Sharkly – Heresiarch or Church Reformer?

51 thoughts on “Sharkly – Heresiarch or Church Reformer?”

1. Sharkly —

   “These beliefs were unchanged until the latter portion of the fourth century when the church was taken over and instituted as the state religion of the Roman empire by Emperor Constantine. All sorts of politics, greed, and secular rot got syncretized into the church as it became a secular world power. Notably, Mary was deified, (to please forcibly converted goddess worshippers) and in the process of doing so, women had to be falsely claimed to be images of God as well as men, for Mary to be able to be deified.”

   Right.

   As soon as it became clear that the Apostles had not failed, and that Christianity WAS going to spread around the Near East and beyond, satan and allied angels expanded their original strategy of using the weaker vessel (the female) to mislead and degrade the stronger vessel, the male. That is, to attack the Throne of God via the man’s love for the woman being incrementally turned to subjugation under the woman.

   This was done primarily through the many gnostic cults and schools in the second, third and fourth centuries A.D. The core of the strategy — as in Eden — involved the inversion of the God-created hierarchy and order, of the male as servant/glory of God, and of the female as servant/glory of the Man.

   Most Gnostic tracts contain some element of this disordering or re-ordering of Creation, typically by including the feminine as an original aspect of a bi-gendered God (usually needing to be restored to her ‘rightful place’). Almost all Gnostic schools included the primal-fem Sophia, i.e., Wisdom with a capital W.

   The Gnostic schools were continuations of the many goddess-worshipping cults of the ancient world, described in detail in Scripture as the bane of the Israelites. Often these schools and their leaders took on overt Christian trappings, indeed calling themselves Christians, even as the Feminist Christians do today. So: infiltrate, distort, and conquer.

   For example, in Ophite Gnosticism, this Sophia sits as a celestial Queen . . . an easy transition from this to emerging Catholic dogma, which has ‘Mary’ as celestial co-Redemptrix along with that other guy, what was his name again? . . . oh well he’s probly not important.

   The Gnostic system of Simon Magus (Simonianism) features the All-Mother, who is equivalent to the Holy Spirit. Scripture identifies this Helper as ‘he’, while the Gnostic schools invert the Word and trans him into a female.

   Valentinian Gnosticism — already up-n-running by the SECOND Century A.D., likewise places the feminine Sophia at center of its complex systems. Unsurprisingly, the Valentinians considered/consider Jehovah to be the Evil Demiurge. Thus, yet again, the Divine Order is inverted.

   Perhaps the best example of the Gnostic heresy is the Pistis Sophia, a compendium of earlier and then-current Gnostic schools and teachers that appeared a few centuries after Christ.

   I could go on, you get the picture. The modern Christian Church was so easily conquered by feminism because the warfare strategy implemented is the same as the scam in Eden, the scam via the innumerable goddess/sacred mother cults of the ancient world, and the scam of early-A.D. Gnosticism which conserved the satanic teaching gone before, and presented them in new, attractive, and exciting forms. Forms GUARANTEED to attract the rebellious urges of females (to which each is subject) and to attract the submissive urges of the male, laboring under the weakness of Adam and serving the female instead of God.

   Apologies for the length, but this is really just a thumbnail. Hope it helps.

   Reply

2. Another way of looking at this, using direct analogy between the Godhead and humanity.

   The Godhead consisting of the Father (Elohim), the Son (Yeshua), and the Helper (Holy Spirit).

   Jesus states that within the Godhead, the Father is greater. Jn 6:38
   Jesus gives up control to the Father. Lk 22:48
   Why is this important? There cannot be two drivers in a taxicab. Mt 6:24.

   It is the Father who makes the rules and reigns. Why is Jesus’ obedience to the Father important? Three-fold:

   1. Jesus is the link between humanity and the Godhead. Without Him, we are destined for Hell. The Father HATES us as we are: sin has separated us from Him, the Creator. We CANNOT be in His presence. It is through His Son, Yeshua, that the Father is able to count our crime as paid. It is to our everlasting benefit that the Father so loved us, that despite His hatred for the sin that pervades our very beings, that He sent His Son, perfect, blameless, to DIE on our behalf, so that His wrath, anger, judgement would not fall on us. This is crucial to understand to your very bones as a Christian.

   2. It is because Jesus is obedient to the Father’s authority, that He has any authority at all. Lk 7:8, Mt 8:9.

   3. This authority of Jesus’ results in us being able to see the Father- through Jesus Himself. Jn 14:9. This is made possible through Jesus’ obedience. If Jesus had usurped His Father’s authority, He would lose His authority, and we no longer see the Father in and through Jesus, as He is no longer His Father’s agent.

   (In the same manner, our lives as Christians, living in obedience- keeping His commandments- makes us a ‘light on a hill’ to those who do not yet know the King. Christ is seen in us- through us.)

   Now for the parallels:

   Man and woman make up the species of humankind. The Godhead consists of different beings, and our species does too.

   The husband is the head of the family.
   The wife is to submit all control to her husband.
   Why is this important? There can only be 1 chief.

   Why is the wife’s obedience to the husband important?

   1. She is the link between the children and their father. He conceives them in her, but then she births them, grows them, demonstrates emotionally to them at an age whereby they cannot reason that doing the will of the husband is loving, even when the discipline hurts. 1 Ti 2:15.

   2. It is because she heeds her husbands’ authority, that she has any authority at all before her children. A single-mother home (short of being widowed) is a vile, detestable environment because there is no authority there. (THIS is why the rates of sexual deviancy, juvenile delinquency etc are magnitudes greater than a home intact with father-mother). This is why women who think that obeying their little small inner voice saying how ‘ungodly’ their husband is and divorce him are doing the work of Satan: the second she goes against his authority, she loses hers. It is a classic case of doing the wrong thing for the right reason: you’re still doing the wrong thing.

   3. Her joyful obedience allows the children to see ‘glass-half-full’ about the measures the husband takes within his flock. Without it, the lens of the world is chaotic. (Again, if she rebels, the children rebel, and don’t know why, they have no direction, they only know primal feelings- and feelings are deceitful above all things, acting out at home, school, playground, resulted in stunted growth- spiritually, intellectually, physically)

   (If the man ain’t your husband, he is still man in Creation. You are not bound to his directives- ONLY your husband’s authority is legitimate- not even your flesh-and-blood father’s post-marriage. But man nevertheless is greater in Creation, so mocking the image of your husband ain’t exactly a wise idea. Even Deborah knows her place and role was not to lead men, but to serve as a pawn in God’s plan to humble the men back to THEIR place in Creation, not assume any position over them. Note that she heeds to directions of the men, offering only council: she does not take her own lead. Jg 4:9)

   Creation is an Order of hierarchy, not equivalences. It is the proper functioning order. That order is:
   Elohim – Yeshua – Man – Woman – Child

   Every part of the body is valuable. But the heart is far more important than the foot. The functions they serve are critical, but one is clearly greater than the other.

   Elohim is greater than Christ. Yet, without Christ, we have no salvation. His blood is what covers us. It is He who acknowledges us before the Father. His role is crucial, and the Plan for Creation is not fulfilled without Him. But Jesus knows His place, and He knows His Father is greater. Jn 15:20.

   Man is greater than woman. Yet, without woman, we have no procreation. Her blood (during birth) is what sustains our species. The first commandment given to all of Creation in Ge 1:22 is not fulfilled without her, and is echoed in Ge 1:28 after her creation. The ‘helper suitable’ for the task. But a proper woman knows her place and role, and knows her husband’s is greater. 1 Pt 3:6. Those who aren’t her husband, well Deborah clearly demonstrates humility before men as a group, and she was ordained a Judge.

   Reply

3. About #2 above, pertaining to the order within humanity:

   Many people wrongly reason that if a husband is doing an ungodly thing, doesn’t he lose his authority, and the wife is no longer bound to his direction in that case?

   This seemingly is true, and to a degree it is. The Deceiver loves half-truths.

   But what is her commandment? To submit to him- in all things- AS UNTO THE LORD. This commandment does not come from her husband, it comes from the Spirit (through the apostles, recorded in the Bible).

   So while he loses his authority by not acting in accordance with commandments that he has, she is still bound to her Father’s commandment of her to submit to her husband.

   The authority of the Father has not been altered, only the authority of the husband- in a case where the husband is acting out. But because the commandment to submit comes from the Father, she is bound to that commandment. She is to continue to submit.

   It is one of Satan’s favorite lies, and one not understood by the church. Mostly: female false prophettesses are the ones circulating this nonsense in Women’s Groups and through print media.

   Reply

4. ikr —

   Those are good comments.

   On many occasions, King Jeshua ceded all capabilities and power to Father. Said He could do nothing outside of Father.

   It’s like some final crown to his perfection: even tho He’s is king of all things, still He sets Himself in subordination to Father, and makes the hierarchy of that relationship known to all. Keeps Himself in His place — a lesson to us all.

   So when I see that, I feel comforted, I feel like all is right and orderly, I’m safe knowing that the King annihilates pride and vanity in that way. Pre-emptive strike.

   “3. This authority of Jesus’ results in us being able to see the Father- through Jesus Himself. Jn 14:9.”

   Yes and this, to me, is the greatest mystery and miracle of all.

   They are distinct entities, Father and Jeshua, even such that when I com them, it’s usually to one or the other, in accord with the subject.

   Yet men have seen the Father in Jeshua, and I do not believe the angels can now distinguish, either. It doesn’t get any stranger than that, and yet all Creation is beneficiary of it. Indeed there will be not a moment’s peace on this planet until the King sits enthroned. To fix this place, GOD actually has to come here and hold the place’s hand!

   It’s the greatest blessing possible, yet at the same time, kind of pathetic in what it implies.

   Still, like I said, humanity and the planet reap the benefits, and the King ends up glorifying Father, Father is pleased, that’s what it’s all about.

   Reply

5. Ray,
   There is no need to apologize for the length of your comment. It was an excellent overview of the things you mentioned.

   I think there is a parallel that we might be wise to see. I’m reminded of the meme where ‘History’ says, “don’t make me repeat myself”. The Apostle Paul was educated in the philosophies of his day and even used their terminology and metaphors to appeal to Gentiles who were likely much more familiar with Gnosticism, stoicism, and cynicism than Judaism. And while the Bible, and Paul’s epistles in it, are inspired and inerrant, the works of the early church fathers aren’t free from the influence of the beliefs of their culture. The early church fathers work contains incipient heresies picked up from “their own understanding”. Which is why we are told in Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. So with the early church fathers it is key to focus on what they all agreed upon and not any one individual’s private doctrine. Some of the early church fathers picked up the gnostic, stoic, cynical ideas like that the natural/physical/flesh is bad and so things like sex, even when sanctified by marriage, are still bad and should be abstained from. This is directly in contradiction to what the Apostle Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5, or Solomon’s wisdom in Proverbs 5:18-19. So I find that while much of the early church fathers’ writings were fighting and aimed at refuting Gnosticism, stoicism, and cynicism, they also were saturated with quite a load of Gnosticism, stoicism, and cynicism, that they had seemingly unknowingly absorbed and incorporated into their Christian theology.

   And as history repeats itself… Today we have pastors birthed into Feminism, nursed on Feminism, schooled in Feminism, polished at Feminist seminaries, and teaching in Feminist churches, who claim that they are against Feminism, they teach against it, they write against it, all the while never realizing how absolutely full of idolatrous Feminism their teachings are. Today’s preachers claim, men and women are fully equal, except women are more virtuous and sin less,(women are morally superior) but yet women should try to submit to their husbands because mean old God apparently wants it that way for no good reason, and that, if their husband gives them the slightest bit of correction, they should divorce him, because they would be better off running their own life in a more virtuous fashion as all single mom’s are inclined to do, but, do be careful not to fall into rebellious Feminism. SMH They live on a proverbial hog farm and can’t smell its stench. They are blind guides leading the blind.

   Reply

6. I enjoyed reading this post & comments.

   “By the time the papacy responded to Luther’s writings in June 1520 offering Luther 60 days to recant or be excommunicated, Luther, a prolific and compelling writer, had not only publicly denounced the authority of the pope, but had declared him an antichrist.”

   That does sound like Luther, heehee.

   “…while much of the early church fathers’ writings were fighting and aimed at refuting Gnosticism, stoicism, and cynicism, they also were saturated with quite a load of Gnosticism, stoicism, and cynicism, that they had seemingly unknowingly absorbed and incorporated into their Christian theology.”

   We’re all products of our day and age. Hence the necessity of Scripture as an anchor for belief.

   Reply

7. Gunner Q says: “Hence the necessity of Scripture as an anchor for belief.”

   Yes, I recently made a similar comment over at DeepStrength, where one of their regulars likes to label me a heretic for the beliefs I have shared above.
   I’ll excerpt part of it here:

   “All I see is excuses not to get involved”
   Perhaps I wasn’t clear, I’m warning people to flee from these false brethren, just like the Bible says to have no fellowship with them. They’re not excuses to not get involved, they’re additional incentives to be ye separate from them. These churchians are ashamed of parts of God’s word! They preach Feminism instead.
   Mark 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
   To be ashamed of any part of God’s word, is to seriously lack faith in the omniscient Author. As though you know where God went off base.

   “… on our own and without a rudder.”
   My hope is fixed on Christ who was attested to by the Father, and I am a temple of their Spirit.
   Hebrews 6:19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;
   I may not have a rudder, but I’ve anchored this temple right where God has placed me.

   “Christ led by example”
   They usually either tried to stone Him or seize Him whenever He went to a synagogue or the temple. When He didn’t make a whip and turn their tables over to clear [them and] their junk out of God’s house. Eventually the temple leaders paid a traitor to help seize Him so they could have Him crucified.

   In addition to some of those folks at DeepStrength implying that you have to attend to the fellowship of the Great Whore, to be a good part of the bride of Christ, I have also contended with an elder at my wife’s churchian house of homewrecking, who said, “One man and his Bible is a very dangerous thing.” He, a protestant, was implying exactly like Catholics and Orthodox adherents, that you should just let the traditions of the church do your thinking for you, and that a man studying the Bible for himself is dangerous. I may have to do a post on that some time. Where would we be if Martin Luther and the many other reformers had felt that way? Martin Luther wanted the Bible printed so his flock could read it in the local German language, not just Latin. They speak as if our current ineffectual church that is full of whoring and has a previously unimaginable divorce rate, is still on God’s narrow way, and does not need reformers to insist that the churches traditions have become anti-Christ. Martin Luther left and then started his own church more beholden to the Bible. Five hundred years later could our churches not yet need to be reformed again? I say we need to leave the Great Whore and raise up new churches where God our father, Jesus, and the men of the church are not all blasphemously emasculated to suit the churchian goddess worship that is the current way of the world. Either women are in subjection to God and their husbands, or they emasculate God and their husbands by usurping them, seizing their masculine dominion from them and becoming their own goddesses, just exactly like Eve was first tempted to do. Our churches are led by deceivers, the firstborn of Satan, and they serve the will of their father the devil. It is long past time we left them and preached “Shamefacedness” again to women, who are perpetually defiling rebels against divine authority. And we will never get to do that by staying put in today’s apostate goddess worshipping churches. Just sayin’ It is past time for reformation to begin in the house of God, to stop the murderous and emasculating reign of deluded “goddesses” over us.

   Reply

8. ” that you should just let the traditions of the church do your thinking for you ”

   Section worth highlighting. It is this very, singular thing that is the fool-proof method of determining if you are dealing with a fellowship of believers or a haven of apostates.

   Men are the spiritual leaders of their homes. Just as a woman should not be seeking spiritual guidance (or any guidance, really) outside of her husband, a man who is not the immediate next-of-kin* of a woman has zero business responding to any of her queries. Insodoing, he will be undermining his fellow man who IS in said position.

   A trend of low-T men is to coach women who are not under their protection. The Catholic ‘church’ is the absolute worst at this, but it is rampant almost everywhere. A reminder that for the vast majority of the Church Age, churches met in homes, in small groups. In China today- where Christians are greatly persecuted- this practice is alive and well, and the church there is flourishing- exactly as promised it will in accordance with Le 26. The whole concept of institutionalized religion with its hierarchy, rituals, traditions has no place in the Kingdom. (Christ denounces and curses the institutionalized practices of the Jews and reaffirms God’s divorce in Je 3 with this concept in Ro 9.)

   Men are to lead, which means each man needs the opportunity and ability. Authority comes from the Father, to the Son, to the husband, to the wife. Substituting some woman for your wife, or a woman substituting another man for her husband- in their role of spiritual leadership, is a deviation from God’s order, and thus, sin.

   A proper church preaches simply from the Word. It does not offer guidance on how to apply said Word nor interpretation of the Word to a given set of problems. This falls to the men.
   – How do men ensure they are teaching / learning Scripture properly? 2 Co 10:5. Pr 27:17. Mt 18:15. The person in the pulpit can equally be wrong, and must be held accountable by the brethren. Where there are questions, men may ask them publicly to other men, women are to ask privately to her own husband.

   * The next-of-kin is obvious when a child: it is the father. The next-of-kin is obvious when a wife: it is the husband. But outside of these mandates, we find the Biblical model for this in Boaz. He was happy to oblige to the young Ruth’s requests, but first went through the process of ensuring he was ordained to do so. Pastors / priests / leaders who speak directly to a woman are heretical, and they will burn for their part in bringing about the destruction of God’s rightful order.

   Reply

9. * a woman substituting another man for her husband

   Should also read: another man OR WOMAN for her husband. Women’s Bible studies are the cesspit in which Satanism breeds.

   Reply

10. ikr says: “Women’s Bible studies are the cesspit in which Satanism breeds.”

    How true! When I first met my wife she was going to two Bible study groups, in addition to church. In hindsight this was a good way for her to find a man she could control, as she was nearing the wall. After riding the cock carousel too long, it was time to get back into church hard to find a husband. One of the Bible study groups was a “girls group” of single women. Once while I was out visiting, the group met in her apartment. I was told to just be quiet and observe, since it was a female-only group. I think for the most part I did, only interjecting at the most outright fallacies. However, after the others left, I told my future wife, “that wasn’t a Bible study, that was just a group of young ladies who don’t know the Bible all pooling their ignorance.” They even had a “saved” member of the Bible study that was living with her boyfriend at the time. Later on in our marriage it was a woman’s group that convinced my wife to steal my children and leave me, and they were even encouraging her to deceive me about it rather than to discuss things with me. When I later confronted the old fool who heads that church, a relative of my father’s, he said, “your father was probably one of those who didn’t believe in divorce.” Then he went on to abdicate all responsibility for the women’s group, and claimed that both of the women who led it no longer attended there. I asked him who was the man in charge of the women’s group and he claimed a woman was in charge because it was a woman’s group. I laughed at him and asked if he had also put a toddler in charge of the nursery. He gave me a dirty look, but couldn’t really argue with my reasoning. He got my point, he just didn’t like that I was condemning his misleadership.

    Reply

11. ikr,
    I’d like to ask you how you feel your comment up above relates to what we do here? In a way this is a gathering of truth seekers, and ray has called me “pastor Sharkly”. So we do seemingly have some church features. I do try to share Bible truth and other true things, and reason and application. I also debate and answer questions and respond to statements, as do our other commenters. I try not to get too far down into the weeds with women when they are seemingly seeking a second opinion to their husband’s leading. However I do most often respond to women when they throw out their Feminist talking points or their “anecdotal refutations”, as a way to get them to see the fallacy and to teach them and others to counter these claptrap talking points. I also try to direct women back to their husbands and to the Bible. However since I’ve only been red pilled recently and only started this blog this May, I’m aware that I am certainly not yet mature in all my dealings, and welcome any help I can get.

    Reply

12. A church is neither a building, nor a ‘place’. I’d label what we do here as a church. We are gathering to expose the lies of the World against the Truth of the Word. Does this not meet the criteria in Mt 18:20, and are we not fulfilling the commandment in Mt 10:16? Is there not active Pr 27:17?

    My response is both Biblical, but also just battle-hardened experience. Please be sure to spot where I am sharing what I have found to be wise, and what is True Wisdom in the below. It’s late, I’m just going to free-form here:

    It is important to speak Truth to lies, so a woman providing an outburst at church should be called out for her indiscretion, told to repent. Given that this is ‘your house’ I think the way you handle this is done very well. You address the false accusations, the strawmen, the exaggerate-and-amplifies head-on. This serves as a learning point for all other passers-by to the content of the false teaching and the corresponding truth. Every single blasphemer, heretic and apostate is an opportunity to be seized in both furthering the Kingdom publicly and saving a soul privately.

    If they are genuinely seeking guidance, and they simply cannot find it in their lives (no next-of-kin male, or none who are actively walking the Christian walk) then perhaps gentle guidance is permissible, but keep guiding her to find a local next-of-kin male who can shoulder the spiritual authority? I don’t know. Definitely point out elderly women (who have fulfilled their roles in Creation, having borne multiple children, now with grandchildren) from whom they might receive coaching. God will be the judge. I always come back to: what does the BIBLE have to say? We get into trouble when we assume we can manage a situation, that we know the totality of circumstance, that our understanding is true and complete. Our warning: Pr 3:5, 1 Co 3:19. I know what the Bible mandates, and I know the model furthermore, so as attractive as it might be for me to share my insight with a woman, it is not my place. I make my peace on this.

    To the rest, it is important to understand that which all women require: male attention, preferably from a powerful man. Remember the very DNA of women: 1 Co 11:9. Some beta-cuck commented a couple posts back tried to white knight the ladiezzz with his pious horse dung about ‘I don’t know why the women here esp Ace/KAK keep coming back when they are treated so badly’ or something to the like. Well, sorry dude, you aren’t getting laid by siding with a wimminz in real life, and you best believe you aren’t getting any nanny-poo from doing it online. Said low-T anon (bless his heart) does not know how women operate. They return because they do not care HOW they are addressed or treated, they care to BE addressed or treated. Why do they gin up controversy, start meaningless fights, hold your dog hostage, join feminist rallies? Well, yes, they are crazy- obviously- but these courses of action are what they have learned will bring about that which they seek, they require: male attention.

    Mostly, ignoring a woman is the course of action. It denies them that which they seek illegitimately. However, some of these garden hoes take silence as permission. In which case:

    Shame a woman publicly before other men when she acts out, because it corrects her action knowing the result is other men will not associate with her. Never address her: she gets what she’s after if you do. It is done tastefully and humorously to my suiting meant only to correct the behavior for her own benefit. Being ‘nice’ is counterfeit righteousness. We are warned of this in Mt 10:28 with keeping our eyes on the true goal and not settling for the fleshly alternative. But the shaming should be done with a direction, guiding her to proper course of action. An example of how I believe I have performed this in an above-average manner is here:
    https://laf443259520.androsphere.net/2019/09/22/the-natural-use-of-the-woman/#comment-577
    Note her response. While it is not always this way, a woman who has been forced to face Truth, with no outs nor scapegoats of any kind, will sometimes acknowledge an area of improvement. Those who don’t: well, we all know a false Christian by their fruits. Ideally she changes her behavior to being quiet and gentle spirited, in accordance with 1 Pt 3:4. Male attention- esp her husband’s- attracted this way is legitimate.

    NOTE: they will try to employ the same tactics of ignoring and shaming, with the goal of extracting your attention. ‘You never ask me about my day!’ ‘What’s wrong dear?’ ‘Nothing’ <- have we not all seen this before? Remember that they are the revolting creature in Creation (1 Tm 2:14), and that the King smiles on men who uphold his Order, his Commandments (Jn 14:15). Just keep on ignoring and shaming them where appropriate. If they keep up their efforts, it does not end well for them: old spinsters eaten by their own cats, dead for 7 weeks in lonely NY apartments. Sure, it is not good for man to be alone, but it is downright unthinkable for a woman to be alone. An unused dusty uterus and gnawing hamstering leads to devastating effects on them. She should be working hard everyday to behave in a manner that gets her husband to check her plumbing daily and provide a steady (back)hand when the crazies flare up. (Ever meet a woman aged 30-40? All they want is to be FUCKED and held down and demeaned. They crave it to a point that is unnerving. Reality is stranger than fiction, indeed.)

    A woman is to cling to one man. I am not every other man in the world, but I will do my part to make the waters outside of her relationship with her husband a not-friendly place to be. She should view her husband as her solution for everything: the comforting place, the firm hand, the steady hand, the corrective hand, the giving hand. It is the righteous course of action: to guide her back to her role, her place, her shamefacedness under her husband. It is where her Father has created for her the most joyful experience in this Life, and where she will store up the most blessings for herself in Heaven. I honor her husband- a fellow image-bearer- when I guide her straight back to his loving ways.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, it is late and I need to go another round of pullups, lest I not meet my personal goals by year-end. BBB- the Jezebel that she is- is watching, looking for every opportunity like in 1 Pt 5:8 to come in with a pious statement extracting her sweet, sweet dopamine hit for 'getting him good' online with some comment. I am a diligent servant of my Father, who commands me in Pr 31:3 never to give over my attention, wealth, status or other to an undeserving wimminz. Samson made that mistake.

    Practically, you don't talk TO wimminz at all. Ideally, we move to a place where we don't talk ABOUT them either. Both are for the elderly women to do (Tt 2).

    MUSCLES UP!!!

    ps/ Keep preaching with boldness, Sharkly. I have benefited from your unashamed methods personally, and have been convicted in some areas. I have made real life adjustments on some things. I would definitely say I get out of this blog that which I wish all churches provided in person. Shame on the men who enter a sermon apologetically for what the Word is saying on any topic. If the Bible says A, then dammit it means A. If the Bible does not say B, don't gin up reasons or excuses about B. God makes no mistakes: those who do not preach with boldness expose their lack of faith in this being true.

    Reply

13. Sharkly — “In a way this is a gathering of truth seekers, and ray has called me “pastor Sharkly”. So we do seemingly have some church features.”

    Dalrock’s been operating about a dozen years. His site is a church . . . at least when I was there. One + one = two last I heard, and two is enough. Real churches are few, far between, and easily recognizable.

    When Elijah and Elisha departed the fields of Shaphat together, there the LORD was amidst, and there was the Church. Wasn’t nothing around except dirt clods and ox poop.

    “Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there am I with them.” (Matthew 18:20)

    Nothing in there about buildings. Nothing about diplomas or certifications. If He’d required those things, He’d have said so.

    This page is a church whether I am here or not. Yes you do have authority to correct women (and men). Some women have husbands and it’s Scriptural and preferable to direct them to that primary authority, when such exists, as ikr addressed. It’s true that some are merely seeking male attention, that is female nature, but I am confident in your discretion and it will improve as you go along. Continue boldly.

    Reply

14. Sharkly, I saw you quoted here (or maybe another thread?) about Deep Strength’s response to you on not attending church… Thought you’d like Ame’s post on that topic!!

    https://blendingame.wordpress.com/2019/10/20/backwards/

    Reply

15. Keep preaching with boldness, Sharkly. I have benefited …

    Since it may sound corny of me to say the oft repeated refrain that, if even one person benefits then this has all been worthwhile, then I won’t. I’ll go a step further and say:
    Even if nobody ever benefits, standing up for God’s ways and standing against the world’s ways, is a life well spent. If somebody actually benefits, that’s just a bonus! I’d rather not write just to benefit people, so much as write what I believe to be true, and what I think needs to be said, and if some folks are wise enough to find a benefit in what I have written then they have gleaned themselves a reward for reading it. But I write it for myself and God. I write it for my sons and every child who has had their father stolen because of Feminism. I write it to convict the devil, to condemn his whoring helpers, and to provoke the rest of their churchian sympathizers,(hopefully towards repentance) in the name of God. I renounce the false teachers that fill our pulpits, by asking, “who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?” The boldness comes easy once you realize that, to die is gain! Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. I’ve lost my fortune, my mansion, my wife, my kids, my stuff, my career, my reputation, my “friends”, my nice cars, my youth, and I didn’t even get a T-shirt. LOL
    At some point you just have to laugh at Satan and call him a loser, and laugh at his impotent forces, an army of women and cowards! Even if you kill me a slow and agonizing death, be it known unto thee, O Lucifer, that I will not serve thy gods, nor worship the false image which thou hast set up. I’ll be praising the most holy God when the smoke of your torment rises up for ever and ever. The Lord rebuke thee! How art thou fallen from heaven? Loser-fer! Did you think you could be like the Most High because you got a degree in women’s studies? Ha ha ha ha ha ha Wipeout! Cast down to the earth, Huh. LOL Get a pedometer and you can count your steps from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. You’re an everlasting disgrace. Get a job! Smell you later crispy critter!

    Reply

16. The World had to kick him a while and even snatch his kids but I do believe that Pastor Sharkly’s attention has been engaged.

    It is a small army but well-motivated!

    Reply

17. Dear Brother~

    In response to my blog post, you cut and pasted from the above post, which is why I am responding here rather than on my own blog.

    Your comment left me saddened by your lack of application of the biblical precepts and principals in which we are to govern our speech (Eph. 4:29). You intimate I do not worship the God of the Bible and accuse me of blasphemy. You then finish off with an ad hominem calling me “ignorantly ashamed”… all gleaned through the lens of your personal wisdom and from 11 words in my blog post.

    After reading your comment and subsequently, portions of your blog, I will not be publishing your comment. This is not because of any disagreement between us (though we do!). It is because you disqualify yourself from public engagement, on my site, by acknowledging that you did not even read my post.

    I ever so briefly considered a conversation regarding the practice of historical revisionism, what constitutes an authoritative voice in the realm of hermaneutics and whether, as with a feminist agenda, an andocentric agenda could cause one to end up drawing conclusions about a portion of scripture that puts one in a ditch. However, the ferocity of your attack upon someone you do not know, nor even took the time to read leads me to believe my time could be better spent.

    You clearly have been hurt and have an ax to grind. My years of study and Christian engagement have proved that when a personal pet (often created) doctrine is used as a clarion call, in the form of a call to repentance, to the rest of the Christian world, it is best to sidestep and move on; and especially when they liken themselves to historical greats!

    Reply

18. Firebrand Englishman pastor Leonard Ravenhill once said in his later years “you know, someday a man out there will read the Bible and actually believe it!”

    Well…..I did read it. Many times. I believed it, and then I found the “real men” in the man-o-sphere and then began to doubt. I then threw myself into ministry and was again lectured by these same men. I am supposed to be excited to share eternity with these men? No thanks.

    They can have it. Hence why men don’t anything to do with the christian faith, or if they do……it’s in the privacy of their own home and own life. Not in a church. Not in some “mens group” where they just put other men down and who are not as “blessed” as they are. Their jesus is named rollo, roosh, roissy and has other names………..

    Reply

19. knowonegod,
    Welcome! I’m glad you’ve come here. Apparently my comment had the desired effect.
    I don’t remember the specifics of my comment to you, as I believe it was a couple weeks back, and you didn’t publish it, but I assume I was trying to correct your view of the image of God being both male and female. I’ve posted a good bit about the subject here and on other peoples blogs, some of which I’ve linked to at places here, and much of which you might be able to find by searching for my screen-name and the image of God.
    Your “years of study” don’t come across. I’m just hearing an ‘Ivory Tower’ type of disdain for being questioned, so I welcome you to jump in with all your years of study and contend for your hermaphroditic image of God concept. Show us where any earthly woman is said, by God, to currently be in the image of God perhaps. As for “Christian engagement”, you’re sure to get some here. I looked at three of your posts and there was not a single comment on any of the three I opened up. Is it that nobody else’s comments are worthy of being posted alongside your blog posts? You’ve been blogging for five years now in a most solitary corner of the internet apparently. True Christianity is engaging, and quite at odds with the world. I often spend a good bit of my workday reading technical specifications, if I couldn’t make it through your post, maybe it just wasn’t that engaging to me? When you try to syncretize God and Christianity with the world’s Feminism and make women equal to men, not only is it destructive to God’s order, but it becomes just more of the same old boring Politically Correct, government issue, Feminist dogma that we’ve all heard a million times before on the TV.
    Yes, I did liken myself to Martin Luther. And I’ll go a step further and say that to the best of my ability I have been Jesus Christ to my wife. Apparently I have a messianic-complex too. LOL
    Now I haven’t read Luther’s 95 theses. And I assume some of them might be wrong. But if even a handful of them were right, then the church had some need to reform itself. Feel free to engage my posts regarding the image of God and admonish us with your years of study, so that we can all be sharpened. I’m sure you’ll get more feedback and exposure contending for your faith here.
    As to the “corrupt communication” that Ephesians 4:29 references, I’ll again assume that I must have said “cunt-worshipper” or something similar. I say “Cunt” intentionally to take other’s god’s/goddesses’ name in vain. I can tell who I’m dealing with by how triggered they get. If you throw a rock into a pig pen in the dark, the pig that squeals the loudest is the one you hit.
    But generally I’m working towards making my speech more edifying. And I’ve still got a long way to go.
    James 3:2 For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.
    Well there it is, I’m not a perfect man. Doh! There goes that!
    Oh, hey look what else is in James 3.
    James 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
    Thanks for helping me find more scripture where God tells us that men are the image of God, knowonegod.

    Reply

20. lastmod,
    Welcome! I’m glad to see you. You do provide such a good counterpoint to those whose names begin with “Ro”. This week it got down to 20F here. I was wishing I was back out in Nor-Cal with the heathen. LOL I do miss the temperate weather there sometimes. I think you are a good writer. clearly not based upon this first comment, but based upon your writings that I have read in the past. I am also inspired by parts of your testimony. You are a good man and many others would do well to be more like you in their ministry and humility. I know this sounds like hollow encouragement from somebody who has not lived through the struggles that you have, but I really do respect who you are and where you’ve come from, and your ongoing struggles. You remind me that not everybody has things so easy, and I should be more thankful for the advantages God gave me through no merit of my own, while also respecting those who fight a harder battle than I. I want to encourage you to keep your hope in the next life, because if you endure and keep your faith, your reward will be so great for all your troubles, and you will enter into God’s rest. Don’t be deceived, nobody will be upsetting to you in heaven. Either they won’t be there, or you’ll have forgiven each other, or God will have given them an attitude adjustment, and given you a new song that they are not allowed to learn.(Revelation 14:3-5)

    Reply

21. “You remind me that not everybody has things so easy, and I should be more thankful for the advantages God gave me through no merit of my own, while also respecting those who fight a harder battle than I. I want to encourage you to keep your hope in the next life, because if you endure and keep your faith, your reward will be so great for all your troubles, and you will enter into God’s rest.”

    Jason, Christians can be, and are sometimes, horrible, ridiculous people (myself included – God help me!). I don’t think basing your faith on the behavior of people online makes sense (and I KNOW you’re too smart for that realistically… I’m certain you can see they’re just nut-jobs).

    This was a long time ago… not sure how long exactly, but somehow I happened to read Dalrock, and saw you arguing with Oscar (!!!). First things first, that man used to have some really great, wise, even kind comments (and sometimes he still does to be fair), but something has definitely changed… he almost goes looking for arguments and gets into it with people over extremely stupid stuff. Example… an email friend let me know when he was arguing with Liz (a long-time online friend/mentor of mine) over whether or not manual labor was a workout (LOL!!!!). 1) He and his wife have 9 kids… he brings this up repeatedly, because he’s really proud of the fact they’re doing that and sacrificing so much (and I’m sure they really are), but half are his and half are adopted, and it’s probably insanely hard. He’s mentioned before they don’t all get along. He’s deployed (again), and can’t be there to help his wife sort out all those children – children who need a dad and mom there more than even regular kids do. Adopted kids often need A LOT more intense love, care, and attention, and it looks like it isn’t working out when you read between the lines. Hopefully I’m wrong, but his comments started getting angrier, more combative, and less sensical when they started taking on too much. It looks virtuous to have 9 kids (half adopted at that!) but in reality, it’s not virtuous if you take on more than you and your wife are able. He may be finding this out the hard way sadly. Either way… avoiding arguments with someone like that is wise.

    There are others who have similar real-life things going on… and I think they take all their aggression and angst out in the comments section online, you can often tell what a person’s real life disposition is by the way they act online.

    And… y’all should come to Spawny’s… the only moody one is BV and he’s been around a long long time, so ignoring any insults from him is wise (he’s usually fine now, but he went through a really dark period where his son was taken away from him – and he was accused of abusing him falsely, and his comments reflected that as he started insulting all of us!).

    Don’t lose your faith, Jason!!! It’s SO much more important than any idiot online trying to get into an argument or lecture you!!!

    Reply

22. Thanks. I write what I know. Some of it is good…..and sometimes…….well, maybe it misses the mark, or the point I am trying to make and its “shit”

    I don’t claim, and never have claimed to be a writer.

    I was evacuated for two days because the massive fire we had up here in Sonoma County. Things are falling back to normal thankfully. Everything is opening up again, and the mail is now getting delivered again. The air has finally cleared as well. Work is going great and my trip to the UK in June was fantastic. Best vacation I have ever had. I miss it very much and the run-of-the-mill British subject was wonderful to me. The three and a half weeks there went WAY too fast. Met lots of really decent and friendly people there. I do have the grip of records and clothing I sent back to the USA to always remind me of this adventure, and over 2000 photos. I would love to move there, and if I was indeed under 35……I would be planning that right now. Since I am not, I have to dig in at work / career and plan for the day when I will be grunting over a bedpan.

    I attended morning prayers everyday while in Manchester at the very old cathedral. The Vicar was African, and what a mighty man of faith he was. Most mornings it was just he and I in the vast cathedral. My mother was culturally COE (church of england) and I was raised in this tradition as a young boy so I knew some of the practice. When to stand, when to kneel and when to sit…….I found my family rolls of baptism, birth and marriage on my mothers side at a small church in Wales going back to the late 1600’s. Really great stuff.

    Anyway, as for christianity………I won’t knock someone for following it. I won’t try to disassure them. I just cannot believe anymore. I’ll keep my comments here to a minimum unless you come out defending any of the usual suspects and how if men “just read / learned and practiced game n frame” all would be well.

    As usual, your faith is inspiring and please continue

    Reply

23. Stephanie.

    Comments in the man-o-sphere in general are pretty…..outrageous. They know it all, and “you” don’t know anything. Even if if you are married, you are not doing it “right” and even if you may have a calling or something you perhaps are good at….don’t worry, they have done it all and more than you. They are the “elect” and you “just have so much to learn”

    They are the body, the head, the arms, the legs, the eyes and ears. “You” are the audience.

    If you disagree, you’re a simp, blue-pilled cuck or “you’re not trusting god enough”

    For men who claim they have so much “love” for their fellow men, and want to help them….there seems to be a lot of talk on how many women they bedded before they found their “saintly unicorn wife” and a lot of real anger on or upon anyone who holds any of their actions in question.

    With one hand, you will be told on “how to vett an amazing christian woman for a potential wife” and then on the other hand you will be told “nope, sorry, nope…none left” in the very same comment thread.

    Everyone knows Greek, Hebrew, studied more, had more wisdom, and is just a “better man than you” on everything. They are the “elect” and anyone else is just annoying.

    In the christian man-o-sphere men are not welcome, and hence why the faith deserves to die and why men leave, and really don’t want to be a part of this.

    I have said before I could walk in to a chat, say “hello” and be told I was “negative” and I have been piled on and upon for a few points I have made, and one of the more “popular” men could say the same thing (and have on many occasions) and they are hailed as a genius, or some other flattering word. Rank and file men in the vast “world” want nothing to do with this, and they spend a lot of time belittling others in the faith instead of looking at themselves.

    Three blogs have banned me……and frankly their “kingdom of heaven” would be a pretty miserable place to spend eternity in. No thanks.

    Reply

24. “I have said before I could walk in to a chat, say “hello” and be told I was “negative” and I have been piled on and upon for a few points I have made, and one of the more “popular” men could say the same thing (and have on many occasions) and they are hailed as a genius, or some other flattering word”

    ^I’ve noticed that, too, and Liz (female commenter who has been around for years longer than I have) pointed that out years ago. I think that’s normal behavior for online communities, but not all are like that certainly. Spawny’s is a lot more laid back (and it’s run by a Brit!!! You’d like his style I think). When Liz pointed that out years ago, she called it something like an in-group/out-group kind of thing. You probably don’t know who Tarn is, but she did an experiment where she would comment as a male sometimes, and found her comments were a lot more accepted when she was saying the same thing she would try as a female. There’s a huge advantage in anonymity when dealing with in-groups.

    After Sigma Frame did that post on Dalrock and Boxer etc. I got interested in reading Dalrock again, and found that they were all agreeing that women in t-shirts and jeans are way more sexy than women dressed up in dresses ???? To me, this was hilarious, because just 2 years ago Dalrock and Cane were writing a series of posts on how women wearing pants were cross-dressing!!!

    I think part of the problem is that some men are just very honest (and that’s huge a compliment, really, it shows integrity and character), whereas a lot of the other “in-group” men are not that open/honest about their real life. You, Derek, and Sharkly are very honest about your real life doings/interactions, whereas I’ve noticed other men tend to keep quiet out of fear.

    Example #1 – back when they were writing that wearing pants is cross-dressing for women, Derek was honest and asked exactly how that changed his wife from being female and feminine, claiming she still looked beautiful and womanly wearing jeans and a t-shirt. Cane mocked and ridiculed him for being such a weak leader as to allow his wife (and daughter) to wear what, “boys,” wear. Oscar was there in the comment thread, too, and agreed with Cane. Fast forward 2 years and now he’s claiming women wearing dresses like Ginger never appealed to him, he’d much prefer the female who always ran around in Daisy Dukes (extremely short shorts – could be underwear kind of shorts). It’s funny if you can keep out of the drama yourself, and kind of view it as a psyche-social experiment sort of thing. Obviously it wouldn’t be funny to Derek, plus it’s reputation damaging for someone with as much clout as Cane to mock/insult him like that publicly (which was obviously why Oscar kept quiet… he didn’t want to be emasculated).

    On the married ones, the only married couple I know left blogging right now, present themselves as a couple who have always been super attracted to each other from the get-go. Dalrock deleted the husband’s old comments where he revealed how horrible his wife was treating him because the gravatar picture was the same and identified him (and maybe he’s trying to save their reputation as it was before the red pill helped her)… you can still see some of the left over answers to his plea for help. But as of now, the way he writes about their marriage in the comments, he makes it sound like it was, “just always like this.” Which clearly it wasn’t ???? .

    They never ever bring up the reality of what they went through. There’d be nothing to hide if they were just honest (in other words, the comments didn’t need to be deleted)… their testimony could help a lot of people in marriages that are struggling. That takes a lot of humility and spiritual maturity though, and I’ve found through having a few negative personal interactions with them that they really aren’t there yet.

    You’re honest about your past, and so I’m sure you understand the value of that honesty in bringing others to Christ (especially past addicts because you understand where they may be coming from). People’s pasts are often the very way God uses them to reach other people, so hiding one’s past is a red flag of something not right. [ dalrock.wordpress.com/about/#comment-56878 ] Paul never hid his past, even though I’m sure it would have been extremely tempting to, and would have superficially made him look a lot better to those who didn’t already know who he was. I’m sure a lot of people rejected him because of his past, but he never hid it.

    Standing alone in Christ, standing alone in the honesty of who you are, where God brought you from, is so powerful and is the main model of Scripture. Being quiet so you can go-along to get-along is usually the wrong thing to do.

    Human nature is rather ugly ???? whether it’s cowardice, lying by omission, or outright deleting proof of one’s past (that could have helped someone else), I wouldn’t let it effect my own faith in God and who He is.

    God never changes… He never hides the Truth from us if we seek it diligently… He generously gives wisdom to every person who asks for it. You have a lot of wisdom, even just your honesty is extremely valuable and unfortunately, seems to be rather rare.

    I hope you seek Him, Jason, and don’t give up just because of an in-group/out-group, immature social set-up (reminds me of middle school almost). God is so much more than us ant-like humans, and He’s a lot more accepting.

    Reply

25. Stephanie,

    Please don’t take my reply to you above as a “woe is me” thing. It isn’t. I got banned from Dalrock, because I dared him to………well, not really but I pushed the envelope. He called my bluff and banned me. I’m not really bothered or upset by it. DS has not banned me per say but has put me “always” in moderation. I won’t give him the satisfaction of trying to post there anymore. I dislike him, and the feeling is mutual, so really no loss there. The other blog was a Anglican blog and I was thrown off a few years back for lambasting them for changing the Common Book of Prayer in 1978 which ironically after that began their STEEP decline into heresy. Was pretty rude on there I’ll admit.

    The Salvation Army had a ‘secret group’ which wasn’t really secret called “primitive salvationism” and it had Salvationists mostly in the USA and Great Britain pushing and wanting an “old school” Salvation Army returning to the Victorian Era in practice and methods. Heal the sick. Clothe the naked. Save the lost for Christ and FIGHT. Fight for the sinner, and GO for the WORST in the bunch. It also had a strict fitness routine and demanded all Salvationista should be able to read and play music and be involved in SHTF prepping. It also stressed the Uniform be worn and be worn properly even in street ministry. My local Corps officer in Fresno in 2016 told us “that anyone who wants to be part of that hate filled group doesn’t belong in this Corps or Army” and that was when I began to question why I was in His Army, I obviously was wasting my time. The current Salvation Army “frowns” on this group, though it evidently still exists.

    God doesn’t need me. He’s got all he needs right now, and it has been proved that “I” was wrong. When I did become a christian, I wasn’t looking for leadership, or even a wife……..I just wanted a place that “finally” would just accept me, and where I could grow. In many ways I am worse off now emotionally and mentally than I was before I became one. I’ve also met way more people who are “culturally” christian and behave way better than those who supposedly have been saved. I don’t want to be a part of that. No bolts of lightening have struck any of them down. In fact, many were rewarded more (wife, children et al).

    Reply

26. Lastmod,
    I love your story, and who you are. I love to hear what you have endured and overcome and even the things that you are still in daily battle with. I have the greatest respect for your work and contribution through the Salvation Army, and for you as a man. I likely couldn’t have done what you did so meekly, humbly, and apparently often thanklessly for the Salvation Army, and Boy Scouts, and Etc. I really treasured the brotherhood I had with you in Christ. Like Stephanie, I also love your honesty, or perhaps like King David, I hate liars and those who are false. I really would have liked to have seen if I could have created here with you an enclave of caring Christian brothers and sisters who could truly try to put on the love of Christ. I understand you questioning the hypocrisy or validity of so many Christian brothers and sisters, and I even understand your questioning God. But if you have decided that you don’t believe God’s word, the Bible, anymore, then I guess you have chosen to end what I thought might be an eternal friendship. You have chosen to take yourself out of Christ. I caution you that even in the deepest grief and anguish of the soul, God is not to be trifled with. We will be eternally saved or eternally damned to the fires of hell, based upon the testimony of our words before men. And If I am hearing you correctly you are throwing away your eternal hope of glory for discouragement and disillusionment.
    So much of what we discuss here is based upon an underlying belief in God’s inerrant word. You really need to have that to contribute to the culture I’m wanting to try to create here where both honest men like yourself and God are shown honor here. I won’t ban you, or put you in moderation, but I would ask you that if you are not open to reconsidering your doubts and the possibility of working through your current misgivings, that you not return until you are at least open to that. Please know that in spite of what I’ve just told you, that I still have the utmost respect for you as an exemplar man and someone I would have liked to have had as a friend now and in eternity.

    Reply

27. Stephanie,
    Wow! What a resource of knowledge you are. I looked up and saw your comment at Dalrock’s way back many years ago. I didn’t realize you had been learning about the red-pill for so much longer than I myself. Thank you for your compliments to both me and to lastmod. I’m glad that you see the honesty, and that you appreciate it. Thank you. There is apparently a lot more to you than I currently know. I apologize for not reading more of your blog, but at first glance it didn’t hold my manly interest, and seemed more like a wonderful place for a Christian woman to seek out fellowship. I have really liked your comments and contributions here. Thank you for finding this place and adding your bit of feminine joy and kindness to it. If I might ask you one thing, I am wanting to create a place where men are honored as the image of God as I believe the Bible tells me they are, so I’d like you to show your honor for men, including Dalrock and Oscar. I also understand and appreciate that you were siding with us. I obviously don’t know them as well as you, and you may not be wrong in your assessment, but if a false behaving or even a false teaching man needs to be shamed, please let the men here do it. I don’t mind you contending with any falsehoods, but please try to go the extra mile in honoring them as men. I would hope to keep an environment where men who claim the name of Christ and believe according to the Bible, including them, can feel both welcome and honored as they might contend for their faith and sharpen others here. If they began to needlessly disrespect other men, I’d put a damper on it. I welcome you to tear apart any false teaching women however. ???? And again I am impressed by you knowledge, enthusiasm, and the positive attitude you usually bring. I wish I currently had more time to spend reading and commenting, and I need to put up some new posts. If my life wasn’t so busy I’d enjoy more time at Spawny’s Space also. Give me a moment, and I’ll add a link to them. Thanks for reminding me of the enjoyable time I’ve spent there.

    Reply

28. ” I didn’t realize you had been learning about the red-pill for so much longer than I myself. ”

    The person commenting as, “Stephanie,” on that page wasn’t me… I went by girlwithadragonflytattoo back then, and then changed to Dragonfly, and then to my real name I think in 2016. I only started reading the manosphere when several men started adding me to their blogrolls and linking to my posts calling them, “red pill.” I had no idea what the red pill was, but apparently I was raised to agree with a lot of it.

    And don’t worry, I won’t comment on the goings on in the sphere anymore! ????

    It is very nice to not read in those places so that I don’t see the inconsistencies, or see when they constantly put other men down, dishonoring and humiliating them over very trivial differences in opinion. You really are right that there’s something very disturbing to see a man emasculated publicly in the ways they operate (and I want no part of that, just wanted to assure Jason the men I’ve seen attack him are also very very flawed).
    To me it really is disturbing to see what Jason has experienced when other Christian men basically destroy what could be a place of restoration and community. Hopefully they sort it all out.

    Reply

29. “You really are right that there’s something very disturbing to see a man emasculated publicly in the ways they operate”

    I meant to add that this is disturbing probably because (like you’ve found out) men are created in the image of God, and to see one emasculated (dishonored down to the core of his manhood) is really awful… on a gut-level.

    Reply

30. Stephanie,
    I’m glad you took my comment in such a good spirit. You reminded me of a great comment of mine on this topic at Dalrock’s excerpting many other comments I had made.
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2019/01/14/is-christian-marriage-only-for-elite-women/#comment-297425

    I have no problem with you commenting on the goings on in the manosphere if you just spin it in a way that honors the men who are doing better. For example: I hope Dalrock, Oscar, and Cane will try as hard to remember to hold back from mocking the downtrodden as Sharkly does. I struggle with it too. I was once a master of the cut-down, but eventually realized that wasn’t a Christian virtue, and I have tried to forget how. I think I’ll cut and paste the comment below:

    Reply

31. Sharkly says:
    January 14, 2019 at 8:43 pm

    @Dalrock
    Thank you for taking up the need to respect/honor (the innate image of God in) other men.
    Instead of typing up some new stuff, I’ll just highlight some of my past ranting with sourcing:

    Sharkly’s first generality.
    1. Men will never be respected by society while they refuse to respect each other.

    I believe Mennonite women tend to respect Mennonite men more than the rest of American society respects men, because Mennonite men usually show each other a higher level of respect than is typical in American society. And often the wife is witnesses to other Mennonite men respecting her husband, and no doubt that helps her to stay more contented with her choice.
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/07/11/how-big-was-her-dick/#comment-278321

    I’ll say it again here:
    Society will never show men respect again, until we as men can show each other respect and model the behavior for the rest of society. Seriously! Can we expect them to respect us if we refuse to respect “us”?

    Men! Stop fighting, be dignified, and show the others the level of respect you’d like to receive.
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/07/11/how-big-was-her-dick/#comment-278262

    1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
    22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
    23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

    If Jesus Christ the son of God did not even threaten, or revile, but instead suffered unjustly, I doubt your mission is to do those things. But, I might be wrong, so I’ll keep an open mind.

    However, as a general rule, we men need to show each other greater respect.

    James 3:8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
    9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
    10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.

    We should not be so easily denigrating other men who are created in the image of our God. you can confront and correct a person without resorting to insults and threats.
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/07/11/how-big-was-her-dick/#comment-278289

    I think “Honor” or respect, is a key piece of what is lacking, as the due reward for men who are “good” in society. The Beta male who does his part admirably, and is a good provider, and an upstanding cog in the machinery that brings technological, scientific, and true societal(moral) progress, gets slapped in the face for his good work, while actors, athletes, musicians, and models, the entertainers, the clowns, bards, and motley fools or our societies, reap the last remnants of respect or honor our society has for any men.

    I have said it elsewhere, until men can model the behavior of showing honor to other men, society will refuse to respect men who can’t even respect each other.
    Romans 12:10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.
    We patriarchs have to get our honor back, before they’ll ever vote us our necessary authority back at the ballot box, if that is even the providence of things to come. And we won’t get our honor back by just asking them for it. We have to start giving each other honor. It can’t just be the actors honoring themselves Like they do with non-stop award shows, or the Athletes honoring themselves with trophies, honorary games, and halls of fame. We all have to honor all men, for being created in the likeness of God, for being heads of families, for being gentlemen, for who they are, not only honoring men for what they’ve done that others haven’t. We need to honor other men just for being men and doing the ordinary things that men do to keep society civilized.
    https://v5k2c2.com/2018/11/18/a-holiday-prayer/#comment-4424

    If we are to be honored as men, first we must learn to show honor for each other as men and be examples of honoring other men in society.

    Romans 12:10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.

    I read too much petty reviling here on this blog.(I know most are worse)(and I’ve spent a lifetime reviling myself) We shoo away the women to create a male space, and then we bash each other as much as the male bashing Feminists, and we often do it over such trivial differences. It makes us look like a bunch of hurt puppies lashing out at each other.

    1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

    So, My respect and “Props” to all you great men of the Dalrock Blog! I salute you glorious men who strive to make society greater and to honor God and men. You do a noble service by coming here and publishing your truth and sharing your wisdom. Thank you all! And may God the Father, who created you in His own divine image, bless you with even more much deserved honor both now and in the life to come, by the grace of His only begotten Son Jesus Christ. Amen!
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/04/12/patriarchal-packs-part-1/#comment-265868

    Step one to restore the patriarchy is we have to believe in it and God’s design of it. We have to understand that men were created in the image and glory of God, and as the bearers of His image we are entrusted with sovereign reign over our wives in everything as Christ rules the church in everything. And we are to rule over our families well as the similitude of God.
    James 3:8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. 9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. 10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. 11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
    We need to begin by first showing other men the degree of respect we’d like to eventually receive from them and others in our envisioned patriarchal utopia. If we are so full of hate that we can’t even respect each other, we’re just deluding ourselves to imagine patriarchy ever working with our own lack of self-control. To be respected in our own homes, we have to be prepared to respect other men’s rule over their own homes, when they do everything quite different from how we would do it. We can’t be AMOGing telling their wives we are better men and would husband them better. We have to be able to honor other men despite our differences, just because they are in God’s image. And honor women as weaker creatures who only reflect the glory of man.
    Romans 12:10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.
    The patriarchy must start in your heart and mind, you must put yourself into subjection to it first.
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/09/17/if-christianity-isnt-feminism-and-courtly-love-what-is-it/#comment-286747

    BTW I really like your post, and think we should try to get out the message that all men are respectable, just for being men.

    Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

    John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

    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.

    Men are images of God, little gods, adopted sons of God. We are worthy of our due respect. If some churchian cunt worshipper asks about your “better half”, tell that reviler, “you are the better half.” All women can marry up and satisfy their hypergamy, just by marrying a man. We just have to spread that good news.

    Reply

32. I have been busy, or busy-lazy, and haven’t commented in a couple of weeks. This was a great post with really enjoyable follow-up by Ray and IKR in October. I don’t know if the Harem are sidelining themselves voluntarily or not, but if so, this blog really benefits by their absence.
    In regards to the November portion of this post, Stephanie’s observation about Oscar rings true.
    So much goes on that I want to write about, and that is one. I like Oscar and don’t like seeing this overly combative phase, but if what you are guessing is coreect, that it’s due to stress, then I can add him to my prayers.
    And for Jason to chime in on this particular post is very appropriate considering his stated departure from the faith in Christ. I certainly thought of you often Jason when reading the original post.
    I haven’t made my plea plain to you yet, but to make the obvious plain, my desire is for you to agree with Stephanie and Sharkly, that you have been discouraged and disappointed by Christians, but that you have not stopped believing in Christ as Lord.
    You are right, you would have to share space in Heaven with other believers who wrongly accused you while they also got the benefits of a good marriage and then also get to be in Heaven. I don’t know how that works out, but God is just, and being in Christ will outweigh your current subjection to those injustices, for you, and to your satisfaction and understanding. Christ’s provision, power and love is able to overcome the hurts being inflicted upon you.

    Reply

33. Sharkly because you spoke to me like a man and a christian, I will respect your request. If you behaved in a manner like these other so called “real man in the room” christian blogs, I would have geared up for a fight, would have been banned and then they would strut about how they “put me in line” to their mindless followers.

    You are welcome to comment on my space anytime. Again thank you. If you would like me to comment on something you bring up that I may have some mild expertise in (addiction, street ministry, boots in the mud kind of thing…..or working with boys in a youth setting) please let me know.

    Thanx

    Reply

34. “For example: I hope Dalrock, Oscar, and Cane will try as hard to remember to hold back from mocking the downtrodden as Sharkly does”

    Downtrodden? What downtrodden?

    Reply

35. lastmod,
    Its hurting me to lose a brother. In this life people can’t help but disappoint us and make us wonder at why this cursed world gives us such infrequent moments satisfied in Christian brotherhood. “If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world.” I will pray that God gives you the grace to return to faith, not in people, but in Him. Nobody here on earth will be more joyful to hear of your return than I. And in heaven there will be much rejoicing.

    Reply

36. Augustine has been of great influence to the RCC. He took with him his pre-Christian gnostic convictions, and came to see sexual procreation as the actual original sin, due to his still dualistic view on body=bad, spirit/mind=good. You can see this dualistic view in the book from which you quoted “On the Trinity (Book XII)”:

    “For, as not only most true reason but also the authority of the apostle himself declares, man was not made in the image of God according to the shape of his body, but according to his rational mind.” [..] “Pray, have faithful women then lost their bodily sex? But because they are there renewed after the image of God, where there is no sex; man is there made after the image of God, where there is no sex, that is, in the spirit of his mind.”

    Also the pope repeats (https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/pope-francis-image-god-married-couple-man-and-woman) : “The image of God is the married couple: the man and the woman; not only the man, not only the woman, but both of them together,” said the Pope. “God’s covenant with us is represented in that covenant between man and woman. And this is very beautiful.”

    The same idea you can see in Augustine’s quote above, although he does leave open a small possibility that without a wife is still the image of God, but wife without man is not.

    That is because he refuses to think of masculinity and femininity in relation to God, and limits it only to the rational mind, and therefore cannot see a fundamental difference between man and woman from that perspective. I’m sure Augustine thought women were less rational than men, although I could be proven wrong. Therefore I don’t think that Augustine serves as a prime example of an authority defending ‘man created in the image and glory of God, woman not’.

    For me, as I have argued elsewhere, and which you Sharkly now have even set up a website to promote as you have come to similar conclusions independently; the *key* to understanding Gen 1:27 is that it is only a summary statement of that which is described in more detail in Gen 2. That is something that Augustine does not seem to (willing to) touch upon.

    Now go to the creation of Adam, before Eve was created. Was Adam created in the image of God? I think he was, and his masculinity reflects the divine. I do not think as some do, that Adam was created both male and female at the same time, reflecting either a genderless God (like Augustine thinks), or a bi-gender God. However from him woman was created, which has the feminine. I do also not think that after that something feminine was somehow removed from Adam, so that he was now masculine only. No, Adam was masculine from the start. Of course this means that the feminine is a new creation by God, and hence springs forth from His Mind, and therefore at least tells us something about God. But that’s different from being a full reflection of who God is, i.e. being the image of God, which is only said about Adam.

    Granted, we can think of woman as being from man, and seen to be represented in him — as he is her head, and she is created for him as his helper — as carrying the image of God, but only to a lesser degree, as the feminine lacks the masculine.

    And for sure we do not believe in a female deity, as all the heathens and gnostics have done, and in doing so, have followed in Adam’s footsteps to pedestalize/idolize Eve, making a god in her image, like the Israelites made the golden calf and idolized it as a god in the image they saw fit.

    Reply

37. Welcome Paul,
    You were one of the folks from Dalrock’s site that I was really wishing would find this site and would come and comment. Not only are you a strong ally since the Holy Spirit has also independently brought you to this same belief, but you are bold enough to contend for your belief, and I like that you are always ready to use the “Sword” of God’s word to show where your got your beliefs from. your comment above is a good example of why I like your comments so much. You bring a lot of knowledge, to the discussion, and some sharp analysis of it.

    Yes, I too wish that Augustine hadn’t so readily syncretized the Gnosticism, stoicism, and cynicism that were popular in his time. And yes it seems that he often did this despite other scriptures seemingly to the contrary. I find some people will formulate a concept of what the image of God consists of, and then reason things about it, like who has it, based upon their own previous speculation as to what the image of God is. With Augustine so often advancing the Gnostic idea that the image of God is superior reasoning above the animals, I think the fact that he still denied it to women is testament to the facts that the Apostle Paul so clearly denied women being, by themselves, in the image of God in his divinely inspired epistle, and to the fact that it was so unanimously held that women were not in the image of God by the entirety of the church of the apostolic and patristic ages. Because if the image of God was just simply abstract reasoning skills, as Augustine seemingly opined, it would be an evidence of an overriding bigotry against women’s intellect to deny them the image of God. I think it is a testimony to the time and culture in which he wrote, that he was able to present his theory without it being just dismissed as an obvious error. The culture let Augustine get by with implying that no woman could have the same intellect as even a man of very low intellect. Back then, apparently, no man wanted to be seen as an appeasing Feminist, by arguing that some women could have the same intellect and abstract reasoning abilities of some men. I personally believe that, the fact that the inspired Apostle Paul and the other apostles all either taught or permitted the churches to unanimously believe that the image of God rested on men alone, combined with the fact that women do have some level of intellect and abstract reasoning, shows that the image of God must be something other than the Gnostic ideal of untainted abstract reasoning and their quest for lofty knowledge. Apparently Augustine felt that, unlike men, women’s reasoning was tainted, to the extent that it could not be said to image God, like a man’s abstract reasoning. But I use Augustine’s writings along with those of other early church fathers mainly just to show that it was the unanimous belief taught and permitted in the churches by the apostles, that women were not by themselves images of God, like men.

    Others at the time speculated that the image of God was male “Dominion” versus female subjection, or the image of God was the visage of a male face or head(and thus not to be covered in God’s presence), while I currently am drawn to believe more towards the concept that the image of God is reflected in the masculinity of the whole person physically and perhaps also to a lesser degree the masculinity of their mind and personality, and that the head is not covered symbolically, as it represents the best, utmost, and controlling aspect of the whole image.
    I think the early churches often syncretized Gnostic and stoic ideas, that sex and all of the desires of the flesh are innately bad and evil, often led them to discount the possibility that the image of God was or had a physical aspect. And later Victorian era prudence has kept our churches from much discussion of sexual characteristics and their relation to the image of God.

    I think Jesus discussion with a group of Jewish men, the Herodians, about a tribute coin carries more significance than we often realize. In a way I believe Jesus was teaching and reminding those “Romanized” Jewish men that their primary duty is in fact to God, not Caesar. The coin bore Caesar’s image and was circumscribed to him. The circumscription in Jesus time stated “Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus”.
    
    So the coin was stated to bear the image of the “son of a god”. Jesus taught that it was OK to give Caesar what was made in his image and was circumscribed to him. And then I believe he then astonished them all by making the Romanized Jewish Herodian men remember that they were both likewise cast in the image of God and circumcised as testimony to a covenant that their flesh and blood wholly belonged 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 have all been bought with a price, bought into Christ at the cost of his flesh and blood. The True God only wants men, not women, circumcised as belonging to Him. Women were made by God for men, and given to men, to be men’s cherished possession. But those Jewish men were reminded that their lives and bodies were doubly God’s, both created in His image, and circumcised as being God’s chosen possession and posterity. The Herodians had been sent to lay a trap for Jesus, but instead they all marveled at his answer. If Jesus had been just saying to pay off both God and Caesar with some of your money they would not have been left marveling at Him.
    Mark 12:16 And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s. 17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,[the tribute coins] and to God the things that are God’s.[men’s whole bodies, as a living sacrifice] And they marveled at him.

    It disgusts me that filthy greedy money-whoring pastors falsely teach that Jesus was trying to teach us, in that passage, just to hand over some of our money to their church. I don’t think the Pharisees and Herodians would have been left marveling if Jesus had just been understood by them to be telling them to pay their taxes while also shilling for the temple fund-raiser. There is a great and glorious truth in there to be marveled at, for those with ears to hear, who aren’t just too money minded to see the image of God and the covenant of circumcision, and men’s required duty, divinely illustrated by Jesus through the coin.

    Reply

38. “The image of God is the married couple: the man and the woman; not only the man, not only the woman, but both of them together,” said the Pope.

    Once Again the Pope is a partially right, partially wrong, perverter and usurper of the Christian faith.(a Great Whore) This idea that women equally image God, and are therefore equal, and that Mary was possibly divine or sinless, even a co-redeemer, is Roman heresy, and the root of satanic baby-sacrificing Feminism.
    Jesus was bodily the fullness of the Godhead. No side-chick or earthly wife was needed for Christ to fully image all of the image of God within himself.

    Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

    I guess a key question is how we as men are to live out our superiority, with humility and duty, to be Christ, or to image God, to those who need our care and to be blessed with our overflowing abundance of Godly virtue, that we should strive to have and share. That is a question we must try to figure out for ourselves, as we have not seen it modeled by the previous generation of deceived Feminist churchians. Men were better respected and had more authority in my father’s generation, but they had lost the divine basis for it, and so it was just a vestige remaining within the culture, that has now all been stolen away, since men were deceived into giving up their divine birthright to the Roman/Babylonian deception of the Great Whore’s goddess worship, celebrating and deifying all that is feminine, and men have grown up untaught as to why they are due reverence, and why their masculine virtues are so important, or even that there are virtues associated with masculinity. We are currently being taught that masculinity is “toxic”. The flack is heaviest directly over the target. Satan doesn’t want the image of God to be properly reverenced.

    Reply

39. The whole concept of man and woman- cojoined- being the fulfillment of the image of God coming from the RCC explains so much. It is a latent form of works-based theology.

    Don’t tell those blessed with celibacy that they are not made in the image of God.
    Don’t tell Adam.
    Don’t tell Paul.
    And whatever you do, don’t tell Jesus.

    Reply

40. Sharkly, thank you for your kind words. To be honest, I’m still thinking more about the image of God and do not claim to have fully understood it, I hope God will show me what is good, without falling into a trap of overstating my case.

    Indeed, I’ve also been thinking about the significance of circumcision and the covenant of God; only boys were circumcised, girls were not. In Christ, we get a circumcision of the heart, which is for both men and women.

    Another interesting fact is that after birth of a child, women were declared unclean for a twice longer period if they gave birth to a daughter, than when giving birth to a son.

    And I’m still further looking into the testimony of the early Church. Of course we need to be careful, as not everything that has been written has equal truth in it, but it can show us how the Church thought and taught.

    I came across such an example in this excerpt from Tertullian (The Apparel of Women, Book I, Chapt. 1):

    “In pains and in anxieties do you bear (children), woman; and toward your husband (is) your inclination, and he lords it over you.” And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert — that is, death — even the Son of God had to die.

    The interesting thing is that sometimes you can learn a lot from your opponents. I found a page listing more quotes, labeled as ‘misogynistic’ by Marg Mowczko, a female fighter for Christian feminism (a.k.a. egalitarianism). Go there and wonder (https://margmowczko.com/misogynist-quotes-from-church-fathers/)

    Reply

41. Marg does give an interesting summary from her viewpoint as Christian Feminist, as well as questioning some of the more questionable teachings of Complementarianism, when she writes (https://margmowczko.com/kassian-complementarianism/):

    “Many of the early church fathers and later theologians have said terrible, derogatory things about women. This ignorant and hopelessly biased position of the church against women, like it or not, represents the traditional and historic belief on gender by the church.[3] The complementarianism that Mary Kassian writes about is a relatively new idea in the church[4] and has little in common with traditional or historical beliefs.”

    Mind you Marg is always writing polemically, but now and then she has to grudgingly acknowledge some historical facts when talking about man created in the image and glory of God:

    “Despite the challenges, many commentators of past generations have seemingly interpreted this verse with confidence. Yet they have interpreted it in ways that ignore and contradict what the rest of the Bible says about men and women as the image and glory of God. A common understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:7 has been that, compared with woman, man is a more direct reflection of God and man has a more direct relationship with God, and that these factors are displayed in the supposed superiority and authority of man in contrast to the inferior and subordinate status of woman.”

    She is of course adding her own slurs to be able to easily disregard these historic interpretations without spending too much time delving into them.

    This all from the mouth of one of the most vocal Christian Feminists, which is telling.

    Reply

42. I agree with your viewpoints, but what does this have to do with Luther? Do you think he was a heretic?

    Reply

43. John Gill summarises the thinking of many of his contemporaries and predecessors:

    “. . . man was first originally and immediately the image and glory of God, the woman only secondarily and mediately through man. The man is more perfectly and conspicuously the image and glory of God, on account of his more extensive dominion and authority.”

    Reply

44. Welcome diosescucha,
    I think Luther was a valuable reformer. He, along with other brave reformers, helped to start churches that were more Bible based than the Great Whore of Rome.

    You’re not going to believe this, but, I’ve been too busy to write any posts in a while, and I had decided last night, that today, I was just going to refer people to your four excellent posts about the Roman Catholic Church. I just have to finish reading the fourth one. Then I’ll put up a post referring people to them. So far the first three have been well worth the extensive reading. I am honored that you have come to my blog. So far I can recommend the first three posts that I have read without reservations, and that is saying a lot, because I correct just about everybody.

    Reply

45. Lol! Thank you sir. I’m honored to hear that.

    Reply

46. Paul,
    Yes, God has used Marg’s, and other feminists’, work against them. In their quest to make the early fathers of the Christian faith seem unloving towards women by showing their quotes, boldly denouncing womanly usurpation and women’s vainglory in themselves, I have been emboldened to share my views, realizing that they are not some new interpretation, but the original beliefs first taught in all the churches. I doubt I’d have come across those quotes if the Feminazis hadn’t laid them all out, to teach me the wisdom of the early church. LOL You can’t outsmart God.
    Proverbs 21:30 No wisdom, no understanding, no counsel can avail against the Lord.
    Perhaps it might be appropriate to ask Marg, “It is hard for you to kick against the goads?” LOL

    Reply

47. Radical feminism was and is a lie from hell orchestrated by David Rockefeller who openly claimed it as his invention to draw women into the workplace so the CYSTem would profit more.

    It is clear to note the major differences between tainted and twisted femi-stalinist fake women and genuine women who are now rare but indescribably sublime with possession of an inner beauty defying description.

    The enemies of all that is good have arranged since the late 1960’s to place the fairer gender under attack knowing that to destroy them will also seriously damage children and the male gender.

    The enemy are they who “make and love a lie” easily identified as the left in any form and now exposed as mainstream media liars, education CYSTem, apostate religions, follywood, and all political parties leftist.

    Reply

48. Welcome edward kennedy,
    I agree we are in a battle with the forces of evil, and Feminism is their lying excuse for throwing off God’s righteous way of patriarchy. Women who are not greatly afflicted by our culture’s lies are rare as rubies, and even then they need consistent husbanding. Lies & excuses are the constant resort of those who oppose God’s word and God’s ways.

    Reply

49. Paul,
    “Another interesting fact is that after birth of a child, women were declared unclean for a twice longer period if they gave birth to a daughter, than when giving birth to a son.”

    I’ve been reading in the Book of Jubilees, and there was an explanation. It says that Adam was created on the sixth day of the first week, and then was the Sabbath. Then for five days Adam met and named all the animals. And on the sixth day of the second week God made Eve, from Adam’s rib, brought her to Adam, and he knew her.
    In the first week was Adam created, and the rib – his wife: in the second week He showed her unto him: and for this reason the commandment was given to keep in their defilement, for a male seven days, and for a female twice seven days.
    It also goes into more detail about why the 40 or 80 days until final purification and being able to enter the sanctuary after a birth, if you want to read that section of the book of Jubilees. Apparently Adam was taken into the holy sanctuary of Eden on the 40th day, while the angels didn’t bring Eve into the garden until the 80th day. And it says that after seven years in the second month on the seventeenth day was when they ate the forbidden fruit. However I’m not good enough with the Hebrew calendar to tell you exactly what day of the year that would equate to for us.

    Reply

50. This post reminds me of a unknown christian writer who was recently told:
    ”While its okay to beleive in butthexing at this (redacted) churchian site,its not churchian-approved to quote it!
    Even though the unknown christian writer was out preaching MOSES&JESUS years before most of the churchians at that site had known about truth through butthexingz butthexts that bringth the churchianz great comfort against those who preach ”THE EXALTED WORDS OF MOSES&JESUS” that GOD demands all to beleive in,not faux masculine fratboy ministry buttextual aidz!
    In other words a true redpill prophet dos’nt beleive in purplepill lostaz cockaz
    churchian buttextual teachings no matter what period!

    Heres some lyrics of a song that explains the situation very well from the ’80’s:
    ”It’ll be a cold day in hell
    You’re freezing me, can’t you tell
    On a cold day in hell
    How much of your soul can you sell”

    Empty eyes of heartless friends
    The night is mine again
    Bitter streets of evil stares
    No one listens, no one cares

    But cold steel is made to last
    And chains of gold are broken fast
    Cold city ain’t freezing me
    Things aren’t what they seem to be”

    Purple is not the true color of the redpill,no matter what the crowds of churchianz say!

    Reply

51. You’re in good company, professorGBFM™2021! The churchians like to twist the Gospel of Christ into a license to do evil.
    Jude 1:4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

    Their evolution based psychology beliefs functionally deny their Creator and thereby they portray God as a liar. And their promotion of and glorying in their past fornication just serves to show you where their heart is, still enslaved to their cunt-worship.
    When they can’t accept your message (from Moses & Jesus Christ) they will try to disqualify the messenger, and when they can’t find adequate fault with your life, then they resort to picking at the words you use. The CUNT-worshippers don’t like me using the word “cunt”. It takes the name of their deity in vain. And so I like to say “cunt”, just for that purpose. When I am judged, nobody will be able to say that I didn’t frequently insult and shame the Great Whore, the enemy of the true bride of Christ. I know it can be difficult to shame a whore, because right now they’re very shameless, but those words will ring true against them for eternity.
    Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

    Those who are immodest and shameless now, spinning God’s grace into a license for all kinds of lawlessness, will spend all of eternity in the abhorrence and perpetual contempt of God and all of His righteous, incorruptible, and resplendent servants. We will see the smoke, of the torment of the lawless ones, that rises up forever and ever. Amen!
    They should repent of their idolatry now while they still may be able to.

    Perhaps I could get you to write a definitive blurb on “Butthexing”, since we can discuss it here.

    Reply