The western world hates PATRIARCHY and the church ignores it. By this are we sinning?

stevevw · Apr 23, 2021

Paidiske said:
So, @stevevw, which rights would you deny women as the "natural and right" thing to do?

Education? Employment? Social participation?

That you don’t see my point and want to take things to gender wars and make out men just want to deny women’s rights just proves my point. I never said that women should be denied any rights. Both genders should have equal opportunity. But sometimes men just like women may fit the bill better due to their differences and this has nothing to do with denying women’s rights.

For example men dominate jobs that are usually associated with using things, using their hands such as building, dirty jobs, outdoor jobs or dangerous jobs or fighting jobs like in war. That doesn’t mean women cannot do those jobs but men usually end up in these jobs as a natural process. Women are more likely to do jobs associated with people, caring and socially associated jobs. But once again this doesnt mean women are not good at other industries and have a right to do them. We are talking about on average.

Taking this into consideration we shouldn’t then say that men are creating some patriarchy by dominating these industries. But this often ends up being the case. Some people want equal outcomes for all job classifications regardless of gender differences which is unreal and unnatural.

If we look back in the past we need to take this into consideration because a lot of occupations were based on dirty, hard, dangerous and outdoor work. Look at the pioneering times with farming this is associated with dirty and hard back breaking work. It was naturally suited for males but that didn’t mean women could not do these jobs. It just naturally ended up that way and there was no patriarchy going on.

Men also went to war as men are usually more aggressive and use force where as women usually are more caring. That doesn’t mean women cannot be in the military. But it is natural that men will dominate these fields. A lot of the time in the past people were poor and there were no jobs and it was a case of survival where both genders worked together.

But men usually felt responsible for fending for the family especially when there were children involved. Males are on average stronger and they feel their role is the protector and defender of the family and this is important for their self-worth.

The patriarchy was and is usually created by a smaller group of men who had power and wealth and wanted to dominate so they kept that power and wealth. Capitalism has a lot to do with it as property became all important and money drove people to dominate in general. That is why most of the time the diputes about male dominance from women are associated with the board rooms, executives and high status jobs rather than the brick layers and labouring jobs.

Paidiske · Apr 23, 2021

stevevw said:
That you don’t see my point and want to take things to gender wars and make out men just want to deny women’s rights just proves my point. I never said that women should be denied any rights. Both genders should have equal opportunity. But sometimes men just like women may fit the bill better due to their differences and this has nothing to do with denying women’s rights.

The problem comes when women are kept out of any positions of leadership, authority, influence and so on. Your post did not make it clear, but in the context of defending patriarchy seemed to imply that this was "natural and right."

stevevw said:
For example men dominate jobs that are usually associated with using things, using their hands

Like data entry, food preparation, and garment making? (All female-dominated trades, by the way).

stevevw said:
dirty jobs,

Like cleaning, personal care work? Again, female-dominated.

stevevw said:
outdoor jobs

It's pretty evenly split when it comes to things like subsistence farming.

stevevw said:
or dangerous jobs or fighting jobs like in war.

This one seems to have some validity, but on the whole, your stereotypes are questionable.

stevevw said:
That doesn’t mean women cannot do those jobs but men usually end up in these jobs as a natural process. Women are more likely to do jobs associated with people, caring and socially associated jobs. But once again this doesnt mean women are not good at other industries and have a right to do them. We are talking about on average.

But the issue with patriarchy isn't when women and men self-select into particular industries (although there may be patriarchal structures reinforcing such selection in unnatural ways). The issue with patriarchy is when women are told they don't belong in particular industries. Or are outright prevented from working in them, or gaining recognition for their week. (I think, for example, of one acquaintance of mine who is an apiarist, who writes scholarly works in her field, but has to submit her articles under a male pseudonym in order to have them published. Yes, in 2021!) Or are kept out of participating in leadership in various contexts.

stevevw said:
Taking this into consideration we shouldn’t then say that men are creating some patriarchy by dominating these industries.

It depends. Do they welcome, support and provide a safe working environment for women when they do want to participate? Just this week a woman I know slightly posted on another forum I'm on, about why she gave up working as an engineer: "Situations like having to bolt and chain your door at night, being grabbed onsite and having to fend someone off with a tripod were not unheard of. Heck, even the everyday [expletive edited] of no women’s fittings for PPE, lack of carer’s leave and sharing portaloos wears you down."

If women leave workplaces because that's the only way to get away from sexual harassment, then sorry, but that is a problem with entitled, patriarchal behaviour.

stevevw said:
Some people want equal outcomes for all job classifications regardless of gender differences which is unreal and unnatural.

"Some" people might (it's not my argument). But even if we concede that job outcomes might be gendered (although I'd question the claim of it being "natural" given there are so few people able to choose what is "natural" to them, absent social constraints), and that is not in itself an indication of patriarchy, that doesn't remove all the other very clear problems we currently have with patriarchy.

stevevw said:
Look at the pioneering times with farming this is associated with dirty and hard back breaking work. It was naturally suited for males but that didn’t mean women could not do these jobs. It just naturally ended up that way and there was no patriarchy going on.

Yeah, no. When it's a matter of subsistence agriculture, everyone works themselves basically to death; men and women both.

stevevw said:
Men also went to war as men are usually more aggressive and use force where as women usually are more caring.

Men mostly went to war because those in power demanded they do so.

stevevw said:
A lot of the time in the past people were poor and there were no jobs and it was a case of survival where both genders worked together.

The industrial revolution changed everything. Suddenly work and home were no longer integrated, and work became something you had to go out to do. This is also the cultural turning point where work became so gendered. Prior to that point, as you say, basically everyone worked to survive, but this was easier as most jobs were cottage industries and people worked at home (or lived where they worked).

stevevw said:
Males are on average stronger and they feel their role is the protector and defender of the family and this is important for their self-worth.

This becomes problematic, though. When your self-worth is invested in your sense of power over others (which is where the protector-and-defender bit ends up) it's inevitably going to lead to abuses and other problems. Especially when physical protection and defence are simply not a feature of most people's lives. It would be better to teach men to find their self-worth in successful partnering and collaboration with women.

stevevw said:
That is why most of the time the diputes about male dominance from women are associated with the board rooms, executives and high status jobs rather than the brick layers and labouring jobs.

There's plenty of pink-collar labouring to go around.

But yes, amazingly the disputes are about the areas where women are still excluded; the positions of leadership, authority and influence we are told we are too irrational, too weak, too unstable, too incapable, too stupid, too inferior to handle.

Because the days of simply passively accepting that denigration are over.

Gregorikos · Apr 23, 2021

It occurs to me that the two sides here somewhat talk past each other because perhaps we are using differing definitions of patriarchy? I found this helpful from Beth Allison Barr's new book:

So, what is patriarchy? Historian Judith Bennett explains patriarchy as having three main meanings in English:

1. Male ecclesiastical leaders, such as the patriarch (archbishop of Constantinople) in Greek Orthodoxy
2. Legal power of male household heads (fathers/husbands)
3. A society that promotes male authority and female submission

Barr explains that the third definition will be the focus of her book. She goes on to say:

This third meaning of patriarchy encompasses the first two. Both the tradition of male church leaders and the authority of male household heads function within cultures that generally promote male authority and female submission.

Barr, Beth Allison. The Making of Biblical Womanhood (p. 14). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

We have previously stated that patriarchy is literally defined as "father rule", but somehow the discussion has evolved into employment demographics. I don't think that's helpful. For me, the third definition above is really what we mean when we speak of patriarchy. Can we all agree on that?

Paidiske · Apr 23, 2021

Gregorikos said:
We have previously stated that patriarchy is literally defined as "father rule", but somehow the discussion has evolved into employment demographics.

I think that's probably in part because, for many of us, employment is where the constraints of patriarchy are most keenly felt. There are important discussions to be had about how patriarchy, sexism and the like impact on people's working lives.

Gregorikos said:
I don't think that's helpful. For me, the third definition above is really what we mean when we speak of patriarchy. Can we all agree on that?

While I'd like to be able to, I don't think it's that neat and simple. Because in that case, many of the ways patriarchy impacts women today would be excluded from the discussion.

Gregorikos · Apr 23, 2021

Paidiske said:
I think that's probably in part because, for many of us, employment is where the constraints of patriarchy are most keenly felt. There are important discussions to be had about how patriarchy, sexism and the like impact on people's working lives.

While I'd like to be able to, I don't think it's that neat and simple. Because in that case, many of the ways patriarchy impacts women today would be excluded from the discussion.

Thank you for that perspective. While Barr's book gets into that very thing, it sees it as fruit of point #3. But if we don't explain that here, it could get overlooked. So I'm glad you provided that correction.

Ohorseman · Apr 23, 2021

Gregorikos said:
It occurs to me that the two sides here somewhat talk past each other because perhaps we are using differing definitions of patriarchy? I found this helpful from Beth Allison Barr's new book:

So, what is patriarchy? Historian Judith Bennett explains patriarchy as having three main meanings in English:

1. Male ecclesiastical leaders, such as the patriarch (archbishop of Constantinople) in Greek Orthodoxy
2. Legal power of male household heads (fathers/husbands)
3. A society that promotes male authority and female submission

Barr explains that the third definition will be the focus of her book. She goes on to say:

This third meaning of patriarchy encompasses the first two. Both the tradition of male church leaders and the authority of male household heads function within cultures that generally promote male authority and female submission.

Barr, Beth Allison. The Making of Biblical Womanhood (p. 14). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

We have previously stated that patriarchy is literally defined as "father rule", but somehow the discussion has evolved into employment demographics. I don't think that's helpful. For me, the third definition above is really what we mean when we speak of patriarchy. Can we all agree on that?

No. Please avoid definitions influenced or reworded to suit gay pride theology, feminist theology, egalitarianism theology, or black liberation theology. Lets keep the definition within the boundaries of scripture. No where in the Bible does God or God's people say that the "rule of the husband" is about oppression.

As far as the ecclesiastical side of it, we all know different denominations have different applications. There is disagreement. Hence we have splits, different denominations. And, concerning the legal part, that seems to be more culturally based.

Ohorseman said:
Some think that patriarchy is about power. But I think it is about responsibility and it is the system directed in the Bible. But we have stepped away from patriarchy. Is that a sin and why does the church avoid this topic?

The God-given authority of a man, it has been misused and squandered away. Maybe the smoky ruins of the patriarchy are deserved considering that men have engaged in too many great and terrible wars and men have created bombs that can literally destroy the entire planet. Obviously, men cannot be trusted. The baby boomer generation became most aware of this post World War I and World War II, and especially considering the aftermath of the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan. I think our corrupt and terrible power has rendered us afraid of what confronts us in the honest mirror. So we close our eyes and surrender to our sad self-demasculaton. Running the gauntlet we go. Rampant divorce. Immorality. Abortion. And is that great slaughter of the unborn any less brutal than all the great wars combined? No, it is an even greater sin as far as the numbers go. Here are some numbers that will blow your mind:

World War II (the Great War) - 70 to 85 million deaths
All wars in the 20th century - between 108 and 203 million deaths
Abortions worldwide since 1980 - 1.5 billion deaths

Looking at these numbers, that means that there have been between 7.38 and 13.88 times more deaths by abortion than by all wars in the 20th century. If such big numbers are too abstract for you, lets just look at some numbers specific to the United States.

All USA wars combined - 1.1 million deaths
Abortions in the USA since Roe v Wade - 62 million deaths
Planned Parenthood since 1970 has killed 8.9 million babies

But with abortions the blood runs down a timid sink rather than in the open streets as in war and nothing goes BOOM. To empower the women to take the lead we must be willing to slaughter the unborn. It is the only way, for abortion is that great equalizer among the sexes. And hooray for Gay Pride. After all, why not, we certainly deserve that for our cowardice and God forsaken ways. The number of women having babies out of wedlock is skyrocketing. The honored place of wife and mother is rapidly being reduced to "my baby's mama", and that's okay just don't interrupt my secret click and scroll on my unusual and delicious digital date. Of course the devil will take our women now! Adam did not protect Eve from the sly serpent. We are no wiser.

As men have shunned their God-given authority and responsibilities, a new power fills the expanding voids and takes over. What is this power? Liberalism. Consumerism. Socialism. Globalism.

Is there anything that we can do, or will only the Second Coming put things in order?

View attachment 295732

My art - The Second Coming

As indicated in my OP, we are more referring to the definition as I provide here.

We all know meanings of words change. And they can change quickly... like the word "gay". People change the meanings of words to suit their cause or agenda. This should prevent us from arguing about words and in obedience with the scripture.

2 Timothy 2:14
Keep reminding God's people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

Gregorikos · Apr 23, 2021

Ohorseman said:
No. Please avoid definitions influenced or reworded to suit gay pride theology, feminist theology, egalitarianism theology, or black liberation theology. Lets keep the definition within the boundaries of scripture.

You say this, but then you don't use Scripture to define it, you use a photo of your unnamed dictionary of choice, which doesn't include all the definitions. This is why we talk past each other. This. This is why I sometimes ask if you're being dishonest. You say you're not, ok.

Here is the Oxford Dictionary:

No where in the Bible does God or God's people say that the "rule of the husband" is about oppression.

No, of course not. It just gives us stories like Genesis 19:4-9 and Judges 19:22-30 and God invites us to use the brains he gave us.

As far as the ecclesiastical side of it, we all know different denominations have different applications. There is disagreement. Hence we have splits, different denominations. And, concerning the legal part, that seems to be more culturally based.

There you wrote a whole paragraph and never said anything about these churches that limit what women can do, but not what men can do. You didn't mention that in these churches, women have no authority, only men have that.

As indicated in my OP, we are more referring to the definition as I provide here.

View attachment 298068

All that is summed up quite nicely in my point #3-

3. A society that promotes male authority and female submission.

What's your problem with that?

Philip_B · Apr 23, 2021

Ohorseman said:
View attachment 298068

It is argued by a number of scholars that Luke's Genealogy Luke:3:23-38 is in fact the Genealogical line through Mary, so by accounting for the differences with Matthew's Genealogy Matthew 1:1-17. Matthew does lean a little more Jewish and Luke a little more Greek. Women play a more prominent role in Luke's Gospel.

Ohorseman · Apr 23, 2021

Gregorikos said:
You say this, but then you don't use Scripture to define it, you use a photo of your unnamed dictionary of choice, which doesn't include all the definitions. This is why we talk past each other. This. This is why I sometimes ask if you're being dishonest. You say you're not, ok.

Here is the Oxford Dictionary:

View attachment 298072

No, of course not. It just gives us stories like Genesis 19:4-9 and Judges 19:22-30 and God invites us to use the brains he gave us.

There you wrote a whole paragraph and never said anything about these churches that limit what women can do, but not what men can do. You didn't mention that in these churches, women have no authority, only men have that.

All that is summed up quite nicely in my point #3-

3. A society that promotes male authority and female submission.

What's your problem with that?

I follow the traditional definitions and the traditional interpretations of the Bible. I don't have to use the definitions preferred by the egalitarian, feminist, gay pride, and/or black liberation theologies. Nor do I have to accept their re-interpretations of scriptures. For example: I do not believe the non-traditional view that "husband rule" from Genesis 3:16 is something humanity should resist. I know you believe that. But I do not. Humans can pretend, but I do not believe we can truly overcome those things. Woman nor man can stop the things God told us at our Fall… no more than the serpent can overcome crawling on his belly, eating dust, or having his head bruised. Furthermore, Satan tried but failed to prevent Messiah. Additionally, I do not believe your non-traditional views on Ephesians 5 & 1 Corinthians 11.

I guess in a small way I understand how you would mistakenly think this is dishonest... because you are convinced that your version of things is fact and everything outside of that framework is not valid. But your framework I do not follow and it opposes the way Christians have understood the scriptures for 2000 years, much longer actually when you consider the Old Testament.

That definition is what I used, starting post #1. My big, fat Webster's Dictionary definition is good.

Ohorseman · Apr 23, 2021

stevevw said:
That you don’t see my point and want to take things to gender wars and make out men just want to deny women’s rights just proves my point. I never said that women should be denied any rights. Both genders should have equal opportunity. But sometimes men just like women may fit the bill better due to their differences and this has nothing to do with denying women’s rights.

For example men dominate jobs that are usually associated with using things, using their hands such as building, dirty jobs, outdoor jobs or dangerous jobs or fighting jobs like in war. That doesn’t mean women cannot do those jobs but men usually end up in these jobs as a natural process. Women are more likely to do jobs associated with people, caring and socially associated jobs. But once again this doesnt mean women are not good at other industries and have a right to do them. We are talking about on average.

Taking this into consideration we shouldn’t then say that men are creating some patriarchy by dominating these industries. But this often ends up being the case. Some people want equal outcomes for all job classifications regardless of gender differences which is unreal and unnatural.

If we look back in the past we need to take this into consideration because a lot of occupations were based on dirty, hard, dangerous and outdoor work. Look at the pioneering times with farming this is associated with dirty and hard back breaking work. It was naturally suited for males but that didn’t mean women could not do these jobs. It just naturally ended up that way and there was no patriarchy going on.

Men also went to war as men are usually more aggressive and use force where as women usually are more caring. That doesn’t mean women cannot be in the military. But it is natural that men will dominate these fields. A lot of the time in the past people were poor and there were no jobs and it was a case of survival where both genders worked together.

But men usually felt responsible for fending for the family especially when there were children involved. Males are on average stronger and they feel their role is the protector and defender of the family and this is important for their self-worth.

The patriarchy was and is usually created by a smaller group of men who had power and wealth and wanted to dominate so they kept that power and wealth. Capitalism has a lot to do with it as property became all important and money drove people to dominate in general. That is why most of the time the diputes about male dominance from women are associated with the board rooms, executives and high status jobs rather than the brick layers and labouring jobs.

This makes me think of Jordan Peterson's work. He has a lot of lectures and interviews at his YouTube channel where he talks about the subject of gender in the workplace, as well as how the left is trying to tear down patriarchy. He defends these things better than I have ever heard and even uses the Bible. Here is an article he wrote that you might find interesting.
The Gender Scandal: Part One (Scandinavia) and Part Two (Canada) | Jordan Peterson

Ohorseman · Apr 23, 2021

Sorry, I missed this.

Abide with me. said:
I'm not sure what you mean by patriarchy? Does that men men taking the lead?

By patriarchy, yes men take the lead. I don't mean in everything. The scripture indicates the man is the head of the family. What that exactly means depends on what husband and wife decide together. It also means that men take the lead in church leadership. Some churches have all men. Some have a mixture of men and women. The different denominations decide.

Abide with me. said:
Didn't Priscilla and Aquilla have a big hand in the early church? Can't we debate between men and women?

Yes, Priscilla and Aquilla are talked about in the Bible as being very helpful to Paul. They were a Christian married couple of Jewish descent. Some mistakenly think that they were 2 women, I guess because of the names. Church history shows that Aquilla, the husband, went on to become a Bishop in Asia Minor.

Abide with me. said:
I'm all for re emasculating men, no one should cow tow to anyone based on identity, and men have every right to a forceful opinion on abortion, but let it be equal.

Well, I kowtow sometimes. To my mom and dad. My pastors and priests. Also, law enforcement officers, LOL. All that is based on identity. Respecting hierarchy keeps order. As far as the abortion issue, I would like to see an end to abortions.

Abide with me. said:
You can't say one sex should have the final say, what if they are wrong? Or just plain wicked?

I don't say that. You should not listen to me, when it comes about the "final say". The Bible tells the wife to submit and the husband to love his wife. Where that lands? And if he is wicked, wow, that's a hard question. Don't marry a wicked man.

Abide with me. said:
Lot's of people are of both genders,

I don't really know what to say about that, other than that person needs our prayers.

Abide with me. said:
I had submitted to my husband on everything, there would be no marriage left to submit to. Just thought I'd say..

Yep, marriage is tough. I take it the marriage is still together from what you said. Praise the Lord. And, thank you for your say. God Bless!

Christ in the desert.

stevevw · Apr 24, 2021

Ohorseman said:
This makes me think of Jordan Peterson's work. He has a lot of lectures and interviews at his YouTube channel where he talks about the subject of gender in the workplace, as well as how the left is trying to tear down patriarchy. He defends these things better than I have ever heard and even uses the Bible. Here is an article he wrote that you might find interesting.
The Gender Scandal: Part One (Scandinavia) and Part Two (Canada) | Jordan Peterson

Yes and that is where I draw a lot of my information from. Your article makes some good points. For example research shows that the more egalitarian a society such as Norway the more the gender differences come out which is exactly the opposite of what the researchers expected.

But it points to an important issue. The more governments aim to have an exact equal level of male and females across all areas the more this will highlight the gender differences. So it will actually result in the opposite of equality. IE

Given that differences in temperament and interest help determine occupational choice, and that difference in occupational choice drives variability in such things as income, it follows that political doctrines that promote equality of opportunity also drive inequality of outcome.

This is a big problem — particularly if the goal of such egalitarian policies was to minimize the differences between men and women.

So it’s actually achieving the opposite of equality. That’s because we can never achieve this unreal idea of 50/50 percent equal outcome because men and women are different especially at the extremes where work choices are concerned and will naturally be inclined towards certain occupations. For example males are more inclined to work with things and to be an engineer you have to be extremely interested in working with things which relates more to males most of the time.

Relating this to the patriarchy it seems in egalitarian societies like Scandinavia and Norway they still have a patriarchy system and cannot get rid of it which to me points to the fact that it may be more than just evil male domination over women and something that is a result of something else. If their society is equal then how can there be male domination across their society which promotes inequality. So something else is at play.

When we look back at how males were dominant in certain fields like the STEM fields it may be that this was something more natural than men oppressing women out of the STEM jobs. When we see that women were ended up in fields like nursing and care industries when applied to the research may have been a natural occurrence. Maybe the patriarchy isn’t as great as we think. There are differences between men and women and sometimes this determines which industry they end up in and we cannot assume that this is because of oppression.

Another point made in the article was that today’s PC and identity politics aiming for equity rather than equality of opportunity. That means pushing equal outcomes and having a 50/50 split of men and women regardless of qualifications and deserving the position. That is more or less doing exactly what is claimed the patriarchy is doing by biasing the system towards those who have not earnt the position and only gaining the position based on gender or whatever minority a person belongs too. I don’t think this is the right way to go about things.

Jobs should be given on merit regardless of gender race or any other factor. If it happens that there is an imbalance of gender one way of the other then so be it as that is because the best candidates got the position. If we start to give positions just to achieve equal outcomes then we are not promoting the best and rewarding hard work and effort and we are undermining our society by not having the best possible people running our nation and industries.

Paidiske · Apr 24, 2021

But this is a strawman. Nobody is trying to create a situation where every job has equal numbers of men and women (or of any other sets of groups, either). Giving people the opportunity to strive for success in whatever field suits their particular gifts, passions, abilities, personality and so on, rather than pigeonholing them by gender, doesn't mean it'll be 50/50 in every field, nor is that even important.

But as for things like STEM fields, having personally faced things like science lecturers telling me that "women don't belong in science," we know that barriers other than a lack of personal interest are in play.

In addition, the barriers to women achieving in the workplace are often more around things like lack of workplace flexibility, lack of part-time opportunities, lack of recognition that parents (not just mothers, but fathers too) need to balance their work with other responsibilities. So a two-tiered system is created; one for those who can work as if they have no other life (leaving their spouses to pick up the domestic side of things), and one for those who have to put work second to other things. And guess who always seems to end up on that second tier...?

Eloy Craft · Apr 24, 2021

Ohorseman said:
Do you think Satan will try to replace patriarchy with matriarchy at the end of days, and this will be part of the final battle?

I don't believe Satan wants Matriarchy. He wants human life to be produced by artificial means and for mother's and fathers to be in the forgotten past. Crops of humans, harvested and possessed immediately is his end game I think.

Ohorseman said:
You mentioned what Eve said when she gave birth to Cain. Do you think that this matriarchy is what eventually led to the Flood?

It presented the temptation that the sons of God couldn't resist. (Seth's line) The good guys were about to be forgotten history. Without the flood God's order would be lost entirely.

Ohorseman said:
Matriarchy, it looks like it prevails in the African American population in the US. 77% are born to single moms and the government is their father. Nobody talks about it but it is true. The liberal side of the government likes the result - dependency and control.

This is the results of dividing the two purposes of sexual intercourse. Contraception does that. That lead to irresponsible absent fathers. That serves to break down the traditional family. Matriarchy expects fathers to be present for children to familiarize and identify with it's version of what husband's and fathers should be.
Glad you asked Ohorseman. Grace and Peace.

Philip_B · Apr 24, 2021

Eloy Craft said:
I don't believe Satan wants Matriarchy. He wants human life to be produced by artificial means and for mother's and fathers to be in the forgotten past. Crops of humans, harvested and possessed immediately is his end game I think.

I don't presume to know the mind of Satan. !

Gregorikos · Apr 26, 2021

Ohorseman said:
I follow the traditional definitions and the traditional interpretations of the Bible. I don't have to use the definitions preferred by the egalitarian, feminist, gay pride, and/or black liberation theologies.

OK. It's your thread. Going by your definition, you believe that the eldest male is the head of the family, and that all other members, male and female, are in submission to him. (Websters #2 above.) And you believe government should be comprised only of men, not women. (Websters #3 above.)

We're almost 700 posts in now to be learning that and only that is what you have been referring to.

Nor do I have to accept their re-interpretations of scriptures. For example: I do not believe the non-traditional view that "husband rule" from Genesis 3:16 is something humanity should resist. I know you believe that. But I do not. Humans can pretend, but I do not believe we can truly overcome those things. Woman nor man can stop the things God told us at our Fall… no more than the serpent can overcome crawling on his belly, eating dust, or having his head bruised. Furthermore, Satan tried but failed to prevent Messiah. Additionally, I do not believe your non-traditional views on Ephesians 5 & 1 Corinthians 11.

As I have pointed out, to hold to your alleged traditional view is highly selective, because you reject every other thing that came as a result of the fall, and hold to the one as if it were good. That isn't logical.

Furthermore, your own beliefs aren't traditional either. If you want to go by tradition, you have to say that women imperfect and deformed men. That's the view of Aristotle, and church leaders followed his logic. Thomas Aquinas got a lot of his views on women from Aristotle, and his teachings about women became the traditional view in the church. As little as 120 years ago, women weren't considered equal to men at all, couldn't vote, and couldn't own property. You haven't said any of this, in fact you have stressed that women and men are "equal." So your own views are relatively modern and not at all in line with tradition.

My view of Genesis 3:16, at least the part understanding that it describes a fallen condition, is held by most exegetes on your side of the argument, such as John Piper and Wayne Grudem.

5. The Bible teaches that the rulership of Adam over Eve resulted
from the Fall and was therefore not a part of the original created
order. Genesis 3:16 is a prediction of the effects of the Fall rather
than a prescription of God’s ideal order.
Comment: We agree with this point concerning Genesis 3:16. “He shall rule over
you,” is not a prescription of what should be, but a description of what happens through
sin where redemption is not overcoming the effects of the fall. (Piper, Grudem, Recovering Biblical manhood and Womanhood, 2006 edition, page 409)

I guess in a small way I understand how you would mistakenly think this is dishonest... because you are convinced that your version of things is fact and everything outside of that framework is not valid.

it isn't your version of the story that leads me to question your honesty, it's your presentation and interaction with the facts.

But your framework I do not follow and it opposes the way Christians have understood the scriptures for 2000 years, much longer actually when you consider the Old Testament.

No actually I do consider the Old Testament. It tells us quite clearly that patriarchy came as a result of Adam and Eve's fall. (Genesis 3:16)

Ohorseman · Apr 26, 2021

Gregorikos said:
No actually I do consider the Old Testament. It tells us quite clearly that patriarchy came as a result of Adam and Eve's fall. (Genesis 3:16)

Again. I think you have a scratch on your old vinyl record, lol. Nobody is disagreeing very much about patriarchy starting at Genesis 3:16. There is the view, and I might share that view, that the man was primary, or he had some authority that the woman did not have prior to the Fall. It was not by his might or power that this authority existed. This authority that the man had existed because of the word God gave to the man. God told him to not eat the fruit. God’s word that the man carried gave him an authority that the woman did not have. Apparently, God did not tell the woman and that is why the scriptures blame Adam. I have never said this to you before but will suggest this now. “Rule of the husband” started at Genesis 3:16, not patriarchy as you say. “Rule of the father” is not written in the text! It speaks of husband rule. Then, Adam names the woman Eve. That demonstrates his authority. You might say that if the husband rules the wife then he rules the children. We infer. It does not say that. Eve bears the children. Eve names the children. It’s a power. Is it possible that “father rule” was a later development? I don’t claim to know.

Gregorikos said:
it isn't your version of the story that leads me to question your honesty, it's your presentation and interaction with the facts.

Really. You question my honesty.

Back in post # 583, you said that I said this:

Gregorikos said:
Ohorseman turned to appealing to patriarchy because of an alleged need, in order to prevent women from making the wrong choices, which he seemed to think men would do a better job at. That's when I pointed out that women have free will just like men do.

Post # 590, my response was:

Ohorseman said:
@Gregorikos
1. Where did I bring up some "alleged need"?
2.Where did I talk about " prevent women from making wrong choices"?
3. Where did I indicate "men would do a better job"?

You write such things. And then @Philip_B in #585 quotes you.... I went back and looked at my posts. Didn't see it. Maybe I overlooked it. Where?

I asked you where I said that. Crickets. No answer. Again, where did I say that? Is that bearing false witness?

Ohorseman · Apr 26, 2021

Forgive me brothers and sisters. A few times I have made reference to mutual submission in the marriage. After a close study of Ephesians, I now better see that this part is referring to believers mutually submitting to one another. HOWEVER, husband and wife have a higher calling beyond that of the relationship of fellow believers. The wife is called to submit to the husband as head. The husband is called to love his wife sacrificially. This same understanding has been said here before by others. Also, the opinion that this passage does refer to “mutual submission” in marriage has been expressed. But it does not read that way.

At my last Bible study we studied Ephesians 5. Not the part about the husband and wife. We studied verses 1 -21, and it stood out to me that Paul was referring directly to the brothers and sisters in Christ when he writes about mutual submission. So what does mutual submission between believers mean? For one thing, I think that means that we don’t argue too much. Maybe agreeing to disagree is sometimes in order.

Ohorseman · Apr 26, 2021

Our discussions on Patriarchy seem to have revolved around parts of Genesis and Ephesians. I have now learned that feminists and egalitarianists have their own special view on Ephesians. That position was provided already, again and again actually. I would appreciate it if the purveyors of those non-traditional views would not repeat and re-argue about it. Viewers that are interested can go back to earlier pages if they want. Or better yet, they can go to the egalitarian section for details and questions about those opposing views that have already been provided before.

I listened. Researched. Talked to friends and clergy. Prayed. Here is where I landed concerning the word “head” in Ephesians 5:23. To understand it, look at Paul's letter from the start.

In his letter Paul mentions the word “head” several times, even prior to Ephesians 5.

Ephesians, Chapter 1
...He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and made Him head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body...

About 21 sentences later, Paul writes this...

Ephesians, Chapter 4
...the fullness of Christ. 14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of people, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, that is, Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

...and 22 sentences later, Paul writes this.

Ephesians, Chapter 5
22 Wives, subject yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her...

In the original Greek, the Apostle Paul uses the word “kephalē” for head every time. All you need to understand Paul’s words is Paul himself. This is in the EXACT same letter by the EXACT same person. Paul talks about feet, the head, and the body. In fact, in every instance, Paul mentions both head and body. In the original Greek as well as English, head means head… not something like source. I colored one part of the text green, because that part is money!

Words change. Like the word “gay”. Another good word to consider is “rubber”. In the US that means a condom but in the UK it refers to a pencil eraser. Or, look at the word “dope”. It can mean drugs or something cool or a stupid person, and about 200 years ago it referred to gravy. We should look at the word in its own time and place. There is no need to look to all those writings outside of the Bible. To go outside of the inspired Bible to outside, uninspired sources and then use those outside, uninspired resources to do harm to the Bible… it smells like kill, steal, and destroy to me.

Catholics and Greek Orthodox have some protection against this kind of doctrinal confusion. But this is not so with most of us Protestants. Anybody with Google and a Bible can cause a little confusion. And that is why we Protestants have split after split after split. In my humble opinion, certain traditional Protestant denominations offer a little shelter. Outside of that though, Christendom looks to me like a spiritual junk food buffet and one must be extra careful to avoid getting a big scoop of sin on his plate, LOL.

Now we cannot even agree on the meaning of patriarchy or if a transgender man should be a priest or not!

Lord have mercy
Christ have mercy
Lord have mercy

Having said that, I am reminded of something that I think @Philip_B brought up, basically that you cannot put God in a box. Abraham had no Bible. God told him directly to sacrifice his son Isaac and Abraham proceeded to do as he was told. God stopped him and provided the lamb. Why God did that is not specifically explained. Maybe Abraham previously made an idol out of his promised son and God wanted him to kill it… the idol… and Abraham did. I’m guessing. But the point is, sometimes we think we understand something, even something that God plainly said, and we actually do not understand it.

Moving forward, I will even more see my wife as an equal helper. As head of the household, I will listen to the heart of the household (my wife). We indeed should form our theology around what is written in the Bible and teach accordingly… but not see that as a certain limitation on God. Nor should we make an idol out of “husband rule”, or patriarchy, or feminism, or egalitarianism, or even the Bible itself. Certainly we are all guilty of this and should repent.

Here is a devotion that teaches this better than I ever could. It is... befitting... maybe miraculous... that today's devotion be this. After today's date, I think you can click on the date under the photo and go back to date 4-26-2021: The Supreme Climb, By Oswald Chambers

My Utmost for His Highest by Oswald Chambers

Ohorseman · Apr 26, 2021

@Eloy Craft , I see. Male and female He made them. It is not enough to destroy the man. He wants to destroy the woman too. Satan wants to destroy the entire image of God. @Philip_B is right, we certainly do not want to know the mind of Satan for that is to know evil.

At your intro, I thought about the movie, the Matrix, the way humans were harvested as crops to be batteries for the machines. Spooky.

The western world hates PATRIARCHY and the church ignores it. By this are we sinning?

inquisitive

Clara bonam audax

Ordinary Mystic

Clara bonam audax

Ordinary Mystic

Take up your cross and follow Me

Ordinary Mystic

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Take up your cross and follow Me

Take up your cross and follow Me

Take up your cross and follow Me

inquisitive

Clara bonam audax

Myth only points, Truth happened!

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Ordinary Mystic

Take up your cross and follow Me

Take up your cross and follow Me

Take up your cross and follow Me

Take up your cross and follow Me

Similar threads