Demoralization

noun

1. The act of corrupting or subverting morals.  Especially: The act of corrupting or subverting discipline, courage, hope, etc.

Demoralization is a dysphoric state that is characterized by the individual’s sense of disempowerment and futility.

Have you been demoralized?

Satan wants to demoralize men.  And Satan will use all the powers at his disposal.  It seems like every institution or group in our society has the disempowerment of individual men as one of its goals.  Whether they claim to want to “Smash the Patriarchy” or “Empower Women” or to achieve a “Kinder, Gentler Society”, they are all working towards taking the individual man’s power away, so that he can pose no threat to anyone, often purportedly for safety’s sake.

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American patriarch?” she probed.
“By taking away his power!”

They satanically invert God’s holy order of patriarchy in the name of safety, civility, or “women’s rights”.

BTW “women’s rights” are usually a misnomer or oxymoron, what they should most generally be called is “women’s wrongs”.  A “right” is, by definition, a right thing to do, which is protected by law, so that you are legally assured of your liberty to do that rightful act.  Linguistically speaking a wrong deed can never correctly be labeled as a “right”.  So, there can be no “right” to kill a child in the womb, because murdering the innocent is a moral wrong.

There can be no right to women’s liberation, because our loving God made women to remain in subjection under a man’s rule.  A widowed woman is a cosmic tragedy, and a woman who remains unguided by choice is a wrongdoing rebel working against God’s will for her.  A fatherless never-married woman dedicated to God would seek out a male guardian for leadership and guidance.  If you don’t see it that way your perspective has become Feminist.

God gave men dominion over the earth, and so naturally Satan wants to take that dominion away from men and set up illegitimate rule over men.

Psalm 8:4 What is [a] man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man[’ā·ḏām,] that thou visitest him?  5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.  6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

Note that in the verses above the singular masculine pronoun “him” is used because the Hebrew wording makes it clear that the dominion was given to a singular man, and that each son of Adam has singularly inherited that same dominion.  So that Jesus Christ, as a Son of Man inherited a rightful claim to all dominion on earth, and as the Son of God, He has been granted all power in heaven as well.(Matthew 28:18)

Yet Satan’s goal is to subvert that.  So, men are encouraged to give their power to women, and in a snap your power is forfeit, never to be returned to you.

Do you recall when KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov, described America’s demoralization?

Bezmenov described this process as “a great brainwashing” that has four basic stages. The first stage is called “demoralization” which takes from 15 to 20 years to achieve.

Bezmenov made the point that the work of the KGB mainly does not involve espionage, despite what our popular culture may tell us. Most of the work, 85% of it, was “a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare.” 

What does that mean?  Bezmenov explained that the most striking thing about ideological subversion is that it happens in the open as a legitimate process. “You can see it with your own eyes,” he said. The American media would be able to see it, if it just focused on it. 

Here’s how he further defined ideological subversion: 

“What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.” 

I think we’re nearly there.  Recently I’ve heard numerous otherwise sensible men opining that we should not go and vote when we have the opportunity.  Not that we should do other things instead, but just that we shouldn’t vote, or that that they aren’t going to vote, because they have been demoralized by talk of vote fraud, and Etc.  Make no mistake about it.  You can give all the rationalizations and excuses you want but saying you don’t think voting will do any good, or accomplish anything, is by definition a demoralized statement.  You are showing that you no longer have the discipline to go and do what is right because you have convinced yourself that it will likely be futile.  You no longer believe in the virtue of voting for the lesser of two evils, even if only done on principle.

God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right, even though I think it is hopeless.  ~ Chester W. Nimitz

Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote.  ~ George Jean Nathan

For example, here is the Catholic stance on voting:

Pope Pius XII decreed that there is a moral imperative (duty) for Catholics to vote in elections. 

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH – SECOND EDITION 

2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one’s country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community. 

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country: … 

Catholic leaders hold that not voting: “is a venial sin, against justice, the Fourth Commandment, social charity, and, if applicable, a sin of laziness, apathy, and irresponsibility.” 

But that commonsense morality far predates the Church of Rome.

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle writes: “For the lesser evil can be seen in comparison with the greater evil as a good, since this lesser evil is preferable to the greater one, and whatever preferable is good.” … “According to the guidance of reason, of two things which are good, we shall follow the greater good, and of two evils, follow the less.” 

When only offered a choice between two evils, it is morally right and good to choose the lesser evil.  And it is then a moral irresponsibility to forfeit that choice over to others who might choose the greater evil.

If it was a foolish mistake to allow women to vote, and to thereby gain some rule over us men, then think how much more foolish it is for us men to now not vote and thereby guarantee that women decide everything that gets voted upon.  That completes men’s abdication of our responsibility to lead.

Now some of you are probably asking, what if the evildoers cheat?  What if the election is rigged?  What if my vote is digitally switched or negated, then haven’t I wasted all that effort?

Well, if you always listened to your worst possible fears you’d never get out of bed or leave your house.  And if you become too fearful of being misunderstood, you’ll never try to communicate in any way.  Sometimes you just have to stand up and feel your manhood swing and then set about doing what’s right, and what needs to be done, regardless of the eventual outcome.  Sometimes being a man is a thankless job and there is no pep band to boost your spirit.  You just stand up for what is right because that’s what men of good courage have always done in spite of their opposition.

You do what is right because God will see your determination to stand up and be counted for His kingdom, even if some of those doing the counting will lie for their lord and master Satan.  You do what’s right because you’re a righteous person and not a sniveling coward ruled by fears and discouragements.  You exercise your right to vote for what is right because that’s your duty and it is not such a great burden that you can’t overcome your demoralization for long enough to go get it done.  You go and honor the sacrifice of those brave men who died to win you the right to go vote.  Everything doesn’t have to be about your personal depression,  your propensity towards feelings of hopelessness, and your lack of faith that God will reward your uprightness.

Or perhaps you say, you saw a funny George Carlin comedy bit where he recommends not voting as a way to try to absolve oneself of all responsibility for the acts of our feckless politicians.  Well, I saw it too, and I laughed, and yet I still choose to harken to sound moral teaching over any comedians’ jokes.  I find Dave Chappelle to be far funnier, yet I still wouldn’t listen to his comedy act as life-coaching.  You can’t joke your way out of your moral duties to God.  You just fulfill them, and carry on with your life, acting upon your faith that we will all eventually face God’s judgement.

You don’t want to be like the unfaithful servant in “the parable of the talents”. (Matthew 25:14–30) & (Luke 19:11–27)  Who, due to fears, didn’t make use of what he was entrusted with, and thereby angered his Lord.  He lost everything good in his future due to his demonstrated irresponsibility when he was tested, by not using the opportunity he had been given to act on behalf of his Lord.   Not everybody has been given the opportunity to vote and to exercise good moral stewardship thereby.  As you all should know, even the immoral are saying that “character and decency are on the ballot”.   Yes, there will surely be some cheating, but don’t you be the “wicked and slothful servant” who cheats the Lord by refusing to use what you have been entrusted with.

For the record, I am not saying that your vote will change history, or that we can vote our way to utopia.  I’m not saying that your choice isn’t entirely between crooked politicians.  I’m not saying there won’t be cheating.  I’m not saying there aren’t other more effective ways to influence the world.  I’m just saying, regarding voting, go do the upright thing.  Then you’re still free to go do all those other things you think might work better.   Voting is an easy task and there is no excuse for neglecting to speak up for what you believe is right, or least evil.  Don’t let the Demoralizer win a victory by getting you to bury your opportunity to exercise your right to this symbolic portion of dominion that you still have.  Or it too might get taken away.  Afterwards you can go spend the rest of the next four years doing whatever it is you think should work better.

Do we “Resist the devil” or “Resist not evil”?

In this post, I will contradict the purported scriptural basis for complete nonresistance and point out and explain some more of Jesus’ hyperbole used in Matthew chapter 5.  This post is a follow-on, building upon my first post in this series.  If you haven’t read it, you will want to read it first.

My Mennonite father taught me the basis for the Anabaptist doctrine of nonresistance, but he didn’t seem to practice it.  Partly because it was contrary to his very masculine nature, and let’s not kid ourselves, partly because nonresistance just doesn’t work.  Even Mahatma Gandhi practiced “nonviolent resistance” not nonresistance.  But, when a man is only 100 pounds (45 kg), a hunger strike is likely to be far more effective than fighting.   I don’t think Gandhi would’ve gotten far brawling.

All kidding aside, I respect men like Leo Tolstoy and pious folks today who are still trying to practice nonresistance, even though I see nonresistance as foolishness.

Not to take up too much of your day, but, regarding the hyperbole in Matthew 5:38-42, I will direct you to read this scholarly paper as if it were the first portion of this post, so that I won’t need to plagiarize it nor make my own case, writing out most of his same points in my own way.  I just recently found it, in my preparation to write this post, while researching if anybody else saw that Jesus was using hyperbole when He said to “turn the other cheek”.  I agree with his evidence and his primary conclusion that Jesus was using a lot of hyperbole and other non-literal devices in His “Semon on the Mount”.

Those who teach that Jesus only spoke hyperliterally are like those of whom Jesus said, “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!”, in that they are busy swallowing literal camels, I reckon. /S

In case you’re wondering, I think Jesus’ sinlessness means that He didn’t break His Father’s moral law, not that He didn’t offend people until they publicly executed Him.

Anyhow, back to the scholarly paper I linked to above, now that you’ve read it.  The author claims that Jesus was likely reacting to the Jews gross abuses of the spirit of the law, while keeping to the letter of the law, which I currently have no basis to doubt.  But as far as the author’s speculation as to what Jesus was actually meaning, I think he is far too timid in his baby-step proposed departure from the literal interpretation, which he clearly showed was wrong.  He concludes that Matthew 5:39-42 is certainly hyperbole, by almost every indication, but then he cautiously asks the hyperliteralists to back down only one step from their unworkable “nonresistance”, that is seemingly complicity with evil.  There is room to recommend both forgiveness and mercy while returning all the way to affording others the justice of God’s “tooth for a tooth” laws.

What a twisted religion we’ve inherited, where the innocent are goaded to “turn the other cheek” and suffer doubly, while we consider it too cruel for the guilty to even get what they gave.

Here is the passage in question, plus the preceding verse (38):

Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:  39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.  40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.  41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.  42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

God our Father’s law calls for “eye for an eye” justice.  And so did the Code of Hammurabi and other ancient Near Eastern law codes.  Likely all stemming from the same legal traditions passed down from the dawn of humanity when God walked with the forefather of all men.  And the Jews had quickly come up with fitting fines that could be paid in lieu of getting an eye poked out or a tooth knocked out.

Jesus stated earlier in the sermon that He was not here to remove even a dot or stroke from a letter of His Father’s law, but to keep it.  Nor was Jesus sent to make following His Father’s law more difficult.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.  17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.  18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Do you see it?  We were all already condemned prior to repenting from our evil ways and accepting Jesus Christ’s lordship over us by faith.  Jesus did not need to ratchet up His father’s law to a harder new set of rules to condemn anyone, as we all already stood condemned.  Nor was Jesus even sent here to tamper with His Father’s law to bring greater condemnation against all men.  The Father’s law was not something poorly thought out that His Son needed to later come and correct.

Nor did Jesus abolish God’s 7 Noahic laws for all peoples, which were, each and every one, again commanded in the New Testament for us all, including gentile believers.  They are all still in effect over you, whether you care to know and obey them or not, until the earth and sky pass away.

I think we are negligent in (law #7) setting up courts of justice.   God’s just laws would be the basis for just courts.  But today, our courts serve the highest bidder, and the politically connected, while our “femily” courts serve Satan.  (Oops!  I just made a Freudian typo, but I think I’ll leave it there because I like it.)

Jesus said, “Give to him that asketh thee”.  I’ve never asked for a cent here before.  I freely share the truth that I have freely been given.  But for all those who still want to take that 100% literally, I am now asking you each for one million dollars, as a lesson.

If you don’t have one million dollars, just send me all you’ve got.  You can make all the necessary arrangements through my contact page.  You either need to give that to me, since I asked it of thee, or else you’re not fully obeying that scripture literally.  Change your belief about how literal it is, or else send me the money!  I’ll be pleased either way.

James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

James tells us to “resist the devil”.  Is the devil not evil?  I’d go as far as to say that we can’t always know the source of evil whether a person, or a demon, or the chief devil, Lucifer.  So, I think in that verse the phrase “the devil” is a personification of evil.  “Devil” is a descriptor or a title not a unique individual’s name, thus it isn’t capitalized, like a name such as Lucifer.  I don’t think James was telling us to go along with the influence of demons, but to only resist when we somehow sense it is Lucifer himself.  I think James was attributing all evil as being the will of the devil, and his crewmates.  And instructing us to resist such evil.

So, we are forced to decide whether God wants us to be people who literally resist evil, or people who literally never resist evil?  It is clear to me that the supposed command to “resist not evil” is the hyperbole.  Heck!  Most folks would insist that you should even resist the mere approach of temptation by evil, and not wait until the evil opportunity is upon you to start resisting that evil.

So, what is the upshot of the church’s silly belief that they should not resist evil?  What month did we just finish up here in the most highly churched nation on earth?  Oh, that’s right, it was abomination pride month, the month when we celebrate that which is an abomination to our Creator.  And our “Christian” nation is even risking global thermonuclear war just to make sure they can keep having gay pride parades in the ethnically Russian portion of Ukraine, enforced by our puppet regime led by a gay rent boy.  Do Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or Shinto majority nations historically celebrate gay pride month?  No, that sort of degeneracy only thrives in Christian nations.  Why?  Because only Christians have been brainwashed to think they’re commanded to “resist not evil”.

“He spake many things unto them in parables”

Jesus often said stuff that was misunderstood in His own time by most of those listening to Him.  Jesus wasn’t trying to save people through His teaching, He would only save people by His sacrificial death.  So, Jesus’ teaching was to call people to repentance and to see their own sinfulness and their need for His upcoming sacrifice.  And it was recorded because folks are still needing to be called to repentance to this day.  Repentance is at the heart of Jesus Christ’s Gospel message, not enabling evildoers here on earth through our own allowance, like God.  Our task is to realize our inadequacy to be with God and to ask for restoration, not to try to steal God’s role.

Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came up and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” 11 And Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. 12 For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, ‘You shall keep on listening, but shall not understand; And you shall keep on looking, but shall not perceive; 15 For the heart of this people has become dull, With their ears they scarcely hear, And they have closed their eyes, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their heart, and return, And I would heal them.’

Don’t be surprised that once the apostles all died the very next set of church leaders started trying to take the written down hyperbole of Jesus at face value.  Few of those who had heard Him even understood and got healed of their sin.

Jesus’ point, for folks like the Pharisees, who saw themselves as blameless before the law, was that to be as selfless as God, which is a requirement to “earn” your seat at His table, you’d have to not even resist those who do evil.  If God resisted evil there would be none!  He lets the wicked continue on living in wickedness, giving them chance after chance to repent, all while they sin against everything God stands for.  You’d have to ask those who hit you in the face for more, because that’s like God, who sent His servants the prophets, and they killed them, yet He sent them more, and He eventually sent His only begotten Son to evil men to be mocked, tortured, and killed.

God blesses sinners with rain and sunshine even while they curse His name.  Jesus was hyperbolically describing what sort of things you’d have to do to be perfect enough to earn your way into heaven by your godlikeness alone.  Which is an impossible task for sin-stained humans.

And, as if all that wasn’t impossible enough, Jesus then sarcastically asked them in verse 48 to: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If that were a literal command, a new law for us, nobody ever kept it.  Jesus later said, “my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”  He didn’t say my yoke is impossible, much tougher than my Father’s old yoke.  Matthew 5:39-42 is entirely hyperbole.  Jesus wasn’t literally asking you to follow all that to your destruction.  Nor did He follow that stuff while on earth.  He resisted evil!  Remember how he drove the merchants and money changers out of the temple?  The Bible never says that He asked to be scourged more, or to be crucified a second time.  Nor did the church in the book of Acts say, y’all have to give to us now because we asked you to.  Who in the New Testament was ever recorded as keeping anything of Matthew 5:39-42?  Only those who did not resist evil, and then got rebuked for it.  Hear what Jesus Christ said to the church in Thyatira:

Revelation 2:20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

So, did Jesus want them to resist evil Jezebel?  It sure sounds like it.

How far does Jesus want us to go in our intolerance of evil?

Luke22:36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

Apparently Jesus intended for His followers to go way farther in resisting evil than churches teach us.  That passage above doesn’t sound at all like total nonresistance.  The other scripture nonresistance proponents cite is when Peter tries to deliver Jesus with a sword by striking a man in the head and cutting his ear off.  Jesus did not take that opportunity to say there is never a place for violence, He seemingly just said, now is not the time, I don’t need your deliverance, Peter.

John 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

In Matthew’s Gospel Jesus adds a proverb generalizing how killers often are killed.  But not everyone who takes up a sword dies by a sword.  It is only a proverb.

52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.  53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?  54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Jesus knew He could not let Peter disrupt His capture, to fulfill Scriptures.  But He did not take the opportunity to make any blanket condemnation about using violence or never delivering the innocent.  So there really isn’t anywhere in the Bible where God meant to blanket command us to never use force, even deadly force.  And God is known for His death sentences for capital sins.  Did Jesus abolish every capital sin?  No.

Later in the “Sermon on the Mount” Jesus says:

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.  2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Although the Bible tells us to act justly and even to set up courts of justice, many church folks, while existing in a state of cognitive dissonance, will often quote, “Judge not, that ye be not judged”, as if it were a command prohibiting you from exercising any good judgement against them or somebody else for something they’ve done.  When, in fact, it is only a proverb, a wise generalization, which is explained in the next verse.  It truly is mind boggling how much the Scriptures have been twisted and perverted by the church in order to allow lawlessness and unfaithfulness to the truth.

It still has not fully dawned on my imagination what a faithful church and faithful Christian nations would look like if Christ-following men judged all things rightly according to God’s law and resisted the evil ones at every turn using all reasonable force, including executing capital sinners.  I suspect, like in the days of Noah, it would result in a completely changed world in only a couple months.

So how can you learn what God’s word really means?  Ask God to daily grant you insight into His word.  Ditch those false teachers who obviously haven’t been granted understanding into the mysteries of God’s word.  And pray that you will be!  And feel free to share your questions and insights with the others here, and like the Bereans, we’ll test things against the Scriptures.  The Father is seeking men to reverence Him and to serve His Son, in spirit and in truth, and to sharpen His chosen brethren.

Did Jesus have a sex drive?

Jesus eludes Mary Magdalene with His stiff-arm Heisman Trophy move.

This post, along with at least one more to come, will be about widespread error derived from a hyperliteral interpretation of some of Jesus’ hyperbole in Matthew 5, which He used throughout the “Sermon on the Mount”.(Matthew chapters 5-7)  In this post I will primarily try to focus on making fitting sense of the part mentioning lust and adultery.

Hyperbole – is a rhetorical device that uses exaggeration to emphasize a point.

First, I’ll give some obvious examples of Jesus’ hyperbole from chapters 6 & 7 which I won’t actually be covering in these posts.  In 6:2 Jesus speaks of hypocrites having trumpets sounded preceding whenever they gave their offerings in the synagogues, which were solemn places for prayer and worship.  There is nothing to indicate that was the literal custom and not just hyperbole indicating that the pompous ones wanted to be noticed giving their offerings.  Jesus told them instead, when they gave, “do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.”  Which was also clearly hyperbole.  Then in 6:28-29 Jesus says that the wildflowers don’t do exhausting work or spin fabric but that Solomon, in all his glory, was not clothed as finely as any one of them.  Clearly that’s also more hyperbole.  And Chapter 6 ends with “tomorrow worrying about itself”.  Clearly that is more idiomatic humor that was probably far better caught when Jesus delivered it verbally.  I suspect that when I read in English, I’m likely missing even more non-literal idioms due to English paraphrasing or dynamic-equivalence translation.

In Matthew 7:3-5 Jesus speaks of trying to remove the speck from your brother’s eye while having a literal architectural building beam stuck in your own eye.  Clearly that’s hyperbole.  In 7:6, who would give holy things to dogs or throw pearls before pigs?  In 7:15, did false teachers really dress up in sheep’s clothing while actually being wolves?  No, clearly Jesus was using a lot of hyperbole, sarcasm, and humorous idioms throughout that sermon.

Now also to set the stage for the misunderstanding we will discuss, I’d like to point out that the early church was surrounded by Gnosticism, Stoicism, and Asceticism, and they all treated the physical world, and our fleshly desires, such as one’s sex drive, as things that are inherently evil and need to be suppressed.  And the church didn’t want to get outdone by their religious competition.  So, the early church took a basically Gnostic idea, that all sex is inherently evil, and ran with it.

While the Bible teaches that a man having sex with a virgin creates a “one flesh” marital union with her which is thereafter to be protected through the enforcing of God’s lawful penalty of death for adultery, yet the Bible is not anti-sex, and does not recommend celibacy within marriage. (e.g. 1 Corinthians 7:2-5)  However, many early church fathers did try to reduce sex within marriage, seemingly under the influence of their Gnostic culture.  So, it should not surprise us that the early church was eager to find ways to render all our fleshly desires to be immoral, like the Gnostics viewed them.

Matthew Chapter 5

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus says that he did not come to abolish His Father’s law but to accomplish or fulfill it.  In 5:18 He says that not a single dot of God’s law will pass away before heaven and earth pass away.  So, Jesus is making it clear that He is not going to revoke or invalidate God’s laws that apply, neither God’s Mosaic laws for Judaism, nor God’s seven Noahic laws for all people, which were each reissued to the church within the New Testament.

In 5:21-22 Jesus references His Father’s Noahic and Mosaic laws against murder, and then He makes a connection between unrighteous anger, or hatred, with the guilt for murder.  Jesus wasn’t saying that the unjustly angry or hateful should actually be put to death as murderers, nor was He altering His Father’s good and perfect law, He was only illustrating that even those who thought themselves to be innocent of murder, were still unholy before God having the hatred that is the very root of murder already existing in their hearts.  And they all stood in need of a cleansing sacrifice.

The Pharisees considered themselves to be keepers of all the law, and blameless before the law.  Jesus was humorously explaining to them that they would all still fall far short of the unapproachable glory and holiness of God, and they would all need a perfect sacrifice to pay for their falling short of the holiness of God.

In Matthew 5:22 Jesus wasn’t literally saying that any critic who calls me a “fool” is guilty of murder.  He was saying that to speak that way unjustly would be sinful, and that the same unjust hatred that is already in the heart, is also the root of murder, and that even for unjustly calling me a “fool”, they’d be guilty enough to be sent into the fires of hell.  That section on hatred and murder is set forth in very much the same pattern as the verses we are now finally going to examine regarding lust and adultery.

Matthew 5:27(NMB) You have heard how it was said to the people of the old time, You shall not commit adultery. 28 But I say to you that whosoever looks on a wife, lusting after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29 Therefore, if your right eye causes you to offend, tear it out and cast it from you. It is better for you that one of your members perish than that your whole body should be cast into hell. 30 Also, if your right hand causes you to offend, cut it off and cast it from you. Better it is that one of your members perish, than that all your body should be cast into hell.

My viewpoint after studying the Greek words in this passage is this:  Jesus is not saying that lusting for another man’s wife is literally adultery and should be punished by stoning to death, and that His omniscient Father’s law somehow forgot to ever mention it.  Jesus was saying that, exactly like how hatred exists in all men’s hearts, the root of adultery, illicit desire, already preexists in the hearts of all men.  And that is why you could even be tempted to look lustfully at another man’s wife in the first place, because the root of all adultery, illicit desire, is preexistent in your heart.  This isn’t a new commandment.  God issued no additional stone tablets of law that day.  Jesus was just pointing out that lust, the root of adultery, is already preexistent in your heart, and even the hearts of the most legalistic Pharisees who tried to live according to all the law.  And so consequently every man will need Jesus as their sacrificial Savior.  No man will be made holy solely by keeping all the law, as the Pharisees were attempting.

However, the church, having syncretized Gnostic doctrines, wants to make all of men’s fleshly sex drive entirely illicit, since it involves a satisfying of our physical being, not our supposedly “higher” mental faculties.  Even though as Jesus pointed out, exactly contrary to Gnosticism, it truly is the heart/mind where the wickedness resides.  And our physical flesh is innocent of the actual abstract coveting of another man’s wife.

The truth is the church folks, who want you to interpret this passage literally, are hypocrites.  They don’t literally tear out their own right eye to prevent inciting their lust, nor cut off their right hand to thereby prevent them from masturbating with it.  Tacitly they acknowledge that self-amputating all of your fleshly organs, which might facilitate sinful thoughts, will still never successfully remove all the hate and lust from your heart and mind.  And the disciples who were there and heard Jesus deliver the “Sermon on the Mount” certainly didn’t follow that part literally either.  There is no record of any disciple’s amputations or eye removals after that message was preached.  Jesus wasn’t literally asking us to deface our bodies, which are the temple of the Holy Spirit.  Jesus’ point was just to make the Pharisees, and us, all aware of our inherent, and humanly inescapable, sinfulness and our need for His cleansing and salvation.

Additional thoughts:

Hebrews 4:15(AMP) For we do not have a High Priest who is unable to sympathize and understand our weaknesses and temptations, but One who has been tempted [knowing exactly how it feels to be human] in every respect as we are, yet without [committing any] sin.

Hebrews 4:14 Therefore since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest incapable of sympathizing with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every way just as we are, yet without sin. 16 Therefore let us confidently approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace whenever we need help.

Jesus our Savior was a man, tempted in every respect as is common to men, yet without ever falling into sin.  So, yes, Jesus had a healthy sex drive.  According to Hebrews 4:15 Jesus would have found attractive women to be a source of temptation the same as we might, but He never would have sinned against His father’s law, not even by coveting another man’s wife in His mind.

So, what is the issue?

The problem is that our churches teach a Gnostic/Feminist doctrine that demonizes healthy male sex drives.  And they want to extend that demonization far beyond just condemning illicit sex acts, to include any evidence of masculine sex drive or desire to reproduce which they might disapprove of in any given situation.   Of course they’re also going to be hypocritical about that too.  If the hottest young single man in church indicates a desire for their daughter, they might giggle and smile, but if some neckbeard indicates a desire for their daughter, they’ll call in a mob of cock-blockers to condemn him to hell as an “adulterer” for such “lustful” thoughts.

The Greek word γυναῖκα (gynaika) is most usually translated as “wife”, as it was in the NMB version that I quoted Matthew 5:27-30 from up above, yet most English Bible translations will translate that word as “woman” in that particular verse.  They really seem to want to make the sin of adultery apply, contrary to God’s law, to women who are not other men’s wives.  That’s just the church’s Gnostic/Feminist cock-blocking showing up again via their anti-hermeneutical attempt to demonize all male sexual attraction into somehow becoming the marriage-destroying sin of adultery.

If you go to a large church with lots of groups, you’ll likely discover that passage getting applied the most in their “Singles ministry”.  They really seem immune to just applying it how Jesus used it, as a blanket proof that all men are sinful, no matter how law abiding we appear on the outside.  They much prefer to act as if Jesus was literally issuing a new law to plug a gaping hole in His Father’s presumedly faulty and insufficient collection of laws.  But not the statement about hatred being murder, of course, that’s just common sense that bad feelings aren’t equivalent to literal murder.

So, how do these whore serving churches operate?  Well, if a woman is caught in the literal act of adultery, they quote a known-apocryphal passage claiming that only the sinless can “cast a stone” at her.  But if a man naturally wants to be fruitful and multiply with a young single woman, he is the one condemned as an adulterer, unlawfully.  If you don’t see the satanic inversion of God’s laws there, then you’re most likely in on it.

Bonus – application instruction for ministers:

So, if you’re a pastor or priest now wondering, how should I apply Matthew 5:27-28 to others, since you’re telling me that I shouldn’t use it as my best cock-blocker verses to demonize men’s natural sex drive, the answer is that you don’t apply it to others.  You cannot really see their sins of the heart and mind.  Jesus said that poorly translated hyperbole to show repentant men how to spot their own ongoing need for God’s cleansing and forgiveness.  Not to teach Pharisees how to rid themselves of all lust, using a newly revamped law.  Jesus did not come to further condemn us for our shortcomings, by issuing new laws, but to turn us to repentance and to acceptance of His substitutionary sacrifice, in our place, for our sins.  That’s His Gospel.

Addendum:

I just saw that SnapperTrx made a post a while back that relates to this topic:

Just Because the Bible Says it, Doesn’t Mean it’s True!

And in another of his posts he cited the following verse:

James 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

That verse seems to be telling us that lust by itself is likely not initially a sin against our heavenly Father’s moral law, but only incites and fosters a temptation to sin, which is evidence of how we humans all fall short of the untemptable Father. (James 1:13)

The New World Order

The Georgia Guidestones – The Globalist’s tyrannical plan

Globalists want to dissolve our nations to reassemble a united godless order like the one that God Himself first scattered at Babel by dividing their languages.

There is nothing new under the sun.  Not even the New World Order.  It is the same old wicked tyranny started by Nimrod (whose name meant “we will rebel”) who founded Nineveh and was also a hunter (murderer) of men.  His evil kingdom was soon ruled by his crafty long-lived queen, Semiramis.  Who was the world’s first female ruler, allegedly a sorceress, and the first person to castrate and make eunuchs of men.

Semiramis founded Babylon, and to justify continuing to rule over men after Nimrod was killed (which I suspect she arranged once he suspected her of cheating) she created the first polytheistic religion which worshipped a trinity of herself, her dead husband, Nimrod, and eventually her son, Nimrod, who was born later, well more than nine months after her husband died and supposedly became the god of the sun.  Yet her son was still purported to be his heir through divine conception, and to actually be the first Nimrod reincarnated through his rays from the sun impregnating Semiramis.

Semiramis was also the first to legalize parent-child sexual relations, and then she married her own son, “her reincarnated husband”, to keep on ruling as queen.  She was the first to be called the “Queen of Heaven” and the “Mother of god”.  Her Babylonian mystery religion was designed to hide God’s originally revealed truth, with Semiramis’s family acting as a counterfeit trinity.  Her religion was then spread throughout the world with the dispersion of people from Babel.

The Rev. Alexander Hislop in his book “The Two Babylons” shows how most ancient religions contain those same counterfeit characters who were basically functioning as mimics of Adam(God, the Sun), Eve(Venus, the Moon), The Last Adam(Adonis, Mars) and also Satan(Kronos, Saturn) just with different names in different languages, and how elements of that same Babylonian mystery religion also got infused into Christianity by the papacy in Rome.

God commanded mankind to: “be fruitful and multiply”.

Satan’s Globalist lackeys want to:
1) Murder 15/16ths of mankind
2) Have enforced eugenics
3) Reverse what God did at Babel, Etc.

You can claim it is a “Brand New” World Order if you want to.  But it is just recycling the same world-uniting rebellion that God broke up the last time humankind united to rebel against God.  The global kingdom wasn’t founded to liberate men from God’s laws, and to rule them by men’s own rules, as promised, but to enslave men through a woman’s craftiness.  Satan and his servants want us to be ruled over by women.  It is a bait & switch.  The old Whore of Babylon will again offer “peace & freedom” and again will deliver murder & tyranny and again have women emasculating and ruling men.  The new living language is mainly to help with the deception by making people illiterate of their past.  Don’t take the bait.  Resist!  Cherish your patriarchal heritage.

Sexual Equality?

I recently read an article: “Why has it become OK to attack men?”.  In that article the author states:

Created equal

I recount this history of the vote in my book The Toxic War on Masculinity, and some readers have mistakenly concluded that I oppose women’s suffrage. On the contrary, I support it.

From the beginning of the debate, there were Christians who argued in favor based on women’s spiritual and moral equality as beings made in God’s image. Suffragist Sarah Grimke declared, “Men and Women are CREATED EQUAL.” The proceedings of a Woman’s Rights Convention in 1850 spoke of “the work of Creation, when it was so gloriously finished in the garden of Eden, by placing there, in equal companionship, man and woman, made in the image of God.”

An article subtitled “What Textbooks Don’t Say about Women’s Suffrage” reports that there were “hundreds of ministers who made their churches available for suffragists to deliver their lectures, and who preached in favor of it.”

Jenna Gray-Hildenbrand of Middle Tennessee State University concludes, “It would be difficult to think of women achieving the right to vote in this country … without religious people coming together and seeing this as a religious value.”

The article is just another recent example of how time and time again when reading “Christian” articles regarding the conflict between the sexes, the “Christian” authors dutifully pledge their allegiance to “sexual equality” claiming that men and women were essentially created equal, not because God ever said that, but because they believe both men and women are equally images of God our Father and Jesus Christ His Son.  And that one claim really is the only “unquestionable” basis that sexual equality has ever had.  Any other basis for sexual equality based upon biology or ability leaves the sexes unequal.  It has been known from ancient times that men are generally stronger physically, rationally, emotionally, and have more robustness in enduring harsh environments.  Only a fool would try to dispute the truth of that generalization.

So how can the sex that is generally physically weaker, more irrational, more emotionally unstable, and generally has a weaker constitution, plausibly claim to be equal to men?  Well, unless you’re ready to rashly be led by your sex-cravings straight into fertility goddess worship, you’d have to have the masculine God of the Bible somehow state that He established a basis whereby the sexes become equalized despite their obvious differences.

But what does the Bible say?

Genesis 2:18(YLT) And Jehovah God saith, `Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper — as his counterpart.’

God said the woman was made to be the man’s (‘ê·zer) help, helper (kə·neḡ·dōw.) in front of, in sight of, opposite to him.  God said that the woman was created to be the man’s help.

I could go on with many verses: – weaker vessel — subject to your own husbands as it is fit — in subjection — as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything — in silence with all subjection — obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed., and Etc.

The Bible is very clear that — the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.  The relationship is not an equal one, but a hierarchy with the woman under the man.(1 Corinthians 11:3)  So what does the Bible actually say about the image of God?

1 Corinthians 11:6(RSV) For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)

1 Corinthians 11:7(CEV) Men were created to be like God and to bring honor to God. This means a man should not wear anything on his head. Women were created to bring honor to men.

So where do people find this supposed “sexual equality” in the Bible?  Well, they have been trained to infer it from just a few passages which don’t actually say men and women are equal.

Firstly, they wrongly interpret Genesis 1:27 as including the female as being the image of God, when God was quite meticulous to never ever say that in the Bible.  Yet that is almost their entire argument for sexual equality.  However, they will also twist a few other scriptures as backups to that one main misinterpreted verse.

The next verse they’ll most popularly use is Galatians 3:28.

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.  27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.  28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

But is that verse really saying that there is zero difference between men and women?  That same-sex marriage is OK, that women can do anything a man can do in the church?  Of course not.  The verse is speaking of faith in Jesus Christ resulting in salvation and identification with Christ through baptism.  And stating that everyone’s salvation works the same.  Another verse they may also use (1 Peter 3:7) states that we are offered the same grace unto salvation:

1 Peter 3:5 For in this way the holy women of former times, who hoped in God, also used to adorn themselves, being subject to their own husbands,  6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord; and you have proved to be her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.  7 You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your[plural] prayers will not be hindered.

But of course, the verse only says that the woman is to be honored as an heir together of the same grace unto salvation, not that she is equal to her husband.  The beginning of 1 Peter 3 makes clear she is to rightly be subject to her husband even if he himself is disobedient to the word of God.

Bnonn & Foster tried to use a phrase from 2 Corinthians 3:18 as a “gotcha” proof-text, which I have shown was only referring to males.(the leadership of the church)

So, why do I continuously harp, like a broken record, about 1 Corinthians 11:7 and men (not women) being the image of God?  Because the image of God is the Bible’s and the Western world’s only possible absolute justification for categorical sexual ranking.  Either the image of God is hermaphroditic and is the unquestionable foundation for categorical sexual equality and undergirds Feminism, or else the image of God is solely masculine, and it instills categorical superiority onto all men over all women and it therefore vindicates God’s holy order of patriarchy as the righteous hierarchy of an infinitely wise and loving God.

Are women responsible for their actions?

“After discussing marriage and related issues with a priest, I flat out asked if he thought women had moral agency. He reflexively said yes, but being a pretty smart guy, he looked back at the discussion we just had and realized he couldn’t square that with the views he had just espoused.”

I’ve met worse. Some can no longer even sense their own incongruity. I once had a cousin by marriage who is the “director of small groups” at my wife’s church come over to my house to apparently try to help me figure out where I failed and caused my wife to divorce me. After him making one speculative accusation after another and me explaining that I was well above reproach in each area where he thought I might have failed. I asked him if he thought women had a sinful nature and if wives were capable of sinning without their husband being somehow at fault. He claimed he did believe women were capable of sinning on their own, but then dove straight back into trying to figure out how I had caused my wife to do such evil against myself and my children. And after a few more speculative accusations and my explanation that I’m not a wicked person who merited the evil done against me, I again asked him if he believed women could sin entirely of their own accord. And again, he claimed to know that they could, but went straight back to trying to figure out how I must have forced her into wanting to divorce me.

Eventually it became painfully evident that he has some severe cognitive dissonance. While he knows that the right answer is to say that women are moral agents and are responsible for their own behavior, good or bad. Yet because he religiously worships women and habitually turns men into the scapegoats for his goddesses, he seemingly is unwilling to ever accept that a woman might have chosen to sin entirely for her own sinful reasons. He pathologically must blame some man, like me, to absolve any woman of the guilt of her wrongdoing, so that his goddess does not become a common sinner like all men.

Their willfully ascribing greater worth to the creature (women) than to their own Creator, makes them become darkened in their thinking, and vain in their imaginations, and leads them into dishonoring their own bodies. (Romans 1) Remember, when the emasculated churchmen of today grovel before women, their choice to willingly dishonor themselves was foretold long ago, as being the direct consequence of their idolatry.

Some folks seem to get upset that I don’t go out of my way to humble myself before society, when the Bible asks that men humble themselves before God, not that men must be humbled before their wives and children, and even strangers on the internet. The satanic ritual humiliation of men that goes on in churches is the result of twisting scriptures to emasculate men who directly image God the Father and Christ the Son. They claim they elevate women and denigrate men to bring “equality”, but really, they only have brought about a satanic inversion of God’s holy patriarchy. Come out from among them and be separate from their uncleanness. (2 Corinthians 6:17)

Was Feminism about forcing “sexual equality”?

“She never had kids.  She never worked.  She lived the ideal life, where everything is handed to you on a silver platter.  As a make-work challenge, she scaled to the peaks of the tallest mountains in her western state.”

John Chrysostom wrote: “God maintained the order of each sex by dividing the business of human life into two parts and assigned the more necessary and beneficial aspects to the man and the less important, inferior matters to the woman.  God’s plan was extremely desirable for us, on the one hand because of our pressing needs and, on the other, so that a woman would not rebel against her husband due to the inferiority of her service.”

Well, as we’ve seen childless liberated women now can and do rebel, despite often living a life of eating bonbons and watching TV, and perhaps occasionally being expected to load a washing machine or load an automatic dishwasher.

“Correct me if I am wrong, but this is what many feminists think that women deserve, though perhaps also with a cushy career.  Clear sailing, everything awesome-ish.”

Yes, but I think you’re underselling the point.  Feminists worship themselves as goddesses just for having a cunt hole, and they think men should also worship every woman just because they have a life-incubating front hole.  Most women feel that they deserve everything they can get away with, and more.  But Feminism isn’t about what women deserve.  Nor is Feminism about getting a comfortable role for women, or else the Feminist’s “holy grail” would be women achieving contentment by staying at home and playing with their babies.

No, the Feminist agenda has nothing to do with what women deserve.  The Feminist agenda is about what its satanic leaders want.  They want to smash (abolish) God’s holy order of patriarchy.  They want to displace men from their God-assigned more important and more necessary jobs.  They want to make women masculine and make men feminine.  They want to completely invert God’s holy order and make men, who are the image of God, serve and obey women.

Satan’s Feminist plot is not new:
And unto Adam He said: “for as much as thou hast obeyed the voice of thy wife and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee saying: see thou eat not thereof: cursed be the earth for thy sake.”

As Sigmund Freud deduced, Feminists are acting out their unresolved penis-envy. They want that God had made them men, and nothing in the world can satisfy that unresolved envy. They have to be taught to cast aside their envy and content themselves within their predetermined role, and to find joy in what they can do. (by having men’s children and mothering them, in service to God through serving God’s likeness)

“Wisdom of Solomon” 14:17 When people could not honor monarchs in their presence, since they lived at a distance, they imagined their appearance far away, and made a visible image of the king whom they honored, so that by their zeal they might flatter the absent one as though present.

God fashioned men into His own image, (1 Corinthians 11:7) and commanded that people make no other graven images to serve, nor to bow down to.
For wives, that is really what their husband is, an earthly living image of God in heaven, and they can work out their salvation (faith) by doing good works for their husbands like “childbearing” (fulfilling maternal and wifely duties) for their husbands and reverencing their husbands. (Ephesians 5:33)

Matthew 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Feminism is Satan’s plot to degrade and dishonor us brethren who walk about as images of God.  And also, to deconstruct and defile God’s holy patriarchal order for families, because that God-directed order funnels all glory up the chain to God, the Father of all spirits and all flesh.  Wives honor their husbands who honor their Creator (Jesus Christ) who honors His Father.  When wives won’t honor their husbands and won’t bow their knees to him, then glory destined upwards to God’s Son is short-circuited at its starting point. Men are less likely to praise God for making them in His own image, if all they get for it is the constant blaming, contempt, and implacable malice, of envious women, and their self-serving gynocratic society.

That’s Feminism explained for you.

Thoughts from Ray #1

“Perseus with the Head of Medusa” a bronze sculpture by Benvenuto Cellini – 1554.

Commenter “ray” sent me the following information to post.  I asked him a few follow up questions, which he responded to with two addendums which I have attached.  He has requested that I not try to answer questions specifically regarding his teaching, which I don’t yet fully comprehend.

——————————————————————————————————-

You know that one day on Earth equals 1000 years in heaven.  (2 Peter 3:8)

You know that at the end of the King’s Millennium, the current Earth and ‘heaven’ will pass away.  (Rev. 21:1)  These are replaced by a ‘new Earth and heaven’.  (Rev. 21:1)

Combine this with what you know concerning the origin of human beings.  The male was created from two things, the Earth (soil) and the pneuma or masculine spiritus of God. (Gen. 2:7)

The woman, however, was created entirely from the man’s body.  (Gen. 2:22)  She didn’t partake of the pneuma, else she’d be a he, not a she.  Think Lucy Fer, who has been separated from Papa for so long, it doesn’t even know what it is anymore.  Like the human male, the angels or firstborn were created from God’s pneuma or spirit/breath.  (Psalms 33:6; 104:4)

Thus the obsession with androgyny from our terrestrial powers and principalities.  This, also, is why the Baphomet of the treacherous Templars has both male and female sex attributes.

So the female is entirely a product of the Earth.  This makes her FAR more attached to the planet — and to Earthly things in general.  It’s called ma-terialism, not pa-terialism.

So all the Gaia stuff — the re-arising of the ‘divine feminine’ in our time, the ancient (and current) mother-goddess blood-sacrifice cults, the temple-priestess cults of Scripture and James Frazer, all of it really — persists because the Woman and the Earth essentially are the same thing.  (Rev. 12:16 — ‘her’ is feminine as primary translation)

The female as individual and collective senses strongly that the planet that she is, that she loves, identifies with, and typically worships in one way or another, is about to be destroyed completely and forever.  (Rev. 21:1)  So in a very real sense, due to this identification the female is always fearful that she is about to be utterly obliterated and utterly forgotten.  (Isaiah 65:17)  

Do you see this?  We live in the final hours before the Tribulation, which as I have explained to you is the ‘time of the female adversary’ or ‘time of the female vexation’.  (Rev. 12:1; ‘time of trouble’ = Strong’s 6869 = tsarah, female adversary)

The Tribulation is NOT just some general punishment and cleansing like the Deluge, as modern Christians all assume.  It is the feminine making war on the masculine, globally — which is making war on God, because it is the male who carries Papa’s holy spirit within them.  That is what the rebel angels and the Raging Feminine truly wish to crush.  Feminism is just the ideo-political exteriorization of the inner collective urge.

Result is, a large percentage of modern females live in a kind on ongoing existential terror, lives of collective hysteria and fear.  They sense what is about to happen.  By heaven’s clock, the feminine/female has only ONE MORE DAY of existence.  Satan and the rebels know consciously what the feminine only senses unconsciously.  

Because at the same time the Earth is annihilated, the Woman (as such) likewise will be annihilated.  There will not even be a MEMORY of her, nor of this planet.  And at that time the binary or dualistic state of mankind (the male and female) will cease, and satan with all the rebel elements will be exterminated.  (Mark 12:25; Rev. 20:10)

——————————————————————————————————-

Only reason we’re masculine is because God is masculine.  The pneuma He ‘breathes’ into the human male, and the angels, is masculinity in essence.  The pronouns used to address the ‘holy spirit’ are masculine.  Christ Himself refers to the paraclete as ‘he’, not the impersonal ‘it’.  Note that the King calls this person the ‘spirit of truth’, not the ‘holy spirit’.  (John 14:16-17)  

The human male is made masculine and ‘like the angels’ via Father’s holy spirit.  It is true that the spirit can alight or descend upon folks of either sex, but Scripture makes clear that historically, this has meant upon men (prophets, apostles) and rarely upon women.  An exception is made in our hour (Joel 2:28) for a general dispensation of the spirit.  Women are able to receive the spirit, but it does not dwell within them as a matter of birth.  Thus males are the usual vessel of reception, it being an ‘easy fit’ so to say.

Obviously, women can be saved.  But it’s worth noting (1 Tim. 2:15) this is done overwhelmingly via childbirth.  A child usually ejects the female from her lifelong solipsism and narcissism and forces her to focus outside of herself.

——————————————————————————————————-

The paraclete is an individual.  God’s breath or pneuma provides masculinity, spiritual discernment, and God knows what all else to men and angels.  That is not an individual being, as in the paraclete.

Scripture makes clear that in the ‘last days’ (our time) God’s spirit/pneuma will be ‘poured out’ in ways including both men and women.  I want to make this clear.  As in ancient times, however, the preponderance of this spiritual gifting will go to men, for men already are ‘hard wired’ for spiritual reception and expression.  

Yes, all males are born with this pneuma, yes it facilitates, but does not guarantee, love of the truth.

On Tides and Trolls

Patriarchy, meaning “father rule”, is the natural and ideal state of God the Father’s created world.

Yet Feminists and similar fools are prone to pridefully thinking that they can improve on the ways of God.  Feminists smear all men, their fathers, brothers, and sons, as being unfit to preside over anything, from governments right down to families.  Female Feminists and their male pushover accomplices instead try to get men to hearken unto the voices of women, to be led by them, clearly ignorant of the fact that hearkening to a woman, instead of his Father, was the crux of Adam’s original sin.

Genesis 3:17 Also to Adam he said, Because thou hast obeyed the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, (whereof I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it) cursed is the earth for thy sake: in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.

Yet silly women still presume themselves fit to rule, and silly men still seek to obey women.  However, God teaches us that it is fitting that men should rule.

Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as it is fitting in the Lord.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

But Feminist fools destructively fight against God’s perfect plan and keep trying to sully men’s divine credentials for leadership over women and children.  The silly airheads seem to think that by tarnishing men’s reputations they will be uplifted.

Sirach 3:10 Do not glorify yourself by your father’s dishonor, for your father’s dishonor is no glory to you.  11 The honor of one’s father is one’s own glory, and a mother dishonored is a disgrace to her children.

A popular phrase says: “A rising tide lifts all boats”.  So accordingly, a lowering tide lowers all boats.  When satanic Feminism sets out to sully and demote men from their patriarchal role as rulers, they not only drag men down into the muck, but they also degrade everybody else along with the men, who nonetheless, remain anointed by God to rule over all women.  Feminist women curse at men, who bear God’s image and glory, but by doing so they also debase their own sex and prove their inferior role to be divinely fitting by their clearly inferior behavior accompanied with their vain conceit.

Psalm 2:3 They say, ‘We will not accept their authority over us!  We will get free from their power!’  4 The Lord who sits on his throne in heaven laughs at them.  He says that their plans are useless.

——————————————————————————————————————

“The manosphere is dead”, the trolls say.  “People hate you and ridicule you and say all manner of things against you”, they say.  “You’re losing!  You’ll never be able to turn the tide”, they say.  Their catastrophism makes me laugh.  Some of our naysayers had formerly been trying to ignore us.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” ~ Mahatma Gandhi

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” ~ Arthur Schopenhauer

I believe those two quotes basically describe the same pattern for ideological change:

1) firstly, they ignore you, and try to keep your message from gaining the notice of other truth-seekers.

2) secondly, they mock you and denigrate the truth as being unpopular, laughable, or wrongheaded.

3) thirdly, they engage in fighting against you and the truth, which you promote, as best they are able.

4) fourthly, they accept the new knowledge, claiming they had always sensed it was true.

Often these steps overlap and our detractors my hop back and forth from one steppingstone to another, but despite the erratic nature of their opposition, their path to conversion is a progression.  The middle region (steps 2 &3) is quite fluid and slippery but at both ends it is easier to see the incremental progression.  Once they quit ignoring our impact, and respond to it, it is hard for the trolls to return and stay hiding behind their shroud of ignorance.  And once they finally accept some part of the truth it is hard for them to relish mocking or opposing that part which they then realize to be true. 

One should not forget that like sheep, most people are herd followers and not mavericks or leaders.  At first those who head into the new ideological territory will only be the boldest and those motivated by a severely compelling reason to leave their previous beliefs behind.  The mass of herd followers will want to stick right where the ideological majority are, it is comforting for them to be in the largest group.  But they will see that some have gone over to the other side.  They will notice every additional one that drifts over towards those who first left their group.  Soon there may be a trickle of migration across the ideological divide.  And perhaps at some point the thronging ones will sense that their flock is gradually moving over to the new area, and then, not wanting to get left behind, like a school of fish, those who once refused to see the truth may almost in unison all bum rush together over to be where the more courageous thought-leaders currently have stationed themselves. 

I can’t predict the future, but that is how ideological transitions can take place.  1% then 2% then 4% then 10% then suddenly 80% and after that the remaining holdouts begrudgingly straggle over to rejoin the herd.

In my estimation the manosphere has gone from being ignored, to being ridiculed, and now there are even some folks taking aim at us and fighting us.  Don’t be surprised when we become public enemy number one.  The US government is running out of White Supremacist groups to demonize, to the extent where the government is now forming their own White Supremacist groups and staging their own White Supremacy rallies.  The public will eventually catch onto that, and the powers that be will need a new boogeyman.  Currently our media is demonizing male chauvinist Andrew Tate in ways that they never smeared child-rape pimp Jeffrey Epstein.  Our legacy media will gladly carry water for pedophiles, but they’re not going to take kindly to folks working to restore God’s holy patriarchy. 

Today the ideological battle is between the imagined sexual equality of Feminism and the natural male superiority which morally justifies the all-male rule of God’s holy order of patriarchy.  Without a societal belief in male superiority, you’re left trying to push male headship as a divine fiat requested by an unjustifiably sexist God.  Whereas if men are acknowledged to be the better half, then it only makes sense that a loving and righteous God would fittingly choose the better half to be placed in control of leading the weaker vessels, in the best interest of everyone involved.

A few male chauvinists are doing more to rebuild the foundation of God’s holy order of patriarchy, than all the woman-obeying pastors, on whose watch our society daily plumbs new depths of moral depravity. Keep boldly proclaiming the truth. We’re making progress, as every day more men in our society are starting to see that women aren’t goddesses, as they were taught, and that those weaker vessels should not be empowered to lead us.

What is Worship?

The word “worship” gets used roughly 180-300 times in most English Bible translations. But nowhere is the word “worship” seemingly more misunderstood and misused than in churches. “Worship” does not mean some vainly repetitious emotion-stoking pep rally music where men are forced to gayly sing, “Jesus is my boyfriend!” The word originates from Old English and is a combination of worth + ship and as a noun it indicates the “condition of being worthy or having value”. The word “worship” also quickly got turned into a verb, meaning: to ascribe or grant worth-ship to. Worship is most clearly evident in what or to whom we grant the worthiness to be hearkened to, served, and obeyed.

Who or what you listen to, serve, and obey is who or what you worship.

God has asked us that we worship no others before Him. Meaning that we heed no words contrary to God’s words, that we serve nothing or none other more devotedly than we serve God, and that we always obey God above all others.

Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

So, as you can see worship goes on like microtransactions all throughout our waking hours as we invest our time and energy into what we value. It is usually not wrong to value or ascribe worth to other things or people or entities. God’s insistence is that He be the most valued, and ascribed the highest worth, as evidenced by our words and deeds, not just at some religious gathering, but throughout all of our time and in all of our efforts.

You might ask, “But my job takes most of my day! Is that a problem?” Most likely not.

Colossians 3:22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God; 23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; 24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

OK, so then what’s the problem?

Well, the problem first started with Eve hearkening to and obeying the serpent above both God and her husband, and Adam hearkening to and obeying the woman above God. Which is why God’s first commandment was to put no others before Him.

The problem is that we are granting people and things the undeserved worthiness to overrule God’s commands, unopposed by us. Even churches do this, especially regarding women:

Does your church command women to remain silent in church?
God does! (1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Timothy 2:11-12)

Does your church boldly command women to submit to their husbands?
God does! (Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:4-5, 1 Peter 3:1-2)

Does your church command women to wear a head covering when they pray?
God does! (1 Corinthians 11:5-6)

Does your church forbid women to refuse their husbands sex?
God does! (1 Corinthians 7:2-5)

It readily becomes apparent that when offered the choice between hearkening to and obeying God or hearkening to and pleasing women, the churches systematically worship women above God. Any time you’re compromising God’s command to suit a woman, she is being worshipped above God who commanded it. You might just as well let her slap a trinity bikini over her three lady parts and make the men all bow down to her, because the men of that church are already worshipping women above God there. They are worshipping the creature above their own Creator.

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God has given them over to a reprobate mind. Don’t expect to make much progress reasoning with those woman-worshipping fools. Just separate yourself from them before they drag you along into their Feminist idolatry. God already knows that your true worship is comprised of what you’re doing and saying all week long, not whatever act you put on at a church. If you’ve come here seeking God’s truth, or to share it, then you’re already worshipping God by seeking out an online gathering of faithful believers, where women are always welcome to ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in our assembly.