Confucianism and Marriage

maybe it's you? are you overly sensitive?

In this case, it is not just me. Just read the posts.

well maybe it's the 'confucianism' in the op (yes I know it's spelled wrong)

Maybe you should read your post from the perspective of someone who isn't in your head to know your intent.
Use language to make yourself clear. Because what you wrote looks like a rebuttal.

The condition of the world has nothing to do with how honourable marriage is.
The op saying that the world is too bad to get married anymore. Is like saying I'm too hungry to eat, too dehydrated to drink, too dirty to take a bath, I worked too hard to rest.

Most of the first world issues would be mitigated by simply adopting The family values of the Bible.

Be that as it may you should have grounds to accuse someone before you accuse them of dishonesty.

You also overstated your case:
Would a local overseer be a 'ruler' of the church but not Paul or one of the twelve? We do not know for sure if all the twelve were married. They might have been, but it just does not say. We know Peter was married.

Teens joining gangs, drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, even poor performance in school are issues related to whether or not a father is in the home. Incidents of HIV-AIDS and cervical cancer are related to fornication.

Paul was a traveller not a local overseer. He didn't over see the day to day or weekly business of the church.

This is totally incorrect. Pastors by definition are elders and elders must be married men with children, according to Scripture. They have thereby established that they are capable of fulfilling their pastoral responsibility.

Commanded celibacy is a doctrine of devils. All the apostles were married (as Paul tells us) and Paul may have been a widower (rather than a celibate). But Paul encouraged the younger widows to marry, bear children, and manage their houeseholds.

As we see in Genesis 2, it is God who instituted marriage and blessed it, because in Genesis 1 he gave mankind a mandate to be fruitful, multiply, and replenish (or fill) the earth. Therefore Paul says in Hebrews that marriage is honorable IN ALL.

He might have when an assembly just started for a few weeks or months. The 12 apostles handled such issues, collecting money and feeding widows. Then they appointed the seven to feed widows, and then funds were delivered to local church elders. When Paul came to town, whose presence was a hot political issue within the church and society, they sent him to James and the elders. I suspect Paul might have been a bit less hands on, but he gave instructions to Timothy about putting widows on the list, so he also might have handled such issues at first.

Show me where the Bible defines elders as pastors. That's church tradition. Historically, they were called presbuteros-->presters-->priests. The English and Germans called the Old Testament descendants of Aaron 'priests' or something similar, also. This is probably because the Anglo-Saxons evangelized some of the Germans back when they spoke a dialect of the same language during the Anglo-Saxon mission and left them Old English church vocabulary. 'Priest' in English and the German equivalent were messy words for that reason.

Geneva during the Reformation apparently called their church leaders 'pastors'-- or that is how it translated into English when the Scotts took the city-church-government model of Geneva and expanded it into a national church system. The city councilmen 'elder' position was turned into a national church position in Scotland, so they ended up with 'pastors' and 'elders.', with the verses about 'elders' in the Bible applying to the 'pastors', initially, and the verse about 'governments' applying to their elders.

The Bible iteself does not define pastors as elders. In the Old Testament, prophets, priests, and kings were all pastors. In the New Testament, there is a Greek verb form that can be translated 'pastor'. It is closely related to 'poimen' which is translated shepherd or pastor. We see this when Paul commands the elders of the church in Ephesus to pastor the church of God in Acts 20, or when Peter commands the elders to pastor the flock of God in I Peter 5. But we also see Paul defending his own right to live of the Gospel and saying, "Who pastors a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock."

But there is no scripture that conclusively argues that all pastors are elders of the church. Pastors and teachers are gifts to the church. If you have the gift, you may not be an overseer if you do not fulfill the lifestyle requirements laid out in scripture.

Celibacy is required of the unmarried. If Paul were a widower, he would have been celibate until he married again.

This is an interesting passage:
I Timothy 5
11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

We may have to guess at the context here. It could be concern about marrying pagans and leaving the faith. Or maybe, in order to be on the list, some widows had to committed to be celibate, and some of them abandoned their commitment and married, so Paul just recommended marriage for young widows across the board. Paul was favorable toward celibacy in I Corinthians 7 also. I think the RCC ran wild with the idea, but many Protestants are too far on the opposite extreme of opposing it or else ignore the idea.

I can see this may be a take on
Perhaps ' Submission? Or. Obedience ?

But it sounds like you are processing an idea
Keep working it out
I am very interested in your source idea
( why this is something you are thinking over)
And the personal reflection and insite you are moving towards

What is your " trigger " to this line of thinking?

Not the point.
Let's assume that the way to converse in this thread is as it relates to the op.

So you want a kind of terse convoluted discussion?

The confucianism of the world has nothing to do with how honorable marriage is.

How about on topic conversation rather than these "terse convoluted" asides.