Rachel Maddow offended at Bill Clinton for calling Hillary “a girl”

Apparently Bill Clinton committed a mortal sin by checking out his wife before he knew her name and just referring to her as “the girl”.  This is the opinion of the raging feminist Rachel Maddow.  We can all agree that Bill Clinton has committed a lot of sexual immorality.  The Public record testifies to this fact.  But checking out his wife as student in college before he knew her name was not one of his sins.

This is what Bill Clinton said that was apparently so offensive to Rachel Maddow’s feminist ideology:

“In the spring of 1971 I met a girl.

The first time I saw her we were, appropriately enough, in a class on political and civil rights. She had thick blond hair, big glasses, wore no makeup, and she had a sense of strength and self- possession that I found magnetic. After the class I followed her out, intending to introduce myself. I got close enough to touch her back, but I couldn’t do it. Somehow I knew this would not be just another tap on the shoulder, that I might be starting something I couldn’t stop.

And I saw her several more times in the next few days, but I still didn’t speak to her. Then one night I was in the law library talking to a classmate who wanted me to join the Yale Law Journal. He said it would guarantee me a job in a big firm or a clerkship with a federal judge. I really wasn’t interested, I just wanted to go home to Arkansas.

Then I saw the girl again, standing at the opposite end of that long room. Finally she was staring back at me, so I watched her. She closed her book, put it down and started walking toward me. She walked the whole length of the library, came up to me and said, look, if you’re going to keep staring at me…

…and now I’m staring back, we at least ought to know each other’s name. I’m Hillary Rodham, who are you?

I was so impressed and surprised that, whether you believe it or not, momentarily I was speechless.

Finally, I sort of blurted out my name and we exchanged a few words and then she went away.

Well, I didn’t join the Law Review, but I did leave that library with a whole new goal in mind.”

http://time.com/4425599/dnc-bill-clinton-speech-transcript-video/

And now we get to see Rachel Maddow’s feminist response to Bill Clinton’s speech.

Rachel Maddow’s Response to Bill Clinton’s speech

“I think the beginning of the speech was a controversial way to start, honestly,” she said. “Talking up ‘the girl,’ ‘a girl,’ leading with this long story about him being attracted to an unnamed girl, thinking about whether he was starting something he couldn’t finish.

“Building her whole political story for the whole first half of the speech around her marriage to him. I think, unless there were worries that this was going to be too feminist a convention, that was not a feminist way to start … I’ve got to say, the top of the speech I found shocking and weird.”

http://freebeacon.com/politics/maddow-beginning-bill-clintons-speech-shocking-rude/

Now let’s break down the sins against feminism that Bill Clinton committed in his speech.

The 3 commandments of feminism that Bill Clinton broke

  1. Thou shalt not refer to a woman as “a girl”
  2. Thou shalt not attribute any of a woman’s success to her marriage or her husband.
  3. Thou shalt not be attracted to an unnamed girl based solely on her body.

Before I continue – I am not saying there are only three commandments of feminism.  In fact someday I will compile a list of what I think all the commandments of feminism are.  But he definitely broke these three commandments.

Why feminists think it is so horrible to refer to Hillary as “a girl”

What Bill Clinton was seeking to do by referring to Hillary as “a girl” was to try and demonstrate that she has the softness, gentleness and empathy of a typical woman – in essence he was seeking to present her feminine side. Now in truth based on how she as acted in the public eye since her husband was President more than 20 years ago we know she is anything but feminine.

So I say to President Clinton you get an A for effort, but  a F for substance because no one is buying what you tried to sell about your wife.

Hillary Clinton was one of the manliest first ladies this nation ever had as far as her demeanor and feminists love that about her! Feminists having a seething hatred for women who act like women.  They only respect women who act like men.

This is why Rachel Maddow literally had a cow about the description of Hillary Clinton as “the girl” because it took away in her mind Hillary Clinton’s greatest strength – the fact that she is such a masculine woman.

Connecting a woman’s success to her marriage and her husband is “shocking and weird”?

In feminism it is just fine to say “behind every great man was great woman” but apparently it is a mortal sin in their religion to say “behind every great woman was a great man”.

While I might agree with them that “tooting your own horn” and telling people how you helped make someone else become great is not exactly cool – I don’t see that in Bill Clinton’s speech.  He was simply trying to humanize Hillary Clinton and speak about her from a very personal level.  But for the foaming at the mouth feminist Rachel Maddow any mention of her as a girlfriend, wife or mother and somehow associating that to her success was the height of evil!

Before we continue though I want to just let my readers know that while I respect the offices that Bill and Hillary Clinton have held – I do not respect their persons.  While most politicians to a certain extent are liars and cheats – this couple has wrote the book on scheming, lying and manipulating people to get what they want.

Anyone who has watched “House of Cards” would see Bill and Hillary Clinton in that show.  Also anyone who is honest with history would admit Hillary Clinton has rode her husband’s coat tails since he was the Governor of Arkansas and she has little real accomplishments in her political career and many more failures than successes.  It is simply her last name that has brought her where she is today.

And this is for you Rachel Maddow.  You may find it “shocking and weird” when a man talks about how he was first attracted to his wife.  But I think the majority of Americans would find the behavior you and the rest of the LGBQT community engage in as FAR more “shocking and weird”.

How dare a man check out a beautiful woman without even knowing her name!

This last violation of the feminist religion is the most interesting one.  This is a violation to even many women who don’t think of themselves as feminists – even some conservative Christian women who are opposed to feminism.

“How can a man be so attracted to and mesmerized by a woman simply because of her body and appearance? He does not even know her name let alone anything about her! How shallow! How crass! He is objectifying her!”

What I am about to say I have said many times on this blog and it will continue to be one of the primary themes of this blog.

Man need to stop being ashamed of their masculine natures and the way God designed them as men.

Yes our masculine natures as men have been corrupted by sin just as feminine nature in women has been corrupted by sin. But this behavior in men is NOT a corruption of man’s nature.

A man is not shallow or childish by allowing himself to be attracted to a woman without even knowing her name or anything about her.  It is by the design of God himself and we as fathers and husbands must instill a healthy respect for this part and other parts of the masculine nature in our daughters and our wives.

When we hear our wives or daughters talking down about men checking them out or them noticing men checking out other women we as men need to call them out. I know this brings up the question “Well wouldn’t you be offended if some guy checked out your wife or daughter?” If I respect another man’s masculine nature as much as I want him to respect mine then no it should not bother me and it does not bother me.

What I mean by “checking out” a woman

Now I need to clarify what I mean by “checking out” a woman because I am sure all sorts of definitions are going through people’s minds.  But before I can define what I mean by “checking out” a woman I need to help the ladies understand the masculine nature a little better.

Let me explain this in a way that women can understand and I think most men if they are being honest about themselves will verify what I am saying to be true.

Here is the formula that all women must be made to understand:

Crying for Women = Staring for Men

Ladies have you ever just heard a story or watched a scene in a movie or television show and you have involuntary tears coming out of your eyes? In these moments your emotional response is completely involuntary and it just a natural response by your feminine nature to certain stimuli.

In the same exact way sometimes when a man sees a beautiful woman he may also experience an involuntary response to seeing her beauty – he may he may stare and he may even get erection simultaneously.

Women need to be taught that what I have just described is a normal masculine response to female beauty and this type of natural response to feminine beauty by men should never be criticized or looked down upon by women.

Am I contradicting my previous statements about men not gawking at women?

I know for those who have read other articles I have written on men looking at women that what I may have said might seem to contradict what I have previously written.  In my post “How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 3” I gave this advice to men after spending most of the article addressing how women respond to men looking at women.

“What that means men is that while glancing at beautiful women may be natural for you, and give you pleasure, you have to make sure you are not mastered by this. Eating is something we are naturally driven to do as well, but we can eat too much, and too often, the same principle applies to our God-given male sexuality.

There is a difference between Glancing and Gawking

While I would say that woman are wrong for condemning men for taking discreet glances at other women, I would say men are equally wrong when they gawk at women. The classic seen of construction works whistling and saying obscenities to a random woman as she walks by is an example of unconstrained, uncontrolled male sexuality, and that does not honor God or women.”

I talk a lot about men “glancing, not gawking” and to do this requires self-control on the part of the man. Now some Christians would say a man should not even glance at another women – or take a second look at her.  To do so is lust in their view. I have dispelled this unbiblical belief in my article “What is Lust?”.

But where we can agree is that it is not appropriate for men to gawk. So let me further define what I mean by gawk.

For the purposes of this blog – I define gawking as “a man purposefully staring at a woman that may cause her or others in the area to feel uncomfortable”.  

This is not the same as a man involuntarily staring and not even realizing he is doing it.  Sometimes we as men are accidentally mesmerized by your beauty ladies in the same way sometimes something just makes you cry – remember that.

Now that I have given all that as background I will now define what I mean when say it is ok for a man to “check out” a woman.

For the purposes of this blog when I say “check out” as in a man “checking out a woman” I mean that a man is either involuntarily staring at a woman or he is taking purposeful tasteful glances of a beautiful woman.

Now all of us men at a certain point will realize we are involuntarily staring at a woman and at that point we can and should catch ourselves and then if we still want to check out that woman we should move to tasteful, yet purposeful glances. If we continue staring at a woman after we catch ourselves and thus we are doing it purposefully then this would be the very definition of gawking and not something we as gentlemen or as Christians should do.

How should women respond to men checking them out?

Well I already wrote a three part series on this subject that I still get a fairly large amount of email on to this day.

How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 1

How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 2

How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 3

But I will add this advice to those articles. Ladies if you catch a guy accidentally staring at your cleavage or your rear end cut the man some slack. Wives if you catch your guy accidentally staring at another woman cut the man some slack.  There is a big difference between involuntary staring or tasteful glances and purposefully staring (gawking).

Ladies respect the way God made the men in your lives – whether they be your father, your brother, your husband or your sons.

Men respect your masculine nature and stop condemning yourself every time you are drawn to feminine beauty and have the natural responses God made you to have.  Just practice self-control and exercise your God given masculine nature within the bounds of God’s law.

Photo Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bill_Clinton_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg

Biblical Gender Roles vs Quranic Gender Roles

Both the Bible and the Quran teach the inequality of women to men, the subjection of women to men, the allowance for polygamy and the allowance for slavery. This is probably a shock to many American Christians because so few Christians in these modern times know the very Scriptures which form the basis for their faith.

It would be obvious to anyone who lives in America that American gender roles are in fact very different from those practiced by Quran believing Muslims.  But there is not so large a divide between the gender roles practiced by Bible believing Christians in America and Quran believing Muslims.

Since I started this site more than two years ago I have been regularly accused of being a Muslim pretending to be a Christian because I have highlighted the Biblical teachings that men and women are not equal in God’s creation and the fact that the Bible says women were made for men.

“7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man…

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

I Corinthians 11:7 & 9(KJV)

In both Christianity and Islam – there are liberal theologians and conservative theologians. Conservative Christians believe every word of the Bible is the Word of God, and conservative Muslims believe every word of the Quran is the Word of God.  Liberal theologians in both faiths believe that their holy texts may contain the Word of God – but it also contains a lot of cultural opinions that can and should be dismissed in the modern world.

So it should be no surprise that only conservative Christians and Muslims who believe the entirety of the texts which form the foundation for their faiths would still embrace the gender roles taught in these texts.

The origins of the false religion of Islam

Before I continue I want to make it abundantly clear that I believe Muhammad was a false prophet. Many years ago after the 9/11 attacks I studied the history of Islam and the Quran. However I do not claim to be an expert on Islam and there are many Christian sites that could do a far better job explaining in detail why Muhammad was a false prophet and I will link to some of those in this article.

With that being said,  this is my attempt for my readers to understand why I believe Islam is both a false and dangerous religion when practiced in accordance with the entirety of the Quran. I also want to show that while the Bible and the Quran may have some similar commands regarding gender roles – the basis and reasons for these commands are very different.

Roughly six centuries after Jesus Christ’s death, burial and resurrection and the birth of the Christian faith a man named Muhammad (570 AD to 632 AD) came on the seen in Arabia claiming to be the next prophet of God following in the same faith as Adam, Abraham, Moses and Jesus.

Muhammad claimed to receive miraculous revelation from the one true god over a 23 year period which he orally gave to his companions who acted as scribes and wrote down these sayings in what we now know as the Quran.

In the beginning of his ministry Muhammad tried to peacefully convince his fellow Arabs to convert from their paganism (worshiping over 200 different gods) to monotheism (the belief that there is one god).  He even tried to convince Jews and Christians that he was a true prophet of the same one true god that they worshipped.  But since his teachings were in complete contradiction to the teachings of the Old and New Testaments both Jews and Christians rejected him as a false prophet.

He would then later explain the contradictions of his teachings with the Bible as God correcting the mistakes of the Bible through him. The fact is both Jews and Christians correctly recognized Muhammad’s teachings as nothing more than a horribly bad knockoff of the Bible.

The rejection of Christ by the Jews was not the same as the rejection of Muhammad

Some Muslims will try and point to the fact that the Jews rejected Jesus as a prophet as well as the writings of his Apostles in the same way Jews and Christians rejected Muhammad. But there is a huge difference between the rejection of Christ by his fellow Jews and the rejection of Muhammad by Jews and Christians.

Jesus said this:

“17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Matthew 5:17-19 (KJV)

Jesus and his followers never claimed that there was even ONE mistake in the Old Testament Scriptures that the Jewish people still hold to today. Instead he and his followers claimed that Jesus was the one foretold of by Moses and Isaiah centuries before Christ came:

“The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;”

Deuteronomy 18:15 (KJV)

“3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed…

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

Isaiah 53:3-5 & 10-12(KJV)

Isaiah foretold that the Messiah would be rejected by his own people but that God had determined this in accordance with his plan to save all mankind through the sacrifice of Christ of on the cross. By his death the righteous servant of God (Jesus Christ) would make intercession for the sins of all mankind.

So unlike Muhammad and the Quran – there is absolutely no conflict between the teachings of Christ or the New Testament with the Old Testament.  This is why Muhammad was correctly dismissed as a false prophet by both Jews and Christians alike.

It is also worthwhile to note that one of the greatest sins listed in the Quran is to ascribe person-hood to God.  The fact that Christians believe God became a man in the form of Jesus Christ is heinous to any Muslim who knows the Quran. So how in the world could true Bible believing Christians have ever accepted Muhammad as anything other than a heretic?

Muhammad turns to violence after being rejected by Arabs, Jews and Christians

After this repudiation by his fellow Arabs as well as Jews and Christians Muhammad became violent both with his fellow Arabs as well as with Jews and Christians.  Later he would lead a military conquest which forced people to either convert to Islam, die or pay a tax ( “jizya”).

Those today who try and teach that Islam is a peaceful religion are ignorant of the history of Muhammad and also the true order of the teachings of the Quran.

Is Islam really “a religion of peace”?

Often Muslims and even non-Muslim defenders of Islam present the religion of Muhammad as “a religion of peace” and they will point to passages in the Quran that show Muhammad admonishing Muslims to peacefully live alongside Jews and Christians:

“Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of God all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous.”

Quran 3:113-114

“And We caused Jesus, the son of Mary, to follow in the footsteps of those (earlier prophets), confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah; and We sent him the Gospel, wherein there was guidance and light, confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah, and as a guidance and admonition unto the God-conscious.”

Quran 5:46

See more of these kinds of passages and arguments at these websites:

http://www.islamicity.org/4659/can-muslims-be-friends-with-jews-and-christians/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ro-waseem/6-convincing-reasons-debu_1_b_5604068.html

But the truth is that Muhammad was only peaceful toward Jews and Christians at the beginning of his ministry.  Later after their complete rejection of him he became hostile and violent toward all who opposed him including Jews and Christians.  Muslim historians try and say Muhammad was just defending himself against Jewish and Christian aggressors but there is no historical evidence to back that up. Muhammad decided that if the world would not accept him as the prophet of God in peace then he would bring war on those who rejected his teachings.  And war he brought.

See this article from TheReligionofPeace.com that debunks the idea that Muhammad only fought in self-defense – https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/muhammad/self-defense.aspx

The fact is there are few passages in the Quran that talk about living in peace with Jews and Christians while the vast majority of references to non-Muslims in the Quran advocate for their violent conversion and subjugation to Islam.

“The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter…

Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’)

Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has charted them to make Islam “superior over all religions.” This chapter was one of the final “revelations” from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad’s companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

Quran (9:30) – “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!””

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

Quranic Islam is violent while Biblical Christianity is peaceful

President Obama and many other apologists for the false notion of Islam as “a religion of peace” have tried to point to the crusades as proof that Christianity can be just a violent as Islam.  What they miss is that God never called on Christians to militarily or politically force the world to become Christian.  Those in Christian history who tried to forcefully convert people to Christianity (or even a particular brand of Christianity) did so in direct contradiction to the teachings of Christ and his Apostles.

Unlike Muhammad, Jesus never tried to establish any kind of political domination in this world:

“Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

John 18:36 (NIV)

And the Apostle Paul wrote:

“3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”

II Corinthians 10:3-5 (NIV)

These texts and many others from the New Testament prove that Christianity when practiced according to the Bible is NOT a violent religion.  The same cannot be said of Islam and the Quran with 109 verses advocating for violence as well as the example of Muhammad’s military exploits.

Now that we have established why Islam is both a false and dangerous religion and why Christianity does not conflict with the Old Testament but is the fulfillment of it we will discuss and compare Quranic gender roles with Biblical gender roles.

Similarities between the Bible and Quran on Gender Roles

It should come as no surprise that because the Quran is cheap knock off of the Bible that it would actually contain some Bible truths.

Here are some passages on gender roles from the Quran as well as Hadith (other sayings attributed to Muhammad and Sira (biographies of Muhammad) from TheReligionOfPeace.com which demonstrate how the Quran views women and marriage.

“Quran (4:34) – “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them.”

Quran (2:228) – “and the men are a degree above them”

Quran (33:59) – “Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them…” Men determine how women dress.

Quran (33:33) – “And abide quietly in your homes…” Women are confined to their homes except when they have permission to go out.

Quran (2:223) – “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will.” Wives are to be sexually available to their husbands in all ways at all times. They serve their husbands at his command. This verse is believed to refer to anal sex (see Bukhari 60:51), and was “revealed” when women complained to Muhammad about the practice. The phrase “when and how you will” means that they lost their case.

Bukhari (88:219) – “Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler.”

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/men-in-charge-of-women.aspx

Islam allows polygamy

“Quran (4:3) – “Marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess.” This verse plainly allows a man to have up to four wives (Allah conveniently granted Muhammad an exception… on the authority of Muhammad, of course). According to the Hadith, the “justice” spoken of merely refers to the dowry provided the bride, not the treatment accorded following the wedding.”

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/polygamy.aspx

So as we can see from the passages above (and there are more teachings like this in Islam) we see these principles:

God has made man and woman Unequal

God has placed men over women and women are to submit to their husbands (including in areas of how they dress and sexual submission)

Men are to be providers for women.

A woman’s place is in the home.

A man is allowed to have up to four wives and unlimited sexual partners through sex slaves

So the question then becomes does the Bible teach these same principles?

The answer is YES according to these Bible passages:

The Bible teaches that the male and female vessels are not equal

“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”

I Corinthians 11:7 (KJV)

The Bible teaches the complete submission of wives to their husbands (which would include how they dress and sexual submission as well)

“22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV)

The Bible teaches the headship of men over women in the Church

“34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

I Corinthians 14:34-35 (KJV)

The Bible teaches men are the head of women in all areas of life (which includes society, the church and the family)

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

I Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)

The Bible teaches that men are to provide for their wives

“28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:”

Ephesians 5:28-29 (KJV)

The Bible teaches that a woman’s place is in the home

“4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

Titus 2:4-5 (KJV)

The Bible teaches it is a shame for women to rule over men

 “As 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.”

Isaiah 3:12 (KJV)

The Bible allows polygamy

“10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.  11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.”

Exodus 21:10-11 (KJV)

“And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.”

II Samuel 5:13 (KJV)

The Bible while not placing an exact limit on how many wives a man could take – did condemn the hording of wives(which is what King Solomon did by taking 700 wives and 300 concubines).  Also we will discuss in more detail below that the Bible did NOT allow men to have sex slaves.

“Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.”

Deuteronomy 17:17 (KJV)

Some differences between Islam and Christianity on the treatment of women and marriage

Islam requires women to completely cover themselves when in public

“Quran (24:31) – “And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or the male servants not having need (of women), or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women; and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known.” The woman is not only supposed to cover herself, except with relatives, but to look down, so as to avoid making eye-contact with men.”

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/veils.aspx

As we can see from the Quran above Islam requires women to hide their beauty from all but their close relatives in private.

In stark contrast to the Quran, the Bible only requires women to cover their heads and be fully clothed when worshiping in the assembled church:

“4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”

1 Corinthians 11:4-5 (KJV)

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array

I Timothy 2:9 (KJV)

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

I Timothy 3:15 (KJV)

The original Greek word that we translate as “modest” in the Bible literally means “appropriate” and the word we translate as apparel means “fully clothed”.  So what the Apostle Paul was literally saying in his letter to Timothy was that when women came to worship in the assembly they should be “fully clothed which is appropriate attire for worship”.

This in no way forbade women from being less than fully clothed when not in the assembly for worship. It also did not require women to wear head coverings outside of formal worship in the assembly.  In fact the work clothing for women during the week would have been less covering than the formal covering that the Apostle Paul mentions here.

For more on Biblical modesty see my article “What is Biblical Modesty?

Islam not only allows but encourages the rape of non-Muslim women captured during war

“It is against Islam to rape Muslim women, but Muhammad actually encouraged the rape of others captured in battle. This hadith provides the context for the Qur’anic verse (4:24):

“The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain.  They met their enemy and fought with them.  They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers.  So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)

There are several other episodes in which Muhammad is offered the clear opportunity to disavow raping women – yet he instead offers advice on how to proceed.  In one case, his men were reluctant to devalue their new slaves for later resale by getting them pregnant.  Muhammad was asked about coitus interruptus in particular:

“O Allah’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?”  The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.” (Bukhari 34:432)”

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/muhammad/rape.aspx

“Muslims are encouraged to live in the way of Muhammad, who was a slave owner and trader. He captured slaves in battle; he had sex with his slaves; and he instructed his men to do the same. The Quran actually devotes more verses to making sure that Muslim men know they can keep women as sex slaves (4) than it does to telling them to pray five times a day (zero).”

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/slavery.aspx

So as we can clearly see – Muhammad not only allowed men to capture non-Muslim women as slaves during war but he also allowed the men to rape them and then trade them later.  He was only concerned that they did not withdraw (coitus interruptus).

It may surprise some Christian readers to know that Moses allowed Israelite men to take women as captives of war too:

“10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.”

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (KJV)

The major difference though between Moses’s commands and Muhammad’s is that Israelite men were NEVER allowed to rape women. If they captured a woman during war they had to give her a month to mourn for her father and mother (or other relatives) killed in the war.  Then the man had to take her as his WIFE – he couldn’t just rape her and then trade her to someone else.  In fact if an Israelite man found problems with a woman he captured and took as a WIFE (not a sex slave) he had to free her and could not trade her to anyone.

This is a MAJOR difference with Islam and the Bible. The Bible never ever allows men to rape women and it certainly does not allow men to rape women and then trade them to other people. This evil Muslim practice has recently been resurrected by ISIS.

Islam teaches that marriage and sex still exist in paradise

Men will still have their wives in paradise

“Verily, the dwellers of the Paradise, that Day, will be busy in joyful things. They and their wives will be in pleasant shade, reclining on thrones. They will have therein fruits (of all kinds) and all that they ask for. (It will be said to them): Salamun (peace be on you), a Word from the Lord (Allah), Most Merciful. Quran 36: 55-58”

http://www.muslimtents.com/aminahsworld/Verses_on_paradise.html

Men may also be rewarded with “houri” – beautiful virgins who will be totally dedicated to their pleasure

“In Islam, the concept of 72 virgins (houri) refers to an aspect of Jannah (Paradise). This concept is grounded in Qur’anic text which describe a sensual Paradise where believing men are rewarded by being wed[1] to virgins with “full grown”, “swelling” or “pears-shaped” breasts.[2][3] Conversly, women will be provided with only one man, and they “will be satisfied with him”.[4]

Contemporary mainstream Islamic scholars, for example; Gibril Haddad, have commented on the erotic nature of the Qur’anic Paradise, by saying some men may need ghusl (ablution required after sexual discharge) just for hearing certain verses.[5]

Orthodox Muslim theologians such as al-Ghazali (died 1111 CE) and al-Ash’ari (died 935 CE) have all discussed the sensual pleasures found in Paradise, relating hadith that describe Paradise as a slave market where there will be “no buy and sale, but… If any man will wish to have sexual intercourse with a woman, he will do at once.”[6][7]

It is quoted by Ibn Kathir, in his Qur’anic Commentary, the Tafsir ibn Kathir,[8] and they are graphically described by Qur’anic commentator and polymath, al-Suyuti (died 1505), who, echoing a hasan hadith[9] from Ibn Majah,[10] wrote that the perpetual virgins will all “have appetizing vaginas”, and that the “penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal”.[11]

The sensual pleasures between believers and houri in Paradise are also confirmed by the two Sahih collections of hadith, namely Sahih Bukhari[12] and Sahih Muslim, where we read that they will be virgins who are so beautiful, pure and transparent that “the marrow of the bones of their legs will be seen through the bones and the flesh”,[13] and that “the believers will visit and enjoy them”.[14]

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/72_Virgins

So as we can see in Islam marriage and sexuality do not end in Paradise (or what Christians would call Heaven) but they continue on for eternity. Christianity instead sees marriage as only for this world and it does not continue in the next world:

“34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”

Luke 20:34-36 (KJV)

The Reason for Biblical Gender Roles is Different than Quranic Gender Roles

The reason that Islam sees gender roles, marriage and sex continuing in the afterlife is because Islam does not recognize that God created gender roles, marriage and sex in this world to be symbols of the spiritual relationship between God and his people.

“22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:”

Ephesians 5:22-29 (KJV)

The Bible shows that women are not made to submit to men to suppress women or to be unfair to women. The reason women are called to be in subjection to men is because our male and female vessels represent spiritual symbols. God created woman to serve man in the same way he created all mankind to serve himself.

No person is worth more or less to God because they are born in a male or female body.  The Bible shows that we simply have a different role to play and a different race to run depending on the vessel we are born in.  The Quran does not offer any of these spiritual reasons for roles of men and women and in fact keeps the roles of men and women in their after life.

Conclusion

Christianity is based on the revelations from God to over 40 different men over a 1500 year time span and all of these revelations are progressively built upon the revelation that came before them.  While Islam is based on the supposed revelations of one man over a 23 year period which while claiming to be based on the Bible consistently contradicts and undermines the teaching of the Bible.

While Islam and Christianity do share some similar views such as the submission of wives to their husbands and the inequality of men and women they do so for different reasons.

There is ample historical evidence some of which is cited here but much of which is cited elsewhere that Muhammad was a false prophet who invented a new religion to profit himself and eventually unite the Arab peoples.  His teachings were a cheap knockoff of the Jewish and Christian faiths which proceeded his new religion.

Islam is not just a religion – but if it is interpreted literally according the Quran as well as Hadith (other sayings attributed to Muhammad and Sira (biographies of Muhammad) it is also a political movement which seeks to convert the world by force to Islam.

ISIS and other Islamist groups like Al-Qaida have not “hijacked a peaceful religion” but the real truth is that they have restored Islam to its roots and its founder’s intentions.

True Quranic Islam also does not see the clear distinction between things that belong to this world and what happens in the next. Islam in many ways has a very fleshly and worldly paradise with marriage and sex still existing in the afterlife.

This is not say that there are not peaceful Muslims that reject the ideology of groups like ISIS and Al-Qaida but to do so they must abandon many things in the texts that form the foundation for their faith.

It is interesting today that we hear many moderate Muslims on various new programs saying that Islam needs its own version of the Protestant Reformation. But what they do not realize is that in the Protestant Reformation the Reformers sought to return to the Bible to rediscover historic Christianity.

On the other hand with Islam, the only “reformation” that would bring peace and stability would be for them to do the very opposite of the Christian reformers – they would have to abandon large chunks of their own holy texts and renounce a great deal of their roots.

See these other articles for more on the subjects of gender roles, polygamy and slavery in the Bible:

Why Polygamy is not unbiblical

Why Christians shouldn’t be ashamed of slavery in the Bible

Did the Bible allow men to have sex slaves?

Should a Christian Wife Worship her Husband?

 

The Bible tells us that Ruth laid at the feet of Boaz(Ruth 3:7-8) and it calls on women to follow Sarah’s example who called her husband ‘lord'(I Peter :6).  There are still parts of the world today where women bow before their husbands and even kneel before their husbands each day to put his shoes on before he goes out to work.  The Bible tells wives to submit to their husbands “as unto the Lord” in Ephesians 5:22.

All of the Biblical passages on a wife’s submission to her husband leads us to this very question that was recently asked by one of my readers:

“Is it wrong to worship my husband? I love him and want to please him in a way that worship is the only way I can describe it.”

I can’t tell you how many emails I have received from people over the years saying that I am telling women they must worship their husbands.  In this article I will give what I believe the Biblical answer to this question is.

What does “worship” mean?

Here are three definitions of “worship”:

“: the act of showing respect and love for a god especially by praying with other people who believe in the same god : the act of worshipping God or a god

: excessive admiration for someone”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worship

“  1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.

2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage:

They attended worship this morning.

3. adoring reverence or regard:

excessive worship of business success.

4. the object of adoring reverence or regard.

5.(initial capital letter) British. a title of honor used in addressing or mentioning certain magistrates and others of high rank or station (usually preceded by Your, His, or Her).”

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/worship

“the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.”

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=definition+of+worship

So we can see in these definitions from three dictionary sources that worship has to do with reverence, adoration, and deities.  I personally believe Google’s summary definition of “the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.” most accurately reflects the correct understanding or our English word “worship”.

Does the Bible command wives to reverence their husbands?

“reverence” is defined as:

“: honor or respect that is felt for or shown to (someone or something)”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reverence

1. a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe; veneration.

2. the outward manifestation of this feeling:

to pay reverence.

3. a gesture indicative of deep respect; an obeisance, bow, or curtsy.

4. the state of being revered, or treated with respect tinged with awe.

5, (initial capital letter) a title used in addressing or mentioning a member of the clergy (usually preceded by your or his).

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/reverence

“1.deep respect for someone or something.”

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=reverence+

As we can see our English word “reverence” has to do with “deep respect”, “awe” and “veneration”.  It is pictured by someone bowing down to another.  You would show reverence when you meet the President or a governor.  People coming before a King would do so in reverence.

So the answer to the question “Does God call women to demonstrate reverence as we have just seen it defined toward their husbands?” is YES.

“Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.”

Ephesians 5:33 (KJV)

God tells wives to reverence their husbands in Ephesians 5 where he has just finished explaining that marriage symbolizes the relationship between God and his people, between Christ and his Church. In the beginning of his discussion on marriage he told wives this:

“22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV)

Paul tells wives they are to submit to their husbands “as unto the Lord”.  While the Greek word is “kurios’ in the original text of the Scriptures is “lord” the reference here is not to “a lord” as in an earthly master.  The reference is to “THE Lord” as in God himself. So it is would be entirely correct to say Biblically speaking wives are to submit to their husbands as they would to God himself.

There is no other human relationship, whether it be the parent/child relationship, servant/master or citizen/governor that calls for this type of submission. The submission of a wife to her husband is the most powerful and all-encompassing submission of any human relationship God designed.

The casualness of marriage today

Reverence and respect are foreign words today in marriages and in homes in general.  Children no longer respect their parents and wives no longer respect their husbands.  We have very casual way in which we now approach one another – whether it be in how children approach their parents or in how wives approach their husbands.

The result of this is that children often talk to their parents in very disrespectful manners and wives often talk to their husbands in disrespectful manners.  To put it bluntly – both women and children have forgotten their place.

People in favor of a more casual approach to God as well as to marriage will often point to passages like these from the Bible showing that God calls us his friends:

“Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.”

John 15:14 (KJV)

“And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.”

James 2:23 (KJV)

What they do not realize is the concept that there are friends that are equals, and friends that are not equals.

“He that loveth pureness of heart, for the grace of his lips the king shall be his friend.”

Proverbs 22:11 (KJV)

If you are friends with a coworker or fellow student at school then it is a friendship of equals.  In this type of relationship you can be more casual because of your equal positions. But if you are on friendly terms with your boss at work, your teacher, or even your governor, President or King this is not an equal friendship and this must always be kept in mind by those under authority.

This is the continual balance that must be kept between those in authority over others and those under authority.

Today when people say “I want to marry my best friend” – most often what they are really saying is they do not want a patriarchy style of marriage but rather a partnership style of marriage which is a violation of God’s design for marriage.

Am I saying it is wrong for a wife to call her husband her best friend or husband to call his wife his best friend? No.

I think it is possible for a Christian couple to fully practice the Biblical Patriarchal form of marriage and also consider each other to be friends.  The Bible calls us friends of God so I see no reason why a wife could not be a friend of her husband.

But in that friendship it must never be lost on a wife that her husband is more than her friend – he is her superior and her authority. That means sometimes he will have to correct her, discipline her and do things that she will not like or agree with.

What this means in practice is that a wife should treat her husband as her king. 

Can she be friends with her king? Of course.  Can she respectfully give advice to her king? Certainly.  Can she respectfully bring her grievances before her king? Definitely.  But in her relationship with him she never forgets her position or his.

So now that we have established that the Bible does teach that wives are to reverence their husbands we will now move on to the subject of wives adoring their husbands.

Does the Bible command wives to have adoration toward their husbands?

“adoration” is defined as:

“: strong feelings of love or admiration”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adoration

“1. the act of paying honor, as to a divine being; worship.

2. reverent homage.

3.fervent and devoted love.”

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/adoration

“deep love and respect.”

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=adoration+definition

I think Webster’s dictionary definition of “strong feelings of love or admiration” for adoration best describes it.

So does the Bible say a wife should have deep feelings of love and admiration for her husband? YES.

“3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

Titus 2:3-5 (KJV)

The English phrase “to love their husbands” could also be translated as “lovers of their husbands”.  This is deep and passionate love that a wife has toward her husband.

“A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones.”

Proverbs 12:14 (KJV)

A wife is not only called by God to passionately love her husband, but she is also called to be his crown.  A crown brings a king glory as it adorns his head.  A wife is called to do the same for her husband.  This is why God says “the woman is the glory of the man.”(I Corinthians 11:7).

So we can see clearly from the Scriptures that God commands women to have adoration for their husbands.

So if women are to have reverence and adoration toward their husbands then should they worship their husbands?

Now we come to the answer to this question of wives worshiping husbands.  As we have seen from the definition of worship in most cases it involves three things – reverence, adoration and a deity.  Yes wives are to reverence and adore their husbands.  But the Bible is clear that we are to worship God and God alone:

“And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

Revelation 19:10 (KJV)

The context of Revelation 19 is that an angel of God had shown John all these wonderful things and I am sure the angel was a glorious sight so he bowed to worship him.  But he was forbidden from doing this and reminded that worship is reserved for God and God alone.

It is Biblically accurate to say that a husband’s position and authority over his wife is in fact the closest human authority to God’s authority over all mankind.  But while a husband’s position may closely resemble God’s authority – it is not identical to God’s authority.   God’s authority has no limits while every sphere of human authority does have it is limits – including the authority of a husband.

Should a wife submit unto her as unto God as the Scriptures exhort her? YES.

Should a wife show reverence toward her husband? YES.

Should a wife show adoration toward her husband? YES.

Should a wife worship her husband? NO.

God and God alone deserves our worship.

Is it wrong for a woman to bow to her husband as shown in the picture?

Now that I shown from the Scriptures that women are not to worship their husbands do I believe what the woman in the picture at top of my article was doing is wrong? NO.

Women should have that kind of respect and adoration for their husbands that they could bow before him and not feel like this is wrong.  Bowing before an authority, whether it be a king of a country, or the king of your home is not an act of worship. It is a deep sign of respect.

When women in some countries kneel before their husbands each day to put his shoes on before he goes to work this is a sign of deep respect.

But doesn’t a wife bowing before her husband dishonor her?

No it does not.  The Bible does call on husbands to honor their wives, but this honor is given relevant to her subordinate position.

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.”

I Peter 3:7 (KJV)

There is an interesting contrast in Scripture that most Christian teachers and preachers miss today.

Wives are called to submit themselves unto their husbands in this way:

“as unto the Lord”

Husband are called to give honor unto their wives in this way:

“as unto the weaker vessel”

Now I want you to stop and think about that contrast. Literally what the Bible is saying is a woman should give her husband the same type of submission as it would be appropriate to give to God.  Where a husband is called to give his wife honor that is appropriate to her subordinate position as the weaker vessel.

So yes husbands should honor their wives as the husband of Proverbs 31 did that praised his wife for her accomplishments in his home.  But a husband ought not to give his wife honor that is above her position as some men do today.

Today the biggest problem we face is not women wanting to worship their husbands as this reader’s question might suggest. The biggest problem we face in our modern culture is very much the opposite.

Today instead of husbands giving honor unto their as wives “as unto the weaker vessel” they now give honor unto their wives “as unto the Lord”.  

Just look at a random selection of romantic cards for women in a card shop and tell me I am wrong. Look at the lyrics to most romance songs today and tell me I am wrong. Watch a typical romance movie today and tell me I am wrong.

So yes women ought not to worship their husbands. But it is equally true that husbands ought not to worship their wives and this is by far the greater problem we face in our world today.

6 Ways a Wife Can Understand Her Husband’s Sexual Needs

It is all too common today for women to see their desires as deep and meaningful “needs” while their husband’s desires are selfish “wants”.   The truth is that God designed men and women to come together as “one flesh” and in it’s most literal sense “one flesh” refers to sex.

“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.”

Ephesians 5:31 (KJV)

While both men and women have a desire for physical and emotional intimacy men typically have the strongest desire for physical intimacy and women typically have the strongest desire for emotional intimacy.

A woman must respect her husband’s stronger desire for sexual intimacy as much as she wants her husband to respect her stronger desire for emotional intimacy.

All of us as men and women better understand one another when we can relate our different needs to one another.  For instance one thing I mentioned in the list above is that a man desires to know his wife’s body in the same way a woman desires to know her husband’s heart.

If wives were to really think about that they might better relate to their husband’s desire in this way.  Ladies your husband wants to explore(and re-explore) every part of  your body in the same way that you want to explore(and re-explore) every part of his heart.  Often times when women hold back parts of their body or refuse to let their husbands see them naked they will find that he will in turn hold back parts of his heart from them.

In the list above I have tried to tastefully, yet symbolically show several distinct areas of sexuality that are important to most men.  If you need a translation for each one then let me know – but I think you all should get the point.

The main point to take away from this is, if you as a wife want to have a successful marriage you must view your husband’s sexual needs as outlined above as just as important, deep and meaningful as your desires which I compared them too.

Also don’t fall into the trap of – “well he does not do all those things(or any of those things), so when he does all those things then I might do some of those things”.  This should not be the attitude of a godly Christian wife. I encourage you to view these things as not only an act of love, but also as an act of submission to your husband.

Wives- God commands that your husband be ravished(intoxicated) by your body and your sexual love toward him.  But he cannot be intoxicated by that which is held back or not freely given to him.

“Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.”

Proverbs 5:19 (KJV)

 

Ideology is the problem in both Black terrorism and Muslim terrorism

In the same way that some Muslim clerics bear direct responsibility for inspiring violence against western countries so too President Obama, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and groups like Black Lives Matter bear direct responsibility for inspiring violence against the police officers of this nation.

My heart goes out to the families of the police officers who lost their lives today in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. But just as Islamic terrorism against western nations will not stop until we attack the sources of its inspiration so too Black terrorism against police will not stop until we remove the sources of its inspiration.

And please do not think I am advocating for any violence against our President or black leaders like Al Sharpton and Jackson.  By “remove” I mean we need to shame these men and these groups publically for the violence they have been inspiring for many years against police.

For decades characters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have fomented black hatred of police.  The problem in their view was not that blacks commit crimes at vastly larger rate in proportion to their population – the problem was police profiling.  Then our nation elected its first black president and instead of focusing on the problems in the black community that cause crime (like the breakdown of the family) this President chose to focus on police profiling. This President has directly fomented violence against police by giving credence to the falsehoods of people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and groups like Black Lives Matter.

We must attack the ideologies that inspire violence

In both Islamic terrorism and now in recent Black terrorism we must realize the enemy is an ideology. We cannot stop “lone wolfs” or small groups of blacks or Muslims who want to strike fear in the population at large or police in particular.  What we must do is attack the ideology that inspires these people to do the heinous things that they are doing.

Here are five things we can do to fight this propaganda war to destroy the sources of inspiration for these evil acts:

  1. Any groups which promote violent acts to terrorize citizens or police must be hunted down and brought to justice.
  2. Any websites that promote terrorism toward citizens or police must be shut down or we need target them with cyber warfare.
  3. Even groups like Black Lives Matter that do not directly promote violence but whose ideologies are indirectly inspiring terrorist acts against citizens or police must be defunded and called out as inspirations for these acts.
  4. We also need to shout from the roof tops and put in perspective the statistical facts for black citizens about the hugely disproportionate amount crime which comes out of the black community which makes race a factor in crime profiling.
  5. We need to help the black community redirect its anger and frustration with police profiling back at the problems within its own community including the fact that 90% of blacks in this country are killed by other blacks.

Black anger needs to be directed inward

The last point I just made is about the need to help blacks redirect their anger and frustration with the police back at the problems in their own community. I recently wrote a post entitled “How can we blame Police for having bias against blacks?” in which I detailed the fact that while blacks only make up 13% of the population of the United States they are responsible for more than 50 percent of murders and robberies as well as 40 percent of cop killings.

I had responses from many black people telling me that they were tired of being profiled such as being followed in stores or being pulled over by police without what they believed to be proper cause. I understand that American blacks may be frustrated by these types of things in the same way American Muslims may be bothered for being profiled.

But American Blacks and American Muslims both need to do the same thing.  They need to direct their anger and frustration inward at their own communities and those in their communities that are the CAUSE for this profiling.

The need to work in their own communities doing these four things I mentioned in my article “How can we blame Police for having bias against blacks?

  1. Encourage the rebuilding of the black family unit
  2. Discourage dependence on government
  3. Get blacks back into church
  4. Support law enforcement officers and get tough on crime

As far as profiling goes these three things MUST be accepted:

Profiling does not cause crime, crime causes profiling.

Profiling does not cause terrorism, terrorism causes profiling.

Profiling is not racism or bigotry but rather it is a common sense approach to crime and terrorism.

Conclusion

We need a president that instead of saying we have a “police problem” needs to say we have a “crime problem in the black community”.  The fact is that 99% of cops do their job and are not bad apples.  We cannot have a President and groups like Black Lives Matter who whip up an entire racial community against the 1% of bad apples among police to the point where police officers are literally being assassinated.

Photo Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Black_Lives_Matter_protest.jpg

How can we blame Police for having bias against blacks?

50 percent of all murders and manslaughters ,52 percent of all robberies and 40 percent of cop killings are committed by blacks even though blacks only make up 13 percent of the population of the United States.  How could we blame any police officer for having a bias toward blacks under these conditions?

I am sure that most police officers whether they are black, white, asian or another race could confirm that these statistics are not just numbers – this is what they face on a daily basis as they attempt to do their job in protecting our communities as well as protecting themselves so that they can make it home safely to their families each night.

I was watching the Kelly File with Meghan Kelly on Fox last Thursday night and they were covering the relatively peaceful protest of two black men that were killed by police officers early in the week.   I will never forget as the camera caught people running from something only to reveal two police officers laying dead on the ground and Meghan Kelly told them to turn the camera away.  Those images will be seared in my mind for the rest of my life.

It is not about a skin color, it is about a culture

It is about a culture where 67% percent of its children are born to single mothers.  It is about a culture that while being only 13 percent of the population – it produces 50 percent of all murders and manslaughters in the United States.

“Just because you can have a baby, it doesn’t mean you should,” Lemon said. “Especially without planning for one or getting married first. More than 72 percent of children in the African-American community are born out of wedlock. That means absent fathers. And the studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison and the cycle continues.”

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/29/don-lemon/cnns-don-lemon-says-more-72-percent-african-americ/

This “fatherless” black culture has directly resulted in these staggering crime rates:

Even though blacks only account for roughly 13 percent of the population they account for these percentages of crimes in United States:

50 percent of all murders and manslaughters

52 percent of all robberies

33 percent of all aggravated assaults

32 percent of all forcible rapes

So what this tells us is that we have a culture that represents a small percentage of our population, but disproportionately represents a very high percentage of our crime.

“Criminologists we contacted also told us that those absolute figures — when used correctly —  tell only half the story. When talking about risks to society, it is equally important to provide the population-based rate. When we do that, the threat of violent crimes posed by blacks looks larger than that of whites.”

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/02/sally-kohn/sally-kohn-white-men-69-percent-arrested-violent/

Economics are not an excuse for high black crime rates

The usual response from when many American black culture leaders(including Black Lives Matter leaders) are confronted with these statistics is that “this is all about economics”.  If black people just made more money all of these problems would go away – or so we are told.

These crime rates by race and income below prove that the “economics” argument is a faulty answer to problem of disproportionately high rates of crimes among blacks:

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/99v05n3/9909levi.pdf

Slavery and past injustices are not an excuse either for high black crime rates

In my job as a software developer I have worked with people from all over the world. Among those people were blacks from Europe and Africa. I can tell you first hand that blacks from those areas of the world and blacks from America often have very different ways of seeing the world. The biggest difference between American blacks and blacks from other parts of the world is that most American blacks see themselves as victims.  Most blacks from other parts of the world simply see themselves as human beings with a certain skin color and that is it.

Were blacks victimized by whites in America in the past? Absolutely.  I have written about the evils the system of slavery that was practiced in the United States:

“On the other hand, the slavery in practice in America was completely different than the slavery that was allowed by the Bible. Chains were a very a common occurrence with slavery in America. It was based on the false ideology that one race was less human than others and they could be enslaved if for no other reason than their race…

Besides American slavery being based on race – it massively failed the two tests of Biblical Slavery that I mentioned above. Africans were kidnapped from their homes. They were treated worse than animals and loaded on to ships without proper food, clothing and shelter. Many Africans died while on Ships coming to America. Many African women were raped by their owners, instead being given the full status of wives. They were often physically abused and even sometimes murdered. But because they were not considered fully human, no punishments were given.”

https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2015/07/10/why-christians-shouldnt-be-ashamed-of-slavery-in-the-bible/

My point in that post was that while Christians do not have to be ashamed of the slavery that God allowed Israel as a theocracy to practice we should be ashamed of the slavery that America practiced in its earlier days. My larger point though as it relates to this post is that of course we should fully acknowledge as Christians and as Americans the grave injustices committed against blacks in nation’s past.

We should also acknowledge that even after blacks were freed from slavery in America they were often treated unfairly by both government officials and private businesses. This unfair treatment lead to the Civil Rights movement lead by men such as Martin Luther King.

But it is a mistake for any black person today to blame their family, economic or criminal issues past wrongs of the American culture toward blacks. In the decades that followed the civil rights movement the American culture has basically bent over backwards to help blacks in America.

The Liberals War on Poverty actually helped cause the fatherless problem in the black culture

In his article entitled “7 Ways the War on Poverty Destroyed Black Fatherhood” author Nick Chiles writes:

“Welfare programs created disincentives for couples to get married because benefits are reduced as a family’s income rises. A mother will receive far more from welfare if she is single than if she has an employed husband in the home. For many low-income couples, marriage means a reduction in government assistance and an overall decline in the couple’s joint income — a reduction of benefits by an average of 10 percent to 20 percent of their total income. Because so many of the other programs low-income women rely on — such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid and public day care — also carry a means test, single mothers are cut off from a wide range of government services if they decide to marry and subsequently raise their income. Over time, for many Black women in low-income neighborhoods, they see the father of their child(ren) as a less reliable breadwinner and partner than the federal government.”

http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/12/24/ways-war-poverty-destroyed-black-fatherhood/

But can we blame the fatherless family’s epidemic completely on welfare programs that dis-incentivized marriage? The answer is no.  Ultimately black men and women made their own decision based on economic reasons to leave one of God’s greatest institutions in the dust bin. Black women decided they did not need black men anymore to have a family and black men decided they did not need marriage.

So what does this all have to do with the Dallas shootings?

The root causes of heinous murder of five Dallas police officers and the wounding of seven others has been falsely attributed anger in the black community over the police shootings of black men in Louisiana and Minnesota.

The problem is NOT unjust shootings of blacks by police officers.  The problem is rampant out of control crime and a blatant lack of respect in the black community for themselves and for law enforcement officials.

My father always taught me from a very young age to respect my authorities.  I was taught to respect my parents, my pastor, my teachers and also police officers. I was told if a police officer pulled me over to do everything he said and answer him with “yes sir and no sir”.

I actually was arrested as a young man when I was 17 years old. I had many speeding tickets and had an address change and did not receive a notice to retake drivers training.  Because I did not respond to the notice my license was suspended without my knowledge. I was pulled over for speeding and then the officer asked me to get of car and he asked to me to put my hands behind my back and he placed me under arrest.  I submitted respectfully to the officer as my father taught me to do even though I did not understand at the time what was happening.

Today many blacks have horrible and disrespectful attitudes towards police when they are pulled over.  Even if they think the reason is unfair – two wrongs never make a right.  You let the police officer do what he thinks he needs to do and if you disagree you can have your day in court. That is how our system works.

Because blacks often resist arrest bad things happen. That is just the truth of the matter. Many black men might not have lost their lives or been injured by police if they would have respectfully submitted to the police officer’s authority.

Perhaps these two black men in Louisiana and Minnesota were killed unjustly.  But right now we don’t know the whole story.  Could the one man have been resisting arrest? Could the other have been moving his hands around when the officer told him to keep his hands where he could see them? We will find out soon enough.

The ugly truth that the black community and black culture must come to grips with is that even if those two shootings were not justified – Police officers have every right to have a bias toward blacks based on the crime statistics I showed previously as well as the statistics offered in this article from the Wall Street Journal:

“Police officers—of all races—are also disproportionately endangered by black assailants. Over the past decade, according to FBI data, 40% of cop killers have been black. Officers are killed by blacks at a rate 2.5 times higher than the rate at which blacks are killed by police.

Some may find evidence of police bias in the fact that blacks make up 26% of the police-shooting victims, compared with their 13% representation in the national population. But as residents of poor black neighborhoods know too well, violent crimes are disproportionately committed by blacks. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, blacks were charged with 62% of all robberies, 57% of murders and 45% of assaults in the 75 largest U.S. counties in 2009, though they made up roughly 15% of the population there.

Such a concentration of criminal violence in minority communities means that officers will be disproportionately confronting armed and often resisting suspects in those communities, raising officers’ own risk of using lethal force.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myths-of-black-lives-matter-1468087453

How can we blame police officers who may have some bias toward blacks when they constantly hear over the police radio “suspect is black male….”

How can we blame police officers for having even unconscious bias toward blacks in suspicious situations when 40% of cop killers are black even though they only make up 13% of the population?

How can we scream “racist” toward police officers who day in and day out see the utter disrespect that blacks show toward themselves and toward law enforcement officers?

What is the solution to this crisis that we face with the black community and conflicts with police officers?

There are two long term solutions to help reduce crime in the black community.

Long Term Solution 1# – Encourage the rebuilding of the black family unit

“Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”

I Corinthians 7:2 (KJV)

We need to support ministries and initiatives that encourage abstinence and marriage in the black community. My church supports black ministers that act almost as missionaries to inner cities to do just this.  By encouraging strong families with father’s present to love, teach and discipline their children we will help to bring about a new generation of black men that will have greater respect for themselves and for their authorities (parents, teachers, and police officers).

Long Term Solution 2# – Discourage dependence on government

“For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”

II Thessalonians 3:10 (KJV)

We need to discourage dependence on government and instead encourage self-reliance and this applies not only to the black community but to all races in America.  People need to learn the value of working hard for their own money and not expect government handouts.  Blacks, whites and all races need to learn to be content even if they are poorer.

But while the longer term solutions are being implemented we must face the realities of today with broken families and high crime rates in the black community.

Below are two short term solutions that should be implemented now.

Short Term Solution 1# – Get blacks back into church

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Hebrews 10:25 (KJV)

Even if blacks come from broken homes there are solutions we can try to help in the short term. I don’t have the stats handy but I am sure they out there.  I have read before that blacks that are raised in church and faithfully attend church even with single mothers have a much lower chance of getting into crime and other types of trouble.  As Christians we need to encourage our black neighbors to get back to church. The Church I attend while being primarily white does have blacks as well and we encourage all races to attend our church.  This is the way all churches should be.

Ultimately we want to see blacks, as we do all people, come to Christ.   A black man who has accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior in his heart and wants to serve God is going to be far less likely to get into crime than a black man without Christ.  He is going to want to get married and raise his family in a way that honors God.

Short Term Solution #2 – Support law enforcement officers and get tough on crime

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

Romans 13:2-4 (KJV)

I don’t care if you are white, black, Hispanic or Asian.  If a police officer tells you to do something – you do it. If he asks you a question – you answer it. If he tell you to keep your hands where he can see them – you do it.  If he arrests you – you allow him to do that.  If you feel you were mistreated – save it for the judge.  If “stop and frisk” measures reduce crime in any city – than we need to support these measures.  And the most important thing is – we need to ALWAYS given our police officers the benefit of the doubt in any use of force situation.  They risk their lives day in and day out for our safety as a culture and we owe them that respect and appreciation for what they do.

Conclusion

The black community does not have an economic problem – it has a family problem and it has a respect problem as a result of breakdown of the family.

I pray that God will be with the families of the five police officers that were killed and the seven others that were wounded by this mad man.

I also pray that our nation and especially the black community will wake up to the fact that the problem is not with police officers – but it is with the black community itself.  The black community needs to look inward and do some serious self-reflecting.

As whites and other races, we cannot go in and fix the black community.  All we can do is support black leaders who want to do the things I mentioned above whether it is financially supporting their ministries or just offering them moral support and of course keeping them in our prayers.

The American Idol of Equality

The Bible does not support the modern American concept of equality. In fact in some ways American ideas about equality are completely at odds with the Bible. But the unfortunate truth is that over the past century most American Christians have willing laid down their Biblical faith on the altar of their new god – the god of equality.

It is a sad fact that in 2016 more Americans believe in gender equality than believe in God. According to a 2015 Pew survey, 86 percent of Americans believe in God while another Pew survey reveals that 91 percent of Americans believe in advancing the social equality of women.

“Pew Research Center surveys are not the only ones that have found a long-term decline in the overall share of Americans who say they believe in God. For example, 86% of Americans said in a 2014 Gallup poll they believed in God or a universal spirit, down from 96% in 1994 and the lowest figure since Gallup first asked the question in 1976.”

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/04/americans-faith-in-god-may-be-eroding/

“…the highest levels of support for gender equality are found in Canada, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. Roughly nine-in-ten or more in these countries say gender equality is very important.”

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/08/strong-global-support-for-gender-equality-especially-among-women/

And it is not just gender equality.  Whether it be income equality, education equality, racial equality, sexual orientation equality, healthcare equality and host of other “equalities” it is undeniable that the American culture as well as the rest of western countries have bowed their knees to the god of equality.

How should Bible believing Christians react to our culture’s emphasis on these various equality ideologies?

When it comes to this issue of equality we have two choices as Christians.

We can let our beliefs about equality dictate our beliefs about the Bible

Sadly many professing Christians in America and around the western world have chosen this first approach to the subject of equality. While their beliefs in equality are absolute – their beliefs in the Bible as God’s perfect and inspired word are not. Any part of the Bible that contradicts with what their god of equality stands for are dismissed as “cultural” or “temporary” for Biblical times only. Others teach a false Gospel that Christ came not just to die on the cross but to bring about social equality.

We can let our beliefs about the Bible dictate our beliefs about equality

Fewer Christians today than at any point in the history of Christendom believe that the Bible stands as the inerrant Word of God. Yes as Bible believing Christians we understand that we are not under the civil laws, sacrificial laws, cleanliness laws, dietary laws and priestly laws that God gave to Israel as theocracy.  But God’s lasting moral law was enforced and strengthened under the new law of Christ in the form of the New Testament.

We believe what the Apostle Paul wrote when he said this about his writings as well as those of the other Apostles:

“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”

I Thessalonians 2:13 (KJV)

We know that the New Testament stands as the final revelation of God built upon the moral law of the Old Testament.  When accept this fact, then we will accept that the New Testament not only left certain inequalities intact (like slavery) but it also enshrined and reinforced other inequalities such as the social inequality of men and women.  Any honest reading of the New Testament reveals this to be true.

Now that we have established that Bible believing Christians must view the subject of equality through the lenses of the Scriptures we will now look at some hot button areas of equality in American culture today.

What does the Bible say about racial and gender equality?

The Bible teaches that all human beings, men and women and people of all races are equally human.

“24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;”

Acts 17:24-26 (KJV)

All human beings regardless of their gender or race are equally as human as the first man Adam was and we ought never to regard a person as being less than human because they are a certain gender or race.

The Bible teaches not only the equality of our common humanity but also our spiritual equality as believers in Christ regardless of race, creed or gender:

“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.”

Galatians 3:28 (KJV)

Does the Bible support the concept of equal justice before the law?

Yes it does. The Bible teaches that all people are to be treated fairly in the eyes of the law:

“You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous.”

Deuteronomy 16:19(NASB)

So if a rich man commits a crime and poor man commits a crime they both should face the same justice. If a man commits a crime or a woman commits a crime they should face they justice.  If a black man commits a crime or white man commits a crime they should face the same justice.

What does the Bible say about income equality?

The Bible talks about workers being paid the wages they agreed to be paid but it does not say workers or people in general must be paid equally.  An employer and an employee agree to a wage.  But that employer does not have pay more than the agreed wage because he pays other employees more.

In one of Christ’s parables he talks about a land owner who needs his fields harvested quickly in Matthew 20:1-15. The land owner goes out into the town looking for workers to agree to work in his field that day.  He starts off early in the morning finding some workers and they agree to work for a denarius which was the typical wage for a 10 hour work for field workers.

But he needed more workers for his fields so throughout the day and even towards the end of the day the land owner kept going out and getting workers.

At the end of the day he paid all his workers the same wage for that day even though some had only worked the last few hours of the day while others had worked all day long.  This was the response of the first workers he hired who agree to their wage of a denarius:

“10 When those hired first came, they thought that they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they grumbled at the landowner, 12 saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.’ 13 But he answered and said to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?’”

Matthew 20:10-15(NASB)

Some have tried to misinterpret this story as teaching that workers must all be paid the same when clearly that is not the case. This story from Christ is actually a powerful example of the natural private property rights that God has given to mankind. Notice what the landowner says to the workers – “Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own?”

The landowner by paying the men who worked only an hour the same as those who worked 10 hours was paying his workers unequally.  The men who worked at the end of the day got an entire day’s wages while those who worked all day got the same wage.

As Bible believing Christians we should NOT support “equal pay for equal work” laws as these laws violate the natural private property rights that God has given to man.

A business owner has the right to do what they will with their own property including determining the hourly wages of their employees. If a manager chooses to pay blonde people more money per hour than brown haired people or men more than women that is his right as Christ said “Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own?” We may not agree as workers with how our employers decide our wages but at the end of the day if we agreed to that wage we are not to be envious of another person making more money.

This is the complete opposite of how Americans are taught to view their employers.  We have people suing all the time for unequal pay and this is a violation of the private property rights of the owners of these companies.

On the larger issue of income equality Christ said this:

“7 For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me.”

Mark 14:7 (NASB)

Both in the Old and New Testaments we are encouraged to help the poor.  But the fact is that there will ALWAYS be poor people and there will always be rich people and sometimes there will be those in between. But we will never eliminate poverty in this world.

The giving to the poor in the Old and New Testament was always a temporary thing. And in some cases the poor would have to work for their food.   A man’s giving to the poor was commanded by God and enforced by God – not the government of the nation of Israel.  They did not have tax collectors going around assessing people’s land and taking from them and redistributing to the poor. It was PRIVATE charitable giving, not government taxation and redistribution of wealth as we have in America and other western countries.

Also the giving to the poor was never meant to encourage laziness – in fact the Apostle Paul warns against church giving food to people who are able bodied and could work:

“10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”

II Thessalonians 3:19 (KJV)

In the New Testament the specific formulas for charity given to Israel as a theocracy are done away with and giving was to be completely based on one’s free will:

“7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.”

2 Corinthians 9:7 (KJV)

There are many passages throughout the Scriptures that talk about the protection of private property.  In fact in many places in the Old Testament we see laws proscribing remedies for the violation of private property rights. Theft of private property was seen as a much more serious thing than we see it today.

“15 Thou shalt not steal…

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”

Exodus 20:15-17

Civil government is never granted the right to tax for income redistribution purposes.  To do so is tantamount to legalized theft. The poor are to be supported by private free will charity, not government confiscation of private property for the purposes of trying to bring about income equality.

Socialism and Communism are in direct contradiction with the natural private property rights God has given to man.

So here is the point about income inequality from a Biblical perspective.  The Bible clearly respects private property rights as well as the right of workers to be paid the wage they agreed upon. An owner of a company may pay his workers different wages that they have agreed to and they are not to be envious of what he pays their fellow employees.  The government does have the right to tax but this right should never cancel out a man’s private property rights.

Does the Bible support sexual orientation equality?

The Bible does NOT support the right of gays, lesbians and transgender people to engage in these lifestyles nor does it say that Christians cannot discriminate against these people in offering services to them(like florists, photographers, etc.).

The Bible clearly condemns these types of lifestyles as sinful:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”

Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)

Does the Bible support healthcare equality?

I would refer you back up to the income inequality section. No the Bible does not require that we offer free healthcare to anyone any more than it requires us to guarantee free food and shelter to all.  Now should people, especially the wealthy donate to hospitals and help take care of the poor? Yes.

“17 Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. 18 Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good [a]works, to be generous and ready to share, 19 storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed.”

I Timothy 6:17-19 (NASB)

But again this should be of their own free will.  It should not be based on government confiscation of property and redistribution of wealth.

Does the Bible support education equality?

Again I would refer you back to the section on income inequality.  We do not have a God given right to other’s people’s money to pay for our education. As believers and followers of the Bible we value education.

“A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:”

Proverbs 1:5 (KJV)

But let’s be honest that just like equality – education has become an idol in American society.

“And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.”

Ecclesiastes 12:12 (KJV)

We have thousands of young people believing they are entitled to a free college education when they are NOT.  In fact it can be shown that education standards have dropped while education costs have skyrocketed because of this philosophy that everyone must go to college.  Universities and colleges are flooded with people who should not be there. I have two words for you – it is called “skilled trades”.

Does the Bible support equal rights for all human beings?

No it does not.  Now you might say “Wait a minute! You just said in an earlier section that we are to regard all people regardless of race or gender as equally human – doesn’t that mean that if all people are equally human they should have equal rights?” The answer my friends is no.

Now we can grant equal rights in certain areas like we did with race and religion here.  The Bible does not forbid us from granting these types of equality.

But there was nothing unbiblical about the racial and ethnic quotas that the US Government had from 1790 to 1965 when racial and ethnic quotas were outlawed as considerations for allowing immigrants into the United States. A nation has the right to preserve its cultural, racial and ethnic makeup through controlling what persons may immigrate to its country.

But if Americans decided to place restrictions or stop immigration from certain countries as we are considering today because of the war with Islamic radicals this is not an immoral action by Biblical standards.

Now unlike the issue of equal rights based on race or ethnic origin or religious liberty rights in the area of gender rights Gods has placed firm restrictions on this regardless of what civil governments decide.

While American law may grant women equal rights with men – Biblical law does not.  And unlike the issue of equal rights based on race or ethnic origin or religious liberty rights God has not left the issue of gender rights open.

Woman are to submit to their fathers and then their husbands when they marry:

“3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father’s house in her youth; 4 And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. 5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.

6 And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; 7 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the Lord shall forgive her.

9 But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her.”

Numbers 30:3-9 (KJV)

“22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV)

Woman is to submit to Man in the Church

“34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

I Corinthians 14:34-35 (KJV)

Woman is to submit to Man in society

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

I Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)

So yes our American society has granted women equal rights with their husbands – but God has not. Another way of putting this is – the American government over the last century as legalized women rebelling against their husbands.

Christian women in America are faced with the same choice that Eve, the first woman, faced in the Garden of Eden:

“1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which theLord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

Genesis 3:1-4 (KJV)

Will you as a woman take the forbidden fruit? Will you try and be equal with your husband as Eve tried to be equal with God?

Will you take advantage of the sin your government condones and rebel against your husband’s authority or will you resist that temptation and follow God’s law?

Conclusion

While the Bible supports such concepts that all people are equally human and equal justice under the law it does not support the modern American philosophy of equality.

The philosophies of socialism, feminism and humanism which are all children of the philosophy of equality are also in direct contradiction with the Word of God.

We all have a choice to make – will we worship the god of equality or the God of the Bible?

“Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”

Matthew 4:10 (KJV)

See the articles below that are related to this subject of equality:

Biblical Human Rights vs American Human Rights

Does the Bible teach the concept of “Human Property”?

Why Christians shouldn’t be ashamed of Slavery in the Bible