3 Men Of The Bible Who Were Undone By Weakness

We can learn a lot from reading about the lives of heroic men. Their example goads us to achieve great things in our own lives. But we can also learn from the mistakes of others. The Bible is full of examples of men who fell short of their potential.



We don’t have to get far in the Bible before encountering the first weak man—Adam.

Most people are already familiar with the story of how the serpent convinces Eve, the wife of Adam, to eat of the forbidden fruit:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, ‘Did God really say, “You must not eat from any tree in the garden”?’

The woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, “You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.”’

‘You will not certainly die,’ the serpent said to the woman. ‘For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’

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.

You may be wondering where Adam was while the serpent was tempting Eve. The Biblical text says he was with her the entire time. Yet he never stepped forward to tell his wife to break off the conversation. Nor did he rebuke the serpent, even though God had given Adam dominion over the entire earth. Instead, he dutifully ate some of the fruit himself in direct disobedience to God.

Theologian Scott Hahn argues that the serpent was much more than just a tiny green snake. He was a dragon. If true, this explains why Adam failed to step forward to protect his wife—he was afraid he would lose his life.

Regardless of the interpretation, the cause of Adam’s fall was his failure to exercise his masculine leadership over his wife. As the head of marriage, he should not have deferred to Eve. Instead, he should have intervened, broken off Eve’s conversation with the serpent, and prevented her from partaking of the fruit even if it meant that he would have to fight a dragon.

The theme of men who are ruined because they fail in their role as leaders in the marriage recurs frequently in the Bible. For example, Samson yields to Delilah, which leads to his capture and death. And Solomon, who was revered as the wisest man in the world, ends badly because he is led astray by his wives.

The lesson from this is that men must be always vigilant in their relationships with their wives. A momentary lapse of leadership can lead to disaster.



King David was certainly not a weak man by any measure. In most respects, he is an ideal male role model. David demonstrated great bravery from his youth when he volunteered to be Israel’s champion against the giant Goliath. Later, David became a great warrior. The Israeli women even sang of his exploits saying, “King Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.”

But David did have one moment of weakness. He allowed his lust to get the better of him with regard to a wife of one of his officers.

King David had sent his army to fight the Ammonites while he remained behind in Jerusalem. One evening, David went to the roof of his palace. From there he observed that there was a beautiful woman taking a bath on the roof of her house. The King was immediately smitten and sent messengers to retrieve the woman, who was named Bathsheba. Unfortunately, Bathsheba was already married to Uriah, an officer in David’s army.

David and Bathsheba did what came naturally and he sent her back home. Not long afterward, Bathsheba sent word that she was pregnant with David’s child. Eager to cover up his wrong doing, David called Uriah back from the frontlines hoping that Uriah would sleep with his wife.

However, Uriah, a truly dedicated soldier, pointed out that it would be wrong to enjoy his wife while his brothers were still fighting in the field. That left David in a pickle: if it became clear that Bathsheba was carrying David’s child, David would have been found guilty of adultery.

Rather than risk it, David made matters worse by sending Uriah back to the front. He also told his commander to let Uriah lead a charge on the enemy, but to pull the Israeli troops back thus leaving Uriah exposed. In this way, Uriah was slain.

David’s adultery and subsequent murder of Uriah brought down a heavy punishment from God. Instead of enjoying a prosperous reign, he found himself fighting for his life and his throne against one of his sons.

The truth is that David was played. Bathsheba was clearly trying to entice the King by prancing around naked where she was going to be seen by him. David would have been a lot better off if he had just visited his own harem. Men haven’t changed. All of us are at risk for ruining our reputation if we fail to control our lust.



The last weak man that I want to discuss is the apostle Peter. Unlike Adam and David, Peter’s weakness was not related to women. Instead, Peter’s fault was that wanted to be liked by people too much.

Initially, the Christian church consisted of solely Jewish converts. These Jewish Christians continued to observe all the ceremonial aspects of the Jewish law, including abstaining from certain meats.

When the church expanded to include gentile converts, there was a big controversy within the church: how much of the Jewish law would gentile converts have to observe? There was a church council at Jerusalem where the apostles, including Peter, decided that gentile Christians would not be required to observe the Mosaic law.

When the apostle Peter went to visit the gentile Christians in the city of Antioch, he behaved like them. Consistent with the decision of the Jerusalem council, Peter ate the same food the gentiles did. However, when a delegation of Jewish Christians arrived from Jerusalem, Peter stopped hanging out with the gentiles and resumed his observance of the Jewish law so that he would be liked by his old Jewish friends.

Peter’s behavior made the gentile believers feel like second class citizens. When his fellow apostle Paul got wind of Peter’s hypocritical behavior, he chastised Peter “to his face.” From the biblical testimony, it seems Peter accepted Paul’s criticism with humility.

While the desire to be liked appears to be a minor fault, it may be one of the biggest problem that we face today. The whole SJW movement is based on virtue signaling by people who want to be liked and accepted into the “in crowd.” The conservative political movement gradually sold out all of its principles because its leaders wanted to be liked by progressives. Church leaders soft pedal the difficult parts of Christianity for the same reason. It is fair to say that the inordinate desire to be liked is causing our entire civilization to slouch towards its end.


The Bible is unique because it displays not only the virtues of its characters, but also their faults. Modern men, whether they are believers or not, can find comfort in the fact that even the great heroes were not perfect. But they can also learn from the examples of men like Adam, David, and Peter so that they do not make the same mistakes.

Read More: The Anti-Feminism Wisdom Of The Bible

101 thoughts on “3 Men Of The Bible Who Were Undone By Weakness”

  1. David would have been a lot better off if he had just visited his own harem.

    God’s response to David, through Nathan, was interesting in itself:

    7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul.
    8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

    2 Samuel 12, NIV

    1. Davids response is what is important. He didnt argue or whine, or try to rationalize. He immediately assessed the reality of his mistake and accepted it completely. And he didnt play games with the prophet either.

    2. Have you ever considered why God credited David to being a man after his (God the Father) own heart?
      Verse 8 says it all. ” If you wanted more women, I would have given them to you ” was basically Gods answer. How curious is that?
      God knew that he could give David anything and in David’s world, in his heart, God would always be number 1. Interesting….isnt it? Can you see why David was a man after Gods heart?
      David taking Bathsheba didnt mean he loved or would have placed her above God, which he didnt. It just overcame God’s rules for things. He wanted her enough to break God’s “rules” but she would have never threatened God being #1 in his heart.
      We need to learn that.

  2. Interesting insights into these well-known Biblical figures. One thing that struck me as odd though: What is the reasoning for that one theologian believing that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was actually a dragon? I’ve read this story quite a few times and I don’t remember much that would make him think that besides God cursing the snake to wriggle across the ground. If that’s what he’s basing it off of, couldn’t it be argued that it was simply some kind of lizard and not a dragon?

    1. Yeah, I I’ve always seem it translated as “serpent”. Someone probably made the jump from sepent to dragon, since they were more synonymous in years past. I actually didn’t know about the Dragon thing until you mentioned it.

    2. The traditional portrayal is just a snake, but I think Hahn does have some support for his theory. This from his website:
      The Hebrew word used to describe the “serpent,” nahash, implies something much more deadly.
      Throughout the Old Testament nahash is used to refer to powerful, even gigantic, evil creatures. Isaiah calls the nahash a sea dragon, the great Leviathan (see Isaiah 27:1). Job also uses nahash to depict terrible sea monsters (see Job 26:13).
      This is clearly the image the Book of Revelation has in mind when it describes “a huge red dragon” in the heavens, “the huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world” (see Revelation 12:3,9).
      The Church, of course, has always interpreted the serpent in Genesis 3 as Satan, the Devil in slithering form (see Catechism, nos. 391-395). So we know, as readers, something that Adam probably didn’t know – that this encounter with the serpent was a test against evil, a battle for the soul of mankind.

      1. To all of you guys I just want to say that I’ve read somewhere that the old battle between Good and evil has been going on since centuries ago. The battle has been taken from the field and sword to the pen and books. Today’s Bible has been tampered with. In order for one to understand the Bible one needs to read it, discuss it, and understand that there are portions of it that have been altered for you to not know the entire truth. Thank you for your work Mr. Sebastian. I appreciate seeing people that can have a conversation as this. Reverence !

  3. Solomon was weak too. He lived an extravagant lifestyle off the labor of the people. He married many women and catered to their pagan religions, even building temples for them. He raised a fool for a successor in Rehoboam.
    The result was a tax revolt, civil war, and the disintegration of the kingdom of Israel.

  4. Lots of weak people in the Bible. It’s about how great God is, not how great his followers were.
    Abraham let the Pharoah sleep with his wife
    Jacob was tricked into marrying (and paying for) an extra wife
    Barak needed the female prophetess to lead the charge against the Canaanites
    Sampson let a woman deliver him into the hands of his enemies
    Saul was so scared before battle that he went to a witch for guidance
    We could go on. Men are weak, and that weakness costs them dearly. Whether you believe the Scriptures or not (I do), there is much we can learn.

    1. I thought Sampson immediately. Even when I was little I thought he showed such weakness.

      1. Samson had his “moment of weakness”. I wouldn’t call him a “weak man” at all overall.
        Despite his supernatural strength given him by God, a lot of the exploits of Samson is very “alpha behaviour”.
        That’s what the Word of GOD teaches. Even the strongest of men have their (perhaps *temporary*) moments of weakness. I know I do.
        I don’t trust any man that says differently. You HUMAN you have WEAKNESS if not WEAKNESSES.
        Even you and me have our weaknesses.
        At the top of his prime, I would not compare myself to Samson at all. I’m not at all that good (yet at least… I’m hoping… God-willing).
        I doubt you are I would have “equal stature” in the league of Samson all things being equal, regardless.

        1. He went out like a man in the end…
          And how many of us have never been weak around a woman?

    2. I would say “those men are weak”. The parts of the bible you mention I would posit are warnings to the reader about the frailties of such men. Avoid their example at all costs….

    3. The OT makes the “chosen” people look like idiots, over and over. the onyl consolation I can give myself is to admit that perhaps I (or my neighbors/countryment/family) am just as stupid, and am also very likely to “OH SHINY, CARVED IDOL, PAGAN WOMEN, YHWH I’LL BE RIGHT BACK, I PROMISE”

    4. Actually Abrahams actions were completely consistent with the principles of game.
      There was no “letting” pharoah do anything. Imagine going to N. Korea, and Kim Jong Il gives a long hard look at your wife, what is your brilliant plan at that moment? Fight him, curse him out? A while back when Saddamn still ruled Iraq, some American engineer was on his way out the airport with his wife and family, the security pulled him aside and said they had some routine questions for him while telling him his family should go on and theyd have him rejoin them later.
      A few months later the American embassy was able to get the poor bastard out of their torture chambers, he nealry had his knees snapped and “only” had to deal with electric shocks to his genitals and daily beatings. If Saddam had wanted the guys wife, what exactly do you think that man would have been able to do about it? And thats now, with instant comminication, a freedom loving US (sort of), etc.
      Back then we are talking about Emperors being worshipped as gods, the Egyptians of that period even engaged in human sacrifice (Abraham talked them out of it btw).
      Abraham did the only thing he could. He basically put total trust in his wife or rather he put total trust in his wife’s attraction for him, or both. He assumed the sale. That is, that he is so alpha, so awesome, that she would of course go along with his plan. Is this a great way to conduct oneself on a regular basis? Probably not, but then again, the situation was complete shit, its not like there are many options at that point.
      If anyone has a better idea on how to handle that situation, I would honestly like to hear it.
      As for Jacob, I dont see anything wrong in his behavior. its how you deal with bad situations and mistakes thats important. Failure is a part of life. Its how you deal with failure that counts. When Jacob got fooled he didnt whine like a bitch about it and plot revenge 24/7, instead he accepted the reality and dealt with it.
      Saul on the other hand was just done. There is only so much even great men can take. To his credit he went into battle the next day even though he knew he would die.

    5. “And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.” – 2 Cor 12
      “For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.” -1 Cor 1

  5. Alas the tree of life is not the tree of knowledge…it seems to say, you must begin, “afresh, afresh, afresh..”.

  6. When I was a kid bored during church, I used to read the story of Onan in Genesis 38. When his brother died, his brother’s wife became his. If she had kids, they would still be his brother’s kids.
    So he used to bang her but pull out before he came (“spilled his seed onto the ground “). God got pissed and killed him. His dad, Judah, ended up knocking her up by accident when he thought she was a hooker.

      1. Exactly. But it doesn’t refer to masturbation, as many people think and refer to it, but rather the huge ego he had, which reflected in that act.

        1. Could it simply refer to “spilling your seed in vain”? It seems more logical in this context.

        2. It could also be he used some form of contraceptive, or timed it for certain days of the month when a woman is neither in her menstrual cycle or fertile.

        3. It refers towards any kind of waste of a man’s seed. In my country we have a well known priest which explained to us why it is important not to do ,,onanism” because it destroys your nervous system – and by destroying your nervous system you fuck up your judgement, by fucking up your judgement you neglect your virtue and morals, by neglecting your virtue and morals guess who you’re inviting in your life – That’s right…that’s how the fellow from below works, by leading you astray from the word of God.

        4. It refers to any kind of semen waste. The semen is made to pro-create and make babies. Use it for something else and you are doing ,,onanism”.

    1. Jesus i thought you were joking. I thought no way did the bible have pull out stories !!! ahhahaha you learn something new everyday

    2. “You can’t be pregnant! I pulled out and glazed your back, that’s my style. . . It’s known!” Line from “Chlorine.” Pretty good movie.

    3. This makes me think of how in India (it still goes on) they burn widows with the husband. Perhaps this was their way of disposing of damaged goods.

  7. Adam was right there with eve and told her that she was being deceived . Hence the Bible says it was the woman that was deceived not the man.
    I wouldn’t say he was afraid of the serpent. Man didnt rule over woman till after sin. They had co-dominion of the earth. Sort of like God the father and Jesus the son are equal but Jesus didnt consider or dwell on equality but their oneness.
    More accurately Adam told eve she was being decieved but she had the same gift of freewill that Adam has. God allows our freewill to olay its course. As we are made in the image of God, who is man to deny someone else who is co-ruler their right to freewill?
    His weakness was his thinking/feeling that he cant live without woman. That was Adams weakness. Also listening to his woman
    Before sin, man didnt have veto power. After sin, God acknowledges woman needs to be overridden (due to her nature to crave power/be a goddess) and as her PUNISHMENT she is now ruled by man. Eve was tempted by power.
    Man was weak and listened to his woman. He had full knowledge what he was doing.
    Men, think about this. How many times have you been willing to do something unreasonable for the sake of woman when you knew it was unreasonable? That is our weakness that is rooted in the original man of Adam.
    Women will always desire power/be a goddess (the words that got her was when the serpent said “you will ne like God”)

    1. I agree with a lot of what you’ve said; in particular the last three paragraphs…
      Although, I’m not sure Adam was “right there with Eve” because in the Scriptures it appears the Serpent had Eve alone to manipulate her. If Adam was there with Eve while the Serpent was planting the seed of disobedience in Eve’s mind, Adam may have intervened and “run off” the Serpent or at least tell Eve “not to listen to him”.
      Hmm… that’s a little open-ended in my opinion, yet the benefit of the doubt is if you’re correct Adam must have “went along with Eve’s rebellion” because he wasn’t “deceived” when he ate the forbidden fruit. He knew what he was doing was wrong. He would have willingly “sin against God”. Amen.

      1. If Adam was there with Eve while the Serpent was planting the seed of disobedience in Eve’s mind, Adam may have intervened and “run off” the Serpent or at least tell Eve “not to listen to him”.

        Adam wasn’t exactly the most red-pill of men. Not only did he fail to lead, but when God called him on it, he blamed Eve for his bad choice to eat the fruit.

        1. Adam was there the whole time.
          Remember those cartoons where the protagonist has a white angel on the right and red on the left and there is a dialogue between good and evil?
          Think of it that way. While the serpent was telling eve that she wont die of she ate the fruit, Adam was right there next to her, hearing everything the serpent was saying but flat out telling her what he heard from God.
          Serpent : you will not die
          Adam: Eve, your being decieved. Dont eat it. God said if we eat we “will surely die”
          Eve internal dialog : i wasnt made fist but Adam was. God is holding out on me. If i eat this, i will have a leg up on Adam and have a God like trait that Adam wont have. I will be like God and know Good and evil
          Eve eats fruit and her radiance fades as Adam sees death enter into her
          :END SCENE:
          Its not about Adam not stopping the serpent, its about free will. Adam did what he could to stop her within freewill. She chose her freewill to gain power. Hence the veto power God specifically gives man for womans own good

        2. I have to say that’s a rather interesting and 100% plausible take on the story. I like it.

        3. Sorry but this is inaccurate and extremely far reaching. All the Bible SAYS is that she handed it to him and he ate it, too. Why are you going so far out of your way to defend a man who didn’t do what God commanded him to?

    2. There is hierarchy within the Godhead with the Son in submission to the Father.
      When Jesus came down to earth he was to continue that way with temptation to disobey.
      And there is reason to believe that Adam had Authority over eve. Given that naming means you have Authority like when he named the Animals but also his wife as “Woman” but since submission is automatic he did not need to rule over her.
      But later needed to because of her curse that made her desire to usurp Adam’s role.

      1. Exactly, as god also also made eve for the specific purpose of being an helper to Adam.

      2. Titan, i agree with you.
        Also consider free will. Was not lucifer created by God? Does not the Bible say that lucifer was perfect until the day iniquity was found in him?
        God has authority over satan (look at book of Job where God allows satan to do things to Job but with restrictions and satan followed those guidelines) but satan chose the freewill God gave all the angles to disobey/rebel against God.
        Adam had authority, eve was decieved and chose to ne decieved.
        Also consider this. Although Adam and eve did not have physical clothes, they were not necessarily naked. God is love spirit and light and Adam was made in his image. Also consider that Moses face was radiant after speaking to God as a man speaks face to face with a friend (though Moses only saw the back of God as God covers moses with his hand and takes his hand away so moses can see Gods back because God tells moses he would die if he saw his face)
        Man was clothed in light. I believe eve lost her light when she ate and up until the point Adam didnt eat, he was still clothed in light. HE KNEW and saw first hand death entering into Eve as she lost he clothes of light/radiance.
        Adam would rather die with eve than live with God. How many men/stories of men you heard where they sacrifice their lives for their women? Where do you think this desires comes from? From Adam, the first Man

        1. I like your thoughts on this: “Man was clothed in light. I believe eve lost her light when she ate and up until the point Adam didnt eat, he was still clothed in light. HE KNEW and saw first hand death entering into Eve as she lost he clothes of light/radiance.”
          Yeah, if that’s the case of man having a “light” upon him at that point of time, Adam would have definitely knew something seriously “changed” with Eve and if he didn’t ask questions and went along with eating the forbidden fruit with her, he intentionally disobeyed God with his wife Eve…
          Thanks for clarifying my pondering on this. Amen.

    3. I have posted the below on other blogs before. Here is an account of the Garden of Eden you may have not considered
      Have you ever considered that the events in the garden unfolded in this manner?
      Before I go into that, I think some background is needed.
      Adam and Eve were made in the image of God and God him self is good, love, and light. Is it too far of a stretch to say that Adam and Eve were cloth in light? For example, Moses talked “face to face” with God, but in actuality, Moses only saw the back of God because “no one can see my face and live”(Exodus 33:20). In Exodus 34 his face became illuminated because Moses “had spoken to the LORD” (Exodus 34:29b) to the point that he had to wear a veil to cover the light emitting from his face. How much more so do you think this is the case Adam and Eve who literally walk with God in the garden in a state of perfection? Before they sinned, they were a perfect image of God, and clothed in light.
      When Eve sinned, Adam was right next to her. Adam had no authority over Eve in their state of perfection, he did not have any veto power. In essence, they were equal. Adam only “ruled over” Eve as a result of sin.
      When the serpent came to Eve with Adam next to her, the serpent questions Eve “Did God really say “you must not eat any tree in the garden?”
      Eve clarifies that the only tree that is forbidden is the tree of knowledge of good and evil for if they eat it “they will die”
      Serpent says to the woman “You will not certainly die, for God knows that when you eat from it, your eyes will be open, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”
      Eve was tempted with power.
      At this point, Adam is right next to her. It does not say what I am saying in the Bible, hence above I state “Have you ever considered that the events in the garden unfolded in this manner?”
      Adam, being right next to her is telling her that the serpent is wrong and not to do it. She wants power (gain wisdom) and she eats the fruit. Also remember I stated that before they sinned, they were equal. Adam cant force her not to eat the fruit. He DID STOP HER by telling her that the serpent was wrong but he has no authority to force her not to do what her free will wanted, which was to eat the fruit and gain wisdom. I guess she was strong and independent. How many times have you seen in your life a man tell his woman not to do something but she did it anyways? (Look at the next paragraph) How many times have you seen a man allow it and not put his foot down?
      The moment that Eve ate the fruit, her light disappeared. Adam knew for sure at that moment that he was right and that death really did enter into her. Here is where it gets a little interesting because it applies to us men. Remember way back in your life when you would do just about anything to be with the woman of your dreams. A sub program of wanting to have sexual relations would be there but there was a genuine desire just to be with her? How many men have you known to be in a terrible, non-physical relationship with their woman and were “devastated” when she left? Where he still wanted to be with her even though the circumstances of that relationship was far from ideal? I personally knew a friend/brother that went through a bad divorce, gave him room and board, paid for his lawyer fees and bought him a car and 2 years of my time. When he was first going through his divorce, even though she cheated on him and he took her back over 5 times throughout their “marriage” he still wanted her. Deep down in his heart he REALLY wanted that wicked woman back.
      I have stated this before. Women are tempted/desire power. Men are tempted/desire women. When Adam ate the fruit, he knew what was up. He saw the consequences with his own eyes. When we read Genesis 3:6 “…she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.” It sounds like these events unfolded in 5 minutes. Verse 6 mentions nothing about what God says later in verse 17 “because you listened to your wife”. So from verse 17, we can now conclude that the events in verse 6 was more like
      She ate the fruit. Then her eyes were open. She realized that she sinned and was going to be cast out. Didn’t want to be alone, used the new wisdom she gained to convince Adam and told him what ever, Adam eats the fruit and now his eyes are open and they both realize that they are naked.
      There was a gap of information that one can unravel like a riddle here. Now some of that gap has been filled with this explanation and there is a lot of rich wisdom to glean in between the lines here.
      It is not Adams fault that he didn’t stop Eve. It is his fault that he LISTENED to her. Adam KNEW what he was doing. He saw the light of Eve disappear. HE WAS NOT DECEIVED. He heard what the serpent said and told Eve that the serpent was deceiving her. He had full knowledge of what would happen if he were to eat the fruit. He didn’t want to be alone with out Eve. He had plenty ribs to give to God to make him a new woman but he, for some reason (and if you can figure that out in more detail that what I have said, you will know more about your own nature. And if you do, please tell the rest of us) did not want to be separated from Eve.
      Isnt it poetic? their punishment. To Eve
      “you desired power and you will desire to rule over you husband. He told you that you were wrong and now I am giving him the authority to rule and over rule you”
      To Adam
      “I give you paradise where everything is provided for you. You took my provision for granted. Now you have to work really hard just to live because the earth is now cursed because of you. And see if your wife wants to stay with you if you cant provide for her. Oh, and have fun dealing with her curse, her desire to always usurp you”
      Can you see that it is in the woman’s nature to be more easily deceived now? Its in her nature to think she is better than what her natural place is. She honestly believes to be a goddess when she is beneath a man. She was only on his level when God made them perfect.

      1. An interesting take on why they suddenly felt naked after sinning, when they had never worn clothes to begin with. I’m inclined to believe this. However, The Bible never states that Adam is incomplicit with Eve’s dealings with the serpent despite being with her when it happened. It seems more likely that he was unaware to the conversation being had than that he tried to intervene and she wouldn’t have it. Lucifer is a spirit being; he can speak to the mind directly- and if this part of the story happened as you proposed, at least one of them was a sinner already.
        If the devil was speaking audibly and Adam chose to do nothing because ‘it’s her life’, common law would see him as an accessory to theft before taking the fruit himself, and God’s law would not be any more lenient.
        ‘Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.’ (Lev. 19:17) If that applied to a fellow Israelite, how much moreso to your own wife?
        If Adam opposed Eve and she didn’t listen to him, she technically sinned before even eating the apple; Adam was her God appointed leader; he told her to do right, and she disobeyed him;
        ‘ For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.’ 1 Sam. 15:23 Given that the whole goal of her sin was to ‘be as gods’ and thus her own idol, this one seems especially appropriate.
        On the other hand, your interpretation does explain how Adam, a formerly sinless being could sin without being having been deceived to it like Eve was. He was commanded to by both God’s word and by his own instinctual programming to cleave unto his wife. (Awful to admit given today’s culture, but this is the ideal the Bible puts forth whether I like or not). He was also to love and serve God. She sinned, and thus was destined to die and be separated from God and him. Unable to have both, he made a choice to keep the wrong one.

        1. You are right that the Bible does not put in the details that i wrote.
          Have you ever had a conversation with anyone who discounts mans God given authority ? deriving your authority from the Bible, using the creation account?
          When you enter into their frame on purpose and even when you have reasonable answeres, they refuse to change their position because they are invested in that position?
          The interpretation of the account of creation one way for it to be Adams fault and then when you adress that, the details change where its Adams fault for something else.
          What i mean is debating with someone who to them “it is all and always the mans fault”
          Its adams fault for not stopping eve. Its adams fault for not protecting her. Its adams fault for leaving her alone with the serpent. Its adams fault for not ect… all the while, the details/goal post shift.
          With how i lay it out, Adams only “fault” is listening to the woman. He had plenty of ribs but he decided to die with woman than live with God.
          also consider that we will be co-ruler with Christ and that the Bible also states Jesus’s equality to God (Philippines 2:6)
          And that the law was given 400 years after Abraham through Moses (Romans 5). The only “law” Adam and eve had was not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (and to have dominion over the earth and its creatures, be fruitful and multiply and cover the earth and to eat seed bearing fruit/plants)
          Adam was given absolute rule after sin. Before sin, he had to respect free will, just like God respects free will to the point he “allows” us to make the choice and enact the choice go against his decrees.
          It would be a mistake to apply a “fallen” system on a system that was in perfection (again Romans 5)
          Genesis 3:6 “….she also gave some to her husband,who was with her.”
          I find it unlikely that Adam and eve were physical apart from each other in the garden. Where Adam went,there was eve, where eve went, there was Adam (though the Bible doesn’t say this either )

        2. Romans 5 also states that sin came into the world through one man. But weren’t there two sinners that day? Yes there was, but only one owns the responsibility. It is Adam because patriarchy is the Biblical order- egalitarianism is not. Society may have emancipated woman from patriarchy, which emancipated us from the responsibility to maintain it, but God gives no such absolution.
          Adam is created, given his dominion (the animals and the physical world), and his task before Eve was ever made. She is made from a part of him, and then presented to Adam by God. (Like a father walks a bride down the aisle, but the groom comes alone). They are then given the task to be fruitful and multiply; a job that requires man and woman together, and to be his help meet- which in most cases means your position is inferior. Meanwhile she has no prerogatives to fulfill outside of him. On top of this, God confronts Adam first without even addressing Eve when she sinned first, and they were both in the same place.
          Being ruled is different from being merely being led. Man was always in charge, before it was by voluntary surrender, now it would require force and compulsion. This website despite its secular origins makes it very clear that women make it their business to constantly buck against the will of their prospective and current mates (shit tests), but ultimately desire nothing more than to lead or dominated by a man who is strong enough to tame her. She fights against what she wanted all along- and will seek what she also opposes from those who give it to her determent (e.g. abusers and criminals). Sounds like a curse to me.
          Regarding the introduction of the law through Moses, Romans 1 clearly states that ‘What can be known of God is plain to them… so that they are out excuse. This a pronouncement against rebels destined for judgment- do you think its not true of of the two who he walked with in the garden? He didn’t have to tell them the law- they would know it naturally because it was built in, and because they were sinless, they would obey it.
          Regarding co-rulership: Those who are saved will be will be co rulers with Christ, but make no mistake, all power and glory and honor belongs to Him. The angels won’t be bowing down in worship to saved to men like they do to Jesus, men will be bowing down with them. There is order, hierarchy, and submission and authority among angels in heaven who are sinless, and it was no different in the garden when the first man and woman were.

        3. I agree with everything you wrote. I still get the sense that you are discounting freewill.
          Depending on how you replied, i was going to go into romans 1 about God making himself know. Given we are on the same page on that, lets talk free will.
          I agree that man was the “one in charge” . Here is some perspective. It says God the Father and Jesus are equal (though Jesus says not my will but yours). We being co-rulers when things are complete , i agree there is a hierarchy.
          How far apart is God from Jesus from a dog? Which one is not like the other?
          I admit it is uncomfortable to state “equality” between man and woman BEFORE sin. Women love that and try to abuse that state to ultimately usurp a mans authority. Jesus, being equal to God still did the will odmf the father. Eve did not do the will of Adam even though they were “equal” but just like Jesus had a choice to not do the will of the father, so did woman.
          Woman failed at it.
          I am still staying with my position that Adam was there the whole time with eve. Sort of like the devil and one of the angles arguing over the body of Moses.
          I also believe that the serpent knew he couldn’t get Adam but could get him through woman. Adam wasnt the one decieved but he did fail by listening to his woman (as God tells us in Genesis 3:17)

        4. It was my position that Adam was there with Eve too. My position is that he did not do anything to dissuade Eve from speaking with the serpent or taking the apple either because a) Adam chose to not dissuade her from the serpent’s lies, or b) the serpent- being the devil spoke to her mind directly and Adam could not hear it go down. And I lean to b for a number of a number of reasons. Adam, being a sinless being beguiled would not abjugate his responsibility to warn, he would not be an accessory to a theft, but most importantly, after he does sin, and God called him out it, ‘I tried to stop her!’ would have certainly come up in his excuse but it didn’t. He just blames God for making the woman.
          With that said, I do not believe that Eve’s sin was Adam’s fault. She chose it. However, God holds Adam responsible for it because it happened on his watch. Being the leader means that you are responsible to those above you for what the people under your umbrella of authority do. None the less she still bears the blame and guilt for her own sin as well as judgment for it save for repentance. .

        5. Of option A and B, entering into your frame, I am left with option B.(since my claim is A didn’t happen, or to clarify, Adam did stop eve, Adam was the white angel telling her don’t do it)
          Going with this, even if option A was available, I have a hard time reconciling it with your position when you mentioned Leviticus 19:17. It seems your position is that since Adam was perfect, he would be doing this anyways and I get the impression that your position is that both Adam and Eve “sinned” according to the law of Moses, before either of them ate the fruit or the moment the serpent talked to eve. I get to this conclusion because you have many things at play (from your replies ie:accessory to theft which implies that law of mosses was in play during the garden, Adam being the ruler when before sin, I claim they were “equal” hence God explicitly saying to eve that Man would rule over her after sin, Lev 19:17) here and when I have them all at play, there seems to be contradiction that don’t seem to be in harmony.
          Given that we are both in agreement that Adam was there the whole time, if the serpent was inaudible, Adam would still see with his eyes Eve reaching for the fruit. How would Lev 19:17 not apply here?
          Going to the Adam being head while still in perfection, Whatever command and authority Adam had, eve had as well. Don’t eat the fruit applies to both. Have dominion over the earth applies to both. I get that she was created after all the animals were brought to Adam. How can she name the animals if she wasn’t created yet? The law states that women can make vows but her father or if married, husband can override them. Do you think this was the case when they were perfect?
          I would think that its like individual men making vows where no-one was able to override the other mans vows. Can my father override the vow I make? He could if I was his unmarried daughter living in his house (according to the law). I am a man, and he has no authority to override my vows as a man. In a state where man and woman was not charged with sin, I believe this to be the case as well (though I proudly wear the badge of chauvinist, there is no contradiction, it is the natural state of being AFTER sin, if I were a chauvinist while in the garden, that would be unnatural….I am not claiming you ever called me one, just my statement to you so you know where I am coming from).
          We are in agreement in the area of agency. Eve’s sin and actions are her own. In regards to Adams answer to God, he was asked if he ate the fruit, not if he stopped Eve. In a way, it is implied. God faults Adam for listening to his wife. “Oh, you tried to stop her? I see that, why do you love her more than me to listen to her rather then me?” Adam knew what he was doing. He would rather die with eve than live with God.

  8. I am currently finishing off a book written by a (deceased) priest who interviewed other priests who performed exorcisms (“Hostage of the Devil” – M. Martin). I ran across something (P. 241-242) that struck a cord about feminism today.
    “We start with self-growth, self-discovery. WE tell them, first you must be yourself, find yourself, know who you are. — Then , that woman alone, woman alone , is the thing to be. She has it all within her, but man has it all hanging out.”
    “To be a woman is to be completely independent, we tell them. No guilt. Not masculine. Not feminine. Complete in herself. Cunt and clit in one. Androgynous. Free of guilt feelings, of all responsibility to a man. Biological.” — “To be freed from any need of other. Let them think that they are past ambition of ecstasy on a prick, but totally sensual because they can laugh at love and all its makings; that they are developing their own self-contained skills; her own intimacy with herself is the whole world, without the intrusion of the male.”
    This was the answer from the evil spirit being exorcised when asked about trapping the woman who was possessed. This exorcism happened in 1971. Does any of what was spouted sound familiar today?

    1. well it’s not like there was any “exorcism”. he was just expressing his criticism of feminism. valid but nothing mysterious.

    2. Well…I guess that’s why I always look at feminists with different eyes. Jesus Christ !

  9. I definitely agree with the premise of “weakness” in this article but the distinction I believe that needs to be made is “weak points”.
    Overall, all these three (3) men listed of the Bible: 1. Adam, 2. David and 3. Peter were actually STRONG MEN who just had their “weak moments” in life that led to their downfalls, with the apostle Peter having the best outcome of the three.
    But to just up and call these three men “weak” as if that’s their whole person is falsehood.
    Shoot, by today’s standards these men in the Bible are epitomes of manhood and masculinity compared to the stature of men of this modern era. C’mon now…
    They had their WEAK MOMENTS and only a liar will tell you he didn’t have times he was (at least temporarily) weak. I have been weak and vulnerable many times and times again but that does not at all mean I am a “weak person”.
    I don’t know if the author Michael is a fellow believer, a Christian, but if he is he knows these three men were certainly not “weak” as a whole. Amen.
    Here’s my breakdown:
    1. Adam: First off, ADAM was the first *perfect* man created by God before he sinned. So… Adam sinned by eating the forbidden fruit his wife Eve gave him. Well, if Adam “gave in” to his wife’s offering to eat the forbidden fruit, this question comes to my mind: Did Eve tell Adam where she got the fruit from in the first place or did Adam ask even bother to ask Eve where she got the fruit? If Eve did tell Adam this, his two options would have been 1. Tell her I’m not eating, toss the fruit away from her and tell her what God told him about it. 2. Point-black FAILED her “fitness test” and “gave in” as typical Beta fashion and disobeyed God’s Command knowing he did wrong anyway.
    Shoot, I’d like to think Adam was not as “naïve” concerning this situation and perhaps Eve just brought him that fruit that day and Adam, loving his wife didn’t think twice about it; perhaps thinking she brought fruit from any of the other trees in the garden. Unless Adam knew what the fruit on the Forbidden Tree looked like and could recognize it not to eat, Adam was in effect, “deceived” or “tricked” by Eve because he simply “trusted” his wife’s doing (but the Serpent got a hold of her)…
    If Adam was tricked or made a “mistake” out of unawareness, he’s redeemed in my eyes; but if he knew and ate anyway, then that’s definitely his moment of weakness.
    2. David: He just had to have the “one thing he couldn’t rightly have” and that messed him up with Beth-sheba. Killing another a man to take his coveted wife. That’s all there is to it.
    David himself, in my opinion, was an actual “great/high Alpha” in the Bible in my honest opinion.
    If we’re honest with ourselves we ALL make this same mistake at some point. I know I have many times… But overall, the only power that brought David down in a Fall was this sin AGAINST GOD. GOD knowing David’s indiscretions led to David’s downfall and affliction because of HIS SIN; other than that, no people could have really threatened him too greatly that he couldn’t put down and cover up if he really pursued.
    3. Peter the apostle: Trying to be in good with one group and then distancing himself from them when he retreats back to his “own tribe” of people. A classic, slight-cowardly, slick beta tactic to avoid the social pressure of “push-come-to-shove” and standing his ground. “Fleeing conflict” because he wanted to be well-liked and favoured by both groups. After Paul the apostle calls Peter out on this, Peter recognizes his lapse of weakness and responds humbly by correcting himself, his behaviour and conduct. At least Peter didn’t “lash out” or get all “passive-aggressive” like he didn’t do as he did; he recovered well from the social reproof.
    Lesson: All three of these men had their “weak points” but to call them “weak men” as a whole would not really be correct, accurate and fair.
    To be true: measure YOURSELF up to these men and see where you stack up if you wanna be true.
    I don’t have the status, accomplishment or degree of these men so if they’re “weak”, where would I “measure up”?…
    Smh… Be real y’all… Be real. Amen.

  10. How about Herod II who bowed to his daughter Salome when she demanded and received the head of John the Baptist?(Mark 6:20-29) And you thought modern men who pay for their daughters’ phony 5 or 6 figure liberal arts degree have it bad. At least when they lose their heads, it’s only in a figurative sense.

  11. Hold the course and defend the faith.
    I’m back in my home town and looking for churches. I’m drawn to Catholicism, but from a Protestant background. The Anglican church seems like a happy compromise for now.
    I’d be happy to hear peoples thoughts, arguments and convictions on this. I do occasionally fire Aurelius a few questions, but I’d like to expand the debate a bit and hear a wider range of views. Literally having sleepless nights, trying to decide or unite the church….. far too many denominations.

    1. To be honest with you, I’m an atheist. I’m not going into the reasons as to why. Yet, if it helps you answer your question, I’ll give you my sincere opinion. Personally, I feel more at ease around Catholics than Protestants. Why? For one, there seems to be more sense of community and fellowship. Two, there seems to be more sense of order and discipline, unlike with Protestants who bicker and fight and end up splitting up over something as silly as music. It helps that Catholics have a more other less solid hierarchy beginning with the parish priest and ending up with the Pope himself. Third, the attention to detail. Even in poor parishes, as I have seen through my trips to Mexico to visit family, there is a sense of pride in one’s temple. People will keep it clean and tidy at all times, not just for Mass. Which leads to my next point. Even today, I like to sit down in a Catholic church when empty and just contemplate the beauty of it all.
      Here’s an interesting reading from a fellow who converted from Protestanism to Catholicism.

      1. Thanks for the article, I’ll take a look.
        I’ve only recently returned to faith from a long time being a vocal anti-theist atheist. I’ve had quite the journey.
        I can’t stand the bickering amongst Christians, and the splits in Protestants. I also baulk at the authority of the Pope, so I’m in a bit of quandary. Both sides of the arguments seem reasonable though, and making the decision will be another long road I think.

        1. Curious about your journey, I was raised Protestant but not heavy, lived a bit in Italy and got into Catholic stuff a bit then but also occultist stuff, then went mostly via pure atheism to being a Japanese level bhuddist haha.
          But what was the core of what turned your boat around?

        2. Well, you’re in illustrious company in balking at authority. The most beautiful of all God’s angels did the exact same thing.
          I suppose it could be useful to distinguish legitimate from other authority. But the culture we’ve swum in for the last fifty years at least is all about blurring that distinction. Narrow is the path, and strait the way…

        3. It was the news about ISIS murdering Christians in the middle east, and how easily it could happen in Europe. That coupled with the work I was doing at the time, on a daily occurrence coming across evil, the messy lives of humans and the cruelty and debasement there is in the world. I started by accepting I was culturally Christian.

      2. Another atheist pro-Catholic here… I also enjoy the Episcopals / Anglicans.
        If you boil it down, I can believe in most religions, it just depends on how you define “God”.

        1. True story. One of my older brothers almost accidentally baptized one of his kids in an Episcopal church. Don’t ask me about the confusion. Somehow they figured it out And baptized him in an actual Catholic church. Somewhere in heaven, God was rubbing his hands in mischief.

    2. Church unity is probably the most important thing we can achieve to fix our culture. It is certainly the desire of Christ (c.f. John 17). For some reason, most Christians put a very low priority on it. Fortunately, all that is needed is for a few men to hold noble ideals.

      1. I agree. The infighting and sheer hatred between different groups of Christians winds me up no end. Cannot for the life of me see a resolution to it though, I think I’ve just got to plod on and leave it to God, let Him work in my life and pray for discernment to find the right church for me.

        1. I found that Chesterton and John Henry Newman were of immense help when I was in your position. Newman’s Essay on the “Development of Christian Doctrine” is a masterpiece.
          Chesterton’s “Heretics,” “Orthodoxy,” and “The Catholic Church and Conversion” are also helpful. Best wishes as you discern.

    3. Do you want to be an Israelite taken into captivity or one of the remnants thatt was not captured that God saves for himself?
      Be like Elijah. He thought he was alone but God tells him he has a remnant of 5-7 thousand who have not bent a knee to baal.
      That is the state of the modern church. Be sure you can stand on your own (in Christ). Bring your broyjers and sisters to repentance if possible. At the end of the day, its their choice and their dmfate may be to come back to God WHILE in captivity, escape the captivity yourself. Be a voice in the wilderness like John the Baptist.
      I know we humans are social creatures and God says its not good for us to be alone. Be that as it may, stand on your own first. Strengthen yourself in Christ fist. Seek him fist before you seek a church. The Holy Spirit will teach you and help you understand the Bible when you decide to apply yourself to learn the Bible

      1. Interesting, if somewhat different perspective. If only I could wander the countryside for a few months, seeking answers.

  12. You missed Abraham who screwed Hagar and gave us Islam. He listened to Sarah and engaged in kinky freak sex with his slave.

      1. But read the story. Sarah insisted, then got pissed off at him for doing as she demanded.

        1. And Sarah had Hagar and Ishmael run off and they ended in the Valley of Paran, which according to Wikipedia, it’s precisely where Mecca and Medina lay, thus giving rise to the Arabs. So a woman also helps sow family discord and splits a family apart. Not the first time I’ve seen it happen. Then again they haven’t caused two competing religions and ethnic groups.

        2. Shouldn’t this conclusion be posted in separate article and sprayed on every wall in the world ? Because it’s pure genius !

        3. It was again, Satan’s attempt at stoping God’s plan for Israel. Satan always using the women to do his misdeeds.
          But Abraham learned his lessons. When he was told to sacrifice Isaac, he did not consult with any woman.
          Moral of the story: listen to women but do not take their advice. They are wired to take a flight to security and do not give much thought to the consequences of such decisions. But when the consequences arrive, you will be blamed for not being a man and standing your ground.

  13. According to Paradise Lost, Eve separated herself from Adam, and that was when the serpent tempted her. He advised her to stay with him, but she insisted on going off on her own. He allowed this, deciding that she could make reasonable decisions on her own. “For what obeys reason is free; and reason he made right.”
    Look at any old painting of Adam and Eve, you see the serpent in between them. That is because the serpent’s effort was all about getting them separated.

  14. There’s some passage in the old testament where 2 daughters get their dad drunk to try and have sex with him. I think it was explaining why people from a certain tribe were dysfunctional.

  15. Quite good points made based on the stories, but I think the wanting to be liked is the worse of them. Almost everyone does something stupid for a woman at least once, and most do plenty of times, I sure as shit know I have. Pussy is a biological need for genetic survival, social acceptance is not…
    We need to fight for the way we think things should be and resist temptation of conformity!

    1. We need the word of God and virtue, otherwise we’re just fooling ourselves that it’s the right way.

  16. I’d seriously return to going to church if the sermons were as clear and insightful as this article. Good work – thanks!

    1. Not a chance. The best chance you might have is if you make friends with some guys from the church and openly discuss the Bible. The priests are acting like dickless, mouthless, virtueless rats. Reading from the Bible not with a call to listen and follow but rather like reading the menu in manner that no-one understands. The priests are spouting Gods words with complete inaction. It’s like I’m supposed to teach you about God, but instead of taking the basics, I take the most complicated route there is. That’s a general problem man, communication !

      1. Sure, I see that going on. My parents Lutheran minister is actually quite good in some respects; he maintains a strict literal interpretation of the gospel and isn’t afraid to apply this to controversies such as abortion and gay rights. He still preaches in ways however that can seem vague and inapplicable to daily life. I’ve never attended a youth service but I suspect they are probably the complete opposite of this; soft religion but more practical.

        1. Recognize his position because it’s the courage God wants from us. Bonne chance !

    1. The denial was a much greater weakness. But at least for the denial, Peter had a legitimate fear that if he was identified with Christ, he might be punished. His hypocrisy was for lesser reasons.

  17. “A momentary lapse of leadership can lead to disaster.”
    Understand the consequences of Adam’s lack of leadership: shame at their nakedness, expulsion from the Garden of Eden, and ultimately death.
    Adam’s lapsed caused strife between male and female, and separation between Man and God.
    Disaster indeed.

  18. Just a quick thought on mass and other Church ceremonies.
    I’m Catholic, and so are my friends. Myy buddies and I got some doughnuts this morning and talked about Sunday morning mass casually. One of my buddies said that I don’t go to mass anymore.
    And he is right. I don’t. And it’s my choice, for simple reasons.
    First off, it bored me when I used to go. It would drone on and it got repetitive. If I wanted to take a nap, I wouldn’t have gotten out of bed to go to mass.
    But secondly, and most importantly, I think that I am on much better terms with God and myself if I pray alone and MEAN it, then if I was to go to a gathering and didn’t. I don’t need to join hands and sing with someone for God to hear me, and I don’t need to accept the eucharist to receive Jesus Christ.
    As for this article: to me, this is the way an honest man speaks to God and meditates spiritually (whether he is religious or not), and that’s why I respect Michael Sebastian all the more for writing it.

  19. It’s fascinating to know that the first Pope (Peter) was rebuked by St Paul; thus there is a biblical precedent for rebuking a Pope, an action that I hope will one day be used to put Francis and his leftist inspired attention whoring in his place. Well, one can dream anyway.

    1. Don’t forget about prayer my friend. Believe me ( an unkown, anymous commenter ) prayer can do miracles ! Just remember, it’s easier for God to be your Father and Friend if you respect Him ( Ten Commandments ). Do the exercise of respecting those commandments for a whole month while praying every day for your miracle. Once you see it done, come back to this comment and tell us about it.
      God bless !

    2. The first “Pope” was not a pope. And St. Paul was actually a roman spy deployed to infiltrate and corrupt the teachings of Christ.
      This is why Johnn’s earlier comments are appreciated. The true accounts have been altered in some places in the bible to serve the purpose of men with an agenda.

  20. Never looked at the story between Bathsheba and David in that way before. She knew EXACTLY what she was doing…and King David fell for it. Originally thought that David fell for her while she unknowingly was bathing. Due to his being the King…of course she was willing.
    All I can say is wow…women have been turning men’s heads since time immemorial…these lessons can’t afford to be forgotten.

    1. Yeah, stories like this make me appreciate the Pre-Vatican II notion that the bible was meant to be interpreted by the men of the cloth, not consumed by the masses. Because then you get all sorts of interpretations, people who want to take every word in the bible literally (how absurd!), and people who will downplay Bathseba’s role in her temptation. The lesson is to be aware of women and control your lust. Even the most powerful have these urges.
      A strong, patriarchal church, led by a pope, could debate and discuss and reason the meaning behind these passages, and have a consistent message. Instead of the words being twisted to mean whatever the reader wants them to. Words are only tools used to express an idea. The idea is what is important.

  21. Adam stood down on commanding his woman. He failed to teach Eve God’s law as he was commanded. Men must teach their women the law. I once told a woman it was her job to cook. She went ballistic and said ”What did you just say to me?” The second time I told her to cook she said ”That again?” Afterwards she slowly cooked like a kid begrudgingly being disciplined, slowly scraping the spatula across the pan. She eventually got the pans out herself and the ingredients too. I think she was discovering that she enjoyed her natural calling but wouldn’t admit it at first. Her family was a severe feminized screw job and luckily I had the coarse manner to do the scrub down on her. I had to be inflexible but patient teaching her the law of the castle. I’m not so sure women can even be taught so much as they are really only receptive to being trained. She couldn’t cook shit when I met her. I actually had to train her how to cook.

    1. On a contemporary note, you’re right. But it’s not like God trained Adam.
      ,,Look Adam, your dumb wife will act like a bitch, remember to keep her in check, man ! Otherwise we’re done, and humanity will be cursed !”
      Believe me, if God would have let Adam know about the game and consequence, Adam would go bezerk on Eve for her every mistake and keep her ass in check and guess what? We would now live in perfect harmonic opulence, 500 year lives. Yup, that pretty much sums it up.

      1. There is a reason god didn’t though. There is also a reason god threw satan on the earth and that he didn’t prevent the snake from doing his thing.
        As god is omnipotent he can prevent anything. But he has still his knowledge that he is just preventing a mistake for a time and if he wouldn’t this mistake would happen.
        As such he lets the mistakes we humans make happen as he isn’t an half-assed god.
        Through the bible it is pretty clear that he thinks in absolute terms.

        1. God : Here you go Adam -an empire, a new Earth just for you to populate, all the food you can eat, all of the creatures you can name and use to better your own life and a woman. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, here’s free will too.
          Adam : FUCK YEAH !
          Eve : Take a bite out this !
          Adam : FUCK YEAH !
          God: You’re cursed !
          Adam : Oh shit !
          …And that’s how world got fucked, kids.
          Don’t be like Adam !
          Be responsible.

  22. ” Church leaders soft pedal the difficult parts of Christianity for the same reason.”
    This is a big problem I have with the Catholic Church nowadays. They are trying to “modernize” for the sake of inclusivity, trying to give modern interpretation to historic doctrine.
    Hey I guess that also applies to the Supreme Court!

  23. Thank you Quintus for bringing us Cui Pertinebit, thank you Pertinebit for bringing God into the manosphere, thank you Mr. Sebastian. God bless all of you !

  24. In Adam’s defense, he didn’t have a lot of time to learn game before God took that rib. As for David.. what a royal fucking idiot. There’s only one reason why a biatch be bathing naked on the roof.. and he fell right for it. Poor Uriah.

  25. As with the men in the bible, we have two choices:
    1. Redemption and forgiveness
    2. Succumb to the weakness of the flesh
    David and others like him, chose the first option. Although they had a moment of weakness, they overcame their weakness, asked for and received forgiveness, and then became a stronger man for their lesson learned.
    Solomon chose a different path. Despite the fact that he was extremely blessed, he made a very bad decision towards the end of his life. He did not repent and change his ways as his father, David, did and Israel was punished for his transgression.
    We all have free agency and the ability to exercise it. When we have moments of weakness, do we ask for forgiveness and learn from the experience? Or do we dig in our heals and become defensive and fight a loosing cause?
    Remember, we all will make mistakes, but it takes a man and a leader to admit those mistakes and learn from them.

    1. What is very important to draw from this commentary section is that man needs to guide his mind and his body in accordance with God’s laws. How can we imprint God’s laws in our brains and worship Him when we’re bombarded from every direction ( radio, TV, NET – even our close people ). Is there nothing left but the solitude of the Monastery ? – Okay I acknowledge I’m just taking the discussion into the extreme but it needs to be discussed.

  26. Good to see some Biblical based content and great examples of men’s mistakes to learn from. Some points to consider:
    “The Israeli women. . . “
    The word “Israeli” is not in the Bible. The correct term is “Israelite”. An “Israeli” refers to a modern day, Khazar person who is a citizen of the so called state of “Israel”. Khazars are not Israelites by blood or heritage. Khazarians converted to the religion of Talmudic Judaism several centuries ago. Khazarians claiming to be Israelites is the equivalent of Caucasian France converting en masse to Buddism, then several centuries from now, the Buddhist Caucasian descendants of these French people claiming to be Asian. A true “Israelite” is a physical, blood descendant of Jacob/Israel.
    “When the church expanded to include gentile converts, there was a big
    controversy within the church: how much of the Jewish law would gentile
    converts have to observe? There was a church council at Jerusalem where
    the apostles, including Peter, decided that gentile Christians would not
    be required to observe the Mosaic law.”

    These two terms are used interchangeably but are completely different things. Knowing this distinction is one of several Biblically correct truths that will set a person well above in understanding from 99% of professing Christians today. “Mosiac law” is Yahwehs’ (Gods’) law. “Jewish law” is Pharisee, or Talmudic, law. These are two completely different law systems. Yeshua (Jesus) was the perfect advocate and adherent of Yahwehs’ law and the perfect opponent to Jewish, or Pharisaical law. Yeshua was also most definitely not a “Jew” as many ignorant people claim today showing they have not studied the Bible. Knowing these truths can help point believers, and even those with an academic inclination into history, in the direction of understanding. These subjects have major relevance to the world’s politics today and are almost completely misunderstood.
    Also, the Greek word, “ethnos” translated, “gentiles” in the New Testament does not mean non-Israelite! The gentiles of the New Testament were the physical, genetic descendants of the ten tribed Northern Kingdom of Israel who had been cast off, divorced, and remarried in perfect fulfillment of Hosea 1 and 2 and many other prophecies fulfilled by Yeshua the Messiah. All you have to do is read Hosea 1 and 2 to verify this.
    “Peter stopped hanging out with the gentiles and resumed his observance
    of the Jewish law so that he would be liked by his old Jewish friends.”

    Peter was not a Jew, he was a Galilean:
    “As Peter was below in the courtyard [in Jerusalem, among Jews], one of the servant-girls of the high priest came, and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, “You also were with Jesus the Nazarene [NOT Jesus the Jew].” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you are talking about.” And he went out onto the porch. The servant-girl saw him, and began once more to say to the bystanders, “This is one of them!” But again he denied it. And after a little while the bystanders were again saying to Peter, “Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean too.” But he began to curse and swear, “I do not know this man you are talking about!” Mark 14
    All the original apostles were Galilean except Judas. Paul was a Jew and a Pharisee of Pharisees. So, when Peter was schmoozing with the Jews and Paul rebuked him, Paul was in effect telling him, “Hey Peter, you’re doing a great job of becoming a Jew and I would know because I was one.”
    This is part 1 of a series that is an excellent source of info on the subject:
    “These Jewish Christians . . . “
    There is absolutely no such thing as a “Jewish Christian”. It is a dichotomy. Using examples as illustration, there can be no such thing as a Buddhist Muslim, Jewish Muslims, Christian Muslims, Humanist Christian, Secular Muslim, etc., etc.

    1. Whether you believe or not, you can still learn from it. The wisest of people realize they can learn from every situation or source.

  27. Here’s another: Samson. I’m sure you all know the obvious story and lesson.

  28. I’m surprised Solomon isn’t here. Didn’t his mistakes lead to him losing his divine wisdom?

    1. Solomon never lost his wisdom. Just the political peace he had with other nations. Gods grace toward David allowed the bad stuff to happen to Solomon’s son.

  29. “Theology Scott Hahn argues that the serpent was much more than just a tiny green snake. He was a dragon.”
    This interpretation is ridiculously wrong. After what the snake had done, God cursed the snakes to crawl ln the ground, what implies that before it snakes had paws. But There’s nothing anywhere in the Bible that can imply that the Snake could be anything more than a snake with paws.
    “The truth is that David was played. Bathsheba was clearly trying to entice the King by prancing around naked where she was going to be seen by him.”
    I don’t know where this interpretation came from, but what I know is that Bathsheba is not mentioned as some sort of slut, but she is portrayed as a victim. If she was intended to seduce King David, then this should have being mentioned on the text.
    The only culprit in this text is David.
    I understand ROK’s criticism of girls, but sometimes you guys clearly go to far when judging women behavior.

    1. This sort of seduction certainly has happened at some point, but it just doesn’t seem very likely to me either. Not only because the Bible isn’t at all shy about telling you when a girl is asking for it when scandalous events happen (see Potipher’s wife, Judah’s daughter-in-law, and Dinah) but frankly, it’d be a really bad plan on her part. David actually had to put in a significant amount of legwork just to find out who she was so that he could have his way with her. It’s not like she knew that the King was going to see her, and could wave him in discreetly.
      Its one thing living today, and posting naked selfies semi anonymously to a targetable audience while others cheer you on for your empowerment while doing it. Its a completely different thing posing naked yourself in the hopes of landing the warrior king though word of mouth as a married woman in a world where you would get stoned for playing the whore.

  30. When they discuss Adam not telling Eve not to talk to the serpent I can only imagine how some bitch would react to you telling her not to talk to her dealer or something. It would be seen as “jealously” or something.
    I just don’t see how this would apply today as we one has almost no control over such things other than foresight…

Comments are closed.