Standing Up To Feminism

[NyawehNyoh]

.
Misogyny was given quite a bit of negative press during former US President Donald Trump's administration; while misandry was condoned as if it were acceptable. But malice is unacceptable with God on any level; and I think we have to agree to the possibility that there are just as many, if not more, man haters in Hell as there are woman haters because women are not a protected species with God; nor is their gender a mitigating factor. They will be judged solely on the basis of their lives the same as men.

● Rom 2:9-11. .There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: For God does not show favoritism.

* The disturbing scene depicted at Rev 20:11-15 will be presided over by none other than the sweet little babe away in a manger.

● John 5:21-23 . . Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son

● Acts 17:31 . . He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.

I would very much dislike to be a woman infected with misandry because in the end, it will be a "toxic male" that dooms man-hating women and thus permanently ruin any chances they might have had for happiness in the future. For all eternity, those hostile females will grind their teeth with hot tears and clenched-fist fury that they ultimately lost out on everything because of one lone man's obsessive control over their lives. Hell is bad enough as it is, but I would imagine that existing there seething with rage makes one's circumstances a hell within Hell.
_

[Cally]

I could probably write a book about it, but yeah, men and women alike need a wake-up call to the situation of misandry in culture and (observably) Christian culture.

It's surreal, but I'm still hearing all the hype around "deadbeat dads" and NOTHING about the fact that 75% of divorces are initiated by the wife in Christian culture. There's more DV against men than the culture is willing to acknowledge (undisputed fact: lesbians have the highest rate of DV), and so there are almost no resources. Men get destroyed where the law gets involved in any of this. Men really are avoiding marriage because of these facts, and I know about a handful of such Christian men myself.

If we had "sisters in Christ" who loved and cared about men as much as themselves and a sisterhood faction, they'd be climbing over each other to get our figureheads to talk about and address such things as a subculture. SOME do -- it's rare, but some women do have such a heart -- but the sad reality that needs to be understood is that we are NOT on the same side.

It's the spirit of "divisions" at best, which Scripture says prevents entry to the kingdom of heaven.

What's most likely really going on is the illusion of being better than someone else being threatened because that's their false sense of security. It's like the Pharisee who prayed boasting about how he was better than the tax collector and thought he was justified: sometimes that gives people the illusions of being in the clear, at least we're better than them. It's a humbling thing to realize.

[Texas Conservative]

Standing up to feminism but not transgenderism?

Make it make sense!

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

What's most likely really going on is the illusion of being better than someone else being threatened because that's their false sense of security. It's like the Pharisee who prayed boasting about how he was better than the tax collector and thought he was justified: sometimes that gives people the illusions of being in the clear, at least we're better than them. It's a humbling thing to realize.

It's a strange thing that a group that was already cared-for and treated better than others, for some reason demanded equality, as it that wasn't a massive downgrade on their status-quo.  Be careful what you ask for, I guess.

[Cally]

It's a strange thing that a group that was already cared-for and treated better than others, for some reason demanded equality, as it that wasn't a massive downgrade on their status-quo.  Be careful what you ask for, I guess.

It kind of reeks of a spoiled brat. Men were just WAY too happy with themselves (apparently) for certain successes, so that was to be envied, but not with the cultural burden of provide and protect to go along with it.

Surveys show that a strong majority of women prefer a man who out-earns them, but somehow, not nearly as many women are offended by feminism's outright mission to replace men with women in the workforce. Maybe that's where the term "girl math" comes from.

However! There ARE a great deal of women out there who can be found passionately opposing the hypocrisy and doing so intelligently. Somehow, it's the hardest to come by in Christian culture. You'd think that any discussion about "biblical gender roles" would include talk about feminism and taking a protective stance for men's sake, but no, almost no one touches the subject in a way that recognizes it as hostile against men.

[NyawehNyoh]

.
● Eph 5:22 . .Wives, submit to your husbands as to The Lord.

In other words; it's not the husband himself who merits his wife's best behavior, rather, it's his position in the home. For example:

"To the woman he said: Your husband . . he will rule over you." (Gen 3:16)

Adam is ranked superior to Eve not because of his gender, rather, because he's the senior of the two, i.e. Adam was created first, and afterwards the woman was constructed with material taken from his body; thus all men, including Christ, are entitled to seniority relative to women simply by virtue of the fact that Adam is the paterfamilias of all women, beginning with Eve, regardless of age race, color, culture, and/or religious preference.

So then:

"Demonstrate your fear of God by standing up in the presence of elderly people and showing respect for the aged. I am The Lord." (Lev 19:32)

Rising to one's feet for the elders among us carries over to revering God because He too is an elder among us. God likely doesn't look His age-- except maybe in a figure of speech, e.g. Dan 7:9 --but we really should keep in mind that He's among us as not only a better, but also a senior. So we would do well to step aside for God, carry His bags, and/or hold a door open for Him not only because he's a deity and a monarch, but mainly because He's older.

The Greek word for "submit" is the very same for submit in Eph 5:21 which shouldn't be taken to mean wives are supposed to take orders from their husbands as if marriage were an arrangement similar to a monarch and a commoner. What we're talking about here is deference rather than obedience.

Deference is agreeable, approachable, tactful, and diplomatic. Deference isn't confrontational, demanding, assertive, militant, dominating, nor always clamoring: I am woman! Hear me roar!

In a nutshell: deference is just the opposite of defiance. Christian wives striving for equality with their men have not yet learned what it means to associate with a husband as they would The Lord.
_

[NyawehNyoh]

.
● Col 1:15 . . He is the firstborn over all creation.

The position of the firstborn is very notable throughout the Bible, beginning with Adam and finding its ultimate supremacy with Christ.

FAQ: How is Christ in the position of the supreme firstborn when so many of his ancestors came before him? Shouldn't he be the junior and they the senior?

REPLY: Jesus would normally be pretty low on the primogeniture totem pole were it not that the position of the firstborn among men isn't set in concrete, rather, it's possible to circumvent an elder and give his seniority to a junior, for example:

Ishmael to Isaac (Gen 20:11-12) Esau to Jacob (Gen 25:23) Reuben to Joseph (Gen 49:3-4, 1Chr 5:1) Manasseh to Ephraim (Gen 48:13-14) Adam to David (Ps 89:20-27) and David to Jesus. (Ps 110:1, Matt 22:42-45)
_

[Texas Conservative]

I am still confused why NyawehNyoh is so concerned for feminism but makes excuses for transgenderism.

[NyawehNyoh]

.
● 1Cor 11:3 . . But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

It never seems to fail that somebody will actually attempt to refute Paul's instructions by quoting another of Paul's instructions. To wit:

"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:26-28)

(chuckle) Paul pitted against Paul; the clash of the titans, only in this event, both titans are one and the same titan. Yes, both genders are one in Christ; but then Jesus and God are one also, yet there is a hierarchy in the Divinity because "the head of Christ is God"

NOTE: Beware becoming militant about this because it's neither a gender issue, an intelligence issue, a competency issue, a strength issue, or a maturity issue. This particular arrangement is based primarily upon origin and seniority. (Gen 2:21-22, Gen 3:16, & 1Tim 2:13)
_

[NyawehNyoh]

.
● 1Cor 11:4-5a . . Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disrespects his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disrespects her head.

The man's head is Christ (1Cor 11:13a) and the woman's head is Adam (1Cor 11:13b)

Christian women aren't required to cover their hair all the time; only during prayer and/or prophesy; especially in the presence of men. The idea here is for the woman to avoid drawing attention to herself and thus diminish the man's glory which, in effect, diminishes God's glory. (1Cor 11:7)

NOTE: Women's head coverings aren't merely a token of submission to a higher power. Coverings-- e.g. scarves and hijabs --serve the purpose of dimming women's glamour just a bit. I mean; dolled-up women easily outshine men, and that's permitted in secular situations, but in liturgical situations it's important for Christian women to acknowledge she was intended for a supporting role in the divine scheme of things rather than a co-star's role. (Gen 2:18)

* To progressive women; Christianity is arguably a subjugation of women, whereas to Christian women; the matter is settled in Heaven, viz: it is what it is.
_

[NyawehNyoh]

.
● 1Cor 11:6a . . If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off;

It's tempting to construe these rules as demeaning to women; but we're getting at something fundamental here that goes all the way back to the first few chapters of Genesis.

Women, by nature, are far more alluring than men. And that's okay @ home and/or out in the world where they're allowed to pour on the glam and look amazing. But in church, they ought to dull their shine a bit due to Adam's seniority and the rule of God in the grand scheme of things.

● 1Cor 11:6b . . If it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

If Christian women would be somewhat embarrassed to show up in church with a man's hair, then they have only one other option; and that's to show up in church with a women's. But in order to retain their beauty in the presence of God; they are simply going to have to tone it down a bit by obscuring their hair with something or Heaven will have no choice but to assume the worst about them.

According to Gen 2:18, women were intended to function in a supporting role rather than a co-starring role. Inequality of any kind is no doubt unacceptable to progressive women, but if we attempt to appease their discontent we'll only end up disappointing our superior in Heaven.
_

[NyawehNyoh]

.
● 1Cor 11:7-10 . . For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Now we're getting into the sphere of self control. In other words; it's natural for the woman to want to look her best, but in liturgical situations she needs to suppress her vanity a bit so as not to compete with the man for God's attention.

* Whoever these angels are, or whatever they are, they're apparently indignant when they see women in church acting as though they're equals with men in the presence of God.

FAQ: Didn't Paul make hair coverings optional when he said: "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" (1Cor 11:16)

REPLY: Apparently the Jews' synagogues, and all the rest of the Christian churches in the Roman world, required their women to attend worship services with something over their hair. Were the Christian women at Corinth allowed an exemption, they would stand out as heretics.

"Judge in yourselves: is it proper that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" (1Cor 11:13)

The answer of course is NO; it isn't proper-- it demeans the image and glory of God, and it's offensive to the angels who, according to Ps 8:1-5 and Heb 2:6-7, deserve a women's respect rather than her indifference to their celestial station.
_

[NyawehNyoh]

.
Here's a new word for your vocabulary: Womxn. You know what that is? It's the latest desperate attempt by progressive women to avoid identifying themselves with men in every way possible. I suppose they'll next revise the spelling of their gender to look like this: femxle.

● Col 3:18 . .Wives, submit to your husband, as is fitting in The Lord.

In a nutshell; the submission we're talking about here is related to a Christian husband's position in the home rather than his gender.

For example: back when young Queen Elizabeth II became monarch, her husband Philip felt humiliated to have to kneel to his own wife till she explained to him that he wouldn't be kneeling to her, rather, to the crown.

In other words: it's the position that deserves the respect rather than the person in it. So, Christian wives ought to give their husbands the respect due to his position in the home rather than the blokes they are.

That's a pretty tall order for Christian wives in a modern culture that constantly pressures them to be strong and masculine rather than soft and feminine; to be equals rather than juniors; and to be defiant rather than diplomatic. (cf. Phil 2:3-4)

The Bible teaches that men were made in the image and glory of God. (1Cor 11:7a) Does that make men equal to God? No. The Bible also teaches that women were made in the image and glory of men. (1Cor 11:7b) Does that make women equal to men? No. In neither example does "image and/or glory" indicate equality when it's only meant to indicate origin, viz: the man's life was derived from God, whereas the woman's life was derived from the man.

What was at the very root of the woman's fall from innocence? It was basically her desire for equality with God (Gen 3:4-6) So the proliferation of Eve's daughters fighting for equality should not surprise us. It's simply each succeeding generation of fallen women handing off Eve's torch to the next.

* Incidentally, Eve went off-reservation before she became infected with the so-called fallen nature. So her sin was the act of an innocent woman rather than the act of a fallen woman. Well; today's women have never at all experienced innocence, no, they're all born in a fallen condition; which only serves to reinforce their resistance to the divine scheme of things.
_

[3 Resurrections]

This series of monologue comments by NN does nothing but pour gasoline on the fire.  It seems humankind cannot steer a straight course down the road, but must bounce from one ditch into another.  What we are seeing displayed with feminism in today's world is nothing more than this bouncing from one ditch into another.  Why should this surprise anyone?  The remedy is NOT to double down by returning to the opposite ditch which provoked the reactive response in the first place, as is typical of most of the record of human activity in this world.  The remedy is to steer a course straight down the center of the road between either of the two extremes.

There is a great deal of misinterpretation of scripture across the board in much of NN's doctrinal views as stated above.  This casts a cloud of mistrust over the point they are trying to make.  Much of these views by NN regarding women were taught from the pulpit of the cult-like church where I was a member for around 16 years in the past, before God mercifully delivered me from that toxic, oppressive environment.  I recognize that cult church's tone and the message repeated here above, which are extremely destructive to gender relations.

Gender antagonisms and disagreements were the sad by-product resulting from  the Fall.  Originally, both genders were given mutual dominion over the planet and its creatures (Gen. 1:28).  Men ruling over women and women's fearful response to defer to men instead of to God was NOT a proscribed decree under which God desired this world to operate.    Unfortunately, these frictions between genders will continue to fluctuate until God purges human evil entirely from this planet in the final judgment.   

[Cally]

What we are seeing displayed with feminism in today's world is nothing more than this bouncing from one ditch into another.

No it isn't. It's symbolic of humankind rebelling against God's authority:

1 Corinthians 11:7
he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

Woman symbolizes the glory of what man is relative to God, made for Him, not vice-versa:


1 Corinthians 11:8
neither was man created for woman, but woman for man
And all of the authority that that entails. Feminism represents mankind's rebellion against God's authority in the form of women (made as the "glory of man") rebelling against and disrespecting men.

[3 Resurrections]

Cally, I lived in that ditch for 16 years in the deluded belief taught from a philandering "pastor" that this "authority" was what scripture commanded for women and wives to live under.  The fruit of that cult church was toxic to the core, and created all kinds of abuse, both sexual, spiritual, and physical for its more vulnerable members. 

From the original creation, this status for women an an "ezer kenegdo" does not have anything to do with the male having authority over the female gender.  I suggest looking it up in the Hebrew, if you have not already done so.  Eve was created as a "help" (ezer) opposite to, or corresponding to (kenegdo) her husband Adam.  Apparently, the woman did not need help, but the man did.   

I do not know your own history, Cally, but you give the impression of someone who is speaking as a wounded survivor of something that has colored your thinking.  It takes a person of a generous spirit to come to the scriptures without letting their history dictate the meaning of what they are reading.  I am some 30-plus years on the other side of that abusive, cult-church's teachings, and I know very well that it takes time for God to wash the bitterness from a person's heart after experiencing or observing abuse of any kind, and from either gender or any institution, organization, or marital union. 

Our God is after healing the effects of the Fall on both genders - not extending and perpetuating those schisms.  The language of these posts above by NN only serves to perpetuate those tragic effects of the Fall on gender relations, and mistakenly turn them into a codified, recommended law given by God. 

[Cally]

Cally, I lived in that ditch for 16 years in the deluded belief taught from a philandering "pastor" that this "authority" was what scripture commanded for women and wives to live under.

His behavior aside, the message was correct, then.

The fruit of that cult church was toxic to the core, and created all kinds of abuse, both sexual, spiritual, and physical for its more vulnerable members. 

You give the impression of someone who is speaking as a wounded survivor of something that has colored your thinking.  It takes a person of a generous spirit to come to the scriptures without letting their history dictate the meaning of what they are reading.

Part of the reason that makes this evident is that you address nothing stated, but just pour pure emotional sentiment over everything and this:

Apparently, the woman did not need help, but the man did.

Is laughable. Utterly laughable. The woman didn't exist yet.

Paul would eventually advocate for the advantages of singleness equally to men and women. But in the most ridiculous possible way, what point do you think you're making? The woman did not need help? Before she EXISTED?

Reasoning so galactically absurd might further enforce your emotional woundedness that clouds any and all reason and cause you to talk over any sound or logical argument, declaring them wrong in passionate emotional fits with no actual reason to support anything. You don't respond with logic, but only with absurd sentimentality.

[3 Resurrections]

I notice that you are not mentioning the scripture that I brought up in Genesis 1:28 which speaks of the mutual dominion over the planet and its creatures given to both Adam and Eve originally.  This was God's ideal.  "Emotional sentiment" has absolutely nothing to do with this very clear mandate given to both the man and the woman on the day they were both created. 

I notice that you do not have any response to the Hebrew term of an "ezer kenegdo" which makes no reference at all to an authority structure set up in Eden at the beginning.  The woman, once created, was not herself given a "help" by God's design, as was provided for Adam, the man.  Why do you regard this simple observation of the scripture narrative as being ridiculous?  This is what  was recorded for us to read, and I am making no alterations whatever to the text. 

I have heard these same arguments given above by NN many, many times during my former 16 years of membership at the Independent Baptist cult church.  These same twisted interpretations of scripture were utilized by the "pastor" in order to maintain an ungodly oppression over all the members - husbands included.  The "pastor" was one who acted just like 3 John 9's Diotrephes, who "loved to have the preeminence" - especially over all the women and girls in the congregation.  His message was NOT correct, and I am ashamed that it took me so long to finally recognize just how badly he was corrupting scripture's true meaning. 

Christ was quite plain when He forbad this type of exercising authority over others in the body of Christ in Matthew 20:26. "It shall NOT be so among you", He clearly stated.  What Christ did not approve for the body of Christ, He also does not approve of in gender relations either.  Despite what you think.

 

[NyawehNyoh]

.
● Eph 5:33b . . The wife must respect her husband.

The Greek verb for respect essentially refers to "fright" and is used just that way in numerous places throughout the New Testament.

Some translate it "reverence" defined by Webster's as honor or respect; felt or shown; which means that wives don't especially have to like their husbands nor have to admire them. An attitude of respect will do in lieu of felt respect. In other words: the Christian wife would do well to stifle the disgust she feels for her husband and make an effort to be civil. (Matt 5:43-48, Luke 6:31-33)

* I overheard a female caller on radio imperiously announcing to Dr. Laura that she couldn't respect her husband. So Dr. Laura asked her why. The caller responded: Because he doesn't deserve it. So Laura asked the caller: Have you earned your husband's love? The caller retorted: I don't have to deserve his love. It's a husband's duty to love his wife just as she is.

So Laura pointed out that the caller was practicing a double standard. She demanded that her husband love her unconditionally, while refusing to respect him unconditionally. And on top of that; had the chutzpah to dictate the rules of engagement regardless of how her husband might feel about it; thus making herself not only impossible to like, but also quite difficult to live with.
_

[3 Resurrections]

These attributes of respect and love are not mutually exclusive to either male or female genders in marital relationships.  Every child of God is to exercise both of these traits toward their fellow believers.

As in Romans 12:10.  "Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another;" Nothing is to be done through strife or vainglory, but in lowliness of mind, each believer, whether male or female, is to esteem the other better than themselves (Philippians 2:3).  It is a mistake to segregate these activities into one gender or another. 

[Texas Conservative]

These attributes of respect and love are not mutually exclusive to either male or female genders in marital relationships.  Every child of God is to exercise both of these traits toward their fellow believers.

As in Romans 12:10.  "Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another;" Nothing is to be done through strife or vainglory, but in lowliness of mind, each believer, whether male or female, is to esteem the other better than themselves (Philippians 2:3).  It is a mistake to segregate these activities into one gender or another. 

They aren't mutually exclusive but they are not perceived the same by men and women.

Women tend towards needing love and struggling with giving proper respect to their husbands.  Men tend towards needing respect and struggle towards giving proper love to their wives.  Hence the need for the passage in "Husbands love your wives....wives respect your husbands."

[Cally]

I notice that you are not mentioning the scripture that I brought up in Genesis 1:28 which speaks of the mutual dominion over the planet and its creatures given to both Adam and Eve originally.  This was God's ideal.  "Emotional sentiment" has absolutely nothing to do with this very clear mandate given to both the man and the woman on the day they were both created. 

I acknowledge that they were both, jointly, given dominion over the Earth. What, as opposed to Adam being the only one who subdues the Earth without Eve helping him subdue it and having dominion over it with him? It means nothing for an exegesis regarding Adam's authority over her. Genesis 5:2 says that together they are "Adam," so in any and all contexts as far as what they DO overall, they do jointly. Your citation does nothing to make any point that you're wanting to make.

I notice that you do not have any response to the Hebrew term of an "ezer kenegdo" which makes no reference at all to an authority structure set up in Eden at the beginning.  The woman, once created, was not herself given a "help" by God's design, as was provided for Adam, the man.  Why do you regard this simple observation of the scripture narrative as being ridiculous?  This is what  was recorded for us to read, and I am making no alterations whatever to the text. 

You assert that Eve not getting another helper created to help her afterward means that she doesn't ever need anyone's help in the most general sense? Who do you think, on average, stands a better chance of survival stranded on a deserted island with their natural male or female attributes? When an employee is given an "assistant," we understand that the assistant is to support the direction over whoever he or she is assisting and not the other way around, and that's the case with Adam and Eve, but it doesn't mean that Eve doesn't ever need anything from Adam like the other way around -- how is this not common sense? Adam was doing what he was doing, existing for God, with value unto himself, and then given a "helper," the same concept as someone being given an assistant, for doing the thing that he was already doing in the first place. Eve not needing help from anyone is NOT implied just because she wasn't given someone out of the explicit cause and purpose to be a helper.

I have heard these same arguments given above by NN many, many times during my former 16 years of membership at the Independent Baptist cult church.  These same twisted interpretations of scripture were utilized by the "pastor" in order to maintain an ungodly oppression over all the members - husbands included.  The "pastor" was one who acted just like 3 John 9's Diotrephes, who "loved to have the preeminence" - especially over all the women and girls in the congregation.  His message was NOT correct, and I am ashamed that it took me so long to finally recognize just how badly he was corrupting scripture's true meaning. 

Your show of a lack of self-awareness is staggering. This was the first thing you said to me, these sad, sad stories, and then proceeded to lecture me about not being affected by past hurts and experiences in interpretations and yet you keep bringing this up like it's proof of how to read the text.

Christ was quite plain when He forbad this type of exercising authority over others in the body of Christ in Matthew 20:26. "It shall NOT be so among you", He clearly stated.  What Christ did not approve for the body of Christ, He also does not approve of in gender relations either.  Despite what you think.

 

It's true that Jesus said that, but if you read the full context, it's an exercise of authority such that it EXCLUDES a concept of service, whereas:

Romans 13:1-3
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.4 For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

See? Authority as a service is GOOD and has no conflict of interest among parties. Likewise:

Hebrews 13:17

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

See again? The authority figures to whom submission is due is a service in each direction.

Granted, Matthew 20:25 in a vacuum sounds like Jesus might be excluding authority as a concept among believers, but if you continue reading, he refers to authorities who exclude SERVING those underneath them. That's why Peter exhorts other elders who DO have authority over believers as appointed by the church:

1 Peter 5:1-3

5 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you;2 not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.


And here's another down-to-Earth anecdote-ish comment from me: women are most attracted to a "man on a mission," a man of passion, direction, drive. That's because God made Eve as a "suitable helper" FOR Adam and not the other way around. The point being, submitting to a man's authority is not something that a woman does at her expense, but is an attractive prospect to women to become a part of something bigger than herself as a support to her husband, and additionally, to be sure, he exerts his energy to take care of her as he does his own flesh, so she will also reap the benefits.

[NyawehNyoh]

.
● Titus 2:3-5 . . Instruct the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

Far from teaching younger women to respect their husbands, feminism teaches girls to stand up to husbands; and rather than be keepers at home, feminism has them out joining in protests, civil disobedience, and seeking means to compete with men and break the so-called glass ceiling; and rather than love their children, feminism has them dominating their offspring in a socialist home structured with divisions of labor, command and control, tyranny, and regimentation. Those practices certainly can never be categorized as honoring the word of God.

At the heart of women's hostility towards men is the drive to resist male seniority. Yet the very lord and master of Christianity, the supreme male in the universe; demands death to a woman's self interests, and requires her undivided loyalty.

"If you want to be my follower you must love me more than your own father and mother, wife and children brothers and sisters-- yes, more than your own life. And you cannot be my disciple if you do take up your own cross and follow me." (Luke 14:26)

In The Lord's era, crosses were for executions. So when he instructed his disciples to "take up their own cross" it meant stifling their own way; viz: it was a call to abandon self interests, and comply with their Master's interests.

"Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God-- this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is-- His good, pleasing and perfect will." (Rom 12:12)

That mandate runs 180° counter to modern feminism's self-aggrandizing attitude that homemaking is oppressive and demeaning to women, and that respect for one's husband is somehow abusive; which is obviously an attitude that vilifies the word of God instead of honoring it.

Christian marriage and motherhood are not for militant females; no, marriage and motherhood are for grown-up, mature, emotionally stable women; and I'm not talking about years of life; no, even some 35 and 40 year-old women often fall short of being grown-up. Their association with men is on no higher a level now than when they were the 17 year-old, self absorbed brats they were in high school. Christian women like that seriously need reform and a good way to begin is by reading, and heeding, the guidance offered by the three very pertinent books recommended below.

For Women Only
By Shaunti Feldhahn
ISBN 1-59052-317-2

The Proper Care And Feeding Of Husbands
By Dr. Laura Schlessinger
ISBN 0-06-052061-2

What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us
By Danielle Crittenden
ISBN 0-684-83219-4
ISBN 0-684-85959-9 (paper back)
_

[NyawehNyoh]

.
● 1Pet 3:6 . . . Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord; and you have become her daughters if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.

In other words: Sarah's arrangement with Abraham was voluntary, i.e. she was neither coerced nor intimidated. Abraham didn't have to break Sarah's spirit by violence, neglect, or abuse. That's the point Peter is trying to get across, to wit: Christian women have to take the initiative to follow Sarah's example rather than horse whipped.

"I urge you, brethren, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God-- this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is-- His good, pleasing and perfect will." (Rom 12:12)

"I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you and watch over you. Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you. Many are the woes of the wicked, but the Lord's unfailing love surrounds the one who trusts in Him. Rejoice in the Lord and be glad, you righteous; sing, all you who are upright in heart." (Ps 32:8-11)

* Sarah's original name was Sarai (Gen 17:15) which in Hebrew means dominative, i.e. domineering. I can't imagine any parent tagging their little girl with a bossy name like that, but apparently it was appropriate, viz; baby Sarai must've been a demanding little tyke right from the get-go.
_

[NyawehNyoh]

.
God's son Jesus holds the position of firstborn among the Christians in God's family circle.

"For those God foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." (Rom 8:29)

The "many brethren" are heirs within God's family circle.

"Now if we are children, then we are heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ" (Rom 8:17)

The thing is: the firstborn's seniority entitles him to a greater degree of respect-- and a larger share of the paterfamilias' estate --than those in the family whose station is below his. For example:

Isaac's outdoor son Esau may have been secular to the bone, but he fully understood the advantages that should've been his in accord with primogeniture which were transferred to his kid brother Jacob instead, to wit:

"May God give you of heaven's dew and of earth's richness-- an abundance of grain and new wine. May nations serve you and peoples bow down to you. Be lord over your kindred, and may the sons of your mother bow down to you." (Gen 27:28-29)

When Esau protested Jacob's blessing; his father answered: "I have made him lord over you" (Gen 27:37)

Now, in the natural mind's eye, the firstborn's blessings are extremely unfair to say the least because who among us has any say in matters related to birth? We are not given an opportunity to select either our parents or gender, let alone whether we be the eldest or the youngest.

So; I sincerely sympathize with women's dissatisfaction with their placement in the divine scheme of things. I also sympathize with progressive womens' resentment that Christianity burdens women with inequality. But at the same time I must insist they accept it as a "born that way" disadvantage; and bloom where they're planted, i.e. make do and make the best of it; keeping in mind that our current circumstances-- whether the best or less than best -- are only a temporary inconvenience.

"I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us." (Rom 8:18)
_

[armchairscholar]

.
Misogyny was given quite a bit of negative press during former US President Donald Trump's administration; while misandry was condoned as if it were acceptable. But malice is unacceptable with God on any level; and I think we have to agree to the possibility that there are just as many, if not more, man haters in Hell as there are woman haters because women are not a protected species with God; nor is their gender a mitigating factor. They will be judged solely on the basis of their lives the same as men.

● Rom 2:9-11. .There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: For God does not show favoritism.

* The disturbing scene depicted at Rev 20:11-15 will be presided over by none other than the sweet little babe away in a manger.

● John 5:21-23 . . Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son

● Acts 17:31 . . He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.

I would very much dislike to be a woman infected with misandry because in the end, it will be a "toxic male" that dooms man-hating women and thus permanently ruin any chances they might have had for happiness in the future. For all eternity, those hostile females will grind their teeth with hot tears and clenched-fist fury that they ultimately lost out on everything because of one lone man's obsessive control over their lives. Hell is bad enough as it is, but I would imagine that existing there seething with rage makes one's circumstances a hell within Hell.
_

I agree with the truth you've shared that malice, whether in the form of misogyny or misandry, is a poison that can destroy the soul.

You're right, that God does not show favoritism. We are all judged on the basis of our lives, regardless of gender or any other factor. And it's precisely this truth that should lead us to reflect on our own hearts and actions.

I would say that the roots of misandry and misogyny often lie in unresolved pain, trauma, and lack of understanding. But I would add that these wounds can only be fully healed through the power of love, compassion, and forgiveness.

You speak of the final judgment, and it's true that we will all be held accountable for our actions. But let us not forget that God's justice is not just about punishment, but also about restoration and healing.

[Cally]

I agree with the truth you've shared that malice, whether in the form of misogyny or misandry, is a poison that can destroy the soul.

You're right, that God does not show favoritism. We are all judged on the basis of our lives, regardless of gender or any other factor. And it's precisely this truth that should lead us to reflect on our own hearts and actions.

I would say that the roots of misandry and misogyny often lie in unresolved pain, trauma, and lack of understanding. But I would add that these wounds can only be fully healed through the power of love, compassion, and forgiveness.

You speak of the final judgment, and it's true that we will all be held accountable for our actions. But let us not forget that God's justice is not just about punishment, but also about restoration and healing.

That's true, although knowing how God will avenge you is part of the healing. The cultural obsession has been all about the poor poor woman, bad bad man, and men do not get nearly the ministry that women do in that regard in general,  and that gynocentrism has also led to perversion of doctrine.

[NyawehNyoh]

.
FAQ: Shouldn't Christians be supporting equal pay for equal work?

REPLY: No.

FAQ: Why Not?

REPLY: Because it makes juniors equal to seniors; and circumvents the firstborn's preeminence.

The Christian version of gender hierarchy is based primarily upon origin and primogeniture irrespective of marriage and/or family.

For example: the man was created in the image of God, whereas the woman was created in the image of the man, viz: the man was a discrete specimen created with material taken from the Earth's soil, whereas the woman was constructed with material taken from the man's body, thus she was the flip side of the same coin instead of made a whole other coin of her own, viz: he was the senior of the two on the one coin and she the junior, viz: the man and the woman weren't siblings: their relationship was more along the lines of a father and daughter than brother and sister.

* Women will never be truly equal with men except artificially by means of man-made statutes because the divine scheme of things is a fixed frozen sea, i.e. I doubt God has any plans to go back and do it over so as to appease progressive women's complaints about their station in life.

FAQ: Don't Christians believe in the separation of Church and State?

REPLY: Whereas the Bill Of Rights prevents the US Government from establishing a nationwide religion to which all US citizens must conform; the Bill does not prohibit US citizens from applying a religion's spiritual values in their personal political philosophies.

FAQ: So in your spiritual opinion; equal pay for equal work is a humanistic aberration of the divine blueprint, so to speak?

REPLY: Yes.
_

[Cally]

FAQ: So in your spiritual opinion; equal pay for equal work is a humanistic aberration of the divine blueprint, so to speak?

REPLY: Yes.
_

I'll disagree on this one as it is indefensible. The Bible talks a lot about wages and justice WITH wages enough to the point that paying people different amounts of money for the same work would show up for sure. Proverbs 31 describes a woman who earns money in multiple ways (a vineyard from "earnings," fine linen which she "sells").

James refers to wages that the rich failed to pay their workers. That doesn't mean they completely didn't pay them for their work, and can include less than what the work deserved.

"The worker deserves his wages" is a saying based on the work done. If paying unequally were something someone should deliberately do, then this saying is misleading in its inadequacy: but the wages that one deserves depends on his age/gender/whatever

[NyawehNyoh]

.
People today have never seen a normal woman, nor has anyone today ever seen a normal man. That all came to an end with the forbidden fruit incident; men and women ever since then have been aberrations of normalcy, i.e. deviant.

When Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, his character became remarkably altered.

"The Lord God said: The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." (Gen 3:22)

In other words; Adam became a tin God, viz: Adam became his own guiding light, so to speak, and the effect wasn't limited to him, no; his entire posterity, everyone all at one time that very day, became a tin God too.

"Sin entered the world through one man" (Rom 5:12)

"By one man's disobedience, many were made sinners" (Rom 5:19)

Consequently the two lights-- the real God and the tin God --have been butting heads ever since over matters relative to good and evil.

What instigated Suffrage? What instigated Feminism? What instigated ERA? What instigated equal pay for equal work? Why is the average woman so intent upon equality with men? Duh.

"The natural mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by nature cannot please God." (Rom 8:7-8)
_

[NyawehNyoh]

.
It's commonly believed that the tin-God syndrome (a.k.a. the so called fallen nature) is inherited from one's biological father. Oh? Whence did Eve obtain it?

She was already fully constructed with material taken from Adam's body, and fully sentient, prior to him tasting the forbidden fruit so was impossible for Eve to obtain the tin-God syndrome from Adam by means of heredity.

Nor did she obtain it from the forbidden fruit because when Eve tasted it nothing happened. She went right on in the buff unashamed as usual and wasn't compelled to make herself a loin cloth till after Adam tasted the fruit, at which time they both set to work with the fig leaves.

FAQ: If Eve didn't obtain the so-called fallen nature by means of heredity, nor by means of the chemistry of the forbidden fruit; then whence?

REPLY: Well; obviously the Serpent did it to her, a.k.a. the Devil. (Rev 20:2)

The ruler of the kingdom of the air-- i.e. the spirit world --has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with the human body and the human mind in ways not easily detected. (e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, plus Eph 2:2-3)

The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to go into action the moment that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly his work takes effect. Not long after Adam tasted the fruit, he and his wife both set to work cobbling together some rudimentary aprons to cover up their pelvic areas.

The Serpent's work is apparently so binding that it can only be loosed by Christ's crucifixion.

● Heb 2:14 . . Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death; that is: the Devil.

That is at least one good reason why progressive women need to RSVP God and take advantage of His son's death to avoid leaving this life under the Devil's supervision. They've got to get that arrangement dissolved now, while an opportunity for liberty is on the table.
_

[NyawehNyoh]

.
● Matt 5:31-32 . . It has been said: Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

For a while here @ home in the USA, youngster's were getting married on an experimental basis via so-called starter marriages with the expectation that their first marriages will probably fail but at least they'd be the wiser for it.

That may be a reasonable practice in the minds of progressive women but Christian women cannot be doing that because for them serial marriages are little more than legalized promiscuity, i.e. whoredom.
_

[NyawehNyoh]

.
● 1Cor 14:35 . . If women have questions, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

What's an inquiring wife to do if her husband is spiritually inept? I'd suggest that women married to spiritually inept Christian men, and/or women married to non Christian men, seek assistance from one of the ladies in church known to be somewhat of a Bible expert.

But for safety's sake, she shouldn't seek assistance from another woman's husband; even if he's the pastor, or a deacon, or an elder; it's not only out of bounds, but that's also how rumors (and other things) get started.
_

[NyawehNyoh]

.
● Gen 2:21a-22a . . So the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon the man; and, while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot. And the Lord God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman;

The woman isn't presented as a unique species; she was constructed with material taken from the man's body, viz: the woman was the flip side of the same coin rather than a whole other coin of her own.

● Gen 2:22b . . and He introduced her to the man.

The woman wasn't given an opportunity to fit in with the animal kingdom before giving her to the man probably because her specific purpose was to be with a man (Gen 2:18) whereas Adam's specific purpose was to represent the image and likeness of God. (Gen 1:26 & 1Cor 11:7) Men can make do with a hound dog and/or a soccer ball named Wilson if they have to; but as a rule, normal women can't. (I think we may safely assume Eve was normal at first)

Men and Women share a lot of similarities; but the resolve to go it solo, to be a rugged individual, is not one of them. There are exceptions, of course; but as a rule, women do not care to live alone and unloved in the world. It's curious, but when we think of hermits; our minds typically think of them as male because female hermits just seem so contrary to nature.

● Gen 2:23a . .Then the man said: This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.

The man's rib wasn't taken out of his body as only a bare section from his skeleton, rather, it was taken from him with meat on it; which of course would've included some of his blood too in order to keep the meat from dying, which would've rendered it quite useless for constructing the woman "for the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev 17:11)

The one who designed a man said it is not good for a man to live alone. And if it's not good for a man to live alone, then it goes without saying that it's not good for a woman either. If men are supposed to be happier with a woman, then women should be happier with a man. In other words: mankind's designer didn't intend men and women to function independently of each other. They were created to be together; as couples.

● Gen 2:24a . . Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife,

Most people don't care much for needy spouses because they're so high maintenance; but I don't think Genesis is talking about that kind of clinging.

It's said that dogs are Man's best friend. No they aren't; dogs are domesticated beasts. They might bring a man his slippers, guard his property, and lick his face; but a dog lacks the capacity to be concerned that a man isn't eating right and getting enough sleep and/or sympathize with a man when his job is outsourced to cheap labor in a foreign country.

How many dogs shared their master's alarm when the housing bubble burst in 2008 and Wall Street fell off a cliff resulting in thousands of people all over the globe suddenly finding themselves with a severely diminished 401K, unemployed, and losing their homes? Had one done so, that would've been a very unusual dog.
_

[NyawehNyoh]

.
● Gen 3:16c . .Your desire shall be for your husband,

The Hebrew of that passage is apparently somewhat difficult as even the great rabbi scholars Rashi and Ramban were in disagreement how best to interpret it.

The Hebrew word translated "desire" shows up so infrequently in the Bible that it's difficult to get a good feel for it. In point of fact, other than here in Genesis, the only other places it's used is Gen 4:7 and Song 7:10.

I'm thinking the Hebrew word implies allure. In other words; Eve could be just as immodest, just as daring, and just as provocative in private with her husband all she wanted; but not in public for the eyes of other men.

That rule can be a bit frustrating for beautiful women filled out in all the right places because they typically yearn for their goods to be admired everywhere by everybody; and the more revealing, and the more public, the better.

Well; I recommend that they satisfy that yearning while still young and uncommitted because marriage is a possessive kind of relationship wherein the partners' physical charms should be considered off the shelf rather than remaining on display for others to window shop.

NOTE: God improved upon Eve's fig leaves by making her some clothing; translated from a Hebrew word pertaining to garments hanging from the shoulders. Thus our ancient grandma's topless days came to an end.
_