Banging the Spear on the Shield

The situation described in the following letters is entirely fictitious, including persons, names, crimes, sins, relationships, circumstances and all particulars. The kind of situation that is described, however, is all too common and my hope is that biblical principles applied to this fictitious scenario may be of some help to individuals tangled up in a real one.

Dear Tomas,

If you are agreeable, I would like to step back from consideration of the morality of homosexual acts, and spend some time on the badges or tokens of masculinity. We discussed this earlier when we addressed what it means to be malakoi, but there is more to be said on the subject. I wrote earlier that one of the things you had to review in your life were those characteristics that you had come to believe were virtuous, but which were actually indicative of the broader problem. For example, there is a gentleness that is part of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22), and there is also a gentleness that is effeminate and gay.

So how to tell the difference? We live in a time when learning how to distinguish such things really is one of our pressing needs. But rather than set ourselves to a difficult task, our generation has set itself to a much easier task, that of mocking any attempt at understanding the biblical assignment of our roles. How easy would it be, in this climate, to make fun of someone who simply wanted to “be manly.” What? You want to thump your chest? Chew tobacco? What exactly?

We have been mocking manliness for so long and so thoroughly that we have gotten into the graduate school of such mockeries—I mean the self-referential ironies of the lumbersexual.

First, let me outline the requirement, and then we can turn the hard work of making some necessary distinctions. The Bible does say that soft men (malakoi) are not going to inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9). Near the end of that same letter, Paul says this: “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong” (1 Cor. 16:13). The phrase quit ye like men translates one word, which is andrizomai. The word for man is aner, and so this verb literally means play the man, be manly.

We are taught in the Old Testament that external, cultural gender blending is not a trifle. Moses describes it as an abomination.

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God” (Deut. 22:5).

Now your temptations are toward other men, and your surrounding temptations are to be soft, like a woman ought to be. There is a corresponding temptation for women, but it works in the opposite direction. Men should be hard, and are sometimes tempted to be soft. Women are to be soft, and are sometimes tempted to be hard. The man who is soft and effeminate is sinning against his nature, whether or not he ever gets into bed with another man. He is being gay, to use one of our words for it. A woman who is gruff and broad-shouldered, and swaggers out to the mound is being butch, to use one of our words for that. Because I am talking to you about your temptations, I don’t want to pursue this too far. But understanding the corresponding sin among the women can help you understand what is going on.

Our culture got a bad case of gender dysphoria well before lots of individuals got it. It doesn’t take much to get shouted down these days. Just suggest that young girls need to be taught how to be ladylike, and the derision starts right in. Just suggest that young men need training in how to be manly, and the hooting commences. But if men can go to Hell for being effeminate, as the apostle Paul plainly teaches, then women can go there for acting like Bruno.

If a Christian school has a girls’ basketball team that performs a haka dance before the game starts, you might have a problem. If your daughter is tatted up like Blackbeard’s surliest lieutenant, you might have a problem.If a Christian school has a girls’ basketball team that performs a haka dance before the game starts, you might have a problem.

In the passage from Deuteronomy, the phrase underneath “that which pertaineth to a man” is keli geber, and could readily be rendered “the gear of a warrior.” This is not a prohibition of a cute pair of slacks from Talbots, but rather a prohibition of women decking themselves out in the masculine regalia of a warrior. For the men, they are prohibited from putting on a woman’s garments—cross-dressing, in other words. Men must not buy and wear women’s silk underwear—it is perversion. Women must not aspire to compete with men in masculine pursuits—it is confusion.

Now I grant that it is hard to get through a paragraph like the preceding without sputtering . . . because we have all been catechized so well by the unbelieving secularists.

I grant that this is simple out at the edges, but there are aspects of this that are not easy. So what is the difficult part? Well, of course, courage is a virtue for Christian women as well as for Christian men. I grant it. Jael the wife of Heber was no buttercup. And then there is this question. What about the cultural differences and variations in what exactly constitutes a token of masculinity, or a token of femininity?

Sex roles have a biological, creational aspect to them. This is a fixed center. I am talking about sexual intercourse, the conception of a child, the bearing of a child, the nursing of a child, and so on. Women are created to nurture. Men are created to provide and protect. That is the center, and every sane culture in the history of the world has honored that center. One of the effects of such honor is that the central things are strengthened and reinforced. But cultures do vary, and their ways of showing this honor have varied.

Let me use the American salute and the British salute as an illustration. The biblical requirement to honor those in authority over you means that a Christian enlisted man is required by Scripture to salute his officers. But the Bible says nothing about whether to do this with palm out or palm down. The necessity of the honor is a creational reality; the language of the honor varies from culture to culture.

And so this is why the kilt is not a dress. This is why it is not unfeminine for a mom to climb into a 6,000 pound SUV in order to barrel down the highway, whatever her great-great grandmother would have thought about it. This is why it is not a sin to teach your daughter how to throw a ball. This is why the judge behind the bench is not wearing a black mumu. This is why customs can and do change. But the scriptural requirement is that they change from a society in which the tokens of the sex roles are well-defined to a society where the new tokens of the sex roles remain well-defined. If you change from one where they are well-defined to one where everything is confused and blurry, what happens?

One of the things that happens is that young men and young women are left without instruction, without guidance, and without reinforcements. But many of them desperately need instruction and help, and when the society that ought to be offering it mocks them instead, the results are not pretty.

Put it this way. All men know in their bones that they are supposed to fight in order to protect the women and children. No one needs to teach that. Creation teaches it. Nature itself teaches it. The Bible teaches it. “And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses” (Neh. 4:14). That is the creational center. But young boys do need to be taught how to bang their spear on their shield.

Cordially,

 

Photo by Alejandro Escamilla on Unsplash

Skip to 134 Comments
Letters
Submit A Letter to the Editor. Well-written, fair-minded letters may be interacted with in featured posts. Also, please mention the title of the post which you are addressing.

134
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
11 Comment threads
123 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
22 Comment authors
Krychek_2Vva70KatechoJill Smithbdash Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Art
Guest
Art

Doug, you mentioned two straightforward examples on either end of the spectrum of girls’ athletics. As a coach of a rather large girls team at the high school level (cross-country running), I’ve wrestled mightily with this question. I’m curious about your further thoughts on how we should think about this issue Biblically. E.g., in light of things such as the prevailing cultural ethic to teach kids to compete fiercely (but still short of the haka dance), as well as the moral dimensions and entailments of physical facts such as substantially higher rates of injury for girls in many sports (ranging… Read more »

LindseyW
Guest
LindseyW

I really like what Nancy Wilson has to say about girls in sports: http://reformedperspective.ca/daughters-in-sports/

Art
Guest
Art

Thanks, Lindsey. Very helpful.

bdash
Guest
bdash

afaik men raising women to be excellent men and not women is the reason why there is so much gender confusion.
Daughters are not raised to be women anymore
whether or not they play sports has nothing to do with it

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

All men know in their bones that they are supposed to fight in order to protect the women and children. No one needs to teach that. Maybe it is my strong presuppositionalist streak, but I am not so sure about the not needing to teach that part. These fairy queen metros are so effeminate that I have strong doubts about their desire and basic instincts about protecting women. I know it isn’t true in every case, there are some seriously violent homos, but I do think we are quickly getting a generation in the urban world where they don’t have… Read more »

bethyada
Member

Sometimes you need to re-teach what has been suppressed.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

I really love how you have a way of tersely saying things that are absolutely incisive.

Upvote

Jill Smith
Member

I have talked to young men about that. The young men I know are unlikely to enroll in the armed forces, and are the product of intensely urban environments where they have likely been raised by parents with feminist leanings. The reaction I encounter most is open incomprehension: “Why would I have to fight or die to keep a girl safe? Isn’t my life just as valuable as hers? Why shouldn’t she protect me? We’re all supposed to be equal, so why don’t we focus on learning to protect ourselves? ” These young men are not homosexual; they have, however,… Read more »

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

I am not a young man, I have been enrolled in the armed forces, and I am a product of an intensely rural environment, and my reaction is: “Why would I have to fight or die to keep a girl safe? Isn’t my life just as valuable as hers?” Does she not have the same privileges in society that I have, and arguably, some I do not have? Does she not have the same authority to act, the same voting rights etc., though arguably not all the same responsibilities? If I had to fight in a war, why should I… Read more »

Jane
Member

So you model your choices around the feminists and the women whose values you actually support can go pound sand? I don’t see the sense in that.

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

Jane, The women whose choices I support, the ones who would not tell *me* to go pound sand, are just about all in their graves. The smattering of those left above ground are too few and too marginalized for it to make sense for me to model any choices around them, even if that were possible.

Jane
Member

You need to get out more.

bdash
Guest
bdash

yes!!
women do not support men anymore
they do not deserve manly protection
women have chosen to try and eliminate and usurp men.

all relationships are a contract, women have not kept hteir part- men should stop protecting them.

I have no sympathy for swedish women getting abused by muslim men.
40 years of castrating their own men, they need to learn the error of their ways.

Vva70
Guest
Vva70

yes!!
women do not support men anymore
they do not deserve manly protection
women have chosen to try and eliminate and usurp men.

all relationships are a contract, women have not kept hteir part- men should stop protecting them.

I have no sympathy for swedish women getting abused by muslim men.
40 years of castrating their own men, they need to learn the error of their ways.

bdash, feminism is rancid. But this? Also rancid.

bdash
Guest
bdash

your perpetually slavery and worship of feminism is the most rancid.
men face consequences for their sin
why not women?

Vva70
Guest
Vva70

Women do and will face consequences for sin. “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.” (Galatians 6:7) To rebuke sin is one thing. To despise people by category is another. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight… Read more »

bdash
Guest
bdash

Jesus despised the Pharisees
I know christians like to paint him as some weak soft person
he was not
enjoy submitting to feminism

Vva70
Guest
Vva70

Jesus despised the Pharisees I know christians like to paint him as some weak soft person he was not enjoy submitting to feminism So we are to believe that Jesus’ attitude towards the Pharisees was equivalent to you saying “I have no sympathy for swedish women getting abused by muslim men. 40 years of castrating their own men, they need to learn the error of their ways.” And it is “weak” and “soft” to reject the attitude that says “I have no sympathy for swedish women getting abused by muslim men. 40 years of castrating their own men, they need… Read more »

bdash
Guest
bdash

Jesus would not have supported women castrating their men, but you seem to do….
American women will face the same fate in a few years
and they will deserve it
usurp your protector and provider- pay the price.
same thing happens when we try to usurp God.

but it seems like usurping God might not be an issue for you either

Vva70
Guest
Vva70

bdash, I’ll say again: “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.” Those who violate God’s law will, apart from repentance and faith in Christ, face God’s wrath and judgement. But we should always desire first that those who do evil would repent and come to faith in Christ. We must desire this first because we were not more righteous than they when God took mercy upon us. To say “mercy for me, judgement for thee” would be hypocrisy of the highest order. “Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared… Read more »

bdash
Guest
bdash

absolutely!
but mot feminist spit at the thought of God
even christians like Boundless/focus on the family etc hate the concept of male and female.
ONCE THEY reject, why should one feel sorry when they pay the price?

Vva70
Guest
Vva70

When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make preparations for him. But the people did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” But he turned and rebuked them. And they went on to another village.

Luke 9:51-56

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Thank you for being a sexist, Jilly. I’m glad to see I’m not the only one around.

Nathan James
Member

Sex discrimination is a moral imperative.

bdash
Guest
bdash

Why should men enroll in the armed forces?
To protect a feminist government?
a government that is biased against men?
work in an organisation that naively thinks women are as strong as men?

if anything young men should be running from the feminist military

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Kilgore, gender roles aside, some of us see violence as a terrible way to resolve disputes and dream of a world in which nobody has to defend anybody. I realize the practical reality that we are light years away from that world, but it won’t ever arrive if somebody doesn’t start pushing for it now. And yes, I also understand the practical reality that until that world does arrive, some disputes will have to be resolved with violence because there are some people who don’t understand anything else. I may be an idealist but I’m also a realist. And the… Read more »

Vva70
Guest
Vva70

Kilgore, gender roles aside, some of us see violence as a terrible way to resolve disputes and dream of a world in which nobody has to defend anybody. We eagerly await such a day: For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore. Isaiah 2:3-4 But until then: Blessed be the… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

“Meanwhile, what does your hope for an end to violence rest upon? What makes you think that unguided evolution, in a world of nature red in tooth and claw, will ever produce an end to violence?” The fact that we have evolved brains that are capable of rational thought, that give us the ability to make choices with long-term consequences in mind. Unlike a cat, which is unable to think in the long term and whose choices are therefore confined to whatever is before it at the moment, humans are capable of predicting the long-term consequences of patterns of behavior,… Read more »

Jane
Member

“The fact that we have evolved brains that are capable of rational thought, that give us the ability to make choices with long-term consequences in mind.” There is a disconnect here. We most certainly do have brains capable of rational thought. There is absolutely no reason to believe that simply because that capability exists, we will exercise it collectively on any consistent basis. All the evidence points the other way. It’s more akin to medieval reasoning (we have brains, therefore we will think) than to scientific reasoning to conclude that rational thought that tends away from violence is something we… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Jane, the disconnect lies in the fact that our rational selves are evolving much slower than our capacity for destruction. It’s the same dynamic in that at one time, eating all the carbs and fats one could find was a biological necessity because one never knew how long it would be until one’s next meal. Today, with a Dunkin Donuts on every corner, and with obesity as one of our leading causes of death, circumstances have changed, but the evolved desire for sugar and fat still persists. Circumstances have changed but evolution hasn’t caught up. My hope is that since… Read more »

Jane
Member

I’m not arguing against working for a peaceful world. I’m arguing against the idea that operating in a violent world as though it were a peaceful one, will accomplish that.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: Circumstances have changed but evolution hasn’t caught up. Evolution is not an agent, it’s the name of a theory. There is no such thing as Evolution, running around selecting this and not that. Krychek_2 is reifying evolution as though it has legs and moves about trying to keep up with something. Just what is evolution trying to keep up with… the grand plan? There is no grand plan in Krychek_2’s materialistic worldview. It’s all a chain of pointless accidents and reactions. Why do I have to keep reminding Krychek_2 of the limitations of his own godless worldview? Krychek_2… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Says Katecho, whose postings repeatedly demonstrate that he understands neither materialism, determinism nor utilitarianism.

Nor, apprently, does he understand the writers device known as personification, in which the traits and actions of a person are sometimes attributed to non-persons (in this case evolution) to make a point. Too bad Katecho wasn’t around to instruct the author of Isaiah 55:12 (” the mountains and the hills before you shall break forth into singing”) that mountains and hills don’t actually sing.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote:

Nor, apprently, does he understand the writers device known as personification, in which the traits and actions of a person are sometimes attributed to non-persons (in this case evolution) to make a point.

Let the record show that Krychek_2 had to resort to poetry, metaphor, and supernaturalism because he lacks any scientific or rational account of himself. As I was saying, Krychek_2 needs to come up with a new name for his private religion. Next him he pretends to have scientific boasting authority, we can all laugh in unison.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Let the record show that Katecho needs to go find a house to haunt.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote:

Let the record show that Katecho needs to go find a house to haunt.

…said the self-professed atheist, trolling a Christian blog.

Vva70
Guest
Vva70

Krychek, the fact that we have rational thought and can consider long term consequences doesn’t offer any explanation for why we should expect to ever find a society free of violence. Are you arguing that a society can be engineered wherein it is never for any individual a rational decision to violate the rules of the society and resort to violence? And to do this without any use of force (violence or threat of violence) on behalf of the governing authority?

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Vva70, I don’t expect that even a perfect society would ever be 100% free from violence. I do think we could get a lot closer to it than we are now. And one of the ways to do that is by changing the paradigm so that it rarely, if ever, is in someone’s rational best interests to violate the rules of society and resort to violence.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: The fact that we have evolved brains that are capable of rational thought, that give us the ability to make choices with long-term consequences in mind. How are we supposed to have a rational conversation with someone who keeps forgetting that he’s a determinist? Someone please remind Krychek_2 that he believes choices are an illusion, which means that his whole theory based on rational choicemaking is a non-starter. I’m beginning to think that Krychek_2 really is a reactionary automaton, and he keeps appealing to choicemaking simply because the reactions in his head make him type such phrases on… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Katecho, how are we supposed to have a rational conversation with someone who doesn’t understand that context matters, and what may be true in one context may not be true in another? Too bad you weren’t around to tell Jesus that he was contradicting himself when he said in one place, “I and my father are one” and in another place that “my father is greater than I.” I’m sure Jesus would have found it very helpful to have you explain that because he was talking about one thing earlier, doesn’t mean he can’t talk about something entirely different another… Read more »

Katecho
Member

If Krychek_2 thinks that context can save his position, he should get started right away to explain how. Simply alluding to an argument isn’t the same as actually providing one to us.

I’m happy to explain the one being and three persons of the Trinity if Krychek_2 really needs to hear that explanation again.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Katecho,just as silly as always. Nice to know there are still some constants in the world.

Katecho
Member

Calling me silly is not an argument. When does Krychek_2 think that the context changed in this thread? Again, if Krychek_2 thinks that context can salvage his self-contradicting statements, then he needs to provide the contexts in which “mak[ing] choices with long-term consequences in mind” can be reconciled with the claim that “volitional will is essentially an optical illusion”.

I won’t be holding my breath. Krychek_2 might as well be hopping around with his philosophical pants around his ankles. It would be more dignified than what he is doing now.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

No, calling you silly isn’t an argument; it’s a statement of fact. Happy Sunday.

Jill Smith
Member

Katecho, I mentioned to you a while back that I have been reading up on presuppositional apologetics. Would you characterize these as fair statements of your positions? Only the existence of God as revealed in the Bible can allow a person to reach perceptually and logically correct conclusions about himself and his world, therefore God exists. Common grace allows the nonbeliever to arrive at logical conclusions about the material world (such as scientific principles), but human depravity does not allow him to perceive the transcendent. The unbeliever’s ethical principles, when correct, are borrowed from biblical Christianity; when incorrect, they are… Read more »

Justin Parris
Member

“but it won’t ever arrive if somebody doesn’t start pushing for it now.”

It won’t ever come at all until the afterlife if you believe in a Christian worldview. Man is inherently sinful and incapable of sustaining such a thing.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

some of us see violence as a terrible way to resolve disputes The reason it still happens is that it is actually a very effective way of winning disputes. As an evolutionist, to be consistent, you should support the death of the weak, whether ideas, animals, or people. That is how we supposedly got here in the first place. I am glad to see this inconsistency from you, though. I realize the practical reality that we are light years away from that world In reality, we are much better now than in the past. Thanks to the influence of the… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Yes, Kilgore, violence is effective at winning disputes, just like spreading lies about one’s opponent is effective at winning elections and having a really believable sob story is an effective way to swindle the elderly out of their life savings. But there are other reasons why people shouldn’t do those things, whether they are effective or not. And there’s no inconsistency in saying that just because something happened in the past doesn’t mean there aren’t better ways to act in the future. Where did I say anything in support of “wife beating, homo killers”? And if your claim is that… Read more »

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

We normally click in our discussions. For some reason, probably my being confusing, we are misreading one another. Apologies. And there’s no inconsistency in saying that just because something happened in the past doesn’t mean there aren’t better ways to act in the future. That is obvious enough, but what I was noting was the logical inconsistency between arguing for an evolutionary system of origins, as I presume you do, and then trying to protect the weak. Survival of the fittest means letting the weak fail and not perpetuate the lesser genetics. Where did I say anything in support of… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

I’m sorry, I completely mis-read your previous post. I don’t argue for an evolutionary theory of origins because I think it’s a morally enlightened system, but rather because I think historically it’s what actually took place. It can be fairly brutal sometimes and causes much suffering along the way, and if there were ways I could make it kinder and gentler, I certainly would. However, as I said earlier, we’ve now evolved brains that can think, so there’s no reason *we* have to act like amoral sociopaths. Society derives benefits from being a kinder, gentler place, even if it means… Read more »

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

I don’t argue for an evolutionary theory of origins because I think it’s a morally enlightened system, but rather because I think historically it’s what actually took place. You can’t have it both ways. If evolution is facts-on-the-ground true, then espouse morals and behaviors in keeping with the facts. Root out the weak. Dispose of the ones who would pollute the genetic lines with inferior traits. If you want something kinder and gentler, then you will have to find some different facts, alternative facts, if you will. Those facts like what nearly all of humankind espoused until 5 minutes ago.… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Kilgore, before the Renaissance, Christian law was virtually indistinguishable from Sharia law. You have the benefit of living under a Christianity that is kinder and gentler because of the Renaissance. People who lived through in the Inquisition, and Native American populations who suffered Christian genocide, would have a very different take on it. If and when Islam has a Renaissance, you’ll see a kinder and gentler Islam as well. As to which I’d rather live under, it’s not an apples to apples comparison because one has had a Renaissance and the other has not. As for evolution, there are trade… Read more »

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Kilgore, before the Renaissance, Christian law was virtually indistinguishable from Sharia law.

Right.

The trade off of living in a kinder, gentler society is worth having a certain number of imbeciles pass along their genes. Our brains allow us to change nature when it’s beneficial to do so.

That’s not how evolution works.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

It is how evolution works once an organism evolves to the point where it can change nature to produce beneficial results.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Evolution is, by definition, unguided.

You are importing unjustified assumptions into your analysis.

According to rational wiki: “The idea of unguided evolution implies that humans are not the “goal” of evolution: just a by-product of billions of years of mutation and natural selection acting on organisms which have managed to survive long enough to breed.”

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Unguided_evolution

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Kilgore, you’re assuming that humans are somehow separate and apart from nature; that what happens without human involvement is “evolution” but what humans make happen is not. That’s a misconception. So far as evolution is concerned, we’re just another species, albeit a species that is capable of making huge changes to the biosphere. And anything humans do, from building skyscrapers to polluting waterways to exterminating other species is part of evolution. Think of it this way: The fact that wolves evolved to be carnivorous was unguided. But that doesn’t mean that the wolves themselves do not then guide what happens… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: Think of it this way: The fact that wolves evolved to be carnivorous was unguided. But that doesn’t mean that the wolves themselves do not then guide what happens to the other animal populations that they feed on. More nonsense from the materialist. In his worldview, wolves are just other reactions, reacting to an accidental hunger stimulus. They are not “guiding animal populations” with intent. Whatever happens to rabbit populations is accidental. Atoms do not move with regard for intent, in wolves or in humans, unless Krychek_2 can show equations of motion that have terms that express intent.… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Hmmm. I said that the wolves lack intent, and Katecho says he disagrees with me because wolves lack intent.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote:

I said that the wolves lack intent, and Katecho says he disagrees with me because wolves lack intent.

If wolves lack intent, then Krychek_2 should stop accusing them of guiding anything. It’s all accident, and reaction, without agenda or destination.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

If Katecho’s reading comprehension skills are so bad that I can say that wolves lack intent, and he can then say that he disagrees with me because wolves lack intent, then maybe Katecho should stop pretending that the problem lies with my arguments. Halloween is almost upon us, Katecho. Go find a house to haunt.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: It is how evolution works once an organism evolves to the point where it can change nature to produce beneficial results. Uh huh. Where is this alleged boundary beyond which the atoms in an organism stop moving in strict reaction to forces of nature, and start moving with an agenda of their own? How are the reactionary chains broken? Do tell. How does Krychek_2 scientifically measure this boundary? When do we see the neurons start firing contrary to what their synaptic chemical potential dictates? Krychek_2 should start his own religion. He certainly has enough faith invested already. —… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Katecho, the ability and act of changing nature is itself a reaction to the forces of nature. Please learn basic science if you’re going to pontificate about it.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote:

Katecho, the ability and act of changing nature is itself a reaction to the forces of nature. Please learn basic science if you’re going to pontificate about it.

If the act of changing nature is just a reaction to what nature is already forcing, then how can it be said to have changed nature at all? Oops.

At a certain point, Krychek_2’s argument ceases to be an argument against Christianity, and becomes his own rebellion against language and meaning itself. His vocabulary is then surrendered back to us.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Um, because the words “nature” and “change” have different meanings in different contexts. And no, Katecho, you’re not stupid enough to not understand that, so please stop pretending otherwise.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote:

Um, because the words “nature” and “change” have different meanings in different contexts.

But Krychek_2 used both words in the same context. And he has still failed to actually offer any contexts that could even hypothetically reconcile his remarks. He simply asserts it. Again, his fight is against language itself at this stage.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: You have the benefit of living under a Christianity that is kinder and gentler because of the Renaissance. I realize that Krychek_2 is desperate to not give any credit to the Gospel of Christ, but it somehow escapes his notice that the Renaissance occurred within Christian dominated culture. Whatever one thinks of the various facets and influences of the Renaissance, more than anything else, it was the Church that was central to its devotion, and even to much of its funding. Whatever one thinks of the historical significance of the Renaissance, it cannot be isolated from the historical… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

The Quakers who were hanged by the Puritans might have a different take on it. But here’s a simple thought experiment: Suppose that at some point in the future, Islam has a Renaissance of its own and becomes a kinder, gentler Islam that respects free speech, religious pluralism, and has emancipated women. Looking back on it, would you say that Islam caused the Renaissance, or that the Renaissance changed Islam? Spend a few minutes thinking that one through and you’ll realize why Katecho has the tail wagging the dog. And if Christianity did cause the Renaissance, it sure took it… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: The Quakers who were hanged by the Puritans might have a different take on it. All four of them? Please. At least they got a trial. The dechristianization of France saw the summary execution of hundreds of thousands of Christian men, women, and children at the hands of radical secularists, who were busy setting up their own false humanistic civic religions, such as the Cult of Reason, and Cult of the Supreme Being. A lot of good the Renaissance did for their day in power. Krychek_2’s embarrassing lack of any sense of proportion renders him inept to distinguish… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: Our brains allow us to change nature when it’s beneficial to do so. Has so much complete nonsense from a self-professed materialist ever been compressed into such a short sentence? How do reactionary brains set about to change the course of other reactions in nature? Where does this urge show up in the equations of motion of matter within the brain? How does intent arise to resist and overthrow the natural reactionary course? Krychek_2 is essentially claiming that brains can transcend natural forces to override them (i.e. supernatural). Krychek_2 may as well be arguing that a rock slide… Read more »

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Has so much complete nonsense from a self-professed materialist ever been compressed into such a short sentence?

Lol. This sentence made me chuckle.

I mean no offense to Krychek_2, but I wasn’t sure what do with the response. It is so different from what most of the evolutionists I read usually say.

Krychek_2, if you read this, would you mind, at some, not necessarily now, addressing where you think volitional will originates? Most evolutionists today are jumping on the biological determinist train. Your responses seem to not go in that direction.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Kilgore,first, please understand that being an evolutionist means nothing more than believing that species evolve into new species. It does not, standing alone, mean a belief in determinism or evolutionary psychology or any particular political view or the existence or non-existence of morality. It doesn’t even mean lack of belief in God; there are Christians who believe Genesis is an allegory and that God guided evolution. As with Christianity, there is a tiny handful of core beliefs, but after that its adherents are all over the map. And as for determinism, I have sometimes said that the difference between a… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: Volitional will is essentially an optical illusion… So the takeaway is that Krychek_2 continually spews forth such nonsense because he lacks the volitional will to stop? Got it. I’ve explained Krychek_2’s misrepresentations concerning personal vs impersonal determinism before, but the distinction seems to bounce right off of him; as if by play-acting, he can convince us that he really has no rational volition from which to notice the distinction. If Krychek_2’s reactionary deterministic world was true, it wouldn’t explain why he continually trolls Christians, trying to change our minds, and trying to press expectations upon us. He may… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

When have I ever tried to change your mind? Tried to get you to use logical arguments, maybe, but that’s a different issue.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: When have I ever tried to change your mind? Tried to get you to use logical arguments, maybe, but that’s a different issue. Krychek_2 here acknowledges that he has been trying to change my mind and reasoning behavior, yet still tries to deny it with the other hand. It’s just pathetic. Here’s another quote revealing Krychek_2’s agenda to change our minds and reasoning behavior: And one of the ways to do that is by changing the paradigm so that it rarely, if ever, is in someone’s rational best interests to violate the rules of society and resort to… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Katecho, you’re silly.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: And that’s the ultimate basis for morality: Living together in community requires that certain behaviors be encouraged and others be suppressed, otherwise the community falls apart. We’ve already shown, by example of various communal animals, etc, that living in community requires no such things. However, I wanted to point out that encouraging or suppressing certain behaviors does require some important things that Krychek_2’s worldview cannot provide. Encouraging and suppressing of behaviors requires volition on the part of the one being encouraged or suppressed. Krychek_2’s worldview fails to provide this requirement, by his own admission, so the entire exercise… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

So, Katecho, in a godless universe, would there be any basis for you to not allow your children to play in the street?

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: So, Katecho, in a godless universe, would there be any basis for you to not allow your children to play in the street? Ironically, I’ve been asking Krychek_2 this question for years now, and he has been unable to come up with any surviving basis. I assume that he, of all people would know if there was one, given his self-professed godlessness. Nothing he has offered so far has withstood more than a few moments of inspection. As a Christian, we affirm the dignity and worth of children because they are made in God’s image, which is why… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

OK, so you’re changing the subject rather than responding to the question.

Oscar
Member

“I’m not convinced that the average Muslim is any more likely to beat his wife or kill his gay neighbor than the average Christian. ”

Right. Just as they’re no more likely to kill their neighbors in an act of terrorism.

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Actually, Oscar, at least in the United states a significant amount of terrorism is Christian.

Oscar
Member

Actually, Krychek, if you’d bothered to click on the link, you would’ve learned that – according to the FBI – Muslim terrorists caused 94% of terror casualties in the USA between 1995 and 2005.

According to Pew Research, Muslims make up about 1% of the USA’s population, which means that Muslims are 1,551 times more likely that all other Americans combined to murder their fellow Americans in an act of terrorism.

Peaceful as you are, I can see why you’re so eager to import them.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Yes, Oscar, because those dates include a single huge outlier of 9/11. As a day to day matter, you’re far more likely to get shot by a white supremacist than you are by a Muslim.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote:

Yes, Oscar, because those dates include a single huge outlier of 9/11.

So Krychek_2’s original assertion depends on excluding 9/11? It’s interesting how many of Krychek_2’s arguments more closely resemble concessions of his opponents’ point.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Katecho, if you have a company with five employees, and the president of the company makes a million dollars, and the other four make $25,000 each, it is technically true to say that the average wage at the company is $220,000, but it’s also thoroughly misleading. Outliers are generally excluded from statistical samples for a reason.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote:

Katecho, if you have a company with five employees, and the president of the company makes a million dollars, and the other four make $25,000 each, it is technically true to say that the average wage at the company is $220,000, but it’s also thoroughly misleading.

In this metaphor, Krychek_2 would be the one trying to argue that the four employees make more than the president.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

It’s not a metaphor; it’s an example of how statistical analysis is done. If you have a single outlier that completely skews the data, you don’t include it.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: I don’t argue for an evolutionary theory of origins because I think it’s a morally enlightened system, but rather because I think historically it’s what actually took place. If blind, unintended, and brutal evolution is what took place, then whence cometh Krychek_2’s moral fantastications and imaginations and expectations? Does he pluck them from some other realm? Are his sentiments just the moralizing vestiges of his previous worldview? Why does man have some obligation to be better than the blind forces of matter? Are we not the same accidental matter? [Pause for Krychek_2 to accuse me of changing the… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Katecho, assume for the moment that God doesn’t exist, and that you are the parent of a small child. Would you have a basis for not letting your child play in the street, or does the absence of God mean there is no reason for you to keep your child from playing in the street? If your answer is that there is no basis to keep your child from playing in the street, my response will be that you’re a complete imbecile who should not be allowed within a mile of a child. If your answer is that there is… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: If your answer is that there is no basis to keep your child from playing in the street, my response will be that you’re a complete imbecile who should not be allowed within a mile of a child. Notice how Krychek_2 engages in a last ditch, sentimental upheaval involving children. This is definitive evidence that he has run out of rational defenses for his materialism. Krychek_2 would love to somehow turn the tables and brand me an imbecile and insensitive to children, but notice how he attempts this by overtly draping his own godlessness around my neck. No… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

OK, so you’re a complete imbecile who shouldn’t be allowed within a mile of a child. Got it.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote:

OK, so you’re a complete imbecile who shouldn’t be allowed within a mile of a child. Got it.

…exclaimed the guy who argues in defense of abortion. I suspect he’s incapable of sensing the irony of the situation.

Again, we are the ones standing up for children, with solid moral foundations to do so, and yet Krychek_2, the abortion defender, tries to hang his godlessness around me to see what I will do, so he can try to accuse me of being insensitive for simply pointing out the logical consequences of such materialistic atheism. Talk about psychological projection.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Katecho, you’re very silly. Good night.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: Yes, Kilgore, violence is effective at winning disputes, just like spreading lies about one’s opponent is effective at winning elections and having a really believable sob story is an effective way to swindle the elderly out of their life savings. Given Krychek_2’s consequentialist ethical utilitarianism, he can say nothing against the utility of all of these behaviors, but he tries to lace them with emotional baggage anyway. That’s the best he can do when cornered. Krychek_2 wrote: But there are other reasons why people shouldn’t do those things, whether they are effective or not. What’s this? I suspected… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Katecho, you’re very silly. Good night.

bdash
Guest
bdash

most modern men do not even think they have to protect ( let alone provide– I guess Doug has dropped provision from a manly duty)
unless you live under a rock, this is common knowledge

Ben
Guest

If pressed, even the most hardened of secularists must concede that some pretty serious suppression measures are called for if you want to deny the ‘ought to’s’ inherent to male and female. Despite our best measures to drown her out, the heavens continue to declare.

Daniel Fisher
Member

“For example, there is a gentleness that is part of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22), and there is also a gentleness that is effeminate and gay.” For myself personally, as I was growing through some of these similar challenges, the distinction between these two became clear when I recognized the difference between: A) Those times when I gave a gentle response because there was no way I had enough backbone to give any other response, and B) those times when I gave a gentle response as a free choice, knowing I could and did have the strength and… Read more »

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Excellent distinction.

Eric Stampher
Guest
Eric Stampher

“… culture got a bad case of gender dysphoria well before lots of individuals got it. ”

Help! >> examples please!

I just finished Eddie Izzards autobiography and was surprised how relatively accepting most folks were upon his coming out as a trans-gendered.

What key disruptions occured in the west to pave the way?

Daniel Fisher
Member

(And, I must add, I completely resonate with Pastor Wilson’s rationale for focusing on this in the larger discussion of homosexual temptation. My earlier temptations, while not identical to those represented by Tomas here, were certainly fueled by that very same dynamic…. it was that same fear, intimidation and unblblical “gentleness” that made the idea of pursuing a woman in masculine strength such a lost cause and terrifying prospect. Once I learned how to discover some semblance of that masculine strength I had been lacking, the idea of pursuing a woman romantically became a real possibility.

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

Courageous testimony. Carry on, man.

bethyada
Member

Other than my view that malakoi specifically refers to catamy here, I concur with the thrust of this post.

It is important to note that the masculine and feminine expressions may be culturally bound. The point is that you are identifying as male and female to others. Are you a male in the community. So debates about women wearing trousers are very cultural. And the current gender pushing at a biological level is, perhaps, an extreme example of pushing the cultural gender identifications.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

I don’t totally disagree, but wearing pants is still a sign of maleness. We still even say that the leader, “wears the pants in the family.” Where do we think that idea came from. Our culture unquestionably identified women’s clothing with dresses and men’s clothing with pants for centuries. Find me a picture of females wearing pants before 1970. (Incidentally, outside of hard labor jobs, you won’t find men in public without ties very often, either). The current phenomenon of females wearing pants is just a sign that the boundary pushers won. They just have to find the newest boundary… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member

Kilgore,I think the pants issue surfaced long before the seventies. I would have said that as women were compelled to do male work in Britain during the second world war, pants became standard for women in blue collar jobs. I think the practicality of pants caught on. My own dear mother, who is a very feminine lady, wore pants for housework and yardwork, changing to dresses for church or social events. I grew up in the 1950s and 60s wearing jeans for play, and dresses for church and school. By the time I started university in the 1960s, jeans and… Read more »

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Women wore pants before the 70s, no doubt, but only, as you mention, in circumstances where labor required it. I am referring to women wearing pants socially. Only the most ardent lesbians and radical feminist wore pants socially in the 60s.

The fact remains that wearing pants for women is a capitulation to the feminist boundary pushers.

bethyada
Member

I don’t think Scots wearing kilts is feminine, nor ancient Jews wearing what we would call dresses. Whether you like the appearance or not, it is clear that wearing pants is not an unfeminine move in the current West. Fashions change over time. It matters what others think you look like. I see many, many women in some form of trouser/ pant/ short and they are not trying to imitate men at all. The actual problem for women in the West is how tight, or revealing their clothes are. Consider tribes where they go topless. The same tribes baulk at… Read more »

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

If you are in Scotland, by all means wear a kilt. But American culture has always associated dresses with women and pants with men until the radicals of the 60s. Plus, the idea that Jewish men went around wearing the equivalent of dresses is false. Important men wore robes over their clothes, but I don’t think they had pantyhose on underneath. They wore pants. I don’t disagree with you point about the cultural nuances, which Reverend Wilson highlighted well in this post. But in American culture, the fact that women wear pants regularly is simply evidence of the fact that… Read more »

bethyada
Member

A woman 100 years ago may have been deliberately wearing pants as rebellion against God’s order in that culture. The point is that now in the West that is not the culture. So wearing pants does not still represent rebellion.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

The point is that now in the West that is not the culture.

Because the boundary pushers won! The move to push those boundaries was not initiated by Christian ethics. The secularists won that fight, and the fact that we just shrug and say, oh well, not the culture anymore, shows how poorly Christians can fight against secularists. The fact that we lost this fight and show no interest in winning it back troubles me.

Joshua
Guest
Joshua

Right on Kilgore. Fascinating how folks can see rampant gender confusion going on around them and identify it as bad, but somehow manage to hermetically seal it off from the radical abandoning of a concrete gender distinction within living memory. Yep. Completely neutral. No link. Nothing to see here folks. Put your pants on ladies and carry on.

Jane
Member

The reason men in the West wear pants now is because the Roman Empire declined and the barbarians came out on top. Pants no longer carry the significance of barbaric overthrow of a Christian empire. It would be silly to spend any of the time we have to work on building the kingdom of Christ, on working to get men back into robes. Whether the greater proximity of the change in women’s attire means the issues are somewhat different, is a fair question. But it’s by no means clear that turning back the external indicators of a negative shift features… Read more »

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

I think it is hilarious that people have this idea that ancient men all wore robes all the time. Jews, Chinese, Romans, Egyptians, and more all wore pants. Have you ever tried to ride a horse in a dress or robe? Roman cavalrymen did not wear robes, they wore pants. Do you honestly think a carpenter or a metallurgist or a hunter wore robes to work? Workers cannot wear robes. Robes were worn primary by upper class men as a status symbol. They also wore them over their britches. As the Empire became more affluent, the trend of robes become… Read more »

Jane
Member

I repeat, wearing pants for regular wear, as opposed to out of necessity for work, was a sign of barbarism among the Romans, because only the barbarians did that; the Romans did not. It’s not just an “idea” I have. It’s something I learned from studying the history. To a Roman, while a pair of pants would not have been a horror per se, the idea of a businessman or other respectable person wearing them in public, would have been. Medieval men of any status did not wear”‘britches” they wore robes or cottes and hose. If riding or something similar,… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Durden wrote: I think it is hilarious that people have this idea that ancient men all wore robes all the time. I have an idea that they more likely wore tunics, and loin wrap undergarments, since shorts and long trousers weren’t widely adopted in Mediterranean regions until late antiquity. Durden wrote: Jews, Chinese, Romans, Egyptians, and more all wore pants. Citation needed. Jewish men in Christ’s day (and prior) were wearing predominantly tunics. What evidence suggests they “all wore pants”? I didn’t find any evidence that ancient Egyptians wore pants either, however later traditional Egyptian attire for women includes wide… Read more »

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

” … mocking any attempt at understanding the biblical assignment of our roles.” There is no “inner logic” to roles without consideration of rank. Apart from rank, all you have is Divine pragmatism. “Well, Sally, God thought it best for men to lead and for us to follow.” “Why is that, mommy?” “Well, God just figured things would work better that way, honey.” The true answer, the Biblical answer, is that men are given headship, the greater rank and responsibility, because they have the greater dignity, as the glory of God. 1 Cor 11:7 For a man ought not to… Read more »

Justin Parris
Member

“There is no “inner logic” to roles without consideration of rank.” Setting aside what the Bible actually calls for for a moment, this sentence here is just plainly untrue. There are innumerable instances throughout human society and God’s commandments that call for a variety of differing roles that aren’t greater or lesser than the other. Take the military as an obvious example, within the same rank there are more roles than is easy to count. Machine gunners, reloaders, lookouts, communications men, on and on it goes. In any business of any significant size, there are a variety of employees at… Read more »

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

The General referred to “the biblical assignment of our roles” as man and woman. My comment booted off that. Roles, in general, were not under consideration.

I stand by the statement:

There is no “inner logic” to [the biblical assignment of our] roles [as specific to man and woman] without consideration of rank.

1 Cor 1:20 Where is the debater of this age?

I think we’ve found him :-D

Slow down, champ.

Justin Parris
Member

“I stand by the statement:

There is no “inner logic” to [the biblical assignment of our] roles [as specific to man and woman] without consideration of rank.”

You can stand by it all you like, it makes no more sense than the first time I addressed it. You provide deep speculation based on Scriptures not directly connected to the issue at hand and treat your speculation as though it were Scripture itself, at the same time as asserting that there is no logic behind someone else doing precisely the same thing (though with considerably less hubris than yourself).

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

“You provide deep speculation based on Scriptures ….”

There’s no speculation whatsoever. It’s a straight forward reading of the Text. If I say that X is the glory of the stars, while Y is the glory of the stones, then it necessarily follows that X has the greater dignity and distinction.

That’s not speculation, wise one; that’s just fact.

Justin Parris
Member

Your literacy is somewhat at issue at this point. I said: ““The true answer, the Biblical answer, is that men are given headship, the greater rank and responsibility, because they have the greater dignity, as the glory of God.” Your citations to prove this point do not prove this point. Even if we take everything else you say as true, it does not give us God’s specific justification for this specific command. ” The speculation was not your reading of Scripture, the speculation was how you applied it as an explanation of commands in other parts of Scripture. I am… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member

I started imagining the conversation between Mommy and Sally: “What does that mean, Mommy? Do I matter less to God than my little brother?” “Yes, dear. Because you were created with less dignity, rank, and distinction. You can never reflect the glory of God. Only boys and men can.” “But, Mommy, does that mean that Aunt Cathy who is a judge has less dignity than a man who’s gone to jail for dealing drugs?” “Yes, Sally, that’s just worldly dignity. But God knows that the criminal is worth far more than Aunt Cathy. Look at Cuddles, our dog. You love… Read more »

bdash
Guest
bdash

to be a judge in our age you have to put your career over family/ husband
Aunt Cathy definitely has less dignity

Jill Smith
Member

Wait a minute, bdash! How can you say that while being fine with women prime ministers? I did not say that Aunt Cathy is neglecting a husband and children; she could have chosen to remain single rather than be an absent wife and mother. You liked Prime Minister Thatcher. But did she take good care of her husband Dennis? Do you think he ever felt a bit less masculine because his wife was so powerful (and perhaps, occasionally, a tad domineering)? Should she have stayed home with him? But, to be clear, I think it is as honorable and dignified… Read more »

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

“The speculation was not your reading of Scripture, the speculation was how you applied it as an explanation of commands in other parts of Scripture.” What are you saying here??? I -DIDN’T- apply it as an explanation of commands in other parts of Scripture. Made no attempt to do so above. I brought forward no other texts, save 1 Tim 2 at the end which was not of the essence. But you’re saying my speculation was how I actually DID apply the text? Absurd. Are you saying that examination of one text, such as 1 Cor 11:2-16, is pure speculation… Read more »

Nathan James
Member

Man, the glory of God … woman, the glory of the man … It is not obvious to me how the glory of the glory of God has less distinction and dignity. The phrase crème de la crème comes to mind as a counter example.

James Bradshaw
Member

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God”

So are kilts an abomination? They look an awful lot like the skirts that girls wore in Catholic school.

” Men must not buy and wear women’s silk underwear—it is perversion.”

But silk stockings like our Founding Fathers wore is completely acceptable? I’m interested in the logic behind this.

Justin Parris
Member

“So are kilts an abomination? They look an awful lot like the skirts that girls wore in Catholic school.”

“But silk stockings like our Founding Fathers wore is completely acceptable? I’m interested in the logic behind this.”

Neither kilts, nor old fashioned stockings were women’s clothing. It doesn’t apply. He covers this in the article under the cultural changes over time.

Vva70
Guest
Vva70

Let me use the American salute and the British salute as an illustration. The biblical requirement to honor those in authority over you means that a Christian enlisted man is required by Scripture to salute his officers. But the Bible says nothing about whether to do this with palm out or palm down. The necessity of the honor is a creational reality; the language of the honor varies from culture to culture. And so this is why the kilt is not a dress. This is why it is not unfeminine for a mom to climb into a 6,000 pound SUV… Read more »

Daniel Fisher
Member

Respectfully recommend you reread the article, the logic is laid out rather plainly, including how a kilt is not a dress. If you have a specific disagreement with the argument as laid out above, I would be interested in engaging further,

carandc
Member

How would any of you address this issue: Historically in many Native American cultures, men had long hair and, even though women had long hair as well, it was not considered a blurred distinction – men were men and women were women and no one thought the guys with long hair were soft or trying to be women. Even today, my native guy friends are some of the most masculine guys I know and, as far as I can tell, in most native cultures they’ve not blurred gender roles like we have in the broader American culture. So, with that… Read more »

bethyada
Member

Samson and Absalom had long hair. So it matter what the passage means. THere is some reasoning that suggests that Paul is opposing men putting long hair into tresses. The passage is not fully understood.

Alternatively, one can look at the surrounding cultural expectations. The main point being that we avoid creational gender bending, but also cultural forms as well.

Clayvessel
Guest
Clayvessel

While I was reading this, the BBC world news station was giving a report of the training of men in some Muslim country (I was reading, not paying close enough attention to the report) to rise up and defend and protect their women who are under frequent assaults. I found it amusing to think of their celebration of it “somewhere else” but how quickly such a misogynist thing would be condemned here in feminist America.

Clayvessel
Guest
Clayvessel

And understand I was using “misogynist” in a facetiously feminist way…