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

I will keep this Intro short and sweet:
It is well known that modern Christian believers often take verses out of Leviticus, the Pauline doctrine and other texts that forbid "homosexuality" (at least anal-sex between men, not sure on mutual masturabation, and oral sex). Some even believe that cross-dressing is wrong (despite the tradition of wearing "frocks").
What I want clarified is this: Christ apparently calls His collective church His "bride".
Isn't that gender-bending?
So, all the hetero-male leaders of the traditional and fundamentalist churches are compared to "passive" women?
I argue that it is a gender-bending metaphor, and all the misogynist, anti-gay rhetoric hides behind the fear of passive believers having to act like female "brides" to Jesus and his Church.
Is it just a gender-bending metaphor to describe the male leaders of Christianity as "brides"?
Or should they "lube-up" to wait for the second coming of Christ?
Well, it is a strange metaphor for a homophobic collective.
What irks me is that "knowing" (and childish people) rip-off Christians and say: Hey, Pastor, invest in make-up, your Groom is coming back soon!

[edit on 24-1-2010 by halfoldman]

Originally posted by halfoldman
I will keep this Intro short and sweet:
It is well known that modern Christian believers often take verses out of Leviticus, the Pauline doctrine and other texts that forbid "homosexuality" (at least anal-sex between men, not sure on mutual masturabation, and oral sex). Some even believe that cross-dressing is wrong (despite the tradition of wearing "frocks").
What I want clarified is this: Christ apparently calls His collective church His "bride".
Isn't that gender-bending?
So, all the hetero-male leaders of the traditional and fundamentalist churches are compared to "passive" women?
I argue that it is a gender-bending metaphor, and all the misogynist, anti-gay rhetoric hides behind the fear of passive believers having to act like female "brides" to Jesus and his Church.
Is it just a gender-bending metaphor to describe the male leaders of Christianity as "brides"?
Or should they "lube-up" to wait for the second coming of Christ?
Well, it is a strange metaphor for a homophobic collective.
What irks me is that "knowing" (and childish people) rip-off Christians and say: Hey, Pastor, invest in make-up, your Groom is coming back soon!

[edit on 24-1-2010 by halfoldman]

Are you homosexual?

second line.

reply to post by TarzanBeta

I do consider myself "gay", yes.
I am a "homosexual".

Are you a heterosexual?



[edit on 24-1-2010 by halfoldman]

The Church that Jesus is talking about isn't the one built by towns. It's more like a marriage between Jesus and the collective congregation of the Christian belief system. The Christian belief system includes both men and women.

As for the homo thing. Way too descriptive. I'm no homophobe since phobia is fear, but I am disgusted by it.

EDIT (didn't see your latter post)
I apologize in advance if you're offended by me being disgusted by it, but I say it as it is.

[edit on 24-1-2010 by Unregistered]

reply to post by halfoldman


*Face palm*

The church is Christ's bride in that the church-universal is going to be with him forever; just like a husband and wife are. It's a metaphor.

reply to post by Unregistered

Yeah, that repeats my metaphor: apart from some liberal Anglicans, and the odd fundamentalist speakers, all the main Western speakers are men. The Abrahamic religions are run by men, and that still shows today.
So they say to other men, act "manly" and you'll be "saved", yet Jesus calls them a "bride" who will be taken advantaged of.
What kind of metaphor is this?

reply to post by halfoldman

So they say to other men, act "manly" and you'll be "saved"

Christianity says trust Christ to be saved, not "act manly".

yet Jesus calls them a "bride" who will be taken advantaged of.

Could you tell me where in the Bible it says that Christ will "take advantage" of his bride? Thanks.

What kind of metaphor is this?

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.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Unregistered

 

yet Jesus calls them a "bride" who will be taken advantaged of.

Taken advantage of? How do you arrive at that conclusion? Do you assume that the Groom will not Love His Bride?

Do you assume the Bride will in some way be 'weak'?

The bible says alot of wacky things. Most have never heard of the songs of soloman:

Lover
1 How beautiful you are, my darling!
Oh, how beautiful!
Your eyes behind your veil are doves.
Your hair is like a flock of goats
descending from Mount Gilead.
2 Your teeth are like a flock of sheep just shorn,
coming up from the washing.
Each has its twin;
not one of them is alone.

3 Your lips are like a scarlet ribbon;
your mouth is lovely.
Your temples behind your veil
are like the halves of a pomegranate.

4 Your neck is like the tower of David,
built with elegance ;
on it hang a thousand shields,
all of them shields of warriors.

5 Your two breasts are like two fawns,
like twin fawns of a gazelle
that browse among the lilies.

6 Until the day breaks
and the shadows flee,
I will go to the mountain of myrrh
and to the hill of incense.

7 All beautiful you are, my darling;
there is no flaw in you.

8 Come with me from Lebanon, my bride,
come with me from Lebanon.
Descend from the crest of Amana,
from the top of Senir, the summit of Hermon,
from the lions' dens
and the mountain haunts of the leopards.

9 You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride;
you have stolen my heart
with one glance of your eyes,
with one jewel of your necklace.

10 How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride!
How much more pleasing is your love than wine,
and the fragrance of your perfume than any spice!

11 Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride;
milk and honey are under your tongue.
The fragrance of your garments is like that of Lebanon.

12 You are a garden locked up, my sister, my bride;
you are a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain.

13 Your plants are an orchard of pomegranates
with choice fruits,
with henna and nard,

14 nard and saffron,
calamus and cinnamon,
with every kind of incense tree,
with myrrh and aloes
and all the finest spices.

15 You are a garden fountain,
a well of flowing water
streaming down from Lebanon.


Nothing like a bit of incest to wake you up in the morning :-)
(some believe this song is actually a song to the church...sure, whatever)

I am not sure why they put the songs of solomon in the bible...(guess to break up the boring bits with a bit of t&a talk...) Heres the issue, to lust even in the heart = the same thing as doing it anyhow...so, unless you have no imagination, reading this poem is a sin as its made to portray lustful feelings...alternatively, if the poem is as stated by some xian a metaphore to the church, then ya...the church is a sexy thing to lust after..(not sure about the church goers...but the church is theoretically a representation of God).

So...is God truely just aphrodite reinvented?


-edit closed bold tag--

[edit on 24-1-2010 by SaturnFX]

You see its posts like this that tells me even more that the word of God is TRUE,that the Lord Jesus Christ is real,and that the world would try to justify their sins in whatever way they can find .And using things from the word (such as this in this way ) is seriously trying to justify their wickedness .

IF YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE and justified with what you do and how you live .Then why oh why are you concerned about it at all ?
Why arnt you just living your life and doing as you well please instead of arguing your position with Christians ? What does it matter to you on what they believe or not believe,etc etc ? >...Wait let me answer this ....
Its because even your own soul knows deep down that it is not acceptable before God .This is why you keep obsessing on it instead of just carrying on with your life.




[edit on 24-1-2010 by Simplynoone]

Originally posted by Simplynoone
Why arnt you just living your life and doing as you well please instead of arguing your position with Christians ?

Oh...I know

Because religious institutions are trying to teach their religious belief system in offical classrooms, because they staple quotes of their mythos on their money, in our pledges, in the courtrooms, etc etc etc.

Its because the religion part of the christian faith is trying to consume many if not all aspects of our society.

You can believe God is a giant toad and all those that dont follow the ways of the frog will be turned into insects for the great toad harvest...with everyones blessing...but the moment you try to put your beliefs into mainstream culture and push it into areas that are paid for by tax dollars is the moment your religion stops being a spiritual part of society and becomes a conquoring business that must be either fully proven or shut down.

Christ never said "we are totally gonna take over society with my cool new religion"...and so the religion of christianity is about as spiritual as microsoft.

get over it..christianity is a corruption of what its meant to be, and the flock are the blind customers.

A qote from Ruthven, Marlise: "Fundamentalism: The search for meaning": Oxford University Press, 2004.

"The origins of homophobia in the Judeo-Christian tradition may lie in the 'the contradictory ethos' experienced by devout Christian males. On the one hand they are expected to love a solitary deity imagined in terms of father imagery, and perhaps more potently, through the erotically charged figure of a young, almost naked male impaled on an instrument of torment."
(Page 122)

Perhaps as Cartman put it last night's "South Park" (en.wikipedia.org... ), is there a difference between "loving Jesus" and being "in love" with Jesus?
Well, the Hindus have no problems being in love with gender-bending gods (which are all expansions of one God), and some dress like women to marry their god Atavan.
So when Jesus returns, it would be a nice gesture if all male believers dressed like "brides"! Or not??

[edit on 24-1-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by SaturnFX

Nothing like a bit of incest to wake you up in the morning :-)

"Sister" doesn't have to mean sibling. For example, I call Christian women my "sisters" though we're not related at all.

The Hebrew word in Song of Solomon 4:9 for sister is "aw-khoth" and it be be sister literally or figuratively. It also can mean "(an)other" or together.

(some believe this song is actually a song to the church...sure, whatever)

No, not a song to the church. That's wrong. Some people believe that Song of Solomon portrays, prophetically, the love that Christ has for his church; which is akin to that of a husband and wife.

Heres the issue, to lust even in the heart = the same thing as doing it anyhow...so, unless you have no imagination, reading this poem is a sin as its made to portray lustful feelings

No, it doesn't portray lustful feelings. Lustful feelings are those which we feel for a person that we can't have. In other words, for someone that's not your wife (from the biblical point of view). The people in the poem are married. As such, they can't be portraying lustful feelings, but rather, the feelings that a husband and wife are supposed to have for one another.

(not sure about the church goers...but the church is theoretically a representation of God).

No, it's not. The church isn't representative of anything.

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by SaturnFX

"Lustful feelings are those which we feel for a person that we can't have. In other words, for someone that's not your wife (from the biblical point of view)... The people in the poem are married. As such, they can't be portraying lustful feelings, but rather, the feelings that a husband and wife are supposed to have for one another."

And yet many modern Christians want to spice things up for husbands and wives in the bedroom. Compared to 2-thousand years of traditional Christianity (that even dictated the sexual positions and frequency of marital sex), there is a notion that even pornographic pleasures are OK within marriage today.
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.
They should wear female bridal attire as they await the return of their groom - Christ.



[edit on 24-1-2010 by halfoldman]

[edit on 24-1-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by teapot

According to most cross-referenced anthropological evidence, that "bride" would probably be a "girl" of 13-years-of-age in today's culture.
There were no "teenagers", or any stage between childhood and puberty. This is still the case in many cultures today. So the "bride of Christ" strikes me as a really concerning metaphor for robust Christian men.

If it is all LITERAL in the Bible, then they should be prepared to do for their Lord what brides were expected to do for their male 'lords".

Or how do they mean this: "Bride". Is there some part of ravaging a virgin that we don't understand?


[edit on 24-1-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by halfoldman

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

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.

Originally posted by halfoldman
If it is all LITERAL in the Bible, then they should be prepared to do for their Lord what brides were expected to do for their male 'lords".
Or how do they mean this: "Bride". Is there some part of ravaging a virgin that we don't understand?

You may not mean to, but you sound obsessed with sex.
God says he is Spirit.

Originally posted by halfoldman
What I want clarified is this: Christ apparently calls His collective church His "bride".
Isn't that gender-bending?
So, all the hetero-male leaders of the traditional and fundamentalist churches are compared to "passive" women?
I argue that it is a gender-bending metaphor, and all the misogynist, anti-gay rhetoric hides behind the fear of passive believers having to act like female "brides" to Jesus and his Church.
Is it just a gender-bending metaphor to describe the male leaders of Christianity as "brides"?

The ekklēsia (church) is never explicitly called the bride of Christ in the New Testament.

Paul clearly uses it as a metaphor...

Ephesians 5:22-23 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

...and anyone who knows the Spirit will know how this works...
...it is intimate but not sexual.


John also uses the metaphor...

Revelation 21:9 9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

It is clearly a symbol or metaphor...
...Jesus is actually not a sheep any more that His people are actually a bride.

This a metaphor that carries the meaning of identity and concern...
...and is nothing like the hollow mutual masterbation of a homosexual encounter.

Btw...Jesus was Hebrew and there is no such thing as a 'passive' Jewish wife.

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!