The secular state would have you believe that women are equal with men; they just haven't caught up in their evolution. It's nothing that has ever been proven. It's a theory that can be and has been proven wrong, however. It isn't happening. If someone invades the United States, our country wouldn't and couldn't win with an egalitarian military, unless the invaders agreed to do the same. For sure, Russia wouldn't do that.
I can argue the position of this post from scripture. That's easy. I'm saying it's true even without scripture. I know women want protection. That's easy to see. They don't want to be told what to do, and we can see that all over, including in churches.
The contradiction about which I'm writing here is obvious to anyone, so why do men abdicate headship? That's more complicated. The Bible has the answer to that too, right at the beginning, but the answer is also very natural. From a certain perspective, it doesn't make any sense that men would give up their authority to women, when they are stronger and more dominant than women. I'm sure some men ask themselves on a regular basis why they do that.
Not in any order, first, men don't want the conflict required to take charge. Women use means to make life difficult for a man who takes charge and protects. Some of you men reading this post know of your experience of kneeling in the mud attempting to fix something in the yard, laying in the tight place under the sink to fix plumbing, and multiple other hard tasks. You do those all the time. When you're done, you don't want to go into the house and fight with your wife, because she wants her way. You just give in because it's hard. You shouldn't, but you do.
Second, many men prefer being liked by women to being their head and protector. This is the situation that we in society today with the conflict between truth and kindness. It's not kind to tell the truth. A transgender wants the right pronoun, and you can't tell the truth. It's against the law in some parts of the world now. Men won't get the treatment they want if they act like a man, so they succumb to the wives. Today they then justify their soft behavior by explaining that they are not authoritarian and they are choosing to respect their wives.
Men have fooled themselves into thinking that they receive their authority with the consent of women. No, they've been given their authority from God. They look to their wives permission to be a man. Women put on the pressure -- silent treatment, emotional fits, the cold shoulder -- and men abdicate.
When women get their way as I've described above, they think they are getting something, but what they lose, even by any way of reasoning, is much more. Men are disrespected and they don't treat their women with respect. The sons don't see a future as a man. They have no role, so they are without position and aim. Women have sons. What do they say to their sons? What role are these boys to take?
Women lose the strength of manhood they need. They know it. Men step back and stand back, waiting for women to lead. Men don't take the initiative to lead. They want sex, which isn't manhood, but it's what they are left with. Men manipulate women like women do men. Women want men by nature, but can't have them without sex. Men lack the conviction of headship and protection. They expect sex without commitment. What's the use of being a man? What's the reward of it? Why would being a man be worth it with today's women?
I could draw a direct line to the high school mass murder in the Florida high school among all the other mass murders by young men. These young men are without purpose or direction. They don't have leadership, because there is little to nothing to tell them. They don't know what to do. They pursue a type of fake manhood. The option is to control them either by imprisoning them or drugging them.
Part of the attraction for men for men and women for women is a lesser degree of men wanting women and women wanting men. It even explains the drop in sperm volume today in the American male. There is less masculinity today. Men are choosing to be women and even reward effeminate men for being women. I know I would be a more attractive pastor if I was more sensitive and softer. I know that.
The rise of homosexuality also traces, I believe, to the role reversal or elimination, depending on the perspective. Women take women in place of men and men take men in place of women. The interchangeability allows for interchangeability. Women take women and men take men. They have their reasons. None of it is right, but it's an obvious fallout.
I'm not blaming the above on women. Men could change it. My own position is that they won't without the gospel, but they do need to change it. There can't be any compromise. You can't take this position and believe that's it's permissible to have women in the military. Women can't share the engineering positions with men. They can't be the CEO in charge of America's company, working themselves up the power triangle.
Men need to take charge again. They shouldn't be celebrating the diversity, the glass window being broken, yearning for the first female president. None of this is good. It's not good for men or women.
If women are going to be in charge, then they should jump into the hole in the ground to repair underground sewage. When the large electrical line goes down because of a tree falling, call out the women. I don't want them to, but I'm also going to be in charge if I'm expected to do all these grunge jobs. I want to jump in that hole, but I'm not going to jump in for women who don't want my authority.
You could say that women can't have it both ways. It's true in one sense, because they might want it both ways, but they'll never have it both ways. They want authority and protection, but they won't have the latter without recanting the former.
18 comments:
You sound like a child. You won't get in a ditch unless your woman will obey you? Yes, that is Christ-like for sure.
Hi,
I went ahead and published this, even though it was anonymous and most anonymous comments I don't. I thought it would be good for people to see that there are people out there like this. Intentionally clueless. He wants women in charge, likes them in charge, thinks everything will be fine with them in charge, and also thinks that Christ is pleased with that, associates it with Christ, who actually created the roles of men and women. This is where evangelicalism is at today, and this is probably a professing fundamentalist, who is described in this post under first and second.
His comment also represent what tends toward escalating same sex relations.
I'm interested in hearing more about your theories of the cause of homosexuality. Are they scriptural? Can you document from scripture that women not submitting to men leads to homosexuality? I did not see any verses quoted above that supported this conclusion, but perhaps you have some.
Also do your theories apply to homosexuality in the animal kingdom? Homosexuality has been observed in hundreds of animal species as well- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
Around 10% of mallard ducks, for example, exhibit homosexual behavior. Do mallard drakes become homosexual because mallard hens refuse to submit to their headship? If so, what can we do to fix this terrible situation? It seems like homosexuality is a big problem in the animal kingdom and I am hoping that you have some solutions for that problem as well. Thanks for your thoughts on this important matter.
Hi Rob,
Thanks for asking. What I'm saying is scriptural. At one time, it would have been obvious, because people would have understood the Bible or heard the Bible. There are several ways that scripture would relate the two. They have to do with God's design -- they are both identical rebellion against design. 1 Timothy 2:9-15 argues from creation order for male headship as does 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. God created male and female that way, which you can see in Genesis 2-3, so it is just an exegesis of Genesis 2-3. This is Bible 101, Rob.
Homosexuality is an abomination (Lev 18:22, 20:13) and you can see that the transgression of designed gender distinction also is (Deut 22:5). Abomination is unique offense against God, and in those cases they relate to offense against Him as Creator. Romans 1 shows this to be the case, if you read Romans 1:25-31. The rebellion of homosexuality is against God's creation, against His design, not retaining God in the knowledge, against natural use, like one might see in 1 Corinthians 11. Notice the use of the word nature in Rom 1:26 and 1 Cor 11:14.
God designed men and women different and to be different, but boys and girls grow up still needing to learn their sexuality to have it reinforced. When they don't see it from their parents, it results in sexual confusion. Men have to be men and women have to be women for the next generation to learn the difference. It's natural, but because of the reality of sin, it also has to be taught and learned. This isn't a theory. It's easy to understand scripturally and naturally. It is why so many are still repulsed in a unique way when they see an effeminate man or a masculine woman and the practice of homosexuality, because their consciences are trained according to the law of God to see things the way God does.
I know that people don't get their views of sexuality from looking at mallard ducks, and the Bible doesn't regulate the practices of ducks. It's easy to see that the plumbing of a man and a woman were fit for each other and not for man for man, which also explains the diseases that have arisen and spread through the wrong arrangements. All of what I'm writing was once abundantly clear, and now out of rebellion, people look to animals to find an alternative to what God designed. We're not animals, Rob.
Kent,
Thanks for your response but you really did not address my question. My question was not "is homosexuality condemned by scripture?" I certainly agree that it is. It was, what scripture are you using to support your assertion that rebellious women cause male homosexuality, or vice versa? None of your citations make this claim. Your blog is entitled "Opinion based on the Bible." I can agree that this is your opinion, but you haven't given any scripture that supports this specific assertion. You really believe that if your wife suddenly rebelled against your leadership, that would increase the odds that you would find one of your male congregants sexually attractive? Maybe it would for you, but certainly not for me.
You also assert that it explains a drop in sperm levels? There are many theories about why sperm levels have dropped from too many chemicals in our environment to underwear that are too tight, but your ideas are just bizarre. People might take your theology more seriously if you disconnected it from these odd stances that amount to nothing more than your personal, unscriptural and unscientific opinion.
Rob
Hi Rob,
We're writing in public here. People are judging. I'm open to the idea that people, such as yourself, might consider what I'm writing to be odd and bizarre, or that what you are writing is actually that. I'm guessing it's split, but mine is that based on evidence and yours just personal and subjective. People strong with the Bible would in a larger percentage think you were bizarre and odd, I'm saying.
I didn't write a book in the comment section, but I did answer your question if you were a reasonable listener, someone of good will in this conversation. I was open minded as to that possibility with your first comment, but now less so.
Scripture connects homosexual activity with rebellion of roles. You turned it into men with male attraction. Homosexuality is sin in the Bible and male attraction occurs because of sin, the nature of sin, human depravity, but is excused or justified in a context of permission. If you reject biblical roles, then it doesn't matter. There is no law going to the conscience, giving a highest perceived standard, to stop the depravity. That is scriptural, Rob. Like I said, this isn't a book, but a biblical understanding of the roles, distinctions between the sexes, the conscience, the law written in the heart, abomination -- all of these -- and you can see that there will be an increase of homosexuality.
I noticed you didn't say anything about human beings looking to animals as an example of sexuality, when we're not animals. You just throw that out there, see if it sticks, then move on. That is bizarre and odd, using animals as examples of humans. It should be called odd and bizarre by everyone. I am saying it.
As far as sperm count, I'm suggesting that it relates to effeminate men, men who are not taking their role, not strong. You are saying it is tight underwear and chemicals in the environment. This is a more complicated argument, but it also could be argued to relate to a less masculine lifestyle, saying that there is such a thing as masculinity. For instance, being sedentary isn't manly, and "studies" (what you like to see) relate the sedentary lifestyle to lowering sperm count. They aren't active, forward, mobile, or aggressive. If you read that paragraph, I didn't say it was result or cause. I suggested something, which could be and should be taken into consideration.
I've got to go assert myself somewhere else for a few hours.
Kent,
For a pastor who puts himself in a public forum, you have awfully thin skin. I said some of your beliefs are bizarre and you respond by calling me bizarre and odd. I've actually only asked you to respond to two points in this interaction, which you have failed to do. I'm not sure what I have said that is bizarre, other than ask for scriptural support for your claims. If this makes me bizarre, I am guilty.
1) Where is your scriptural evidence that rebellious women CAUSE homosexuality? 2) Where is your evidence that role confusion leads to lower sperm counts? So far, your have been unable to cite scriptural or scientific evidence for either claim. I didn't ask you to write a book but to cite ONE verse supporting these claims. Now you're moving the goalposts of the debate and arguing that a sedentary lifestyle, which isn't "manly," leads to lower sperm counts. True, this could lead to lower sperm counts, but I'm pretty sure your original post wasn't about exercise.
My animal analogy was simply to point out that homosexual behavior is rife in the animal kingdom and that maybe there is something much more complex going on than your absurd oversimplification amongst humans as well. I guess you failed to see the humor that male ducks are made gay because of rebellious hens in a comment that was more tongue in cheek than anything else.
Enjoy asserting yourself . . . if that makes you feel manly.
Rob
Rob,
The biggest issue for being in a public forum like this is being insulted with relative ease by someone near anonymous like yourself. No one knows you. You might not even be "Rob." I am who I am, and no one knows you, so there is zero risk for you, and how do you use it? You insult me, as if that is an argument. I go ahead and publish, trusting the audience to see through you, for the most part. You'll have your supporters, but I don't care much what they think.
'I have a thin skin' coming from the one insulting. It really turned into a judgment of who was odd and bizarre. At one time, 99% plus percentage of Americans, let alone Christians, would say you were. Now you would have your supporters. I don't feel thin skinned about it -- it's just the reality.
I showed you in scripture that role rebellion causes homosexuality -- easy to see in scripture -- and you are still, as is so many times the case, saying I haven't. I have and easily done so, but I get that you can't or won't say it. By the way, scriptural support doesn't come from citing "one verse," as you say, but making a biblical argument, which is easy, and I did.
I made one statement, one, about sperm count being related to male effeminacy, but I didn't say it was cause or result. Maybe you would say that low sperm count explains effeminate men, a count caused by cell phones, water, or plastic food containers. I'm saying that effeminate qualities can be proven to lead to lower sperm count, and they feed off of each other, no pun intended. Effeminacy in men, it's easy to see, is increasing, so is that because of low sperm count or does low sperm count proceed from men acting like women and their bodies following suit?
I felt manly out there asserting myself. Thanks.
Everyone,
Someone interesting to listen to, he's secular, but of interest in our culture, what some are calling right now the most popular public intellectual is Jordan Peterson. Maybe some of you are familiar. He is a clinical psychiatrist, who teaches at the University of Toronto. He has exploded with popularity since 2016, when the gender neutral pronoun issue came to the forefront in Canada.
Peterson talks about this, when people express their views, and it is different than yours, today men, yes, men will say it's offensive, and bring up such things as "thin skinned." You disagree and give reasons, when someone says "odd" and "bizarre," and you're thin skinned. This is one of the attack itself on manhood. Men can't answer like men anymore without having a sensitive card pulled, even to the degree that it is expected of a "pastor." He wants me to feel guilty for doing this as a "pastor." If you are a pastor out there, and you know what I mean, today, you are expected to be effeminate, and that's how Hollywood portrays "good pastors," is that they are soft spoken, kind of lispy, weak character, sissified, and if they are cultic authorians, they are very masculine. They do the same thing with Jesus in their portrayals. So, think about that.
Kent,
I'd be interested if you could show me where I insulted you? I said your ideas were bizarre and you responded by calling me bizarre and odd. I attacked your ideas and you attacked me personally. You made the ad hominem attack, not me. I said you were thin skinned, and I think you are. You have a habit on this blog of lashing out at anyone who disagrees with you. That is the very definition of thin skinned. You also seem fixated on "anonymous" posts which is a rather odd position for someone who runs a public blog that could be read and commented on by any of the billions of people on the internet. If you want to limit posts to only the people you know, you certainly have that right. Maybe I should send you a copy of my driver's license before I comment? Would that appease you?
You haven't answered any of my questions. Your scriptural references are generalities that certainly support opposition to homosexuality but cannot be used to support the idea that rebellious women CAUSE homosexuality. If this were true, if your wife were rebellious, you would be more likely to become homosexual. Do you deny this basic premise of your argument?
Your last post is an odd attack on an argument that I have never made. You're good at attacking straw men, but you still haven't given any scriptural basis for the claims you made in the original post. You are inserting your own inferences and biases into your reading of scripture. Everyone does it, but you seem to deny that you are doing this.
Perhaps, at one point, 99% of Christians would have agreed with you. I'm sure you are aware that an argument to tradition is a terrible argument. At one point a majority of Americans would have supported slavery as well. A majority of Israelites probably thought polygamy was fine as well in Abrahams's time. So what? You need to do better than this if you want to be taken seriously.
You have not shown from scripture that rebellion causes homosexuality. Scripture condemns homosexuality but certainly does not elucidate its cause. If you want to push your particular theories on your blog that's fine, but don't try to buttress them with scriptural arguments that do not exist.
Thanks,
Rob
Rob,
I'm not giving in on this. The first person to use the words "odd" and "bizarre" was you, and you said, "your ideas are just bizarre," and, "these odd stances that amount to nothing more than your personal, unscriptural and unscientific opinion." Then I wrote next, " I'm open to the idea that people, such as yourself, might consider what I'm writing to be odd and bizarre, or that what you are writing is actually that," followed by, later same paragraph, "People strong with the Bible would in a larger percentage think you were bizarre and odd, I'm saying." A reasonable person of good will would understand, especially with how I wrote my first sentence that I was talking about what you wrote, as it differed than what I wrote. People can read here, Rob, and judge. I'm fine with that.
Rob, a lot of people with blogs don't allow anonymous comments. Do I really need to explain why? I would like your drivers license though, yes.
I was very specific with my comments and proved the point, so I'm going to stick with what I wrote. The point of my post was not that someone would become homosexual due to his unsubmissive wife. You either understand that and are playing games, or you don't get it, so you need to reread.
I said 99% plus of Americans, let alone Christians. Your misreading of that is similar to the rest, Rob.
I don't think there was ever a point where most Americans would have supported slavery, but we're talking about judging whether something was bizarre and odd, which is a different standard. The population in the north was 21 million and 9 million in the South, 3.5 million of which were slaves. During Abraham's time, I'm very sure that no Israelites (there were less 40) thought polygamy was permissible. Abraham had one wife. One. He had a child was Hagar and was punished severely for it.
Again, Rob, read more carefully above, because the point is there, clearly, if you care. No one was arguing that people become homosexuals because they are living with unsubmissive or rebellious women. No one. That is the straw man here.
Kent,
If you don't like anonymous comments, don't post them. It's your blog. What is odd is that you post them but then whine that they're anonymous.
Your initial post stated "the rise of homosexuality also traces, I believe, to the role reversal." Clearly, you are implying a cause and effect here. If you are now saying you don't hold this position, fine, we have nothing to debate.
You also said role reversal "even explains the drop in sperm volume today in the American male." When pressed on that, you backed off and now attribute it to a sedentary lifestyle, which isn't manly. Fine, I can agree with that, but it is not what your original post said.
I said your ideas are odd and bizarre. You called me odd and bizarre. I attacked ideas and you attacked me personally. It is perfectly acceptable to attack ridiculous ideas. You do it every day. It is not acceptable to attack someone personally and is unbecoming of someone in your position.
Rob
Rob,
Just to be consistent, you don't have a biblical or scientific basis for saying something is odd in your first sentence -- it's just ad hominem, like a lot of what you say for whatever reason, seeming to want to justify homosexuality or role reversal. I don't like anonymous comments. I publish some of them, not most. I think people should put their name, which is why I harangue them some. You call it "whining." A lot of people think the same way. You don't seem sincere to me. You come across as a troll. Your feelings are probably hurt for being a troll and my calling you one.
I said homosexuality traces back to role reversal. You took, and I don't know how you could have been genuine, that as meaning, if your wife is unsubmissive, as a husband you become a homosexual. What an absolutely ridiculous, has-to-be-fake interpretation or take. No one, no one, but you and maybe others, who have to be faking it like you do, would take that interpretation, unless you are just super dense. I proved my point, not yours, your straw man. A lot of effeminate so-called "men" are applauding you now, so you do have a crowd of supporters.
My original comment associated sperm count drop with lack of masculinity. Is it cause or result? I didn't explain, it's true, but I think it is related. Scientists today can't say with certainty the reason for the drastic drop in sperm count and there are numerous theories. I'm speculating, Rob, like them; however, based upon biblical criteria with the understanding of God as Creator, but I would wonder why you're so upset about sperm count, that one line in particular.
Rob, I think it's unbecoming of you to come on here and call scriptural teaching odd and bizarre. My standing up against that is becoming of my position. I'm not going to back down with an attack, using my position. It's weak, actually not masculine, and bishops first of all are to be men.
Kent,
I'll keep my response short as your responses are becoming more histrionic. Histrionics are not particularly associated with masculinity, but I'm sure you know that.
I never said that my calling your opinions odd had any biblical or scientific basis. Clearly it is my opinion. You're the one trying to cloak your bizarre opinions in biblical authority. You're lying when you say that I'm trying to justify homosexuality or role reversal. I have never made any such claim in this thread. What I have objected to is you adding to scripture by reading things into it that are not there and then pronouncing to your readers that your opinions have scriptural authority.
You tried to demonstrate a causal relationship between homosexuality and role reversal when you said "the rise of homosexuality also traces, I believe, to the role reversal." You also linked role reversal to lower sperm counts and mass shooting, another profoundly ignorant opinion, but we have not addressed that one. No, one does not have to be "dense" to come to this conclusion. Another ad hominem, by the way, as is calling me a troll. I'm not hurt that you called me a troll, but then, I am not thin-skinned. Ad hominems are a sure sign that one is losing an argument.
I know you're probably preparing for church tomorrow and I truly hope that you extol the virtues of Christ better in person than you do on your blog.
Rob
Rob,
Goodnight.
And what if the man is blatantly wrong? As a woman, I am not allowed to say anything? Just submit and obey? Please enlighten me.
Liz,
Thanks for dropping by and asking some questions. Did you read the first line in the entire post?
"I want to protect and defend women, but I can't when they don't do what I tell them to do (and I'm not talking about something in disobedience to scripture)."
What did you think I meant by that, if you did read it? That was there the entire time since I wrote the post.
Authority is hierarchical. Women don't have to disobey scripture. Obey God rather than men.
Post a Comment