The Lie of Servant Leadership Part 2

Building on the previous post The Lie of Servant Leadership, this one comes to us from a series of IFStudies articles. Aaron Renn actually leads off the first one with similar stuff from the previou spost.

Renn makes the case in that often most Christian and conservatives are hyperfocused on masculinity not own it’s own but always on what it can do for women and children. He echoes this in the bulleted article:

Healthy masculinity is when men flourish first for themselves, then for their families, posterity, and communities. A man embodying healthy masculinity knows who he is. He is physically healthy and strong. He is pursuing and developing his skills and capabilities to make him more competent and able to take action. He has a sense of agency, drive, and desire to make his mark on the world, not just have the world make its mark on him. He is someone who exists in a world where it is realistically possible for him to develop his potential, fulfill his own ambitions, and leave a posterity and a legacy for the future.

Hence, in his article on IFStudies he notes that healthy masculinity is first for themselves, although in Christian terms it’s first to please God with how He designed us to be then to build a legacy. Women and children can be part of that, but mission is always paramount (and for Christians obviously Christ’s mission).

Only then is a man actually able to lead by example as the Bible states rather than walking backwards into some form of slavery where a man’s duty is defined by what he does for his wife and children or how he makes his wife and children feel.

Some of the rest in the series usually start out fine, but then devolve into everything about responsibility.

The first lesson is that no man should feel ashamed of being male, because God created him that way. I also believe that men function best in environments marked by order, so I will teach my sons that men who want to lead families need to be led by God’s word.

They also need to know that women are neither enemies to be engaged with on the battlefields of the culture wars, nor objects to be demeaned through music and media. They should see their female counterparts for who they are—created beings made in the image of God who are equal in worth but distinct in form and nature. Men and women are meant to complement, not compete, with one another. Rejecting these differences is how we came to see chivalry as patronizing and pornography as empowering. Part of my job is to ensure my sons don’t fall prey to that type of thinking. The familiar motto of “provide and protect” feels countercultural in an era of “degrade and neglect.”

Good start, but then starts to get a bit hazy into the typical “equal but different” spiel in the second paragraph.

American boys and men also need to know that, despite what some people think, “responsibility” is not a dirty word. In fact, the ability to care for yourself and be accountable for others is what separates boys from men. The ultimate act of manhood is being willing to commit to one woman and the children you create for a lifetime.

Men and boys today need to see the vocations of husband and father as central to their identity. This is how I was raised. My father and his peers would frequently remind the boys in our church that laziness and unwillingness to provide for your household were traits of an ungodly man.

And then the definition of a manhood and masculinity is always what you can do for women and children.

Incidentally, I have found that asking “what does it mean to be a gentleman?” leads to a conversation much more fruitful than “what does it mean to be masculine?” or “what is healthy masculinity?” For better or worse, many boys equate masculinity with physical strength and endurance, weight training and football. As a matter of language, they can’t really get their heads around a masculine man engaging in visual arts or poetry or ballet: they start laughing, imagining an NFL offensive tackle wearing a tutu. But they can readily accept the idea of a gentleman who excels in visual arts or poetry or ballet.

However the term is defined, there are not many gentlemen to be found among young male celebrities today. Bruno Mars earned six Grammys for a song in which he tells a young woman “You and your a** invited” and offers her money if she will just “turn around and drop it for a player” because “That’s What I Like” (the title of the song). Drake conquered the pop charts last September with his album “Certified Lover Boy,” taking nine of the top 10 spots on the Billboard Top 100, a feat never equaled by any artist in history, not even the Beatles. Drake likes to boast “I’m undoubtedly the hottest and that’s just me bein’ modest.”

Already starts off pretty faulty by only using society comparisons.

I have visited more than 460 schools over the past 21 years, and I have found that most boys are hungry to have a conversation about what it means to be a good man. I have led those discussions with boys, where I suggest the following definitions as a starting point for conversation:

  • A gentleman governs his passions rather than being governed by them. As Supreme Allied Commander during the Second World War, Dwight D. Eisenhower would quote Proverbs 16:32: “Greater is he who can rule his own spirit than he who takes a city,” a verse his mother had taught him in childhood.
  • A gentleman never strikes a woman, not even in self-defense.
  • A gentleman never touches a woman without her consent.
  • A gentleman does not look at pornography, because pornography is degrading, not only to the woman who is objectified, but also to the man who uses it. I have heard from boys at high schools across the U.S. that their teacher in health class encourages them to masturbate, and porn is a useful adjunct to masturbation. The teacher explains that masturbation is safe sex, without the need to worry about obtaining a partner’s consent. Such advice reflects an impoverished view of what boys are and what they can become.
  • A gentleman does not bully the weak; instead, a gentleman defends the weak against the bully.

Each of these comments inspires a lively response from American teen boys–especially the comment about pornography. These are conversations boys need to have with an adult man who has the courage to use the word “gentleman,” in defiance of the current mainstream disapproval of the term as reinforcing the heteronormative patriarchy.

Everything is again reduced to how men can serve women or avoid thinking about women badly.

All living things live in such a way as to ensure the survival and prosperity of their species. This holds for plants, animals, and men. In our time, mankind not only threatens the survival of many other species but now even its own. All nations are either heading towards or already are significantly below replacement fertility rates. And in the OECD, member countries that have attempted to reverse this decline have no success to report. This a masculinity/femininity problem because it is a “complementarity of the sexes” problem.

No matter which way you look at it (theologically, philosophically, biologically, evolutionary, or in social science), the division of mankind into male and female is present for producing children. Both sexes can do an infinite number of other things, but they rarely need to be male or female to do them, and most of these things they can do alone. But they need their difference and their union to produce a baby. We are male and female primarily (even solely) to have and to raise children. [……]

Thus, the core measure of masculinity—the male’s complementary relationship to the female and the child—is whether a man can sustain an intact marriage. If he does, both the mother and the child thrive most in society, no matter which way the data is sliced. If he is not capable of sustaining marriage with the mother of his child, he is ‘toxic’ to her and to his child.

This one just jumps straight into defining masculinity in terms of how it impacts women and children.

This always seems to be the common theme with the combination of any of these descriptors in varying degrees.

  • Boomer
  • Conservative
  • Churchian

Manhood is never defined in relation to Christ and His mission and how marriage may be a part of it, but how manhood and masculinity is central to wives and children.

While it’s clear that manhood and masculinity are indeed central to impacting women and children, to focus on that actually creates an inversion of roles “servant leadership” that ends up being destructive to relationships and marriages instead of enhancing them.

Yet it is the same old thing consistently preached at Promise Keepers, conferences, man-up services, and the like.

When will they learn? Maybe never. But the death of their Churchian Churches shows us why it’s rotten.

This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to The Lie of Servant Leadership Part 2

  1. Pingback: » The Lie of Servant Leadership Part 2

  2. johnson j says:

    a servant leader is the first of the four things the earth cannot bear and three that disquiet the earth (Prov 30:21+).

    A servant leader/ruler.

    A fool filled with food.

    An odious women when married.

    A female servant who is heir to her female master (i.e. feminism, women promoting women).

  3. johnson j says:

    Kipling wrote a poem about these verses, title based on the KJV wording. The first stanza:

    A Servant When He Reigneth

    Three things make earth unquiet
    And four she cannot brook
    The godly Agur counted them
    And put them in a book —
    Those Four Tremendous Curses
    With which mankind is cursed;
    But a Servant when He Reigneth
    Old Agur entered first.
    An Handmaid that is Mistress
    We need not call upon.
    A Fool when he is full of Meat
    Will fall asleep anon.
    An Odious Woman Married
    May bear a babe and mend;
    But a Servant when He Reigneth
    Is Confusion to the end.

  4. Sharkly says:

    The words that you quoted from Aaron Renn encapsulate what is fundamentally wrong between the sexes, and how the post-patristic church planted and tended the devil’s seed that has produced the toxic fruit of Feminism. As you pointed out, his perspective keeps defaulting to having men give women and their whims the worth-ship to be served.

    Aaron Renn says: “They should see their female counterparts for who they are—created beings made in the image of God who are equal in worth but distinct in form and nature.”

    That is a Satanic lie, that defies the plainest reading of the Bible. God is not a hermaphrodite, like Baphomet, nor did she create women in her own likeness. God identifies as male and God identified males as his image and glory.
    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. 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

    Early church father Ambrosiaster wrote: “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.”

    It was the unanimous belief of the earliest church handed down from the apostles that only men image our patriarchal Father and Son Godhead. The church has absorbed a latter heresy of Rome that then claimed women were also the image of deity, so that Mary could be offered as a substitute goddess to appease forcibly converted goddess worshippers. How could Mary be a deity if she wasn’t even in the image of deity? Even to this day that lie still only serves to turn Christianity into goddess worship. It was Satan’s plan to return Christ’s church to the original sin of Adam — hearkening to and serving woman, the defiler, instead of God.

    Aaron Renn says: “The ultimate act of manhood is being willing to commit to one woman…”
    More woman worshipping lies! God is both patriarchal and polygynous. God symbolically married two sisters, Israel and Judah, and has put them away, and will marry a new bride taken as a rib or remnant from the body of Christ (the Last Adam) and made into a bride by God, for Christ, to intentionally make the other two wives jealous, and return to Him. Read the Bible. Most of the great patriarchs of our faith were polygynous. I can assure you, the patriarchs, with their multiple wives, were far more masculine than Aaron Renn’s hypothetical ballet dancing prancing fool, playing twinkle toes in a leotard.

    Aaron Renn says: “A gentleman never strikes a woman, not even in self-defense.”
    Nor does a child strike his parent, nor a slave strike his master, discipline comes from the top down. Know your place on the bottom leotard-boi. And pray she doesn’t break out the strap-on. /S

    Aaron Renn says: “A gentleman never touches a woman without her consent.”
    No, M’lady! I dare not besmirch a goddess, only if you deign to touch me, shall we ever contact. /S

    You could go on for days with such churchian role-reversing chivalric simping.

    The point is that God clearly tells us woman is the inferior/weaker vessel, and that her greatest honor lies in that, by the great grace of God, she has been offered the same grace of life as men.(1 Peter 3:7) However she is in no wise the Image of the Father or the Son or their uniting masculine Spirit which impregnated Mary. She is to see to it that she fear/reverence her husband, the image of God.(Ephesians 5:33)

    Basically this churchian false religion is neo-fertility-goddess-worship, or simping, putting women above the image of God the Father and Son, inverting God’s created order. Where the defiler disciplines the image of God, but the likeness of God can never discipline the defiler. It is Satan’s plan of lawlessness, disorder, and functional female headship. Basically it’s Critical Religion Theory, whereby God, His image, and His order, are systematically demonized to the delight of Satan, whom they unwittingly serve by deconstructing God’s holy patriarchal order to make way for a satanic cultural revolution that again functionally empowers women above of the image of God, while leaving the image of God with the blame for all of the defilers’ defiling.

  5. cameron232 says:

    Ambrosiaster was a Catholic Christian who lived post “Constantine created Catholicism.” He is cited by Catholics as proof of the most distinctively Catholic of all doctrines- he wrote of the primacy of the Pope – contra even the Orthodox (are they also The Whore or just one of the whore’s daughters?- confusing)

    I suppose you could claim he is an example of the residue of the original teaching post nicene. Ok.

    I don’t know about the image of God teaching but Mary was seen as an intercessor and venerated from almost the beginning. We have art/icons on early Christian graves and the words of the early Christians as proof.

    And what a great example to venerate. A virgin in submission to God the Father and His Son.

  6. @ Sharkly

    The words that you quoted from Aaron Renn encapsulate what is fundamentally wrong between the sexes, and how the post-patristic church planted and tended the devil’s seed that has produced the toxic fruit of Feminism. As you pointed out, his perspective keeps defaulting to having men give women and their whims the worth-ship to be served.

    Aaron Renn only wrote the first quoted section.

    The 2nd through 4th other IFStudies articles which I linked and quoted are written by other authors. They’re the ones who have the skewed perspectives.

  7. Bardelys the Magnificent says:

    How could Mary be a deity if she wasn’t even in the image of deity?

    Because she isn’t a deity and has never been thought of a such. Damn Occam and his razor. The rest of your post was agreeable.

  8. thedeti says:

    I hate fighting about the veneration of Mary the mother of Jesus.

    She’s not worshiped. She’s not a deity. She’s venerated in the Catholic church, and to me that’s fine.

    I am literally bored to death with arguments over who and what Mary was. She was the flawed, human vessel through which God chose to bring Himself to the world in human form. She was born, she lived, her first born was the Christ, conceived of the Holy Spirit. We take this on faith. The fact that Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, could come into the world perfect through imperfection, is part of the miracle, it’s part of the mystery of faith. It’s part of faith. We can’t prove it. We can never prove it. We take it on faith because our God, in whom we believe, said so, and because witnesses were there who told of it and wrote of it.

    Mary was not perfect. She was not sinless. Anyone who claims Mary was sinless is wrong. Anyone who claims venerating Mary is wrong, is wrong.

  9. cameron232 says:

    She was without sin – “filled with grace” – filled – no room for sin. I’m a Bible literalist.

  10. thedeti says:

    Cam: No. Just… no.

    All kinds of people are filled with grace and they’re sinful, imperfect people. The Holy Spirit – God Himself – lives in every believer, and they’re sinful, imperfect people.

    I don’t buy it.

  11. cameron232 says:

    No problem deti. I do and have to.

  12. Bardelys the Magnificent says:

    Mary was born with Original Sin just like the rest of us. She was specially shielded from sin for the purposes of giving birth to our Lord, because you cannot bring a perfect thing out of an imperfect one. How, when and why this happened is a mystery, and must be taken as a matter of faith. This was decided millenia ago, and not worth arguing over.

    Damn you, Sharkly, for speaking falsehoods and derailing the thread. This wasn’t supposed to be about Marian theology. Please don’t do it again. Hopefully, we can now retvrn to our regularly scheduled program.

  13. thedeti says:

    I literally don’t care.

    “Mary was perfect and without sin”

    “Mary was imperfect but shielded from sin to give birth to Jesus”

    “Mary was imperfect”

    I don’t care. I DO NOT CARE.

    I care about helping men.

  14. Bardelys the Magnificent says:

    Edit: born with means she was born a human, meaning she had the sin nature within her. At some point God had to remove it that so she could be the mother of God. How and when that happened is the mystery that we must take on faith. The fact that it had to be removed means 1) it was in ate within her (meaning she would have been born with it if God hadn’t intervened) and 2) she is not a deity. Again, all this was clarified long ago and we can and should move on.

  15. cameron232 says:

    Not addressed to deti who doesn’t care.

    Mary was conceived without original sin. The Church fathers referred to her as “all holy one.” Full of grace, grace being, upon reflection, sanctifying. Full of grace being Mary’s name in God’s eyes. A new creation through the grace God filled her with. The antithesis of Eve – the new Eve.

    As always with a dogma, the culmination of a long history of reflection reaching back to the beginning and never new as our detractors claim.

  16. Sharkly says:

    My apologies to Mr. Renn. I had thought all the quotes in the post above were from his articles.

    cameron232, my point was not to debate whether Catholics claim Ambrosiaster or even the Apostle Peter or all saved people as part of their Roman church.(the Great Whore) My point was that the original unanimous recorded belief of the patristic church was that only men were made in the image of God. We have surviving writings from Tertullian, Augustine, Ambrosiaster, and others unanimously attesting to that being the original position of the church, as handed down from the Apostles. Women being claimed to be the image of God is a later heresy, that establishes a false moral authority for a presumed equality of the sexes that is the foundation all Feminism. The Apostle Paul taught (in Ephesians 5) that husbands (the image of Christ) were to be reverenced by their wives, while redeemed wives (who image the bride of Christ) were to adorn themselves with shamefacedness. Not to be a loud and proud whore claiming to be Christ’s vicar, and to even speak for Him. Your current Pachamama-praising woke-pope is an abominable joke.

    Yes I believe that, all we like sheep have gone astray, each unto our own way. And that the heart of man is deceitfully wicked. And the only thing clearly more corrupt than the heart of man, is his political and religious organizations. The Mother of Harlots has many whoring daughters born from her, including all her various “Orthodox” and “Protestant” daughters. Christ (the Last Adam) doesn’t marry His own body. Exactly like with the first Adam, a tiny remnant or rib is to be separated out from the body of Christ to be made by God into Christ’s bride. Those folks who are deemed worthy to become part of the “bride of Christ” might be devout followers of Christ separated out from among any of those straying churches, to worship Christ in spirit and in truth.

    Of course the boastful whoring Church of Rome will lie to maintain her claim of infallibility. The way of the adulterous woman is to take it in, then wipe out her opening, and then claim she has done no wickedness. Saying that no Catholics have ever worshipped Mary, or prayed for her to forgive their sins, or called her the “Queen of heaven”, is like saying the church of Rome never sold indulgences to sin, or ever later made saints of the people they had executed as heretics, or declared Martin Luther a “witness to the gospel” after having excommunicated him. You have to be willfully blind to history to believe in an infallible Roman church, with all their popes and anti-popes, and constant revision of their own history. Isn’t woke-pope Francis wanting to come out with even more apologies on behalf of his church?

    Today’s Feminism is the belated fruit of the Satanic seeds of heresy that the church of Rome took in and cultivated early on in their existence. When the big whoring church of Rome pushed to declare women to be the likeness’s of their goddess, she thereby turned men back towards Adam’s original sin of giving the feminine defiler the worth-ship to be followed over God’s word. Don’t stay blind to it, in denial.

    To defeat Feminism men need to reclaim their birthright, the reverence that is due to men alone for being made in the likeness of God, superior to all other earthly creatures including women. Men were also given clear dominion over women and all the other earthly creatures because God is orderly and it is fitting in the Lord, and in everybody’s best interest, that the superior should rule over the inferior.

    Bardelys the Magnificent, you’re the one who is lost and blinded by falsehood. Men alone being the image of our masculine God is absolutely the foundational truth necessary to defeat Feminism. If women are equally the image of our Father and Son Godhead then men and women are truly equal in the highest possible regard. Then men’s headship becomes just a sexist dictate given with little reason by divine fiat, and marriage becomes a form of enslavement where one partner places their equal into subjection. Allowing women to usurp and claim to be the image and glory of God, fully establishes all the foundation that Feminism was built on. The reason Feminists want to smash the patriarchy is because they feel it is unjust because they view themselves as our equals. Don’t be obtuse! For patriarchy to flourish, women have to again be taught to acknowledge that men are superior and that it is in everybody’s best interest that loving God put men in charge, to be likenesses of Himself. Men were not created for women, but for God. Women were created for men. The Bible tells us so.

  17. cameron232 says:

    Unanimous patristic witness to a teaching would involve a counsel or if you’re citing church fathers would presumably involve many more church fathers presumably all. Some cited are heretics.

  18. cameron232 says:

    Although don’t get me wrong I really like Tertullian, Sharkly.

  19. Sharkly says:

    cameron232,
    Tertullian is recognized as “the father of Latin Christianity”, and wrote the early church’s defense against heresy. Augustine is a canonized Catholic Saint and “doctor of the church”, and Augustine cited Ambrosiaster’s commentaries in his own works. And you yourself said that “Ambrosiaster was a Catholic Christian…”. So how were these men who shepherded the early church now all accused by you of writing to mislead us as to their then uncontroversial knowledge that only men are the image of God? The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus also says God formed men after His own image. Plus 1 Corinthians 11:7 clearly explains it, for those who are not beholden to Feminism.

    Can you cite any Apostolic or Patristic age fathers of the church who wrote that women were the image of the Father or Son? LOL No. It isn’t until later that Feminism became church doctrine. And Feminists still today squeal that the early church fathers were misogynistic, because of their clearly stated lower opinion of women. That lower opinion of women stemmed from their scripturally based belief, that only men bore the image and glory of God, as the Apostle Paul told us, when explaining why men do not veil themselves, like women, when approaching God in prayer.

    Holy Patriarchy isn’t likely to return while women are still wrongly revered as images of God. Don’t idolize them. Whereas men are God’s own graven images, so God’s first commandment was to not make any counterfeits. Which people do by falsely claiming women were also graven from the earth into God’s image, as we are told that Adam was.

    This isn’t a derailing. The exclusive masculinity of God is where our track starts. You’re satanically neutering God until you get His sexuality straight. He spent the entire Bible referring to Himself only as male. God created these two distinct sexes to teach us something about His character by exclusively identifying Himself as the male sex. Don’t believe women are as much like God as men, that’s a satanic deceit.

  20. “American boys and men also need to know that, despite what some people think, ‘responsibility’ is not a dirty word.”

    You can tell the purveyors of this ideology that “responsibility” is in fact a dirty word if there is no commensurate authority to go along with that responsibility.

    Always remember – Responsibility without authority is slavery, Authority without responsibility is tyranny.

  21. locustsplease says:

    Overton. Responsibility is mandatory, rewards will b at the whim of your master. Yep definitely slavery. I dont care what she did dont ever strike your master. While I do blame women to a certain point about where we are as a society I’m still waiting for 1 preacher to tell them to cook diner for their husband’s and have sex with him. The 2 things they want. With their tax free existences they have all been paid for with subsidies from our heathen govt.. ironically they don’t want the responsibility of paying their taxes Jesus explicitly told them to pay and now have tongues tied with a spell.

  22. cameron232 says:

    Shoot I can cook dinner for myself. Boil pasta in oven proof pan. Drain. Mix in 1 container of ricotta cheese. Layer jarred marinara sauce and cheese over it. Bake. Delicious.

    I can’t have sex with myself.

  23. Bardelys the Magnificent says:

    Sharkly,

    I only disagreed with you about Mary. You’re a lover of argument, not of truth.

  24. Sharkly says:

    Titus 1:9 (ESV) He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

    Jude said: “I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith…”

    It’s a shame some of y’all can’t see what I’m doing. You’re so indoctrinated by the “cult of nice” that any man who rebukes or contends for the original faith, gets labeled as hostile and argumentative by you.

    I swear to you, as long as men still worshipfully claim that women are the image of their deity, they leave the essential founding falsehood of idolatrous Feminism intact. The church whored with Satan, the current ruler of this world, and gave birth to Feminism. Many Christian preachers will even brag that Christianity started Feminism and championed Women’s empowerment. We must acknowledge that Satan used the church to give birth to Feminism, the fruit of his wickedness, and a reversal of God’s holy order.

    Some may claim, “But it isn’t a full reversal of God’s order, we’re just saying women are equal, not superior”. But that is a deceit. As others have pointed out above, if men are held responsible for the success of their marriages, while being denied the authority to discipline their wives when they are in rebellion, this, by definition, enslaves the man to appeasing her usurping and bad behavior. They are giving women authority without responsibility and giving men responsibility without authority, thereby clearly setting women above men, effectively enslaving men to tyrannical women.

    Furthermore, sexual equality doesn’t work. You can’t have a democracy of two people. Plus, every woman wants a man she can look up to. And you don’t look up to your equal.
    Christianity originally taught that men are the superior first sex made in the image of God and imbued with the glory of God, and it is necessary for women to be taught to believe that, for them to develop right attitudes and perspective, about themselves, about men, and about God.

    Pastors have built a cottage industry around denigrating men, who are the image and glory of God, and praising womankind who should instead be taught to adorn themselves with shamefacedness. The early church did exactly the opposite. Tertullian wrote telling women: “Do you not know that you are Eve? The judgment of God upon this sex lives on in this age; therefore, necessarily the guilt should live on also. You are the gateway of the devil; you are the one who unseals the curse of that tree, and you are the first one to turn your back on the divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the devil was not capable of corrupting; you easily destroyed the image of God, Adam. Because of what you deserve, that is, death, even the Son of God had to die.”

    The only reason you won’t hear that same message preached today, just as boldly, is because ALL the churches have been turned aside to lies. Flattering women and denigrating men, is the satanic message of the whoring churches trying to pass themselves off as Christ’s pure bride. The unfaithful church leaders attack the image of God (men) through empowering women to act independently of men, just as their father Satan got Eve to do. Jesus told the religious leaders of His day that they were sons of the devil. And our religious leaders preside over a far more lawless time. Why do you imagine them to be good when they stubbornly dispense Satan’s doctrine in Jesus’ name? And why do some of you try to detract from a man who shares this truth because he loves the truth enough to argue with y’all in an effort to free you from the deceit of your whoring churches?

    I shouldn’t be the only one shouting from the rooftop that women aren’t images of God. But I seemingly am. Is it because others are too foolish to see how only our imaging of God makes men categorically superior to all women and makes a complete categorical lie out of “equality” which is the foundation of Feminism, or is it because others are all too cowardly to speak that truth? I think it’s because they don’t really want to give up their woman-worship and see women as being beneath them. They’ve been told that the truth of God is a prideful lie, by their churches. Perhaps adopting the lie of sexual “equality” is as far as most men want to advance against Feminism, with perhaps a token acknowledgement of many men being stronger and more rational than the average woman. None of them want to say that only men are categorically endowed by their Creator with His own likeness, and the glory of it, and that alone is enough to show God’s plan of patriarchy is holy and right and that those who oppose holy patriarchy are destroyers of law and order, and unjust wretches who categorically abase the image of God and empower defilers in service of Satan.

    But don’t let me derail y’all. /S Back to rearranging the proverbial deck chairs for your Titanic churches, that willfully deny the boundless fount of men’s categorical superiority to all women. Back into your pews to watch your pastor can set up some strawman of a bad husband and then beat the stuffing out of him for all the “goddesses” in the audience to inspire them to declare their own husbands to also be bad and to unleash their own verbal beatdown of the image of Christ in their life. I have said, Ye are gods! But you have exchanged the truth for a lie and worship and serve the creature (women) rather than the Creator.

  25. Bardelys the Magnificent says:

    as long as men still worshipfully claim that women are the image of their deity

    Yet you have people here telling you that’s not the case, and you’re still effort-poasting. My above statement still stands.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s