There are no longer whores, only verbally abusive men. /S

Scantily clad whores in skimpy clothes. Prostitutes going for a slut walk. Only three things don't get cold in the winter, Polar Bears, Penguins, and Whores

Slut-Walks are now being organized by sluts to reclaim the word “Slut”.  Apparently the word “Slut” has a bad connotation. Slut-walk organizers say that the shaming connotation was caused by “The Patriarchy”, which is to say: all previous generations of the church that upheld God’s patriarchal order and laws condemning sexual immorality and effectively instilled their godly values throughout past generations of society.   But, no more!   The word “slut” now will mean; an empowered woman who seduces and copulates with whichever men of her choosing will dare to stick their dick into her.  Only “slut” will now supposedly mean that in a far more positive way, free from the shaming that societies influenced by an effective patriarchal church, previously maintained.

So how did we get to be such an immodest and immoral generation where women openly attend church dressed like the whores that they have become?

The immodesty and immorality of our generation is the legacy of cowardice and inaction on the part of the previous generation of leaders of our nation’s churches.  Cowardly leadership has led to a worthless “church” that today intentionally resembles the world, which has grown much more evil on those hirelings’ watch.  These apostate churches no longer lead our culture towards modesty and morality, but instead they follow the world into immodesty and immorality.  Will the churches of our children’s generation be returned to modesty under our watch?  If not, we’re not fighting hard enough or effectively enough.  You can read the lack of willingness to enforce modesty in today’s typical churchian assemblies in the following language from Whitewater Community Churches website:

Come as you are

Casual, Business Dress, Formal.   At Whitewater Community Church our concern is not on your outward appearance, but on the inward appearance of your heart.

While that sounds so “nice”, what that is really saying is; that they haven’t the balls to rein in attention-seeking immodest sluts.  Modesty won’t be forced to return while impotent churches lazily preach “come as you are”.  Profligate whores have slut-walked their way into these churches and the churchians esteem them as their pure hearted goddesses.   The goofballs that mismanage such churches are probably far more upset by my use of derisive words designed to shame their immodest and immoral congregations.

While floozies want to boldly reclaim the word “slut”, most misguided churchians try to assist by shaming upright men, hoping to just keep us from ever calling anyone a slut.   As you can see, Satan’s Feminist minions will continue to denounce God-fearing men as being “mean-spirited” or “verbally abusive” even after they have already restricted them from using anything more forceful than mere words to discourage immodesty. The whores and apostate churchians combined satanic goal is to “smash the patriarchy” removing all of men’s ability to correct wayward women, and rule over them well, as the Bible instructs men to do.  Eventually Satan will have the woman-controlled Beta-males at your local megachurch so thoroughly muzzled that you’ll have to ask those poor fools to blink twice if they don’t approve of the clothing-optional Sunday school class for polyamorous members.

Churchian men lack both the will and the loins to tell women to cover their heads when they pray, like God tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:3-10.  Instead they twist God’s word, to nullify God’s commandment, because their actual lord and master whom they serve, wants them to subvert God’s commands.  And they are far too cowardly to tell women to cover their heads, or even to modestly clothe over their tits and asses while at their church.  When the choice is between obeying God and telling women to cover their heads, versus obeying Feminists, who don’t want such a God-ordained symbol of subjection on a woman’s head, to whom does that “church” give the worth-ship to be followed?  The churchians consistently worship women, the creature, above their Creator.

Head is covered

The churches will foolishly fall into Satan’s trap and repeat the sin of Adam and hearken unto the voice of the woman, instead of God, almost every time, even though we are clearly warned against this at the very beginning of the Bible, and the whole earth was cursed because of that very sin.  But that’s no matter to those spiritual retards that mislead today’s whoring churches.  They’ll not only hearken unto the weaker vessels, they’ll go whoring after the government too.

In Kansas our ugly butch-haired Democrat Governess has ordered that all people must cover their faces when in public, presumably to slow the spread of a coronavirus.  And I have no doubt that churchians obediently snapped their face coverings on the very next Sunday after the exalted governess spoke her command.  Whereas these same churches have effectively told God to piss-off, when His word commands that women should cover their heads, and/or veil their faces as the original churches practiced, whenever women might be seeking God’s presence in prayer.  For 1900 years straight every church everywhere throughout Christendom insisted that the women wear head coverings.  But, no longer.

1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.  6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.  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.

So, if God says that the head and visage of a man, who is the image of God his glorious Father, should not be covered during prayer, and the Governess orders men’s faces be covered in public, who do you suppose wins in their church when those orders collide during public prayer?  Did all the men take their muzzles off like they would remove their hats according to godly tradition?   Do we even have to ask whom those apostates obeyed, and whom they scorned?

Satan likes to get foolish men to dishonor God, and humiliate themselves.

Just 100 years ago our ancestor’s wives all covered their heads in obedience to God when they went to church or prayed.  And they also weren’t wearing skintight tops or bottoms.  But now these cowardly beta-male preachers pretend the gates of hell won’t prevail against their whoring “churches”, while their spiritual whorehouse’s doors are hell’s gateway.  Satan has already prevailed over them and is now driving a victory lap, while those ignorant men are praying with their faces covered.  They’re just blind guides, leading other blinded people into the pit.  Unless you also want to worship their hefty whores in skin tight clothes, don’t waste your time attending their apostate woman-hearkening training centers.  Start your own home church, where God is feared.

2 Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

Woman Trouble

Crazy Woman Maya McKinney

Maya McKinney ~ “transgender” school shooting accomplice

“So what’s gotten into women?”, some of you may be asking yourself.  Were they always this way?  In short, for the most part, I believe women’s nature has not changed.  What has changed is that men’s control over females has been reduced.   Just days before the school shooting, Maya had texted about missing her father who had been deported again.  Apparently through domestic violence charges, divorce, and deportations, Maya’s father had been kept away from her, leaving her one confused and upset 16 year old girl.  Maya felt like she had been bullied at school since she began trying to become one of the boys, and it finally got so bad that bullies even interrupted and put a stop to her school shooting when she was just trying to get even.

News Flash: All women are natural defilers.

Revelation 14:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.  4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.  5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

As God’s word shows us, women are natural defilers.  From Eve in Genesis 3:17 defiling the whole earth by leading Adam into sin, all the way through to the great whore who polluted the entire earth with her sexual immorality in Revelation 19:2.  While the great whore is most certainly not an actual woman, it is telling that this whoring rival of the bride of Christ is personified as another female defiler.

This personification also appears in Daniel 12:1(NASB) “Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.”

The word “distress” used there or “trouble” in the King James, is listed in Strong’s Hebrew dictionary as word 6869 צָרָה Pronounced: (tsaw-raw’) a feminine noun that literally means: vexer, rival-wife, a female rival or adversary, and yet also means trouble in a figurative sense.  That Hebrew word has a more frequently used masculine version, but God said the less used feminine noun, perhaps to indicate the feminine vexing rivalry that is to be in that time of tribulation.  Some feel that this was God’s way of warning us approximately 2,559 years ago, of the coming tribulation that is marked by the satanic evil of Feminism.  Where God’s righteous patriarchal order has been completely thrown off and a defiling female-supremacist rival order, or Feminism, afflicts the sons of God’s people.  I surely know Feminism has enabled the destruction of my family and now has my sons living without a father.  However it is comforting to know that God not only foresaw this Feminist mess, but that he warned us it would come upon us, before his rescue or deliverance of His people.  God knows our “trouble”.

Help Me Put My Boys’ Home Back Together

A Threefold Cord of Masculinity

My boys were all smiles after finally pinning their father during a wrestling match.

I need your help!

I am trying to get my wife’s church to put some pressure on my wife to get her to attend some joint counselling to address her Intimacy-Anorexia and to try to reconcile our marriage and our boys’ home.  However, being a typical churchian cult of woman-worship, it is going to take some serious effort to get them to ask my wife to submit to her husband and submit to getting the treatment she needs.  She, like a typical addict, is in denial about her behavioral addiction, and has been doing everything she can to avoid getting treatment to reverse the destruction her addiction has caused and the divorce it has led her to file.  There are other issues, with her spiritually, but I don’t think I’ll have any luck addressing them until she is free of the great bondage of the behavioral addiction that is blinding her to reality and keeping her emotionally and morally stunted.  I have tried addressing her spiritual issues in her current state and am not able to make any progress with her.  Currently she returns only evil for good and feels completely entitled to do so.  Her selfish insistence on staying in bondage to addiction is not fair to our boys who have seen their home and lives ripped apart, and are really suffering as a result of their broken home.

So, I have started a new website where I will be calling out my wife’s church, which has so far refused to do anything but cheer her on in her divorce.  At this point, I just have the first two posts up, but I will try to quickly get another 5 or so that I have planned written and up there in the next couple weeks.  Also I am going to publish them in a bit of an escalating fashion with the most damning posts coming towards the end of the posts that I currently have planned.  After those posts, I will make more geared towards teaching people what is wrong with churches like that, and how a church that follows God should act.  I haven’t heard of this being tried before, but I’m going to see if I can get my wife’s church to at least pretend to be God followers for a bit.  I have been warned that it is hard to shame whores, so I don’t know if I’ll be able to make my wife’s church behave any better, but at this point I’m about out of time and don’t see the cunt-court being likely to help me get my wife the help she needs to put our family back together in the best interest of the children.

The moderation at the other site will be different, in that I won’t be allowing trolls to participate, since my family is on the line.  But, for all of the rest of you, I could sure use your help, by visiting the new site and commenting, following the new blog to show your support and get notified of new posts, and contacting the church.  I have the churches contact info on the sidebar.  I expect if they respond back to you, it will be with lies and excuses, as it has been their pattern, just ignore their excuses, and take their slander with a grain of salt.  I’m sure my wife has told them lies, and they seem to really want to believe all women about everything.  Also, since they worship women, it would help if I also got a lot of participation from women, because that might give them the “moral backing” to hold one “goddess” accountable to scripture, if a bunch of other women are asking them to.

Please read the “My Marriage” post first, as it lays out the overall story.  Feel free to ask questions or leave comments here as well.  I gave those hirelings over 2 years to handle this privately, but they continually refused, so now I’ll be turning a light on those roaches and exposing their wickedness.  Help me stomp them!

Shaming: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Shame Beagle

Twere shame enough to shame thee, wert thou not shameless. ~ William Shakespeare

Shame (Noun) a painful emotion resulting from an awareness of having done something wrong, dishonorable, improper, unworthy, degrading, ridiculous, etc.
Shame (verb) To cause to feel shame.

Joseph Burgo Ph.D. said: Although many people use the two words “guilt” and “shame” interchangeably, from a psychological perspective, they actually refer to different experiences. … [Shame] reflects how we feel about ourselves and [guilt] involves awareness that our actions have injured someone else. … In other words, shame relates to self; guilt to others. I think it’s useful to preserve this distinction, even though the dictionary definitions often blur it. … Many people crippled by shame have very little capacity to feel guilt, for example. In order to feel guilt about the harm you may have done to somebody else, you must recognize him or her as a distinct individual, to begin with. Thus a person who struggles with separation and merger issues might not feel true guilt even if he or she were to use that word to describe a feeling. Many people who display narcissistic behavior often suffer from profound feelings of shame but have little authentic concern for other people; they don’t tend to feel genuinely guilty. The lack of empathy to be found in narcissistic personality disorder makes real guilt unlikely since guilt depends upon the ability to intuit how someone else might feel.

Neel Burton M.D. said: Embarrassment is the feeling of discomfort experienced when some aspect of ourselves is, or threatens to be, witnessed by or otherwise revealed to others, and we think that this revelation is likely to undermine the image of ourselves that we seek to project to those others. …

People with low self-esteem are more prone to shame, because, having a poor self-image, they are harsher upon themselves. In some cases, they may defend against shame with blame or contempt, often for the person who incited their shame. Ultimately, this is likely to lead to even deeper shame, and so to even lower self-esteem. While overwhelming shame can be destructive, mild or moderate shame is mostly a force for good, spurring us on to lead more ethical lives. …

Shame is ego dystonic, that is, in conflict with our self-image and the needs and goals of our ego, and high levels of shame are correlated with poor psychological functioning. In particular, eating disorders and many sexual disorders can largely be understood as disorders of shame, as can narcissism, which is sometimes thought of as a defense against shame. Guilt on the other hand is ego syntonic, that is, consistent with our self-image and the needs and goals of our ego, and, unless left to fester, is either unrelated or inversely correlated with poor psychological functioning.

Faced with the same set of circumstances, people with high self-esteem are more prone to guilt than to shame, and more likely to take corrective or redemptive action.

Sharkly B.S. says:  Recently I have kept running into the concept of shaming.  Most people seem to be very against shaming being done to them, but are quite ready to do it to their opponents.  Some people are against shaming entirely and seem to go to great lengths to shame those who are still shaming. 😉

But, does shaming have a positive purpose, and if so, why do some claim to be opposed to it?  One person claimed that shaming should not be used because it might drive someone “underground” or back in “the closet”.   However that might indeed be a very powerful reason to use it.

Are we ever to shame the wayward, or are we only to humor them?  Can you shame a person’s deeds without devaluing the person?  It has been said that if you attack someone’s due dignity, your relationship will suffer.  Is there a way to shame people without attacking their human dignity?  Should we even slave to keep close relations with the shameless?  Should our relationships be subject to some basic level of expectation?  Or is it imperative that everybody be nice, polite, and unconfrontational?  I hope, with this post, to spur contemplation of shaming, and to start a discussion on the appropriate and best uses of shaming.

It would seem obvious that if society is to be peacefully reformed, we will absolutely need shame, as a force for good, spurring us on to lead more ethical lives.  And even if you favor a violent revolution, won’t you still need shame to peaceably maintain your mores after you’ve installed them via gun barrel diplomacy?  What would a chaotic world without shame even look like, where everybody did what was right in their own eyes?

Great Whore Gets Exposed

PedoPopeMobile

While searching WordPress for some truth, I stumbled upon a goldmine!   Here are four excellent posts explaining the Roman Catholic Church.  They are well worth reading, in order, especially if you are Catholic.  They are in English, as well as Spanish.  They’d be great to send to your favorite Catholic.

Debunking the Roman Catholic Church

Debunking the Roman Catholic Church, Part II

Debunking the Roman Catholic Church, Part III

Debunking the Roman Catholic Church, Part IV

Please share your reactions below.

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 in Hebrew) being made/created in God’s image or likeness, four times right in a row, while then contrastingly telling us that male & Female(them) were only just created by God, with conspicuously no mention of it being done in God’s image.  God clearly went out of His way to solidify that Adam was made in His image, but never is Eve or womankind said to be 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 Adam/men/Jesus.(in non-neutered Bibles)  The Apostle Paul made it quite clear that men alone are the image of God in 1 Corinthians 11:7

For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.  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 appease 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.  How could Mary be claimed to be equal with Jesus Christ if she wasn’t even in the image of deity?  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.  Today the false belief in women being made in the image of God has been 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 destroyed, since marriages won’t operate properly because a democracy of two equals can’t resolve conflict and attain the solidarity of a patriarchal family that works together to achieve one man’s ambition, as God intended.  Just as the Protestant reformation after over a millennium rolled back the false divinity of Mary, returning all the reverence due solely to Jesus Christ as all the fullness of the Godhead in human flesh, so also, the image of God, the birthright of men, is a reverence, long stolen, that urgently needs to be returned solely to men.

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 portray Jesus Christ(who is God) and his bride the true church that is eventually 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.(1Peter 3:1-2)  So the sexes are clearly not equal.
  3. Men alone are allowed to represent God and teach His word to both men and women.(1 Timothy 2:12)  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.(1 Corinthians 11:3-9)  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.(Genesis 1:26-27, Genesis 2:18-24)  So the sexes are clearly not equal in their creation.
  8. The husband is to be the head,(1 Corinthians 11:3) and the wife the helper.(Genesis 2:18)  So the sexes are clearly not equal in rank.
  9. Women are unavoidably ceremonially unclean during menstruation,(Leviticus 15:19-27, Leviticus 18:19, Ezekiel 18:5-6, Ezekiel 36:17) So the sexes are clearly not equal.  Nor does that periodic uncleanness 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”.(1 Peter 3:7)  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.

Max Lucado ~ gone squishy

Maxi-Pad

Recently I read a post by Max Lucado on Fox News teaching moral tolerance: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/max-lucado-how-to-really-love-your-neighbor-who-is-nothing-like-you

Max says: You love your husband and she lives with her wife. …

How do we respond? Ignore them? Share a meal with them? Leave the room when they enter? Ask them to leave so we can stay? Discuss our differences? Dismiss our differences? Argue?

I wonder if the best answer might be found in this short admonition from the Bible: “Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God” (Rom.15:7). This verb for “accept” means more than tolerate or coexist. It means to welcome into one’s fellowship and heart. The word implies the warmth and kindness of genuine love. …

Reserve judgment. Let every person you meet be a new person in your mind. None of this labeling or preconceived notions. Pigeonholes work for pigeons, not for people.

Is Max right to welcome homosexuals into his heart and fellowship with such warmth?  The Bible verse that Max builds his doctrine of tolerance from is:

Romans 15:7 Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.

Those received by Christ are saved, believers, Followers of God.  Look with me to see if God receives homosexual men, as Max seems to be encouraging us to:

1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

That doesn’t sound like Max’s stated warmth and kindness of Genuine love, that doesn’t sound like God accepts men who make an abomination out of God’s image, by buggering it.

(FYI: God is not female, and we are never told that women are in God’s image, so likewise we are not told that two women lying together is an abomination, but that lesbianism is an “unnatural” act.  Lesbians defile each other, but can’t tarnish the image of God by their unnatural usage.)

So are we to accept the abominable and their bodily acts of desecrating sacrilege?  Or do we assume God’s clear judgement against them, should be mirrored in our own judgement?   I contend we should not be trying to warmly accept God’s enemies, but to condemn their abominable acts and call for their repentance, as Jesus so often called for His adversaries to repent.

Be discriminating.

An online dictionary sample usage of the word “discriminating” says: “A discriminating person can pick up on the small differences between things and use those differences to make better choices.”

You don’t have the underpinning of the “seven pillars of wisdom”(Proverbs 9:1) if you don’t have any discernment or discrimination.  We should come to any situation with as much solid prejudicial understanding and wisdom as we can, but then be open minded enough to continually reevaluate the situation as we learn more about the actual facts.  Instead of approaching people and situations as an empty headed fool, we should pre-judge things for our own protection based upon our learned prejudices, while remaining willing to rapidly adapt our thinking if our prejudices prove to be unmerited in the particular circumstance or involving particular individuals.

We all constantly prejudge people and situations based upon past experiences and acquired knowledge, for our own benefit and protection.  Would you wander alone at night on foot and unarmed in a high crime area of urban decay?  Probably not, because you are wise enough to prejudge the danger of doing so.  How do you know it is a high crime area, or an area of urban decay?  Because of your prejudice, that is how you have prejudged that.  What more solid of a foundation for a prejudice could we have, than God’s own eternal judgement?

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

If some man is a homosexual, and God says that is an abomination, can we not accept God’s judgement in the matter?  I think a refusal to accept their sin, and a clear call for their repentance is a far more caring and Christ like response than the permissive welcome into one’s fellowship and heart and warm acceptance that Max Lucado is advocating.

When did Feminism Start?

 

Strangling a Feminist

Commenter ‘Ace’ recently commented: “This is an attitude from the 1700s, so well before feminism took hold.”

Upon reading that I knew I wanted to respond with a post, but I had to go to work and I am now finally able to quickly address this.  However, in the intervening time, commenter ‘ikr’ gave the following reply: “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.”

Commenter ‘ikr’ largely stole my thunder, by getting my main point across in a nutshell, but I’ll make the argument that “Feminism” goes all the way back to Eve, and that coveting equality with your superior, usurping, and rebellion, that are key features of Feminism, can be traced back to the fall of Lucifer.

 Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!  13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:  14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.

Genesis 3:4  And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely dieFor God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam He said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;  18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;  19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

A while prior to Ace’s assertion of the 1700s being well before Feminism, commenter ‘ray’ had remarked: “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.”

I previously explained a bit about how the Roman state church wrongly added women to the image of God around the end of the fourth century AD in another post: https://laf443259520.wordpress.com/2019/05/18/worshipping-the-great-whore/?wref=tp

It wasn’t until the fourth century around 380 AD that Mary began to be called Mother of God, or “Theotokos” This was said as part of the controversy over the nature of Jesus. Some said he was born human but became God later. Others said Jesus was divine from the moment of inception. Those who believed that Jesus was divine at birth used the slogan: Mary the Mother of God. Actually, the phrase was more like Mary: God-bearer. Saint Ambrose, who lived in Rome before going to Milan as its bishop, venerated Mary as an example of Christian life and is credited with starting a Marian cult of virginity in the 4th century.

In the 5th and 6th century, churches in Rome began to be dedicated to Mary, and from there the Great Whore seated on the seven mountains spoken of in Revelation 17 has continued to adopt features of preexisting pagan goddess worship and further deify Mary, growing in strength in the dark ages, eventually calling Mary the “Queen of heaven”, the same old name as Old Testament idol worshippers used when committing abominations in Jeremiah 7 & 44.  Somewhere early along our church age time line to accepting Satan’s counterfeit goddess worship, it was decided that women must also be in the image of God, because, how could Mary be a goddess, if she isn’t even able to be in the image of God?  So women were deceitfully added into the image of God to bolster the worldly reintroduction of preexisting Roman goddess worship back into the church under the guise of “honoring” Mary.  Satan’s minions deceitfully said, “You’re dishonoring the ‘Mother of God’ if you say she was a sinner and wasn’t even in God’s image”.

I think we would be unwise not to recognize that most all of the necessary components for todays ‘Feminism’ were conjured into place, by the Great Whore (Satan’s state church, of this world) even well before it was called ‘Chivalry’.

Please add your thoughts for discussion below.  🙂