Horny Housewives of the Patristic Age

brambles

Given

The patristic era of the church is considered to have run from AD 150 – 500.

All surviving evidence shows that the early church unanimously believed that only men are in the image of God.  Origen, Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine, and others all wrote of men alone being the image of God.  The women of the early church knew they were not in the great and glorious image of God like their husbands, and consequently they would have no reasonable basis to claim equality with men.  Furthermore women were not only looked upon as lesser and weaker vessels, but they were in fact viewed as a source of uncleanness and defilement, the original source of transgression against God, and prone to giving in to their passions and their ever emerging lustful desires.

Quotes

Women are worse than animals because they are continuously full of lust. ~ Origen AD  184 – 253

Woman is the root of all evil. ~ Saint Jerome AD 347 – 420

…it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman. ~ Saint Augustine AD 354 – 430

Introduction to the topic

Some of the early church fathers were swayed by the great influence in their culture of the stoics and ascetics to adopt a very anti-sex position, that has carried over into today’s Catholic churches demand for celibacy amongst their clergy.  Instead of viewing married sex as sanctified, always due at your spouses request, and a protection against temptation, as the apostle Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5, some instead viewed all sex as a weak failing of resolve to restrain the flesh, and thought that only God’s command of procreation could render it permissible.  Thus they erroneously rationalized all forms of sexual contact to be evil, if conception wasn’t the primary goal.  The goals of not defrauding your spouse of their due, and keeping temptation at bay, were apparently overlooked.  Along with verses like:

Off topic already.   LOL

Proverbs 5:18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.  19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

Based upon the rest of proverbs 5 the “fountain” is fairly clearly being used as a euphemism for the man’s sexual organ.

I think the churches historical anti-sex drift has led to many teachings in the Bible concerning sex to remain obscured.  bowdlerized!  For example just prior to the husband being told to let his fountain be blessed, and all that, we are told:

Proverbs 5:15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well.

What if Solomon, who was given wisdom from God, wasn’t instructing us to refuse to drink any literal water when away from our own well?  Nobody I know even practices that literally.  Lapping waters from thine own well makes far more sense and is on topic as another pretty graphic euphemism.  I’ll let you figure out what he just described.  Hint: men have a fountain, women have a well.  LOL  I believe Solomon is instructing us to fully enjoy our exclusive marital sexuality, (leave every other man’s well alone) and that is in keeping with the apostle Paul’s teaching that frequent marital sex helps to prevent temptation including thirst for adulterous liaisons.

And now, back to our topic…

The “Problem That Has No Name” was described by Betty Friedan in the beginning of ‘The Feminine Mystique’.  The problem lay buried, unspoken, for many years in the minds of American women. It was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning [that is, a longing] that women suffered in the middle of the 20th century in the United States. Each suburban [house]wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for groceries … she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question — “Is this all?”

Why the dissatisfaction?  Because Betty doesn’t think her husband is a god.  That’s why.  As a Feminist, Betty’s husband is at best seen as an “equal”, not someone she can look up to, but most likely seen as an undeserving and inferior person that she is enslaved to.  She doesn’t reverence her man, and so she doesn’t reverence her mission, which is to serve her husband.  Having lost respect for her man, she also naturally loses interest in keeping him, keeping his home, and keeping his children that she had together with him.   She is dissatisfied with her lot, serving her “equal”.   Needless to say this explains why she is also going to ‘dead-bedroom’ him, and only begrudgingly condescend to allow him some lackluster sex when, if ever, she feels like it.  Her natural sexual instinct is craving a man that she can reverence, but she has deluded herself into believing that her own husband is not such a man.  Perhaps she thinks, somewhere out there is a man who is more.  And so she is attracted to confident men who project that they are something more than other men.  She keeps hoping to find a “god” to serve.

Conclusion

So why was the Patristic prevailing wisdom that women were insatiable sexually?

My theory is that when women see themselves as beneath men, because they are taught from childhood that all men exclusively are gods, images of God most high.  Then every married woman has a man whom she always has great reason to look up to and reverence.  And serving him and bearing him children, becomes a divine privilege and a very worthy purpose.  No other purpose is needed if women are taught the truth correctly, from God’s word.   Marrying a god is likely a great source of “insatiable” female sexual desire.   Men alone being images of God is the satisfaction to most of a woman’s hypergamy.  Every woman can marry a man who is hopelessly above her by nature of his very creation as a god.  During the Patristic age Christian women were taught that, and those who recorded church history found the wives then to be sexual aggressors, desiring their husbands “insatiably”.   We would all reap benefit from ending this God emasculating heresy of imagining women into the image of God our Father.

264 thoughts on “Horny Housewives of the Patristic Age

  1. Read the Gospels. Jesus treated women as equals to the point that it was the women who declared the risen Christ.

    No wonder you said that your wife is an unbeliever. You see yourself as God. Do you really know how Betty Friedman treated her husband, or are you being judgemental? Also, both God and Jesus said that the two shall become one. Equal. How can the male or the female be over the other of they are one? My husband and I realize that God is God and man is man. That’s kindergarten level theology.

    Like

  2. Ha,
    You triggered Empty. Case closed, you are wrong Sharkly. You probably smell bad too.
    I believe you’ve hit the touchstone discussing Image, more than the topic of Chivalry achieves. Likewise, I think it is no coincidence that you reference Friedan, someone who beat the church, and from whom we ignore instead of overcome. I can’t figure out why she still isn’t discussed in sermons – do pastors think women aren’t buying her message and so they can ignore it as irrelevant?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Genesis 1:26 says “Let us make man in OUR image….:” Both man and woman reflect the image of God. God separated man and woman into two distinct genders, but both are in His image.
    “Let US make man in OUR image after OUR likeness” – clearly He is plural – He created humanity, male and female, together. I’m not sure how those verses can be any clearer, that men and women are BOTH created in God’s image.

    God’s pattern was for male and female to be together – marriage – out of that unity = children. New life. Created by man and woman together. The life of a person is worth so much more than that of an animal because we (people) are made in the image of God. Eve was made for Adam, as his helper, his partner, so they could become “one”. The two aspects of God’s image – male and female – are joined together by marriage, just as He intended.

    The Bible is very clear that there is only one God. For you to try and put men up there as gods is borderline blasphemous. And for you to expect women to worship men as though they are gods is preposterous, outrageous and absolutely ridiculous!

    A previous comment also points out the obvious: if you really believe you are a god, Sharkly, it is no wonder your wife left you. No wonder she has intimacy anorexia. Honestly, it’s not rocket science. it is so, so simple. Jesus taught humility for a reason. All this “man uprising” rubbish and trying to pretend that men are gods and should be reverenced by women is totally against scripture. It truly is heartbreaking to read.

    Like

  4. Ace,
    Welcome back. Your “Focus on the Female” link did not reference the Bible at all, yet gave nine other references. That is because their position does not come from the Bible, but from those other sort of sources. They went way liberal a while back and even threw out Dr. Dobson, an old softie. LOL

    I’ll try to address some things from the previous comments. I have been in the midst of a divorce for going on 18 months now. It has probably only been about a year since I came to believe from the Bible that only men are in the image of God. I began contending for God, and for the defense of His image from female usurpation, immediately after I gave the subject some study. I probably believed much like you, and a bit like Existing on Empty for my whole marriage right up through the divorce. For the whole first decade I was gaslighted into believing that I was the reason why my wife didn’t want intimacy. I kissed her ass, and let her walk all over me. She would say that I can’t like you because of this or that, and I would change those things about myself. I would reinvent myself just to suit what she said she wanted, but she only grew more full of contempt. Meanwhile she would justify all the horrible stuff she was doing to me claiming I deserved it, for this or for that. About a decade in things came to a head, and I realized that everything I had done and sacrificed for a decade to try to make my wife happy, had been utterly wasted effort. The problem wasn’t anything about me. I had changed almost everything about myself to what she claimed she wanted, and she was only treating me with more contempt. After trying everything the blue-pill churches advised and counselled me and all of them utterly failing to improve things, I realized that she was the one that needed to quit being evil to me. I had given up my life and dreams because of this woman and she kicked me in the teeth for it. Anyhow, my marriage didn’t fail because of me standing up for myself, but perhaps partly because I didn’t.

    Also I am a god, with a lowercase “g”, not God with the capitalized “G”. I believe gods or idols are images that are intended to be reverenced as images of a deity. The Bible teaches us that men are gods:
    Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
    We gods die like men, and fall like princes, not princesses. Even Jesus reaffirmed this passage:
    John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
    And my wife is to reverence me:
    Ephesians 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
    I can still be humble about my failings and sin, while glorying that I am fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of God our Father. To be humble about the image of God is what would be borderline blasphemous. It would be like being ashamed of being a likeness of God.
    Two things joining together into one thing does not imply that both were equal or have become equal. If I tie ten feet of twine onto ten feet of chain, I now have one twenty foot tether, but the twine has not become equal to chain.
    God is a united trinity that functions as one, but no part of God is feminine that we are ever told of. All three members of the trinity are referred to in the masculine. For people wanting a better understanding, this post might be helpful: worshipping-the-great-whore

    Like

  5. Sharkly,
    Once again, kudos for your kindness in responding to the hysterical ( not funny, but overwrought) charge of accusing you of thinking you are God.

    You don’t think you are God? I was reading you all wrong, now I will have to find another blogger who is advocating that he is God.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. @Ace

    Gen 1:26 uses the Hebrew ‘adam’ for our English translation ‘man’. From Strong’s Hebrew Keyword Dictionary:

    ruddy, i.e. human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc).
    A masculine noun meaning a male, any human being, or generically the human race. The word is used to signify a man, as opposed to a woman (Ge 2:18, Ecc 7:28); a human (Nu 23:19, Pr 17:18, Isa 17:7); the human race in general (Ge 1:27, Nu 8:17, Ps 144:3, Isa 2:17); and the representative embodiment of humanity, as the appellation “son of man” indicates (Eze 2:1, 3). The first man used this word as a proper noun, “Adam” (Ge 2:20).

    I cannot find anywhere in the Bible where the woman is asserted as being made in God’s image. The man, or mankind is- but the masculine use for the plural is nondescript in whether or not it addresses the species as a whole, or the gender-group of the species. And this is the rub to the matter.
    The other major verse used is 1 Cor 11:7 that asserts the man being made in God’s image (and for His glory), yet the woman is listed only as being made for the man’s glory. The ‘image’ is missing. The woman’s glory is then listed (her hair, the source of her beauty), but again ‘image’ is missing. This is particularly troublesome because we do not have the positive nor negative affirmation of the source of the woman’s ‘image’.
    In 1 Cor 11:8, we can well interpret that the woman is made in the man’s image, his being the source material for her creation. Others perhaps don’t make this interpretation.
    In *EITHER* case, both sides will be making ‘arguments from silence’ on this matter. I’ve approached Sharkly on this danger early in his blog (https://laf443259520.wordpress.com/2019/05/18/worshipping-the-great-whore/#comment-35), but the reasoning equally applies to your assessment.
    (More on 1 Cor 11 source language: https://laf443259520.wordpress.com/2019/05/18/worshipping-the-great-whore/#comment-76)

    It is obvious that the man and the woman are the same species. Both have equal claim to the Kingdom (via Christ). But man was not made for woman, and man has authority + responsibility that woman does not.
    Man and woman are- and are not!- 2 sides to the same coin, depending entirely on the metric used to define the ‘coin.’

    The ‘Us’ of God is the 3-in-1 triune community of the Father (Elohim), the Son (Yeshua) and the Spirit (Intercessor). This does not make God a multiple of genders, as mankind is divided into man and woman. In this, the theology you espouse is guilty of the fallacy of ‘false comparison’. The concept of God being the masculine AND the feminine has no scriptural interpretation, and I have seen argued stems from the world’s desire for inclusion: the elevation of the woman to that of the man. Eve was created singularly for Adam’s seed, God has no need to reproduce. God is NOT ‘male and female’ in His image! This is blasphemy!

    The Bible is very clear from cover to cover that woman is NOT man’s equal (they do, however, have equal stake in the rewards that come after this life). The man has leadership, authority, prowess, ordination etc that the woman does not receive. Contrarily, a woman is tasked with viewing her man with reverence, submission, calling him lord (little ‘L’), and treating him as she would her Lord (big ‘L’). The woman’s redeeming quality?: the gift of childbearing (she serves a very important role- a vital role- but unto itself does not make her less, equal or more than man).

    You make the assertion that man and woman were created together. The Bible does not record this. In Gen 1, the statement is put forth that man and woman were made, but Gen 2 records the process: man is created (Gen 2:7), man is put to work (Gen 2:15), God contemplates a helper (Gen 2:18), man takes dominion over God’s creation (Gen 2:19), man is put to sleep and woman created (Gen 2:21-22), man takes dominion over woman (Gen 2:23).

    Sharkly has already addressed the very obvious ‘gimme’ that speaks to us being gods (little ‘G’).

    The message that Sharkly writes, as I interpret it, excludes woman from being made in God’s image. His assertion extrapolates (always a danger compared to interpolation- but the only technique we have absent further data points) the givens that we know exist for man and the differences we know woman has from man. To any reader with emotion-charged interpretation, this comes across as Sharkly stating that the woman has less value (or no value) than the man. He is not saying this, so far as I can tell. We have different roles, and surely different origins (the man is made from God’s creation, to take care of God’s creation, the woman is made from the man, to take care of the man). Is his message blasphemy? I don’t see any argument that is patently contradictory to scripture, but boy does he toe that line, that is for sure.

    FotF is a joke. They are apostasy packaged with a ‘soft, gentle, caring, inclusive’ wrapping. It is good for a preschooler’s level of theology, basic Bible stories, but not to be taken seriously. A tree is known not by its claims but by its fruit, and the fruit of FotF is a large female following: this isn’t an iron-sharpening-iron group of men. I’ve witnessed their apologetics of The Feminine more times than I care to remember. Seek better Biblical resources, there are many and readily available.

    @Sharkly

    I do not see the early church fathers as having exclusive insight that we do not have available to us today. Outside of the Apostles + John the Baptist, I don’t see men as any more enlightened. Some of the statements from the early church are scripturally backwards:

    * Eph 5:29 will demonstrate the false teaching of Origen.
    * 1 Tim 6:10 will expose Jerome.
    * Regarding Augustine’s statement on temptation: there is zero wrong with temptation. Temptation serves as the mechanism through which a woman pair-bonds with a man. She attempts to seduce him, and he (if focused on God) remains unmoving. This has as a result her drawing close to her man, as she attempts to ‘reel him in’ she ends up pulling herself to him instead. This is by design.
    Temptation also serves as a test.
    Succumbing to temptation, when the result is sin, is what is evil. Temptation in and of itself is moot.

    I do not know with what goal the early church made their writings: as teaching points, or to be elevated with scripture? As teaching points, there is merit. As scripture, I would reference Rev 22:18.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. ikr,
    You make many good points. Even the English word “man” or “mankind” was also used of males alone as the opposite of “womankind”.

    This is particularly troublesome because we do not have the positive nor negative affirmation of the source of the woman’s ‘image’.

    My theory is that since the woman was made “for the man”, and is “the glory of the man”, that women have a unique image designed in keeping with her childbearing and nursing function, but also to cater to the man’s taste and be appealing to him. My own personal experience is that I find women very visually appealing. And if the global internet is 1/3rd pornography, I certainly can’t be the only person who finds the opposite sex was designed to be visually pleasing.

    1 Corinthians 11 makes clear that with regard to covering the head when coming into God’s presence, men are to do the exact opposite of women, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. If that doesn’t mean that men are the image of God, and women are not, then it was certainly written in a cleverly deceptive way to give that impression.

    The Bible is very clear from cover to cover that woman is NOT man’s equal (they do, however, have equal stake in the rewards that come after this life).

    I’ll nitpick the parenthetical part of your statement. They have a stake together with men, but we are not told that it is “equal”. I believe each person’s redemption and reward is by necessity unequal. Some will be forgiven more and greater sins, and some will be given more and greater rewards. Men were created first, but, in the life to come… Luke 13:30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last. We will be judged according to our words and deeds done while in the flesh. A reverent and obedient wife will likely outshine a careless husband in the life to come. While a longsuffering husband will likely not be outshone by a belligerent and usurping wife. 1 Corinthians 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 42a So also is the resurrection of the dead.

    I don’t believe the church fathers to be infallible, they don’t even always agree with each other. But I use them as a reference. Outside of the inerrant Bible, these people were culturally and chronologically closest to Jesus and the apostles, meaning they were less likely to misunderstand the significance of what was said, and they had less time to acquire and develop many apostate ideas, so although they had picked up some errors, the bulk of what they believed was as it had been delivered to them by the apostles.
    My point was not that the patristic fathers were infallible, but that their commonly held beliefs did not apparently lead to wives “dead-bedrooming” their husbands, and the dissatisfaction with women’s role we call “the problem that has no name”. So it is likely that they were closer to the truth than our churches, because the resultant fruit of their teachings were; more modest women and more harmonious homes where wives were often itching to have exuberant sex with their husbands.(even though the stoics and ascetics erroneously thought that the woman’s desire for passionate sex with her husband, was a lustful evil)

    Like

  8. I’d also like to welcome new commenters Existing on Empty And Chow. I welcome and encourage everybody to share their beliefs in the comments. I believe my beliefs about what the Bible teaches will endure scrutiny. And if parts of them do not stand up to scrutiny, then I need them to be corrected.

    Like

  9. And here is Lori/Ken Alexander’s take on it: https://thetransformedwife.com/women-are-made-in-the-image-of-god/ which is bang-on scripturally.

    God has both masculine and feminine traits. I don’t think anybody can deny that. We also know that God is not a man.
    If you want to continue insisting that man is a god because he was made in God’s image and women weren’t, what man, exactly, does God look like? An Asian man? A European one? A Jewish man? How about a Maori? An Aborigine? An Arab? What colour hair does He have? How tall is He? Is He lean and muscular? Do you see where I’m going with this? Men look different to each other. Even brothers look different. Some men have more feminine features, some have more masculine one (think chiselled jawline, broad shoulder, tall…. or short, small build, rounded jaw). And some men have more feminine or masculine personalities.

    Let’s say that God is the epitome of the perfect man. And I’m only surmising here, because the Bible doesn’t tell us what He looks like. But for argument’s sake, He’s tall, ruggedly handsome, broad shouldered, a bit of scruff around the jawline, perfectly built. So does this mean that men who were born with a physical disfigurement aren’t made in God’s image? Are short fat men not made in God’s image? Are men with a different skin colour not made in God’s image?

    The only distinct difference between men and women is the genitalia. Are we to believe that God has a penis and women can’t possibly be like Him because we don’t have a penis? I don’t think so. What about those rare people who are born with both sex organs? Where do they fit into this? God made humans in His image. Humans. Of all shapes, sizes, and colours. Disfigurements, disabilities and all.

    And yes, Sharkly, standing up for oneself is always good for a marriage. For both men and women. Letting our spouse walk all over us isn’t good for anybody, and isn’t God’s design.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. @ Ace

    As much as I love Lori’s blog- she does amazing things for preaching Biblical womanhood to a world that has swallowed Satanic feminism hook line and sinker- she isn’t exactly a theological titan. Nor is her husband. In the purpose of Titus 2, she is absolutely a goldmine for young women.
    The link you have provided- and you assert is ‘bang-on’ scripturally- is surprisingly very scant of resource support for the claim. Blind assertions are made in abundance, but little actual scripture. The entire piece consists of ‘explaining away’ counter-points to the blind assertions made.
    Not exactly Nature-level peer-review scientific documentation. Read again the article, this time demanding proof for claims, and you will be left wanting.

    The image of God does -NOT- pertain to having a soul or being a requirement for salvation. 1 Cor 11:7 uses the Greek ‘eikon’ for our English ‘image’. Strong’s again:

    a likeness, i.e. (literal) statue, profile or (figurative) representation, resemblance – image.
    Noun from eik, to be like, resemble. Likeness, image, effigy, figure (Mt 22:20, Mk 12:16, Lk 20:24, Ro 1:23), an idol-image, statue (Rev 13:14, 15, 14:9, 11, 15:2, 16:2, 19:20, Sept: Dt 4:16, Isa 40:18, 20, Eze 23:14). In the sense of copy, representation (1 Co 11:7, 2 Co 4:4, Col 1:15, Heb 10:1). A likeness to anyone, resemblance, similitude (Ro 8:29, 1 Co 15:49, Col 3:10)

    The likeness, the resemblance of God *in what way*? I think- personal understanding- that the answer is found in the Greek word ‘doxa’ for our English ‘glory’. These words (image, glory) seemingly have high correlation.
    I will not transcribe the Strong’s entry into this blog, as this single entry for ‘doxa’ is almost an entire page long, but there’s a lot to consider there. Again, there appears to be direct link between image and glory.

    God does not have male and female elements. Our biology- reproductive organs- are an earthly, the physical manifestation of ourselves. As far as God and what He looks like, we know that if you know the Son, you know the Father (Jo 14:7). First of all, Jesus was a man- not a woman. Jesus was not tall, dark and handsome- no, he was very much below average. He was very plain, painfully plain (Is 53), plain to the point of being rejected (Ps 118:22). He was a Jew from David’s line; what would that have looked like?- dark curly hair, deep olive skin etc?
    These questions visibly intended to be rhetorical to obfuscate the points being made actually have direct biblical answers.

    Making God ‘the dual embodiment of masculine and feminine’ is New Age deer-scat. The Masculine and The Feminine are terms without definition. They are ambiguous, subjective and thus worthless for meaningful discussion.

    The Spirit of Jezebel speaking: “I’m not a doormat!” “He might be the head, but I’m the neck!” and this one too: “I’m not to be walked over!”. They are all various forms of the same outburst of a woman’s inability to give up control and submit.
    When it comes to obedience to God in matters of humility, we are called to turn the other cheek (Ma 5:29). When there is physical threat, defend- absolutely! (Jesus tasked the Apostles with carrying swords!!) If the threat is only to your pride, humbly serve (Col 3:23). Pray for your enemy (Ma 5:44). And then serve a second helping beyond what was required/asked the first time (Ma 5:41).
    For a woman, fostering in one’s heart a quiet and gentle spirit is what God finds very precious (1 Pet 3:4). Not tit-for-tat, not argumentative, not assertive. If a relationship is unhealthy, either get out or get healthy. But do so quietly and gently.

    @ Sharkly

    You are correct, I should not have used the term ‘equal’ with regards to rewards. I could have used a more apt, precise word.
    I understand that we are saved by grace alone through faith (Eph 2:8). Our works determine which layer of hell (if unsaved) or rewards (if saved) we will be attributed after judgement (2 Cor 5:10).
    Clearly, we do not know how much X leadership (in man) will produce Y reward, nor A submission (in woman) will produce B reward… and if the ratio X/Y and A/B is proportional, and if Y=B at some point.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. I actually am one who denies that God has exclusively feminine traits. In the comments on the link you provided Ken says: Men shine many of God’s masculine traits and yet this does not mean that God is not a Care Giver and Nurturer. Actually Jesus told a parable about a “Good Samaritan” man who was both an excellent care giver and nurturer to a wounded Jewish man, his story shows that these virtues are not exclusively feminine, but possessed by men also. Exclusively feminine things are things like giving birth, having a “period”, or breastfeeding without the use of exogenous hormones. I don’t believe there are personality traits or emotions that can’t be held by people of both sexes.

    What colour hair does He have?
    Firstly, WordPress tells me y’all are spelling “color” wrong, down there on the butt-end of the world. 😉
    Secondly His hair is white. Revelations 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; Daniel 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
    In answer to your question, I believe the Bible implies that all men are in God’s image, and thus they all need to refrain from degrading God’s image through abominable acts.

    The only distinct difference between men and women is the genitalia. Are we to believe that God has a penis and women can’t possibly be like Him because we don’t have a penis?
    Perhaps. We aren’t told specifically what the image of God is, but that is actually a decent hypothesis. Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord. You tell me why that hidden emasculation is so important to God? You tell me why unresolved penis envy is the root of so many women’s psychological issues?(according to Freud) You may be onto something here Ace! The bowdlerized Bible speaks of God’s loins. Who knows how Tommy Nelson would have translated that.(The pastor who taught Song of Solomon as graphic pornography) LOL

    Leviticus 21:16 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. 18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, 19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, 20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; 21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. 22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. 23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

    I’m sorry that I don’t have time to go into more detail responding to everything just right now.

    Like

  12. Making God ‘the dual embodiment of masculine and feminine’ is New Age deer-scat.

    Dude! That there just made me burst out laughing. You write quite well, and aren’t afraid to tell it like it is.

    Like

  13. I find it really interesting the Biblical gymnastics that are going on here, so men can be all smug thinking they are gods, and the only humans made in God’s image. It is clear that some men want to continue believing that, so if that works for you, I guess that’s great. God gave us free will so we can choose to think however we like. But I can’t see how it makes sense at all for only men to be made in God’s image. That idea goes against literally every single accepted teaching out there. It takes extreme arrogance to believe that the “man” of Genesis is relating to a male rather than mankind, just as it takes extreme arrogance for men to think they are gods worthy of worship. This is why Jesus preached about humility. 1 Peter 5:5 comes to mind here.

    Every single Bible scholar and preacher I have read/spoken to agrees that “man” in Genesis refers to “mankind” rather than *a* man. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all universally believe that is human beings that were created in the image and likeness of God. Ancient Jewish scholars didn’t even believe that God looks like a human, but the verses are figurative, for God bestowing a special honour onto humans that He didn’t give to animals. But they do use the term “human kind” or “mankind” rather than the male gender. Many Christian scholars believe that although the image of God in mankind was partially lost with the Fall of man (mankind – both man and woman fell here, not just *the man*).
    There are literally no sources anywhere that I can find (aside from blogs like this where men have put themselves up on a pedestal and think themselves as gods worthy of being worshiped) that suggest the term “man” in Genesis means anything other than “mankind” or “human”.
    Other ancient scholars believed that the image of God was just that – looking like Him – and the likeness of God was moral qualities that God gave us, but after the Fall, these moral qualities were lost.
    Augustine of Hippo said that the image of God in man is internal: the trinity of the memory, intellect and will. If this is correct, this would have to include females as well as males. Women have the same memory, intellect and will that men do.

    An old French philosopher Paul somebody (can’t remember his name) said that Imago Dei means “free will” – the literal ability to think and to choose. If this is correct, it must apply to women as well.

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that Imago Dei is the capacity for relationship; the human capacity for God. (I’m not Catholic but my teenagers go to a Catholic school)

    The words ‘image’ and ‘glory’ might be linked, but they certainly don’t mean the same thing. And the Bible quite clearly states that we were made in His image.

    Matt 23:37 Jesus shows the feminine side of God when He says He longs to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. This quite clearly shows that God has a feminine, nurturing, caring side. A motherly (hen) side. But He is also our Heavenly Father. As God, He’s neither a man nor a woman, but He’s so far beyond that.

    In Proverbs 1:20,21 and Proverbs 9:1 God’s wisdom is personified as female.

    How can you possibly deny that God has feminine qualities?

    Genesis 5:2 “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” According to the margin in my Bible, “Adam” means “mankind”. How can that possibly be interpreted as anything other than humans were created in the image of God?

    Genesis 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish…” Notice the *them* in that verse? Them. Male and female. The only possible way for that verse to make sense is if “man” means “mankind” – which is the universally accepted meaning.

    Please Sharkly, explain to me why literally everybody else who has studied, at great length, on this, has concluded that both men and women (humans) are made in the image of God, but you believe they’re wrong? What makes you think you are right, aside from your misogynistic attitude to women? I get that you’ve been hurt and you’re bitter. Your wife sounds like a real piece of work and it’s no wonder you’re bitter. But seriously, is it worth being so bitter that you are literally changing the entire meaning of God’s perfect creation? It just seems to be incredibly dangerous territory to me. Revelations speaks of adding to and taking away from the Bible. That seems to me to be exactly what you’re doing here.

    Like

  14. I personally stop shy of stating that women are -not- made in the image of God.
    * There are plenty of verses in the Bible that demonstrate that woman is valued as man is valued.
    * There are plenty of verses that demonstrate woman comes after man in hierarchy of creation.
    These are not contradictory. This was already explained.

    As far as mental gymnastics goes, we just witnessed Universalism- likening the theologies of Judaism and Islam- employed to support a Biblical interpretation. Throw in a little Catechism for good measure. I do not believe there could be a stronger indicator that your theology does not use the Bible as the authority, but the ‘wisdoms of the world.’

    ‘Wisdom’ is a noun, and in Hebrew ‘chokmah’ holds the feminine word-gender. Nouns having genders is language studies 101, and does not make the ‘mind of God’ a ‘woman’.

    The rest of your post consists of rehashing points ad infinitum which have already been addressed either via language study, or direct quotation from scripture.

    Like

  15. ikr – Thank you for your response. I agree that the Bible is clear that men and women are equally valued. I also agree that Genesis is very clear that the man was made first and the woman second. This does not, however, mean that woman is not made in the likeness of God. On the contrary, my Bible states very clearly that they *are* in this verse right here: Genesis 5:2 “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” According to the margin in my Bible, “Adam” means “man”. I am using a KJV chain reference Bible and it literally says, right there on the page, that ‘Adam’ in all of these verses about the creation of man, that ‘Adam’ or ‘man’ means ‘mankind’ – God created mankind after His own image. The Bible itself literally states that. There is almost an entire page of text explaining the verses about mankind being made in God’s image and what that means – pretty much what I have already said in previous comments. This is a KJV chain reference Bible printed in 1994.

    The Modern Literal Translation (available online) of that same verse is: “This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him in the likeness of God, he created them male and female and blessed them and in the day when they were created he called their name Man.” Again, this is pretty clear that when the Bible speaks of creating man in His image, it’s meaning man as in mankind. People. Men and women. Children, even.

    My NIV Bible also uses the term ‘mankind’ instead of ‘man’. So three different translations, and all say the same thing – mankind is created in God’s image. If I could, I would take a photo of it and upload it here as proof, but alas, I am not technologically-savvy enough to do so.

    My husband has forbidden me from arguing this point anymore, as it’s late here, and he wants me to come to bed. He also told me I would be better off bashing my head against the wall, because there is none so blind as those who will not see.

    But the Bible is abundantly clear that both men and women, as mankind, are made in the image of God. It’s not even ambiguous – it’s perfectly clear. It’s plainly stated there in black and white. Please, read it.

    Like

  16. Ace said:

    The only distinct difference between men and women is the genitalia.

    Feminism 101. Color me shocked. /sarc

    Like

  17. “Also I am a god, with a lowercase “g”, not God with the capitalized “G”.”

    I see what you’re getting at, but a better phrasing might be better to say that women are expected to study men the way men are expected to study God–how to serve him well, practicing loyalty etc. This avoids the kind of confusion that I’ve seen in charismatic circles, where “Apostle Bob” might be either a normal church-planter or a deranged heretic.

    ‘Image of God’ is generally understood to mean free will and inherent worth rather than a license to rule.

    “I actually am one who denies that God has exclusively feminine traits”

    I agree. The feminine is, spiritually speaking, what humanity brings to the table. God desiring humanity is very analogous to men desiring women: it’s not that we need them, it’s that we really, really want them.

    If God already had/was everything He wanted then He wouldn’t have put up with sacrificing Christ for a generally ungrateful humanity.

    Like

  18. Ace says: There are literally no sources anywhere that I can find (aside from blogs like this where men have put themselves up on a pedestal and think themselves as gods worthy of being worshiped) that suggest the term “man” in Genesis means anything other than “mankind” or “human”.
    I didn’t put myself up above women, God did. And I try to use the word “reverence” not “worship”, because that is the word that is the given in Ephesians 5:33. Ikr has made numerous references to Strong’s Concordance and that is a source that gives quite a broad array of possible meanings for the word/name Adam.

    Augustine of Hippo said that the image of God in man is internal: the trinity of the memory, intellect and will. If this is correct, this would have to include females as well as males.
    Augustine did not believe women by themselves were in the image of God. He believed the woman could become one with the man and thereby join into the image of God, only when united with her husband.

    •Woman was merely man’s helpmate, a function which pertains to her alone. She is not the image of God but as far as man is concerned, he is by himself the image of God. ~Saint Augustine
    •Woman does not possess the image of God in herself but only when taken together with the male who is her head, so that the whole substance is one image. But when she is assigned the role as helpmate, a function that pertains to her alone, then she is not the image of God. But as far as the man is concerned, he is by himself alone the image of God just as fully and completely as when he and the woman are joined together into one. ~Saint Augustine
    •…woman was given to man, woman who was of small intelligence and who perhaps still lives more in accordance with the promptings of the inferior flesh than by superior reason. Is this why the apostle Paul does not attribute the image of God to her? ~Saint Augustine

    An old French philosopher Paul somebody (can’t remember his name) said that Imago Dei means “free will” – the literal ability to think and to choose.
    It must have been getting pretty late when you wrote that persuasive argument. FWIW Everybody has their own theory as to what the image of God is, and some people have multiple theories. Don’t get caught up assuming what the image of God is, and then making arguments based solely off of your own assumptions. Our buddy Bnonn seemed to do that also.

    This quite clearly shows that God has a feminine, nurturing, caring side. A motherly (hen) side.
    I don’t see that Jesus is claiming to be feminine, or to be a chicken. Matthew 23:37 is a Simile.

    Please Sharkly, explain to me why literally everybody else who has studied, at great length, on this, has concluded that both men and women (humans) are made in the image of God, but you believe they’re wrong?
    Firstly your premise is false. Everybody in the early church studied and found women were not in the image of God. During the fourth century Rome nationalized Christianity, and the state church of Rome sinfully chose to offer up “veneration” of Mary, as an easy transition for former goddess worshippers entering into Christianity. These former goddess worshippers joining the church wanted Mary to be divine, and the “great whore of Rome” was quick to oblige them. But how could Mary be a divine one, if she wasn’t even in the image of a Divine one? Well, they declared both sexes in the image of God, and voila, they had their goddess Mary, “Mother of God”, “Queen of Heaven” and a good time was had by all. Whenever everybody is having fun, chances are you’re not following God. His path is narrow, uphill, and difficult. Anyhow, my confidence in my rectitude, comes from the source of my beliefs, God’s inerrant Word. The masses today are trying like hell to cram their Feminism into the Bible. They are not studying at great length, as you said, they are just twisting God’s word, in their minds, with great torque. If you lose your Feminism, like mine was so rudely stripped away from me, and then look at things afresh, the Bible very clearly spells out a patriarchal religion where men and women are not co-created equal in rank or attributes. The Bible clearly teaches women to be quiet spirited, submissive, and reverent in their husband’s presence, and to have their head covered when seeking God’s presence. Whereas the man does not cover his head because he is in the image and glory of God his Father, but the woman is man’s glory. The reason that the world doesn’t want women to stop their usurping claim to be the image of God, is because their Feminism crumbles without a religious basis for equality of the sexes. By nature men are stronger, more logical, generally better at abstract reasoning, less emotionally driven, and are clearly the more fit sex to rule over the other sex well. Feminism would never have come to be without the Great Whore carrying water for the movement for 1600 years. And this unnatural state can only be maintained by having this apostate Great Whore feminizing men and deceiving women on behalf of their satanic goddess worship. However it isn’t just the church of Rome anymore, this false doctrine has deceived just about everyone, as you have noted. But my confidence comes from the Bible actually being pretty clear, once the Feminist blinders fall away. There are a ton of places where God could have, and should have, made it clear that women were also in His image, if they were. But He clearly didn’t. God never says male and female created He them in His own image. But he says man and men are in His image all over the Bible in both Hebrew and Greek, and, but woman is the glory of man, Etc. The only reason why it is so resisted is because people don’t want it to be that way. When things were Patriarchal, and it was culturally understood that women were inferior, even among the heathen, nobody had any problem seeing that God told us, through the apostle Paul and the rest of the Bible, that God our Father’s image is shared exclusively with men.

    Like

  19. GunnerQ,
    I see what you’re getting at, but a better phrasing might be better to say…
    No way. I love the “in her face” confrontational “rock of offense” phrasing that gets under their skin instantaneously.
    LOL I’m a god, baby! Deal with it! Image of God right here. Can’t touch ‘dis! They love it, but just can’t bring themselves to say it.

    If God already had/was everything He wanted then He wouldn’t have put up with sacrificing Christ for a generally ungrateful humanity.
    Not sure I agree with the needy God idea. How could God propose to make us complete and lacking in nothing, if even He was emotionally lacking friendship, or whatever you were getting at? Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point.

    Like

  20. The Bible clearly teaches women to be quiet spirited, submissive, and reverent in their husband’s presence, and to have their head covered when seeking God’s presence.

    Passages from the Bible such as these are where self-described “Christians” (i.e., churchians) reveal their rejection of the belief in Scripture being God’s inerrant truth, their claims to the contrary notwithstanding. The litany of excuses they put forth for not absorbing and obeying such passages (“that was written for another age and culture,” “it doesn’t REALLY say that”) demonstrate that they believe Scripture to be errant (if these passages are irrelevant or unclear, then they are inherently errant), thus undermining their own claims to being adherents of the Faith.

    Liked by 2 people

  21. “Not sure I agree with the needy God idea.”

    It’s a wanty God idea. Your life is complete without a supermodel girlfriend but it would be really nice to have one.

    Like

  22. @ Ace
    I’m not sure why you keep commenting on a blog where the message is the same thing in every post; women are not equal to men, they need to be in complete submission and have sex on demand. Same message on every post. Lather, rinse, repeat. The blog clearly isn’t designed to help change anything; it’s a whine/bitch/complain forum. Your comments/explanations are all going to be continually met with contempt as the men here try to teach you why you are continually wrong.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. Welcome Wooly,
    It sounds like you’ve got the basics down pretty quick. However I wonder if you’re just hoping this blog won’t help change things. Jesus came to heal the sick not the well, and to preach repentance to sinners, not associate with only the most righteous. You are correct, Biblical correction always deals with what a person has got wrong, not where they are doing fine. So yes, I am continually going to be pointing out what I see as potential errors and shortcomings that have infiltrated churchian beliefs. People willing to pump up women’s esteem, and encourage their self indulgence far beyond unhealthy levels are plentiful, so again you’re correct, that this is not the place for women to come and have their ego stroked. However, the wise are always open to hearing criticism, whereas the foolish just want blind affirmation. If you’d care to share where you disagree, especially if you feel you have Bible verses to back up your contentions, I’d love to hear more.

    Like

  24. Hi Wooly
    You make an excellent point! Yes I know this is purely a blog for bitter misogynist to bitch about the evils of women and I know I will never change their mind. The reason I keep coming back is, I think, a kind of morbid fascination with the prevailing attitude on here. I’m absolutely astounded that men can be so arrogant yet also claim to be Christian. The ego on here is so unlike anything I have ever seen before and I’m trying to figure out if these men actually believe this rubbish that they spout, or if they know it’s absolute crap but are trying to make themselves feel better because they don’t know how to please women.
    This blog does make me appreciate the fellowship I belong to, though. The more I read of “Christians” the less I like them.
    Jesus taught love. There is no love here. Only bitterness and hate.

    Like

  25. Dear Ace,
    LOL I like your sense of humor. You forgot to mention how we all live in our parent’s basements. While I can’t speak for every man that enjoys this site, I genuinely believe what I share, and I quite often share the Bible verses where my thinking stems from. I was glad to hear you were taking your husband’s advice the other night. Because ultimately that is the relationship that you will most likely derive your deepest joy or deepest sorrow from. I believe he is a genuinely good man and that he loves you, and certainly he knows you well enough by now to give you some good direction. I do however sense that you have been disappointed by some man, perhaps your father, who may have betrayed you, or not been there for you. If that is the case, I’m truly sorry that happened to you. I also understand how it can make it difficult for you to choose to trust your husband and to give up your control and surrender yourself to him when the lack of trust is still lingering in your mind. But, I recommend just choosing to give him renewed trust and choosing to look up to him for all of his good qualities. It is a way for you to show him the love of God that is in you. We all have bad moments and moments when we are not Christlike, but the key is to pick ourselves back up and pick our cross back up and keep following Christ. I encourage you to once again renew your efforts to win your husband through your pure and respectful conduct. I have been meaning to ask you if you have been able to make any positive progress between yourself and your husband?

    Liked by 1 person

  26. @ Ace,

    “There is no love here. Only bitterness and hate.”

    You have falsely judged me. You have judged me without asking me questions. I am not a hater, I am not bitter.

    Like

  27. Sharkly – Nope, I’ve never been let down by any man (other than my husband) that I’m aware of, and my father is a very, very good man. He’s been an excellent father to both myself and my sister. He is very ill with congestive heart failure and doesn’t have too much longer left to live. He will be missed very much, by a huge number of people. My father is probably half the reason this blog, and the prevailing attitude on it, both intrigues and disgusts me so much. My father’s testimony begins when he found his wife cheating on him with his own brother – my Nan (a lovely Christian woman) asked my father to please, don’t hurt his brother. Her exact words to him were: “you know what to do”. My father took my mother to the same church meetings he went to as a child. They both became professing Christians. They both faithfully served the Lord for 20-odd years. When my sister and I were young and my mother was faithfully serving the Lord, she was a very, very different woman to what she is now. Now, it’s fair to say she’s a bitch. Back then, she truly showed the fruits of the spirit.

    My mother eventually fell back into her old ways of cheating, and when she refused to ditch her then-lover, my father kicked her out. He would have been willing to forgive her, as he had before, if she was willing to be faithful, but she didn’t want to be. My mother no longer walks with the Lord. My father still does, and has remained single for the past 18 or 19 years, as the Bible requires him to do. Despite the fact he has been so badly hurt, he doesn’t have this bitter, misogynistic attitude that prevails on this blog. He doesn’t believe that men are better than women (or the other way around). He believes both men and women were created in God’s image. He believes both women and men are able to choose to pursue a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and be with Him in eternity. He treats everybody with respect, both men and women. Those fruits of the spirit spoken about in Galatians are clearly visible in my father.

    I usually do follow my husband’s advice. He is a good man. He certainly has his struggles and his faults (like we all do) but he is a good, kind, generous man with a good heart and an incredible knowledge of scripture. He was raised in the same church as my father and myself, although in a different part of the country, and he believes the same as I do. One day, hopefully, he will even choose to walk this way again.

    If you genuinely do believe what you share on here Sharkly, I feel immense pity for you. It is truly sad to see the Bible twisted so horribly, into a hatred of women. That’s not what Jesus was about. Jesus treated women with the utmost respect and never once said that they were inferior to men in any way. Back then, it was unusual for men to speak with women in public, but Jesus did it. He spoke to them in a caring, thoughtful manner, but He also held them personally responsible for their sin, just as He did with men. He taught women directly. He treated them just as He did men.

    Like

  28. ray,
    when you say “going forward”, are you just referring to on this earth and this life, or do you also feel like something will carry over into the afterlife? And are you assuming equal to Himself, or equal to men? Just for clarification.

    Like

  29. Welcome Bee and ray,
    I was hoping to reconnect with you men. Bee you have been especially encouraging to me in the past. And ray, I find that you have unique ideas, and that is always a good thing when men are hashing things through trying to come up with new and different solutions.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. @Bee – I have not judged you at all. As this is the first time I have even been aware of your presence, how could I possibly have judged you? I am judging the words written on this blog.

    @ray – Jesus treated women as equal to men in intrinsic value and worth. He treated them as equal to men in personal responsibility. That is very clear when reading the gospels.

    Like

  31. Ace,

    You have judged me because I have commented on this blog several weeks ago. Today is not my first comment.

    Also, you gave no disclaimers about future participants.

    You are projecting.

    Like

  32. @ Bee – I was not judging you. As I said – I am not familiar with you at all. I have not read all the posts on this blog. But just now, in a bid to avoid folding the basket of clean laundry waiting for me, I quickly skimmed through all the comments on all the posts on this blog and I didn’t see one by you. So either I missed it, or you posted under a different name. So still, I’m not familiar with you at all and my statement was not directed at you. But if it works for you to get your knickers in a tangle over the misguided idea that I’m judging you, then you feel free to carry on with that.

    @ Sharkly – Are you aware that adverts for gambling are popping up on your blog?

    Like

  33. Ace,
    No, I don’t ever see the advertisements on my own site. I only see an advertisement that tells me “You can hide ads completely by upgrading to one of our paid plans.”
    My apologies if you have gambled away more than just your time. LOL
    But, as you have pointed out, This site offers a very rare perspective. Plus you get to converse with gods, for free!

    Like

  34. LOL Sharkly, conversing with the “gods” on this site is lots of fun! Incredibly frustrating, but fun 🙂
    Nope, I don’t gamble, just seemed odd to see ‘Kings Lottery’ ads on here. But one of the most godly women I know had a husband who was one. Once he gambled away $50,000 in one night. She was the perfect example of Peter 1:3, living in humble subject to her wayward husband, taking him back without a word after every single one of his benders. One story my husband likes to tell is the time this man came home after 3 years away with no contact, he walked into the house, asked what was for dinner and did he have any clean shirts. She gave him a sweet smile, told him ironed shirts were in the wardrobe and roast lamb would be ready in 2 hours. If that had been me, and my husband, I would probably have sconed him with the frying pan. But then, I don’t claim to be a very good submissive wife. I’m still a work in progress.
    Eventually, he did come to serve the Lord and she rejoiced. I think you would like her – she is exactly how the Bible tells women and wives to be. Sadly, her husband died 3 years ago, but she said that the 4 years they spent serving the Lord together were the happiest days of her life. She is my example.

    Like

  35. Ace,

    “I have not read all the posts on this blog. ”

    You judged this whole blog, writer and all commenters as being totally full of hate and bitterness, you said there, “was no love here.” You judged and proclaimed this without reading the whole blog. You judged everyone and all. You have judged foolishly, and incompletely. Thus, you should apologize to this blog, to its writer and to its commentators.

    You should apologize and retract your wide ranging statement.

    Like

  36. My goodness Bee you are like a dog with a bone!
    I have now read every single post and every single comment on this blog and I now believe my comment (which was directed specifically to Wooly in case you missed that bit) is even more true than ever. Some of the other posts on this blog are even more hate-filled and bitter than the one I left the comment on and when I look at the blogs of the commenters and on the blog roll at the side… Well some of them are just downright scary. The entire MGTOW movement is, quite frankly, bizarre. It’s amusing in a kind of morbid, sick, twisted sort of way. And the entire movement is based on hate and bitterness.
    The comments about sex on here, and how women respond to it, actually made me laugh. If a woman can’t feel a man inside her, the man is doing something wrong. Or the woman is lying, or possibly has a medical issue.

    Now that I have read the entire contents of this blog, Bee, and even the blogs of some of the commenters, and blogs on the side bar, I still didn’t see the comment you left several weeks ago. But that’s neither here nor there, now. The fact that you have your knickers in such a wad over something that was never anything to do with you tells me you’re bitter. Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek. Instead, you’re going off half-cocked over something that a stranger on the internet said, about a blog that you don’t own or write. Does that seem normal to you?

    Meanwhile, I’ve just lost almost two hours of my life that I can never get back, reading the bitter rantings of bitter men.

    One good thing has come of this though – it’s made me more grateful for my husband.

    Like

  37. @ ikr – Yes I guess it could be, if that is the intention of this blog 🙂
    But we both know that the intention of this blog is not to make women more grateful for their good husbands. I’m pretty sure women are not the intended audience for this blog. Wooly was bang on: this blog is a whine/bitch/complaint forum, and Sharkly agreed with that summary.

    My husband just sent me a text telling me to get ready because he’s taking me out to lunch. So I reckon he’s pretty grateful for me, too. You men who are all going off on your own way (without the women God created for you) don’t know what you’re missing. And the fact that you will never be fathers is really sad. Having children is incredible. Watching my husband play-wrestling with our kids melts my heart.

    Like

  38. Bee,
    I think a big part of the disconnect is that our churches and society have so distorted the word “love” by changing it to mean romantic actions and feelings.
    That they often lose sight of what God’s love really is.
    Etymology of the word “romance”(read the first four paragraphs)
    I think Ace has noticed our lack of “courtship behaviors”. We men here aren’t fawning over her because of her femaleness.

    Ace has let us know the following through her comments:
    “Personally, I have no problem with wife spanking … there’s nothing I love more than a dominant, masculine man who isn’t afraid to stand up and take charge.” (she is open to having a very patriarchal relationship with a husband)
    She is a Christian who attends a conservative Bible believing fellowship without her husband. (so, she shares most all of our beliefs and purposes, and wants a husband that shares them)
    “I want a man who treats me with respect and kindness while clearly making his standards and few expectations known, and upholding them in his firm but gentle way.” (she has laid out her desire)
    (She sets the scene) she is a highly prized wife by her husband, who is sometimes abusive, sometimes a drug abuser, but always an unbeliever. (she could monkey branch swing off with a better man in a heartbeat with the “churches” blessing)
    “I’m not a very submissive wife. It’s something I will probably always struggle with.” (a preemptive shit-test to weed out weak beta men who won’t stand up against her feminine wiles)
    She baits her trap:
    “Sharkly – I absolutely agree about indulging each other sexually, and that’s not something that has ever been an issue in our marriage.” (she promises; ‘Marry me, and you’ll be getting all the nookie you want’)
    “Sharkly – My husband reckons I look good in tight pants.” (she promises; ‘My body is still man-approved’)
    (an invitation is given) “And the ladies that attend our fellowship are vastly different from the women that are being described in that post. I so wish all you bitter, hurting men could meet some of them. Your faith in women might be restored.”

    The problem is Ace is looking for us to respond with the typical fawning and courtship behaviors. Ace is not observing for Godly love.
    Our word “love” comes from a Proto-Germanic word which means “to care” and “have an attachment to”. I think it should be obvious that we men care about women, and are almost hopelessly attached. However, Godly love is not wanting to please women, but wanting to do what is best for them.
    Ace says we “bitch about the evils of women … because they don’t know how to please women.”
    While it makes for good Feminist claptrap, it simply isn’t true. I choose not to please women here on this blog. I know how. I believe women are pampered, pedestalized, and worshipped in our society and by our churches, and I think the best and healthiest thing for women would be to think less highly of themselves. Meanwhile men are abased, ridiculed, and described as pigs, dogs, and toxic, day in and day out. I aim to reverse that by uplifting men, the image and glory of God. What I am trying to do is to love both men and women by sharing God’s truth, and restoring God’s order to our society, one mind at a time. Lots of love looks like discipline, because discipline is an act of love.
    Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
    Those who know what love looks like will see it here in action, without all the typical detrimental flattery of women.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Ace,

    “The entire MGTOW movement is, quite frankly, bizarre.”

    I am not MGTOW, I have been happily married for over 20 years. I love my wife and enjoy being with her.

    Like

  40. Sharkly,

    “Lots of love looks like discipline, because discipline is an act of love.
    Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.”

    Good Scripture and very fitting to this discussion. Thanks for sharing that.

    There is also the time Jesus cursed the fig tree and it died. And the time he flipped over tables, and used a whip to drive out the moneychangers and the merchants.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. @ Sharkly – No, my husband is a believer. He was raised as a believer, was a professing Christian when we married, turned away, came back, and is currently unwilling. But he still believes. And he encourages me and our kids to attend church regularly, even though he currently doesn’t want it. He also still upholds Godly standards in our home as far as dress standards for our teen and pre-teen daughters, movies the kids see, places they go etc. He’s probably even more rigid on that than I am. We don’t have a TV. He keeps his bad influences away from the kids as best he can, but he’s also honest with them about addiction struggles and serving the Lord.

    And no, my church does not advocate separation. Ever. In cases of domestic violence it’s obviously unavoidable, but even then, each spouse must remain single, and be open to (even actively working towards) reconciliation.

    Every day, I see “Godly love”. it’s something the people in my church fellowship practice on a daily basis. It’s spelled out clearly in the Bible. And I’m not seeing it here.

    @ Bee – if you’re not a MGTOW and you enjoy being with your wife, you don’t fit into the intended audience of this blog any more than I do. The MGTOW movement is a male supremacist group on the border of the hateful incel community. Hence my “hate and bitterness found here” comment.

    Like

  42. Ace says: “Wooly was bang on: this blog is a whine/bitch/complaint forum, and Sharkly agreed with that summary.”
    I agree that many folks will see it that way. However any group that advocates for change or reform, can be smeared in the same way.
    I could just as easily say that #MeToo is a whine/bitch/complaint forum. Or that the US independence that we celebrate this evening was just the rebellious result of a bunch of whiny/bitching/complaining colonists who didn’t want their tea taxed. But that viewpoint is just too simplistic and ignores the actual grievances and philosophical differences that are the compelling motivation for change.
    I wonder if you(Ace) realize that your objections are as old and worn as shoe leather. While you may have just discovered these objections from your own observations, you are certainly not the first person to make these often repeated accusations. Men are always smeared as “unloving and hateful” any time they try to hold women accountable for anything. And yes, women will most usually eventually deride men and try to shame them for standing up. You end up seeing this in women eventually questioning men’s manhood, over their failure to pedestalize women. LOL That’s not really even an argument, so much as just a baseless personal attack.

    Anyhow, my resilience to female shaming, may be part of what I am trying to bring to the internet. Other Man-O-Sphere sites do discourage females from commenting, because “When women enter a male space, they inevitably change that space by their presence.” However I see much of that change as a fault of the men. Men need to learn to not only stand up to hypothetical women in the privacy of a men’s-only group, but to be able to put them back in their place publicly while remaining unruffled and maintaining good humor. How effective will a men’s movement be that can’t face the inevitable anger and shaming from women? Some of women’s objections need to be addressed, but the vast majority of it just needs to be laughed off. After all, women really aren’t truly upset about how men are asserting themselves, but that they are asserting themselves at all. Saying that “you’re doing it all wrong” is just misdirection, as though women would rather be subjugated some better way.

    I’m pretty sure women are not the intended audience for this blog.
    My blog is obviously not intended for children, but if women want to read it, they may benefit. Neither WordPress nor the internet allow me to screen women from sneaking onto this site. So it is a given that women will be reading here, and the more I might try to prevent it, the more curious and persistent women will become in sneaking in to devour the forbidden fruit. So the best possible way I could reduce my female readership, would probably be to welcome women and beg them to come here. LOL So, Welcome women! Y’all come back now, ya hear! 😉 /Reverse Psychology

    Like

  43. Your explanation does put an interesting perspective on things, Sharkly. I have to be honest, this entire MGTOW movement is something that is entirely new to me. I found it quite by accident, when men involved in it commented a thread on Facebook that I was on, in the course of my work. What I do for a living (besides assisting my husband in the running of our business) brings me into contact with a wide variety of both men and women, with all sorts of different beliefs and life experiences. And I found this blog when I clicked on your name on a comment on Lori Alexander’s blog. It wasn’t actually something I searched out. Although now that I’m here, I am kinda fascinated. Psychology and all that…

    The #MeToo movement is definitely a whine/bitch/complaint forum and, I believe, it’s a very dangerous one. I worked for years in hospitality, mixing closely with predominantly male chefs. Male “kitchen talk” is very much like “locker room talk” I guess (I’ve not frequented men’s locker rooms) and sexual talk, flirting, joking around etc. is all very much part of the atmosphere. According to the #MeToo movement, the stuff that was just a normal part of the job to me, is “sexual assault”. At best, it could be considered sexual harassment, although I don’t even classify it as that, because at no time was I ever actually made to feel uncomfortable or threatened, and the chefs always treated me well. Although I don’t know for sure because I never did it, I believe that if I had asked them to stop slapping my butt when I walked past, or feeding me sauce and things off a spoon, or telling crude jokes in my presence, or flirting with me in fun, they would have stopped. As it was, it made the job more fun and the time pass quicker.
    The #MeToo movement has made men fear unnecessarily, and it’s made me afraid for my sons, far more so than my daughters. Just like I did, my daughters are learning self defence and common-sense things to keep themselves safe. Men can’t do this. Men are at the mercy of evil women.

    Just this year a very good friend was jailed for two rapes he did not commit, based, I believe, on society’s response to the #MeToo movement. Here, although the law states a person is innocent until proven guilty, in reality, it doesn’t work like that. Especially in sexual assault cases, a person has to prove their innocence, and that’s not easy to do. One of the women told him she was going to destroy his life when he refused to marry her, and she has certainly done that. He has lost everything, including many friends. My husband is one of the few who stood by him.

    I know a number of men who have put their wives up on a pedestal, and they’re very macho, masculine men. Their wives are women with beautiful, soft, Christ-like spirits, and their marriages are truly perfect examples of marriage done God’s way. I also know a number of non-Christians who also have extremely happy marriages, where the husband has put the wife up on a pedestal and worships the ground she walks on. These women treat their husbands like kings.

    There are ways of doing things, and holding people accountable, that *aren’t* unloving and hateful – look at the way Jesus went about it. The entire MGTOW movement, and the prevailing attitude on this blog IS unloving and hateful. Men are not “standing up” at all, anywhere that I can see. Bitching and whining isn’t “standing up” but rather it’s the opposite. It’s “poor me these evil, nasty women…” It’s not “manly” or “masculine” at all. It looks far more like weak and pathetic. Believe me, there are a great many women who LOVE assertive men, and have no problem with being subjugated. I see this on a daily basis in the industry I work in. So yes, it is the way men are choosing to go about it that riles women up, definitely.

    Like

  44. I found this blog when I clicked on your name on a comment on Lori Alexander’s blog.
    I was commenting on Lori’s blog and in contact with Ken Alexander, for a while before I started blogging. Ken spent quite a bit of time trying to help my wife and I, but my wife refused to let the Alexander’s help us, because she does not want the sort of relationship they advocate. All that being said, I have noticed since I started blogging two months ago, that when I post a positive comment on Lori’s site like “Great post Lori, I totally agree. You go girl!” that I’ll get like two visitors off of that. But if I post a negative comment like “Women most typically are evil, selfish, and need to grow up!” I’ll get around 20 visitors from off of my negative comment about women. I comment as I feel led, and quite a few of my comments are not posted by Lori, but I don’t comment with the web traffic in mind. I just find women to be funny in that they have so little use for the men who adore them, and are so drawn to observe and even spar with the men who discount them. That is about the reverse of men.

    FYI I don’t believe that I or my site are MGTOW, although I have great respect for those who chose that, and believe the apostle Paul recommended singleness for those who could contain their sexual desires.

    Here, although the law states a person is innocent until proven guilty, in reality, it doesn’t work like that. Especially in sexual assault cases, a person has to prove their innocence, and that’s not easy to do.
    Same here. My divorce came with temporary orders based on false accusations, and it took me a long time and a lot of money to disprove a silly accusation about hypothetical danger based upon misrepresenting a single clearly sarcastic comment.

    Regarding sexual harassment, the big company I work for is very politically correct, I am fortunate to be confident and attractive, consequently I am able to interact with many women in a flirtatious way, by their own choosing, that many other men might get reported for. How is that fair? However, I realize the workplace is no place for romance, and my position requires me to remain impartial, so I try to flirt evenly with those who want it, while keeping it light and remaining aloof.

    I also know a number of non-Christians who also have extremely happy marriages, where the husband has put the wife up on a pedestal and worships the ground she walks on. These women treat their husbands like kings.
    I think it works the other way around. Like how the Bible always tells the wife to submit before it tells the husband to love. Those women treated their husbands like kings, and in return are quite well loved, honored, and adored. I don’t care for or believe in the pedestalizing of women, or the ground worshipping, or believe it will get me anything but the contempt I actually got when I tried it.

    Proverbs 31:28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. 29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. 30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.
    The key is that kind of praise is earned through exercising virtue. Hollow flattery, and pedestalizing the unworthy, are actually selfish and detrimental acts, especially when it inverts God’s order of the sexes. Men come first in God’s created realm. Don’t cross Him by grasping for equality with men. If you want honor, focus on being an excellent wife. For the man much honor comes unearned by way of his creation and by way of his position as head. Just accept that and everybody will be better off.

    Earlier I quoted a prior comment of yours from another post: “I want a man who treats me with respect and kindness while clearly making his standards and few expectations known, and upholding them in his firm but gentle way.”
    “Firm but gentle” = Fried Ice. You need to respect your husband more for being your personal fried ice deliveryman, that’s a tough job. Hopefully you made it well worth his while for taking you out to lunch, instead of brushing him off to continue contending with other men on the internet, who won’t even buy you the $2.99 shrimp. 😉

    Like

  45. Sharkly – I am extremely jealous that you live in a place where you can buy shrimp for $2.99! Here, food is crazy expensive!! Yes, of course I made it worth my husband’s while to take me out for lunch and spend $13.99 on a bowl of seafood chowder and another $5.50 on a flat white 🙂 He takes me out to lunch as often as he can afford to, and I always appreciate it immensely, and make sure he knows it.

    You are quite possibly right about the nature of the relationship of the couples I know who have fantastic marriages. They’ve been married for far longer than I’ve known them, some for longer than I’ve been alive, so I don’t know which half of the marriage started doing it right first. Maybe it was the woman, maybe it was the man, I don’t know. All I know is what I see, and it’s what I want for myself. Most of the time, I have it.

    You said: “For the man much honor comes unearned by way of his creation and by way of his position as head.” This is a statement I don’t agree with. How can a man who slides so deep into drug addiction that he abandons his family be worthy of honour simply because he is a man? How can a man who won’t hold down a job to provide for his family and instead forces his pregnant wife out to work so the family can keep a roof over their head and food in the kids bellies, be worthy of honour just because he is a man? How can a man who uses his superior size and strength to physically hurt his wife, to slide her up the wall by her throat, to kick chairs over backwards that she is sitting in, be worthy of honour just because he is a man?
    No. Respect is earned. Nobody can be a violent, drug-addicted, unemployed loser who treats people badly and yet demand respect because he is a man and therefore the ‘head’. It doesn’t work that way, and I don’t see any verses in the Bible that say it works that way. I see plenty of verses in the Bible that command a man to provide for his family, and to love his wife. If a man wants to be the head of his wife/household and get the respect and honour that comes with that, he needs to be doing his best to be providing for them, treating them well (or at least not terrorizing them and threatening and intimidating them) and not just chucking in his job because he can’t be bothered going to work today. He can’t sell the family’s only fridge in order to buy cigarettes (which are also hideously expensive here) and think his wife is going to honour and respect him, just because he’s a man.

    My husband is not that violent, unemployed loser anymore, and I absolutely do respect him and appreciate him, and I do my best to honour him. He’s an incredibly good man and I make sure he knows it. But quite honestly, in the past, I have been disgusted by his behaviour, and I didn’t go to any great length to hide that disgust. I refuse to honour someone I am disgusted in, and quite frankly, I’m not that good of an actor to even be able to pull it off. Men aren’t “better” than women just because they’re men. Some men suck.

    It doesn’t surprise me that your negative comments on Lori’s blog get the most views – some of those views are probably from men, and the rest will be from women like me who find the comments astounding, and are still trying to get their heads around the fact that men actually are that bitter, and actually do believe that they are superior to women and have convinced themselves that God made them that way. Lori doesn’t publish lots of my comments either, especially ones concerning birth control. There are many verses in the Bible about marriage but no commandments in those verses to have as many babies as we can possibly have, even if we can’t afford to provide for them or even manage to raise them in a good, Godly home, away from worldly influences.

    Like

  46. @Bee

    Asking a woman to apologize means asking her to admit to fault, which in turn means requiring her to accept responsibility for her behavior. I believe we’ve all seen far more than sufficient evidence to conclude that women simply are not programmed for this, the few demonstrable exceptions to the rule being just that: exceptions, and probably neuro-psychiatric genetic mutations (highly salutary mutations, to be sure, but mutations nonetheless).

    To ask for an apology in this case is clearly an exercise in futility. As I pointed out up thread, Ace is arguing from emotion, not fact or reason. This is a female feature, not a bug. To attempt to discipline in this case is as pointless and unfair as would be disciplining an infant for crying or a cat for scratching furniture.

    Like

  47. Bee – I don’t believe in insincere apologies. I stand by my statement that this blog is full of hate and bitterness. If you want to choose to continue to be offended by that, the problem is yours, not mine.

    In any case, I used the email address my husband and I share to post on here and he is sick of getting notifications and has suggested some far more worthwhile things I can do with my time that benefit him and my family, instead of wasting time with bitter, angry, egotistical, misogynist men.
    So once again I say thank you for reinforcing to me what a good man I have.

    Like

  48. Ace,
    The $2.99 shrimp was an allusion to something said on the video at: Sexual Mysticism
    I am not much of a seafood fan, and I live over 600 miles from the nearest coastline. It has been many years since I went through the drive through of a Long John Silvers restaurant, and I only got hush puppies. So I can’t vouch for whether they have $2.99 shrimp or not.

    How can a man who slides so deep into drug addiction that he abandons his family be worthy of honour simply because he is a man?
    It sounds like you just answered your own question. Simply because he is a man, made in the image and glory of God. Plus he is the man who chose you, and keeps coming back to you. Those must be some powerful drugs. LOL

    How can a man who uses his superior size and strength to physically hurt his wife, to slide her up the wall by her throat, to kick chairs over backwards that she is sitting in, be worthy of honour just because he is a man?
    Yep! Just because he is a man. Plus he is superior in size and strength. And somehow you survived to tarnish him yet again. For what it is worth, I haven’t heard from him what you did to instigate these fights. But obviously he had enough self control that you survived. Despite him having the physical advantage when things got physical. Really that there is something you could choose to respect him for, that he didn’t throttle you any worse even when he was driven to physically control and perhaps threaten you. When some men snap, people die. Your husband seems almost gentlemanly by comparison.

    Nobody can be a violent, drug-addicted, unemployed loser who treats people badly and yet demand respect because he is a man and therefore the ‘head’.
    Sure they can. However, from my perspective, the attitude that is revealed in your description might be part of what is causing a rift in your relationship, and may in fact make your husband more prone to seeking solace in drug use. Drugs were never tempting to me, but, I can see how having the love of your life feel the way you do about him, might drive a man back to them. I can also see it being hard to get up and go to work to provide for such an ingrate. Even worse you said your husband was following God when you married him.

    It doesn’t work that way, and I don’t see any verses in the Bible that say it works that way.
    1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct.

    But quite honestly, in the past, I have been disgusted by his behaviour, and I didn’t go to any great length to hide that disgust. I refuse to honour someone I am disgusted in, and quite frankly, I’m not that good of an actor to even be able to pull it off. Men aren’t “better” than women just because they’re men. Some men suck.
    That there is likely a big part of the problem. God has asked you to conduct yourself in a respectful and pure way towards your husband. Just like he wants your husband to try to provide for you. It sounds like your husband is currently following God in regard to his marital duty. Please try to show him the love and reverence(Ephesians 5:33) that God wants you showing him.

    Lori doesn’t publish lots of my comments either, especially ones concerning birth control.
    From the OP:

    Instead of viewing married sex as sanctified, always due at your spouses request, and a protection against temptation, as the apostle Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5, some instead viewed all sex as a weak failing of resolve to restrain the flesh, and thought that only God’s command of procreation could render it permissible. Thus they erroneously rationalized all forms of sexual contact to be evil, if conception wasn’t the primary goal. The goals of not defrauding your spouse of their due, and keeping temptation at bay, were apparently overlooked.

    Because I think sex is a gift from God to married couples, and that it does not require attempted baby making to sanctify it, I don’t see the Bible as forbidding contraception. The story of Onan was about a completely separate issue. However, I’m not currently moved to battle that issue. Pregnant ain’t a bad look for wives either. Now that doesn’t mean that I think using synthetic progestins to defeat your bodies natural cycle is healthy or non-carcinogenic. I just don’t see that the Bible forbids it. And for whatever the reason, “Be fruitful and multiply” is one of those commands that never gets repeated in the New Testament. But Lori does make a lot of good points about how many people wrongly see children as a burden, and other things.

    Like

  49. feeriker
    Some women can make a seemingly sincere apology in private, but you are right that it is highly unlikely we’ll get one here publicly.
    I don’t look at it as an exercise in futility, so much as Bee is offering Ace the opportunity to display a bit more virtue. Even if the lesson is lost on Ace, it doesn’t mean that Bee wasn’t doing the right thing by making the attempt to challenge her to recant her attack.

    Liked by 1 person

  50. So once again I say thank you for reinforcing to me what a good man I have.
    You’re welcome. I hope it helps. Now go show him what a good woman you can be towards him. And try to make up for the lost time, to him, the best way you know how.

    Like

  51. @ Sharkly – Just quickly, then I’ll try to figure out how to turn off the email notifications and not come back – my husband is standing beside me as I write this and he has a much better use for my time.

    Nope, it’s nothing to do with me, that my husband has given in to the temptation of drugs multiple times during our marriage. He doesn’t want me to go into why it happened, but it was another female that mainly caused it, not me, and the fact that he stopped reading his Bible and praying daily. He started using drugs at 17. He was 29 when I married him, so the addiction was pretty deeply entrenched by then. He stopped using them just after I met him, started again a few years later… stopped for a time and came back to church with me, then stumbled again… and the cycle repeated.

    As to his self-control, yes, he does have a bit. But it was 11 years of kick-boxing and 4 years of Judo that had more to do with me not getting beaten to a pulp than anything else. He was drunk when he attacked me, so not exactly thinking straight. These days, he barely drinks at all. I do respect his strength – I particularly like to ogle him while he’s chopping wood. But nope, I don’t respect violence and aggression. At all.

    I have only ever instigated about half of our fights. Mostly they were to do (back then) with his drunken loser mates hanging around. These days, we barely fight at all. The drunken losers from back then are mostly in jail and the mates he has now are nice enough. And these days they keep their addictions out in the “man-cave” (garage) rather than our kitchen table in front of my children.

    But thank you for your assumptions. You clearly have no idea how badly drugs affect relationships, and how much they change people. I truly hope you never find out.

    Like

  52. For what it is worth, I haven’t heard from him what you did to instigate these fights.

    I’m pretty sure we can make some reasonably accurate guesses about what he would say based on what she has posted here.

    Even if the lesson is lost on Ace, it doesn’t mean that Bee wasn’t doing the right thing by making the attempt to challenge her to recant her attack.

    Oh, I definitely don’t mean to imply that Bee did anything wrong, or that demanding an apology wasn’t called for. I merely meant that the expectation of actually getting one, even a plainly insincere one, is misplaced.

    Call me incurably cynical, but I’ve reached the point where I simply no longer expect or count on anybody to do the right thing as a matter of course. I’m certainly pleasantly surprised when they do, but believing this to be anybody’s default setting just leads to disappointment and depression.

    Liked by 1 person

  53. You are all the biggest bunch of sad losers ever. Keep your hating going, boys and keep on whining and beating up your wives. God just loves it. A**holes.

    Liked by 1 person

  54. I hear you feeriker,
    I didn’t ask for an apology, because I don’t need one, nor would I expect her to give it. The old tropes about men who try to correct women, being unloving, bitter, hateful, InCels, not real men, Etc., I think they’re like grass on a prairie, it is always going to be present. I actually don’t even think she really meant it, she offered no proof, she just halfheartedly threw it over her shoulder like a pinch of salt to ward off the Patriarchy. Go Girl-Power!
    I’m an idealist, but am also getting more skeptical of others. Anymore I’m only let down when I’m disappointed by somebody that I have really come to expect more from. I have a lot of respect for those rare people whom you can usually count on to do something close to the right thing. My father was the most upright man I ever knew, but his generation has died and now we’re ruled by frivolous Baby Boomers.

    Like

  55. Welcome FYou,
    You just made my day! I need to start keeping a tally of how many people I’ve triggered. LOL
    I really am sorry if your husband beats you, but if you are just being offended for others, I’m amused.

    Like

  56. “FYou.”

    Such a sophisticated, creative, original bunch of ladies you have dropping in to visit, Sharkly. I’m betting this one is probably a worship leader at the local AssemblyOfGod[TM] franchise on Sunday mornings.

    Like

  57. AOG church ~ LOL
    I think I only visited one once, in East Texas, but I’ve got about ten crazy stories about what went on during that single visit. And they blamed all their craziness on God’s spirit. LOL It was so bad that the guy who invited us was really embarrassed and kept apologizing claiming “I swear, it’s not normally like this.” It got so funny we were laughing out loud at the spectacle, while everyone else was apparently serious. We had been enticed to visit by claims that there were lots of hot girls that went there, but all we saw was a zany mosh pit of old people jumping and babbling, a minister preaching conspiracy theories and babbling unintelligibly, another minister showed up and cast a demon out of the first minister, and then they both “got saved”. It made the Charismatic church in the “blues Brothers” movie seem dignified in comparison. But we didn’t burst out laughing until the real life clown in full costume and clown makeup came waltzing down the center aisle. After that it was hard to stop laughing. They sang a song we didn’t know the words to, and then the newly saved pastor, sans demon, got up and said, “There are some among us who can’t join in the singing because they don’t have the Spirit.” Like we were supposed to have prophesied the words to the song. I still laugh just remembering that one visit to the AOG church. We had also heard their girls were pretty wild and willing to sin. Apparently they can just get resaved on Sunday along with their pastor. The one pastor also got the other pastor and “slayed him in the spirit”. But he wasn’t dead, he just stumbled backwards like a cowboy shot in a poorly acted western movie. Nobody translated any of the “tongues”, I guess we were just supposed to respect the jabbering as a miraculous sign. The only guy I was respecting was a guy down front who was jumping up and down like he had an invisible pogo stick, the dude was getting some serious air and hang time. When the old ladies start taking off their high heels, you know something is about to get down at the AOG church. They weren’t too friendly to us either presumably because we had laughed at them until some of us had cried, after the clown showed up. We didn’t know the clown was just waltzing on stage to make an announcement. We figured he was the replacement minister for the two jokers that had just gotten saved.

    Like

  58. Sharkly,
    Re Your comments to Ace disrespecting her husband during his acting out episodes – any corollary for husbands loving our wives in the feralness? I see myself saying something similar to Ace,” I don’t love my wife when she is being a hindrance or selfish.” I can correct her with the Word or game her and by not leaving her I am acting loving but I definitely don’t have lovey dovey feelings. Maybe she was just focused on her feelings during those episodes, though I agree that respecting his strength is right, regardless of its use. For my own growth though, does that mean I should love my wife’s selfishness because it helps her to be loyal?

    Like

  59. I don’t love my wife when she is being a hindrance or selfish.” … I definitely don’t have lovey dovey feelings.
    I hear what you’re saying, but you’re sort of using their definition of “love”, where “love” becomes a feeling, a romantic desire to engage in courting behaviors.

    I can correct her with the Word or game her and by not leaving her I am acting loving…
    Yes. We love like Christ by purifying our wives of their iniquity.
    Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; [Why does he sacrifice?] 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

    So, how should a man love his wife?
    Ephesians 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. … 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

    Like the golden rule which is the second greatest commandment, we are to nurture our wives as well as we take care of ourselves. That is what is being commanded, not that we consistently make her feel romanced, or that she always enjoy our care.
    I believe it is also why women should, and I believe are hardwired to reject men who don’t “love” and value themselves much. Women can sniff out a man who does not value and honor himself a due amount. Even if he loves her as much as himself, that won’t be very much. It is foundational for those men to realize that they are ‘gods’, created as the image and glory of God most high. By constantly disrespecting themselves, they are improperly indirectly devaluing God’s image. However there is also a possibility to become prideful and become “lovers of self” who place themselves and their desires above God our Father, and his commands.
    So, in summary we are to take good care of our “temples”(minds & bodies) and guard our souls, while also taking similar charge of our wives. We are to give our wives due honor, but certain honors are due to men that are unfit for women. As head we are to be the most honored part, yet take care of the body, honoring it also. God is a God of order. And we please Him by maintaining the order as He has commanded us to maintain it.

    When I think of how God shepherds us, and ideally how we should shepherd our wives, I am reminded of Psalm 23. Things certainly don’t always work out that way, or seem to be green pastures, but there is also a time to use the staff to guide the sheep and set boundaries, even if they don’t see why that is for their own long-term comfort and safety. And we should make an effort to be there with them, when they go through the low spots.

    There was a point during my marriage where I was out of work, out of money, and had very little food in the house. And as fortune would have it we were disqualified for most government aid due to property that I had inherited from my father, yet was not actually mine, to profit from, until after my mother’s later death. I told my wife and sons that I wasn’t eating because I was fasting for religious reasons, and wanting to get six-pack abs, but actually I was just making sure that they all had enough food and that I was the one who went without. I normally eat as much as my wife and two boys combined. I doubt they realized I did that for them, or remember it. My wife certainly never gave me credit for my sacrifice, but ran around telling people that I was “worse than an infidel” because we had fallen on hard times. But I feel like I showed love in action. Putting others ahead of my own comfort, even while being slandered for it.

    Like

  60. There was a point during my marriage where I was out of work,

    That, in any wife’s eyes, is the biggest sin any husband can commit, well ahead of not making her happy or not giving her whatever she wants on demand. God help any married man who is unemployed for more than a couple of weeks at a time – a group that is going to include MOST men as the economy continues to deteriorate and they grow older.

    Like

  61. Yeah, in all of society’s eyes an unemployed man can’t do anything right. He’s a worthless bum for not fulfilling his marital duty to bring home the bacon. Even if there are reasons, 30 Million other people are unemployed in the same recession, and his wife is on Facebook poisoning all their network of contacts by posting that her husband is either too proud or lazy to work. Society should view cunts who don’t put out for their husbands sexually, as even more worthless. The later case is also sexually immoral, in addition to intentionally failing to perform what was vowed. But, no shame for women! Our society is so full of Feminist goddess worship that churchwomen can openly threaten and deny their husbands sex, and receive public affirmation from their peers. While a man would be divorce-raped and lose his children if he responded, “I’ll be leaving my paycheck with the lady who is voluntarily catching up your marital duty for you.” The churches, and consequently society, treat men, who are the image and glory of God, like crap, while openly worshipping women above God. I’m hoping to help change that, and I’m on God’s side, so we won’t be the losers, no matter what transpires. Damnation awaits all our foes!(who do not repent)

    Like

  62. “How can a man who slides so deep into drug addiction that he abandons his family be worthy of honour simply because he is a man?

    It sounds like you just answered your own question. Simply because he is a man, made in the image and glory of God.”

    Correct. Well done.

    Your husband does not need to ‘earn’ your respect, young lady. It is due him in acknowledgement of, and subjection to, the created order of the LORD.

    Oh goodness me, wait, wait! You think that’s unfair.

    Stop rebelling against God. Be meek and agreeable before your husband, so that God is pleased with you.

    It is not a suggestion nor an invitation to dialogue. I don’t care what you think about it or me.

    Liked by 1 person

  63. Ray, quoting Ace:

    “How can a man who slides so deep into drug addiction that he abandons his family be worthy of honour simply because he is a man?”

    Note that she follows that rhetorical question up with this statement (July 5, 2019 @ 7:24pm):

    He started using drugs at 17. He was 29 when I married him, so the addiction was pretty deeply entrenched by then. He stopped using them just after I met him, started again a few years later… stopped for a time and came back to church with me, then stumbled again… and the cycle repeated.

    She knew the man had serious issues before she married him, but decided to take the plunge (i.e., let tingles override common sense) and do it anyway, and now bitches and whines about suffering from the very horrors she could have easily avoided. The sympathy meter isn’t moving above the zero mark here.

    Victim? Nope. More like “immature child.”

    Imagine her saying that she saw an electrical socket sparking and puffing blue smoke, but decided to go ahead and stick her finger into it anyway and then rages furiously and indignantly about suffering shocks and third degree burns as a result.

    Liked by 1 person

  64. Not here to wrestle with pigs, learned my lesson long ago that they enjoy the mud, and you only end up dirty. That, and don’t cast pearls before swine. It is clear when a woman has ‘shut down’ and is only arguing from emotion.

    Here to point out a huge lie that any women reading should really, truly take note:
    “11 years of kick-boxing and 4 years of Judo that had more to do with me not getting beaten to a pulp than anything else”

    There is this myth that women can ‘hold their own’ against a man physically. Walking around like you are hot shit, or running your mouth, or any other symptom to the belief you are physically comparable to men is a grave mis-judgement for your physical safety.

    https://www.bjjee.com/articles/transgender-mma-fighter-who-broke-female-opponents-skull-are-we-getting-too-politically-correct-with-reality/
    Even after drastic reduction of biological differences via hormone prescriptions over 18(?) month span, the XY-‘woman’ split the skull of the XX-woman with a single blow.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6590605/Female-SAS-Dares-Wins-contestant-says-THANKFUL-punched-face.html
    Female SAS trainee tries to go head-to-head with a male instructor, thinking ‘gender is irrelevant’. The gent holds back and still beats her black and blue. (women who demand equal rights.. will eventually get equal lefts)

    Remove contact altogether, and the results are unchanged.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10548629/US-Marines-postpone-fitness-rule-after-most-female-recruits-fail-to-do-three-pull-ups.html
    Among the 5 US Services, the Marines are unarguably the most physically fit. Women were given 18 months to prepare, afterwards over 90% failed the male minimums: the most physically fit female service-members could not produce 10% of their own to succeed at the male -MINIMUMS-.

    https://www.theguardian.com/observer/osm/story/0,,543962,00.html
    The terrible role-model, hotheaded, vitriolic Williams sisters thought they could beat a man ‘near the top’ (ranked 200 or lower) professionally, and were completely dominated by a smoking, beer-drinking, goofing-off guy who played them back-to-back.

    Story after story just like these could be copy-pasted ad nauseum. The examples have been made.

    A peak physical-condition woman has the physical prowess of a prepubescent man: maybe 12 or 13 years of age. Men have denser bones, denser muscles, testosterone on tap. Add to this an average height (leverage) and weight advantage. Add to this artificial influences like restrictive clothing (aka ‘cute’ outfits) and heels (destabilization) women wear on nights out. Why doesn’t a gentlemen raise his hand against a lady? Because the single act, no matter how ‘soft’ to a man, feels like a freight train to a woman. If a woman walks away from a physical altercation with a man, it is because he held back, not because she persevered and overcame.

    For a woman’s physical safety, do not buy into the ‘femme fatale’ lie quoted in my second paragraph. Remember 1 Pet 3:7: women are more easily deceived than, are physically inferior to, men. Unilaterally. It is for her emotional, mental, physical- but most importantly: spiritual- protection that she understands this and builds a Biblical world-view with this reality in mind.

    ‘But I’m the exception’, the 0.0001%. Mathematically, you most assuredly are not. The examples provided -ARE- the 0.0001% and they came up direly short. Mike Tyson trained for years and still concludes that ‘everyone has a plan until they get hit in the face’. This is Mike Tyson, the 0.0001% of -MEN-. No matter how trained you think you are, that single blow changes everything.
    If you find yourself in a fight, fight with everything you can muster, absolutely! But hope another man is nearby before you are lights out: don’t go into any altercation with a man expecting to win. If you are a smart woman, you have men you love and trust within arm’s reach at all times. (you don’t participate in Girls’ Nights out)

    Honor your father as a child: he inherited the responsibility. Hopefully he will vet for a man who can shoulder the mantle as you age. Revere your husband once you are married: he took the vow. These are the two men in your life to protect you. Your brothers will have wives of their own to protect, your cousins the same. Or call the police, who will show up to protect you- maybe. In any event, it will be a male police officer. Hope it isn’t a female police officer, even a herd of them: https://youtu.be/3EG5Nl37RsE

    If you are a woman (read: XX), then BE a woman. Embrace life as a woman. Don’t try to play by man’s rules (aka: feminism’s rules) with men. Do not test a man’s patience, attempt to match his physical prowess, manipulate him, legally entrap him. Be devoted, be submissive, be loyal, be faithful.

    Know your purpose (Ge 2:18). Know your charge (Ti 2:5). Know your place (1 Co 11:9).

    For the record, ladies, this is the look of love. Love is telling you what you need to hear. Prov 27:5.

    Liked by 1 person

  65. “Women who demand equal rights.. will eventually get equal lefts.”

    I don’t know if you came up with that, but it deserves to be shouted far and wide until it becomes common folk wisdom.

    Like

  66. Note: if you have four or more links in your comment, it currently goes into moderation.

    I remember a church I went to shortly after college that had a huge singles ministry. They decided to have coed flag football. People kept trying to invite me to be a part of that nonsense. They would say, “you look like you’d be really good at football”. LOL I kept having to explain that is exactly why I can’t play against women. I played intramural flag football, because my college did not have real football, and I knocked two men unconscious in a single play.(legally) The Athletic fraternity complained to the intramural director that I was playing too aggressively, after we beat them. I also sent a man to the emergency room playing intramural softball.(legally) They x-rayed him for broken ribs, but apparently told him he must have just hurt his pussy. I beat 700 men in a college intramural pound for pound powerlifting competition. In High School I joined a church rugby team where none of us really knew how to play, except our coach. We got invited to scrimmage against San Jose State’s huge trained college rugby squad, apparently to make them feel good about themselves, but thanks partly to my efforts, we kept pushing their scrum backwards, making their coach turn bright red screaming profanities at his team, and then later I ran two of them over in the open field to singlehandedly score a humiliating “try”. My point being, that it would be preposterous for me to play a contact sport against women. I’d probably have ended up hurting myself trying not to hurt one of them. If Ace, our 5′ 9″ Judo-kickboxing female badass gets throttled by her drunk husband and slid up the wall by her throat, and was unable to do much besides whine about it for years to come, that pretty much tells me, that she needs to learn to submit much earlier before her arguments turn into physical altercations. God made men bigger and stronger, and yet women still seem unable to grasp that God intends them to submit, even after being both told and shown. LOL So many of them behave like “strong willed” children.

    While I’m bragging, my employer who has over 16,000 employees worldwide, had a health fair last year where we got grip strength tested and could win prizes. Although I’m almost 50 and spend most of my day at a computer, I narrowly came in second. I won a fancy pair of safety glasses. LOL A lot of the young guys I work with cycle steroids, and some are also already getting TRT, while I’ve never taken anything illegal, I’m just blessed. And I’ve bought a 250 pound hand gripper and intend to beat whomever that other dude is, if they ever have the competition again. That reminds me, I need to weightlift today. My computer and my bed are in the same large area in my basement with all my weightlifting equipment. But it isn’t my parent’s basement. LOL I’m living beside a remote private lake in what used to be my guesthouse.

    Like

  67. … I agree that respecting his strength is right, regardless of its use.

    I don’t think boys and girls naturally see that through the same lens.

    I remember coming home one day to find out one of my sons had punched a girl in kindergarten. I asked him what she had done to make him mad, and he said “she didn’t do anything.” So I asked him why he didn’t like her, and he said “I do like her!” So I asked him why did you punch her, and he replied “because I wanted her to like me.” I then asked, so you punched her? He said, “Yeah, so she could see how strong I am, and then she might like me.

    Just like Ace, I doubt the kindergarten girl comprehended the masculine reasoning and romance behind why she got punched. /S

    Like

  68. feeriker, I’m merely doing my part to make the trope folk wisdom. Also, when are you going to finish setting up your blog and start topics of your own?

    Sharkly, congrats on your safety glasses. Pity that administrator interrupted the budding tale of romance, poor girl now may never know love in her life!

    Like

  69. I second ikr’s question, feeriker. When are you going to finish setting up your blog?
    Will it speed you up if I put the link in my sidebar and have people visit your placeholder? I don’t know if it was ikr, or not, but somebody already went outbound to your site today from here. With so many of the big-name folks getting deplatformed, their audience needs new folks to pick up the slack.

    Like

  70. Also, when are you going to finish setting up your blog and start topics of your own?

    /*** Sheepish, red-faced grin***/

    Yeah, I do need to get off the stick and get that done. It seems that every time I try to put aside some time to wrap that up, “life” gets in the way.

    Anyway, excuses aside, I’ll set a goal of getting that done by calendar month’s end (despite a looming crisis at work and professional courses I’m finishing on a deadline, I’ll carve out the time). I think I’m gonna have to take some time to review WordPress’s tutorial, as some of their html formatting, and especially their widgets feature, is really wonky.

    But I do have a couple of articles (probably better described as rants) that I have ready and want to publish and need to do so before they stale-date.

    Liked by 1 person

  71. I don’t know hardly a bit of HTML. I just use the easy visual editor with all the handy buttons, it is really user friendly. I might have started sooner if I had realized how easy it actually is, it just takes a little while to select and set all the customizable features at first. But once your first post is up, you’re live and rolling.

    I just put up a new widget for you on my sidebar, it is that easy. Now you’re committed. I’ll give you bonus respect points if you can beat your deadline.

    Like

  72. Wow, the misconceptions on here are astounding!
    Firstly – Ray – you’ve made my night, truly. It’s been a very long time since I fell into the “young lady” category. I haven’t giggled like that in ages! And yes, when someone behaves badly, they absolutely do have to “earn” back my respect. And my husband actually earned back my respect a long time ago, and the respect I have for him gets deeper every day. He has built our shop up from nothing, he is a great husband and father, and when my ill father was living with us, he was always patient, caring and kind. He was my rock when I fell apart after rushing to hospital multiple times, making medical decisions. He’s an amazing man.

    As for women taking on men in physical altercations… No it’s not a great idea. But I didn’t have a choice, and anger and adrenaline gave me a strength I wouldn’t normally have. I came home from work at close to midnight and instead of finding my young children tucked up in bed, they were in front of the WWF wrestling on TV and my husband and his drunk, loser mates were there, smoking and using drugs in front of my children. When I walked into the room one of them stood up and blew smoke right into my baby’s face. She was only 16 months old. She was coughing, red in the face. Distressed. I kicked the lot of them out, really angrily, told them not to come back. That led to my husband shoving me and sliding me up the wall by my throat because I embarrassed him in front of his mates, apparently. I fought back, got a bit of a lucky punch in, flipped him to the ground and told him I was calling the cops. He sobered up pretty quick and apologised – the last thing he wanted was the cops around.

    No, I’m not still whining about this year’s later, I barely even think about it these days. Just giving one example as to why men don’t get respect simply by virtue of their gender. And if any of you men/gods out there think a man who allows smoking, drugs and alcohol in the same room as his 1,3&4 year old children, at nearly midnight is worthy of respect, then you’re no better than he was back then.

    My husband still smokes. But these days, he doesn’t ever do it around the children. That was his decision, that he made when we got back together.

    And one last thing. I don’t know if you only know weak women or what, but I have a 16 year old son. He is fit and strong – he plays 1st XV rugby for his school, he milks cows, has a part-time job in a mechanic shop and goes to the gym with his mates. Last week I beat him in an arm wrestle. Winner got a king-size block of chocolate and I really love chocolate 🙂

    Like

  73. Ace,
    … men don’t get respect simply by virtue of their gender. And if any of you men/gods out there think a man who allows smoking, drugs and alcohol in the same room as his 1,3&4 year old children, at nearly midnight is worthy of respect, then you’re no better than he was back then.

    None of us is recommending child endangerment. You and your husband fighting WWF style (possibly in front of the kids) wasn’t smart either. Perhaps a less contentious woman could have put the kids to bed without needing kickboxing skills.

    Ephesians 5:33(ESV) However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
    Ephesians 5:33(KJV) Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
    God asks you to see that you reverence or respect your husband. Unfortunately if he abused his own mind and body with drugs, he may actually have been loving the rest of you, like he loved himself.

    And yes, when someone behaves badly, they absolutely do have to “earn” back my respect.

    Ray was right: Your husband does not need to ‘earn’ your respect, young lady. It is due him in acknowledgement of, and subjection to, the created order of the LORD.
    I assume ray used the term “young lady” because he was correcting you. The girl is reminded that she is to act like a lady, and the older lady is reminded that she is not acting her age. It is a known discipline method used for all ages. Your contention over not respecting men, is with God, and you’re contending with us because we aren’t backing down from God’s truth, in spite of all your extreme anecdotes. But today could be the day that you pick up your cross and give your husband some unearned respect, just because it is due him (partly for putting up with you) and because God wants it that way.

    Like

  74. Sharkly – the very beginning of my last comment stated that my husband earned back my respect years ago.
    While all the nasty stuff was happening, I had the full support of my very conservative church and even my husband’s parents. Mind you, they actually knew the full story and not just the bits of it I’ve shared here. When we look back now, my husband himself told me I did the best I could in truly terrible circumstances. He is embarrassed of his behaviour back then and has apologised for the “mates” he brought into our home. “Mates” that were happy to eat the food and smoke the cigarettes and drink the alcohol my job paid for (even then, my husband was in charge of our finances, as I was trying to be submissive to him) and swear around my children, exposing them to toxins.

    From the comments I have read on here, it seems clear to me that none of you have much experience with drugs and abusive relationships.

    And just as an FYI my husband is the only man who gets to “correct” me in the “young lady” fashion. I know exactly what Ray was meaning, which is why I laughed. That he thinks he has any authority over a woman who is not his wife, or part of his church congregation if he is an elder, is both laughable and unscriptural.

    Like

  75. Ace,
    You are right that I don’t hardly know any drug users, nor have I been in a physically violent relationship. Occasionally one of the typical shady characters will fail a drug test and be let go from where I work. I try my best to associate myself with responsible people when it is my choice. However, I try to give out advice based upon the inerrant word of God, as best I can. The Bible even applies to your unique situation. I believe ray was correcting you based upon the Bible’s authority, not his own. If some advice does not apply to you, or is based upon misunderstanding your situation, just let it go. But don’t be too quick to decide that Biblical advice that God wrote to everyone, does not apply to you. Some commands are universal. You can’t negate a universal command due to the particulars of your marriage. If all wives are told to reverence their husbands, that includes you. If all wives are to submit in everything(lawful) that includes you.
    When you describe your husband, he is either great, or awful, as it suits your purpose. I have a brother who is a salesman, and he is that same way, everything is either the best or the worst, depending on which way he is trying to influence you, there is seemingly no balanced assessment that ever escapes his mouth. It seems like you show your husband respect when it suits you. Where you need to work is on showing him reverence when it doesn’t suit you. When you feel you need to badmouth your husband, to defend your own reputation, you do, and often you could have left people to their incorrect assumptions and refrained from badmouthing your husband to preserve your own reputation with complete strangers on the internet. And half of what you feel the need to defend yourself about is based off of details you didn’t have to share. But a lot of your argument seems to stem from defending your actions and attitudes because of your unique situation, and things that have transpired in the past.
    You seemingly say: “I know God says women should obey/reverence their husbands, but mine has to earn it, because …”
    Some women’s husbands have to continually behave to a certain standard as judged by their wife, just to earn their wife’s following of the wife’s own preexisting vow “to honor and obey”. Is that because their wives are manipulative and controlling of their husband’s behavior as Eve was cursed to be prone? Of course not, its due to some truly unique circumstances of their marriage, consequently the Bible mustn’t apply to them. /S
    If you will go “over and above” to show your husband honor and meekness with purity, I’m sure you will reap an eternal reward, and you might well reap an improved relationship, and even possibly the salvation of his soul. Why not give up your fears and just let go and reverence your own husband as God’s head over you, and cheerfully accept whatever God brings upon you, knowing that it will all work out to your eternal good?

    Like

  76. My main reason for sharing my experiences is to show that men are NOT “all that”.
    This whole blog is about the fantasticness of men. On this site, men are gods, simply by virtue of their penis. On this blog, men are worthy of worship just because they’re men. It’s ridiculous.

    The majority of the men on here are bitter, possibly from being hurt by women. Why is it so difficult to understand that women have been hurt by men and do not believe that men are so great just because they’re men?

    Men come onto Lori’s blog and spread their misogynistic hate, discouraging the women who go there for encouragement, even though a huge number of women who frequent that blog are in difficult situations, some similar to mine. But the men there don’t care about that, they just want to spread the “I am man, therefore I am great” crap that helps no-one. That’s how I found this blog – from one of your bitter comments.

    If men are going to be leading people to Jesus, they need to get down off their arrogant soapbox and admit that men are as flawed as women (remember, God told Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit, not Eve, yet Adam still ate it).

    I don’t think you have any idea of how damaging this “me man, me great” attitude is to both marriage and the gospel message. If me sharing my story makes just one person realise how damaging misogynistic attitudes are, and helps just one woman, then I consider that to be a success. And if my story makes a misogynistic man humble himself…. Nah I’m a realist. That won’t happen.

    Men are flawed, just like women. Men are human (not gods) just like women. Men have faults and struggles and addictions and sins, just like women. If men want to be worthy of the women God made for them, they need to sort themselves out, not just decide that being a man is enough. God made women for men – it was the whole point of His perfect creation of women – to complete men, to be a helpmeet for them. Why do men think they can mistreat God’s gift to them and it won’t matter on the judgement day? God’s purpose was that man would cleave to his wife and be one with her, not think himself above her because penis.

    Like

  77. Being created as a weaker vessel should not be a source of dishonor for you. Don’t think too highly of yourself, and it won’t be one.

    1 Peter 3:5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

    Like

  78. How is that every woman that comments here starts off with such a wildly wrong characterization of it?
    Sharkly, your blog may be having an unintended effect of turning men into MGTOWs.

    Like

  79. Everyone has an anecdote to refute reality. Whatever it takes to keep The Narrative alive in the mind of the woman. My anecdotes consist of a couple of my own flesh-and-blood sisters being national champions in their chosen sports, which was too easy a reference for me to make: hence choosing universally-recognized references for women in peak shape. Most assuredly, any woman reading this blog is -NOT- the 0.0001%, as previously asserted. I know the 0.0001%, I share examples of the 0.0001%. And reminder that even if you are the 0.0001% (of women), you are at best the physical prowess of a 14yo boy of said discipline. Why does a simple fact bother your pride so deeply? Your gifts lie elsewhere as a woman (beauty- 1 Co 11:15, loyalty- Pr 31:11, motherhood- 1 Ti 2:15). Invest your talents where you have received them, lest the little of these talents you have been given be taken away.

    This was forwarded to me today by a friend who is a former service-member, lamenting the joke that our military has become (Nah 3:13). No surprises here:
    https://external-preview.redd.it/3E0RxyGwsQ4WPej1jq1R-HjxmVyesl7MEdNIaHNr_Qs.jpg?auto=webp&s=ebeb5fb5b01193476e04770eb23757914faeaa40
    (Sharkly, I do not know how to embed photos, so apologies for the link-spam)

    This just in: the US Women’s Soccer Team just won a World Cup wherein the majority of other teams consisted of amateurs (big surprise) of other nations’ women. Said USWST team pulls from a nation of 300m (not counting illegals) and has been repeatedly bested by under-15 male squads from a single city. Australia’s women’s squad experiences the same thing. Apparently- so I’ve learned in the past week- it is actually commonplace for the best-of-the-best female talent in various sports throughout the world to spar off with the local male talent in the under-15 bracket. For ‘practice’.

    There’s a reason why viewership of female sports like tennis is so high (women in skirts? why, that’s feminine!) and the Women’s World Cup struggles to break 100M in total revenue while the men pull in 6B. If I wanted to watch mentally-stimulating soccer but not pay the price of admission, I drive to the local high school on Friday night and watch the men play for free. The skillcap is higher than the best-of-the-best in the world for women.

    ‘Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie’ per the wisdom of my forefathers. The only thing of which I have been successfully convinced is that women apparently love getting slapped, given how much truth needs to be repeated. There really is something sadomasochistic inside the heart of the woman. The Narrative is a virus highly resistant to The Truth antibody.

    Maybe the heart of a single woman- just 1 woman- passing by this blog could be turned, to humbly submit to her husband. That she stops comparing herself to male standards of excellence, and instead seek God’s standard of excellence that He carved out specifically for her gender (1 Pet 3:4). No, truly, for her to swallow her pride and just once in her marriage, truly make an effort without any push-back on her part to submit fully and honor her husband without a single word, tending to his desires and needs (1 Co 11:9). Just a single time, a full, committed day of humility.

    Like

  80. How is that every woman that comments here starts off with such a wildly wrong characterization of it?

    In short, because the truth hurts.

    I’m sure all of us remember as children gagging on bitter medicine that we were forced to take, or on vegetables that were on our plates at dinner and that our mothers forced us to eat. We HATED the experience at the time, but it made us healthier and stronger for going through it.

    This is of course a less than perfect analogy, in that none of these ladies are being forced to come here and partake (unless Sharkly is holding some sort of cyber gun to their temples or is blackmailing them into being here through some mysterious means).

    As repulsive as they claim to find the food here, they can’t seem to stop themselves from being repeat customers. Baffling indeed …

    Liked by 1 person

  81. “ray,
    when you say “going forward”, are you just referring to on this earth and this life, or do you also feel like something will carry over into the afterlife? And are you assuming equal to Himself, or equal to men? Just for clarification.”

    I mean there’s no such thing as equality, in heaven or upon Earth, amongst man or woman or angel. Within these ranks there is Created order, each different and having a place or station.

    Equality is an abstraction, a construction or artifice, created by Lucifer. The parallel between what happened in the Garden (Eve and quest for Equality) and today’s spiritual and political landscapes isn’t accidental.

    King Jeshua would never apply a tool of demons in this world, or anywhere else.

    Far as the ‘afterlife’ goes, the only one I know about is Christ’s Millennium, and then the New Heaven and Earth later. During the King’s thousand years, He will advocate and enforce his Father’s created order, when it comes to men vs. women, and everything else.

    God’s own pneuma, a type of masculine imago, was given to angels and human men, so they’d function in leadership of His cosmos. So when men don’t honor that, and become weak and feminized and ‘listen to the voice of the woman’, Christ gets very irritated because they are mocking Father’s imago within themselves.

    If Christians likewise are not irritated about that, then who are they to Him?

    This means men (not angels, as now) will administer and oversee the planet, and women will aid and comfort men. Father-led families will be overwhelmingly the norm. Stray females, unattached to a man, will be in trouble.

    Folks will be ever-so-much happier, it won’t be perfect but compared to this place, you’ll think it is. But one way or another, this is how it’ll go down and nobody will get to vote, deal with it.

    I was glad to see the Spirit on you at Dalrock’s page and also am pleased that you are continuing your important and unique works here.

    Liked by 1 person

  82. “And I’ve bought a 250 pound hand gripper and intend to beat whomever that other dude is, if they ever have the competition again.”

    lol. You’ll make a good bodyguard.

    Like

  83. Ace,
    This whole blog is about the fantasticness of men.
    I try to honor men, forasmuch as they are the image and glory of God.

    The majority of the men on here are bitter, possibly from being hurt by women. Why is it so difficult to understand that women have been hurt by men and do not believe that men are so great just because they’re men?
    Oh, I understand that men are sinful too, and others will be hurt, but that doesn’t mean that God is wrong about having made men to reflect God’s image and glory, while the woman reflects the glory of man.

    If men are going to be leading people to Jesus, they need to get down off their arrogant soapbox and admit that men are as flawed as women (remember, God told Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit, not Eve, yet Adam still ate it).
    Men are human and flawed, we are all sinners, but I don’t believe men are as flawed as women. That is likely part of why a righteous God put the more responsible party in charge. Instead of the party that was last created yet first to transgress both God and her husband and obey the deceiver instead. Quite simply: You’ve been deceived again, by basically the same lie.

    Ace, your story, what I’ve heard of it so far, makes me have greater appreciation for what your husband also must endure. I don’t doubt he may need to be redeemed and change, but 1 Peter 3:1-2 gives you God’s instructions on how to correctly attempt that. I don’t think it is “damaging” for you to hear that.

    If men want to be worthy of the women God made for them …
    You should be concerned about being pure and worthy to serve the image and glory of God. You should be shamefaced over womankind. The last thing you need is a women’s blog that doesn’t allow men to correct the arrogance and usurping of women like yourself, yet you seem to want your self-worth inflated still further. LOL

    Women don’t complete men, God does. Putting women back in their rightful place is not mistreatment.
    Yes, men are above women, like the head is above the body, and yes I have a penis(that apparently causes you envy), but the latter gift may not be the reason for the former responsibility. The reason for both of those things is because that’s how God wanted it.

    I’m reminded of an atheist I once knew who would use “Jesus Christ” as his swearword. He tried to tell me one day that he didn’t believe in God. I reminded him that previously he had said he took God’s name in vain specifically because the Bible told him not to. I pointed out to him that, that isn’t unbelief, that’s rebellion.

    You don’t find yourself drawn here to contend with the message because you don’t believe it, but to come rebel against it. But I am happy you are here and enjoy each comment, because they make a much better foil than having to set up strawwomen. So, in a way, you’re being a good helper to me. 🙂

    Like

  84. Thanks for your compliments, ray. Respect: right back at you!
    Sometimes I have wondered at your revealed truths, but as far as I could tell they have lined up parallel with what the Bible tells me, and never perpendicular, so I’m inclined to believe you’ve got a true gift from the Spirit that I don’t have. God reveals his truth to us in different ways, but God’s truth is always the same. I’m glad you’re here sharing your knowledge.

    Like

  85. “You don’t find yourself drawn here to contend with the message because you don’t believe it, but to come rebel against it” Nope. Sorry. I actually don’t believe the same way you do. I believe in the Bible, so obviously we’re going to have some very similar beliefs, but in the matter of men and women our beliefs are very different. I believe (as my church teaches) that both men and women are made in the image of God. I don’t believe that men are superior to women, or that they are gods.

    This quote by Matthew Henry, from Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible sums up perfectly what I believe: “The woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.”

    Like

  86. Yes sorry about the name mix-ups. I chose to use my ace….. email address on here as it is one I share with my husband, so he can read this. But on my phone, I’m already logged on as my personal email address which starts with kak…. I can change it manually but keep forgetting, hence two usernames on here.

    Like

  87. Also, what’s wrong with Matthew Henry? I know he’s old and Presbyterian (I’m not Presbyterian) but his Concise Commentary is the one I have used in the past. It makes a lot of sense, and he’s pretty highly respected. I’m trying to find a copy of his Commentary of the Whole Bible but it’s quite hard to find, here.

    Like

  88. Ah. ‘Tis alright, I’ve answered my own question. I know why you don’t like Matthew Henry. He states, very clearly, on the commentary of Genesis 5, it says this: “That God created them male and female (v. 2), for their mutual comfort as well as for the preservation and increase of their kind. Adam and Eve were both made immediately by the hand of God, both made in God’s likeness; and therefore between the sexes there is not that great distance and inequality which some imagine.”

    This is an attitude from the 1700s, so well before feminism took hold.

    Like

  89. You have committed the fallacy of selective listening (reading), then proceed with applying your own gaslighting to what was said: she truly believes in her heart she is arguing from logic. Yet another trope of the woman witnessed.

    The comment referenced the poetry, not the poet.

    To borrow recently-coined terminology, you further commit a strawwoman argument in arguing feminism, when the issue is gynocentrism. It was known as chivalry before that. The terms belong to eras, but the concept is the same: woman as the central figure in the concern of man.

    Whatever straw affirms The Narrative in your mind will be grasped to sustain delusion.

    Like

  90. “Sometimes I have wondered at your revealed truths, but as far as I could tell they have lined up parallel with what the Bible tells me, and never perpendicular, so I’m inclined to believe you’ve got a true gift from the Spirit that I don’t have.

    The widespread assumptions concerning equality are difficult to cleanse from the mind, to say nothing of the heart, because they are the relational foundation of modern Western societies, in a world ruled by God’s enemies.

    However, these assumptions are false. God’s servants are no more equal than any other element of this world, or of heaven. Each has a place in His created order, and those places are neither equal nor interchangeable.

    You do not know what or who I am, and I refrain from telling you (and others) because this is not the place nor time, and would be anti-productive, and only stoke more resentment and envy. I say this not out of self-importance, but because it is the truth, and because this exemplifies the concept I am trying to communicate.

    Part of my responsibility is to help folks transition spiritually and cognitively to the Kingdom of Heaven, which soon will manifest widely on this planet, because the King is now very near. I summarized herein what relations between the sexes will be like in the Kingdom, but very few on Earth are prepared for that transition, which will be extreme.

    You are much further along than most of your fellows, and this is why I am advocating for your works here, because you will lead many of them out of the satanic deceit of this world, and prepare their minds and souls for the very different world that comes hereafter, soon. We are both servants of King Jeshua, and in many respects we are about the same business, but those things do not make us the same, and certainly not equal.

    Again, I tell you this not to demean you, nor to raise myself up artificially, but because this is the truth, and you will come into the fullness of truth in God’s good time. If you doubt these words, go right ahead and ask the King about them. Despite my many faults, problems, and sins, He will not deny me.

    Keep working.

    Liked by 1 person

  91. ray & others,
    Please pray for me, my wife, and my marriage, that she doesn’t continue to cause the Word of God to be blasphemed.(Titus 2:4-5)

    Like

  92. Ace-

    “My father is probably half the reason this blog, and the prevailing attitude on it, both intrigues and disgusts me so much. My father’s testimony begins when he found his wife cheating on him with his own brother – my Nan (a lovely Christian woman) asked my father to please, don’t hurt his brother. Her exact words to him were: “you know what to do”. ”

    Sorry to take u back an entire year but I’m a bit confused…u are disgusted that men are bitter when their wives did something like this to them?…they are supposed to just…shut up about it?….pretend its not happening?…and be deceived the way ur father was?

    Sorry to say but ur father and female friends u said were going through the same thing are just victims of the faulty system of Christianity…they are not “gifted with the grace of god”…they were simply lied to that they were. However much they tell themselves that its god, its not. Coz God’s opinions are very clear.

    I am still shocked at how u expect people to just “be okay with it”…even god who u claim is so forgiving wasn’t. So u cannot claim it is godly To Be okay with it.

    Your “Nan” did not do him a good service…she is the reason he has lived such a terrible life with the worst advice a person can ever give to a victim of adultery.

    His is not a testimony but a truly saddening demonstration of how the church is trying to normalize adultery to make it seem trivial so that they don’t lose congregation.

    Liked by 1 person

  93. burnstaicho – Because New Zealand is in complete lockdown and I’m bored, I will answer your question instead of silently telling you to shove your ignorant opinion where the sun don’t shine.

    The words “my father’s testimony begins….” should give you a clue as to what happened after that.
    My father was an alcoholic. As in, he would drink a dozen beer before lunch, while holding down a full-time job as a butcher. He was drunk at his wedding. He rode his motorbike drunk. He was a high-functioning drunk, but he was a drunk. There was no room for God in his life. My Nan’s words were the start of him choosing to serve the Lord.
    When he found my mother and his brother in bed together, my Uncle, being the gutless coward that he was, fled. My father looked at my mother in disgust for a few seconds then took off after his brother. His intention was fully to kill him. He has told me that. He was so angry, he was actually going to kill his own brother. First of all, his car wouldn’t start. He was very mechanical and his car had never not started before, but for the first time ever, his car simply wouldn’t start. By the time he went inside and got the keys for his motorbike, it gave my Uncle enough time to get away. My Dad took off to his parents house, where his brother still lived, but of course he wasn’t there. But Nan was. She listened to my father rant and rage and when he calmed down a little bit, she was sympathetic to my father and of course angry, disappointed and disgusted with my Uncle, but she told my father outright that he couldn’t kill his brother. She told him that he needed to get his drinking under control, and make a choice: either fight for his marriage, or give up on it. My Dad had been following the Lord once, and he knew full well that God hates divorce. Even in his drunken state, he knew that. When my Nan said “you know what to do,” he made the choice to come back to the church he grew up in, and to bring my mother with him.
    When Dad got back home, my mum wasn’t there. Dad didn’t know where she was; her car was still there. He waited for her, but hours passed and she didn’t come home. He figured she had left him. But he prayed for the first time in years, that if the Lord would bring Mum back to him, he would forgive her infidelity and bring her to church with him. Eventually, Mum came back (turns out she’d gone for a long walk over the hills with the dogs). Dad told her he was willing to forgive her, but there were going to be big changes in their marriage, starting with the fact that they were going to church.
    Literally overnight, Dad stopped drinking. That week, they went to church together, within six months both of them had made their choice to serve the Lord.
    They were finally happy – they had a great marriage. They decided to have children. Their first baby, a son, was born without lungs and died at 2 days old. Together, they found comfort in the Lord, and He gave them the strength to get through. Then I was born, followed by my sister the next year. We were both raised in the church.
    My parents had 25 years of incredible marriage. My mother was faithful to my father. But then something happened. I’m not entirely sure, but I think my mother’s faith was shaken when her mother died. Looking back, it’s possible she had a mental breakdown, as a whole heap of stuff was going on at that stage. Anyway, she cheated on my father. My father found out, my mother promised she would break it off and be faithful. My father forgave her. There were repercussions in the church. But two years later, my father found out that the affair was still going on, and had never really stopped. He kicked my mother out. The church kicked out my mother, and the man she cheated with (his ex-wife still goes to church) To this day, my mother still lives with the man she cheated on my father for the last time with. She does not go to church. I don’t know what her beliefs are any more. This was 20 years ago. My father has remained single and faithful all this time. He is dying of heart failure and I have absolutely no doubt that he will be rewarded for his faithfulness very soon.

    I don’t expect people to just “be okay with” being cheated on. Not at all. There isn’t much worse you can do to someone than cheat on them – especially when it’s your brother, or your mate, as in my father’s case. The man that stole my mother with his millions (at a time my parents were financially destitute and heading to bankruptcy) was a married man that my father once considered a friend.

    I watched adultery break my father. I have watched it destroy his health. I have watched him pine for my mother and even now, twenty years later, he still isn’t really “over” what happened. And yes he’s still a little bit bitter. But he’s not bitter towards women as a whole, blaming the entire problems of the world on women in general. To read some of the comments on this blog when I wrote that above ^^^ it was clear to me that many men on here blamed women IN GENERAL, not one particular woman, on everything.

    What disgusts me, is the comments that I used to see on a different blog, that led me to this one. And the attitude that women are to blame for everything, no matter the circumstance. Misogyny disgusts me. You won’t have to look too hard on here to find some examples of the comments that disgust me. In more recent times, there haven’t been so many. Or possibly, I have come to understand the men on here a bit more and no longer find their comments as offensive as I once did, because now I understand where they are coming from. When I was commenting on this post, and previous ones, I was commenting from a place of deep hurt and anger – my marriage is an extremely difficult one, and although recently things have been going well, I have been through absolute hell, directly attributed to my husband and his addictions. I was absolutely disgusted by the attitude that men are perfect and never wrong, and the woman is always to blame no matter what, because the path that I have walked is so different.

    I trust that clears up your confusion.

    Liked by 1 person

  94. Ace-

    Yes it has cleared up some confusion

    (and btw I think I might have maybe offended u in some way considering how u began the reply, I assure u I didnt mean to do so).

    But I still hold my position about your Nan…I watched my aunt suffer through life after she had given her mind, body and soul to this immoral “thing” that called itself a respectable man, because the “church” told her it was a “godly” decision…please understand that i say this because they knowingly did it to keep both of them in the church because they were quite wealthy and made sizeable donations and that everyone kept regurgitating the same nonsense to her.

    They knowingly twisted scripture after scripture (which is what most Christians do) to lie to her and make it seem like divorcing an adulterer is worse than adultery itself.

    They made it look like the entire thing was equally her fault and that merely complaining about it was akin to blasphemy itself(don’t judge apparently, how convenient)…lying and scheming pigs.
    What made me even more disgusted is that the church also chimed in to deceive this poor woman that her predicament was “planned by god” to “test her”. Does god really plan adultery?????

    What was also funny was how they kept skipping around what god REALLY thought of adulterers in the bible. They can tell you all the beautiful words u want to hear and take advantage of ur vulnerable state, which is exactly what they did. Strung her along and since she thought they had her best interests in mind, she bought it. Once again she gave her soul to the marriage. The pig itself when asked confirmed that there was nothing wrong with her.

    I don’t think this will surprise anyone but his adultery did not stop there(he wasn’t tired of it, the only reason they stop is if they get bored or tired of it since they’ve gotten what they wanted, then they come pretending to be “touched by god”).

    Ended with her being kicked out of the house, a baby born of his adultery and more “don’t judge” sermons from the church(which was of course still receiving cheques from him). If the word vile needed a description this situation would be it. He is still part of the church BTW…a “repentant” man “willing to reconcile”. I really understand why god wanted these pigs dead.

    That is why I get so puzzled when people say god “wants” a faithful spouse to stay with an adulterer and that is his “will”…if that was the best decision then god would have mentioned it as the best decision in case of adultery. But dyu want to know wat he actually said…

    And that is exactly why I said I have a problem with people like your Nan who, sorry to say, give bad and false advice when it comes to this…it might not be her intention to hurt him…but u have to agree that her advice to “keep” your mother fucked ur father’s life up…that u can’t deny. It is a recurring thing I keep seeing in churches. U cannot condemn someone to this suffering and brush it off by saying “oh god actually wants u to do that”, when in fact he doesn’t. It is injustice. That marriage is no longer pure, it is desecrated and vile. God doesn’t want it to continue. If he wanted it to continue he would have said so. But in fact he said the opposite. Thats why Christians like hiding from the old testament.

    Liked by 1 person

  95. Ace-
    I understand that generalization is a stupid thing that is why I do not do it myself…I was not defending those who generalize in case u might have concluded that

    Like

  96. Ace – I watched adultery break my father. I have watched it destroy his health. I have watched him pine for my mother and even now, twenty years later, he still isn’t really “over” what happened. And yes he’s still a little bit bitter.

    i have seen this over and over. and over. in men.

    women (in general) are very flippant about women committing adultery and think men should ‘just get over it.’ but i don’t think we women can comprehend the permanent depth to which this affects men.

    obviously, i cannot experience this as both a man and as a woman, and my first husband was serially unfaithful to me … but i’ve thought for a long time that unfaithfulness in marriage is harder on husbands than wives, overall. NOT diminishing what it does to wives; been there; done that. just … watching men over time … it’s different.

    i’m very sorry you’ve been through all this, and your dad, too 😦

  97. burnstaicho – My Nan and my church are extremely different to your experiences. I agree, the church you experienced was disgusting and vile. They will have to account for the things they are doing “in the name of God” one day and I wouldn’t like to be in their shoes.

    For starters, my church does not “tithe”. Our preachers are homeless and unpaid, so very little money is actually needed. Of course the people of the church financially support the ministry, and our preachers go from house to house within the church to stay for a week or so at a time, spreading themselves evenly around the people who have the space to host them. And it’s truly a privilege to do so. But there is no pressure, and it’s not a requirement to attend, and rich people aren’t accommodated simply for their money. Gods word is clear – and my church teaches the word of God just as it is written. People can either take God at His word, and serve Him, or they can choose not to. No pressure. It’s a choice. So my church does not distort the word of God simply to keep the sizable donations. It doesn’t need (or want) donations of people who wish to live outside of God’s word, but proclaim they are Christians.

    I think you’re misunderstanding my Nan’s reasoning for encouraging my father to not kill his brother (aside from not wanting one son dead and another in jail) – she wanted him to show his wife a better way – and when he did, he had an incredibly happy marriage. Both my parents have said those years when we were a little family, happily attending church, were the best years of their lives. And my sister and I had the best childhood anyone could ever hope to have. So many people I know had unhappy, dysfunctional childhoods.
    My Nan’s encouragement was also the catalyst needed for my Uncle to eventually come to repentance, beg forgiveness from my father, apologise to my mother for assuming she was a slut he could bed at will, come to church, find a wife, treat his wife well for the entire 30 years they have been married so far, raise two daughters, and now two grandsons to know God.
    And obviously, without my Nan’s advice, and my father choosing to heed it, I wouldn’t be here, and neither would my sister, so I can never agree with you that my Nan’s advice made my Dad suffer. It didn’t. It made him incredibly happy, a proud father, now a proud grandfather, and brought him away from alcohol and back to the Lord. When he dies, his faithfulness will be rewarded.

    Obeying God’s word – whatever it is – DOES bring reward. It also brings immense peace and an inner joy that can’t be described but must be experienced.

    Liked by 1 person

  98. And one more thing – the church I go to does not condone divorce and remarriage.
    Obviously there will be some unique situations that are going to be between the person/couple themselves and the Lord, but on the whole, if a person divorces, they then remain single, as they are still married in the eyes of the Lord. I am not near my Bible to give verses to back that up, but I can find them later.

    Like

  99. I’m mostly in agreement with burnstaicho on this, and I think Ame’s comment is correct also. God wisely decreed in His holy law that adulterers should both be killed. Martin Luther lamented when the ruler over his locale quit executing all adulterers, that they were on a slippery slope to depravity. And today we certainly live in an adulterous generation.

    I haven’t studied this, but, I have heard it argued by some, that Old Testament Adultery was only between any man and a married woman. That any man, even a married one, having sex with an unmarried woman actually created a marriage bond, whereby she would become one of his wives. It even seems plausible that God might view sexual sins as having a different gravity between men and women. When a wife has sex with an unmarried man, they are both to be put to death. I would presume, both are killed for their capital sin against the husband. Whereas when a married man has sex with an unmarried woman she became his wife, and he was still required to provide for the sustenance of his other wives equally as well as before. It would have behooved wives back then to provide their husbands with plenty of service, so that he was less likely to take on additional wives and to then split the resources of the husband with more wives, and to split her children’s inheritance with the other wives’ children.

    I’ve often wondered about Jesus forgiving the woman “caught in adultery”. I have heard it was not lawful to stone just one person for adultery.

    … my Uncle to eventually come to repentance, beg forgiveness from my father, apologise to my mother for assuming she was a slut he could bed at will
    Ace, if I understand your sordid tale correctly, the assumption is fact, your mom is a slut/whore/adulteress and your uncle did bed her according to his own will, with her agreement, and so did the rich dude, later, as she “monkey branched” swinging away from her real husband on up to a higher economic level while morally debasing herself, and she is today still living in a fully adulterous relationship.

    I also hear you telling all this “wonderful stuff” that came about, as though the ends justify the means, or that we should make our judgments based upon future possibilities, as opposed to basing justice on the actual known reality of what has transpired. I think your Nan chose to subject your father to a lifetime of unjust torment(possibly leading to an early death) to keep an incestuous adulterer alive, and prevent God’s justice. Your Nan wrongly chose your man-whore uncle over his innocent brother. She chose to keep her son alive rather than to let justice be served. In general, I despise foolish parents who think their kids should be kept from their fair punishment. I believe Nan should have handed your father a loaded rifle, loaned him their car, and told him to make sure he killed both of those sexual reprobates. It would have neatly cleaned up the situation, and sent a good warning to others. Just because your existence is as a result of this lapse of judgment, does not make it right. I don’t like our feminized churchianity that insists on throwing out God’s justice in favor of our feelings(influenced by Hollywood) and silly speculation about greater good being the result of evil. Was it merciful of your father to let your mother live to whore herself out further, storing up greater damnation against herself, and all who refuse to condemn her evil, instead of letting her pay for her crime with her own blood? Or was it permissive? You cloud clear matters when you leave off of what has actually happened, and insist that judgment should take into account the unknowable. In the end you can spin anything into a wonderful or horrible tale, and people ruled by their emotions are oh so prone to that sort of fanciful one-sided idealization or catastrophizing to justify what they feel is right, instead of following God’s set rules.

    Like

  100. Sharkly – Yes my mother is a slut. And yes she is still living in an adulterous relationship with a previously-married man (and she’s still legally married to my father, just to complicate things further). But there was a wee bit more to it that made my Uncle apologise, but I’m not going to go into it on here. And she was not a slut when she was actively serving God – she was truly faithful both to God and to my father for 25 years. Looking back, I can actually see the gradual change in her, when she started to let Satan pull her away, just before she had the affair when my sister and I were teens. So while burnstaicho is likely right that people don’t change, and often will pretend to, God *can* change people, if their hearts are open to it. He *can* over-ride their human nature. That’s basically what being a born-again Christian is.

    My Nan would never, ever, condone murder. Nor would she ever encourage anyone to break the law (sleeping with your brothers wife is not a legal defense for murder here in NZ). She also did not own a gun, although my father did. He took it out to the car with him, when it wouldn’t start. But don’t make the mistake of thinking that my Uncle got away with what he did. He didn’t. But again, not something I’m going in to on here. His repentance was very real.

    My Nan also encouraged me to stick with my husband, even though she knew what was going on behind closed doors. Her heart broke for me, but she encouraged me to stick with him, all the same. She had experienced an extremely difficult marriage herself – not all at the hands of my Grandpop (although he did cheat on her, verbally abuse her, hit her, and allow one of their sons – the Uncle who slept with my mother – to hit her). She was subject to intense abuse by my evil mother-in-law in the very early years of her marriage. But she stuck it out, and she once told me that those terrible first years were what brought her back to the Lord.

    I also agree with Ame, and I’ve said it on here before, that I think men are more affected by infidelity than women are. I mean, women are deeply, deeply hurt by it. But men, I think, are hurt worse. I’ve explained my reasoning for that on here before, but basically, it’s to do with the bond women form with the man she’s having sex with and her inability to detach emotionally from it.

    Like

  101. Reading back through these last few comments again, it appears that men, even Christian men, believe those who commit adultery should be killed. Please point me to the relevant teachings of Jesus that state this, because I must have missed it in my Bible readings. I am aware of the Old Testament law, but Christians today are not under Old Testament law.

    Like

  102. My Nan would never, ever, condone murder.

    I wouldn’t have called that murder. Cicero wrote:
    There is indeed a law, right reason, which is in accordance with nature ; existing in all, unchangeable, eternal. Commanding us to do what is right, forbidding us to do what is wrong. It has dominion over good men, but possesses no influence over bad ones. No other law can be substituted for it, no part of it can be taken away, nor can it be abrogated altogether. Neither the people or the senate can absolve from it. It is not one thing at Rome, and another thing at Athens : one thing to-day, and another thing to-morrow ; but it is eternal and immutable for all nations and for all time.
    I won’t call any man who kills those who cheated his marriage vow a murderer for carrying out the will of God. We wouldn’t be such a cucked society today if men didn’t surrender their God given dominion to feminist bigotry made into “laws”.

    Like

  103. The commandment is – Exodus 20:13(AMP) You shall not commit murder (unjustified, deliberate homicide).

    Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

    God insists that the adulterer and the adulteress both be killed, and it isn’t unjustified to carry out the will of God, in spite of what your own jurisdiction might now say.

    Jesus said:
    Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    I’m not saying that the jurisdiction you live in will not consider that murder, but God, who commanded that they be put to death, does not.
    Adultery will continue to grow more frequent as it continues to go improperly punished, even unpunished, in fact adulteresses are now even being rewarded with large rewards via our God-defying divorce-courts.

    Like

  104. Ace-
    “it appears that men, even Christian men, believe those who commit adultery should be killed. Please point me to the relevant teachings of Jesus that state this, because I must have missed it in my Bible readings. I am aware of the Old Testament law, but Christians today are not under Old Testament law.”
    This is a common misconception people have, and it is fed to them, yet again, by their “trusted” pastors.

    Jesus teaches “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17). Pastors like to distort the meaning of the word “fulfill” to, ironically, make it look like the word “destroy”.
    To fulfill is to “render complete/done”. When you fulfill your country’s law you do not destroy it so that its not applicable for other people, u simply “do” it. To fulfill- do as required, complete or carry out a task or request.(see dictionary meaning).

    Jesus teaches again “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18).” I can assure u that u are very much still under that law that u claim doesn’t apply to u.
    Jesus teaches yet again “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these laws, and teaches men so, shall be called least [by those] in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19). We all know what is being taught in churches. Remember we were told in Jeremiah 23:16 “Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you;
    they fill you with false hopes.
    They speak visions from their own minds,
    not from the mouth of the Lord.” And I am sure u know wat exactly is from he “mouth of the lord”. And we are also told in Jeremiah 23:17 “They keep saying to those who despise my word, ‘Don’t worry! The LORD says you will have peace!’ And to those who stubbornly follow their own desires, they say, ‘No harm will come your way!’”… The perfect description of a pastor.
    Its funny that the very things Jesus said not to do are the things most Christians pride themselves in doing

    So yes Ace, you are very much still under the same law…God wasn’t stupid to waste his time making it…

    And I very much agree with Sharkly when he says “Martin Luther lamented when the ruler over his locale quit executing all adulterers, that they were on a slippery slope to depravity. And today we certainly live in an adulterous generation.”
    And do not even think for one moment that these pastors do not know this. They know the repercussions of their doctrines but they are more interested in establishing and securing themselves in secular countries that are hostile to God’s views…so they are more worried about not rubbing the perverts the wrong way than actually saying it as it is, lest they be put out of business.

    Sharkly-

    “I’ve often wondered about Jesus forgiving the woman “caught in adultery”. I have heard it was not lawful to stone just one person for adultery.”

    The reason you are confused about this story is because its actually a false one…it didnt happen. Even the church acknowledged that it was made up. Its actually quite well known by people who read and research the bible I’m surprised u don’t know it. From the fact that it was not originally part of John’s account as it was falsely attributed to john hundreds of years after the original accounts of the disciples were found…through to the fact that none of the other disciples have this so called “situation” in any of their accounts(u can check the bible)…up to the fact that even the church admitted that the passage was added by an “unknown” scribe(if u get a serious and detailed bible they will tell u but most just say its not original to john).
    But u don’t need to know all that information to conclude that the story is not only false but also contradictory. U need only examine it as I’m going to show u below. Keep in mind this story is prized by the pastors because it lends strength to their lies. Let us examine it;

    1. The law DICTATED that an adulteress was supposed to be killed WITH the adulterer. The pharisees were EXPERTS on the law…they knew this had to be done…and the society practiced it as well…but for some reason the story tells us only the woman was “brought forth”…this completely conflicts with the law at the time, even according to Jews themselves….pastors will try to lie to u that Jesus was trying to “point out” the “injustice”. But that could simply have been fixed by him saying “bring the man as well”. One would have to dig deep to even think about what the pastors say as sound logic. That and because that is simply not how the Jews at the time carried out punishment for that crime….confused?….Thats coz it didnt happen.

    2. Then the story “claims” that Jesus says “let he without sin cast the first stone”….huh???????? When God was making these laws, did he not know that people sinned…was he too dumb to figure that out??…does the fact that one has sinned override their obligation to follow God’s laws??…do they not see that refusing to follow God’s laws just so that they can get away with their crimes is corruption?….r u conspiring to sin against god and excuse urselves of his punishments so that u can live in comfort? Do u not see that that is corruption and injustice? Are u really loyal to god or to yourself? Before u question yourself I want to remind u…the story didnt happen

    3. Pastors like saying that the pharisees wanted to “trick” Jesus …trick him into doing what…following the law???? Huh???
    Isnt that what Jesus is telling the people to do in the first place? I say the pastors are the ones tricking u…into believing a story that didnt happen.

    4. We can even give the story the benefit of doubt…let’s just say yes, the people were sinners…but Jesus wasn’t. Jesus was sinless, and by his own words(not his words of course since the story didnt happen), he was obligated to kill this adulteress. He was sinless…apparently only the sinless should follow God’s laws(huh???)…he was sinless why didnt he kill this adulteress? Did he blatantly refuse to follow God’s law, the same law he is telling people if not followed will send them to hell? Did he do something that would not only make the adultery situation worse(contrary to his father’s wishes) but also is in line with the devil’s objective of making adultery “tolerable” in society? Are u accusing Jesus of having the same plans as the devil? Be careful….
    And btw the fact that everyone was a sinner was not new, the old testament keeps saying it…its not something people realized only then…lol. “And they walked away one by one”…nonsense…if this story were true Jesus would have been killed there and then for blasphemy and refusing to follow God’s law.

    5. Another thing (and I find this one very funny) that the story “alleges” is that Jesus bent down and “wrote” something on the ground…however none who were around, even the highly educated pharisees, were able to understand it…this of course is meant to give the story a “deep” kind of atmosphere saying how men cannot understand Jesus and what not. If Jesus came to teach us why would he write things we do not understand lol.

    6. And lastly the pastors like chorusing the “alleged” phrase they “claim” Jesus said…”neither do I judge u”…huh???????? Sorry but god already made that judgment…and basing on his judgment, which is supposed to be perfect, we are supposed to act. We aren’t judging, we are simply following rules given to us, because if we don’t not only will we damn our society and ourselves, we shall be committing the crime of direct insubordination to God. And that is only the surface of the effect of not following God’s laws.
    And if I’m remembering correctly, didnt they say Jesus was God?…so technically he is the one who made the decision to put adulterers to death in the first place. Are they accusing Jesus of having dementia.

    And would god tell people to do something he knows is a sin, only to send them to hell later for doing it?? Are they accusing god of treachery??

    So yes, Sharkly, the story in fact did not happen…I could describe how dangerous the accusations pple make when they accuse Jesus of doing this…but that would take an even longer reply than this.

    Liked by 1 person

  105. Sharkly-
    “in favor of our feelings(influenced by Hollywood)”

    Very true…the west (im not from the west like u guys, so I think I can give u an “outside” perspective) has been fed a false morality especially by their “entertainment” and “news” sector. They then champion this false morality and claim it is “progress” and “civilized”. People are killing unborn babies left and right yet the people who are supposed to be killed are here ruining people’s lives.

    I keep telling people that if the devil is real then he is surely not relaxing on his reclining chair sipping a “cold one with the boys”… He is surely working hard.
    And who better to work through than the secular man…convincing him that God’s ways are “barbaric” and “backward”. And that the ones advocating for them are “crazy” and “brainwashed”. And not only stopping there but also infiltrating the church to subvert God’s will, and make people follow pretty words…instead of actual laws.

    “God insists that the adulterer and the adulteress both be killed, and it isn’t unjustified to carry out the will of God, in spite of what your own jurisdiction might now say.”

    True…just because a secular (and spectacularly sinful) country says it is weird not to tolerate their vile ways doesn’t mean God does.

    “The commandment is – Exodus 20:13(AMP) You shall not commit murder (unjustified, deliberate homicide).”

    This is also true

    Liked by 1 person

  106. Men, you waste your time.

    Women do not reason. They were created to serve 1 man, to bear his children, to keep his home- and in all things to submit to him. They are feeling creatures. They spawn a desire for sex, largely hormonal- it is not reasoned. “Baby rabies” are real, and do not come from some conscious 2+2=4 line of reasoning. They feel out what a child needs- imagine trying to negotiate with a newborn. There is a funny visual.

    They feel- and they are not wrong to. The Lord created them with a purpose and task and gave them the appropriate toolset to accomplish it. They have minds, they have free will, but they were not created to reason like you or I- tasked with dominion over this Earth (macro) and our flocks (micro). You waste your breath.

    It is this feeling nature of women, this appeal to emotion, that Satan perverted in the garden, and perverts today. They are clearly labeled as the weak link in Creation, and should be shamefaced about it. Again, they have the tools they need to be successful: God’s direct instruction to submit- in all things- to their husband. They are safe there, because it is their place of duty. God makes no mistakes.

    You have clearly laid out a line of reasoning, firm, QED, there are no gaps. Do you think you have somehow changed her mind? You have only made the woman huffy. Her shit-test- conscious or not- was to spark conflict. Either she assumes a position of authority, or she pits one authority against another in a no-win situation. In either situation, she will scapegoat in the end to avoid responsibility for her agency, hiding behind an authority (her pastor, her father, her husband, her group of girlfriends) of some kind. You have breathed on a spark, now it is a naissant flame.

    Furthermore, you know- being men of the Word- that it is not your place to issue spiritual guidance to any woman who is not entrusted to your flock. You bemoan the poor teaching of pastors who assume an improper spiritual relationship with the women under your care, and yet you commit the same error on this blog. Ignore these women, for they are spiritual harlots. They are to chase their spiritual understanding from their husbands. However right or wrong the husband- it is his place of duty and his role to fulfill.

    By ignoring them, you do not get caught up in their sin, and serve the purpose of helping them settle back to him as they should have done from the outset. Those who do not have husbands? They will be judged for their insolence, as God created them specifically to fulfill the role of and all the tasks of being a wife. And judgement belongs to God alone. Stay your course, your race. The road to Hell is littered with the corpses of false believers who- in their hearts- thought themselves Followers of the King.

    Like

  107. Ame-

    “but i’ve thought for a long time that unfaithfulness in marriage is harder on husbands than wives, overall. NOT diminishing what it does to wives; been there; done that. just … watching men over time … it’s different.”

    This is a common misconception…If u went to some of the support forums for victim women u would actually see how extremely these women were affected. Both sides have serious effects, some ending in suicide(yes some do). But I think that because people are “used” to women crying they just think “oh…its just another fit”…so they ignore

    Like

  108. Ame-

    “but i’ve thought for a long time that unfaithfulness in marriage is harder on husbands than wives, overall. NOT diminishing what it does to wives; been there; done that. just … watching men over time … it’s different.”

    I would relate this to the assumption most people have that men are not traumatised by sexual abuse when they are young.

    Like

  109. burn, tread lightly on your assertion that something in the Bible, is not actually in the inspired Word (original manuscripts). Re 22:18-19. Yes, neither you nor I were around when the Word was transcribed from spoken to written, and we were not around for the 2000-6000+ years to ensure chain of custody. We take on Faith that God has preserved His Word, because there is no other stance that can be taken, truly. If there was an error- honest or premeditated- in the work of the scribes, God will judge.

    If you are right about your assertion, you are boldly going forth. Kudos. If you are wrong, however, yours has no stake in the Kingdom that is to come. The over:under on this stance is not worth the risk. Lean on understanding and interpretation that is in keeping with the whole of Scripture- simply removing sections that do not fit your frame or understanding is the path that leads to destruction. It is how we get the Charismatics, the Catholics and the tatted-up dyke Lutheran preachers out in CO.

    The assertion all the way up until the point of Jesus not condemning the woman because she was alone is correct. Going so far as to say the whole thing was made up is the risky proposition.

    The law says to execute the adulterer and adulteress: 100% correct. As she was alone, Jesus- nor any other man- could properly execute the law. Thus, she walks free- but is instructed (as are all the Forgiven) to ‘go and sin no more’. This is the correct conclusion. Full stop. Going any further is ‘looking into’ Scripture, and ascribing details that may or may not be valid.

    It is a tricky road to walk: seeking source understanding (what was the context of the root word in the original language, what was the setting of the context) to properly understand all that was written. We fall into idol worship when we chase knowledge of the Word, instead of the promise of Salvation that the Word brings. Yes, even the pursuit of better understanding of Scripture can be a hindrance when we ignore the purpose that Scripture is to serve us.

    Liked by 1 person

  110. burnstaicho
    APRIL 10, 2020 AT 11:16 AM
    Ame-

    “but i’ve thought for a long time that unfaithfulness in marriage is harder on husbands than wives, overall. NOT diminishing what it does to wives; been there; done that. just … watching men over time … it’s different.”

    This is a common misconception…If u went to some of the support forums for victim women u would actually see how extremely these women were affected. Both sides have serious effects, some ending in suicide(yes some do). But I think that because people are “used” to women crying they just think “oh…its just another fit”…so they ignore

    burnstaicho
    APRIL 10, 2020 AT 11:37 AM
    Ame-

    “but i’ve thought for a long time that unfaithfulness in marriage is harder on husbands than wives, overall. NOT diminishing what it does to wives; been there; done that. just … watching men over time … it’s different.”

    I would relate this to the assumption most people have that men are not traumatised by sexual abuse when they are young.

    – – –

    burnstaicho – your argument is valid and has convinced me you are right. i took a moment to go back to the time my first husband told me he’d been sleeping with prostitutes and how that broke me in so many ways i doubt i’ll ever fully recover.

    since idk how many links Sharkly allows before going to moderation .. i’ll just give this one: https://blendingame.wordpress.com/my-story/ … if you are interested, you’ll find these two posts where i wrote about it in the list at that link: My Story 8: The Truth (3-23-16) … and My Story 9: The End of A Marriage (3-23-16).

    having my daughters, one with special needs, forced me to move forward. but i was so crippled.

    i try to tell women who’ve stayed married, stayed faithful, that they have no idea how much they have given themselves and their kids by doing so. it’s so hard to explain all that was crushed and destroyed and taken away from the three of us (my two girls and me).

    sigh.

    you’re right. i stand corrected.

    Like

  111. burnstaicho – i haven’t read all of your comments but have read enough to know, iirc:

    1. you choose not to be a Christian.
    2. yet you have an extensive knowledge of the Bible.

    can you please explain? i’m always dumbfounded by those who have an extensive knowledge of the Bible yet choose not to be a Christian.

    what causes you to choose against Christianity?

    what do you believe instead?

    Liked by 2 people

  112. The whole point of Christianity is that we *aren’t* under the laws of the Old Testament any more. Jesus died for our sins, so we don’t need to follow the old rules to make us Holy because once we’re born again, God’s Holy Law is now written on our hearts.
    Those Old Testament laws outlined rules for every single aspect of life but how many of them apply today? In Sharia Law in the Middle East a few of them still apply, but according to my Muslim friends only a select few of them still apply. Only the ones that the men want to apply – women rape victims might be sentenced to death, for example, but the male rapist will generally walk free. Both of those “caught in adultery” (if we want to pretend that rape is adultery) are not put to death. So even there, in places which still seem to uphold the Old Testament laws, don’t. And here in western countries we don’t follow any of them at all. We wear mixed fabric in our garments. A great number of Christian men seek out wives from countries other than America or whatever western country they live in. That’s because those laws given to Moses were to guide the people in living holy lives, but now the Holy Spirit living in us guides us instead.

    If ikr is right that the only thing a woman should do is submit to her husband and not think things through for herself and make her own decisions, then my Nan was doubly right in what she told my father to do 40+ years ago – my cheating Uncle was my Grandpop’s favourite child and there is absolutely no way he would have been in favour of my father (who was not the favourite) killing the favourite son.
    As well as that, about a decade prior, my father had an illegitimate child with his then-girlfriend. Her parents forced their relationship to end (my father wanted to marry her but she was only 16) and sent her away to one of those awful pregnant-teenage-girl homes and the baby was put up for adoption. My father made a promise to the Lord then, that if he could meet his son one day, he would bring him to church. So already, my father had a responsibility to the Lord and a reason to give up his drinking (which he started after his son was wrenched from him).

    No matter what way you look at it, killing is never right – ending life is God’s job. He gave the role to certain people, under certain circumstances, but that role was not given to a jilted husband. Even in Old Testament times, there was a trial, and the adulterers were given the opportunity to confess. Chasing after them in a fit of rage and blowing their heads off with a rifle is not quite what God had in mind. There is absolutely nothing Holy about that and no matter what way you twist it, there can’t ever be anything Holy about it. That’s not what Jesus taught. He taught mercy and forgiveness – including the need to forgive your brother.

    Like

  113. Sharkly – If you truly believe that God still wants adulterers to be put to death, why haven’t you killed your wife and the men she cheated on you with? A private investigator could find them easily enough. Why have you chosen a different path? I have read you claim before that you care more about God’s laws than the laws of the land, so obviously the fact that you would go to jail isn’t the reason your wife still lives. If you truly believed the Old Testament laws were still valid, you would follow them anyway.

    And why was my Nan so wrong for encouraging my father to follow the same path you have chosen to follow?

    Like

  114. Wow! There is so much to respond to here, and I have so little time to. However, I most likely will be getting laid off from my job for a while beginning This upcoming Tuesday. So hopefully I’ll be able to work on putting together some new posts then, and responding better to the discussions.

    burnstaicho,
    I did not realize that John 7:53–8:11 was not in the earliest Greek manuscripts and did not appear until a time when great satanic evil overtook the church.
    The pericope is not found in most of the early Greek Gospel manuscripts. It is not in Papyrus-66 or in Papyrus-75, both of which have been assigned to the late 100s or early 200s, nor in two important manuscripts produced in the early/mid 300s, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The first surviving Greek manuscript to contain the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae, produced in the 400s or 500s
    According to Eusebius of Caesarea (in his Ecclesiastical History, composed in the early 300s), Papias (circa AD 110) refers to a story of Jesus and a woman “accused of many sins” as being found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which might refer to this passage or to one like it.

    Apparently the passage may be an apocryphal addition and was not likely written by John.
    However, Like ikr said, we must proceed with great caution when dealing with and teaching God’s word.
    I’ll have to ruminate on that some more. However it would seem like most Biblical scholars tell people to proceed with caution when applying this extremely rare case of questionable text that was seemingly added to the accepted text at a later date, yet uncharacteristically the addition was largely accepted by the church. Yet, modern churchians rush headlong into misusing even that rare suspect passage to grant license for every sort of wicked behavior to be present among their flock.

    ikr,
    Welcome back brother, I have missed you, and your knowledge.
    Furthermore, you know- being men of the Word- that it is not your place to issue spiritual guidance to any woman who is not entrusted to your flock. You bemoan the poor teaching of pastors who assume an improper spiritual relationship with the women under your care, and yet you commit the same error on this blog. Ignore these women, for they are spiritual harlots. They are to chase their spiritual understanding from their husbands. However right or wrong the husband- it is his place of duty and his role to fulfill.

    I would assume you are partly right in that I doubt any of the women on here are here reading and commenting at the request of their husbands. LOL
    I don’t know if I have a flock, besides my own family, or if I do, who would be part of it, but I do feel called to contend for the Word of God and against satanic Feminist bigotry. Some women come and share Feminist talking points, but that then gives me the perfect opportunity to address the current misbeliefs. I made a comment above https://laf443259520.wordpress.com/2019/06/28/horny-housewives-of-the-patristic-age/#comment-237
    Saying:
    You don’t find yourself drawn here to contend with the message because you don’t believe it, but to come rebel against it. But I am happy you are here and enjoy each comment, because they make a much better foil than having to set up strawwomen. So, in a way, you’re being a good helper to me.
    And I do also feel like these women and society as a whole benefit when there are men, like you and I, to put them in their place, when they continually step out of it. It doesn’t bother me to do it. Not one bit. And in a way it does feel like I am practicing husbandry on them. Obviously they wouldn’t likely be here if they and their own husbands were proverbially running on all eight cylinders, which I try to encourage. However, I welcome them to be here and participate in hopes that I can turn them back to their own husbands. Otherwise if they weren’t here, they’d likely be off getting even worse input from some other person who is not their husband either.

    ray,
    My brother ray once backed me up on this. Brother ray! If you are reading this, I am truly sorry I insulted you via private email. Pleases come back. We could all benefit daily from your wisdom.

    Ame,
    I think you get 3 links. The fourth link in a comment will put it into moderation or spam.

    Like

  115. Sharkly – If you truly believe that God still wants adulterers to be put to death, why haven’t you killed your wife and the men she cheated on you with?

    Let me clarify my situation a bit:
    My wife has, beginning on our honeymoon, taunted me that she was happy to suck other men’s penises, prior to our meeting, but that it would be degrading to ever do that for her husband. On our honeymoon she told me that was because she respected them, and that she was committed to never respect her husband in that way. Apparently she told me that just in case I didn’t notice that I’d just received the greatest disrespect of my entire life. Prior to marriage she had cried and claimed she wished she had saved all the fucking and sucking for me.
    I had received nothing but blue-pill churchian training, up until that point, and no doubt I handled that situation wrong by patiently enduring it, thinking that I’d just take her to church and the churchians would help me get that infidelity straightened out.
    About 5 months into our marriage she told me that one of her previous partners had told her I was a bad husband. Curious to know when she had last spoken to the guy, I asked her, assuming it had been some time before our marriage. Only to find out she had been communicating with him just the day before. I came to find out she claimed she had never quit communicating with any of her former lovers, who would still communicate with her. Of course I immediately told her to quit all communication with any male she had ever been attracted to before. And she proceeded to claim I had “issues” for not permitting that kind of open relationship. I honestly might not have objected to her romantic energies being stirred by others, if she was not already regularly denying me sex with no excuse, and rationing sex to me by that point. Within a year we were already in marriage counselling and the pastor was arguing with her that, Sharkly should not even have to ask you to knock it off with these other guys, you should have a desire to honor your marriage vow of forsaking all others.
    Anyhow, throughout our marriage my wife has engaged in online affairs with multiple guys. And numerous pastors have told her to knock that off. She has even apologized for it, but like a dog back to its vomit, later she will claim that she is being persecuted, and cut off from her friends, and that if I wasn’t “defective” she would be able to keep in contact with her prior lovers. To me that indicates that she still has zero desire to ever be loyal to her husband, and that in fact she never ever even intended to be. She has received dick-pics and exchanged enticing photos of herself, that I know of. However, although I also have much other good reason to be suspicious of whether my wife has committed adultery, my wife, who loves to taunt me with that sort of unfaithfulness to our vows, has never admitted to any adultery. And I don’t know whether that is because she taunts me with the worst things she has done to me, and she hasn’t committed adultery yet, or whether that is because even though she is not sane, and is profoundly emotionally stunted, she still has concluded that taunting me with adultery would not be in her best interest. However she has also been seemingly terrified to go to Dr. Doug Weiss for help with her intimacy anorexia, and our marriage, because his practice sometimes uses therapeutic polygraph with their sex addicted clients to rebuild trust and to assure the other partner and perhaps children that they are not at great risk for being exposed to sexually transmitted diseases by the spouse in flagrant disregard for their well-being.

    TLDR: She has not yet given me solid proof of adultery. But, her mind and spirit remain unfaithful.

    Like

  116. So if she gave you solid proof of adultery you would kill her? If not, why not?
    Solid proof wouldn’t be particularly hard to find, though. A private investigator could find it out soon enough, if you really wanted to know the truth.
    FWIW online affairs, to a woman, are pretty much the same thing as an actual real-life affair. It’s an emotional attachment, and it’s a betrayal. Just because tab A isn’t going into slot B doesn’t mean it’s not cheating (from the perspective of a woman).

    Like

  117. Ace, sweetie, Please let me explain this some more.
    I’m a man who has never believed in making threats.
    I’m currently in the midst of a nasty divorce with my evil-addicted wife and a nasty lawyer who have not refrained from even using false accusations to steal my sons from me. They wouldn’t hesitate to use anything else they can get their female-supremacist mits on. I don’t doubt that they will even ask for all of my published online activity. Then the usurping female judge(1 Timothy 2:12) will get to enjoy this site as well. She will no doubt refuse my reasonable request to have my wife see Dr. Doug Weiss with me in the best interest of the Boys. ‘Cuz, Vagina!(it doesn’t matter what law she twists, or precedents she spouts, she worships her own Feminist vagina, and she will obey it, she will make her decision, and it will reflexively be against me and my sons ever having the opportunity to see their mother get the intimacy-anorexia treatment she needs.) Meanwhile I was bereft of my sons for nine months at her hands due to clearly spurious false accusations of a condition that is not even court recognized, and even so, I was resoundingly cleared of it by two specialized licensed professionals. It doesn’t matter that my wife has a diagnosed thought disorder that prevents her from correctly seeing reality, her false accusation was treated as gospel, and even though I am a highly trusted individual, and documented to be free of any disordered thinking, my accurate diagnosis of my wife’s condition will be ignored, ‘Cuz Vagina! I’m at a disadvantage here, because I’m standing before a usurping sexist bigot judge who will reflexively try to steal my inheritance from my parents, my future wages, my sons, and anything else that she can, to give it to a fellow woman, an abusive whore who never ever even intended to honor any of her marriage vow, never did, and in the end the usurper will make me liable for every possible thing she can construe as a man’s portion of a marriage vow, and I’ll be paying it still long after this agent of Satan has collected her paycheck for putting asunder those whom God Himself joined together. I don’t need to give that batch of abusive women, any aid in turning the tables, in their bigoted minds, to claim I’m abusive or threatening, based upon my unpopular Biblical religious convictions. I am not abusive, I do not make threats, and God will be my judge against these uppity Jezebels.

    FWIW online affairs, to a woman, are pretty much the same thing as an actual real-life affair.

    Well fortunately for her, I am not a woman. If she isn’t letting the guy’s dick touch her, then he is just getting used as her Beta-orbiter emotional support critter. Sure it is a betrayal, as all of my marriage has been up to now, but I can easily forgive it if she will ever truly repent of it.

    Like

  118. Ame-

    “burnstaicho – i haven’t read all of your comments but have read enough to know, iirc:

    1. you choose not to be a Christian.
    2. yet you have an extensive knowledge of the Bible.

    can you please explain? i’m always dumbfounded by those who have an extensive knowledge of the Bible yet choose not to be a Christian.”

    I am no stranger to Christianity to tell u the truth, I was born into a christian(catholic) family. The nuclear family I’m from was at least spared from all the misfortunes you guys have faced. But ever since I was young I always felt something was “off” with Christianity…

    I think the first problem I faced with Christianity was the idea of “repentance” and how it was “handled”.
    I realized that in Christianity, a person could commit grievous sin X against other people but still come to church the next day, claim they are now changed and then get off scot free. But I also soon realized that this same person could again commit the same grievous sin X, still come back to the church and again claim that now its for real, be accepted(coz apparently “forgive” 7 times 77 times) and the cycle continues. So from this I derived 2 questions…”what is the limit/maximum number of times this is allowed to happen?” and “how does this 77 times doctrine prevent sin from happening again and harming other people?”

    From those 2 questions I realized that Christianity did not in fact provide a solution to curb the problem of sin but rather seemed to defend and indirectly encourage it(before u flip out let me explain)…after all, they did say “oh everyone’s a sinner” and “oh every sin is the same” and “the Lord’s forgiveness knows no bounds(this suspiciously sounds like something the devil would say to make u feel comfortable about sinning)” and “don’t judge(even perverts use this one, that alone is enough to tell u its wrong)”…these doctrines are a sinner’s paradise!! These don’t stop people from sinning, they in fact encourage it, since they know they’ll be safe!! After all, the lord will forgive them right?! With these in mind a wicked person will take advantage of the situation and bring misery upon the people. They do not help at all…in fact they do the opposite. As we are clearly seeing in christian congregations.

    Another thing I realized is that Christianity treats sinners like they are victims. This is counter productive…it is not only very wrong but also a very dangerous mentality to have. If u tell someone that they are committing sin because “everyone falls to sin” and “we are not perfect”, this only solidifies their mentality whenever they are going to sin that “oh…I’m not doing anything strange, its normal, after all, everyone’s a sinner”.

    Further down the road I realized that, subtly, Christianity kind of did the opposite of whatever God said…in fact, the opposite of what even Jesus said(as shown in my reply to Ace)…I was even more surprised with a certain Christian doctrine of “saved by faith/grace” which according to the pastor meant that as long as u “declared” Jesus to be ur “lord and savior”, u would go to heaven even if u commit the most vile of sins until the day u die, coz apparently “the lord forgives all”. In other words mere being a christian is enough to get u to heaven.
    ….this is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Jesus said when he answered the rich man who wanted to go to heaven. He told him if he wanted to go to heaven, then he should follow the law. Jesus told us we need simply to follow the law, would he lie? Jesus said he is the way, the truth and the light, and in his being the truth, he said this, in his being the way, he said this.
    From this I derived that there was never really even a need for this current Christianity we have now(might sound like blasphemy to some but yes).

    There are multiple other reasons I had obviously, these are but a few. We shall discuss them along the way.

    But after looking at all the doctrines and the deliberate refusal by Christianity to curb the problem of sin(not that we don’t know how, the Moslems are doing it, it surely can be done, fornication and adultery are almost non-existent in moslem countries), I came to the conclusion that if a religion can look at sin taking place and have nothing to offer but pretty words and lies, then that religion is not sanctioned by God.

    U have to understand that the way christainity is preached ensures that the main priority is expansion of the congregation,…that lone fact is what has shaped Christianity’s doctrines from the time is was adopted by the romans. So all these doctrines are more of “crowd control” so that u can all be fooled into being “docile” in the church so that they can “survive” in secular countries(as that is where Christianity is normally situated).

    As for what I believe;

    “what causes you to choose against Christianity?

    what do you believe instead?”

    I believe that God is righteous and just and will always be for the righteous and just. This, I see, is reflected in his decisions in the bible.

    But I also believe that people are liars, and that they are willing to lie about God if it is to achieve a certain goal…this has always been evident, even in the bible. And no religion is immune to this…liars are everywhere, because wicked people are everywhere, the devil makes sure of this.

    And when people lie about God there will always be people who follow, being led on by “faith”…faith in something that might be someone’s lie.

    It is also naive to think that the devil did not, in all those years, infiltrate the church and make up false doctrines that would enable it achieve its goals, the ones we are seeing today.

    That is why when IKR says

    “We take on Faith that God has preserved His Word, because there is no other stance that can be taken, truly. If there was an error- honest or premeditated- in the work of the scribes, God will judge.”

    I say to him that there is in fact a possibility of knowing what is wrong. U can simply sit down, research, relate, project and analyze. Of course in ur analysis u should use TLM…Truth, Logic and Morality. There is a reason why you have a high functioning brain, that reason is to use it.

    ikr-

    U might say that

    “If you are wrong, however, yours has no stake in the Kingdom that is to come. The over:under on this stance is not worth the risk. Lean on understanding and interpretation that is in keeping with the whole of Scripture- simply removing sections that do not fit your frame or understanding is the path that leads to destruction”

    From this I gather that you are trying to “play it safe” by adhering to controversial text…what you are not putting into account is that God might not take too kindly to u not doing anything to actually see if that is his will or not in the first place…u might be promoting lies about him.

    I did not remove the passage because it did not fit my understanding, I removed it because the church itself admitted John wasn’t the one who wrote it and that none of the disciples wrote it. Admitting it would be admitting a lie about God; that he tolerates adultery. This is where I would like to refer u to a question that i have been pondering myself that : If the devil was to infiltrate the church and transform himself into an angel of light, what sin do you think he would defend and make it seem godly defending, hence ensuring that christian congregations are never free of it? A sin God so vehemently hates that his only solution to it is death. What lie would he say to ensure that a state of sin is ever present while making it seem godly to tolerate it?

    Liked by 1 person

  119. Sharkly – Right. So you insist my Nan gave my father terrible advice because she didn’t tell him to kill his wife and his brother (which would go against everything she believed in and also would be against the law) but you won’t kill your cheating wife, either. I mean, I don’t blame you. It’s a truly terrible thing to kill someone. And I don’t blame you for not admitting anything on here, especially under those circumstances. But you do understand my point, don’t you? People DON’T kill their spouses for adultery. Nor do people advise others to do so.
    If you genuinely believed it was biblical for you to kill your cheating wife, and the men she cheated with, I’m fairly certain they would already be dead. It would solve all your problems – and you might even get free room and board for a long while – but if you genuinely believed that was God’s will, you would do it, regardless, because you would know you would be rewarded in Heaven. And your claim that you have no proof is just an excuse. Things like that can be found out.
    You haven’t done that.
    Instead, you have admitted you will forgive your wife if she genuinely repents – and from other comments on here it sounds like you are actively working to win her back (marriage counselling etc.) but you thought my Nan was terrible for advising my father to do that exact same thing. Hypocrite much?

    I’m also not entirely sure that you really believe that the judge will require all your published online activity. Because what you’ve written on this blog (and elsewhere) could so easily be used against you, even without you explicitly stating what you would do if you caught your wife in bed with another chap. If your wife was to claim you are abusive, all she would have to do would be to produce your blog about women staying with abusive men even to the point of death, to prove her point. Of course that isn’t proof that you are abusive (and I’m not suggesting you are) but we both know how courts like to twist things. I’ve experienced the corruptness of the court system, too.

    Like

  120. To be honest I already have forgiven my wife, in my own mind for her online affairs. Like I said above, if those other guys didn’t even get their dick’s touched, then they just got used emotionally and got nothing in return. However to forgive my wife in the sort of way that actually restores fellowship, requires her to be repentant, not for her to convince me that she sees nothing wrong with her behavior and that she’d continue doing it to me if she could.
    My wife lost her relationship with one of her own sisters, because she couldn’t see herself as being at fault for anything and therefor couldn’t give a sincere apology. I explained to her that she was going to lose her sister if she couldn’t give her a real apology for the shit she had needlessly done to her sister, but she just couldn’t do it, and was cut off completely from all communication and contact by her sister a number of years ago.

    But don’t get me wrong, if there was actual adultery the marriage is already severed.

    God’s Holy Law is now written on our hearts.
    Yep, and I gave the verse for it above, and it is in my heart.

    Like

  121. Ace,
    You’re still not getting it. I am the image of God. You’re not. I am the real deal that you came here hoping to find. You can shit-test me till kingdom come, and I’m not backing down from that.
    Even though I may fail in my behavior, I will live for God, in fear of God alone, and I expect I might lose everything in this world and die a martyr for my Christ. I have counted the cost. And I am ready to die to myself, die to this world, and die to this mortal life. I don’t believe in threats and so I don’t make them. Nor will I, just because you falsely state what I will or won’t do, call me a hypocrite, or whatever else you may say. I have a spiritual war to wage, and I will wage it, not as you can see, but it is waging unseen. I don’t win in this life, I get an immortal crown. I won’t win in cunt-court, but I will reign with Christ. I am a god, an adopted son of God, and I fight for my Father and do His will. The cunt-court can’t touch this. Cue the M.C. Hammer!

    Like

  122. Ace-

    “There is absolutely nothing Holy about that and no matter what way you twist it, there can’t ever be anything Holy about it.”.

    There is nothing holy about getting rid of unholiness?…huh?? Oh and btw christian countries used to put adulterers to death up until governments became secular…so yeah…it was considered holy by them, but barbaric by secularists…so choose who you side with wisely

    “The whole point of Christianity is that we *aren’t* under the laws of the Old Testament any more. Jesus died for our sins, so we don’t need to follow the old rules to make us Holy because once we’re born again, God’s Holy Law is now written on our hearts.”

    Where do u get this, the bible or ur pastor?
    I believe I have already explained the main issue with this false assumption.

    ikr-

    Ace’s problem is one which is reached because pple don’t bother to research and just take other people’s word for it, people who also haven’t bothered to make sense out of the things and just hear doctrines. She believes the same thing Jesus said not to believe…either that or she just blatantly doesnt want to believe even with the proof in front of her…I think she just chose not to read most of what I said.
    The people literally asked him if they should abandon the old law and he said no.

    Ace-

    “In Sharia Law in the Middle East a few of them still apply, but according to my Muslim friends only a select few of them still apply.”

    I don’t know if that friend was just trying not to scare u away from islam but in moslem countries with moslem governments sharia is enforced. Aggressively in fact. That is the reason
    conservatives make a lot of noise about it. And that nonsense that rape victims are forced to marry their attackers is obviously propaganda against Islam by the people against it, I’m constantly surprised that people keep falling for this. The punishment for rape is death in Islam.
    And yes they still cut of people’s arms for stealing. Another thing I find funny is how these religions keep going back and forth saying that the others are wrong they are the ones who are correct.

    “Both of those “caught in adultery” (if we want to pretend that rape is adultery) are not put to death. So even there, in places which still seem to uphold the Old Testament laws, don’t. ”

    This is false, Saudi Arabia has been having rows with the human rights body over the fact that they still put adulterers to death. Even iran and some others of those aggressively Islamic nations. You should also research on the Brunei saga where the west tried to bully Brunei into not following those laws.
    And btw just because people “stop following God’s laws” doesn’t mean God’s laws are now false…no, I don’t know how u even come to that conclusion. Should christians just say that “OK fornication is now OK” just because most people do it?
    “God’s views on morality do not apply now because everyone’s immoral”…no…that is nonsense logic.

    “We wear mixed fabric in our garments. A great number of Christian men seek out wives from countries other than America or whatever western country they live in. That’s because those laws given to Moses were to guide the people in living holy lives, but now the Holy Spirit living in us guides us instead.”

    Another thing I’ve realized where pastors are able to confuse people is when it comes to the ceremonial and moral laws given to moses.

    Because people do not do research, they do not realize the Torah was actually separated into moral laws and ceremonial laws. Moral laws like “no incest” and ceremonial laws like ” don’t mix fabrics”…the best lies are those mixed in truth…the truth of the matter was the ceremonial laws were exclusively for the Jews to differentiate them from the people neighboring them, the moral laws however , applied to even the gentiles in their societies and also the societies they took over.

    Because people do not know this they buy the lie that even the moral laws were exclusively for the Jews…so I ask u Ace…now that we are no longer under that law, am I allowed to have sex with my sister? I know u might say “if the holy spirit is guiding u then u won’t”…what a convenient answer, to which I ask the question, “what if I believe the holy spirit is guiding me”…since u also believe u are “born again”(I would very much like ur reason for believing this)…and also tell me why your belief is right and mine is wrong.

    Liked by 1 person

  123. Ace-

    “Sharkly – Right. So you insist my Nan gave my father terrible advice because she didn’t tell him to kill his wife and his brother”

    My original point (I think it was misinterpreted) was that ur Nan was wrong to tell ur father to stay with ur mother. That was not the best advice and it will never be. And if ur dad had killed them he wouldn’t have been wrong in God’s eyes. Unless ur accusing God of treachery, telling people to do what he knows is sin and then sending them to hell after.

    Liked by 1 person

  124. Ace-

    Honestly I’m really surprised that u think not killing adulterers has always “been on people’s hearts”…its been practiced by societies all over the world, its actually “written on their hearts” in your own words…not killing adulterers is a recent development btw…in fact it was strange when governments stopped enforcing the penalty, coz pple knew the effect it would have.

    U shd really research about the topic of “false morality” championed by the devil now that ur in quarantine, ur bible itself tells u that the devil is the prince of this world, it would only make sense if majority of the people followed the devil’s morality while pretending its that of god…after all…he can transform into an angel of light.

    Liked by 1 person

  125. burnstaicho – The Bible itself tells me that we are not under the law but under grace – Romans 6:14.
    Back in Old Testament times, the penalty for sin was often death – we are not under that penalty anymore, because Jesus died on the cross to free us from that. Obviously that doesn’t give us licence to sin, but it does mean the Old Testament punishments no longer apply.

    Nobody needs a Holy Spirit guiding them – or a Bible – to tell them that having sex with their sister is wrong. Instinct alone should be enough there. Those few sick people who think it is okay quite likely have some kind of mental disorder – when I did my Psychology degree I studied this. Caught early enough, people can be rehabilitated successfully.

    Where did I say your belief was wrong? A belief is a deeply personal thing which can be neither proven nor disproven. It’s not something that can be “wrong”. It just *is*.

    You ask why I think I’m born again. It’s not actually terminology I generally use. Fundamentalists like the term, so I usually try to avoid it. But I made my choice to serve the Lord when I was 15 and I was baptised (full immersion) the next year. I’m sure you understand the symbolism of shedding the old life and being raised up out of the water in the new life. I know God – I have a personal relationship with Him and the entire point of my life as a Christian is to allow the Lord to mould me and make me more like Christ every day. Some days I don’t let Him mould me very much. Other days better progress is made. And some days I slide backwards completely and all of His good work is undone. Matthew 22:36-40 Jesus tells us the first and greatest commandment. I do that. It’s the cornerstone of being a Christian.

    I have a number of Muslim friends. Some of them are from India, a few are from Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq – the ones from the Middle East came here to New Zealand as refugees. They have all told me the same thing: not that rape victims are forced to marry their attackers, but that they are sentenced to death, while the rapists walk free. There have been a number of high-profile cases in the media, but these women tell me that it is quite common. Because they are refugees, they are from war-torn areas, so perhaps the way Sharia law is carried out in less war-torn countries may be different, but this was their experience.

    Like

  126. burnstaicho,
    Thank you for telling me that John 7:53–8:11 was not in the original Greek manuscripts. The story of Jesus forgiving an adulteress who is neither recorded as being repentant or expressing any faith, always seemed uncharacteristic, nor did it seem characteristic for him to help somebody dodge the consequences of their sin. The thief on the cross confessed that he was rightfully being punished, and that Jesus was innocent, and expressed great faith in Jesus Christ and his heavenly kingdom, and yet he was still left to die on a cross and pay the full measure of torture and death for his thievery. The tax collector paid back many fold what he had cheated, as the law said he should. Submission to God’s law seems to be part of repentance from lawless behavior.
    Although I will study the subject more, my spirit was always at enmity with that passage. And I saw it used to deny people the right to hold anybody accountable, and to promote lawlessness, and to make Jesus into a preacher of easy grace who would also rob the cuckolded husband of justice. When I briefly looked into it and found that it first appeared in Latin translations in the late 300’s AD and then only later was added into Greek texts, I detected the fingerprints of the Great Whore of Rome all over it. I wanted to tear my clothes and shout blasphemy!
    Perhaps you know more about it and would like to put together the text for a post. If you take the time and paste it into my contact form, I will post it here.

    Like

  127. Ace,
    While your family story is sordid, some of it seems to be full of iconic man-o-sphere truisms.

    Thank goodness you aren’t easily embarrassed. The part about your bad-boy uncle who slapped around his own mother(a capital offense) yet was favored by his father, and whom your own mother would willingly spread her legs for, to have incest, versus your dejected father, whose own mom talked him into further denying what was written on his heart, and accepting being cuckolded instead, just like how she had accepted the pimp hand, from the favored Alpha brother. You could almost write your own red-pill diary. The story is disgusting, yet fascinating, if it’s true. After having a floozy mom who just walked away from the cuck who took her back, and how she still has a legal marriage to your simp father, years after leaving him to ride his rich buddy’s dick, how you didn’t come away red-pilled, is a real head-scratcher. I’m not trying to knock everybody in your family’s suffering, but you should write a book or an opera about them. People would pay for the voyeuristic entertainment aspect of such a painful yet enthralling true intra-family soap opera. Plus New Zealand is just a good movie location. I also would offer you the opportunity to write up some more detail about that and paste it into my contact form, and maybe I can make a grand red-pill object lesson out of all that iconic red-pill proving weirdness.

    Like

  128. Ace-

    “The Bible itself tells me that we are not under the law but under grace – Romans 6:14.
    Back in Old Testament times, the penalty for sin was often death – we are not under that penalty anymore, because Jesus died on the cross to free us from that. Obviously that doesn’t give us licence to sin, but it does mean the Old Testament punishments no longer apply.”

    Again, I think u should put more work to research and try to make sense of the difference between what Jesus himself taught and what Paul(he wrote that book of romans) taught….I think you will find the difference between their teachings quite interesting…in fact u can just google it…the argument is quite common actually…has been for centuries, and is also one of the reasons many sects have been created, some say that Jesus was right and Paul was just trying to entice the gentiles. Others say Paul was right and jesus was wrong(???), anyway lets just say they have ur same point of view.

    Just research about it trust me u won’t be disappointed.

    “Nobody needs a Holy Spirit guiding them – or a Bible – to tell them that having sex with their sister is wrong. Instinct alone should be enough there.”

    If that statement were true and we only needed instinct to know what sin was then we wouldn’t have the fornication problem we have in the west now. Apparently over 93 percent of adults in the west are fornicators(according to organizations that claim they asked). If they knew by instinct then they would not make fun of Christians for trying to enforce virginity. You are forgetting that this so called “instinct” can be twisted by the devil.

    Ur very statement that u had to be born again to “properly” serve god means u actually need to know what god says for u to properly serve him. Did u know by instinct exactly what god wanted? No you didn’t.

    This is an argument that is common among atheists btw idk why it has ended up in the head of a christian like urself. Yes we have a conscience…but like everything good that god has given us, that conscience can be twisted, deceived and falsely reinforced. That is why we need God’s actual word.
    I’m surprised u say this but u and everyone here are convinced that the catholics are wrong…something u would never have known without trying to read the bible.

    Like

  129. burnstaicho – so, if i understand you correctly, because of how people who call themselves christians live and act, you discount the bible?

    Like

  130. Sharkly – do you still have an attny?

    – – –

    the reason my first blog no longer exists is b/c my ex sued me for custody a couple years after the divorce. he had lost his job, and if he gained custody, i would have had to pay him child support. he took it all the way to court. the judge looked at the case and called the attny’s to the bench. then to chambers. after a couple hours in chambers they came out. his attny had said that the reasons for suing for custody were no longer an issue.

    the whole thing was simply because he could. b/c he’d always wanted to sue someone – he loved legal things. and he got to sue me, whom he knew became hyper-stressed over legal things (still do).

    anyway, when he sued for custody, i deleted my blog. i intentionally didn’t keep anything and didn’t allow anyone else to keep anything b/c i didn’t want any chance something would be construed improperly against our daughters. it was a great blog, but my daughters were worth more.

    i had also started a blog for single moms – it was a group blog, and the authors were myself, one woman whose husband had died when her kids were little (they were grown and she had since remarried), one woman whose husband was deployed and how to manage that, and one woman whose husband was incarcerated and how to manage that. it was not a man-bashing blog but an encouragement for women who found themselves raising children alone. i deleted that blog, too.

    this was before archive, so idk if it’s possible to do the same these days.

    if we come out here and find you’ve disappeared, we’ll know why.

    Like

  131. A timely article given the recent resurrection of this thread: https://www.xyz.net.au/does-jesus-support-the-death-penalty/

    burn, you continue to engage and seemingly circle a new angle on the topic. Everything relevant as a response was given in the first message I wrote to you. You have offered no new consideration.

    Sharkly, I have never been gone. Just quiet with responses. The noise of false prophetesses continue to be heard. This garden has cultivated weeds. I love you, brother-in-Christ.

    Like

  132. Ace writes:

    ” … sent her away to one of those awful pregnant-teenage-girl homes and the baby was put up for adoption.”

    With this quote we can see that Ace has drunk the feminist Koo-Aid. Children’s outcomes are horrible when raised by single mothers; teen crime, teen pregnancy, running away from home, emotional issues all are multiple times worse among their children. Also, the worst incidences of sexual abuse occur in single mother homes with live in boyfriends. Adoption is a much better outcome for these children.

    Sure sometimes the Nuns strong armed the pregnant girls into giving up for adoption, but the Nuns had more wisdom and discernment than the unwed mothers.

    Like

  133. Ame-

    “burnstaicho – so, if i understand you correctly, because of how people who call themselves christians live and act, you discount the bible?”

    No I do not discount the bible…that would be a very stupid thing to do lol.
    The correct conclusion should be:
    Because of the way Christianity seems to defend and, through defending, propagates sin better than any other major theistic religion(statistically it has the worst numbers if u were to look at it from a moral point of view), I do not coalesce with Christianity. This and of course multiple other doctrines (like what Ace was saying) that are very untrue but rely on deceiving people through pretty words.

    I wouldn’t be bothered by Christianity because of the way Christians lived and acted if they acknowledged that they were blatantly refusing to follow God’s law, but the fact that they claim they are justified to do so through Christianity is one other thing that made me drop it. After all, i believe only the devil would tell u that its OK not to follow God’s rules. And I’m sure that the church is not free of the devil’s influences.

    Liked by 1 person

  134. Sharkly – Yes, every single part of that story is true. Yes, it is disgusting. There is more disgustingness, but I’m not sure that any more needs to be said – my point was that my father has been treated abonimably by his wife (and others), yet he is not misogynistic or bitter towards women (he is bitter towards his wife, and finds it very unfair that he is not allowed to get re-married per our church’s understanding of the scripture but widowers can get remarried – maybe he should have just shot her and been done with it? He’d be a free man by now). Even more incredibly, if my mother was to have a genuine change of heart and want to come back to my father, I know he would take her back. It’s highly unlikely that she will, because she’s money-hungry and my father is destitute and lives in a caravan at the caravan park and is not very well, but that’s not my point.

    That is why I found your bitter comments towards women in general so distasteful – my father has suffered immensely, yet his attitude is so different. Obviously my father has had a long time to work through his hurt and pain and yours is currently happening so of course the attitudes are going to be different, but when I first started commenting here, my own attitude was different.

    I am probably a lot more red-pilled than what you think. It’s hard, because I have been treated terribly too, so I know that there are abusive men out there as well, and that fact brings my feminist side to the fore. When I read comments such as “if women….” my immediate reactions is “if men….” The truth is, both men and women can be abusive and evil, but we react from our own experiences.

    Like

  135. burnstaicho – When I was younger I didn’t really know much about the Catholic faith or whether it was right or wrong, but my two oldest children attend/ed a Catholic high school and now I know, without a doubt, that the Catholics don’t have it right. This is because of the Masses my children have had to attend, the Religious Education assignments they have done – they study many different religions but with a “Catholic flavour’ (that is: everyone else is wrong and Catholics are right because….. which leads to interesting discussion in our home) But that is not to say that there aren’t some individual Catholics out there who have a personal relationship with God and serve Him. Serving God is a personal thing. Church is just a tool to make it easier (or harder…. depending on the church)

    I *have* researched Paul and Jesus and that Bible passage – hence the stance I have. I have Googled it, I have read different Bible commentaries on it, and different translations of the Bible, and I’ve discussed it at length with different members of our church. I’ve also researched the passage on the woman caught in adultery and brought to Jesus and according to Augustine, that passage *was* in there originally (and it’s in more than 1600 early manuscripts and not in 260-odd) and was taken out so it wouldn’t cause confusion and make people think Jesus was condoning adultery. But Jesus wasn’t condoning adultery at all. I’m not sure how anyone would think He was, if they read that passage correctly.

    No I don’t know by instinct what God wants. That’s what prayer and reading of the scriptures are for.

    Bee – I haven’t actually read all the comments but I saw briefly your comment about teenage mothers etc and I agree – but my father wanted to marry his pregnant girlfriend, and she wanted to marry him. My father was 19 and had a good job, he could have supported them both. It was his girlfriend’s parents who refused to let her get married.
    My husband was adopted and both he and my half-brother have said that many of the issues they have relate to being adopted and that broken bond with their birth mother. They grew up with no sense of belonging and felt they didn’t fit in anywhere, like a square peg in a round hole. Both used drugs heavily in their younger years (they’re only a few years apart in age – born in the late 60s/early 70s). They are both adamant that adoption is NOT the answer.

    Like

  136. Ace,

    “My husband was adopted and both he and my half-brother have said that many of the issues they have relate to being adopted and that broken bond with their birth mother. They grew up with no sense of belonging and felt they didn’t fit in anywhere, like a square peg in a round hole. Both used drugs heavily in their younger years (they’re only a few years apart in age – born in the late 60s/early 70s).”

    ‘The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.’
    Numbers 14:18

    Your husband and your half-brother had no sense of belonging and addiction problems because of the unresolved sins of their birth parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents. If they had not been adopted and had lived with their birth mother they would have had it even harder growing up.

    The sins of their ancestors, not adoption, caused their early struggles.

    Like

  137. So I’ve been pondering some things related to Old Testament law and how it pertains to my family.
    Someone mentioned above, I’m sure, that if a man took a woman’s virginity, he then became her husband, no marriage ceremony necessary. So that means the girl my father got pregnant (I’ll call her ‘C’) was my father’s wife – yes? Because C’s parents wouldn’t let her marry my Dad, she grew up and eventually married someone else. So does that mean she’s committing adultery? I mean, obviously she isn’t – she’s not legally married to my father – but this whole Old Testament law vs modern culture has gotten me thinking. If Old Testament law still applies did C’s parents sin by refusing to allow her to marry my father, and instead made her wait and marry someone else instead when she was older? They were Presbyterian, I think, so should have been fairly familiar with the Bible.

    I’ve met C and she’s lovely. She would have made a great wife for my father. My mother isn’t even a very nice person really (she was way different when she was serving God, but when she lets her human nature rule her, as she is now, she isn’t very nice). If she wasn’t my mother, I wouldn’t even like her, I don’t think.

    This is really confusing to me. I believe that God’s commandments/rules/guidelines still apply (fornication is sin etc.) but not the old punishments, and the “law” is carried out differently these days for cultural reasons.

    If every woman who’s virginity my father took became his wife in the eyes of God, he’s got rather a number of them running around out there so how does that even work?

    Like

  138. Bee – Thank you, that makes sense. I have never thought about that verse in that way before. I’m familiar with the psychology explanations for it (attachment theory etc.) and that makes sense too, but to know that God planned it that way…. it kind of makes the explanation ‘complete’.

    Like

  139. Ame, as I have said, I have counted the cost, and am prepared to lose everything, even my life. I don’t doubt that I could lose all my earthly possessions, lose contact with my children, and even be imprisoned, or killed. But I have no intention of ever deleting my blog. In fact I will soon be opening up another blog that I will link to from here, that will be even more offensive, and name names, and call out the sins of others against God, my marriage, and family. If the court orders me to take it down, I’ll just let them throw me in jail for as long as they want for speaking the truth, and I’ll attempt to have it backed up and hosted by others also, so that I myself couldn’t even take it down if I wanted to. If anybody with computer skills wants to back up my site, I welcome that. It is possible that at some point WordPress might take my site down, but I will not. I value the input from all of you, and I won’t just erase all the time and effort that went into commenting here. I am grateful that Dalrock has at least left his site up, even though he is no longer tending it. Also I feel that much of the discussion here is Bible based, and I would hope that WordPress wouldn’t just delete a religious site, for conflicting with their own religious devotion to Feminism. I’m not afraid of this world! And the more they take from me, the less I have left to lose by battling them unreservedly. So, No, I will not take my blog down. If My wife were to reconcile, and repent, and to claim that my blog embarrasses her, and sweetly ask me to take it down, it will still stay up. I’ll just inform her that if she would have not been a retarded whore, and if she had repented when I asked her to privately none of this would have happened. This is now part of my offering to God, and I am not ashamed of it. For a long while I was even too ashamed to speak of what my wife was doing to me, but I got over that. She has filed public charges against me falsely, she can live with the truth also being out there. Perhaps it might even help her to be reminded to remain repentant and to adorn herself with shamefacedness, like all women should. My wife’s lawyer is a nasty woman, but her continued mortal existence is due to the fact that none of the men she has ever slandered and cheated were ever the nasty men she claimed they were. I don’t have to be nasty, if I’m prepared to be a martyr for the truth.
    In my business at one point one of my investors told me all the nasty stuff the other powerful investors were preparing to do to me, if I didn’t cave on my principles, and informed me I had to cave or they would ruin me. I informed him and others that I was going to keep doing right, and force them to do their evil to me. In the end they were going to take me to court over a whole slew of bogus charges when I didn’t have any money to defend myself. But fortunately for me another minor case came up first, and they lied against me so ineptly that I had proof for any future cases that they and their legal team were in the habit of lying against me just to harm me and my interests. And after gaining rock solid proof of their willingness to perjure themselves against me in that previous court case, the threatened court cases never materialized then, and their statute of limitations is now long past. The point being, I fear no man, and certainly not women. To live is Christ, to die is gain, what can mortal man do to me?

    Like

  140. Ace-

    “I *have* researched Paul and Jesus and that Bible passage – hence the stance I have.”

    So how do u explain why Jesus taught salvation by works and insisted the law still applied but Paul taught salvation by faith alone, not by works and insisted the law did not apply…..these are exactly opposite to each other. I’m curious as to what u think.

    “I’ve also researched the passage on the woman caught in adultery and brought to Jesus and according to Augustine, that passage *was* in there originally (and it’s in more than 1600 early manuscripts and not in 260-odd) and was taken out so it wouldn’t cause confusion and make people think Jesus was condoning adultery.”

    😂i have actually seen Augustine’s “view” on the matter before. Discussed it even, though it was a couple of years back. It was actually quite funny when we discussed it with multiple other people. See the thing is, Augustine’s view was a “theory”. He “theorized” as to why it wasn’t there in John in the first place. He claimed/theorized that it was “removed” (lol) from the earlier manuscripts by “puritan” fathers. You’re taking his theory and making it out to be “fact”. But u see, what was funny was that Augustine, and other “pericope adulterae” apoligists, couldn’t explain why any of the other disciples DID NOT record this particular incident in any of their accounts(can you?) and yet it is a MAJOR incident due to the fact that it contradicted the law Jesus was adamant in telling people was still in application. And the fact that all the disciples were supposed to be “guided by the holy spirit” when writing these scriptures was also another problem presented to them. Why would the holy spirit leave out something so important when guiding the other disciples.

    See, another challenge Augustine had was the fact that the church ITSELF had said, prior, that the passage was added by an “unknown” scribe. Trust me the church has a lot to benefit from this passage(financially) but even they, knowing that people would eventually find out, conceded that it was not in fact John who wrote it.(and btw u should also check out the argument that it was not in fact John who wrote the book of john). They could even have decided to falsely apply it to all accounts of the disciples(we know the catholics are capable of doing that) , and people like u Ace wouldn’t bat an eye. But they knew they couldn’t fight the truth if they were to alter it to that level. So they decided to settle on falsely attributing it to John and saying they “don’t know” who added it lol. But as we can see even that has failed as we know the truth.

    See Augustine NEEDED this passage to be true; Everyone knows that Augustine lived a hedonistic lifestyle. He was a known fornicator/adulterer as he was among those men who boasted about their sexual exploits. But when he saw an opportunity for a post in the CATHOLIC church, he needed validation.
    He knew that this passage would validate him if he insisted it were true. Because there were already complaints about having such a man in the church(we are still seeing reasons why such people shouldn’t be in the church today).
    He worked especially hard to make it seem like he had “personal” relationship with god(in ur own words) and a “deep” understanding of sin (😂i honestly don’t know how people keep falling for all of this crap especially among catholics).
    That is why he made up all that stuff about “original sin” and “trinitarianism”.
    It is the same ploy a hedonist would use to appear “changed” and “saved” by God and that they “didnt know what they were doing”. U really have to be naive not to see this(no offense).
    These are the same tactics Sharkly’s wife used. Honestly the fact that he was a hedonist who wanted to be a catholic “bishop” and was defending this passage is alone to make u not trust him.

    If u need further validation that this passage did in fact not happen, u can look to the Moslems. They also have Jesus as an extremely important character in their Quran. They follow Mary’s life in even more depth than Christians do. They do not even have an inkling of this situation happening.

    Honestly it seems rather obvious to me why Augustine would claim that this passage was removed with no proof at all. In fact, contrary to what the church itself said.
    U have to realize that that was his own opinion and not the church’s official statement. Like I said, they would have benefited a lot from it financially but the fact is its not true. And they knew they couldn’t fight the truth.

    I know u got ur information from “pericope adulterae” apologists..
    But I suggest u get it from actual unbiased sources…for example bible research institutes(not the ones who are trying to interpret the bible for u but the ones who assess the validity of original copies). And I also suggest u go back to when I addressed Sharkly and read through my “let’s give it a benefit of doubt” assessment.

    We cannot pretend not to know why people would support this passage being there….I’m sure Sharkly’s wife would, I’m sure ur mother would and I’m also sure Augustine the fornicator/adulterer would, for obvious reasons😂.

    Like

  141. “The Lord bless you and keep you;
    The Lord make His face shine upon you,
    And be gracious to you;
    The Lord [e]lift up His countenance upon you,
    And give you peace.” ’

    Like

  142. Ace-

    “This is really confusing to me. I believe that God’s commandments/rules/guidelines still apply (fornication is sin etc.) but not the old punishments, and the “law” is carried out differently these days for cultural reasons.”

    First of all, how convenient that the punishments are the ones that don’t apply lol. I’m really confused as to why u don’t see anything fishy with that considering all that has been discussed. I wonder whether its God or the devil who would want sin to go unpunished and hence produce the effects of unpunished sin.🤔

    “Someone mentioned above, I’m sure, that if a man took a woman’s virginity, he then became her husband, no marriage ceremony necessary. So that means the girl my father got pregnant (I’ll call her ‘C’) was my father’s wife – yes? Because C’s parents wouldn’t let her marry my Dad, she grew up and eventually married someone else. So does that mean she’s committing adultery?”

    I also read the post you are talking about and remembered a similar discussion I had again a couple of years back. According to the bible, God recognizes that u are married to someone when u have sex with them. Those little words by a “priest” don’t really have a “magic” effect. Even kids do make believe weddings, does that mean they are actually married? No not really. But they do say the words a priest would say.
    Thats why fornicators when found were supposed to “marry”(go through the ceremony), because they’ve already joined themselves into one flesh in the eyes of God. Just because the devil has perverted society into thinking sex is not important doesn’t mean God changed his mind, for God’s mind doesn’t change Numbers 23:19 (and theologically it would be a fallacy to say an omnipotent and omniscient being’s mind “changes).

    I also think that this is another reason why God is so disgusted by adultery in the old testament(not that he changed his mind in the new testament as people would have u believe).
    To him, this union is something sacred. For someone to pervert this union and connive with sin to add yet another conniver with sin by committing adultery desecrates the whole thing so demonically that the only solution he found to fix it is death. And I think he passed on his view onto us through our conscience so that we could really know how vile it is so that we made sure to do wat he wanted us to do when this situation arose.

    That is my point out view.

    Liked by 1 person

  143. Ace-

    “This is really confusing to me. I believe that God’s commandments/rules/guidelines still apply (fornication is sin etc.) but not the old punishments, and the “law” is carried out differently these days for cultural reasons.”

    A law without a punishment for breaking it is merely a hopeless “suggestion”…God was not such a fool to make laws without punishments to ensure people follow them. That would be a very stupid thing to do, especially when ur dealing with humans.

    Like

  144. burnstaicho – You still didn’t really answer my questions, but never mind. I will try to address your points.

    “So how do u explain why Jesus taught salvation by works and insisted the law still applied but Paul taught salvation by faith alone, not by works and insisted the law did not apply…..these are exactly opposite to each other. I’m curious as to what u think.” – That’s not what Paul taught. I would go so far as to say it’s a gross distortion of what Paul taught.
    No, we are not under the Old Testament law and punishments because Jesus died on the cross to atone for our sins. Paul taught that without faith, we can not hope to have salvation. It doesn’t matter what “works” we do – without faith there will be no salvation. Grace is what gives us salvation – repentance = forgiveness = salvation – they’re the first steps to becoming a Christian.
    Throughout most of his letters, Paul teaches that good works and love flow from faith. Galatians 5:6 – it’s a faithful life that produces good works, that leads to salvation.

    The passage in John about the woman caught in adultery.
    To be honest, I don’t much care whether it’s in the original manuscripts or not. It’s in the Bible, and the Bible, in its entirety, is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16) As a Christian, I believe all of the Bible – as it is written – and that passage is in the Bible.
    But again, you’re grossly misinterpreting it, especially by saying Augustine and other fornicators want it in there. Jesus wasn’t condoning fornication. He was teaching mercy and forgiveness, because the people who brought the woman to Jesus were testing Him on the Law. By Jesus telling the woman that he didn’t condemn her once all the others had left without stoning her, He was teaching the world about the redeeming power of our merciful God. If the people had brought both the man and the woman caught in adultery to Jesus the outcome may have been different but they didn’t, they only brought the woman. I don’t know why that was. There is literally nowhere in the Bible where Jesus condones fornication or adultery or any sin at all, actually.

    “First of all, how convenient that the punishments are the ones that don’t apply lol. I’m really confused as to why u don’t see anything fishy with that considering all that has been discussed. I wonder whether its God or the devil who would want sin to go unpunished and hence produce the effects of unpunished sin.🤔” – why is there anything fishy in believing that Jesus died on the cross to atone for the sins of the world? Jesus died so we can be forgiven without having to give our blood for it as in OT laws. What makes you think sin will go unpunished? There is still going to be a judgement day. We are still going to have to answer for everything that we have done, and the effect that our choices/actions had on generations to come – eg my Nan’s faithfulness has led on to 4 generations so far serving the Lord. Her sister, who was brought up with the same beliefs but turned from them, is now responsible for 4 generations of people not serving the Lord.

    Like

  145. Ace-

    “burnstaicho – You still didn’t really answer my questions, but never mind. I will try to address your points.”

    Sorry but which questions exactly? If u would point them out I would be glad to discuss them…

    Like

  146. Ace-

    “That’s not what Paul taught. I would go so far as to say it’s a gross distortion of what Paul taught.”

    Lol it is exactly what Paul taught. Paul is the one who taught the “Justificatio sola fide”…don’t even try to deny it..he says, Justification is by grace through faith, “not from yourselves” and “not by works”. (Ephesians 2:8-9). This is the opposite of Jesus’ “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the laws.”(Matthew 19 17).

    “No, we are not under the Old Testament law and punishments because Jesus died on the cross to atone for our sins. ”

    I think to fix this little problem we have Ace I am going to ask u a very simple question….Did Jesus teach that the old testament law no longer applied to us or did he teach that it still applied to us?

    “It’s in the Bible, and the Bible, in its entirety, is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16) As a Christian, I believe all of the Bible – as it is written – and that passage is in the Bible.”

    And this is exactly the problem, this blind faith is what will enable u be deceived with false doctrines. Everyone knows not to trust the catholics😂(apparently apart from u). The fact that they altered a lot of stuff in the bible is a poorly kept secret. Even things inspired by God can be altered by human beings, the Jews altered God’s law to include monetary penalties lol. Blind faith is not advised…it is not intelligent. The reason a lot of people are deceived is because of blind faith.
    The devil also knows that u have blind faith….and trust me he loves that.

    “because the people who brought the woman to Jesus were testing Him on the Law.”

    Exactly what I wanted u to say. I actually tackled this particular view in my “benefit of doubt” analysis above…..so Ace, please explain this to us, explain to us how exactly they were trying to “test” him on the law. What were they aiming at? What was their desired end result?

    “By Jesus telling the woman that he didn’t condemn her once all the others had left without stoning her, He was teaching the world about the redeeming power of our merciful God”

    U do realize ur assuming what Jesus was trying to do by this….an assumption I’m sure was told to u by ur pastor….
    And another thing….I thought Jesus was God…God doesn’t condemn adulterers???🤔…according to u he did say “I do not condemn u”… does God not condemn adulterers….did God not take into consideration “redemption” when he was making the law? I would also like these questions answered as I’m trying to answer urs.

    “why is there anything fishy in believing that Jesus died on the cross to atone for the sins of the world?”

    U know this is not what I meant…I meant that there was something fishy for known adulterers to assert that the punishment for adulterers no longer applies lol.

    “Jesus died so we can be forgiven without having to give our blood for it as in OT laws.”

    Hmmmmm….this sounds like something u would tell a congregation u know is immoral to assure them that they will be safe in ur church. R u really sure u don’t see something suspicious there? Coz i see “marketing strategy” 😂(oh btw I hope I can also convince u to look into the actual reason why Jesus died and the challenges to the doctrine that Jesus’ death “destroyed” old testament law).

    “What makes you think sin will go unpunished?”

    My point was grievous sin IS going unpunished…and this is only making the situation worse. U cannot pretend u don’t see that.
    U say “judgment day” but god made it that people would be answerable for their crimes NOW!!! They were not supposed to get away with it in the first place. Let alone WAIT until judgment day…God demanded justice NOW. These “judgment day” promises are, for obvious reasons, meant for “crowd control” in the church.

    Like

  147. Basically the whole “died for our sins so no more law” doctrine is based on the claim that “God changed his mind”…
    But numbers 23 19 doesn’t agree with that….it says when god makes a decision, it is eternal. Something Jesus also said.
    Funny also is that James 1:17 says “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.”

    Like

  148. Ace-

    “The passage in John about the woman caught in adultery.
    To be honest, I don’t much care whether it’s in the original manuscripts or not. It’s in the Bible, and the Bible, in its entirety, is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16) ”

    If its not written by john then it is not inspired by the holy spirit….that is why u should care….as u can see it is already causing controversy….things like “so adulterers can get away with adultery now”….and to combat this the church feeds people that “judgment day” nonsense.

    Liked by 1 person

  149. burnstaicho – Perhaps to prevent us from continuing to go in circles, suppose you tell us whether or not you believe Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world? Because if you don’t believe that, then further discussion is pointless. And if you do believe that, then you will understand Christianity’s stance that we are saved by grace, when we live faithful lives.

    Yes I know the Catholic church is corrupt. That does not negate the truth of the Bible. God is in control. The Bible is His word – our instruction manual for life directly from Him. He is in charge. ALL of the Bible is God’s word, for our instruction. The Bible makes that clear. God is far more powerful than any corrupt Catholics. If there were passages that God did not want in the Bible, they would not be in there.
    Yes, I have blind faith. That is what serving the Lord is about – stepping out in faith, without question. Hebrews 11 makes that clear.
    You tell me to trust you about an interpretation above. Why would I do that when your beliefs differ so greatly from mine? The Bible tells us we will know Christians by their fruits. I am going to continue taking scriptural advice/opinions from people who clearly have good fruit.

    You seem incredibly fixated on that passage in John because you seem to think it’s giving licence to sin. It’s not. I mean, it can be twisted to mean whatever you want it to mean, just like many other verses in the Bible. There will always be people who choose to sin and twist Bible verses to justify themselves (on this blog you will find comments from men insisting the Bible does not condemn porn so wanking off to a dirty movie is fine). That is not a problem with the words of the Bible, it’s a problem with sin.

    If you’re so convinced Paul taught a message contradictory to Jesus, who do you think was correct?
    Paul *didn’t* teach anything contradictory to Jesus because the Bible does not contradict itself. The Bible tells us that. But you like to pick and choose the bits of the Bible you believe, don’t you?

    Like

  150. For my son’s Easter message, I read and then reread the following passage to him while explaining how it applies:
    1 John 3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. 7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; 8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.

    Like

  151. Our brother, burnstaicho, has arrived here condemning the flagrant lawlessness in Christendom and refusing to be named as part of it. He has warned where clearly the original inspired word of God has been belatedly added to(first in Latin) as attested to by both the original texts and the words of the early church. He has contended for righteous living and against presuming license for our sins. He has pointed out that the lawlessness of our current churches mirrors the works and goals of the devil. He has stood up for the righteous and unchanging character of the Father. So far, I have yet to find fault with what he has said.

    I wouldn’t trade my brother, burnstaicho, for ten thousand churchians!

    I also enjoy that I can in fact learn quite a lot right here on this blog, as so many of you men know things I don’t.

    ikr,
    As I laid awake in bed last night I pondered your calling some of the women on here “spiritual harlots”. The longer I thought about it the more I started to see it.
    However I wish you men with good Bible knowledge and good ideas would comment more, otherwise I’m left mostly working with and responding to those who will interact. I really do learn a lot from those who comment here. I find I am able to learn from the wise and knowledgeable, and I can even glean a lesson from those who are unwise and profoundly wrong. But I much prefer when I can find pearls of wisdom. Also, if you would like to submit a post, just email it to me, and I’ll post it.

    Like

  152. Ace-

    I see u have dodged my question yet again…I asked;
    “Did Jesus teach that the old testament law no longer applied to us or did he teach that it still applied to us?”

    Please don’t dodge my question and instead ask more…I have been answering urs.

    “Perhaps to prevent us from continuing to go in circles, suppose you tell us whether or not you believe Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world?”

    I believe people are liars and can spin any narrative about Jesus’ death so as to achieve a certain aim…that is why I told u to research the actual reason Jesus died, what he said about the law and first put wat ur pastor falsely told u on hold….

    Since I know u might not be willing to research, let me just put my research here for u to read, it will be easier this way for u I guess;

    Do you know how the theory of Jesus’ death “saving” mankind from its sins actually came to be?

    It is a little theory called Anselm’s satisfaction theory of atonement, developed by Anselm(of course). It maintains that Jesus had to die a bloody and horrible death on a cross to “save us from our sins”…because God was so angered by our sins and had to receive a kind of “satisfaction”, a kind of payback in order to “forgive us”.

    See Anselm lived in a feudal society, where transgression of the feudal Lord’s law meant u had to “pay back” something to the feudal lord to buy ur “forgiveness” from said feudal lord…that payback was called a “satisfaction”, hence the name of the theory.

    Anselm then took his little society’s legal arrangements and made them cosmic. He said that this is the way even God works. That since sin violates God’s law, they must “pay back” something, in order to “restore the order of the universe”. When Anselm was asked “why doesn’t god just say ‘I forgive u’?” he said “it wouldn’t restore the order of the universe because we have to repay God’s honor” as it also applied in his feudal society where the payment was to restore the feudal Lord’s honor for breaking his law. Not justice for the victims, but honor for the lord. That is how he sets up the dilemma that human beings must “pay back” God for their sins.

    Here, we are in Anselm’s theoretical bind. As Anselm put it, “Only we must pay back, but only God can.” he says. So God has to send his son, who is divine, to take on our obligation.

    Here’s the last part of the theory: Jesus Christ is sinless, and therefore doesn’t deserve to die. But humans deserve it because we have sinned. If Jesus had just lived his life of pure obedience to God and then was taken up into heaven without going through death, the debt would not be repaid, because every person owes God obedience and honor.

    So to him, innocent Jesus had to die a violent and bloody death on a cross in order to “pay back” something to God that God was “owed” but that we “couldn’t pay back”. Jesus shares this satisfaction with all his sisters and brothers who are sinners, and that’s how we’re all saved.

    What’s wrong with this theory?
    The satisfaction theory makes Jesus’ death seem neccesary. But no one has to die for God to enact mercy. He is God, he could just say “I forgive u”.

    Another thing is that God’s law doesn’t punish wicked people for his own “satisfaction”(he is not some kind of sadist), but to enact justice for the wronged, punish connivance with sin and also prevent sin from overwhelming the people. The punishments do not serve to provide some sort of gratification, that even an innocent person will do “as long as I’m gratified”. No…if adulterers commit adultery, the adulterers die, if murderers murder, they are the ones supposed to be killed. Not their innocent brothers. Its not some kind of fetish.

    Another thing also is that this is not how God operates throughout the old testament. God’s laws punish the guilty and those who condone, not the innocent who are not connected to the sin. God punishes wicked people, not innocent people…God didnt punish an innocent couple’s child because someone in a neighboring country committed adultery and then told the adulterer “ur sins are forgiven”….even in our societies conviction of innocent people is called injustice….would u say a man falsely convicted of rape should be glad because he has “suffered for the sins of rapists”, would you punish ur innocent son for the misdeeds of ur guilty son?

    If God is a loving god, would he punish his innocent son for the wrongdoings of guilty ones? Is that justice really? God said he was a just God. Is it God’s nature to punish innocent people? Even I wouldn’t punish an innocent man when the guilty one was just smacking and licking his lips just next to him. That is just wrong. And I’m merely a human being who is not as just as God.

    Even if the innocent man claims he will take the punishment, the people’s (and God’s) grievances are against the guilty person not the innocent one. Why then would he punish an innocent person while the guilty one looked on so that that same wicked person would commit wicked acts against people and say “oh someone died for me so i can do this, ur not allowed to punish me…im supposed to get away with it, god said so(when in fact pastor is the one who said so)”, …that just doesn’t make sense.

    And all that is before we address ur claim that the “old laws were destroyed”.

    The fact that this “no old laws” doctrine is enforced is an attempt by, first, the Christian pastors to give the congregation a sense of “security” so that they keep coming to church(everyone knows the churchians’ main aim is to bolster numbers) and not “look weird” after committing all those grievous sins since “the price has already been paid”(its so obvious), and, second, by Christians also to push accountability of their actions to someone else and also avoid the idea of being punished for them now.

    These falsehoods were also enforced to ensure that the church(like I explained) would be able to survive in secular societies that were hostile to old testament laws. The lies are so detailed that even “backsliders”(in ur own words) are catered for. They spew pretty words to the congregation like “oh it is only human to sin, it doesn’t matter coz what matters is ur supposed to pick urself up and carry on” ….lol. “But what about the victims?”, the people ask, how about them, their justice? To this the pastors reply “they are supposed to forgive, the old laws don’t apply, u have the spirit of unforgiveness if u don’t let it go “. Wow….god didnt talk about any “spirit of unforgiveness”….I’ve come to realize that christians are shocked when people demand they pay for their crimes. “But I’m forgiven” they say…lol. Just wow.

    U say “Jesus died so that our sins may be forgiven, so the old laws don’t apply to us” but is that what Jesus said?. This doctrine is of course very useful in telling people that the “old laws” no longer apply and that they can be at ease for their adulteries and fornication . Like i said, many Christians are very eager to push away any notions of current accountability for their actions and eat up this “wait for judgment day nonsense”. Because not only do they get to get away with their crimes, it gives them the freedom to do more with a defense. That is why when it comes to adultery and fornication no religion beats the Christians.

    However Jesus did not teach this little doctrine of urs, he did not teach that with his death the old law would be destroyed…in fact he taught quite the opposite as I mentioned above. He taught that the law is eternal.

    Ace I will post this again and again…it doesn’t matter what u may think of me…but these are Jesus’ actual words;

    “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. But I warn you—unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!” — MATTHEW 5:17-20

    The pastors get these ideas from non-Jesus sources and teach them to those who want to hear them. They tell the people that “oh you will be fine, in fact, those people shouldn’t even think about punishing u because ur punishment was already taken by someone else, you are no longer under the law”, they are only too eager to listen to that. Them being told that they can get away with their crimes. They have “itching ears that hear only what they want to hear”, as the bible says, that is to say, their “safety”. Remember I told u Jeremiah 23 16 says “Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you;
    they fill you with false hopes.
    They speak visions from their own minds,
    not from the mouth of the Lord.”
    These things they are telling u, like Anselm, are from their own minds…

    I also told u about Jeremiah 23 17 which says “They keep saying to those who despise me, ‘The LORD says: You will have peace.’ And to all who follow the stubbornness of their hearts they say, ‘No harm will come to you.'”

    So u can see this situation has happened before. It happening in Christianity is not new.

    Anyway back to Anselm. Anselm was trying to make sense of the cross for people who were asking questions. He did so by calling on the political system of his day. But it runs right against the gospels. People, including Thomas Aquinas, criticized Anselm for making it necessary that Jesus do this, for taking away God’s freedom to be merciful.

    At that same time in history, we start to see the sacrament of penance coming into play. This is how you could get some of that satisfaction that Christ won on the cross: by being sorry for your sins and doing penance. Then satisfaction got connected with the sacraments, with practice in the church and the Eucharist. The liturgical prayers were then written with the idea of satisfaction. And it got connected with a tremendous number of sermons.

    In other words, the idea of satisfaction worked its way very rapidly into all the nooks and crannies of how Catholics believed and lived their faith. And was adopted and kept by protestants who broke away from the catholic church(such as ur sect).

    Like

  153. Ace-

    “Yes, I have blind faith. That is what serving the Lord is about”

    No…no its not…even Paul who u trust so much reprimanded the Corinthians for having blind faith in their pastors…that totally negates ur statement.

    Blind faith is reserved for God and his laws only…not for ur pastors and their theories

    Like

  154. Ace-

    “If you’re so convinced Paul taught a message contradictory to Jesus, who do you think was correct?

    I believe Paul couldn’t understand Jesus better than Jesus understood himself lol. So if Jesus said anything about himself, then it is of course more correct than what anyone would say about him.

    “Paul *didn’t* teach anything contradictory to Jesus because the Bible does not contradict itself. The Bible tells us that. ”

    Unfortunately Ace, the bible(New testament) does contain some obvious contradictions. This is a result of multiple alterations being done to it over the centuries by you-know-who. U need simply google and analyze them. This is another area where the Muslims make us look stupid. At one point in the new testament one person is saying this, at another point another person is saying something else, or worse, the opposite…u have to understand, the word was left with “people”…and like I said, people are liars…and they will lie even in the presence of God’s word. They will add to it or subtract from it even if they were told not to. Another thing the catholic church does confirm is making alterations to the new testament….this u can research urself…
    Its pointless claiming it doesn’t contradict itself and yet it is actually doing so.

    “But you like to pick and choose the bits of the Bible you believe, don’t you?”

    Ace, it would be hard for me to believe something I know and everyone knows is a false addition…something even the church knows and has said is just an addition and not by the writer himself.

    Like

  155. ikr-

    I got this very good part from the article u sent a while back and just wanted to post it here for everyone to see;

    “Christians think they are doing the right thing kowtowing to the world, giving in to their demands and pretending our religion is all love and rainbows. It is true that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

    However, it is not true that he does not hate anything or anyone, nor is it true that he wants us to tolerate wickedness to the point that we allow the worst sins to go unpunished.

    That is nothing but cowardice.”

    And I also wanted to add something for Ace….God sent his only son to tell us the truth…and because of this he was killed by the corrupt Jews of the time who knew they were not following the truth, but their own selfish interests, something Christians today are doing. The same truth you are trying to ignore….I suggest u read that article *ikr* sent us.

    It actually has some of the logic I had put forward…I’m pleased to see that people can see through the lies.

    Although I will have to settle my disagreement with ikr a bit later.

    Like

  156. Sharkly, I am grateful to you. Your suffering, being forced to face the decision to follow God’s commandments to you as a man, and abandon the lies of the World- the [wayward] Church especially- has enabled you the testimony to those of us who know the Word, have always known our Creator, but to live stripped of the colored lens that we had… interpreting the Bible through Feminist or Humanist or Liberal lies. To read, understand, and hold to the Word of God as it is written, and using IT to color our lives.

    We often ignore the aspects of our own person that speak to those around us. A son is mesmerized by his father.. the father just IS. A woman is perplexed why her man is aroused by her presence. A friend laughs hysterically at a mere observation of another.
    The blessing of life: not being aware of where and how we are valued by our fellow man. We live in the mundane, yet provide the color to the world of those around us.

    I could repeat to you and rephrase the ways you have helped me in a mere 2 topics discussed by yourself on this blog and elsewhere that were the pieces that l needed in my walk. But you’ll never understand 😉

    Regarding the spiritual whores and charlatans:

    Write His laws on your heart (Je 31:33)
    Follow them, as proof of your love for the Savior (Jn 14:15)
    Take every thought captive, to ensure it is the Word (2 Co 10:5)
    As men, hold each other accountable in theology (Pr 27:17)
    Set yourself apart from all uncleanliness (Ep 5:3-7)
    Live and preach boldly (Ph 1:20) but those who refuse Jesus, let them go (Mt 10:14)

    It is going to be a lonely road. The World- which includes family, friends, the Church, government- will hate you. The Deceiver owns this Earth, and He loathes Truth spoken and lived.

    burn, you are both educated and a charlatan. What you are missing is a relationship with Christ. No amount of study will achieve this. Either you accept Him, or you do not. If you do not accept Him, why spend any more time shaping your worldview, morality or otherwise? It is moot without Salvation. If you believe then accept Him as Savior of your soul, Master of your life. There is no between.

    There is much of what you say that is quite astute, but where it matters most you produce drivel:
    ” The satisfaction theory makes Jesus’ death seem necessary. But no one has to die for God to enact mercy. He is God, he could just say “I forgive u”. ”

    No. God is the Word. The Word is Law. He cannot change. The Law will not change until this World passes away. And the Law *requires* blood for blood. It is the whole reason Jesus came to earth as a man- the mortal divine- to bear the burden Adam bore and we have all inherited.
    God cannot wash away sins, there is no forgiveness without Christ. The blood must be paid: and Jesus did.

    God is Mercy. God is Love. Humanity has a different idea about what is acceptable to bear these labels. A humanist exposes themselves when their view contradicts God’s (2 Co 10:5).

    It is clear to me your purpose for commenting here was to flex your Bible knowledge. You are well read, but your belief is bare. You have no legitimate purpose here and will serve ultimately only to lead others astray. The wiser course of action is to allow Christ to find you.

    ” For me to live is Christ. To die, is gain. ” – Ph 1:21

    In Mt 19:21, Jesus tells a rich man to sell what he has, but he is unable. The man has done all things according to the law. But Jesus, divinely able to see the heart of a person, identified the area where the rich man had done according to his deeds, but was still an idol in his heart. The rich man is recorded to have walked away in sorrow.
    Peter asks the Christ ‘who can then follow’ with such a high standard? In Christ, is where our answer is found.
    We are then told those of us who can walk away from the bondage created by material possessions, family, friends and follow Him will be the inheritors of Life Eternal.

    Do we love Christ more than we love our job? We are commanded- men- to work, but at what point does working become an obsession? The disciples dropped their fishing nets and followed when Christ gave the invitation.
    Do we love Christ more than we love our spouse? We are commanded- men- to guide, lead, protect the flock, but at what point are we serving the flock in our care versus being swayed by it? The father let the prodigal son depart.
    Do we give special favor and not uphold the Law because of a relation, relationship or other idol worship?

    In this life, we execute various tasks as if we are doing them for our Creator: man works, woman serves her man. It will be a long road with or without Christ. It can be lonely, but I cannot imagine how destitute the road is without Christ.

    Be well, readers of this blog. Happy belated Easter. He is risen- He is ALIVE. Is He alive in your heart?

    Like

  157. ikr,
    I thank you for your kind and encouraging words. I am curious which two topics were helpful to you, if you care to share.

    Regarding burnstaicho, I don’t know if you have interacted with him elsewhere, but, so far, on here, I haven’t heard him deny that Jesus Christ is the “only begotten” Son of God, that He came in human flesh, and died as the “Lamb of God” for our redemption. Perhaps he can correct me if he does not believe that.

    He is risen in deed.

    Like

  158. 1. Man is the image of God. Woman is not.
    I have discussed this before in that you assert woman is not the image of God, where I can only go to that point, but not include it.

    2. The cost of disobedience of homosexuality and adultery is earthly execution.
    The Law states this, but our governments have become lukewarm in upholding.

    Like

  159. ikr,
    I’m a bit confused. Are you saying that you can’t see clearly that women aren’t the image and glory of God, but that it has somehow helped you that I say they aren’t?

    On a lighter note, not intended to be a theological argument:
    Who would want a God who was periodically unclean & unstable, illogical, flighty, and can’t open a pickle jar?

    Like

  160. Sharkly – Just as an aside and not intended to be any kind of argument about whether or not women are made in the image of God – even the tightest of pickle jars can be opened by banging the edge of the lid on the chopping board 😉
    i have no argument against your other points. Hormones suck.

    burnstaicho – If you’re still reading here, I may address your points later, but I may not. It is clear our beliefs differ greatly so I’m not sure there’s any point to me responding. I’m not interested in anything that might cause me to doubt my faith – life does that to me all by itself. I’d much rather read things that encourage me in my faith and, as a rule, this blog does that.

    Like

  161. ikr-

    “It is clear to me your purpose for commenting here was to flex your Bible knowledge.”

    U falsely accuse me….my main purpose for commenting here was to point out to people the wayward ways of Christianity, false doctrines(no longer under law) and because I was confused about Ace’s comment, (I have since read more of her comments after it and they have cleared my confusion). My “flexing” as you would call it, was meant to try to convince Ace that we were indeed still under the law by pointing out that her current beliefs were theorized by one other than Jesus himself…so I had to tell her how the whole thing came about. R u trying to shame me for doing so?

    Like

  162. Ace says: burnstaicho … It is clear our beliefs differ greatly so I’m not sure there’s any point to me responding. I’m not interested in anything that might cause me to doubt my faith – life does that to me all by itself. I’d much rather read things that encourage me in my faith and, as a rule, this blog does that.

    Ahhh! But, there is a point. I for one am intently watching burnstaicho call your “standard” beliefs into question. I think that our faith should not only be tested externally by God, through the events of life, but I think we should also sometimes internally question and evaluate what we are putting our faith in to assure it is correct, legitimate, and faith-worthy. I could never help people to change for the better, if they were not open to reconsidering their previous beliefs and the actions that flowed from them. Part of the point of this blog is to work together to find truer answers. I certainly don’t claim to have them all myself. I also assume(perhaps dangerously) that when burnstaicho is done causing you to question and throw out some of your old beliefs, he will also be prepared to offer what he feels are correct beliefs. He doesn’t seem like he is here just to do a “Hit & Run” on your faith. I assume he is here to convert you. And so far, he hasn’t said exactly what he is offering to convert you to, but, so far, he seems to have all the right enemies; the devil, the apostate churches, people who have added to the scriptures, Etc. So I am actually quite curious to find out more of what he believes. And as I have mentioned before, Ace, you make a pretty good foil, for somebody who wants to challenge the “standard” beliefs that are being taught, so, in a way, it is your contribution to bring those talking points up to be discussed.

    The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers. ~ M. Scott Peck

    1 John 3:23 This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us. 24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

    Deuteronomy 13:1 If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall follow the Lord your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the Lord your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you.

    False prophets are to be killed also.

    Daniel 12:2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

    Like

  163. ikr-

    “No. God is the Word. The Word is Law. He cannot change. The Law will not change until this World passes away. And the Law *requires* blood for blood. It is the whole reason Jesus came to earth as a man- the mortal divine- to bear the burden Adam bore and we have all inherited.”

    Perhaps I did not put it in a very clear light as I was rushing trying to write all I had written. But this is what I had meant. It is a conclusion I reached when I was reading about how future generations of “israel” could be spared of God’s wrath.

    Sure there are certain laws which require execution. And this execution MUST be done according to God. But remember I told u God’s law punishes the guilty and those who condone. And then Jesus told us that even thinking lustfully about a woman ur not married to is already adultery (though of course not at the same level of real adultery, as churchians would have u believe).
    So this is wrong in the eyes of God. But it doesn’t have a punishment!!! As u cannot know someone’s thoughts, u cannot enact a law based on this.
    Now this is where my idea of “mercy” comes from, a man might have had dirty thoughts, but he made sure not to sin. I don’t know if we share the same view on this but according to me, basing on how the man handled the situation in his head(let’s say he quickly dispelled the idea/dirty thoughts)…I believe God can have mercy on him.
    I see I did not put it clearly but u have to admit that not everyone was guilty of the crimes that had to be paid in blood(it would be far fetched to deny this). Some people did follow the law. But I’m sure their thoughts were not entirely pure. And this, Jesus told us, is not desirable by God.

    So yeah, thats my point of view, I don’t know if its wrong but if it is please point out how..

    Like

  164. Sharkly-

    “I assume he is here to convert you. And so far, he hasn’t said exactly what he is offering to convert you to”

    I actually HAVE offered her something to convert her… I offered her the law. But alas! She rejects it😄

    Like

  165. ikr-

    “If you believe then accept Him as Savior of your soul”

    I do accept Jesus as the savior of my soul…he gave his life to tell me the truth about what God really wants me to do.

    My point was that people have all these interpretations of Jesus’ death but don’t know that Jesus himself did not in fact support those views. And I was trying to tell Ace that the best place to get information is the source itself, not a third party.

    Liked by 1 person

  166. Ace says: Chasing after them in a fit of rage and blowing their heads off with a rifle is not quite what God had in mind. There is absolutely nothing Holy about that and no matter what way you twist it, there can’t ever be anything Holy about it.

    God commanded that adulterers and adulteresses surely be put to death. I am reminded of the story of Phinehas:

    Numbers 25:7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; 8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. 9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand. 10 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 11 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy. 12 Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: 13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

    Putting to death those whom God has commanded to be put to death, is holy, obedient, and turns away the wrath of God from us collectively. And I don’t see a problem with using a rifle to obey God, or a javelin, when you don’t have a crowd of folks willing to help you stone them to death. Sometimes you have to resort to the next best thing.

    I learned to throw a discus, for what, If I’m never going to throw one at anybody? I recommend death-by-discus. Adulterers could be tied to a pole in the outfield. Why not try to execute God’s will, learn a skill, and exercise, all at the same time? But, since America outlaws cruel & unusual punishments, perhaps we Yankees are back to the usual and humane firearms for adultery.

    Like

  167. ikr

    “but your belief is bare. You have no legitimate purpose here and will serve ultimately only to lead others astray. The wiser course of action is to allow Christ to find you.”

    My “legitimate” purpose here is to show people how they have been led astray. And people who have been led astray have the all too common characteristic of being hostile to the questioning of their views.
    And If anyone has the most belief in Jesus’ name here it is me lol. Where I come from people still practice black magic(yes u might laugh at me and call me stupid but its real). People here still very much have these practices and sometimes can even involve kidnapping children and slitting their throats in their little shrines. I have seen the effects of these practices on immediate family members and friends who were “attacked” through them. I have seen exorcisms, some lasting months and producing disgusting spectacles u wouldn’t believe. Black magic is real. And trust me when I say Jesus’ name is the only solution to it.

    So to say my “belief is bare” is something I find laughable. If anything, YOU don’t know anything. Trust me.

    If you have been keeping track of what I’ve been saying, you will find that most of what I’ve quoted is from Jesus himself, apart from when I quoted Jeremiah. I do not like quoting from “third parties”. Because I know this brings confusion to people.

    To put my case simply, this was my main point in arguing with Ace;

    I find the statements “died for our sins so we are forgiven” and “we are accountable for our sins in the end” weirdly convenient especially due to the fact that the first statement is used to defend grievous sinners and the second is used to make people shut up about people who complain about the grievous sinners(why must we wait for the end, people are suffering now).

    Liked by 1 person

  168. burnstaicho – You wrote this: “And I was trying to tell Ace that the best place to get information is the source itself, not a third party.” My source is the Bible. It is pretty much my only source (I have two different translations – a KJV and a NIV and occasionally I will use an online translation. I also have two concordances and a Bible dictionary.) Not a third party. The Bible tells me that all of it is to be believed, that all of it is God’s inspired word, and all of it is given to us for instruction. It is these third parties that you’re trying to throw out there that are suggesting there are bits of the Bible that are false. If I just stick to the Bible, like I’m doing, and leave everybody else out of it, I can’t really go wrong.

    Jesus gave us His commandments for how we are to follow Him. They are very clear and very simple. They take faith, and there are things we must add to our faith (2 Peter 1:5-11). Getting bogged down with Old Testament laws is needless. It doesn’t help in my walk with God today.

    I’m not committing adultery. Neither is my husband. And if he was to cheat on me, I absolutely would not be calling for his death, no matter what you or anyone else may think should happen to him. And there are no circumstances in which I would cheat on him, so he won’t be calling for my death, either. I would, however, be praying for His repentance, and praying for the Lord to touch his heart, just as I do now.

    Like

  169. I do accept Jesus as the savior of my soul.
    That’s good to hear, brother burnstaicho, I suspected, all along, that you were on the right side of things.
    Although there are plenty who claim His name, but don’t believe in following His Father’s laws for all people.
    And they intentionally confuse us with Jewish ceremonial & cleanliness laws instead, which were never required of us.

    Like

  170. Ace-

    “My source is the Bible. It is pretty much my only source (I have two different translations – a KJV and a NIV and occasionally I will use an online translation. I also have two concordances and a Bible dictionary.”

    By source I meant the source of opinion on the Law…I told u to get information on the law from what Jesus himself said as he is the source, not third parties who claim things Jesus did not claim.
    I have said this time and time again.
    I even asked u a question that u refused to reply;

    “Did Jesus teach that the old testament law no longer applied to us or did he teach that it still applied to us?”

    Like

  171. burnstaicho – “I find the statements “died for our sins so we are forgiven” and “we are accountable for our sins in the end” weirdly convenient especially due to the fact that the first statement is used to defend grievous sinners and the second is used to make people shut up about people who complain about the grievous sinners(why must we wait for the end, people are suffering now).”

    Jesus died for our sins so we *can* be forgiven. Without redemption, we are not forgiven.
    The Bible also makes it very clear that there will be a judgement day, and there is a heaven and a hell, and the unrepentant sinners will be in hell. Find them as weirdly convenient as you like, they’re both still true.

    It doesn’t take grievous sin to make people suffer – my marriage has been hellish, and there has been no “grievous sin” involved. But plenty of suffering. There’s been sin, sure. But none that would have required death in Old Testament times. Instead there’s been abuse: verbal abuse, psychological abuse, some physical abuse (although not a lot). There has been health problems. financial problems. Addiction. So much addiction. And yes, suffering. Grievous sin is not the only thing that causes suffering, and the punishment that you think should go with grievous sin doesn’t make anything better.

    Like

  172. Ace the KJV is not the inspired Bible. It is just an English translation. It was the original books as written by their original authors in their original languages which were inspired by God. Anything added, is not actually an addition, but a perversion of God’s inspired words.

    My father pointed out that the translators incorporated the “science” of 1611 when they chose to use the word “firmament” in the KJV. Which now shows why no one should try to add their smarts to God’s eternal truth.

    Like

  173. Ace-

    “And if he was to cheat on me, I absolutely would not be calling for his death.”

    Coz that would be “weird” right?

    Of course, because this is the way the secular world has taught u is the “right/normal” and “civilized/mature” way. The “grown up” way.
    As someone not from the west I think I can kind of see better how you guys are consequently bombarded with some weird “moralities” than someone from the actual west. Your “hook-up” culture and how it is perceived as “normal” are some of the things that have puzzled me greatly.

    So I tread lightly whenever the secular world takes a certain opinion as the “normal” one when it comes to controversial topics.

    Like

  174. Ace says: And yes, suffering. Grievous sin is not the only thing that causes suffering, and the punishment that you think should go with grievous sin doesn’t make anything better.

    If your father had shot your mother and his brother for their adultery, you would not have suffered any of what you have suffered. How can you say that it wouldn’t have made anything better, when you cannot know what would have been? And it would have changed everything. Your faith is apparently in God’s law not working, and New Zealand’s ever changing laws working better. Which makes you a pretty faithless adherent to God’s law, as your words also bear out.

    Like

  175. Ace-

    “Instead there’s been abuse: verbal abuse, psychological abuse, some physical abuse (although not a lot). There has been health problems”

    Well u can try however much u want but the truth is u would never choose adultery over all those problems u suffered above

    Like

  176. Ace-

    U say;
    “Jesus died for our sins so we *can* be forgiven. Without redemption, we are not forgiven.”

    But u also said;

    “Jesus died on the cross to atone for our sins.”

    This is why I am confused. If someone has “atoned” for your sins, that means you wont be punished for them. Which means u can sin all u want, and there won’t be any consequences. Because you have already been atoned for. And multiple sects believe this. But I’m SURE u don’t believe that. When u say God’s law no longer applies u are guilty of what ikr accused me of…claiming that God’s law changed…something we are told is false.

    However this is different from “died so that we *can* be forgiven”. And from this u extrapolated that this means that people are not to be held accountable by moses’ law. But this is contradictory to Jesus saying “Moses’ law still applies”….do you not see?

    I dont know if I’m misinterpreting something from ur take.

    But anyway, from my understanding, ikr’s take on the “atonement” of sin was to do with “original sin”(Augustine’s ideas as well btw)…which would make a bit of sense but the concept of original sin is also a catholic idea and as I said, be slow to trust the catholics.

    And btw a word of advice, the God of the old testament is the same God of the new testament. Perfect beings do not change. It is a theological fallacy and also stated by God.

    Like

  177. Sharkly – “If your father had shot your mother and his brother for their adultery, you would not have suffered any of what you have suffered.” This is true. I would not exist. But I also don’t know that my father would have come to the Lord being in jail and all, so he would soon be suffering in hell for all eternity.

    burnstaicho – “I dont know if I’m misinterpreting something from ur take.” You must be. I’ve tried repeatedly to explain it, giving scripture to back it up. And you keep insisting it’s contradictory. It’s not at all. So yes, the confusion must be yours. It’s as clear as day to me. I give up. I honestly do not care what you believe. But I have peace in my heart from knowing the Lord.

    “Well u can try however much u want but the truth is u would never choose adultery over all those problems u suffered above” You don’t know that. At all. Do you know how I know that? Because he *did* cheat on me. When I was pregnant with our 3rd child. It started as an online affair and moved to physical. More than 13 years ago, now. It’s not something I ever speak of. And do you know what killing him would have done? It would have left me heavily pregnant with a two year old and a three year old. I would have had to raise three very young children alone. It would have robbed three children of their father. And we all know the terrible outcomes for children when they’re raised by single mothers. Bee mentioned some of them above, and he’s right. Killing him, as you seem to think best, would have caused more problems. It certainly wouldn’t have fixed them. And it would take away any opportunity for him to repent.
    We recently celebrated our 18th wedding anniversary and I assure you, while there has been immense suffering, there has also been incredible joy. My husband is a good man, and especially in recent years he has treated me well and we have been happy. So please, do not assume that you know what I would pick. Because you have absolutely no idea.

    The guidelines for living that God issued in Moses’ day have not changed. But the way that we carry them out certainly has – that was what Jesus did when He fulfilled the law – He showed us a better way to carry it out. He showed us mercy, redemption, forgiveness, and gave us hope of salvation.

    Like

  178. Ace-

    “my marriage has been hellish, and there has been no “grievous sin” ”

    First u say there is no adultery and then u say there is adultery…are u just saying random stuff to make it look like u have “suffered it all”

    Like

  179. Ace-

    “And do you know what killing him would have done? It would have left me heavily pregnant with a two year old and a three year old”

    Do u know what incarcerating criminals does? It leaves families fatherless and without financial support….does that mean we should stop arresting criminals? According to ur logic we should…

    Like

  180. Ace-

    “It would have robbed three children of their father. And we all know the terrible outcomes for children when they’re raised by single mothers”

    Well it would have robbed the children of an *adulterous* father and perhaps given them the chance of growing up with a better man….no one would refuse u from getting married again now would they.

    Like

  181. Ace-

    “And it would take away any opportunity for him to repent.”

    Well the punishment is part of the “repentance”

    Like

  182. Ace-

    “My husband is a good man, and especially in recent years he has treated me well and we have been happy.”

    Well he did get what he wanted(adultery), and better yet for him, you tolerated it. So he can’t complain. Any poor sod would say “we’re happy now” after their spouse got tired of sleeping around and is now feigning regret lol. I’d say you’ve been “hoodwinked”.

    Like

  183. Ace-

    “The guidelines for living that God issued in Moses’ day have not changed. But the way that we carry them out certainly has – that was what Jesus did when He fulfilled the law – He showed us a better way to carry it out. He showed us mercy, redemption, forgiveness, and gave us hope of salvation.”

    Do you know that Jesus says in Matthew 15:4-9;
    “For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

    “‘These people honor me with their lips,
    but their hearts are far from me.
    They worship me in vain;
    their teachings are merely human rules.’”

    He was complaining about the people
    who choose their culture over God’s word. The people who forsake God’s rules for the sake of their tradition. Those who want to change God’s law according to their society.
    He was complaining about people like u Ace. How do u not see?
    U keep saying “our society…, how we do things now…” This is exactly what Jesus is talking about. U choose human rules over God’s rules.

    Like

  184. burnstaicho – “First u say there is no adultery and then u say there is adultery…are u just saying random stuff to make it look like u have “suffered it all” ” – There is very little I *haven’t* suffered. But no, unfortunately he definitely cheated on me. But it was just the once and he was genuinely repentant afterwards. To compare the ‘adultery’ that I’ve been through to what other people on here have been through seemed a bit on the nose. I mean, it’s clearly destroyed some people. But I’ve struggled far more with the verbal and emotional abuse. The effects of that are long-lasting.
    Please, don’t address any more of your comments to me. I am not interested in your opinion but I was raised to believe that it’s rude to ignore someone who speaks directly to me. However, rude or not, I will not be responding to you further. Our beliefs are just too different for it to be productive.

    Like

  185. burn

    https://laf443259520.wordpress.com/2019/06/28/horny-housewives-of-the-patristic-age/#comment-1609

    This comment is what I base my stance on. You say many things that are spot-on correct, but you miss several details that if honest, are misunderstandings, if malicious, are deception. As I have re-read your comments I note that you write using heavy abstract / allusion which leads to difficulty in understanding.

    You have stated you do not speak English as a primary language, and your writing to me indicates a non-Germanic language base- is this correct? It will help me read your grammar better to know if you are Slav, Romance, Germanic background. If you are outside these 3, you are outside my wheelhouse.

    Like

  186. “Our beliefs are just too different for it to be productive.”

    So to sum it all up her beliefs are Augustine and Anselm based…not Jesus based…she doesn’t know this but insists she is correct. We all know how Augustine lived his life and entertained his sexual proclivities, he didnt even meet the requirements of being an “elder” in the church according to even new testament standards. And worse he was in the catholic church.

    She claims “But the way that we carry them out certainly has – that was what Jesus did when He fulfilled the law – He showed us a better way to carry it out. He showed us mercy, redemption, forgiveness, and gave us hope of salvation.” The “better” way is apparently the opposite of God’s way, and now God’s original way is apparently sin(I wonder who would try to convince u that God’s way is not the right way, hmm).

    She intentionally misinterpreted the meaning of the word “fulfill” and made it look like the word “change”(dictionary meaning in to complete/do). Jesus’ “completion” of the law is shown in multiple examples for example him clarifying that u cudnt divorce ur wife for the simple reason of just being angry at her, him rebuking the people who chose their tradition and culture instead of executing the men who cursed their parents (that is to say following God’s law) and called them hypocrites and false worshippers of God for not doing so, him whipping the people who carried out acts of cheating in the temple(money changers), him pointing out that God’s law is supreme, eternal and unchangeable, neither in practice nor in sentiment. And many more.

    She insists God’s way is “weird” and “terrible” (she of course bases this on her country’s promiscuous culture) by saying; “People DON’T kill their spouses for adultery. Nor do people advise others to do so.”
    She of course says this because sexual immorality is all too common in her country that it would be unthinkable to even make it a capital crime. “U just have to accept it”…otherwise ur “weird”.

    She does not realize Jesus rebuked those who chose their culture over God’s law in Matthew 15:4-9(or she just chooses not to read that part).

    Ace’s false beliefs are (as multiple people here have pointed out) a result of “Christians kowtowing to the world, giving in to their demands and pretending our religion is all love and rainbows.”

    It is not true that God wants us to tolerate wickedness to the point that we allow even the worst sins to go unpunished. Thats something only the devil would want, for obvious reasons.

    Like

  187. ikr-

    “but you miss several details that if honest, are misunderstandings, if malicious, are deception. ”

    I can assure u that they are not malicious.
    But if u would be so kind as to point out the particular areas where, to you, I go wrong, I would be happy to discuss my point of view.

    “As I have re-read your comments I note that you write using heavy abstract / allusion which leads to difficulty in understanding.”

    I think it may be a problem with my unintentional mental attempt to reconcile English with my language.

    Like

  188. ” I think it may be a problem with my unintentional mental attempt to reconcile English with my language. ”

    This is normal. I am aware of how we form speech according to our language base, which is why I asked the question. Knowing which family of language allows someone to ‘read into the direction’ of that language.

    Communication is equal parts emission and reception.

    Like

  189. burnstaicho,
    Do you feel like there are other passages that have been added to the Bible, that you would care to share? I’d be curious to check them out.

    Like

  190. Well, while waiting for burnstaicho’s reply, I did more research on the topic of questionable scripture passages, and the good news is there seems to only be two passages that are legitimately doubted by unbiased scholars, that are still left in most Bibles. They are John 7:53–8:11 & Mark 16:9-20. And usually they are notated as not being in the original manuscripts. The passage in Mark can be traced back earlier than the passage in John, but it is still most likely an addition to the original end of Mark’s Gospel at Mark 16:8.
    However the John 8 story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery, almost certainly was added in the later-mid to late 300’s by somebody in Rome, it does not appear in any of the manuscripts prior to that time and it first appears in Latin manuscripts, only being later added to the first Greek manuscripts, that have it, between 400 and 600 AD, well after its appearance in Latin manuscripts. Eusebius, in the early 300’s, refers to a story of Jesus and a woman “accused of many sins” as being found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which might refer to this passage or to one like it. If it refers to the same story, it seems like the apocryphal tale had grown in the intervening time from a sinful woman, to a full-blown woman caught in the act of adultery. The story was also added into the later manuscripts at various places in the Gospel of John or often in various places in the Gospel of Luke. It apparently never had an original place in the Gospels.

    The good news is that with those two New Testament exceptions, the Old Testament has been miraculously well kept as verified by ancient copies being dug up and found to be letter for letter. And the New Testament also has hundreds of early Greek manuscripts with an amazing level of congruity for hand copied text, from different locations around the world. So, many of the English Bible translations we have are accurate and reliable, if you discount those two additions and second guess all the recent translations that have intentionally made wording changes for the cause of sexual inclusivety. There are also English Bible paraphrases & amplifications, which are often helpful, but are not to be considered authoritative.
    After investigating the matter my faith in the reliability of the Bible we have is actually improved! Especially when the apocryphal story in John was so hard to reconcile with the just God of laws taught about in the rest of the Bible. And the apocryphal section in Mark is also questionable, it says of believers: They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them. Apparently those kooky snake-handling churches are foolishly risking their lives, likely based upon a man-made conclusion tacked on to the end of the gospel of Mark. I never have liked snakes, or worms, or eels, or anything that remotely looks or moves like one.(its the enmity) That their minuscule scriptural basis is apocryphal, is just one more good reason not to ever visit some venomous snake-handling church/cult.

    Like

  191. Sharkly-

    “Do you feel like there are other passages that have been added to the Bible, that you would care to share? I’d be curious to check them out.”

    The only passage I can say I researched in-depth is the pericope adulterae, because to me it seemed rather “out of character” of god(as you also said)…the other things I have researched are not “passages” but rather doctrines…forexample I discovered that modern Christianity actually follows Paul and augustine, but not Jesus. And i have since heard some views by people who say that Paul is a “false prophet” (Have u heard of that argument before?), a position I am inclined to myself.

    Plus I don’t think I need to explain why I don’t think we should take anything Augustine says as “godly”😂.

    Like

  192. Sharkly-

    “refers to a story of Jesus and a woman “accused of many sins” as being found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which might refer to this passage or to one like it. If it refers to the same story, it seems like the apocryphal tale had grown in the intervening time from a sinful woman, to a full-blown woman caught in the act of adultery. ”

    The dramatic and specific change to “adultery” also made it very obvious what they were after…

    Oh and btw, wat do you think of my position on what I said earlier…that “it would be naive to think that the devil wouldn’t get involved in ur church and urge doctrines that would not only encourage sin but also outlaw attempts to curb sin.”

    Like

  193. Sharkly-

    “The good news is that with those two New Testament exceptions, the Old Testament has been miraculously well kept as verified by ancient copies being dug up and found to be letter for letter. ”

    The fact that the old testament is more reliable that the new testament(more recent) is sad though…it shows the corruption of the early catholic church.

    Like

  194. Sharkly-

    “a position I am inclined to myself.”

    Correction-
    A position I am being inclined to myself, considering the arguments they put forward…they have some very good points.

    Like

  195. Sharkly

    “A position I am being inclined to myself, considering the arguments they put forward…they have some very good points.”

    Maybe if u could convince me otherwise…would very much like to hear your view.
    Coz I’ve heard a lot of anti-Paul views(he actually said the opposite of what Jesus said multiple times, hence the birth of churchianity I guess).

    Like

  196. And i have since heard some views by people who say that Paul is a “false prophet” (Have u heard of that argument before?)

    LOL I have! But so far, I’d only heard it from Feminazis claiming the apostle Paul was a misogynist. They wanted to throw out Paul’s writings because they really put women in their rightful place quite well.
    Although I haven’t studied that notion seriously, I believe Paul was well attested to by God, Peter, Barnabas, Etc., and his own life of suffering and death for the Gospel. Peter says:
    2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

    The hard part is being able to reconcile the teachings, but I do think they fit together, in spite of them seeming like opposing sides of a coin.
    I also think Jesus called the Syrophoenician/Canaanitish woman a bitch, and didn’t heal her daughter until after she humbly admitted she was a dog. Nor did Jesus change any patriarchal law regarding women. So I think Jesus was just as supposedly “misogynist” as the Apostle Paul, he just focused more of His preaching on all people’s repentance from lawlessness, and not as much as Paul did on sanctified living. And, again, I repeat that in the story of the woman caught in adultery, there is no record of the woman professing repentance, and that is out of character for the Gospels also. Churchians like to turn Jesus into a Feminist, but I see zero evidence of Feminism in Jesus, and constant attestation to the eternal patriarchy of Father and Son.

    Oh and btw, what do you think of my position on what I said earlier…that “it would be naive to think that the devil wouldn’t get involved in ur church and urge doctrines that would not only encourage sin but also outlaw attempts to curb sin.”

    I fully agree. That would be where any decent devil should start.

    Liked by 1 person

  197. Sharkly,

    I have a copy of Jay Green’s Greek English Interlinear New Testament. Jay is the translator and editor. He feels very strongly that the last 12 verses of Mark 16 belong in the original text and are inspired.

    Like

  198. Racism- a term (within which anti-semitism falls) used to shut down rational thought on the accountability of an out-group. The lie is propagated from Ga 3:28. Everything that follows only expounds on this, and how important it is to remain critical both internally and externally (where ‘racism’ is applied) to oneself.

    Fun-fact: ‘racism’ was a term coined after the Bolsheviks committed their atrocities against the Slavic tribes of Russians and Ukrainians from early-mid 20th century in order to defend through DARVO (which is a later label) against any criticism. It was expanded to other terms and other races to the universal application we enjoy in academia and society today.

    A father loves his son more than he will ever love the adopted. His ‘own flesh and blood’ commands this. This is the Order within Creation. A father will inherently protect his son, because his son is him. An uncle will inherently protect his nephew- to a lesser extent- because his nephew is him. A man within the tribe will protect a child within the tribe- to a lesser extent- because that child is him.
    We know from study of Scripture that the identity is passed from father to son: (tribe of) Benjamin needed wives and their sons continued as the people Israel, Ruth was grafted into the Davidic line as it was Boaz who carried it etc.

    From here, I equate tribe and race.

    The truth is that race matters inherently. The tribes of Israel were just that, and the OT has many verses with the instruction to the men to keep what is in their pants within the tribe. The promise that God made to Abraham was a propagation of HIS seed. It was NOT a promise to Abraham that he would watch the seed of OTHERS grow. Oh, how motivating THAT would have been!
    We are hard-wired from Creation to desire the continuity of our father into our sons. What other promise could God have made Abraham that would have mattered? It is the singular lasting impact we humans have on Earth for the Kingdom is the continuity of BOTH our bloodline AND faith, as we are COMMANDED in Ge 1:28.
    The tribes are told repeatedly not to mingle with others outside of the Nation (which is a ‘people’ = blood, not ‘government’ = papers) Israel. This was for protection against influence of false gods and served the purpose of keeping the race united. Ever notice the people who push miscegenation are the very ones who are most vehement at denouncing Christ as Emmanuel? This is not coincidence: nothing in Creation is coincidence.
    Of course the churchians of today have gone right along with it: bus ministries into the ghettos on a micro scale, sending ‘missionaries’ to Africa/Japan/(insert pagan/secular area of the world) on a macro scale.
    God looks at the heart, which Ga 3:28 makes clear.
    It is the false prophet who advocates for the merging of races externally and pass THAT off as beauty. The external. No, it is 2 equally yoked Christians who make a beautiful marriage. The internal. Always beware the counterfeit. And marriage is not sustained on Faith alone, shared values and cultural norms- inherent in one’s tribe- play a huge factor. Being of the same tribe helps immensely with this.

    What is the Truth on this matter? The nucleus is as follows:
    – 1 man who is right with God (Dt 6:5)
    – 2 equally yoked Christians (and be careful about your selection: Pr 7:11, 21:19, 31:3..)
    – Father focused on his family first (Dt 6:6)
    – If his family is squared away, then he can perhaps profess to those around him (1 Tm 3)
    – The next layer of those around him: HIS family. Of what value is testifying to a foreign tribe when your brother is still struggling in sin?
    Remember this principle: (Lk 16:10) to who He has entrusted little and has been faithful, he will be rewarded with more. To whom He has entrusted little and has not been faithful, even the very little he had will be taken from him. The pattern throughout the Bible is starting small and expending. First me (the log in my eye), then my family/brother (help him with his speck), then my tribe, then my Nation (a people, not government), then the World. The concept of ‘missionaries’ is unique to the Apostles who served a specific purpose in the propagation of Jesus’ ministry (the prophets of Israel were always internal-facing to the Nation). How do you effectively testify to the out-group when you are not successful with your in-group testimony? The out-group will see this and label you- properly- as a charlatan!

    We are to grow our faith within our homes, within our community and within our tribe. The conflating of community (where Nation = government) and tribe (where Nation = a people) has only occurred globally since the 1960s with widespread relaxed migration laws. In the Earth’s 6000 years, this is a speck on the timeline. ‘Modern’ knowledge ignores millenia of norm.
    When you understand this, you can finally understand Mt 5:14. I do not need the lies that promote race mixing or multiculturalism: I need to be solid in the Faith, ME. I need my family to be solid in the Faith. I need my tribe to be solid in the Faith. And all of this will be demonstrated in who we are and what we do that the cities on OTHER hills (other tribes) will see the light that we bring to the World, and it will set about them finding men in their midst who get right with God, and bring about change within their families, their tribes, their cities on hills.

    2 examples:
    The great Isaiah! He spent so much time away from home tending to the people Israel that his 2 sons were spiritual wretches. He missed his most important ministry.
    Jesus’ own brother finally came around to His diety and wrote arguably one of the most profound books in the NT. While Christ did indeed come to save the World (or, all those who might believe in Him as Son of God and accepted as Savior of their souls), how valuable would that have been if His own flesh and blood denied Him?

    There is a reason for all this: your skin is the first uniform, and the last uniform, you will wear. It is the uniform of your people: your father and his father before him, in a game of pay-it-forward that is expected to be carried to your son and his son. Remember Abraham and how important this was. God acknowledged this with His promise to him. Unlike what the propoganda machine tells you: 1. it matters and 2. God makes no mistakes: there is no such thing as privilege nor victimhood based on skin tone

    I cringe when I see the white minister standing next to the black or asian 10 year old Sunday school student for photos to be posted on social media. Beware the counterfeit: you are not pleasing your Father (He does not care- He looks at the heart, remember?), you are seeking affirmation from the World that is telling you that you need to be diverse, multicultural, biracial etc to make yourself appear relevant.
    Because the black or asian minister? Ya, they do not care less about the virtue signalling. All those lies are funneled uniquely to 1 specific race only: within our companies and schools but also our homes and churches. How odd that works.

    My favorite are the Western churchian women who immediately ‘white knight’ other races whenever this topic comes up within church circles. They are the biggest traitors to the lineage of their fathers and are shameful creatures. They ignore the crimes of the Jews in the 1940s (gulags, Holodomir), they ignore the active slave trade in *all* Arab countries, they ignore the black-on-X (where X is white/asian/other) violent crime that occurs everywhere there is forced racial integration (China ghettos and Western romances chief among them). There is strong correlation between race and the following of Christ, with warring segments internally- like with any batch of apples, but the correlation is too obvious to ignore.

    It is the white man embraced Christ, with alphabets named after those who introduced the Savior to their tribe (Cyrillic), put an end to slave trade within their Nations, wrote scores of hymns and inspired art (classical, baroque) celebrating the King, who spread Christianity throughout the globe. This does not make the white man better than any other, no (for all have fallen short). But he is no more evil neither (for all have fallen short!). But why does the race that unquestionably embraced the Son moreso than any other receive such villainous treatment by the World? I do not believe in coincidence.

    Who is the most villainized segment of society? The white, Christian, male. Hrmm. The race that embraced the Son, with Nations built on Biblical principles, who is the image-bearer of God. If I am Satan, I am attacking always, on all fronts, and race is part of that.
    (And who does the villainizing the loudest? Typically a ‘minority’, atheist/agnostic, female. Open *any* op-ed for proof)

    Look at Europe today: the white nations being swarmed from outside and decayed from inside. This hurts because we know the correlation with the peoples of Europe who turned from paganism to Christianity and to whom we are linked. The implosion has been forced, the decay has been imposed. I grew up there, and I witnessed it firsthand understanding even as a child where the decay would lead ‘soon’. Here in USA, it is on steroids. USA is bigger so slower to fall, but will fall harder. A major part of destroying Christianity means erasing the white people. White man is not the gatekeeper to Christianity, but his identity has been rooted in it for centuries.

    The defenders of ‘oh that’s racist, you bigot!’ are the advocates of destroying identity. This is Satan’s goal: to separate a son from a father, a wife from husband, and this is no better accomplished than disrupting lineage. And once a daughter does not know to which male authority she belongs- which in-group she has a home.. the impressionable creature that she is: how easy to entice her with a false spiritual leader.

    I work alongside plenty of other races. I eat with and welcome them into my home (blacks, indians, messianic jews). I daily encourage them in their walk through life as they encourage me in mine. I hopefully make them better as they make me better. There is no hatred here. But their fathers are not my fathers, their blood is not my blood. Pretending otherwise is a crime against reality.
    My *commandment* in Mt 10:16 means I must know about the Jewish subversion of cultures (feminism, Kalergi), the Moslem techniques (taqqiya, Hijrah), the black-male-on-white-female violent crime rates etc. I must chart my life and my flock accordingly. I must guide those within my charge. Acknowledging the violence committed by tribes around me does not make me evil: it makes me aware.
    Acknowledging reality is my *commandment*, and race has direct correlation to various things.

    The Bible is sexist. It is intolerant. It does not promote multiculturalism. It is not accepting of outside views. It does not celebrate hedonism (LGBTQEIEIO). I maintain it is also racist with this as the feature: each man responsible for himself, his family, and later his *tribe*.

    If the Anabaptists / Amish were not so dead wrong on pacifism, I would be counted among them right now. They sure got everything else dead right.

    Like

  199. ikr,

    “2 examples:
    The great Isaiah! He spent so much time away from home tending to the people Israel that his 2 sons were spiritual wretches.”

    Do you mean the, “great Samuel”?

    Liked by 1 person

  200. Sharkly,

    Jay Green and Mark 16:

    Jay Green believes that the Received Text is the correct Greek manuscript to translate. It was the text used for the King James version. It was updated by F. H. A. Scrivener in 1894 because additional Greek manuscripts were found after the Greek text for the King James version was set in year 1550.

    Jay says that most modern Bible translations work from Alexandrian texts instead of the Received Text. Proponents of the Alexandrian texts say they are more accurate because they are older originals. Jay says that is because these texts were not used and worn out like the Greek texts used to form the Received Text. Important to Jay is that the Received Text shows that Jesus is God, part of the Trinity, and that He was born of a virgin, and that He ascended after His resurrection. The Alexandrian texts remove or change some words that state these important truths.

    Two of the oldest Alexandrian manuscripts are the Sinaiticus, and the Vaticanus. The Vaticanus has empty space in the middle of Mark 16 just long enough to hold the remaining 12 verses. The Sinaiticus abruptly increases it’s font size in the middle of Mark 16 to fill up the space where the removed 12 verse should appear. Jay thinks this is evidence of deliberately removing these verses. Both of these manuscripts have lots of other errors and Erasmus refused to use the Vaticanus document.

    I realize that there are lots of Greek experts and many disagree with Jay Green. But, several things that impress me about Jay Green’s work, he feels very strongly in not adding to, or removing from God’s Word. He has a high amount of reverence and respect for God, God’s Word, and the deity of Jesus Christ.

    Jay Green does not think that I John 5:7, and Acts 9: 5,6 are inspired.

    My thoughts on Mark 16 are that the correct application of handling poisonous snakes, and drinking poison are found in Act 28. Paul is out in the open with unbelievers, he is serving by gathering wood for a fire and then he is bitten by a viper; he shakes it off and suffers no ill effects. Handling poisonous snakes is not to be done in a church service where it becomes a circus act complete with attendee’s trying to show that they have more “faith” than the other guys.

    Liked by 1 person

  201. Kharma- a concept originating from Eastern ‘religions’ perverting Christianity. The lie is propagated from within Christianity by both Lk 6:31 and Mt 7:2. It is the foundation of the ‘prosperity gospel’.

    The truth is very immediate:
    1. We are all sinners and deserve death. Rm 3:23.
    2. In this life, the just will receive punishments, and the unjust will receive rewards. Mt 5:45.
    3. Combining 1 and 2: the King allocates blessing and punishment according to His metrics, not ours. Mt 20:15.
    4. There is no incarnation (for the kharma that follows you to your ‘next life’), what you have done in this life is not remembered. He 9:27, Ec 9:5.
    5. We are COMMANDED to work for the Father, not the selfish benefit of the hope of returned good deeds. Co 3:23, Mt 6:2.

    The child’s understanding of:
    Justice = getting what you deserve
    Mercy = not getting what you deserve
    Grace = getting what you do not deserve
    Is correct in understanding the Gospel. Kharma is perversion.

    Liked by 1 person

  202. ikr,

    Titles and authors follow:

    The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark
    by John William Burgon

    Dean John Burgon’s Vindication of the Last Twelve Verses of Mark
    by D. A. Waite
    A summary of Burgon’s Last Twelve Verses of Mark. A 36 page booklet.

    Like

  203. ikr-

    “the Moslem techniques (taqqiya, Hijrah),”

    I have always been uncomfortable with the idea of taqqiya….I cannot reconcile it with anything other than un devotion and cowardice.

    And then there is another practice in Islam I find repulsive…according to their marriage laws, if a husband says “I divorce u” 3 times apparently they are “divorced” and he can’t reunite with her until another man sleeps with her and then divorces her…or dies. What in the hell is that supposed to mean?

    On another note;

    The campaigns to tolerate adultery in the church get stronger by the day…I might differ from all of u in that I vehemently believe that the devil is active 80% of the time we try to interpret our conscience and exercise our morality. I guess my experience with black magic and “witchcraft”(yes it exists, even God said we should kill witches) has led me to believe that the devil is more involved than u think he is.

    And since the devil’s most effective trick is transforming into an angel of light, he can make us think we are doing the right thing by confusing our conscience with must and must not be done. And it requires a very sharp and attentive(and in most cases righteous mind) to see through the devil’s “light” and observe the TRUE end of such lies. But some people, unfortunately, are too blinded by the “light” to truly see where it is coming from.

    An example I will give is that of alleged “forgiveness”(tolerance) of adultery;

    When a case of adultery rises up, our conscience is hard-wired to react with anger and intense disgust…it doesn’t matter what u are told by the church, these are the original coded reactions critically acclaimed by god himself.

    This anger and disgust is meant to serve a purpose…to fuel God’s people to carry out due punishment to the wicked as god commanded as well as remind them how vile such wickedness is.

    Now this is where the devil comes in, to pervert, as he always does.
    He will immediately transform into an angel of “light” and proceed to confuse u, attacking ur conscience itself.
    He will disassociate ur anger from where it is aimed and instead suggest to u that anger itself is not desirable by God. Even the churches will tell u that any anger is “ungodly” and “bad”. He will suggest to u, with the seeds he has sown in the church(false preaching and twisting of scripture), that disgust is in fact “judgment”, and that u are committing a crime greater than blasphemy by “judging” someone.

    He will then move on to the action u were supposed to do(the punishment). He will disassociate the act from it being a punishment for a crime by the order of God, and instead make it seem like you are doing it uninfluenced. That the act itself is a sin. This he does also with the help of the seeds he has sown into the church, that is the confusion of the commandment “do not murder” into “do not kill”.

    He will say to u- “but killing itself is a crime”. Attacking ur conscience and confusing u. Knowing that murdering an innocent man is against ur conscience, he associates this part of ur conscience with the wicked guilty party, making them seem innocent and oppressed, completely blinding the short sighted and weak of mind.

    He then uses “fear”, his favorite tool, to scare u into thinking u will be angering God and hence miss out on “eternal life”. He suggests that to play it safe, do not even think about suggesting punishment for the wicked party, lest u anger God with ur “judgment”.

    He then moves to the wicked party and tries to paint them in a positive and oppressed light. All of the suggestions are meant to get u to tolerate adultery in the society. He will suggest to u that “they didnt know what they were doing”, “they couldn’t control themselves, the temptation was too much”, “its sin’s fault not their fault, “hate the sin, not the sinner”(Augustine said that, dedicated sinner btw), “what if it was u”(here the morally corrupt will withdraw), “they are suffering”, “the marriage wasn’t happy”, “r u sinless”, “Jesus taught mercy and forgiveness”(not for certain crimes) and finally, the one which both churchians and atheists believe in unison, “Punishment? That is barbaric”. When the weak of mind are presented with all these suggestions at once they all but recoil in fear.

    Now it is not strange for the devil to call God’s ways barbaric and weird, or to paint them to gullible and cowardly humans in that way. What is strange is for a person, who claims to be a follower of God, to say that God’s punishment for such a wicked person is “barbaric” and “weird”. Who are u listening to? The adulterous Christians and atheists? A guilty party doesn’t have a say in their punishment. And what are you even doing siding with the devil on something…lol.

    And then there is also the lie of “but if u kill them they won’t have a chance to repent”…do u seriously think god did not think of this when he was making these laws? Is punishment not part of repentance? A child molester can’t go in front of court and say “oh I’m sorry I won’t
    do it again ” and then demand to be released. No , he has to be punished for it.
    And btw God says he wants the righteous who keep his laws, not the ones who apologize the most for breaking them.
    All of these lies are to make sure the wicked survive, something only the devil would want.

    Extrapolating on the “what if it was u” and “r u sinless” lies;
    These lies are extremely effective with people who have an immoral or promiscuous past(or even present)…so-called “reformed” people . And it doesn’t help that they make up majority of the “church”.(I am not an avid believer in “repentance” as I believe people do selfish and immoral acts for their own benefit, enjoy them and then pretend to be sorry for them for multiple self affirmation reasons as well as to achieve certain selfish goals. A bad person cannot suddenly become good. The reason they chose to be wicked in the first place is because they are wicked and hence comfortable with wickedness. A good person would not choose wickedness. I have observed this multiple times and I can ascertain that wicked people are self serving).

    These so-called “reformed” people have contributed 70% in terms of the perversion of the church(greedy clergy 20%, idiots 10%). The greedy clergy changes its standards to try to accommodate them and they in turn(since they are guilty of a promiscuous past), try to subvert the law as it would condemn them. Nothing short of corruption.
    They then spew nonsense about how “Jesus forgives” and “we are forgiven” because they know they have horrid crimes under their belt…crimes they do not want to pay for.

    They then couple this with the false assumption “all sins are the same”. The best lies are those mixed with the truth, all sins are the same in the sense that they are all sins, same way all criminals are the same in the sense that they have all digressed from the law. But the seriousness of the sin, like the seriousness of the crime, differs. A tresspasser is not the same as a mass murderer.
    This, of course, they do to make it seem “normal” of them to have performed the sexually promiscuous acts they did so as to validate them as “normal” members of the church.

    Once they are in the church and are presented with this situation, since they know they are guilty as well, they choose to be corrupt and tolerate the situation so the they can get away with their own crimes…then they slap the “forgiveness” tag on their corruption.

    Now the devil knows he can always rely on these so-called “reformed” people to look the other way because of their own crimes…so he always makes sure they find themselves in any church of any kind.

    The last attack on the conscience is perhaps the greatest seed the devil has ever sown in the church…”the woman caught in adultery”…when all the above fail, the devil calls u to look at the alleged “decision” of Jesus. For one who doesn’t know the truth, deception is not far off. And unfortunately this is where most righteous people are deceived, because they are idiots(like I said, 10%). This coupled with the lie that God “changed” is the final nail in the coffin. “Adulterers can now get away with it”, “there is no sin god won’t forgive”, “all u need to do is ‘repent'”…these are all lies wicked people would be interested in. When the devil suggests to the righteous people who are idiots that they will “be like Jesus” if they tolerate adultery, they will also stupidly agree because like I told u, they are stupid. They are short sighted and cannot see the end of the plot.

    By making people afraid of carrying out punishments for immorality and instead encouraging tolerance of such people, the devil is able to achieve his goal of subverting God’s law and creating a lawless state…where people are licentious under the pretense of being “forgiving”. Contrary to wat God intended.

    With all these lies he is able to pervert the people’s way of thinking away from God and away from our conscience…making it focus instead on false pastors and cowardly preachers who want to survive in secular nations, to determine ur morality.

    Liked by 1 person

  204. Easy to read chart about ancient Greek texts:

    I am not a “King James Version Only” person so I am not endorsing everything on this website.

    Liked by 1 person

  205. burn, most everything you posted is spot-on. You make a mistake however in attributing a sense of justice or morality to one’s reaction of what their heart tells them. Rather, we are warned against this: Je 17:9. Our authority is not our feelings, but the Word of God and we test EVERYTHING against it: 2 Co 10:5.

    Yes, if I have properly written His Word on my heart (Je 31:33) through study and application, then I will indeed know anger, rage, wrath, fury whenever I witness unrighteous behavior and yes, we are called to act. And yes, these emotions are both health- and a commandment! Ro 12:9. But the emotion is not the authority: it is the by-product of knowing the authority and living the authority. It is key that we make this difference.

    I have thought of having Sharkly host a couple guest posts of mine illustrating the various lies from the Talmud and Quran that our lost Jewish and Arab brothers live out. Their synogogues and mosques study Christianity and strategize how to subvert it, Christian nations, and Christian culture. And yet, most Christians have never read the Bible cover-to-cover, let alone studied the evil plots of the world despite it being a commandment (Mt 10:16). We know that apostasy will come from WITHIN the Church, and the lukewarm churches of the West have done nothing for generations to prepare. The takeover is all but complete.

    B, I attend a KJV-only Baptist church in my area as it is the most sound doctrine available in my area. One of the major sticking points of the aging crowd is the idol-worship that is their chosen translation. Like you, I appreciate all resources I can find, but am wise enough to know not to put stock into tradition or legalism. Thank you for this resource.

    Liked by 1 person

  206. Off post: we are very much deviated from discussing Horny Housewives.

    Live long enough to see yourself become the villain… respond long enough on a blog post to see yourself become the troll?

    Like

  207. One of the best discussions on Bible translations for Anglo speakers: https://youtu.be/xJrptikLjq8

    I love both men for different things, and I am put off by both men for different things. Alas, even Jesus- the perfect man- who was all things to all people…

    Like

  208. On Horny Housewives and their waywardness… stay in your lane: https://youtu.be/GgjaBClU3Pw

    I appreciate Mr Pearl greatly: he names names, he preaches straight from the Bible, he pulls ZERO punches. He is lukewarm with various applications within the world of what they should be doing and apologetic on points he should be bold, but no one has perfect theology. He proceeds in the Spirit, this is clear.

    Like

  209. ikr,

    You are welcome for the resource.

    Thanks for the link to the debate between James White and Steven Anderson. I was not aware of it. It is very enlightening.

    Like

  210. This is random, but per the conversation at Ame’s this made me think of “dr. advice…”

    This guy is hilarious… his cut to the chase medical advice is right up your alley Sharkly LOL

    Like

  211. I’m not a fan of Michael Pearl, from what I saw in his video.
    He said: My opinion is that women are usually smarter than men. That’s where I impulsively shut the video off the first time. He is either lying or ignorant. But certainly he was pandering. I fired it up again later. to hear him say:
    Men are reluctant to take the lead spiritually. LOL, Not spiritual men. I suspect any reluctance is due to the wife’s past poor performance at being led spiritually. … like into submission in everything.
    At 7:52, he says: Are women inferior in any way? No! They’re superior in a lot of ways. Could he lie and pander any worse to the weaker vessels?
    Then he says: Standing against her? I would not be comfortable doing that.
    We’re a partnership.
    We can clearly see who the junior partner is. LOL
    He says men are not to use Ephesians 5:22-24 as an opportunity to rule over their wives.(what’s it even for then?)
    He also slips in an advertisement for his wife’s book.
    And then he conveniently declares women’s long hair to be the head covering that the apostle Paul is asking women to wear when they pray or prophesy,(the text clearly is saying otherwise) and finally he then mocks women who out of obedience wear head coverings symbolic of their subjection, yet don’t meet his own approval of what a real head covering should be. He says: Its kind of like a little tent sitting there. And they pray like that. That’s the way they do it in the East. That’s a head covering.

    The funny part was that in the comments they attribute “giant cojones” to that pandering coward, who spent half of the video apologizing to and pandering to women, and who clearly still fears women and is consequently too ashamed of God’s word to hold all women accountable for their lifestyles of rebellion, but instead he “so bravely” charges the common ground, by condemning about half a dozen false teaching female celebrity preachers, who aren’t even there.

    Liked by 2 people

  212. Sharkly-

    “But certainly he was pandering.”

    He certainly was pandering and trying not to “instigate” flak, that was obvious to see…but he redeems himself slightly in my eyes when he says “these are God’s rules not our rules”

    Like

  213. “And then he conveniently declares women’s long hair to be the head covering that the apostle Paul is asking women to wear when they pray or prophesy,”

    Yeah that was stupid.

    I’ve noticed a lot of Christians have a certain stigma against head coverings…most probably because its how Moslems dress and Christians would most probably want to make fun of Moslems…
    What’s funny is that thats how Jesus’ mother dressed.

    Liked by 2 people

  214. I am surprised neither of you mentioned the ‘he is not ruling over you’ when ver batim that is the charge man has in Ge 3:16. Exact wording.
    Also the segment of ‘if my wife sees you in the street and you argue she will probably win’ + ‘at home she often beats me in arguments’ perplex me. This is not cultivating a quiet and gentle spirit (1 Pe 3:4) and further boasts about it.

    What he did get right and explained unapologetically was headship and the hierarchy of of man. Spelled it out exactly as it should: Father > Son > Husband > Wife >> Children.
    And his mention of the Amish and being shamefaced was good, how the women conduct themselves keeping themselves from contact with men who are not their husband- at least on the surface- appeared right. Any insight to infidelity within the Anabaptist / Mennonite / Amish peoples?

    Sharkly – instead he “so bravely” charges the common ground
    Interesting observation, and true. I will remember this tactic for future discernment.

    burn- I’ve noticed a lot of Christians have a certain stigma against head coverings…most probably because its how Moslems dress
    I am one such man, for this reason. I do not wish a society wherein we are so legalistic about modesty that my wife or daughter (neither of which I have) who has a strand of hair innocently slip from her head covering only to have the patrolling ‘hair police’ grab her and stone her on the spot. Or, if outside my backyard chatting with my wife who has spent 15 minutes doing her hair FOR ME now has to run inside because some joggers in the trail behind our house might see her.
    And wearing a full-body black trash bag (niqab) in 45C heat? Unnecessary.

    Liked by 1 person

  215. “He said: My opinion is that women are usually smarter than men.”

    Turd Flinging Monkey (TFM) did some videos where he looked at the scholarly research on this and showed how the “experts” will compare boy and girl IQ tests for young children and young teens, the girls outperform because they mature physically faster. They do not do the comparative IQ tests after the boys are older and have surpassed the girls. A second trick of the “experts”, they focus on IQ score levels but don’t point out that there are 8 times as many high scoring men as there are high scoring women. The Standard Deviations are very different.

    Judgy Bitch did a writeup one time about two high IQ teens, both the boy and the girl had IQ’s around 178 (roughly, I am going by memory here). The teen boy was already doing research into Material Science and wanted to discover and invent. The girl was not doing any apparent research and wanted to be a Broadway Musical star in a few years.

    Liked by 1 person

  216. I purchased Michael Pearl’s book, “Created to Need a Help Meet”. In the book he advocates the “House Despot” principle that Tim Bayly also advocates. The wife rules the inside of the home. Dalrock has blogged about this teaching.

    Like

  217. Teens testing in the 0.01% of IQ ranges? Doubtful.
    Male wants to apply his gift to a task, female wants to garner more personal attention? Checks out.

    Like

  218. ikr-

    “I am one such man, for this reason. I do not wish a society wherein we are so legalistic about modesty that my wife or daughter (neither of which I have) who has a strand of hair innocently slip from her head covering only to have the patrolling ‘hair police’ grab her and stone her on the spot.”

    This is a common picture I’ve seen western media paint about the “hair police”…but the truth is Muslims forexample in the arab emirates(cannot confirm about the extremists), don’t put their women to death because their hair fell out or because it wasn’t being covered properly. And they are actually not required to wear their head coverings at home with relatives…any guests who happen to bump into them in their own home are to blame.

    They are actually raised in a culture that stresses modesty at all costs because they believe, with good reason, that “dress” is a major pillar of societal morality. They believe that by taking away the power of the visual, they can curb problems caused by “lustful looks”…problems like fornication, prostitution, “objectification”, lust and others.
    U can tell this has worked for them as they beat christians hands down when it comes to morality numbers(I’m sure you know what these are) in whichever areas Christians may choose.

    An example they like giving whenever I discuss the issue of their dress(with a Muslim) is that of the “bikini”. At first the bikini was “modest” in a sense, then people said that it was too “prude”(as u are suggesting their dress code is), so they went a little bit further, opened it up a little more, made it a little thinner, cut off some “restricting” parts…and by the end of the day we have something most immoral men would lust over.

    It would be far fetched to deny that the western world has been perverted by “taking women’s clothes off”(which of course I know ur not advocating for) but their main point is that its not worth the risk. And the example they give is the western world, which used to have a modest dress code before people also claimed it was too “prude”, only to give way to “less prudish” “tantalizing” dress code.

    You might be moral enough not to be bothered by it and deem it unnecessary, but u cannot deny the fact that there are those who are not as moral as u…lustful men and gullible women. And when these 2 are mixed in the absence of strict dress code laws, they give birth to things like porn.

    Liked by 1 person

  219. burn- There is much of what you say that is either ignorant of moslem society or consists of you practicing kitman. (https://archive.fo/NtOcc) I will omit my personal experience and keep my comment to the general application.

    Never trust anything any moslem does or says. They are grown from birth to practice deception in everything they do.

    There is no such thing as moderate moslems, nor extremists. There are thinkers and doers of the Quran, and in the endstate of hijrah, it is the doers who outnumber and fall on the thinkers. And when the doers are all that is left, even the doers have the ‘5% true believer’ concept…
    Pornography and pedophilia is prevalent throughout moslem cultures. It is just never discussed. In moslem law and culture, the crime of exposing a neighbor’s sin is graver than the sin itself. This leads to lack of accountability, which allows carefully built (false) image of purity to be seen by both outsiders and insiders alike.
    The hair police was not a nitpicked example. Moslems are by their ideology highly legalistic.

    The example you provide of UAE is one of the richest societies in the world, and even moreso moslem culture. As is typical of all wealthy societies, they apply more lenience to moral law. It is a staple of man’s nature to relax standards when times are good, regardless of the ideology one holds.

    The example of the bikini is a commonly picked one. It is true that bathing suits for both men and women have shrunk considerably in the past century alone (even men wore full-body attire into the water). If a man or woman is working out, less clothing is ideal for functionality of movement and breathing. If a man or woman is dining, shopping then the clothing reflects that. Cloth has always been a form of expression.

    The problem with legislating modesty is that it becomes adherence. Modesty requires the ability of personal expression, and for the woman to choose a path that honors her husband. If you remove the choice from the woman, she cannot practice modesty (with joy): she is practicing the law (under fear of punishment).

    What moslems do not lack is zealotry. This is where Christians fail completely. You are very correct in this. I have often said that Jews and Moslems do a better job at following Christianity.. than do Christians.
    What Jews and Moslems do not have, and even Christianity still does, is a sense of personal accountability. At a certain point, you cannot keep pointing the finger at the other person for instigating, and must assume responsibility for how YOU acted.

    Which kind of brings us back to the ‘missing verse’ regarding the adulteress and the stoning. Your wife had a hair strand that fell from her covering, and she was brought out for stoning because she might have tempted a man into lust. When Jesus tells the men of the Sharia court to stone her, but let the first man be he who is sinless.. the men would be forced to admit complicity in the lust. Job made a pact with his eyes- these men could have. It is self-evident: the men would not have seen her hair strand fall if their eyes were not already enjoying the sight of her.

    A woman cannot be faulted for how a man reacts. The truth is that a man- let us say 16 years of age, raging testosterone- can be sexually aroused by merely a woman’s voice. I have seen it many times in military life when men have been out in the field for 3 months and hear a woman soldier’s voice over the radio. A man could be in a state of arousal like a room full of gas, waiting for the smallest spark to ignite.. even a fully clothed woman in niqab can ‘lead a man to lust’.

    This said, I am no fool to all the games women play- and ALL women play them. Women know when they are acting coyish. They know when they are dressing to attract attention. What was cute when they were young they learn to make alluring. They know fully well. The harlots among them just never admit it.

    Liked by 1 person

  220. Remember the role of women in God’s creation: the helper.

    The question is easy for all women: ‘In this decision, am I helping my husband (or other men) in following God’s commandments? Or am I hindering my husband (or other men)?’

    Lingerie in the bedroom? She is helping her husband practice Ge 1:28. Gold star.
    Coyish eye glances to the neighbor? She is hindering him from keeping pure thoughts. F- grade.

    Liked by 1 person

  221. And this is why I enjoy this blog. ikr you last comment was great. Very helpful. Out in the world of Christian mommy blogs, sometimes even sexy lingerie confined strictly to the bedroom is frowned upon and I’m made to feel dirty for wanting to dress up to please my husband. It’s good to be reminded again of what is important: helping and pleasing my husband.

    Liked by 1 person

  222. ikr-

    “There is much of what you say that is either ignorant of moslem society or consists of you practicing kitman.”

    I am not practicing “kitman”, at least not intentionally, as like I said, I have only been to the emirates(Abu Dhabi) and Oman. I cannot confirm about what is practiced in other areas coz I haven’t been.

    “The problem with legislating modesty is that it becomes adherence. Modesty requires the ability of personal expression, and for the woman to choose a path that honors her husband. If you remove the choice from the woman, she cannot practice modesty (with joy): she is practicing the law (under fear of punishment).”

    The problem with not legislating it(according to them) is that some(a lot) of people won’t choose it, more so if they are exposed to lies about how cool it is to dress immodestly by media.
    The law is a very good deterrent against decadence. For example u cannot say that ‘we should not legislate pornography so that people can practice not watching pornography “with joy” instead of being fearful of punishment’…no…what is needed in the society is deterrence from decadence…not a state of mind that people might not even reach(as some women do not even aim to please their husbands in the first place, more so by being modest).

    “the men would not have seen her hair strand fall if their eyes were not already enjoying the sight of her.”

    First of all, not everyone who looks at a woman looks at her lustfully. Only a person with a huge problem would conform to that. So one might have looked and just seen a normal woman, nothing special. Of course I’m not defending someone being put to death for a strand of hair…just pointing out the flaw in that logic.

    Second, like I said, I cannot confirm of any case where a woman was stoned because her hair fell out accidentally…because, first of all, that is not a death penalty crime in Oman or UAE…and second, I don’t think there are men consistently watching for these accidents, waiting for the hair to fall out and, in the split second before it is put back, declare a death penalty…they do have trials btw….
    But I’ve seen such videos that might make one believe that that is what they actually do.
    For example in Oman there was an adulterous woman who killed her husband with the help of her partner in adultery and dumped the body somewhere. They were tried and, after confession, were both executed.
    But then I saw the same woman in a different news article(non-Arab of course)…and the article was saying “rape victim accused of adultery and put to death in honor-killing”.

    That is why I do not immediately take as truth whatever someone might say negatively about the circumstances of the death penalties in those countries. The people there are not as stupid as u myt think, they know a mistake from an intention. That is why they killed those 2 evil people who were not only guilty of adultery, but also murder. Now someone like Ace might call this barbaric but I only see justice, so does God.

    “A woman cannot be faulted for how a man reacts.”

    This is very true…but if we know the various types of reactions a man might have, wouldn’t it be better to implement measures to mitigate the negative reactions.
    U say that the trash bags don’t help, but the rape rates in america and Oman,UAE are worlds apart. Trash bags of course coupled with the fact that rapists are killed (they are actually killed despite what u may hear, the 2 witnesses crap, like I said, they are not stupid, they have trials) are responsible to this.

    “even a fully clothed woman in niqab can ‘lead a man to lust’.”

    Of course…but it would be far fetched to say that modest dress garners as much lust in a lustful man as a bikini.

    ” I have often said that Jews and Moslems do a better job at following Christianity.. than do Christians.”

    This is true

    Liked by 3 people

  223. burn- Let us imagine the following, in public:
    Women wear push-up bras, thongs and stillettos. Skin showing all over, form fully exposed. 98% of men are aroused. (2% are blind)
    Women wear cocktail dresses and stillettos. Form showing 80% of men are aroused.
    Women wear sundresses and flats. Form subdued. 50% of men are aroused.
    Women wear long skirts and cardigans. Some skin, form subdued. 30% of men are aroused.
    Women wear the black trashbag niqab, black workboots and oven mitts on their hands. No skin nor form showing. 2% of men are aroused. (2% that are blind)

    Where do YOU legislate? Where do YOU draw the line on how you aim to achieve modesty in society? You are the King of Burnstachistan: what measure do YOU implement to reduce negative male attention brought on by women’s actions (choosing what to wear)?

    The problem is not what laws we have. The problem is what we, within our lives + families + tribe, 1. facilitate and 2. encourage and how faithfully we uphold God’s standard. I think the Amish have this very dialed in: they do not associate with outsiders, their women always travel in pairs absent a male, their older women are shamefaced and train well the young. They maintain their culture, do not permit outside influence (billboards, TV, print magazines nowhere to be found). They are not following any legislation when they do this, clearly, as the laws of the land permit them to walk down the street with only tape on their nipples and not be in violation of public indecency laws. Their violations are handled by the elder women who are training, through example and obedience, the younger women who still have rebellious spirits. “Breaking the horse”. Those that want to rebel, Rumspringa then outcasts. The Eastern church has various sects that also do likewise: elder women who get after the younger women rebelling by not wearing their covering in church etc. Again, no legislation, but in-group cultural policing by the women to ensure they are keeping their best for their husbands.

    Rape is plenty rampant in moslem countries. Particularly: raping women who are not moslem as a commandment. Remember that whatever numbers published are self-published. A woman cannot claim rape without testimony of 4 men, and furthermore she is punished if she brings accusation and the court deems insufficient testimony (Q 24:14). Majority of rapes are never claimed, and of those claimed, majority are not counted/reported.
    This fact of their degenerate actions are better exposed in the west where crimes are treated as just data, statistics. Who is committing the vast majority of rapes in the west? Moslems… in Koeln, Malmo, Rotheram etc. But you never hear how they treat Yazidis within their own lands.

    Moslems get around much of their ‘purity laws’ by going to a father and engaging the girl. Now, under the guise of pursuing marriage, the guy and girl fool around together until they have had their fun and the guy ‘breaks off’ the engagement before the father. Onto the next one. Fornication is commonplace. Again, they are a highly legalistic society, but every system can be abused. Water seeks the lowest ground.

    (Regarding moslems doing a better job at following Christianity than Christians… they do a better job at upholding 1 Co 7 and have codified it in Q 2:223. Indeed, there is no such bogus thing as ‘marital rape’. I assume we are only talking unrelated man-woman rape, but wanted to address this ‘gotcha’ just in case)

    What prevents rape is 1. healthy outlet for sexual desire 2. vested interest in keeping everyone’s garden snakes in their assigned gardens.
    You get rape when you have 1. societally/maritally disenfranchised male 2. available outlet not part of the in-group
    If every man has a woman they enjoy and a healthy fear of depriving his fellow man from enjoying his own woman, your rapes vanish. Any man with his own outlet will protect his daughter, sister, cousin, tribal female because those are the women who belong to his own. Rapes occur across racial lines, cultural lines, family lines and religious lines. They do not happen within a family, cultural, tribe, religion- the strongest possible in-group. Again, Amish leading the charge here on living out the Bible.

    (Addressing another ‘gotcha’ of rape: incest. Yes, Tamar happened. I am speaking to general rapes: these are not crimes of passion but of power, and having societies consisting of in-groups balances the power as the men keep their boundaries between what IS theirs, and what is not. Where this breaks down is societies that permit/encourage behavior that is not protecting of the in-group)

    ” The people there are not as stupid as u myt think, they know a mistake from an intention. ”

    This is naive to believe. No one can know the depravity of the heart of man, not even himself. Peter believed he would follow Christ, and Christ prophesied not only would he fail, he wouldn’t even go 24 hours without denying him three times.
    No one can know honest mistake from intention. You can hold trials, but you can only ever confirm the outcome- never intent- of an action.
    And THIS is the charge of Christianity: a personal relationship with the Son that is inward focused.

    Without accusation: why has this discussion become you apologizing for moslems and me coming off as doing so for Amish? This post is supposed to be about Horny Housewives.

    Liked by 1 person

  224. burn- we are aligned that the Church is under attack from within, that killing is sanctioned (murder is not), and the death penalty is commanded by God for various crimes.

    Liked by 2 people

  225. ikr-

    “Without accusation: why has this discussion become you apologizing for moslems and me coming off as doing so for Amish? ”

    I’ve realized it has devolved into an apparent apologism for Islam, but rest assured that I’m not tilted towards their religion either.

    Personally I’m disgusted when it comes to their marriage laws(as like I mentioned before about their “I divorce u” wife sharing rule).
    U mentioned an “engagement” period where they fornicate and just break it off…I know of this arrangement and am disgusted by it as well.

    And I also get ur point of “willful obedience is better than forced obedience”

    Liked by 1 person

  226. Obviously, there is not enough time to read all 250+ comments to this post. But, I will add my 2 cents here.

    “Some of the early church fathers were swayed by the great influence in their culture of the stoics and ascetics to adopt a very anti-sex position, that has carried over into today’s Catholic churches demand for celibacy amongst their clergy. ”

    Yes, books have been written on how the ideas of ancient pagan schools of thought entered early Church thinking. This non-Christian influence on Christian understanding of sex came mainly from the Gnostics, Stoics and Manicheans. So, when you hear someone say this is the “Christian understanding of sex and marriage”, or something to that effect, be aware that there are many pagan elements in it. As well, you correctly point out that some of those early Church fathers had serious and deep rooted animosity to sex.

    As to your conclusions on the theological state of women, I will not comment. There was a good book on their sexuality that came out back in the mid 1960s by a woman researcher. The Nature and Evolution of Female Sexuality, by Mary Jane Sherfey, M.D. Vintage Books, copyright 1966, 1972. After reading this book, I came to believe that the old Mosaic laws on sexuality were directed more at women than at men. As well, a patriarchy stands or falls on known paternity, and, thus, women’s sexuality must be controlled.

    Liked by 1 person

  227. Welcome larryzb,
    Excellent comment.
    I had never checked out your blog before. It looks pretty good!
    I’ll be checking it out some more as I have time. For now I’ve added a link to your site in the following category: MY VIRTUAL FRIENDS: (NOT AFFILIATED, ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK)

    Yes, I think God created sex to be sanctified by marriage, and enjoyed in marriage. Your blog seems to concur with that.

    Liked by 1 person

  228. larry, women are all r-select procreators. Men are either r-select (degenerates/simps) or K-select (quality). This is a feature, not a bug, but requires the structure of firm societal limits and heavy male discipline to control. Women will delay, convince themselves, chase careers, come up with excuses but in the end, they were built by God and programmed to have babies, and will do whatever it takes to get knocked up: pay thousands of dollars for fertility drugs in their 40s even 50s, sleeping outside their race, sperm banks etc. What they need is discipline and a proper outlet for their sexuality both coming from men of their tribe.

    burn, this weekend I got into a heated discussion with a relative who is Biblically-driven in his life. He quoted the last 12 verses of Mark to defend against the claim that Christians are not supposed to be for the death penalty in cases of homosexuality (or adultery, blasphemy etc). I quoted Rm 1:32, sharing here for emphasis that the people who committed these gross acts knew they were deserving of death.

    It was helpful to be able to point to a verse that singles out the capital crimes and not just that ‘God never changes’ or that ‘Jesus did not come to change the Law, but fulfill the Law.’ Of course, those are enough of themselves, but Rm 1:32 is powerful in that it condemns with death by name the capital laws committed in 26-27. Being a NT verse, the argument from any deniers against the moral Law of Moses not being applicable to Christians exposes them as charlatans.

    B, last 12 verses of Mark resources found online:

    https://faithsaves.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Last12versesofMark.pdf

    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/26134/26134-pdf.pdf

    Additional resources found this weekend:
    https://netbible.org/
    https://av1611.com/

    Liked by 1 person

  229. Matthew 10:32-34
    32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.

    34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

    Be sure that you are not among those who are “disowning” Jesus and his law.

    Larryzb-

    “As well, a patriarchy stands or falls on known paternity, and, thus, women’s sexuality must be controlled.”

    I would be lying if I said that people outside the west aren’t rooting for the fall of ur society (as a result of mass perversion of ur women), however it is sad, as a moral person, to see morals dropped in favor of immoral and decadent alternatives.

    Any society that abandons Truth, Logic and Morality for emotionalism and sensationalism deserves to fail, and will inevitably do so. The universe(and God) will re-teach us this lesson as often as it needs to.
    I do not say this to appear to be against you western people, but it is merely a fact.

    Like

  230. @Sharkly

    Good for you you’re delving into Textual Criticism. A word of warning though. You give a quote in your argument to dismiss the “Adulteress Pericope”:
    “The pericope is not found in most of the early Greek Gospel manuscripts.”
    Be aware this line of reasoning is based on the currently dominant “eclectic” school of thought, that the older the document, the more reliable it is. You will find a very interesting read in another school of thought that reasons for Byzantine priority

    http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v06/Robinson2001.html

    And don’t fall in the trap of accusing “The Catholic Church” with altering the texts; before 1054 there was a united church spanning the whole Mediterranean, from which the bulk if not all of our manuscripts originate. The so-called “Byzantine” texts (the majority (!) of all manuscripts) are actually the result of the Koine Greek (Eastern) Roman Empire, a Christian Empire with Eastern Orthodoxy as its official religion, which spanned a 1000 years in history before being conquered by the Ottomans in 1453. The Eastern Orthodox Church has used the same Koine Greek as in the New Testament and Septuagint (!) manuscripts throughout history, till this day. An impressive fact if you think about it.

    Like

  231. Good to hear from you again, Paul.
    And it is timely that you bring this up, as I am planning a post focused on textual criticism regarding the authenticity of the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery, and how that “bit of leaven” then affects all of Christianity. I will study your link, and others, as I consider it a grave matter to add or remove from the scriptures. However even the church of Rome, and I assume the Byzantine church as well, admits there have been additions to the scripture that they discovered and were convinced to remove. And there are helpful scriptural writings, which for a few reasonable questions, have been cautiously withheld from the Biblical cannon, and have since been lumped in together with a slew of crazy apocryphal fiction.

    Just my first gut reaction to your link, it starts out saying:
    From the beginning of the modern critical era in the nineteenth century the Byzantine Textform has had a questionable reputation. Associated as it was with the faulty “Textus Receptus” editions which stemmed from Erasmus’ or Ximenes’ uncritical selection of a small number of late manuscripts (hereafter MSS), scholars in general have tended to label the Byzantine form of text “late and secondary,”…

    So basically I expect it is a huge long document full of scholarly stuff attempting to convert the reasonable critic by “baffling them with bullshit”. At which point if you can accept the scholarship and provenance of their traditions, they’ll shortly have you venerating their icons or trinkets, even though a good number of them have been proven fraudulent and not what they were once claimed to be. ‘cuz it brings you closer to Jesus if you just pretend it really was a piece of His cross, as you kiss the glass it is cased in.

    That is just my gut suspicion, but I’ll glean through it. Although I see a lot of comparatively positive aspects of the eastern church, compared to apostate western churches, the eastern churches are full of mysticism and uncritical faith in men of the past, so basically they just have a slightly different set of errors and problems from the other straying churches. IMHO The eastern churches seem to currently be less Feminist, but are quickly adopting Feminism, whereas the western churches are so effeminized, that men have left it in droves, and it may be ready to try to win some of them back by pretending to be less about their current goddess worship.

    And on a separate unrelated note, perhaps it doesn’t leave me sounding as scholarly, but I’m haphazardly trying to wean myself off of using Latin by choice, the once native language of Rome, the state mother of whoring churches, and the official language of the un-Holy See. Thus I prefer to speak of the image of God, not the “Imago Dei”. LOL It may just be my own personal fetish, but I’m trying to consciously de-Latinize myself where possible, although I am not religious about it, as it is a large part of our English language. I don’t spit after every time a Latin word leaves my lips, but I am discriminating against the language of the Mother of Harlots. We and our money should keep far away from whoring churches just like Solomon warned his sons to stay away from whores. Try reading the following passage thinking of whore churches, it all still seems to apply:
    Proverbs 5:3 For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil: 4 But her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. 5 Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell. 6 Lest thou shouldest ponder the path of life, her ways are moveable, that thou canst not know them. 7 Hear me now therefore, O ye children, and depart not from the words of my mouth. 8 Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house: 9 Lest thou give thine honour unto others, and thy years unto the cruel: 10 Lest strangers be filled with thy wealth; and thy labours be in the house of a stranger;

    Like

  232. @Sharkly

    Thank you for your kind words, I’m hoping you’re holding on amidst the very difficult time you’re going through.
    You write “I am planning a post focused on textual criticism regarding the authenticity of the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery”. Next to reading the more general article on Byzantine Priority Theory I pointed you too, you might also want to have a look at this recent detailed study about this passage:

    https://www.academia.edu/12550658/John_7_53_8_11_Another_Textual_Analysis_of_the_Pericope_Adulterae

    From the conclusions:
    If the non-genuineness of John 7:53-8:11 is assumed, then the explanation of the available evidence is complicated, involving stages of oral circulation, editing, insertion, and recirculation as part of the text of the Gospel of John. When the genuineness of John 7:53-8:11 is assumed, then the explanation of the evidence is much less complicated: the witnesses that do not support the inclusion of the passage may all be traced back to an influential copying-center in Egypt in the mid-100’s, where a mechanically minded copyist, using a lector’s copy as his exemplar, misunderstood instructions to skip from the end of John 7:52 to the beginning of John 8:12.

    Like

  233. Pingback: The chief human enemies of Christ? | Laughing at Feminism

  234. I’m going to go against conventional worldly wisdom&agree that the entire FEMINAZI movement is hate&bitterness!I can’t beleave some women agree with the bible&the other GREATBOOKSFORMENtm on this one!Its good to know some women have seen the light!Do they also agree with how sick&twisted these FEMINAZI’s can be too?It sounded like one did!

    Like

  235. Pingback: Art Imitates Life: Biblical Forgery Edition | Laughing at Feminism

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s