š„ Why God Created Two Genders
For 6,000 years, patriarchy was normal. Now itās called oppression.
š My book exposes feminismās lies, defends male headship, and restores Biblical gender roles.
š Check it out on Amazon
https://t.co/1Ewj2AIVWc
Your argument fails because Scripture does not require every sin to have a specifically stated civil punishment attached to it in order for it to be sinful.
Take prostitution for example. Paul explicitly condemns men going to prostitutes in 1 Corinthians 6. Why? Is it merely because money changed hands? No. Paulās entire argument is that a man is becoming āone fleshā with a woman outside the marriage covenant.
Yet where in the Mosaic Law is there a prescribed civil punishment for a man visiting a prostitute? There isnāt one.
So are you going to argue God approved prostitution simply because no judicial penalty was attached to it? Of course not.
The point is that prostitution is condemned for the same reason all fornication is condemned: two people becoming one flesh outside of marriage. Your argument wrongly assumes that if Scripture does not prescribe a punishment for a particular sexual sin, then God must approve of it. That logic simply does not hold up biblically.
I didnāt assign men the role of leaders, providers and protectors, nor women the role of wives, mothers and homemakers ā God did. And because God assigned these roles, they are moral roles, not merely personal preferences.
Scripture says men are to provide for and care for their households:
āHe that provideth not for his own⦠hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.ā ā 1 Timothy 5:8
Husbands are also called to sacrificial leadership and protection:
āHusbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.ā ā Ephesians 5:25
And Scripture explicitly calls women to marriage, motherhood and care of the home:
āI will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the houseā¦ā ā 1 Timothy 5:14
āThat they may teach the young women⦠to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at homeā¦ā ā Titus 2:4-5
This modern idea that all roles are interchangeable and that God has no distinct design for men and women is not biblical Christianity ā it is modern egalitarian ideology imposed onto the Bible.
You may dislike Godās design, but donāt pretend Christians invented it. Scripture assigned these roles long before modern feminism existed.
"Unpaid labor" - so a woman should receive a paycheck for caring for her own children, cooking meals for herself, her children and her husband? Like she is a hired maid and nanny and these people are not her own family? What stupidity. So in your mind, it would be better for her to go work a full time job like her husband and then they pay someone else to do the "labor" of caring for her children and her home as long as everyone is getting a "paid" for their labor? Do you even understand the absurdity of your position?
Corporal punishment is not inherently abuse. Abuse is the unjust, cruel, or uncontrolled use of physical force. Scripture distinguishes between abusive violence and lawful discipline or punishment.
In fact, God prescribed corporal punishment in the Old Testament not only for children, but also as a civil punishment carried out by governing authorities in Israelās theocracy (Deuteronomy 25:1ā3).
Modern society rejects almost all forms of corporal punishment, but I personally believe many communities would be better off if limited corporal punishment were restored for certain crimes instead of relying almost entirely on imprisonment.
So Israel is the only nation in the world who holds these wicked views on abortion and homosexuality? No one else holds these wicked views? No one ever held these wicked views before the Israel existed? Wait...I think there was these places called Sodom and Gommorah and held these views long before Israel existed.
Every bad judge is Jewish and every non-Jewish judge is a saint. Every bad decision comes from one group while everyone else just stumbles into perfection. Complex civilizations rise and fall over thousands of years, but actually itās all secretly controlled by a tiny group the whole time. Millions of independent decisions across governments, courts, and culturesānone of it is real agency, itās always someone else pulling the strings.
Bad ideas never ever originate in the West itself either⦠theyāre always imported by one convenient villain.
Flawless theory. No notes.
Agree on points 2 to 5. But I totally disagree that Zionism is a problem.
The Bible literally teaches what people today call Zionismāthat the land was given to the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that God is not finished with them as a people.
You donāt need dispensationalism to see that. Itās right there in the text.
God calls His covenant with Abraham and his descendants everlasting and explicitly ties it to the land (Genesis 17:7ā8). Then in Jeremiah 31:35ā37, God says Israel will continue as a nation before Him as long as the fixed order of creation stands. Thatās not symbolic languageāitās a direct statement about their ongoing national identity.
And then you get to Romans 11, which really settles it. Paul says Israel, in their current state, are āenemies for your sakeā as it relates to the gospel, but at the same time ābeloved for the fathersā sake,ā and that āthe gifts and calling of God are without repentanceā (Romans 11:28ā29).
So who are these people who are both enemies and yet still beloved? The Jews. Paul is making a distinction.
Romans 11 shows two realities at once. There is a spiritual people of Godāthe churchāmade up of both Jews and Gentiles grafted together. But there is also a physical people, the ethnic descendants of Abraham, who still have a future in Godās plan. Paul goes on to say their blindness is partial and temporary until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, and then Israel will be restored.
So from a Historic Premillennial perspective, Israelās current unbelief doesnāt cancel their identityāit actually fits the pattern Scripture lays out. First unbelief, then restoration.
So no, Zionism isnāt an āenemy.ā You can debate politics, you can reject dispensationalism, but if you take Scripture seriously, you canāt say God is done with the Jewish people or that their connection to that land is meaningless.
š„ In 195 BC, Rome faced something it had never seen before.
Women flooded the streets, pressured lawmakers, and demanded the repeal of laws restraining luxury.
On the Senate floor, Cato the Elder warned:
āIf each of us had maintained his authority over his own wife, we should have less trouble with women as a wholeā¦
The moment they begin to be your equals, they will be your superiors.ā
He wasnāt speaking from hatred.
He was speaking from observation.
He understood that when authority in the home is surrendered, it doesnāt stay containedāit reshapes society.
Rome ignored him.
Centuries later, one of Americaās founders saw the same pattern.
John Adams wrote in 1776:
āWe know better than to repeal our masculine systemsā¦
which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat.ā
By ādespotism of the petticoat,ā Adams was referring to womenāand warning that if male authority were surrendered, women would come to rule over men.
Different civilizations. Same warning.
This isnāt about denying that women have value.
Itās about recognizing where that value is meant to be expressedāin the home, not in the realm of political rule.
Sadly, Adamsā warning was ignored by those who came after him.
And men in America, like the men of Rome, gave in to the protests and pressure of women.
In time, they granted women equal rights with men.
And now, much like Rome became, we have become a soft and weakened society.
And like Rome, we too will fall if we do not reverse course.
The Bible warns that a society ruled by women, rather than by men, is one under the judgment of God:
āAs for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.
O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.ā
ā Isaiah 3:12
And now in the last 150 years we see the consequences of society making women equal with men.
Plummeting marriage rates and birth rates and skyrocketing divorce rates. A society where people live for themselves based completely on their feelings. A wicked society that encourages promiscuity and abortion.
Make no mistake America and Western culture will collapse and return to the natural order of Patriarchy one way or the other.
It will either collapse suddenly under the weight of its own foolishness or it will return to patriarchy gradually as men and women turn back to God and embrace his order for society.
The choice is ours.
š Why God Created Two Genders
šļø Unfiltered Podcast ā link in bio
#biblicalgenderroles #politics #feminism #feminismiscancer #egalitarianism
Youāre not wrong for wanting a virgin wife.
But you are also not wrong for marrying a woman who is isnāt a virgin but has repented of her former sinful lifestyle.
This viral post from @TrevorSheatz is sparking debateābut the truth is, the Bible doesnāt force us into an either/or.
It gives us both grace and standards.
Firstāgrace is real.
No one is beyond redemption. No past is too broken for God to cleanse.
š āIf we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.ā (1 John 1:9)
A woman who has sinned sexually, repented, and turned to Christ
is forgiven. She is cleansed - spiritually.
But sexual sin can have lasting physical and emotional consequences,
and those realities should not be ignored when choosing a spouse.
But hereās what many are afraid to say todayā¦
Virginity still matters.
God didnāt treat it as meaninglessāHe treated it as valuable.
š āAnd he shall take a wife in her virginityā¦ā (Lev. 21:13)
And the New Testament reinforces that ideal:
š āā¦that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.ā (2 Cor. 11:2)
Virginity is used as a picture of purity itself.
So noāa man is not wrong for valuing it.
He is not shallow. He is not unspiritual.
Hereās the real balance:
If a man lived in sexual sin and then repented, he should be humble enough to consider a woman who has done the same.
But if a man has remained sexually pure,
there is nothing sinful about him desiring the same in a wife.
Thatās not hypocrisy. Thatās consistency.
The problem with posts like this is subtle:
In trying to remove shame from womenās past sin, they often end up shaming men for having standards.
Men are told:
āDonāt prioritize virginity. Donāt value it that much.ā
Scripture never says that.
God values sexual purity.
So itās not wrong for men to value it too.
You donāt have to choose between grace and standards.
The Bible doesnāt.
Grace forgives the past.
Standards still guide the future.
Itās not either/or.
Itās both.
š Want a deeper biblical breakdown of sex, purity, and marriage?
Check out my book Why God Created Two Genders + my uncensored podcast at https://t.co/Xf2FyrcMzl
#ChristianMen #ChristianDating #Masculinity #purity
#relationshipadvice
It's actually shows how degenerate our modern society is that you have to ask this question at all. Before the last 150 years (and the advent if modern dating in the late 1800s) 95 percent of all women were saving sex for marriage and only courting (not dating) for marriage. Notice I left the 5 percent there to acknowledge there have always been whores throughout history š
Robāyes, āfornicationā is a Latin-derived English word. That part is true. But thatās not really the issue.
The real question isāwhat word is it translating?
In the New Testament, the Greek word is porneia. Thatās the word Paul actually uses. And porneia is a broad term for sexual immoralityāit includes prostitution, adultery, and any sexual activity outside of marriage.
So, weāre not building doctrine off a Latin wordāweāre translating a Greek word that already has a clear meaning.
And Paul doesnāt leave that meaning vague. In 1 Corinthians 6 he defines it by pointing back to Genesisāāthe two shall be one flesh.ā So, in other words, porneia is any one-flesh union outside of covenant marriage. Thatās coming straight from the text.
So this isnāt really a translation issueāitās a category issue.
Paul puts prostitution under porneia, and then explains that category using Godās design for sex itself.
And as far as the live discussionāIām fine with that. But before we go there, weāve got to stay grounded in the text.
Because once you follow Paulās logic, itās actually pretty simple.
Sex creates one flesh.
One flesh was designed for marriage.
Outside marriage, itās porneia.
And that includes prostitutionānot just temple prostitution.
Robālet me ask you this.
Was anyone ever given a specific civil punishment for drunkenness?
Scripture clearly condemns it over and over (Proverbs 20:1, 23:29ā35), but where is the law that says, āa man caught drunk shall receive X punishmentā?
What about gluttony? Laziness? Greed? Oppressing others? Taking advantage of people? Pride?
All of these are clearly condemned in the Old Testamentābut you wonāt find a consistent civil penalty attached to each one.
So, are those not really sins because thereās no stated punishment?
Thatās the problem with the framework youāre using.
Youāre trying to define sin based on whether thereās a listed court penalty. But Scripture doesnāt define sin that way.
God calls something sin because it violates His design and His lawānot because He always assigns a specific civil punishment to it in Israelās legal system.
And we already established what prostitution falls under.
Paul puts it in the category of fornication, and then explains why:
It creates a one-flesh union outside of marriage.
So, in other words, the question isnāt, āwhat was the court penalty?ā
The question is, ādoes this violate Godās design for sex?ā
And the answer to thatāaccording to both Old and New Testamentāis clearly yes.
Robāplease donāt miss or gloss over this. You asked, āwhat is the sin?ā
I already showed you 1 Corinthians 6:16 where Paul explicitly explains why prostitution is sin.
āHe which is joined to an harlot is one body⦠for two shall be one flesh.ā
So, the issue isnāt temple prostitution versus regular prostitution. Paul doesnāt even make that distinction.
He explains the sin itself.
When a man has sex with a prostitute, he becomes one flesh with her. Thatās a Genesis concept. Thatās how God designed sexāto create a one-flesh union within marriage.
In other words, prostitution is sin because it creates a one-flesh union outside of covenant.
So, the category Paul puts it in is not āidolatryāāitās fornication.
He then says plainly:
āFlee fornication.ā
And then immediately gives the only solution:
āTo avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife.ā
So, Paul defines the sin and then defines the boundary.
Sex outside marriage = fornication
Marriage = the only lawful place for sex
In other words, prostitutionātemple or notāis sinful because it violates Godās design for sex itself.
It takes what God created for covenant and uses it outside of covenant.
Thatās why itās sin.
Noāthe biblical condemnation of harlotry is not limited simply to temple prostitutes. Scripture condemns all forms of prostitution, both in the Old Testament and the New.
In the Old Testament, Hebrew actually uses two different words. Zonah refers to a general prostitute, while qedeshah refers to a cult or temple prostitute tied to pagan worship.
And both are explicitly condemned. General prostitution is condemned in places like Leviticus 19:29 and Deuteronomy 23:17, and temple prostitution is also condemned in Deuteronomy 23:17ā18 and 1 Kings 14:24.
So thereās no category of prostitution thatās allowedāGod forbids both.
Now when you get to the New Testament, Greek doesnāt carry that same distinction. It primarily uses one wordāporneāwhich is a broad term for a prostitute or sexually immoral woman.
So the idea that Paul is only talking about temple prostitution isnāt coming from the Greek textāitās being read into it.
If Paul meant temple prostitution specifically, he had plenty of ways to make that clear. He could have tied it directly to idolatry. He could have referenced pagan worship practices. He could have narrowed the context. But he doesnāt do any of that.
Instead, he says, āWhat? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? ⦠for two shall be one flesh.ā
So, his argument isnāt about temples at allāitās about what sex is.
Sex creates a one-flesh union. Thatās a Genesis principle. In other words, the issue isnāt where the sex happensāitās that itās happening outside of covenant.
And then look at how he frames everything around that. He says, āFlee fornication,ā and then immediately after, āTo avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife.ā
So, Paul gives one command and one solution. Flee sexual immorality and direct your sexual desire into marriage. In other words, heās not saying avoid temple prostitutionāheās saying avoid all sex outside marriage.
So for the temple prostitute argument to work, youād have to believe Paul used a broad word, gave a universal argument about one flesh, issued a blanket command to flee fornication, and then gave a single outlet in marriageābut somehow only meant a very narrow category.
That just doesnāt hold up.
So what Paul is actually doing is expanding the category, not narrowing it. Heās taking sexual sin out of just pagan temple contexts and rooting it in Godās design from the beginning.
In other words, once you follow his logic, it rules out all sex outside covenant. And that includes what we would call male promiscuity.
Men, youāre not wrong for wanting a virgin wife.
But you are also not wrong for marrying a woman who is isnāt a virgin but has repented of her former sinful lifestyle.
This viral post from @TrevorSheatz is sparking debateābut the truth is, the Bible doesnāt force us into an either/or.
It gives us both grace and standards.
Firstāgrace is real.
No one is beyond redemption. No past is too broken for God to cleanse.
š āIf we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.ā (1 John 1:9)
A woman who has sinned sexually, repented, and turned to Christ
is forgiven. She is cleansed - spiritually.
But sexual sin can have lasting physical and emotional consequences,
and those realities should not be ignored when choosing a spouse.
But hereās what many are afraid to say todayā¦
Virginity still matters.
God didnāt treat it as meaninglessāHe treated it as valuable.
š āAnd he shall take a wife in her virginityā¦ā (Lev. 21:13)
And the New Testament reinforces that ideal:
š āā¦that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.ā (2 Cor. 11:2)
Virginity is used as a picture of purity itself.
So noāa man is not wrong for valuing it.
He is not shallow. He is not unspiritual.
Hereās the real balance:
If a man lived in sexual sin and then repented, he should be humble enough to consider a woman who has done the same.
But if a man has remained sexually pure,
there is nothing sinful about him desiring the same in a wife.
Thatās not hypocrisy. Thatās consistency.
The problem with posts like this is subtle:
In trying to remove shame from womenās past sin, they often end up shaming men for having standards.
Men are told:
āDonāt prioritize virginity. Donāt value it that much.ā
Scripture never says that.
God values sexual purity.
So itās not wrong for men to value it too.
You donāt have to choose between grace and standards.
The Bible doesnāt.
Grace forgives the past.
Standards still guide the future.
Itās not either/or.
Itās both.
š Want a deeper biblical breakdown of sex, purity, and marriage?
Check out my book Why God Created Two Genders + my uncensored podcast at https://t.co/Xf2FyrdkoT
#ChristianMen #ChristianDating #Masculinity #purity
#relationshipadvice
That response completely misses the pointāand flips Godās design on its head.
A man is not āanother childā because he comes home after working all day and wants peace. The Bible actually places the burden of provision squarely on his shoulders before God. āIf anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faithā¦ā (1 Timothy 5:8). That responsibility is heavy. It is constant. And it is God-given.
So when a man sits down at the end of the day, he is not acting like a childāhe is a man who has already fulfilled his primary duty.
But modern thinking despises that distinction. It wants to turn marriage into a 50/50 āpartnership,ā where both are doing everything all the time. Thatās not how Scripture describes it.
The Bible says plainly, āthe head of the woman is the manā (1 Corinthians 11:3). And it shows wives honoring that role: āas Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lordā (1 Peter 3:5ā6). That is not partnership languageāthat is headship.
And alongside that headship, God gives the wife her own domain: āthat they may beā¦keepers at homeā (Titus 2:5). Her calling is not to compete with her husband or demand equal burdens in every moment, but to manage the home and care for the children.
So when a woman resents her husband resting, what she is really revealing is that she has rejected the roles God established.
Yes, a husband should love his wife. Yes, he should help where appropriate. But that is very different from this modern expectation that he must come home and immediately take over her responsibilities as if they are interchangeable.
He is not her āpartner.ā
He is her head.
And a godly woman doesnāt despise thatāshe honors it.
Youāre not wrong for wanting a virgin wife.
But you are also not wrong for marrying a woman who is isnāt a virgin but has repented of her former sinful lifestyle.
This viral post from @TrevorSheatz is sparking debateābut the truth is, the Bible doesnāt force us into an either/or.
It gives us both grace and standards.
Firstāgrace is real.
No one is beyond redemption. No past is too broken for God to cleanse.
š āIf we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.ā (1 John 1:9)
A woman who has sinned sexually, repented, and turned to Christ
is forgiven. She is cleansed - spiritually.
But sexual sin can have lasting physical and emotional consequences,
and those realities should not be ignored when choosing a spouse.
But hereās what many are afraid to say todayā¦
Virginity still matters.
God didnāt treat it as meaninglessāHe treated it as valuable.
š āAnd he shall take a wife in her virginityā¦ā (Lev. 21:13)
And the New Testament reinforces that ideal:
š āā¦that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.ā (2 Cor. 11:2)
Virginity is used as a picture of purity itself.
So noāa man is not wrong for valuing it.
He is not shallow. He is not unspiritual.
Hereās the real balance:
If a man lived in sexual sin and then repented, he should be humble enough to consider a woman who has done the same.
But if a man has remained sexually pure,
there is nothing sinful about him desiring the same in a wife.
Thatās not hypocrisy. Thatās consistency.
The problem with posts like this is subtle:
In trying to remove shame from womenās past sin, they often end up shaming men for having standards.
Men are told:
āDonāt prioritize virginity. Donāt value it that much.ā
Scripture never says that.
God values sexual purity.
So itās not wrong for men to value it too.
You donāt have to choose between grace and standards.
The Bible doesnāt.
Grace forgives the past.
Standards still guide the future.
Itās not either/or.
Itās both.
š Want a deeper biblical breakdown of sex, purity, and marriage?
Check out my book Why God Created Two Genders + my uncensored podcast at https://t.co/Xf2FyrcMzl
#ChristianMen #ChristianDating #Masculinity #purity
#relationshipadvice