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.

Virgin Imprinting

Where's the love

I have a topic that I’d like to discuss, and I’ll use myself as the example, because I haven’t heard any other discussion on the topic.  I was reading over at Σ Frame when the question of a virgin young man’s sexual compatibility with any potential wife came up.

I myself for whatever reason never worried about my sexual compatibility, so I would never have thought to bring the topic up.  Although I’m blessed, I presumed that, if a baby’s head can come out of a woman’s baby maker, I’m pretty certain my penis will fit in.  Now perhaps I’m not talking about the same aspect of sexual compatibility that was in question, but here is what happened to me.

The baseline.

Prior to marriage I had looked at pornography.  I found I liked breasts of all shapes and sizes, I really did like them all, whatever preferences I had were pretty minimal.  I also looked at vaginas, I found them interesting, while a little strange looking, but there too, I didn’t have any real strong preferences, except that they not be shaved bald and look just like a young child’s crotch.

I met my wife online, and was almost “in love” before I physically met her.  When I did first meet her I was pleasantly suprised, that although she didn’t look exactly like her profile picture, she actually looked better than her online photo.  Long story short – I fell in love, and married her.

I had never had sex until with my wife. When I first saw her breasts, I didn’t recall seeing many exactly like that, but I liked them.  And when I first saw her vagina, well, it was a vagina, as good as any other vagina.

Somehow I got imprinted.

Due to my wife’s intimacy-anorexia she intentionally distances me, she withholds sharing emotional, spiritual, and physical intimacy as part of her behavioral addiction.  And so it was, that bereft of much sex with my wife, and let down by churches who refused to help, I turned back to pornography.   But, to my surprise, I didn’t want to see just any breasts like before.  I found myself looking for breasts that looked exactly like my wife’s breasts, and the more they looked like my wife’s breasts, the more I preferred them.  I also had grown to appreciate vaginas a lot more, but the absolute best vaginas looked exactly like my wife’s vagina.

I wasn’t intentionally trying to find models that looked like my wife, I just gradually came to notice that I now strongly preferred everything to look exactly like how she looked.  I now strongly prefer my wife’s size of nipples, the size and color of her areolas, the size and shape of her breasts.  I also strongly prefer the size, shape, color, and texture of her pussy lips.  I’m sorry, but I just do now.  Apparently I imprinted on her sexually, and she is now what I just strongly prefer.

Anyhow, I’m not sure how this happened.  I haven’t got the foggiest idea.  I’m not even sure why I imprinted.  Was it an act or blessing of God?  Is it natural?  Was it an act of will, that I chose to love her as she was, and it solidified?  Had I perchance been blessed to marry somebody perfectly matching some subconscious preferences that I had been previously unaware of?  Does this happen to others?  I don’t know.

It gets worse.

My wife got pregnant twice during our marriage, and as she first began exhibiting the look of pregnancy, I began to love that look.  I knew she was pregnant before she did.  One day she wondered aloud if she was possibly pregnant, and without even thinking I just blurted out, yes, your boobs have changed.  Anyhow, I began to love everything about the look of pregnancy as my wife exhibited it.  And perhaps thanks to powerful pregnancy hormones overpowering my wife’s intimacy-anorexia the last two trimesters of both my wife’s pregnancies were the most regular sex I ever got.  Anyhow, I sort of have a thing for pregnant women now, and I had never found them attractive before my wife first got pregnant.  But now they’re just radiant and sexy to me, and I don’t know how to make it stop.

The Marital Window of Opportunity

Derek Ramsey

Recently over at Boxer’s Blog, Derek Ramsey made the following (slightly edited) observations:

From statistics, we know that over half of people have lasting marriages.  The problem is that you can’t marry people who are already married, and presumably you don’t want to take the chance on a non-virgin.  By age 25, ~95% of women are not virgins (and most of the best are married).  You’ll have to find a quality wife before she is 25.  By the time you (or she) are ~32, your options become much more limited and your divorce risk steadily increases.  Thus, a man’s window of opportunity to find a quality wife is time-limited.

Please share your thoughts about this.


Natural Attraction

Spot likes me

Genesis 2:18 The Lord God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him.

Twice the Bible speaks of evil people as being “without natural affection”. But we are also warned to stay away from evil women:

Proverbs 23:27 For a whore is a deep ditch; and a strange woman is a narrow pit. 28 She also lieth in wait as for a prey, and increaseth the transgressors among men.

Proverbs 5:3 For the lips of an immoral woman drip honey, And her mouth is smoother than oil;

I wonder if that last verse, or Proverbs 23:27 above, are sexual euphemisms?
So, what are we to do?

1Corinthians 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

1Corinthians 7:28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.

Please share your thoughts on this subject.

The Natural Use Of The Woman

The natural use of womankind

The churches all around us today are a ‘great whore’, (a Feminism peddling substitute for genuine Bible based faith) due to their Feminist beliefs they worship and serve women more dutifully than they serve her Creator.  This is shown whenever a choice is made to not offend women rather than to represent God boldly.

Romans 1:25 They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. 

27 And likewise also the men left the natural use of the woman, and burned in their lust one toward another, and man with man wrought filthiness, and received in themselves such recompense of their error, as was meet.

Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

So, can you serve both God and gluttony?  No!
Can you serve both God and fame seeking?  No!
Can you serve both God and Feminism?  No!

Does your church tell women to remain silent in church?
God does! (1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Timothy 2:11-12)

Does your church boldly tell women to submit to their husbands?
God does! (Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:4-5, 1 Peter 3:1-2)

Does your church tell women to wear a head covering when they pray?
God does! (1 Corinthians 11:5-6)

Does your church forbid women to refuse their husbands sex?
God does! (1 Corinthians 7:2-5)

Does your church teach women that they were created for men, to obey them?
Has your church taught the women of your congregation what their natural use is?

Well today is your lucky day!  I’m here to tell you what the natural use of the woman is.  No apologies, no beating around the bush, no made up feminist “servant-leadership” wrongly applied to families to downgrade a husband’s God given headship.  No, I’m just going to give you the God glorifying truth that God designed into this natural world.

So what is the God intended position of the woman?  Well, there are a lot of good positions for wives to assume.   No, I’m not talking about assuming career positions competing with men for jobs outside the home, and thereby driving down their wages.  I’m talking about positions where you can best be put to your God honoring natural use being the mate God fit for your husband.  I’m talking about positions where you can serve your lord. (Sarah called Abraham lord, and righteous women should emulate her godly understanding with their husbands. 1 Peter 3:5-6)  Are wives doing those natural things that are well pleasing unto their lords?

No, Feminism’s twisted dogma has filled wives, the inferior vessels, with an unnatural sense of equality, which causes them dissatisfaction because they naturally wanted a husband they could look up to.  But Feminism has made them view their husbands as equals or even inferior to them.  And you don’t look up to an equal.  So consequently wives feel robbed by their husbands of their unmet natural desire to serve and physically unite with a superior lord.  They blame their husbands, for not being the superior they wanted, despite their own blindness to see that he is indeed innately their superior, made first, in the likeness of God.   Women, who are the image of Christ’s church, were made to serve their husbands, who are the image of Christ,(Ephesians 5:22-27, 32-33) they were not made to return their husbands implacable malice because of some wrongly assumed equality.  Wives need to acknowledge their husband’s superiority and reverence him.(Ephesians 5:33)  And all husbands, most especially church leaders, need to rule over their own families well, repressing the woman’s natural desire to usurp like Eve first did. (Genesis 3:16, 1 Timothy 3:1-5)

Wives if you want to really be God’s intended gift to your husband, you need to put yourself out for your natural intended use.  Let the image of God enter you and together again become one flesh with him, united through your divine purpose fulfilling use.  The natural use for the woman, mentioned in Romans 1, is to be a ready mate for her husband.  And according to 1 Corinthians 7:2-5 your husband should not defraud you of your purpose when you want to make excellent use of yourself by exercising and strengthening your divine union.

Who’s Oppressing Women?

wage slave

On today’s episode of BattleTwats the Siren of Socialism takes on Feminazi Fever!

The Socialist Bot quickly hits the spinning flail of Feminism with a delegitimizing blow but then loses one of her own intellectual wheels and winds up spun out and going in similar circles to that of her opponent, the spinning Feminist wage-slave.  The feral Feminist lazily spinning all female “oppression” as originating from patriarchy, and the silly Socialist crazily spinning all female “oppression” as originating from Capitalism.

Today I happened across some old Socialist theory on achieving a classless utopia by Lindsey German: Theories_of_Patriarchy

Lenin’s little Lindsey starts off by showing the absurdity of the settled Feminist conspiracy theory that there is a united army of patriarchal penis possessors all  together responsible for orchestrating every perceived oppression of women.  According to Lindsey, Feminists believe: the “eternal truth” that “patriarchy” in one form or another is the cause of women’s oppression.  Lindsey then reeducates us that, Capitalism done it!

Rather than saying that individual men oppressed women, most feminists saw that oppression of women came from the underlying bias of a patriarchal society.

Linsey asks, if patriarchy is indeed something by which all men oppress all women, how can it ever be overcome by women and men acting together?   I want to argue something completely different. I want to reject the concept of patriarchy as at best a muddled term simply meaning women’s oppression (in which case it cannot explain this oppression), and at worst a completely idealist notion which has no basis in material reality. I want to show that it is not men who “benefit” from the oppression of women but capital. I want to look at the way in which the family has changed, and how as it has changed women’s conception of themselves has also changed. Hopefully that will demonstrate that women’s continued oppression is not the result of male conspiracy (or an alliance between male workers and the capitalist class), but of the continuation of class society in every part of the world. It follows that I shall argue the “socialist” countries have no more in common with socialism than they have with women’s liberation.

Apparently all of the Socialism failing all around us is not really Socialism at all!  Socialism was to be a classless society, and male  and female are classes that did not get sufficiently erased by those lame wannabe Socialist despots and their half-assed purges and half-empty killing fields.  Lindsey want’s to do Socialism right even if they have to kill or neuter us all to achieve her total desired classlessness.   If I recall correctly Jordan Peterson has observed that there is no end to the classes you can break society down into, and every class can always claim some grievance.  There is no satisfying these perpetual grievance mongering dividers and subdividers of the people.

Ultimately the revolution was lost through the failure of the working class in the advanced capitalist countries to follow the Russian lead. That in its turn led to severe setbacks to the position of women. But in the early years they saw the glimmers of opportunity of equal work, socialized housework and a much freer sexuality which was made possible by the revolutionary overthrow of the old society.

Lindsey wants to overthrow all current societies to make way for her Socialist religion, where all children are forcibly raised entirely by the state, because women are oppressed by being part of a family and most oppressed by child bearing and rearing, because it’s career suicide.

The great “parasite” on women’s domestic labor is the child.

Engels and the early Marxists considered that the proletarian family (unlike the bourgeois family) would disappear since it was not based on property. It clearly has not. Since I do not believe that this is because of patriarchy, I want to look at precisely what does keep the family going.

Yet the family remains a stifling, stultifying place where attitudes and roles are taught and learned, where prejudices and values are transmitted through the generations.

And so women are left with the responsibility for childbirth and childcare. This above explains why the family and women’s oppression continue. Women’s roles as mothers and child rearers structure their whole lives.

At every stage in its development the system has had to establish structures that bind those that it exploits to it.  The family is integrated into a complex network of such structures. These take advantage of the way housewives, isolated in the home and cut off from the wider collectivities that form around industrial production, are more susceptible to unchanging ideas about ‘one’s place in society’; dependent upon their husbands for a livelihood they can be persuaded that any sort of social change is a threat to their family and their security. Or, again, these structures rely on the way the male worker, having to worry about the security of his wife and children as well as himself personally, is likely to think twice before getting involved in a strike, occupation or insurrection. The slogan of ‘defense of the family’ becomes a slogan for mobilizing working people in defense of the status quo.

Apparently Lindsey believes in atheistic Socialism inspired economic forces directing humankind,  and so God didn’t design the traditional Patriarchal family, it must have been invented, as her ilk teach, by people in the middle east about 2,000 B.C. due to a change in economic forces.  Lindsey assumes that prior to that was a matriarchal utopia.  LOL   Apparently Lindsey(circa 1981) believed women should effect societal change through things like a collective sex strike.  LOL Alyssa Milano’s recent sex strike didn’t work too well.  How do you escalate things when that fails?  A collective rape accusation against all men?

Anyhow Lindsey seems to believe that having children and raising them is the biggest drag on women and it must be stopped.  Women and men must both alike have no consequences or responsibilities whatsoever after having sex.  Few children should be born, and all children must be raised entirely by the state.  Since having a child will torpedo a woman’s career, I believe she would favor as few select women as possible acting as career babymakers, artificially inseminated with the best semen for the best planned future of the collective state, if in fact she even believes in the favorability of the continued existence of the human race.

Lindsey’s utopia is somehow genderless, marriageless, familyless, sexless except for unaffiliated female-initiated recreational sex, and every remaining problem will then stem from the last remaining vestiges of Capitalism and improperly reeducated malefactors who still have the human ambition to be unique or to belong to a select group.(like a family)

So, I can see Lindsey German has a slightly different alternative to Feminism, the only problem is, it is even worse, and we’d have to kill billions of “Capitalists”, and we still wouldn’t get anything but life in an inescapable globalized shithole nation, filled with apathy, addiction, and despair.

I say society should quit harkening to all these batshit-crazy women and start living Biblically.  Women won’t be happy again until collectively they’re properly repressed.

What Men Want

Red Hot Riding Hood

Our secret is out!

Women have broken the code!

Apparently some diligent sleuthing women have scoured ancient literature and long forgotten lore and discovered a long lost secret method to winning a man’s heart.  Fortunately for us men, they are still a bit mystified and wary of the concept and have, so far, only dared each other to dabble with it.

These Indiana Jones-ettes apparently uncovered the secret in a two millennium old book by old Saint Peter, of Bible fame.  This secret method is so effective it can make a believer out of the most disobedient husband, and so sneaky that he can be won without a word.

The two millennium old forgotten spell:

The secret was found in the first sentence of the third chapter of Saint Peter’s First book:

“In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.”

How to do it.

It’s so simple.  Basically women decide to actually keep some critical parts of their own marriage vows!  Just: “To love, honor, and obey” & “forsaking all others”.  So, Saint Peter claims husbands’ hearts can be won, and husbands can be transformed into loving God-following men if their wives just hush their mouths, quit being sluts, and honor and obey their husbands like they vowed to. (and like the wives may have initially done to get a husband to marry them)

How does it work; miracle, magic, sorcery, voodoo?

Here is where the women are mystified: apparently most now think this is a divine rite that has been imbued with supernatural power.  However they all suspect their own husbands are likely immune to this voodoo, so most won’t bother to try it.

I however believe that if wives actually just gave their husbands this part of what wives led them to believe they would be getting when they married them, the husbands would be so awestruck that they would seek to thank and praise the wife’s God and find out how they too could get in on her God’s extended plan for them as a couple.  Basically, if wives would just quietly quit defrauding their husbands of what they’d already vowed to them, their husbands would naturally be overcome with “divine” love.  I’m not even sure if there is much magic to it, so much as just a normal and natural reaction to being shown divine love as intended by a woman who was designed for a man, to be his reverent helper and faithful mate.  When women truly follow God, so usually will their husbands.  Just like the history of Adam and Eve.  And when the woman leaves God’s ways, so often, her husband leaves God’s ways also.

So, don’t worry men!  Our secret will baffle most all women.

Few women will deduce what is mostly just godly ’cause & effect’.

Horny Housewives of the Patristic Age



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.


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.


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


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?


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.



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.