God Believes in Protecting Men!

Great news: God has a protective attitude toward men. I don’t know how you would figure out such a thing from the main drag of Christian culture, but Scripture tells a great story about men’s value to God. Ultimately, this is also great news for everyone–men and women both.

I’m going to kill two birds with one stone, here. First, I will address a bogus theology: “silence of Adam.” This is a theology that declares conclusively that Adam and Eve were side-by-side as the Serpent tempted Eve, which is true according to the meaning of the original translation, but also assumes that Adam stood silent like a piece of wood all during the Serpent’s dialogue with Eve and while she tempted Adam. Let’s look at the recorded story about that:

Genesis 3:6
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

That’s an extremely simple description of what happened–which suggests, God gave us all the relevant details, although the “silence of Adam” theology ADDS a “relevant” detail, declaring that Adam allegedly stood there absolutely mute beside Eve the whole time.

If you take Genesis 3:6 at face value, Eve didn’t even say a word to Adam either: she just handed him a piece of fruit without saying a single word. But, when God shows up, he says “because you listened to your wife’s voice.” (Genesis 3:17) It is implicitly clear and indisputable that Eve spoke to Adam–it just wasn’t recorded or shown to us in Genesis 3:6.

Since Eve’s words weren’t recorded in the simple, non-detailed description of events of Genesis 3:6, how can you say with certainty whether Adam stood there like wood, or if they had a loud screaming argument before Eve took the fruit? You can’t!

Moreover, what could Adam have said that Eve didn’t already know?

Genesis 3:1-3
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,
but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

So what? Adam should have reminded her of what she just said seconds earlier? “Hey Eve, remember what you said twenty seconds ago? Yeah, that.” Really, people? Some people are so desperate for a very feminist “blame men, women are helpless infants” narrative to come up with a proposal that stupid? There’s no way of knowing whether Adam was silent or not, but what sort of words could have made the difference if Eve already JUST SAID exactly the words that should have been as good as anything to dissuade her from eating the fruit?

The argument for the “Silence of Adam” is that poor, poor victim Eve was “merely” deceived (1 Timothy 2:14) and therefore did not know what she was doing, and poor, victim Eve should have been protected by Adam who “knew better,” suggesting that she is less guilty than Adam; the premise that being deceived makes one less guilty is profoundly and gravely mistaken and very obviously does not hold up against the rest of Scripture.

Being deceived is NOT the same as being ignorant. Those are completely different conditions. It is biblical that the condition of ignorance makes an offense less severe (Luke 12:48). Romans 2:14 even states that those who are outwardly ignorant of the law can be justified by their conscience–they are responsive to God’s law that is written in their hearts minus their ignorance. Likewise, Paul states in Acts 17:30 that God even overlooked the ignorance of the Gentiles until time of Christ. The state of deception is COMPLETELY different: The condition of deception is that you have the truth in front of you, from current or past experience, and you trade it for a lie!

2 Corinthians 11:4

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

Countless Scriptures contrast clearly the conditions of deception and ignorance. Hebrews 6:6 clearly tells us that falling away from God is possible after once knowing the truth to the worst consequences. When Jesus preached, he said this about his opponents:

John 8:12-19

12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

13 The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”

14 Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”

19 Then they asked him, “Where is your father?”

“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.”

Many times Jesus talks like this about his opponents; that they do not recognize him or that his teaching was true. Yes, in a manner of speaking, they don’t know what they are doing. Scripture also refers to such things as a condition of “blindness,” again, that one cannot recognize the truth when he sees it (2 Peter 1:9, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, John 9:39, and many more). Does that lessen the punishment, then? Not in the slightest, as Jesus is clear that it is their attachment to sin that makes them reject the truth, NOT IGNORANCE, because the truth is directly in front of them and in the Scriptures that they’d always had. The Gentiles on the other hand were genuinely ignorant and less accountable, and this was demonstrated by the fact that many of them easily let go of their inferior understanding in favor of the truth once they finally received it.

The very case in point, how easily the post-feminist Christian world swallows lies like this is deception that has no excuse. It is not ignorance, because–as I am illustrating–the nature of deception versus ignorance is absolutely all over the Scriptures only to be jettisoned by women who keep trying to find ways of portraying themselves as less accountable or innately less sinful or supreme; it is belief in what their itching ears want to hear. Eve was NOT ignorant, as she was fully aware of God’s decree and the consequences of disobedience, but she wandered away from the truth that she knew for a lie from her temptation.

Moving on, whether Adam spoke or not after the temptation, there’s a reason why the Bible does not say, and why it was never followed up with a comment on Adam’s actions other than that he buckled from Eve’s words: it isn’t relevant. If it was relevant, Scripture would have made a point out of it, just as it did Eve’s unrecorded words.

It’s a theology that is based on words totally put in God’s mouth–that simply cannot be denied. Over-reading Scripture, in general to inject theology at a whim is sinful and dishonors God, let alone a theology that makes up something that isn’t even written!

So now onto the next point, which is an alternative look at this event which I can actually support with Scripture unlike the “Silence of Adam” garbage.

Let’s consider a New Testament reference to Eve’s sin:

1 Timothy 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Let’s take note of verse 14 and really let it digest for a moment.


Wait, what? Isn’t the Bible otherwise more than clear that BOTH were in the transgression? Didn’t Adam and Eve both sin? Why does Paul say this, as if to suggest that Eve was in “the” transgression, but Adam was (by clear implication) NOT in the transgression?

Well, it’s saying that Adam didn’t sin against Eve, Eve sinned against Adam by way of temptation. And we know how much our sin is compounded when we not only sin ourselves but drag others into sinning.

Mark 9:42
Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.

This is exactly what Eve did: she caused Adam to sin. The first rebuke ever given to any human being by God in the history of creation began with, “because you listened to your wife.” Eve tempted him and led him to sin: neither the tree in the garden nor the Serpent could push Adam to rebel against God on their own, but only after Eve “was in the transgression” against Adam did he sin. That’s why the fact of “because you listened to your wife” warranted a mention from God–not a mention of “you didn’t say anything to Eve,” not “what are you doing blaming Eve for your actions?”

Is this a reason for Adam to be off the hook for eating the fruit that Eve gave him? Of course not–no one is acquitted of sin because someone else tempted him or her. But the detail is highly significant, as God considered it worth a mention, and so did Paul in 1 Timothy 2:14.

Now if the “Silence of Adam” garbage were actually true, God would surely follow-up somehow on such a significant detail–such a sin against Eve–but forget it, it isn’t there. On the other hand, God’s response to Eve is this:

Genesis 3:16
Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.

And hence, what does Paul reiterate in 1 Timothy 2:12-14? The same conclusion God made: protect men by ensuring that man rules over woman and not vice-versa, because Eve “was in the transgression” toward Adam, NOT the other way around–as Paul reinforces, woman must not “usurp” the authority that God gave man after Eve was “in the transgression” against him after the fall for his protection.

And there you go: all the Scripture lined up in order here without anything missing or added. I have only made a simple conclusion after lining up the Scriptures on the matter and cutting away the godless thinking of false theologies which involve putting words in the mouth of God.

I don’t care who gets red in the face from the sound teaching of Scripture when not a shred of Scripture could possibly be used against my previous claims. But it’s not like God forgot about Eve’s interests when he put Adam in authority in response to this event: how can Adam protect Eve if he himself isn’t protected first? And unfortunately this is so much what we see in the world today: men unprotected, and traditionalists showing up and demanding that men still manage to fulfill notions of male duties.

Praise God, He believes in protecting men! And, such as in cases like Eve, Delilah, Jezebel, and such, He advocates we stand our ground under pressure in our own defense.

“The Universe is a Simulation”

This statement has been an intellectual/philosophical pursuit for many. Descartes entertained those thoughts, complete with the question of, “do even I exist?” He concluded with “I think, therefore I am.”

Descartes had said that, truly, who knows if anything around him exists according to his understanding? Could it all be an elaborate deception of some evil genius? Well, his surroundings might be. But at the very least, an “evil genius” running the simulation could not “simulate”–or falsely make him think–that he thinks.

In summary, Descartes was convinced that he exists, even if the existence/reality of anything else cannot ever be ascertained for certain.

Descartes is just one example of many who have gone down this pathway of thinking (solipsism). But I think there is something absolutely huge to be gained as a mental exercise in our walk with Christ–at least, it does to me. Please allow me to explain.

Let’s say, for a moment, that NOTHING around you actually exists. It’s just a simulation. Now of course, if it’s a simulation, there must be someone running it. And as Christians, we acknowledge the creator of the universe, so in this exercise, God is the creator of the simulator. We can acknowledge two things, then: like Descartes, we can be certain of our own existence (our consciousness), and we can be certain of God’s existence as the one who runs the simulator built specifically around you, the individual.

(please note, as per the mental exercise, I am speaking as if “you” are the only consciousness)

Since it’s a simulation, nothing else actually exists. It’s all meaningless–all the sights and structures, people, places and things are not at all real. Nothing that happens to them actually matters. The only thing that matters–as these are the only things certain to exist–are your consciousness and the consciousness of the one running the simulation. At some point the simulation ends, and you meet the creator of the simulator who has been studying you for evaluation. The one who runs the simulation, of course, also cares nothing about what happens around you so much as the way you respond to everything around you.

When you realize that nothing else exists, you don’t care what happens to it, or even yourself in terms of your current form of existence in it. You do realize, however, that you have a game to play within it, as it were. The rules are set SPECIFICALLY for you in the simulation. You don’t care about what happens in the simulation per se–since everything in it will disappear in the end–but you care immensely that you respond accordingly to everything that the designer has thrown at you.

Here’s the point: it’s so easy to get distressed about outward results, and the world is very good at trying to get us to stress about outward results. Jesus told us that hating our neighbor is the same as murdering him (Matthew 5:22); whether the person hated actually dies or not, the one who hates is guilty of the sin of murder. On the other hand, Jesus did a perfect job of loving those around him and yet even he did not turn up results in the people around him (Matthew 11:20-23); and consider how many came after him and apparently won more souls than even Jesus did when he walked the Earth–now of course that’s mistaken sentiment, but hopefully therein the point is made: we are not judged before God based on the reactions of our environment, for anything, ever. Many people think and speak in terms of outward results directly indicating one’s character: whether he/she marries the right person (or manages to get married, period) and whether his/her marriage is good, the condition of one’s living and financial situation, one’s popularity, one’s success at working in the elements, and so on. Lazarus the beggar–a decidedly “unsuccessful” person who died from his poverty–was raised up to heaven. (Luke 16:19-31) When Jesus met fishermen in Luke 5:5-8, they spent all day long trying to catch fish and failed, and at a certain point Jesus told them simply to do the exact thing they did all day, only from the other side of the boat, and then they achieved success in catching an abundance of fish; there was no lack of effort either way, and of course there was no reason why the fishermen should have thought that casting the net on the other side of the boat would make a difference, except by faith in the word from Jesus, but a whole host of different results occurred nonetheless.

Why do some people judge others and themselves based on the conditions of the simulation versus the heart? Of course, “man looks on the outside, while God looks at the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7) We have NO hope but to ascertain another person by outside indicators. When someone (say) dies by being hit by a car, we look at outward evidence to see if it was intentional murder, a legitimate accident, or even if the victim was deliberately committing suicide–the heart makes the difference as to the judgment of the person, not the outward result. We can never truly know another’s heart–that is just our limitation; from our point of view, it’s like a simulation.

The upshot to this is that we’re all on equal footing in that sense: God created my simulation for me, and your simulation for you. No two people’s simulation are exactly alike, but each is fine-tuned for the person. One person’s trials may look entirely different from another, and yet we are told “no temptation has befallen you except that which is common to man.” (1 Corinthians 10:13) Our simulation is unique, and yet our tests, inasmuch as they test us individually, are completely fair, as a period of evaluation.

One sure-fire way of failing the simulation, however, is to evaluate ourselves by the condition of the simulated environment–when we realize that God has total control of the simulation, it should be obvious how foolish this is, just as we are told not to love the simulation (1 John 2:15), and as everything we store up in the simulation will be gone (1 Corinthians 3:11-15). Judging by material success goes against countless Scriptures, and so is boasting about riches (Psalm 49), yet sloth is condemned (2 Thessalonians 3:10). What if you teach Scripture truthfully and actually win souls, yet you’re a hypocrite? (Matthew 7:22-23). What if you do a perfectly fine job fulfilling your duties in a marriage, yet the other never responds positively (1 Corinthians 7:16)?

Well, what do the results matter for the time being, for better OR for worse? It’s just a simulation! What counts is the way we respond to everything in it, and to the way God speaks to us within it.

Perhaps this was a long-winded way of going about something obvious–let me know. But it’s one way I think of things to combat the angst of the conditions of the world and the “results” I obtain while in it, versus thinking ONLY in terms of what I do within it while the one who has written my situations for me evaluates me.