want to force Jesus (of all deities) into a narrow pro-family paradigm without any evidence whatsoever. Those politics are sick, not my thread.



[edit on 24-1-2010 by halfoldman]

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by halfoldman

 

And yet many modern Christians want to spice things up for husbands and wives in the bedroom.

Point? There is nothing wrong with that within the bounds of marriage.

Compared to 2-thousand years of traditional Christianity (that even dictated the sexual positions and frequency of marital sex),

And can you show me this in the Bible? Traditions really shouldn't mean much in Christianity. Afterall, Jesus preached against the traditions of the Pharisees.

there is a notion that even pornographic pleasures are OK within marriage today.

Yes, in liberal churches/denominations. That doesn't mean that God approves of it. Pornography is bad because it causes people to lust.

The fact remains however that the male-dominated church is Christ's "bride", and hence they must be in silence and submission to Christ, even as they dominate the female believers.

There are more women in Christianity than men. It's not even the case in all churches that women are not allowed to assume leadership roles. Many churches even have women pastors. So, to say that Christianity is male dominated is a bit of a bogus statement.

They should wear female bridal attire as they await the return of their groom - Christ.

Yeah, I'm done with this discussion. I don't think you've paid attention to anything that anyone has said.

Hi, apologies for not getting back in detail. I think you make some good points, so when I sometimes shut-up it doesn't mean I'm not considering those points. I don't think to say that the broad Christian church is male-led is bogus at all. How many women are in leadership positions, and then they usually specify women as their market? I think the Anglicans are the only main organization with fully ordained female priests (and even that is disputed). I know some evangelicals have powerful female speakers (aimed mainly at women, or in supporting roles).
It says in 1 Timothy 2:12 that women may not usurp or teach men, and in Revelation 14:4 the the "procession of the redeemed" are "undefiled by women".
Concerning marriage, according to 1 Corinthians 7 it is better for some men to take one wife, rather than to burn with lust, however the teaching is: "...it remaineth both they that have wives be as though they had none" (1 Corinth 7:29).
Married members to the faith are welcome, but: "Art though loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife." (1 Corinth 7: 27.)
So maybe the best thing that Christian women can do is to stop defiling men, and distracting them? Or not so?
1 Timothy 2:11-14: "And Adam was not decieved, but the woman being deceived was in transgression". So let her learn in "silence" and "subjection", or is the Bible wrong? Is my KJV wrong?
So the female metaphors are clear: men can either be the "bride", or the "whore" of Revelations.
I question all this, but obviously some are in total denial of what the Bible actually says.

[edit on 24-1-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by Unregistered

If the thought and sight of homosexuality disgusts you, then no I am not offended. If individual people disgust you just because they are gay, then I'm not so sure. As long as you are happy with what you are and believe, as offensive as it may be to many. (Sorry, no insult intended.)
But who cares what offends me? All the Christian tomes on sexuality from the Inquisition to modern anti-gay obsessions - none of that is of course offensive, and has led to the torture and death of millions at the hand of "faithful" sadists.
None of that offends: How Christian slave-owners raped their female slaves, how Christian feudal Lords raped their serfs, the genocide against native people during colonialism, how the poor of Europe were criminalized, raped and flogged to death on the way to America or Australia. None of that offends or is in any way sexual.
The way that the female philosopher Hypatia was skinned alive with shells by early Christian male terrorists. The way that women couldn't inherit, the way that divorcees were socially dead, and women were refused painkillers in childbirth because the Bible said they must give birth in sorrow, screaming...
The way that Sylvia Plath couldn't ignore the adultery and gassed herself in an oven, the way Diana cried on TV when she realized she was just "breeding material", Mrs Swaggert to Mrs Woods - all that scandalous, cold-hearted heterosexuality does not offend.
So thank you for that heterosexual halo - how a man kissing another man offends. I tell you...
We must only focus on the lines in the Bible that are "inoffensive".
Forgive my train of thought.

[edit on 24-1-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by halfoldman


I didn't have time to properly answer your thread yesterday,I do now.
I can't believe how low someone will go to bash christianity and our
Saviour.I never thought I would see our Saviour,anal sex and lubed
up,in one post.
I stand corrected on my comment about your thread,it should have
read...This thread should be closed!

reply to post by mamabeth

My opening post says that I find people who use this metaphor simply to be offensive "childish".
The fact is that marriage is the way that sexuality was channelled, and it is a sexual metaphor. More and more people are finding this often repeated metaphor strangely homoerotic for a religion that has a significant homophobic componant. So in modern parlance the imagery of gay marriage does come to mind, and I posed this as a question of a possible (misguided) meaning.

If you want to see Jesus in the same material as anal sex, lube, and the description of every possible perversion then just read any homophobic fundamentalists book on homosexuality (to stop these texts from being completely pornographic, lesbian sex-acts are usually not described in detail). There's a lot of pornographic stuff in the Bible, and the writers were obviously not very squeamish about this. See postfun.ultraxs.com... (the post points out that the Bible is R-rated and that if books containing violence and sex are removed from children's libraries, then the Bible should go first) or www.jesus21.com...
The church consists of individuals, so yes, by Christianity's own metaphor the Pope is the bride of Christ, John Hagee is the plump bride of Christ, Kenneth Copeland is the bride of Christ, Rod Parsely is the bride of Christ, Par Roberson is a blushing bride, and so forth.
But that's a typical response: as soon as something cannot be sufficiently explained it must be censored and silenced in the hope that it will go away. Some things never change.

PS. When Christians write books on Islam, they link it to all kinds of perversion, pedophilia and adultery. (See for example: "Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The historical roots of a contemporary threat" by Peter Hammond, Christian Liberty Books.) Perhaps they should drop the sour grapes attitude, and take it as they dish it out. Just a thought.


[edit on 25-1-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by halfoldman


I bash islam,but only to a degree.I would never post anything linking
islam's prophet to anal sex and lubed up.

reply to post by mamabeth

My apologies, mamabeth for causing you offense.
I was approaching the metaphor from various positions that I found in my wider context.
Fortunately many responses explained things from other vantage points, but in future I will attempt to make the Inro point more considerate and less immediately radical. I do have the feeling here that I can ask questions that sincerely bug me, which I can't ask in wider society, but I would never like to "bash" and person or group.
In the mystery (pagan) religions of the Roman era, knowing the God/gods as "lovers" between the devotee and deity was a "great mystery", and although they never had lube, the metaphor of male devotees in a female postion towards the male deity was not offensive or strange. In Greek myth the gods often fornicated with mortals. So my thread tried to find a modern metaphor of this, and it was never to insult or bash any religion.

(One should also not make tautological causalities that don't exist - including sexual acts and divinities in a post in a questioning manner is not the same as saying "These men and the divinities WILL commit sodomy" - something I never stated, but it seems to be presumed.)


[edit on 26-1-2010 by halfoldman]

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by halfoldman

 

I bash islam,but only to a degree.I would never post anything linking
islam's prophet to anal sex and lubed up.

In the context of our time describing someone as a "pedophile" is certainly more serious that just the idea of adult men "lubing up" to be "brides" (although that possibility is not sustained in the thread at all).
Well, to see how Islam is "bashed" with serious allegations without retort see www.muslimhope.com...

Originally posted by TarzanBeta

Are you homosexual?

second line.

What difference does his sexual orientation make?
Good people are good people.
So what's the big deal?

Originally posted by octotom

Just as it's been said; Christ's "bride" is both men and women, not just men. The church is called "the bride of Christ" because, when he returns, the church will be with Christ forever, just like a wife is with her husband forever.

So, in other words...be a good wifey and don't speak unless spoken to...do your womanly duties and be subjugated to your man.
Just like how the church wants it's 'sheep' to basically bend over and take one for jesus.

reply to post by Simplynoone


Perhaps he's sick and tired of your kind persecuting him for being himself.
No person has the right to tell anyone that their lifestyle is wrong, regardless of if it's against their faith.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by halfoldman

 

And then they ban same-sex marriage under this overarching homoerotic metaphor - go figure.

My friend...marriage is overrated anyways.
Don't get me wrong, everyone has the right to lose half their stuff, but you don't need a piece of paper (especially one from such a hypocritical organization) to prove you love someone and want to dedicate your life to them.
But, being the clever boy you are, I'm sure you already know that.
Shemhamforash.

The church is the "bride of Christ"- gender-bending metaphor?

Ahhh, now it kinda makes sense. I know what the cross is for now. !

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by halfoldman

 

I have five words to describe how I feel about you and this thread...
You are a sick puppy!This thread is an abomination!

Ah, so you stand in judgement, eh?
Heh, I was wondering when the hypocrites would show themselves.

Originally posted by Matthew Dark

Originally posted by octotom

Just as it's been said; Christ's "bride" is both men and women, not just men. The church is called "the bride of Christ" because, when he returns, the church will be with Christ forever, just like a wife is with her husband forever.

So, in other words...be a good wifey and don't speak unless spoken to...do your womanly duties and be subjugated to your man.

...As He is to You! Christ served humanity!

Just like how the church wants it's 'sheep' to basically bend over and take one for jesus.

Do you mean the manufactured false construct that is established religion? If not, the metaphor is inappropriate.

Originally posted by Matthew Dark


So, in other words...be a good wifey and don't speak unless spoken to...do your womanly duties and be subjugated to your man.

Originally posted by teapot
...As He is to You! Christ served humanity!

As he is to me? What has 'he' ever done for me? Aside from the fact that there is absolutely NO conclusive evidence that he even existed the way you romanticize him, the concept has never done anything for me except motivate me to learn and think for myself...and learn to think for myself.

Originally posted by Matthew Dark
Just like how the church wants it's 'sheep' to basically bend over and take one for jesus.

Originally posted by teapot
Do you mean the manufactured false construct that is established religion? If not, the metaphor is inappropriate.

Actually, I was referring to the people who believe that your bible is the be all/end all ultimate last word. Anything that falls outside of the boundaries of what bible-thumpers believe is 'decent' is usually considered an abomination (or for want of a better term due to lack of education 'Satanic') and simply must be either swayed to their side or, barring that, obliterated. Decency does not begin or end with religion, especially your bible. Any philosophy that indoctrinates people into believing that they are born from 'sin' and are unclean to begin with is atrocious, no matter how 'decent' some of it's followers may happen to be.

[note: edited because I yet again screwed up the quoting function]

[edit on 2/2/10 by Matthew Dark]

reply to post by Matthew Dark


What a lot of assumptions!

Romanticised? If you say so!

You have every right to follow whatever path you choose, even if you choose to reject the possibility of God or deny the possibility that Jesus existed. It is your choice.

I hope that if you ever do choose to contemplate the possibility of God, that you come to learn that the last thing He wants is to 'shaft' you!

reply to post by Matthew Dark

I don't think marriage is confined by one organization, pre or post-Christian. I suppose its equality as a civil right that defines the yearning for same-sex marriage.
Personally I don't need it, but several gay couples do lead these examplary married lives (and gay marriage is legal in South Africa).
I should be able to be the blushing bride if I wanted to, it's my right as a man.

reply to post by teapot


Now who's making assumptions?
You have no real idea of what I believe, what path I follow or how I came to those conclusions.
Again, your words are a perfect example that if I don't follow a path or have a belief system similar to yours, then I can't possibly believe in anything worthwhile.
I almost feel sorry for you...almost...

Originally posted by mamabeth


I bash islam,but only to a degree.

So, partial intolerance and bigotry are acceptable?
Well, by those standards, you really have little to no right whatsoever to 'cast stones' when someone voices their opinion regarding something that you believe in.
Turning cheeks and whatnot...right?