An Image of My Father

The picture above is a colorized portrait of my father.  He has been dead for a dozen years, but as I write this it chokes me up to see my father looking back at me again.  He was my protector.  While the rest of my family often mistreated me, when dad was home I was safe and he made sure I was treated fairly.   My father was a stalwart man of principle, a genius engineer, and a servant of God.  He was a formidable man who could bring gravitas to any discussion, but he could also tell hilarious jokes for two hours straight after all the serious matters had been taken care of.  

My father showed me how to be a man, by being masculine for our entire life together.  His Biblical frame of reference did not bend to accommodate the world, the world had to adapt itself to my father.  He never cared about fame, he had no love of money, and he wasn’t afraid to die, so the world lacked much leverage against my dad.  Life with dad was an adventure, a mission, a test, and I never doubted for a moment that dad would see to it that we achieved his mission, no matter the circumstances.

 I wish every boy could grow up with a father like mine.  Because then there would be no questions about how to be masculine, nobody undisciplined, and no man without a mission.  It breaks my heart that so many boys are now growing up without fathers, including my own sons.  What they miss out on by not having a father in their life is incalculable.   You need a solid man to raise up solid men.  Boys can’t learn how to be a man by watching their mother.

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.

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.

Red-Pill Religion?

Bnonn's Baby

Lately there has been some discussion of whether the “Red Pill” is Christian or not.   I think it is a fool’s debate, but here goes, I’ll wade in against the foolish.  Recently I read two somewhat opposing articles regarding this.  First I’ll deal with the foolish one: Bnonn throws the baby out.  Fence-riding Bnonn, at the Purple-Pill “It’s Good To Be A Man” takes a break from fighting his enemy ‘Blue-Pill feminist Status quo’ to take a swipe at his other enemy, ‘Red-Pill patriarchal wisdom’.  Bnonn begins by saying: “Our conviction is that, while the red pill shares certain commonalities with biblical Christianity, and often sees the nature of things more clearly than mainstream evangelicalism, it is actually a separate religion in its own right.”  So, Bnonn recognizes that there are some Biblical principles in the red pill, and that this truth leads Red-Pilled people to seeing the nature of things with greater clarity, but he then proceeds to ‘point and shriek’, branding this truth, this source of greater clarity, as a false religion, outlawing seeking this truth and wisdom from Christianity.  Now I’ll spare you the bulk of his bnonnsense, as the author is reduced to painting the red pill with a very broad brush, citing various individual foibles and some red-piller’s lack of Christian morals, and such,  as reason to advise his readers to shriek and run from any truth or wisdom that might be inherent in the Red-Pill movement, and to let men like himself do your thinking, and all consideration of it, for you.  As Bnonn so often does, his articles generally go into lengthy drawn out contortions to twist some unrelated tidbits into seemingly supporting his contentions, and apparently to either impress or baffle his readers  he opportunistically throws in the biggest and most arcane words that he knows, but in this article mainly he foolishly paints with an overly broad brush and throws the good out with the bad.  Bnonn concludes with: “Hence, we are not red pill Christians, and actively warn against the very idea of such a thing. We are Christians who have benefited from the observations of red pill thinkers about God’s creation, and are striving to integrate that knowledge into a positive biblical theology of masculinity, femininity, and how men and women are to work together to extend the dominion of the house of God.”

As you can see, Bnonn cleverly shifts dominion from individual men under the headship of Christ,(1 Corinthians 11:3) to the church, “the house of God”, of which he is a thought leader.  Bnonn’s preface and conclusion, given above, defines his ilk as Purple-Pill, and attempts to scare his readers off from becoming any more Red-Pilled than Bnonn himself.    He claims to be riding the fence at just the perfect balance point.  So as always, your ideas and discussion are not permitted there, just your donations, so they can afford to continue doing all your thinking for you, and in exchange they’ll limit your dominion a bit less than a more Feminist church.

Job 12:2 Truly ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you!

Now on to the Good.

Over at Biblical Gender Roles, the host asks: Is Red Pill Biblical?

As you know, I myself, have been teaching that men are exclusively in the image and glory of God,(1 Corinthians 11:7) created preeminent, to be delegated divine dominion over women and all of creation, with the command to rule them well.  I have stated that we men have been deceived into trading our birthright ~ blessed Patriarchy, for a mess of dysfunctional Feminism.  This Bible based belief also fits well with the Red Pill.

The host quotes popular secular Red Pill Blogger, Rollo Tomassi as saying: The authority men used, to claim innate legitimacy [from] in the past, is now only legitimate when a woman wields it.  Men need to retake this authority and own it as is their birthright once again.”

I won’t dissect the Biblical Gender Roles article here, since it is worth reading for yourself.  I will however welcome all your discussion of it here.  I personally have found it difficult to get my comments to appear at BGR, and Bnonn’s article does not allow any comments at all.  Feel free to share your thoughts about whether the Red Pill movement contains wisdom and truth that our Feminist churches have been misled to currently try to deny, or any other thoughts.

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!

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.