The Bible vs Progressive Women
- Thread starter Webers.Home
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
.
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 subordinates; 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.
_
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 subordinates; 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.
_
.
● 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 in order to respect them, nor even 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 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.
_
● 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 in order to respect them, nor even 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 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.
_
.
● 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.
_
● 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.
_
.
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)
_
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)
_
.
ACTIVIST: Shouldn't Christians be supporting equal pay for equal work?
REPLY: No.
ACTIVIST: 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.
ACTIVIST: 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.
ACTIVIST: So in your spiritual opinion; equal pay for equal work is a humanistic
aberration of the divine blueprint, so to speak?
REPLY: Yes.
_
ACTIVIST: Shouldn't Christians be supporting equal pay for equal work?
REPLY: No.
ACTIVIST: 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.
ACTIVIST: 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.
ACTIVIST: So in your spiritual opinion; equal pay for equal work is a humanistic
aberration of the divine blueprint, so to speak?
REPLY: Yes.
_
-
2
- Show all
This is utter stupidity. Equal pay for equal work is both sound business practice and, in most Westernized countries, a legal requirement. It has nothing to do with the relationship of women to men in the Church or with gender roles in the home. There is no gender hierarchy in the Church (Galatians 3:28). Anyone who tries to differentiate remuneration by your reasoning is slandering the name of Christ to the world and foolishly inviting stiff legal consequences.
-
1
- Show all
.
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)
_
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)
_
-
1
-
1
- Show all
.
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? From 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.
Did she obtain it from the forbidden fruit? No, because when Eve tasted the
fruit 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.
_
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? From 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.
Did she obtain it from the forbidden fruit? No, because when Eve tasted the
fruit 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.
_
-
1
- Show all
.
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.
_
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.
_
.
● 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'll get some experience
out of it.
That may be a reasonable practice in the minds of progressive women but
Christian women cannot be doing that because serial marriages are little
more than legalized promiscuity, i.e. whoredom.
_
● 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'll get some experience
out of it.
That may be a reasonable practice in the minds of progressive women but
Christian women cannot be doing that because serial marriages are little
more than legalized promiscuity, i.e. whoredom.
_
.
● 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.
_
● 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.
_
.
● 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.
_
● 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.
_
