Is God after your money?

Rich Young Ruler

“Christ and the Rich Young Ruler” by Heinrich Hofmann

Note: If you are in a really big hurry, just read the “lesson” section. 

When I was a young blue-pilled churchian I remember hearing the following lyrics from the song ‘Bullet The Blue Sky’ sung by U2’s Bono, regarding televangelists:

And I can’t tell the difference between ABC News,
Hill Street Blues, and a preacher on the Old Time Gospel Hour
Stealing money from the sick and the old.
Well, the God I believe in isn’t short of cash, mister!

I remember at that time thinking Bono was right that God wasn’t short of cash, but resenting that he had said so.  For I feared that if word got out people would stop being guilted into supporting all the money-hungry churchian institutions, which at that point I naïvely believed were somehow a feature of us collectively living out Christianity, as though Christians collectively financed the working of God.  Reminiscent of the old Catholic jingle:

“As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, another soul from purgatory springs!”

The story of Jesus and the rich young ruler is found in Matthew 19:16-26, Mark 10:17-27, and Luke 18:18-27.   In it the young and successful man asks Jesus, “what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” and Jesus basically tells him to be perfect he must obey all the laws, which the young man claimed he always had, and then Jesus added, “If thou wilt be perfect, sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.”  Basically Jesus asked the man to give up absolutely everything of himself including his very influential job and to become a homeless follower of Him.  Jesus didn’t say that to everyone, but it is recorded for us in three Gospels as an example that nobody meets God’s righteous standards, not even a devout young leader of the traditionally theocratic Jewish nation who recognized that Jesus taught the truth.  

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

This was just like in Matthew chapter 5 when Jesus earlier told people that they would need to pluck out their eyes and cut off their hands to prevent themselves from sinning lest “that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”  None of Jesus disciples took that as a literal command and maimed themselves.  Jesus was just pointing out, in that case, that lust and hate were already in everyone’s hearts, and trying to make them realize that, even if outwardly they seemed blameless in relation to the law, inwardly they were still going to need a sacrificial savior.  Because our nature is to sin, and we cannot be made holy through our own willpower.

I believe Jesus was illustrating that we all can’t even keep the first commandment.  

The first commandment is: Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Eve the defiler put her own self-advancement before obedience to God, just like Satan had also previously done.  Satan deceived Eve into thinking her disobedience would allow her to be like God, just like Satan had once tried to usurp and be like the Most High God.  Adam then obeyed Eve’s request above God’s command.  We all have things we put before total devotion to God every day, and those things that take God’s place in our life are “other gods”.  I mean you still have stuff, right?  You didn’t give all your stuff to the poor and aren’t reading this on a computer at the public library before you go out to witness for God and beg for bread crusts, am I right?  Because if you’ve still got stuff, then Jesus said you’re not yet perfect. (to the rich young ruler)

No doubt the rich young ruler already tithed 10%.  Tithing paid for the Levites and temple guards that provided a justice system and enforced law and order in the Old Testament theocracy that God had prescribed.  Tithing was the Jewish taxation system that funded their national governance before they demanded to have kings.  Then the kings also made demands of them separate from their 10% tithe. However, notice that Jesus told the man to go and distribute his wealth to the poor, He did not ask the rich man to give it to Him, or to the temple or synagogue.  

That is contrary to many of today’s churchians who twist a single verse about Jewish tithing from the Old Testament and morph it into a self-serving doctrine called “storehouse giving”, whereby their dupes are required to give all of their charitable giving through, “the storehouse”, referring, of course, to that pastor’s church.   And as they say, “funds are fungible”. 

All of that has just laid a backdrop for the Biblical insight regarding money that I now want to explain to you:

~ Beginning of lesson ~

Matthew 22:15(NET)  Then the Pharisees went out and planned together to entrap Him with His own words.  16 They sent to Him their disciples along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful, and teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.  You do not court anyone’s favor because You show no partiality.  17 Tell us then, what do You think? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”  18 But Jesus realized their evil intentions and said, “Hypocrites! Why are you testing Me?  19 Show Me the coin used for the tax.”  So they brought Him a denarius.  20 Jesus said to them, “Whose image is this, and whose inscription?”  21 They replied, “Caesar’s.” He said to them, “Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”  22 Now when they heard this they were stunned, and they left Him and went away.

I think Jesus’ testing by two groups of Jewish men, the Pharisees and Herodians,(who believed Herod was the messiah) over paying Rome a tribute coin had more significance than we today usually realize.  I believe Jesus was reminding those “Romanized” Jewish men that their overriding primary duty was in fact to their Creator, not Caesar.  The tribute coin bore Caesar’s image and was circumscribed to him. The circumscription at the time of Jesus stated “Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus”.  As shown below:

Emperor Tiberius Denarius - Tribute Penny

So the coin was stated to bear the image of the son of a god.  Jesus taught that it was OK to give Caesar the tribute coin (worth one day’s wages) that was made in Caesar’s image and was circumscribed to him. And I believe the reason that they marveled at his answer was because those Jewish men who studied and debated the Torah remembered how they were proud to claim to be both formed in God’s own image and to be circumcised or circumscribed as a signet in their flesh that their very beings were forever wholly devoted to God.

Genesis 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. … 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

We who are redeemed have all been bought with a price, bought into Christ at the cost of his flesh and blood.  However, since God made women for men and gave them to men, who are God’s image and glory while woman are only the glory of the man,(1 Corinthians 11:7) God doesn’t want women circumcised as His possession.  Men were intentionally created for God’s good pleasure and are His direct possession, whereas women were specifically designed and given to be the cherished possessions of men.  You can’t circumcise a woman into the covenant between God and Jewish men, and any vain attempt to do so is just female genital mutilation.  Women were made by God for men, and given to men, to be men’s cherished possession. 

Jesus reminded those Jewish men that their lives and bodies were doubly God’s possession, both created in His image, as all men are, and in particular they as Jews were circumcised signifying that they were God’s chosen possession and an eternal posterity of God’s.  The Pharisees and Herodians had come to lay a trap concerning whether or not Jesus, an unschooled religious teacher, would honor Rome’s demand of tribute over God’s chosen people.  But instead they got stunned as Jesus countered by showing how their very lives into eternity were already claimed and owed as an infinitely greater tribute to God Most High, in the exact same way that the little coins which Caesar had made in his own image and inscribed to himself, were meant to be paid back to him.  The returning of Caesar’s coins not only did not violate God’s duly established claim over the Jews, but as Jesus revealed Caesar’s coins were in fact a token replication of God’s exact ownership signets on all Jewish men who bore both God’s image, and God’s inscription.(circumcision)  

If Jesus had only meant for them to similarly pay off both God and Caesar each with a portion of money, like most hirelings claim, the Jews would certainly not have been left marveling at that compromise that would have blasphemously portrayed Caesar and God the Father as relative equals.

It disgusts me that greedy pastors falsely teach that Jesus was trying to show us, in that passage, just to hand over some of our money to pay off their church.  It is clear that the Pharisees and Herodians would not have been left marveling if Jesus had just been understood by them to be telling them to pay Roman taxes while also shilling for the temple fund-raiser.  The Pharisees were likely wanting to condemn Jesus for blasphemy against God (a capital crime) if he said to pay tribute to the Roman god-Emperor, since they could privately, in their gentile-free temple courtroom, claim that Jewish tithes were due to Jehovah alone.  While the Herodians would have also been there to turn Jesus over to Rome for sedition (a capital crime) if He had said not to pay Rome the tribute.  Jesus corrected them that as self-professed sons of God their Father owned them outright.  And without saying anything seditious Jesus made it clear that there was no comparison between them owing the true God everything, while returning the self-proclaimed “god” in Rome his mere pittance.   There is a great and glorious truth in there to be marveled at, for those with ears to hear, who aren’t too focused on money to see the image of God, and the covenant of circumcision, and men’s required duty, divinely illustrated by Jesus through the coin.

~ End of lesson ~

Bonus rant:

But what about the churchian’s money?

Early church father, Tertullian, said: “Nothing that is God’s is obtainable by money.”

Most hirelings will spend a lot of time and money attending seminary to learn how to preach the same lies and excuses in conformity with all the other preachers that lead our nation further into depravity.  Like Simon the sorcerer they sought to buy the calling and gifts of God.  And they bought a diploma, though they are still too cowardly to even face down this world’s Feminist influence and subject a woman to church discipline as Jesus tells churches to perform.  Instead their purchased “training” seemingly only teaches them to make excuses and blame-shift on behalf of women.

It is evident that they get fully trained to tell all the same old foolish hireling lies about how you can slowly boil frogs without them trying to jump out when the water gets too hot.  Am I the only one who went home and tried it?  Frogs are amphibious, when cold-blooded frogs warm up they get far more active, and the moment they feel it getting too warm, they jump out.  It turns out that even with their tiny frog brains, God made them wiser than hirelings who blindly plagiarize other pastors sermon illustrations, because God’s Spirit doesn’t reveal to them truth to teach, so they wind up trying to be religious entertainers.  Their “messages” sometimes remind me of political talk shows where the host has 2 minutes of new material and a two hour show to fill.

“God doesn’t want to take your money. He just doesn’t want your money to take you.” ~ Andy Stanley

I recall the New Testament telling of churches taking up a collections for other churches.   That sure doesn’t sound like today’s churches. 

While the churches have gone moneygrubbing and many are in permanent fund raising mode, I do think it is good for us to give when we can, but certainly not to them, since they are apostate.  That would be ungodly stewardship to hand off an offering meant to please God to false teachers, who are the firstborn of Satan.  God spoke of sharing with the needy, and of giving those gifts to them in the name of Jesus.  Jesus also praised a widow who, in faith, gave all that she had to the Jewish temple.  I would recommend that you only give as you are led by faith to give, and when you can do so in a way that seems right.  Because God loves cheerful givers, not perturbed givers who finally give in to some greedy pastor’s browbeating or tear jerking spiel.  If you don’t give your alms in the right way you’ll lose your reward anyway.  So I personally wouldn’t bother giving anything until you are prepared to give it wisely and to do it properly.

Matthew 6:1  Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.  2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.  3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:  4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

The less fortunate will often need money, but God is never in need and accepts no bribes.  God looks upon our hearts.  Is there generosity and love in your heart?  Not if you can’t share your blessings when you are blessed, even though you’d still prefer to have more.  There’s no fooling God.  If you aren’t happy sharing your blessings, you’ll need to begin trying and practicing until you can be.  

Epistle of “Mathetes” to Diognetus from Chapter 10 … How will you love Him who has first so loved you? And if you love Him, you will be an imitator of His kindness. And do not wonder that a man may become an imitator of God. He can, if he is willing. For it is not by ruling over his neighbors, or by seeking to hold the supremacy over those that are weaker, or by being rich, and showing violence towards those that are inferior, that happiness is found; nor can any one by these things become an imitator of God. But these things do not at all constitute His majesty. On the contrary he who takes upon himself the burden of his neighbor; he who, in whatsoever respect he may be superior, is ready to benefit another who is deficient; he who, whatsoever things he has received from God, by distributing these to the needy, becomes a god to those who receive [his benefits]: he is an imitator of God.

Modesty, does it still apply ???

Two Piece Bikini

I recently saw an article about a youth camp pastor apologizing to his glorified neo-fertility-goddesses (embodied in young fertile women) for not having let them wear bikinis to church camp in the past.  As the article explains, he came to this shameful epiphany about his “toxic masculinity” recently while accompanying his fiancée and her 10-year-old daughter on a shopping trip, where they “desperately looked for a cute one-piece that would be appropriate for camp.”  LOL  So already it seems this Beta-chump pastor’s life is being spent auditioning to become the nursemaid and personal-shopping-assistant to an immodest single mother and her spawn from another dude.  They must make the preteen goddess look “cute”.(sexy)  And while taking his goddesses out shopping he came to realize, not only how unworthy he is of sloppy-seconds, but of his need to repent of all his former vestiges of patriarchal control over women’s sexuality.  It would seem that the patriarchal church fathers of the past didn’t adequately realize how women’s unrestrained sexuality is in fact the highest most divine thing a man can worship, those ancient saints believed women should be ruled over well.  Why they must have thought God to be more worthy to be obeyed than women!  Oh the misogyny!  /S

The article says: A Christian pastor has apologized for banning girls at his youth summer camps from wearing bikinis, admitting that it was wrong to lay ‘the weight of purity’ on the girls but not hold boys responsibly for being ‘gross.’

LOL  It sounds like a full-blown apology for our God-given male sex drive!  For the record: My sex drive was described in a cunt-court ordered evaluation as both “normative” and “robust”, and I will be making no apologies for my masculine sex drive, or my manhood, and I may even brag about it.  I’m truly sorry for all the Feminist’s unresolved penis-envy, but it just ain’t my fault that God made me a man, His preeminent earthly creature.  If rebellious Feminist women cannot resolve their envy of all men’s penises, and so seek to denigrate that which they all lack, it is no wonder that well hung studs like you and I should become lighting rods of their envious spite.  LOL

The pastorbater says: I am sorry that we have deemed a young woman’s body as something that “needs to be covered” …

Yeah!  Bend over in your thong, little camper, and show pastor your underaged babymaker!  Whores have more fun!  “Wear a swimsuit that lets you have fun.”  /S

The self-cucking pastor continues by saying: I am sorry if you felt sexualized by us telling you to cover up. I am sorry I didn’t teach boys to be men, and laid that responsibility on young women.

LOL This churchian clown lives in a backwards clown-world where girls are sexualized by covering up.  In light of that, I shan’t be posting any pornographic burqa pics!  LOL  And when females irresponsibly strip down to near nakedness, it is always going to be some male’s fault for noticing.   SMH   If you point out the wicked stench of their public immodesty, the people pushing lawlessness will reflexively blame you for noticing.  At my wife’s church, when I called out the churchian women for being immodest they said I must just be lustful, and when I called out a man for dressing immodestly they said I must be gay.  Their silly defense of their licentious false-teaching is no more advanced than, “he who smelt it dealt it.”

But pastor Supercuck wasn’t done yet: “Women are all shaped differently and for a male to come in and say what a female should wear? That’s the most ridiculous thing in my head now … The number one thing I hope comes from this is that we as leaders, especially in the church, would walk in humility and stop pretending we are the ones that have the answers.”

LOL He admits he doesn’t believe in exercising the good and holy patriarchal dominion over this earth that God created men to have, nor does this pastor feel he should give answers to women, but in humility he believes men should remain silent not usurping over women.(1 Timothy 2:12 fully inverted)  And he apparently lacks the good sense to even understand why people wear clothes in the first place.  I wouldn’t send kids to his camp.  You never know when his failure to understand modesty and why humans wear clothing will have him exposing himself as a result of his own lack of discretion.

I do have answers to many religious questions, as do many folks who comment here, so if you have a legitimate one, just ask it below.  And if you’re going to ask about a specific bit of clothing … if you have to ask … it’s immodest.

I also came across a podcast regarding churchian modesty and a recent twitter storm it sparked while I was preparing to write this post.  On the podcast the churchian thought-leaders lack much graveness, yet are still too polite to God’s enemies, and fail to go nearly as far as I would, nonetheless they do make a lot of good points.   Apparently they are starting to wake up to the fact that most all of churchianity is a great whoring after the defilers,(women) and giving womankind (the creature) the worth-ship to be listened to and obeyed above our Creator.

Logically, once you give up your right to enforce modesty, accepting the complete nudity and public display of every form of perversity by absolutely anyone is your only logical destination.

You gotta fight, for your right, to purity!

Seriously!  If you don’t want all your old and obese coworkers soon carrying on at work like it was an eight hour naked pervert pride parade, now is the time to speak out and start pushing back.  Sodom is the next scheduled stop on our cultural train track if we don’t do something about it.

Feminism’s Flimsy Theological Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Ambrosiaster wrote:  Paul says that the honor and dignity of a man makes it wrong for him to cover his head, because the image of God should not be hidden. Indeed, it ought not to be hidden, for the glory of God is seen in the man. … A woman therefore ought to cover her head, because she is not the likeness of God but is under subjection.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ephesians 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Come as you are

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

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

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

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

Head is covered

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

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

1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.  6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.  7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

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

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

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

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

God hears husbands!

fennec kit

I was recently reminded of 1 Peter 3:7, a verse too often misused by Feminism’s enforcers to help subjugate husbands to their wives.  Often they might say something like, “husbands, if you don’t hear your wife, God won’t hear you”.  But is that what saint Peter actually told us?  Does God really refuse to listen to the prayers of all husbands who are not tuned in to hearken unto the voices of their wives?

1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

The key misunderstanding is that the word “your” in that verse does not refer just to the husband.  But, because of an unfortunately ambiguous English translation, most people will initially read it that way, even though that seemingly puts the verse at odds with the uniform strict patriarchy that God prescribes throughout the rest of the Bible.

The Greek word for “your” (Strong’s 5216) which is pronounced hoo-mone in English, and is written ὑμῶν in Greek, is plural not singular. The husband and wife are to exist in perfect unity with the wife in full subjection to the husband in everything.(Ephesians 5:22-24) The principle is that if, through lack of knowledge, you don’t live in unity as heirs together of the grace of God, then your prayers together will be hindered.

Matthew Henry explained it this way over 300 years ago:
They are heirs together of the grace of life, of all the blessings of this life and another, and therefore should live peaceably and quietly one with another, and, if they do not, their prayers one with another and one for another will be hindered, so that often “you will not pray at all, or, if you do, you will pray with a discomposed ruffled mind, and so without success.”

Churchian female-supremacists naturally want to blame a husband for all of his wife’s sinful behavior and then deceitfully construe the testing and hardship he endures, against him, claiming his prayers go unanswered as confirming evidence of God’s displeasure with his treatment of his wife.  Don’t let woman-worshiping churchians twist this holy verse that states that one must realize that women are in fact weaker vessels yet still should be honored as co-recipients of God’s grace, lest your collective prayers be hindered, into something that turns God into the enforcer for their Feminist false teaching, into a God who won’t listen to any husband until they first hearken unto the voice of their gullible wife.

Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

The misuse of 1 Peter 3:7 is Satan’s same old plan for getting husbands to follow their easily misled wive’s leading, just like how Adam hearkened to and followed Eve’s leading and got the whole earth cursed by God.  We are to honor the fact that women are by their creation weaker vessels, but that even so they are also heirs together with men of the grace of life, and by handling them according to knowledge, we husbands will not foolishly antagonize our weaker halves and so hinder our united prayers together with them.

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.  14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:

Dalrock’s Departure

wisdom

Yesterday Red-Pilled Christian blogger, Dalrock, announced on his blog, that he is quitting his blog, after a decade of blogging.  https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2020/01/22/farewell-for-now-at-least-and-thank-you/     For myself, I am saddened to see his site ending.  It helped me a lot, I met a lot of good men there, and was challenged to hone and defend my Bible based beliefs.  I am glad it was there for me at a time when few were.

Flaming Cowards

30+ ring

Revelation 21:8  But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.

At this point of reflection at both the end and beginning of a decade, we should remember that those men and women who are too cowardly to stand up against the great whore’s continual inversion of God’s established patriarchy, need to repent and turn from their cowardice before they are damned to hell for it.

Mark 8:34  And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.  35 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it.  36 For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?  37 For what can a man give in return for his soul?  38 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

In Her Father’s House

Winter Window

According to the US CDC the mean age for first vaginal sexual intercourse is 17 for both males and females.  By age 23, 95% of women interviewed claimed that they’d had sexual intercourse.  Meanwhile the average age of first marriage in the US is 27 for women and 29 for men.  The average girl has had a full decade of fornication before she ever marries.  while average men have been screwing around for a dozen years prior to marriage.  We have produced a generation of emotionally used up whores, and cads who will never be able to properly value married life.  These statistics should make Godly people sick and we should want to repent of the absolute wickedness of our sexually immoral generation.

What is the designed purpose of women?

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

Definition #3 for “Meet”: fulfilling, satisfying, agreeable, fit, proper

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.  4 Every man who prayeth or prophesieth, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.  5 But every woman who prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head, for that is one and the same 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, inasmuch 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.

The woman was created for the man, to be with the man, and to be a helper to the man.  The man is to govern her easily misled nature, and be head over her.  She is to be agreeable and proper to the man who is presently over her, and to do what is fitting and proper for her to do for him whether he is her father or husband.

How do we get women to fulfill their purpose?

It is my Biblically supported belief that women are to naturally spend their whole lives first being trained up to serve a man in their father’s house, and then to be serving her husband, as she was created for, as unto the Lord, in her husband’s home.(Ephesians 5:22-24)  Girls should spend their formative years honoring their fathers and mothers who are to train them up in the way that they should go, so that they will not depart from it when they are older.  Women are to be trained to serve their fathers and mothers and care for others, in preparation to serve their husbands and care for their children and others.  Mothers and other older women are to be examples and teachers of good things:  Titus 2:4 that they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,  5 to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the Word of God be not blasphemed.

So, if a father and mother wanted to train their daughter up exactly like a Christian young woman should be, what would that look like?  Would they send their daughter off, out from under her father’s care, to college to learn to be independent of men and to provide for herself those things that a father or husband should be providing?  Should a Christian father send his easily beguiled young daughter off to college, where less than 5% emerge with their virginity still intact, just so the whore can be well prepared to dump her husband and live independently without a man, as she will learn how to do in college and afterward in her career?  No.  And of those 5% of girls who don’t become whores in college, a good portion of those are likely disabled, disfigured, or grotesque.  Sending an attractive daughter off to where they hand out condoms and abortion pills like candy while the authority figures preach anarchy and rebellion is absolute foolishness tantamount to just pimping her out as a whore yourself, only you end up paying tuition instead of reaping the profit.

A Christian father should not “empower” his daughter, but instead teach her to expect and joyfully take guidance from her God ordained head.  He should teach her to serve others by keeping her serving domestically in his own home until she is ready and invited to be a keeper of her own home with a good and Godly man whom her father should help the easily beguiled young woman to choose.  And he should not give her away to a fool or a heathen.  Letting a young woman marry whatever bad-boy psychopath she is infatuated with, is not fatherly love at all, but could subject her to a lifetime of painful and unnecessary drama.  She should be taught from an early age to let the God ordained men in her life take care of her, and learn to take their advice.   Some people are not so fortunate to have fathers and husbands to look out for them.

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

God tells His people many times to look out for the fatherless and widows.  Because, despite Feminism’s lies to the contrary, it is truly an affliction to not have a father or for a woman to not have a husband.  Churches should never neglect to take care of their fatherless and their widows in accordance with 1 Timothy 5:3-16.  If your church is giving your money away to thrice divorced MILFs, they’re doing things completely wrong!  So a true church of Christ’s would already provide a safety net for your daughter, should she be a worthy widow, she won’t need the four years of fornicating, away from her parents, to fall back on.

So, is it wise for Christians to squander the four peak reproductive years of most every woman’s life training them, via college, how to provide for themselves(and fornicate) just in case they should become widowed?  Would it not be better that their husbands be allowed to enjoy their unspoiled youth and beauty, in return for their lifetime of care, provision, and sacrifice, that they vow to their wives?  Would marriage not be a better deal for both parties if both parties gave their best?  Encouraging your daughter to get a college education seems to be a sure way to drastically reduce your grandchildren, and her commitment to motherhood:More education less kids

By preserving a chaste unmarried daughter serving in your home until she marries, you are not only being a good father to her, but you are preparing her to be an excellent wife.

My oldest sister went off to college when I was a first grader, and my other sister went off to college when I was a third grader, as a result I grew up without sisters and I hardly know them.

Are we teaching our daughters to serve others or to be self serving?

So if we teach our daughters to pursue their own dreams, won’t that just make her future home a reeducation-camp, if her husband has his own ambitions and wants a Godly “keeper at home”?  Should we not prepare her to follow her husband’s directions?  If Eve had followed her husband’s directions we might all still be living in a paradise.

Conclusion: I don’t think a Christian woman should move out of her father’s house until she marries, especially considering the absolute sexual immorality we live amongst.  What do you think?