When did Feminism Start?

 

Strangling a Feminist

Commenter ‘Ace’ recently commented: “This is an attitude from the 1700s, so well before feminism took hold.”

Upon reading that I knew I wanted to respond with a post, but I had to go to work and I am now finally able to quickly address this.  However, in the intervening time, commenter ‘ikr’ gave the following reply: “To borrow recently-coined terminology, you further commit a strawwoman argument in arguing feminism, when the issue is gynocentrism. It was known as chivalry before that. The terms belong to eras, but the concept is the same: woman as the central figure in the concern of man.”

Commenter ‘ikr’ largely stole my thunder, by getting my main point across in a nutshell, but I’ll make the argument that “Feminism” goes all the way back to Eve, and that coveting equality with your superior, usurping, and rebellion, that are key features of Feminism, can be traced back to the fall of Lucifer.

 Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!  13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:  14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.

Genesis 3:4  And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely dieFor God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam He said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;  18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;  19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

A while prior to Ace’s assertion of the 1700s being well before Feminism, commenter ‘ray’ had remarked: “I mean there’s no such thing as equality, in heaven or upon Earth, amongst man or woman or angel. Within these ranks there is Created order, each different and having a place or station.   Equality is an abstraction, a construction or artifice, created by Lucifer. The parallel between what happened in the Garden (Eve and quest for Equality) and today’s spiritual and political landscapes isn’t accidental.”

I previously explained a bit about how the Roman state church wrongly added women to the image of God around the end of the fourth century AD in another post: https://laf443259520.wordpress.com/2019/05/18/worshipping-the-great-whore/?wref=tp

It wasn’t until the fourth century around 380 AD that Mary began to be called Mother of God, or “Theotokos” This was said as part of the controversy over the nature of Jesus. Some said he was born human but became God later. Others said Jesus was divine from the moment of inception. Those who believed that Jesus was divine at birth used the slogan: Mary the Mother of God. Actually, the phrase was more like Mary: God-bearer. Saint Ambrose, who lived in Rome before going to Milan as its bishop, venerated Mary as an example of Christian life and is credited with starting a Marian cult of virginity in the 4th century.

In the 5th and 6th century, churches in Rome began to be dedicated to Mary, and from there the Great Whore seated on the seven mountains spoken of in Revelation 17 has continued to adopt features of preexisting pagan goddess worship and further deify Mary, growing in strength in the dark ages, eventually calling Mary the “Queen of heaven”, the same old name as Old Testament idol worshippers used when committing abominations in Jeremiah 7 & 44.  Somewhere early along our church age time line to accepting Satan’s counterfeit goddess worship, it was decided that women must also be in the image of God, because, how could Mary be a goddess, if she isn’t even able to be in the image of God?  So women were deceitfully added into the image of God to bolster the worldly reintroduction of preexisting Roman goddess worship back into the church under the guise of “honoring” Mary.  Satan’s minions deceitfully said, “You’re dishonoring the ‘Mother of God’ if you say she was a sinner and wasn’t even in God’s image”.

I think we would be unwise not to recognize that most all of the necessary components for todays ‘Feminism’ were conjured into place, by the Great Whore (Satan’s state church, of this world) even well before it was called ‘Chivalry’.

Please add your thoughts for discussion below.  🙂

30 thoughts on “When did Feminism Start?

  1. I’ll make the argument that “Feminism” goes all the way back to Eve, and that coveting equality with your superior, usurping, and rebellion, that are key features of Feminism, can be traced back to the fall of Lucifer.

    Yup. That’s really it, in a nutshell. Even a cursory read of Genesis 3 seems to make that obvious.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Agreed, Eve was the first feminist. Sadly, women learned nothing from her disobedience. I also find it interesting women talk about men not listening, when it seems to me Eve was the first to do that too.

    Like

  3. Feminism is defined as a political movement, according to my Oxford dictionary. And it started around the 1840s. Here in NZ women got the vote in 1893. What you’re talking about in this post is general disobedience, rather than a political movement.

    My understanding of Genesis is that God told Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit, and Adam told Eve what God had said. The serpent was able to deceive her so easily because God hadn’t spoken directly to her, so His words were easily able to be twisted. Eve was deceived. But Adam saw that the fruit was good so he ate it too, despite being directly told by God not to. So Adam was disobedient. In our house, being deceived is something we learn from. But blatant disobedience (what Adam did) is punished.

    Like

  4. ikr – You’re seriously using that link to suggest that feminism started way back then when in the very first paragraph of your link are these words: “It is important to note that the play’s central concepts of women in government and communism were not legitimate suggestions from Aristophanes, but rather an outlandish premise that aimed to criticize the Athenian government at the time” ??? Right…..

    Like

  5. ” …. She eats and wipes her mouth, And says, “I have done no wrong.”

    Out of context, but the idea and the point is still valid.

    Like

  6. Concur with Bee. Ace is here to troll, not to constructively converse or learn. Then again, attempting to hold a rational conversation with any woman is generally a fool’s endeavor.

    Like

  7. ‘Tis alright gentlemen, I’ve done what I came here to do. You can rest safe in the knowledge that your misogynistic conversations can continue without the presence of this mere woman disrupting you. It has been enlightening.

    Like

  8. I don’t mind Ace/KAK- or any of her kind for that matter- personally. Recognize the nature of her being here. Understand that getting into the pen with the pig is a mistake.

    Women are malleable: God has created them such. In their worst, they experience Stockholm’s Syndrome, are spineless, are deceived. In their best, they remain faithful, inquisitive, and pair-bond.

    The woman, just by being here, will pick up some of the truths that are shared. It is healthy for her to troll- or engage in any manner- as insodoing won’t escape cleaning up her theology and perspective on life. What is unhealthy is engaging with the conviction of convincing her of anything in the immediate, via online.

    Keep preaching the truth. Don’t make the conversion of someone to a given topic your idol. For those who remain resolute in their wrongthink, dust off your sandals when you part.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. That is an interesting verse you bring up, Bee.
    I once heard it explained that it has possibly been bowdlerized or sanitized in our translations.
    Proverbs 30:20 Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.
    The word “eateth” is Strong’s 398 (akal) אָכַל and it can also be translated as ‘consumes’, or ‘takes it in’.
    The word “mouth” is strongs 6310 (peh) מֶּה and it can also be translated as ‘opening’.(like the “mouth” of a cave)
    The word “wickedness” is Strong’s 205 (aven) אָ֫וֶן and it can also be translated as ‘idolatry’ & the use of ‘teraphim'(images of God or gods).

    So I might arguably not be too far off translating the verse as follows: This is the way of a woman who commits adultery; she takes it in, and wipes out her opening, and says, I have done no misuse of God’s images.
    https://biblehub.com/interlinear/proverbs/30-20.htm

    I think I gather from your comment, feeriker’s comment, the Bible, and my own deduction, that; Ace is like many other women of this adulterous generation, in that she is loath to take responsibility for her own words and actions, and consequently she often can be more difficult to train than a mule.

    I do, however, hope that others with a more trainable spirit can learn something from reading the exchanges. Ace brings, and throws at us, all the same stuff women and men are certainly having thrown at them by the Feminists in churches. We need to be able to answer it for people. Ace, claims she is not a Feminist, because she is not, at this very moment, twirling a flaming brassiere above her head. However her ‘churchian’ syncretism of Feminism and Christian beliefs enables her to fire the Feminist tropes and talking points at us while also embracing her own personal version of a “Jesus” who is very woke, and out to help dismantle the Patriarchy that His Father set up. Her Beta-Jesus would never have referred to the Syrophoenician woman as a dog, but a ‘Daughter of the King’ instead. LOL I think Ace, or somebody like her, can be handy to make the discussion relevant as to exactly what mindset we need to be battling and changing in the churches. However she seems to have enough time to sing the anthems of the Feminist rebellion faster than I can systematically refute all her half truths, So I welcome all the good help I can get to thoroughly debunk her skewed views for the benefit of all who may read here. I think, if you could satisfactorily defuse Ace’s rebellious nature, you could probably use the same type of tactics to defuse most all but the wackiest or hardened Feminists. While Ace claims she was here researching bitter and misogynistic men, I’ve been experimenting and honing my method on Ace, so I think I get as much benefit out of the interaction as she does, even though I probably don’t enjoy the mud wrestling as much as Mark Twain’s proverbial pig.

    Like

  10. Well put, kind, and useful for gaining maturity.

    I don’t want this comment to be seen about Ace, because it is intended to be for my growth, but I am curious about what you think about the fact that when I read someone like Ace – I think she is very typical, or as you put it, a good example, of a modern Christian woman – I don’t want a relationship. I bet she is attractive in person, lively and would be interesting to me due to her ability to be interested in red pill philosophy.

    It makes me wonder if the gift of singleness is different than how it is generally considered in the church. They’ve messed up teaching what marriage is, so why not singleness?
    Sharkly, if the door was open would you marry again? I don’t know if I would. I’d take a hard look at it seeing that I could pick much better by presenting my views clearly, but I still often think the work isn’t worth it.

    Like

  11. Swanny River,
    I’ll try to see if I can answer , but I’m not sure if I’m aware of what the church is teaching about singleness these days. But It’d be pretty miraculous if the cunt-worshippers hadn’t messed it up, in the service of their goddess.

    As far as Ace goes, she may be sufficiently physically attractive, and might even be a good sex partner … You know what they say about the crazy ones. LOL But I think once you married her, she’d have you annoyed in short order. She sounds pretty rebellious, although that may just be because she is acting out by being contentious on here. It wouldn’t be surprising if, because of her Tourette’s Syndrome, she has a building itch to verbally unload on somebody from time to time. Unleashing ‘socially inappropriate and derogatory remarks’, and then feeling some release from the building tension that had been pushing her towards it. Ace claims her husband is aware of her posts, and right now I'm imagining that he is just glad that she is being contentious with us, instead of him, or his friends and family, or their neighbors. He probably prefers that she doesn't create animosity there where he will have to live with the aftermath. Now if you're going to be a woman who verbally unloads on people, then kickboxing and Judo might be necessary defensive skills, I reckon. And I think because of her desire to unload on people, that sometimes she may make things about them, out to be worse than they actually are.
    Ace says: “Mates” that were happy to eat the food and smoke the cigarettes and drink the alcohol my job paid for and swear around my children, exposing them to toxins.
    You see it isn’t just ordinary secondhand smoke from whatever kind of cigarettes she paid for, no, this is toxic smoke. Perhaps even toxic masculine smoke. LOL I get the feeling that her husband’s drug “abuse” was that he didn’t follow the warning on the bottle, and took two aspirin at a time once. I think the constant defamation would get old. Her husband must be a pretty cool guy for taking it all in stride. And I can’t blame him for drinking, I haven’t walked a mile in his shoes.

    Sharkly, if the door was open would you marry again?
    I’m not certain. Initially I was thinking of going straight out and finding a better wife, and making up for lost time, by having a functional marriage relationship. I’m in the top 10 or 20% of men that the women are all interested in, so I doubt I’d have a problem finding a reasonably decent woman who wants a man who will commit. However after thinking about things more, here recently, I think I may now be able to live without ever being married again. Perhaps the years have taken the painful edge off of my sex drive, or perhaps I just got jaded to women, but I’ve occasionally got women offering themselves to me at work, and I’m able to brush them off and not think twice about what I’m missing out on. It’s pretty clear now that the juice ain’t worth the squeeze, with those ho’s. I certainly am not in awe of women like I once was, their beauty is only a few epidermal layers thick. I think I’ve crossed the Rubicon, and I can’t go back to my blue-pill infatuations. I know I’m the prize, and I’m not seeing any who deserve me right now, or even imagine one could, without me choosing to condescend.

    Like

  12. Holy hell. The assumptions about me are getting even worse! I still haven’t figured out how to turn off the email notifications so these assumptions are coming straight into my inbox. As a rule, I generally don’t really care when people slag me off, but honestly, this is ridiculous.
    Sharkly, if you’re going to use quotes from a Google search about Tourette’s, you should at least understand a little about the disorder. Nothing I have written fits into the category of socially offensive or derogatory. Verbal tics of that nature include things like yelling “nigger!” when a Maori walks past. It’s calling people cunt, whore, bitch etc for absolutely no reason. It’s randomly yelling out something like “cock sucker” and four-letter words (particularly the one starting with f) in very inappropriate places like school assemblies and church. I had to go to court as an accident witness once, and my doctor phoned ahead beforehand, to make sure I wouldn’t get charged with contempt of court in case my tics became uncontrollable. Oh my life would be so much easier if my tics were as minor as what you seem to think!

    Yes, my husband’s mates did expose my young children to toxins. Not just secondhand smoke, but marijuana smoke, and methamphetamine. Most people understand that exposing young children to those toxic chemicals is unacceptable. And how I wish taking too many prescription pills was the extent of my husband’s drug abuse. If it was, we would never have had a problem! Marijuana, even though it’s illegal here, is something I’m okay with. But other stuff…. No way do I want that around my children. And the way it changes people’s personalities so completely is scary. That’s why we did not reconcile until the harder drugs were gone, totally. And they’ve stayed gone for the past almost 7 years, and there’s no sign they will be coming back.
    I don’t even mind alcohol. But I mind when drunken idiots terrorize my children, in their own home. These days, the alcohol etc. is out in the man cave, away from the teenagers, and the people who visit are nice enough, even when drunk and stoned.

    Sharkly, your innocence in such matters is kinda sweet. I wish my children could have been raised as sheltered as you evidently were.
    Believe me, I have been through hell. And I’ve come out the other side with my marriage intact, with a good husband who loves me and treats me well and four incredibly awesome kids who are well liked amongst their peers, show respect and kindness to others, and are doing well in school, despite their rough upbringing in their early years.
    God is good. He proves that to me every single day.

    Like

  13. Swanny River and Sharkly, you both talk about marrying again. My understanding of the relevant Bible verses is that, once we are married, divorce is not permitted. If divorce is thrust upon us and we don’t have a choice, we are to remain single. This is certainly the teaching of my church, anyway, and my father, the innocent party in his marriage break-up (my mother had an affair and is still with the *other* man although mum and dad are not divorced) has chosen to remain single for this reason. He could easily have found himself another woman if he wanted to, but he made a conscious decision to remain single, as he believes remarriage is not permitted.
    What verses are you using, that suggest re-marriage is not a sin?
    It is partly because both my husband and I believe that getting married again is not an option (a sin) that we have both worked so hard to save our marriage, rather than just divorce years ago and be done with it. I was only 30 when we separated, and there is no way I would have been able to remain single, while raising 4 very young children, so I would have stopped serving the Lord.

    Like

  14. ikr & Sharkly,

    ……. And says, “I have done no wrong.”

    I have not seen Ace admit to being wrong about anything.
    (I have not read all her comments.)

    “Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words.” (Pro 23:9 NIV)

    “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.
    5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.”
    (Pro 26:4-5 NIV)

    Like

  15. Sharkly,
    I was afraid my question about remarrying would be misunderstood. I said “if” because it was a rhetorical question intended to help examine the issue of one of God’s gifts.
    I hope you understood it correctly, it seems you did, and that my question wasn’t seen as an enticement for you to break scripture.

    Like

  16. Swanky River – I am glad that I misunderstood the way you phrased that question. I took it to mean you thought there was a scriptural “out” for divorce and remarriage. I’m so pleased to hear that’s not the case. My father has agonised over this very issue for years. There are a lot of opinions on it, but the ones that I have seen allowing divorce and remarriage involve twisting of scripture. That is why I asked about this – although we have different beliefs on some issues, it’s clear that the men on here are earnest in their desire to follow scripture so I was interested in your opinions.
    There is even some division on this issue in our own church with a few people (particularly in America) believing it is okay. So end up with exes and current spouses all having fellowship together and it just feels wrong.
    I understand that you think all I want to do is argue, but that’s not quite true. I’m also here to learn. But some of what I’m reading doesn’t line up with my understanding of scripture.

    Like

  17. ” The woman, just by being here, will pick up some of the truths that are shared. ”

    ” I understand that you think all I want to do is argue, but that’s not quite true. I’m also here to learn. But some of what I’m reading doesn’t line up with my understanding of scripture. ”

    1 Co 14:35 immediately comes to mind. A woman rebelling by being in the Word.. with anyone who isn’t her husband (or father before him). Pr 27:17 applies among men.

    Rarely am I ever surprised anymore.

    Like

  18. Ace,
    Regarding divorce and remarriage here is a relevant passage:
    1 Corinthians 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

    The debate is over the meaning of the phrase “A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases”. Is that meaning the marriage bond, or some other bondage?

    I understand that you think all I want to do is argue, but that’s not quite true. I’m also here to learn. But some of what I’m reading doesn’t line up with my understanding of scripture.

    Perhaps if you shared that scripture, that would have come across more believably. You call people names like bitter, misogynistic, arrogant, and Etc., and make statements about how “Jesus wasn’t like that”, but then you never get around to offering any scriptural evidence. Just because something wasn’t recorded about Jesus also, doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen, or He wasn’t a certain way.
    John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
    Just because Jesus didn’t spend a lot of time lecturing a highly Patriarchal Jewish society, that believed a man could divorce his wife for any cause, about the dangers of Feminism, doesn’t mean that He somehow opposes how His Father set up Patriarchy instead of equality. As a woman, you aren’t somebody I really trust for information anyhow. I don’t even trust you to impartially perceive, much less impartially relay the anecdotes of your own life. So if you are attempting to influence me, you will need to use an authority higher than yourself, and the Bible is the highest authority you could cite from. So, please use it instead of just offering us your understanding of scripture. Bee makes a good point about how you seem mostly immune from ever admitting faults you have made. Somehow every fight is magically your husband’s fault, even though you are the one who is commanded to submit to him in everything.(Ephesians 5:22-24) Is it ever possible that you crate friction for yourself with people? And is it possible that I and others have tried, and are trying, to tell you how to prevent that? Please consider that.

    Like

  19. Sharkly – As I’ve said, it’s clear you have next to zero experience with drug addicts. If you did, you would understand where my comments are coming from. Even the preachers of my church (men) advised me against trying to submit in a marriage that involved drugs and abuse. But because I am a female, according to you everything must be my fault.
    Now, my marriage is great. The man I fell in love with and married, returned as soon as hard drugs were gone. Now, I have the utmost respect for him, and do my best to live in submission to him. We very rarely fight. I can’t actually remember the last time we fought. We get on well.

    Why do you think I have called you bitter and misogynistic? I came here from Lori Alexander’s blog, because I have seen many comments from you over the years, and 99% of them are bitter. Now that I know more of your story, your bitterness is somewhat understandable, but it doesn’t change the fact that you do come across very bitter. It’s not an insult, but an observation.
    Ephesians 4:31 speaks of bitterness – we are to get rid of it.

    The definition of misogynistic according to my Oxford dictionary is: “strongly prejudiced against women”.The Cambridge English dictionary as misogynist as a man who believes that men are better than women.
    Do you dispute that you are prejudiced against women? Let’s refer to a comment you made just above: “As a woman, you aren’t somebody I really trust for information anyhow.” That “as a woman” bit gives it away. You don’t trust me for information *because I am a woman*. Not for a valid reason like a lack of education or something like that, but because I am a woman. And you’ve written entire posts on your belief that men are better than women. You go so far as to claim men are gods worthy of worship. So yes, misogynistic describes you very well, going solely by the words you’ve written on here.

    I’m not even sure that ancient civilisations were as patriarchal as what you think. Sure, the ruling class men dominated and controlled the societies, but that’s about all we know. There were women in the Bible who had some influence and power and access to resources – take Abigail in 1 Samuel 25 who saved her household, and didn’t consult her husband before giving orders.
    The Shunnamite women in 2 Kings also made some pretty big decisions on her own including moving her family to escape a drought and negotiating directly with the king.
    Then there was Micah’s mother in Judges 7, Deborah in Judges 4 & 5, Miriam in Exodus 15 and of course the woman in Proverbs 31 who found and bought land without her husband’s assistance.
    So clearly, women had a lot more autonomy than what some of the ancient texts (written by men, in a patriarchal time and culture) would have us believe.

    There is no doubt that the Old Testament times were pretty harsh to women and the culture there was extremely unequitable and violent towards women. But Jesus changed that.
    Mary Magdalene was chosen to tell everyone that Jesus had risen from the dead. This is despite the fact that she was a woman, therefore an unreliable witness. Jesus changed everything. Just because men had control in the Old Testament, and abused their power, does not mean that God intended it to be that way. If He had, Jesus wouldn’t have treated women so well. But the Bible shows us how Jesus treated women:
    He taught them (Luke 10:38-42)
    He accepted their financial support (Luke 8:1-3)
    He used parables of women in His teachings (one example is Luke 15:8-10 but there are many more)
    Paul seems to be more concerned with a woman’s place than Jesus was.

    Galatians 3:28 shows that there is true equality in the family of God – all are one.
    There are several verses about the different members of the body of Christ, and how all the members have different functions but are of equal importance.

    Christian Patriarchy is responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of women and girls in their 500 year long witch burning phase. I don’t believe there could be a single person alive who would think that was the way God wanted the world to run. Yet that is what happened when evil men were allowed to be in control. That is why Jesus changed things, and tried to show people how to live the way God had actually intended.

    Patriarchy is a result of sin – not the way God intended things. After Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God told Eve that her husband would rule over her. But in Genesis 1:28 God spoke to Adam and Eve together and gave them both dominion over creation and instructed them to subdue the earth. That suggests that equality had been God’s intention, until sin reared its ugly head. Patriarchy is about power – and power corrupts. Jesus taught humility, which is the exact opposite of power. Jesus said “I am gentle and humble in heart” (Matt 11:29)

    Like

  20. Ace eats up the entire feminist litany of grievances. Sharkly, even though this is becoming a Sharkly – Ace coblog, you are right in that you couldn’t ask for a clearer example of a Christian feminist . You can’t be accused of making it up – unless you are Ace?

    Like

  21. So much content to correct, so little time. I’ll just stick to the final paragraph. The twisting of Scripture, observe the weaseling:

    ” Patriarchy is a result of sin – not the way God intended things. After Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God told Eve that her husband would rule over her. But in Genesis 1:28 God spoke to Adam and Eve together and gave them both dominion over creation and instructed them to subdue the earth. ”

    https://laf443259520.wordpress.com/2019/06/28/horny-housewives-of-the-patristic-age/#comment-144

    Specifically: ” In Gen 1, the statement is put forth that man and woman were made, but Gen 2 records the process: man is created (Gen 2:7), man is put to work (Gen 2:15), God contemplates a helper (Gen 2:18), man takes dominion over God’s creation (Gen 2:19), man is put to sleep and woman created (Gen 2:21-22), man takes dominion over woman (Gen 2:23). ”

    God’s intention pre-fall is for woman to be a helpmeet, not equal to, but under the dominion of, a man. God Himself does not name her, but brings her to man to be named. (Tongue-in-cheek: ever notice that Adam finished with all the work, before Eve shows up?)
    Gen 3:16 records the curse woman will face: her pride will afflict her, manifesting in a desire to rule over man, but the man’s charge will be to rule over her. Her pride, and his cowardice, will make the model of Gen 2 *more difficult*, but the model of God’s order was clear pre-fall, and is being *reinforced* as a mandate, unchanged.
    Reminder: God is unchanging (Mal 3:6), His law is unchanging (Lu 16:17).

    ” That suggests that equality had been God’s intention, until sin reared its ugly head. Patriarchy is about power – and power corrupts. Jesus taught humility, which is the exact opposite of power. Jesus said “I am gentle and humble in heart” (Matt 11:29) ”

    ‘That suggests’ = classic reading-into fallacy. Where it truly gets good: “Patriarchy is about power- and power corrupts”. God is all-powerful (Re 1:8), so, God is fully-corrupted? Huh!?
    Jesus- the son of David, the Son of Elohim- was gentle and humble in heart, but in what way?
    * He insulted people, His words cut like a knife (Ma 16:23)
    * He wielded weapons, His actions violent (Jo 2:15)
    When we read ‘gentle and humble’ in heart, let us not make the mistake of imposing our social expectations on the interpretation of what it means to be ‘gentle and humble’, consume the Word of the Spirit in proper context. His purpose being to save Adam’s progeny (Ro 5:19), the manner of ‘gentle and humble’ is understood against the goal of eternal life through His self-sacrifice.

    Swanny is correct in his assessment. The classic female- since Eve- who struggles with her pride and understanding, attempting to shoehorn a personally-acceptable and -comfortable worldview into Scripture. Her purpose is served to expose the multitude of lies- overt and subtle- believed by the followers of the Deceiver.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. You can’t be accused of making it up – unless you are Ace?

    It would be nearly impossible to come up with a better foil. Everything wrong in her marriage is directly or indirectly as a result of her husband. She rebuts scriptural arguments by ad hominem labeling and name calling. Ace says: “Now, I have the utmost respect for him”.(her husband) But it certainly doesn’t often sound that way. And didn’t he tell her to stay off of here? LOL If I were making Ace up, I’d also go over the top with derogatory Feminist labeling of men, but then claim I’ve got a disability that makes me prone to showing contempt, so that can’t be my fault either. But, I think I’ve overplayed my hand, because now my “Ace” stories are so biased and partial to her not being responsible for anything that has happened to her, that they are no longer believable. You people are starting to see through the ruse. LOL

    Like

  23. Sharkly you crack me up. Tourette’s gives me facial tics. I have not been bothered by copralalia in years. It DOES NOT make me prone to showing contempt. The contempt I have for the men here is absolutely genuine, and absolutely earned. I’ve spent the past half hour doing some research on the “manosphere” and “red pill” and “blue pill” and honest, the stuff I’ve read made me giggle. It is absolutely laughable that men are threatened by women wanting (and getting) equality. I made my 16 year old son read it, and he was flabbergasted. Like me, he couldn’t stop giggling. It was actually quite entertaining. My hubby just shook his head in bewilderment. He doesn’t understand the patheticness of men feeling threatened by women. I asked him to explain it to me and he couldn’t.

    Nope, he didn’t tell me to stay off here. He does wonder why I find it so fascinating, though.
    His christian beliefs are also exactly the same as mine – we were both raised in the same church. I’ve had a number of interesting discussions with him over the past few days, sparked purely by what I’ve read on here. It’s been really good. I’m now more confident than ever that the beliefs hubby and I share (and our church) absolutely 100% line up with scripture.

    Like

  24. ikr & Sharkly,

    ……. And says, “I have done no wrong.”

    Ace: “I’m now more confident than ever that the beliefs hubby and I share (and our church) absolutely 100% line up with scripture.”

    Liked by 1 person

  25. I have not been bothered by copralalia in years.

    Oh – My – Goodness! So you also had coprolalia when your dear husband married you?!!!
    However much love & respect I was trying to tell you that you owed your husband before, now you need to at least double that! Seriously, Ace, your utmost devotion and respect is the least your husband deserves.

    Like

  26. Sharkly – nope I have never had copralalia as an adult. I learned to suppress and substitute it when I was 16, long before I ever met my husband. I did have echolalia briefly during my 3rd pregnancy, but once the crazy pregnancy hormones evened out, it was fine.
    I’m so good at hiding/suppressing my tics that my husband and I had been dating for 3 months before he even noticed it.
    Fortunately, so far there is no sign of it in any of our children, which is a relief, as it is genetic, and something that worried me greatly before having children.

    Like

  27. “A fool finds no pleasure in understanding, but delights in airing his own opinions.”
    Proverbs 18:2 NIV

    Read again and substitute, “her” for “his”.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s