Saturday, January 5, 2013

The feminized Church is anti-Christ

This man's experience should suffice to demonstrate, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Churchianism is not only feminist and anti-male, it is explicitly anti-Scriptural and anti-Christ:
This encounter was one for the record books. When I arrived, there were 17 people in the room set aside for our meeting today. Some were elders, some were women from the church, but they all had one thing in common: they were opposed to what I was doing. The only exception to this was one of the elders who had taken my side previously who now sat beside his wife who was opposed to what I was doing and had obviously turned him against me again. The head pastor himself was there along with two assistant pastors who formed a kind of tribunal at the front of the room. This made me smile, but I kept any comments about my trial to myself.

I was asked to sit down in a chair that was in front of the pastoral staff and to the side of the large party to my left. As soon as I sat down, the pastor apologized for the formality and told me that he believed I had the right to face my accusers face to face as Christians should not operate in secret, but the next thing that came out of his mouth floored me. He informed me that I would not be allowed to stay in the church so as to avoid damaging the unity of the church body at large. However, he would allow me to speak not only to him and the pastoral staff, but also to my accusers uninterrupted to speak my case as to why I had done what I had done.

I spoke of many of the abuses society and the church have levied against men on a regular basis. I showed live videos of the pastor offering everything from small hints to glaring insults that the men were an inferior quality of humanity than the women in the church. I offered my perspective on why men were no longer of the same quality that they once were in our society and point to the church as one of the chief culprits in creating the very men they spoke against. I shared with them the proper role of men in the church and how I was teaching these men about the nature of women so that women were no longer a driving force in their lives, and that energy instead could be redirected toward serving God with nothing held back. I explained how the church operated under the worldly view of superior female spirituality. I explained our obsession with making women happy and how it ultimately left both men and women unfulfilled in their Christian lives. I explained women’s almost complete control of men in the home and how it is sanctioned by the church, but that if something goes wrong, the men hold full responsibility.

Several times, women in the room were told to be quiet or leave as they attempted to talk over me and one woman stormed out after her fourth attempt at interruption had failed. Once I had drawn my information to a close, I requested that they look at what I had done for the men who had been coming to my class and let the tree be judged by its fruit. Their lives had been made better by a large margin in most cases and the few who are slow learners were still making excellent progress.

I informed him that I understood that feelings had been hurt, but that the young men who had lived in this unchristian and, in many cases, sinful environment had been harmed even more than the few here who had the courage to admit their grievances to my face. That our church was seeing a huge lack in the number of men willing to participate and that attendance was often sporatic for those who did come at all (myself included). I also pointed out that there was another religion that taught that men had a place of great importance and that women needed to remember their place. That religion was Islam and the number of young men signing up for its tenants were growing every year. I reminded them that unless we want the church to fade out completely, we need to teach the young men how be actual men and not “guys”.
When men are being literally expelled from "Christian" churches by female-dominated cults for the offense of teaching Scripture, it is time for men to turn their backs on those churches.  They are not Christian churches and they do not follow Jesus Christ, they unknowingly follow the ancient Babylonian mystery religions.

The collapse of the Western Church into anti-Christian, anti-Biblical feminist Churchianity may not be the Great Apostasy, but it is certainly a very large scale apostasy.  This is what happens when the Church turns away from the eternal truths of the Bible; for that matter, it is what happens when any organization, from a non-profit charity to a Fortune 500 corporation, does so.  The speed of the collapse is remarkable; it appears that every church denomination that has permitted women to teach in the church and hold authority over men has immediately and rapidly declined.

I haven't done the research yet, but I will do so and post the results here. The danger, which should be apparent even to the most secular and atheistic reader here, is that as goes the Western church, so goes Western society and quite possibly Western civilization.

However, Christian men have to do more than simply retreat from the enemy-occupied territory of the Churchian apostates.  They also need to rescue their fellow believers from it and start new churches with teachings in full accordance with Scripture.  Thus will the seeds of the next great revival be planted.

92 comments:

Lucas said...

I can relate.

When I talked with my pastor if the temptation of Eve (the fact that Satan picked Eve and not Adam) had any meaning, he dodged the question, or gave a weak answer.

When I talk with suposedly "evangelical" women about their role in the church (as preachers) they say "well we are equal now, and everyone cne preach!"

Sure you can. Everyone can sing, but that doesn't mean everyone should.

VD said...

When I talked with my pastor if the temptation of Eve (the fact that Satan picked Eve and not Adam) had any meaning, he dodged the question, or gave a weak answer.

Why is he still your pastor?

Signe said...

Okay, I don't usually do this, but I just have to point out something the head pastor said:

"People are unhappy, and unhappy people don’t listen to Scripture."

Sorry for the language, but BULLSHIT, and for several reasons: (1) most fake Christians don't listen to Scripture anyway; (2) I doubt he's teaching Scripture anyway; (3) how many of those young men are happy; and (4) discomfort is part of sanctification.

I'm a woman, and I know this stuff!

Anonymous said...

"People are unhappy, and unhappy people don’t listen to Scripture."

Sorry for the language, but BULLSHIT, and for several reasons: (1) most fake Christians don't listen to Scripture anyway; (2) I doubt he's teaching Scripture anyway; (3) how many of those young men are happy; and (4) discomfort is part of sanctification.


Under the feminine imperative, only women are people. Men are not people - they are the disposable sex. If a church has been feminized, this is a given.

Also,

it is time for men to turn their backs on those churches.

This. Remove any and all support, from yourself and any you are responsible for. If a husband/father withdraws from a church but his wife/children still attend and support it, then he is supporting it.

Signe said...

Under the feminine imperative, only women are people. Men are not people - they are the disposable sex. If a church has been feminized, this is a given.

Well, I'm not sure it's that binary, in this case. Men who haven't taken the Red Pill get pretty upset about reality, too.

Kyle In Japan said...

Yikes.

This guy has some serious courage. Standing up for his convictions even when he knew he'd get shot down is quite honorable, despite the predictable result.

Anonymous said...

Amen.
As a minister's wife in a mainline denomination I've been watching my husband as he has quietly starts moving the church he pastors back to towards orthodoxy in small minute steps; much like the way feminism was introduced. Small steps, that don't garner a lot of attention but ones that are effective. It's working and they don't even realize it.

Signe said...

This guy has some serious courage. Standing up for his convictions even when he knew he'd get shot down is quite honorable, despite the predictable result.

Agreed. The account put me in mind of Stephen's martyrdom, of all things.

Doom said...

I have a faith, I am not so sure I have a Church. I am still thinking on that. When I do go to Church, I am there with God, not always with what is going on around me. My suggestion, though, is that women have always tried to force the Church. Usually they have been betrayed by the fact that without men to do work, when work really was too hard for them (as real work still is), they suffered. Now they don't suffer, between quotas, the pill, abortion, and welfare, there is no real pain to their way of thinking even if all else fails. They are married to the state, not God through man. They are equal, dontcha know?

A dark age is not only needed, it is required. Thankfully that itch is being scratched, and ensured, as I write. Women will only have themselves to thank for it, if in truth it was because men also became weak, while flush. Craps, snake-eyes again. Though too, I think this story has been told thousands of times, for various reasons. We just don't like when we are playing the leads in it.

Bob Wallace said...

St.Paul wrote women should not speak or teach. I understood several years ago he was right.

Anonymous said...

Like I posted at Dalrock, the church wants sullen, beaten down beta men, because they're easier to control. Pastors aren't failures as Christian 'ministers' - they're acting as the heads of large organizations. Game isn't sinful because men are trying to have sex; it's sinful because they're taking action instead passively accepting whatever happens, which would be easier on church 'leadership'. Shut up, be passive, and open your wallets, say the large organizations with crosses on their buildings.

swiftfoxmark2 said...

You left out the best quote from the head pastor in that post:

This isn’t about Scripture. This is politics. People are unhappy, and unhappy people don’t listen to Scripture. I wish there was something I could do, but I promise you that I heard what you said today and will try and correct what of it I can in the future. AP, make sure he gets all of his things and see him to the door. He can’t come back in once he’s out.

What a coward!

swiftfoxmark2 said...

On thing that most pastors need to understand is that a church that attracts men will always guarantee success and growth. Attracting children and women is doomed to failure.

Anonymous said...

From the article:

HP: This isn’t about Scripture. This is politics.

Signe said...

Anonymous, you're right to some extent, but I suspect it's also because the virtues are being confused with weaknesses. So "submissive" becomes "doormat", "judge not" becomes "never says a negative word", and "meek and gentle" becomes "spineless and passive".

There are probably a lot of people who have no idea what they're doing, and no idea that they have no idea. Doesn't excuse them, but it might explain things.

CrisisEraDynamo said...

I read that account, and man, I don't want to have anything to do with churches after reading that.

To think that he was punished for teaching Scripture accurately because of some oversensitive women who'd rather have their egos stroked -- I couldn't help but think that there is no church, just a bunch of Christian-themed feel-good therapy sessions.

mmaier2112 said...

I read that a while back and was glad.

The dude's better off. And I hope he takes his "tribe" with him.

stg58/Animal Mother said...

If you want to find a church still run by men, check out your local primitive baptist church. Women are silent in the church, and they are some excellent cooks.

tz said...

Women are more emotional and less rational, so it doesn't matter if they are more "spiritual" if they can't tell an angel of God from an angel of Light, or decide based on which one makes them feel better.

Men were given the responsibility. Any responsibility includes the authority to what is needed. Sort of like Congress giving up everything to bureaucrats (it is a lot easier), Men give up things to women who thoroughly ruin things, but no so much that men can't get by. O'Dowd wrote "Are Men Necessary?". Only for western civilization.

As was mentioned, compared with feminism, sharia's deviations from the natural law are mild and liveable.

Even the atheistic atrocities of Mao and Stalin were not feminist. At least not in the sense of doing anything beyond putting a parachute packer in a capsule to be "the first woman in space". They wouldn't have lasted a decade. Even today in China, women (starting before birth) are treated like 3rd class citizens, disposable.

One critical change for the church was giving women control of Fatherhood via contraception (and even abortion in many cases). Searching for a father or mother for your children is a very different proposition. Instead of whom would help me found a family, it is who would I enjoy being with. Severing the procreative aspect weakens the unitive aspect. There was and is not so much a war on fathers as unilateral unconditional surrender. Churches became feminized, and the men left. But as they were no longer even proxy and/or potential fathers, they had nothing to do (except see how long they could stand being pounded on).

In churches, the masculine virtues were denigrated instead of celebrated. Men aren't as stupid as women, at least not most as they won't try very hard to acquire feminine virtues especially when they are punished and/or laughed at, however looking at a woman running in the "rat race" - and losing because she is fighting her nature is also comic, but few figure it out and don't even bother thinking about it until their biological clock starts chiming.

It was said of the mafia that to men, women were either madonnas or whores. That is wisdom. The mother of your children is to be respected and revered (even if you don't let her decide on matters). Your legally recognized concubine is something to be used for as long as you get pleasure, and if letting her run things makes things easier even if it is destructive why bother fighting?

The church your grandparents got married in and stayed together till death is different than the ones commonly available today.

I forgot who originally said it, but "Is a (railroad) train more free on the tracks or off the tracks?".

Signe said...

As was mentioned, compared with feminism, sharia's deviations from the natural law are mild and liveable.

It's pretty hard to find these deviations "liveable" when you've just been decapitated for being a Christian, I'm told.

Why do you bring this point up, by the way? Are you proposing one evil is better than another?

Aeoli Pera said...

Pastors and clergy are often sociopaths. Don't underestimate the usefulness of feminism to such men.

Src: http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/11/professions-most-fewest-psychopaths/

Jack Amok said...

Well, I'm not sure it's that binary, in this case. Men who haven't taken the Red Pill get pretty upset about reality, too.

If they act like women, why call them men?

A Wiser Man Than I said...

Leon Podles was onto this years ago when he wrote: The Church Impotent: The Feminization
of Christianity
.

A Wiser Man Than I said...

Leon Podles was onto this years ago when he wrote: The Church Impotent: The Feminization
of Christianity
.

Stickwick said...

Even the atheistic atrocities of Mao and Stalin were not feminist.

Communism may not be overtly feminist, but it is important to understand that any form of collectivism is inherently feminine.

Why do you bring this point up, by the way? Are you proposing one evil is better than another?

There is a point to be made by bringing up Islam, which is that it is less detached from reality than the various manifestations of humanism, e.g. feminism. The more detached any culture is from reality, the more readily it perishes. The fact that Muslims are often the only group in European countries procreating at or above replacement levels indicates that it at least has something more going for it than humanism does.

Stickwick said...

This article pretty much explains why it's nigh impossible to get my good Christian husband to go to church. Apparently he sensed something unwholesome that I hadn't quite figured out yet.

Signe said...

If they act like women, why call them men?

Because if I do it, it's called "shaming language". Silly rabbit.

Anonymous said...

A good way (if not the only way) to fatally weaken a society is to weaken its men; and I can see no better way to accomplish this than to undermine his authority in the Church and at home - and crush his spirit so he is without aim or purpose.

I look forward to your further research on the subject.

-Herbie

Signe said...

[I]t is important to understand that any form of collectivism is inherently feminine.

Does that include football players and fire teams?

The fact that Muslims are often the only group in European countries procreating at or above replacement levels indicates that it at least has something more going for it than humanism does.

Would you prefer to have your head chopped off, or just shot between the eyes? Either way, you're still dead.

You want to accentuate the positive, but I'm still hung up on all the dead Christians.

Loki of Asgard said...

I'm still hung up on all the dead Christians.

...At the moment.

SarahsDaughter said...

^cracks me up

Markku said...

Does that include football players and fire teams?

Collectivism \Col*lect"iv*ism\, n. [Cf. F. collectivisme.]
(Polit. Econ.)
The doctrine that land and capital should be owned by society collectively or as a whole; communism. --W. G. Summer.
[1913 Webster]

----

These days the word is used a bit more widely, in the sense that a human being has only value as a part of the collective. But the mere existence of voluntary collectives isn't collectivism by any definition.

Signe said...

Fair enough on that one. Still, though, hanging the albatross of communism on women is a bit of a stretch, considering that it was pushed hard by men (specifically, men who didn't want to have to live up to the obligations they'd freely incurred, but anyways).

I also looked back over tz's comment, and I'm not sure what his point was except to core-dump some ideas. There's not much flow to it.

I might have the dumb today and can't brain, though. It's possible. I'm not too proud to admit it.

Loki of Asgard said...

I'm not too proud to admit it.

At the moment.

Markku said...

Still, though, hanging the albatross of communism on women is a bit of a stretch,

It was clearly used in the wider sense that I mentioned. That individualism cannot be allowed for any reason, not even for the person's moral principles.

Signe said...

Markku, I'd answer what you just wrote other than to say that the part I quoted wasn't in response to you, but I'm done feeding His Lordship's almighty troll-roll.

Loki of Asgard said...

I'm done feeding His Lordship's almighty troll-roll.

At the moment.

Stickwick said...

Still, though, hanging the albatross of communism on women is a bit of a stretch, considering that it was pushed hard by men ...

I'm not hanging it on women. I'm claiming the defining qualities of collectivism share a commonality with feminine nature, e.g. women are much more herd-inclined than men.

... (specifically, men who didn't want to have to live up to the obligations they'd freely incurred, but anyways).

If you've been reading AG for any length of time, you might recognize the irony of bringing this up as a refutation of the inherent feminine nature of communism.

You want to accentuate the positive, but I'm still hung up on all the dead Christians.

I'm not accentuating anything. It's not a judgment call, it's simple acknowledgement of reality.

Robert in Arabia said...

Shariah never beheads Christians for being Christians. It applies the death penalty to Muslims who convert to Christianity. Christian Europe applied the death penalty to apostates wlell into the 1600s. Catholics and Protestants executed apostates.

Signe said...

Sorry I'm not on my game, Ilk. I have a massive head-cold, and I've been sent home to nurse it. Enjoy your weekend.

Huggums said...

When I talked with my pastor if the temptation of Eve (the fact that Satan picked Eve and not Adam) had any meaning, he dodged the question, or gave a weak answer.

Why did Satan pick Eve and not Adam?

Huggums said...

That's a serious question by the way. I've become far less trusting of many other sources where I might've typically gone for this information.

Shimshon said...

This problem also exists in the Orthodox Jewish world. I severed my relationship with my rabbi of 18 years because he was distorting black letter halacha (Jewish law) overtly in her favor, insisting that we have a more "nuanced" view today, and other such bullshit. He very nearly drove us to divorce.

For the curious, a woman has an actual obligation to never turn her husband down for sex. A husband has a separate obligation not to impose himself on her too much. I didn't expect my wife to actually oblige this, but it would have helped if she understood the seriousness of her choices. Instead, he kept conflating the two separate obligations in a way that negated the plain meaning. And that just emboldened her (no surprise). Asshole.

Markku said...

Why did Satan pick Eve and not Adam?

There is necessarily a little bit of conjecture here, but Paul says that Eve was deceived and Adam was not. Assuming that this was deliberate, and not just pure luck for Satan, we might suppose that he figured Eve was more susceptible to subtle persuasion and Adam to provoking into overt act of disobedience.

TLM said...

Been a Christian for a decade now with solid church affiliation and attendance up until about 2 years ago. Just can no longer stomach the false teaching and/or lack of Biblical teaching. It just seems everything, the preaching, worship, ministries, are geared to chicks and manginas.

My view on modern pastors is that they suck so bad because many of them have chosen the church as a career field versus being chosen by God to lead. The Bible colleges and seminaries, at the end of the day, are businesses. I doubt they properly vet paying customers to discern if they've truly been appointed by God for that particular task.

And most of the "youth" pastors I've encountered are either doofuss jackasses playing the role of court jester or worldly try-hards with their utterly retarded tattoos and piercings. Unfortunately this also applies to many adult pastors as well.

With regards to the story, why were the women even allowed at the "hearing". Matt. 18:15-17 lays out the process needed to be followed very clearly. It should have been the elders only at that point. certainly no women should have been there.

And that leads to poor elder selection. Too many times it seems men with business acumen and/or successful business experience are selected as elders. They tend to govern and administer their church duties through worldly business leadership techniques. Ex-Stephen Covey etc. When the qualifications state that an elder be looked upon respectfully amongst those outside the church. It never states that this means the individual should be a corporate VP or other officer. Yet, that tends to be who is selected. I've never met a blue collar elder or one that was a janitor. My point being that a man with a menial job may in fact be the most spiritually mature guy for the position, but since he has a low worldly status, from a career perspective, he's never nominated. And we get more of the same cookie-cutter middle management types.

stg58/Animal Mother said...

My pastor is a paint salesman for Sherwin Williams. Most of our elders seem to be stock brokers, salesmen or some other kind of people profession.

LP 999/Eliza said...

In some strange way church reminds me of voting, I abstain and have nothing to do with it. The reasons why for both topics are not worth marinating upon or listing.

+When men are being literally expelled from "Christian" churches by female-dominated cults for the offense of teaching Scripture, it is time for men to turn their backs on those churches. They are not Christian churches and they do not follow Jesus Christ, they unknowingly follow the ancient Babylonian mystery religions.+

And this is why the churches are empty and increasingly impossible to attend. Anti-sola scriptura, anti-christ is as non-negotiable as handing over one's right to protect themselves.

LP 999/Eliza said...

Some women sadly turn every aspect of their lives into either the knife and forking club or a henhouse. So no, women do not belong in positions of leadership in any thing called a church

Loki of Asgard said...

In some strange way church reminds me of voting, I abstain and have nothing to do with it. The reasons why for both topics are not worth marinating upon or listing.

But you bring it up, nonetheless. Therefore, you compel me to add:

"At this moment."

Loki of Asgard said...

Oddly unsatisfying, that was. I think I will either feed growth pills to zoo animals or take a long walk in the snow.

Perhaps both.

Jacob Ian Stalk said...

"Why did Satan pick Eve and not Adam?"

Canonical Scripture doesn't say, so we can only speculate. I suspect it's because the stronger emotional dependence of women on reproductive biochemistry made Eve believe there was greater wisdom to be found in Man's natural state (human animal) than in God's supernatural Creation (human being).

I could be wrong, of course.

Jacob Ian Stalk said...

@LP 999/Eliza

"Anti-sola scriptura, anti-christ is as non-negotiable as handing over one's right to protect themselves."

This sounds like its pointing in the right direction but the wording is a little confusing. Could you clarify please?

dalrock said...

@Shimshon
For the curious, a woman has an actual obligation to never turn her husband down for sex. A husband has a separate obligation not to impose himself on her too much. I didn't expect my wife to actually oblige this, but it would have helped if she understood the seriousness of her choices. Instead, he kept conflating the two separate obligations in a way that negated the plain meaning. And that just emboldened her (no surprise).

I wrote about this same basic dynamic in modern Christianity yesterday on my blog. Nearly all Christians pretend to accept the New Testament instruction that neither is to deny the other sex (to avoid creating temptation for sexual sin). However, for women in practice the instruction almost universally waved away with a combination of shaming language and a posture of "And what if I don't want to?".

Christians fail badly in their response to this, because they fail to understand that the latter comment isn't an expression of interest in further understanding of the Scripture. It is simply rebellion, not unlike a child saying "And what if I don't?" to a parent who tells them to clean their room. Instead of putting down the rebellion, they start explaining what a husband can and can't do in response to a rebellious wife (the same exact thing happens with submission). This is then turned into a subtle or not so subtle accusation of those who believe in the Bible as rapists and/or creepy. It is extremely effective, but can be counteracted if the rebellion is called out for what it is without getting distracted or misdirected.

Interestingly when I wrote about this the exact mechanics I explained in the OP then played out in the comments section, down to the passive aggressive objectors backing down once I called out the rebellion and proved I wouldn't be distracted.

thewomanandthedragon said...

Christian men have to do more than simply retreat from the enemy-occupied territory of the Churchian apostates. They also need to rescue their fellow believers from it and start new churches with teachings in full accordance with Scripture. Thus will the seeds of the next great revival be planted.

Hello Vox,
Thank you for linking to my Joseph of Jackson posts; I believe he is not in retreat but rather regroup mode. Your readers may be interested to know that JoJ has told me that he will be posting some of his lesson plans from his small group on his own blog (josephofjackson.wordpress.com) in the new year. Readers may find the information useful. Also, I'm sure JoJ would appreciate prayers.

-ssm

Markku said...

Oddly unsatisfying, that was.

Reminded me of this:

http://xkcd.com/366/

Log said...

I wonder - if sola scriptura is such an important and binding principle, 1. why didn't the primitive Christians believe in it, as evidenced by their expanding the canon beyond the so-called "old testament", and 2. why doesn't the Bible ever reference "sola scriptura"?

Stickwick said...

Oddly unsatisfying, that was.

The mileage you're getting out of that is amusing, O Lord of Subtle Perturbance.

DannyHSDad said...

If you've read David Murrow's "Why Men Hate Going to Church," it's nothing new. His first edition came out in 2004 and his 2nd edition has significantly been upgraded.

Anyway, it was fun reading it (2nd ed) with my 2 teenage sons...

Shimshon said...

@Dalrock, the sad thing is that my ex-rabbi negated the possibility of even discussing this wife my wife, as she felt she had literally no obligation of sex with me at all, so there was nothing to discuss. Yet she still believed she was a precious snowflake that was worth being married to (that seemed to be the gist of her logic). I filed for divorce a month later. Even then, EVEN THEN, after getting over the shock (yes, she was shocked) she harbored a fantasy that sometime after getting a divorce, I would realize the error of my ways and beg her to take me back. At this point, the ex-rabbi finally introduced some truth to her and disabused her of this ridiculous notion.

There is a Hebrew term for such a wife, by the way. Moredet (moe-reh-det). It literally means rebellious or mutinous woman. When Jewish law actually holds sway (instead of the corrupt melange of Ottoman, Anglo-Saxon, and Jewish law today), this kind of crap will end. Alimony? What's that? Custody? Only if the mother is clearly the superior choice, otherwise, the father is presumed preferable (not certain about this part, but I think it's correct). Frivolous divorce because the wife is unhaaappy? Actually, even today this can't happen because in Jewish law, only the husband can consummate a divorce. A woman can initiate proceedings, but that's as far as it goes.

Even though traditional Judaism is one of the last bastions of actual patriarchy in the western world today, you can see how much the feminine imperative has insinuated itself even here. My ex-rabbi is a very learned man. The Talmud is overflowing with red pill insight into the true nature of women, and yet he couldn't see it, despite it being spelled out clearly in unambiguous language.

Anonymous said...

"With four in five members female, churches want to again reach men

Many denominations wonder if they are reflecting subtle devaluation of males in secular culture"

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/With+four+five+members+female+churches+want+again+reach/7704075/story.html#ixzz2FLHNHtAp


"Mom got herself out of the nursery and the kitchen. She then got out of the house. She did not get out of the church, but, instead, got the stern stuff out of it, padded the guild room and moved in more solidly than ever before. No longer either hesitant or reverent, because there was no cause for either attitude after her purge, she swung the church by the tail as she swung everything else. In a preliminary test of strength, she also got herself the vote and, although politics never interested her (unless she was exceptionally naïve, a hairy foghorn, or a size forty scorpion), the damage she forthwith did to society was so enormous and so rapid that even the best men lost track of things. Mom's first gracious presence at the ballot-box was roughly concomitant with the start toward a new all-time low in political scurviness, hoodlumism, gangsterism, labor strife, monopolistic thuggery, moral degeneration, civic corruption, smuggling, bribery, theft, murder, homosexuality, drunkenness, financial depression, chaos and war. Note that. The degenerating era, however, marked new highs in the production of junk. Note that, also. "

http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/history/lavender/momism.html

Jestin Ernest said...

the hamster is strong with this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7qliVpGEk0

there are so MANY layers of epic fail in this one i may just make that my permanent url.

kh123 said...

"There is a Hebrew term for such a wife, by the way. Moredet..."

Are you sure you don't mean movet.

kh123 said...

...And, I read that line without having read the rest of your comments. Sorry to hear.

Scott6584 said...

The early church met in homes...run by men. They didn't meet in big buildings. Start a home church. It is just as valid, if not moreso than the big box churches you see on street corners.

But as a Christian, you cannot abandon the Church. The Bible is also clear on that. So, teach the scripture and worship "from house to house" as they did in the book of Acts.

Scott6584 said...

Also, as for the admonition for women to be quiet, that came in a large assembly, not in the home-based church. In fact, the Scripture explicitly says for the woman to ask her husband at home.

So, it is a little more nuanced than it may appear, but the basic premise remains correct. Men have the authority and responsibility.

Anonymous said...

Men, nothing else matters besides making sure you don't go to hell. forget women, do EVERYTHING to make sure you are saved. above all things; FEAR GOD. rebellious women will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. the tears and screams of one will infinitely outway that of the collective human history. Men, forget this foolery, seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteous. NOTHING NOTHING else matters, other than knowing you are saved. remember, these efeminiate men holding up the power of these jezebles will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. guys fear fear fear fear. forget about those rebels, they won't even stand a chance in the judgement, Christ said to Peter, "Why thinkest thou on that (his death) rather thinkest thou on following me." btw if you're reading an alexandrian cult bible, you won't stand a chance either. fear God. above all else.

TLM said...

Anon
Good stuff, right up until your KJV-only idolatry simmered to the surface. You folks are unbelievable with your misguided zealotry.Personally, I care not for the NIV or NLT, but you folks truly do throw out the baby with the bath water.

RC said...

I would encourage men to teach Biblical truth in men's groups. I have been doing so for quite some time and, in the last one, just laid it all out without varnish. The lead pastor even attended the classes and it was fascinating, watching the betaboys wretch and abandon while the merely ignorant soaked it up. The most fun is watching the betaboys wives' reaction to me afterwards. Priceless!

There were several long-time sexless marriages that were rejuvenated back into an active sexual relationship, along with many other indications of health. I'm lining up the next class to start in early February.

My encouragement is to step into the breech and help your fellow maleducated man. It will change lives and, in the process, some churches.

stg58/Animal Mother said...

Good stuff, right up until your KJV-only idolatry simmered to the surface. You folks are unbelievable with your misguided zealotry.Personally, I care not for the NIV or NLT, but you folks truly do throw out the baby with the bath water.

What are we throwing out with the bathwater? Statism and effeminate thinking? Trace the devolution of Acts 13:1 from the KJV to the modern day. Or, check out Galatians 5:22. One of the fruits of the Spirit goes from faith to faithfulness as you move from the KJV to modern translations. Quite a difference.

TLM said...

Please explain how the NASB,ESV,& NKJV promote statism & effeminate thinking. They, like your precious little KJV, are all formal equivalency translations. And it doesn't surprise me you also belong to the KJV cult as by your own admission, you're a Crossfit(Cultfit) guy as well. What's next, AmWay?

stg58/Animal Mother said...

TLM,

I gave you two examples of the effeminate and stastatist thinking that pervades the newest versions. For another, check out Paul's instructions to Timothy on the qualifications of bishops and elders. The same downhill slide is there too.

stg58/Animal Mother said...

I also don't worship the KJV. It is merely the best translation available to english speaking peoples.

TLM said...

So you're basically clueless that the NASB, ESV, and NKJV are also meticulous word for word translations just like the KJV. You KJVers really need to educate yourselves. You guys are so ready to froth at the mouth anytime anyone mentions any other translation but the one you've built a cult over. It's amusing that although you KJVers are Protestants, you act like Catholics holding tradition above the commands of God. Actually, you're more like Pharisees. Not good for your type. You call division and animosity for nothing more than personal preference.

stg58/Animal Mother said...

I am not a Protestant.

If all the translations are meticulous word for word translations why are they so different?

TLM said...

I never said all translations are the same. Only the KJV, NASB, ESV, and NKJV are translations based upon formal equivalency (word for word of the original/copies of the Greek & Hebrew manuscripts).

Other translations, such as NIV & NLT are not formal equivalency translations but a hybrid word for word or though for word (paraphrase).

So you will see major differences when comparing a word for word Bible versus a word for thought. But the spirit of text is not in contradiction to the commands of God.
Nevertheless, I don't prefer to use word for thought translations, and I certainly don"t condem people to Hell for it like you kooky KJKJVers.

And if you're Catholic, should you even be reading your Bible! Maybe the Latin Vulgate. If you're Mormon, don't worry about it, you have much deeper problems.

stg58/Animal Mother said...

No one is going to hell if they use another version besides the KJV. I have never said that to anyone, it is utterly contrary to what I believe. No one is also going to hell because they died the day before the missionary got to their village and never got the chance to accept Jesus. No one is going to hell because they don't go to my church either.

Athor Pel said...

"stg58/Animal Mother said...

If all the translations are meticulous word for word translations why are they so different?
January 6, 2013 4:16 PM "




Because they are all more or less valid, some more, some less. Translation is not an exact thing. It cannot be done perfectly because all languages are different.

Different languages use different ways to describe the same things. You see, where one language is able to succinctly describe a certain concept another language sometimes literally does not have the same capacity.

Either the vocabulary or the grammar will have no equivalency between languages. To translate is as much art as it is craft. It is not easy and a sense of failure is many times unavoidable.

So much depends upon the intention of the translator.

Which means.....

full comprehension depends upon the reader to confirm the intended meaning through diligent study. Diligent study of all faithful translations and even of the original language while also seeking the Lord for guidance.


Some English translations are better than others but none of them are fully capable of conveying the full intended meaning. Like I just said, it is up to the reader to be diligent.

If you leave your personal biblical research all up to one translation and eschew all others as well as avoid reading the original language then quite frankly you're lazy and should be ashamed.

Holding to one translation above all others, to the exclusion to all others while also denigrating those that prefer other translations is awfully close to idolatry.

But let me say something again, just in case it was missed, some translations are better than others.








Athor Pel said...

By the way, has the Council of Trent been retracted? Isn't the Catholic laity forbidden from interpreting the Bible?



TLM said...

You may not condemn them to Hell, but there are numerous KJV only types that do condemn people to Hell for using other translations. Be careful of the company you keep.

stg58/Animal Mother said...

The company I keep are Old Baptists. My previous comments were straight Old Baptist Theology. My old boss was very happy to consign massive amounts of people to hell for this or that. Not too keen on that.

Anonymous said...

I am Greek Orthodox and all I can say is thank God that the Orthodox Church does not have this problem with feminization.

I would like to add that Islam is growing because many men find it less feminine than what Western Christianity has become. Besides, Christianity and Christians have been mocked repeatedly without fear. You don't see a lot of mocking of Muslims.

Case in point: I remember being in a very large gathering and I observed a woman arguing feminist talking points to a Catholic priest. After that conversation ended, I approached her and asked if she was willing to repeat what she said to a gentleman that was standing no more than 20 feet away. This gentleman was observing the discussion as well.

You should have seen her reaction when she looked at him.

He was an imam.

She quickly walked the other way.

Signe said...

STG, hi there.

I'm afraid that you might not be quite right here:

Or, check out Galatians 5:22. One of the fruits of the Spirit goes from faith to faithfulness as you move from the KJV to modern translations.

My Greek lexicon (Thayer) says that "fidelity, faithfulness, i.e. the character of one who can be relied on" is the correct translation of the word in that particular passage.

Just letting you know, in case you don't have a lexicon. (I don't read koine, so I have to rely on experts. I'm not a genius.)

Now I'm going home to deal with this stupid cold again. I'm getting a fever. It might be the flu.

mmaier2112 said...

Anon: I wouldn't bother talking to a devil-worshiper either.

Brad Andrews said...

I asked it before, but really didn't get an answer. What exactly would be a "masculine" form of praise and worship, for example?

I am not fully satisfied that the modern contemporary style meets it, but I am also not convinced that merely singing "old hymns" does either.

Brad Andrews said...

I should clarify. I think I got an answer, but not a good discussion of it. Being late to these doesn't help.

Cail Corishev said...

Log, this is one thing Scripture says about Sola Scriptura; make of it what you will:

But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. John 21:25

No, Catholics aren't forbidden from interpreting the Bible. We're just aware that a typical layperson doesn't have the historical, theological, and linguistic knowledge to always interpret it properly, so we have trained experts to lead us in that. (I wouldn't expect a priest who has a hobby of computer programming to do my job either.) We're certainly encouraged to read our Bibles, and Bible study is undergoing a resurgence among Catholics, but we're warned not to assume that any interpretation that pops into our heads while reading it is the correct one.

Catholics are lucky in that the Church is slow to approve new translations, so we only have a few. The worst is the New American, being published about 1970, and even it's not that bad (no gender-inclusive language, for instance). The others, the Douay-Rheims, the RSV, and the Jerusalem Bible are all very good.

Translation is tricky, and there are often many different ways to translate a particular word or phrase. Even in Latin, which shares a lot with English, there are forms that simply don't translate directly (many uses of the subjunctive, for instance), so you have to decide on the closest possible meaning based on the context and your assumptions about what the author meant. I'd guess coming from Hebrew or Greek that's even more true, so it's no surprise that translations differ.

Wendy said...

A lot of times, the limitation of translations is based on the English language's lack of words. For instance, there is one word for love. In Greek there are three. This can lead to meaning being lost. If one can get a Strong's concordance, look up the passage where Jesus asks Peter "do you love me?" three times. It makes more sense when you can see that there is more than one word for love used and who says them.

Anonymous said...

It is not the nature of women to follow a low-performance pastor or priest.

The speed of the collapse is remarkable; it appears that every church denomination that has permitted women to teach in the church and hold authority over men has immediately and rapidly declined.

Women will not follow a church leader who is less than them. In today's western society being a male is not enough.

Anonymous said...

The future of the church is not liberal:

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/is-liberal-christianity-actually-the-future/

The Unitarians are going the way of the dodo. Hasta La Vista:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalist_Association

Anonymous said...

I understand that it is now being preached in some "nondemoninational, bible churches" that women are the Lord's highest creation because He made them last, thus justifying wife tyranny in the home. My mother-in-law informed me of this recently. I don't recall in Genesis where the Lord said last equals superior to first. This suggests that God could make a defective product in Adam. Maybe Adam was too stupid for the serpent to tempt. If we read this implication into Scripture, we ought to jettison some of the Pauline letters because the Apostle Paul was wrong when writing about women preaching. How can a higher creation be forbidden from preaching? I submit that this is Gnosticism rearing its ugly, heretical head in these nondenom./megachurch communities. The cognitive dissonance in this false teaching while simultaneously demanding steadfast, Christian male leadership of the family is deafening.

Kudos to the gentleman for calling this heretical, Gnostic nonsense out. He is a gentleman, indeed, for courageously confronting this wickedness.

I guess these pastors know on which side their bread is buttered. It's evident in many man-shaming sermons on Mothers' Day and Fathers' Day as well. "You husbands are sinful monsters who who refuse to grow up and cater to you're wives every whim. So man-up like a Biblical Patriarch and contribute to the building fund!"

Eric Breaux said...

http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/the-feminization-of-church.html

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.