Women. God’s afterthought and man’s curse to rule.

Women. God’s afterthought and man’s curse to rule.

I think it quite ironic that God, who tells us to reproduce as his first commandment to man in Genesis 1, does not give us something to reproduce with till Genesis 2; 18. Further, only after a severe chastisement without correction, even to death, an immoral concept, after we ate of the tree of knowledge, are men given what is required for reproduction; the desire and mental capacity to do so.

God never tells Adam why he is being chastised. This is an expression of hate on God’s part because there is no evil in wanting to become as God as scriptures urge us to do. Note here that I take the Jewish view of our elevation in Eden and not the fall interpretation that Christianity mistakenly puts on it.

Chastisement without correction is just cruelty and thus unjust on God’s part. That is the message of Eden. God is unjust. If so, the inequality built into the bible, where men are cursed to rule over women, ----- is unjust.

Genesis 3;16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

As a man, I am not pleased that God has cursed my fellow man to have to suffer ruling over women. To rule over women is to be responsible to them and their demands. I think we should stop being slaves to women and give them full equality. Men owe it especially to men and to a lesser degree to women and between you and I, justice demands it ------, and so would all just people.

As a man, are you ready to shed your yoke of slavery to women and reject God’s command to rule over them?

Regards
DL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think I have ever seen it put quite that way. lol wow.I really don't know what to say to that. Be free DL, be free!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's hardly surprising that male chauvinism was projected onto God and subsequently written into scripture. After all, it was typically men who were behind such things. Does anyone really think that God would still be a "father" if women were the physically stronger sex?

It's funny too, because "birthing" a universe and tending to it seems like a motherly thing to do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's a bizarre interpretation. Woman as created after man, presumably an improvement on man. God wouldn't take a step backward, would He? Making woman from a rib was like taking the gearbox out of a Model A and designing a Mustang around it.

Wrong. The commandment to reproduce was given to them, both the man and the woman:

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.​

 

I admit to trying to find novel ways to stimulate thinking. Most are too lazy though and just spout their usual dogma and conditioned responses be they theists or not.

Just give your view on equality.
Something that men are still denying women.

Regards
DL

 

The way the ancients wrote up the Gods, they were mostly androgynous, including the Christian Jewish Gods, but that tradition was booted out by Christianity and the androgynous theology and the philosophy that went with it was scrapped for might makes right. The old Gods of peace and equilibrium of the sexes became the chauvinistic garbage of the West. Yin and Yang became Yin does Yang.

Regards
DL

 

LOL.
How long do you think that gearbox will work before blowing up?

The command was given in Genesis 1. When was rib woman created? Genesis 2.

This is a Jewish document. Genesis 1 was Lillith. Something Christians conveniently forget.

Regardless. Desire did not happen till Genesis 3 and only after God threw his hissy fit and sentenced A & E to death by omission and neglect by locking away the tree of life. That was murder to anyone with a sense of justice.

Should man rule over woman?

Regards
DL

 

Just for curiosity why are you fighting god all the time , are you part of a satanic cult ?

 

I think Greatest' is actually challenging god for the job of omnipotent ruler of the universe and layer of all moral truths... honestly based on his arguments I think he could handle gods job even better than god has!

 

To my understanding the earth was given to satan and he is the ruler of human behavior, so The greater is just adding opinion to his ruler Gods people are just a fraction of human population.

 

No, he's just not part of your cult.

How miserable and frightening such an existence must be, to believe that our lives are held by some monstrous demon. I'm happy I don't believe such nonsense.

 

That's an even more bizarre interpretation, Bob. The animals were all created after man, as well; do you think they were meant to be an improvement over man? Obviously not. Woman was created, per the story, as man's companion. But man has primacy.

 

Of course you could not be bothered to read the proceeding verse:

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. -Genesis 1 (KJV)​

Animals obviously had the desire to mate without the knowledge of good and evil or that they are naked, so this assumption is just your own little fiction to justify your faulty bias.


And there are no reliable sources for the myth of Lilith. Something you conveniently forget.

 

Have you even read the Bible?! Saying that animals were created after man is completely ridiculous. Besides, the Bible explicitly says that woman was created as a "help mate" for man. Not an "improvement" per se though.

 

Since you are answering for him, you must know him very well or you are part of him ,

 

Lilith isn't in the document, period. If you're going to add stuff that isn't in the Christian interpretation, you can't use it to criticize the Christian interpretation.

They didn't die until hundreds of years later. I don't see any injustice or murder in death by old age.

The first few chapters of Genesis explain why man does rule over woman. It isn't a question of what "should be" at all.

 

Woman was created because man needed a helper. He was inadequate on his own.

After God decided that the man needed help, he created the animals, so clearly it wasn't just a reproductive helper that was needed. None of the animals was sufficiently helpful, so God finally created woman. That's what the story says.

By analogy, the Model A wasn't adequate. God tried adding mudflaps and fuzzy dice and pinstripes but it still wasn't good enough. So He took the gearbox and redesigned the vehicle around it, improving everything else to make a Mustang, the perfect complement to fill the two-car garage.

 

Wow, a lot of people are easily confused when chronology is not clearly indicated, as it is Genesis 1. Also KJV is the least reliable, although people do seem fond of the gothic lexicon.

 

I use the KJV because that's what I've been used to for sixty years. I don't know why you're confused about the chronology. It's pretty straight-forward. God created man, saw that he needed a helper, created the animals, saw that they weren't suitable and then created woman. I know that some versions suggest that the animals had already been created but that isn't really relevant to my point.

 

Then you need to read Genesis 1 again, even in the KJV. It clearly indicates chronology with a count of days, with the creation of man following the creation of animals. Genesis 2 is obviously a reiteration devoid of any chronological indication.

19 Now the Lord God had[past tense] formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. -Genesis 2 (NIV)​

But if you have studied the Bible for sixty years, by all means, explain the discrepancy between the explicit chronology in Genesis 1 and your supposed chronology based solely on one verse, in one version, in Genesis 2.