- This topic has 53 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Do guys ever always get that “never go to the bathrooms alone” rule too?
Not usually. Both the men and women I know judge situations. In public restaurants with many unknown people, we might go in pairs. In friendly situations, they do not. Having some level of care everywhere one goes is wise, but paranoia is not. None of the men or women I know are always worried about or talking about dealing with dangerous men. In fact, they rarely do. Everyone I know just gives a proper amount of forethought before entering a given situation, nothing major. Plus, we actively eschew gratuitously dangerous situations unless necessary for some reaosn.
Except I have to take InDesign twice…
Tough luck. xD
This motivated me to try to memorize that rap piece in Enemy by Imagine Dragons whilst waiting for my class to start, which class I missed because my internet decided to stab itself repeatedly to mess with me.
Anyway. This is as fast as I can rap for now: pretend it’s an introduction
Nice. As I said, rapping is a very impressive art, and I am impressed.
It’s very bad to give someone a ram not an ewe *pats on back* very stupid mistake
Indeed. 🙃
SERVES YOU RIGHT FOR DELETING ALL YOUR VIDEOS AS SOON AS I HAD THE INTERNET TO WATCH THEM
Yes, yes, well, first youtube kicked me of my account and made me log in again with verifications codes for absolutely no reason, then it started eating my comments and occaoinally spitting them back out until I had responded to a person like four times. Uncool.
Oh where you traveling this summer?
A bunch of church meetings in a bunch of different states. Hit the beach in Florida probably.
Hi, guys! I normally prefer reading through discussions rather than engaging in them, but I do have one comment on this.
God expects the male to be the physical protector in the home and occupy the defense role for those under his care. Jesus clearly refers to this role when He refers to the “strong man” in the following instances:
Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. [Matthew 12:29 KJV]
No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house. [Mark 3:27 KJV]
When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: [Luke 11:21 KJV]
This is irresponsible exegesis on two counts. First of all, the context of this verse is Jesus’ response to the Pharisees after they said Jesus got his powers from the Prince of Demons (Satan). In response, Jesus says that if he got his powers from Satan, then Satan would be fighting against himself and his kingdom would not survive. However, if Jesus gets his power from God, then the Spirit of God must have arrived. Next, Jesus uses the above verses as a metaphor to illustrate the Son of Man’s power over demons. A rough translation of Jesus’ metaphor would go something like this: “Who is mighty enough to cast out the most powerful of demons? Only someone even more powerful than they.”
Secondly, Brian, you quoted this verse three times, once each from Matthew, Mark and Luke. Matthew, Mark, and Luke make up what is known as the Synoptic Gospels. They tell many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and sometimes even with identical wording. Just because a verse Jesus said appears three times in the Synoptic Gospels does not mean that Jesus said those words three separate times.
In summary, Jesus is not commanding Christian men to be macho strong men who defend their households from thieves. He is talking about himself and his power over the spiritual realm.
Cheers, and thank you all for the interesting read that this thread has been!
Hi Lona (@lonathecat)
Actually, I disagree with you.
Jesus often used one rational truth to illuminate another point in context. Doing so does not invalidate the point but uses two contexts to make clear what issue He was addressing.
In Matthew 12, in the same way, Jesus, when charged with casting out devils by the power of Beelzebub, Jesus stated the principle that a kingdom or a house divided against itself cannot stand. This principle is true on its face, but here it is being applied to show that even the demonic kingdom cannot exist unless it has some degree of unity within its own infernal ranks. Jesus was casting out the devils as their opponent, and it was ludicrous of the Pharisees to say that Jesus was working an act of wickedness against the kingdom of wickedness.
The statement that a household is secured by the presence of a “strong man” is not misapplied here. It is a known principle that should be clear to anyone recognizing that God has designed the family and males and females in such a way that He generally has granted physicality to each group more suited to the role for which He designed them. Males naturally have the capacity for greater musculature in their skeletal frame. The muscle mass is denser, males have a greater capacity to endure more blunt force trauma than do women, which is why males and females do not (in maturity) engage in full-contact sports as opponents such as boxing, mixed martial arts, football, rugby, etc.
The skeletal design of a woman accommodates caring a child in their womb and their pelvic bones cradle a child during the childbearing months until term. Because a child must be protected by the physical design of a woman, there are also external threats that must be protected by someone who does not bear the child and can meet anyone or anything on the perimeter of a household with physical violence if necessary to ensure that both mother and child within the household do not have to contend with that threat and risk to life of the woman and the child she carries. The principle that Jesus stated still stands and is logical. Each household should naturally be physically protected by a strong man. How can you argue otherwise?
Scripture also soundly condemns males who fail to provide for their households.
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. [1 Timothy 5:8 KJV]Failure in that equates such a worthless fool as an apostate.
Scripture is replete with many principles that stand on their own with a face-value, self-evident message, that also has applicability in other contexts. If that were not the case, how could we ever argue that the verse of the Bible have meaning for our own lives, if we merely limit their applicability to the historical context alone? We serve a God who is transcendent and is not limited by time or space, and it definitely not rooted alone in the past, but speaks living words to us in the present. Exegesis is allowing Scripture to illuminate Scripture and provided deeper and fuller context to what our transcendent Lord is saying, past present, and future.
If you have a problem with masculinity in general, it could be that either you misunderstand it, or that it has been poorly represented to you. Our enemy does so enjoy division and he often effects it by causing misunderstanding or hurt feelings.
Jesus does intend that males be the physical protector of a home. He expects that protection to be an expression of the man’s love for those who are residing within the home, with a willingness to give his own physical life, if need be, to ensure that they remain safe.
We live in a world of dangers that are physical, emotional, and spiritual. We are called to be aware of these things and to be careful to watch for the dangers coming.
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: [1 Peter 5:8 KJV]
Paul had a concern with the Corinthian church in his day because there seemed to be this “tolerance” to listen to anything and everything said without the testing of those voices.
But I fear that somehow your pure and undivided devotion to Christ will be corrupted, just as Eve was deceived by the cunning ways of the serpent. You happily put up with whatever anyone tells you, even if they preach a different Jesus than the one we preach, or a different kind of Spirit than the one you received, or a different kind of gospel than the one you believed. [2 Corinthians 11:3-4 NLT]
We are accountable to make sure that the “popular voices” we hear are in fact being consistent with what the Scripture reveals: same Jesus; same Spirit.
Paul tells Timothy: The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. [1 Timothy 4:1 NIV]
Part of what I believe is “demon-taught” is this pagan idea of “gender fluidity” and the “wokeism” nonsense that has infiltrated churches across this land. I think “effeminising boys” is sick child abuse and any parent doing it will give an account to God for that stupid moronic cruelty. Males need a “male-role model”. A woman cannot do it and anyone thinking otherwise is an imbecile and a fool. By correlation, any “male” that thinks he can fully explain what being a “girl” is to a female, is a candidate for a nuthouse and I don’t mean the local Planters peanut factory.
Males need to learn how to guard against arguments that are meant to sway emotions rather than sober a person to the long-term effects and ramifications of doing the hard things for a better outcome. God has put males in the role of spiritual headship in a home.
Scriptures talk about the deceivers that come with a “form of godliness” and how appearances can deceive “silly women”.
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. [2 Timothy 3:5-7 KJV]
Adam, as a male was given the primary role to keep his family from deception, but he failed to do so.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. [1 Timothy 2:13-15 KJV]
God gave man that role, even though Adam failed in it, males still inherit that role for our families. God did not change His mind and say, “Well, THAT didn’t work. Let’s see if the woman can do any better.” No. God knew Adam would fail, and Adam and all of his progeny suffered for it, but that does not mean God made a mistake in assigning him that role. He still intends men to uphold it, and consequences will most assuredly come when and if we fail in it.
I do not believe male or female behavior should be characterized by the vices so often associated with each. I believe God created male and female and declared them to be “Good” before sin was present in them and through them in the world at large.
Male and female existed in a pure state as complementary to each other. Some characteristics often attributed to males are that they can be boorish, crude, physically threatening, and given to fits of anger that involve destruction. That they can be insensitive and cruel, and mock weakness. These traits can be just as common in a vulgar woman as they are in males, so I believe it is unfair to relegate these one way or the other. Not every guy loves football. Not every girl loves clothes shopping. Do they lose their “gender” merely because of individual preferences? Absolutely not. Tastes, aptitudes, and proclivities do not define gender. God does. And it is not for use to redefine those things for each other when God in His infinite wisdom clearly has defined our unique physicality as evidence, our ways of processing our world through thought and sensitivity, and perception. I believe God allows us to see through two eyes to get a more defined picture of life, yet each of our eyes (left and right) takes in sight together to give an image to our brain that is in perspective. The left eye sees only how it perceives and the right only from its perspective, but neither one is wrong but are intended to work together in a complementary fashion to perceive depth and color and movement. I think in some way this is true of males and females. We both need each other to see fully into the mystery that God has presented to us in relationship with each other and the wider world.
Please do not take bad examples of males to be characteristic of all of us. If a piano player plays a concerto of Beethoven poorly, it is not Beethoven who should be blamed for the performance, but the player. In the same way, God should not get blamed for poor representations of men.
Any kingdom divided against itself will suffer from that division.
Luke’s account goes further:
But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils. He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. [Luke 11:20-23 KJV]
Jesus is that “stronger man” that overcomes even devils which occupy the “household” of a person’s heart. God wants “strong men” to guard their hearts too, as well as their households.
Guard your heart above all else, for it determines the course of your life. [Proverbs 4:23 NLT]
Incidentally, guarding a man’s heart is protecting his wife. Scripture says so:
Didn’t the LORD make you one with your wife? In body and spirit you are his. And what does he want? Godly children from your union. So guard your heart; remain loyal to the wife of your youth. “For I hate divorce!” says the LORD, the God of Israel. “To divorce your wife is to overwhelm her with cruelty,” says the LORD of Heaven’s Armies. “So guard your heart; do not be unfaithful to your wife.” [Malachi 2:15-16 NLT]
Brian Stansell (aka O'Brian of the Surface World)
I was born in war.
Fighting from my first breath.Hi Brian ( @obrian-of-the-surface-world ),
While it was interesting to read your opinion, I still disagree. This is probably because we have different viewpoints on women’s subordination to men. I for one, see men and women created as equals and believe they should be treated as such. Accordingly, I have issues with the majority of what you said. I could back my belief with biblical references, but instead I am going to move on so I can respond to your main point about a “strong man” being needed in a family.
The principle that Jesus stated still stands and is logical. Each household should naturally be physically protected by a strong man. How can you argue otherwise?
God has put males in the role of spiritual headship in a home.
Scripture also soundly condemns males who fail to provide for their households.
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. [1 Timothy 5:8 KJV]Failure in that equates such a worthless fool as an apostate.
Males need a “male-role model”. A woman cannot do it and anyone thinking otherwise is an imbecile and a fool.
Simply put, not every household has a “strong man”. Some households have men who are ill or disabled. Some households have single mothers. But, I believe the ill and disabled men still love their families just as much as any other man. I believe the single mothers still love their children just as much as any other mother. To say that ill and disabled men (who may have gotten sick or injured through no fault of their own) have failed as the protectors of the family is extremely insensitive. Even more insensitive is implying that single women are incapable of raising children. I have a male friend who was raised by a single mother. He is intelligent, kind, respectful, and passionate about the Lord. His single mother (who is neither an imbecile nor a fool) raised him better than many young men who were raised by both a man and woman.
Some sidenotes:
The skeletal design of a woman accommodates caring a child in their womb and their pelvic bones cradle a child during the childbearing months until term. Because a child must be protected by the physical design of a woman, there are also external threats that must be protected by someone who does not bear the child and can meet anyone or anything on the perimeter of a household with physical violence if necessary to ensure that both mother and child within the household do not have to contend with that threat and risk to life of the woman and the child she carries.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. [1 Timothy 2:13-15 KJV]
By correlation, any “male” that thinks he can fully explain what being a “girl” is to a female, is a candidate for a nuthouse and I don’t mean the local Planters peanut factory.
Right, thank you for explaining my womanhood and anatomy. That was needed.
Scriptures talk about the deceivers that come with a “form of godliness” and how appearances can deceive “silly women”.
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. [2 Timothy 3:5-7 KJV]
This whole thing is uncalled for. Men can be led astray just as women can. There is no need to base your argument on the fact that “silly women” exist.
Please do not take bad examples of males to be characteristic of all of us. If a piano player plays a concerto of Beethoven poorly, it is not Beethoven who should be blamed for the performance, but the player. In the same way, God should not get blamed for poor representations of men.
If you will read my first post again, you will see that not once did I blame God for anything. I do not understand where you are getting this idea. Please read my first post more carefully.
If you have a problem with masculinity in general, it could be that either you misunderstand it, or that it has been poorly represented to you. Our enemy does so enjoy division and he often effects it by causing misunderstanding or hurt feelings.
Indeed I do have problems with some forms of masculinity. I guarantee that you yourself have come across some of them.
Cheers.
Brian, while I understand your point, Lona ( @lonathecat )is correct. Those verses have nothing to do with men protecting households. I didn’t comment on it before because I agree with your point–I just don’t think those verse apply. There are many other verses in the bible that are much more suitable. Lona’s interpretation of the verses summed up the main points of the verse pretty well.
To begin with, as I said above, I do essentially agree with the way you interpreted that verse.
This is probably because we have different viewpoints on women’s subordination to men. I for one, see men and women created as equals and believe they should be treated as such. Accordingly, I have issues with the majority of what you said. I could back my belief with biblical references, but instead I am going to move on so I can respond to your main point about a “strong man” being needed in a family.
I highly agree with you that women and men are equal (and I think Brian does too, actually). Here’s the thing: just because two things are equal, doesn’t mean they have the same roles. Take the trinity. God and Jesus are the same being and of equal worth, but they have different roles. God’s role is the father and head. This also applies to a man and his wife. The man is the head of the family (I can give numerous verse for this if you would like) and the woman is his help meet. Proverbs 31 and Titus 2 do an excellent job explicitly describing her roles and duties. Men are to provide and protect the home. And let me state again, women are equal to men, never let it be said otherwise. It bothers me beyond words how people in the world equate different roles with different values.
To comment on the ‘strong man’ deal, I think I concur. As Cathy and I discussed, the definition of a Godly man is not a big, strong, gun bearing fellow. It is a humble, meek, self-sacrificing man who provides for his family.
Lona (@lonathecat)
I think you are still misunderstanding the word strength. A man can be disabled, yet still defend his household. Some retired military men who may be disabled by their military service still know how to secure and protect a perimeter. Singel moms do a good job, but they are still inadequate in teaching a young boy everything he needs to know about manhood, despite what you think. The young boy knows this instinctively and he will more often than not seek to find a male role model in his life. More prisons are populated with men who never had a good male role model in their lives, so if you believe statistically that men are dispensable in a boy’s life you need to do a little more research.
A single father can do his best, but he will never be able to fully tell his daughter everything she needs to know to develop as a woman. She too needs a positive role model in her life who shares her gender.
Strength comes in many forms. God makes men and women spiritually equal but not equal in roles or in function. If God made men and women the same it would be such a shame and I don’t think you really believe that nonsense as much as you may claim to. Part of the attraction between the sexes is the delightful difference between the two genders. Not just in physical form, but in mindsets and sensitivity.
Simply put, not every household has a “strong man”. Some households have men who are ill or disabled. Some households have single mothers. But, I believe the ill and disabled men still love their families just as much as any other man. I believe the single mothers still love their children just as much as any other mother. To say that ill and disabled men (who may have gotten sick or injured through no fault of their own) have failed as the protectors of the family is extremely insensitive. Even more insensitive is implying that single women are incapable of raising children. I have a male friend who was raised by a single mother. He is intelligent, kind, respectful, and passionate about the Lord. His single mother (who is neither an imbecile nor a fool) raised him better than many young men who were raised by both a man and woman.
Single parents are incapable of doing the full role of both parents without help. Yes, God created humankind to need both parents.
There are silly women. Get over it. There are stupid men. You might as well get over that too. I will not pander or soft-sell the scripture just to tip-toe over sensitivities that may be more modern-cultural acquired than arise from sincere humble study of the Word.
God did not create men and women equal.
He created them different. If you don’t know this then perhaps you needed the anatomy lesson.Right, thank you for explaining my womanhood and anatomy. That was needed.
May God spare us from “men” who are equal to a woman. They are worthless men. Nor do I want to meet a woman who believes she is a male equivalent. (Some women would not appreciate that comparison at all. They would find it belittling.)
Masculinity, as well as femininity, were created by God and if you have a problem with either, you need to take it up with The Designer, because your real problem is with Him.
Guys want to be tough. It is only women who try to shame them for it.
Someone had to speak directly.
I am not responsible for how you “feel” about my words. Feelings are fickle and transitory. They will pass. What you choose to feel right now is your choice too.His single mother (who is neither an imbecile nor a fool) raised him better than many young men who were raised by both a man and woman.
If she raised him without seeking a positive male influence to be in his, time will prove out what I’ve said. I make no apologies for it. You cannot assert you own feelings for truth. Every young boy and girl needs the positive influence of both genders in their lives. That is God’s ideal design because there are lessons only those roles can impart to a child for their full and balanced development.
Brian Stansell (aka O'Brian of the Surface World)
I was born in war.
Fighting from my first breath.Might as well be one more female on this thread…
@obrian-of-the-surface-world @lonathecat Um, so, I was just a passive observer of this thread until this conversation became pretty heated so if I may be allowed to offer my thoughts? Because sometimes it helps to hear a third perspective?First off, Mr. Stansell, I have to agree with Lona that you may have misconstrued the meaning of the passage you referred to. While God does expect the man to be a provider of the home, I think Lona Cat is right in saying that the particular passage you pointed out is not referring to a “strong man” in a literal sense. While this may be drawing from a real life example of a physically strong man defending his home, that is not the point of the passage. It’s about spiritual warfare, and Jesus is using an illustration to get his point across, not necessarily that men must physically defend their home.
I do agree about what you said that men should be the head of the home and that women should submit to the husband’s authority. But going as far as to say that a man needs to be physically strong is a bit of a stretch. Are they, normally? Generally yes, but it’s not necessarily a physical requirement. However, Scripture does place a lot of emphasis on the spiritual requirements for the male head of the house, but I won’t go into that here.
Also, gotta admit, when you went into the whole “skeletal design of a woman accommodates carrying a child in their womb, etc., etc.” thing, it felt kinda condescending. True for the most part, but unnecessary and condescending. Which Lona also expresses, though somewhat snarkily😉 Unnecessary because it doesn’t really add much to your argument, condescending because we already know those facts.
God has put males in the role of spiritual headship in a home.
Bingo! I do agree with that. Although it does seem (correct me if I’m wrong) that Lona may have taken offence that you seem to imply that women are less spiritually discerning and more gullible than men? I hope that’s not what you meant by “silly women,” just that silly women exist, but either way the way you worded this…
There are silly women. Get over it. There are stupid men. You might as well get over that too. I will not pander or soft-sell the scripture just to tip-toe over sensitivities that may be more modern-cultural acquired than arise from sincere humble study of the Word.
Oof. That’s a bit strong. I get where you’re coming from, but ouch? I think there’s just misunderstanding on both sides of the issue, but anyway, moving on..
the definition of a Godly man is not a big, strong, gun bearing fellow. It is a humble, meek, self-sacrificing man who provides for his family.
Yes, Noah, I love that!
Masculinity, as well as femininity, were created by God and if you have a problem with either, you need to take it up with The Designer, because your real problem is with Him. Guys want to be tough. It is only women who try to shame them for it.
Sorry, but Lona clearly stated that this wasn’t an issue she had, so I don’t see why this is necessary? In fact, it sounds really close to sounding like a personal attack. I’m sure you’re not trying to be vehement, just standing up for your beliefs, which is great! But the fact is, that you did sound harsh at times.
Maybe I’m intruding though, and if I am, I apologize, I just hate to see people argue and it get nasty…. Also it’s 2:45 in the morning where I am so…. what I say may or may not make sense and if it doesn’t ignore me, I’m just rambling now. Signing off!
Hello! Thanks for joining the discussion!
Also, gotta admit, when you went into the whole “skeletal design of a woman accommodates carrying a child in their womb, etc., etc.” thing, it felt kinda condescending. True for the most part, but unnecessary and condescending. Which Lona also expresses, though somewhat snarkily😉
I thought the snarkiness was allowed given the condescension. I’ll try to be nicer next time. 🙂
Although it does seem (correct me if I’m wrong) that Lona may have taken offence that you seem to imply that women are less spiritually discerning and more gullible than men?
Correct. I was offended by his using the fact that gullible women exist as a basis for why women can’t be heads of house. By that logic, I could say, “men can’t be politicians because greedy men exist.” This is just bad logic.
Sorry, but Lona clearly stated that this wasn’t an issue she had, so I don’t see why this is necessary? In fact, it sounds really close to sounding like a personal attack. I’m sure you’re not trying to be vehement, just standing up for your beliefs, which is great! But the fact is, that you did sound harsh at times.
Again, thank you! Your input is much appreciated.
Brian (@obrian-of-the-surface-world ) and Noah (@noah-cochran ),
I’ll preface this by saying that I worked on this response with a really close friend of mine, Al Zapor. When I asked his thoughts on some things that were mentioned above, he said he had some opinions that he wanted to share. However, he’s waiting for forum account approval right now and can’t post quite yet. So, I’ll note when Al is speaking by “A:” and when I am speaking by “L:”. I will also note that this post grew way longer than we intended. (Sorry.)
A: Hello y’all!
L: Within a few days, Al will probably be able to post using his own forum account.
A: That’s the hope at least! At first, I had wanted to share my opinion about Brian’s interpretation of the text but decided I could wait to post that under my own account. Alternatively, I decided I couldn’t wait here! Lastly, do forgive me if I seem blunt and rude. Growing up in Mexico, I’ve come to hate the culture of sucking up to people, so I’ve countered that with being too straightforward for my own good. But onto the issue at hand!
L: First of all, thanks for your input, Noah! Glad you could join the discussion! Second, I’d like to be clear on what I mean when I say “I think of men and women as equals”, because I think both of you are misunderstanding me. I don’t want to do away with gender. However, I think there are gender roles that are hurtful. I don’t think that husbands are automatically the heads of their house and that wives must always defer to them because those are their set roles. (An interesting article about the concept that men are not the head of their wives is here.)
A: (Fascinating article, if I do say so myself).
L: Many women have been stuck in abusive relationships because they were told by church authorities to listen to their husbands. My mom and my grandmother both have had traumatic experiences in the church because of its enforcement of sexist gender roles. This is gender roles hurting people.
A: And the spreading and influence of the Gospel. Our actions could impact the future of Christianity on the world religion scale, but that’s an issue to discuss later.
L: And these are the sort of gender roles I would like to get rid of so that men and women can better work together for His Kingdom.
A: Meanwhile, women who point these things out are told they are pagan unbelievers. For example, within the SBC, looking at the report that came out last month, women who acknowledged and revealed the sexual misconduct in the Church were accused of essentially being sent and used by the Enemy.
A: Also, on the whole topic of “male role-models”, I wanna just share some personal experience. In my own life and Spiritual journey, yes I have had male role-models. However, the people that have impacted me the most are my mother, an aunt, my sister, and my friends who happen to be girls. Why? Because God can use anyone, regardless of gender, to impact, instruct, and mold us into who He wants us to be. I can know about manhood and be masculine regardless of the reproductive system of those who God has placed in my life. Speaking of masculinity, Brian, you seem to have a slightly warped perspective of Biblical masculinity. You insinuate that to be masculine, a man must be constantly tough, competitive, and driven to please women (though it may seem shocking to you, not every man is straight, and they aren’t any less “manly” or “men” than every other man. Plus, what would they be? You seem to think that agender, non-binary, and trans folks don’t exist. But anyway, back to the topic at hand). Let’s look at the epitome of a masculine man in the Bible, one who is described as “a man after God’s own Heart”: King David. Yes, he exhibited traits you saciate over and are quick to call masculine, such as marching with bravery and courage into war, leading Israel, and swooning multiple women, regardless of the morality of some of those relationships. Yet, he also exhibited traits that you would also label as “effeminate” and “pagan moronic cruelties”. He was compassionate, he was vulnerable (which in my opinion, is one of the antithesis of “toughness”), and he laid in meadows creating art. This is Biblical masculinity. As Noah already pointed out, true masculinity isn’t the perverted American-ized masculinity that Christians so often endorse, one filled with guns, football, beer (?), and barbeque. It can include this “toughness” and bravery, but it’s paired with compassion, love, and selflessness. Once again, credit to Noah for this! Just reworded his already excellent statement.
A:
There are silly women. Get over it. There are stupid men. You might as well get over that too.
Women are equal and have opinions just as valid as your own. Get over it. Not every man lines up with your view of perfect masculinity. You might as well get over that too.
L: Thank you, Al.
A:
I will not pander or soft-sell the scripture just to tip-toe over sensitivities that may be more modern-cultural acquired than arise from sincere humble study of the Word.
Lonie was not pandering or soft-selling Scripture or calling for this to be done. Instead, she was pointing out and saying that it is incorrect to use Scripture to defend sexist and misogynistic gender roles, especially when Christianity is a religion of equality, love for all, and salvation for all. Once again, Brian, when you insinuate that, in spite of all this, God did not create the genders equal, you only hurt more people and you risk disillusioning more souls and damaging Christianity’s reputation. Also, you are literally misinterpreting and misusing Scripture to push your personal beliefs on gender roles. You ignore Christ’s example of viewing and valuing women as equals, which can be seen throughout Scripture (ie, His interaction with the Samaritan Woman or His relationship with His mother and Mary Magdalene). But right, Lonie is the one misusing Scripture. Projection much?
L: Again, thank you, Al.
A: This one is slightly more nuanced but
Guys want to be tough.
Going back to my rant on masculinity. Honestly, outside of sports, no, not really. I don’t want to fight, go to war, constantly “assert my dominance to swoon the ladies”. I want to show compassion, care, love, service, much like Christ did.
L: I think what Al is trying to say is that Brian, you are making generalizations and stating them as fact.
A: Yeah. Just in my own way of droning on and on and on XD. But yes, and in my opinion, these generalizations are also incredibly erroneous.
L:
I am not responsible for how you “feel” about my words. Feelings are fickle and transitory. They will pass. What you choose to feel right now is your choice too.
I have to disagree here. Over and over again in the Bible the tongue is referred to as something that does damage (a fire, a sword), and therefore must be controlled. I don’t think it is my fault for being mildly offended by words that dismiss my opinions and beliefs while accusing me of things I didn’t say. Some tongue-controlling may be in order here.
A: This is very true! Honestly, tongue-control for the three of us lol. We must conduct ourselves and use our speech in a way that glorifies God, and well, instigating hate and inequality, frankly, does not glorify God.
A: To be blunt, completely honest, and a tad rude with you, Brian, you’re taking a metaphor, interpreting it literally, using it to defend sexism and misogyny, and then are ranting and defending yourself when Lonie called you out for it. You then launched some pretty personal attacks on her by saying that her view of masculinity must’ve been thwarted by some bad experiences, or saying she has a problem with God. She just has a problem with people using Scripture to defend hate. You walked into a conversation about “mama’s boy” characters, which I felt was perfectly fine, productive, respectful, and not derogatory in the least, to promote what is, well, borderline toxic masculinity. Be better, souls are on the line.
L: Yeah, can we go back to the main point, here? I was just trying to correct what I saw as a misuse of Scripture. Brian, you completely ignored one of my points and proceeded to explain gender roles to me.
A: Yeah, all Lonie was doing was pointing out how you took a metaphor about the Spiritual Realm literally. Christ was a very metaphorical speaker and this sets a bad precedence. Just remember to be extra careful, we’re dealing with the Word of God.
L: Once again, thanks for the discussion, you guys. 🙂
Cheers.
A: Yeah, thanks for including me, Lonie! It’s been fun to read the entire thread and weigh in on this discussion! I’m looking forward to reading y’all’s responses (if y’all have any)! God Bless!
@obrian-of-the-surface-world , @noah-cochran
Not sure why the tags weren’t working in the other post.
This is what I come back to…? Like I just came to reply to Noah…😁✌️
*So, seeing as I started this debate up again it is possible I may have started something*
*again.*
Ok ok, guys, a lot of arguments just spark from misunderstanding what the other people say. Lets look unpack this!
Once I reply to Camirvablahblah 😉
Not usually. Both the men and women I know judge situations. In public restaurants with many unknown people, we might go in pairs. In friendly situations, they do not. Having some level of care everywhere one goes is wise, but paranoia is not. None of the men or women I know are always worried about or talking about dealing with dangerous men. In fact, they rarely do. Everyone I know just gives a proper amount of forethought before entering a given situation, nothing major. Plus, we actively eschew gratuitously dangerous situations unless necessary for some reaosn.
Huh…ok.
I do struggle with paranoia a lot but I’ve just kinda come from that kinda environment I guess.
Tough luck. xD
Shut up! 😉
Nice. As I said, rapping is a very impressive art, and I am impressed.
It is impressive. Not very useful, but still impressive lol. 😌👌
Yes, yes, well, first youtube kicked me of my account and made me log in again with verifications codes for absolutely no reason, then it started eating my comments and occaoinally spitting them back out until I had responded to a person like four times. Uncool.
Ok that’s legitimately awful and uncool. I’ll go murder it for you 🥰
OK BACK TO THE GAMES!!!!!!!
Lona: I believe your big point against what Mr Brian was saying was that you didn’t think those particular verses are applicable and that PHYSICAL strength and protection isn’t necessary for a man. Before I get to argument my points I want to be sure I know I’ve got everybody’s points correct so I won’t give my opinion until everybody confirms their’s.
Instead, you say men should be the spiritual “strong man/leader”, correct?
Ok (I’m going by order of comments XD)
Mr Brian: you are holding firm that IDEALLY men should physically and spiritually protect and that a household is not receiving its fullest good if either are lacking, yes?
I know I said I wasn’t going to give my opinions yet but I do want to know to everybody that I think quoting verses is great and it’s a good way to saturate people in the overall beliefs but trying to cite a particular verse to support a particular thing just doesn’t really work because there’s just so much context in the Bible so like it can help but it can’t prove so I don’t really care whether those particular verses are applicable or not. Overall I’d just say yes strong man and strong men’s roles, that works, it’s observation not hard evidence because we live by faith and probabilities XDD.
Anatomy: you were trying to connect the physical and the mental aspects of male and female to give a fuller picture, right?
I know you didn’t mean to be offensive but I can see how that’d sound really patronizing, I come from a very blunt and neurodiverse family so like it takes a lot for something that sounds insensitive to offend me so I’m not offended by I can see everybody’s point there.
But the main point was that God designed men and women to be suited for different tasks. And there’s some confusion with everybody using the words equal and different, I think you define equal as same in purpose while everyone else is defining it same in status and when I say status I mean inalienable rights as a human being.
And different, I’m gonna define as like different roles generally or “all things being ideally situationed”
Now on further examination, you define, ideally, men’s role as providing physically – financially, property-security-wise, and in final-decision-making and spiritually – child-rearing, role-modelling, and guiding.
And women’s role, ideally (by ideally I mean in the most ideal conditions) as caretaking – dispensing of money, use of prudence and caution, advising and alerting her man to her needs and the needs of others. And physically caretaking and providing for children, role-modelling and guiding.
About like that?
Now, effeminizing, this is the biggest one here I think because I don’t think everybody is on the same page with what their identifying as effeminate. So. Everybody give me their strict definition I don’t even dare to guess. This definition needs to state what defining categorizations is being used and whether or not there are exceptions.
Now I think we’re also working with purpose verses dispositions, like people are getting edgy and not hearing a clear definition of what is the role and how it is acted upon individually.
Like if a man cannot say, provide financial support, say the woman is richer and they marry and he doesn’t get a job coz they’ve got all the money they need, he’s not failing his role right? Even if he’s not fulfilling the “physically provide financial support” part.
So like there’s a give and a take there for both ends I think. Everybody here needs to listen to see what’s really being argued, is it really necessary for every guy to seek every single aspect of the “ideal conditions role”? Is it any less valid as a role for how men should behave by enlarge?
just throwing some questions first, I’m still not opinionating until I get everybody’s arguments fully explained…this time 😉
This is probably because we have different viewpoints on women’s subordination to men. I for one, see men and women created as equals and believe they should be treated as such.
Alright, HERE’S a key phrase; subordination vs equality, are they necessarily incompatible opposites? Does obedience make you inferior to the one you obey even when you freely choose to obey them?
What I mean is…does being freely subordinate to someone in any way take from your dignity as a human being? This is very status-oriented, and is status really important to equality?
I’m not giving my opinion until I ask all my questions so don’t imply my answer I ain’t giving it!
Simply put, not every household has a “strong man”. Some households have men who are ill or disabled. Some households have single mothers. But, I believe the ill and disabled men still love their families just as much as any other man. I believe the single mothers still love their children just as much as any other mother. To say that ill and disabled men (who may have gotten sick or injured through no fault of their own) have failed as the protectors of the family is extremely insensitive. Even more insensitive is implying that single women are incapable of raising children. I have a male friend who was raised by a single mother. He is intelligent, kind, respectful, and passionate about the Lord. His single mother (who is neither an imbecile nor a fool) raised him better than many young men who were raised by both a man and woman.
Ok so the main argument here is exception versus rule, I think. Like ya’ll are both fixed on your sides – which isn’t necessarily bad – but let’s sit and decide whether the one invalidates the other or if they can both be valid but to what extend? What can you pull from both ideas? What do you have to reject as a hard rule but still keep as a soft rule? What is genuinely uncompromisable here?
To comment on the ‘strong man’ deal, I think I concur. As Cathy and I discussed, the definition of a Godly man is not a big, strong, gun bearing fellow. It is a humble, meek, self-sacrificing man who provides for his family.
Bingo!
That’s not to dismiss big strong gun-bearing fellows as a stereotype, because like it is a big thing just like women who want to marry and be moms is a big thing and many/most of each gender has that comparably more than the other gender.
But that does not define them, meaning if a male or female lacks these attributes they are not any less male or female.
Guys want to be tough. It is only women who try to shame them for it.
Alright, this is a good statement to unpack.
Do ALL guys want to be tough?
And do all girls want to be tough as well? (coz I know I wanna be tough that was a big deal for me growing up)
And do ONLY women shame them for it?
And is wanting to be tough necessarily an acceptable trait depending on how you act on it?
Wanting to acquire the strength to be a strong protector is excellent, wanting to acquire strength for its own sake is acceptable, wanting to acquire strength for prestige is well not that great.
So very often guys prioritize “wanting to be tough” over personal safety and the safety of others, over decency to friends and family and over a million different more important things, in which case, women rightly try to alert them, and yes, shame them by calling them out when they do something blatantly wrong with that natural urge.
Whoo, I’m getting heated now, this is a topic that provokes a lot of emotions and trauma from both genders. Didn’t mean to get angry, but still hear my point? <3 XD
And @k-a-grey, she’s pointing out all the points that I’d’ve wanted to point out if she didn’t do it so well already. So I’m nOt sTatInG mY oPinIon but I completely agree there. Thanks girl! *highfives*
On that topic, this IS a very hot topic because there is still sexism and people are so used to extremes that the moment something crops up that “sounds similar” to the worse part, they’re “obviously opposing believes”.
Men who don’t want to wear guns and be tough don’t diminish men who do. There is no opposition. We’re just different and that’s the same with different genders. The exceptions don’t diminish the general inclinations of each gender.
I think it’s important to see that both of your sides have something to offer and also both your sides are a little too extreme when you don’t take the other side into account and actually HEAR what they’re saying.
So. Deep breaths everyone.
@obrian-of-the-surface-world, @lonathecat, @noah-cochran, (ok I THINK I tagged everyone throughout the post now…)To be a light to the world you must shine in the darkness.
Oh shoot just a sec, I gotta reply to Al Zapor too, but that means I gotta reread it twice and think about it for at least 2 hours coz I can when I’m online…
Also! WHEN YOU GET ON STORYEMBERS CAN YOU TEACH ME SPANISH AND HELP ME LEARN MORE ABOUT THE MEXICAN CULTURE BOTH FOR A CHARACTER AND COZ I’VE ALWAYS BEEN SUPER SUPER FASCINATED FOR NO RATIONAL REASON…
Also, thanks bro! I love a lot of what you gotta say here <3 *I do disagree some but I disagree with everybody I’ll get to that when I get to that when I’ve fully digested your words XD*
To be a light to the world you must shine in the darkness.
Wowsers. xD I’ll make a few comments, but if I can begin with one humble piece of advice, it would be that getting fired up and becoming gratuitously passionate online is never, and I mean never a wise thing. It doesn’t change anyone’s minds, and biting back at somone who bit you doesn’t help anything. But that’s just my advice. 🙂
Guys want to be tough.
I should have commented on this right away. I don’t mean to come up too hard, Brian, but that comment served no purpose and is easily taken in a plethora of bad ways. It can be taken in an okay way, but when I read it, I immediately saw it as an innapropriate, facile generalization, that, even if it was true in every way, still has no impact on this conversation. The bible says nothing about men wanting to be tough, nor does it encourage it. Toughness has nothing to do with biblical manhood, or biblical womanhood.
However, I think there are gender roles that are hurtful. I don’t think that husbands are automatically the heads of their house and that wives must always defer to them because those are their set roles.
So, Lona and Al Zapor, let me elucidate on what I meant so as to avoid confusion: when I say male and female roles, I am not talking about stereotypes, toughness, strength, or emotions, I am strictly talking about the roles explicity taught in the bible. The man is told to be the head, leader, defender, and main provided for the home. The woman, whose role is just as important (my human mind even wants to say more importat, but they are equal), is to care for the home and be a help meet to the husband, yes, but it is far more than that. The strong, industrias, shrewd, virtuous woman of Proverbs 31 is beautiful. Yes, the husband is the head (I can provide many verses for that), but as Cathy was saying, fulfilling a role in which one has a head is not a bad or servantile thing what so ever.
I understand your sentiments in regard to abuse, but one has to understand that their will always be sinful men, and thus always abuse. The man who is the head of the family in the bible is not abusive, and does not treat his wife as a servant. He treats her as an equal and one to talk all decisions over, even if he does make the final choice. I hope that made sense. xD
What I mean is…does being freely subordinate to someone in any way take from your dignity as a human being? This is very status-oriented, and is status really important to equality?
I highly agreed with your implied point, Cathy, though, personally, I wouldn’t use the word subordinate due to bad connotations.
Keep it friendly y’all!
And @k-a-grey, she’s pointing out all the points that I’d’ve wanted to point out if she didn’t do it so well already. So I’m nOt sTatInG mY oPinIon but I completely agree there. Thanks girl! *highfives*
*highfives back* Yes, thank you! You covered a lot of things that my poor brain wasn’t able to put into words. Like, I literally had to copy and paste most of the conversation into a google doc so I could highlight and comment just so I could form some basis to put my thoughts together and it was still confusing 😂 😂
Alright, HERE’S a key phrase; subordination vs equality, are they necessarily incompatible opposites? Does obedience make you inferior to the one you obey even when you freely choose to obey them? What I mean is…does being freely subordinate to someone in any way take from your dignity as a human being? This is very status-oriented, and is status really important to equality?
Exactly! Paul says to “submit yourselves one to another” anyway, so reverence for the other person goes both ways, irrespective of gender.
That being said, I kinda understand where you’re coming from with the “traditional roles” being used to support misogyny and abuse, but that doesn’t mean that the scriptural roles of man and wife are demeaning to a woman in any way. In fact, I believe it is just the opposite. In a genuinely Scriptural, Christian marriage, those roles are meant to help each other and honor one another, not to raise one up, and push the other down. A spouse should never, never abuse the other, regardless of gender, and those who misuse and twist the Scriptures to say that they can are definitely wrong. But I think that to do away with gender roles all together because they are sometimes used to condone abuse is the proverbial “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.”
Hello all! I’m not part of this discussion, but I was sort of aimlessly looking at a few of the posts, and something occurred to me that I thought might be helpful.
The roles of men and women, in particular in the family unit, reflect the roles of the persons of the Trinity. The three persons of the Godhead are indisputably equal. In being, essence, power, glory, attributes. However, the Father is head over all, the Son subordinates himself to the Father, and the Spirit is subordinate to both.
So with the family: all the members are equal in that they are all human beings, created in the image of God, “with certain unalienable rights”. However, the husband is the head, the wife subordinate to him, the children subordinate to both. (Here the simile breaks down slightly because children are not equal in ALL respects to their parents for the sole reason that they are young human beings, and as such not fully developed/matured.)
I think the same principle can be applied–more loosely, of course–to the roles of men and women, even if they are not in a family unit.
That being said, I will exit this conversation and wish you all happy discussing!
Quoth the raven, "Nevermore!"
https://silverpenstrokes.wordpress.com
- The forum ‘Characters’ is closed to new topics and replies.
