Strength and Honor: Triumphing over Feminism

[Mink57]

.
● Gen 3:6 . . She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he
ate it.

The phrase "who was with her" has led some folks to suggest that Adam was
standing right there the whole time observing the entire incident; not saying
a word.

But the phrase could simply mean they were a cohabiting couple at the time,
viz: weren't split up living apart. For example: I've been with my wife 44
years without interruption though we often go our separate ways on errands
and appointments: vacations too, My wife likes to rendezvous with her sister
in the community of Santa Barbara California once a year for a week, viz:
she's been with me all this time, though not always at my side.

Genesis doesn't indicate nor imply this at all. The writer of this Genesis passage seemed to deliberately add, "who was with her" so no mistake was made to believe that they were physically separated at that time.

The Serpent is portrayed as a highly intelligent creature (Gen 3:1).

No the serpent is portrayed to be "cunning." Not "highly intelligent." Even children can be cunning, yet not necessarily highly intelligent.

Well; for
sure he was intuitively aware of the tried and true tactic "Divide and
Conquer" Catching the woman by herself away from her husband's oversight
was a sensible tactic.

Nothing in Genesis to say that the serpent was "intuitively aware", nor to say that he caught the woman by herself away from her husband. I think you're making too many assumptions.

The thing is: the Serpent was somehow aware the fruit posed no danger to
the woman;

No, the serpent was FULLY aware that if he could convince Adam and Eve to eat the fruit that God WOULD fulfill his promise of death to the both. God never said WHEN Adam and Eve would die, nor did He say IN WHAT WAY they would die. Adam DID die 900+ years later

so if he could get her to try it, and she'd see for herself it was
safe to eat, then the Serpent would have the ally he needed to persuade the
man to do something contrary to his better judgment.

You're making assumptions again. Adam and Eve BOTH had the FREE WILL to say 'no' to the serpent.

But I think Adam was at least cautious at first, and kept a wary eye on his
wife for some time waiting to see if she would get sick; and when she didn't,
he surely had to wonder if maybe he misunderstood God.

Again, you're making assumptions. The bible doesn't say anything about what's running through Adam's mind. Only Eve's. Adam may have had the same thoughts as Eve regarding the fruit.

I think most husbands would sympathize with Adam. I mean: he was told by
a supposedly competent source that the forbidden tree was unfit for human
consumption.

Supposedly competent?

But here's your naked wife happily munching away and she's
still healthy, lucid, and exhibiting no ill side effects. How is a rational man
supposed to argue with empirical evidence as good as that?

First of all, BEFORE eating the fruit, neither had ANY IDEA that they were naked. That awareness came AFTER they ate the fruit.

FAQ: Their creator must've been observing that scene. Why didn't He step in
and prevent Adam from falling?

One can ask why God didn't step in and prevent EVE from eating the fruit, too.

REPLY: Well; I hate to say it: but I rather suspect that God not only
anticipated Adam's fall; but was actually counting on it. (cf. Job 1:10-12 &
Job 2:4-7)
_

God knew ahead of time that if He gave mankind FREE WILL, they would abuse it.

 

[Wrangler]

I think most husbands would sympathize with Adam.

Indeed. Imagine a scenario where a man committed a crime 1st, talked the woman into committing the same crime and they named the crime after the woman? That is, Eve's sin?

In addition, after the crime she committed, Adam would be alone again, the only human on the planet. The profound emotion of depression and being totally distraught after Eve's crime makes Adam a very sympathetic character.

 

[Wrangler]

This is such an excellent vid leading with the transcript of the very first NOW meeting. Their goal then was to destroy the family by promoting promiscuity and prostitution.

 

[Mink57]

Indeed. Imagine a scenario where a man committed a crime 1st, talked the woman into committing the same crime and they named the crime after the woman? That is, Eve's sin?

What? Neither Adam OR Eve had the free will to say 'no' to committing a 'crime'?

In addition, after the crime she committed, Adam would be alone again, the only human on the planet.

Before Adam, there were NO humans on the planet. Like God didn't have the power to create another DIFFERENT woman for Adam?

The profound emotion of depression and being totally distraught after Eve's crime makes Adam a very sympathetic character.

Nothing in Genesis says that Adam was distraught and/or depressed. How he may have felt had nothing to do with what Eve did.
Again, Adam AND Eve could have said, 'NO'.

 

[Wrangler]

What? Neither Adam OR Eve had the free will to say 'no' to committing a 'crime'?

Appeal to Diversion. You just cannot see the man's side of any situation. The question was not about who had free will but the man being a sympathetic character.

 

[Mink57]

This is such an excellent vid leading with the transcript of the very first NOW meeting. Their goal then was to destroy the family by promoting promiscuity and prostitution.

LOLOLOLOL! As IF (male) promiscuity didn't occur BEFORE feminism...or, males weren't going outside the marriage for "satisfaction" *cough, cough*... or using prostitutes during marriage or before marriage...BEFORE 'feminism'!

Biblical sexual chastity applies to BOTH MALE and FEMALE.

If you don't like the idea that women can be as promiscuous as men...and since you men are oh, so much "leaders"...maybe YOU YOURSELVES should remain chaste, as you expect your women to be chaste.

Like THAT will ever happen...

 

[Wrangler]

Nothing in Genesis says that Adam was distraught and/or depressed.

Right. One can imagine this IF one had the capacity to look sympathetically at the plight of men.

 

[Mink57]

Appeal to Diversion. You just cannot see the man's side of any situation. The question was not about who had free will but the man being a sympathetic character.

The man's side? You mean...Adam's side? The fact that Adam didn't say 'no' even though HE was the one who got the DIRECT ORDER from GOD HIMSELF NOT to eat of the fruit...BEFORE Eve was even created.

Eve was a sympathetic character too. Man can blame God for not stopping Adam. Women can blame Adam for not stopping Eve.
Which direction do you want to go?

 

[Mink57]

Right. One can imagine this IF one had the capacity to look sympathetically at the plight of men.

Plight? LOLOLOLOL!! Sorry, but you guys set up your own plight! You all create a system of Patriarchy, set the 'rules' in motion, and then blame WOMEN once you realize you don't LIKE the rules!

Women NEVER told you guys (for instance) to buy us a diamond engagement ring. YOU guys decided THAT. And here you are...years later, FAULTING women for expecting that. Great big DUUUUH.

YOU set up the system for asking women out. Women didn't. You want to be the leader? Fine, be the leader. But don't complain once you set the system up and LATER realize, "Hey...this isn't working for US"

You don't get to have it BOTH ways. Make up your mind, and once you DO, don't complain to WOMEN as if WOMEN had anything to do with you making up your mind!

Did Adam want to be a leader? If he WAS, he may have smacked the fruit out of Eve's hand. He didn't. He HAD free will. Why didn't he USE it?

If he wanted to be a 'leader' so badly?

 

[Wrangler]

Eve was a sympathetic character too.

There’s your Competitive Feminism again. You just can’t express sincere sympathy for the man, which is what the original point was.

Yes, the man in question was Adam. Good guess since he was the only man at the time.

 

[Wrangler]

Plight? LOLOLOLOL!!

Yup, sympathy on display.

 

[Mink57]

There’s your Competitive Feminism again. You just can’t express sincere sympathy for the man, which is what the original point was.

Sympathy for WHAT? That Adam blamed Eve AND God for his own choice to eat the fruit?

Yes, the man in question was Adam. Good guess since he was the only man at the time.

Uh huh...

 

[Wrangler]

Plight? LOLOLOLOL!! Sorry, but you guys set up your own plight!

What a shamefully hateful post!

As a feminist, you hate men and women but unequally. With women it's infantilizing; all grace and no truth. Disrespectful of the fact that they are moral agents, responsible for their own plight. With men, it's all responsibility, all truth and no grace. Disrespectful of the fact that no matter what choice, they will be hated by feminists.

Sympathy for WHAT?

Exactly! See post 922. In your twisted evil mind, men never deserve respect or sympathy. When the truth is presented, you resort to mocking it. 2 Peter 3:3 warns us that "in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires"

See post #836

1. The lack of equality of reproductive rights for men.
2. The lack of equality of the "believe her" movement.
3. The lack of equality of men only having to register for selective service.
4. The lack of equality in JPC (Joint Physical Custody) being the default parenting plan of divorced parents.
5. The lack of equality of special sexual assault courts in SOME countries that are guilt by accusation.
6. The lack of equality of men dying before women but more money is spent on women only diseases.
7. The lack of equality of men being net tax payers but women being net tax beneficiaries.
8. The lack of equality of sexist laws, like dowry right States and women and children first on life boats.
9. The lack of equality in >90% job deaths being men.
10. The lack of equality of >90% of men doing the dirty work to keep society's infrastructure going.

The list goes on and on and on exposing female privilege, no responsibility. A Competitive Feminist asks. A MRA answers

See numerous posts where I referenced the plight of men where women were not 2nd class citizens dying on battlefields by the millions over the centuries not put 1st on life boats.

Nothing in Genesis says that Adam was distraught and/or depressed.

It doesn't have to. I can sympathize nonetheless.

Because it does not come naturally to you, with women, lead with truth; with men, lead with grace. Eventually, you may come to wisdom and reject the folly of feminism and treat both men and women with grace and truth.

 

[Wrangler]

LOLOLOLOL! As IF (male) promiscuity didn't occur BEFORE feminism

There you go again. Showing your hate by laughing at the plight of men and absolving feminists of all responsibility for their evil agenda. Somehow in your mind, you turned the feminist evil agenda of using women's promiscuity as a tool to destroy the family as the fault of men (and their promiscuity). More Competitive Feminism.

 

[Mink57]

What a shamefully hateful post!

As a feminist, you hate men and women but unequally. With women it's infantilizing; all grace and no truth. Disrespectful of the fact that they are moral agents, responsible for their own plight. With men, it's all responsibility, all truth and no grace. Disrespectful of the fact that no matter what choice, they will be hated by feminists.

LOLOL!! No, I don't hate men, nor do I hate women. I'm not a 'black-or-white' thinker like YOU are. But I love how you assume that ALL feminists are equal in their thinking, and that while SOME feminists are 'man-hating' that ALL feminists are of the same hive mentality.

Kinda like saying that the only thing that ALL men want from women is SEX...which I KNOW FOR A FACT is NOT true.

Exactly! See post 922. In your twisted evil mind, men never deserve respect or sympathy.

Love how you twist words around and put words in my mouth...and in the mouth of ALL feminists and ALL women.
Not ALL men deserve respect or sympathy, simply because they're men.
Not ALL women deserve respect or sympathy, either, simply because they're women.

What part of that do you NOT understand?

When the truth is presented, you resort to mocking it. 2 Peter 3:3 warns us that "in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires"

See post #836

See numerous posts where I referenced the plight of men where women were not 2nd class citizens dying on battlefields by the millions over the centuries not put 1st on life boats.

You want the truth presented? I doubt you could handle the truth. Hate to break the news to you, but more women have died in childbirth or as result of complications of childbirth than men have died in battle throughout history. Want some recent stats?

From Combat Deaths versus Maternal Deaths, USA, 1900-2019:
Summary Calculations

1900-1946: Estimated 780,860 women died in childbirth
Combat deaths: 345,413

1900-1953: Estimated 804,514 women died in childbirth
Combat deaths: 379,114

1947-1999: Estimated 60,745 women died in childbirth
Combat deaths: 81,796

1954-1999: Estimated 37,091 women died in childbirth
Combat deaths: 48,095

2000-2015: Estimated: 10,470 women died in childbirth
Combat deaths: 5669

2000-2019: Estimated: 13,219 women died in childbirth
Combat deaths: 5686

Men are not the only victims in war. Women were taken as prisoners of war and either enslaved, killed, raped, and forced to stand by helplessly as their children were tortured and murdered. Not to mention disease and starvation as a result of a war that women had no say in. While the men were away at battle women OFTEN had to stay behind and defend the home front.

All you're doing is regurgitating what you've heard/read from anti-feminist sites without using your head. Both men and women have their OWN struggles, and one is not necessarily 'superior' to the other.

Get off your high horse, Wrangler. You keep using the same OLD anti-feminist, disingenuous nonsense to make a point that's been deconstructed time and time again. You don't want men to die in war? Why doesn't patriarchy...you know...those supposedly SUPERIOR men... figure out how to AVOID war in the first place? While conflict will always be with us, there ARE ways to resolve them PEACEFULLY...and not with hate and bloodshed. Mankind has been roaming this earth for a few hundred thousand years, and as 'superior' as so many claim to be, they still haven't figured that out yet!

But someone like YOU wants to blame it all on feminism. *face/palm*

It doesn't have to. I can sympathize nonetheless.

Because it does not come naturally to you, with women, lead with truth; with men, lead with grace. Eventually, you may come to wisdom and reject the folly of feminism and treat both men and women with grace and truth.

But you DON'T sympathize with WOMEN'S plight!

Why can't men like you respect WOMEN'S plights, and women like radical feminists respect MEN'S plights?

 

[Wrangler]

A great vid on the new dating etiquitte, a reaction to and all due credit to feminists crazy expectations that a man has a burden to spend $1,000's on the first date ... It's just coffee, where the woman now has to prove she is worth pursuing. The vid includes a clip of feminists looking at dating as a business proposition; they don't care one little bit about developing a relationship with the guy, only how much money he's willing to spend while she unequally spends zero. Way to go feminism!

 

[Wrangler]

Hate to break the news to you, but more women have died in childbirth or as result of complications of childbirth than men have died in battle throughout history.

Sad that you compare nature to a culture that always valued women more than men to rationalize what was never true. that women were ever 2nd class citizens.

 

[Wrangler]

Not ALL men deserve respect

Wrong. Respect is to be unconditional. We've covered this already with Biblical references.

 

[Wrangler]

But you DON'T sympathize with WOMEN'S plight!

That's your response to the WHAT to show sympathy to men for? LOL

This thread is about over-coming feminism. When the conversation turns to showing sympathy for men, your gyno-centrism won't allow it. You only want women's plight open for discussion. Very sexist of you. I thought feminists were against sexism? This shows sexism is OK when it benefits women.

 

[Wrangler]

Exactly! See post 922. In your twisted evil mind, men never deserve respect or sympathy. When the truth is presented, you resort to mocking it. 2 Peter 3:3 warns us that "in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires"

See post #836

Imagine a feminist lovingly responding to the facts from the post above on the plight of men ...

Wow! Thank you for making me aware of the plight of men. I was always so focused on how bad women have it, I never realized how men have it bad also and we should all work together for equality, making men's and women's lives better by removing sexist advantages, including the sexist advantages women have over men.

Now I am red-pilled. Thanks again. Have a blessed day.