On Friday, we began looking at the ten proofs that Women are MORE "excellent" than Men.
Recall, we are using the IS definition of "excellence":
The IS definition of "excellence" is HAVE. It is completely focused on the Physical. The shortest IS definition of "excellence" is: Physical ability, ability to Boss others around, and wealthy. (Notice, the Bible warned us against valuing APPEARANCE, POWER, and WORLDLY RICHES.)
Recall, we are using the OUGHT definitions of "man" and "woman" by looking at what the Bible says. In Friday's post, we saw two direct proofs in Genesis 2:
PROOF #1. “Help meet” doesn’t mean support from an inferior. It means support from a superior. (Genesis 2:18)
PROOF #2. “Cleaving” means the woman is the stable being (superior) and the man is the variable (in need). (Genesis 2:24)
In Monday's post, we saw two indirect proofs from Genesis 2:
PROOF #3. Women were made from a more complex and excellent raw material. (Genesis 2:21-23)
PROOF #4. God made woman second and better than man because God is about MORE. (Genesis 2:21-23)
In yesterday's post, we saw biological proof from current studies:
PROOF #5. Women’s brains have more connections than men’s brains and the result is behavior that is more profitable.
Also, yesterday I stated: "Actually, the difference goes beyond the brain…"
Today, we will look at Proof #6...
WOMEN ARE MORE "EXCELLENT": PROOF 6
On the whole, men are physically stronger than women. Men basically are superior to women in physical strength. Notice, this is not to say women aren’t physically strong…men are stronger. This is quantitative.
There is nothing a man can do that a woman can’t qualitatively do. The difference is quantitative. For instance, a man can hit a baseball or a golf ball. A woman can hit a baseball or a golf ball. However, the difference is that, on the whole, a man can hit a baseball or a golf ball quantitatively farther than a woman.
Look at what this world values…in general, it values the physical. It pays people more money for physical attributes. In “Modeling God” we saw that the physical is the opposite of the spiritual. That we OUGHT to move from a physical perspective to a spiritual perspective through thinking.
One of the measures of the Unprofitability of a society is how much it values the physical over the mental, emotional, and spiritual aspects. The downfall of a civilization is measured by the increased focus on the physical. Notice, this world values the quantitative physical abilities of men as MORE positive than negative even though the negative aspects of men being more physically focused make all of us Unprofitable.
Men being physically focused does result in athletes that make millions of dollars. However, men being physically focused results in our prisons being full of men, marriages being damaged due to pornography, and society thinking the physical is the cause...instead of valuing the mental, emotional, and spiritual aspects as causes.
Women can qualitatively do things men can’t do. First and foremost, they give life. In fact, the simplest way to explain the difference according to the Bible between men and women is women give life and men protect life.
Why are angels always masculine?
What would be the purpose of a feminine angel? To produce more angels. That is not why God created the angels. Angels were created to protect us…they are masculine. In fact, we saw in "Modeling God's Wills" the fact that all angels are masculine led to the Unprofitability of the second Dispensation…when angels married earthly women.
PROOF #6. Men are focused on the physical while women are focused on the spiritual
When male "leaders" pervert God’s plan of masculinity (to put others interest above their own), the focus of society becomes the physical…and, on the whole, the society becomes less…it becomes more Unprofitable over time.
Men see the physical as a cause. It is in their nature. The result is even though men are able to do some things in the physical that create in the short-term, men are ultimately Unprofitable when it comes to the physical. However, women create and nurture life...and are much less likely to be destructive physically. One of the measures of "excellence" (according to the world) is physical ability. Clearly, women are MORE Profitable when it comes to the physical...they are more "excellent".
Men make the physical a cause and this is Unprofitable. Women make the spiritual a cause and this is Profitable.
Look at how a society treats its women and you can tell what the society really values. For example, some cultures make the women cover themselves from head to toe. Why? Because the men will lust.
Think about that. The society admits men are focused on the physical and are “weaker”…to the point that the women have to bear the burden…the women have to be more excellent because the society is beyond expecting the men to act in an excellent, non-physical manner.
That leads to the next two “proofs”…
Next Post
5 comments:
Good morning,
So if women are more excellent than men, then why do statistics show that, when children are raised by a single mother, the children tend to more often end up in jail, go to college less often, have a lower quality of life, etc. When children are raised by a single father, all the above trends are reversed. Why would this be?
First off, a single father who is raising children himself would already be exemplifying the idea of self sacrifice for the sake of another, which would be opposite of his nature, to glory in the physical and oneself. When a father either bolts from a marriage, doesn’t participate in the marriage, or just never even has anything to do with the child he created (single mother situation) he is doing what comes natural, and the effects show in the children’s lives down the road. So just merely the action of self sacrifice, from men, has a positive influence on the children; but for women, who do the same (single mother vs. single father), it has the (appearance of) the opposite effect. Interesting (if my observations are correct).
Could it be that when the father is not present (even if she is married) the woman is forced to protect life vs giving life, and now she is out of her role? Would, for a woman, protecting life be physical attribute vs. giving life, which would be spiritual. Since she is now out of the spiritual and doing the physical the effects on the child are detrimental?
So then what about the father without the mother? The effects from self sacrifice (which would be spiritual) statistically show positive effects, but what is lacking (because of no mother) is the giving of life, and yet still there are positive effects; whereas if the single mother switches roles between giving life (spiritual for her?) and protecting life (not spiritual for her? But physical?) you see negative effects.
So if I am even remotely in the right ballpark, anytime the sexes play in the physical (which would in some aspects be different for each), the effects on the children is not positive. And the best possible scenario, would be that both parents are acting in the spiritual vs. the physical (which could/would be different for each) and this doesn’t necessarily mean being married and living in the same house, but that BOTH, regardless of the situation, are acting in the spiritual in dealing with the children.
I don’t know if any of this makes sense, but what do you think?
Dave taube
Hi dave,
Once again, you are ahead of me!
I think you nailed the answer with your second paragraph.
The single father is put into his OUGHT role, by his circumstances. The single mother is put into her IS role by her circumstances.
As for your comments at the end, you nailed it again. Remember, the question is comparative...it is asking why one way is BETTER than the other. That doesn't make either situation OUGHT.
I have a lot more to say about this, but I'm going to save it for next month...
We have been looking at the role of leadership, men, and women. Next month we will be looking at "men and women" or, said another way "men with women".
We are going to see why what we currently have when men and women are together is an effect of the two Universal Strongholds.
dave, once again you did an excellent and thorough job! I ALWAYS appreciate your comments and am beginning to feel like offering you "guest host" status.
You have an excellent thought process.
I owe you,
John
Okay......I think I understand this, I just want to make sure. I got confused because, it seems like proof 6 is saying that according to the IS definition of "excellence", which is based on the physical, a woman is MORE excellent under that definition....for NOT focusing on the physical? Is it because she understands that the physical is not a cause, and therefore can creat MORE positive physical effects in the long term because she is not flipping causality?
Also, just wondering if you plan on going through some examples of things that women actually do create. I just think it would help me practically understand all of this better.... I guess I GET what it looks like for men to be focused on causes and how everything goes wacky if they dont. However....I am trying to think of what it looks like for a woman to be creating ALL the time if she had an ought husband or men around her, and what she would be "creating". I am just wondering if were going to go through that at all as well. Sorry if this all seems jumbled, but I think youre used to that from me.... :)
simon peter
Hi Simon,
To answer your second paragraph: we will be going through a lot of practical examples all of next month when we look at "men AND women".
To answer your first paragraph: women are more excellent because they do less damage in the physical realm because they are not made to naturally do as much physical damage...due to some of the reasons you mention.
What I wanted people to realize is that we tend to see men as BETTER physically because we only measure one area...and it is only "positive". However, men are also worse in another physical area and in fact, they are VERY MUCH WORSE. Shouldn't everything be taken into account? When it is, I believe men end up actually worse than women when it comes to being physical.
Thanks for the comments that give me a chance to clarify,
John
Post a Comment