Sometimes a review of history is useful to shed light on—and provide context for—what followed in more recent times. Frequent readers here will be familiar with that to which I refer. Those who are not may still benefit from this look back into the past.
On February 19, 2019, I wrote this comment:
Your evidence does not support the charge of apostasy.
The argument can be described formally:
1) God created Male and Female
2) God called them ‘Adam’
3) By #1 and #2, ‘them’ is the plural male and female
4) ‘adam’ is singular, masculine
5) By #3 and #4, the plural male and female is represented/named by the singular masculine ‘adam’.
6) ‘Adam’ (often translated ‘man’ in English) in Hebrew is a singular, collective noun (like ‘mankind’ in English). To wit:
7) By #6, ‘adam’ (singular, masculine, collective noun) is made in the image of God
8) By #5 and #7, both female and male are made in the image of God.
It was in response to this comment:[1]
And here was the response to my comment:
Sharkly says:
FEBRUARY 19, 2019 AT 9:21 PM
I am Sorry that I am missing your point. I’m not really getting where your numbering is coming from, so I can’t respond directly.
Yes, the word “adam” is tricky since it has more than one usage. Just like the English words “man” and “mankind” have multiple meanings. Some folks forget that “mankind” is also the opposite of womankind. Which is why the other side of the argument should at least acknowledge that Genesis never makes it clear that women are in the image of God. It is only there, if you really want to find it that way. You also have to believe that God is intentionally a bit carelessly vague in His writing to believe He is trying to explain that both men and women are in His image. And you also have to believe that The Apostle Paul was wrong in 1 Corinthians 11:7, or at least incredibly misleading.
Much of this was argued previously at: https://bnonn.com/are-women-made-in-the-image-of-god/
Male and female were not created on the same day, by the way. There was at the minimum at least a Sabbath day in between their creation, if not longer. The phrase “the eighth day” often used signifying the creation of Eve, and womankind, is as much a guess as saying Jesus was born on December 25th.
I’ll tell you of my mental enlightenment into the exclusivity of the image of God onto males: I had recently been thrust into the divorce machine, falsely accused of sexual addiction to the point of being a danger to my children, in order to steal them completely from me for about nine months until I was able to get that doubly disproven. I had come to see my wife acting evilly and awfully against me for only delusional reasons. There was no just cause for her to mistreat me, and the children. I found the Red Pill while seeking out solutions. And, I was at a point where I was open to realizing that what I had been taught to the contrary was Satanic Feminist lies. I prayed incessantly for wisdom Like the Book of James recommends, and also for insight, discernment, and discretion, to lead my wife aright. Then one day while reading Genesis 1:27 I suddenly saw that it was a legally correct product description.
Firstly we are told doubly that “adam” was created in God’s image, and then we are told that God created both sexes, specifically omitting mention of that being done in His image. A poetic contrast. I’ll give an example of a product description:
So are all their sizes the world’s largest, or just the one size?
Anyhow, once I got to thinking about it and trying to see if there were other texts that talked about the image of God. There were, and all of them, whether originally in Aramaic or Greek, only ever talked about men as being in the image of God. And 1 Corinthians 11:7 makes it clear to all but the most resistant minds that women are not. Also I found that this is the original interpretation of the early church fathers, and that the idea that women might also be in God’s image is a later “discovery” introduced perhaps to bolster the deifying of Mary, and Etc., when that was gaining traction in some churches.
My contention is that the image of God is foundational to whether male and female are either equal or not. And if They are equal, and women are being held down by God and His patriarchal religion, then there is a lot of explaining needed for God’s unnatural treatment of women as a lower creature. However if you understand that men alone are gifted with the image of God and that women were created later as a second class of human without the divine attributes, a lesser vessel more prone to sins of negligence and usurping from their own place and duty, then it is only right and sensible that they not be artificially treated equally or given any authority over men, and should remain always in humble silence when the churches gather with heads veiled in the presence of God and His holy angels, and etc.
If you understand the foundation, the rest builds on it. If you have the wrong foundation, the whole of it becomes tricky and needs a clever minded man, like Bnonn, to even begin to explain all the seeming inconsistencies that arise from the fouling foundation of separate but equal in the image of God, yet inexplicably getting the lesser half of “equal” every time things get assigned.
Ephesians 5 images marriage as the similitude of Christ and the church. With the husband in the image of the divine Christ the last Adam, and the wife in the image of the church. I ask again, which one is in the image of God?
Women have ceremonial uncleanness designed into them. That ain’t equal! Nor godlike. I’ve never wanted a bloody time of the month for myself, like girls envy having a penis. Truly things are not equal, because they were never intended to be. The woman was created for “the man”(adam). To be a helper, not an equal. A different vessel, a second lesser vessel, made last of all. If you are ashamed of that, you’re ashamed of God’s doings, because you have been deceived to believe the woman is equal and thus deserves more equal treatment from an unloving God. When she is in fact not the image or glory of God, and should always reverence that about her husband, no matter what else about him may be above or below the average man. Men all being gods above all women, is the correct answer to hypergamy. If women were trained from birth that men are the only permissible images graven in the image of God and bestowed with a portion of His glory to be idolized and subject to in every thing as unto the lord, they could then show all men respect, and not just the most desirable top 10%. But y’all can feed their hypergamy a dose of ‘equally in the image of God’ and then wonder why even the fatties only desire a man who is exceptional in some other way. You fools! You left go of the divine truth that all men are exceptionally glorified above all women, and that every woman marries-up in God’s world! No need to even consider becoming unhaaaapy ladies. You can be certain, until death do you part, that your husband is a god, and that you married an exalted creature higher than yourself, and all of womankind. You are fortunate he condescended to unite with such an entirely carnal creature as yourself.
Someone once said here that many words do not make a good argument.
Although the scriptural references behind each number are familiar to anyone sufficiently knowledgeable with the scriptures in question, here is a new version of the argument with full citations, to ensure that no claim of confusion can be used.
(1) God created Male and Female:
— Genesis 1:27
(2) God called them ‘Adam’:
— Genesis 5:2
(3) By #1 and #2, ‘them’ is the plural male and female
(4) ‘adam’ is singular, masculine
(5) By #3 and #4, the plural male and female is represented/named by the singular masculine ‘adam’.
(6) ‘Adam’ (often translated ‘man’ in English) in Hebrew is a singular, collective noun (like ‘mankind’ in English):
—Genesis 1:26, 5:1
(7) By #6, ‘adam’ (singular, masculine, collective noun) is made in the image of God
(8) By #5 and #7, both female and male are made in the image of God.
To this day, this deductive argument remains untouched.
Sharkly’s argument is based on logical induction, which involves probability and uncertainty in its argument and conclusions. Deduction—the conclusive form of argument—does not.
Footnotes
[1] Pay heed to this rebuke in which Boxer informs Sharkly that he must prove that Bnonn is a feminist. Sharkly responds with a quote and Boxer informs Sharkly that the link does not even hint that Sharkly’s libel is true. Sharkly admits that this is true, but does not retract his strongly-worded, unambiguous libel…
…and continues to imply, without evidence or argument, that Bnonn nevertheless holds beliefs influenced by feminism. He also explains his strategy:
Libel must be summarily rejected as a rational strategy. It is not a good and proper way to goad one into introspection. Despite rebukes by Boxer, Bnonn Tennant, Kentucky Headhunter, and myself—all to no avail—the libeling of opponents continues.
As a very rational man, I have engaged in introspection and so rejected his accusations that I am a feminist and follow feminist teachings.
i want to kick this post off properly!😉😁😊😎
”Sometimes a review of history is useful to shed light on—and provide context for—what followed in more recent times. Frequent readers here will be familiar with that to which I refer. Those who are not may still benefit from this look back into the past.”
You consistently speak my same language don’t you Derek?
Here is the MAIN non-MANosphere comment on a non-MANosphere site ever made by a certain someone on Mar 27, 2014, At 1:30 pm on this pro-feminist site known as Unwritten
& their article ”What The F*ck Happened To Dating In College?” and since GBFM as well as his professor alter-ego have always been ”super classy” like most modern woMEN and MEN, the original profanity(that somehow got past delicate pro-porn-to get goodies- feminist eyes in the article will be censored respectively as usual.
I’m sorry, but when the f*ck did “dating” disappear?
I have a friend who just got back on the market. She’s super classy, and she’s kind of with this new guy. They’ve had a few (non-sexual, but buxthual nonetheless) sleepovers, but she wants him to take her on an actual date before she gives it all up. Not unreasonable, right? But we were talking the other day and I actually heard myself say to her, “You can’t expect too much from a guy in college. Sex comes first, a date comes way later, and only if he really likes you.” LIKE REALLY? Wtf.
Girls – and boys – we seriously need to get our sh!t together.
Is it really too ball-busting or butthexting to ask a guy to drop $6.75 on you at Chipotle after an hour (or five minutes, let’s be honest) of a semi-drunk hookup? Or wrong to expect the boy who so consistently texts you each Saturday at 2:39 a.m. to allocate one precious evening for a dinner date and a butthexting assignment from h*ll? H*LL. NO, as butthext is a must lads and lasses.
I just don’t understand today’s collegiate standards. Dating has completely disappeared, and girls jokingly refer to a “walk of shame” as a “stride of pride.” Umm, I’m calling bullish!t. Please show me one girl who looks proud on that lonely walk home, with obviously smeared mascara, messy bedroom hair, and eyes focused on the concrete ground while fantasing of another rear end she happily hexed.
And while we’re on the subject, when did girls become sluts, or teases, or skanks for going out to dinner with one boy on Friday night and maybe doing the ‘ole rear end manuever, and then to a movie with another on Saturday? How is that worse than sleeping with two different guys in one weekend, something that is becoming an increasingly common phenomenon on college campuses nationwide?
When romance wasn’t more confusing than a cumulative exam, A.K.A. when people were actually normal, you didn’t have to completely commit to one guy until he asked you to “go steady.” Until then, all else was fair game. Nowadays, that’s unheard of. Modern romantic tactics are much more sneaky and difficult to understand.
Did the boy you hooked up with two weeks ago just send you a casual, “What’s up” text? Does that mean you’re like, talking now? How long should you wait to text him back or give him the ole’ rear-end maneuver? Is it okay to double-text if he doesn’t answer within 10 minutes? Does “Heyy” or “Heyyy” sound better? Is an emoji too much? What about two emojis?
F*cking. Stop.
Unless that “What’s up or in you’re rear babe?” text is followed by a sincere, “What are you doing tonight? Let’s grab dinner together” text, he’s absolutely no concern of yours. What’s the point of pining over a douche bag? Gather up your precious self-respect and MOVE. ON. We girls can do so much better, and your 30-year-old self will thank you for it.
When you like a boy and that boy likes you, it shouldn’t be complicated. If (and hopefully when) you find that special person, the relationship should flow naturally. F*ck the mind games, f*ck the booty calls, fuck him! (Just not literally.) But hey, if you’re all about the casual sex then I’m not here to stop you – I’m just telling you to get a clue.
&here someone was using the same bad English and editing skills as future ”loudmouth ”leader” chump” would with his betaized and blue pill spelling programs.
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) Mar 27, 2014 At 1:30 pm
the reason that traditional dating has disappeared is because traditional marriage has disappeared.
as all women have now had numerous one-night stands, instead of waiting for that one knight, why would you want to be the knight who has to pay for what others got for free when it was younger, hotter, tighter, and forty pounds lighter?
and by pay, i mean you have to give up your time, your energy, your future salary in the form of child support and alimony, and your children. you will have to pay for your x-wife’s new lingerie for the biker boy she once banged for free, but now buys beer for with your money, via the alimony you must send her under threat of incarceration.
zozozozozo
helloz class! da professorsz is herez and we gonnaz talkz about some GREAT BOOKS 4 MENZ lzozolzol
lzozzzzlzllzzlolzzloolz
GBFM ECONOMICZ MAXIM # 1: A woman’s courtship value is equal or less than the lowest price she ever gave her p@ssy away for. lzolzoz
GBFM ECOnOMICZ MAXIM # 1:
A woman’s courtship value is equal or less than the lowest price she ever gave her p@ssy away for. lzozozoz
After a woman has had a one-night stand
or given her p@ssy for free
her courtship value
is 0.
or less than 0.
As why would you want to be the guy
who pays for what others got when it was younger hotter tighter
forty pounds lighter
for freeee?
lzozlzozlzzo
After a woman passes 25, whence she has generally been buttcocked numerous times and desouled, her courtship value is negative. It is the woman, who is now wired fiat bernanke cash and allowed to excel in fiat bernanke programs that drug up and dumb down boyz while deocntsructing da GREAT BOOKS 4 MENZ and creating far more debt than wealth while bankruping the West morally amnd moneetarily, who must pay the man so as to court him.
For a 25 year old multi-buttocked, desouled, bernankifed woman represents a huge risk to a man’s livelihood, his time, his conscience, his soul, his future earnings, and his general well-being. And the man must be compensated justly so as to have to court a woman over 25 who has been buttcocked and deousled and converted by the cenrta; bankerz into a vehicle of welath transfer lzozlz so dey could convert their masisve fiat debt into physical property by leveraging a woman’s sexuality for prviate profit gains while placing all teh risksz on good menz zlozzllz.
lzolzolzozozozozoz
Yeah, women tell me they are equal to MEN so they can also pay for ”dates” whether or not they are ”non-sexual, but butthextual nonetheless”too.
”(2) God called them ‘Adam’:
“Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”
— Genesis 5:2”
I tell them all that’s the main reason why they must pay for ”d@tes” too! Or else risk backing out on being anything remotely seen as ”equal” in my or their creator’s eyes.
Professor,
Yeah, women tell me they are equal to MEN so they can also pay for ”dates” … I tell them all that’s the main reason why they must pay for ”d@tes” too! Or else risk backing out on being anything remotely seen as ”equal” in my or their creator’s eyes.
The idea that women are equal to men is a “lie” that feminists tell. Seemingly only gullible (autistic?) Red Pillers have bought that framing, hook-line-and-sinker. Everyone else knows that this isn’t true.
The discussion of relative courtship value—which can be negative—drives this point home.
Back in 2019, the same year the comments in the OP were written, I defined feminism this way:
“The best definition most consistent across all flavors of feminism is the promotion of gender inequality favoring women, that is, female supremacy.”
To use the economic analogy, “equality” is just the opening bid that everyone expects to be offered during the bargaining phase, but everyone knows that this is just all part of the negotiation. It’s not the real offer. No party to the negotiation actually wants or expects real equality. As with any negotiation, there are trade-offs and exchanges.
This is true whether you are a patriarchal male, a radical feminist, a “churchian” complementarian, or a believer in any other model you might prefer.
This is why it is so absurd when “people” weirdly accuse me of pushing for “feminist equality” when feminists themselves don’t even push for equality.
What separates me from the average Red Piller is not that I push for “feminist equality,” but that I have different priorities in my negotiations than they do. I embrace the inevitability of inequality just like everyone else does, but I merely disagree on what the nature of that inequality looks like. Inequality does not imply an unfair exchange: it absolutely can and should be mutually beneficial. Was this not obvious from what I wrote?
Mutual submission can seen in the following observation: it is good for husbands and wives to be humble, respectful, courteous, kind, loving, deferential, honoring, and understanding towards each other, aiming towards unity. Any marriage in which either husband or wife fails at this is not one characterized by a submissive attitude. It isn’t about authority or roles, whether equal or not.
What’s wrong with me being in sole charge of dead mice and spiders? Absolutely nothing.
But when it comes to the image of God—whatever that means—all Christians, men and women, have it. But even there it isn’t a matter of equality, as unbelievers are never described as being in the image of God.
Peace,
DR
A man in the RP world, and even the “christian” one you just have to be “confident” and practice. Be funny, and talk to women. Change your appearance and go to the the gym. Dress oddly (peacocking). Have masculine pursuits. Have a good job. Be dominant. Be a boss. If she gives any lip, dump her / kick her to the curb. Threaten her with how many options you have. Expect sex. Demand it. She gives it up? She’s easy! She doesnt? She’s a prude and kick her to the curb! She only wants to follow a man, and if she doesnt have “that look” that cannot ever, ever be faked……………..she is a user / liar / gold-digger and kick her to the curb. If she is not a perfect ten in looks, she obviously is a fat, lazy slob and would be a terrible mother. If she is a perfect ten, she is vain, a tease and a carousel rider and self-centered / spoiled.
The RP man has to know a gazillion terms, lexicon, graphs, charts, LAWS, Maxims, Axioms, Rules, Taboos, Warnings, and speak fluently the “secret” language women all speak to each other to undermine men and upsur then. The man has to have a great job / career lined up at 19 and has to spinning plates with many other women in case the one he is with at the moment turns into the liar / gold digger / red flag woman she evidently already is. His word mean nothing. He has to hate all men except those who behave like he does (burp and fart jokes) and behave in an aloof boorish manner while being highly educated and of course be able to bench press a house.
Dont have that? Not getting all that? cant do all of that? Have not achieved all that????
You are a Beta / Cucked man who puts women on a pedestal and loves being miserable and hates women. Go put on a dress!
Their whole ethos is tied to sex and getting it and then b*tching about women being easy / putting out…being cheaters, being vain, not accountable.
Aptly put.
What I find ironic is that when Paul discussed that topic directly, he described mutual authority. It is the only time he mentioned authority in the context of husbands and wives.
”Their whole ethos is tied to sex and getting it and then b*tching about women being easy putting out…being cheaters, being vain, not accountable.”
Yeah, hence why dudes like my friend SD can’t figure out why more married/divorced MEN are not teaming up with his idols Jack and Sparkly-one BIGG reason is that marriage(especially ”re-marriage” among non-rich MEN) and divorce rates nose-dived heavily in the late 90s-late’00s when all the crying from preachers and dads of daughters like Dalrock started advising ” MEN to improve ” and get ”redpilled married”.
”surfdumb says:
26 June, 2024 at 6:12 pm
“Whataboutism.” Maybe a bigger tool than withholding sex.
If I were to start a blog, I could use that word as the blog’s name. Something passive-aggressive in that word that demonstrates our current age’s mindlessness and victimhood.”
See how he doesn’t recognize the victimolypimics with guys like Sparkly and in the distant past Mark Minter and Bill F.Price-both who had such horrible ex-wives they hurried up and got remarried in an ”evil feminist-evil marriage environment” as both were proud ”anti-feminist-anti-marriage red pill gamers ” preached before finding their new ”Love-of-a-lifetime” as they got ”bluepilled oneitis”-which both swore was evilz)?
Yes, but most of those arguing with you are true believerStm in the supposed ”Godliness” of politics as their sainted father and grandfather did before them. So you’re in essence attacking their religion.
As seen here recently:
—————————————————————-
The article is just another recent example of how time and time again when reading “Christian” articles regarding the conflict between the sexes, the “Christian” authors dutifully pledge their allegiance to “sexual equality” claiming that men and women were essentially created equal, not because God ever said that, but because they believe both men and women are equally images of God our Father and Jesus Christ His Son. And that one claim really is the only “unquestionable” basis that sexual equality has ever had. Any other basis for sexual equality based upon biology or ability leaves the sexes unequal. It has been known from ancient times that men are generally stronger physically, rationally, emotionally, and have more robustness in enduring harsh environments. Only a fool would try to dispute the truth of that generalization.
So how can the sex that is generally physically weaker, more irrational, more emotionally unstable, and generally has a weaker constitution, plausibly claim to be equal to men? Well, unless you’re ready to rashly be led by your sex-cravings straight into fertility goddess worship, you’d have to have the masculine God of the Bible somehow state that He established a basis whereby the sexes become equalized despite their obvious differences.
But what does the Bible say?
Genesis 2:18(YLT) And Jehovah God saith, `Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper — as his counterpart.’
God said the woman was made to be the man’s (‘ê·zer) help, helper (kə·neḡ·dōw.) in front of, in sight of, opposite to him. God said that the woman was created to be the man’s help.
I could go on with many verses: – weaker vessel — subject to your own husbands as it is fit — in subjection — as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything — in silence with all subjection — obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed., and Etc.
The Bible is very clear that — the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. The relationship is not an equal one, but a hierarchy with the woman under the man.(1 Corinthians 11:3) So what does the Bible actually say about the image of God?
1 Corinthians 11:6(RSV) For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)
1 Corinthians 11:7(CEV) Men were created to be like God and to bring honor to God. This means a man should not wear anything on his head. Women were created to bring honor to men.
So where do people find this supposed “sexual equality” in the Bible? Well, they have been trained to infer it from just a few passages which don’t actually say men and women are equal.
Firstly, they wrongly interpret Genesis 1:27 as including the female as being the image of God, when God was quite meticulous to never ever say that in the Bible. Yet that is almost their entire argument for sexual equality. However, they will also twist a few other scriptures as backups to that one main misinterpreted verse.
The next verse they’ll most popularly use is Galatians 3:28.
Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
But is that verse really saying that there is zero difference between men and women? That same-sex marriage is OK, that women can do anything a man can do in the church? Of course not. The verse is speaking of faith in Jesus Christ resulting in salvation and identification with Christ through baptism. And stating that everyone’s salvation works the same. Another verse they may also use (1 Peter 3:7) states that we are offered the same grace unto salvation:
1 Peter 3:5 For in this way the holy women of former times, who hoped in God, also used to adorn themselves, being subject to their own husbands, 6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord; and you have proved to be her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear. 7 You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your[plural] prayers will not be hindered.
But of course, the verse only says that the woman is to be honored as an heir together of the same grace unto salvation, not that she is equal to her husband. The beginning of 1 Peter 3 makes clear she is to rightly be subject to her husband even if he himself is disobedient to the word of God.
Bnonn & Foster tried to use a phrase from 2 Corinthians 3:18 as a “gotcha” proof-text, which I have shown was only referring to males.(the leadership of the church)
So, why do I continuously harp, like a broken record, about 1 Corinthians 11:7 and men (not women) being the image of God? Because the image of God is the Bible’s and the Western world’s only possible absolute justification for categorical sexual ranking. Either the image of God is hermaphroditic and is the unquestionable foundation for categorical sexual equality and undergirds Feminism, or else the image of God is solely masculine, and it instills categorical superiority onto all men over all women and it therefore vindicates God’s holy order of patriarchy as the righteous hierarchy of an infinitely wise and loving God.”
—————————————————————-
See?
They view an attack on their religion as an attack on God himself, but the two are not the same.
Pingback: A Comment from History, Reviewed
Pingback: Habitually Being Wrong