I decided to post this slightly adapted comment I left elsewhere.
First, watch this brief clip where Doc Holliday psychoanalyzes outlaw villain Johnny Ringo. Doc seems aided by introspection regarding his own troubled life.
cameron232 Had commented: “Listening to the feminists at work I figured out the following years ago: it’s not about equality it’s about revenge. Payback time.”
If you view the movie clip as an analogy, Feminists have a great empty hole right through the middle of them. And they want revenge on God for being born, female. They can never kill enough (through abortion) or steal enough (through legislated female equality of outcome, set-asides, and favoritism) or inflict enough pain (through no-fault divorce, child custody battles, hostile accusations, and constant disrespect of men) to ever fill up their gap of inequality and to make themselves feel satisfied in light of the depth of their soul’s “unresolved penis envy”. Feminists intuitively realize God made them a “weaker vessel” yet they seemingly cannot resolve themselves to just willingly accept that lot, which they can never change.
As Cill pointed out, young men are angered by receiving constant disrespectful treatment and are naturally turning against those Feminists who oppress them just for their creation as stronger vessels, which in all reality they also cannot truly categorically change.
The desire to change sexes, which was once correctly recognized as a disorder of the mind, is now foolishly being empowered. And it is greatly harmful to the deceived ones, who imagine that pretending to be remade, as the other sex, will somehow assuage their underlying dissatisfaction and their refusal to accept their Creator’s unequal and unalterable categorical ranking and expectations for them, as defined by their birth sex.
Fear God, and give glory to Him. And show reverence to men forasmuch as they exhibit God’s image and glory. (1 Corinthians 11:7) (Ephesians 5:33)
It’s the ultimate form of moral inversion. Women are raised and trained to be men while men are discouraged to the point where they stay home. Behold the “Mister Mom” trend that I see in California.
The inversion of sexual morality (and reality) is driving the moral inversion of everything else via Progressivism. New is Better because Old is women being homemakers. Now government promotes anarchy while the banks encourage debt. Because the Regressive alternative… is the way things used to be! And the only way to get that is to start at home.
The crazy part is, people can’t see it without Christ pointing it out. I certainly haven’t succeeded. Original Sin seems like such a silly and obvious thing, yet it’s the great flaw in the human soul.
Regret, coming from an action one makes, realizing a justifiably better option exists.
Revenge, coming from the action another makes, resulting in your having to deal with a better option existing.
It is not just women with seething hatred for men.
The monster hated his creator. (Frankenstein)
Black women hating white women’s hair.
Adoptees hating their adoptive parents.
Low T men hating the class of men who are natural jocks.
There is never appreciation for what they have going for them, and what others have done for them.. There is a fundamental gap between who someone is, versus the environment in which they find themselves, knowing they are an outsider. They are who they are.
They are powerless to change the environment, but they can perhaps take out their pain on the perpetrator. That which reminds them of their shortcomings.
The spirit of Jezebel applies not solely to women writ large.
The most dire cases of greed stem from the have-not’s, wanting to erase the delta with the have’s.
The ongoing conflict between men/women a consequence of the fall re; Adam and Eve. It will never be repaired.
In our own time the real conflict, the “hot war,” will come when a critical mass of feminists can no longer avoid the reality that their ideology has failed them completely, that they just as empty and unfulfilled as “empowered” women than as disempowered. Being too deeply entrenched in their own pride to admit defeat, they will fight against reality with a renewed savagery and ferocity that can only be fueled to such strength by the father of all lies himself.
Females
Exherting
Maximum
Influence to
Nationally
Institute
Socialism and
Marxism
She has improved.
https://thetransformedwife.com/is-complementarianism-biblically-sufficient-no/
That’s a properly salty woman actively knowing the truth from the lie. Good on her for no longer entertaining the grey.
If you haven’t heard this before, then I hope you find it interesting.
Joel makes the case women are made in the image of God also, but have a different glory.
https://rightresponseministries.com/radio/shows/questions/should-women-wear-a-head-covering-at-church/
I’d love to hear your comments, or anyond else’s about it.
surfdumb,
As I listen to your link, although this guy doesn’t just outright dismiss the apostle Paul’s commands, as so many modern false teachers do. He does seem to just rewrite the passage to mean whatever he wants it to. e.g. “Praying or prophesying” can only mean specifically all of a church service on Sunday, but never a prayer said on a Tuesday privately or with only friends or family present. He seemingly deems his own opinion as somehow far more inspired than the actual clearly written divinely inspired text. And then his personal opinion gets used as a basis to correct the apostle Paul’s supposed divinely inspired misstatement of God’s will. At 34:20 Joel Webbon says that the apostle Paul’s basis for head covering is not grounded in any time or place, but grounded upon God’s initial creation of men and women, which fact he uses to refute those who claim that the commandment only applied in Corinth and back in the Apostle’s time, but apparently Joel doesn’t realize that his same point also refutes his personal limiting of the head covering commandment only to church on Sundays. He seems to just expect gullible people to believe him, unquestioningly, because what he is saying isn’t even internally consistent. He says that the scripture is absolutely clear when it says it is a shame for a woman to speak in church, yet he also implies that when the scripture tells us that it is a shame for a woman to pray or prophesy without her head covered, that God is clearly a dumbass who can’t write well, but lucky for us, Joel’s here to sort out what God really meant to say. Joel seems to be saying, If it’s Tuesday night with a small group of friends, screw the angels, defy your Creator, just follow the goddess within yourselves, ladies. Joel’s argument about the image and the glory of God from 1 Corinthians 11:7, also lacks internal cohesion.(or contains cognitive dissonance) If, as he claims, contrary to the text, women are the image of the eternal Father & Son, how is it that the image of God does not bear God’s glory like we are clearly told that it does in men? Joel claims at 40:00 that his is the most faithful way to “exegete” the text. (“exegete” is a noun, not a verb) After having spent the previous half hour telling us why the text couldn’t mean what it clearly says, that a man should not, and woman should, cover their head whenever praying or prophesying. LOL
His R.C. Sproul argument at the end was solid, and reminiscent of Pascal’s Wager. Overall he claims to “exegete” the text, yet his interpretation never gives any hint that he has even looked at the relevant text in the original Biblical languages. One point that many head covering advocates have pointed out is that when the apostle Paul, a Jewish lawyer, says that the woman’s hair is given to her as a “covering”, He uses an entirely different Greek word than the word translated as “covering” everywhere else in the chapter. That is hugely significant that he even uses a completely different word for it. And sadly our English translations usually don’t show that inspired difference in the text. Also he says that in Genesis that it says that “mankind” was made in God’s image, when Genesis says in the Hebrew that “Adam” was made in God’s image. And the English word “mankind”, can also mean the opposite of “womankind”. He should check out my post on that: https://laf443259520.androsphere.net/2020/11/17/genesis-51-5/
I’m glad that he at least advocates for female head covering, even if only in a church setting. But It seems as if his religion offers women a pass to be brazen and dishonorable all week, defying God and even offending against God’s holy angels, so long as they play church to the max for a couple hours on Sunday.
Twice Joel says he is not a “Jerk” about head covering. As if those who take 1 Corinthians 11 as it was literally written are being jerks for encouraging women to obey God. Weak-sauce! LOL Joel claims that he and Doug Wilson are certainly not Feminists, as if that proves that they could not possibly be under any Feminist delusions. While I myself, even while publishing a far more patriarchal viewpoint than they do, acknowledge that I am likely still blind to much of the Feminist deception that has deluded our world, that we all grew up accustomed to. Joel Webbon also identified himself with Bnonn & Foster who claim that on the Feminist spectrum anybody to either side of them must be off in the ditch. But I find that each time I think I’ve gone as far as I can to Biblically renounce all my Feminism, I discover still more remnants of idolatrous Feminist beliefs and woman worshipping worldview raised up in opposition to God’s Biblical truth and against His holy patriarchy. Where you draw the line just depends on where you fall on the spectrum of fearing God or fearing women. Giving your worth-ship to serve the eternal Father of holy patriarchy or to serve the Great Whore. Some only give God lip-service, or only wear God’s commanded symbol at church on Sunday. The Father sees their lip-service. They say “I will honor & obey you”, and then the head coverings come flying off before they’ve even driven out of the church parking lot.(pray without ceasing) The head covering is no longer an enduring symbol of feminine obedience, like in more righteous generations, some outright reject the symbol of female submission, while for others it has instead become just a visible token of their willingness to only play a Christ-following role, at most, briefly while at church.
india_kilo_romeo,
Lori has always been the bolder one, and Ken was often the one trying to walk back her truth-bombs. For a patriarchist like myself it is painful to watch Ken “White-Knighting” for the Feminists while his wife is faithfully attacking their false teachings. It probably irks you too.
It did. Not anymore. Your observation between L+K is spot on.
In the sheepdogging world, it is common to see male handlers perform better with bitches, while female handlers perform better with the male dogs. Something about jivving male (human/animal) energy with female (animal/human) energy.
When I was ‘in the game’ searching for a bride of my own, the only worthy women were already tied up with men, often schlumps on multiple counts. But to their (worthiness) credit, they were dedicated to seeing themselves submissive to him.
I’ve come to see that God permits quality women to pair with subpar men, so as to bring life to 1 Pt 3:1.
I’ve come to expect quality men choosing subpar women, so as to demonstrate the direct analogy of 1 Co 11:3.
I have always been very keen about who I am, my relative ‘value’, my mission in life, service to my Creator, and sought an equivalent version within a woman. Nothing less would bring me glory, which is the Design as outlined in 1 Co 11.
I’ve come to accept one of the purposes of my life is to exemplify Pr 21:19 / 25:24 / etc.
As I began: it did bother me when I looked for equal weights and measures to be applied within my life. It does not anymore.
I am a slave to Christ. My life is not my own. Everything in this World is being orchestrated so as to bring Him glory.
surf, good to see you still kicking around.
I was talking with a woman many sun cycles ago who was a solid 8-9/10 (every man has weighs his scales differently), and during courting, she asked my thoughts on her wearing a covering. She was adamant that if I was embarrassed/ashamed, let alone against it, that she was not the woman for me. A militant desire to show the world she was property of a husband, belonged to him.
This belonging, and public demonstration of male headship, does not have a ‘pause/play’ feature. Her hair- her body- is to be for his enjoyment alone, and to be kept from tempting other men. A woman’s hair is her earliest feminine feature, demonstrating her glory long before she comes of age, and lasts long past fertility (and other aspects of her beauty).
A woman with short hair spits in the face of God. Barring old age (natural causes) or medical treatments (eg. cancer), a woman’s hair is to be long.
It is to be both long and covered. It is the only understanding that requires 0 gymnastics to understand the passage.
Sharkly and Iceman, thank you for checking out the podcast. I recently made a new friend who attends a church with head coverings so I will ask what they do in regard to it outside of Sundays.
Sharkly, is your proceedings over? Does that mean you finally get time with your sons? Stupid question, but did your lawyer apologize or give you a refund, or at least give you an honest reply by acknowledging he hated you?
Surfdumb,
I’m sorry I have not answered you sooner. We had our last day of final arguments in cunt-court February 17th. The judge said he would issue his final decision within a week or two. That was almost four months ago. The last time I emailed the court they claimed they had not heard anything from the judge yet.
I have to be very guarded in how I respond, because those children of the Deceiver, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, try to twist every word against the righteous, for their father the devil. I suspect they may quite possibly be working some further wickedness against me, as has been their pattern, and since such evil is their chosen vocation. But their evil doesn’t concern me. However, I believe they might be extremely fearful of me. LOL
Proverbs 28:1 The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.
I have been more than patient and afforded them every possible opportunity to repent of their wickedness.
With Full Metal Patriarchy closing shop, Boxer not so long ago, Dalrock, and almost GunnerQ, are you thinking of doing the same since you haven’t made a post in 7 months?
I hope not, and would be encouraged if you started posting again.
Yes I do intend to post on here, however I prefer to post when I feel like I’ve got something new to share or some new way of explaining something. I want to focus on teaching, and not so much on just reacting to current events with commentary. In the past there have been times when I’d force out a new post, just to have a new posting up. But I don’t think that sort of posting is as good as the other insight I have shared. Anyhow, I do have a couple of linked Bible verses to expound upon, with new insight, but then last weekend I was busy, and this weekend I came down really sick. But hopefully I’ll be able to have it posted after next weekend.
I have also been mulling over the possibility of producing some videos made from some of the things I have expounded upon here. Not so much because I think video is the best format, but because it seems to be getting more popular all the time while blog reading seems to be falling off in popularity. And I’d like to get the correcting of the church’s foundational mistruths out to the widest audience possible. You cannot truly rebuild God’s holy order of patriarchy if you believe women are somehow as much the image of a hermaphrodite Father and Son as men are. Women being falsely purported to be equally in the image of God was the deceitful foundation that modern Western Feminism was built upon.
Until we get people to realize that men image God and women don’t, patriarchy is D.O.A. How can others claim to be restoring God’s holy patriarchy on a foundation of sexual equality? That’s been tried for the last 1600 years, and it has got us exactly to where we are today. We have to go back to before when Christianity first started to go astray into the deification and worship of women. Back to when it was obvious why all wives should reverence their husbands, and not just because Ephesians 5:33 commands it. We have to get back to when the apostolic and patristic church unanimously wrote that only men were the image of God. We have to get back to the original belief as recorded in verses like 1 Corinthians 11:7 and James 3:9, and I’ll show you a couple more telling verses in my upcoming post.