7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.[d] 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
— 1 Cor 11:7-12, ESV
In the discussion of a recent post the conversation turned to the different temptations faced by men and women. That the two sexes would face different temptations is only natural. However, there is at least one temptation that men and women share; both are strongly tempted to worship women, to put women in the place of God. You can see this outside of Christianity with the prevalence of mother goddess religions. You can also see it in Genesis 3, in the way that the serpent tempted Eve (emphasis mine):
4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise,[b] she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.
Eve was tempted by telling her she would be like God. Adam’s temptation was to listen to his wife instead of God:
17 And to Adam he said,
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you…
Modern Christians have succumbed to this same temptation. Thus despite us living in an age where female rebellion is considered a virtue, conservative Christians constantly warn men that they need to be wary of the sin of not listening to their wives.
Others, like FotF’s Glenn Stanton, come right out and teach* that men require their wives to take on the role of headship, so the wife with her natural goodness can instruct her husband on issues of morality.
Man and woman are not equal. He owes what he is to her. That is hardly her only power, but it is among her most formidable. Christianity has always known this….
Woman is the most powerful living force on the globe. She creates, shapes, and sustains human civilization.
Most women, of course, love this message. But if we are honest, so do most men.
*HT Smithborough
I think part of this is that marriage carries such a burden and responsibility for men, even to the point if sacrificing one’s life, that men want to put women on a pedestal. Women, on the other hand, may be inclined to see men as a workhorse for the same reason.
If treating each other properly was natural, there would be no need for the Bible to repeatedly remind us.
I think it is unfortunate that equal has two meanings, one if which is sameness. Men and women are not the same.
Well said Dalrock
I find it very ironic, though insightful, that Adam and Eve were already “like God” since they were made in His image and likeness.
Temptation often promises what is already there, yet ends up pushing it farther away.
“Man and woman are not equal. He owes what he is to her. ”
Well, if “what he is” is “fallen”, then I guess we might be onto something here.
It was my understanding that teh Hebrew has the ‘you’ as plural, not singular here. So it would be ‘you Eve and Adam will be like gods”
As to the “Man and woman are not equal. He owes what he is to her. That is hardly her only power, but it is among her most formidable” it is interesting to note that other ancient religious which see it as a “earth mother godess” where the earth was seen as or closely seen as a godess, the Male god was seen as giving her life (through seed, rain, etc) Much the same way as the fruitfulness of the female human is a RESPONSE to the male…… Love how modern women forget this.
Under this thought process, woman is the responder, not the initiator.
Saw this one a couple days ago on Google news.
http://www.voanews.com/a/violence-against-women-girls-united-nations/3612388.html
“A woman covers her mouth with a tape that reads “My sexuality is not your conjugal right” during a demonstration to support International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women in Santiago, Chile, Nov. 25, 2016.”
Now, one could read that as “You can’t F*CK me whenever you want.”, but the plain meaning of the word would mean that her freedom to have sex with whomever she wants, whenever she wants is not part of the marriage.
Thus, we come again to the question, if not for fidelity, why marry?
As for Stanton and the rest. They’re batsh*t crazy and couldn’t reason their way out of a wet paper bag.
As for Stanton and the rest. They’re batsh*t crazy and couldn’t reason their way out of a wet paper bag.
No, they’re false teachers who know good and well what they’re doing and that what they’re peddling is heresy. They just know that they can rest assured that the majority of the churchian sheeple who gobble their nonsense like mother’s milk are too intellectually and spiritually lazy to seek the truth for themselves.
NEVER confuse evil with “crazy.”
@ACThinker
The serpent could have meant both of them would be like God, and Adam could have heard this. But even if you stipulate this, you really have to torture the Scripture to get away from the fact that the text says the serpent was speaking to Eve:
And God explains that Adam’s sin was the result of listening to his wife (not the serpent):
Where the Bible makes it clear, why make it murky?
“Most women, of course, love this message. But if we are honest, so do most men.”
Sad; but true.
“but the plain meaning of the word would mean that her freedom to have sex with whomever she wants, whenever she wants is not part of the marriage”
The message is clear for Beta providers: in exchange for the ample financial and other resources you will provide, she might, if she feels like it, allow you to be one of her lovers. The Alphas, of course, need not provide anything, other than their sperm. And if she chooses one or more of her studs to sire her children, you will get stuck with the bill and your name will be on their birth certificates. And if you protest and refuse to pay, there is a jail cell with your name on it waiting for you.
In other words, if you want a chance to get any, you need to be a cuck.
And they ask, where have all the good men gone?
“Where the Bible makes it clear, why make it murky?”
Because we are taught to worship women and never hold them accountable. And when it just isn’t possible to give them a pass then share the blame with men; even to the point of making it the man’s fault.
This is the crux issue that the church has to deal with to come into the kingdom. Many say ‘Lord, Lord’ but those that enter the kingdom will get the authority of marriage, and then Christ, correct.
Stanton’s message is doubly damaging in feeding resentment in both negative and positive fashion. Not only does it fail (negative) to address the envy driving women’s feelings of inferiority vis-a-vis men, it feeds the envy by telling (positive) them they are the ones who are actually superior, making them even greater victims by the world’s failure to recognize their greatness.
“conservative Christians constantly warn men that they need to be weary of the sin of not listening to their wives.”
Whilst we are for sure weary of listening to them on occasion, I’m guessing the word here was wary?
[D: Thank you. Fixed.]
In related news, over Thanksgiving weekend I saw a church marquee advertising “pet-friendly” worship services. Churchians are now on record preferring dogs to men.
Do any of these teachers give a thought to the inevitable consequences of their teachings? Does a pastor ever stare at his Sunday congregation of fat, bald, happily divorced women with their “service animals” and wonder where he went wrong? Does he preach with his eyes closed to shut out the horror, one hand on his golden parachute? Or does he truly sleep better at night knowing he has worked hard to destroy men just like himself, dreaming of Savior Save-A-Ho?
Also over the weekend, I saw a jeweler bundling Xboxes with wedding rings. FWIW.
The only thing that men and women have in common is the respective responsibility to keep His commandments.
What is Hell on earth? It is blasphemy of God’s word. How is that played out?
1) Illicit Authority [by women]
2) “Hearkening to the voice of the women” [by men]
3) Woman worship [by both]
Therein lays Hell on earth. The Kingdom cannot be found until that is “transformed by the renewing of our minds’ back to His scripture. How?
a) women worship men: “Sarah calling him ‘lord’”, “the woman is the glory of the man”, women “respect, submit, obey”; that is ALL a worship relationship; women necessarily relinquish their Illicit Authority and worship man
b) men alone worship God: “man is the glory of God”; the woman glorifies God by glorifying the man; men necessarily take back their Sanctity of Command …and have dominion …dominate; men alone have the image of God created in them and need to use it
c) the church of the past 500 years is going away and God is establishing His church into His kingdom by breathing again into men, His army, that will take up the sword of His word and will quite literally study the Hell right out of the church, leading their families to the Lord, while interacting with other men, as iron sharpens iron, to prepare all for the coming persecution.
Preach on, brothers !
In related news, over Thanksgiving weekend I saw a church marquee advertising “pet-friendly” worship services. Churchians are now on record preferring dogs to men.
Please don’t tell me that you’re surprised or shocked. I’m sure that, like the rest of us, you’ve been expecting much worse from these “churches.” Very soon there will be “clothing optional,” “smoking/non-smoking,” and “All Sports Channel” services, among other perversions. Gotta conform to the culture, dontcha know?
Do any of these teachers give a thought to the inevitable consequences of their teachings? Does a pastor ever stare at his Sunday congregation of fat, bald, happily divorced women with their “service animals” and wonder where he went wrong?
It’s pretty safe to assume that most pastors today, being mangina milquetoasts, are just like the women they pedestalize in that they are incapable of accountability or of accepting responsibility for their actions. So, no, no pastor ever looks out at his congregation full of lonely, fatty, fugly divorced/alpha widowed spinster catwomen and slutty babymamas surrounded by their squirmy, bratty, squaĺling bastard offspring thinking anything other than “if men weren’t so selfish and shallow they would be filling the pews of my church today!”
Does he preach with his eyes closed to shut out the horror, one hand on his golden parachute? Or does he truly sleep better at night knowing he has worked hard to destroy men just like himself, dreaming of Savior Save-A-Ho?
He preaches whatever keeps (fat and skanky) butts in the pews and his collection plates full. That, of course, does NOT include sermons on holding women accountable for their sins.
Also over the weekend, I saw a jeweler bundling Xboxes with wedding rings. FWIW.
Sounds like a jeweler to avoid at all costs. Go to a pawnshop first.
“Please don’t tell me that you’re surprised or shocked. I’m sure that, like the rest of us, you’ve been expecting much worse from these “churches.” Very soon there will be “clothing optional,” “smoking/non-smoking,” and “All Sports Channel” services, among other perversions. Gotta conform to the culture, dontcha know?”
Don’t forget one of the latest fads: Atheist “churches”. I’m not talking about Unitarian churches. I’m talking about “churches” that spread the “good news” of God’s non existence and which mimic the Evangelical style of worship, including raising hands in the air while singing the praises of atheism. I suppose that swinger/orgy churches can’t be far behind, in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if they already exist.
sipcode says:
November 28, 2016 at 2:13 pm
I must confess that it would be absolutely fascinating to observe the sheer, demoniacal (yes, that is EXACTLY the right word) fury with which churchians, both male and female, would resist any and all such attempts to restore the relationships between and behavior of men and women to.such biblically prescribed standards.
Here’s a link that got tossed my way, it is another example. His ideas aren’t bad per se, but they are couched in the standard pedestalization that really grates now. “Happy wife, happy life” is now just about as toxic a phrase to me as “man up”.
http://gentlereformation.com/2016/11/23/happy-wife-happy-life/
sipcode,
Women are not to worship men. I’m a man and I am not worthy of anyone’s worship, and I would be very nervous if anybody thought I was, lest God demonstrate just how unworthy of worship I am. Wives are to submit to and respect their own husbands, and likewise with children and their own parents, but worship? No way. All men and women should be worshiping God – and Him alone.
From AR’s link, “Even in Moses’ day, God addressed the challenge of a man’s responsibility in the world and his calling to make his wife happy.”
I must have missed that part of the Bible. I can’t find a passage anywhere in scripture that lists “making your wife happy” as a spiritual calling for husbands. In fact, I seem to recall that quite a few of the guys who did what their wives wanted ended up deeply regretting it later.
Women “create, shape, and sustain human civilisation.” You could’ve fooled me.
I must have missed that part of the Bible. I can’t find a passage anywhere in scripture that lists “making your wife happy” as a spiritual calling for husbands.
Happiness, for a churchian pastorbator, is being able to spew bullshit with impunity, knowing that their audience will lap it up like mother’s milk because they’re too stupid, lazy, or apathetic to seek the truth for themselves.
“Please don’t tell me that you’re surprised or shocked.”
A little, yeah. Who wants to hear chihuahuas howling with the electric guitar? And the dog droppings in the pews… even a mangina would draw the line at dogshit on holy ground? Please? The Playboy Mansion has better health standards than this.
And crazy cat ladies bringing the “family” to service? Feminists would try to stop ME from using the State to shut down the Church, as a safety hazard and general embarrassment. Strange times indeed.
“Very soon there will be “clothing optional,” “smoking/non-smoking,” and “All Sports Channel” services, among other perversions.”
Sports TV sounds like an improvement… wait, the NFL. Never mind.
“Most women, of course, love this message. But if we are honest, so do most men.”
Women want to assume authority. Men go along with it because they want to shirk responsibility.
It really comes down to that.
“Happy wife, happy life” is now just about as toxic a phrase to me as “man up”.
I’ve also arrived at that point. This is rationalization hamster running on a wheel, but this time it’s describing hubby on a permanent quest to make and keep wife happy. The trite phrase plays right into the themes of Dalrock’s last two posts. This is a grim formula for life happiness, given the both arbitrary and temporary nature of “happy”, which the wife will define in both cases.
Having a happy wife is a bonus no doubt, and contributing to that seems like a reasonable thing to do if you can; but as a building block for happiness in life, it is hopeless. And there’s this – just to say it out loud makes a man sound like a wuss.
This is the same cuck who thinks single mothers are heroes and are to be praised. Why listen to anything this ‘tard thinks? He’s obviously a false teacher and anyone who listens to him deserves their fate.
“when mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy!”
Oh, the looks I get when I point out this “funny” bit of bumper sticker philosophy is nothing less than emotional blackmail!
Pingback: Something in common. | Reaction Times
For those that say pastors don’t preach male headship, I present Stephen Bratton, Grace Family Baptist. If that church sounds familiar, it used to be where Voddie Baucham preached.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=613161346244
Haven’t we always said that over time, a democracy invariably devolves into a goddess cult, because the FI tendencies of the human brain become just too supercharged by the political process?
I’ll make this childishly simple for Mr Stanton. Simply click and read Daniel Amneus’ book:
http://www.fathermag.com/news/Case_for_Father_Custody.pdf
After that, see if “Woman is the most powerful living force on the globe. She creates, shapes, and sustains human civilization”
Repent of the sin of idolatry, and abandon the Cult of Goddess Worship.
Stanton’s quote :
Man and woman are not equal. He owes what he is to her. That is hardly her only power, but it is among her most formidable. Christianity has always known this….
Woman is the most powerful living force on the globe. She creates, shapes, and sustains human civilization.
If that is not a goddess cult, I don’t know what is….
@sipcode
Lyn87 already responded to this, but both A and B above are incorrect. Women should not worship men, and women should in fact worship God. Part of showing obedience to God is for wives to submit to their husbands in fear/reverence.
Thus despite us living in an age where female rebellion is considered a virtue, conservative Christians constantly warn men that they need to be wary of the sin of not listening to their wives.
This! This is what should have been at the top of the list of bad teachings to combat in churches for the last couple/few decades.
Dalrock says: November 28, 2016 at 4:39 pm
We worship who [what] we glorify. We worship who [what] we fear [Men are never told to fear or respect women, yet we have been; we glorify women, that is, we have been worshiping them]. Add to that that earthly marriage models our marriage [worship] to Christ. Integral to this is that only men are created in the image of God [read it] and that scripture is written to men for them to administer [including wives to ask their husbands to interpret at home]
These are fundamentals that the church has discarded, rather building on the sand. Hence, even the best ‘marriage’ arguments eventually fail.
Lyn87 says: November 28, 2016 at 2:39 pm
You miss the whole point of authority: authority does not have to be worthy. Authority is position. That is why the church does not understand God nor submit to Him. Refer to 1 Pet 3:1 the ‘Likewise’ ….so that includes 1 Pet 2:13 – 3:6. A husband’s actions are never his wife’s business. Pay special attention to Peter’s stated purpose for all this: to learn to fear God.
See also my response to Dalrock at November 28, 2016 at 7:52 pm
Sipcode,
I miss the whole point of authority? You ought to read the story about the Centurion in Matthew 8: 5-10. [See Note] A Centurion is roughly equivalent to a Captain. The rank I held was roughly equivalent to a either a Tribuni Angusticlavii or a Prefectus Cohortus, depending on the type of unit, so, yeah… I understand authority just fine.
The word “worship” doesn’t mean what you think it means. And neither you, nor I, nor any man, is worthy of it, nor does any man hold a position that entitles him to it.
Lyn87 says: November 28, 2016 at 9:06 pm
We are not worthy of the position of husband but we are entitled to it for “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” And more than entitled to it we have a responsibility to it.
I’m on your side guys …but again, the point is that a husband does not lose his authority, as you have said, because he is imperfect [we all are]. That is part of the worship of women. You are effectively saying that you turn the authority over your wife to her [or maybe someone else] because you are imperfect. That has emboldened women to TAKE IT. And that is why the church takes the authority from Christ; because [despite what ‘Christians’ say] they see Him as imperfect and say ‘we better fix what He has let slide or screwed up.’ Like Eve bought from the devil.
As you note: Christ said “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith” speaking of the centurion because he accepted the POSITION of Christ; he knew position [authority, how it works] because his subordinates accepted his commands and did anything he commanded. That is what scripture wants of a wife, to model it for the whole church, as the bride of Christ.
SIpcode,
I don’t dispute the authority of the husband – I doubt anyone here does, although there might be some dispute about what happens at the “fringes.” That authority is 100% related to his position (I’ll even go so far as to say that “rank” is an even better word, in my opinion). What Dalrock and I are objecting to is 1) your equating “wielding authority” with “being entitled to worship,” when they are not the same thing at all, and 2) your assertion that women are not to worship God. Your exact words on that score were, “men alone worship God: “man is the glory of God”; the woman glorifies God by glorifying the man.”
But scripture is very clear that everyone is to worship God, and equally clear that the only one entitled to be glorified is God. John 4:21 and Romans 12:1 are about who is to worship God, and are both addressed to women – and 2 Kings 17:35, Exodus 34:14, and Deut 6:13 all specify that worship is due solely to God.
Both men and women are to worship God, and nobody is to worship or glorify anything or anyone besides God. There’s really no wiggle room there. That is a completely different subject than the authority (and duties) that a man assumes when he takes the rank/title of “husband,” and the deference his wife owes him, in return for what she gains by assuming the rank/title of wife.
Lyn87:
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Iron sharpening iron, and I think the reason Dalrock lets guys go at it …praise the Lord, may it all be to His glory.
1 Cor 11:7 clearly say “For a man …is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Man clearly gets glory and it is from the woman. And God’s glory is clearly limited to / separated from the woman. BTW: note that the ‘image’ of God is clearly separated by a ‘but.’ I have an extended paper on how clear scripture is that only the man is CREATED in the image of God. I know: no one has ever heard that before. Part of the lies and fables of the church for centuries …feeding the worship of women.
Backtracking a bid: Certainly no authority, other than God, is WORTHY of worship in and of themselves. But they are worthy of it in their position, for all authority is established by God and if ANYONE blows that off they are at odds with God; they blasphemy His word.
Further: The problem may revolve around the meaning of the thought ‘worship.’
I suggest that the church has been teaching the wrong meaning and we have all bought it. At first I even doubted what I was concluding from reading in scripture. The church has created some mystical, arms waiving, hips swaying, eyes closed, everyone create their own ‘worship’ of Him sorta thing ….for they are ‘merchandising’ [read it] God’s people. Rather, worship can be ‘summed’ up in one phrase, one thought [and all on the same page …that Jesus gave to us]: “if you love Me keep My commandments.” Well, the parts totaling up to that ‘sum’ can be found in the translation of each Greek word for ‘worship’ in the New Testament.
Taking Strong’s Concordance we find: “glory, dignity, honour, praise, kiss – like a dog licking his master’s hand, to fawn, to crouch or prostrate before, to adore, to minister to, to render homage, to serve, voluntary and unwarranted piety or sanctimony, delight in, to chose, to incline to, to revere, be devout, to respect, be reverent, to take care of, to have an interest in or be concerned with, to be before or in the face of or gazing at to denote position”; [see #s1391,1479(2309,2356),1799(1722,3700),2151(2152),3000,3191(3199),4352,4576]
To me these substantially sound like the position of a wife to her husband as well as the church to Christ. The best example I can think of for the church’s relationship to Christ is [hold onto your shorts] as a bird dog: a bird dog sits longingly for unlimited time with his master, waiting on his master …”go, come, fetch, sit” …always available, ‘best friend’ even when others let down; a slave to Christ [sure beats a slave to sin]. That is what I strive for: His way, not my way; “not my will but Thine be done.”
And do the math: that translates to the wife’s relationship with the husband. We need to get over it. We need to understand worship of the Master = obedience. And worship of any other master [1 Pet 2:18-3:6] = obedience ….accepting authority ‘in season or out of season.’
The Church has not always excluded worship from marriage. Though it goes in a different direction than Sipcode is arguing. Take a look at the wedding ceremony in the Book of Common Prayer:
“Then shall they again loose their hands; and the Man shall give unto the Woman a Ring, laying the same upon the book with the accustomed duty to the Priest and Clerk. And the Priest, taking the Ring, shall deliver it unto the Man, to put it upon the fourth finger of the Woman’s left hand. And the Man holding the Ring there, and taught by the Priest, shall say,
WITH this Ring I thee wed, with my Body I thee worship, and with all my worldly Goods I thee endow: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.”
http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/compraym.html
According to the 21st Century Feminist Translation:
“Verily, women hath no sin. If it doth appearest that she dost sinneth, it is because her husband is ungodly. The sin is on his head. All that he hath, verily up to 60% will be accorded to her.”
@Trust
”equal has two meanings, one if which is sameness. ”
Equality is in truth sameness on some level. It cannot be avoided.
What is different cannot be equal. For to make them equal is to make them identical.
Men and women are unique, complimentary and hierarchical. Those given less is demanded less those given more are demanded more according to the parable of the talents taught by Jesus.
No one is created equal but it all balances out in the end.
Why this insistence on equality? As if it were a religion in and of itself.
@Trust
The equality though that can be said to exist is that men and women are held to the same standards in regards to the Moral Law.
I had read 1 Cor 11:7 before and had the same thought: The bible clearly states that MAN is the image and glory of God, while woman is the glory of man. God does not exist in the feminine state, He is innately masculine, it seems. Father, Son – right? He may have created the feminine, but He does not exist in that state (despite what the girls at the Walmart told me. They had discovered MOTHER GOD in the scripture! Kind of makes me wish I had listened to where they found that instead of throwing up my hand and saying “No thanks, good day.”). Despite this, however, many churches teach that ALL are made in the image of God. I never thought to argue the point, but the scripture seems to indicate this isn’t the case.
Worship in the generic sense always involves an offering of something to the one being worshipped. The offering may be one of adoration, it may be service, and at its highest it may be acts of sacrifice. In the BCP marriage rite’s ‘with my body I thee worship’, sexual relations are understood to be the offering (to include not only adoration and service, but potential sacrifice via the risks of childbirth).
There is one principle I’ve seen in the bible and in all demographics of society that is being ignored like the elephant in the room. It is this principle that leads me to agree with the “men != women” idea.
The principle is “The name giver asserts authority over the name receiver”
No one from either the conservative side or the SJW side have spoken about this. In fact if anything it seems to be studiously ignored by both sides. This is probably because if it is probably understood correctly one will realise that women cannot be ordained, woman cannot be of greater status than awarded them in the bible.
So lets try and gain some understanding of this principle. Consider the family unit. Who gets to name who? Do the children get to name their parents or the parents get to name the children? Obviously the parents name the children. The children grow up recognising this authority. My wife had a teacher friend get her to watch over her classroom of chidren for five minutes while she ran off to do something urgent. The children challenged her. “You’re not our parent, you’re not our teacher. You can’t tell us what to do.”
Daniel and his three friends in the bible were given babylonian names when they came under the authority of King Nebuchadnezzar. Joseph received a new name when he came under the authority of Pharoah.
God named the wind and waves in Genesis 1 and he asserted his authority over them when commanding them to be still as he stood on the boat in the sea of Galilee. The fact that they obeyed proved his authority over them.
God also named man but He gave Adam dominion over the animals. Because of this dominion it was man, not God, who gave the animals their names. After this God created the woman in front of him and it was man, not God, who named the woman. Conclusion – the woman came under the authority of man from the moment he laid eyes on her and named her.
The fact that she was aware of this was implied when she faced the devil. The devil offered her a higher status than what she had. Appealing to her hypergamous nature he suggested that she would be like God. Now to be able to have a higher status than Adam must have been an offer too good for her to refuse. It didn’t work.
The fact that women still accept the name “woman” when referring to themselves implies that they continue to accept the authority that man asserts over them even as they rebel against that authority.
Dalrock,
Are you saying that we, as men, are tempted to put the woman before God?
I understand this and it’s an eye opener.
Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You – 12-3 | Society of Amateur Gentlemen
Pingback: Complementarians believe that a wife can do no wrong | Christianity and masculinity
Pingback: Courtly love is always sexual, even when non physical. | Dalrock
Pingback: A very old pattern. | Dalrock
Pingback: Surely they will be reasonable once they see how reasonable *we* are. | Dalrock
Pingback: A god we must obey. | Dalrock
Pingback: Fighting for his Lady’s honor. | Dalrock
That is an interesting thing you have pointed out there. I would have to agree with your position. Also, I have always understood that the serpent approached the process of temptation beginning with the woman. I have for a long time now, believed that the phrase “weaker vessel” could refer to this aspect of female nature. In my experience salesmen (in a shopping mall) often approach through the wife. In the past I was much more capable of female “worship”, so I know where you’re coming from on that too. great post, thank you.
Pingback: Selfishness as wisdom and virtue. | Dalrock
Pingback: Have faith in self esteem. | Dalrock
Pingback: Submission with a twist, and denying rebellion. | Dalrock
Pingback: C.S. Lewis on the erotic necessity of submission. | Dalrock
Pingback: Vagina worship. | Dalrock
Pingback: Jack’s Law of Feminism | Σ Frame