K Liebens

I thought this was an interesting essay, but with generally weak or unconvincing arguments throughout.

Much of the text is confounded by the writer’s inability to recognise and address key paradigms or precepts of a gender liberalist nature which he has internalised through societal influences. This in turn has undermined an absolutist view of the relevant scripture and his creedal base.

The “businesswoman” example of Proverbs 31 is a good demonstration of how these paradigms function. From a gender liberalist mindset, this passage may read as if the woman is a shrewd businesswoman confidently and authoritatively running the household, in charge of the property as if it were her own. Once the relevant paradigms are addressed, an altogether different picture arises: she appears servile, obedient, dutiful and hardworking, tending to local properties in servitude to husband and family. So, which picture is the truth? Which view is harmonious and consistent with the rest of scripture, and not subject to contempory idiosyncracies of english comprehension?

The examples of Deborah, Jael and one or two of the other prophetesses are also worthy of mention out of interest. These examples are prevalent in biblical prose representative of an era where there was an established distortion of gender roles within a society captivated by generalised disobedience and evil. The scripture here reads clearly as history, not as commentary. Therefore, it not only establishes positive character examples for us to follow, but it also sets negative examples for us to avoid, and in many situations, characters with a mix of both. The passage “praising” Jael is written by Deborah, interestingly enough.

The status of “prophet” is unrepresentative of intrinsic authority above the role of pure vessel carrying the word and instruction of God. God even speaks through a donkey in Numbers 22. This is, again, misunderstanding arising through unaddressed paradigms where we operate on societal presumptions defining the archetype of “prophet”.

Where scripture is imperative, or functions as commentary, it consistently demonstrates a discrete gender hierarchy and delegation principle of man above woman. It states clearly that this is the natural order of creation and our intrinsic design. Female beauty is directly equated to essential gender obedience and submission.

*****

“For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him “master”.” 1 Peter 3:5-6

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” 1 Corinthians 11:3

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” 1 Timothy 2:12-14

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.” 1 Timothy 2:11

“Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” 1 Corinthians 11:9

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” Ephesians 5:22-24

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.” Colossians 3:18

“Likewise, wives, submit to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.” 1 Peter 3:1-2

“For a man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.” 1 Corinthians 11:7

“That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children. To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” Titus 2 4-5

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

“A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh him ashamed is as rottenness in his bones.” Proverbs 12:4

“As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” Isaiah 3:12

*****

We’ve gone over all the permutations of the Greek and Hebrew and looked at the text from numerous contexts over a series of a hundred discussions or more. The invariable conclusion is that, to maintain any opposing view requires considerable contortion of linguistics and reason, and raises gross and incorrigible discrepancies within the rest of the text.

There is no doubt that God values all that is created, analogous to unconditional parental love for ones children. Both male and female are equally valued and loved in that both play vital, distinct and complementary roles. However, gender liberalism, in a modern context, is a mockery of the very state of being male or female, and thus of being human by first principles.

Gender equality is a destructive pseudophilosophy which is a perversion of the humanist philosophy of the Enlightenment era; that in itself being a perversion and rejection of scriptural truth. Those who have understanding of spiritual discernment also identify something refered to as the spirit of Jezebel (female disobedience and witchcraft) deeply innate to the occult philosophy of feminism. There are well-documented ties between feminism and dianic witchcraft.

A series of essays by Toynbee illustrate a biphasic pattern to the major civilizations in history: An ascendant phase where patriarchal, heterosexual and family values predominate; followed by a decline phase where there is a breakdown of family values and gender roles, as well as widespread moral disobedience and sexual degeneracy. During this latter phase, he describes variable uptake of matriarchal values which are a good analogy of modern gender liberalist ideas. Feminism, abrogation of family values and denial of gender roles are merely indicators that a society or culture has passed its zenith and has progressed far into its decline phase.

Gender psychometric studies also illustrate how women who behave “biologically normally” live much healthier, happier and fulfilled lives. There appears to be something physiologically reassuring about women who adhere to traditional roles, devote their lives to children and husband, and importantly, demonstrate appropriate feminine patterns of sexuality (ie. a fully internalised locus of sexuality/sensuality). They also tend to score statistically higher on “objective” indices of female physical attractiveness.

Women may very well appear to perform well in traditionally masculine roles or positions of authority if one challenges the very precepts which define “performing well” and “authority and leadership” to accommodate for the women who are indoctrinated to pursue these roles. As one among a myriad of examples, many highly specialist fields have moved away from principle/rationale-based thinking to protocol/guideline-oriented practice where time-investment and diligence contribute inordinately to superior performance. In many instances, there is overt sophistry regarding the performance of women in masculine professions to artificially equalise the perceived capabilities of the genders. This is, of course, creedal derangement which is deleterious to society as a whole. The most tragic thing is, few have the grace, insight or courage and honesty to recognise that this is happening.

Current methods of intelligence and performance testing do not account for “principle-level engagement” which is the key gender difference in intelligence. One may argue that principle-based thinking is the realm of genius, creativity, complex situational awareness and abstract thinking, or even the capacity for the mind to peer into overlying absolute spiritual processes. No amount of sophistry can hide the vast gender differences in performance in the traditionally masculine professions which still *require* this fundamental characteristic to be effective, though, with time, these standards of assessment may also be corroded by feminist indoctrination and sophistry.

A patriarchal hierarchy is something intrinsic to our fundamental design. This was present before the fall of man, was modified following the fall and will be retained following resurrection. The intriguing property of this spiritual principle is that, the more one rejects or undermines it, the more mentally, physically and spiritually defiled one becomes. The more one affirms and amplifies this model, the more glorious the soul becomes; the more influential, wise and authoritative the man, the more beautiful, graceful and elegant the woman.