How to tell others about God’s loving plan of patriarchy?

Where I work I usually get a couple emails weekly about what the company is doing to empower women, or increase diversity. Supposedly diversity of ideas is a good thing, and apparently you get it by hiring and promoting people who don’t look like myself. LOL However, even though my ideas are quite outside the mainstream, instead of being celebrated for such diversity of thought, I know I might be fired for sharing my diverse beliefs with some of the “diverse” people at work. Although I do continually push the envelope at work, sharing more about Godly Sexism than anybody else I know there.

I bought the shirt, shown above, from Amazon and wore it yesterday.(not to work) My boys were the first to ask me what the 19th amendment was. And It gave me the chance to share with them that the 19th amendment allowed women to vote in the USA.

Later I got to briefly share the calamity of women voting with a stocker at Walmart who asked me what the 19th amendment was. He didn’t really say anything in return. I assume he had been coached not to speak of his personal politics with customers. But, his facial expression looked shocked, like he’d just had his pussy grabbed.

Our country has made a grave mistake by letting women “help” rule us. And as expected, ideological politics descended from written platforms and whole speeches printed in newspapers, into glamour photos and quotable quips from the candidates. Today we have memes and soundbites, but the effect is the same. Both parties left off deep discussion of the candidates stances and ideas and effectively turned elections into beauty contests judged by flighty “undecided” women.

Giving women the vote also meant the inevitable passage of “women’s issues”, e.g. Abortion on demand,(babies are drawn & quartered in their mother’s wombs) No-Fault Divorce,(family men are absolutely ruined for No-Fault of their own) the Sexual Harassment campaign,(that criminalizes even the mildest pursuit and advances by unwelcomed men) Equal pay for twice the drama, and every imaginable perversion of virtue and justice along with a whole raft of freebies and carveouts designed to provide for women who don’t care to treat any man respectably enough to earn that provision from him. So, women voting has brought a murderous reign of family devastation upon our nation and world, and I don’t see what we’ve gained by making women so entitled.

If we feel men were created by God to be the leaders, and run society in accordance with God’s will, then we need to be able to openly share those Godly ideas, before we can ever expect we’ll get others to agree with them and adopt them.

While searching WordPress for some truth, I stumbled upon a goldmine! Here are four excellent posts explaining the Roman Catholic Church. They are well worth reading, in order, especially if you are Catholic. They are in English, as well as Spanish. They’d be great to send to your favorite Catholic.

Debunking the Roman Catholic Church

Debunking the Roman Catholic Church, Part II

Debunking the Roman Catholic Church, Part III

Debunking the Roman Catholic Church, Part IV

Please share your reactions below.

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

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

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

Now on to the Good.

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

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

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

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

Martin Luther is remembered annually on Reformation day, October 31, 1517, for when he began the Protestant Reformation by nailing his 95 Theses, protesting the sale of indulgences, to the door of All Saints’ Church in Wittenberg, Germany. His ensuing one man public battle with the Catholic Church was made possible by the arrival of printing presses, whose owners printed, and widely sold to the public, copies of Luther’s criticisms and condemnations of the wayward church. 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.

Heresiarch definition: Arch-Heretic – an originator or chief advocate of a heresy.

I am Sharkly, and as you may know, I consider it foundational to our Christian faith that we understand who God is, and who we are. I believe God is masculine or male, a Father, Son, and their masculine Spirit, and that men alone are earthly likenesses or images of God. I believe we are told of this repeatedly in the Bible. I believe the misunderstanding of God and humankind has led Christendom and the world back into the serpent’s trap of once again deifying women and catering to Eve’s desires rather than the will of our Creator, thereby we worship a creature rather than our Creator. We as a society make ongoing human child sacrifices, through abortion, at the altar of idolatrous Feminism. In just our generation we have shed more innocent blood, tearing more babies to bits, than all who died from all the wars of history combined. The Heavenly Father in great anger will hold our generation to account for this unprecedented sacrifice of innocent babies at the satanic altar of female supremacy. We must repent and return to the ways set up by our loving Father!

I first realized that men alone were in the image of God by reading Genesis 1:26-27

²⁶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
²⁷ So God created man in his own image.
In the image of God created he him.
Male and female created he them.

It became apparent to me after reading this that God clearly mentioned man/him(Adam in Hebrew) being made/created in God’s image or likeness, four times right in a row, while then contrastingly telling us that male & Female(them) were only just created by God, with conspicuously no mention of it being done in God’s image. God clearly went out of His way to solidify that Adam was made in His image, but never is Eve or womankind said to be in God’s image. So I searched the scriptures for the image of God, and every single place it is mentioned it is assigned to the masculine Adam/men/Jesus.(in non-neutered Bibles) The Apostle Paul made it quite clear that men alone are the image of God in 1 Corinthians 11:7

⁶ For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. ⁷ For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

No part of God Himself needs to be exhibited through the feminine, because all of God is masculine in Himself and in His representation. Jesus Christ did not need a female counterpart to exhibit the full image of God according to Colossians 2:9 ( Colossians 1:19 states similar)

⁹ For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

(ESV) 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

There is no exclusively female aspect to the image of God. The whole of the image of God was shown in Jesus Christ, a man come in the flesh, the Son of God.

I have also come to discover that this is what the early church taught and unanimously believed. Saint Augustine said: But we must notice how that which the apostle says, that not the woman but the man is the image of God, is not contrary to that which is written in Genesis, “God created man: in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them: and He blessed them.” For this text says that human nature itself, which is complete in both sexes, was made in the image of God; and it does not separate the woman from the image of God which it signifies. For after saying that God made man in the image of God, “He created him,” it says, “male and female:” or at any rate, punctuating the words otherwise, “male and female created He them.” How then did the apostle tell us that the man is the image of God, and therefore he is forbidden to cover his head; but that the woman is not so, and therefore is commanded to cover hers? Unless, forsooth, according to that which I have said already, when I was treating of the nature of the human mind, that the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one.

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

Epistle of “Mathetes” to Diognetus 10:2a For God loved men (… whom He created after His own image …) for whose sake He made the world, to whom He subjected all things that are in the earth … [This includes women, who are repeatedly told to be in subjection to their fathers and then husbands]

In past posts I have shared other quotes from early church fathers sharing the unanimous belief of the apostolic and patristic church that only men are the express images of God and designated as representatives of God, here living on earth. 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 appease 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. How could Mary be claimed to be equal with Jesus Christ if she wasn’t even in the image of deity? Mary went from being a minor figure, less mentioned in the Bible than some other women, to then being claimed to be co-redemptrix with Christ, who is the central hero of the Bible. Today the false belief in women being made in the image of God has been brought to its logical conclusion of making women fully equal to men, just as Mary was blasphemously made equal with Christ. And today God’s institution of marriage is being debased, and families destroyed, since marriages won’t operate properly because a democracy of two equals can’t resolve conflict and attain the solidarity of a patriarchal family that works together to achieve one man’s ambition, as God intended. Just as the Protestant reformation after over a millennium rolled back the false divinity of Mary, returning all the reverence due solely to Jesus Christ as all the fullness of the Godhead in human flesh, so also, the image of God, the birthright of men, is a reverence, long stolen, that urgently needs to be returned solely to men.

Here is some Early church advice on telling heretics from true teachers:

Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) Chapter 11. Concerning Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets. 11:1 Whosoever therefore shall come and teach you all these things that have been said before, receive him; 2 But if the teacher himself be perverted and teach another doctrine to destroy these things, do not listen to him. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord.

So, who is teaching the doctrine that was delivered to the apostolic church? Based upon the words of the Apostle Paul, and upon the remaining writings of many of the earliest church Fathers, that would be those of us who teach that women by themselves are not the image of God, but that women and men portray Jesus Christ(who is God) and his bride the true church that is eventually to become one with the Lord.

Which doctrine fits best with the rest of scripture, and which doctrine destroys other scriptural doctrines? The belief that both sexes represent the image of the Most High God, and are thus equal in their rank and dignity, fights against so many other teachings of the Bible:

1. Ephesians 5 teaches us that husbands image Jesus Christ, while wives image the church. So the sexes are clearly not equal.
2. Women are told to be in subjection.(1Peter 3:1-2) So the sexes are clearly not equal.
3. Men alone are allowed to represent God and teach His word to both men and women.(1 Timothy 2:12) So the sexes are clearly not equal.
4. Women are not to usurp authority over men. (1 Timothy 2:12) So the sexes are clearly not equal.
5. Women are to reverence their husbands (Ephesians 5:33) So the sexes are clearly not equal.
6. Women are to cover their heads in prayer, but men should not.(1 Corinthians 11:3-9) So the sexes are clearly not equal when coming before God.
7. Man was created preeminently in God’s image, while woman was secondly created from man’s flesh and bone.(Genesis 1:26-27, Genesis 2:18-24) So the sexes are clearly not equal in their creation.
8. The husband is to be the head,(1 Corinthians 11:3) and the wife the helper.(Genesis 2:18) So the sexes are clearly not equal in rank.
9. Women are unavoidably ceremonially unclean during menstruation,(Leviticus 15:19-27, Leviticus 18:19, Ezekiel 18:5-6, Ezekiel 36:17) So the sexes are clearly not equal. Nor does that periodic uncleanness fit the image of God.
10. Women are natural defilers. (Revelation 14:4) So the sexes are clearly not equal.
11. We are clearly told that women are the “weaker vessel”.(1 Peter 3:7) So the sexes are clearly not equal.
12. We are told specifically that women are to be shamefaced. (1 Timothy 2:9) So the sexes are clearly not of equal glory and status.

Those are just a dozen of the many other doctrines that are damaged by having women equally in the image of the Most High God, that first popped into my head. Feel free to offer more in the comments section.

Some women might falsely claim that giving husband’s dominion, as unto the Lord, will lead to cruelty and abuses, well here is how it should work as described by the apostolic church:

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

So as you can see, being the image of God places greater duty upon the man, to look out for his inferior, including the call to be ready to lay his life down for his bride, like Christ(God) did for His bride the church. Truly understanding and practicing God’s order for the family will lead to deeper love and harmony than the lie of having two supposed equals constantly contending with each other for control.

So in conclusion, I want to bring the church back to its original teaching on womankind, where “ she is not the likeness of God but is under subjection.” This fits far better with the rest of the Bible’s doctrines, and it destroys the basis for evil Feminism that has unleashed so much death and destruction against our own children. God’s plan is based upon His love, and will promote greater harmony between the sexes again, when properly followed. Join me in returning back to God’s simple truth.

Quite a tasty appetizer

But, today I’ll have to serve up the accompanying meat.

I just received a lengthy new update from Dominic “Bnonn” Tennant and Pastor Michael Foster AKA “It’s Good To Be A Man”, #8: Androgyny is literally paganism.

Bnonn & Foster present the case that Satan wants to completely muddle the inherent natural divisions between the sexes and/or invert the God ordained ranking of the sexes. And that any attempt to diminish the God ordained fundamental differences between the sexes, or to invert the male superior order to the sexes, is to help Satan’s cause and to oppose God. They teach that androgyny is not just people who get “sex changes” or are transvestites, but also includes those who actively work to diminish the public belief in inherent sexual differences and to change the natural roles God intends for each of the sexes. Bnonn & Foster seem to imply that those whom they call “Christian androgynists” will not go to heaven unless they repent:

What we mean by this is that androgyny is a “gospel issue.” It is a kind of sexual immorality, the practitioners of which will not see the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9, NASB). In other words, androgyny is not a faux pas, where you violate the social expectations of men and women in God’s kingdom. It is a heresy, where you violate the integrity of the gospel itself by syncretizing it with another religion. [Feminism – or Androgynism as Bnonn & Foster call it]

Bnonn & Foster quote “Christian androgynist” Rachel Green Miller:

For instance, Mrs. Miller claims that “submission in marriage and in the church is an example of equals agreeing to submit to the authority of leaders they have chosen for themselves. There is order, but not subordination” … We have been stewing in androgyny culturally for so long that much of it looks completely normal; the thing that has begun to seem strange and offensive to us is God’s design.

The upshot is that if you ask Christian androgynists why women are not to be pastors or heads of houses—why, in other words, it is always the woman who must “choose” to submit in these relationships of equals?—they do not have an answer. It is as if God simply declared it by fiat to test our faith. They strenuously deny that women should not be pastors because of their ontology, their being. If they were to accept that, they would also have to accept that women should not be presidents or policemen for the same reason—and that is unthinkable in a culture of androgyny. As Mark Jones puts it in his own review of Mrs. Miller’s book, “What is the actual reason for submission/subordination? Is it simply because God says so (positive law) or is it also because God has made it so (creational, fixed)?”

It is at the heart of paganism to deny that God has made it so.

So, Bnonn & Foster make many good points, but in the end they just fall short and can’t make the only argument that will hold up, because they both are still completely in the Christian androgynist’s camp when it comes to both men and women equally being the image of their apparently hermaphroditic God. Consequently, according to that, any reasonable mind can figure out that men and women are still left morally exactly equal by both equally imaging God Most High, God does then therefore rule by capricious fiat, and Bible believing men are really just control-freaks and pretentious usurpers of women.

If the reasons why women aren’t allowed to preach are solely biological, then it only stands to reason, that they are matters of varying degree from person to person. While the ancients held that men were generally stronger physically, mentally, constitutionally, and emotionally, these are all matters of degree with exceptions too numerous to be counted. There is likely some old salty woman who is less gullible even than these two young Christian teachers.

If the qualification to represent God is something exclusively male, like a man’s penis being the measure of what makes a good preacher, then correspondingly I should already be one of the greatest, and everybody should fully comprehend these thoughts as I relay them, by virtue of my exceptional natural giftedness in that regard. However, I don’t recall the apostles or the great preachers of old extolling their manhoods to back up their calling, so I don’t believe my schlong is what qualifies me to share God’s word with other men.

So, what really makes men the images and representatives of Christ, able to represent God as teachers of His Word, while all women are not? Well I fully believe God’s Bible when it tells me:

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

Is the apostle Paul deceiving us there? Why must the reason that all women are commanded to wear head coverings to pray while men are not, be something other than the only reason the inspired Apostle Paul gave us, directly from God Most High Himself? Should we not believe God? Men are not to cover the image of God when seeking to enter the presence of God, because it is a dishonor to cover the image in the presence of the One whose likeness it is. Whereas women are instead to cover their heads and be adorned with shamefacedness, which would clearly not be a fit treatment for the image of God in the presence of God. So, if God is telling us the truth, and women are just the glory of men and do not represent God Himself, then one would expect that men would be the only sex that represents God here on earth, while wives are relegated to representing God’s church which is then to reverence God, and His image.(her husband ~ Ephesians 5:33) and we are each also therefore to honor all men.

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

So, if men alone are in the unsurpassable image of God Most High, then there can be no way that any woman could ever be any man’s equal. The basis for Satan’s entire lie of Feminism is destroyed and laid bare as a falsehood, once you know this truth. The truth is that the women of the early church all wore head coverings for the exact reason given by the Apostle Paul. The fathers of the early church were unanimous in their writings, that women are not by themselves images of God. The heresy of women independently imaging God came about towards the end of the fourth century AD, in Rome, after Rome had made Christianity the State religion, and state/church leaders were looking to make their religion more acceptable to the many forcibly converted goddess worshippers.(by deifying Mary. To make her divine, she had to also become the image of the divine.) Prior to this syncretism with goddess worship, the church fathers handed down the truth they had learned from the apostles regarding who was in the image of God:

Tertullian said: And do you not know that you are Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway; you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die.

Augustine said: Woman does not possess the image of God in herself but only when taken together with the male who is her head, so that the whole substance is one image. But when she is assigned the role as helpmate, a function that pertains to her alone, then she is not the image of God. But as far as the man is concerned, he is by himself alone the image of God just as fully and completely as when he and the woman are joined together into one.

Augustine said: “. . . woman was given to man, woman who was of small intelligence and who perhaps still lives more in accordance with the promptings of the inferior flesh than by superior reason. Is this why the apostle Paul does not attribute the image of God to her?”

So, Bnonn & Foster are still befuddled by this latter day heresy of women somehow representing God’s likeness, perhaps imagining the Father & Son exploring their “feminine side”, and it causes them to have to grasp at straws and paint God as a bit unreasonable in his preference for the male of our species .

But hey, if God is also female, why wouldn’t she be attracted to me? This farce just continues to write itself. LOL

As I mentioned in a previous comment, I had posted an argument on bnonn.com that the reason men don’t wear head coverings to pray, while women do, is because just the man is the image and glory of God, just like The Apostle Paul told us, but the woman is the glory of man, but Bnonn deleted my clearly reasoned comment. Apparently, to these teachers who would have you believe the image of God is androgynous or hermaphroditic, my original early church belief that I reflect a male God, not a female goddess, is just unthinkable.

When lies have been accepted for some time, the truth always astounds with an air of novelty. ~ Clement of Alexandria

Just when you thought this farce could go no further … over at bnonn.com, where my masculine early church view is censored from the discussion, Bnonn is content to be discussing one man’s strange view that the “covering” actually means testicles! The early church must have got it wrong, the women were supposed to wear testicles on their heads, or cover their testicles, or some sort of absolute Bnonnsense.

Bnonn says: I don’t discount the possibility that Paul specifically uses peribolaion to evoke a double entendre, to allude to Hippocratic physiology—but I don’t think that is his primary meaning. Certainly he may also want his audience to think of how sensual a woman’s hair is; that it is akin to a sexual organ, and therefore should be covered in worship.

Folks, the Apostle Paul wasn’t writing about women wearing testicles on their heads, that is just Bnonn being a nut-head. Professing themselves to be wise, they make absolute clowns of themselves when they must ignore the plain meaning of the scripture to accommodate their own syncretism. Yet God has those mockers who would try to neuter Him, in derision. They just apparently can’t see what eternal clowns they are making of themselves. LOL

(Referring to 1 Corinthians 11:7) Bnonn says: Why, then, is woman the glory of man? Is she not made in the image of God? Any modern Christian who claims not to get at least uneasy reading this passage—and probably tight under the collar—is fibbing. We are so conditioned by feminism we can’t help it.

LOL Poor Bnonn! all hot and bothered! Speaking of testicles … Maybe he’s got a case of spiritually undescended testicles. He and Pastor Michael Foster perhaps should both consider acquiring a functioning pair. Perhaps because I know that I am the manifest image of God, and women are not, it gives me greater confidence when speaking to them. I have no problem whatsoever telling women that they are not the image of God and remaining as cool as a cucumber. And I can give them God’s Bible verse for it too. ~ 1 Corinthians 11:7

“Minister” Creflo Dollar exiting his previous business jet.

Definition (verb form) ~ Minister:

• attend to the wants and needs of others
• to give help to or care for people
• to give aid or service, e.g. minister to the sick
• Etymology: from Latin minister, Meaning: servant

The prosperity preacher Creflo Dollar is notorious for asking his followers to buy him a top-of-the-line 65 million dollar business jet, after his jet pictured above was damaged. You can read about more of his profligate antics at this, Not Safe For Work (NSFW) link: Daily Mail Online ~ Creflo Dollar

In another widely publicized story Dollar was once booked into jail for beating his 15 year old daughter in order to keep the indiscretionate young lady from going out partying. As one commenter amusingly put it: “It sounds like Dollar was trying to knock some cents into the girl.”

Where does the always misapplied concept of Servant-Leadership come from?

Mark 10:41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John. 42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. 43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: 44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.

Jesus was speaking to his twelve disciples, who were to become the first leaders of his “bride” the church. Christ is the Head or Husband of the church, but while the Bridegroom is away, prior to His marriage feast, He has entrusted His bride to the care and ministry of various men. These men are not ordained to be interloping heads over Christ’s bride, but to be servants of Christ’s bride on Christ’s behalf.

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Clearly Christ is the true Head of the church. Husbands are the image of Christ, and are not to be without lordship in their own homes, while the leaders of the church are not its head, because Christ is the only head of the church. Ministers are to be the servants of the other men of the church, out of love for the brotherhood of faithful men. It is absolutely wrong of church misleaders, those greedy and power hungry charlatans, to forcibly foist their commanded servitude off onto husbands because that clearly reverses God’s word in multiple places, and husband’s need their lordship or families fall apart when wives are not obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. (Titus 2:5) So who do the men of the church report to?

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

The men of Christ’s church report directly to Christ, who is returning not to serve them again for another three years, but to rule with a rod of iron as omnipotent Lord for a thousand years. We would do well to notice that Jesus’ earthly ministry will be less than a third of a percent of the time He spends ruling over us here on earth. Although Christ came to serve and sacrifice and woo us to himself, as Christ cried out on the cross, “It is Finished!” He quickly commissioned His church leaders and then ascended into glory. His sacrificial work is done!

So how do churchmen relate to each other within the church since none is the head and ruler, but Christ?

Ephesians 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

So as we have seen from Ephesians 5 Christ and husbands are to be submitted to in everything. So is Christ not now our own personal servant? Our SERVANT-leader?

Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and His servants shall serve Him:

What! Servants serving! That’s crazy talk! Next you will say that men’s helpers should be helping men, instead of demanding men serve them via misappropriating “servant leadership”. /S

Well, what does Dollar say?

And now we’ll look at this word “Ruleth” because leadership, “Obey them that have the rule over you,” it must be servant type of leadership. It’s the servant leader that God wants to put in the lives of people. It’s the servant leader. … Your house needs leadership. Your children need leadership. But I’m learning that my leadership has increased because I understand that real leadership is serving. When I serve my wife, that’s leadership.

Dollar then goes on to mock men who actually want to rule their families, as God commands, as being insecure control-freaks.

The heart of the matter.

So Creflo Dollar serves his poor congregation from his mansion, his Rolls Royce, his Bentley, his business jet,(Apparently you need a lot of exquisite transportation to get to your needy neighbors these days.) while browbeating husbands into the servitude that God intended for church ministers like himself, and impugning husband’s motives for just wanting enough influence to keep their own daughters from going partying without getting themselves booked into jail like Dollar. I think we can all see that this clown is a hypocrite, and that the people who give money to his prosperity “gospel” gimmickry are duped by their own greedy desire to get rich like their idol, Mr. Dollar.

But! You say: Surely my modest-income minister who preaches that husband’s should be servant-leaders is not as bad as crazy Creflo, right?

Wrong! He is just as worthless a false teacher, and he sucks at it too, because Creflo is getting all the perks while your fool “minister” serves Satan for next to nothing because his skills don’t get him the higher pay scale of a sharp con like Dollar. These false teachers who pervert God’s word and destroy God’s patriarchal design for families, their portion is entirely in this life. If they don’t get for themselves the nice things in this life, they’re both evil and lazy.

The churches all around us today are a ‘great whore’, (a Feminism peddling substitute for genuine Bible based faith) due to their Feminist beliefs they worship and serve women more dutifully than they serve her Creator. This is shown whenever a choice is made to not offend women rather than to represent God boldly.

Romans 1:25 They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

²⁶ For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

²⁷ And likewise also the men left the natural use of the woman, and burned in their lust one toward another, and man with man wrought filthiness, and received in themselves such recompense of their error, as was meet.

Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

So, can you serve both God and gluttony? No!
Can you serve both God and fame seeking? No!
Can you serve both God and Feminism? No!

Does your church tell women to remain silent in church?
God does! (1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Timothy 2:11-12)

Does your church boldly tell women to submit to their husbands?
God does! (Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:4-5, 1 Peter 3:1-2)

Does your church tell women to wear a head covering when they pray?
God does! (1 Corinthians 11:5-6)

Does your church forbid women to refuse their husbands sex?
God does! (1 Corinthians 7:2-5)

Does your church teach women that they were created for men, to obey them?
Has your church taught the women of your congregation what their natural use is?

Well today is your lucky day! I’m here to tell you what the natural use of the woman is. No apologies, no beating around the bush, no made up feminist “ servant-leadership” wrongly applied to families to downgrade a husband’s God given headship. No, I’m just going to give you the God glorifying truth that God designed into this natural world.

So what is the God intended position of the woman? Well, there are a lot of good positions for wives to assume. No, I’m not talking about assuming career positions competing with men for jobs outside the home, and thereby driving down their wages. I’m talking about positions where you can best be put to your God honoring natural use being the mate God fit for your husband. I’m talking about positions where you can serve your lord. (Sarah called Abraham lord, and righteous women should emulate her godly understanding with their husbands. 1 Peter 3:5-6) Are wives doing those natural things that are well pleasing unto their lords?

No, Feminism’s twisted dogma has filled wives, the inferior vessels, with an unnatural sense of equality, which causes them dissatisfaction because they naturally wanted a husband they could look up to. But Feminism has made them view their husbands as equals or even inferior to them. And you don’t look up to an equal. So consequently wives feel robbed by their husbands of their unmet natural desire to serve and physically unite with a superior lord. They blame their husbands, for not being the superior they wanted, despite their own blindness to see that he is indeed innately their superior, made first, in the likeness of God. Women, who are the image of Christ’s church, were made to serve their husbands, who are the image of Christ,(Ephesians 5:22-27, 32-33) they were not made to return their husbands implacable malice because of some wrongly assumed equality. Wives need to acknowledge their husband’s superiority and reverence him.(Ephesians 5:33) And all husbands, most especially church leaders, need to rule over their own families well, repressing the woman’s natural desire to usurp like Eve first did. (Genesis 3:16, 1 Timothy 3:1-5)

Wives if you want to really be God’s intended gift to your husband, you need to put yourself out for your natural intended use. Let the image of God enter you and together again become one flesh with him, united through your divine purpose fulfilling use. The natural use for the woman, mentioned in Romans 1, is to be a ready mate for her husband. And according to 1 Corinthians 7:2-5 your husband should not defraud you of your purpose when you want to make excellent use of yourself by exercising and strengthening your divine union.

On today’s episode of BattleTwats the Siren of Socialism takes on Feminazi Fever!

The Socialist Bot quickly hits the spinning flail of Feminism with a delegitimizing blow but then loses one of her own intellectual wheels and winds up spun out and going in similar circles to that of her opponent, the spinning Feminist wage-slave. The feral Feminist lazily spinning all female “oppression” as originating from patriarchy, and the silly Socialist crazily spinning all female “oppression” as originating from Capitalism.

Today I happened across some old Socialist theory on achieving a classless utopia by Lindsey German: Theories_of_Patriarchy

Lenin’s little Lindsey starts off by showing the absurdity of the settled Feminist conspiracy theory that there is a united army of patriarchal penis possessors all together responsible for orchestrating every perceived oppression of women. According to Lindsey, Feminists believe: the “eternal truth” that “patriarchy” in one form or another is the cause of women’s oppression. Lindsey then reeducates us that, Capitalism done it!

Rather than saying that individual men oppressed women, most feminists saw that oppression of women came from the underlying bias of a patriarchal society.

Linsey asks, if patriarchy is indeed something by which all men oppress all women, how can it ever be overcome by women and men acting together? I want to argue something completely different. I want to reject the concept of patriarchy as at best a muddled term simply meaning women’s oppression (in which case it cannot explain this oppression), and at worst a completely idealist notion which has no basis in material reality. I want to show that it is not men who “benefit” from the oppression of women but capital. I want to look at the way in which the family has changed, and how as it has changed women’s conception of themselves has also changed. Hopefully that will demonstrate that women’s continued oppression is not the result of male conspiracy (or an alliance between male workers and the capitalist class), but of the continuation of class society in every part of the world. It follows that I shall argue the “socialist” countries have no more in common with socialism than they have with women’s liberation.

Apparently all of the Socialism failing all around us is not really Socialism at all! Socialism was to be a classless society, and male and female are classes that did not get sufficiently erased by those lame wannabe Socialist despots and their half-assed purges and half-empty killing fields. Lindsey want’s to do Socialism right even if they have to kill or neuter us all to achieve her total desired classlessness. If I recall correctly Jordan Peterson has observed that there is no end to the classes you can break society down into, and every class can always claim some grievance. There is no satisfying these perpetual grievance mongering dividers and subdividers of the people.

Ultimately the revolution was lost through the failure of the working class in the advanced capitalist countries to follow the Russian lead. That in its turn led to severe setbacks to the position of women. But in the early years they saw the glimmers of opportunity of equal work, socialized housework and a much freer sexuality which was made possible by the revolutionary overthrow of the old society.

Lindsey wants to overthrow all current societies to make way for her Socialist religion, where all children are forcibly raised entirely by the state, because women are oppressed by being part of a family and most oppressed by child bearing and rearing, because it’s career suicide.

The great “parasite” on women’s domestic labor is the child.

Engels and the early Marxists considered that the proletarian family (unlike the bourgeois family) would disappear since it was not based on property. It clearly has not. Since I do not believe that this is because of patriarchy, I want to look at precisely what does keep the family going.

Yet the family remains a stifling, stultifying place where attitudes and roles are taught and learned, where prejudices and values are transmitted through the generations.

And so women are left with the responsibility for childbirth and childcare. This above explains why the family and women’s oppression continue. Women’s roles as mothers and child rearers structure their whole lives.

At every stage in its development the system has had to establish structures that bind those that it exploits to it. The family is integrated into a complex network of such structures. These take advantage of the way housewives, isolated in the home and cut off from the wider collectivities that form around industrial production, are more susceptible to unchanging ideas about ‘one’s place in society’; dependent upon their husbands for a livelihood they can be persuaded that any sort of social change is a threat to their family and their security. Or, again, these structures rely on the way the male worker, having to worry about the security of his wife and children as well as himself personally, is likely to think twice before getting involved in a strike, occupation or insurrection. The slogan of ‘defense of the family’ becomes a slogan for mobilizing working people in defense of the status quo.

Apparently Lindsey believes in atheistic Socialism inspired economic forces directing humankind, and so God didn’t design the traditional Patriarchal family, it must have been invented, as her ilk teach, by people in the middle east about 2,000 B.C. due to a change in economic forces. Lindsey assumes that prior to that was a matriarchal utopia. LOL Apparently Lindsey(circa 1981) believed women should effect societal change through things like a collective sex strike. LOL Alyssa Milano’s recent sex strike didn’t work too well. How do you escalate things when that fails? A collective rape accusation against all men?

Anyhow Lindsey seems to believe that having children and raising them is the biggest drag on women and it must be stopped. Women and men must both alike have no consequences or responsibilities whatsoever after having sex. Few children should be born, and all children must be raised entirely by the state. Since having a child will torpedo a woman’s career, I believe she would favor as few select women as possible acting as career babymakers, artificially inseminated with the best semen for the best planned future of the collective state, if in fact she even believes in the favorability of the continued existence of the human race.

Lindsey’s utopia is somehow genderless, marriageless, familyless, sexless except for unaffiliated female-initiated recreational sex, and every remaining problem will then stem from the last remaining vestiges of Capitalism and improperly reeducated malefactors who still have the human ambition to be unique or to belong to a select group.(like a family)

So, I can see Lindsey German has a slightly different alternative to Feminism, the only problem is, it is even worse, and we’d have to kill billions of “Capitalists”, and we still wouldn’t get anything but life in an inescapable globalized shithole nation, filled with apathy, addiction, and despair.

I say society should quit harkening to all these batshit-crazy women and start living Biblically. Women won’t be happy again until collectively they’re properly repressed.

The epiphany:

A few days ago my long-divorcing wife and I had a thought provoking verbal exchange. Upon our first meet-up that day I reminded her that she was headed to hell, and that she needed to repent, as any good spiritual leader would. Later that evening when we met-up again, she went off on one of her tirades. Among her first loud charges was the accusation that I think women are inferior. LOL She hollered it like she was charging me with arrogant blasphemy. She continued to verbally lambaste me and got way louder as she ran off, so that I really didn’t get a chance to respond. She likes to get the last word that way – she screams some charge against my character and then slams the door, usually. She is a master of shutting down discussion, and always has to get the last word. Anyhow…

Once upon a blue-pilled time, I might have interjected, “that’s not true”, or tried to show that my words and actions were necessary and reasonable, and not male chauvinistic. But as she was ranting on, and I was thinking about how I might respond if I ever was able to get a word in, I realized; she’s right. I do now think women are inferior to men. And not just because of her accompanying show of spoiled behavior. LOL I think God made the woman as a lesser vessel, not in the image of God, with the mission to help and reverence her man, when she is behaving well, and to test men’s faithfulness to God when she misbehaves.

It really was a blissful enlightenment, to acknowledge to myself, that I do firmly know that women are currently categorically inferior by way of creation and divinely assigned rank to all of us menfolk, and that I needed to just come out and own it more thankfully publicly, that I, as a man, was made for preeminence, as an image, or representative figure, of God, and bestowed with some portion of His divine glory.

I no longer need to be on the defensive, and prove I believe in equality. I can respond to the charge of thinking women are inferior, by going on the offensive and declaring, I know I am superior, a great gift was bestowed on me by God, who fearfully and wonderfully made me a glorious likeness of Himself, to rule over women in His divine stead. And you, woman, by your insolence and your ignorance of your own rank and place, you prove that your inherent inferiority is well merited by how unworthily you even still conduct yourself, by putting on airs in the presence of your superiors, when you should rightly be showing humility and genuflection.

If it had been the husbands asked to be subject to their wives by God , the husbands wouldn’t fail so incompetently to be of excellent service.

No, the husband is the rightful head, because he is the most noble aspect of humankind, and best fit to command women and children with his discernment. All children should honor their parents. Every husband should be honored as the God ordained and inherently superior shepherd of his own household, that the gospel of Jesus Christ may be exalted. So also should every man honor Jesus Christ as his Lord, thereby directing all human honor and allegiance rightfully upward, ascending ultimately to the glory of the Supreme Father. Amen!

I just came across an insightful post, that is well worth reading, about part of why we keep losing the culture war:

https://www.returnofkings.com/191761/conservatives-are-losers

I also came across this comment by Wintery Knight:

A while back I was asked to mentor a girl who had cohabitated with an atheist, had an abortion, and had become a Christian after they broke up. I asked her why women have premarital sex. And her answer was “it’s a way to get control over men, without having to be nice to them”. As a virgin myself, I am not interested in marrying a woman who used sex as a tool to manipulate men. That very quickly turns into sex-withholding in a marriage.

I believe Wintery Knight nailed it. An ungodly woman will show respect and offer sex and make promises of unlimited sex, prior to marriage, to secure what she wants, but then once a loyal and devoted man is bound to her by marriage, then the ungodly woman’s manipulative power is secured through the wicked withholding and rationing of all that she vowed.

And once she has filed for divorce, you will get absolutely nothing but the opposite of what she vowed, while the bigoted cunt-court will force a man to continue to materially provide most every benefit the wife received during the marriage.

Stay strong my brothers! Together we can become the biggest setback to Feminism since the invention of the sandwich! And I plan to share some details about how we will do it, in an upcoming post.