So much of the world we live in and what we see happening is very clearly a result of people just outright ignoring the word of God and what it says on any given issue.
I agree that women in general are unsuited for leadership in the public sphere, with a few exceptions. But please rethink your praise of Elizabeth I. She was a vile and evil woman, in the same category as Jezebel but more fortunate. A better example would be a woman forced by circumstances into a leadership position- for example, I read recently about a 19-year-old wife of a whaling ship captain who had to take over the ship and quell a mutiny when her husband fell ill.
I have to admit, Elizabeth I was no worse than her church-robbing, wife-killing father. Or her Protestant-persecuting sister. But in my opinion, Elizabeth, like most monarchs in history, was a vile person, vainglorious and cruel. When I read your post, I had just finished reading about the death of Mary Queen of Scots and how her cousin Elizabeth tried to wash her hands of responsibility for it. So my reply was impulsive. I guess my real objection was to holding up almost any monarch - male or female - as an example of anything good, since most of them have been rotten people.
If anyone needs an example of female leadership going straight to hell, I offer Beth Moore. Even in her earlier teaching days, shortly after her books were being published, she started denigrating her husband. I knew then how she would end up.
Men do score higher. The number of men with VHIQ is more than women. But men also represent a far larger proportion in the lower IQ ranges. Hence women are on average more intelligent, but do not have as high a representation in the Higher IQ ranges.
At least this was the data last time I looked it up, many years ago.
You're still factually incorrect. Your average man (center bell curve) still scores higher than your average woman.
That's why when they tested this on groups what they found that the more men a group had the IQ went up and when they put more women in random groups the IQ score went down.
Others say that the differences are negligible. These differences sit well within a standard deviation, showing those who argue there is a negligible average difference may have a point.
I'll re-examine Murray's Bell curve when I get a chance and share his informed opinion. If I have made a mistake, I'll correct it. But you've shared no data to back up your assertion, youve simply declared yourself the authority.
You can re examine anything you want. You also need to take into account evolutionary psychology.
Men who are intelligent are creative. Creativity is used for gaining resources.
Makes no sense for this trait to be selected for in women. Women might have the ability to be creative but it's not selected for biologically.
That's why we see even average men use creativity in ways that women sexually select for in order to gain provisioning from men. Like building things or writing songs to sell.
I only disagree with your statement that women are smarter than men. No, they are not built for being smarter than us. Besides that, an awesome and insightful article. Thank you for that one.
Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Yes, as I said in chapter 7 or 1 Corinthians. Here is the mention of the present distress,
"25 Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26 I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife" (1 Cor. 7:25-27).
I think it is best to read Paul's advice here in light of the present distress the Corinthians were facing, which as I said history notes was a famine. This would hold in times of war, times of great plague, etc. To say it is a general for all time encouragement would contradict everything else the Bible says about marriage, and also interfere with the most successful evangelism strategy in the Bible: having kids.
[5] 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.
Women should not be wearing men's uniforms means they should not be doing those jobs as it is an abomination to the Lord. Female cops, soldiers, priest, pastors, firefighter , politicians.judges are examples wearing men's garmets and exercising authority over men is an abomination.
Why aren't women covering their head in church? Why is this not being called out too?
Throughout history nations have risen then fallen when their probation ran out.
Commuist Russia fell after 70 years and commuist China turned their economy into a hybrid of communist and capitalist.
More recently Satan has used both America and Feminism to prove his claims against God. The probation of both America and Feminism are in their last hours which will end sooner that most people think.
America is described as the lamb like beast in the book of Revelations with two horns representing their stated principles yet speaks with the voice of the dragon which represents Satan who controls America's political leaders.
The problem with Paul’s admonishment is that he generalizes about all women. I agree that stereotypical women are not cut out for strong leadership or teaching. But some are suited to it. Did God intend for those gifted women to be denied a place? Why was Jesus revealed first to Mary M?
Isaiah 3:12 says, "My people—infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them.
O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths."
Paul is not generalizing, he is talking about proper social order and structure, and this begins in the home. Women are not called to lead. Isaiah even notes that a society where this is common is in a bad situation.
Now, just because women are not called to lead, does not mean that you will not find examples of women leading in a remarkable way. Humans are incredible creatures, both women and men. There is the ideal, and the norm that we should work towards, but we also live in a fallen world. Therefore, the ideal does not always happen, even if we want it to. Because of the inherent moral strength that many women often have, sometimes when they are called upon to step outside of their natural God-given roles, they excel. I think Elizabeth the first is a good example of this, personally, though she was obviously not perfect, she still led England through trying times with incredible success. Leaving the kingdom much stronger after her reign.
But exceptions should not be made to unseat the rule or be made the rule. We are unwise to push women into such positions. What Paul gives us in Titus and Timothy is a stellar strategy for working against the Devil's schemes in the family and in society. We ignore it at our peril.
As to your second question. It is common for irresponsible preachers today to argue that because God first appeared to Mary and asked her to go get the men, that she is the first gospel preacher. This is a good example of straining a camel out of a gnat. But note that none of the New Testament builds on this, nor does Jesus himself. When he commissions the disciples to go out in the world and teach the nations Mary is not there in either Matthew, Luke, Mark, or Acts. She simply delivered a personal message, and she was greatly honoured to carry it for sure. Jesus highly esteems women, and we all should. But this does not justify the turning over of all the clear texts in scripture and all the sound practice in church history, to make the case that women should function the same as men in leadership roles. It is to go beyond the text, the subsequent texts, and to contradict much else of what the Bible says on the issues.
I once read an article by a woman such as you describe, a strong woman "suited to leadership". She was a highly successful business woman who had pursued her career right to the top. As she walked along the beach one day she was depressed because she had all the power, all the money and all the prominence she had ever wanted, and she had no one to share it with. This woman is far more common now than ever before in the history of our nation. Women pursue leadership at far greater cost to themselves than men, and as another article on my Substack titled: Women should not be Pastors, notes, the women in ministry are working this out themselves. Paul's advice to women is far kinder than the advice many modern teachers give.
I agree that women in general are unsuited for leadership in the public sphere, with a few exceptions. But please rethink your praise of Elizabeth I. She was a vile and evil woman, in the same category as Jezebel but more fortunate. A better example would be a woman forced by circumstances into a leadership position- for example, I read recently about a 19-year-old wife of a whaling ship captain who had to take over the ship and quell a mutiny when her husband fell ill.
Interesting position on Elizabeth. I am happy to hear more information, showing why I am wrong on that count.
I have to admit, Elizabeth I was no worse than her church-robbing, wife-killing father. Or her Protestant-persecuting sister. But in my opinion, Elizabeth, like most monarchs in history, was a vile person, vainglorious and cruel. When I read your post, I had just finished reading about the death of Mary Queen of Scots and how her cousin Elizabeth tried to wash her hands of responsibility for it. So my reply was impulsive. I guess my real objection was to holding up almost any monarch - male or female - as an example of anything good, since most of them have been rotten people.
I hear you. I only mean to point out she competently got England through a serious crisis with Spain. I was not lauding her as a paragon of virtue.
You're on target as usual - 'women rule over us and children are our oppressors', as Isaiah wrote....and here's more - about WOMEN and FEMINISM - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/search?q=Women+feminism&updated-max=2023-06-25T10:17:00-07:00&max-results=20&start=0&by-date=false&m=1 - from DaLimbraw Library - it's really not that complicated - forget His instructions and you're lost in chaos.
Nice. Encouraging to see one of my older articles in the list. Vox Day sums it up better than most of us, of course.
If anyone needs an example of female leadership going straight to hell, I offer Beth Moore. Even in her earlier teaching days, shortly after her books were being published, she started denigrating her husband. I knew then how she would end up.
A great example.
Thank you Rev. A good article on a passage I was quite struck by when I read it perhaps six months ago.
Interesting translation of I Tim 5:14. The actual word is 'young women'.
Women are in no way, shape, or form more intelligent than men.
Anyone who thinks this is beyond stupid.
Women are only more socially intelligent. That is it.
Other than that men score higher on IQ tests. This fact dlone disproves the idea of women even being equally intelligent.
Men build entire societies and lead them.
Argument over.
Men do score higher. The number of men with VHIQ is more than women. But men also represent a far larger proportion in the lower IQ ranges. Hence women are on average more intelligent, but do not have as high a representation in the Higher IQ ranges.
At least this was the data last time I looked it up, many years ago.
You're still factually incorrect. Your average man (center bell curve) still scores higher than your average woman.
That's why when they tested this on groups what they found that the more men a group had the IQ went up and when they put more women in random groups the IQ score went down.
You're an idiot who doesn't understand data. Lol
Well here is a study pointing to your assertion being correct:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0191886994900302
Here is an article based on research pointing to my assertion being correct:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beautiful-minds/201207/men-women-and-iq-setting-the-record-straight
Others say that the differences are negligible. These differences sit well within a standard deviation, showing those who argue there is a negligible average difference may have a point.
I'll re-examine Murray's Bell curve when I get a chance and share his informed opinion. If I have made a mistake, I'll correct it. But you've shared no data to back up your assertion, youve simply declared yourself the authority.
Once again average women have lower IQs than average men. This has been known for decades.
And not all studies show that. But some do.
Yep, the accurate ones do.
No data is better than data that either just accurate or cherry picked data that is misinterpreted.
That's exactly what you're doing. Wasn't referring to the book the bell curve but the concept of a bell curve.
As I said. I'll re-examine the data. I'm not cherry picking anything. Simply showing that it needs re-examining.
You can re examine anything you want. You also need to take into account evolutionary psychology.
Men who are intelligent are creative. Creativity is used for gaining resources.
Makes no sense for this trait to be selected for in women. Women might have the ability to be creative but it's not selected for biologically.
That's why we see even average men use creativity in ways that women sexually select for in order to gain provisioning from men. Like building things or writing songs to sell.
Excellent article; thank you.
I only disagree with your statement that women are smarter than men. No, they are not built for being smarter than us. Besides that, an awesome and insightful article. Thank you for that one.
Redrum is upon us
Didn’t Paul says that celibacy is better than marriage?
In 1 Corinthians 7 in a present crisis, which history tells us was a famine.
Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Yes, as I said in chapter 7 or 1 Corinthians. Here is the mention of the present distress,
"25 Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26 I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife" (1 Cor. 7:25-27).
I think it is best to read Paul's advice here in light of the present distress the Corinthians were facing, which as I said history notes was a famine. This would hold in times of war, times of great plague, etc. To say it is a general for all time encouragement would contradict everything else the Bible says about marriage, and also interfere with the most successful evangelism strategy in the Bible: having kids.
Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV
[5] 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.
Women should not be wearing men's uniforms means they should not be doing those jobs as it is an abomination to the Lord. Female cops, soldiers, priest, pastors, firefighter , politicians.judges are examples wearing men's garmets and exercising authority over men is an abomination.
Why aren't women covering their head in church? Why is this not being called out too?
Throughout history nations have risen then fallen when their probation ran out.
Commuist Russia fell after 70 years and commuist China turned their economy into a hybrid of communist and capitalist.
More recently Satan has used both America and Feminism to prove his claims against God. The probation of both America and Feminism are in their last hours which will end sooner that most people think.
America is described as the lamb like beast in the book of Revelations with two horns representing their stated principles yet speaks with the voice of the dragon which represents Satan who controls America's political leaders.
The problem with Paul’s admonishment is that he generalizes about all women. I agree that stereotypical women are not cut out for strong leadership or teaching. But some are suited to it. Did God intend for those gifted women to be denied a place? Why was Jesus revealed first to Mary M?
Isaiah 3:12 says, "My people—infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them.
O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths."
Paul is not generalizing, he is talking about proper social order and structure, and this begins in the home. Women are not called to lead. Isaiah even notes that a society where this is common is in a bad situation.
Now, just because women are not called to lead, does not mean that you will not find examples of women leading in a remarkable way. Humans are incredible creatures, both women and men. There is the ideal, and the norm that we should work towards, but we also live in a fallen world. Therefore, the ideal does not always happen, even if we want it to. Because of the inherent moral strength that many women often have, sometimes when they are called upon to step outside of their natural God-given roles, they excel. I think Elizabeth the first is a good example of this, personally, though she was obviously not perfect, she still led England through trying times with incredible success. Leaving the kingdom much stronger after her reign.
But exceptions should not be made to unseat the rule or be made the rule. We are unwise to push women into such positions. What Paul gives us in Titus and Timothy is a stellar strategy for working against the Devil's schemes in the family and in society. We ignore it at our peril.
As to your second question. It is common for irresponsible preachers today to argue that because God first appeared to Mary and asked her to go get the men, that she is the first gospel preacher. This is a good example of straining a camel out of a gnat. But note that none of the New Testament builds on this, nor does Jesus himself. When he commissions the disciples to go out in the world and teach the nations Mary is not there in either Matthew, Luke, Mark, or Acts. She simply delivered a personal message, and she was greatly honoured to carry it for sure. Jesus highly esteems women, and we all should. But this does not justify the turning over of all the clear texts in scripture and all the sound practice in church history, to make the case that women should function the same as men in leadership roles. It is to go beyond the text, the subsequent texts, and to contradict much else of what the Bible says on the issues.
I once read an article by a woman such as you describe, a strong woman "suited to leadership". She was a highly successful business woman who had pursued her career right to the top. As she walked along the beach one day she was depressed because she had all the power, all the money and all the prominence she had ever wanted, and she had no one to share it with. This woman is far more common now than ever before in the history of our nation. Women pursue leadership at far greater cost to themselves than men, and as another article on my Substack titled: Women should not be Pastors, notes, the women in ministry are working this out themselves. Paul's advice to women is far kinder than the advice many modern teachers give.