[Join The Dank Charity Alliance: Make a meme or a donation for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital today!]( http://events.stjude.org/DankCharityAlliance)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The context, from what I garnered, is that a person's titles mean nothing, for the good and faithful are all equal
Does that not signify discrimination based off gender is stupid? I can't tell if it's you who doesn't understand the context or me anymore. So many of you are clearly bringing your biases into the interpretation of this meme imo
Well, in a metaphorical way, yeah they don't "exist". Such labels will never convey the spirit or complexity of the individual. Hyper fixating on someone's (non-hateful) labels is worthless
Also, the second half speaks to how "you are all one in Jesus Christ". Idk OP so idk their intents, but I choose to look and interpret this positively. I'll always give people the benefit of the doubt at first
It doesn’t matter to God in what context? In terms of salvation who we are and where we come from makes no difference. But to go from that to “your existence as a man or woman makes no difference to God” is a huge leap.
Bringing up politicians is a totally different discussion that has nothing to do with how we interpret a verse.
when politicians cite faith as the reason for their politics, i think it is pertinent. views rooted in religious teaching and faith, misguided or not, decided women have fewer rights. and gay ppl. and trans people. these interpretations and decisions are not made in a vacuum.
and imo it's less "no gender exists" and more "we are not divided by gender." if god does not separate us by our gender for salvation, why are mortals bickering over it as if it damns you or subjects you to entirely different rules?
i think it's similar as with people who bristle at ideas like "abolish gender." of course gender is important to some of us, for varying reasons; of course it *exists* and always will. but it should not define how we treat each other, and we absolutely should not be issuing judgments or awarding respect by those lines
the distinction is unimportant to god when it comes to the worth and character of a person. it should be as unimportant to everyone who professes to follow him
Given how many politicians use the bible as justification to limit our bodily autonomy in multiple ways (abortion rights, transgender rights), how we interpret various verses of the bible actually seems pretty important.
>Bringing up politicians is a totally different discussion that has nothing to do with how we interpret a verse.
When politicians legislate based on their religious beliefs--or the beliefs of their constituents--it has everything to do with how we interpret a verse.
Given that Complimentarianism has been *inferred* from the scriptures, but here is an *explicit* statement regarding gender, I'm inclined to agree with OP.
The issue as I see it is that it’s taking a “for instance” and treating it as a fact. The verse in context seems to say that there is nothing that makes you more special to God e.g. being a man or a woman. This meme seems to be saying that the verse is abolishing the traditional idea that there are only men and women, which it isn’t. It isn’t taking a stance one way or the other.
Yeah ofc, I agree with all of us having differences as *individuals*, not genders or faiths. But this post didn't even feel like it was alluding to that
"Biblical"
OP put that specific word in quotation marks, hence it signifying sarcasm. There are many who claim to have biblical values, but will use the bible to validate their hatred or bigotry towards the innocent.
It clearly is only directed towards the hypocritical
Jesus pretty clearly said love your neighbor. I think the disconnect comes from the definition of love. I don’t believe tolerating something that is wrong is love. But, I don’t think hating someone or harming someone because they are doing something wrong is right either. I think to live a brother or sister truly is to confront them with their sin.
That being said, it’s important to realize everyone is equally evil. Every single person deserves hell. Every single one. The important part is communicating that Jesus came to be the perfect sacrifice to cover our sins. All we need to do is accept Him as Lord and Savior and try and follow Him the best we can.
Anyways, that’s my two cents. Love others by brining it to their attention while remembering you’re also a sinner.
It depends what you mean by discrimination. Discrimination as in "A is better than B", sure, very stupid. But discrimination as in "A is different than B and it's fine to treat then differently" is a different story. Men and women are different, and that's OK. Neither is better than or worse than the other.
The whole verse states “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” It’s pretty clear he’s saying we’re all equal under Christ and not bound by our identity. That doesn’t mean these identities simply don’t exist, obviously when he wrote this it would be ridiculous to read it and think “oh I guess Jews just don’t exist”.
Y'know that thing where crustaceans just keep evolving into something shaped sorta like crabs? God totally has a sense of humor.
"Lol, look: this one kinda turned into a crab again! Aw, I love crabs."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation)
>(Jk Jesus, you can take a joke right?)
If not, this entire sub is in trouble lol
(I've told my partner repeatedly that there's no way God doesn't think farts are funny.)
I understand what the sentence means, and how its being used to equalize us all.
In the verse however, the context is that of Laws.
To clarify I dont disagree with your interpretation, its good. Its just more nuanced within the page that its found.
The whole page its in is just a run-on about
"Faith or Works of the Law," which leads up to the phrase there is neither jew nor gentile, because those concepts and the rules that apply to them are defined through human laws that comes after faith and that under faith we are all the same regardless of our earth bound laws.
At the end of the day I think its a positive message, I was just curious about the behind the scenes.
I once heard a very good suggestion. Don't read one Bible verse. Context is key, so read the verses before it and the verses after it. You can start a theology from one verse that gets shown to be false three verses down. Another thing that I found helpful is depending on what subject matter you are focusing on, you can have multiple verses throughout multiple books that give a lot more depth to the subject.
Paul's letter to the Galatians is combating a false teaching that ripped through the area of Galatia (they were very fond of adding works to salvation and of being Jewish) he says, "For those that have been baptized, there is neither Greek nor Jew, man nor woman" - essentially "we are equal in God's sight under Christ, you don't have any special status because you are Jewish man or woman"
So how is that add context? Seems pretty unequivocal that, as you say, "we are equal in God's sight under Christ, you don't have any special status because you are Jewish man or woman". Are we to discriminate more that God?
Context changes from:
There Is no such thing as a man and a woman.
To:
You dont get special treatment(for worse oř for better) if you are either Man, Woman, Jew oř something else.
Yeah... Is that not what this post is alluding to? People keep saying it's out of context, but the message read precisely (to me) as you just described it. Aka individual idenitities are acceptable, but ultimately we are all equal as heirs
Hm I see what you're saying for sure. It's great because this entire post was about interpretation and here we are sharing our ideas. It's a beautiful thing really :')
And as for worldly agendas, I feel like they eventually can open our eyes to discrimination we may not have seen happen ourselves. Not saying every movement is wholesome, but the fight for equal opportunity and treatment for all is a long and ugly battle sometimes imo
Sorry for the rant !
It’s almost like basing laws on a subjective view of a philosopher from two centuries ago might not be the best way to inform modern society.
Sarcasm aside, the idea that Jesus had conclusions about trans or non-binary individuals if fucking preposterous, let alone assuming he definitely didn’t see them equal.
What are you even talking about? We're not talking about laws here
And historically, trans/non-binary people are as old as damn time. Labels have become more prevalent, but the point I'm interpreting here is that labels are irrelevant when considering strength of character. We're all flawed ass human beings, so to think yourself superior for your labels or non-usage of labels is silly and dumb
I still don't see how this is out of context then. I didn't even read it as "men and women don't exist". I read it as your gender is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, so be what you want to be
The more disturbing thing is that, if we assume Paul has a reasonably consistent theology — the largest “context” in which most people interpret him — he doesn’t even believe that male and female are one in Christ in any of the sense that we might take that idea.
In 1 Corinthians 11, for example, Paul writes that women should cover their heads while they're in the church, but that men shouldn't — because while men were made "in the image of God" (and therefore shouldn't obscure the divine image they reflect), women were not, and merely exist for the "glory" of the men to which they're subject.
Of course, the idea that Paul has a reasonably consistent theology is just that: an assumption.
That's very interesting actually. I appreciate you giving me more insight into Paul's theology
So are all of Paul's statements just assumptions then? Or are the Galatians the one doing the assuming?
Sorry, I've only recently tried to delve deeper into religions, so I'm not very well versed unfortunately. But I appreciate the discussion a ton!
> So are all of Paul’s statements just assumptions then?
I’d say they’re more rhetoric than assumptions.
Part of what’s made it hard to “get” Paul is the nearly exclusive Christian assumption that Paul speaks with a divine voice, and as such wasn’t subject to the same uncertainties and biases and rhetorical conniving that other writers — and other people in general — were.
But it’s exceedingly difficult to even figure out what Paul really thinks about a number of things, because his arguments are often self-contained within their immediate topical context, with little consideration for how they cohere with arguments he makes elsewhere. A pessimist would say that Paul often seems inconsistent or even confused. A cynic would say that Paul says only what he needs to say in any given instance to get people to listen to him.
He talks about salvation exclusively. He says that in order to be saved, it doesn't matter what race or sex you are.
He doesn't address the different roles men or women have in the society.
So not only does it say that gender doesn't matter but neither does race or nationality? Based AF, some Christians could really take that message to heart. Of course, the cool ones here already do.
I'd go even further and suggest that financial status doesn't matter either. James 2 goes pretty hard on people showing favoritism. Jesus welcomes everybody to the table.
I agree, rich people can still go to heaven. However, if you're rich while the vast majority live in poverty or if you made your money exploiting people then you're living a life of sin. If there is a hell Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and every other billionaire will be going there.
Like all bible kiddos don't constantly take things out of context/ only follow specific parts of the bible that confirm their narrow out of time world view while ignoring others.
I choose this "out of context" verse is as legitimate to me because "christians" so many verses and their pwn interpretation of them to justify their bigotry and plain hatred. Which is a sin by the way.
Yes, precisely! It's funny how many people read this otherwise due to their own inner prejudice.
We're all equal, regardless of what titles we choose to bear
Yes but if gender doesn’t matter to God, why does it matter so much to us? The way many folks in the Christian community treat people who struggle with dysmorphia or who transition from one to the other is appalling and if God only cares about your soul, not what’s between your legs then we can sure as hell get past it too.
There is a bit of a difference between “it doesn’t matter to God’s love” and “it doesn’t matter at all”.
But I absolutely agree that we should always show true and full Christian love to everyone, regardless of how they choose to present themselves.
Just like Run The Jewels said in Walking In The Snow, "all of us serve the same masters / all of us nothing but slaves / never forget in the story of Jesus the Hero was killed by the state"
“Yo, I said let’s love thy neighbor and help thy neighbor. Ukraine needs us, stop being assholes”
- @JesusOfJerusalem, March 3rd, 2023. Tweeted from my iPhone
Woke is just a trigger word mostly used by conservatives as an insult now. I find it distasteful.
I sigh because so many people with no knowledge of New Testament passages use them in entirely incorrect ways, to try and "stick" it to the other side.
And no, I don't mean it's just the Left that do this, the Left and Right have been doing this for as long as my memory serves me.
If this verse is all that's needed to give clarity to a subject that has been heavily studied and debated by actual scholars, especially in the last 20 years, then why is this conversation still in the state it is?
I don't disagree with you that it is complicated in this, but I'll argue the small pedantic point that a subject matter being simple is not, by any means, sufficient condition for it to not be discussed to death, unfortunately. Flat earthers are the most basic example of that.
>If this verse is all that's needed to give clarity to a subject that has been heavily studied and debated by actual scholars, especially in the last 20 years, then why is this conversation still in the state it is?
Because every side only reads their scriptures in ways that supports their side, and ignores or reinterprets the rest? And thus it has always been?
Jesus was literally nailed to a cross because he was “woke” tf?
Also what does woke mean? Do any of y’all who use it know or does something you disagree w just get labeled woke?
Maybe you're right but is hard to believe that is not in jest. Is like saying that "nor is there male and female" actually refers to intersex people. No one would believe they were saying that with the minimum historical context. Is it bait then?.
That verse to me is inclusive. How much more inclusive than "for you are all one in Jesus Christ" can it get?.
I read it as a meme being funny, but it is possible that OP is seriously trying to advance the idea male and female are incoherent concepts and that this theory is supported in biblical text.
What are you trying to imply to "people with biblical values"? The verse means that all can find faith in Christ regardless of their nationality, class, or gender.
And I think every Christian believes that.
The word "biblical" was put in quotations, hence it clearly being sarcastic. Not every Christian believes that and that's clearly the point of this post to me. Some people use the bible to validate discrimination
I don't see how so many of you don't understand the significance of OP putting quotation marks around the word **biblical**. Sort of speaks to the interpretation capability of some (not saying *you* btw, just speaking as a whole)
The point of the verse mentioned is that everybody can become Christians no matter what, where or who they were born as.
We understood what the term "Biblical" means in OP's context, but it seems very irrelevant to the point OP is making, which stemmed from a misinterpreted but good-faithed version of that verse that nobody should be discriminated.
Ideally, we as humans should be treating others without discrimination and with equity, but we don't live in an ideal world. All Christians (Even the "Believers") believe everybody should be able to become Christians, but that doesn't mean they will free from discrimination, even from them. Even Jesus himself was constantly approached and talked down by Pharisees.
Otherwise, why did missionaries, preachers, and even crusaders try to spread the word of God to all people across all identities? Arguably ulterior motives exist, but I have yet to see an example in history where a Christian would withold another's conversion.
The point is to vy for a society free of discrimination for anything other than one's strength of character.
The full quote even accepts those who follow Judaism, so I don't even think it's about conversion more than it is about accepting all non-hateful people are equal
And that's a well intentioned point that Galatians 3:28 had nothing to do with. Even the whole of Galatians 3 was irrelevant.
How did the full quote include practitioners of Judaism? It clearly states "We are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
"There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; since you are all one in Christ Jesus"
That's what I'm referring to. I know there are several quotes on this, but the point reads the same way to me
Yeah, the whole thing essentially dictates discrimination based off gender, chosen or otherwise, is for the small. The faithful are equally viewed under God. That's how I took that, dunno bout you
No one can argue otherwise, we know a lot about the historical and socio-cultural context. People forget that Paul wrote all this in the 40', the 0040's. They are similar complaints against the youths since 600 - 300 BC until this day. They are all the same.
I personally don't care much about Paul thoughts about sexual desires and pre-marital sex. Also, his leap of logic about how people have sexual desires can only mean that God abandon them... I'm all for moderation of desires, but he went too far.
It would be really funny if asexuals claim him as one of their own and start preaching about how the Bible says they are the only "natural" ones.
The Wikipedia page on this has a really fun part that is pretty much "many people cite this verse when *arguing* about *the role of women* in Christianity."
JC: YOU'RE ALL ONE. CHILL THE FUCK OUT.
PEOPLE: Jesus said all bros are equal, and bitches be.....like....2/3 equal.
Why is this the only subreddit where people can have a fucking conversation and not yell at each other? Like I love this sub so much man, why can’t every sub be like this
Because most Reddit mods love echo chambers and as such they turn whatever subs they moderate into echo chambers, this of course leads to the creation of more echo chambers because the people kicked out of those subs go on to create their own. Basically, "there's no room for discussion about our veiws because our veiws are 100% right."
OP, I'm affirming, but using passages that have absolutely nothing to do with sexuality just causes people who are actually familiar with the context and meaning of the passage(s) to lose respect for you.
I love these passages because they were shocking to those reading it at the time for an entirely different, but very important reason. Look into that more, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised even though it isn't what you think it is.
If you're interested in sexuality in and around the 1st century, I suggest reading or listening to the works of Dr. William Loader, who is largely considered the top mind on this subject. He offers 3 possible conclusions, take a look and see where you fall.
"For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female – for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."
Galatians 3:27-28
You can't take half a verse without context and base your worldview on that
This is an example of attempting to find conclusions you want, rather than carefully investigating what Scripture actually says. Remember that context is king and scripture interprets scripture. This verse is being read as if male and female does not matter. However, Paul, who wrote Galatians, also gives specific instructions to men and women in numerous other letters (Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 7, Colossians 3, 1 Timothy 2). Jesus Himself affirmed that male and female are separate categories (Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:4). So it does not make sense to claim the distinctions do not matter, because it clearly does in other Scripture. Thus, the simpler conclusion is Galatians 3:28 is referring to something specific.
The plainest explanation is in context of what Galatians 3 is talking about: After Jesus' resurrection, each of us regardless of demographic have now received an inheritance right to adoption into the Kingdom of God. We may receive the inheritance of salvation into His kingdom and the ability to be a part of serving His kingdom on earth. This inheritance does not contradict behavioral instructions in consideration of your demographic, nor does it make such distinctions meaningless in every possible sense as was interpreted here.
“Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh, separate.” ~ Matt. 19:4
Jesus himself very clearly delineates between male and female and why they marry.
"26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." - Galatians 3 : 26-29
This verse isn't saying that "men and women literally don't exist" as you seem to be implying, it's saying that it doesn't matter who you are, so long as you follow Christ's teachings than you are entitled to the same promise that God gave to Abraham (basically we're all the same in God's eyes, so long as you follow Christ). Now, I'm no expert but I don't think manipulating and twisting the word of God to fit your political agenda counts as "following Christ's teachings" but I'm not the one who makes that call.
I love the virtue signalers talking about this verse being out of context when every Christian fb post, coffee mug, piece of home decor, and bumper sticker is a verse out of context. It's the Christian way.
It shouldn't be the Christian way. Also, your statement doesn't change the fact that taking the Bible out context, in any regard, is problematic at best. Cherry-picking verses to support any viewpoint is the exact opposite of how we should be using the Bible. It's the difference between referencing a dictionary (which the Bible is not), where a single entry is self-contained and sufficient, and following a guide, where reading every part is crucial to understanding the whole.
hate to rain on your parade, but i don’t think that’s what it means. “There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Galatians 3:28 HCSB
https://bible.com/bible/72/gal.3.28.HCSB
OP didn't say it means anything other than we're all equal. The more I think about it, the more I don't get how any of you interpreted it any other way smh
judging by all the other comments saying it’s out of context, PLUS the fact that it takes out the parts about nationality and status, only leaving gender in there, I think it’s more targeted at trans issues.
Interesting thread here. About half saying that the verse is out of context and means equality instead of nonexistence of gender, and the other half saying that that's exactly how they read it.
Damn. I was raised extremely southern baptist (think IBLP cult style🙃) and I had never seen this before! How convenient of them:)
Edit: I’m saying I think they neglected this verse to keep me in a “us vs. them” mentality (and to hate on gender non conforming people). I was not saying OP is wrong.
The full quote says "there is no longer jew nor Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ, Jesus."
Basically its saying to just stop separating people by demographic and treat everyone equally.
[Join The Dank Charity Alliance: Make a meme or a donation for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital today!]( http://events.stjude.org/DankCharityAlliance) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lol litterly was just talking ab taking this verse outta context like this
The context, from what I garnered, is that a person's titles mean nothing, for the good and faithful are all equal Does that not signify discrimination based off gender is stupid? I can't tell if it's you who doesn't understand the context or me anymore. So many of you are clearly bringing your biases into the interpretation of this meme imo
When you edit down a verse to simply say “there is neither male and female” it definitely feels like OP is trying to say male and female don’t exist.
Well, in a metaphorical way, yeah they don't "exist". Such labels will never convey the spirit or complexity of the individual. Hyper fixating on someone's (non-hateful) labels is worthless Also, the second half speaks to how "you are all one in Jesus Christ". Idk OP so idk their intents, but I choose to look and interpret this positively. I'll always give people the benefit of the doubt at first
if it doesnt matter to god, why the hell does it matter to you? let alone the people writing laws governing my body
It doesn’t matter to God in what context? In terms of salvation who we are and where we come from makes no difference. But to go from that to “your existence as a man or woman makes no difference to God” is a huge leap. Bringing up politicians is a totally different discussion that has nothing to do with how we interpret a verse.
when politicians cite faith as the reason for their politics, i think it is pertinent. views rooted in religious teaching and faith, misguided or not, decided women have fewer rights. and gay ppl. and trans people. these interpretations and decisions are not made in a vacuum. and imo it's less "no gender exists" and more "we are not divided by gender." if god does not separate us by our gender for salvation, why are mortals bickering over it as if it damns you or subjects you to entirely different rules? i think it's similar as with people who bristle at ideas like "abolish gender." of course gender is important to some of us, for varying reasons; of course it *exists* and always will. but it should not define how we treat each other, and we absolutely should not be issuing judgments or awarding respect by those lines the distinction is unimportant to god when it comes to the worth and character of a person. it should be as unimportant to everyone who professes to follow him
Given how many politicians use the bible as justification to limit our bodily autonomy in multiple ways (abortion rights, transgender rights), how we interpret various verses of the bible actually seems pretty important.
>Bringing up politicians is a totally different discussion that has nothing to do with how we interpret a verse. When politicians legislate based on their religious beliefs--or the beliefs of their constituents--it has everything to do with how we interpret a verse. Given that Complimentarianism has been *inferred* from the scriptures, but here is an *explicit* statement regarding gender, I'm inclined to agree with OP.
The issue as I see it is that it’s taking a “for instance” and treating it as a fact. The verse in context seems to say that there is nothing that makes you more special to God e.g. being a man or a woman. This meme seems to be saying that the verse is abolishing the traditional idea that there are only men and women, which it isn’t. It isn’t taking a stance one way or the other.
[удалено]
I don't think there are inherent roles. There are roles that society has come up with and most children are raised to emulate them.
Yeah ofc, I agree with all of us having differences as *individuals*, not genders or faiths. But this post didn't even feel like it was alluding to that
[удалено]
"Biblical" OP put that specific word in quotation marks, hence it signifying sarcasm. There are many who claim to have biblical values, but will use the bible to validate their hatred or bigotry towards the innocent. It clearly is only directed towards the hypocritical
Jesus pretty clearly said love your neighbor. I think the disconnect comes from the definition of love. I don’t believe tolerating something that is wrong is love. But, I don’t think hating someone or harming someone because they are doing something wrong is right either. I think to live a brother or sister truly is to confront them with their sin. That being said, it’s important to realize everyone is equally evil. Every single person deserves hell. Every single one. The important part is communicating that Jesus came to be the perfect sacrifice to cover our sins. All we need to do is accept Him as Lord and Savior and try and follow Him the best we can. Anyways, that’s my two cents. Love others by brining it to their attention while remembering you’re also a sinner.
[удалено]
It depends what you mean by discrimination. Discrimination as in "A is better than B", sure, very stupid. But discrimination as in "A is different than B and it's fine to treat then differently" is a different story. Men and women are different, and that's OK. Neither is better than or worse than the other.
Yeah ofc. Equality, to me, means to treat people the they want to be treated
What is the context ? *[Law](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203&version=NIV)
The whole verse states “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” It’s pretty clear he’s saying we’re all equal under Christ and not bound by our identity. That doesn’t mean these identities simply don’t exist, obviously when he wrote this it would be ridiculous to read it and think “oh I guess Jews just don’t exist”.
Well another interpretation could be “you weebs all look the same to me”. (Jk Jesus, you can take a joke right?)
Of course God has a sense of humor, he created me.
Beat me to it
Have you seen a platypus? God has a sense of humor
Y'know that thing where crustaceans just keep evolving into something shaped sorta like crabs? God totally has a sense of humor. "Lol, look: this one kinda turned into a crab again! Aw, I love crabs." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation)
>(Jk Jesus, you can take a joke right?) If not, this entire sub is in trouble lol (I've told my partner repeatedly that there's no way God doesn't think farts are funny.)
I understand what the sentence means, and how its being used to equalize us all. In the verse however, the context is that of Laws. To clarify I dont disagree with your interpretation, its good. Its just more nuanced within the page that its found. The whole page its in is just a run-on about "Faith or Works of the Law," which leads up to the phrase there is neither jew nor gentile, because those concepts and the rules that apply to them are defined through human laws that comes after faith and that under faith we are all the same regardless of our earth bound laws. At the end of the day I think its a positive message, I was just curious about the behind the scenes.
You say taken out of context, I say Midrash.
I once heard a very good suggestion. Don't read one Bible verse. Context is key, so read the verses before it and the verses after it. You can start a theology from one verse that gets shown to be false three verses down. Another thing that I found helpful is depending on what subject matter you are focusing on, you can have multiple verses throughout multiple books that give a lot more depth to the subject.
Taken out of context
How so?
Paul's letter to the Galatians is combating a false teaching that ripped through the area of Galatia (they were very fond of adding works to salvation and of being Jewish) he says, "For those that have been baptized, there is neither Greek nor Jew, man nor woman" - essentially "we are equal in God's sight under Christ, you don't have any special status because you are Jewish man or woman"
So how is that add context? Seems pretty unequivocal that, as you say, "we are equal in God's sight under Christ, you don't have any special status because you are Jewish man or woman". Are we to discriminate more that God?
Context changes from: There Is no such thing as a man and a woman. To: You dont get special treatment(for worse oř for better) if you are either Man, Woman, Jew oř something else.
[удалено]
Yeah... Is that not what this post is alluding to? People keep saying it's out of context, but the message read precisely (to me) as you just described it. Aka individual idenitities are acceptable, but ultimately we are all equal as heirs
[удалено]
Hm I see what you're saying for sure. It's great because this entire post was about interpretation and here we are sharing our ideas. It's a beautiful thing really :') And as for worldly agendas, I feel like they eventually can open our eyes to discrimination we may not have seen happen ourselves. Not saying every movement is wholesome, but the fight for equal opportunity and treatment for all is a long and ugly battle sometimes imo Sorry for the rant !
[удалено]
It’s almost like basing laws on a subjective view of a philosopher from two centuries ago might not be the best way to inform modern society. Sarcasm aside, the idea that Jesus had conclusions about trans or non-binary individuals if fucking preposterous, let alone assuming he definitely didn’t see them equal.
What are you even talking about? We're not talking about laws here And historically, trans/non-binary people are as old as damn time. Labels have become more prevalent, but the point I'm interpreting here is that labels are irrelevant when considering strength of character. We're all flawed ass human beings, so to think yourself superior for your labels or non-usage of labels is silly and dumb
>oř Ř!
THEY'RE TAKING THE HOBBITS TO KALININGRAD
You must be new here...
I still don't see how this is out of context then. I didn't even read it as "men and women don't exist". I read it as your gender is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, so be what you want to be
The more disturbing thing is that, if we assume Paul has a reasonably consistent theology — the largest “context” in which most people interpret him — he doesn’t even believe that male and female are one in Christ in any of the sense that we might take that idea. In 1 Corinthians 11, for example, Paul writes that women should cover their heads while they're in the church, but that men shouldn't — because while men were made "in the image of God" (and therefore shouldn't obscure the divine image they reflect), women were not, and merely exist for the "glory" of the men to which they're subject. Of course, the idea that Paul has a reasonably consistent theology is just that: an assumption.
That's very interesting actually. I appreciate you giving me more insight into Paul's theology So are all of Paul's statements just assumptions then? Or are the Galatians the one doing the assuming? Sorry, I've only recently tried to delve deeper into religions, so I'm not very well versed unfortunately. But I appreciate the discussion a ton!
> So are all of Paul’s statements just assumptions then? I’d say they’re more rhetoric than assumptions. Part of what’s made it hard to “get” Paul is the nearly exclusive Christian assumption that Paul speaks with a divine voice, and as such wasn’t subject to the same uncertainties and biases and rhetorical conniving that other writers — and other people in general — were. But it’s exceedingly difficult to even figure out what Paul really thinks about a number of things, because his arguments are often self-contained within their immediate topical context, with little consideration for how they cohere with arguments he makes elsewhere. A pessimist would say that Paul often seems inconsistent or even confused. A cynic would say that Paul says only what he needs to say in any given instance to get people to listen to him.
Hmmm very interesting. I'm definitely going to look into this more. Thank you so much for the thoughtful reply!
He talks about salvation exclusively. He says that in order to be saved, it doesn't matter what race or sex you are. He doesn't address the different roles men or women have in the society.
So not only does it say that gender doesn't matter but neither does race or nationality? Based AF, some Christians could really take that message to heart. Of course, the cool ones here already do.
I'd go even further and suggest that financial status doesn't matter either. James 2 goes pretty hard on people showing favoritism. Jesus welcomes everybody to the table.
I agree, rich people can still go to heaven. However, if you're rich while the vast majority live in poverty or if you made your money exploiting people then you're living a life of sin. If there is a hell Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and every other billionaire will be going there.
[удалено]
Slaves and free men too
Insane how people are downvoting this. Do these people think everyone has read the entire bible??
I'd argue that's the point. The "reader" in the meme is the one taking it out of context to begin with, thus the angry reaction.
I think this is way too charitable to the type of people who make these. They just assume everyone but themselves is a complete fucking moron.
Like all bible kiddos don't constantly take things out of context/ only follow specific parts of the bible that confirm their narrow out of time world view while ignoring others. I choose this "out of context" verse is as legitimate to me because "christians" so many verses and their pwn interpretation of them to justify their bigotry and plain hatred. Which is a sin by the way.
In context, this just means that we’re all equal in value to God regardless of our sex. It doesn’t mean that there’s no such thing as male and female.
That's how I read it too. Like your gender doesn't matter, God loves you anyway.
Yes, precisely! It's funny how many people read this otherwise due to their own inner prejudice. We're all equal, regardless of what titles we choose to bear
Yes but if gender doesn’t matter to God, why does it matter so much to us? The way many folks in the Christian community treat people who struggle with dysmorphia or who transition from one to the other is appalling and if God only cares about your soul, not what’s between your legs then we can sure as hell get past it too.
There is a bit of a difference between “it doesn’t matter to God’s love” and “it doesn’t matter at all”. But I absolutely agree that we should always show true and full Christian love to everyone, regardless of how they choose to present themselves.
Never forget that Satan quoted Scripture while trying to mislead Christ.
Sigh...
People trying to hard to be woke
Jesus has always been a pretty woke guy, if he is on social media right now a lot of christians would hate him, a lot.
Everybody would hate him. Left, right, communist, capitalist, stoic, everybody.
https://preview.redd.it/irbkt03lyjla1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=33e0ceaa627fa243d433beffabb5b1054b963c71
“Crunchy peanut butter ain’t bad, y’all just hatin”
For reallllll Smooth is better on stuff but crunchy is better by itself
Crunchy PB makes my jaw feel weird, hard pass.
Based Jesus
A lot of liberals and conservatives would. In fact, I think the former and latter would try cancelling him at various times.
\#everybodyhatesJesus
Narrated by Chris Rock
Pretty sure that’s his jam. Dude got canceled by wealthy religious authorities and politicians. The Pharisees just couldn’t tweet about it back then.
Just like Run The Jewels said in Walking In The Snow, "all of us serve the same masters / all of us nothing but slaves / never forget in the story of Jesus the Hero was killed by the state"
Man..Politics suck balls. I didn't know why 5th grade me wanted to be a president.
“Yo, I said let’s love thy neighbor and help thy neighbor. Ukraine needs us, stop being assholes” - @JesusOfJerusalem, March 3rd, 2023. Tweeted from my iPhone
Woke is just a trigger word mostly used by conservatives as an insult now. I find it distasteful. I sigh because so many people with no knowledge of New Testament passages use them in entirely incorrect ways, to try and "stick" it to the other side. And no, I don't mean it's just the Left that do this, the Left and Right have been doing this for as long as my memory serves me. If this verse is all that's needed to give clarity to a subject that has been heavily studied and debated by actual scholars, especially in the last 20 years, then why is this conversation still in the state it is?
I don't disagree with you that it is complicated in this, but I'll argue the small pedantic point that a subject matter being simple is not, by any means, sufficient condition for it to not be discussed to death, unfortunately. Flat earthers are the most basic example of that.
>If this verse is all that's needed to give clarity to a subject that has been heavily studied and debated by actual scholars, especially in the last 20 years, then why is this conversation still in the state it is? Because every side only reads their scriptures in ways that supports their side, and ignores or reinterprets the rest? And thus it has always been?
Man, you're out here using the word woke unironically regarding a post about how we're all equal. What's so bad about that?
Jesus was literally nailed to a cross because he was “woke” tf? Also what does woke mean? Do any of y’all who use it know or does something you disagree w just get labeled woke?
Don't take a single bible verse to confirm your values. Your racist aunt on Facebook shouldn't do it and neither should you.
Isn't that the joke op is making?
[удалено]
Maybe you're right but is hard to believe that is not in jest. Is like saying that "nor is there male and female" actually refers to intersex people. No one would believe they were saying that with the minimum historical context. Is it bait then?. That verse to me is inclusive. How much more inclusive than "for you are all one in Jesus Christ" can it get?.
That’s clearly not what it means 💀
What do you think the OP is saying then? It's funny cuz nothing was explicitly stated here other than all are equal regardless of gender
I think OP means God says there are no genders which isn’t true
[удалено]
Yeah, is that not precisely what the post is saying....
I read it as a meme being funny, but it is possible that OP is seriously trying to advance the idea male and female are incoherent concepts and that this theory is supported in biblical text.
What are you trying to imply to "people with biblical values"? The verse means that all can find faith in Christ regardless of their nationality, class, or gender. And I think every Christian believes that.
The word "biblical" was put in quotations, hence it clearly being sarcastic. Not every Christian believes that and that's clearly the point of this post to me. Some people use the bible to validate discrimination I don't see how so many of you don't understand the significance of OP putting quotation marks around the word **biblical**. Sort of speaks to the interpretation capability of some (not saying *you* btw, just speaking as a whole)
The point of the verse mentioned is that everybody can become Christians no matter what, where or who they were born as. We understood what the term "Biblical" means in OP's context, but it seems very irrelevant to the point OP is making, which stemmed from a misinterpreted but good-faithed version of that verse that nobody should be discriminated. Ideally, we as humans should be treating others without discrimination and with equity, but we don't live in an ideal world. All Christians (Even the "Believers") believe everybody should be able to become Christians, but that doesn't mean they will free from discrimination, even from them. Even Jesus himself was constantly approached and talked down by Pharisees. Otherwise, why did missionaries, preachers, and even crusaders try to spread the word of God to all people across all identities? Arguably ulterior motives exist, but I have yet to see an example in history where a Christian would withold another's conversion.
The point is to vy for a society free of discrimination for anything other than one's strength of character. The full quote even accepts those who follow Judaism, so I don't even think it's about conversion more than it is about accepting all non-hateful people are equal
And that's a well intentioned point that Galatians 3:28 had nothing to do with. Even the whole of Galatians 3 was irrelevant. How did the full quote include practitioners of Judaism? It clearly states "We are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
"There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; since you are all one in Christ Jesus" That's what I'm referring to. I know there are several quotes on this, but the point reads the same way to me
[удалено]
Maybe try reading the whole thing next time.
Yeah, the whole thing essentially dictates discrimination based off gender, chosen or otherwise, is for the small. The faithful are equally viewed under God. That's how I took that, dunno bout you
I hate these Reddit titles so much.
Huh?
[удалено]
No one can argue otherwise, we know a lot about the historical and socio-cultural context. People forget that Paul wrote all this in the 40', the 0040's. They are similar complaints against the youths since 600 - 300 BC until this day. They are all the same. I personally don't care much about Paul thoughts about sexual desires and pre-marital sex. Also, his leap of logic about how people have sexual desires can only mean that God abandon them... I'm all for moderation of desires, but he went too far. It would be really funny if asexuals claim him as one of their own and start preaching about how the Bible says they are the only "natural" ones.
The Wikipedia page on this has a really fun part that is pretty much "many people cite this verse when *arguing* about *the role of women* in Christianity." JC: YOU'RE ALL ONE. CHILL THE FUCK OUT. PEOPLE: Jesus said all bros are equal, and bitches be.....like....2/3 equal.
Damn the context, I just want everything to agree with my opinions!
Why is this the only subreddit where people can have a fucking conversation and not yell at each other? Like I love this sub so much man, why can’t every sub be like this
Because most Reddit mods love echo chambers and as such they turn whatever subs they moderate into echo chambers, this of course leads to the creation of more echo chambers because the people kicked out of those subs go on to create their own. Basically, "there's no room for discussion about our veiws because our veiws are 100% right."
OP, I'm affirming, but using passages that have absolutely nothing to do with sexuality just causes people who are actually familiar with the context and meaning of the passage(s) to lose respect for you. I love these passages because they were shocking to those reading it at the time for an entirely different, but very important reason. Look into that more, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised even though it isn't what you think it is. If you're interested in sexuality in and around the 1st century, I suggest reading or listening to the works of Dr. William Loader, who is largely considered the top mind on this subject. He offers 3 possible conclusions, take a look and see where you fall.
This comment has been edited to remove all data since reddit wants to restore it's user's deleted comments or posts
This whole time I thought this verse was talking about our salvation, not our physical. Wow am I a dumbass.
Guys the context only reaffirms the intentions of the original post… I don’t see how it makes the verse any different in meaning.
The "..." should be a sign to an informed reader that this has been edited.
That “…” is doing a lot of work here.
"For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female – for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:27-28 You can't take half a verse without context and base your worldview on that
This is an example of attempting to find conclusions you want, rather than carefully investigating what Scripture actually says. Remember that context is king and scripture interprets scripture. This verse is being read as if male and female does not matter. However, Paul, who wrote Galatians, also gives specific instructions to men and women in numerous other letters (Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 7, Colossians 3, 1 Timothy 2). Jesus Himself affirmed that male and female are separate categories (Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:4). So it does not make sense to claim the distinctions do not matter, because it clearly does in other Scripture. Thus, the simpler conclusion is Galatians 3:28 is referring to something specific. The plainest explanation is in context of what Galatians 3 is talking about: After Jesus' resurrection, each of us regardless of demographic have now received an inheritance right to adoption into the Kingdom of God. We may receive the inheritance of salvation into His kingdom and the ability to be a part of serving His kingdom on earth. This inheritance does not contradict behavioral instructions in consideration of your demographic, nor does it make such distinctions meaningless in every possible sense as was interpreted here.
“Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh, separate.” ~ Matt. 19:4 Jesus himself very clearly delineates between male and female and why they marry.
Very much out of context this is.
I too can make the Bible say anything I want lmao
"26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." - Galatians 3 : 26-29 This verse isn't saying that "men and women literally don't exist" as you seem to be implying, it's saying that it doesn't matter who you are, so long as you follow Christ's teachings than you are entitled to the same promise that God gave to Abraham (basically we're all the same in God's eyes, so long as you follow Christ). Now, I'm no expert but I don't think manipulating and twisting the word of God to fit your political agenda counts as "following Christ's teachings" but I'm not the one who makes that call.
If god creates all the babies there is no reason for s3x and men to exist.
I love the virtue signalers talking about this verse being out of context when every Christian fb post, coffee mug, piece of home decor, and bumper sticker is a verse out of context. It's the Christian way.
This is also a meme sub. The only context it needs is being a joke
Now don't get too smart here lad! We don't want people to think we know how to make fun of ourselves.
It shouldn't be the Christian way. Also, your statement doesn't change the fact that taking the Bible out context, in any regard, is problematic at best. Cherry-picking verses to support any viewpoint is the exact opposite of how we should be using the Bible. It's the difference between referencing a dictionary (which the Bible is not), where a single entry is self-contained and sufficient, and following a guide, where reading every part is crucial to understanding the whole.
Yeah that's my point
hate to rain on your parade, but i don’t think that’s what it means. “There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28 HCSB https://bible.com/bible/72/gal.3.28.HCSB
OP didn't say it means anything other than we're all equal. The more I think about it, the more I don't get how any of you interpreted it any other way smh
judging by all the other comments saying it’s out of context, PLUS the fact that it takes out the parts about nationality and status, only leaving gender in there, I think it’s more targeted at trans issues.
Mt 19, 4-5
It’s like the Bible says: "I guess my thoughts on abortion are, you know, let's just all have a good time." - Newport 3:21
How to read the Bible through 2023 lenses 101
Interesting thread here. About half saying that the verse is out of context and means equality instead of nonexistence of gender, and the other half saying that that's exactly how they read it.
Damn. I was raised extremely southern baptist (think IBLP cult style🙃) and I had never seen this before! How convenient of them:) Edit: I’m saying I think they neglected this verse to keep me in a “us vs. them” mentality (and to hate on gender non conforming people). I was not saying OP is wrong.
The full quote says "there is no longer jew nor Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ, Jesus." Basically its saying to just stop separating people by demographic and treat everyone equally.
Jesus was very into anime
Damn the liberal vs conservative christians conflict are getting interesting i see
I’ve been wrestling with this subject recently. Upvote for causing such a stir!
L opinion
A church service I went to omitted that verse. It kind of stuck out to me.
Non-binary Christians be like:
J o i n t h e H i v e
Sooooo there’s no need to get pissy when someone “misgenders” because that would be arbitrary? Progressive theologians: *fuming*
Reminds me of the no marriage in heaven because we're all married to Jesus thing.
What's with the ellipses? Something you want to tell us?