This past week week, news broke of a family raising a "Genderless Child." The whole premise is that you raise a child with whatever stimuli it wants, rather than forcing it to comply with gender norms. Should the said child want to play with dolls, it can play with dolls. If it wants to play with army men, it can play with army men. In this case very few people know the true gender of the this child outside the immediate family. This entire story is certainly based on an interesting theory, but also is a terribly cruel experiment. In addition this is not Biblical at all.
Scripture clearly denotes gender differences. God specifically created males and females with different roles. He created man to be dominant and "manly." He created woman to be a helper and a caregiver. Does that limit the roles that a woman can preform? Not really (some exceptions do apply). All it has to do with is natural inherited traits.
When a child is raised as a male or as a female, he is being raised with his natural traits emphasized.
If evolution was true, it would only make sense to raise your child genderless. It was only by chance that we evolved both male and female. Therefore it was only by chance that you ended up male or female. It is up to you whether to decide whether to embrace that gender or not.
The implications of this are great. If we discredit God as the creator of the Universe there is no morality and there is no truth. Immorality becomes a norm and children can be raised "genderless."
Whenever we as people refuse to live life the way God intended there are consequences. I believe that can be seen over the last 50 years in the "feminizing" of the male populace. Men have been turned into puppets, rather than being the natural born leaders God intended him to be.
Simply stated, in order to live a radical life for Christ we must observe gender roles. Men Must be Men. Women MUST be women. God intended for us to live a certain way for a purpose and even if we don't understand why, it is not our job to mess it up.
It's interesting how you reference God's creation of the first humans to support your thesis against "genderless child[ren]." I'd like to discuss that point. I will post two comments, since blogger allows only about 4000 characters per reply…
ReplyDeleteIn Genesis 1:27, where God creates the first human being, the Hebrew word “adam” was used where we have the word “man.” However, this translation conveys masculinity where masculinity is absent in the Hebrew. Rather, the word “adam” is gender neutral. In Strong’s concordance, the Hebrew word “adam” (H120) means “a human being, an individual, the species of mankind, a person.” English did not contain a genderless pronoun (in modern English we use “it,” but translators did not want to apply “it” to a human), so the translators used the word “man.” But instead of having created a man as we define man today, God had created a genderless human being. This was the first human, and it was created in God’s image. The last phrase of the verse shows that “adam” is not male; when verse 27 says that “male and female created he them,” the word “male” is a completely different Hebrew word. “Zakar” is Hebrew for male or masculine, and “nqebeh” is Hebrew for female. And even though Christian history has named the first human Adam and assigned masculine gender to Adam, the truth is quite different. Even the Hebrew name Adam (Genesis 2:20) merely means “the first human” (Strong’s H121).
In the second creation account, in Genesis chapter 2, we find the same genderless word for human in verse 7: “And the Lord God formed ‘adam’ from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and ‘adam’ became a living soul.” God then, in verse 8, placed ‘adam’ in the Garden of Eden. Even when God was creating the second human later in the chapter, God never took a rib out of ‘adam.’ Rather, the word King James’ translators translated “rib” actually literally means “a side of the body” according to Strong’s concordance (H6763). So the first human wasn’t gendered, and what God created the second human from was half of the first human. No wonder ‘adam’ immediately, upon awaking, exclaims that its new companion is “bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh” (2:23).
Relationship defined the atmosphere of God’s creation. Everywhere the first human looked he saw friendship and companionship. Even though God had created a complete human and declared that creation “good,” something was still missing. The animals all had partners, but the human, “adam,” did not have anyone to cherish, love, and become one with. The whole point of dividing “adam” into two was so that the two could reunite as “one flesh” (2:24). The point of creation was companionship. Power structure and hierarchy were nonexistent in God’s perfect, created world because love consumed every thought and all intent, leaving no room for control. Even the first rule, the only rule that God gave the first humans, had nothing to do with controlling them. Instead, God’s command to not eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil centered more on the desire for power and knowledge of sin than eating an actual fruit. The fruit was merely a symbol for the larger picture: God created humans to live in love. They lived in a world devoid of selfishness, as evidenced by the fact that both humans were naked and didn’t even notice. Nudity didn’t register in their thoughts because no one was taking advantage of anyone else – raping, killing, stealing, swindling, and fighting did not exist. But when they were tempted by the serpent to eat the fruit, the serpent did not merely offer a delicious fruit – they were already in a garden full of wonderful fruit.
ReplyDeleteThe real temptation came when the serpent informed the humans that choosing to do something, anything, just for their own pleasure and satisfaction (pure, unhindered selfishness) would allow them to be like gods knowing good and knowing evil. And there’s the catch. They already knew good; it surrounded them. But they had nothing to compare good to. For a comparison, humanity had to literally experience evil. Immediately upon taking this fruit, the reward of their selfishness became apparent. They knew they were naked, and they were afraid. They had experienced evil by acting selfishly, and now they could not stop. It controlled them, and they feared its power. In reaction, Adam selfishly blamed Eve, who selfishly blamed the serpent. Selfishness defined them, and fear consumed them.
God proceeded to curse the serpent and to change childbirth from a joyous occasion to one of pain. Then, God pronounces the most interesting declaration. God told Adam that the earth itself has been cursed on account of humanity’s sin, and God tells Eve that her “desire shall be to [her] husband, and he shall rule over [her]” (Genesis 3:16). God never says that he wants this to happen or that he is causing it to happen due to his just and righteous punishment. Rather, God informs the two humans that this is their fate due to their own selfishness. God is actually predicting what form humanity’s selfishness will take. And how right God was! Throughout the centuries, injustice in the form of male domination over women has been rampant. Ironically, its hold on humanity has only been fueled by Christianity’s insistence that God wants this to happen. This was the very sin that started sin. This selfishness (that results in men taking advantage of women emotionally, sexually, and hierarchically) was the exact same selfishness that led the first humans to choose themselves over God by eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. How horribly mocking the serpent was when it claimed that selfishness doesn’t bring death (Genesis 3:4-5). No, the first humans and humanity after them were condemned by their own selfishness to a fate worse than death, a life characterized and consumed by unfulfilled and unfulfillable desire, a living death.
Jacob, I find your method of reasoning disturbing and reaching. Your conclusions are unfounded and unsupported by the rest of scripture. This argument is only found on pro-homosexual websites as far as I can tell. And, it ignores Genesis 1:27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
ReplyDeleteYou were taught better.
Jacob - you don't make any sense.
ReplyDeleteJacob wrote, "The real temptation came when the serpent informed the humans that choosing to do something, anything, just for their own pleasure and satisfaction (pure, unhindered selfishness) would allow them to be like gods knowing good and knowing evil."
ReplyDeleteThe Biblical context of the temptation is that in Satan's addressing Eve in the garden he set forth to challenge the inerrency of God's word. "He said to the woman, 'Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?'" (Genesis 3:1 niv84)
"Did he really say...." And despite Satan's inaugural effort, God's word stands tall today, inerrant, just as God is immutable.
We have this warning in 2 Tim. 2:23 - But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. 2 Tim. 3:7 also says that some people are "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth". I am afraid that is what we have here. Looking forward to your next Biblically based analysis of the Radical Life Mr. Mathis!
ReplyDeleteWow, I wasn't sure what I thought about this topic when it first came up. But I have to say that this response is one of the most ignorant and sexist responses I've seen thus far. I can't say whether it's wise or foolish for the parents to do what they are doing, but I can say that they are at least acting slightly more intelligent than this. Do you even have any backing for saying that masculine traits were God-given to men and feminine traits were God-given to women? Do you even know that it is possible for men to lactate and breastfeed (a nurturing trait)? Have you actually researched the difference between sex (physical anatomy) and gender (a social construct)? Gender isn't determined by God. Gender "norms" differ from culture to culture. Encouraging men to be dominant and "masculine" is exactly the kind of trollop that leads to rape, abuse, and *gasp* gender confusion.
ReplyDeleteBtw, as far as you all complaining about the first guy's post, it's not JUST on homosexual sites that the genderlessness of the first person is mentioned. There are actually a number of Jewish scholars who (based on their Hebrew studies) would argue the same thing, along with the idea that woman was half (a whole half) of man, not just a rib. . . Not that you'll pay attention to any type of scholarship outside of your own inbred circles, but you should at least know that the English Bible that you quote from is horribly translated. And to ignore a legitimate textual criticism that is embraced by multiple scholars of the original language by quoting an improper translation is a little silly, don't you think?
But then again, none of you will probably actually get anything from this. You're all too entrenched in your cult thinking to receive any legitimate feedback that might threaten your groupthink (yeah, look it up). Now I'm going to find a legitimate site to read up on this topic. I'm so glad that I'm not a Christian anymore. I would hate to be part of a group that is responsible for the oppression and persecution of so many groups of people. *adds parents who deviate from norms to the list, just under African Americans, women, Muslims, and homosexuals* Why do you guys always have to have a victim?
@Nathan Dick: Simply labeling me doesn’t answer the questions or address the problems.
ReplyDelete@Bill O’Neill: Certainly, the serpent questioned God’s very nature, which was and is Love (see also I John 4:8 and a host of other passages). “Did God really mean death?” fundamentally challenges God’s paradigm of unconditional love and suggests that the two humans instead fulfill their own selfish desires. That’s the context.
@Billy Jones: I wrote this myself with no help from “pro-homosexual websites,” not that it matters--guilt by association has never been a valid argument. Subsequently, simply declaring me wrong doesn’t actually address the points I made, and telling me I was “taught better” is just demeaning. The only tangible point I could find from you was as you argue that “God created man in his image.” If you read my post, you’d see I already answered that. Of course God created the first human and the second human in his image. But gender was not introduced until after both were created. Perhaps you assume that men were created before women and were alone created in God’s image. However, if God created the second human from half of the first, who is to say which of the halves bears the image of God and which does not? Rather, both were and are equally God’s image.
The fact is that regardless of your view regarding Adam's manhood, we see clearly defined gender differences throughout scripture. Some of these view are certainly views man made and some are downright cruel. Certain places in the Old Testament, we see women oppressed, but the simple fact is that women have been oppressed throughout history as a whole. I believe THIS is what the effect of the fall was. God designed specific gender traits, which are accentuated by the cultures we live in. Cultures can be both good or bad, but always must be measured up to Scripture.
ReplyDeleteJacob - I think you need to take a step back and look at Scripture as a whole before analyzing a tidbit. As a student of Scripture, as it appears you are, I'm sure you realize that you have to look at it from a macro standpoint before going to a micro standpoint. While I assume that you and I will never agree on this issue regarding Gen 1:27(in fact I have NEVER heard of this view and have been studying the Word of God for over 20 years), it is clearly presented other places in Scripture.
the ex-Christian because of idiots like you - I think your name says it all. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but I am confused at your conclusions. I am uncertain that you understand Scripture, because it seems like you interpret everything found therein to be specifically ordained by God. That couldn't be farther from the truth. While yes, God does allow things to happen, he cannot dictate that men do evil things like oppressing women. My wife is not oppressed. I have never oppressed her or forced her to do anything. The male\female relationship is a beautiful picture of Christ's work of Salvation in the Church. Scripture clearly calls for the man to be the leader in the home but that gives no man the right to oppress his wife. He is called to love her "even as Christ loved the Church." I understand that you don't believe scripture because it doesn't line up with what you think, but maybe that's the point. Maybe having a God you cannot understand is the point. If we could understand all the intricacies of God, I wouldn't be a devout follower of Christ, as I refuse to follow a God who is my equal. Therein lies the beauty of God. Despite His perfection and His holiness that demands justice he still loves us, and that is something I will never comprehend.
@ the ex Christian - you say "Gender isn't determined by God." I have to flat out say you're wrong. God's Word does give guidelines for gender. Just look up Titus 2 and 1 Peter 3 to name a few. I understand that you being an "ex-Christian" don't put any stock in the Bible. However, it is God's Word, and to say God doesn't have guidelines for gender is simply wrong. God created men to be the leaders, and women to be their helpers. This doesn't mean that women have any less value or should be treated shamefully as many men throughout history have done. Both men and women are created in God's image (see Genesis), and both have the same intrinsic value. We just have diferent roles. I do not find the above response sexist at all, and I'm a woman!
ReplyDelete@ Jacob - regardless of your argument that "adam" was genderless, the rest of the Bible is very clear in the differentiation of men and women and their gender roles (two passages of which I mentioned above). To ignore the rest of the Bible on this matter is a deep error. Gender is obviously important to God.
Aaron, you said that “The fact is that regardless of your view regarding Adam's manhood, we see clearly defined gender differences throughout scripture.” Unfortunately, you offer no evidence beyond stating your opinion to be fact and correct. So I return to your original blog post, where you state that God “created man to be dominant and ‘manly.’ He created woman to be a helper and a caregiver.” Again, you give no Scriptural support other than creation (the same for ekenney87), which was the whole point of my discussion of the actual Hebrew words and phrases in the Genesis creation stories. I’m not trying to isolate Genesis 1-3 from the rest of Scripture—I’m merely responding to your claim. To present alternative definitions for the Hebrew words would be one thing, but instead, you’ve merely dismissed my exegesis based on other unnamed verses. Is it exegesis itself you disagree with? And ekenney87, obviously gender is important to God. I never said otherwise—that’s a straw man.
ReplyDelete@ Jacob - I did give Scriptural evidence. I cited Titus 2 and 1 Peter 3. There's a lot more. Maybe you should go grab a Bibel and look these passages up.
ReplyDelete@ Jacob
ReplyDeleteEphesians 5
Colossians 3
1 Cointhians 7
1 Timothy 2-3 (this one's fun because it actually references creation)
1 Corinthians 14
1 Corinthians 11 (note that the word for "man" in this passage referencing creation is the male pronoun, not "man" as in "humanity"/adam)
These are just a few New Testament references. You seem to like to look at Scripture in a scholarly manner, so I will let you read these passages and come to your own conclusions. They are very clear. If you want Old Testament passages, too, let me know.
Jacob - In a round about way, I was pointing out that your exegesis was wrong. You have come to the wrong conclusion based upon what Scripture has presented you. Frankly, I didn't think it was neccesary to have to go into detail as I thought most of what you had said before was tounge in cheek.
ReplyDeleteWhy would the word for Adam be genderless? This answer is simple and doesn't need an over complicated anazlysis. Adam was the only person in existance, therefore there was no gender. Until Eve was created, there was no reason to differentiate between the two. That was the point. Adam was unique from every other individual in that sense.
After God realized that it "was not good for Adam to be alone," God created Eve. God created eve from the side of Adam. Nowhere does this imply Adam was split in 2 creating 2 different people from 1 it. These 2 people completed each other(Jerry Maguire flashback). Adam was not a complete person in and of himself hence God creating Eve to be his companion. I believe the thing we need to recognize is the symbolism of Eve coming from Adam's side. It implied they were equal. She wasn't from the ground he trod or the air above him. She was from his side implying equals.
Your analysis implies a physical similarity to God leading to Adam's genderless. Verse 27 says THEY were created in the image of God not just Adam. This is not refering to the physical but rather the spiritual nature of man. His essence and his being, his ability for emotion, and his ability to have free will all reside in this image.
The way God designed the differences in the genders are all the proof we need. Take a look at the different hormones that exist in us. Women and Men have different defining hormones. They have differing effects on attitudes and emotions. It is hard to claim that the fall can be the reason for the awesome differences. It clearly denotes a detail oriented God.
"At a most basic level, the assumption of gender as a social construct opens the way for an ever-expanding list of sexual self-identification." (pg 4 http://bit.ly/k6Kjmw)
My original argument stands. "Male and Female created He them."
Perhaps the ex-Christian’s question needs to be answered: do you know the difference between gender and sex? Sure, in the beginning God created both the male and female sexes (sexual organs). But gender norms are societal, and even hormones are not necessarily consistent from human to human. A girl somewhere has more testosterone than a man somewhere. There are definitely macho men and girly girls, but certainly not everyone fits that extreme mold. There’s a whole host of people who fall in the middle, who are no more macho than girly as a result of their hormones, their upbringing, and their personality/image of God.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you, Aaron, as you say that “we see women oppressed [in Scripture], but … women have been oppressed throughout history … and this [was] the effect of the fall.” I simply think Christianity is guilty of such oppression in more ways than simply forcing women to do things they don’t want to. Christians were some of the more avid opponents of women voting, women pastors, and egalitarian marriage. And definitely, ekenney87, Old Testament passages are abundant where women were considered property or slaves of men.
The Old Testament is severely sexist, and by God's supposed commands. For instance, in Leviticus 12 male children are better than female children (mother is unclean for 7 days for male child, 14-66 days for female child). Polygamy was condoned and promoted - of course men had multiple wives; women couldn't marry more than one husband or they were stoned for adultery.
Exodus 22: 16-17 address a man who seduces a virgin. This was viewed as a property offense against the woman's father. The woman was expected to marry the seducer. If her father refused to transfer ownership of his daughter to the seducer, the latter was required to required to pay money to her father. The money would be in compensation for the damage to the father's property - his daughter. Apparently virginity had a price tag.
Exodus 21:22-25 describes a situation in which two men are fighting and one hits a pregnant woman. If the woman has a miscarriage because of the blow, the man is punished and pays a fine – not to the woman, but to her husband, presumably because he has been deprived of a child. The woman was irrelevant; the woman is lower than the man. I’m not even going into all the passages where women couldn’t go into the temple, God supposedly reserves most of the authority positions to men, and only men could appear before God.
Numbers 31:7-18: “Moses was furious [and asked] "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded … “Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.” So only virgins are acceptable plunder?
Deuteronomy 22:28-29: “If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.” So raped women should be forced to marry their rapists?
And the worst of all, in my opinion: Deuteronomy 21:10-14. According to these commands, men can crusade for God, take the prettiest women “under compulsion” (v 14), screw them after they’ve cried for a month, and leave them when they’ve lost their liking for them. I’m not sure how you would respond to these references. Did God only support subjugation and ownership of women in the Old Testament?
In New Testament passages, Paul specifically furthers this thinking by advocating that women are lower than men if you take him literally and apply his teaching to today’s culture. For instance, you mentioned 1 Peter 3. If taken without consideration to Paul’s culture, then women should call their husbands “lord” (v. 6), should not wear gold, fancy clothes, or braided hair (v. 3), and be considered the “strengthless vessel” (v. 7) in addition to being subservient to men. Can you hold to one without also holding to the others? The same occurs in I Timothy 2. Paul has told women to keep silent in church and be in submission (also I Cor. 14:34-35), but he, the same breath, commanded them not to wear pearls, gold, costly jewelry and clothing, or braid their hair. Can you take one without the other? Or could there possibly be a cultural question to consider?
ReplyDeleteI also find it interesting that inherent in the Greek words Paul chooses, the idea that the man owns his wife is still very present. Consider your reference to Colossian 3: in the same breathe as Paul declares that men own their wives (see Greek for Lord in v. 18 [kurios, meaning controller, Master]), Paul then in verse 22 commands slaves (Greek doulos, covering both voluntary and involuntary slavery) to be obedient to their masters in everything. So, for example, slaves submitting to rape is commanded by Paul? I sincerely hope that’s not something you’d argue for, but to take one verse literally, applying it verbatim to today’s culture, without doing the same for the other is rather arbitrarily selective. Also, Paul’s description of the woman in I Corinthians 11 is as the man’s property: “the head of every woman is the man.” The Greek word kephale (translated “head”) specifically includes the idea of “seizing and taking hold of.” Incidentally, I’m curious if you believe in following Paul’s next command: verses 4-15 prohibit short hair on women and long hair on men, in addition to prohibiting men from wearing hats – or is this only while praying?
I Corinthians 7 at least seems more egalitarian in that it goes both ways. But I still have a problem with interpreting it literally, as Paul would seem to advocate that marital rape is ok because the wife has no control over her body – the husband has complete control over her (v. 4). This hearkens back to Old Testament times where marital rape was condoned. But I would be intensely curious to hear your explanation for I Corinthians 7:6.
Perhaps I’m asking even larger questions here. Can we so glibly wrest verses from Paul’s arguments out of context to support a preconceived understanding of Genesis? Could Paul have been responding to a cultural occurrence that we don’t have today?
Thanks for your comments. Yes, Paul's writings have to indeed be seen in context. So let's look at the bigger picture. Paul states that marriage is a picture of Christ and His bride, the church (this has nothing to do with culture). If you say that man is indeed not the "head" (note: the word for head is the same when it states that Christ is head of the man, and man is head of the woman), you must then say that Christ is not head of His bride, but has the same status as His church, stripping Christ of his Godhood. If you say that the man is not the head, or leader, than you completely destroy the overarching concept (which is NOT cultural) that marriage is supposed to display Christ's relationship with His church. I think you would agree that Christ IS head of His church, but not in a chauvinistic or domineering fashion. He leads in love, as men are supposed to.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, while some things need to be interpreted with culture in mind, I don't believe that this means we cannot interpret literally. Literally interpreting Paul does NOT condone marital rape. Paul says that yes, the woman should have the man as head, but he goes on to say that husbands are to LOVE and RESPECT their wives. This clearly rules out "marital rape." Obviously God does not condone sin. Men aren't perfect. Their leadership is never going to be perfect. But they are to strive to portray the perfect leadership of Christ in their relationship with women.
How do you also explain that Paul himself sites Genesis as a foundation for his teaching? Are you then saying that Paul's interpretation of Genesis (which is inspired, unless you don't believe in the complete inspiration of Scripture) is faulty? Once again, I noted that Paul uses "man" (the MALE pronoun) in reference of Genesis (in 1 Corinthians 11), clearly showing Adam's masculinity. If one then interpreted Genesis the way you do, Paul would be lying, and the Word of God would be lying. In your own words, "can we so glibly wrest verses from Paul’s arguments out of context to support a preconceived understanding of Genesis?" I believe you yourself are doing exactly this. If you do hold to this view, I believe the only conclusion you can come to is that Scripture is not inerrant and inspired. I'm sorry, but I believe that it IS.
I often find that people who argue that men are not supposed to be the "head," "master," or whatever you want to call it, are simply trying to side step their God given responsibility. Don't be afraid to take the lead!
The other problem is that women often don't LET their men lead, which can also lead to issues. I pray that God would give you the strength to be a Godly leader, following in Christ's footsteps. My roll as a woman is yes, to be Christlike, but in my relationship with men, it is to be as Christ and His bride, my roll being that of the bride - loving my husband, giving my all to him, and supporting him. Obviously if the man isn't doing his duty, this can lead to abuse. This isn't God's fault, though. This is man's sinful nature.
I pray God would open your eyes on this subject. This will be my last post on the subject, as I don't see it profitable to "argue" about this knowing that you already have your preconceived notion of Scripture and are obviously trying to interpret Scripture by your notion, instead of letting Scripture speak for itself. Thanks for the discussion.
Ekenney87: Two things before I join you in ending this conversation. First, please think about what has been termed “selective literalism,” where some things are taken literally because they fit into an accepted paradigm while others are explained away or simply left un-discussed. I strongly believe fundamentalism/evangelicalism has fallen into this trap.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, preconceived notions go both ways. You have yours; I have mine. I will not assume you are blindly following your pastor or husband, and, in turn, allow me to briefly summarize my journey. I grew up in fundamentalism (of the independent Baptist stripe) and found legalism to be rampant. The legalism I encountered was backed by such selective literalism as I find here. I drew closer to God only as I searched the Bible—for myself—and started from scratch, on my knees with a Bible in hand. There is no substitute for personal struggle, experience, and research. I do not pray that God will show you that I’m right. Instead, I pray that you will be drawn closer to God as a result of our interaction.
All in all, thank you for the conversation. I’m disappointed to see it stop because you were willing to respond to my actual arguments, and the topic was far from being finished, but I will respect your wishes. And thank you for respecting me enough to converse. Others, like Billy Jones and Nathan Dick, couldn’t even afford me the courtesy of real discussion, instead relying on insults and labels. I guess if the men won’t stand up, the women have to? :-)
Jacob - I'm confused about your whole argument about selective legalism. You seem to think that we pick and choose our view based upon what we want to believe, but it would appear you are doing the exact same thing. I've presented clear arguments, and all I have seen from you are odd shambles of arguments like that of which I too have seen in bad forms of fundementalism. Double standards here and there in order to make your point. Its a shame to see the depths you are willing to sink to to prove your point.
ReplyDeleteYou and I will never agree egalitarianism. Your views open the door for homosexuality and transgender people; Yet again a clear Biblical no-no but I'm sure you view it as a cultural thing rather than a moral God thing.
As you have dominated the post, and seem full of "knowledge," I leave you with an undisputable verse from Proverbs.
"The wise don't make a show of their knowledge, but fools broadcast their foolishness." (12:23)
As far as Billy Jones or Nathan Dick not responding, I certainly respect that unless Proverbs 20:3 is also culturally irrelivant. "Avoiding a fight is a mark of honor; only fools insist on quarreling."