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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ohorseman

Take up your cross and follow Me
Oct 15, 2007
313
106
USA
✟33,711.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I disagree that egalitarianism and pro-LGBT folks follow the same playbook, though that is a common charge. But lets have a look at that:

Egalitarianism is supported by the conditions of perfection prior to the fall. Man and woman are presented as equals in Genesis 1 and 2, and are united in marriage in 2:24

LGBT issues and ideas are missing from the Eden account.


Egalitarianism is supported by the clear depiction of patriarchy as an event of the fall. (Gen 3:16) The world immediately sees the effects of the fallen world. In the very next chapter after the fall we find the first cases of murder (4:8) patrilineage (4:18) and polygamy (4:19) Humankind was thoroughly wicked by 6:5.

Unlike egalitarianism, homosexual intercourse is introduced post-fall. The first clear reference is Gen19:5, though it may have been referenced earlier, in 9:22.

Egalitarianism has several clear positive examples throughout the Bible – Miriam, Abigail, Deborah, Huldah, Mary Magdalene, Priscilla, Junia, Phoebe, Euodia, Syntyche, and others. There are ZERO gay positive examples in the Bible.

The complementarian references can all be explained without negating or removing any of them from the Bible. Egalitarianism stands with or without those references.

Not so for LGBT. Becoming pro LGBT means negating every Biblical reference that appears to be about homosexuality by applying each reference to something else. But in doing so you completely remove LGBT from the Bible. How can a divinely inspired book given to the Lord’s church leave out such a common occurrence as homosexuality? Did not the church leaders realize they had gay folks around them?

Using the common LGBT argument that (1) people are born that way and (2) it cannot be changed and (3) a substantial percentage of the population is born gay, we would have to conclude that there were many gay people in the early church.

Using a conservative figure of 2%, there must have been at least 60 gay people in the church on the first day. (Acts 2:41) In a very short time there would have been 100 gay people. (Acts 4:4) And then great numbers. (Acts 5:14). And the gay population grew even larger (Acts 6:1) and then it increased again, greatly (6:7)

Yet with all the teaching and admonition about sexual immorality and the utter seriousness that we must avoid it (Acts 15:20, 29, 21:25; 1 Cor 6:18; 7:2; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thes 4:3) how is it that our supernatural, God-inspired book COMPLETELY overlooked all the gay people that were amongst the first century Christians?

So it's plain to see that the pro LGBT argument is utterly devoid of any substance, while the egalitarian argument has several Biblical points in favor of it. And while both of them challenge tradition, egalitarianism does so using solid Biblical hermeneutics, the other does not at all.

No hard feelings here.
I still see you dwelling the same tombs as they.
The tombs where dead bodies of tradition without reverence lay.
But Christ did free unchainable tomb dweller from the demons, it is true.

And the gold from the texts that you melt down,
what comes out of that fire, idol or crown?
But Arron did return from ḥēṭ’ ha‘ēggel to be at the right hand, it is true.


More blah, blah? LOL. Be not as their ally as you are along side them. Maybe the Lord can use you or does use you to preach against the gay pride heresy that is burning up the world and even the church. Maybe you could be better equipped for that than most. I had a inappropriate content addiction and so understand sex addiction. For 40 years I wandered that dreadful desert, but I am free now. I dare not boast in myself. It is only because of the Lord that I am free. As a result I have compassion for them, often purposefully hid. But sometimes I struggle because my anger swells and I want to metaphorically start throwing them from the rooftops, though that be wrong, sinful. Christ can command strongly, turn the tables, and swing the whip. But He is a righteous man. I am not and I fear that I would soon enjoy the violence of it.

May the Lord shine His Light upon you and bless you.

Christfaceoflight2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ohorseman

Take up your cross and follow Me
Oct 15, 2007
313
106
USA
✟33,711.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
OR
Earth and heaven in chorus say, Alleluia!

OR EVEN
Women, men and angels say, Alleluia


Author: Charles Wesley (1739)

The point here, and thankyou for raising it, is that in terms of the natural reading of the words in our age the alternative readings are far truer to what Charles Wesley was trying to say. This is a reflection of the changes that have happened in the way we use language. Wesley did not intend to exclude women when he penned the words 'Sons of men' however it is the effect of a culture steeped in paternalism that does not even notice.

Non-inclusive language is not the problem, and fixing it does not fix the problem, however to persevere with it, once you are aware of it is a clear red-flag and is symptomatic of the problem.

When I was a boy in grade school, I remember actually being taught that the pronoun "he" was an all inclusive pronoun. I think that is what we called it. I thought nothing of it. I learned it. My female teacher, my female classmates, my mother... none took issue. Years later, near high school, my teacher, Ms. Mills, taught that we should write "he or she". Or, you could use "he/she". It was something new. I seem to remember asking the teacher why. It was odd, because I had been previously taught that there was no need for such a thing. She explained that it was more proper and... I don't even remember what else she said. It was just a short unremembered comment. So, I made my adjustment. No thought about politics whatsoever. It was just grammar.

My point, when we look at the way things are now, so hostile, so entitled, so... everything hurts my feelings... and then we project that into our analysis of the past, I think we invent drama. I am pretty sure that little Sally or Ms. Sue singing "Sons of men" knew exactly what they were singing back then and did so without boiling blood, nor would it even occur to them that their blood should boil.

I don't really care that they change it. I get it. It does make more sense in this day and age where people are the way people are. But, it seems to me that people are the way they are BECAUSE we changed it, and so many other things. What we have lost in this process is no small thing. The idea that "he" is all of us. It lifts up the earthly father. It shows he is head. Wives see it. Children see it. And the he is in Him (Christ). And though Christ is a He, we are all in Him. It's in the language. Lost language now. Good? I am not so sure about that. Half the families are without a dad. And most dads I know are just... there. Well, at least they are not Homer Simpson or Al Bundy... or maybe they are. And now children without a proper dad cannot figure out what bathroom they should or should not use, and mom is on psychotropics. Well, all of them are.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,384
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,348.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
When I was a boy in grade school, I remember actually being taught that the pronoun "he" was an all inclusive pronoun. I think that is what we called it. I thought nothing of it. I learned it. My female teacher, my female classmates, my mother... none took issue. Years later, near high school, my teacher, Ms. Mills, she taught that we should write he or she. Or, you could use he/she. It was something new. I seem to remember asking the teacher why. It was odd, because I had been previously taught that there was no need for that. She explained that it was more proper and... I don't even remember what else she said. It was just a short unremembered comment. So, I made my adjustment. No thought about politics whatsoever. It was just grammar.

My point, when we look at the way things are now, so hostile, so entitled, so... everything hurts my feelings... and then we project that into our analysis of the past, I think we invent drama. I am pretty sure that little Sally or Ms. Sue singing "Sons of men" knew exactly what they were singing and did so without boiling blood, nor would it even occur to them that their blood should boil.

I don't really care that they change it. I get it. It does make more sense in this day and age where people are the way people are. But, what we have lost in this process is no small thing. The idea that "he" is all of us. It lifts up the earthly father. It shows he is head. Wives see it. Children see it. And the he is in Him (Christ). And though Christ is a He, we are all in Him. It's in the language. Lost language now. Good? I am not so sure about that. Half the families are without a dad. And the most dads I know are just... there. Well, at least they are not Homer Simpson or Al Bundy... or maybe they are.
Linguistic changes have historically been somewhat evolutionary. The prayer book of 1662, whilst truly authentic and beautiful in many senses needs some adjustments if it is to work in our age. The idea of praying that Judges would execute justice indifferently sounds unduly dispassionate, where we know that the intent of the prayer was the judges should execute justice impartially. We are not absolutely clear when that change came about, none the less we can recognise that it did.

In 1978 the Australian Anglican Church produced A Prayer Book for Australia and the language used was simple plain and straightforward. Masculine pronouns were often used as referring to all people, and all was well, and we prayed that justice might be exercised impartially.

1662 had served the Church for more than 300 years. AAPB did not last 30 years. in 1995 the Australian Anglican Church produced An Australian Prayer Book and the language used reflected the move to inclusive language that had transpired in the intervening period. On the one hand you might think this represents a political movement forcing linguistic change as a means of changing the social discourse and outcomes. Equally it is possible that the speed of change which has been accelerating now means that things last one tenth pf the time they used too.

Some really good work was done of discussing the changes in key liturgical texts by the English Language Liturgical Consultation (oecumenical) in 1988, and there document Praying Together discusses it. You may find this helpful, so the link is here.
https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/a42fbdb2/files/uploaded/praying.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ohorseman
Upvote 0

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟386,808.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This is a reflection of the changes that have happened in the way we use language. Wesley did not intend to exclude women when he penned the words 'Sons of men' however it is the effect of a culture steeped in paternalism that does not even notice.
This is a major difference in perception that creates a bias and 9r a misperception of bias.
This culture is not paternalistic. A wife can legally end the life of a husband's child without the husband's consent. That isn't even egalistic let alone paternalistic.
Our time echo's Eve's statement when Cain was born.
 
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,384
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,348.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
This is a major difference in perception that creates a bias and 9r a misperception of bias.
This culture is not paternalistic. A wife can legally end the life of a husband's child without the husband's consent. That isn't even egalistic let alone paternalistic.
Our time echo's Eve's statement when Cain was born.
OK. But I still think it reflects a language steeped in Patriarchy, so let me re-phrase:

This is a reflection of the changes that have happened in the way we use language. Wesley did not intend to exclude women when he penned the words 'Sons of men' however it is the effect of a culture steeped in patriarchy that does not even notice.

Is that better?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Gregorikos
Upvote 0

Ohorseman

Take up your cross and follow Me
Oct 15, 2007
313
106
USA
✟33,711.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This is a major difference in perception that creates a bias and 9r a misperception of bias.
This culture is not paternalistic. A wife can legally end the life of a husband's child without the husband's consent. That isn't even egalistic let alone paternalistic.
Our time echo's Eve's statement when Cain was born.

Wow!!! CF needs some new icon things. That one deserves an atomic bomb image... maybe a mushroom cloud.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Eloy Craft
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,384
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,348.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Our time echo's Eve's statement when Cain was born.
‘I have produced a man with the help of the Lord.’ Genesis 4:1

I am not at all sure I have any comprehension of what you are suggesting here. I presume that there is some sort of nuance-slip or cross cultural contamination.
 
Upvote 0

Gregorikos

Ordinary Mystic
Dec 31, 2019
1,095
887
Louisville, Kentucky
Visit site
✟113,638.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
When I was a boy in grade school, I remember actually being taught that the pronoun "he" was an all inclusive pronoun. I think that is what we called it. I thought nothing of it. I learned it. My female teacher, my female classmates, my mother... none took issue. Years later, near high school, my teacher, Ms. Mills, taught that we should write "he or she". Or, you could use "he/she". It was something new. I seem to remember asking the teacher why. It was odd, because I had been previously taught that there was no need for such a thing. She explained that it was more proper and... I don't even remember what else she said. It was just a short unremembered comment. So, I made my adjustment. No thought about politics whatsoever. It was just grammar.

My point, when we look at the way things are now, so hostile, so entitled, so... everything hurts my feelings... and then we project that into our analysis of the past, I think we invent drama. I am pretty sure that little Sally or Ms. Sue singing "Sons of men" knew exactly what they were singing back then and did so without boiling blood, nor would it even occur to them that their blood should boil.

I don't really care that they change it. I get it. It does make more sense in this day and age where people are the way people are. But, it seems to me that people are the way they are BECAUSE we changed it, and so many other things. What we have lost in this process is no small thing. The idea that "he" is all of us. It lifts up the earthly father. It shows he is head. Wives see it. Children see it. And the he is in Him (Christ). And though Christ is a He, we are all in Him. It's in the language. Lost language now. Good? I am not so sure about that. Half the families are without a dad. And most dads I know are just... there. Well, at least they are not Homer Simpson or Al Bundy... or maybe they are. And now children without a proper dad cannot figure out what bathroom they should or should not use, and mom is on psychotropics. Well, all of them are.

We were taught that "he" was an inclusive pronoun in grade school and both of us thought nothing of it for two primary reasons. #1, we were boys and were not slighted by it in any way. We really shouldn't under estimate the influence of this point. As boys and men we have been oblivious to this issue our entire lives. But if you listen to many women about this, particularly younger ones, you get a very different picture.

And reason #2 is that using masculine pronouns as the default for both genders was extremely common English when we were in school. (I'm using 1964-1977 as my baseline because that's when I was in school. I surmise you were in school about that time as well)

But all that changed in the English language in the last 30 years. The NIV team commissioned Collins Dictionaries to do a major study on this very issue.


As part of the review of gender language promised at the September 2009 update announcement, the committee sought to remove some of this subjectivity by enlisting the help of experts. The committee initiated a relationship with Collins Dictionaries to use the Collins Bank of English, one of the world’s foremost English language research tools, to conduct a major new study of changes in gender language. The Bank of English is a database of more than 4.4 billion words drawn from text publications and spoken word recordings from all over the world. - 2011 NIV Translation Notes
Interestingly, the final report on the study showed that while English in general substantially moved away from "he" as a generic pronoun, Evangelical English did not.

Collins Report.png


The takeaway here is that while Joe Churchmouse sees no problem at all, the unchurched will see it differently. Do we really want to appease Joe Churchmouse, or do we want to reach the world, particulary the younger generations, for Christ? I think it pays us to update our language as the culture changes in ways that don't comprimise our Christian values in order to pass the faith along to succeeding generations.

Here is a link to the 2011 NIV translators notes

And here is a link to the full
Collins Report which the NIV translation committee authorized in 2009 to conducts the study.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,130
19,010
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,719.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
What we have lost in this process is no small thing. The idea that "he" is all of us.

Except, of course, in Scriptures pertaining to, say, church office. Then the folks who proclaim loudly that women should be happy to see ourselves referred to with male pronouns, insist that we should on no account see that in these texts.

Don't think the hypocrisy isn't blatantly obvious.

This culture is not paternalistic.

Of course it is. You refer to abortion, and that is one issue, but I'll tell you something: I have never, and I mean never, provided pastoral care around abortion, without there being male coercion of the woman in the picture.

But that aside, our culture is paternalistic (or patriarchal, if you prefer) in just about every aspect of its life. Its educational institutions, its employment frameworks, its religious communities, its family dynamics, and so on and so on.

Give me a world where girls are no less educated than boys, where there is no gender pay gap, where women fill leadership roles at the same rate as men and without being bullied and abused for it, and we might be able, at that point, to consider whether we are inhabiting a post-patriarchal world.
 
Upvote 0

Ohorseman

Take up your cross and follow Me
Oct 15, 2007
313
106
USA
✟33,711.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So, I hear an atomic bomb and you guys are like, somebody farted.

What’s wrong with you guys. Don’t you see. What Eloy Craft said is real. You claim patriarchy hurts the ladies’ feelings and it keeps them from being things like a priestess… meanwhile patriarchal-free moms are legally ending lives, and sometimes against the will of the father. That’s real. I know this because it happened to me! And along side that, you support gay pride blasphemy in action while whispering that it is a sin. Snap out of it. Murder is an actual sin and worse than imaginary or even real oppression. Serpentine nuances aside, looks like ya'll are on the wrong side.

THIS IS FUNNY: Dirk from Europe joins the Crusades. Dirk is a mighty warrior. While waging war in the Holy Land he starts thinking that Europeans are greedy . They are taking the natives’ land and trying to force their beliefs on them. It’s so cruel and oppressive. Dirk joins the other side and now fights alongside the Muslims against the Crusaders. Dirk thinks he is doing God’s work because he is killing those greedy, oppressive, and sinful European bastards. Now, Dirk does not like it when the Muslims behead Christians and says to Abdul, “You should not do that, it’s a sin. I would like to see a reduction in these beheadings (think abortions here). Oh, I’m out of arrows, can I have some of yours?”. Abdul, like the rest of the Muslims, thinks to himself, “When all this is over, I’m going to skin that crazy Infidel alive… and then cut his head off”. Don’t be a Dirk.

And now... let me guess, you want to talk about how cruel and unjust the Crusades were. Or, maybe you are more comfortable going back to talking about the pronoun “he”, or how the NIV changed the world, not.


This is a major difference in perception that creates a bias and 9r a misperception of bias.
This culture is not paternalistic. A wife can legally end the life of a husband's child without the husband's consent. That isn't even egalistic let alone paternalistic.
Our time echo's Eve's statement when Cain was born.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gregorikos

Ordinary Mystic
Dec 31, 2019
1,095
887
Louisville, Kentucky
Visit site
✟113,638.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
So, I hear an atomic bomb and you guys are like, somebody farted.

What’s wrong with you guys. Don’t you see. What Eloy Craft said is real. You claim patriarchy hurts the ladies’ feelings and it keeps them from being things like a priestess… meanwhile patriarchal-free moms are legally ending lives, and sometimes against the will of the father. That’s real. I know this because it happened to me! And along side that, you support gay pride blasphemy in action while whispering that it is a sin. Snap out of it. Murder is an actual sin and worse than imaginary or even real oppression. Serpentine nuances aside, looks like ya'll are on the wrong side.

THIS IS FUNNY: Dirk from Europe joins the Crusades. Dirk is a mighty warrior. While waging war in the Holy Land he starts thinking that Europeans are greedy . They are taking the natives’ land and trying to force their beliefs on them. It’s so cruel and oppressive. Dirk joins the other side and now fights alongside the Muslims against the Crusaders. Dirk thinks he is doing God’s work because he is killing those greedy, oppressive, and sinful European bastards. Now, Dirk does not like it when the Muslims behead Christians and says to Abdul, “You should not do that, it’s a sin. I would like to see a reduction in these beheadings (think abortions here). Oh, I’m out of arrows, can I have some of yours?”. Abdul, like the rest of the Muslims, thinks to himself, “When all this is over, I’m going to skin that crazy Infidel alive… and then cut his head off”. Don’t be a Dirk.

And now... let me guess, you want to talk about how cruel and unjust the Crusades were. Or, maybe you are more comfortable going back to talking about the pronoun “he”, or how the NIV changed the world, not.

I see the problem here. You're upset that these uppity females are making decisions of their own accord without male supervision, and you disagree with some of their decisions. You feel if males were in command of their lives we'd have a better outcome.

But let's not resort to emotional reactions. Let's stick to the Scriptures. We have established from the Word of God that patriarchy is the result of our fallen condition and we shouldn't embrace it, even if we find the results not to our personal liking. God gave everyone a free will, both men and women alike, and the intelligence to use it for His glory. He knows what he's doing. Let's trust Him and His Word.
 
Upvote 0

Ohorseman

Take up your cross and follow Me
Oct 15, 2007
313
106
USA
✟33,711.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I see the problem here. You're upset that these uppity females are making decisions of their own accord without male supervision, and you disagree with some of their decisions. You feel if males were in command of their lives we'd have a better outcome.

But let's not resort to emotional reactions. Let's stick to the Scriptures. We have established from the Word of God that patriarchy is the result of our fallen condition and we shouldn't embrace it, even if we find the results not to our personal liking. God gave everyone a free will, both men and women alike, and the intelligence to use it for His glory. He knows what he's doing. Let's trust Him and His Word.

Uppity... I swear @Gregorikos , you make me look up more words than anyone I have ever talked to, LOL. Now, you know that is not exactly what I am saying. Nice word though.

But, okay, let's not "embrace" patriarchy... but murder, that's fine. Sheesh.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gregorikos

Ordinary Mystic
Dec 31, 2019
1,095
887
Louisville, Kentucky
Visit site
✟113,638.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Ohorseman said:
What we have lost in this process is no small thing. The idea that "he" is all of us.
Except, of course, in Scriptures pertaining to, say, church office. Then the folks who proclaim loudly that women should be happy to see ourselves referred to with male pronouns, insist that we should on no account see that in these texts.

Don't think the hypocrisy isn't blatantly obvious.

Amen

Eloy Craft said:
This culture is not paternalistic.
Of course it is. You refer to abortion, and that is one issue, but I'll tell you something: I have never, and I mean never, provided pastoral care around abortion, without there being male coercion of the woman in the picture.

But that aside, our culture is paternalistic (or patriarchal, if you prefer) in just about every aspect of its life. Its educational institutions, its employment frameworks, its religious communities, its family dynamics, and so on and so on.

Give me a world where girls are no less educated than boys, where there is no gender pay gap, where women fill leadership roles at the same rate as men and without being bullied and abused for it, and we might be able, at that point, to consider whether we are inhabiting a post-patriarchal world.

Amen
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,130
19,010
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,719.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
So, I hear an atomic bomb and you guys are like, somebody farted.

What’s wrong with you guys. Don’t you see. What Eloy Craft said is real.

Abortion is real, yes. It's irrelevant to the question of the value of patriarchy. That some women do something wrong is not an argument for male control.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Gregorikos
Upvote 0

Gregorikos

Ordinary Mystic
Dec 31, 2019
1,095
887
Louisville, Kentucky
Visit site
✟113,638.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Ohorseman said:
So, I hear an atomic bomb and you guys are like, somebody farted.

What’s wrong with you guys. Don’t you see. What Eloy Craft said is real.
Abortion is real, yes. It's irrelevant to the question of the value of patriarchy. That some women do something wrong is not an argument for male control.

Amen
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟386,808.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
see the problem here. You're upset that these uppity females are making decisions of their own accord without male supervision, and you disagree with some of their decisions. You feel if males were in command of their lives we'd have a better outcome.
Classic misrepresentation. Strawman argument. The issue here is authority. Legal authority in this case that only recognizes one parent when two exist.z

But let's not resort to emotional reactions. Let's stick to the Scriptures. We have established from the Word of God that patriarchy is the result of our fallen conditio
Nothing of the sort has been established. Good acting on your part. You deserve an Oscar.
God gave everyone a free will, both men and women alike, and the intelligence to use it for His glory. He knows what he's doing. Let's trust Him and His Word.

Not even in question. Free will ? LoL. Desperate move to claim that as a victory don't you think?
 
Upvote 0

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟386,808.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Except, of course, in Scriptures pertaining to, say, church office. Then the folks who proclaim loudly that women should be happy to see ourselves referred to with male pronouns, insist that we should on no account see that in these texts.

Don't think the hypocrisy isn't blatantly obvious.



Of course it is. You refer to abortion, and that is one issue, but I'll tell you something: I have never, and I mean never, provided pastoral care around abortion, without there being male coercion of the woman in the picture.

But that aside, our culture is paternalistic (or patriarchal, if you prefer) in just about every aspect of its life. Its educational institutions, its employment frameworks, its religious communities, its family dynamics, and so on and so on.

Give me a world where girls are no less educated than boys, where there is no gender pay gap, where women fill leadership roles at the same rate as men and without being bullied and abused for it, and we might be able, at that point, to consider whether we are inhabiting a post-patriarchal world.
The legal system heavily favors women. The pay gap leadership roles, women are and have been getting what they want. Men are oppressed in the courts in the media at work. Look at you, can you say women are oppressed? Not hardly. To the point that it seems that it's ok that husband's have no right to want a child in the womb to live if his wife doesn't. That father isn't oppressed? I can tell you he is.
There is even a movement that wants it to be illegal to question a woman's testimony if she accuses a man of misconduct.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟386,808.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Abortion is real, yes. It's irrelevant to the question of the value of patriarchy. That some women do something wrong is not an argument for male control.
It's very relevant. The primary society is the human family. Abortion is all about a woman's authority over which humans are worthy of life. Not authority given by God I assure you.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ohorseman
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,384
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,348.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The legal system heavily favors women. The pay gap leadership roles, women are and have been getting what they want. Men are oppressed in the courts in the media at work. Look at you, can you say women are oppressed? Not hardly. To the point that it seems that it's ok that husband's have no right to want a child in the womb to live if his wife doesn't. That father isn't oppressed? I can tell you he is.
There is even a movement that wants it to be illegal to question a woman's testimony if she accuses a man of misconduct.
Firstly it is a cooperation not a competition. In general women are not always upheld in court. I do think there are some areas of family law where men sometimes feel let down by the system, battle law is probably not really designed for human interaction, but rather for value and property rights. However this is essentially irrelevant to the discussion.

I understand you want a moral absolute on abortion, and in a perfect world that might be possible, if unneeded. I do think the moral equivalence here is complex.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Paidiske
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.