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.

Are You Covered?

Veiled Humility

1 Corinthians 11:1-16

1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

What worldly sin has the “church” of this age not joined into?

Why did our parent’s “Christianity” fail to slow our culture’s decline?

True Christianity did not fail.  We as a generation of people have just failed to follow God.  The reason, that every day our perpetually losing church leaders are in retreat against the evil advance of our godless culture, is because they’re not actually fighting for God.  The power of God is not on their side.  They preach for money and to build their earthly kingdoms.  They will not preach what is not acceptable to their congregation from God’s word.

God says:  Mark 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

God asks women to pray with their heads covered.  Do they?  Why not?  Why are church leaders not demanding that over half of their congregation obey God in that way?  Because they worship Feminism above God.  Feminism is a supremacist ideology.  Our loving God set up Patriarchy for all humanity, especially for His own people who claim to follow Him.  Abandoning God’s design for the family out of rebellion towards God and adopting the female supremacist ideology of Feminism, has destroyed families and led to a divorce epidemic and loosed all kinds of evil and degraded society.  The Church traditionally was the force for God in this world, but the churches we now have are fully corrupted and in open rebellion to God.  Husbands are told from pulpits to become servants to their wives by hirelings who instead of ministering God’s word, administer still more female supremacism.  Church discipline as prescribed in the Bible, is now just a thing of the past.  Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.  Every man or woman does as they please.  With the least accountability placed on women.   Women, I ask you today to show humility.  Fear God and boldly show your submission to God instead of our self-destructing Feminist culture.  Show that you want to obey God by getting and wearing a head covering when you pray and worship God.  The head covering is a symbol of being covered and under man’s authority whether it is your earthly father’s or husband’s authority, or whether you have no man but Christ Jesus, you honor God and them by having a symbol of submission placed over your head.

What should this be?  How should it look?  When should you be wearing it?  The Bible does not specify what should be used to cover the head, but it is clear that it is a symbol that is in addition to your own hair which should not be shaved short, for that is a shame.  But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her.  Whether you and the man who is your authority choose a veil, a kerchief, a bonnet, or a hat, or some other type of head covering for yourself, the important part is that you wear it for the right reason.  And you should select one in keeping with that reason.  Wearing the veil is an act of obedience to God’s command, and an outward symbol of subjection to your earthly head, a man, whether a father, a husband, or Jesus.  The symbol itself does not have any power of its own to change you, but it is a symbol of the change that has already taken place within, that causes you to unashamedly choose holy obedience to God.

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.  🙂

Horny Housewives of the Patristic Age

brambles

Given

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

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

Quotes

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

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

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

Introduction to the topic

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

Off topic already.   LOL

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

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

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

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

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

And now, back to our topic…

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

The Sun & Moon and the Image of God

MM

The Sun & Moon are used as similitudes

God figuratively uses the sun and moon as images of man and wife, or male and female.

In the passage below Joseph relates a prophetic vision to his father, Jacob.  The patriarchal order in which Joseph mentions the symbols, and the exact same order in Jacob’s reply, shows that Joseph’s father (AKA Israel) immediately knows that he is the sun, his wife is the moon, and the eleven other brothers are the eleven stars.

Genesis 37:9 Then he dreamed another dream and told it to his brothers and said, “Behold, I have dreamed another dream. Behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me.” 10 But when he told it to his father and to his brothers, his father rebuked him and said to him, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow ourselves to the ground before you?” 11 And his brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the saying in mind.

Most cultures treat the sun as male and the moon as female and have sun gods and moon goddesses.  The moon is the lesser or weaker light that “rules the darkness” and has a 28 day cycle exactly like a woman.  In fact our words “menses” and “month” both come from the the latin mensis (month), which derives from the Greek Aeolic form mens (μηνς) of mene (μήνη; moon).

The Bible speaks of the moon as being feminine:

Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

Ezekiel 32:7 And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.

God says he is a Sun: (He never claims to be a moon)

Psalm 84:11 For the LORD God is a sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly.

In the following passage our earthly bodies are directly likened to celestial bodies:

1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42a So also is the resurrection of the dead. …

45 And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

In 1 Corinthians 11 the apostle Paul teaches us that men are “the image and glory of God“, but that women are “the glory of the man“:

1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.  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.  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 just as the sun, in all its glory, shines out its light, and the moon only gives a dim reflection off of the moon’s grey dust.  I believe we are clearly told that men exhibit the image and glory of God, but their wives just reflect the glory of the man.

Fun Fact:

Some of the ancient moon goddesses were given names like the “Queen of Heaven” or the “Mother of gods”.  Do those names sound strangely familiar?

luna

an idol of the ancient polytheists’ goddess Luna

A salute to all my brothers

ShermanMen, you were all created; fearfully and wonderfully made.  God our Father, the Ancient of days, has seen fit to share his glory with us all by making us each as a lesser likeness of Himself, God most high and fearful.  We are all sons of the man Adam, a son of God, we are born after his divine image, and so we too are lesser gods, like he.  We have inherited the rightful dominion over this earth that was given to our father Adam by God, Adam’s Maker and Father, who made all things through His only begotten Son Jesus Christ.   The disciple, whom Jesus loved, John, had a vision of Jesus Christ our now exalted head: Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Christ, our redeemer and resurrection, is the head of every man, just as man is the head of woman.  Women are to reverence their husbands, after marriage through humble obedience to them, and before marriage by keeping themselves pure and unspoiled for them.   Ha ha.

I’d like to give my highest salute to my wise MGTOW brothers who have kept themselves unspoiled by women, who are natural defilers.  You have a magnificence bestowed by God that women can’t touch.  If not for my own weakness and fallibility of mind, I would be one of you and as stalwart as you are.

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.

Keep your walk straight, your head high, and your pure heart committed to God.  Be guided by your reason, by your faith, and by sound principles.  You noble sons of Adam have my enduring respect and admiration as you bear the burdens and responsibilities placed upon you by an ungrateful society that depends upon your good virtue.  While silly harpies and religious charlatans smear all men as “toxic” or “unloving”, I will not so slander the image of God.  From the bottom of my heart, my brothers, with all the honor due to you, I salute you.

 

Addendum:

The man pictured above, is United States ~ Union general William Tecumseh Sherman, known as “Uncle Billy” to his troops, and famous for his quote “War is hell”, and his harsh “total war” strategy.  He seems to have been a bit red-pilled.  Below are some of his quotes.

Regarding war & specifically the U.S. civil war:

When people believe a delusion they believe it harder than a real fact.

To those who would submit to the rightful law and authority, all gentleness and forbearance; but to the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better. Satan and the rebellious saints of Heaven were allowed a continuous existence in hell merely to swell their just punishment. To such as would rebel against a Government so mild and just as ours was in peace, a punishment equal would not be unjust.

You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.

I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands, and fathers … it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated … who cry aloud for more blood, for more vengeance, for more desolation.  War is hell.

War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.

I intend to make Georgia howl.

If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking.  If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war.

My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

Wars are not all evil, they are part of the grand machinery by which this world is governed.

War’s legitimate object is more perfect peace.

But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.

Regarding an army: (could be applied to our families)

An Army is a collection of armed men obliged to obey one man. Every change in the rules which impairs that principle weakens the army.

An army to be useful must be a unit, and out of this has grown the saying, attributed to Napoleon, but doubtless spoken before the days of Alexander, that an army with an inefficient commander was better than one with two able heads.

Down the cuckoldry rabbit hole and you’re into the church basement.

inchworm

So I’m exploring WordPress Reader, and it recommends an oddball post about the “science” behind cuckoldry.  And it piqued my curiosity because that is something that I sure as hell don’t understand.  Well, Sharkly bit the bullet, and read through it for you.   It was written by a slut who cuckolds her husband and claims to be a sex therapist who helps other couples enter into this same kind of cuckolding.  Firstly there really wasn’t any “science” cited, although she does repeatedly allude to “primate studies” as she profusely illustrates her post with pictures of Black men.  The pictures and article were such that even I won’t link to it. LOL   But it gets worse.  I tried to read some of this authors other articles on the subject, but my porn filter blocked all but one of them, so I’ll just address the two posts I was able to read.  This deluded slut uses speculation based upon her very non-standard view of evolution theory to arrive at the conclusion that wives should have a sex deprived Beta husband, who provides for and protects them, while the wives should also enjoy emotionally meaningless sex with a number of well hung studs.  The kicker is that the wife has to get the Beta husband onboard in order to keep a “good” marriage going with him.  While all of it was debauched, evil, and destructive to the family, there were some things that jumped out at me.

She firmly believes that women have higher sex drives than men.(likely the personal anecdotal evidence of a female sex addict, her insistence on the emotional meaninglessness of the outside sex is also a hallmark of sex addiction)  She believes that Patriarchy has perverted and inverted our sex roles, by keeping women monogamous.

The bomb drop ~ Step one to becoming a cuck!

Although she doesn’t give away her whole professional method for converting couples to cuckoldry, she does state that women dominate their husbands via sexual denial, and the first step to cuckoldry is getting the husband to willingly accept his wife’s denial of sex.   Wow!  It hit me like a ton of bricks.  I’ve heard that shit preached in church!   I’ve had that turd flung at me in “Christian marriage counselling”.

She says: Fortunately my husband does not see me as a “fallen woman”. On the contrary, he puts me on a pedestal. My husband considers me to be a white, blonde, Greek Goddess, and the more extramarital interracial sex I have, the more he adores and admires me.

In the comments she says:  It would be a big step in the right way if we could have a matriarchal society structure again so that a woman would be free to be intimate with other men if she wants to. 

regarding her cuckolded husband:

No, he believes that he is mortal – and that I am a Goddess.

And there you have it!   The church forces men to let their wives deny them sex with lame excuses.  The ‘great whore’ stole from men the exclusive image of God, and instead deifies women as men’s superiors.  Converting churchmen into ready cuckolds to slutty wives.  Our churches are a polluted fat whore, not the bride of Christ!

Eject!  Eject!  Eject!

The Image of God (the first & last men’s only club)

Did Sharkly jump out the “Overton window”?

out the window

Jack,  at Σ Frame linked to my How to bring back Patriarchy post.

In his description Jack hinted about the Overton window.   While I’m not certain what Jack was implying, I do have a response.

First I had to look up what the Overton window was.  While I was unfamiliar with the term, It was a familiar concept that I believe is quite true.  It refers to the range of ideas permitted in public discourse.  Often people, especially on the far left, will use the Door-in-the-face technique to modify the window of ideas which are acceptable, by publicly promoting leftist ideas that are currently far out of bounds to destigmatize less extreme leftist ideas that then seem to be an acceptable compromise by comparison.

So am I saying men are in the image of God while women are not, as a strategic ploy to move the center point of discussion to the right by yanking the extreme edge over further to the right?

No.  I actually believe every word I wrote, and I even held back a bit.

Now if all I accomplish is to move the Overton window to the right through the Door-in-the-face technique, that in itself will increase righteousness and be helpful to society, and will have been a good deed.  But I intend to do far more.  I’d actually love to see my plan followed and patriarchy restored.

Now if I were to bet on my success, I’d bet against Sharkly.  I’d bet that society continues to ignore God’s word, even when I proclaim it, and instead will try to censor me, mock me, and persecute me.  But the results are not mine to control.  So, I’ll just try to be a faithful servant of God, and serve him as best I can, in my own unique way that He has been preparing and equipping me to do.

 

separately, a commenter seems to wonder:

Am I just venting misogyny?

“…so bitter and resentful, almost hateful, of women.”

No, I don’t believe so.

If I really hated women I’d tell them to study for years in college preparing so they can waste their most fertile years and expel their freshest eggs while working in a factory or office, and then have to settle for whatever leftover men are still available, or else cats.   I’d tell them to be sexually liberated and get pumped and dumped by a string of immoral men who will later laugh about all the stupid whores they porked.  If I really hated women I’d flatter them that they’re equal or better than men, they’re “daughters of the King” made in the image of God, have a goddess inside them, and that they just need to “find themselves”.

No, I love women.  A lot!  I’ve even spent time carefully admiring pictures of women whom I don’t personally know, on the internet.  😉  And my love and appreciation for women is why I’m not hesitant to tell them what is truly best for them.  And it is best for women to truly know their place.  Woman was created last of all, for the man, God gave her to the man, to have.   The man was created in the image of God and as such comes before God, who’s image he bears, uncovered.  But the woman is just the glory of man, and must cover her head when coming into the presence of God, because she is not allowed this exaltation that is reserved for men who are all in God’s image and glory.

I also feel that women get too much flattery and aggrandizement in our Feminist society, and especially in our churches, having become veritable temples of cunt-worship.   So, out of love I generally try not to overinflate their already inflated sense of self.  I try not to apologize in advance before I say something putting women back in their place, nor do I want to sandwich it with a piece of praise.  Just, Whack!  Know your place woman!  That way the message doesn’t get lost.  I’m willing to be a rock of offense for God.

Let me have it below!  Your comments may help me or others.