Guys,
While leaving a comment over @ Elusive Wapiti, I had to leave a comment on his recent post about pedestalizing men. I posited that women are INCAPABLE of giving love as we understand it. Here's why...
I have heard it said that God will NOT command us to do something we are not capable of doing ourselves. In the Bible (Eph. 5), men are commanded to love their wives, but wives are NOT commanded to love their husbands; wives are commanded to submit to their husbands, but they are NEVER told to love them. Why didn't God put that command in the Bible? Simple-because wives are NOT capable of loving their husbands-duh!
That, of course, begs an obvious question: are there any good women out there? As a matter, no; the Bible says that they don't exist. Where, oh where, does the Bible say THAT, MarkyMark? Ever hear of the book, Ecclesiastes? Well, if you read chapter 7, it clearly lays it out in there. It says that the Preacher (i.e. King Solomon, the richest, wisest man in the world at that time) one in a thousand men he found were good, yet not ONE GOOD WOMAN could he find! Is it any clearer than that?!
Come, let us reason together, shall we? According to classic Christian doctrine, isn't the Bible the Word of God? As such, is it not perfect and inerrant, having no mistakes whatsoever? Does not the Bible, according to Christian doctrine, contain the MIND of God? Well, if God says that no good women exist, mustn't it be true? If God does not give women a command to love their husbands, is it not because they are incapable of following it? If they're incapable of following that command, doesn't that mean, by extension, that women cannot, and will not, love their husbands?
Ah, but MarkyMark, what about Proverbs 31, which lays out the template of the ideal wife? I'm glad you asked, because I am about to tell you! Proverbs 31 does lay out what the ideal wife looks and acts like. HOWEVER-and this is key-I believe that Proverbs 31 is really saying this: if you want a good woman, GOOD LUCK finding one; they don't exist! Even if they do exist, there clearly aren't enough to go around. Finding such a woman would be akin to winning the lottery; you now some lucky SOB will hit it, but it won't be you, Hoss...
In closing, women are incapable of love. Why? Because the Bible never, ever commands a person to do something they are not capable of; since women are never commanded to love their husbands, they are not capable of loving them. Also, Ecc. 7 says that the Preacher found NO good women; since the Bible, the Word of God, says that no good women could be found, there are none out there. It's all in God's word, the Bible, folks...
MarkyMark
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Hate to deflate your point, but:
"Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."
Titus 2:4-5
I made this point once and got my rear-end handed to me. Well done.
Regarding the quote from the letter to Titus written by Paul;
You have to take the verse into context,the preceding verse sets it up:
"The AGED WOMEN likewise,that *THEY*
be in behaviour as becometh holiness,not false accusers, (!)
not given to much wine,teachers
(The Old Women) of good things;"
So you see,Paul asks that proper aged women instruct younger women as how to ACT.
This has nothing to do with commandments from God.
It is a statement that those women capable of seeing a goal TRY for that goal,it does not indicate that goal is achievable,and the Authority is Substantially reduced from God to that of old women.
Marky is right.
Man was made from God,women were made from men.
Each should obey it's source maker.
Of course women are incapable of real love,Led Zep said it best:
"Lot's of people talkin,'few of them know-soul of a woman was created below,Oh yeah.
Great job point it out brother Marky.
I disagree. The Bible commands each one of us to "love thy fellow as thyself" (sorry, I've only ever read that in Hebrew, so the translation might not be exactly accurate). "Fellow" means whoever is near you, and the nearer a person to you is, the more you are commanded to love him. Since the husband is nearest to the wife, she is commanded to love him most of all, and he to love her. I hope that makes sense.
However, as you know, our lives don't always follow Biblical rules.
PS: I cannot recall an explicit commandment to love one's children, either; there's a lot of rules about bringing them up and educating them, but not about love. Still, most people do love their children.
Essentially, women are natural born sociopaths who are incapable of feeling empathy the way men do. What appears to men to be women acting compassionately and empathetically, is merely the act of women securing provisions from men, or the State in some instances (a single mother caring for her children just enough so that no one calls CPS).
As it has been said, women don't love men, they love what men can do for them. And on and on and on as it always has been and always will be...
LOL, a challenging assertion, but Jesus did say "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you."
Most women don't love selflessly, but then again, most men don't either. Certainly, it is possible among both sexes.
By your argument, we could equally claim that men are incapable of submission. That would be rather silly, wouldn't it?
The key Biblical reference that applies to our times is Ephesians 5:33 (New International Version)
Page Options
33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Most feminism has no respect, if any, for men!
Good points by Anna and Justin.
God never commands us to love ourselves, does he? And yet we don't seem to be incapable of it.
If anything, the fact that God commands husbands to love their wives, but not vice versa, suggests that marital love comes less naturally to men than women. No one needs to be commanded to do something he wants to do and finds easy.
either the bible is full of irrational ramblings of bronze age lunatics, so that we must come to our own conclusions (that women are untrustworthy)
or the bible is the ultimate and perfect truth, that women are untrustworthy.
The word for love in Ephesians 5 that men are commanded to show is agape - the same word used to describe how God loves.
Women are taught to show phileo love in Titus 2 - the love of friendship, family, and sharing common interests.
So the bible does not expect women to love men in the way men love women, and men should wake up and see this.
Now that women's true nature has been given license we see what is actually important to women and that does not include "love". Just look at the results of woman-ruled cultures. Sluthood, babymammahood, and massive spending to fund it all to keep women "independent". And not only do women not love, but the current state of affairs shows that women have no virtues at all.
My first thought: this is extremely flimsy logic. Given the premise that "God won't command us to do anything we're incapable of," and given the premise that "God didn't command women to love," the conclusion still doesn't follow. There are a whole lot of things that God didn't specifically command either men or women to do. Some of those things we can do, and some we can't. It's really not logical to say that "because we can't do it" is the ONLY reason that He would not command us to do something. There are many other reasons.
-----------------
My second thought: the first premise is very humanistic. It is also wrong, and salvation does NOT depend on our own efforts. Thank God!
You stated, "I have heard it said that God will NOT command us to do something we are not capable of doing ourselves." Where's the verse to support that? Perhaps you are thinking of 1 Corinthians 1:10, which states: "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it." (A bit of a difference between a temptation/trial and a command, but this verse gets incompletely quoted and taken out of context a lot.) This verse makes it clear that God doesn't set us up to fail, but that is NOT because He's counting on our own strength. It's because HE GIVES US the way out!
And actually, God commands us to do a TON of stuff we aren't capable of doing on our own. That's the whole point of grace--we NEED His help or we're all total wrecks. Have you ever known anyone who has never EVER broken even one of the Ten Commandments? Never told a little white lie? Never been envious of anyone? Never said anything mean or hurtful? (After all, Jesus said that insulting someone was equivalent to murder--Matthew 5:21-22.) Of course you haven't! Romans 3:23 says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
Jesus also said, "Love one another as I have loved you." How many people do you know who exhibit that kind of perfect love? ALL the time? Who would be willing to die a horrific death they didn't deserve in place of someone else--and not only a family member or friend, but for ANY other human? Zero, that's how many. There is no human, alive or dead or yet-unborn, as righteous as Jesus was. And He only pulled that off because He was fully human AND fully God (Philippians 2:6-8), and in God there is no sin (1 John 3:5).
Jesus is our standard, and the model we strive to emulate. The Bible makes it pretty clear that we're not ever going to succeed 100% at that--not even close. Isaiah 64:6 says that "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags"-- even when we do something good, we can't POSSIBLY earn salvation! It's a gift! It's not about meeting expectations! Hebrews 4:14-16 says, "Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need." Ephesians chapter 2, Hebrews chapter 10, and many other places throughout the Bible make it pretty clear that we are to emulate Jesus. Not because God thinks we can do it on our own, but because He will help us and save us.
No human, male or female, is completely and fully capable of love the way it's meant to be. We're made in God's image, but we mess up an awful lot. Thankfully, He gives us grace and strength to keep trying, and get better at loving others (after all, that's a verb, not a feeling!!) as we follow Him.
--Sarah
Sarah,
You make a POWERFUL argument, one that is logical and solidly based on Scripture. I can't argue with much of what you said...
MarkyMark
Thank you, Mark. Thank you for posting my rebuttal, too.
A couple weeks ago I heard a priest speak about what it takes to shepherd people. She (nope, not Catholic) said that to do this job, we must love people. Joyfully. All the time. Not because they're lovable, or nice to us, or fun to hang out with, or smart, or smell good...simply because they exist. It's a tall order. Her words have been on my mind a lot this past week, as many of the actions I've taken under the category of "loving people" have really stretched my comfort zone and energy (not to mention wreaking havoc with my work schedule).
In reading what you wrote and considering my response, I really got a SOLID reminder to quit trying to do any of this on my own strength, 'cause I can't. Thank you for making me think, and refocusing me back where I should be: on trusting in Jesus to be my example and the Spirit to give me strength and patience. A work in progress, that's me...
--Sarah
Sarah,
No problem on posting the rebuttal. I'll post pretty much anything up here, even if it's critical of me; the main thing I ask is that it addresses the TOPIC at hand, nothing more. If someone leaves a comment about a website hawking X that has NOTHING to do with the post, I'll delete it. I'll also delete nasty, abusive comments. I can't describe what they are, but I know 'em when I see 'em. Other than that, pretty much anything goes on here.
MarkyMark
It is true the scripture commands all Christians to love one another the way God loves us.
But the scripture also gives, for want of a better phrase, 'minimum standards". 1 Corinthians states "better marry than burn", meaning that sexual tension is a sufficient reason to marry. However you would want your child to look at practical stuff also - job, where you will live etc.
This brings us to Ephesians 5.
The minimum standard for the man is clearly set much higher for the man - love the wife as God loves man - no one to teach him this but God. The woman is to respect him - look up to him. Again, the love that is her minimum standard is (Titus 2:4-5) phileo - a love that can be taught by older women, the love of common interest.
History and scripture agree that while many men fail to give agape, most women fail to give phileo.
One cannot use one set of scriptures, Sarah, to smother others. Rather they must all be set in proper context to each other.
"By your argument, we could equally claim that men are incapable of submission. That would be rather silly, wouldn't it?"
No one is making that argument. The scripture commands subordination to those in authority and, mutually to each other in Christ.
Are you saying from that analysis that man has to be told that he must love his wife because he's incapable of loving his wife. And because the wife is not commanded to reciprocate love automatically assumes she does? I don't see how the dots are getting connected here! From dysfunctional women's sense of logic, it sounds the typical response of "of course it's not supposed to be spelled out for you; your supposed to read my mind to understand it silly!
And this is why I will never marry or love a woman.
And this is why I will never love a woman of marry.
Post a Comment