Red-Pill Religion?

Bnonn's Baby

Lately there has been some discussion of whether the “Red Pill” is Christian or not.   I think it is a fool’s debate, but here goes, I’ll wade in against the foolish.  Recently I read two somewhat opposing articles regarding this.  First I’ll deal with the foolish one: Bnonn throws the baby out.  Fence-riding Bnonn, at the Purple-Pill “It’s Good To Be A Man” takes a break from fighting his enemy ‘Blue-Pill feminist Status quo’ to take a swipe at his other enemy, ‘Red-Pill patriarchal wisdom’.  Bnonn begins by saying: “Our conviction is that, while the red pill shares certain commonalities with biblical Christianity, and often sees the nature of things more clearly than mainstream evangelicalism, it is actually a separate religion in its own right.”  So, Bnonn recognizes that there are some Biblical principles in the red pill, and that this truth leads Red-Pilled people to seeing the nature of things with greater clarity, but he then proceeds to ‘point and shriek’, branding this truth, this source of greater clarity, as a false religion, outlawing seeking this truth and wisdom from Christianity.  Now I’ll spare you the bulk of his bnonnsense, as the author is reduced to painting the red pill with a very broad brush, citing various individual foibles and some red-piller’s lack of Christian morals, and such,  as reason to advise his readers to shriek and run from any truth or wisdom that might be inherent in the Red-Pill movement, and to let men like himself do your thinking, and all consideration of it, for you.  As Bnonn so often does, his articles generally go into lengthy drawn out contortions to twist some unrelated tidbits into seemingly supporting his contentions, and apparently to either impress or baffle his readers  he opportunistically throws in the biggest and most arcane words that he knows, but in this article mainly he foolishly paints with an overly broad brush and throws the good out with the bad.  Bnonn concludes with: “Hence, we are not red pill Christians, and actively warn against the very idea of such a thing. We are Christians who have benefited from the observations of red pill thinkers about God’s creation, and are striving to integrate that knowledge into a positive biblical theology of masculinity, femininity, and how men and women are to work together to extend the dominion of the house of God.”

As you can see, Bnonn cleverly shifts dominion from individual men under the headship of Christ,(1 Corinthians 11:3) to the church, “the house of God”, of which he is a thought leader.  Bnonn’s preface and conclusion, given above, defines his ilk as Purple-Pill, and attempts to scare his readers off from becoming any more Red-Pilled than Bnonn himself.    He claims to be riding the fence at just the perfect balance point.  So as always, your ideas and discussion are not permitted there, just your donations, so they can afford to continue doing all your thinking for you, and in exchange they’ll limit your dominion a bit less than a more Feminist church.

Job 12:2 Truly ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you!

Now on to the Good.

Over at Biblical Gender Roles, the host asks: Is Red Pill Biblical?

As you know, I myself, have been teaching that men are exclusively in the image and glory of God,(1 Corinthians 11:7) created preeminent, to be delegated divine dominion over women and all of creation, with the command to rule them well.  I have stated that we men have been deceived into trading our birthright ~ blessed Patriarchy, for a mess of dysfunctional Feminism.  This Bible based belief also fits well with the Red Pill.

The host quotes popular secular Red Pill Blogger, Rollo Tomassi as saying: The authority men used, to claim innate legitimacy [from] in the past, is now only legitimate when a woman wields it.  Men need to retake this authority and own it as is their birthright once again.”

I won’t dissect the Biblical Gender Roles article here, since it is worth reading for yourself.  I will however welcome all your discussion of it here.  I personally have found it difficult to get my comments to appear at BGR, and Bnonn’s article does not allow any comments at all.  Feel free to share your thoughts about whether the Red Pill movement contains wisdom and truth that our Feminist churches have been misled to currently try to deny, or any other thoughts.

Sharkly – Heresiarch or Church Reformer?

 

Martin Luther the Reformer

Martin Luther is remembered annually on Reformation day, October 31, 1517, for when he began the Protestant Reformation by nailing his 95 Theses, protesting the sale of indulgences, to the door of All Saints’ Church in Wittenberg, Germany.  His ensuing one man public battle with the Catholic Church was made possible by the arrival of printing presses, whose owners printed, and widely sold to the public, copies of Luther’s criticisms and condemnations of the wayward church.  By the time the papacy responded to Luther’s writings in June 1520 offering Luther 60 days to recant or be excommunicated, Luther, a prolific and compelling writer, had not only publicly denounced the authority of the pope, but had declared him an antichrist.

Heresiarch definition: Arch-Heretic – an originator or chief advocate of a heresy.

I am Sharkly, and as you may know, I consider it foundational to our Christian faith that we understand who God is, and who we are.  I believe God is masculine or male, a Father, Son, and their masculine Spirit, and that men alone are earthly likenesses or images of God.  I believe we are told of this repeatedly in the Bible.  I believe the misunderstanding of God and humankind has led Christendom and the world back into the serpent’s trap of once again deifying women and catering to Eve’s desires rather than the will of our Creator, thereby we worship a creature rather than our Creator.  We as a society make ongoing human child sacrifices, through abortion, at the altar of idolatrous Feminism.  In just our generation we have shed more innocent blood, tearing more babies to bits, than all who died from all the wars of history combined.  The Heavenly Father in great anger will hold our generation to account for this unprecedented sacrifice of  innocent babies at the satanic altar of female supremacy.  We must repent and return to the ways set up by our loving Father!

I first realized that men alone were in the image of God by reading Genesis 1:26-27

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

It became apparent to me after reading this that God clearly mentioned man/him(Adam) being made/created in God’s image or likeness four times while contrastingly telling us that the male & Female(them) were only just created by God, with conspicuously no mention of it being done in God’s image.  So  I searched the scriptures for the image of God, and every single place it is mentioned it is assigned to the masculine man/men/Jesus.(in non-neutered Bibles)  The Apostle Paul makes it clear that men alone are the image of God in 1 Corinthians 11:7

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

No part of God Himself needs to be exhibited through the feminine, because all of God is masculine in Himself and in His representation.  Jesus Christ did not need a female counterpart to exhibit the full image of God according to Colossians 2:9 (Colossians 1:19 states similar)

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

(ESV) 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

There is no exclusively female aspect to the image of God.  The whole of the image of God was shown in Jesus Christ, a man come in the flesh, the Son of God.

I have also come to discover that this is what the early church taught and unanimously believed.  Saint Augustine said:  But we must notice how that which the apostle says, that not the woman but the man is the image of God, is not contrary to that which is written in Genesis, “God created man: in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them: and He blessed them.” For this text says that human nature itself, which is complete in both sexes, was made in the image of God; and it does not separate the woman from the image of God which it signifies. For after saying that God made man in the image of God, “He created him,” it says, “male and female:” or at any rate, punctuating the words otherwise, “male and female created He them.” How then did the apostle tell us that the man is the image of God, and therefore he is forbidden to cover his head; but that the woman is not so, and therefore is commanded to cover hers? Unless, forsooth, according to that which I have said already, when I was treating of the nature of the human mind, that the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one.

Ambrosiaster says:  Paul says that the honor and dignity of a man makes it wrong for him to cover his head, because the image of God should not be hidden. Indeed, it ought not to be hidden, for the glory of God is seen in the man. … A woman therefore ought to cover her head, because she is not the likeness of God but is under subjection.

Epistle of “Mathetes” to Diognetus 10:2a  For God loved men (… whom He created after His own image …) for whose sake He made the world, to whom He subjected all things that are in the earth … [This includes women, who are repeatedly told to be in subjection to their fathers and then husbands]

In past posts I have shared other quotes from early church fathers sharing the unanimous belief of the apostolic and patristic church that only men are the express images of God and designated as representatives of God, here living on earth.  These beliefs were unchanged until the latter portion of the fourth century when the church was taken over and instituted as the state religion of the Roman empire by Emperor Constantine.  All sorts of politics, greed, and secular rot got syncretized into the church as it became a secular world power.  Notably, Mary was deified, (to please forcibly converted goddess worshippers) and in the process of doing so, women had to be falsely claimed to be images of God as well as men, for Mary to be able to be deified.  Mary went from being a minor figure, less mentioned in the Bible than some other women, to then being claimed to be co-redemptrix with Christ, who is the central hero of the Bible.  Eventually the false belief of women being in the image of the Most High was brought to its logical conclusion of making women fully equal to men.  Just as Mary was blasphemously made equal with Christ.  And today God’s institution of marriage is being debased, and families are destroyed, because marriages won’t operate properly as a democracy of two equals.

Here is some Early church advice on telling heretics from true teachers:

Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) Chapter 11. Concerning Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets.  11:1 Whosoever therefore shall come and teach you all these things that have been said before, receive him; 2 But if the teacher himself be perverted and teach another doctrine to destroy these things, do not listen to him. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord.

So, who is teaching the doctrine that was delivered to the apostolic church?  Based upon The words of the Apostle Paul, and upon the remaining writings of many of the earliest church Fathers, that would be those of us who teach that women by themselves are not the image of God, but that women and men together portray Jesus Christ(who is God) and his bride the true church that is to become one with the Lord.

Which doctrine fits best with the rest of scripture, and which doctrine destroys other scriptural doctrines?  The belief that both sexes represent the image of the Most High God, and are thus equal in their rank and dignity, fights against so many other teachings of the Bible:

  1. Ephesians 5 teaches us that husbands image Jesus Christ, while wives image the church.  So the sexes are clearly not equal.
  2. Women are told to be in subjection.  So the sexes are clearly not equal.
  3. Men alone are allowed to represent God and teach His word to both men and women.  So the sexes are clearly not equal.
  4. Women are not to usurp authority over men. (1 Timothy 2:12)  So the sexes are clearly not equal.
  5. Women are to reverence their husbands (Ephesians 5:33)  So the sexes are clearly not equal.
  6. Women are to cover their heads in prayer, but men should not.  So the sexes are clearly not equal when coming before God.
  7. Man was created preeminently in God’s image, while woman was secondly created from man’s flesh and bone.  So the sexes are clearly not equal in their creation.
  8. The husband is to be the head, and the wife the helper.  So the sexes are clearly not equal in rank.
  9. Women are unavoidably ceremonially unclean during menstruation,  So the sexes are clearly not equal.  Nor does that periodic defilement fit the image of God.
  10. Women are natural defilers. (Revelation 14:4)  So the sexes are clearly not equal.
  11. We are clearly told that women are the “weaker vessel”.  So the sexes are clearly not equal.
  12. We are told specifically that women are to be shamefaced. (1 Timothy 2:9)  So the sexes are clearly not of equal glory and status.

Those are just a dozen of the many other doctrines that are damaged by having women equally in the image of the Most High God, that first popped into my head.  Feel free to offer more in the comments section.

Some women might falsely claim that giving husband’s dominion, as unto the Lord, will lead to cruelty and abuses, well here is how it should work as described by the apostolic church:

Epistle of “Mathetes” to Diognetus from Chapter 10How will you love Him who has first so loved you? And if you love Him, you will be an imitator of His kindness. And do not wonder that a man may become an imitator of God. He can, if he is willing. For it is not by ruling over his neighbors, or by seeking to hold the supremacy over those that are weaker, or by being rich, and showing violence towards those that are inferior, that happiness is found; nor can any one by these things become an imitator of God. But these things do not at all constitute His majesty. On the contrary he who takes upon himself the burden of his neighbor; he who, in whatsoever respect he may be superior, is ready to benefit another who is deficient; he who, whatsoever things he has received from God, by distributing these to the needy, becomes a god to those who receive [his benefits]: he is an imitator of God.

So as you can see, being the image of God places greater duty upon the man, to look out for his inferior, including the call to be ready to lay his life down for his bride, like Christ(God) did for His bride the church.  Truly understanding and practicing God’s order for the family will lead to deeper love and harmony than the lie of having two supposed equals constantly contending with each other for control.

So in conclusion, I want to bring the church back to its original teaching on womankind, where “she is not the likeness of God but is under subjection.”  This fits far better with the rest of the Bible’s doctrines,  and it destroys the basis for evil Feminism that has unleashed so much death and destruction against our own children.  God’s plan is based upon His love, and will promote greater harmony between the sexes again, when properly followed.  Join me in returning back to God’s simple truth.

Bnonnas Foster: a delightful treat

Bnonnas Foster

Quite a tasty appetizer

But, today I’ll have to serve up the accompanying meat.

I just received a lengthy new update from Dominic “Bnonn” Tennant and Pastor Michael Foster AKA “It’s Good To Be A Man”, #8: Androgyny is literally paganism.

Bnonn & Foster present the case that Satan wants to completely muddle the inherent natural divisions between the sexes and/or invert the God ordained ranking of the sexes.  And that any attempt to diminish the God ordained fundamental differences between the sexes, or to invert the male superior order to the sexes, is to help Satan’s cause and to oppose God.  They teach that androgyny is not just people who get “sex changes” or are transvestites, but also includes those who actively work to diminish the public belief in inherent sexual differences and to change the natural roles God intends for each of the sexes.  Bnonn & Foster seem to imply that those whom they call “Christian androgynists” will not go to heaven unless they repent:

What we mean by this is that androgyny is a “gospel issue.” It is a kind of sexual immorality, the practitioners of which will not see the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9, NASB). In other words, androgyny is not a faux pas, where you violate the social expectations of men and women in God’s kingdom. It is a heresy, where you violate the integrity of the gospel itself by syncretizing it with another religion. [Feminism – or Androgynism as Bnonn & Foster call it]

Bnonn & Foster quote “Christian androgynist” Rachel Green Miller:

For instance, Mrs. Miller claims that “submission in marriage and in the church is an example of equals agreeing to submit to the authority of leaders they have chosen for themselves. There is order, but not subordination” …  We have been stewing in androgyny culturally for so long that much of it looks completely normal; the thing that has begun to seem strange and offensive to us is God’s design.

The upshot is that if you ask Christian androgynists why women are not to be pastors or heads of houses—why, in other words, it is always the woman who must “choose” to submit in these relationships of equals?—they do not have an answer. It is as if God simply declared it by fiat to test our faith. They strenuously deny that women should not be pastors because of their ontology, their being.  If they were to accept that, they would also have to accept that women should not be presidents or policemen for the same reason—and that is unthinkable in a culture of androgyny. As Mark Jones puts it in his own review of Mrs. Miller’s book, “What is the actual reason for submission/subordination?  Is it simply because God says so (positive law) or is it also because God has made it so (creational, fixed)?”

It is at the heart of paganism to deny that God has made it so.

So, Bnonn & Foster make many good points, but in the end they just fall short and can’t make the only argument that will hold up, because they both are still completely in the Christian androgynist’s camp when it comes to both men and women equally being the image of their apparently hermaphroditic God.  Consequently, according to that, any reasonable mind can figure out that men and women are still left morally exactly equal by both equally imaging God Most High, God does then therefore rule by capricious fiat, and Bible believing men are really just control-freaks and pretentious usurpers of women.

If the reasons why women aren’t allowed to preach are solely biological, then it only stands to reason, that they are matters of varying degree from person to person.  While the ancients held that men were generally stronger physically, mentally, constitutionally, and emotionally, these are all matters of degree with exceptions too numerous to be counted.  There is likely some old salty woman who is less gullible even than these two young Christian teachers.

If the qualification to represent God is something exclusively male, like a man’s penis being the measure of what makes a good preacher, then correspondingly I should already be one of the greatest, and everybody should fully comprehend these thoughts as I relay them, by virtue of my exceptional natural giftedness in that regard.  However, I don’t recall the apostles or the great preachers of old extolling their manhoods to back up their calling, so I don’t believe my schlong is what qualifies me to share God’s word with other men.

So, what really makes men the images and representatives of Christ, able to represent God as teachers of His Word, while all women are not?  Well I fully believe God’s Bible when it tells me:

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Is the apostle Paul deceiving us there?  Why must the reason that all women are commanded to wear head coverings to pray while men are not, be something other than the only reason the inspired Apostle Paul gave us, directly from God Most High Himself?  Should we not believe God?  Men are not to cover the image of God when seeking to enter the presence of God, because it is a dishonor to cover the image in the presence of the One whose likeness it is.  Whereas women are instead to cover their heads and be adorned with shamefacedness, which would clearly not be a fit treatment for the image of God in the presence of God.  So, if God is telling us the truth, and women are just the glory of men and do not represent God Himself, then one would expect that men would be the only sex that represents God here on earth, while wives are relegated to representing God’s church which is then to reverence God, and His image.(her husband ~ Ephesians 5:33) and we are each also therefore to honor all men.

Early church father Ambrosiaster backs me up, saying: Paul says that the honor and dignity of a man makes it wrong for him to cover his head, because the image of God should not be hidden. Indeed, it ought not to be hidden, for the glory of God is seen in the man. … A woman therefore ought to cover her head, because she is not the likeness of God but is under subjection.

So, if men alone are in the unsurpassable image of God Most High, then there can be no way that any woman could ever be any man’s equal.  The basis for Satan’s entire lie of Feminism is destroyed and laid bare as a falsehood, once you know this truth.   The truth is that the women of the early church all wore head coverings for the exact reason given by the Apostle Paul.  The fathers of the early church were unanimous in their writings, that women are not by themselves images of God.  The heresy of women independently imaging God came about towards the end of the fourth century AD, in Rome, after Constantine had made Christianity the State religion, and state/church leaders were looking to make their religion more acceptable to the many forcibly converted goddess worshippers.(by deifying Mary.  To make her divine, she had to also become the image of the divine.)  Prior to this syncretism with goddess worship, the church fathers handed down the truth they had learned from the apostles regarding who was in the image of God:

Tertullian said: And do you not know that you are Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway; you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die.

Augustine said: 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. 

Augustine said: “. . . 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?”

So, Bnonn & Foster are still befuddled by this latter day heresy of women somehow representing God’s likeness, perhaps imagining the Father & Son exploring their “feminine side”, and it causes them to have to grasp at straws and paint God as a bit unreasonable in his preference for the male of our species .

But hey, if God is also female, why wouldn’t she be attracted to me?  This farce just continues to write itself.  LOL

As I mentioned in a previous comment, I had posted an argument on bnonn.com that the reason men don’t wear head coverings to pray, while women do, is because just the man is the image and glory of God, just like The Apostle Paul told us, but the woman is the glory of man, but Bnonn deleted my clearly reasoned comment.  Apparently, to these teachers who would have you believe the image of God is androgynous or hermaphroditic, my original early church belief that I reflect a male God, not a female goddess, is just unthinkable.

When lies have been accepted for some time, the truth always astounds with an air of novelty. ~ Clement of Alexandria

Just when you thought this farce could go no further … over at bnonn.com, where my masculine early church view is censored from the discussion, Bnonn is content to be discussing one man’s strange view that the “covering” actually means testicles!  The early church must have got it wrong, the women were supposed to wear testicles on their heads, or cover their testicles, or some sort of absolute Bnonnsense.

Bnonn says: I don’t discount the possibility that Paul specifically uses peribolaion to evoke a double entendre, to allude to Hippocratic physiology—but I don’t think that is his primary meaning. Certainly he may also want his audience to think of how sensual a woman’s hair is; that it is akin to a sexual organ, and therefore should be covered in worship.

Folks, the Apostle Paul wasn’t writing about women wearing testicles on their heads, that is just Bnonn being a nut-head.  Professing themselves to be wise, they make absolute clowns of themselves when they must ignore the plain meaning of the scripture to accommodate their own syncretism.  Yet God has those mockers who would try to neuter Him, in derision.  They just apparently can’t see what eternal clowns they are making of themselves.  LOL

(Referring to 1 Corinthians 11:7) Bnonn says: Why, then, is woman the glory of man? Is she not made in the image of God? Any modern Christian who claims not to get at least uneasy reading this passage—and probably tight under the collar—is fibbing. We are so conditioned by feminism we can’t help it.

LOL  Poor Bnonn!  all hot and bothered!  Speaking of testicles … Maybe he’s got a case of spiritually undescended testicles.   He and Pastor Michael Foster perhaps should both consider acquiring a functioning pair.  Perhaps because I know that I am the manifest image of God, and women are not, it gives me greater confidence when speaking to them.  I have no problem whatsoever telling women that they are not the image of God and remaining as cool as a cucumber.  And I can give them God’s Bible verse for it too. ~ 1 Corinthians 11:7