This is part of a series. See part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, and part 6. Note: links will go live upon publication.
I have written extensively on the topic of how Christians are not to resist evil.
“Lying to Combat Lying” (2023-04-28)
“Fighting Evil or Doing Good?” (2023-04-28)
“Review: Do we “Resist the devil” or “Resist not evil”?” (2024-07-09)
“Is Matthew 5 Hyperbole” (2024-07-18)
“Jesus and Hyperbole, Part 1” (2024-10-02)
“Jesus and Hyperbole, Part 2” (2024-10-03)
With the exception of going into the world to make disciples, the Christian focus regarding evil is on identifying it within the church and removing it. Considering how bad of a job it has done on this front, attempting to fix the secular world (and its peoples) would be woefully silly, even if scripture hadn’t given instructions not to.
If you’ll recall from the above, Sharkly wrote that Jesus didn’t actually mean it when he said that we were to turn the other cheek. Sharkly claims that Jesus was speaking in sarcastic hyperbole when he told us to respond to violence and coercion with goodness. What Jesus actually meant was that we are supposed to resist and use violence.
I tore down this absurd stance, both directly from scripture and indirectly by refuting the paper by Charles Cruise from which Sharkly had derived his argument.
Well, Sharkly is back, with another comment on “turning the other cheek.”
This gets a bit convoluted but see if you can follow what I’m saying:
I skimmed a crappy article today: “The 1950s Housewife Myth: Why Women Won’t Go Back”. Whomever, or whatever, wrote the article, was trying to make women seem like they were horribly put upon by life in the 1950s. Here is an excerpt from that Feminist excrement:
Somebody in the comments wrote that the author had used the phrase “turn the other cheek” wrongly.
To me that now seems like the kind of mistake that woke AI would make, wanting to associate wife-beating, with a Christian phrase “turn the other cheek” yet failing to properly use the idiom. And not realizing that a woman’s married life isn’t “their entire lives”.
You can tell that the writer of that article isn’t well-versed in the content of scripture. Turning the other cheek doesn’t mean…
“Avoid involving yourself in other’s conflicts”
…it means…
“Don’t retaliate when someone has wronged you.”
…and, per the full context of Matthew 5:38-42, the idiom entails…
“To return evil with good”
Notice how Jesus commands an active response. Turning the other cheek is not passive inaction where people simply do things to you while you merely accept it. Rather, it is something actively good that you do for others.
In the example, the listening neighbors, of course, were not the recipients of evil, and so could not have turned the other cheek to receive, as it were, another slap on the other cheek. And their passive response—to do nothing—certainly did not actively return evil with good.
However, at the time I read the comment, I hadn’t actually read that portion of the article, and I had initially assumed that the commentor had meant that it was wrong to use “turn the other cheek” in the context of a wife being beaten. And I came to realize that is truly how churchgoers feel. They would never tell a battered wife to just “turn the other cheek”. They seemingly reserve that phrase to badger men. Men are supposed to be pacifist, men are supposed to get beat on without defending themselves, men are supposed to “endure suffering with all joy”.
Sharkly believes that the Bible used gendered language in order to separate men from women. He rejects gender neutral translations. This is why he concludes that only men are made in the image of God. But, the Sermon on the Mount used gendered language that indicates that it was directed at men.
Matthew 5:22-24 is directed at a man and his brother. Matthew 5:31-32 is addressed to men (about their wives). Matthew 5:47 speaks only of the brethren. Shall we speak of the various masculine pronouns or also of Matthew 6:1,2,5,14-16,18 and 7:3-5,9,12,16,24,2 where men are spoken of specifically? But most importantly, Matthew 5:39-41—the section on “turning the other cheek”—is directed at men using the Greek words for males.
If Sharkly were being intellectually honest and logically consistent with his own views, he’d conclude that women were exempted from the requirement to turn the other cheek. After all, by Sharkly’s own standard, Jesus never told women to turn the other cheek.
I simply can’t take anyone seriously when their position is so inherently self-contradictory.
One one hand, if the Bible really does refer to men and women as “men” in the gender-inclusive sense, then women are also told to “turn the other cheek.” But then, this would mean that the gender neutral English translations (e.g. the NIV) are actually better at conveying the original text than the non-neutral English translations (e.g. the King James Version).
On the other hand, if the Bible is speaking only to men (and not using gender inclusive language), then it is only telling men to “turn the other cheek.” If so, then the modern church is correct to not ask women to turn the other cheek, and women are correct to only demanding that men do so. They cannot be hypocrites if the Bible is not gender inclusive.
Which one is it, Sharkly? Which one?
However, if the man’s wife is threatened by some thugs, then they’re not supposed to tell her to get ready to turn the other cheek, but they’re suddenly expected to open a can of whoop-ass and decimate those thugs who would dare to threaten a woman.
The idea that a woman can defend herself from a group of male thugs in a purely physical altercation is absurd. If she doesn’t run, she might as well “turn the other cheek” as resistance is largely pointless. Contrary to popular opinion, girlbosses don’t exist in real life.
So that leaves the man. No men would ever expect a woman to defend him physically. But women do, in fact, expect a man to defend the woman. This is because the men are the only ones who have the potential physical capability to fight other men. This is a simple fact of biology. This is so obvious that I’m a bit embarrassed to have to explain it to Sharkly. This is the kind of thing parents are supposed to teach their young children.
As a proponent of Patriarchy, it is not clear what Sharkly is even complaining about. Of course women do not defend men while men are expected to defend women. This is what Patriarchy holds to be the natural order of things!
It certainly appears that Sharkly believes that a husband has no duty to defend his wife. What other conclusion can I draw (besides, of course, him contradicting himself again).
“But what,” you ask, “about the man turning the other cheek?” The answer is that Sharkly doesn’t believe that “turning the other cheek” means that the man stands down from the fight:
Now I myself think Jesus was using the phrase “turn the other cheek” as a hyperbolic bit of sarcasm directed at Jews who thought obeying the law put their righteousness at parity with God’s righteousness.
So as far as logical consistency goes, Sharkly the Patriarch has obligated the husband to defend the wife in this scenario which is precisely what the modern church’s “Man-Up” teaching says he should do. The Church’s teaching is identical to what Sharkly should believe….if he were being consistent. Based on Sharkly’s own belief, he doesn’t get to tell the man to “turn the other cheek” nor does he get to expect the woman to do the same.
Frankly, any complaint Sharkly makes about how the church expects men and women to behave in this case—whether to flee, turn the other cheek, or fight—will undermine his own contradictory argument. Let’s highlight the sources of inconsistency here.
Sharkly thinks that the church is constantly demanding that men “Man Up” and take responsibility, but he considers a man’s failure to take responsibility to be blaming men for women’s behavior. He has written such things on many occasions. On the other hand, he’s upset that the church wants men to “turn the other cheek” by defending a woman.
Or maybe Sharkly simply believes he has no obligation at all. He’s not going to turn the other cheek and he doesn’t see any requirement to defend her, so he can just run and leave her there to be beaten by thugs. So much for Patriarchy!
There is an obvious contradiction in any case. All that remains is to see which contradiction he confesses.
Even as they insisted on God’s “eye for an eye” justice for themselves, when God Himself endures evil people’s evils generally without any retaliation towards them during their lifetimes, thus almost inviting them to continue attacking Him, repeatedly, and from every angle.
I’ve already refuted this article at length.
However, my own interpretation of the original intent of the phrase had no bearing on my thoughts regarding churchgoers selectively applying phrases like that only to emasculate and disarm men, while contrarily insisting that battered women assure that their attackers are punished to the fullest extent of our White-Knighting Feminist justice system. Basically, two eyes for an eye when it comes to correcting those who hurt or bother women. Yet they preach “turn the other cheek” when a good man is being abused. Sexist hypocrites!
Is Sharkly confessing hypocrisy? Let’s emphasize that:
…my own interpretation…had no bearing on my thoughts regarding churchgoers…
Well, at the very least this is a clear case of cognitive dissonance. Let’s me explain.
Sharkly is criticizing both turning the other cheek…
…and defending women…
…but he isn’t merely pointing out that they are wrong—by holding contradictory views—rather he’s condemning and judging them. By his own standard—judging and condemning people for holding viewpoints that are merely wrong—he stands condemned.
For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive.
Sharkly isn’t even complaining that he will have to personally defend the women. He’s complaining even though he doesn’t have to raise a finger to help. He’s complaining that women want some third-party government to enact justice on actual attackers.
Normally when someone is a hypocrite, they preach one good thing but do another bad thing. In this case, Sharkly is criticizing both positions of churchgoers as if both were bad. This is what leads to his own hypocrisy, because if he brought his own interpretation to bear on churchgoers, he’d be forced to conclude that one (or both) of the church’s positions are in conformance with his own views. Thus, he is condemning churchgoers for believing something that isn’t actually wrong:
For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive.
More to the point, if a person hypocritically believes two things that are both bad, albeit contradictory, the solution isn’t to resolve the hypocrisy (i.e. to believe one thing but not the other). Sharkly’s objection of hypocrisy doesn’t work when someone believes two things that are both objectively wrong.
This is how we know he is more concerned with furiously attacking his enemies than in actually identifying the supposed problem, because his objection serves no purpose.
Sharkly’s objection is absurd. The actual issue he has with the justice system is that it is soft on crimes performed by women (including, broadly speaking, “frivorce”). If Sharkly were complaining about that, he’d have an argument. But that wouldn’t fit the narrative he is trying to push here: i.e. you can’t condemn all women because some female criminals benefit from a double standard.
No, he wants you to feel bad that the attackers of women were punished because women failed to turn the other cheek by demanding punishment. The implication of his argument is that women should not want attackers to be punished for their deeds, they should “turn the other cheek” instead. But, Sharkly doesn’t actually think that’s a problem, because he doesn’t think anyone should have to turn the other cheek in any situation, and he also wants criminals to be punished for their crimes (if anything, he thinks too few are punished). In other words, he doesn’t think the women are actually doing anything wrong by seeking punishments. He’s just taking cheap potshots at the so-called “White-Knighting Feminist justice system” without actually demonstrating the supposed hypocrisy (see below).
What this really comes down to is Sharkly having a doctrinal disagreement on the meaning of “turning the other cheek.” He thinks the women are wrong to demand that men turn the other cheek. Since he thinks that women should not “turn the other cheek” and he actually agrees that attackers should be brought to justice, all that remains of his original objection is his theological disagreement.
But, I have already shown that he’s wrong about the doctrine. Thus, I see nothing of substance in his argument. Nothing at all.
As for the charge of hypocrisy, women hold the correct theology (i.e. people should turn the other cheek). But even if they were incorrect on that, their actual deeds—per Sharkly’s own example—show that they believe that justice should be served by God’s appointed government run by men, not by them. By design, the Rule of Law is a repudiation of lex talionis, which is in keeping with the theology of “turn the other cheek.” There is nothing hypocritical in this stance. At worst, it is merely wrong.
All that’s left then is the charge of hypocrisy that men are expected to turn the other cheek if a woman beats him, but not if she is attacked. But a simply analysis indicates that these are not interchangeable situations. A man defending himself from a beating (from a physically inferior woman!) has unambiguously failed to turn the other cheek. But a man who is defending a woman (from physically superior men!) cannot be said to have failed to turn the other cheek because he’s defending another person, not himself. For example, when a man “takes a bullet” for his wife, he has both turned the other cheek and defended her.
There is nothing hypocritical here, only the belief that women should not defend men which is a traditional patriarchal viewpoint. If anyone is being a hypocrite at all, it is Sharkly the Patriarch. After all, patriarchy is, in its very form, a sexist double standard, so complaining about having double standards is hypocritical.
Men: Go bear your cross!
Women: Jesus wants you to feel fulfilled.
Apparently the Gospel changes depending on your sex.
Note well the difference between a double-standard and hypocrisy. Hypocrisy generally applies when one holds contradictory views, often in the form of a true belief and an action that doesn’t conform to the belief. But a double-standard is not inherently hypocritical. For example, only allowing men to fight in the military is a double-standard, but it isn’t hypocrisy. The church indeed holds men and women to different standards, but so does Sharkly. If the church were hypocritical because it holds a double standard, then Sharkly would also have to be a hypocrite.
If there is any hypocrisy at all, it would seem to come from Sharkly when he criticizes and condemns the church for doing what he thinks is the right thing to do.
Sharkly’s own teaching is that the Bible has a double standard: one for men who are in the image of God, and one for women who are not in the image of God. According to Sharkly, both God and God’s Patriarchy imply an inherent double standard between men and women. Moreover, Sharkly quite explicitly believes that men are superior and women are inferior. So, how can Sharkly complain when society holds inferior women to a different standard from superior men, when he himself believes that there is a God-established double-standard?
Sharkly is not consistent when it comes to applying biblical teachings to men and women. He picks-and-chooses which apply to women (and by how much) and which apply only to men. Sharkly is more concerned with teaching how inferior and evil women are than in creating a logically consistent theology. This is self-defeating.
Sharkly is not consistent when it comes to applying biblical teachings to men and women. He picks-and-chooses which apply to women (and by how much) and which apply only to men. Sharkly is more concerned with teaching how inferior and evil women are than in creating a logically consistent theology. This is self-defeating.:
It all leads back to his childhood upbringing:
The picture above is a colorized portrait of my father. He has been dead for a dozen years, but as I write this it chokes me up to see my father looking back at me again. He was my protector. While the rest of my family often mistreated me, when dad was home I was safe and he made sure I was treated fairly. My father was a stalwart man of principle, a genius engineer, and a servant of God. He was a formidable man who could bring gravitas to any discussion, but he could also tell hilarious jokes for two hours straight after all the serious matters had been taken care of.
My father showed me how to be a man, by being masculine for our entire life together. His Biblical frame of reference did not bend to accommodate the world, the world had to adapt itself to my father. He never cared about fame, he had no love of money, and he wasn’t afraid to die, so the world lacked much leverage against my dad. Life with dad was an adventure, a mission, a test, and I never doubted for a moment that dad would see to it that we achieved his mission, no matter the circumstances.
I wish every boy could grow up with a father like mine. Because then there would be no questions about how to be masculine, nobody undisciplined, and no man without a mission. It breaks my heart that so many boys are now growing up without fathers, including my own sons. What they miss out on by not having a father in their life is incalculable. You need a solid man to raise up solid men. Boys can’t learn how to be a man by watching their mother.
What is mostly not known(because of all his ”women evilz,evilz,evilz and inferior”stuff is that Sharkly means his flesh & blood Brother here too:”While the rest of my family often mistreated me, when dad was home I was safe and he made sure I was treated fairly. ”
As stated here:
Sharkly says:26 December, 2024 at 4:54 pm
Still, to brag about the evil that you do…
My brother used to privately brag to me about all the evil that he got away with, and how he could consistently dupe people. But his stories didn’t impress me, they only tended to make me think even less of his moral character, if that were possible. Most folks used to think he was squeaky clean, and that I only thought poorly of him due to sibling rivalry. It wasn’t until his co-liar ex-wife turned against him, after he divorced her for her sexual defrauding, and his adultery got exposed, that people started seeing him as the duplicitous person I always knew him to be.
They say there is honor among thieves, used car salespeople, charlatans, and charismatic denomination preachers. But I think they often forget that truly upright people won’t consider their craft to be honorable, no matter how slick they are at performing it or how much they make off with.
However, I do think that sort of bragging of power and influence and what all they can get away with, might impress a foolish defiler. Lending the metro-sexual suit-wearing bureaucrat a proverbial bit of “bad boy” grit and street-cred. Presumably, he could protect her from accountability for her actions, in the same way he keeps himself from being held to account for his own illicit actions. So, in a way, by peacocking his crook-skills, his influence, and his ability to get away with things, he displays a form of “protection” that he might lend to those whom he cares for.
So, it is a courtship-display of protector status.
I personally prefer to just flex a bicep or lift a heavy object. 🙂 I got moves!
So all the women(& countless MEN he has slandered without a second thought-which he hopes will keep his flunkies and yes-”men” in line instead of his phony W.Bush Evangelical Republican niceness that led to his business parters=investors to abandon him years ago as they took his wive’s side as their 15 year war marriage came to an end ) out there should know Sharkly even thinks his own flesh & blood Brother is a POS also.
Someday, someone will just read the Bible and actually believe it. All of it. That man will indeed turn the world upside down
Sharkly’s latest comment does beg-a-question:
Sharkly says:
1 February, 2025 at 4:54 am
“Teacher says, every time a bell rings an angel gets his wings.”
Sharkly says, each time the manosphere puts women down, some Simp reclaims his crown.”
A few weeks back Sharkly questioned his wife’s and others’ salvation yet here he is doing it again.:
Sharkly says:4 January, 2025 at 1:28 am
My ex-wife moved her “salvation” around. When I met her, she claimed she had gotten “saved” after getting run through by “less than ten” guys. I personally don’t believe that the “saved” can commit adultery, nor does the author of the Bible. (King David wasn’t “saved” he was operating under a sacrificial system.) Then about a dozen years later during marriage counselling, she tells the pastor she got saved when she was around 10 or 11 years old. When I asked her if her harlotry had been before that she said, “no”.
So, there I am hearing for the first time that whore say that her harlotry was all part of her “saved” Christian life, after I’ve had two kids with her. SMH When I pointed out that she had changed her story, and that I’d never have married somebody that thinks they can be saved while literally doing whatever the fuck she pleases. She seemingly had no shame whatsoever about having lied to me to get me to marry her. She just claimed she had “backslidden for a while”. lying whore!
Pretty much everything she had told me, which wasn’t very much, was a narrative to deceive me. She has never shown the least bit of remorse, and in fact (although she doesn’t like discussing her life) when queried she tells a sob story of how she’s a victim of a man who just gradually turned mean. (after she cut off all sex, all respect, and started slandering me to our sons constantly and to anybody else who would listen, and turned to sabotaging my life in many ways that even cost her too)
I’ve tried to correct her that I’ve been treating her like an evil piece of sh!t since our honeymoon when she showed me what demonically evil sh!t she was. But she claims that things were fine for the first decade. (she prefers there to be zero intimacy) Even though it was a living hell for me, and I was already calling her an unrepentant whore to her face by the first week of our marriage, on our honeymoon, and she was screaming divorce threats in my face by a month in. (Apparently that’s a normal healthy marriage to her, exactly like the home she grew up in.) SMH
But she claims that things were fine for the first decade. (she prefers there to be zero intimacy) Even though it was a living hell for me, and I was already calling her an unrepentant whore to her face by the first week of our marriage, on our honeymoon, and she was screaming divorce threats in my face by a month in.
But she claims that things were fine for the first decade. (she prefers there to be zero intimacy) Even though it was a living hell for me, and I was already calling her an unrepentant whore to her face by the first week of our marriage, on our honeymoon, and she was screaming divorce threats in my face by a month in. (Apparently that’s a normal healthy marriage to her, exactly like the home she grew up in.) SMH
(Apparently that’s a normal healthy marriage to her, exactly like the home she grew up in.) SMH
YEAH LIKE SPARKLY THE FALSE TEACHER BRINGING CHILDREN INTO SUCH A SITUATION.SMH
sparkly expects sympathy and protection( like he got from Cheque d’Out the white knight protector of false teachers of ”Christianity” at Spawnys as he attacks others like Jack, Scott, theDeti, Liz, Elspeth, and Mike at Marriage, Sex,g@y porn for ”Christians” and More strapons than RS & DS can handle (NSFNHPLCRDIG=Not safe for non-homosexual porn -loving ”Christians”& RS & DS in-general) for bringing children into a ” marriage” where a wife is ”screaming divorce threats in my face by a month in”?
While he is a supposed ”Genius” YEAH TO THE FOOLS BLINDED BY HIS FALSE TEACHINGS FROM HELL!
So when were you Sharkly saved by JESUS when you were young in your supposedly upright teens,20s, or 30s, or when you discovered the ”Christian”manosphere’s teaching on women at nearly 50 years old false teacher in early 2018(which was based on fornicating with them at nightclubs and bars bathrooms for the most part as the ”RP” is based on sacred PUAGAME teachings and NOT Biblical Scripture as well-known and fully documented( mainly, for, by and of RS & DS in government bought and sold by George Soros)liars, duplicitous deceivers and False teachers pretending to be angels of light and righteousness like sharkly says?
So like Larry Fleet where do you find God Sparkly the false teacher(similar to ED Hurst the false prophet)?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lzl8-_4qzyk
Lyrics:
That night I hit rock bottom sittin’ on an old barstool
He paid my tab and put me in a cab – he didn’t have to
But he could see I was hurtin’, oh I wish I’d got his name
I didn’t feel worth savin’ but he saved me just the same
And that day out on the water when the fish just wouldn’t bite
I put my pole down, floated around – it was just so quiet
I could hear my old man… sayin’ son just be still and stop being a false teacher SMH
You can’t find peace like this in a bottle or a bitter,hate-filled, and ”hopeful” black pill I call the red pill
From a bar stool, to that Evinrude
sunday mornin’ in a church pew
In a deer stand or a hay field
an interstate back to Whitewater
In a Chevrolet with the windows down
me and him just ridin’ around
yeah sometimes…whether i’m lookin’ for him or not
That’s where I find God
Sometimes late at night, I lie there and listen
To the sound of her heart beatin’ and that song the crickets are singin’
And I don’t know what they’re sayin’
But it sounds like a hymn to me
Naw I ain’t too good at prayin’
But thanks for everything
From a bar stool, to that Evinrude
sunday mornin’ in a church pew
In a deer stand or a hay field
an interstate back to whitewater
In a Chevrolet with the windows down
me and him just ridin’ around
yeah sometimes…whether i’m lookin’ for him or not
That’s where I find God
From a bar stool, to that Evinrude
sunday mornin’ in a church pew
In a deer stand or a hay field
an interstate back to Whitewater
In a Chevrolet with the windows down
me and him just ridin’ around talkin’… well i do that a lot, well i do that a lot
Cause that’s where I find God
Is it Sparkly you well known false teacher,wolf in supposed sheep clothing(yeah to you’re blinded by your false teachings flunkies and yes ”MEN” like bee1234567890) and discreditor of the ”Christian”manosphere?
Sharkly still no answer about when you were ”saved”?:
Some folks would like to try to write the manosphere off as just a bunch of angry autistic incels venting their crazed angst at God, RS & DS, and you channeling wife-beater enthusiasts like Matt Perkins at Jack’s, Spawnys, and Derek’s sites often come across in a way that would serve to reinforce that sort of denigration of the manosphere. Your rants about things like your ex-wife just seemed far more likely to discredit us all as a group, than to get any intended point across. And even now, your refusal to resolve this conflict with a bit of honesty, seems to indicate that something is still amiss. What next? Are you going to bring up the US civil war and women being raped by union soldiers again like last time? LOL Seriously! There is a way to answer my question, and then there is a way to conflict around in circles about all the things you might want to try to change the subject to. You argue way too much like a woman, it makes me suspicious that you’re a paid Soros boi.SMH
Some folks would like to try to write the manosphere off as just a bunch of angry autistic incels venting their crazed angst at God, RS & DS, and you channeling wife-beater enthusiasts like Matt Perkins at Jack’s, Spawnys, and Derek’s sites often come across in a way that would serve to reinforce that sort of denigration of the manosphere.
Here is someone who writes off the manosphere as a bunch of angry autistic incels venting their crazed angst:
Lisa Sugiura, The Incel Rebellion: The Rise of the Manosphere and the Virtual War Against Women: The Emergence and Development of the Manosphere
Trolling is a tactic favoured by incels; in fact much of the content on incel forums is designed to provoke, shock and invoke an emotive reaction, a core motivation of trolls.
The trolls of the Manosphere who use emotional language and appeal to emotional impact over rational debate often call me a troll.
In case some people don’t know what I’m saying from hints like here:
“Teacher says, every time a bell rings an angel gets his wings.”
Sharkly says, each time the manosphere puts women down, some Simp reclaims his crown.”
We know Sharkly NEVER stood up for God’s holy order of Patriarchy. At the same time, he was married to his ”defiler” yet his Father did, but is that enough for him=Sharkly’s Father to be saved by following JESUS & God’s holy order of Patriarchy:
As Sharkly also always puts this in every MAN’s face from his old post when he actually thought he had manosphere cred instead of a foolish false teacher that Jack just keeps around to look ”neutral” and non- ”crazed” in comparison to:
Sharkly – Heresiarch or just another hypocrite Chicken$#ited false teacher Church Reformer?
Martin Luther is remembered annually on Reformation day, October 31, 1517, for when he began the Protestant Reformation by nailing his 95 Theses, protesting the sale of indulgences, to the door of All Saints’ Church in Wittenberg, Germany. His ensuing one man public battle with the Catholic Church was made possible by the arrival of printing presses, whose owners printed, and widely sold to the public, copies of Luther’s criticisms and condemnations of the wayward church. By the time the papacy responded to Luther’s writings in June 1520 offering Luther 60 days to recant or be excommunicated, Luther, a prolific and compelling writer, had not only publicly denounced the authority of the pope, but had declared him an antichrist.
Heresiarch definition: Arch-Heretic – an originator or chief advocate of a heresy.
I am Sharkly, and as you may know, I consider it foundational to our Christian faith that we understand who God is, and who we are. I believe God is masculine or male, a Father, Son, and their masculine Spirit, and that men alone are earthly likenesses or images of God. I believe we are told of this repeatedly in the Bible. I believe the misunderstanding of God and humankind has led Christendom and the world back into the serpent’s trap of once again deifying women and catering to Eve’s desires rather than the will of our Creator, thereby we worship a creature rather than our Creator. We as a society make ongoing human child sacrifices, through abortion, at the altar of idolatrous Feminism. In just our generation we have shed more innocent blood, tearing more babies to bits, than all who died from all the wars of history combined. The Heavenly Father in great anger will hold our generation to account for this unprecedented sacrifice of innocent babies at the satanic altar of female supremacy. We must repent and return to the ways set up by our loving Father!
I first realized that men alone were in the image of God by reading Genesis 1:26-27
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image.
In the image of God created he him.
Male and female created he them.
It became apparent to me after reading this that God clearly mentioned man/him(Adam in Hebrew) being made/created in God’s image or likeness, four times right in a row, while then contrastingly telling us that male & Female(them) were only just created by God, with conspicuously no mention of it being done in God’s image. God clearly went out of His way to solidify that Adam was made in His image, but never is Eve or womankind said to be in God’s image. So I searched the scriptures for the image of God, and every single place it is mentioned it is assigned to the masculine Adam/men/Jesus.(in non-neutered Bibles) The Apostle Paul made it quite clear that men alone are the image of God in 1 Corinthians 11:7
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
No part of God Himself needs to be exhibited through the feminine, because all of God is masculine in Himself and in His representation. Jesus Christ did not need a female counterpart to exhibit the full image of God according to Colossians 2:9 (Colossians 1:19 states similar)
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
(ESV) 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
There is no exclusively female aspect to the image of God. The whole of the image of God was shown in Jesus Christ, a man come in the flesh, the Son of God.
I have also come to discover that this is what the early church taught and believed. Saint Augustine said: But we must notice how that which the apostle says, that not the woman but the man is the image of God, is not contrary to that which is written in Genesis, “God created man: in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them: and He blessed them.” For this text says that human nature itself, which is complete in both sexes, was made in the image of God; and it does not separate the woman from the image of God which it signifies. For after saying that God made man in the image of God, “He created him,” it says, “male and female:” or at any rate, punctuating the words otherwise, “male and female created He them.” How then did the apostle tell us that the man is the image of God, and therefore he is forbidden to cover his head; but that the woman is not so, and therefore is commanded to cover hers? Unless, forsooth, according to that which I have said already, when I was treating of the nature of the human mind, that the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one.
Ambrosiaster says: Paul says that the honor and dignity of a man makes it wrong for him to cover his head, because the image of God should not be hidden. Indeed, it ought not to be hidden, for the glory of God is seen in the man. … A woman therefore ought to cover her head, because she is not the likeness of God but is under subjection.
Epistle of “Mathetes” to Diognetus 10:2a For God loved men (… whom He created after His own image …) for whose sake He made the world, to whom He subjected all things that are in the earth … [This includes women, who are repeatedly told to be in subjection to their fathers and then husbands]
In past posts I have shared other quotes from early church fathers sharing the belief of the apostolic church that only men are the express images of God and designated as representatives of God, here living on earth. These beliefs were unchanged until the latter portion of the fourth century when the church was taken over and instituted as the state religion of the Roman Empire by Emperor Constantine. All sorts of politics, greed, and secular rot got syncretized into the church as it became a secular world power. Notably, Mary was deified, (to appease forcibly converted goddess worshippers) and in the process of doing so, women had to be falsely claimed to be images of God as well as men, for Mary to be able to be deified. How could Mary be claimed to be equal with Jesus Christ if she wasn’t even in the image of deity? Mary went from being a minor figure, less mentioned in the Bible than some other women, to then being claimed to be co-redemptrix with Christ, who is the central hero of the Bible. Today the false belief in women being made in the image of God has been brought to its logical conclusion of making women fully equal to men, just as Mary was blasphemously made equal with Christ. And today God’s institution of marriage is being debased, and families destroyed, since marriages won’t operate properly because a democracy of two equals can’t resolve conflict and attain the solidarity of a patriarchal family that works together to achieve one man’s ambition, as God intended. Just as the Protestant reformation after over a millennium rolled back the false divinity of Mary, returning all the reverence due solely to Jesus Christ as all the fullness of the Godhead in human flesh, so also, the image of God, the birthright of men, is a reverence, long stolen, that urgently needs to be returned solely to men.
Here is some Early church advice on telling heretics from true teachers:
Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) Chapter 11. Concerning Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets. 11:1 Whosoever therefore shall come and teach you all these things that have been said before, receive him; 2 But if the teacher himself be perverted and teach another doctrine to destroy these things, do not listen to him. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord.
So, who is teaching the doctrine that was delivered to the apostolic church? Based upon the words of the Apostle Paul, and upon the remaining writings of many of the earliest church Fathers, that would be those of us who teach that women by themselves are not the image of God, but that women and men portray Jesus Christ(who is God) and his bride the true church that is eventually to become one with the Lord.
Which doctrine fits best with the rest of scripture, and which doctrine destroys other scriptural doctrines? The belief that both sexes represent the image of the Most High God, and are thus equal in their rank and dignity, fights against so many other teachings of the Bible:
Ephesians 5 teaches us that husbands image Jesus Christ, while wives image the church. So the sexes are clearly not equal.
Women are told to be in subjection.(1Peter 3:1-2) So the sexes are clearly not equal.
Men alone are allowed to represent God and teach His word to both men and women.(1 Timothy 2:12) So the sexes are clearly not equal.
Women are not to usurp authority over men. (1 Timothy 2:12) So the sexes are clearly not equal.
Women are to reverence their husbands (Ephesians 5:33) So the sexes are clearly not equal.
Women are to cover their heads in prayer, but men should not.(1 Corinthians 11:3-9) So the sexes are clearly not equal when coming before God.
Man was created preeminently in God’s image, while woman was secondly created from man’s flesh and bone.(Genesis 1:26-27, Genesis 2:18-24) So the sexes are clearly not equal in their creation.
The husband is to be the head,(1 Corinthians 11:3) and the wife the helper.(Genesis 2:18) So the sexes are clearly not equal in rank.
Women are unavoidably ceremonially unclean during menstruation,(Leviticus 15:19-27, Leviticus 18:19, Ezekiel 18:5-6, Ezekiel 36:17) So the sexes are clearly not equal. Nor does that periodic uncleanness fit the image of God.
Women are natural defilers. (Revelation 14:4) So the sexes are clearly not equal.
We are clearly told that women are the “weaker vessel”.(1 Peter 3:7) So the sexes are clearly not equal.
We are told specifically that women are to be shamefaced. (1 Timothy 2:9) So the sexes are clearly not of equal glory and status.
Those are just a dozen of the many other doctrines that are damaged by having women equally in the image of the Most High God, that first popped into my head. Feel free to offer more in the comments section.
Some women might falsely claim that giving husband’s dominion, as unto the Lord, will lead to cruelty and abuses, well here is how it should work as described by the apostolic church:
Epistle of “Mathetes” to Diognetus from Chapter 10 … How will you love Him who has first so loved you? And if you love Him, you will be an imitator of His kindness. And do not wonder that a man may become an imitator of God. He can, if he is willing. For it is not by ruling over his neighbors, or by seeking to hold the supremacy over those that are weaker, or by being rich, and showing violence towards those that are inferior, that happiness is found; nor can any one by these things become an imitator of God. But these things do not at all constitute His majesty. On the contrary he who takes upon himself the burden of his neighbor; he who, in whatsoever respect he may be superior, is ready to benefit another who is deficient; he who, whatsoever things he has received from God, by distributing these to the needy, becomes a god to those who receive [his benefits]: he is an imitator of God.
So as you can see, being the image of God places greater duty upon the man, to look out for his inferior, including the call to be ready to lay his life down for his bride, like Christ(God) did for His bride the church. Truly understanding and practicing God’s order for the family will lead to deeper love and harmony than the lie of having two supposed equals constantly contending with each other for control.”
See how much of a hypocrite and false teacher sharkly is?” He” ”forgets” to tell us if a MAN has to believe ALL the above for salvation and to go to Heaven WHAT COULD BE THE
REASON WHY?:
”We know Sharkly the cowardly chicken$#itted fool NEVER stood up for God’s holy order of Patriarchy while he was married to his ”defiler” yet his Father did, but is that ALONE enough for him=sharkly’s Father to be saved by following JESUS & God’s holy order of Patriarchy WITHOUT BELIEVING THE FOLLOWING TOO?:”
Which is ”ONLY MEN MADE IN GOD’S IMAGE”, so if Sharkly had died before his wife divorced him he would have gone to hell, sparkly tells us by omission that his Father didn’t believe ”ONLY MEN MADE IN GOD’S IMAGE” nor his Biblical Languages professor uncle either & their his personal heroes of manliness! (EVERY TIME HE COMES OVER HERE RANTING THAT DEREK DOESN’T BELIEVE IT EITHER-THE READERS SHOULD KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN THE NEXT CRAZED RANT FROM THE MAIN NOTORIUS AND LAWLESS BELLEVUIAN NON-BELIEVER IN GOD’S HOLY ORDER OF PATRIARCHY, HYPOCRITICALLY BLOWS IN HERE).
Pingback: Constructive Criticism, Part 6 - Derek L. Ramsey