Did Jesus have a sex drive?

Jesus eludes Mary Magdalene with His stiff-arm Heisman Trophy move.

This post, along with at least one more to come, will be about widespread error derived from a hyperliteral interpretation of some of Jesus’ hyperbole in Matthew 5, which He used throughout the “Sermon on the Mount”.(Matthew chapters 5-7)  In this post I will primarily try to focus on making fitting sense of the part mentioning lust and adultery.

Hyperbole – is a rhetorical device that uses exaggeration to emphasize a point.

First, I’ll give some obvious examples of Jesus’ hyperbole from chapters 6 & 7 which I won’t actually be covering in these posts.  In 6:2 Jesus speaks of hypocrites having trumpets sounded preceding whenever they gave their offerings in the synagogues, which were solemn places for prayer and worship.  There is nothing to indicate that was the literal custom and not just hyperbole indicating that the pompous ones wanted to be noticed giving their offerings.  Jesus told them instead, when they gave, “do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.”  Which was also clearly hyperbole.  Then in 6:28-29 Jesus says that the wildflowers don’t do exhausting work or spin fabric but that Solomon, in all his glory, was not clothed as finely as any one of them.  Clearly that’s also more hyperbole.  And Chapter 6 ends with “tomorrow worrying about itself”.  Clearly that is more idiomatic humor that was probably far better caught when Jesus delivered it verbally.  I suspect that when I read in English, I’m likely missing even more non-literal idioms due to English paraphrasing or dynamic-equivalence translation.

In Matthew 7:3-5 Jesus speaks of trying to remove the speck from your brother’s eye while having a literal architectural building beam stuck in your own eye.  Clearly that’s hyperbole.  In 7:6, who would give holy things to dogs or throw pearls before pigs?  In 7:15, did false teachers really dress up in sheep’s clothing while actually being wolves?  No, clearly Jesus was using a lot of hyperbole, sarcasm, and humorous idioms throughout that sermon.

Now also to set the stage for the misunderstanding we will discuss, I’d like to point out that the early church was surrounded by Gnosticism, Stoicism, and Asceticism, and they all treated the physical world, and our fleshly desires, such as one’s sex drive, as things that are inherently evil and need to be suppressed.  And the church didn’t want to get outdone by their religious competition.  So, the early church took a basically Gnostic idea, that all sex is inherently evil, and ran with it.

While the Bible teaches that a man having sex with a virgin creates a “one flesh” marital union with her which is thereafter to be protected through the enforcing of God’s lawful penalty of death for adultery, yet the Bible is not anti-sex, and does not recommend celibacy within marriage. (e.g. 1 Corinthians 7:2-5)  However, many early church fathers did try to reduce sex within marriage, seemingly under the influence of their Gnostic culture.  So, it should not surprise us that the early church was eager to find ways to render all our fleshly desires to be immoral, like the Gnostics viewed them.

Matthew Chapter 5

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus says that he did not come to abolish His Father’s law but to accomplish or fulfill it.  In 5:18 He says that not a single dot of God’s law will pass away before heaven and earth pass away.  So, Jesus is making it clear that He is not going to revoke or invalidate God’s laws that apply, neither God’s Mosaic laws for Judaism, nor God’s seven Noahic laws for all people, which were each reissued to the church within the New Testament.

In 5:21-22 Jesus references His Father’s Noahic and Mosaic laws against murder, and then He makes a connection between unrighteous anger, or hatred, with the guilt for murder.  Jesus wasn’t saying that the unjustly angry or hateful should actually be put to death as murderers, nor was He altering His Father’s good and perfect law, He was only illustrating that even those who thought themselves to be innocent of murder, were still unholy before God having the hatred that is the very root of murder already existing in their hearts.  And they all stood in need of a cleansing sacrifice.

The Pharisees considered themselves to be keepers of all the law, and blameless before the law.  Jesus was humorously explaining to them that they would all still fall far short of the unapproachable glory and holiness of God, and they would all need a perfect sacrifice to pay for their falling short of the holiness of God.

In Matthew 5:22 Jesus wasn’t literally saying that any critic who calls me a “fool” is guilty of murder.  He was saying that to speak that way unjustly would be sinful, and that the same unjust hatred that is already in the heart, is also the root of murder, and that even for unjustly calling me a “fool”, they’d be guilty enough to be sent into the fires of hell.  That section on hatred and murder is set forth in very much the same pattern as the verses we are now finally going to examine regarding lust and adultery.

Matthew 5:27(NMB) You have heard how it was said to the people of the old time, You shall not commit adultery. 28 But I say to you that whosoever looks on a wife, lusting after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29 Therefore, if your right eye causes you to offend, tear it out and cast it from you. It is better for you that one of your members perish than that your whole body should be cast into hell. 30 Also, if your right hand causes you to offend, cut it off and cast it from you. Better it is that one of your members perish, than that all your body should be cast into hell.

My viewpoint after studying the Greek words in this passage is this:  Jesus is not saying that lusting for another man’s wife is literally adultery and should be punished by stoning to death, and that His omniscient Father’s law somehow forgot to ever mention it.  Jesus was saying that, exactly like how hatred exists in all men’s hearts, the root of adultery, illicit desire, already preexists in the hearts of all men.  And that is why you could even be tempted to look lustfully at another man’s wife in the first place, because the root of all adultery, illicit desire, is preexistent in your heart.  This isn’t a new commandment.  God issued no additional stone tablets of law that day.  Jesus was just pointing out that lust, the root of adultery, is already preexistent in your heart, and even the hearts of the most legalistic Pharisees who tried to live according to all the law.  And so consequently every man will need Him as their sacrificial Savior.  No man will be made holy solely by keeping all the law, as the Pharisees were attempting.

However, the church, having syncretized Gnostic doctrines, wants to make all of men’s fleshly sex drive entirely illicit, since it involves a satisfying of our physical being, not our supposedly “higher” mental faculties.  Even though as Jesus pointed out, exactly contrary to Gnosticism, it truly is the heart/mind where the wickedness resides.  And our physical flesh is innocent of the actual abstract coveting of another man’s wife.

The truth is the church folks, who want you to interpret this passage literally, are hypocrites.  They don’t literally tear out their own right eye to prevent inciting their lust, nor cut off their right hand to thereby prevent them from masturbating with it.  Tacitly they acknowledge that self-amputating all of your fleshly organs, which might facilitate sinful thoughts, will still never successfully remove all the hate and lust from your heart and mind.  And the disciples who were there and heard Jesus deliver the “Sermon on the Mount” certainly didn’t follow that part literally either.  There is no record of any disciple’s amputations or eye removals after that message was preached.  Jesus wasn’t literally asking us to deface the temple of the Holy Spirit.  Jesus’ point was just to make the Pharisees and us all aware of our inherent and humanly inescapable sinfulness and our need for His cleansing and salvation.

Additional thoughts:

Hebrews 4:15(AMP) For we do not have a High Priest who is unable to sympathize and understand our weaknesses and temptations, but One who has been tempted [knowing exactly how it feels to be human] in every respect as we are, yet without [committing any] sin.

Hebrews 4:14 Therefore since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest incapable of sympathizing with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every way just as we are, yet without sin. 16 Therefore let us confidently approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace whenever we need help.

Jesus our Savior was a man, tempted in every respect as is common to men, yet without ever falling into sin.  So, yes, Jesus had a healthy sex drive.  According to Hebrews 4:15 Jesus would have found attractive women to be a source of temptation the same as we might, but He never would have sinned against His father’s law, not even by coveting another man’s wife in His mind.

So, what is the issue?

The problem is that our churches teach a Gnostic/Feminist doctrine that demonizes healthy male sex drives.  And they want to extend that demonization far beyond just condemning illicit sex acts, to include any evidence of masculine sex drive or desire to reproduce which they might disapprove of in any given situation.   Of course they’re also going to be hypocritical about that too.  If the hottest young single man in church indicates a desire for their daughter, they might giggle and smile, but if some neckbeard indicates a desire for their daughter, they’ll call in a mob of cock-blockers to condemn him to hell as an “adulterer” for such “lustful” thoughts.

The Greek word γυναῖκα (gynaika) is most usually translated as “wife”, as it was in the NMB version that I quoted Matthew 5:27-30 from up above, yet most English Bible translations will translate that word as “woman” in that particular verse.  They really seem to want to make the sin of adultery apply, contrary to God’s law, to women who are not other men’s wives.  That’s just the church’s Gnostic/Feminist cock-blocking showing up again via their anti-hermeneutical attempt to demonize all male sexual attraction into somehow becoming the marriage-destroying sin of adultery.

If you go to a large church with lots of groups, you’ll likely discover that passage getting applied the most in their “Singles ministry”.  They really seem immune to just applying it how Jesus used it, as a blanket proof that all men are sinful, no matter how law abiding we appear on the outside.  They much prefer to act as if Jesus was literally issuing a new law to plug a gaping hole in His Father’s presumedly faulty and insufficient collection of laws.  But not the statement about hatred being murder, of course, that’s just common sense that bad feelings aren’t equivalent to literal murder.

So, how do these whore serving churches operate?  Well, if a woman is caught in the literal act of adultery, they quote a known-apocryphal passage claiming that only the sinless can “cast a stone” at her.  But if a man naturally wants to be fruitful and multiply with a heathy young woman, he is the one condemned as an adulterer, unlawfully.  If you don’t see the satanic inversion of God’s laws there, then you’re most likely in on it.

Bonus – application instruction for ministers:

So, if you’re a pastor or priest now wondering, how should I apply Matthew 5:27-28 to others, since you’re telling me that I shouldn’t use it as my best cock-blocker verses to demonize men’s natural sex drive, the answer is that you don’t apply it to others.  You cannot really see their sins of the heart and mind.  Jesus said that poorly translated hyperbole to show repentant men how to spot their own ongoing need for God’s cleansing and forgiveness.  Not to teach Pharisees how to rid themselves of all lust, using a newly revamped law.  Jesus did not come to further condemn us for our shortcomings, by issuing new laws, but to turn us to repentance and to acceptance of His substitutionary sacrifice, in our place, for our sins.  That’s His Gospel.

The hatred of incels

Lately I’ve noticed far too many legacy-media articles which try to stereotype men who are involuntarily celibate (now branded “incels”) as budding terrorists.  I won’t link to any of the many articles since they are generally overwrought woke propaganda employed to normalize sexual immorality while unduly shaming and pathologizing millions of good men who remain undefiled by women.  They undeservedly vilify these virgin men, portraying them as a major problem plaguing our society, instead of recognizing that the promiscuous society that they have championed has been disregarding and disenfranchising these disadvantaged men, and that their own articles are bound to increase that malice towards these underdogs. 

The legacy-media authors have scoured the whole globe to come up with a few cases of incels who committed multiple murders, in an effort to manufacture a defamatory stereotype to portray these innocent male virgins as likely terrorists.

Revelation 14:3 And they sang a new song before the throne, and before the four living creatures, 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 wherever he goes. 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.

These sexually undefiled men have statistically been more morally faultless than other men.  As best I can piece the data together, in the last 20 years here in the USA incels have been blamed for the multiple-murder deaths of about 20 people.  That averages to exactly one person per year.  If you assume that around 5% of U.S. men are involuntarily celibate, then there would currently be 8.3 million male incels in the USA.  That yields an annual male incel multiple-murder rate of 0.012 per 100,000.  By comparison the annual Black male aged 16-64 murder rate is 95.5 per 100,000.  While that is the rate for all the solved murders instead of just the solved multiple-murders, you can see that the one rate is around 8,000 times higher than the other.  They’re not even in the same ballpark. 

I don’t believe anybody is publishing statistics yet on individual murders by involuntary celibacy status.  So, I can’t directly compare apples to apples yet.  But if you’re looking to address the violence in the USA and you’re somehow focusing on incels, you’re manifesting an extreme prejudice against incels that is in no way based on factual data and is in fact contrary to the available crime data.

To be quite honest if incels were criminally violent they wouldn’t still be incels, they’d be rapists.  The fact that incels have denied themselves their natural sexual urges for their whole lives proves them to be upright law-abiding citizens who have shown vastly better impulse-control than is typical of criminals, and their self-control clearly exceeds the median.

I’ve just provided overwhelming statistical evidence that incels as a group are far less violent than another group whom the media mouthpieces would naturally leap to defend.  Any honest person possessing a commonsense knowledge of human nature would have already surmised that incels, as a group, are better stereotyped by social timidity and meekness than by violence and a will to dominate others.

No, incels clearly aren’t the violent bad boys whose unrestrained masculine dominance women are subconsciously attracted to.  They are more often socially awkward, not possessing the silver tongue of those skilled at guile, they are more likely to try to attract women by outmoded gestures of chivalry.   Incels generally are the downtrodden and unpopular men whom society scorns and tries to give the brush off.

Isaiah 53:2b-3 (CEV) He wasn’t some handsome king.  Nothing about the way he looked made him attractive to us.  He was hated and rejected; his life was filled with sorrow and terrible suffering.  No one wanted to look at him.  We despised him and said, “He is a nobody!”

So, why are the worldly mouthpieces of the legacy-media so intent on libeling and demonizing these poor disadvantaged gentlemen, when their primary unifying feature is merely that their natural sexual desires have gone entirely unmet, keeping them virgins.   Doesn’t it seem strange that our Marxist media isn’t staging protests demanding that a ration of sex be reallocated from the “Haves” to the “Have Nots” to affirm and empower the disadvantaged and thereby helping to level the playing field? 

Why are the legacy-media so unjustifiably prejudiced against these incel men and willing to construct untruthful stereotypes to denigrate them even further?

Share your answers and thoughts on this below.

Don’t Be Stupid! (part 2)

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.

Disclaimer: This post is 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 to others.

When a woman is married, she becomes her husband’s property.  They together become “one flesh”.  Her body belongs to her husband, “to have and to hold”.  Brides, who aren’t widows, are supposed to be virgins, unspoiled.     

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.  25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;  26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,  27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

So, what does the husband, who images Jesus Christ, deserve?  A rebellious woman who has vandalized her body with piercings, a tramp stamp, or other tattooed graffiti that now blemishes her body?  Of course not.  Don’t Be Stupid!   

A young woman getting tattoos or piercings isn’t “investing in body art”, she’s stealing her body’s natural beauty from her future husband.  She’s adding blemishes to her body without his consent, diminishing her natural body in an unnatural way that he most likely would not want.  And most men really don’t want such trashy graffiti, or things to snag or get infected, on their wife’s body.

cameron232 says:  “Tats and piercing are gross”

Cill says:  “I dislike piercings and tattoos, and haven’t tried to analyze why before. It seems like a fundamental repulsion, like the thought of sodomy or eating shite. No matter how attractive a woman is, any sign of self-mutilation puts me right off. It’s a reckless vandalization of the appearance nature and environment have given her.”

I can’t say that I know of any men who would actually like for their future wife to be getting tats or piercings that they might not approve of.  To do so without approval shows you’re already disregarding your future mate’s preference on the matter. 

What might tattoos and piercings signal?  A study on adolescents found: A higher prevalence of tattooing and piercings was observed in groups with a history of psychiatric disorders, criminal records, alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug consumption and initiation of sexual activity.  That all sounds about right.

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.

Since this is an opinion post, please share your opinions below.

Barak and Deborah

To refute the incessant Feminist male bashing against Barak that I have always heard, I once left some comments at Dalrock’s site that I will rehash and combine here for you.  Or you can go to the link below, hit Control-F and type “Sharkly” into the little find-pop-up-window to locate and read them all there.

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/06/06/it-would-be-unchivalrous-to-tell-her-no/#comment-275529

BillyS says: He was a wimpy military leader. Note that he didn’t dispute what she said, but was too afraid to go alone.

Judges 4:8 Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go.”

I have a different theory.  I think he was wisely testing her to see if he was being tricked and was being sent to his death, or if she really was being truthful about victory, to the point that she would go herself.  Unlike in a contemporary Hollywood movie, Barak’s army didn’t need a lone kick-ass woman’s help to fight off the army of Sisera.

I’ve had a similar situation before.  After I dismantled, repaired, and reassembled a business jet the test pilot asked me to go along and assist with in-flight tests on the initial test flight.  Sometimes in a situation like that there would only be the required pilots on the initial test flight.  When I asked why I was necessary on the initial flight, the test pilot confided to me that he would not fly the plane unless he knew I was confident enough in my own work, and the work of the other people I oversaw, to be onboard myself.  So I had the opportunity to literally stand behind my work, and perform the cabin pressurization/outflow valve and oxygen system tests on the initial test flight while the pilots were strapped in up front.  The pilot was not afraid to fly the airplane, so long as I was not afraid to be onboard.

BillyS says: You can have whatever theory you want, but the text clearly implies he was a wimp. (His glory for winning would go to a woman is what is written.) I think I will stick with the plain meaning rather than forcing my preconceptions on what is written.

I said my idea was a theory. You said he was a wimp, and “was too afraid to go alone.”

I wasn’t forcing anything into the Bible.  However you are forcing your feminist stereotype that women are brave and men are cowards, into the Bible.  Nowhere does the Bible say that Barak was a coward, or afraid.  You see a clear implication where I don’t.  I see a man who rose to be the leader of an army that fought in hand to hand combat.  That usually doesn’t happen to a coward, anymore than a cowardly man would one day wake up to find himself working as a test pilot.  I read my Bible and find Barak given as an example of faith, not as an object of Feminist ridicule.

Hebrews 11:29 By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as on dry land, but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned. 30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days. 31 By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies. 32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.

1 Samuel 12:10 And they cried out to the Lord and said, ‘We have sinned, because we have forsaken the Lord and have served the Baals and the Ashtaroth. But now deliver us out of the hand of our enemies, that we may serve you.’ 11 And the Lord sent Jerubbaal and Barak and Jephthah and Samuel and delivered you out of the hand of your enemies on every side, and you lived in safety.

No mention of Jael or Deborah in those verses.  The glory may have gone to a woman, but God gives Barak due credit for his faith, and never calls him a wimp.  Just the Feminist preachers I’ve heard my whole life call him that.  I think he was just being a wise leader, protecting his men’s lives, by making sure the woman was telling him the whole truth, and not working for the enemy, by seeing if she would come along, thereby backing up her words with her life.

Judges 4:16 And Barak pursued the chariots and the army to Harosheth-hagoyim, and all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword; not a man was left. 

Chasing down and slaughtering better equipped foes does not sound like the act of a coward to me.

Judges 5:15a  the princes of Issachar came with Deborah, and Issachar faithful to Barak; into the valley they rushed at his heels. 

That verse implies Barak was able to inspire faithfulness in his men, and even led the charge!  With the others rushing at his heels.  I won’t listen to a keyboard warrior call this heroic man of faith a wimp, just because it pleases the Feminists to emasculate all our male heroes.

Barak was in fact protecting the women of Israel, not the other way around.

Judges 5:28 “Out of the window she peered,
the mother of Sisera wailed through the lattice:
‘Why is his chariot so long in coming?
Why tarry the hoofbeats of his chariots?’
29 Her wisest princesses answer,
indeed, she answers herself,
30 ‘Have they not found and divided the spoil?—
A womb or two for every man;
spoil of dyed materials for Sisera,
spoil of dyed materials embroidered,
two pieces of dyed work embroidered for the neck as spoil?’

If Barak had not been faithful and led the charge against Sisera, more than likely the women of Israel would have been raped, but the Feminists’ inclination is to make a wimp out of him despite his demonstrated valor that undoubtedly saved many women from rape and other ravages of war.

I don’t fault you for your view. It was what I was always taught.  But after the Red Pill, I see things differently, and I now know not to believe a word those hirelings told me.  Watch out for those who emasculate the men of the Bible, always double check that sort of stuff, and then triple check it.

I was not familiar with the story either except from Feminist hirelings telling me that a wimpy man was afraid to go into battle without a brave woman leader to lead the scared man-child to the battle.
So I went to my handy tool:
https://classic.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Barak&qs_version=ESV
And found out that Barak was only mentioned in Judges 4-5, 1 Samuel 12, and Hebrews 11.  Then I read those passages and saw the whole story.

I had always sensed as a child that there was something repellant and off about the feminist version of the story that the hirelings preached.  They seemed gleeful to spin this narrative of a cowardly general needing to be reprimanded and babysat by an empowered lady Judge.  And I felt they often went overboard in their gratuitous pandering to the womenfolk, while making me hot under the collar that they were bashing males and claiming crap like “the average mom is braver than a General, that’s why God doesn’t have men give birth, because they’re not up to the task”.  Even as a child I sensed that snake was up there blowing sunshine up the ladies dresses, and doing it at my expense.  The Bible said Barak told Deborah “If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go.”  The story didn’t go on for half an hour running down men and claiming women are superior like the Feminist pulpiteer did.  The concept of a frightened General seemed phony.  And if he was so scared at the head of an army of 10,000 armed men, how in the heck was one lady coming along going to make him feel so much safer.  The story never made sense and I hated it, and how it was used in churches to make fools of all men.

But after I just read the whole story myself, I realized Barak was most likely testing Deborah.  He didn’t need her to come along.  He just wanted to be positive that she wasn’t afraid to come along herself, because, if she was afraid, then he would know he and his army were being set up, and Deborah would not want to be killed by them when they found that out.  False prophets were to be put to death, and Deborah was a prophetess.  If she really believed God had promised them a victory, she would not be afraid to go along and be there to watch from behind Israel’s lines.

Is courage important?

Barak was given as an example of Faith in Hebrews 11:29-34.  And Faith is the source of most courage.

“Captain, my religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed.  God has fixed the time for my death.  I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me.”  He added, after a pause, looking me full in the face: “That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave.” ~ Stonewall Jackson

Men of God are not to be cowards, and cowards can only pretend to be Godly when they’re not scared out of it.

Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.  Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. ~ C.S. Lewis

Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees all others. ~ Winston Churchill

Few women are very courageous today, and that is why their virtue is so easily abandoned in any situation.  Because of a lack of courage peoples “fixed morals” collapse into “situational ethics”.  The less courage a person has, the less influence it will take to get them to abandon their morals.

My theory is; if you were to have a person honestly rate the importance to them of each of their moral beliefs on a scale of 1 to 10, and then you were to rate their courage accurately on a scale of 1 to 10 you could multiply those two numbers together and get a 1-100 number representing how hard it would likely be, percentage wise, to get that person to violate that particular moral belief, or how likely they are to keep true to their conviction at different levels of pressure or temptation.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have a printout before you “Man-up” and marry that whore.  She won’t fool around on you with a 7 or an 8, but 9’s and 10’s are beyond her resistance level, so don’t leave her alone with Chad, but it is fine to let her visit with Melvin.  That kind of thing would be handy to have computed.  If I put more pressure on her than X amount, she will begin to lie to me.  Maybe somebody needs to make a formula workbook if somebody hasn’t already.

Anyhow, hirelings preach about Barak and Deborah wrongly because they lack the courage to stand up for men against this world’s Feminism.  The church is led by cowards who will lapse on their less valued morals in secret at the least temptation or pressure, and their most firmly held beliefs are even up for grabs with enough temptation or pressure.  I wouldn’t mind if our church leaders had feet of clay, but they’ve got brains of clay and hearts of clay also.  So they are never any good, even before they fall.  Folks, you have to just read the Bible for yourselves!  These hirelings can’t be trusted with eternal matters.  Also be of good courage!  And be a good example of courage for your kids, and teach them to be courageous so that they can stand up against the world and be a pure light in the darkness.  Keep the faith.

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

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.

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.

Help Me Put My Boys’ Home Back Together

My boys were all smiles after finally pinning their father during a wrestling match.

I need your help!

I am trying to get my wife’s church to put some pressure on my wife to get her to attend some joint counselling to address her Intimacy-Anorexia and to try to reconcile our marriage and our boys’ home.  However, being a typical churchian cult of woman-worship, it is going to take some serious effort to get them to ask my wife to submit to her husband and submit to getting the treatment she needs.  She, like a typical addict, is in denial about her behavioral addiction, and has been doing everything she can to avoid getting treatment to reverse the destruction her addiction has caused and the divorce it has led her to file.  There are other issues, with her spiritually, but I don’t think I’ll have any luck addressing them until she is free of the great bondage of the behavioral addiction that is blinding her to reality and keeping her emotionally and morally stunted.  I have tried addressing her spiritual issues in her current state and am not able to make any progress with her.  Currently she returns only evil for good and feels completely entitled to do so.  Her selfish insistence on staying in bondage to addiction is not fair to our boys who have seen their home and lives ripped apart, and are really suffering as a result of their broken home.

So, I have started a new website where I will be calling out my wife’s church, which has so far refused to do anything but cheer her on in her divorce.  At this point, I just have the first two posts up, but I will try to quickly get another 5 or so that I have planned written and up there in the next couple weeks.  Also I am going to publish them in a bit of an escalating fashion with the most damning posts coming towards the end of the posts that I currently have planned.  After those posts, I will make more geared towards teaching people what is wrong with churches like that, and how a church that follows God should act.  I haven’t heard of this being tried before, but I’m going to see if I can get my wife’s church to at least pretend to be God followers for a bit.  I have been warned that it is hard to shame whores, so I don’t know if I’ll be able to make my wife’s church behave any better, but at this point I’m about out of time and don’t see the cunt-court being likely to help me get my wife the help she needs to put our family back together in the best interest of the children.

The moderation at the other site will be different, in that I won’t be allowing trolls to participate, since my family is on the line.  But, for all of the rest of you, I could sure use your help, by visiting the new site and commenting, following the new blog to show your support and get notified of new posts, and contacting the church.  I have the churches contact info on the sidebar.  I expect if they respond back to you, it will be with lies and excuses, as it has been their pattern, just ignore their excuses, and take their slander with a grain of salt.  I’m sure my wife has told them lies, and they seem to really want to believe all women about everything.  Also, since they worship women, it would help if I also got a lot of participation from women, because that might give them the “moral backing” to hold one “goddess” accountable to scripture, if a bunch of other women are asking them to.

Please read the “My Marriage” post first, as it lays out the overall story.  Feel free to ask questions or leave comments here as well.  I gave those hirelings over 2 years to handle this privately, but they continually refused, so now I’ll be turning a light on those roaches and exposing their wickedness.  Help me stomp them!

Shaming: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Twere shame enough to shame thee, wert thou not shameless. ~ William Shakespeare

Shame (Noun) a painful emotion resulting from an awareness of having done something wrong, dishonorable, improper, unworthy, degrading, ridiculous, etc.
Shame (verb) To cause to feel shame.

Joseph Burgo Ph.D. said: Although many people use the two words “guilt” and “shame” interchangeably, from a psychological perspective, they actually refer to different experiences. … [Shame] reflects how we feel about ourselves and [guilt] involves awareness that our actions have injured someone else. … In other words, shame relates to self; guilt to others. I think it’s useful to preserve this distinction, even though the dictionary definitions often blur it. … Many people crippled by shame have very little capacity to feel guilt, for example. In order to feel guilt about the harm you may have done to somebody else, you must recognize him or her as a distinct individual, to begin with. Thus a person who struggles with separation and merger issues might not feel true guilt even if he or she were to use that word to describe a feeling. Many people who display narcissistic behavior often suffer from profound feelings of shame but have little authentic concern for other people; they don’t tend to feel genuinely guilty. The lack of empathy to be found in narcissistic personality disorder makes real guilt unlikely since guilt depends upon the ability to intuit how someone else might feel.

Neel Burton M.D. said: Embarrassment is the feeling of discomfort experienced when some aspect of ourselves is, or threatens to be, witnessed by or otherwise revealed to others, and we think that this revelation is likely to undermine the image of ourselves that we seek to project to those others. …

People with low self-esteem are more prone to shame, because, having a poor self-image, they are harsher upon themselves. In some cases, they may defend against shame with blame or contempt, often for the person who incited their shame. Ultimately, this is likely to lead to even deeper shame, and so to even lower self-esteem. While overwhelming shame can be destructive, mild or moderate shame is mostly a force for good, spurring us on to lead more ethical lives. …

Shame is ego dystonic, that is, in conflict with our self-image and the needs and goals of our ego, and high levels of shame are correlated with poor psychological functioning. In particular, eating disorders and many sexual disorders can largely be understood as disorders of shame, as can narcissism, which is sometimes thought of as a defense against shame. Guilt on the other hand is ego syntonic, that is, consistent with our self-image and the needs and goals of our ego, and, unless left to fester, is either unrelated or inversely correlated with poor psychological functioning.

Faced with the same set of circumstances, people with high self-esteem are more prone to guilt than to shame, and more likely to take corrective or redemptive action.

Sharkly B.S. says:  Recently I have kept running into the concept of shaming.  Most people seem to be very against shaming being done to them, but are quite ready to do it to their opponents.  Some people are against shaming entirely and seem to go to great lengths to shame those who are still shaming. 😉

But, does shaming have a positive purpose, and if so, why do some claim to be opposed to it?  One person claimed that shaming should not be used because it might drive someone “underground” or back in “the closet”.   However that might indeed be a very powerful reason to use it.

Are we ever to shame the wayward, or are we only to humor them?  Can you shame a person’s deeds without devaluing the person?  It has been said that if you attack someone’s due dignity, your relationship will suffer.  Is there a way to shame people without attacking their human dignity?  Should we even slave to keep close relations with the shameless?  Should our relationships be subject to some basic level of expectation?  Or is it imperative that everybody be nice, polite, and unconfrontational?  I hope, with this post, to spur contemplation of shaming, and to start a discussion on the appropriate and best uses of shaming.

It would seem obvious that if society is to be peacefully reformed, we will absolutely need shame, as a force for good, spurring us on to lead more ethical lives.  And even if you favor a violent revolution, won’t you still need shame to peaceably maintain your mores after you’ve installed them via gun barrel diplomacy?  What would a chaotic world without shame even look like, where everybody did what was right in their own eyes?