See this index.
A few months ago in “Habitually Being Wrong” I noted that many men often make a habit of saying objectively false statements that could have been invalidated by a simple Google search.
This is not a mistake or accident, it’s a habit. I noted how:
Here we have a blogger who makes sweeping, exclusive claims—which are used to sit in judgment over others—but can’t even be bothered to do even a minimal amount of research over a five year period. Of the claims he did research, I was able to debunk one of them by doing a single Google search.
This is not a mistake or accident, it is a habit.
Sharkly argued that only men—and not women—were made in the image of God. He wrote:
All surviving evidence shows that the early church unanimously believed that only men are in the image of God. Tertullian, Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and others all wrote of men alone being the image of God. The women of the early church knew they were not in the great and glorious image of God like their husbands, and consequently they would have no reasonable basis to claim equality with men. Furthermore women were not only looked upon as lesser and weaker vessels, but they were in fact viewed as a source of uncleanness and defilement, the original source of transgression against God, and prone to giving in to their passions and their ever emerging lustful desires.
…and later…
The men who wrote in unanimous agreement that only men are the image of our Father & Son Godhead, were all the apostolic and patristic fathers of the church.
The claim that all evidence (including all the apostolic and patristic fathers) supports a position is a massive, extraordinary claim. I rarely make such claims, because in most arguments there is evidence supporting both sides.
One rare area where I make exclusive claims is with regards to the Eucharist. That’s because I know that the Roman Catholic Eucharist did not exist before the latter half of the 4th century, because the Roman Catholic Church did not exist yet. So, it is an historical impossibility that the Roman Catholic Eucharist existed prior to Roman Catholicism. There can’t be evidence of a thing that didn’t exist, so I was comfortable making such an extraordinary claim. And during my series, I showed exactly how overwhelming the evidence is.
But this is the key point: even though I knew the evidence was unanimous, I still subjected it to an extensive examination as if the evidence was not unanimous. I didn’t simply make a point and assume that it was true. I checked. And checked again.
But Sharkly does not have overwhelming evidence, because the belief that women were made in the image of God cannot be identified with any particular historical starting point. Indeed, it can be derived from scripture itself.
So I took Sharkly’s claim, and I went to Google, and within 5 minutes I debunked his claim. It was that easy. Here is where we left the discussion last.
Those who argued against women being in the image of God:
Ambrosiaster
Tertullian
Those who argued that women were made in the image of God:
Basil of Caesarea
Didymus the Blind
Gregory of Nazianzus the elder
Gregory of Nazianzus the younger
Irenaeus of Lyons
John Chrysostom
Origen of Alexandria
For those keeping score at home, not only is the “women are not made in the image of God” doctrine not unanimous, but it’s not even the majority view! Now, I don’t have time to read all the patristic writers on this particualr topic, but I wanted to try to search for some more.
Regarding Sharkly’s position, all I could come up with was Tertullian, Ambrosiaster, and (potentially) Augustine. However, regarding Augustine, he viewed the image of God as more of a gradient rather than a binary: men are more rational and so display the image of God to a proportionally greater degree. Since this implies that women are actually made in the image of God, just to a lesser degree, I’m not including it in either list (since it could, arguably, go in either).
Regarding the traditional position that all humans are made in the image of God, here are three that I had not considered previously:
Jerome
Athansius of Alexandria
Epiphanius
Jerome wrote:
For, among other wicked things, he has presumed to say this, too, that Adam lost the image of God, although Scripture nowhere declares that he did. Were it so, never would all the creatures in the world be subject to Adam’s seed—that is, to the entire human race
…
For never would all things be subjected to men if men had not— together with their authority over all—the image of God. But the divine Scripture conjoins and associates with this the grace of the blessing which was conferred upon Adam and upon the generations which de scended from him. No one can by twisting the meaning of words presume to say that this grace of God was given to one only, and that he alone was made in the image of God (he and his wife, that is, for while he was formed of clay she was made of one of his ribs), but that those who were subse quently conceived in the womb and not born as was Adam did not possess God’s image
He believed that the whole human race rules over the creatures of the earth as the “seed of Adam”, and he explicitly states that Adam and Eve were made in the image of God.
Athansius wrote:
And among these, having taken special pity, above all things on earth, upon the race of men, and having perceived its inability, by virtue of the condition of its origin, to continue in one stay, He gave them a further gift, and He did not barely create man, as He did all the irrational creatures on the earth, but made them after His own image, giving them a portion even of the power of His own Word; so that having as it were a kind of reflexion of the Word, and being made rational, they might be able to abide ever in blessedness, living the true life which belongs to the saints in paradise.
Athansius emphasized that the image of God was contained in the rational capacity of mankind, which necessarily includes both men and women.
Epiphanius wrote:
To deny this doctrine of God’s image is not faithful, or true to God’s holy church. All people are plainly in God’s image and no one whose hope is in God will deny it, unless certain persons, who are expelled from the church and the tradition of the patriarchs, prophets, Law, apostles and evangelists, make up their own mythology.
This brings the score up to 10 to 2!
Did all the apostolic and patristic writers agree that only men were made in the image of God? Absolutely not. It’s not even close to being true.
I also explored the question of the universality of Tertullian’s views and determined that while Tertullian’s viewpoints were highly influential, they received limited acceptance among the broader Christian community. Considering his association with the Montanist movement, we are not surprised that his views would not be universally accepted. Later writers such as Cyprian and Augustine would be influenced by his works, but would not take them authoritatively. Augustine in particular developed a particularly nuanced view of the image of God with regards to men and women.
It’s been roughly a year now since Sharkly made his claim to me. In that year, I’ve consistently refuted his claims. But I’ve also shown that he’s habitually wrong. Many times when I found someone else to add to the list, I noticed that he had never published anything on that person on his blog:
It’s easy for the under-informed to ignorantly claim that all the early writers are unanimous on a topic when they’ve never read or (at the very least) publicly published anything about most of them.
Out of interest, I also decided to check to see which patristic writers believed that humanity lost the image of God in the fall. I have previously written about that in “Sharkly on Women, Part 2.” I found allegations that the following writers argued that it was “lost” through corruption:
Irenaeus of Lyons
Tertullian
Theophilus of Antioch
But I found a few that argued that it was lost completely:
Origen of Alexandria
Augustine (see: “Confessions (Book 13)” and “The City of God”)
Ambrose of Milan (see: “Six Days of Creation”)
This is interesting, because Tertullian believed that only men were made in the image of God, but still wrote in “On the Soul (De Anima)” (in Chapter 6) that man’s image was defiled, injured, severely corrupted, and subject to passions and afflictions. In particular, he understood the image of God to be “reason and free will,” which I believe does not conform to Sharkly’s definition of the image of God.
I also found a suggestion that the belief that men reflect the image of God more fully than women is a Gnostic belief. Specifically, the Gospel of Thomas and the Pistis Sophia may indicate this, and it may be found in the beliefs of the Valentinians. These may be worth further study.
This is all I could find in writers writing before the 5th century. If I find more supporting either position, I’ll post a follow-up.
Sharkly’s main problem(other than him having poor reading comprehension as he projects onto others when it is pointed out to him, as he is the ”expert” on the subject) in the ”Christian Manosphere” is he doesn’t listen even to his supposed ”BFF”, Jack like in this exchange (that ties together with your post here) from a year+ ago:
”Sharkly says:
2023-07-18 at 7:54 am
“Sexual equality” is the satanic foundation for Feminism. It must be countered with the truth of God’s word, that God made only men to be the image of His patriarchal Father & Son Godhead. Which then makes all men categorically superior to womankind.
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.
The husband images Jesus Christ, who is God, while the wife images the ever-straying church, not God.
Until men can tell women that their sex is the categorically inferior one, not the superior sex created by God to rule in His image, and that it is in every man, woman, and child’s, best interest for the superior sex to rule over the weaker vessels in accordance with God’s holy patriarchal order, then Feminism’s foundation of sexual equality is still in place and it remains seemingly a usurpation for men to rule over women and marriage seemingly remains a form of slavery whereby a man unfairly subjugates his equal.
Things won’t get fixed while churchians blasphemously tell women they too are the images of their goddess, or of their hermaphrodite god, Baphomet. Is God truly our Father? Or is he just a hermaphrodite lying to us about His sex? We need to repent of our emasculating blasphemy against God and return to the unanimous and biblical belief of the first church, that only men are the image of God. Because if the sexes are truly both equally in the image of the Most High God, then men and women are equal in the highest possible regard, and the Feminist were clearly right, and we were wrong to try to usurp over them, and we should all take a step back and follow their agenda for a while, for being so wrong, and buy some tuckwear to keep our toxic penises tucked between our legs in shame.
But thankfully that isn’t the case. Women are not an image of the Father nor of the Son, nor of the masculine Holy Spirit who Himself impregnated Mary.
But, I can assure you, anybody who blasphemously still maintains that women are also the image of the Most High God and Father, are directly supporting the religious and ideological foundation of Feminism, which is fundamental sexual equality. And they have left the first church’s doctrine.
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.”
”Jack says:
2023-07-18 at 8:43 am
Sharkly,
Would you care to tie your commentary into the topic of the post? If not, then please post similar sermons on your own blog.”
”Sharkly says:
2023-07-18 at 10:12 am
I recognized this connection in the original post.
1) Women choose poorly. They openly admit to preferring bad boys, and then want to blame those men for being bad boys.
That makes women sound morally inferior, unfit to rule over men, and like they choose to incentivize evil when they do make a choice. (defilers)
2) Women cling to a gynocentric microcosm built on feminist notions of equality, and therefore set themselves up in a relationship that is either abusive or unfulfilling.
Maybe those notions of equality are wrong? Maybe women are inferior?
3) Women do not have the moral capability to take responsibility for their decisions. They need a man’s moral covering.
That sounds pretty morally inferior to me!
4) Women refuse to submit to the man in their life and thereby accept his moral covering.
Being so rebellious and stubborn about defying and denying their God-appointed heads, doesn’t seem morally superior to me. But, morally in need of covering, as you explained.
It’s like we’re both tunneling through the mountain of Feminism from opposite sides. Y’all have almost figured out that women are morally inferior, by practical observations. And I’ve been trying to tell y’all that women are the inferior second-class sex based upon Gods word telling us repeatedly, in many different ways, that men are the images of God, while being quite careful to never say that any woman is God’s image.
e.g. God cursed both the serpent and the woman with a bodily curse, but God would not curse Adam like that because Adam was God’s own likeness, instead God cursed the earth from which Adam was taken before being formed into the image of God. And for those who missed the fact that God didn’t curse His own likeness, God explains again why we aren’t supposed to curse men in the New Testament:
James 3:8(KJV) But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. 9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. 10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
It is quite clear that God is telling us that men are representative of Him:
Matthew 25:40(KJV) And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Go is not stupid. If He had actually meant “brothers and sisters”, He’d have written that. Even the least of Men is still an image of God. Men are CATEGORICALLY the superior sex.
If you claim men are superior because of just physical or mental abilities, then it varies by degree and some women may actually be stronger and shrewder than their husbands. But husbands categorically have been given the headship to rule over their wives because men were categorically made to rule as likenesses of the supreme Ruler of the universe.
If y’all will come a little further with your line of reasoning, and accept what I’ve presented from many scriptures, over at my own blog, we’ll meet up together and we’ll all have two complete sets of reasons to know that women were created inferior to men. Thereby making it in everybody’s best interest that there is complete rule by patriarchy, on earth as it is in heaven. God’s holy patriarchy is morally the rightest form of family government as explained by God in the Bible, and pragmatically the best as deduced from observation.”
”Jack says:
2023-07-18 at 8:43 am
Sharkly,
Would you care to tie your commentary into the topic of the post? If not, then please post similar sermons on your own blog.”
Just like so many months ago Sharkly brought up his ”Patriarchs should be trusted to execute their wife and children ” doctrine here but somehow forgot to do a post on it at his site(s) or comment about it at SF or Spawnys(most likely)reason why?:
Either he saw how insane it was or others I.E.SurfDumb and Feeriker told him ”that kind of talk will get us and others to shun and abandon you and your site(s).”
Also:
For some reason ”BOLD & Biblical” Sparkly is still afraid(a year plus later after i posted it at Spawnys)to comment on his idol Jordan Peterson’s position(maybe he secretly agrees with it?) here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu9079rbaLY
Jordan Peterson CLARIFIES The Creation of Woman | “Women Are NOT Subordinate To Men”
Sparkly pretends(as he lives in his own tragicomic fantasy land) that his BFFS and idols like Peterson agree with him, then later cries, ”I was twicked, bros,” to whoever will listen.
Also:
If Sparkly were more than just another latter-day mainstream NPC troll bot emulating the ”Theobros” trendsters preaching Doug Wilson and Jordon Peterson, he would preach Jesse Lee Peterson like DAL’S right-hand tradcon Cane Caldo would do sometimes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeDoBewoTHo
Why God Made Women, and Why They’re All So Evil
Well, that just settles it doesnt it?
If women are are not in the image of God…..and are made just for man. Then, man cannot expect women to have any agency. She is just a “thing” to have sex with. She also cannot be held to any biblical standard bc she has no agency. She cannot “help” herself for anything because she is unable to grasp anything that would require a “moral” duty or obligation.
These men “just dont like women” and yet spend all their time talking about them. Again, these men have a very odd fixation on “sex” and how that only makes you a man, while telling men the “thing” they have sex with isnt made, or worthy, or cant reach any level of responisbility.
This is mental illness. And should be ignored Derek.
Don’t worry, I more-or-less agree with you.
I wrote this article because I’m, at my core, a scholar. The question of who is made in the image of God (and when, where, and how) is, from the historical perspective, quite interesting to me. That was my primary reason for writing this post.
But, I’m also interested in sociological topics, such as why people assert as dogmatic religious truth things that are easily verified to be false. Many people who are not mentally ill exhibit this behavior. Otherwise perfectly normal people will insist that objectively false things are true. So exploring that is the secondary purpose of this post.
I met a “christian” over the weekend at Target in line, he asked me if I “knew” Jesus Christ as my “lord and savior”
I gave him the look to “go on, keep speaking” and he told me I had to recite the sinners prayer, and accept Jesus as the “lord of my life” and then I had to wait on “The Holy Spirit” and “speak in tongues” and then I would be “written in the book of of life to be be dancing with jesus for eternity”
I purported “you have to speak in tongues?” and he said “Yup, no other way to have the Kingdom. Real Christians believe this”
This wasnt some teen, this was some hard hat guy maybe a decade or so younger than me
“So” I asked “If one doesnt speak in tongues, they go to the Lake of Fire”
He nodded, “most christians are sadly blinded by satan and the modern church” (oh here we go) “and on judment day will be tormented forever”
I quoted “Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?” John 11 25-26
He then told me “the KJV is a corrupt version of the Bible” (oh here we go again)
I told him, “you seek God your way and I’ll take His word for it. Not yours. Merry Christmas.”
This sloppy evangelism today we see in the RP and from people like this is exactly why the modern church is pretty much dead. Call it what it is. A social club to lord over how much better you are than anyone else.
😉
I met a “christian” over the weekend at Target in line, he asked me if I “knew” Jesus Christ as my “lord and savior”
I gave him the look to “go on, keep speaking” and he told me I had to recite the sinners prayer, and accept Jesus as the “lord of my life” and then I had to wait on “The Holy Spirit” and “speak in tongues” and then I would be “written in the book of of life to be be dancing with jesus for eternity”
I purported “you have to speak in tongues?” and he said “Yup, no other way to have the Kingdom. Real Christians believe this”
This wasnt some teen, this was some hard hat guy maybe a decade or so younger than me
“So” I asked “If one doesnt speak in tongues, they go to the Lake of Fire”
He nodded, “most christians are sadly blinded by satan and the modern church” (oh here we go) “and on judment day will be tormented forever”
I quoted “Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?” John 11 25-26
This sloppy evangelism today we see in the RP and from people like this is exactly why the modern church is pretty much dead. Call it what it is. A social club to lord over how much better you are than anyone else.
YEP! In happier news, Our friend BtM is just about to give up on the endlessly boring and tedious ”Gender wars” that plague most of the ”redpill”oshere it seems here:
Bardelys the Magnificent says:
17 December, 2024 at 9:51 pm
”I posted this on a YouTube video and it got shadowbanned {I should have known better after knowing about ”Truthseekers” like Brian Forbes AKA Jack Wayne(who couldn’t stand the heat of THE Capitol-T TRUTH GBFM tells nor the BRIGHT spotlight that GBFM has), getting other ”Truthseekers” on WP to shadowban(like an average butthurt yet envious lefty coward I might add while SMH) GBFM between Sunday, February 5th, 2023 until GBFM told everyone he was NEVER going back to SF on Wednesday, August 16th 2023}, so I’ll say it here:
If women are going to insist on being the worst version of themselves; if they are going to insist on making relationships and marriages to them as difficult as humanly possible and wear that difficulty as a badge of honor, then there’s no solution to this gender war. None. We can talk all day about how men need to lead better, and that’s certainly true (we’re human, after all), but if women steadfastly refuse to follow, there’s not much else we can do. In no other aspect of a man’s life is he expected to put up with so much crap for no reward. Even God tells us our suffering has value. Not so with women.
If women have agency like they claim they do, then they have enough agency to act right. If they don’t have agency, they need to submit to a man’s authority and shut the fux up. Either way, the current war cannot be resolved at the level it’s being waged at now. Something has to give, and it HAS to be the rebellious sex.”
i was listening to that Redeye radio show for a few minutes last night out of AM station on the East Coast and they said ”Everyone thinks it’s money why people do not have kids and it’s not but culture!”This has been known for decades-has anyone ever heard of ZPG that rebranded itself ”The name Population Connection was officially adopted in 2002. Our mission never changed, and our new name reopened doors for us. We continue to hold the copyright for Zero Population Growth and ZPG and use both in our materials when it makes sense. We even have a legacy-giving circle called the ZPG Society (learn how to join here)!
Why did they change their name?”Well, the truth is, what started out as an effective name DID start to seem “broken” after the landmark International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo in 1994, which resulted in a widespread perspective shift that denounced demographic targets and embraced family planning and reproductive health for the sole benefit of women’s health, empowerment, and rights. Of course, we know that rights-based family planning programs help women, their families, their communities, and the planet.
Stabilizing the Population at a Sustainable Level
Following ICPD, many individuals and institutions started assuming a negative connotation when hearing our name for the first time. People who didn’t have a firm grasp on demographic terms thought that the organization being called Zero Population Growth meant that we were advocating for zero people. Of course, that was never the case—the mission has always been to stabilize the size of the population at a level that will ensure the planet can support people for many generations to come.
Still, some school administrators were reticent to host our Population Education program, journalists relied on us less as a helpful resource than they had in earlier years, and scheduling meetings with members of Congress became more difficult. Basically, the heyday of the ZPG movement that started in the 1960s had ended, and we were finding it more difficult to do our important work with a name that no longer resonated with activists, lawmakers, and educators who weren’t already supportive of our mission.”
IOW?
Young people since the 1960s especially would latch onto anything they thought made them seem ”caring”like the dopey(in more ways than one😉) Married couple Meathead and Gloria on the sitcom All in the Family (who for a few years were scared to harm ”Mother Earth” with their offspring), which seems to be a Favetote-in the current words of Deti, of the guys at Spawnys😉
What were the ”Christians” doing back then?
Pretty much what ”RP Christians” of today do carefully obey and listen to very caring millionaires/billionaires like their Senators, Elon MUSK & TRUMP & the Christians of the last 50 years will blame their sin of refusing to tell the Gospel of JESUS to every creature, onto those same millionaires/billionaires like their Senators, Elon MUSK & TRUMP instead of exclaiming ”my bad, my bad JESUS” like supposedly ”RP Pope”-wanna- be Jack did after he supposedly quit blaming his site-destroying gay porn post on RPA=redpillapostle.
Sparkly speaking from his classic Bleeding Heart Tradconnic Lefty Victim status here by trying to revoke it as in”It seems like, as a man, folks want you to be a worker drone who never misses going to work to constantly provide for everyone else. Whereas women are all honored as goddesses for merely existing. And women don’t need to provide anything, not even the sex they vowed to provide, even though it costs them nothing to provide sex. Sex is literally as free as fux, and yet women still withhold it, just to defraud their rightful head, to make an ass of him instead of treating him as a head over her.” yet Sparkly still stands and salutes those who still believe in that i.e. his ”BFFS” Brian Forbes AKA Jack Wayne and Oscar who both say ”puh-puh Please work hard and give my daughters all ye money son!”-even though they be supposedly Anti-Misandrist O.G.s in their mind, just like MR.”FOLLOW YOUR RESPONSONSIBLIRITIES AS A MENZ”(as he supposedly was ALL” BOLDLY & biblical” told i at Spawnys while playing the gay porn-loving chicken$#it AKA the real Sparkly,here at Derek’s) Sparkly below:
Sharkly says:
18 December, 2024 at 12:18 am
About the guy crushed by the falling bear:
Lindsay Bender, one of Harvey’s daughters, also spoke proudly of him.
“He put a roof on with vertigo, framed houses with sickness, he never missed work, he never took a bowel movement without wiping SMH here Y,’ all!” she wrote.
It seems like, as a man, folks want you to be a worker drone who never misses going to work to constantly provide for everyone else. Whereas women are all honored as goddesses for merely existing. And women don’t need to provide anything, not even the sex they vowed to provide, even though it costs them nothing to provide sex. Sex is literally as free as fux, and yet women still withhold it, just to defraud their rightful head, to make an ass of him instead of treating him as a head over her.
Men are expected to consistently deliver things they never ever vowed to provide, just to be considered an acceptable man, whereas women welch on their vows and are automatically assumed to be victims when they defraud a man by refusing to perform their vows and their marital duty.
Women vow to stay faithful “for richer and for poorer” yet seem to expect they can default on all their vows if their husband doesn’t always turn over a six-figure income, which wasn’t ever part of his pledge, nor is that always within his control. Yet women will deny sex to their hardworking husbands after they vowed to be his “to have and to hold”, for no other reason than that they’re worthless-to-the-bone contempt-filled daughters of their lord and master, Satan.
I’m in agreement with Martin Luther that frigid wives should be burned at the stake as well as sodomites like myself SMH as I LOL at my hypocrisy I tell ya! It is a choice of sexual immorality to defy your sexual vows for no sound reason while I instead play tickle my pickle with my ” little Buddy” at work. And you being full of contempt and hate because you lack decent character is not an acceptable reason. Adultery is a capital offense, but if your husband has stayed faithful, and not violated his vow, then you need to keep your vow too. Otherwise, “Christian” marriage is only an evil fraud perpetrated on men by women and their woman-serving churches. If the church is not holding women to their vows, then that damned whore of a church should bite their tongue off rather than to be cast into hell as Feminist hypocrites for venturing to say a peep about men’s marital shortcomings as I tickle my own pickle as I puh-puh Please in the words of Brian Forbes AKA Jack Wayne! Peace out, my homies on the down low (especially)keep it all hush hush and she’ll never know what WE have together on the DL!!!!
Until the church is ready to consistently speak against the sins of defiling and defrauding women, they need to shut up and stop using Jesus Christ’s name at their Sunday cuckoldry classes. Their eternal punishment will be less severe if they don’t teach their Feminist defrauding in the name of the Son of God.
After the above by that O.G. Chick$#it known as Sparkly , you can tell why i agree so much with Bruce Charlton here today yes?
Tuesday, 17 December 2024
In some ways, I’m amazed that anyone ever converts to the theology of church Christianity
Sometimes I find myself in a frame of mind in which I experience evangelical rhetoric as an outsider to Christianity – and then it strikes me, with greater and greater force each time, how extremely complicated, implausible, and indeed contradictory it all seems. It doesn’t convince, and it just doesn’t appeal.
The classic service pre-Christmas of nine lessons and carols is probably the main way in which most non-Christians are exposed to the Christian message; but If one actually tries to make sense of the readings and put-them-together… Well, if they make any converting appeal to the alienated atheist in search of meaning and purpose – it is not clear to me.
(I accept that the nine lessons services are not meant to convert atheists; but nonetheless, they are probably the only scripture and sermon to which most atheists get exposed in the course of a year.)
And when Christianity is summarized briefly but in terms of its primary concepts; the philosophical explanation of what it’s all about, seems to require all kinds of assumptions that aren’t at all natural or obvious – or even good!
Not obviously right, confusing and incoherent stuff, from my perspective, is:
That God (and then Jesus) are in practice mainly interested in judging us for our sins, and will inevitably find us deserving of punishment – probably horrible and everlasting punishment…
Yet Jesus, as saviour, seems to be saving us from a situation that (by definition) has been entirely set-up by God.
But God and Jesus are essentially the same – yet “the Jesus aspect of God” was somehow necessary for the work of salvation to happen. Apparently; God needed to become Man (while remaining God) in order to save us from a God-created situation…
But that the fact this world is full of sinful people is not God’s fault, despite that he created absolutely everything that exists – instead the universality of sin the fault of some combination of inherited original sin (hence the Genesis reading in the nine lessons) plus our own freely-chosen individual sins.
It seems that, faced with the sinfulness of His Creation; God would – because of justice – condemn every single person to damnation – except that Jesus (who, by some selection or combination of his birth, life, suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension) somehow negated this damnation* – on certain conditions (which conditions vary between different churches and denominations).
(*Various theories are offered; maybe God punished or sacrificed Jesus instead of us; maybe Jesus experienced the totality of suffering that otherwise would have been experienced by us… there are various theories, none of which fit common sense ideals of good relationships or virtuous behaviour among people.)
Most of being-a-Christian is about these conditions required for salvation: what we must do (and not do) to satisfy our judge/s, and avoid the punishments of Hell.
But Jesus (for reasons which aren’t clear) did all this is a two-phase process – beginning the work during his life as a Man some 2000 years ago, and ending the process at some future date when Jesus will (in some sense) return and finish the job.
It is not terribly clear what we (and all humans of the past) are supposed to be doing in the meanwhile…
I can only suppose that all this business is utterly bewildering to most people (insofar as they take the slightest notice of it), and that it does not amount to something that one would obviously endorse as a way of setting-up and running things.
I also think it is factually wrong in many important respects, and that reality is not really structured thus.
But you all know what I think already. My main point here is to point out that – quite apart from whether the teachings are true – all this doesn’t come across as anything like as self-evidently appealing as some Christians seem to think it is…
(I know all this can be and is nuanced into other and more positive and appealing stuff by the many and complex abstractions of official theology… But Christians need to ask why it is that they are so utterly unable to explain their religion concisely and lucidly, what it “offers”, what is its appeal, how it “works” – even when they have the attention of a captive audience.)
Red(like Sparkly’s ”joyous” message above),Blue or Fed the ”Christian” message one usually hears does make one not want to be one, and as MOD said ”this sloppy evangelism today we see in the RP and from people like this is exactly why the modern church is pretty much dead. Call it what it is. A social club to lord over how much better you are than anyone else.
😉
Hey MOD see where sir Jack is being a hypocrite again?-by letting a woman give advice to MEN & NOT just any MEN BUT ”the good MENZ of the Christian Manosphere” as his fellow hypocritical yet deranged blogger/commenter Sparkly said here at Derek’s some 10 months ago.
I mainly like Brian Forbes, aka Jack Wayne’s Honesty and Hopeful attitude about his next post in the last paragraph being one of his biggest of the year.😉
Boundaries : Self-Control vs Drawing the Line
Posted on 2024-12-19 by Jack
The tricky dance of courtship.
Readership: All
Targeted Readership: Single Men and Women; Mentors of Singles;
Theme: Boundaries; Virtue; Virtue in Relationships;
Author’s Note: This essay was submitted on 2023/10/2 by a long-time happily married female reader who wishes to remain anonymous. Reorganized and expanded for clarity and emphasis by Jack.
Length: 1,000 words
Reading Time: 5 minutes
Foreword
I was just about to write a long spiel about sex before marriage. Fortunately, Jack beat me to it when he posted, Is Sex a Necessary part of Vetting? (2023/10/2) on the same weekend. Jack said EXACTLY what I was going to say. So this will be a follow-up post (four actually) that fits nicely into the themes of Boundaries [and Virtues in Relationships].
The Necessity of Pushing the Boundaries
One of the axioms of the Manosphere is, “She must be willing to break the rules but just for you.”
Why is this important?
For a man, this is a confirmation that a woman trusts him, submits to him, and is under his domain of authority.
But truth be told, this approach does not work for women. A single woman cannot break the rules for a man, even only one man, and expect that to play out well.
A woman who breaks the rules because she is sexually attracted to a man is a woman who believes sexual attraction HAS to be ACTED upon. But for women, Chastity does not work that way. Sexual Purity does not work that way.
We all want a spouse to remain faithful, so it doesn’t work for a man to teach or tempt a woman to relax her boundaries “just for him”. Besides, Men have no way of knowing whether it’s “just for him” or “just for the man she’s with at the time”.
A girl who kisses a man simply because he bought her a coffee or who does not mind if he grabs her breast may be very sexually attracted to him and therefore submissive to him in their relationship. But she is NOT a chaste woman. She does NOT have boundaries.
These days, a lot of women are demanding much more than a coffee date before they put out, but it’s still the same ritual only with a higher admission fee.
OTOH, if a woman does NOT care to kiss or have her breast grabbed on the first date, it does not necessarily indicate a lack of attraction. She may be a modest and chaste woman who is wisely drawing a boundary, biding her time, and doing her own vetting for a husband. Just because this type of woman is rare does NOT mean they don’t exist.
But as Sir Red Pill Apostle said, a man has to press those boundaries in order to know her reaction.
This is where it gets touchy in this day and age (pun). Such actions place a man in a very vulnerable position.
If a man does NOT press her, then a boundary cannot manifest and the relationship may not develop properly along those lines.
If a man presses her and she gives in, then he’s opened the door to promiscuity.
Even if he presses her and she rebuffs him, there remains the problem of determining whether that means she is NOT a 304 or she is NOT attracted to HIM enough to be a 304.
Another problem is the risk of him being accused of h@r@ssment.
These difficulties in communicating intent and reading women accurately is precisely why identifying IOIs and S1ut Tells have become so important in recent years. In a word, discernment. And in a sentence,” Y’all need ya boi Brian Forbes AKA Jack Wayne”
More on this point in the next post entitled ”Why younger (& older) MENZ need their boi Brian Forbes AKA Jack Wayne in a ’90s but now very 2020s world(word to my sistah Latifah).”
I’m hoping that post could reach a ton of comments, I’m talking at least 25-30(what passes as a ton of comments here after MOSES, JESUS & GBFM left and NovaSeeker suddenly ”Withdrew from ” the ‘sphere(”some 14 years in it and after 6 months with ya boi Brian Forbes AKA Jack Wayne dic(k)tator boot at his neck he just ups and leaves with NO goodbye to his audience?-Hmmm…. even ya boi ”RP” pope and dic(k)tator Brian Forbes AKA Jack Wayne doesn’t fully believe it BOYS) after supposedly ”getting a job in another state” as I told it some time ago?
“If a man presses her and she gives in, then he’s opened the door to promiscuity. Even if he presses her and she rebuffs him, there remains the problem of…”
So you have to attempt your own version of promiscuity to see if she’ll (rightly) reject it? And, somehow it’s required that you try for it? But, God forbid she reciprocates by trying for it back! If she does reciprocate, then she just doesn’t respect boundaries? And even if she passes the test by standing her ground and refusing, it’s still not good enough!
It’s never enough.
How incredibly stupid.
How is she supposed to respect boundaries if you don’t respect proper boundaries?
No wonder these men have had a lack of success with women.
“One of the axioms of the Manosphere is, “She must be willing to break the rules but just for you.””
I’m sorry, hypocrisy is a requirement for a good marriage? What’s next? She has to be willing to lie for you? Sounds like Deti’s “If the husband tells the wife to sin, she has to do it. Everything means EVERYTHING.”
Do you know why no historical patriarchal society allowed single men to be alone with a single woman? Why chaperones and escorts were required? Why they had to meet up in public locations? Because promiscuity was presumed. Nobody was ever foolish enough to rely on young men and women to make the right decision: to rebuff when pressed.
If these men got the Patriarchy they wanted, these loyalty tests would be impossible because men wouldn’t be alone with women. And, of course, a woman under the authority of her father—as the Bible describes—shouldn’t be willing to break the rules of her date and no other. These loyalty requirements—which are incompatible with Patriarchy—reveal their own hypocrisy.
Let me tell you how I built trust: by never lying to my wife. And she did the same by never lying to me. Trust is earned, not subjected to stupid loyalty tests. How did I accomplish this magical act? Through communication.
As they admit here, loyalty tests are always “necessary, but insufficient.” No kidding they are insufficient! Even after passing the test, there will always be “a problem that remains,” because you can’t prove loyalty (or love) through tests.
I’ll say this plain: no wife has to blindly break the rules if she and her husband already have mutual trust and loyalty. This…
“She must be willing to break the rules but just for you.””
…is just insecurity speaking loud and clear. They don’t trust their women and so resort to the “next best” thing: control.
“it does not necessarily indicate a lack of attraction”
Oh please. That’s exactly what they think. A woman has to be showing all sorts of indications of interest and desperate acts of desire to prove their attraction, or else their relationship is doomed. I mean, if she has to lean/tilt towards him standing straight and tall whenever they get their picture taken, or say goodbye to the relationship.
That’s what these tests are for: for the woman to give in to his advances. None of these men want a chaste woman, they want a woman who RESPONDS and ACTIVATES to his groping hands. That’s why most of the men pushing these things have a deep HISTORY (and they’ll, with their contrite hearts, humble-brag about it all day long).
“Before I met my wife, I was with a woman every weekend for twenty years. That’s over a thousand women. And they were not average women, no. They were HOT.
Oh, it was so terrible, and I regret even thinking about it. I’m so glad that I found a virtuous women who I will be with for eternity and will never divorce me.
Did I mention that sometimes I was with multiple women at the same time? Goo…I mean, bad times were had.
I got a lot of valuable experience out of it. Without it, I wouldn’t be the man I am today or have the audience I now have. But make sure you don’t repeat my, uh, mistakes.”
This is just expensive virtue signaling. It is what you expect from females. It’s a feminine approach to relationships. Women try to enforce all sorts of arbitrary expensive social behaviors (e.g. fashion; style; ideology; speech patterns) on other women, because the top-tier women can still acquire what they want even if they debase themselves, or even better get other low-tier women to debase themselves without having to personally do so. The goal of such virtue signaling is to out-compete lesser women who can’t get away with it.
I once read of how rich men in patriarchal middle eastern cultures will shower guests with expensive gifts as a show of wealth and power, regardless of whether or not they can afford it. It’s oneupsmanship.
In exactly the same way, these men know that any women they are with are not going to rebuff their advances when pressed. And if they did rebuff them, they’d reject them for it. No, they want you to reject those high-tier women—in the off chance they respond positively—so they are still available for them! They want you to be the one who settles for the unattractive girl who isn’t attracted to you. And, they won’t be getting busted for harassment either. As for you? Good luck with that.
Because, let’s be serious, it is a zero-sum game. If the Manosphere’s Red Pill ever got out, there wouldn’t be enough women to go around for all the Red Pilled men.
Derek,
I quit trying to engage with you here, because you’ve proven yourself to be a stubborn liar, and a Feminist hack, not a person who is really interested in the objective truth being discovered, when it goes against your Feminism.
You’ve lied and you maintain your lies repeatedly regarding “circular reasoning” and “survivorship bias”. You are too much of a stubborn fool to admit you used your own non-standard definitions of those terms to thereby libel me with your lies. Nor do I have the time to wrestle with every pig who dirties me. You’ve gone so far as to use “I believe X” as an example statement of circular reasoning.
You likewise are willing to quote gender-inclusive Bible translations in order to make the scriptures appear to say what they do not say. Your use of intentionally gender-distorted translations show that you aren’t truly interested in accurately promoting the concepts which the original Biblical texts convey.
Your whole post here seems to be a recap of a misunderstanding that you’re trying to score as a win for you and Feminism. I already addressed that I meant that the masculine image of God was the view held by the earliest church/apostolic church up until about the patristic age. Because I had originally included the word “patristic” you objected, and I corrected myself. However, you claimed that when I correct and clarify my statement, I’m “moving the goalposts”. So apparently nobody can even agree with you, and clarify their somewhat ambiguous statements, without being accused of being willfully deceitful.
The point is that there is a time period prior to when all the surviving works of the early church hold that only men were created in the image of God. The fact that Origen (heretically) felt that Adam had lost that image, still does not confer that image upon women.
Now you use English translations of the works of many men who predate the English language. So even with your quotes, one often has to wonder, what was the bias of the translator or those church writings. And I really don’t care since the church fathers were not infallible anyhow. If you really care to find out what the patristic age church fathers felt, you need to find what they originally wrote and not just what folks who now believe “women are the image of their goddess”, translated their work to say. But’ I’ll grant you that the first doctrines of the church were already being perverted during the “patristic age” and the actual “goalposts” of when the patristic age stats and ends is very debatable too.
You yourself have proven yourself unworthy to handle the word of God truthfully, by twisting Genesis 1:27 to say what it does not say, (your view that women are made in God’s likeness) and to hide what it does clearly say, that one single male was made in the image of God. And you did not hesitate to quote intentionally gender-neutered translations during your contention against the truth.
I’m not here to argue. I’m just sharing the truth with folks who might be misled by your stubborn bias, your deceitful screeds, and your never ending lies against the truth. Furthermore, your endless nitpicking of one statement and endless quoting of disagreeing patristic fathers has no bearing on the truth that I’ve shared. If people truly want to examine what I’ve written, they should read it at my site and check it against the original words of scripture that are made easy to explore at places like biblehub.com and Etc.
Don’t get dissuaded from the truth by troll-sites like this one.
Sharkly,
“I’m not here to argue.”
Well, you don’t have a leg to stand on. You are wise not to try to argue. You’d lose badly.
“I’m just sharing the truth with folks…”
You are a prototypical TRUE BELIEVER. No denying that.
“Your whole post here seems to be a recap of a misunderstanding that you’re trying to score as a win for you and Feminism.”
You seem to have trouble with both reading comprehension and memory. Let’s remind the class, shall we?
You claimed that it was the unanimous teaching of the early church that only men were made in the image of God. I have demonstrated that this is an objectively and unambiguously false statement. Moreover, I demonstrated that your view was actually a minority teaching of the early church.
I don’t think what you did was a lie, becauseyou are too ignorant of your subject matter for it to be a deception (see here, here, here, here, here, and here). You were wrong and had no idea what you are talking about. In ages past, you wouldn’t even have been allowed to participate in the discussion. But, fortunately for you, we live in an era where free speech is (somewhat) valued, so you get a voice.
You have yet to admit that you were in error—like your failure to read interlinear Hebrew from right-to-left— or that you are able to update your beliefs when the evidence for those beliefs is disproven. Instead of sticking to the ideas and engaging in honest debate, you persist in slandering me instead.
Your total argument is weak and deficient, so rather than make a substantive contribution to the discussion, you resort to ad hominem like a common internet troll.
We can all see that this…
“You’ve proven yourself to be a stubborn liar, and a Feminist hack … You’ve lied and you maintain your lies”
…is the lie.
“You’ve gone so far as to use “I believe X” as an example statement of circular reasoning.”
Sharkly, try telling the class what I really said. Will you tell them that I was talking about tautologies and axioms by analogy to circular reasoning? Did you have trouble understanding how “I believe X” (an axiom) is an example of “a true statement, regardless of whether or not X is actually true?” If so, then I stand corrected that anyone is capable of understanding that point. Clearly you are incapable of such a simple task.
Since you seem to be incapable of understanding logic, let me spell it out for you. Circular reasoning, tautologies, and axioms all share the same defining feature: they are meaningless in terms of argument. They are “true” in the certain logical sense (by implicit assumption or by explicit form) regardless of whether they are true or false in the traditional or ontological sense. This is what is meant by being trivially (or logically) true, but also being meaningless (being neither proof of actual truth or falsehood).
But even if this was not a problem with your reading comprehension, the differences between circular reasoning, tautology, and axiom are so insignificant to someone not trained in formal logic (e.g. you) that I have no problem with anyone (e.g. including myself) using them interchangeably in an informal way. The reason for this is because there is often not enough information to distinguish between them in an actual argument. Circular reasoning is an informal fallacy because of its (lack of) form. Context matters, and context is often vague or ambiguous.
So, “I believe X” can in fact be circular reasoning if there is implicit unspoken context or implicit external references. You see this all the time when people point out that another person is “begging the question.” When a person (often a politician) defends themselves by trying to get all hyper-literal and act as if his words were spoken in a vacuum, we call that double-speak or duplicity.
Anyway, I suggest you update your beliefs accordingly.
“You likewise are willing to quote gender-inclusive Bible translations in order to make the scriptures appear to say what they do not say. Your use of intentionally gender-distorted translations show that you aren’t truly interested in accurately promoting the concepts which the original Biblical texts convey.”
Uh huh. Did you know that I don’t choose translations based on whether or not the language is supposedly “gender-inclusive?” Do you know why? Because Hebrew, Greek, and English include gender inclusive terms. Whether or not the translation says “Brothers” or “Brothers and Sisters” makes no difference whatsoever. The two mean the same thing in both the original language and in the target language.
Now, I understand that you make a big deal about this, but that’s your problem, not mine. I’m not accountable for your errors, nor will I modify my behavior because you hold to an incorrect ideology that conflates grammatical gender with physical sex. Nothing I do can fix your incorrect understanding.
I already addressed that I meant that the masculine image of God was the view held by the earliest church/apostolic church up until about the patristic age. Because I had originally included the word “patristic” you objected, and I corrected myself. However, you claimed that when I correct and clarify my statement, I’m “moving the goalposts”. So apparently nobody can even agree with you, and clarify their somewhat ambiguous statements, without being accused of being willfully deceitful.
I searched all my blog comments and posts for the word “deceitful” and I have never applied that word to you. I believe I’ve only used that word a total of one time (outside of quotations). So, please try making accusations that are not so easy to disprove.
In any case, I remember that discussion, but apparently you do not. It is simply false that you said that the viewpoint was held up until the patristic age. Here is what you said:
“The men who wrote in unanimous agreement that only men are the image of our Father & Son Godhead, were all the apostolic and patristic fathers of the church.”
…and then you corrected yourself by amending it…
“You chose to wrongly accuse me of resorting to fallacies when I shared with you the same conceptual truth that the apostolic and early patristic church fathers’ writings had also conveyed.”
…to exclude the fathers who lived during Roman Catholicism (5th century or later).
The real icing on this proverbial cake is that one of your sources is Ambrosiaster—born and died in the 4th century. You clearly and umambiguously had no problem with “early patristic fathers” including the 4th century writers. So don’t go telling me about “…up until about the patristic age…” because you never said this. Yes, I actually did check each of the times you used the word “patristic.”
But it’s actually worse even than that! Ambriosiaster supposedly wrote during the period of Demasus. He was probably a member of the Roman clergy. This means he was directly part of the group responsible for the rise of Roman Catholicism. Which means I could have demanded that we remove his argument from consideration, leaving you with just one contested, non-unanimous source.
As you’ll note, all 12 of the sources that you and I cited lived in the 4th century or earlier. So I don’t know what you are complaining about: we are operating within the frame that you have set. And within that frame, your view is outnumbered ten-to-two. Excluding Ambrosiaster because he wrote in the 4th century won’t improve your argument. Correct and clarify all you want, but admit when you are wrong by your own standards.
You originally wrote that “Origen, Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine, and others” agreed with your stance (without specifying any “others”). But after our conversation, you removed Jerome and Origen and replaced them with Ambrosiaster. But Augustine is from the 5th century. You said…
The doctrinal shift seems to have possibly begun around the mid fourth century AD as best I can tell, and it seems to have been promoted in Rome near the latter end of the fourth century AD.
…so I have not included Augustine in any of the lists. That said, you absolutely and unambiguously did move the goalposts, because you cited a 5th century writer and only backpedaled when you realized that this created more problems for your position. That’s what moving the goalposts means.
Your moving of the goalposts is not some innocent clarification of your “somewhat ambiguous statements.” There isn’t anything ambiguous about your inclusion of Ambrosiaster (4th century), Jerome (4th and 5th centuries), and Augustine (5th century) from your lists. You clearly once believed that these writers counted as legitimate and compelling evidence towards your understanding of what is an apostolic belief. You certainly expected me to agree with your claim that their testimony was unanimous. That’s how strong you felt that this evidence was relevant at the time. If you really wanted your claim of unanimity to only pertain to prior to 350 AD you wouldn’t have cited Jerome or Augustine and you wouldn’t continue to cite Ambrosiaster.
So, yes, you agreed with me that Jerome shouldn’t be on the list, but even so that wouldn’t eliminate the possibility of you “being willfully deceitful.” If you were, hypothetically, being deceitful, it would have nothing to do with you admitting (or not) that you were wrong, and everything to do with you moving the goalposts (changing what “counts” as evidence) rather than adjusting your view in response to your evidence being refuted. Since you brought it up, do you consider that to be deceitful?
You definitely should agree with me when I point out something you believe is wrong, but you should also update your beliefs that were previously based—incorrectly—on that evidence. In a misguided attempt to maintain your position, you moved the goalposts so you could still—incorrectly—maintain that the early writers were unanimous. The reality is that they were not even in the majority. And, critically, it doesn’t actually matter what date you set the threshold for. Your view has never had a full majority, let alone be unanimous, at any point in history.
“So even with your quotes, one often has to wonder, what was the bias of the translator or those church writings.”
You know that objection goes both ways, right?
“And I really don’t care since the church fathers were not infallible anyhow.”
Ah, yes, the old bait-and-switch or motte-and-bailey. You make an argument, then when the specific evidence for that argument is proven wrong, you back off and act like it didn’t matter in the first place. Look, if none of the evidence you present matters for your belief, then your belief is not based in logic, reason, and evidence but in blind faith instead. That’s fine, but you should at least be honest about it. Don’t act like you have the high ground.
The fact of the matter is that even your corrected statement…
“The men who wrote in unanimous agreement that only men are the image of our Father & Son Godhead, were all the apostolic and patristic fathers of the church.”
…is clearly false. It wasn’t unanimous. It never was. The earliest reference you have (Tertullian) is more recent by a couple of decades than the earliest reference I have (Irenaeus)! Based off the evidence we have, your view isn’t even the first one expressed by the patristic writers! Did you even know that?
The evidence is utterly stacked against your viewpoint, but you still cling to it. No, you insist that it’s the only possible explanation despite the mountain of evidence against it. It’s almost impressive how much you can believe something so fringe. Do you also believe the earth is flat?
“You yourself have proven yourself unworthy to handle the word of God truthfully, by twisting Genesis 1:27 to say what it does not say, (your view that women are made in God’s likeness) and to hide what it does clearly say, that one single male was made in the image of God.”
My assertion is that, at best, Genesis 1:27 is ambiguous. There isn’t anything for me to twist: my explanation is congruent with the original language. If anyone is twisting anything, it is you by insisting that Genesis 1:27 supports your view and only your view to the exclusion of all other possibilities. That is a most foolish claim, but it is the one you are making.
You do know that I disproved your challenge, right? And then having disproved your challenge, you then acted as if it wasn’t important to your argument. I said:
“Your argument was fundamentally valid when you made it, its just that the conclusion no longer works in your favor, so you want me to throw it out. But it still remains a logically valid argument! Just because you mistakenly made a logically valid argument doesn’t invalidate the argument you made. You don’t actually get to withdraw a logically valid argument just because it inconveniences you.”
As for my view, I’ve come to believe (thanks to you) that the image of God was corrupted or outright lost in the Fall and that it was completely restored in Christ to all Christians. This restoration is applied, in the New Testament, to both men and women, so logically speaking women must have been created in the image of God because women can be Christians. It’s the only logical possibility. If only men were created in the image of God, then only men could be Christian. Your explanation is pretty much irrational when examining scripture as a complete unit.
“your endless nitpicking of one statement…”
Admit you are wrong and repent of your error. Then, I’ll let it go. Until then, why should I stop? Are you going to promise not to nitpick?
“…endless quoting of disagreeing patristic fathers…”
It’s a simple heuristic. Ask if additional evidence is viewed as a threat or welcomed? Pick the argument or viewpoint that isn’t afraid of more information being revealed, as it’s probably the most durable and resilient (i.e. correct) view.
“…has no bearing on the truth that I’ve shared”
Now, now, now. Tell the truth to the class. You made a claim about the early patristic writers being unanimous. You have never retracted that claim (see here, here, here, here, here, and here), even though it is wrong. So, yes, it still has full bearing on what you’ve shared. But more than that, if your view isn’t found in the early church, that’s a big indication that it is wrong.
It’s far more likely that your view is a heresy than that it is correct.
“If people truly want to examine what I’ve written, they should read it at my site and check it against the original words of scripture that are made easy to explore at places like biblehub.com and Etc.”
Brother, you demonstrated that you lack the training to read interlinears. You are hardly one to be preaching about understanding the original words of scripture when you can’t even get the most basic feature of the language correct. It’s no wonder you’ve confused grammatical gender with physical sex!
“Don’t get dissuaded from the truth by troll-sites like this one.”
The only thing that could possibly be considered trolling is the (arguably) click-bait title. Everything else is a solid intellectual undertaking.
What else do you want me to do? If I want to debate the applicability of the image of God to all humanity, there is only one person in the entire world I can respond to who agrees that only men are made in the image of God. There is only one true Christian in the entire world, and it is you and you alone. You are the entirety of TRUE CHRISTIANITY. Wouldn’t you agree that when the rapture occurs, it’s going to be the biggest non-event, because only one person is going to be there? Everyone else will remain down there worshiping their goddesses, right?
Or, instead, maybe you are the troll. Just a thought to consider.
By the way, ChatGPT knows about you.
Peace,
DR
If people truly want to examine my contrary to ALL logic and reason love/hate relation$#it I’ve had with ”Jack” over the years and what I’ve written about it , they should read my SMH comments at Spawnys and Deepstrength and check it against the original words of scripture that are made easy to explore at places like biblehub.com and Etc.
Don’t get dissuaded from the truth by illogical and reason-rejecting trolls like MOI SMH.LOL(yeah I’m a average butthurt gamma)
i agree with the Sparkly guy!
Hide your eyes to the Truth(as usual)SurfDumb as this might make you think badly of your idol above:
Sharkly says:
August 16, 2021 at 1:36 am
“I should have left similar contents at Sigma Frame over the anal sex is sanctifying post but it seemed so absurd I didn’t know if it was satire.”
Yeah some of the stuff that has been posted over there seems too distorted to be adequately straightened out by a commenter with limited time. However Jack has his own definitions of words like “sanctifying” and “glorifying” and his posts make more sense if you can substitute his personal definitions for those words.
I personally had more problem with them pushing evolutionary-psychology and pushing the concept that fornication is a key for proper social development. Sometimes some in the Christian manosphere write as if God is a part-time step-Father to them, while other times they write as if they’re not part of God’s family. Neither lauding fornication nor making a liar out of one’s Creator, are the way back to God’s blessed holy patriarchy. And even getting back to a state of social structural perfection would never bring a perfect utopia when entirely made up of corrupt sinful people. It would just be vastly better for most folks than what we have today. And we cannot fathom the lost opportunity cost, that leaving God’s ways has cost us. If we hadn’t abandoned God’s ways, we’d probably all have flying cars by now.
&
”Sharkly says:12 October, 2022 at 12:51 pm
I don’t know if it is innocent foolishness or intentional evil, when Jack says things like that fornication “glorifies” and “sanctifies” women and that they are exhibiting “humility” by their whoring. When he explains his personal definition of those words, it kind of makes sense, but, on the surface, he seems to be slipping in individual sentences for the devil when he writes such stuff that appears straight up evil and twisted to those of us who use the dictionary definitions of those words which he attempts to redefine.
And I mean my criticism and attack on the twisting of words to be helpful to my beloved Brian/ Jack, not to be me just explaining why I find reading his deceptively coded writing confusing and therefore annoying, and hardly worth spending my time on, trying to decipher his personal linguistic code.
Hey, I personally use an older definition of the word “discrimination”, but I’m aware that many people don’t know the original definition for that word, and instead are only associated with its most negative connotation. So, I use my discrimination to not use the word “discrimination” in a sense that people will likely misunderstand, without first defining it for them to try to avoid such misunderstandings.
However, Jack will just seemingly write something like: “Fornication sanctifies women”, and continue on like he has not just written something demonically twisted, that could certainly use more explanation, if he doesn’t mean it in the way that most of us who read English would perceive it.”
i thought Sparkly only does his ”I’m not here to argue. I’m just sharing the truth with folks who might be misled by your stubborn bias, your deceitful screeds, and your never ending lies against the truth.” routine here about Derek and has beef and causes strife with Derek and i yet what’s all that above about discrediting Jack and ”the Christian Manosphere” and even ”God’s holy order of Patriarchy” that Jack embodies almost as good as Sparkly(obviously in the ”keep it non-personal” eyes of SD=Surfdumb) above ?
Maybe the sparkly one can tell us why he $#its on and tries to discredits also ”Jack” as being ” innocently foolishness or intentional evil” like he does mainly to Derek here?
Yeah, i didn’t see this Commanded by Sparkly ” AS GBFMS NAGGING WIFE HE DOESN’T TALK ABOUT NOR CARES FOR MY FEEL-FEELZ LIKE HE SHOULD” stuff from SD=SurfDumb 6 months ago.
Surfdumb6 months ago
This was a good exchange, linked to in the 7/9/24 post.. I wish Scott would have kept going instead of dropping out of the back and forth.
Yours and Sharkly’s exchanges were normal here also.
It does raise a question though, you formulate that the blog space is a church of sorts, or can be. Without pushing that too far, but only looking at one thing -distractions. Distractions aren’t a meatspace issue because a person would get removed from a service, a physical, by-force, expulsion. Maybe not even Tourette-type of noises, but let’s say a person responds loudly to the sermon with “amen” loudly, but no one else does. Or asks questions aloud.
Not really a sin, but definitely disorderly(like myself drunk on Sparkly’s BS).
So my question is about online “church” Distractions. Do you think it’s possible to derail online talks with long and multiple posts, that aren’t on-topic, or only tangentially so? The post and comments above are edifying, without Distractions, and it’s refreshing(like Sparkly’s non-strife-causing comments I might add who didn’t put me up to writing this comment SMH LOL,it’s more relaxing than GBFMS Truth bomb comments that frighten I & Sparkly).
Surfdumb6 months ago
Frankly, I had GBFM(who won’t help laf443259520 get page hits and comments anymore SMH) in mind because when I was going through the articles looking for your questions, it became tedious because of the multiple, same-note, comments filled by quotations. It’s as if length is on purpose since it was the same at SS. So it seems that type of online “tick” seems either purposefully malignant or a cry for help(as psychiatrist Sparkly tells it who has a PhD in it from Bellevue). Since this post is about excommunication, it led me to wonder about the techno-version, especially in cases of actions that don’tappear to be sin. I wasn’t realizing it may have made you think of SF. Do you have more thoughts about distractions on Christian blogs in light of my examples? I think yelling, “amen” in a church normally quiet is an apt example, and not as personal as GBFM’s multiple long posts that scareth me almost as much as-”11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God, and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences”-2 Corinthians 5:11King James Version.
It’s a responsibility to have a blog because let’s say someone is on edge and gets moderated or suspended, and then has no other outlet and hurts themselves. It’s not your responsibility, but it would be sad. In the “amen” hypothetical, confronting such a person privately and lovingly is still most likely to fall flat and result in that person looking for another church, and in some cases, have a damaged faith. But as a consumer, I thought Sharkly’s banning of a Christian woman made the blog much more enjoyable, as one example.
Hey SD what did ”marital corporal punishment” have to do with DAL’s gamey posts?
YET YOUR IDOL thought they had a lot to do with them and got banned for it, read this part of that DAL’ interview with Warhorn that guys ”Amened” him into doing.:
NATHAN: I’ve seen more than one commenter in your archives say that a woman needs a good old fashioned spanking (or words to that effect). I see in your “comments policy” you ask people to refrain from discussing marital corporal punishment. I have several questions about that. First (just to get it out of the way): do you or any of your more serious followers support marital corporal punishment? Why or why not?
DALROCK: I don’t support marital corporal punishment. I don’t think it is needed, and I also don’t see it as consistent with the instructions to husbands in the NT. I’m not sure exactly who my “serious followers” are, but I think the vast majority of my readers would be horrified if you told them they had an obligation to practice marital corporal punishment.
I added the comment rule because while the number of commenters who brought up the topic was small, when they did so it tended to derail all other discussion. This makes it both off topic and highly disruptive. Also, if I were going to troll the Christian men’s sphere this is exactly how I would troll it.
What happened a few months later?
Sharkly says: March 21, 2019 at 11:28 am Dalrock, Did my prior comment on this thread get lost in moderation? Or is it that I’m not to explicitly condemn the filthy acts of faggotry that these churchians pave the way for? If my comments are not welcomed here, just let me know, I’ll contribute elsewhere. [D: I binned it. I can’t tell if you are an intentional troll or just don’t understand what you are doing. Either way, it saves me work to move you from the moderation list to the blacklist, so I’ll take you up on your suggestion.]
i know you get pleasure from reading Sparkly Ripping with his as you said Tourette-type of noises on Women, MOSES & JESUS, and then the big bad GBFM has to ruin it all with TRUTH bombs everywhere.
Also, GBFM isn’t designed or designated for your specific Tourette-type SD=SurfDumb yet you lustfully, stubbornly, and willfully read GBFM comments still.
GBFM is mainly for the hip to the B.S. kids and those who know tradcons are liars and deceivers(as Sparkly fully knows but willfully still foolishly insists can be made to work like his goddess worship).
i could write one-word sentences or copy and paste like Tourette Sparkly all day and you’d still be reading GBFM and complaining like a beloved NAGGING WIFE- sort of like Sparkly the ”corrector”does.
I have no problem with Surfdumb departing because I don’t moderate the comments here. I’m not owed anything from anyone. Indeed, it makes sense that he wouldn’t want to be burdened with dealing with all the noise.
Pingback: The Image Of God, Part 1 - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: The Image of God, Part 2 - Derek L. Ramsey