Feminism’s Flimsy Theological Foundation

Recently I read an article at Answers in Genesis regarding; “Does God Have a Gender?“.  The author makes the point that: “God could have created a world in which there were no gender distinctions … Thus, in creating gender and then representing himself consistently and repeatedly as male, God is making a deliberate assertion about his nature.  There is something particular about maleness that he chooses to represent his nature in a way that femaleness does not.”

Another author at the same site discusses: “Is God Male or Female?”.   That author begins by pandering to this world’s Feminists by issuing the following disclaimer: “Before we go on, it is important to note that this question is not about the equality of men and women.  Both are made in God’s image and are therefore equal (Genesis 1:27).  Rather, it is about who gets to decide how we speak about God and how we address him in prayer: people or God?”

(Previously I have delved into what Genesis 1:27 actually says regarding who is the image of God, here, and also here, as well as in other posts.)

He is partly right, in that, if men and women were both the matchless image of God most high, then they would truly be equal.  Because no image could be greater than being the image of God.

As an example: If I and my old college roommate, who both got the same degree from the same university, were to debate about who had achieved the higher ranking degree, and I started going on about how I had attended a better elementary school, everybody would realize that what elementary school I had gone to was a moot point, because our ultimate degree ranking is based upon our highest degree, it is not determined by something of lesser degree.

And so it is true, that if both male and female were designed to image the eternal Father and Son, then by definition men and women must be equal, by nature of sharing that same highest aspect of their created identity and personage.  That assumed equality, in God’s image, is the bedrock foundation upon which all Feminism was built.

But of course, like the Bible and the earliest church father’s writings all unanimously attest, women don’t image our Father & Son Godhead, like men do:

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.

Ambrosiaster wrote:  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 the point of application is that Feminism then is exposed as a fundamentally false teaching based upon a falsely presumed equality.  While the one sex that truly images God, men, are shown to be superior, and thus rightful heads.  It is in the best interest of every man, woman, and child that men be given the patriarchal authority that God ordained for them to have over their wives and children.

Although women are a weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7) not designed to carry the matchless image of God the Father and His Son, it is not an individual woman or man’s relative strengths and weaknesses that determines men’s superiority, but it is the image of God that was categorically bestowed on men, that makes all men superior in earthly rank to women within God’s holy patriarchal kingdom.  A woman can’t become the stronger vessel by steroids or education, those things won’t make her outrank a man who was made in the image of God.  Even if she is physically stronger, and mentally stronger, she is still a woman who, if she professes godliness, should adorn herself with shamefacedness (1 timothy 2:9-10) while reverencing her husband. (Ephesians 5:33)

Feminism teaches that traditional patriarchal marriage as set up by God is a form of slavery where one equal subjects another equal into an unequal relationship where he rules over her.  If you accept men and women to be equals, then marriage automatically becomes unjust and also unworkable, since you can’t have a democracy of two people.  However, if God created man first in His own image, and to be His own glory, and later created Eve for Adam to be his helper and to be Adam’s glory, then it is only fitting that she should submit to her superior, as the Bible explains:  Colossians 3:18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

Marriage is not slavery, just as parenting is not enslaving children.  Because children are admittedly inferior and need parental guidance, it is only fitting that they be taught to submit to their parents’ control.

If men were truly created first, preeminent, and superior to women, and women, who being the last creature created, were the first creature to transgress against God; then patriarchy isn’t enslavement, but instead is the loving gift of our all-wise God.  Through patriarchy, God wants to keep society as righteous as can be expected by governing sinful and silly women with sinful yet more dutiful and dutybound men, who were created to serve God directly, while their wives were vessels created to serve God through serving God’s image, their fathers and then husbands.

Once you understand that females are neither the image nor likeness of the Father or Son, then women no longer have a basis to claim equality with men who are to be reverenced in marriage as the images of Jesus Christ,(God) while the wife images the church.(not God)

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.

So, I exhort you men, use the Word of God to pull down the stronghold of Feminism, by first destroying its foundation, women’s claim to image our masculine God.  If we don’t pull out Feminism’s root the noxious weed of sexual equality will grow right back in churches whereby satanic Feminism was first cultivated into our culture, ultimately destroying our culture.

Some time around 400AD women began to be claimed to also be the likeness of God, so that Mary could become a deity and be worshipped as a substitute for goddess worshippers whom Emperor Constantine had forcibly converted to his new state religion of “Christianity” in Rome.  The protestant reformation a millennium later rolled back the deity of Mary.  But, now we need to roll back the image of the Father and Son from off of women to rest just on us fathers and sons.  Feminism has now grown so wretched that women murder men’s children while still in their own wombs, destroy marriages for no fault, and get to kidnap father’s children by default.  Our society can’t survive much more of this satanic arrogance against God.

2 Corinthians 10:4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God for the pulling down of strongholds,  5 casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ,  6 and being in readiness to avenge all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.

Do redeemed women receive glorified male bodies in the afterlife?

The floor of one of the coffins of Gua, a physician of the governor Djehutyhotep. The paintings, dated to 1795 B.C., show the “two ways”—land and sea—that the dead could use to navigate the afterlife. An even older “Book of Two Ways” has now been unearthed. (Werner Forman/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

Smithsonian magazine had an article mentioning ancient Egyptian beliefs about the afterlife:

“The inscriptions clearly quote the Book of Two Ways … such “coffin texts” were meant to “situate the deceased in the world of the gods,” … This particular sarcophagus was occupied by a high-status woman named Ankh, though the afterworld instructions in her final resting place actually refer to her as “he.”

“The funny thing is the whole idea of how you survive in the netherworld is expressed in male terms,” …

In ancient Egypt, rebirth was linked most closely to male gods; dead women, then, had to adopt the pronoun “he” to be more like Osiris himself …”

I had previously commented:

The Book of Enoch states that there are no females among the angels, because they were created to live forevermore, and therefore they had no need to reproduce themselves, like some had done with the daughters of men.
Enoch 15:5 It was for this reason that I gave [men] females, in order that they might cast seed into them, and, in this way, beget children by them, in order that descendants should never fail them upon the earth. 6 But you were existing as spirits, while living perpetual, and are immortal for all the generations of the age; 7 and this is why, I did not make females among you. …
I believe I was reading in the book of Jubilees when it was stated that all the redeemed in heaven will be given new incorruptible bodies that are male(sons of God) like the angels. But I can’t find the passage right at this moment. I believe Jesus may have been referring to those scriptures in the following passage:
Matthew 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
So I currently wonder if women who are redeemed will quite literally become conformed, sharing in the image and glory of the Son. Will they become brethren, glorified, finally freed from their previously unresolved penis envy, and Eve’s curse?
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Ray commented: “As for your speculations on women being made into males after the resurrection, I’ll comment later.”  At this point I’m wondering about this concept that seems to have been an extra-Biblical belief, and may be hinted at or even indicated in the Bible itself, according to your interpretation:

Please share your speculations, opinions, revelations, scriptures, or any other thoughts.

Genesis 5:1-5

I decided to make a post from a comment on the previous thread.

Commenter Swanny River queried:  “I was reading Genesis 5 this morning and don’t recall what you said about verse 2.  I like the explanation of Genesis 1:27, but I don’t remember about 5:2 and it does seem to be at odds with it. Was there a particular post you covered it?”

I have never before made a devoted post about Genesis 5, but I have referenced it in a few comments.  As I have mentioned before the original Hebrew does not have punctuation, and Genesis 1:27 is a three line, or three complete sentence, Hebrew poem.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in His own image.
In the image of God created He him.
Male and female created He them.

God first explains that He created Adam in his image, forward and then backwards, and then God contrasts that by saying that He only created “them” (which is not the word “Adam” in Hebrew) while contrastingly leaving off any mention of that creation being done in the image of God when referencing both male and Female combined. The male and female were not created in a combined event, but in two separate creation events, so their combined creation is a summarizing statement of two separate events, and those two separate creations when combined are never said to have been in the image of God. Reading that verse(Genesis 1:27) is when it first dawned on me, that God, the author, went to great lengths to never say that the woman, Eve, or both male and female, were created in the image or likeness of God, while saying four times, in Genesis 1:26-27, that Adam was created in God’s image or likeness.

Some English speaking folks insist on saying that line three of the poem given in Genesis 1:27 is not part of a separate sentence, but that it has to be referring, the male and female that were only said to be created, back to the statements about the man being created in the image of God. They do that partly because that is how it can seem in their English translations, but also because they would have to give up Feminism if God clearly made men superior, in the image of the Most High God, to be reverenced and obeyed by women who are created for men, to be men’s help.

So it is really telling that when an extremely similar restatement of the poem is again given in Genesis 5:1-2, they separate the verses right where the Feminists insist there is no separation, and right where I said there should be one. “Male and female created he them” is part of a whole new Bible verse, like I have taught that it could be divided and that the thoughts should be divided for better clarity in English.

Genesis 5:1(KJV) This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Now again the Bible backs me up that when only referring to Seth, Adam’s son, Seth is referred to as being “in his(Adam’s) own likeness, and after his image”, making clear that the image and likeness of God transferred from father to son, like it did from Father God to Adam who was a son of God.(Luke 3:38) And yet again when both the sons and daughters of Adam are mentioned, the likeness and image are not mentioned because the combined group of both male and female are not in the father’s image. The daughters take after their mother’s image and likeness.

The King James Bible almost always gets the gender of gendered words correct, and if you check it you will never find the likeness or image of God said to be upon any living earthly woman. While it tells of men and Jesus Christ(a male) being the image and likeness of God in multiple places.

Now any Feminist is going to try to exploit the fact that in Genesis 5:2 all people, male and female are called or named after “Adam” the man, the father of mankind.  Adam, in Hebrew, can mean: man or mankind, the first man, or ruddy(like clay). So also in English, the word “man” can refer to an individual male, all males, or even all humans. But “Adam”/”man” never refers to Eve individually, any individual woman, or womankind. “Adam”/”Man” only refers to women when they are lumped in with all men. That is a patriarchal colloquialism that God started, whereby we are called after our father, just like how my wife and kids all share my family name.

If God had wanted to make clear that Eve was in the image of God, he could have said that Eve, or the woman, was in the image of God but he clearly didn’t. The fact that all are called by the man’s Hebrew name “Adam”, is an honorary naming, that only goes to show that the man was created superior, and was the one by whom the others would want to be known by association. Just like today, wives and kids take on the man’s name, because he is the superior one, and it is an honor to be associated with your husband or father by name. Again I will mention that if both were equally made in the matchless image of God, the man would not be superior, but they would be equal. However only the man was made in God’s image and that is why it is such an honor for all to be called after his name, even to this day.

The believers of the church of Philadelphia(part of the bride of Christ) will be honored by being named after God and Christ: Revelation 3:12b I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
I’m looking forward to that new family name! What an honor it will be.

So, in review: “Adam” meaning “man” was the first man’s name which became the family name of all people, we are now all collectively known as “man” or “mankind” in English, which is the translation of the Hebrew name or word “Adam”. That does not negate all the rest of what God clearly told us, just because God honored us all by calling us “Adam-kind”, however some folks, on the side of evil, will always try to negate the truth by whatever means they can.  For further clarification see 1 Corinthians 11:7.

Bonus information:

Gary Naler has pointed out that when God counts people He usually only counts the men.
For example:
Matthew 14:21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.
Matthew 15:38 And they that did eat were four thousand men, beside women and children.
Exodus 12:37 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. 38 And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.
There are far too many examples to give them all.
While God certainly can and does count others, like in Jonah 4:11, He usually counts groups by the number of men present, and sometimes indicates there was also a multitude beside them. I think even God’s method of counting us has implications, as to God’s patriarchal priorities, that we may not have realized.

Don’t Be Stupid!

Leviticus 19:28  You are not to make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead or make any tattoo marks upon yourself.  I am the Lord.

This post, is purely an opinion post.  I don’t believe that all the Old Testament laws for the Jewish nation necessarily apply to us, however we may find some wisdom in them regarding how not to be offensive to God and others.

I personally can’t ever remember seeing a tattoo or piercing that I ever thought made the “voluntary-victim” look better.  And I certainly never saw one that made the person, who chose to do that to themselves, look smarter.  Tattoos and piercings are often good indicators of bad judgement.  “Tramp-Stamps” are pretty reliable indicators of willingness to engage in sexual immorality and are on many people’s List of Slut Tells.   And these lists aren’t used by solid Christian men to find sluts, but rather to avoid them.  Anyhow, I don’t have any doctrine to teach about this, just lots of personal opinion on the matter, and I’d really like to read the opinions or doctrines of others and perhaps gain some insight from others’ ideas.

1 Corinthians 6:19  Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?  20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

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.

Feminist Discontentment

David Torso

The “Problem That Has No Name” was described by Betty Friedan in the beginning of her book 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?”

The driving force behind Feminism, is female discontentment.  Specifically discontentment with men, and with women’s God ordained role of serving men, who are the image and glory of God.(1 Corinthians 11:7)  If only Eve could have been content in a sinless paradise, with a perfect sinless man, made by God Himself, with no rules, except one.  But no!  The malcontent Eve aspired to be as a god also.(Genesis 3:5)  Today’s destructive Feminism is founded upon Satan’s huge lie that men and women are equal, and both in God’s image.  And then building upon that whopper of a lie, Feminism falsely assumes that just as the woman was created to be a help meet for the man, that the man must then also have been created as a help meet for the woman.

Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

The Old English word “meet”, in that usage, is defined as ~ to fulfill or to satisfy.

As Genesis 2:18 explains the woman was created to be a help to fulfill or satisfy the man.  And when a woman is correctly fulfilling her God ordained role, she will be helping and fulfilling and satisfying her husband.  Because women were created to be helpers who are able to fulfill or satisfy a man’s earthly needs, men consequently have an inclination to wrongly idolize and worship women.  But God explains clearly that men were not created for women:

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.  8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.  9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

So, who is supposed to fulfill the woman?

Women are supposed to find their own fulfillment and contentment in obeying God and fulfilling their created purpose.   They should be taught to seek contentment in serving their own husbands and raising their own children, if they are blessed with them.   Most of the other things that women today are encouraged to seek fulfillment doing, are just wrong.  They only serve to distract a woman from her true purpose and to create discontentment with her highest calling, to serve and satisfy her husband.

Women’s discontentment is “the fruit” of believing lies.  The truth, is what can truly set women free of discontentment, while they are mindful of the truth.  Women were raised to have false expectations.  They were raised to think of themselves as equal or nearly equal to males.  They were raised to expect their husbands to consult them and to give equal or nearly equal weight to their differing viewpoints.  Nowhere in the Bible is a husband told to get direction from his wife.  Not even from the unachievably ideal Proverbs 31 woman, who “openeth her mouth with wisdom”.  And that is because God actually doesn’t intend for men to hearken unto their wives, as Adam did, but to serve God, with all their heart, with all their soul, and with their entire mind.  The only exception I see in the Bible, is that the husband, by divine covenant, is currently given bodily to his wife, just as she is now owned by him, the two having been united as one flesh by God through sexual union, and the husband is required to give her wholesome sex in compliance with his wife’s reasonable desires.(1 Corinthians 7:2-5)  Otherwise, men have God given dominion over all of creation including womankind which God made for man and gave to man.

Men are gods.

Men are the image and glory of God, Adam was graven by God out of this earth, into God’s own likeness, and God breathed His own essence into the man.  Adam was truly a son of God.(Luke 3:38)  Our jealous God has commanded that no other graven images of gods are allowed.(Leviticus 26:1)  For the sons of Adam truly are God’s sons, and are even repeatedly called gods, by God Himself.(Psalm 82:6-7 & John 10:34-36)  And we know that husbands are to image Jesus Christ, who is God, while wives image the wayward church in need of the constant washing by their “god”, with God’s word, so that husbands, just like Christ, are to act as saviors.  Men are not mere subjects called to lay down their lives at the capricious whims of their wives.  Oh far from it!  Men are the image of God, giving their lives, as needed, for the salvation of their wives, who are symbolically their bodies, just like the church is Christ’s body.(Ephesians 5:22-27)

So are women to idolize their husbands?

Yes!  In fact, wives are commanded to reverence their husbands.(Ephesians 5:33)  God wouldn’t have made husbands to share his image and glory, if He didn’t want husbands to be worthy of reverence also.  And men of God should honor each other.(Romans 12:10)  The Bible goes so far as to say that holy women will call their husbands, “lord”.

1 Peter 3:5 (AMPC)  For it was thus that the pious women of old who hoped in God were [accustomed] to beautify themselves and were submissive to their husbands [adapting themselves to them as themselves secondary and dependent upon them].  6 It was thus that Sarah obeyed Abraham [following his guidance and acknowledging his headship over her by] calling him lord (master, leader, authority). And you are now her true daughters if you do right and let nothing terrify you [not giving way to hysterical fears or letting anxieties unnerve you].

U mad girl?

Does it bother you that I say husbands are gods, sons of God, images of God, to be called lord?  Those are God’s words describing men and husbands, and God should know, since He created us all.   Although your husband was not created for you, or to satisfy you, you should be thrilled down to the tips of your toes to have a husband.   And you should be curling your toes in anticipation of the next time you can join in flesh with your god of flesh, your lord, your likeness of the Most High God.

However most women are deceived, they don’t realize their husband has an allotted portion of divine glory, and is their high priest who represents them before God.  They foolishly think they are their husband’s equal, or even his better.  And consequently they do not look up to him, and do not reverence him, or idolize him by submitting unto him, as unto the Lord.  In fact, many wives don’t even want their husbands.  They deny them sex, and wish they had some other husband.

Discontentment comes because of whoring hearts.

Ezekiel 16:32 You unfaithful wife! You desire strangers instead of your husband.

Tertullian wrote to women: 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.

Yes, women are natural defilers,(Revelation 14:4) full of usurping, periodically unclean, certainly not an image of deity, they are gullible, fickle, and frail, full of vainglory and envious of men’s divine image and headship.  Their contempt for their husbands is unfitting, irreverent, and blasphemes God’s word.(Titus 2:4-5)  Women lead men astray, misusing the gifts God gave women to help men, to ensnare men and distract them from their divine mission instead.  Woe to you women who haven’t the sense to adorn yourselves with quietness and shamefacedness.(1 Timothy 2:9-15)  No woman deserves a savior, a Christ figure, a husband who stoops to love them in spite of their wretched selfishness, irreverence, and usurping nature.

Unmerited favor

And yet God has made women joint heirs of His grace with men.  And men, like God, show women the grace of joining down onto them, providing for their care and protection, and shepherding their wives through all their objectionable moods.

Matthew 19:10 (AMPC) The disciples said to Him, If the case of a man with his wife is like this, it is neither profitable nor advisable to marry.

Women truly are the beneficiaries of men’s good graces, and of men’s divine qualities.  I haven’t told the half of the disparity between women and men in this brief post, yet if men and women would even come to realize the truth that I have shared, women could see that they have every reason to be content just having any husband, much less to have gotten one of their own choosing.  Might their father have picked a better husband for them?  Most probably!   But the husband they chose, is certainly deserving of their reverence, their obedience, their honor, their body, their thoughts, and their devotion.

The “problem with no name” is Feminist discontentment.  The solution is for women to realize their husbands are the matchless image of God Most High, while they themselves are inferior vessels who bring trouble by their very nature, and that they should be quite content, even thrilled that they are consequently loved sacrificially, and were taken and possessed by a god of flesh, a son of God who stooped to share his life of divine glory, his divine mission, his earthly journey with them.  Taking on her troubles as his own, and struggling to cleanse her of her character flaws with daily instructions, and restraining himself by his godly grace and patience to forebear violent retribution amid her multitude of failings and her faithless actions.  Every wife is blessed to be so honored as to marry a glorious man made in the very image of God.

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.

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

An Epiphany of Male Superiority

Vagina Voice

The epiphany:

A few days ago my long-divorcing wife and I had a thought provoking verbal exchange.   Upon our first meet-up that day I reminded her that she was headed to hell, and that she needed to repent, as any good spiritual leader would.   Later that evening when we met-up again, she went off on one of her tirades.  Among her first loud charges was the accusation that I think women are inferior.    LOL  She hollered it like she was charging me with arrogant blasphemy.  She continued to verbally lambaste me and got way louder as she ran off, so that I really didn’t get a chance to respond.  She likes to get the last word that way – she screams some charge against my character and then slams the door, usually.   She is a master of shutting down discussion, and always has to get the last word.   Anyhow…

Once upon a blue-pilled time, I might have interjected, “that’s not true”, or tried to show that my words and actions were necessary and reasonable, and not male chauvinistic.  But as she was ranting on, and I was thinking about how I might respond if I ever was able to get a word in, I realized; she’s right.  I do now think women are inferior to men.  And not just because of her accompanying show of spoiled behavior.  LOL   I think God made the woman as a lesser vessel, not in the image of God, with the mission to help and reverence her man, when she is behaving well, and to test men’s faithfulness to God when she misbehaves.

It really was a blissful enlightenment, to acknowledge to myself, that I do firmly know that women are currently categorically inferior by way of creation and divinely assigned rank to all of us menfolk, and that I needed to just come out and own it more thankfully publicly, that I, as a man, was made for preeminence, as an image, or representative figure, of God, and bestowed with some portion of His divine glory.

I no longer need to be on the defensive, and prove I believe in equality.  I can respond to the charge of thinking women are inferior, by going on the offensive and declaring, I know I am superior, a great gift was bestowed on me by God, who fearfully and wonderfully made me a glorious likeness of Himself, to rule over women in His divine stead.   And you, woman, by your insolence and your ignorance of your own rank and place, you prove that your inherent inferiority is well merited by how unworthily you even still conduct yourself, by putting on airs in the presence of your superiors, when you should rightly be showing humility and genuflection.

If it had been the husbands asked to be subject to their wives by God , the husbands wouldn’t fail so incompetently to be of excellent service.

No, the husband is the rightful head, because he is the most noble aspect of humankind, and best fit to command women and children with his discernment.  All children should honor their parents.  Every husband should be honored as the God ordained and inherently superior shepherd of his own household, that the gospel of Jesus Christ may be exalted.  So also should every man honor Jesus Christ as his Lord, thereby directing all human honor and allegiance rightfully upward, ascending ultimately to the glory of the Supreme Father.   Amen!

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.