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