The Bible vs Progressive Women

[Tha:yo:nih]

.
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.
_

 

[Tha:yo:nih]

.
● 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.
_

 

[Tha:yo:nih]

.
● 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)

FAQ: Supposing a man's daughter is his eldest child. Wouldn't that eo ipso make
her his firstborn?

REPLY: The top position of the Bible's primogeniture hierarchy is limited to the men.
For example let's say a man produces five daughters before finally producing a son.
The boy's five big sisters will be his juniors and he the senior of his father's six
offspring regardless of how much older than the lad his five sisters might be.
_

 

[Tha:yo:nih]

.
● 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, a maturity issue, or even a
human issue. This particular arrangement is based primarily upon origin and
seniority. (Gen 2:21-22, Gen 3:16, & 1Tim 2:13)

FAQ: The animal kingdom was created first and humanity last. Doesn't that make
the animal kingdom the senior and humanity the junior?

REPLY: Humanity was created in the image and likeness of God. That alone makes
humanity superior to the animal kingdom. Plus, humanity was given dominion over
the animal kingdom.

● Gen 1:26-28 . . .God said: Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let
them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over
all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God
created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and
female he created them. God blessed them and said to them: Be fruitful and
increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and
the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

So even if the animal kingdom had at one time been superior to humanity, the
arrangement obviously wasn't meant to be permanent.
_

 

[Tha:yo:nih]

.
● 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.
_

 

[Tha:yo:nih]

.
● 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.

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

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.
_

 

[Tha:yo:nih]

.
● 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
women 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.
_

 

[Tha:yo:nih]

.
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.
_

 

[Tha:yo:nih]

.
● 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.
_

 

[Tha:yo:nih]

.
● 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 to
his administration.

"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)

Those instructions run 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. 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)
_

 

[nethanpaul86]

.
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.
_

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It's true that God shows no favoritism and will judge everyone fairly. Misogyny and misandry both reflect the brokenness of our world, and we’re all called to love as Christ did. Judgment is a serious matter, and I appreciate your reminder of the bigger picture.

 

[Tha:yo:nih]

.
● 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.
_

 

[Tha:yo:nih]

.
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
than those in the family whose station is below his, plus he's also entitled to a
larger share of the paterfamilias' estate than theirs. For example:

Isaac's eldest son Esau may have been secular to the bone, but he fully understood
the advantages that would've been his in accord with primogeniture had they not
been 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 women's resentment
that Christianity burdens women with inequality. But at the same time I must insist
that Christ's women 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)
_

 

[Tha:yo:nih]

.
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.
_