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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,005
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,140.00
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.

The legal system does not favour women. If it did, the conviction rate for rape would be much higher, for a start. Men often claim that the outcomes of divorce are unfair to them, but they fail to realise that this reflects the way that divorce outcomes tend to be much worse for women. Post-divorce, it is women who experience deeper and longer-lasting poverty, for example, especially since their capacity to work is usually impacted by primary custody of children.

Women are getting neither what we want, nor what would be a matter of equal treatment. You want to say women are not oppressed, but you do not acknowledge the obstacles we face in education, in employment, and in social participation.

Abortion is a particularly fraught issue from all sorts of directions, and I am not promoting abortion. But again, I will reiterate, in every case where I have provided a woman with pastoral care around abortion, she was coerced into that abortion by a man. Deepening patriarchal control of women would only make that coercion more likely and more difficult to withstand. We cannot paint the abortion question as a simple matter of evil women depriving men of their children.

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.

The primary society is the human family? Says who? From a Christian point of view, biological family is treated as secondary to spiritual family.

Even that aside, abortion is about a huge, messy, complicated, interconnected web of problems. While I see abortion as a terrible thing, I do not for one second see it as a problem which could be alleviated by deepening male control of women.
 
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
will reiterate, in every case where I have provided a woman with pastoral care around abortion, she was coerced into that abortion by a man.
I'm aware of such but it has no bearing on the rights of a loving father. I'll bet that image is a misty vague almost doesn't exist thing in your mind.

The primary society is the human family? Says who? From a Christian point of view, biological family is treated as secondary to spiritual family.
Christ modeled the Church after the family. As the central society on earth that all others branch from the familyi hasn't changed functions.

Even that aside, abortion is about a huge, messy, complicated, interconnected web of problems. While I see abortion as a terrible thing, I do not for one second see it as a problem which could be alleviated by deepening male control of women.
You have no empathy for a father who loves his children do you? All he wants is the right to have a voice in his child's life. You can't keep yourself from seeing the monster man who oppresses women even when looking at a loving father? Pastor?
 
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
Eloy Craft said:
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.
The legal system does not favour women. If it did, the conviction rate for rape would be much higher, for a start. Men often claim that the outcomes of divorce are unfair to them, but they fail to realise that this reflects the way that divorce outcomes tend to be much worse for women. Post-divorce, it is women who experience deeper and longer-lasting poverty, for example, especially since their capacity to work is usually impacted by primary custody of children.

Women are getting neither what we want, nor what would be a matter of equal treatment. You want to say women are not oppressed, but you do not acknowledge the obstacles we face in education, in employment, and in social participation.

Abortion is a particularly fraught issue from all sorts of directions, and I am not promoting abortion. But again, I will reiterate, in every case where I have provided a woman with pastoral care around abortion, she was coerced into that abortion by a man. Deepening patriarchal control of women would only make that coercion more likely and more difficult to withstand. We cannot paint the abortion question as a simple matter of evil women depriving men of their children.

Amen

Eloy Craft said:
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.
Paidiske said:
The primary society is the human family? Says who? From a Christian point of view, biological family is treated as secondary to spiritual family.

Even that aside, abortion is about a huge, messy, complicated, interconnected web of problems. While I see abortion as a terrible thing, I do not for one second see it as a problem which could be alleviated by deepening male control of women.

Amen
 
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,382
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,036.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
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.
An objective assessment of the world as it now is would suggest that Patriarchy has failed to deliver a world preserved from wrong choices.

Exhibit A] Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Vladimir Putin

Exhibit B] Queen Elizabeth II, Angela Merkel, Jacinda Ardern

No one gets it right all the time, but I think the dream team would have some women in it.!?
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,005
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,140.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I'm aware of such but it has no bearing on the rights of a loving father. I'll bet that image is a misty vague almost doesn't exist thing in your mind.

What image? Of a loving father? Not at all. I can look at my own husband, my own father, and countless others in my life and know them as real human beings.

But when it comes to abortion, I simply don't buy the idea that patriarchy is going to fix the problem. From where I'm standing, patriarchy is a very big part of the problem. It creates the conditions which drive many women to abortion in the first place.

As the central society on earth that all others branch from the familyi hasn't changed functions.

You're making claims here, but not in any way backing them up.

You have no empathy for a father who loves his children do you?

I have plenty of empathy, but again, abortion is irrelevant to the question of whether or not we should seek to establish and sustain patriarchal systems. A red herring. A distraction. An emotive card to play when other arguments are found unpersuasive. "Those evil women are killing our babies, so we need them back under our control!" Not buying it.

All he wants is the right to have a voice in his child's life.

If he thinks he can force a woman to carry a child to term, that's going way beyond "a voice." I don't support abortion, but I don't support coercion and control, either.

You can't keep yourself from seeing the monster man who oppresses women even when looking at a loving father?

If he uses being a loving father as a reason why he should get to control the women in his life then there's still a massive problem there. Here's what happens when you get loving fathers who think they're entitled to control their families: Why do men kill their families? Here's what the research says

And it's not exactly clear exactly what you're arguing for here, in suggesting that patriarchy is the answer to abortion. Should we go back to the days when women couldn't have a bank account? Or couldn't vote? Or couldn't go to university? Exactly how deep do you think patriarchy needs to be to solve this problem? Because newsflash: even when patriarchy was at it's strongest, abortion still happened.
 
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
Eloy Craft said:
I'm aware of such but it has no bearing on the rights of a loving father. I'll bet that image is a misty vague almost doesn't exist thing in your mind.
What image? Of a loving father? Not at all. I can look at my own husband, my own father, and countless others in my life and know them as real human beings.

But when it comes to abortion, I simply don't buy the idea that patriarchy is going to fix the problem. From where I'm standing, patriarchy is a very big part of the problem. It creates the conditions which drive many women to abortion in the first place.

I agree. Patriarchy causes a LOT of problems in the earth.

Eloy Craft said:
As the central society on earth that all others branch from the familyi hasn't changed functions.
Paidiske said:
You're making claims here, but not in any way backing them up.

Eloy often states his unsupported opinions as if they were facts.

Eloy Craft said:
You have no empathy for a father who loves his children do you?
Paidiske said:
I have plenty of empathy, but again, abortion is irrelevant to the question of whether or not we should seek to establish and sustain patriarchal systems. A red herring. A distraction. An emotive card to play when other arguments are found unpersuasive. "Those evil women are killing our babies, so we need them back under our control!" Not buying it.

That's exactly right.

Eloy Craft said:
All he wants is the right to have a voice in his child's life.
Paidiske said:
If he thinks he can force a woman to carry a child to term, that's going way beyond "a voice." I don't support abortion, but I don't support coercion and control, either.

More often than not, it's the father that urges the abortion, as my "father" tried to make happen. Patriarchy is more likely to be the cause of abortion than the cure. Thankfully, my parents weren't married and he lacked the control necessary to force her to abort me, or he would have done so.

Eloy Craft said:
You can't keep yourself from seeing the monster man who oppresses women even when looking at a loving father?
Paidiske said:
If he uses being a loving father as a reason why he should get to control the women in his life then there's still a massive problem there. Here's what happens when you get loving fathers who think they're entitled to control their families: Why do men kill their families? Here's what the research says

And it's not exactly clear exactly what you're arguing for here, in suggesting that patriarchy is the answer to abortion. Should we go back to the days when women couldn't have a bank account? Or couldn't vote? Or couldn't go to university? Exactly how deep do you think patriarchy needs to be to solve this problem? Because newsflash: even when patriarchy was at it's strongest, abortion still happened.

Amen.
 
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
But when it comes to abortion, I simply don't buy the idea that patriarchy is going to fix the problem. Fr
I didn't mention it to fix it. I mentioned it because it presents an imbalance of authority in the family.

You're making claims here, but not in any way backing them up.
It's called 'nuclear' for the same reason. I'll have to get back later. Duty calls.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,005
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,140.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I didn't mention it to fix it. I mentioned it because it presents an imbalance of authority in the family.

This thread is about patriarchy, and whether and to what extent patriarchy is desirable. If you're not raising abortion in relation to that point, it's off topic to this thread.

That said, lots of abortions happen outside established family structures.
 
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
Eloy Craft said:
I didn't mention it to fix it. I mentioned it because it presents an imbalance of authority in the family.
This thread is about patriarchy, and whether and to what extent patriarchy is desirable. If you're not raising abortion in relation to that point, it's off topic to this thread.

That said, lots of abortions happen outside established family structures.

Amen
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,005
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,140.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
For the sake of all those reading along, I am perfectly within the rules to engage with and respond to others in this thread, in a public forum. That is not "hijacking" the thread, and others have made it clear they value my contributions. It is your choice whether or not to engage with or respond to or ignore me. But - provided I'm posting within the rules of the forum - you don't get to tell me not to post at all.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Philip_B
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
For the sake of all those reading along, I am perfectly within the rules to engage with and respond to others in this thread, in a public forum. That is not "hijacking" the thread, and others have made it clear they value my contributions. It is your choice whether or not to engage with or respond to or ignore me. But - provided I'm posting within the rules of the forum - you don't get to tell me not to post at all.

Thank you!
 
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
Not acting. To review, I demonstrated that patriarchy began in Genesis 3:16. Nobody was able to prove otherwise, of course. You can't, because the Bible says nothing like that in Genesis 1-2.

If not acting then misunderstanding, at least. And listing Genesis 3:16 again and again is not a demonstration. The narrative prior to the Fall clearly shows Adam was primary. God talked directly to him. It means something. It is not always about some word. Christ often taught with parables, allegory. He did that because He knew we would word pick and change words, whereas you can't change a whole story. Same for OT. If you don't want to see it that way. Okay. That's your choice. I wanted to hear what you had to say. It did not change my mind. But I still learned things and am appreciative of your input. You taught me what egalitarianism is and that is something I had never heard of before until now. Let us not allow our discourse to turn evil.

Only one. I have ignored only one, and according to actual instructions in the Bible. As said, I am sorry about that situation.
Thank you!

For what? Come now. Don't go off the rails here. You are still my brother in Christ, right?

Christ cross pose (2).jpg
 
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
If not acting then misunderstanding, at least. And listing Genesis 3:16 again and again is not a demonstration. The narrative prior to the Fall clearly shows Adam was primary.

That's a meaningless point and not even correct. Chapter 1 ends with the creation of both the man and the woman in verse 27, immediately to a mandate to have dominion given equally both of them.

As far as chapter two goes, Eve only existed for the last 3 verses. The main point of chapter 2 was that man was incomplete without his mate, so naturally the man will get more word counts.

There is nothing at all in Genesis 1-2 stating Adam had authority over Eve, which is what patriarchy means.

We keep coming back to Genesis 3:16 because that is the first place in the Bible that it is stated that the man would have authority over the woman. And that is part of the fall. You keep trying to claim it happened earlier than that, so pretty much every time you do I'm going to point to Genesis 3:16, because it is a clear statement.

God talked directly to him. It means something.

Yes it does. He talked directly to her too, before the fall. (Genesis 1:28-30) Whatever it means for him, it means the same for her.

Let us not allow our discourse to turn evil.

Only one. I have ignored only one, and according to actual instructions in the Bible. As said, I am sorry about that situation.

I don't know. It says to not "associate" with sexually immoral people, which Paidiske is not. It says to have no fellowship with the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but that doesn't apply to her either. It certainly doesn't say you should cut off all communication, thus making any reconciliation impossible.

There is also the matter of being a divisive person. (Titus 3:9-11) Paidiske is willing to talk. You aren't. It's always sad when two people are in the same family, or are in the same church and one or both of them says, "I'm not talking to that person!"

For what? Come now. Don't go off the rails here. You are still my brother in Christ, right?

Yes, and she is your sister in Christ, and mine. Her voice it important, and I appreciate her participating in the thread. I have learned a lot from her, and want to continue to do so.


 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Paidiske
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
‘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.
Compare her statement when Cain was born with the one when Seth was born. Her statements reveal her perception of relationship between her and God in regards of reproduction. Like God created man they create man. Eve's statement is made for that reason. Seth is a new creation of man and Eve knows this time it's a gift from God.
A son in the image of his father marks the begining of the family on earth as it is in heaven.
A begotten son in the image of his father is a restoration of the family structure to what it was prefall as revealed by the mythic language of Genesis.
 
Upvote 0

Abide with me.

Active Member
Jan 8, 2021
253
260
64
Norfolk
✟40,976.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No doubt men lack integrity and maturity... and do terrible things, i.e. atomic bombs. But we now take more lives by abortion than war. The world is running as far as it can from patriarchy... and Christians are following. That said, it's not the world's standard. It's ours, and we ignore it.

You say, "...beginning to think that time has come and gone." What, like marriage being only between a man and a women - come and gone, like that?

I post here because I don't understand some things. But, patriarchy is not adverse to "mutual recognition of strengths and weaknesses and shared commitment for togetherness and growth" . In fact, it depends on it.
I'm not sure what you mean by patriarchy? Does that men men taking the lead? Didn't Priscilla and Aquilla have a big hand in the early church? Can't we debate between men and women?
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.
You can't say one sex should have the final say, what if they are wrong? Or just plain wicked? Lot's of people are of both genders, if I had submitted to my husband on everything, there would be no marriage left to submit to. Just thought I'd say...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philip_B
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
5,382
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,036.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Genesis 4:4
Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, ‘I have produced a man with the help of the Lord.’

Genesis 4:2
Next she bore his brother Abel.​

Genesis 4:25
Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, for she said, ‘God has appointed for me another child instead of Abel, because Cain killed him.’​

Compare her statement when Cain was born with the one when Seth was born. Her statements reveal her perception of relationship between her and God in regards of reproduction. Like God created man they create man. Eve's statement is made for that reason. Seth is a new creation of man and Eve knows this time it's a gift from God.
A son in the image of his father marks the begining of the family on earth as it is in heaven.
A begotten son in the image of his father is a restoration of the family structure to what it was prefall as revealed by the mythic language of Genesis.

I am sorry @Eloy Craft I think you are over-reading the text. Your appeal to 'mythic language' sounds a little too gnostic for me. I am happy to accept the story as myth, and I affirm that myth can be a vehicle of truth, and sometimes more reliably than history, however when we over-read the text and see meaning beyond the words, we need to be very very carful that we do not lapse into eisegesis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paidiske
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
That's a meaningless point and not even correct. Chapter 1 ends with the creation of both the man and the woman in verse 27, immediately to a mandate to have dominion given equally both of them.
You added that word, equally. My translations do not say that.
There is nothing at all in Genesis 1-2 stating Adam had authority over Eve, which is what patriarchy means
We keep coming back to Genesis 3:16 because that is the first place in the Bible that it is stated that the man would have authority over the woman. And that is part of the fall. You keep trying to claim it happened earlier than that, so pretty much every time you do I'm going to point to Genesis 3:16, because it is a clear statement..
No, I am not claiming that. You say that I say that. I don't say that. Prior to 3:16, I see something else. I keep using the word "primary". The man was primary. And this is not about power, but responsibility it seems.

You like to go Genesis 1-2... and then, BAM!!!, Genesis 3:16. Again with the skipping. You skip Genesis 3:8-13. That is where, again, God talks to the man directly, and not the woman. I don't think God was a misogynist, yet God talks to the man, directly. Prior to that, the Serpent talks to the woman, directly. Why did the Serpent do that. The Serpent circumvented authority. That sly Devil. Wow, already, from the very beginning, it is looks like the Devil is trying to go against, undermine God's authority, order. You think that old Devil was thrown out of heaven for the same thing or something.

Agree to disagree you and I. Primarily because we see the Bible differently. I think the Bible is a spiritual book and everything means something and we should look at the whole of it, not bits and pieces, and play word games with this word and that phrase, and ignore narratives, and ignore the Fathers, and ignore Tradition. I think that is off. We are replacing the priesthood of all believers with... each believer is a priest.

I don't know. It says to not "associate" with sexually immoral people, which Paidiske is not. It says to have no fellowship with the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but that doesn't apply to her either. It certainly doesn't say you should cut off all communication, thus making any reconciliation impossible.
No, those are not the relevant Bible verses. Been there. Done that. Look back there if you like. Plus, it is not my decree. Since you are all about equality and do not believe in hierarchy, you will not understand. Just like you buck against the relevant CF rule. When you throw out hierarchy there are many things about submission and authority, about the Kingdom of God actually, that you will not understand.
There is also the matter of being a divisive person. (Titus 3:9-11) Paidiske is willing to talk. You aren't. It's always sad when two people are in the same family, or are in the same church and one or both of them says, "I'm not talking to that person!"
You have an uninformed understanding of the issue because you did not read all my info and links about the issue. Again, I am submitting to my Elders. It is on them, the Elders. Her elders and my Elders. I think they have defined it in a polite way. We are not in Communion. Again with the hierarchy that you do not believe in.

Yes, and she is your sister in Christ, and mine. Her voice it important, and I appreciate her participating in the thread. I have learned a lot from her, and want to continue to do so.
Maybe you guys can start a thread somewhere. You certainly have my blessing for that.
Christ cross pose (2).jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Eloy Craft
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
Ah, I understand Now. Well, how dare I say that. To suggest that I understand someone's pain. I do not. With you father, I hope there was reconciliation, or at least forgiveness.

I forgave him but I never met him.

What stood out to me when I was trying to learn about egalitarianism was all the pain there. Story after story, comment after comment, about pain. Pain in the parenting relationship. Pain in the marriage or dating relationship.

Pain in egalitarianism? I think you mean pain in patriarchy. You mentioned awhile back that I made patriarchy sound like oppression, and of course I did, because that's what it is. And oppression does cause pain.

Egalitarianism from a certain standpoint looks something like the tuberculosis sanatorium phenomenon. Some believers go there to deal with pain from life and their " kephalē " gets messed up there. Their thinking is impaired by the pain and they seek variant meanings to what the Bible teaches to make sense of it all.

Am I reading you correctly that you are suggesting that egalitarians are suffering from impaired thinking as a reaction to trauma? I hope I'm misunderstanding.

Aside from those in this type of pain, there are those that have an agenda, like feminists. But they too are in a type of pain, often caused by sinful man individually or collectively. And, sometimes it is pride and rebellion. And then there are those seeking compromise and this is understandable to me.

I'm a man. I have no need for egalitarianism. It doesn't benefit me in the least. I had no interest in looking into it because that was a "women's issue."

I became an Egalitarian because the Scriptures led me there. It's the truth. I had no choice. It's the only logical way I can see to reconcile what the scriptures plainly say. And then when I realized that over one half of the church has limits placed on what they can do for God, this became a passion. Jesus told us to "pray to the Lord of the harvest to send more workers into his harvest." Yet patriarchal denominations have pulled missionaries off the missions field because of their gender. Jesus said to pray for more workers. Patriarchy says to limit the workers. That's disobedience.

Godly women with PhDs in theology can't teach Sunday school to teenage boys, but Roscoe the taxi driver who gets his theology from highly suspect places is perfectly qualified. The body of Christ is harmed because of these limitations they put on women. Not on men. Only women. And it's wrong and it's sinful. That's why I do this.

Mutual submission nor headship were relevant since your father and mother were not married.

And thus, there was no abortion that time, so here I am. But that's besides the point. Patriarchy gives men the power to push for abortions, and it happens a lot.

We all know that sometimes the head submits to the heart, the body. It is a natural thing. Every man in a Godly marriage should be intimate with this mutual submission principle... especially us old-fashioned patriarchalists, LOL. And, killing off the offspring is antithetical to patriarchy.

Sounds nice. But patriarchists very often let the wife have her way when it suits them. Throw them a bone, or throw them 9 bones out of 10 over things that don't matter to the man. But that 1 thing out of 10 that really matters, there's always the man-card to play. Sounds nice. Looks good on paper. But it's rotten at its core.
 
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
You added that word, equally. My translations do not say that.

Mine don't either. We've been over this. Equally is implied by the text, since God gave the mandate to both of them at the same time. (Genesis 1:28-30)

No, I am not claiming that. You say that I say that. I don't say that. Prior to 3:16, I see something else. I keep using the word "primary". The man was primary. And this is not about power, but responsibility it seems.


If you aren't claiming that these things you think you see in Genesis 1-2 gave Adam authority over Eve, then you didn't have patriarchy there. And that makes it a moot point.

You like to go Genesis 1-2... and then, BAM!!!, Genesis 3:16. Again with the skipping. You skip Genesis 3:8-13. That is where, again, God talks to the man directly, and not the woman.

Because 8-13 isn't relevant to the discussion. You are reading something into that which isn't stated.

I don't think God was a misogynist, yet God talks to the man, directly. Prior to that, the Serpent talks to the woman, directly. Why did the Serpent do that. The Serpent circumvented authority.

So NOW you're claiming that Adam DID have authority over Eve prior to the fall. Pick a lane. You can't have that both ways depending on which paragraph we're speaking in.
 
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
Status
Not open for further replies.