Feminism Leads to Vile Affections

Feminism Leads to Vile Affections

“For even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature” (Romans 1:22).

“For even their women – that sex whose priceless jewel and fairest ornament is modesty, and which when that is once lost, not only becomes more shameless than the other sex, but lives henceforth only to drag the other sex down to its level” (Jamieson-Fausset-Bible Commentary).

The natural use of the female body is to have sexual relations with a man (her husband) and bear his child, then nurse the baby. Feminism taught women to rebel against this from the very onset and now, many women are far from the natural use that their bodies were created for and many men no longer want to marry.

Once women decided that marriage is bondage but still wanted the benefit of marriage (sex), they threw off their clothing in order to entice men. As time went on, they felt used by men and decided that marriage, motherhood, and homemaking weren’t for them. Now, as we can see, lesbianism is exploding just as it did in Sodom and Gomorrah. Feminism leads to lesbianism.

“In relation to men, women have helped make men what they are now. By not respecting ourselves and by showing everything and giving everything for free and without commitment on the part of the man, we have made and continue the cycle of men using women as prostitutes without having to pay, men who don’t commit, and men who think that girls who get attached are the problem.

“If all women carried themselves with dignity and demanded respect, and women started changing the way they view modesty, men would have no choice but to change as well” (Carla Coleman “Unseduced and Unshaken”).

Christian women, we must not go down the path our culture is taking. There is nothing good about feminism. It was created to rebel against God’s plan for women. Dress modestly for the Lord, yourself, and the men around you. Your nakedness is for your husband alone. Remain a virgin until marriage. You will never regret it but you will regret it if you don’t. God is our Creator and His commands are for our own good and to bring glory to Him.

“In a sexually charged world, sexual purity is countercultural…Chastity does not happen by accident; it is a discipline of life founded on a knowledge of and belief in God’s Word and His loving intent for us, supported by accountability to an insightful community…it really is God’s best for us, the best from the one who wants to protect us from objectification, who wants us to be cherished, who wants us to know the joy of living dignified, holy lives and the true joy of desire. We cannot break God’s rule of chastity without wounding our souls” (Linda Haines).

Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
Jeremiah 6:16

29 thoughts on “Feminism Leads to Vile Affections

  1. The TRUE sexism of feminism is the idea that to be worth anything you have to be a man instead of being seen as worthy and with a purpose as a feminine woman!

  2. Hi Lori. I really enjoy reading your blog, and your Twitter posts. Though most of the replies on Twitter are really awful! How do you deal with them? Do you answer back to any? Anyway, keep up the good work😀

  3. What is your take on people being transgender? Especially women who reckon that they are really men, after all, and take drugs to achieve this. Really confuses children who now have ” two daddies”
    It seems anything goes!

  4. Often, when modesty in church is mentioned, out come the old canards of rulers, kneecaps, and legalism which do a good job of shutting down the conversations. But there is an answer, which is to put that canard under its own microscope. Because even the woman’s-liberation-from-men’s-oppressive-dress-code crowd has a dress code, rulers and legalism, they just don’t ever talk about it. So it’s not a matter of if the skirt is measured, but how much comfort the one doing the measuring has with immodesty? This can be proven by a simple question: “Do you approve of women showing up for church–or walking around town for that matter–naked without being judged”? Somewhere between nothing and the kneecap they must, therefore, impose a code and become legalistic, oppressive and judgemental.

    Or! They could just focus on the heart of the poor girl who feels the need to, or loves to, dress like a prostitute. But to address the heart, it must be talked about without canards thrown around like trump cards.

    1. Ultimately it’s a heart issue. Women need to be taught to be modest at heart and the dress will follow. I believe women also should be taught how a man thinks when he sees something. God created men to be visual and to also be attracted to the female body. Yes, teach them not to act like animals and to fight that temptation, but women also need to be taught not entice a man who isn’t your husband. Just saying “well he needs to learn to control himself” isn’t sufficient, biblical, or loving to our Christian brothers.

      Since being married my husband has taught me a lot about the male brain, especially the unmarried teenage male brain, and I have been very surprised at how little it takes for a man to be tempted in his mind.

      1. Felicia – You are absolutely right I don’t think most women understand how men see them and how important modesty is until their husbands explain just how men (and especially teenager boys) think.

    2. One of the preachers in my church spoke of modesty very well. He defined the difference between principle and practice. The principle of modesty is what is important to God. The practice of modesty is going to vary according to culture (eg modest women in Pakistan vs modest women in the west) and time (fashion in the 1800s vs today). The practice is dictated by how your heart views the principle, and God knows the heart. If we earnestly pray, God will guide us in this.
      The practice will always bring judgement. Focus on the principle.

  5. In the beginning, God created Eve for a reason. Most people, if you asked them what that reason was would say, “To be a helper to Adam”. Well, that’s what he created her to BE, but what about the reason WHY?

    God looked at Adam and declared, “It is not right that the man should be alone“. He then proceeded to created the animal kingdom, but out of all that, there was still no suitable match for him.

    Then God created Eve. And finally, here is a perfect match for him. The reason WHY God created Eve was not to be a helper to Adam. That is what she was created FOR, or to do. That was her assigned work, just as Adam’s assigned work was keeping and tending the Garden.

    But the reason why, God says is because, “It is not good that the man should be alone.” Eve was to address the “aloneness” of Adam. Not the “loneliness” of Adam, for Adam had God himself as a constant companion for a long while in the Garden before Eve was created. The “aloneness” hints more at the idea of “incompleteness”.

    Man, alone, does not bear the image of God, for God created mankind in his image, male and female. So, likewise, woman alone also does not bear the image of God for the same reason.

    The image of God is seen in unity of a man and a woman together in marriage. And in the creation account, there, God has defined what the “image of God” is, and what “marriage” is: it is the uniting of a man and a woman, spiritually, physically and bodily, in marriage.

    It seems incredulous to me to even have to say this, but (modern culture being what it is) two men fornicating to not bear the image of God; nor two women. Marriage that unites a man and a woman together into “one flesh” is the image of God.

    The man that God created is made complete, and whole, by being united to a woman, in the relationship of marriage, and the whole of scripture describes Christ and His Church in those terms.

    Marriage is the combining of the two into “one flesh” – a fact that is manifest literally in the creation of children: they are literally the combined flesh of two parents into one flesh. No two women, and no two men can accomplish this, no matter how much social and “bio-engineering” smoke and mirrors they employ.

    It is a fact of life, and is built into the very DNA of our bodies, which God has “fearfully and wonderfully” made. When we look a ourselves, and admit, and agree with God, that our bodies are “fearfully and wonderfully made”, we can no longer see the world’s culture as anything other than what it is: a ploy of the Deceiver (Satan) to attack the very image of God. And such a perverse and despicable act should never go unopposed by us, in as much as we are able to fight against it. God doesn’t need our help. But he is not helped by our complacency, either.

    Men keeping themselves pure for marriage is every bit as important as women keeping their bodies pure for marriage, because, again, the image of God is seen in the unity between both a man, and a woman.

    1. ” Man, alone, does not bear the image of God ”

      You speak apostasy: 1 Co 11:7. You would do well to not speak, in accordance with Lu 17:2. Everything scriptural you’ve written here is complementarianism, the tired concept of two (incomplete) halves making a (complete) whole.

      Woman, alone, is never mentioned as being made in God’s image. Man is, and verse provided.

      What you are attempting to do is connect the dots for Eve’s reason for being, but missed the mark. You extrapolate (always a dangerous thing to do with shaky theology) that aloneness lends to incompleteness. Nothing could be further from the truth. Adam has not sinned: he has been made in God’s perfect image. There is no separation from God, he cannot be incomplete.

      Adam is alone, yes, and his helper suitable is for procreation. In chronological order, this is how the verses would be written:
      Ge 1:22- God tells the creatures of Creation to multiply
      Ge 2:7- God makes man
      Ge 2:18- God ponders woman
      Ge 2:20- all beasts presented to man, none suitable for helping
      Ge 2:22- God makes woman out of man: thus, the same species
      Ge 1:28- God tells mankind to multiply (Our very first commandment)

      Eve is to help Adam with what? Aloneness? No, Adam has God. Working the Garden? No, Adam finished his task before Eve shows up.
      Eve’s singular purpose in being created is to procreate with Adam: this is the help suitable not found elsewhere in Creation, as Adam had no other mankind with which to mate. The commandment in Ge 1:28 cannot be accomplished without her. It is out of this singular purpose and this foundational commandment that she finds all her other purposes and commandments (keeper at home, quiet and gentle spirit, submissive in all things to her husband, obedient to her father..)

      The wife’s role is to serve her husband, to bear him children. 1 Co 11:9. Reminder that man is asserted as being the image bearer of God.

      1 Ti 2:15 confirms this interpretation as being correct.

      ” The man that God created is made complete, and whole, by being united to a woman, in the relationship of marriage, and the whole of scripture describes Christ and His Church in those terms. ”

      Everything you’ve written here is apostasy. Man is not made for woman, but woman for man. He names her, takes dominion over her.
      You then liken, correctly, Christ and His Church to man and woman, but you should have seen your errors in-so-doing. Is Christ not whole on His own? Does He need the Church to be made whole? This exposes your false theology.

      ” again, the image of God is seen in the unity between both a man, and a woman ”

      Again, the image of God exists without the union of husband and wife. We are not incomplete beings when we are born. This is such false theology.
      Those of us who never marry, what a position we must be in, to never know God’s image! Those of us who are widowed/widowered and remarry, how awkward to know multiple images of God!

      Lori, I appeal to you to either publish this comment to correct this false doctrine, or remove the comment to which I am responding.

      1. If Christians believe this theology that woman was not created in God’s image and therefore not a joint inheritor of the covenant than is it any wonder that feminism is the new Theology?

        As a newer Christian I am so disturbed that this is accepted Theology and want no part of it. What variety of Christian are you? In my study of Catholicism, Protestantism and broad study of Pentecostalism I have not found this Theology. To what denomination does it belong and where can I sources and explanations be found?

        1. Do not worry, CVD. It is NOT “accepted” Christian theology. It is the theology of a certain class of men who think they are the Lord of their wife and their home. As to what denomination it belongs to, it doesn’t really. It is a personal revelation of certain individual men; men whom I personally think are either tyrants in their homes, or suffering from some kind of insecurity in their own lives.

          I will be as interested as any to see what Ken has to say about this.

          1. Furthermore, CVD, there are two “accepted” opposing views on the relationships between husbands and wives, and Brian is not espousing either one of them. He is complaining about “Complementarian” being “old and tired” (and thus wrong). And I think it is safe to say that he certainly does not believe in the equality of men’s and women’s roles in marriage, so I can hardly believe he is an Egalitarian”.

            Personally, I view these as flip sides of the same coin. You are either one or the other. Since Brian is affirming neither, then I am left to believe that he is working from a personal doctrine that he himself has “cooked up” from his own personal interpretation of scripture.

            As I said to him, I do not fault anyone for doing that, so long as they realise that they will be held accountable to God for the results of their personal theology. And church history, and submission to church elders can be a BIG help in keeping your theology sound. I suspect he has not done that and is not a member of any local Church Body, or if he is, he is outside even their “accepted” theology.

            Just my personal opinion, there.

      2. Pardon me, but did you just say, “Everything scriptural you’ve written here is complementarianism,…”?

      3. Brian,

        You will have to forgive me for being a bit slow, but I’m not following your logic, here, and I have no desire to debate such an issue. Why? Because you have, right off the bat, resorted to declaring “apostasy” in a secondary issue that doesn’t rest on soteriology (the doctrine of salvation in Christ), and gone so far as to tell me to shut up.

        And also because you are taking exception with my interpretation of “aloneness” being a reference to “incompleteness”, even though you have affirmed what I’ve said is scriptural, and have even made the same claim of “completeness” yourself (Your reference to Gen 1:28 being impossible without Eve – thus “incompleteness”.)

        I am quite aware of 1 Cor 11, and have explained that text in other comments here on Lori’s blog. Paul’s rendition of the matter doesn’t change the fact that the original text – which even Paul himself is addressing there, says that “God created man, male AND female, in His image”.

        The idea of “headship” doesn’t negate the fact of incompleteness. What is there to be a head OF without the other party? This idea of incompleteness is expressed throughout the scriptures, and not only in the matter of male and female sexes. Faith without works is incomplete. The Church without Christ (her “head”) is incomplete. The body without ALL it’s members is incomplete (“wither the hearing?”).

        Resorting to “The man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man” does not suggest equality, nor does it suggest completeness in men apart from women. Nor does it suggest “incompleteness”. It doesn’t address the matter at all. I won’t now suggest that your misunderstanding amounts to “apostasy”, because it doesn’t. You are simply wrong. Not “unsaved” (at least as far as this issue would judge).

        Adam does not, and did not “take dominion over her”. As evidenced by the fact that God’s command to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth (have dominion) is given to both the man AND the woman. God CANNOT tell Adam alone to be fruitful and multiply, and thus Adam cannot subdue the earth by himself. Again, something even you have stated.

        But the real crux of the matter here, is the plain simple observation that the image of God, according to the Bible, plainly, is that the image of God is reflected in the male AND the female.

        The only extrapolation I have made is claiming that that that means “in marriage”, and I say that because scripture refers to Eve has Adam’s WIFE, and Adam as Eve’s HUSBAND, from the very instant they are created. So, my suggesting that God’s image is reflected in the marriage (that is the “unity”) of the husband and wife, is a perfectly safe extrapolation. Therefore the Bible states quite clearly that the image of God is male and female in marriage.

        That is what God himself calls it, in scripture, and it is what is meant by a man shall “cleave” to his wife. I genuinely hope that you are not perversely suggesting that “cleave” means sex. That would be a very misguided interpretation of the text. It means to be “united”, because, again, the “Unity of the Husband and the wife” IS the image of God, for the reasons I stated in the original comment, and which I am not going to rehash for you here. It’s a few screens up, and you may go re-read it if you wish.

        You cannot take half the equation and call it the whole, and no, 1st Timothy does not confirm that you can. I recommend the following like for help in understanding that: https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-does-it-mean-that-women-will-be-saved-through-childbearing-1-timothy-2/

        I am not sure it will be a help to you, though, if you are filtering your understanding of scripture through a *doctrine*, instead of letting scripture speak for itself – and from your comments, I think it is safe to assume that you are neither complementarian, nor egalitarian, but have formed some kind of odd doctrine of your own, based on your own personal interpretation of scripture. I won’t complain about that, as I do not fault anyone for doing that.

        But I would advise caution, especially when it comes to Jesus’ warning against “beating the servants”.

        Most of your rebuttal is centered around making “submission” a form of alienation from the man, when in fact, submission is a reaffirmation of the UNITY of the man and the woman, in marriage.

        Ultimately, both men and women are image bearers. Women are not second class citizens, but bear the image of God equally, as plainly stated in Genesis when God decreed their creation, together, in unity, as an image of the unity of the Godhead itself.

        All these “rules” you are pulling from scripture do not address the positions of men and women. They are rules that apply to the business of governing and structuring the roles of those believers participating in the marriage, not the position of the believers in that marriage, before God.

        1. A LOT of words, clearly not the forum to go deeper. Simple question for you to ponder, your statement was clear, made clear not just once: that man needs woman to be whole in the image of God:

          What does that make Paul?

          Your claim, and all of its fall-out as a result, is scripturally disproven with the verse I quoted. Take care, if you are indeed a brother, to only espouse interpretation that is sound. You have not done so here. Take the rebuke, it is clear, it is warranted, and do so humbly. Your defense of self in clear opposition to black-on-white scriptural reference is not a good look.

          1. “…your statement was clear, made clear not just once: that man needs woman to be whole in the image of God:”

            No, that is not what I said. That is what you turned it into. I said that God made man in his image, male and female. And then I said that man alone is incomplete.

            That has nothing to do with his image-bearer status. Both the man and the woman are image bearers, each bearing a PART of the full image of God. They are not like wonder-twins activating their powers by combining rings and becoming super-Godlike.

            Man reflects the nature of God in one way, and the woman reflects the nature of God in another way, and both are accurate.

            Now then… you are simply being argumentative, and I am not going to flood Lori’s blog with a futile back-n-forth with you.

      4. Brian, it seems to me that you are a bit tough on Robert. It is perhaps OK to hold a position that man alone is made in the image of God, but this position is focused solely on the maleness of God.

        Is man made completely in the image of God? No in that man is not omniscient, omnipresent, or all-powerful. Man bears God’s image, but such image-bearing is a small reflection of the real thing.

        I believe it a mistake to assume that God’s image is found only in the attributes of masculinity. Woman is indeed an image bearer in many of the same ways that man is reflecting intellect, purpose, personality, and the ability to love. She becomes an important part as image-bearer in procreation. Even if woman cannot show the male reflection of God, but in other ways, she too bears God’s likeness.

        So male and female both bear God’s image, and I do see Robert as accurate in pointing out that just as God is three in one, so too is man and wife united by God’s Spirit a reflection of the trinity. Man alone cannot be three in one, but when he joins with woman and is united together by the Spirit of God, man and woman together give an excellent reflection of the Godhead.

        When we are told, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27), the word man could just as easily mean mankind as “man” alone. We cannot definitively know in this verse what God intends here, but the fact that the verse ends with “male and female he created them” seems to me, and most other students of the Word, to mean that both man and woman are image-bearers of God.

        Lastly, although this discussion is profitable in understanding the distinct roles of male and female, in Christ there is no distinction of persons: “But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 5:25-28). We are all the “sons” of God together in the family of God. And I do not believe that God redeems those who are not image bearers as only image bearers can be a part of the family of God. We all, male and female, take on the image of Christ, as we are in Christ.

        I believe we should not miss Robert’s point of the important concept that the union of two complementary beings united by the Holy Spirit as is an accurate reflection of a triune God in a way that man alone cannot do. When you ask about singleness, the single male still bears God’s image and uniquely as male reflects God’s male attributes. This does not change the fact that man and woman united together also give image-bearing reflections, they are just different reflections.

        1. Ken, getting around to this conversation late, thank you for taking the time to bring your insight to bear. I understand the reaction to try and keep the peace so to speak.

          “maleness of God” [snipped]
          Shaky ground. God is only ever described as a man. Man being created in his image to boot- direct verse provided. The duality of His nature is not of male:female, but beginning and end, of lion and lamb.
          NOTE: I do not make the claim that woman is -NOT- made in the image of God. This is the fallacy of false dilemna, which often follows. However, it is important to highlight that she has a unique role in Creation: procreation. God has no need of this role within the Trinity.

          “God is three in one, so too is man and wife united by God’s Spirit a reflection of the trinity. Man alone cannot be three” [snipped]
          Man and woman are only be 2, not 3. The Spirit belongs to the Godhead, not to Mankind. This is not a metaphor that lines up well. Furthermore, it assumes that image is defined by persons (Elohim, Yeshua, Spirit), when I cannot find ‘image’ to be defined anywhere within the Bible, using a Hebrew-English concordance, and only ever reading conflicting interpretations about ‘having a soul’ or ‘the nature of being’ etc. If you have resources in this department, feel free to share, I will absolutely digest.

          ” When we are told, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27), the word man could just as easily mean mankind as “man” alone. We cannot definitively know in this verse what God intends here, but the fact that the verse ends with “male and female he created them” seems to me, and most other students of the Word, to mean that both man and woman are image-bearers of God. ”

          Your concluding sentence in that paragraph would agree with denouncing what Robert has written. You state man and woman, as image bearers, plural- not man and woman cojoined, as image bearer, singular.

          Of note: in Ge 1:28, there is a pronoun shift, and for some reason this grammatical change in the sentence structure is always missed by the Church. Take note:

          ” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created *HIM*; male and female He created *THEM*. ” Ge 1:28, NASB

          Emphasis mine.
          I’ve looked at the source language. I’ve used my references. The language reads the same, so far as I can tell. Note the usage of the semicolon. This grammatical tool combines independent sentences. Furthermore, note the pronoun shift. God creates him (Adam: man) in His image. Then, God creates them (male and female: mankind). People always seem to replace the pronoun in the first half of the sentence and just inject it in lieu of the pronoun in the second.

          It is impossible to be harsh when someone preaches something that is patently false. These claims:
          ” The image of God is seen in unity of a man and a woman together in marriage. ”
          ” Man, alone, does not bear the image of God ”
          is simply false gospel, pure and simple. Verses and rebuttal provided. The proper response is reviewing the rebuttal, turning to the one who espoused the false teaching, and point it out, lest they deceive others, but also that they may grow in their own understanding of Creation.

          1. Let me ask you this, Brian.

            Does the Father alone bear the image of the Trinity?

            Again, you neglect to understand exactly what “marriage” is. It is a model of the unity of the persons of the Godhead, in addition to a model of the unity between God and his church through Jesus Christ.

            Unity is, and always has been the model of everything God does. When you get saved, what do you get? You get “united to God”, as Jesus prayed “They in me, and I in you, and we all One.

            Unity is the very reason for God’s design in marriage to be one leading, and the other submitting and following. That is how we achieve unity even while we may not be in agreement.

            And, BTW, Eve is no more capable of “procreation” than Adam is. Just sayin’. N.A.T.I.

            Lori, feel free to let this thread die any time you are ready. I’m not going to contribute any more.

            Brian: Do you have somewhere else we can take this discussion? Facebook, maybe? We’re being theological litterbugs, here.

        2. The relationship between a husband and wife reflects the Kingdom of God. The husband symbolically represents Christ and the wife represents His (Jesus) Church. The husband loves and sacrifices for his wife and the wife honors and obeys her husband. This same relationship is reflected in the relationship between a pastor/priest/bishop/pope and his congregation/church.

    2. I love the wisdom in this post, Mr Zeurinski! Every word is so true.
      When men and women are together in marriage as God intended there is no room for feminism. In God’s marriage design, men and women complement each other perfectly.

  6. It has always astonished me that feminism seems to be hell bent (literally) on turning women into the ‘sex toys’ of immoral and irresponsible men.

    Not the respected wives and mothers but very specially the willing objects of male (and deviant female) lust and physical gratification.

  7. Feminists have existed for all of human history. In the old days, they were called “witches” and, accurately, identified as brides of Satan. These feminists were driven out of the village by the virtuous women, the married mothers and wives, so that the feminists would not poison the minds of the young impressionable girls.

    Feminism spreads like a disease in girls, making them angry, egotistical, and slutty, and when enough girls become this way, men become degraded and brutish, people stop working hard and having families, and inevitably, the feminism-infected society would collapse into famine or warfare.

    Multiply this story over thousands of villages, tribes, cities, and states over thousands of years of human civilization, and you understand why human society has always, always, always shunned feminism, no matter what it’s name. You understand why the older women, the wise married women and grandmothers, viewed feminism as a cancer, that they would cut out and destroy ruthlessly, in order to protect their families from starvation and disaster.

    Now our society has become too huge, and virtuous women have been shouted down by the multitudes of perverts, brutes, pornographers, and whores of modern world.

    What happens now? Does our world now collapse further into a dark dirty landscape of drugs, abuse, gay marriage, and college girls prostituting themselves to pay the bills?

    Or, can the power of God again take hold in the hearts of people, and lead our dying world to a new resurrection?

  8. Kind of a side note on lesbianism I find it interesting that in a gay couple there is always a “male” counterpart and “female” . They probably don’t see that though

    1. Right, Pam.

      And similarly, they want us to believe that homosexuality is “normal” and far more prevalent than we want to admit.

      But if that were so, where are all the nationally, or internationally popular Top-40 homosexual “love songs” with one guy lusting after another guy. Homosexual men who are celebrity entertainers, even they are only popular when they sing songs about “traditional love.”

Comments are closed.

Comments are closed.