God created man and woman. He made them DIFFERENT! I hope you are a believer in Christ, but even if you are not (you should consider believing, it matches your worldview), you understand male and female differences better than 95% of Christians. If you read the first few chapters of Genesis, you will see that women are inferior to men. T…
God created man and woman. He made them DIFFERENT! I hope you are a believer in Christ, but even if you are not (you should consider believing, it matches your worldview), you understand male and female differences better than 95% of Christians.
If you read the first few chapters of Genesis, you will see that women are inferior to men. That is a strong statement indeed. But the woman was created FOR man. She was not created EQUAL.
Women are emotional. They need a calming influence. Just look at how single women vote, for goodness sake. They want government to take care of them! Married women, for the most part, don't have this problem, they have a man.
And since I MUST say this to quash those who read this and begin clutching their pearls, YES, a man needs a woman, but not in the way a woman needs a man.
Glaring example. In single parent households headed by a woman, the children's life outcomes are dreadful compared to an intact family with both biological parents present in the home. Boys drop out of school, commit crime, go to prison (check out the % of men in prison who had no father in the home, you will be shocked) at MUCH higher rates and are generally uncivilized simply because they had no civilizing influence growing up. Few women can perform this civilizing role although there are some rare examples. Girls without fathers in the home tend toward promiscuity at an early age, become single moms and so forth.
OTOH, in households headed by a single man, the children's outcomes, while slightly diminished, are quite close to the outcomes seen in an intact family.
Another example. Except for the last 200 years or so, and pretty much only in the "civilized" West, a woman without a man to care and protect her was so much chattel and subject to the whims and desires of men. And please understand, "civilization" as we know it, is NOT the default way life has been lived for thousands of years. I fear we will see a return to life as nasty, brutish and short in our lifetimes.
Another. In survey after survey, both men and women overwhelmingly prefer to work under the management of men rather than women. Wonder why that is? Hm.
Now, this is exceedingly jarring to the modern mind. But prior to the late 19th century, this was received wisdom for all of human history. And societies and cultures were better off for it.
Feminism has destroyed the family, the church, the culture and now, it is destroying women as we see with the trans movement. It is literally erasing women from our world. THAT is a BAD thing! For women are a blessing to men and children. Who else can change the temperature of room or cocktail party than a happy, beautiful woman?
Tell you how 'it' doesn't work like that, meaning deciding to believe in something one has decided one cannot believe in? I say the argument you're looking for is pointless because neither of us is going to convert the other, and I'll leave it there. The thread is ended as far as I am concerned.
I'm a believer Mark, and everything you said is 100% spot on, except I feel trans genders are Gods judgment on wo-MEN for invading MALE roles/sports/ etc. I feel girls are getting what they deserve because they violated EVERY space for BOYS & MEN...now their own PENIS ENVY is comming back at them! btw.Genesis talks about PENIS ENVY! wo-MEN have a jealousy of MEN'S authority BUT...they CRAVE to be under it! FACT!
Luckily some of us found a true faith and understand it. I have found that with Buddhism. I hope some day you can learn true Christianity. I would encourage you to find a monastery near you where you can find monks with the time to help you better understand Christianity (I am assuming that you are Catholic).
Christianity offers so much, but you need to understand it properly to be set free. I wish you the best.
NO thanks. I don't need a monastery to have & understand true faith. A monk couldn't teach me anything. Interesting you reference Catholicism, since Jesus said NEVER call anyone 'fATHER' 'rABBI' or 'mASTER' I would even say you're probably closer to Catholicism than I am.
100% AGREED! Apart from the power wo-MEN have with their bodies they are inferior to MEN morally. I believe in the lord too. However I also believe trans genders are agents of God and girls are getting what they deserve. Sports aren't even lady like and most fe-MALE athletes have wives and even those who aren't gay have NO periods.
You said that "you will see that women are inferior to men". But that would mean that the female sex is a sub-human species of living thing. The faculty and quality of Intellect/Reason is the sole central, unifying factor which makes humanity essentially and fundamentally distinct from the brute creatures; therefore it would follow just by virtue of woman's real or supposed essential and ontological inferiority that, either Woman is one of the brute creatures, or else she is merely an intermediate transitional substantial form between humanity and the brutes, and less intrinsically and ontologically distinct from the brute creation than is the male sex.
One of the brute creation?? Impossible! For it is written, Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast (Deuteronomy 27:21).
An intermediate transitional substantial form between humanity and the brutes? Well then, if that is so, well then the same must be, by parity of reason and sameness of sex, true for the selfsame Virgin Mary out of whom was born Jesus Christ (K1). It is a divinely revealed article of the Christian faith that Jesus Christ is both God and Man: meaning that he possess two natures, the divine nature _qua_ Creator of the World, and also by virtue of His eternal preexistence prior to the entire Cosmos, and some particular human, zoological, or other "biological" corporeal living breathing moving substantial form (K2), which, as we remarked in (K0), must be precisely identical to that of the very woman from whom He was born _qua_ corporeal living breathing human or sentient being. No creatures can have progeny of a kind which is ontologically superior in substantial form to that of its direct and immediate ancestors. But Jesus Christ had absolutely NO human father and absolutely NO direct immediate male human ancestor - oh but on the contrary He was born of a Virgin. This means that the whole of his substantial form _qua_ living breathing physical organic creature could only have come from His mother, the Virgin Mary. Therefore the species of living thing of which was Jesus Christ _qua_ living breathing physical organic creature had to be exactly identical to that of His mother (K3). But it was remarked in (K1) that the particular human, zoological, or other "biological" corporeal living breathing moving substantial nature of the Virgin Mary herself would have to be ontologically inferior to that of man though ontologically superior to that of each and every one of the beasts (K4).
But then it follows from K3 and K4 that in the particular human, zoological, or other "biological" corporeal living breathing moving substantial nature of the Person Whose name ALONE is Jesus Christ, this selfsame particular human, zoological, or biological nature of His would have been ontologically inferior to that of Man however much ontologically superior it may be to that of each and every one of the beasts, which is not only impossible and absurd, but formally and blasphemously heretical against the fundamental articles of the divinely revealed Christian faith.
The hypothesis that Jesus Christ, in His physical, biological, zoological, organical, living breathing substantial form, as opposed to the Divine nature He has always had even before the world began to exist at all, was only an intermediate zoological substantial form and species intermediate between humanity and the brute animal creatures, necessarily implies that, apart from His divine nature, He wasn't human at all, but merely a subhuman species of animal zoological living creatures; and therefore necessarily implies that in that respect of His fleshly incarnate nature and species (as opposed to His divine nature) He wasn't made like unto HIS male brethren, nor like unto the distinct species which we call the HUMAN species, but only a subhuman species of animal, contrary to the express and plain teaching of Hebrews 2:17: "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be *made like unto his brethren*, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."
A "christ" whose particular human, zoological, or other "biological" corporeal living breathing moving substantial nature is NOT that of Man, but only a subhuman species of zoological animal, is a "christ" that cannot save ANY human being, and therefore cannot be the true and genuine Christ. A "christ" whose particular human, zoological, or other "biological" corporeal living breathing moving substantial nature is NOT that of Man, and yet whose mother was herself most likely begotten of the seed of Man through the womb of Woman is a "christ" who was not TRULY man, but at best only outwardly SEEMED to be man. But the doctrine that Christ was not TRULY man, but at best only outwardly SEEMED to be man is a pernicious heresy known as DOCETISM! A "christ" who was not TRULY man, but at best only outwardly SEEMED to be man cannot truly save any man. This very inferiority of substantial corporeal sentient creaturely nature would be sufficient and actually effectual to render the Sacrifice of the Crucifixion blemished, and utterly INCAPABLE of taking away sins. The New Testament plainly teaches (Hebrews 10:4) that neither the blood of goats, nor of sheep, nor of oxen, nor of calves, nor of any intermediate transitional form of life between humanity and the brutes, nor of any other sub-human species, can ever be effectual unto the forgiveness of sins.
In addition, Christ is our only Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). But a mediator is a party who has authority to reconcile and arbitrate between two parties which are at variance with each other. It is highly incongruous that a person essentially inferior to both of the two parties should be mediator between them. It is absolutely essential that a Messiah or Saviour seeking to confer salvation should be of the same nature and species both of that Deity he wishes to appease, and of that creature on which he wishes to confer this salvation. Therefore, if Jesus Christ had been NOT truly Man, He would not have been able to save mankind at all; in fact, He would NOT have been the second Adam - for the first Adam was of the human species and not merely an intermediate transitional substantial form between humanity and the brutes. But the Scriptures acquiesces to absolutely NO such transitional substantial form between humanity and the brute creatures, nor has such ever been found. Everyone born of a woman through the ordinary operations of Mother Nature is either a MALE or a FEMALE. Among those who are neither MEN, nor WOMEN, nor CHILDREN, the hypothesis that there exists even a single transitional intermediate substantial form between humanity and the brutes is neither part of the Natural Law, nor of the Laws of Science, Biology, Zoology, Natural History, Taxonomy, or Ecology, nor any part of the doctrines of the Christian religion.
Jesus Christ for some time was a child, but He grew up into adulthood. Also, He was never born as a FEMALE but as a MALE. No MAN being an adult male can be an intermediate transitional substantial form between man and brutes.
Therefore, it is impossible - not just philosophically or politically impossible - but theonomically, Christologically, soteriologically, evangelically, theologically, and bio-cosmologically IMPOSSIBLE that the sort of creature which alone is known by the name of Woman should be an intermediate transitional substantial form between humanity and the brutes.
And as to the observed sociological fact that children from homes in which the father is absent long enough come out far worse than children from whom in which both mother and father are present and involved long enough in the household with their children, the HYPOTHESIS which you made to account for WHY this sort of father absence SHOULD be expected to produce all these ills is biologically essentialistic and deterministic. It asserts that the contribution which fathers made is not only _sine qua non_ for raising good children, but also biologiclaly deterministic and biologically and genetically unique and intrinsic to the very nature of being a biological male of the human species as opposed to being a woman or girl. But since *IDENTICAL causes produce IDENTICAL effects*; therefore the corresponding null hypothesis H0 for testing your proposed theory for explaining WHY "father absence" SHOULD be expected to expose children to the risks it does is that *Homes in which the mother is a widow and never remarries (i.e. the father of the children of that home was none other than the husband of the mother of those children, and the father absence is due only to the death of the father of the children of that house without the consent or fault of the mother of those children) should have child-rearing outcomes which are either statistically *IDENTICAL* to those in which the father absence is due to divorce, desertion, or birth out of wedlock, or else statistically significantly WORSE OFF than those in which the father absence is NOT due to the death of the father". But what do the statistics show for the case of widowed mothers?
wo-MEN >are inferior to MEN... just as a child is inferior to the Parents. This biblical teaching does not diminish a wo-MAN'S humanity, it denotes RANK in God's hierarchy.
God created man and woman. He made them DIFFERENT! I hope you are a believer in Christ, but even if you are not (you should consider believing, it matches your worldview), you understand male and female differences better than 95% of Christians.
If you read the first few chapters of Genesis, you will see that women are inferior to men. That is a strong statement indeed. But the woman was created FOR man. She was not created EQUAL.
Women are emotional. They need a calming influence. Just look at how single women vote, for goodness sake. They want government to take care of them! Married women, for the most part, don't have this problem, they have a man.
And since I MUST say this to quash those who read this and begin clutching their pearls, YES, a man needs a woman, but not in the way a woman needs a man.
Glaring example. In single parent households headed by a woman, the children's life outcomes are dreadful compared to an intact family with both biological parents present in the home. Boys drop out of school, commit crime, go to prison (check out the % of men in prison who had no father in the home, you will be shocked) at MUCH higher rates and are generally uncivilized simply because they had no civilizing influence growing up. Few women can perform this civilizing role although there are some rare examples. Girls without fathers in the home tend toward promiscuity at an early age, become single moms and so forth.
OTOH, in households headed by a single man, the children's outcomes, while slightly diminished, are quite close to the outcomes seen in an intact family.
Another example. Except for the last 200 years or so, and pretty much only in the "civilized" West, a woman without a man to care and protect her was so much chattel and subject to the whims and desires of men. And please understand, "civilization" as we know it, is NOT the default way life has been lived for thousands of years. I fear we will see a return to life as nasty, brutish and short in our lifetimes.
Another. In survey after survey, both men and women overwhelmingly prefer to work under the management of men rather than women. Wonder why that is? Hm.
Now, this is exceedingly jarring to the modern mind. But prior to the late 19th century, this was received wisdom for all of human history. And societies and cultures were better off for it.
Feminism has destroyed the family, the church, the culture and now, it is destroying women as we see with the trans movement. It is literally erasing women from our world. THAT is a BAD thing! For women are a blessing to men and children. Who else can change the temperature of room or cocktail party than a happy, beautiful woman?
Love your writing. You speak the truth.
'I hope you are a believer in Christ, but even if you are not (you should consider believing ... )'
It doesn't work like that.
Pray tell, how then? Bible clearly teaches that we come to Christ and the grace he offers by faith alone. I.e. Believing in Him. What say you?
Tell you how 'it' doesn't work like that, meaning deciding to believe in something one has decided one cannot believe in? I say the argument you're looking for is pointless because neither of us is going to convert the other, and I'll leave it there. The thread is ended as far as I am concerned.
I'm a believer Mark, and everything you said is 100% spot on, except I feel trans genders are Gods judgment on wo-MEN for invading MALE roles/sports/ etc. I feel girls are getting what they deserve because they violated EVERY space for BOYS & MEN...now their own PENIS ENVY is comming back at them! btw.Genesis talks about PENIS ENVY! wo-MEN have a jealousy of MEN'S authority BUT...they CRAVE to be under it! FACT!
Luckily some of us found a true faith and understand it. I have found that with Buddhism. I hope some day you can learn true Christianity. I would encourage you to find a monastery near you where you can find monks with the time to help you better understand Christianity (I am assuming that you are Catholic).
Christianity offers so much, but you need to understand it properly to be set free. I wish you the best.
NO thanks. I don't need a monastery to have & understand true faith. A monk couldn't teach me anything. Interesting you reference Catholicism, since Jesus said NEVER call anyone 'fATHER' 'rABBI' or 'mASTER' I would even say you're probably closer to Catholicism than I am.
100% AGREED! Apart from the power wo-MEN have with their bodies they are inferior to MEN morally. I believe in the lord too. However I also believe trans genders are agents of God and girls are getting what they deserve. Sports aren't even lady like and most fe-MALE athletes have wives and even those who aren't gay have NO periods.
@Mark S Griffith,
You said that "you will see that women are inferior to men". But that would mean that the female sex is a sub-human species of living thing. The faculty and quality of Intellect/Reason is the sole central, unifying factor which makes humanity essentially and fundamentally distinct from the brute creatures; therefore it would follow just by virtue of woman's real or supposed essential and ontological inferiority that, either Woman is one of the brute creatures, or else she is merely an intermediate transitional substantial form between humanity and the brutes, and less intrinsically and ontologically distinct from the brute creation than is the male sex.
One of the brute creation?? Impossible! For it is written, Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast (Deuteronomy 27:21).
An intermediate transitional substantial form between humanity and the brutes? Well then, if that is so, well then the same must be, by parity of reason and sameness of sex, true for the selfsame Virgin Mary out of whom was born Jesus Christ (K1). It is a divinely revealed article of the Christian faith that Jesus Christ is both God and Man: meaning that he possess two natures, the divine nature _qua_ Creator of the World, and also by virtue of His eternal preexistence prior to the entire Cosmos, and some particular human, zoological, or other "biological" corporeal living breathing moving substantial form (K2), which, as we remarked in (K0), must be precisely identical to that of the very woman from whom He was born _qua_ corporeal living breathing human or sentient being. No creatures can have progeny of a kind which is ontologically superior in substantial form to that of its direct and immediate ancestors. But Jesus Christ had absolutely NO human father and absolutely NO direct immediate male human ancestor - oh but on the contrary He was born of a Virgin. This means that the whole of his substantial form _qua_ living breathing physical organic creature could only have come from His mother, the Virgin Mary. Therefore the species of living thing of which was Jesus Christ _qua_ living breathing physical organic creature had to be exactly identical to that of His mother (K3). But it was remarked in (K1) that the particular human, zoological, or other "biological" corporeal living breathing moving substantial nature of the Virgin Mary herself would have to be ontologically inferior to that of man though ontologically superior to that of each and every one of the beasts (K4).
But then it follows from K3 and K4 that in the particular human, zoological, or other "biological" corporeal living breathing moving substantial nature of the Person Whose name ALONE is Jesus Christ, this selfsame particular human, zoological, or biological nature of His would have been ontologically inferior to that of Man however much ontologically superior it may be to that of each and every one of the beasts, which is not only impossible and absurd, but formally and blasphemously heretical against the fundamental articles of the divinely revealed Christian faith.
The hypothesis that Jesus Christ, in His physical, biological, zoological, organical, living breathing substantial form, as opposed to the Divine nature He has always had even before the world began to exist at all, was only an intermediate zoological substantial form and species intermediate between humanity and the brute animal creatures, necessarily implies that, apart from His divine nature, He wasn't human at all, but merely a subhuman species of animal zoological living creatures; and therefore necessarily implies that in that respect of His fleshly incarnate nature and species (as opposed to His divine nature) He wasn't made like unto HIS male brethren, nor like unto the distinct species which we call the HUMAN species, but only a subhuman species of animal, contrary to the express and plain teaching of Hebrews 2:17: "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be *made like unto his brethren*, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."
A "christ" whose particular human, zoological, or other "biological" corporeal living breathing moving substantial nature is NOT that of Man, but only a subhuman species of zoological animal, is a "christ" that cannot save ANY human being, and therefore cannot be the true and genuine Christ. A "christ" whose particular human, zoological, or other "biological" corporeal living breathing moving substantial nature is NOT that of Man, and yet whose mother was herself most likely begotten of the seed of Man through the womb of Woman is a "christ" who was not TRULY man, but at best only outwardly SEEMED to be man. But the doctrine that Christ was not TRULY man, but at best only outwardly SEEMED to be man is a pernicious heresy known as DOCETISM! A "christ" who was not TRULY man, but at best only outwardly SEEMED to be man cannot truly save any man. This very inferiority of substantial corporeal sentient creaturely nature would be sufficient and actually effectual to render the Sacrifice of the Crucifixion blemished, and utterly INCAPABLE of taking away sins. The New Testament plainly teaches (Hebrews 10:4) that neither the blood of goats, nor of sheep, nor of oxen, nor of calves, nor of any intermediate transitional form of life between humanity and the brutes, nor of any other sub-human species, can ever be effectual unto the forgiveness of sins.
In addition, Christ is our only Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). But a mediator is a party who has authority to reconcile and arbitrate between two parties which are at variance with each other. It is highly incongruous that a person essentially inferior to both of the two parties should be mediator between them. It is absolutely essential that a Messiah or Saviour seeking to confer salvation should be of the same nature and species both of that Deity he wishes to appease, and of that creature on which he wishes to confer this salvation. Therefore, if Jesus Christ had been NOT truly Man, He would not have been able to save mankind at all; in fact, He would NOT have been the second Adam - for the first Adam was of the human species and not merely an intermediate transitional substantial form between humanity and the brutes. But the Scriptures acquiesces to absolutely NO such transitional substantial form between humanity and the brute creatures, nor has such ever been found. Everyone born of a woman through the ordinary operations of Mother Nature is either a MALE or a FEMALE. Among those who are neither MEN, nor WOMEN, nor CHILDREN, the hypothesis that there exists even a single transitional intermediate substantial form between humanity and the brutes is neither part of the Natural Law, nor of the Laws of Science, Biology, Zoology, Natural History, Taxonomy, or Ecology, nor any part of the doctrines of the Christian religion.
Jesus Christ for some time was a child, but He grew up into adulthood. Also, He was never born as a FEMALE but as a MALE. No MAN being an adult male can be an intermediate transitional substantial form between man and brutes.
Therefore, it is impossible - not just philosophically or politically impossible - but theonomically, Christologically, soteriologically, evangelically, theologically, and bio-cosmologically IMPOSSIBLE that the sort of creature which alone is known by the name of Woman should be an intermediate transitional substantial form between humanity and the brutes.
And as to the observed sociological fact that children from homes in which the father is absent long enough come out far worse than children from whom in which both mother and father are present and involved long enough in the household with their children, the HYPOTHESIS which you made to account for WHY this sort of father absence SHOULD be expected to produce all these ills is biologically essentialistic and deterministic. It asserts that the contribution which fathers made is not only _sine qua non_ for raising good children, but also biologiclaly deterministic and biologically and genetically unique and intrinsic to the very nature of being a biological male of the human species as opposed to being a woman or girl. But since *IDENTICAL causes produce IDENTICAL effects*; therefore the corresponding null hypothesis H0 for testing your proposed theory for explaining WHY "father absence" SHOULD be expected to expose children to the risks it does is that *Homes in which the mother is a widow and never remarries (i.e. the father of the children of that home was none other than the husband of the mother of those children, and the father absence is due only to the death of the father of the children of that house without the consent or fault of the mother of those children) should have child-rearing outcomes which are either statistically *IDENTICAL* to those in which the father absence is due to divorce, desertion, or birth out of wedlock, or else statistically significantly WORSE OFF than those in which the father absence is NOT due to the death of the father". But what do the statistics show for the case of widowed mothers?
wo-MEN >are inferior to MEN... just as a child is inferior to the Parents. This biblical teaching does not diminish a wo-MAN'S humanity, it denotes RANK in God's hierarchy.