~ archived since 2018 ~

Pastor injects Feminism at Wedding Ceremony

March 22, 2018

At a wedding recently, and the (Southern Baptist) Pastor is talking about how Eve was taken from Adam's Rib means that we are equal because it's the side and not the foot, and on and on about equality.

I could only shake my head. The Bible never injects equality into marriage, it does the opposite - says that a women is to be subject to her husband. It's disgusting that the church has lost it's way, and uses Christianity to push these anti-Biblical views.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/RPChristians.

/r/RPChristians archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title Pastor injects Feminism at Wedding Ceremony
Author Idunnowhy2
Upvotes 13
Comments 36
Date March 22, 2018 5:08 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit /r/RPChristians
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/RPChristians/pastor-injects-feminism-at-wedding-ceremony.301980
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/RPChristians/comments/86d60f/pastor_injects_feminism_at_wedding_ceremony/
Red Pill terms in post

[–]RedPillWonderMod | American man19 points20 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

OK gentleman, gather 'round for a quick story and a bit of humor.

Everyone knows the story of Adam and Eve that the OP references, right?

So God was having a conversation with Adam and tells him, "I'm going to make you a woman. She's going to be stunningly gorgeous, she's going to wait on you hand and foot, she's going to give you all the love and affection you want and need..."

I mean, God's just rattling this stuff off and all these benefits.

And Adam's like "Wow! What will that cost me?"

God says "An arm and a leg."

Adam thinks about it and says What can I get for a rib?!"


Alright, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

[–]Uncommon_Sense_123 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

I love the Adam and Eve story. It's what I base my interpretation of male headship on.

Eve came from the side of Adam to walk beside him and with him as a helper. She is the missing part of Adam for those wgo chouse marriage.

And when a Christian woman marries she is being returned to her Adam. The two become one spiritually through the rib (female) returning to the owner and physically through sex. These two make the whole in marriage and go on to produce godly offspring.

The OT describes a complaining wife in various ways, but under the Adam and Eve scenario as the original perfect married couple before the Fall a Christian wife can either be a perfect fit for her husband or a figurative thorn in his side.

[–]RedPillWonderMod | American man0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I love the Adam and Eve story.

As do I.

And as to the rest of your comment, I'll only say... you should write more. It's beautifully written and scripturally sound.

[–]rocknrollchuckMod | 50M | Married 11 yrs7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

We are equal in value, but not in position. Neither position is inferior or superior, but there is a definite order - The Father > The Son > Husband > Wife > Children. The roles men and women have are clearly defined and different from each other, and are for different purposes. Men are like a bucket, and women are like a vase. You don't put flowers in a bucket, and you don’t carry rocks in a vase.

Most people these days prefer the world's version of 50/50 "equal partners", and that includes many Pastors. That is not what the Bible says. And it is this attitude, without clear explanation on the Pastor's part, that helps propagate the sin of a wife refusing to submit to her husband. It is up to us as men to take them aside and challenge them privately to stand up for what the Bible says.

I love the video series A Biblical Portrait of Marriage, it really lays out a firm Scriptural basis for the proper roles and responsibilities of husband and wife.

[–] points points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]rocknrollchuckMod | 50M | Married 11 yrs2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It was just an analogy to show how different containers are used for different purposes, just as men and women are different and have different purposes.

[–] points points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–] points points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]RedPillWonderMod | American man4 points5 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

if you are in a Bible based Christian marriage the submission of the woman is not contingent upon her husband's alphaness. He could be wheelchair bound on disability benefits and he is still the head of his wife.

This is absolutely right and bears repeating.

I'll note it's the same with the command for a husband to love his wife, whether she is worthy of his love or not.

Neither of these come with conditions, where one gets to opt out or ignore God's instructions depending on the other's actions.

[–]Red-CuriousMod | 34M | Married 11 yrs0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. I don't know why she keeps deleting solid comments!

[–]RedPillWonderMod | American man0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

I know. I'd like for her to leave them up so others can benefit who maybe read a post later than the amount of time the comments are left up.

That, and if there's no quoted section, one doesn't know the context of another's reply.

/u/Uncommon_Sense_123 why do you delete your comments?

[–] points points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]RedPillWonderMod | American man0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

You write so well and seem to have a solid grounding in scripture that I wish you'd start a Christian/biblical version of red pill women. There are many women who would benefit.

I can understand the difficulty of what you speak of and why you remove the comments, but be encouraged that I'm sure they're helping others, for however brief a time they're up.

When I comment I am commenting my personal views. How I reply on these forums is how I would reply in real life.

I'd like to think everyone does the same, but perhaps not.

Regardless, great to have you here and I hope you prayerfully consider leaving your comments here up, as God builds you up and strengthens you, and any disagreements with what you write doesn't bother you as much, if at all in the future.

[–] points points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]RedPillWonderMod | American man0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I like this reply.

It's refreshingly candid, honest and forthright.

I'm not redpill.

My username notwithstanding, I wouldn't normally classify myself as that either. I'm a man who believes the Bible, and where aspects of RP line up with it, great, and where it doesn't, I'm opposed.

This has been true from the beginning. I never really had an eye-opening, now I see everything in a whole new light, angry phrase and "RP is truth!" type experience.

Likely because of my biblical upbringing, examples my parents set, personal experiences and so on. I just saw areas where RP and the Bible align on some topics and realize it can be an effective way to reach people and help them in their life and relationships, and disregard the areas of disagreement.

I am a stickler for letting the Bible speak for itself

We agree on this.

I would shoot down hypergamy and just call it a sin

I'd have no problem with this, although it will depend on definitions of it.

The above is why I cannot create a sub.

You can, but as you know it just wouldn't be as I suggested or titled it. The way you approach relationships and use the Bible as a source would be helpful and the practical advice given would be of great benefit, irregardless of your background and how you approach it.

The end result is you often reach the same conclusions as many here on many topics.

And a lot of women need good common sense and practical advice. You have wisdom and you should share it. I know you do to some extent, and I don't want it to be at the expense of personal pain, but consider this friendly encouragement.

Sorry that was so long

Haha. Not at all. Young lady, you've got a long way to go before you reach RC's habit of writing dissertation length comments :) Although me saying that is the pot calling the kettle black. I'm a bit wordy myself.

wanted you to know the person you are talking to is probably hell bound

If you really believe that, that statement tells me you may be closer to coming to Christ than you may realize. :)

And not with head knowledge or an intellectual assent, but a personal relationship with the One with whom you have to do.

I pray so.

Now, since I'm adopting you and others on here as new friends, I'm going to occasionally "poke" you about leaving comments up, but I do understand. I appreciate you sharing what you do, for however long.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link


[–][deleted]  (7 children) | Copy Link


[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I mentioned this “desire” passage in a lesson I taught once. Our pastor told me he didn’t agree with it and that it wasn’t actually a curse. It’s just a reaffirmation of what was already going on. She would desire him, and he would be head. Nothing negative implied.

Sorry, I don’t buy it. The same exact phrase is used of Cain and sin “desiring him” but he must rule over it.

[–]Red-CuriousMod | 34M | Married 11 yrs0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Sin [bad] desires Cain [man], but Cain [man] should rule over sin [bad]. Wife [?] desires husband [man], but husband [man] should rule over wife [?]. If the passages are parallel (as I agree with you: they are), then the parallel position the wife is in is that of sin. So, I'm not sure how you can utilize that to say her desire for her husband is "not bad" when the implication of the parallel is clearly the opposite.

If you want to get really technical, the Hebrew reads as follows: we'el isek tesuqatek we'hu yimsal bak. Here's the breakdown (strongs ID in brackets):

  • we'el [413] - the "we" is a conjunctive ("and," though sometimes silent); the "el" has a dual meaning, the two most common out of 404 uses being: 162 translations as "against" and 75 translations as "toward." Accordingly, there is no agreement on whether or not the author originally meant "and toward" or "and against," thus there can be no definitive conclusion.

  • isek [376] - from the root "ish" for "man" (this is consistent with the two most common translations: 746 for "man" and 669 for "men," the next closest being "each" at 148. Some variation of "husband" is about 70. All 6 uses in the Bible of this particular conjugation of ish (specifically: isek) are within the 70 re: husbands.

  • tesuqatek [8669] - longing/desire (nothing funny; it's only used 3 times in the Bible and all are consistent with this definition); the particular conjugation implies "you/your" instead of "my" or "his" or something else

  • we'hu [1931] - again, the "we" is a conjunctive. "hu" can mean he/she/it/this/who; of its uses in the Bible, it's virtually always in the masculine

  • yimsal [4910] - rule/control/have dominion. Its 4 most common uses are rule (27), ruler (18), rules (9), and rulers (6). This conjugation implies a "him/her/it" as the subject doing the ruling.

  • bak - not referenced in the Strong's, but in this verse most translations agree: "over you"

If I put this all together it could read like any one of the following:

  • (1) And toward husband you desire and he rule over you

  • (2) And against husband you desire and he rule over you

  • (3) And toward man you desire and he rule over you

  • (4) And against man you desire and he rule over you

Given the context of child-bearing and the marriage between Adam and Eve, it's highly probable we're dealing with 1 or 2 (i.e. the "husband" options), but if it were 3 or 4 it would say quite a bit about why women through history constantly seek their identity through men (3) or why they are also simultaneously constantly trying to seek control over men (4).

But if I'm right about the "husband" translation, then the only other real distinction is whether or not her desires are to be directed toward her husband or against his interests. This is why some translations reference a positive desire for a husband (NIV, KJV), but others reference a contrary/controlling desire (ESV, NLT).

Now, the Genesis 4:7 parallel looks like this: we'elleka tesuqatow we'attah timsal bow. Here's the comparative breakdown:

  • we'elleka - same as we'el, excelt it adds a reversing conjunctive ("but"), making it now mean "but toward/against"

  • tesuqatow - same as tesuqatek, but with the subject of "it" instead of "you/your" - "it desires"

  • we'attah - parallel to we'hu; where "hu" meant a third party (he/she/it), the attah references "you" - "and you"

  • timsal - same as "yimsal" except the subject ruling is no longer a third party, but "you" - "you rule"

  • bow - same as "bak," but presumably a change in directive from "you" to "it"

These two phrases are unmistakenly meant to parallel one another, as they are virtually identical except as to conjugation. To that end, Genesis 4:7 should be very key in our interpretation of Genesis 3:16. Which one makes more sense (noting that "it" is a reference to hatat ("sin") from earlier in the verse):

  • (a) But toward [you] it desires and you rule it

  • (b) But against [you] it desires and you rule it

Between these two, does sin have a positive, affectionate desire toward us, or does it have a desire that works against us? If indeed these two verses are meant to be a parallel of one another, then the answer must be the same for both. Because sin's desire is a controlling desire against our interests, I don't see how we can contextually read a wife's desire as stated in the 'curse' as being an affectionate, positive desire for us ... unless we argue that Moses (the presumed author of Genesis) just accidentally used the exact same phrases a mere few paragraphs apart and had no intention of connecting the two, and God somehow has let the church mistake a connection between those verses for close to 3,500 years since this was put to writing without providing a prophet to communicate otherwise.

TL;DR - It seems pretty clear that the language in Genesis 3:16 references a woman having a desire against her husband (not for him), which is evident both from the fact that the "against" translation has over 2x the usage as the "toward" for the operative word (162 v. 75) and also because the language in Genesis 4:7 is an incredible parallel with 3:16, but clearly means to be interpreted in the "against" sense, and therefore 3:16 should be interpreted in the "against" sense also.

Tag: /u/Xoramung

[–]RedPillWonderMod | American man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

So, I'm not sure how you can utilize that to say her desire for her husband is "not bad" when the implication of the parallel is clearly the opposite.


[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link


[–]Red-CuriousMod | 34M | Married 11 yrs0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women don't want to beta-fy their men; they want to know definitively whether or not their man is alpha or beta. Hypergamy's AF and BB sides gives her room to enjoy either aspect of their man, they just want to know what his character to know how to take advantage of the situation. If it's an AF dynamic, they will enjoy and appreciate strong attraction to him and submit to his lead to maintain that attraction and healthy relationship. If it's a BB dynamic, they will enjoy controlling and manipulating him to get all of their comforts met. Whether the man is AF or BB isn't her choice, but when she figures out which type of a relationship she's in, then she knows how to work in that system for her greatest gain. That's why she tests. And she keeps on testing to make sure things don't change, as they often do ... or that if things do change, that she changes her strategy accordingly.

I'm sure i read on married rp that marriage is dating mode on hard.

The saying is that MRP is RP on hard mode, not necessarily "dating on hard mode." It's harder to get positive responses in a marriage context because as you practice RP strategies, your wife learns and adapts to them. Pick up a new girl at the bar every day and you can employ the same 5 tricks over and over and over again and keep getting laid. Try those same 5 tricks with the same woman over and over and over again and you'll have a dead bedroom. You have to constantly change your tactics. You also have to work toward the softer oak qualities, which can be a difficult balance that doesn't need to be maintained in the dating realm, where you can just be in pure jerk-mode and do just fine.

[–]RedPillCoachEndorsed | MRP Mod1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

she is not above or below men, she is equal

A woman is not required to submit to all men and I believe Paul's warning that he does not let women teach is not binding the way it was (very deliberately) phrased. Women are to submit to their husbands but a "virtuous woman" as described in the 31st Chapter of Proverbs is industrious, selling goods all over the place, who wakes while it is still dark, commands servants, conducts business around the world, and her lamp does not go out at night...and her husband calls her Blessed. That is because she submits to him. The complete integration of Scripture on so many levels has always amazed me.

[–][deleted]  (7 children) | Copy Link


[–]RedPillWonderMod | American man1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I'm Southern Baptist and every almost every wedding I've attended, whether for fellow members or Protestants in general were as you described.

On occasion, some would add in something along the lines of what the OP has written.

[–]Red-CuriousMod | 34M | Married 11 yrs2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The guy who discipled me officiated my wedding and I made him include Malachi 2:15 as the primary and central verse to talk around: "And why did the Lord God make them one with a portion of his Spirit in their union? To produce godly offspring." I then had him talk about discipleship as the primary purpose of the marriage - to produce not only physical offspring through physical oneness, but spiritual offspring through spiritual oneness.

So, not every "sermonette" during a wedding is bad :)

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link


[–]RedPillWonderMod | American man1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Maybe that is why there wasn't a minI sermon since there were not many guests and none of the pageantry.

Maybe so. Seems like a lot of pastors nowadays never pass up the opportunity to get in a good sermon—or not so good—and love to offer up feminist spiel in the midst of it.

[–]Red-CuriousMod | 34M | Married 11 yrs1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, let's be honest ... the whole wedding ceremony concept is a pretty feminist process in the first place. Most men would be fine without all the ado. It predominantly serves to fulfill the woman's sense of hyper-romanticism about marriage rather than accepting the hard reality of life after the fact of marriage, which is nowhere near as fantasy-driven as the ceremony and ideology in her mind would otherwise cause her to believe. That's not to say weddings are bad. They certainly can have value, but they are often not utilized appropriately to add positive value to a couple's post-marriage life.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link


[–]Red-CuriousMod | 34M | Married 11 yrs1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is more of what I mean when I talk about the difference between philosophy and theology. Theologically, there is no explanation for why God utilized the rib. We just know he did. So, it is a theological fact that the rib was utilized to create woman. Any speculation on why he used the rib (ex. "It's close to the heart," as many pastors suggest) or why he didn't use some other part (as in your story) is purely philosophical argument.

Philosophy will always follow the wisdom of the world. Right now that worldly wisdom is feminist, so it makes sense that these philosophical musings from Scripture are going to follow a feminist train of thought.

This is the danger in confusing philosophy with theology.

[–]RedPillCoachEndorsed | MRP Mod1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

If they can do that on the things in which the Bible is repetitive and completely clear, imagine what they do to commands that are ambiguous and only appear once or twice.

My understanding is the whole Biblical argument against masturbation is based on the guy in the OT 'spilling his seed' on the ground rather than in the womb of his brother's wife. Out of this they create a whole mythology and arrogantly claim that it is "abusing your body" and of course "your body is a Temple of the Lord" all while stuffing their face with terrible foods (i.e. gluttony = abusing the "temple").

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link


[–]RedPillCoachEndorsed | MRP Mod0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

It was one of the reasons I did not convert. I read the RC Catechism, or most of it, and I could get behind the Saints, and even fake the transubstantiation stuff, but BJ's are a straight ticket to Hell? I call BS.

[–]0kool741 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

and the (Southern Baptist) Pastor

And that right there says it all. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a religion that is more cucked than those degenerate scum. Matter of fact it was a Baptist church that made me write off church and any Protestant religion altogether.

Father's Day service two years ago....nothing but a bunch of 7-11 song music and some kind of BS kids celebration special muckity-much whatever it was. No mention of fathers whatsoever. No Moses no Abraham no nothing. There wasn't even a sermon delivered that day. Oh and of course for all those of you wondering....the Mother's Day shindig was a cabal of erectile dysfunction inducing misandry. It was almost enough to make me want to convert to Islam......almost. I doubt I could give up pork :-) But I can most assuredly give up the religion of feminism!!!

[–]OsmiumZuluMod | Tulip Peddler | Married 6y1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This whole thread is a good thread. Would read again. Well done gents. Keep up the good work.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter