Genesis 29: The love of Jacob for Rachel

And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.   And Laban said, It is better that I give her to thee, than that I should give her to another man: abide with me.  And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her.  And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her.  Genesis 29:18-21

Today I want to take a break from the order of things so that I can bring you a love story.   In fact, it is one of the few instances of love at first sight recorded in the Bible.   The above verses detail how Jacob the son of Isaac, grandson of Abraham came to be married to his wife Rachel.   Jacob, as we know it,  had to leave his home in Canaan because his brother Esau wanted to kill him.  Rebekah sent him to Haran to the home of her brother Laban.  When Jacob arrives he finds Rachel there tending her father’s sheep and he kisses her out of joy.

Shortly after, we are told that Jacob loves Rachel and asks Laban to give her to him to wife.  We do know that Rachel is beautiful.  However, the language of this passage, even in the Hebrew suggests that his love for her was more than just sexual passion.  Several things rule against this.  The word for love used in this passage is ahav, which can define many things, just as our word love does.  Let me say that love in the Bible is not what we think of as romantic love.  Romantic love idealizes the couple, whereas Biblical love is more real, more intense, and more soulful.

The things in this passage that rule for a heartfelt rather than an erotic love are:

  1. Use of the word love, which for the most part in the Bible does not indicate simply erotic sexual pleasure (I will go into that more)
  2. It says the time he served for her seemed like just a few days for the love that he held for her.   Not only does he have to work for her for seven years, but when we go to later verses, it indicates that he had to work an additional seven years in order to get her for his wife.  Fourteen years for one woman, whose looks I’m sure changed during that time.

Other things in the account of Jacob-Rachel that rule for a heartfelt love rather than pure sexual desire:

  1. He favored her children above Leah’s
  2.  When he thought Esau was coming for them, he set her and her children in the hindmost position (the safest)

In several articles I have read on the Jewish concept of marital love, it indicates the importance of the aspect of giving of one’s self, of loving the whole person, of loving from the heart, and I will include the links for these at the end.   Though not romantic love, it was important that a husband show his wife tenderness and affection.  To treat her simply as an object of physical pleasure was to strip her of her humanity.   Also, in Judaism, giving of oneself to one’s spouse is considered a mitzvot, a good deed.   For the Jew, unlike other peoples, everything was about the divine, so that even the pleasures of life were gifts from God.   In Judaism, human intimacy involves the heart and soul and mind, thus the commandment to love God in this manner.  Giving of one’s whole self.

The Red Pill “Christian” blogger Dalrock feels that Genesis 29 is an erotic story of love as he reduces love to sexuality in general, much contrary to the Christian concept of love expressed throughout the New Testament, and in for the most part in the old.   In this article, Dalrock admits he knows very little about the original Hebrew or the Jewish context of love, and so he has a very convoluted way of looking at texts about love (probably from aligning himself too much with the amoral Mr. Tomassi).

Dalrock uses a different version of the Bible and implies that because his version says Jacob slept with Leah and Rachel that that means there was no emotion involved.  Erroneous logic.  First, to assume that sleeping with Leah all night meant he had no emotional attachment to Rachel.  If he didn’t know it was Leah, this must have meant it was either too dark, or she was in some way disguised.  He had no way of knowing what Rachel’s body looked like or felt like, so it would have been easy to “beguile” him.  Second, sleeping with your wife is expected!  Are you not going to go in to your wife?  Does that mean you don’t have feelings for her because you sleep with her?  Juvenile reasoning, for sure.

He also compares the passage to that of Michal and David where it indicates Michal had feelings for David.   Let me just say here, that just because it doesn’t mention Rachel’s feelings in the matter doesn’t mean she didn’t care.  We simply have no way of knowing.  She doesn’t protest the marriage, that is certain.  However, we do know that the Hebrew text indicates Jacob’s great love for Rachel in the use of the word “ahavah”.  Ahavah means a deeper love and in some cases can mean “lovesick”.  It is the love Jonathan had for David, and David for Jonathan in 1 Samuel 18 and 1 Kings 1.    So we do know that Jacob had more than physical love for Rachel.

Lastly, I want to point out that in the Septuagint, the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew to the Greek, the word for love is “agape” which is the highest form of love there is and involves affection and high esteem.  It is the word used for divine love in the New Testament.  If the passage in Genesis 29 was simply a tale of physical pleasure, they would have used the word “eros”.   While the translation of ahav to agape can seem controversial, it is less so if one goes back to the meaning of marital intimacy in the Jewish context of loving the whole person.    A man and wife can rejoice in this intimacy for this very reason that it does involve their emotions, as evidenced by the Song of Solomon.

Dalrock’s assessment that a man loving his wife is like two animals mating is contrary not only to Christian ideals, but to the Jewish context of love and what differentiates man from the beasts of the field.    A woman is more than just a body to sate one’s pleasures on, or even to enjoy simply physical pleasure with her.  It involves heart and soul.  God gave us a heart and a soul for a reason, and the red pill advocates need to find theirs.

Sources:

Kosher Sex, Judaism 101

The Intimate Component in Love and Marriage, Chabad.org

Intimacy in Marriages, Aish.com

Agape: Septuagint Verses

 

 

Advertisements

Rule #4: Power comes from God

There is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit; neither hath he power in the day of death: and there is no discharge in that war; neither shall wickedness deliver those that are given to it.–Ecclesiastes 8:8

All power comes from God.  He made the Universe and everything in it, within 6 days.  He did so just by speaking things into existence.  God set man over His creation on earth, giving him dominion over all the creatures of the earth.

God is in control of everything that exists.  While man can manipulate his environment to some extent, the things a man has can be taken from him.  The Book of Job points to a test between God and Satan to test the righteous man Job.  Within a process of time, Job’s sons, his material wealth, even his health are taken from him.  One can see from the example of Job how the physical things of this life can be taken away from one.  I have seen very healthy men acquire physical disease.  One only has to look at the example of John Kennedy, Jr., a man who had everything, who was killed in a flying accident.  For a man then to think he has the power is a gross absurdity.

The Red Pill advocates that a man, which they call alpha which the Bible does not even recognize (see my article on Two types of man) can obtain power through his domination of his environment.  This includes women, which the red pill gives very little value to, except in so much that women have sexual value.  To red pill men, women are only valuable as long as they are young and attractive and can be used in a sexual manner either through a committed relationship or through amoral sex.  Rollo Tomassi, in his Red Pill devotional, The Rational Male explains that power in relationships is obtained by the person who needs the other the least.

First, God alone holds power and to whom He will give it (1).  Jesus Christ said “All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.” (2) Jesus received all power as God manifest in flesh, and shed abroad the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost.  He told the disciples they should go to Jerusalem and wait for the promise of the Father, saying “And ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you (3).    The only way to have power in God’s kingdom is to receive the Spirit of God.

Red Pill “Alt-Christianity”, for it is not true Christianity, would have men come to the altar of the red pill rather than to the source of true power, Jesus Christ.   It would rather they be lovers of themselves, hedonistically seeing marriage as sexual alone in nature, and aligning themselves with those who deny women’s inherent value as a creation of God and deny that Christ alone is sufficient to combat the evils of Feminism.  Somehow evolutionary psychology saves the day for these Alt-Christians and restores their true masculinity.  They epitomize the admonition of Paul that in the last days men would be lovers of self, and lovers of pleasure rather than God, having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof (4).

The Bible tells us to turn away from these types of people because they do deny the power of God.  The Red Pill (secular) upholds evolutionary psychology which is contrary to Christ in its amoral approach to relationships, and the Christian version is still bad for Christian men as it still reduces women to a sexual market value, aligns itself with the amoral red pill advocates, and does not lead men to Christ.  It denies the power of God to transform people, and see themselves as the controlling factor in relationships rather than the Spirit and the agape love of Jesus.

From such, turn away.

Pamela Parizo © 2017

 

Footnotes:

(1) Psalm 62:11

(2) Matthew 28:18

(3) Acts 1:8

(4) 2 Timothy 3:5

 

 

 

Rule #3: Love, not sex, is the answer

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity (LOVE), I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.  And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.  And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.  1 Corinthians 13:1-3

The Beatles once sang, “All You Need Is Love”,  and while I don’t hold them up as being models of behavior or for anything else, they were right in this.  God is Love.  His greatest attribute is Love.  I brought this out in my article Christ’s view of humanity.  The evidence of this love was the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ upon the Cross.

Jesus repeatedly admonished his disciples, his followers to love one another, as He had loved us.  To have that attitude that we should give our all for each other, even to the laying down of our lives.  Our sacrifice doesn’t always go that far, but if we look at it from the point of view that we esteem each other higher than we esteem ourselves, this great love works toward the good for all involved.   There is no force more powerful on the earth than Christian love.  God puts this love in our hearts through the Holy Spirit.

Love transforms.  It can turn a stony heart into a soft heart.  It can turn away wrath.  It can dispel bitterness, anger, envy, and other negative emotions.  It not only transforms the recipient of love, but it transforms the giver.  Love is one of the gifts of the Spirit, and is the greatest virtue of all, even greater than hope and faith.

Lastly, it’s important to realize that Love is the fulfillment of the Law (Romans 13:10).  Paul indicates here that because love doesn’t work any ill toward it’s neighbor, love fulfills all of the commandments of God.  The word love is repeated over and over in the New Testament in every aspect of our relationship to God, to each other, and very specifically in the relationship between a man and his wife.   Man is directly commanded to love his wife.  In Ephesians 5, Paul doesn’t emphasize the sexual aspect of marriage at all.

The Red Pill is very much focused on sexuality.  It is a strategy of sexual relationships between men and women, and in it’s theory, marriage or any other long-term relationship/commitment takes a back seat.  At its core is the idea that men, who achieve power through the aspect of aloofness from his world, recognizing his own value, should be able to use and discard anything, including women, according to his own self-interest, his own egotism.  He does this through domination.

While God does give man dominion over the world and expects him to establish that dominion, God’s ultimate purpose is to create a spiritual kingdom, not a carnal one, and so a sexuality loosed from the ideal of commitment, is contrary to God’s purpose which is love for each other and for God.  Commitment to love, agape, is very much at the core of our relationship to God, and His to us.  It’s core to our relationship to each other, and men and women are called of God to commit themselves to each other, not to use each other and discard like so much trash.

To those who have been used and abused by the circumstances of life, by the twin evils of Feminism and the manosphere, by the raw deal that life gives to us all, there is an answer.  The Spirit and the Bride (the Church) say Come.  We are bid to the banqueting table of God’s love for us, to the abundant love held out to us in Jesus Christ, that will shed into our hearts love for God and for each other.

Pamela Parizo © 2017

 

The purpose of marriage and Dalrock’s double standard

While reading an post from earlier this year on insanitybytes’ blog, I came across this post regarding Dalrock, a red pill “Christian” blogger and found that it so aptly demonstrates his lack of commitment to Christian morality and his double standard regarding marriage.

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/02/20/will-wilcox-and-the-men-of-national-review-respect-you-in-the-morning/

First, my thoughts on the purpose of marriage not only from a Biblical standpoint, but a societal one.  Dalrock makes clear in this article, this condemnation of the views of the National Review and others, that his idea about the purpose of marriage is to maintain sexual morality, which he rightly associates with 1 Corinthians chapter 7.  As I’ve stated on my blog The Glorious Wife, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  Dalrock evidently failed to read the book of Genesis.

The first commandment God gives to men and women is to “Be fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth”.  So one of the first purposes God has for marriage is reproduction.  Second, God, prior to the creation of woman out of man, looks around and says, “It is not good for man to be alone, I will make for him a help meet.”  God saw that man needed a help suitable for him.  This isn’t just sexual;  God intended that woman should help man in his endeavours in maintaining dominion over the earth.  Someone to share his life and missions with and to assist him in them.   He gave man and woman a desire for each other, to know each other so that they would reproduce, but it is, as Dalrock pointed out, also to maintain morality in relationships.    Lastly, before getting into the societal reasons for this, I would point to Ephesians 5, which perhaps he also hasn’t read, which states that the relationship of a man and wife is symbolic of the eternal marriage between Christ and His bride, the Church.  

From a societal, or even communal standpoint, monogamy, marriage stabilizes the society.   This is clear in the early 20th century work of anthropologist Dr. J. D. Unwin who showed that across time and across the world monogamous societies were more stable.   Take the family out of the society and it becomes unstable because people become depraved and hedonistic.  This happened in Rome and it is happening in the US.

Dalrock is vitriolic in his assessment of the National Reviews encouragement for men to marry, stating, “How can I know?  You just have to look at the long string of men that came before you, men they seduced with the very same lines.  Once the wedding is over, once the men of National Review have gotten what they wanted, the men who naively trusted them are discarded like yesterday’s trash.  Do you really believe you will be the special one, the one they don’t toss casually away once they get what they want?”

However, there are a couple of things that Dalrock fails to take into consideration.  He sees women as fickle (probably fed by his red pill view that women marry men only to provide a living and then move on to the romantic man of their dreams).   However, statistics show not only that age at marriage and education are huge factors in divorce, but that committed Christians are less likely to divorce than the general public.  So, rather than denigrade women as heartless wenches marrying and discarding, he should be encouraging men and women to marry later, get an education and be committed to Christ.

I would also like to point out that this is the root of Dalrock’s hypocrisy.  While he has no problem pointing out that the National Review, et. al. are encouraging men to marry and thus dooming many of them to the scourge of divorce, he has no problem marrying himself to the philosophy of Rollo Tomassi as espoused in the Rational Male.   Tomassi’s works not only strips woman of her inherent human value and reduces her to a sexual market value, allowing her to be used and discarded at a man’s pleasure (treated like a plate, a sexual object), and essentially saying her value is determined by the man, but his blogroll is full of people who feel the same way.  He never calls any of these men out for their heartless view of women, for belittling women’s sacrificial love while upholding man’s rights to self-interest and amoral power.

From Dalrock’s standpoint, love is sex, and the marital love expressed in the Bible is primarily sensual in nature.   While he states that women are due love and affection, it’s clear what his idea of that is.  A search of his blog shows very little about love and a lot about sexuality.  By advertising the Rational Male, Dalrock buys into the totality of its sordid attitude about women, and this is hypocritical as he calls out those who at least encourage men to make commitments while espousing himself to the ideals of Tomassi, which reflects a poor view of the value of women, indeed, allows them to be exploited and tossed aside like yesterday’s trash.

Jesus Christ values all humanity, He sees all humanity as sinful and in need of redemption, He sees only the carnal and the spiritual man, and the only power factor in His gospel is the transforming power of the Holy Ghost which can achieve far more in human relationships than red pill/evolutionary psychology theories could.  If Dalrock really cared about the plight of men ruined by Feminism, He would call them to the Cross and to the Upper Room.

In Jesus name

Pamela Parizo © 2017

 

Rule # 2: Self-sacrifice vs. selfishness

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.  For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,  Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,  Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;  Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.  2 Timothy 3:1-5

Rollo Tomassi’s The Rational Male is largely built on a foundation of self-importance, on promoting dominance and power, and dominating women in order to use them for one’s pleasure.   It  is similar to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of selfishness as a virtue.  He builds his house on shoddy philosophy (solipsism, for example, is refuted by most philosophers, but he uses it extensively to denigrade women) and pop psychology.  Some of his views on evolutionary psychology are diametrical to the research performed by others more reputable in the field.  He does so to tap into the bitterness and anger of the Men’s Rights Movement fueled as a backlash against Feminism.

From a Christian standpoint, we can see that selfishness and self-interest are opposed to the sacrificial love that Jesus represents.  If one gets anything out of the New Covenant, is that we are to love others as we love ourselves.  When we seek the best interest of our loved ones, our Christian brothers and sisters, everyone is better for it.

Jesus represents the core of this sacrificial model of love, loving us so much that He went to the Cross for our sakes.  Isaiah 53 goes into more depth as to the suffering He went through that we could be made whole.  The Old Testament type of this would be Hosea, the husband who loved his wife unconditionally and sacrificially, yet redeemed her so that he could be her husband and not her lord.   Jesus offers up the perfect sacrifice of His blood in order to atone for our sins.

Jesus told His followers to deny themselves, to surrender their lives so that they could find life in him.  There is no room for selfishness in Jesus’ world.  Love one another, put the other’s needs before your own, submit yourselves one to another.  These are admonishments that oppose the hedonistic lifestyle of pleasure that Rollo is self-interested in.  Power in oneself rather than God.  Pleasure in oneself rather than God.

Though he admits men are egotistical, Rollo differentiates (indeed, tries to validate) this self-centered life from what he sees as female egotism by saying it is rational self-interest as opposed to the pragmatic survival egotism of women.  In other words, a woman sacrificing her own needs for her children is not truly self-sacrificing because she sees them as an extension of self, whereas a man exploiting women for his own pleasure is ok.   His loudest cry then is that women do not sacrifice themselves for their man.

The Bible makes it clear that we are all, man and woman, to be Christ-centered.   The Apostle Paul uses the phrase, “Christ who is our  life” in Colossians 3:4.   A man must sacrifice his desire to please himself, and please Christ.  A woman must surrender her desire for her children to Christ.  Any Christian who thinks of his own pleasures above what God wants for him is not being led by the Holy Ghost.   Particularly if they align themselves with those who advocate a pleasure-seeking lifestyle.  The red pill blogger Dalrock needs to seriously examine his faith since he closely aligns himself with Rollo Tomassi and his woman-hating philosophy.   Christianity has no place for lovers of self.

The Ephesians 5 model for marriage is based on self-sacrificial love.  Agape love, that is one that is committed to the other, shows affection to the other, and holds the other in high esteem.  It is the love of Christ for the Church, and the love of the Church for Jesus.   Indeed, even before the chapter delves into the marriage relationship, it holds forth the offering and sacrifice of Jesus as the love we are to have for each other as Christians.   Women are to submit themselves to their husbands, to reverence them.  Men are to sacrifice themselves for their wives, loving her as they would their own flesh, nourishing and cherishing her.  There isn’t any room for selfish desires in this model.

Jesus gave Himself for the Church, in order to wash it and sanctify it through baptism according to His word, so that He could present it to Himself.  The Bride glorifies Jesus through her holiness and is glorious for the glory He brings to her through HIs love for her.  That is the love a man ought to have for His wife.

When one sees value in others, when one loves others, one is truly loving oneself, and bringing glory to oneself.   That is the glory of Jesus Christ.  There is no greater power and no greater love than that exemplified by Him when He laid down His life for us.

Pamela Parizo © 2017

 

Christ’s view of humanity

In assessing the red pill of view of humanity, which is based on evolutionary psychology, it’s important as Christian’s to establish how Jesus viewed humanity in general and women specifically.

We know that God loved humanity so much, that He gave the Son to be the savior of the world (1).  God’s love is unconditional in that God chooses to love us.  He set His love upon us.  That is because His nature is Love.  (2).  We know that He loved us before we ever loved Him. (3).   God’s love for us is expressed through the giving of His Spirit (4) and through Jesus Christ specifically (5) .  God is rich in mercy toward us, His people, and His love for us is great (6).  If we are born of God, we have God’s love in us and love one another (7).  If we love one another, God’s love is perfected in us (8).  We cannot say we love God and not love one another (1 John 4:20).

While we were sinners, Jesus died for us (10).  Nothing can separate us from the love of Jesus (11).  Jesus loved us and so gave Himself for us.  So ought we to give ourselves for each other.

When we look at the Old Testament, we see a culture steeped in patriarchy.    This is the Hebraic world, a theocracy ruled by God through the King, the judge, the priest, or the prophet.  But men were always in control.  This is the way God designed it, and it is right.  However, that never presupposes that God sees women as second-class citizens, as not part of his creation, as not useful outside the domain of the  home.  On occasion, God did use women with spiritual gifts, or for other purposes outside their role as wife/homemaker.  Deborah, Jael, Miriam, Esther, Ruth, Huldah all point to this.

The language of Genesis reflects that God sees women as made in His image, that while woman is subordinate to man in their relationship, she is still important to his plan (indeed, the promise to crush the serpent’s head is given to her, not to Adam).   Women are subject to men overall but that doesn’t say that God does not hold man accountable for his treatment of her.   A man who took more than one wife could not treat the one better than the other.  He owed woman the duties of marriage (food, clothing and marital intimacy).  Wives were never treated like slaves. 

In the New Testament, although it is a different culture in that Israel had become Romanized and Hellenized, the hierarchy of men prevails and is prevalent in the church structure.  This does not mean women did not have some freedom of movement, and women were very active in the work of the Gospel.   Women were not consistently under the rulership of a male relative except her husband, but male authority is present through church leadership.     Women continued to show uses in the Kingdom of God external to their role as homemaker/wife; they were some of the most important witnesses that Jesus had.  Women could possess spiritual gifts since they, like men, also received the Spirit.   This does not diminish the importance of her role in supporting the home, which is vital for women to understand, particularly in light of feminism.

The Red Pill and more specifically the work of Rollo Tomassi reduce the value of women to a sexual object, so that her role within the home is secondary.  This philosophy exploits women’s sexuality–it was never God’s intent that men should receive women’s sexuality without owing her his protection and resources.   Indeed, Christianity restricts all sexuality to marriage, so any philosophy that empowers men to use women as playthings or as plates to spin is contrary to the purpose God has for women, and for the men they are married to.  Marriage glorifies the woman, and by extension, brings glory to her husband.  A good wife is the greatest gift a man can give to himself (12).

Footnotes:

(1) John 3:16

(2) 1 John 4:8

(3) 1 John 4:10

(4) Romans 5:5

(5) Romans 8:39

(6) Ephesians 2:4

(7) 1 John 4:7

(8) 1 John 4:12

(9) 1 John 4:20

(10) Romans 5:8

(11) Romans 8:39

(12) Ephesians 5:27

Pamela Parizo © 2017

Evil Works of Darkness

This is a reblog of a post I had on my main site, The Glorious Wife.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?   And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?  And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 2 Corinthians 6:14-16

As Christians, we often use this verse to indicate that Christians should not marry or do business with unbelievers, but I think it extends well beyond those.  We can marry the ideology of unbelievers to such an extent that our works become unrecognizable as being of Jesus Christ.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is one built upon the truth of the Word of God and the power of the Holy Ghost.  Anything that has a different foundation should be approached with trepidation by those espousing Christ.   The Holy Ghost dwells in us–Paul asks, how can we who are God’s temple have agreement with idols?  And there are terrible idols in this world that want to rob a man of his soul.    The twin idols of Feminism and the Manosphere are such idols, and if a Christian agrees with these, then how can he or she be a child of light?

Man and woman were both created of God.  We were created to be temples of the Holy Spirit.  Both have value in God’s eyes.  All flesh has sinned and fallen short of the glory of the Almighty God.   When either a man or a woman does not have God, we are both capable of great depravity and wickedness.  The scriptures emphasize that both man and woman sinned in the Garden.  Adam’s sin was not about ceding his dominion to his wife. His sin was listening to her rather than to God and eating, willfully, the fruit he was forbidden to eat.    The scripture doesn’t say anything about giving up his dominion.   But because of his sin, he lost dominion.  He could not rule over himself.  Women are not inherently more evil than man is.   Women are weaker physically and in their emotions, and because of this, woman was deceived.   For this reason, women need to be under the headship of man, either through their husband or through other spiritual leaders.

There is a Men’s Movement that wants to demonize women, picture men as being victims of Feminism, which is true to an extent, and their aim is to subjugate and objectify women, rather than rescue men AND women from the evils Feminism has done to our society.  Rather than help men, it creates a greater breach between the sexes and makes them into cold, agressive animals.   One prominent writer, Rollo Tomassi perpetuates the idea that women are opportunistic (i.e., without moral principle) and dishonest in their personal relationships, and that rationalism (evolutionary psychology and social constructs) are the hope for the male of the species.

One has to ask, what would a Christian, who knows the light of Jesus Christ, who has the Holy Spirit within them, or puts their faith in the word of God and not in the wisdom of men, find to agree with in these principles?  There are men who follow this movement who like to speak of the Christian manosphere.   The only manner in which there is a hierarchy of men within Christianity is through the principle of headship.  Other than that, the guiding rules of this movement have no place in the lives of Christian men who profess Jesus Christ.  Women are not inherently opportunistic and dishonest any more than men are, and need the spiritual leadership of men, not deceitful manipulations. Women need men to help them live holy, chaste lives, not to be told their only purpose is to serve men and be their sex objects.

Men who consider themselves Christians must sincerely examine their faiths to see where their trust is.  Jesus is about honesty, love, helping each other to press toward the mark of perfect righteousness, not guile, deceit, hate of women, objectification of women, legalism, offering no hope, joy, peace or love.  Men who consider themselves Christians will rebuke, rather than make agreement with evil works of darkness

Pamela Parizo © 2017