Women's rights, gay rights, and the Bible

[micatala]

I have posted this OP in the Politics and Religion Forum, and although it is a duplicate, it seems appropriate to have the same discussion in this forum as well, since the crux of some of the relevant issues are theological and biblical, not only political.


**********************************************************



We have a thread in C&A regarding Christianity and Women's rights, several in fact.

A very recent one. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=10796

This one started lst November. Greatest I Am quotes from I Timothy.

Timothy

2:11 Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.
2:13 For Adam was first formed; then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression.
2:15 Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.

Here is one defense of Christianity by a member of the Fundamentalist group.

I believe that women are equal to men. I also think that women can teach, hold authority over men, etc. I understand and have read what the Bible says on this subject.

I believe that there are principles under every commandment. These principles, when reading the Bible, are what I take away. Sure the Bible says clearly that women are under men, but that was in a letter to a church in a very different culture and time. Our culture today doesn't have anything close to that point of view. Back then, women were worth very little. It was disrespectful for a woman to have her head uncovered, or to talk in church. After they became Christians, women realized they were free in Christ, and it was true, but Paul was saying that we should not be a stumbling block for others. These women were hindering the gospel--not helping it. He was saying, in essence, "Be respectful! Don't divide the church!"

In our culture, saying that women are under men would hinder the gospel. If God wrote us a letter, I do not think he would tell us that women are under men, because that would definitely alienate people. I know it made me angry the first time I read it. However, now I believe that the principles need to be taken away: Don't divide the church, and respect one another.

Here, the case is made that we can ignore the biblical teaching because of a wider principle, another biblical teaching, takes precedence. Specifically, we can ignore the biblical teachings that consider women second class citizens because, in our culture, doing so would hinder the spread of the gospel.



From later in that same thread, here is another explanation which seeks to deflect the actual teachings of the Bible, again by trying to make the case that another teaching or principle takes precedence.

catalyst wrote:

Quote:
Why go off on the bible when there's countries out there who treat women worse?

Well biblical concepts were the introduction OF this chauvanistic, mysogynist attitude.. THAT's why.

The WHY men would be chauvinistic and mysogynistic is because they selectively interpret the Bible with a narrowsightedness that erroneously justify their "lording" and "ruling" over women. We expect this kind of "chip of the old block." Sons of Adam took after the first Adam who stood by and allowed his wife to fall into the corruptive deception of an enemy stranger, then freely, willingly joined her in taking a bite of the yummy fruit and later cowardly used fingerpointing to lay the blame on her.

But the New Adam, Jesus Christ, taught them the servant leadership of washing each other's feet; when she's thirsty give her water...especially the kind of water to satisfy her to the point she'll never be thirsty again...love and respect her as He, Christ the New Adam, loves, and He stretched out His arms on the cross and died to show how men should love their wives.

If all men should love their wives as Christ loves, it matters not who is in the position of leadership...for He is there to serve and to love. The least shall be first, the first shall serve the least.

But as is, men continue to fail in imitating after the New Adam and continue to live in the Dark Age of the old Adam. They continue to lord and rule and abuse their women, and so the struggle for equality of the sexes and human rights in humanity continue to the end of times as long as there are men still yoked to the sins of Adam....and neglect to learn the Truth that Christ teaches to set them free.

Now, I do not necessarily disagree with the notion that some biblical teachings should take precedence over others, especially as I don't consider the Bible to be one self-consistent work. I do not subscribe to the notion that today's Christians need to follow archaic teachings that were given to ancient cultures in a different context.



I also do not want to oversimply and imply that those quoted above are generally representative of Christian views, even conservative Christian views.



However, I would like to suggest the following questions for debate:



How would members assess the biblical passages concerning women with those on gays or homosexuality?


Are the wider principles used to allow for equal rights for women also applicable to the issue of homosexuality?


Are the apologetics offered by Christians to support women's equality despite biblical teachings biblically supportable?


If these apologetic interpretations are valid, would this not also mean that similar apologetics on the behalf of gay rights should be considered just as valid?



To the extent that some Christians speak against equal rights for gays and yet accept equal rights for women, is this not an inconsistent position?


If Christians can allow "today's culture" to be a factor on how we interpret the Bible vis-a-vis women's rights, why not for gay rights?

[micatala]

In the Christianity and Women's rights thread, Easyrider posted this link concerning the portrayal of women in the bible,

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sexism.html

It seemed to me this was relevant for this thread as well.


This link concludes with the following.

On "headship" - This was probably more of a concession to culture than anything else. In first century Israel, women didn't have many rights or much opportunity for independence, so the husband was a sort of "covering" for her. Since he was legally and morally responsible for pretty much everything his wife did (Numbers 30:6-16), it made sense that she would defer to him in domestic matters. Besides, submission doesn't mean becoming a doormat - it means voluntarily laying aside one's own rights for the sake of the other, and husbands are instructed to love their wives sacrificially as well: "just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." (Ephesians 5:25)31

On "keeping silent in church" - Women are more verbal than men, and when they get together, they tend to move from subject to subject. In the synagogues, the women were segregated from the men. If they had any questions on the worship or the teachings, they would have had to shout them over to the men, or discuss them among themselves, which would have resulted in an inability to maintain order. In addition, Paul emphasizes that his rules for church are given so that everything would be "done in a fitting and orderly way." (1 Corinthians 14:40)39 Disorderly communication, such as uninterrupted speaking in tongues, was also prohibited.40

On "not being permitted to teach" - Some interpret this passage to mean that women should never teach in the assembled church. However, commentators point out that Paul did not forbid women from ever teaching. Paul's commended co-worker, Priscilla, taught Apollos, the great preacher (Acts 18:24-26).41 In addition, Paul frequently mentioned other women who held positions of authority in the church. Phoebe worked in the church (Romans 16:1).8 Mary, Tryphena, and Tryphosa were the Lord's workers (Romans 16:6, 12).8 Paul was very likely prohibiting the Ephesian women, not all women, from teaching. To understand these verses (Ephesians 2:9-15), we must understand the situation in which Paul and Timothy worked. In first-century Jewish culture, women were not allowed to study. When Paul said that women should learn in quietness and full submission, he was offering them an amazing new opportunity. Paul did not want the Ephesian women to teach because they didn't yet have enough knowledge or experience. The Ephesian church had a particular problem with false teachers. Evidently, the women were especially susceptible to the false teachings (2 Timothy 3:1-9), because they did not yet have enough Biblical knowledge to discern the truth. In addition, some women were apparently flaunting their new-found Christian freedom by wearing inappropriate clothing (1 Timothy 2:9). Paul was telling Timothy not to put anyone (in this case, women) into a position of leadership who was not yet mature in the faith (1 Timothy 3:6). The same principle applies to churches today.

Again, we see the teaching being discussed in the context of the culture in which it was written.





Should we not also do the same with passages that seem to relate to homosexuality? Should we not acknowledge that passages like the first chapter of Romans have a specific context to them?




Also notice this passage also seems to read a bit into the text, making some assumptions based on stereotypes of women, in order to make the case that we need not follow the explicitly given teaching today.

[micatala]

No takers??



Here is a short article on recent events in Iowa

http://www.twincities.com/newsletter-mo ... i_12240946

Some 200 couples to date have applied for licenses.

[Mere_Christian]

There is no such thing as "gay rights" within a Christian/Biblical perspective.

It dwells firmly in the pagan classification.

Comparing homosexuals and the celebration of gay sex and gay behavior to the equality between men and women taught by the Apostles is uncalled for.

"Gay rights" is a humanist creation.

[McCulloch]

There is no such thing as "gay rights" within a Christian/Biblical perspective.

It dwells firmly in the pagan classification.

Comparing homosexuals and the celebration of gay sex and gay behavior to the equality between men and women taught by the Apostles is uncalled for.

"Gay rights" is a humanist creation.

Thank you. I agree. Actually, most women's rights, civil rights and human rights are creations of enlightenment thinking and humanism, opposed by many within the Christian/Biblical perspective. Women's suffrage was opposed by people preaching Biblical principles. American slavery was defended by Bible reading Christians. The Biblical principle of the Divine Rights of Kings was opposed by the enlightenment idea of democracy. Free scientific inquiry into the nature of the universe and of life and anatomy was opposed by the established churchmen of the day.

[Mere_Christian]

There is no such thing as "gay rights" within a Christian/Biblical perspective.

It dwells firmly in the pagan classification.

Comparing homosexuals and the celebration of gay sex and gay behavior to the equality between men and women taught by the Apostles is uncalled for.

"Gay rights" is a humanist creation.

Thank you. I agree.

You have to if you are in any way honest.

Actually, most women's rights, civil rights and human rights are creations of enlightenment thinking and humanism, opposed by many within the Christian/Biblical perspective.

Mmm, I must disagree if you are tagging "enlightenment thinking" to secularism.

What we have gotten from secularism is little more enlightening than the sex slave trade and porn and STD's. And one violent chunk of history to the next.

From the Apostolic witness did these freedoms of thoughts about women's rights flowed. Don't blame the Gospel or followers of Christ for what european power mongering men did to people under the banner of Christ. Europeans have a very long history of oppressing lots of peoples.

Women's suffrage was opposed by people preaching Biblical principles.

What "principles?"

American slavery was defended by Bible reading Christians.

American slavery was quite different to the slavery of Roman Judea.

The Biblical principle of the Divine Rights of Kings was opposed by the enlightenment idea of democracy.

Please show me from the Bible where this "diving rights of kings" is presented? Last time I read about Israel's first King, King Saul, God was ______ off about a King ruling over the people. Because, it was doing what pagans do.

If there was a divine rights of kings in Christendom, they would have had to look for Davidic offspring to rule. Or, maybe Judah's, in whom the sceptor will never depart. How many Germans, English and Frenchmen are DNA-descendants of Israelites?

Free scientific inquiry into the nature of the universe and of life and anatomy was opposed by the established churchmen of the day.

How many scientists were Christians?

Start with Newton.

Talk about furthering myths.

[McCulloch]

"Gay rights" is a humanist creation.

Thank you. I agree.

You have to if you are in any way honest.

You say that as if gay rights were a bad thing.

Actually, most women's rights, civil rights and human rights are creations of enlightenment thinking and humanism, opposed by many within the Christian/Biblical perspective.

Mmm, I must disagree if you are tagging "enlightenment thinking" to secularism.

Secularism, the idea of the separation of religion from civil governance, is historically an important enlightenment idea. It could be argued that the signatories of the American Declaration of Independence, the United States Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and the Polish-Lithuanian Constitution of May 3, 1791, were motivated by "Enlightenment" principles. The philosophical developments of the Enlightenment are

1. more freedom for common people based on self-governance
2. central emphasis on liberty, individual rights, reason,

These principles were a departure from theocracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, and the divine right of kings.

What we have gotten from secularism is little more enlightening than the sex slave trade and porn and STD's. And one violent chunk of history to the next.

I would like to see your support for that.

From the Apostolic witness did these freedoms of thoughts about women's rights flowed. Don't blame the Gospel or followers of Christ for what european power mongering men did to people under the banner of Christ. Europeans have a very long history of oppressing lots of peoples.

Yes, certain parts of the apostles' writings can be used to support women's rights, yet other parts, written very clearly, can be used to suppress them.

Women's suffrage was opposed by people preaching Biblical principles.

What "principles?"

The man is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the church. Women shall be saved through childbearing. Women are more easily deceived. If you do not believe that these biblical teachings and others like them were not used in the fight against women's suffrage by conservative, bible believing men, you have little knowledge of the history of the struggle for women's rights.

American slavery was defended by Bible reading Christians.

American slavery was quite different to the slavery of Roman Judea.

Yes it was. That did not stop the Bible reading opposition to emancipation from using the Bible for support.

The Biblical principle of the Divine Rights of Kings was opposed by the enlightenment idea of democracy.

Please show me from the Bible where this "diving rights of kings" is presented?

Sure:

• Romans 13:1-2 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
• 1 Peter 2:13-14 13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
• 1 Samuel 24:6 So he said to his men, "Far be it from me because of the LORD that I should do this thing to my lord, the LORD'S anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, since he is the LORD'S anointed."
• Luke 20:25 And He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

Free scientific inquiry into the nature of the universe and of life and anatomy was opposed by the established churchmen of the day.

How many scientists were Christians?

Start with Newton.

Talk about furthering myths.

That is not the point. Newton was a rather unorthodox Christian. Many early European scientists had to be Christians, because to not be would be in some cases dangerous, in others it would restrict their resources and ability to conduct research. Even in the case of Galileo, I don't question the genuineness of his faith. In his age, only scientists who claimed to be faithful, would get support from society to do science.
However, my point was that free scientific inquiry into the nature of the universe and of life and anatomy was opposed by the established churchmen of the day.

[Mere_Christian]

"Gay rights" is a humanist creation.

Thank you. I agree.

You have to if you are in any way honest.

You say that as if gay rights were a bad thing.

I believe they are. The rise of Satanic powers in fact. There is no stopping gross immorality from being pop culture. And always the most innocent will be used.

Actually, most women's rights, civil rights and human rights are creations of enlightenment thinking and humanism, opposed by many within the Christian/Biblical perspective.

Mmm, I must disagree if you are tagging "enlightenment thinking" to secularism.

Secularism, the idea of the separation of religion from civil governance, is historically an important enlightenment idea. It could be argued that the signatories of the American Declaration of Independence, the United States Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and the Polish-Lithuanian Constitution of May 3, 1791, were motivated by "Enlightenment" principles.

Seclarism uses Christian morality as its base for human rights. "Do unto others . . ." They just replace their own ego for God.

The philosophical developments of the Enlightenment are

1. more freedom for common people based on self-governance
2. central emphasis on liberty, individual rights, reason,

That's debateable. I see little reason and quite a lot of selfishness. Individual rights huh? Always worming its way to sexual licentiousness. Even within the Humanist manifesto itself is the garb all the gusto you can clause. Thinly veiled hedocism for sure. And we see where humanism has driven society. STD's galore and human sex slave trafficking to legaizing prostitution and homosexuality. Not exactly enlightened thought process. Looks very base to me.

These principles were a departure from theocracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, and the divine right of kings.

New boss, same as the old boss. Now our totalitarians are called Progressives. Same ol' same ol'.

What we have gotten from secularism is little more enlightening than the sex slave trade and porn and STD's. And one violent chunk of history to the next.

I would like to see your support for that.

Public schools and MTV. Oh yeah, and the Centers for Disease Control. One in four girls are STD positive. Secularism is not exactly healthy for the human condition.

From the Apostolic witness did these freedoms of thoughts about women's rights flowed. Don't blame the Gospel or followers of Christ for what european power mongering men did to people under the banner of Christ. Europeans have a very long history of oppressing lots of peoples.

Yes, certain parts of the apostles' writings can be used to support women's rights, yet other parts, written very clearly, can be used to suppress them.

Gossiping is equated to murder. One case at a time to free thinkers. And why is it that a leadership position is so respected? It shouldn't be Christian-wise. Women have served men long enough.

Women's suffrage was opposed by people preaching Biblical principles.

What "principles?"

The man is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the church. Women shall be saved through childbearing. Women are more easily deceived. If you do not believe that these biblical teachings and others like them were not used in the fight against women's suffrage by conservative, bible believing men, you have little knowledge of the history of the struggle for women's rights.

The Christian suffragettes? It looks to me like feminism has given men every dream they ever wanted. Some "chick" hooks up with you with absolutely no strings attached. Except of course all of the women sold into a slavery of raising very damaged children in fatherless households. While of course guys get another babe whenever the situation "arises" wink wink.

If men treated women as Christ loved the Church there would be very little STD's.

American slavery was defended by Bible reading Christians.

American slavery was quite different to the slavery of Roman Judea.

Yes it was. That did not stop the Bible reading opposition to emancipation from using the Bible for support.

Ever read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Speech? One of the greatest sermons ever preached. Ever. It was Christians that freed the Africans from the grip of Arab and African Muslims and White Europeans. Unfortunately it took killing a lot of people to do it. Should the Bible-believing, Gospel-affirming Christians have just sat it out and let the secularist, rich Darwinians keep Africans enslaved? How many of the secularist political leaders OWN human beings? I know Tommy Jefferson did. No wonder he cut up the Gospel. How condemned by it his life was.

Sounds kind of familiar looking at the OP of this thread.

The Biblical principle of the Divine Rights of Kings was opposed by the enlightenment idea of democracy.

Please show me from the Bible where this "divine rights of kings" is presented?

Sure:

• Romans 13:1-2 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

Nice try. That is about not fighting secular (actually Roman pagan) governments "In The Name of Christ." There is real history to what the Christians did and how they lived. A far cry from what the Europeans did to "Christendom."

[*]1 Peter 2:13-14 13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

Every HUMAN institution.

[*]1 Samuel 24:6 So he said to his men, "Far be it from me because of the LORD that I should do this thing to my lord, the LORD'S anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, since he is the LORD'S anointed."

David was submitting to the Annointing of Saul. The annointing taken from him and given to David. David worshipped God. And David's "kingship" where is today?

[*]Luke 20:25 And He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." [/list]

Caesar is part of another kingship. Not a godly one. Other than the fact that God allows evil rulers.

Free scientific inquiry into the nature of the universe and of life and anatomy was opposed by the established churchmen of the day.

How many scientists were Christians?

Start with Newton.

Talk about furthering myths.

That is not the point. Newton was a rather unorthodox Christian.

European influenced Christianity seems to have a hard time staying on track. Needless to dwell on it, Newton thought of himself as a Christian.

Many early European scientists had to be Christians, because to not be would be in some cases dangerous, in others it would restrict their resources and ability to conduct research.

How fascinating that Christians that are scientists must declare being a secularist to keep their jobs now in modern enlightened century 21.

Even in the case of Galileo, I don't question the genuineness of his faith. In his age, only scientists who claimed to be faithful, would get support from society to do science.

How Darwinian Evolutionary. The same old boss is still here I see.

However, my point was that free scientific inquiry into the nature of the universe and of life and anatomy was opposed by the established churchmen of the day.

But not the Apostles.

What Europeans did to Christianity is quite an eery story. Look what they did to ever other culture they subjugated and altered.

Guess who created the USA?

Ask a Native American. Or an African or Asian person. You'll hear the same old misapplied scapegoat of "missionaries," when it was just the same old europeanism of conquest in the name of some Euroepan country and/or leadership.

Ever notice that Mayans and Incas and other Mexican and Central and South "American" peoples speak Spanish and Portugese?

It's time for a true reading of history.

Let's start with the Gospel idea of what a Christian is and not a European one.

Time for accurate enlightened teachings Mr. M.

[McCulloch]

I believe they [gay rights] are [bad things]. The rise of Satanic powers in fact. There is no stopping gross immorality from being pop culture. And always the most innocent will be used.

Your unsupported opinion in this matter has been noted. Thank you.

Secularism uses Christian morality as its base for human rights. "Do unto others . . ." They just replace their own ego for God.

Secular humanism recognizes the same basis for morality that many human societies have come to recognize, without the supernatural justification.

That's debateable. I see little reason and quite a lot of selfishness. Individual rights huh? Always worming its way to sexual licentiousness. Even within the Humanist manifesto itself is the garb all the gusto you can clause. Thinly veiled hedocism for sure.

Wrong again. Our form of hedonism is not at all thinly veiled. Is there something wrong with the utilitarian hedonism of John Stuart Mill or Jeremy Bentham?

And we see where humanism has driven society. STD's galore and human sex slave trafficking to legaizing prostitution and homosexuality.

Objective studies have shown that sex education and condoms reduce the instance of STDs in society, yet the Bible believers push abstinence only sex ed and oppose condoms. Humanists stand against sex slavery. Legitimizing sex trade workers would do more to protect their rights than the continuation of the prohibitionism of the religious moralists. You include homosexuality as if that is something bad. This assumption has yet to be demonstrated.

These principles were a departure from theocracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, and the divine right of kings.

New boss, same as the old boss. Now our totalitarians are called Progressives. Same ol' same ol'.

I beg to differ. Under the current progressive regimes, your right to disagree is protected. Under the less enlightened regimes, such rights were not recognized.

What we have gotten from secularism is little more enlightening than the sex slave trade and porn and STD's. And one violent chunk of history to the next.

I would like to see your support for that.

Public schools and MTV. Oh yeah, and the Centers for Disease Control. One in four girls are STD positive. Secularism is not exactly healthy for the human condition.

You have not shown that yet. I don't think that I can get a sex-slave at my local public school. In fact, I think that I would be arrested if I approached it and asked if any were available. I will not be testing this hypothesis.

Women's suffrage was opposed by people preaching Biblical principles.

What "principles?"

The man is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the church. Women shall be saved through childbearing. Women are more easily deceived. If you do not believe that these biblical teachings and others like them were not used in the fight against women's suffrage by conservative, bible believing men, you have little knowledge of the history of the struggle for women's rights.

The Christian suffragettes? It looks to me like feminism has given men every dream they ever wanted. Some "chick" hooks up with you with absolutely no strings attached. Except of course all of the women sold into a slavery of raising very damaged children in fatherless households. While of course guys get another babe whenever the situation "arises" wink wink.

Let's try to stay relevant. I claimed that the right for women to vote has been opposed by people preaching Biblical principles. You challenged this. I answered that challenge by citing the specific Biblical principles historically used by the opponents of women's suffrage. You then answer with some tirade about feminism, free sex and marriage breakdown. These may be important societal issues, but they have not been tied into the issue being discussed. I am a little slow on the uptake sometimes, so you have to be patient with me and explain how these things relate.

If men treated women as Christ loved the Church there would be very little STD's.

Yes. If men respected the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, there would be fewer instances of STDs too.

American slavery was defended by Bible reading Christians.

American slavery was quite different to the slavery of Roman Judea.

Yes it was. That did not stop the Bible reading opposition to emancipation from using the Bible for support.

Ever read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Speech? One of the greatest sermons ever preached. Ever.

I doubt that. Do you have a link to an online copy? Lincoln, for the most part kept his religious affiliation (if he had any) quite private.

It was Christians that freed the Africans from the grip of Arab and African Muslims and White Europeans. Unfortunately it took killing a lot of people to do it. Should the Bible-believing, Gospel-affirming Christians have just sat it out and let the secularist, rich Darwinians keep Africans enslaved? How many of the secularist political leaders OWN human beings? I know Tommy Jefferson did. No wonder he cut up the Gospel. How condemned by it his life was.

I have not the time now, but remind me to get back to you on this revisionist bit of history.

The Biblical principle of the Divine Rights of Kings was opposed by the enlightenment idea of democracy.

Please show me from the Bible where this "divine rights of kings" is presented?

Sure: Romans 13:1-2 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

Nice try. That is about not fighting secular (actually Roman pagan) governments "In The Name of Christ." There is real history to what the Christians did and how they lived. A far cry from what the Europeans did to "Christendom."

Paul instructs Christians to obey the governing authorities because they are put there by God. This teaching is one of the supports for the divine rights of kings. The passage applies equally to the Roman pagan government as to King George III.

[*]1 Peter 2:13-14 13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

Every HUMAN institution.

Yes, the human institutions (kings or governors) sent by GOD to manage human affairs. The divine right of kings again supported by scripture.

[*]Luke 20:25 And He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

Caesar is part of another kingship. Not a godly one. Other than the fact that God allows evil rulers.

And the writers of then NT enjoin Christians to obey even the evil ungodly rulers that God sends.

Free scientific inquiry into the nature of the universe and of life and anatomy was opposed by the established churchmen of the day.

How many scientists were Christians?

Start with Newton.

Talk about furthering myths.

That is not the point. Newton was a rather unorthodox Christian.

European influenced Christianity seems to have a hard time staying on track. Needless to dwell on it, Newton thought of himself as a Christian.

Many early European scientists had to be Christians, because to not be would be in some cases dangerous, in others it would restrict their resources and ability to conduct research.

How fascinating that Christians that are scientists must declare being a secularist to keep their jobs now in modern enlightened century 21.

No, there are Christians who are scientists. (Ironically, none of them Christian Scientists). They just have to adhere to the same standard as the other scientists be they non-theist, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist. Prove your assertions.

However, my point was that free scientific inquiry into the nature of the universe and of life and anatomy was opposed by the established churchmen of the day.

But not the Apostles.

Hurrah!

What Europeans did to Christianity is quite an eerie story. Look what they did to ever other culture they subjugated and altered.

And look at the the surviving strains of Christianity that do not have a European genealogy. The Egyptian Coptics, the St. Thomas Christians in India, Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, Syrian Monophysitic Christians... pretty slim pickings.