Sharkly on Women’s Agency

Female moral agency is motivated by masculine authority and is destroyed by Feminist equality.

Targeted Readership: Men
Theme: Female Agency and Accountability
Author’s Note: This post is based on Sharkly’s comment under Rollo Tomassi on Female Agency (2022/11/4).  Organized, formatted, with links and images added by Jack.
Length: 1,100 words
Reading Time: 6 minutes

Do women have moral agency?

Women have moral agency.  God treats them as if they do.  Thedeti seems to say that women’s agency is weaker than men’s, and that in the absence of others enforcing consequences on them for their actions, women will usually drift towards following their own emotions, even in contradiction to the moral beliefs they espouse.  Women’s moral conduct is generally less rationally decided and more driven by what feels good to them in the moment.  Although churches will vehemently deny that, God has ordered His patriarchal earthly hierarchy as if that is clearly the case.

Headship Authority is granted to Men, NOT Women!

God has said,

“You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;

Psalm 82:6 (ESV)

The Bible teaches that God created men first, preeminent, and in His own image, after His likeness, and showing His glory.

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

1 Corinthians 11:7 (NKJV)

The Bible also says that wives are ALL to be treated as weaker vessels, which they truly are.

Husbands, likewise, dwell with [your wives] with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

1 Peter 3:7 (NKJV)

The church is obfuscating these truths!

The Long Unraveling

So where do we get these silly notions of sexual equality?

The earliest church fathers all unanimously believed and wrote that men alone were in the matchless image of the Most High, while women are not the image of Christ, but are the image of His straying church.

Early church father, Ambrosiaster, wrote,

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

In the latter fourth century AD, Rome adopted Nicene Christianity as their Imperial religion.  To appease forcibly converted Goddess worshippers, the state-coopted Church of Rome then made women into the image of deity so that they could make a woman, Mary, equal to Jesus Christ as a co-redemptrix, and into a substitute goddess whom people could pray to instead of goddesses like their Magna Mater who had been served by the castrated Galli.

The Protestant reformation to some degree forced the roll back of the deification of Mary, within Christendom, however the reforms fell short of also seizing back the “image of our masculine deity” from womankind.  Leaving in place the heretical foundation for presumed sexual equality which is the essential foundation and justification upholding the false doctrines of Feminism.

Women’s Agency is Predicated on Men’s Headship Authority

A man can marry well beneath himself and easily remain content with his choice for a lifetime, IF his wife is faithful and treats him reasonably OK.  But the bottleneck is that ALL Women are hypergamous.  I have not met a single woman who truly and consistently defies hypergamy. 

TFM once said that:

“Every woman wants a man she can look up to, and you don’t look up to your equal.”

In all mutually happy and healthy long-term marriages, wives, at least subconsciously, must see their husbands as superior to them, not just by an unmerited divine fiat granting all men an undue rank and commanding their wives to submit to them.  But a hypergamously-contented wife willingly submits to her man, whom she most usually sees as worthy of her submission.  Honestly, every woman wants to submit herself to a “god”.  She wants to submit to a male sex-idol.  And that is what God has made you!

The presumption of sexual equality will always agitate against all women’s innate hypergamy.  If men are not all held to be categorically superior to women, then all male headship is then only merited in the natural world by fleeting conditional degrees of merit, in which women become the arbiters of whether or not a man’s merit can meet the demands of her seemingly insatiable hypergamy.

Men’s looks and athleticism will naturally decrease with age and are subject to disfigurement and disability.  And money, power, and status are also providential blessings which can be fleeting, and are subject to robbery, rebellion, and slander.  Who would truly want to restore such a great permanent responsibility to men if it only came with some slim degree of authority as conditionally judged by the caprice of fickle women, who assess their own competing merit with unwarranted vanity, and which could so easily be negated by so many factors beyond our control?

Ending the emasculating blasphemy against the Godhead, saying that “It” is a hermaphrodite, imaged by both men and women, is essential to deconstructing the foundation of presumed sexual equality which is the foundation of Feminism.  We cannot rebuild a sturdy patriarchy upon the lie that men are categorically no better than women.  Nor would it be much worth wasting the effort trying to establish a patriarchy where men’s superiority to women is only a fluctuating matter of degrees, where certain men are higher than certain women based only upon Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power, and Status (LAMPS).

Conclusions

Patriarchy has crumbled in the Western world as the inevitable result of the church having given away men’s divine birthright, “The image of God”, and its accompanying divine worthiness and reason to rule, to women.

Rollo is right in saying that blue-pilled untruthful notions of sexual equality have become false doctrines of the church.  They have left off the recorded doctrine which Christ and the apostles first left with the churches, and they have turned aside to peddling Feminist lies.

With their tongues they praise God, even the Father; and therewith they also curse men, which are made after the similitude of God.

James 3:9 (KJV)

We, men, need to take back our moral birthright, which is to be seen as categorically superior to all women in power and authority, being the only allowed earthly manifestation of God, having been made in God’s own image, graven from the dust of the earth by the Father of all Spirits and all flesh.

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Agency, Attraction, Churchianity, Collective Strength, Competence / Competition, Convergence, Culture Wars, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Elite Cultural Influences, Female Evo-Psych, Feminism, Generational Curses, Glory, Headship and Patriarchy, Holding Frame, Honor, Hypergamy, Intersexual Dynamics, Leadership, Male Power, Manosphere, Masculine Disciplines, Media, Models of Failure, Moral Agency, Paradigms of Religion, Politics, Power, Psychology, Purpose, Respect, Self-Concept, Sexual Authority, SMV/MMV, Society, Sphere of Influence, The Power of God. Bookmark the permalink.

111 Responses to Sharkly on Women’s Agency

  1. Jack says:

    The main thing I got out of Sharkly’s assessment is the recontextualization of the “Man Up!” thing. As Dalrock et al. have pointed out, we can’t tell individual men to “Man up!” The big takeaway from Sharkly is that the Manning Up has to happen on a society-wide scale, such that women as a whole regard men as a whole as being authoritative as a whole and worthy of respect as a whole. I can say Taiwan is like this in general. But the West is totally up-side-down in this regard. Women are seen as pure perfect princesses, in spite of their behaviors, and men are seen as toxic misogynists, in spite of their behaviors. Urging individual men to “Man up!” in this context amounts to little more than shaming men.

    Sharkly also described how this affects women’s agency. As deti described, women’s agency is operantly conditioned by the male authority in their lives. Without a recognized male authority, women are left without any structure to develop moral agency. As a result, we get what we see going on now — women doing as they please, wrecking havoc, never being held accountable, and never learning nor improving themselves.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sharkly says:

      “Without a recognized male authority, women are left without any structure to develop moral agency.”

      Their religion is the structure. Men’s husbandry is to provide their women with timely instruction and the first and primary line of societal enforcement that keeps daughters and wives conforming to their espoused religious structure. Fathers and husbands teach their wives and daughters what their religion teaches, and how that applies to her behavior, as he washes her with the word of God.

      1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (ESV)
      34 …the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

      See also: Ephesians 5:25-27

      Liked by 3 people

    • Oscar says:

      “The main thing I got out of Sharkly’s assessment is the recontextualization of the “Man Up!” thing.”

      The problem is that Sharkly categorizes every piece of advice on self-improvement as a “Man Up!” rant. Where’s the harm in a man improving himself?

      Everyone agrees that the current system is screwed up, and needs to change, but it took decades to get to this point, and may take decades to correct, if ever. Where’s the harm in a man doing everything possible to improve his life in the meantime?

      Like

      • Sharkly says:

        “The problem is that Sharkly categorizes every piece of advice on self-improvement as a “man up” rant.”

        LOL Not true!

        Go back and read what my actual objections to any “man-up rants” were. I’ve done a lifetime of self-improvement. I believe in doing it, and I believe in doing it most efficiently.

        Our recent conflict over that topic was when some new commenter at Deep Strength’s blog commented about fixing our Feminist political system, and just like a defensive Feminist churchian, you reflexively jumped to accusing him of ignoring what he could do in his own life, with absolutely no basis for that unjustified insult given in his first comments.

        Oscar said:

        “You gotta love it when men completely ignore what they can do in their own lives – over which they have 100% control – and immediately jump to federal government solutions – over which they have essentially 0% control.”

        Why did you have to malign the new guy based upon your own projection? I don’t recall seeing him return to anywhere in the manosphere after your dysfunctional attack. Your slur was based upon nothing he actually said to indicate that he might be completely ignoring his own life, but based entirely upon your own evil surmising against your brother.

        Like

  2. Jack says:

    From studying Sharkly’s comment and the scriptures he cited, I also got an idea about why his viewpoint, as important as it is, is roundly disregarded. It’s not only because it grates against the grain of the culture. He also lifts scripture out of context.

    For example, in his original comment he cited Psalm 39:6 as, “Surely every man goes about as an image…”, giving the impression that the image referred to is the image of God. But when I searched around for this verse, I found that only the Basic English Bible (BBE) and the Wycliffe (WYC) use the word “image”. Other translations use “shadow”, “mirage”, and “reflection in a mirror”. The full passage reads as follows.

    Psalm 39:4-6 (NKJV)
    4 “Lord, make me to know my end,
    And what is the measure of my days,
    That I may know how frail I am.
    5 Indeed, You have made my days as handbreadths,
    And my age is as nothing before You;
    Certainly every man at his best state is but vapor. Selah
    6 Surely every man walks about like a shadow;
    Surely they busy themselves in vain;
    He heaps up riches,
    And does not know who will gather them.

    Taken in context, this is a description of the frailty, meaninglessness, and vanity of a man’s life. It hardly agrees with his main point of man having power and authority and being made in the image of God.

    Another passage that clued me in was his usage of 1 Peter 3:7. He only cited the part that said women are the weaker vessel. But the full passage says husbands should honor wives as being the weaker vessel. (I included the whole verse in the edited version above and below.)

    1 Peter 3:7 (NKJV)
    Husbands, likewise, dwell with [your wives] with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

    There’s a world of a difference there. The charge of responsibility is on men, not women in this verse.

    Now maybe he excluded this part because it doesn’t relate to his point, but nevertheless, we cannot excise the man’s role in the relationship without losing sight of the Christ : Church :: Husband : Wife analogy.

    Moreover, the big problem with Sharkly’s viewpoint is that he doesn’t love and honor women. Well, given his experiences, I guess this can be expected, but it’s not acceptable. This might partly explain why his viewpoint is onerous and why he’s been kicked off Dalrock’s and Deep Strength’s blogs.

    Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      I’m not convinced about the claims of consensus among the Church Fathers. Finding such statements among them and not finding contradictory statements does not equal consensus. The early Church fathers often rote in relative isolation and their sparse surviving writings are often in response to a particular controversy. And they also weren’t always right. Tertullian, Origen, etc. held heretical views e.g. universal salvation.

      That said, I think his basic point is correct. BOTH sexes are probably, on the whole, happier when men are held in a categorically higher status because of hypergamy. God, the ultimate alpha male, assigns each woman her own alpha. Jim writes about this over at his blog. Women are ok with this or at least happier than what we have now.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “I think [Sharkly’s] basic point is correct. BOTH sexes are probably, on the whole, happier when men are held in a categorically higher status because of hypergamy.”

        Yes, I agree with his larger point. Sharkly is emphasizing what is missing in modern Christianity. But he shouldn’t be going to the opposite extreme of lambasting women without cause or mercy. The full image of Christ is incomplete without the Church. Likewise, the full image of masculinity is incomplete without the feminine to glorify him. (1 Corinthians 11:7)

        Like

    • Oscar says:

      “Taken in context, this is a description of the frailty, meaninglessness, and vanity of a man’s life.”

      Additionally, it applies to women just as much as it applies to men. Women’s lives are also frail, meaningless, and vain without Christ.

      In pretty much every language, “man” can mean a human male, or it can mean a human. The second usage has fallen out of favor in English in the last few decades, but the Bible wasn’t written in English in the last few decades. You have to keep the context in mind to know which way the word is being used.

      “Moreover, the big problem with Sharkly’s viewpoint is that he doesn’t love and honor women. Well, given his experiences, I guess this can be expected, but it’s not acceptable.”

      Agreed. Furthermore, if a man struggles with “how do I love and honor women in the current cultural context”, he’s dismissed as a “feminist”.

      Okay.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        Oscar,
        In the original inspired Hebrew, the word used for “man” in Psalm 39:6 is specifically masculine, not neuter.

        Your augments harnessing possible English language gender ambiguities only exhibits your reflexive resistance to accepting the original inspired truth.

        Whether or not some of that also applies to women, doesn’t change the fact that the inspired Hebrew text was written regarding men.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “Furthermore, if a man struggles with “how do I love and honor women in the current cultural context”, he’s dismissed as a “feminist”.”

        Yeah. It’s a shame that I had to consider my choice of words in light of this viewpoint when I wrote my earlier comments.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Sharkly says:

      The opinion I gave on Psalm 39:6 referring to men bearing the image of God came from Letter LI. From Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, to John, Bishop of Jerusalem.

      In that letter, early church father, Epiphanius, used that exact verse as one of seven proofs that men still bear the image of God, saying:

      “Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: “For all that every man walketh in the image.”

      The word used in Psalm 39:6 for “image” is the exact same word used repeatedly in Genesis 1 to explain that Adam was God’s “image”.

      Many English translators appear to like to obscure that the divinely inspired verse declares that all men go about as “the image.”

      It is only in your modern day opinion that I am using the inerrant and inspired words of God out of context, because you are seemingly fighting to keep the Roman church’s foundation of categorical sexual equality, and the satanic Feminism that it spawns, intact. However, that clearly was not the original doctrine of the apostolic and patristic church. And they saw fit to use that same verse as one of their proof texts, as you can read in the first link that I provided above.

      The fact that in 1 Peter 3:7 men bear responsibility for husbanding their wives with understanding (Red Pill), and with due recognition that they are heirs together of the grace of life, in no way negates that God, through Saint Peter, stated, without qualification, that wives are the weaker vessel. Saying that without qualification makes it a categorical statement. God didn’t only say that some wives, or most wives, are weaker than their husbands.

      Once again, the first definition in Strong’s Greek Dictionary for the word used in 1 Peter 3:7 for “weaker” is: weak (physically, or morally).

      So, it is textually accurate for me to use that inspired verse to say that it may refer to a categorical lack of moral strength, or a weakness of “agency”. Since clearly not all women are always physically weaker than their husbands, that would then make the verse sometimes untrue if it was merely referring to a couple’s relative physical strength, and not teaching men a spiritual truth about how to dwell with their morally inferior wives.

      And I’m certainly not saying that women always make worse moral choices than their husbands, just that in some way they are categorically weaker, less gifted, or inferior to men, but yet, in spite of that deficiency, women are still granted the same grace of life from our gracious and loving God.

      I have posted recently at Deep Strength’s blog, and I don’t believe I’m in moderation there, nor banned.

      But yes I agree I was banned by Dalrock over my viewpoint. He couldn’t handle the truth. If men alone are the image and glory of God, here on earth, as the Bible tells us, then all men are categorically far superior to any and every woman. And as such, not only is patriarchy the holy order of a righteous God, but to usurp that order is to blaspheme God’s word.

      Is this bit out of context too?

      Titus 2:5-8
      “… obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

      Just because a verse or a part of a verse is used without its context (like how Jesus Christ cited phrases from the Old Testament, often giving them an entirely new meaning from what the Jews had held their contextual passages to teach) does not mean that its use is contradictory to its context.

      “Moreover, the big problem with Sharkly’s viewpoint is that he doesn’t love and honor women.”

      LOL I love women. And I prove that by trying to do what is best for them, not by doing everything that pleases them. I don’t try to ingratiate myself in their minds, for my own advantage, through flattery or subservience to their wishes. No, I try to help women adorn themselves with shamefacedness, which properly befits women professing godliness, as per the Bible.

      My fear is that I may honor women too much, like our father Adam, who gave his wife the worth-ship to be obeyed rather than God. That is the pattern of male behavior we should be most wary of. And where 1 Peter 3:7 says “honor” the Strong’s definition is “a valuing, a price”, meaning to properly perceive her value.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        “The word used in Psalm 39:6 for “image” is the exact same word used repeatedly in Genesis 1 to explain that Adam was God’s “image”.

        It is also the exact same word used to refer to animals, dildos, idols, and what we would probably call p0rnography in Numbers 33:52, 2 Kings 11:18, 2 Chronicles 23:17, Ezekiel 7:20, Ezekiel 16:17, and Ezekiel 23:14.

        There’s a big difference between “image” and “image of God”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        A dildo is an image or likeness of a man’s manhood. An Idol is also an image of some deity. And pornography is of course images too. So, if all men are said to walk about as “the image”, and you don’t seem to want to allow that to be the image of God, which we already know that men are, then what other being or thing do you purport men to be the image of in that passage, since you don’t want to admit that Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis might have been right about what that verse teaches?

        It seems to me that people today are scared to allow men to be the image of God in yet another verse, whereas the Bible never says that any earthly woman is in the redeeming Last-Adam ‘s image. Because if men alone were the earthly likeness and representatives of God then all men would thereby be categorically superior to all women, making all of Feminism entirely false and unfounded. And that would also place a far greater responsibility on men to fully enact God’s holy patriarchy and to exercise good stewardship over women and all the other creatures under man’s earthly dominion. Does Ephesians 5:23 not make men analogous to the wife’s savior? Do wives not insist that their husbands should be prepared to die for them like Christ?
        Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

        If husbands image Christ, who is God, and wives image the straying church, which is not God, then wouldn’t that put a greater onus on men, who image Christ/God, to lead their wives well, and for women to submit in all things as unto the Lord? Yeah, I can see why nobody wants to take on that greater level of responsibility. Women don’t want it because they’re rebellious and have been taught to be independent, and men don’t want it because they’ve long ago given up their necessary authority and their ability to discipline and correct any woman including their wife.

        Finding out that all men are, by design, morally superior to women, would then mean that patriarchy is truly righteousness enacted, and is in everybody’s best interest, and that father-rule is not just a divine fiat with no merit, but is naturally the best possible state of things. Shoot! If men alone were the image of God then the Bible would make sense, our traditional sex roles would be most fitting, and things would fall into place, which were once at odds. Who can handle the truth?

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “…then what other being or thing do you purport men to be the image of in that passage… ?”

        A shadow of their former selves, or a poor reflection of who God created them to be (1 Corinthians 13:12).

        “It seems to me that people today are scared to allow men to be the image of God in yet another verse… […]”

        I don’t disagree with you on the remainder of your comment. The thing I disagree with is your general sentiment that women on the whole are inherently worthless and not worth saving. (Am I the only person who has gotten this impression?) This is not to be confused with all the talk about the depraved behaviors of women that is common around the ‘sphere and the internet.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “Finding out that all men are, by design, morally superior to women, would then mean that patriarchy is truly righteousness enacted, and is in everybody’s best interest, and that father-rule is not just a divine fiat with no merit, but is naturally the best possible state of things.”

        This is dubious from a scriptural standpoint, and by dubious I mean false. Men and women are clearly on the same moral plane when it comes to God’s standards in that both sexes are unable to meet them. Trying to argue that men are morally superior and that justifies patriarchy is a poor argument, first because it is untrue and second because there is a much better reason.

        Christ gives us the best reason for patriarchy and it has nothing to do with moral superiority. Christ is the moral equivalent of the Father and yet he still submitted himself to the father’s rule because that is the way that God set up things to work best for his purposes. Moral superiority had nothing to do with justifying Father rule.

        The same “because that is the way God set it up” logic applies to us imperfect humans. God made men with tendencies that make them better to be in charge, with the ability to better hold standards regardless of the emotional difficulty of doing so, and women with tendencies that make them better for nurture and support. Specifically, it’s their emotional nature that makes them good at the nurturing part but also makes them more susceptible to be swayed off principle. Hence the need for male authority. Because of this He said men are in charge as His purposes for his church are better fulfilled this way.

        God’s reason for giving men authority in their homes and in the church is that it is the best hierarchy within his design for all parties involved. Don’t make the error of conflating competency with moral superiority, as they are distinct.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        “The thing I disagree with is your general sentiment that women on the whole are inherently worthless and not worth saving.”

        But I’ve never actually said any of that. I don’t believe women have no value, that they aren’t worth saving, can’t be saved, don’t have souls, are no different from animals, or many of the things that people reflexively try to pin on me for denying sexual equality by saying that I do believe God made men first and preeminent, in the image and glory of God, and that women are a “weaker vessel” not intended to carry what men carry in their stronger vessel. The moment I say men and women aren’t morally equal, and that righteous God put the morally superior sex in charge, then people respond with, so what you’re saying is that, you hate women. LOL There is some delusion there, (pu$$y makes men stupid) in that many people don’t want to give up their giving women more worth (worth-ship AKA worship) than they are actually due. The old churchian false teachings of women’s moral superiority die hard.

        “… God made men with tendencies that make them better to be in charge, with the ability to better hold standards regardless of the emotional difficulty of doing so …”

        Yes, and what you’ve described there is a facet of men’s moral superiority, or greater moral strength. And, “but she’s a nurturer” doesn’t equal that. God wants obedience not sacrifice.

        Furthermore women are defilers who nurture wickedness better than they nurture holy virtue. Who do they want to put out for? The bad boy or the goodie two shoes? Don’t kid yourself blue-pilled churchians falsely impute all kinds of moral virtue to women, that truly is contrary to the nature of Eve’s daughters. Which sex would transgressed God first, without the defiling sex pressuring them? Obviously the morally inferior one! That’s in Genesis 3. How far into the Bible have you read? That was in the beginning. Eve was created morally inferior even before her fall. That’s why Satan spoke to Eve instead of Adam. That was originally established church doctrine, before it was overturned by Rome.

        Tertullian wrote this about women:

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

        “Christ is the moral equivalent of the Father …”

        No. The Father is head over the Son. Similar to a marriage, or to Christ and the church, the Father is metaphorically the exalted head and the Son is the physical body. The Father owns the field, the Son goes to work in it. The Son is in subjection to the Father. The Father is the lawgiver, the Son is the law doer. That’s not morally equivalent. Tell me which personage is the moral superior? The Son told us he does nothing but what He has seen His Father do (John 5:19). The Son does nothing of Himself, but does the will of His Father (John 5:30). The Son speaks nothing but what the Father has taught Him (John 8:28). Et cetera.

        Metaphorically much like a marriage, the Father and the Son and their masculine uniting Spirit are joined into one, in complete unity, with the Son in subjection to His Father in everything. That’s what the Bible teaches. Jesus told the Father, “not my will, but thine, be done.” (Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42). They aren’t moral equivalents, just because they’re both holy and sinless. The Father is morally the superior, and so, in righteousness the Son remains in subjection to his Father. Is the unequal relationship within the Godhead immoral?

        “Moral superiority had nothing to do with justifying Father rule.”

        LOL! Don’t be foolish! Moral superiority is the only thing that justifies Father-Rule. Without any moral justification, it would be just as holy in reverse. Without a moral superior, then its six to a half-dozen that Eve should rule over Adam, and wives should rule over their husbands. Did All-Righteous God cast dice to see who got headship? No, Eve had already been created subject to Adam, for whom she was made, to be a help and to mate with him. And after Eve transgressed God’s command, and then knew good from evil, she still went and tempted Adam to be defiled with her sin as well. And so it was that God had to remind Eve that she was to be ruled over by the one whom she had been created for and given to, to please and to serve. The sexes are not morally equivalent, that’s a strong delusion, that must be dispelled to restore order through understanding. Ideas have consequences.

        The reason why you won’t get up and say in your church, what Tertullian wrote, with that same angry “tone” as he wrote it, is because you don’t believe what Tertullian believed. You weren’t taught what Tertullian was taught. And you lack the fortitude of men like he, who was raised in a functioning patriarchy. Your rebuttal was mere lies and excuses because you don’t dare to stand up to women and command them to get back into their rightful and holy subjection to their moral lords. And y’all pick at my tone and call me unloving because I do.

        Like

    • Random A says:

      There is a definite tone and sense of bitterness that still permeates Sharkly’s words to this day. I’ve known men like him who can’t find a way back from the bitterness and anger that surrounded the breakups of their marriages. Not a good place to be mentally.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        I find my tone to be appropriate for somebody who has had their sons stolen based entirely upon Feminist lies and false accusations. I’m not looking for my way back to the churchian cult of niceness and inoffensiveness. I’ll always be angered by great injustice and by the works of Satan, so help me God.

        However I’d prefer you examine my doctrine according to the Scriptures, rather than avert your eyes and instead kibitz about how you perceive my tone.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. redpillboomer says:

    “That said, I think his basic point is correct. BOTH sexes are probably, on the whole, happier when men are held in a categorically higher status because of hypergamy. God, the ultimate alpha male, assigns each woman her own alpha. Jim writes about this over at his blog. Women are ok with this or at least happier than what we have now.”

    I think this is what I saw in the suburban culture I was raised in as a child in the 60s. Of course, I had no understanding of it then, it’s in looking back now that I get an idea of what I was seeing in the families around me.

    For one, there were no divorces that I was aware of, none. That doesn’t mean there weren’t loveless marriages or other things going on, I just can’t recall one couple divorcing; and I grew up in a neighborhood (and surrounding neighborhoods) with a lot of families. The first divorce I recall hearing about occurred in the 80s, two decades later. I was shocked when I heard about it.

    The times were something like cameron232 stated, “God the alpha male had assigned each woman her own alpha.” All my friends, when I think of their mom’s and dad’s, this was the case. Dad was looked up to, at least to some degree, as the breadwinner and the AUTHORITY in the household. I don’t recall any Karen like behavior from the moms toward their husbands, at least not in front of any of us kids.

    Now of course, I don’t know what was going on behind closed doors in these households, but outwardly, socially speaking, cameron232’s description in the quote held true. One other thing I remember, all of us boys “feared” the dads. I don’t mean like we were scared of them, because they were nice to us; however, inwardly, innately, we knew you did NOTHING to provoke their ire… and I mean nothing! You didn’t mess with the mom’s either because we knew, again innately, the dad was in the background and you NEVER wanted to deal with dad. Well, in actuality, their dad would usually deal with your dad and then you’d be in a heap of trouble from your own dad which was probably even worse. They still spanked your behind with belts back in those days.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Random A says:

      My mother’s most feared words when she was fed up with our behavior: “Wait until your father gets home!”

      I never hear about that sort of thing now. Another example of the denigration of the authority of fathers.

      Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      I think a mistake that boomers and early GenX make is “the problem with kids today is they don’t get their asses beaten with a belt.” My uncles got the belt and it made them angry, volatile men. I got the hell beaten out of me and it made me emotionally volatile, prone to rage issues when I feel cornered. This has caused me no small amount of problems.

      There are a lot of differences between how kids were raised back then vs. now besides the belt.

      Liked by 1 person

      • redpillboomer says:

        The belt was more of a stinging thing than a beating thing. Not saying that didn’t happen if some father had anger/rage issues, but it was more of a disciplinary, getting the point across with a bit of “ouch” thing. That’s the way my dad administered it, and even though it stung, it got the point across without any abuse.

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Glad you didn’t get it too bad RPB. My boomer uncles got the hell beaten out of them. My wife’s aunts and uncles did too and they’re all pretty messed up. I had wooden things broken on my back and ass for genuine accidents. I think a lot of men hit their kids hard and even if it was done coldly (without anger) I think it causes mental issues.

        Like

      • lastholdout says:

        HOW the “belt” is applied has a lot to do with its effect. As a boomer, I got the belt from my dad. What I mean by “how” pertains more to the mental state and control of the father applying the punishment. Also, I knew what I did was wrong –boundaries were made clear by parents and were upheld by schools and churches. When I got the belt, I knew already that I “deserved” it.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Sharkly says:

        cameron232,
        Elsewhere you’ve described receiving some pretty horrific abuse as a child. Please don’t confuse loving proper consistent discipline with what you got. Nor should you assume that all those of us with disciplinarian fathers now lack self-control or are prone to volatility because of tough discipline.

        Belts, rods, paddles, and such, can be used properly, and in accordance with the book of proverbs.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Sharkly, I think I’m mostly reacting to what I’m seeing other places, not so much to what RPB wrote. People act like a good ole fashioned ass-whuppin’ is what kids lack nowadays. I see this all the time with boomers. A lot of those boomers got the hell beaten out of them and yeah they’re a pretty messed up generation.

        I see it a lot with the older generation not just what happened in my family.

        Like

      • info says:

        The model of punishment in the Bible making the punishment fit the crime. Eye for an eye.

        I know of people who were cruelly lashed by the belt and all that resulted in is long long hatred of the Father going so far as to beat the shit out of his father once he is old enough.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Rock Kitaro says:

    “Rome adopted Nicene Christianity as their Imperial religion. To appease forcibly converted Goddess worshippers, the state-coopted Church of Rome then made women into the image of deity so that they could make a woman, Mary, equal to Jesus Christ as a co-redemptrix…”

    …I don’t know enough about Catholicism to speak with conclusions. But the pedastalizing of Mary has never sat right with me. I’ve read the entire Bible twice now and while I do think she is a great role model and estimable figure… Seriously, I’m in the middle of my 3rd reading and I find greater reverence in the prophets Elijah and Elisha.

    Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Catholics don’t believe the Bible is the only source of the Christian religion, its practices, etc. This is a basic assumption and so Catholic-Protestant discussions get stuck here since Catholics don’t accept the sola scriptura dogma. I have found Mary statements by individual Catholic saints that don’t sit well with me either but those statements aren’t Catholic dogma.

      Sola Scriptura Bible-scholar Luther encouraged the veneration of Mary — I think his point was it shouldn’t be required. In general, she’s seen as the new Eve: “the knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s faith.” Nevertheless, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was saved by Jesus too — albeit in a way that was unique to her.

      Mary was venerated by the early Church. We know this not only from written sources but also from Christian artwork. The theotokos title is a very ancient one. In general, saints were venerated (not worshiped) — the communion of saints. You could think of Mary as the most important one.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “Mary was venerated by the early Church.”

        This is incorrect. The veneration of Mary began in the late 4th century.

        Like

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “The theotokos title is a very ancient one.”

        “theotokos” means “bearer of God”, which is distinct from “theogonias” the “generator of God.

        Lactantius (c.310) in Divine Institutes, Book IV, Chapter 13, declared that Mary was Christ’s mother because Jesus was the son of Man, not because he was divine: by generation he had no mother and by birth he had no father. Alexander of Alexandria (c.324) referred to Jesus’ generation of the Father (using “theogonias”), but used “theotokos” of Mary in the context of Jesus taking on a physical body. Even Augustine—who first used the phrase “Mother of God” (Mater Dei) in the West in the late 4th century—claimed that Jesus was [divinely] begotten of the Father without a mother and that Mary was his mother only to the extent that he had flesh.

        Saying that Mary was the Theotokos (the bearer of God) is something even Protestants attest to, so it is utterly meaningless as a proof of Roman Catholic doctrine. It implies precisely nothing. Indeed, Photius writing in the 9th century complained that the Paulicians believed that Mary was the Theotokos (because obviously she was!), but denied her any idolatrous devotion.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Hi Derek. I will try to reply more thoroughly later.

        Even with my limited knowledge, I know that’s not true. The men of the 4th century elaborated on what St. Irenaeus wrote much earlier. Mary was venerated in early liturgies – however she was prayed FOR, suggesting she wasn’t regarded as a goddess, but a creature. Also we have early Christian art suggesting her veneration.

        That’s how Catholicism works – we see elaboration in later times of the apostolic deposit – and beliefs are often written down in forms that survive when the belief is in dispute.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “The men of the 4th century elaborated on what St. Irenaeus wrote much earlier. [..] That’s how Catholicism works – we see elaboration in later times of the apostolic deposit – and beliefs are often written down in forms that survive when the belief is in dispute.”

        You’ve accurately invoked The Roman Catholic Axiom

        “The recent explicates the older”

        …to produce what isn’t otherwise there. Unless you can defend your claim without citing your axiom (which by definition must be accepted without appeal to evidence), you should probably save your efforts. Such backwards reasoning is circular.

        I’m well aware that Irenaeus is used to support Mariology, but this is an absurd case of cherry-picking.

        Irenaeus notes in Against Heresies Book V that only Jesus was exempted from the long line of corruption from Adam to Mary, emphasizing her relationship to Adam to highlight that she was not sinless. Ironically, Irenaeus is pushing Roman Catholic heresies regarding Mary in his book “Against Heresies”! But of course he was correct, Mary was not sinless. It is the later writers who put words into the mouth of Irenaeus (i.e. they lie about what he said).

        Futhermore on Mary’s supposed perpetual virginity, Father Juniper Carol admits:

        “Did St. Irenaeus’ marvelous penetration into the virginal conception of Christ carry him on to further precisions concerning Our Lady’s virginity? Unfortunately, no, at least according to those authentic writings of his which have come down to us for the most part only in translations; there is nothing in these translated passages to show that Irenaeus held the permanence of Mary’s virginity, i.e., after the Annunciation, in the birth of Christ, and thereafter to the end of her life on earth. Certain critics have believed themselves justified in holding that Irenaeus denied Mary’s perpetual virginity, but without any decisive proof; on the other hand, we must confess that there are no decisive texts to show the opposite. [..] In these conditions of incertitude, one would naturally like to have the witness of contemporaries to complete and control the views of St. Irenaeus. At the present time there are scarcely any testimonies of this kind, except within the range of the apocryphal writings

        At least Father Juniper Carol is honest enough not to try to use Irenaeus to justify a belief that he didn’t believe.

        Irenæus also taught that the Ark of the Covenant was a type for the body of Christ, not the body of Mary. And we know that Irenæus taught against kneeling on Sunday (in Fragments, 7), so clearly he would have been aghast at the idea of kneeling before a statue of Mary on the Lord’s Day just on that level alone.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        No Derek, we don’t think it’s circular reasoning. I replied to Elspeth elsewhere so I’m going to be lazy and post it here.

        The writers of the NT were concerned with describing Jesus and His ministry. Same for the fathers of the primitive church who were battling constant Christological heresies. If Jesus’ divinity weren’t solidly established the teaching about his mother wouldn’t have a logical place and WOULD be prone to being coopted by goddess cults as Sharkly suggests. Later Christians had the luxury to reflect on what was suggested by primitive Christians. This isn’t circular reasoning it’s the reality of the Body of Christ developing its reflections organically under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus promised to send to His Church (He didn’t promise to send the Bible).

        The devotion to Mary existed prior to the late 4th century – not just in the writings of the church fathers. The artwork of the catacombs, the divine liturgy, etc. The prayer, sub tuum praesidium, the earliest intercessory marian prayer. Mary was seen as the new Eve, the obedient virgin, contrasted with Eve, the disobedient. St. Irenaeus wrote of Mary as an intercessory advocate.

        The divine adoration, latria, is reserved for God alone- Mary and the saints (and angels) are given a distinct veneration known as dulia in Latin. Mary is held in higher regard than the other saints. But Catholics don’t worship Mary so they don’t practice idolatry.

        You may not like the “cult of Mary” and may believe it to be heresy but it’s not true that it appeared out of nowhere in the late 4th century (I assume that’s what you’re suggesting).

        Liked by 1 person

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “we don’t think it’s circular reasoning”

        …because it is your axiom, a “proposition regarded as established, accepted, or self-evident.” For others, historical revisionism is circular reasoning: Tradition is based on what Rome teaches and what Rome teaches is based on Tradition. Circular.

        The axioms sola scriptura (Scripture Alone) and sola ecclesia (Church Alone) are epistemologically equivalent. The difference is the object of trust: one places faith in the Word of God or the word of men. 1 Kings 13 warns about which to choose.

        “The devotion to Mary existed prior to the late 4th century”

        No, it did not. This is just plain false. It cannot be shown outside your axiom. Even your church’s own theologians disagree with you (e.g. Carol re: Irenaeus). But it gets worse: your church fathers disagree with you. Origen, whose life overlapped Irenaeus, said this:

        “[S]eeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the Churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition

        He believed the entire apostolic teaching had already been received and preserved in the Church. Nobody could fail to apprehend that tradition and that alone. Even the corrupted CCC#81 roughly acknowledges this:

        “And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”

        And so when Origen taught that the sword that pierced Mary’s soul (in Luke) was unbelief, he was merely echoing the apostolic teaching found in scripture and in the church. Nor was this belief held just by Origen. Tertullian, Basil, John Chrysostom, Hilary of Poitiers, and others not only denied the immaculate conception, but their beliefs—of the universal church—generated no controversy or censure. In the presence of such evidence, Roman Catholics, like Father Carol, are forced to retreat into invoking the axiom:

        “It would seem that before Ephesus some prominent churchmen and some of the laity […] were not aware of an obligation to represent the Mother of God as utterly sinless”

        What arrogance to say that these churchman—who allegedly had the apostolic tradition from only a few centuries past—knew less about the apostolic tradition than men more than a thousand years later. But the Roman Catholic axiom demands this intellectual self-deception.

        “But Catholics don’t worship Mary so they don’t practice idolatry.”

        I see that you didn’t examine the link, where Pius XII in Latin—and Roman Catholic translators in English—describes Marian adoration as worship. The RCC’s official Latin for Exodus 20:5 and the Latin of Fulgens Corona uses the same word for worship.

        This is just one example of the problem of semantic ambiguity with hyperdulia (regarding latria and dulia): it is a distinction without concrete meaning. Other Roman Catholic sources—beyond Pius—also struggle to define the distinctions and the thresholds of worship.

        “The artwork of the catacombs, the divine liturgy, etc. “

        Artwork cannot not show veneration—which is a motive, not an act. Moreover, the catacombs show evidence that the church did not kneel. As for the rest, I can’t respond to claims with no citation.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        This seems to have morphed into a broader criticism of the Catholic way.

        “The axioms sola scriptura (Scripture Alone) and sola ecclesia (Church Alone)”

        I don’t think we separate the two – scripture and the Church – scripture is part of the Church. I’m comfortable with saying I have faith in the axiom as protestants have faith in theirs. As I said, we believe Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to Church – He didn’t promise to send the Bible. Your way produces ambiguities I can’t clear up. You guys can’t decide whether women are made in the image of God.

        “…one places faith in the Word of God or the word of men.”

        We place our faith in Christ’s promise that he’d send the Holy Spirit to His Church. The Word of God doesn’t self-interpret. That’s why men on this small blog can come up with their own rules about if and when a man can divorce his wife and remarry.

        “And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”

        Yes and this statement doesn’t indicate that the transmitted tradition is the Bible alone. It also suggests apostolic succession which isn’t described as passing the Bible down.

        “…but their beliefs—of the universal church—generated no controversy or censure.”

        Because these beliefs weren’t being decided on in an ecumenical council.

        The concrete difference is the adoration owed to God alone is the adoration owed to God alone. Mary is prayed FOR, we don’t pray for God since God isn’t a creature. We don’t petition God to pray FOR us since all prayer ultimately is TO God.

        “As for the rest, I can’t respond to claims with no citation.”

        I cited the Sub Tuum Praesidium.

        “Beneath thy compassion,
        We take refuge, O Mother of God:
        do not despise our petitions in time of trouble,
        but rescue us from dangers,
        only pure one, only blessed one.”

        This prayer is still said during the Vespers service for Great Lent by Orthodox Christians.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        What is given to Mary and the saints is generally described as “veneration” in English. I don’t think in general we speak of “venerating” God.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Also, not to provocatively pile on but I’m not at all surprised that there was a variety/heterodoxy of opinions in the primitive church despite it being 100, 200 years from the lives of the apostles. You’re talking about a world with poor communication, near universal illiteracy, horrific persecution of Christians, you don’t see the big ecumenical councils (that tradish protestants accept) of the 4th and 5th centuries, etc. Many of those men who were “closer to the apostles” held heterodox opinions, Tertullian, Origen on apocatastasis, etc. Many early Christians regarded non-canonical books as authoritative and dismissed others that made it into the canon. It seems proximity to the apostles didn’t help them with this. 100 or 200 years of being geographically dispersed, persecuted therefore underground, etc. in the ancient world is enough to produce a variety of opinions and heterodoxy.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        It is probably this reality that causes a lot of the 19th century restorationists (LDS, some churches of christ, others) to claim that the church fell into total apostacy after the last apostle died.

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        Derek Ramsey,
        Thank you for all of your well researched comments. I’d “like” some of them if I wasn’t on Jack’s naughty-list, and unable to.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Sharkly says:

      So, in addition to the scriptures, which the church of Rome altered in a few spots, they also use various church leader’s beliefs and their own church traditions as their sources of truth. Plus their church’s beliefs are subject to changing, and then they’ll change their church history to match their current beliefs.

      Folks like Augustine are simultaneously considered both a saint and a heretic. They execute future saints and then posthumously beautify them. The Pope once put a bounty on Martin Luther’s head, and Martin Luther declared the pope to be an antichrist, but now the Catholic church has declared martin Luther to be a “witness to the gospel”.

      It is a human institution. They covered up their pederasty as was their policy. Their claims of infallibility are lies. They’ve been wrong time and time again. Ask Galileo. Their claim to be the heir apparent to the apostle Peter is both a meaningless and disjointed connection. At the end of the day, you’ve got a man named Francis claiming to speak for God, who got his seat through church politics.

      And there is far more than one flavor of Roman Catholic. Not as many denominations as Protestants, but still plenty to choose from.

      They’ve changed their position on Mary, and then changed their history to cover it up. They’ve changed their position on indulgences too. Once Catholics got sent to purgatory for eating meat on Fridays. When the Catholics decided that it was now OK to eat meat on Fridays, did God release all of those souls supposedly suffering in purgatory for having bacon bits on their Friday salad?

      Unless you want to join their church, all their apostasies aren’t worth keeping up with.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      Catholics don’t like to hear this, but I’ve seen a lot of Mary worship – not just veneration… worship – among Latin American Catholics. They even call it worship (adoración in Spanish).

      The Catholic Church in Latin America doesn’t just know about it, they don’t just encourage it, they actively preach that it is good and right.

      No North American Catholic will even admit that it happens.

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        It could very well happen – I don’t doubt it – there are a billion or so Catholics worldwide. I believe you.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Tiene adoración por su esposa.

        You’re the native Spanish speaker so I’ll defer to your expertise but it doesn’t seem to me that adoracion has to refer to worship.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “I believe you.”

        Congratulations, you’re first!

        “You’re the native Spanish speaker so I’ll defer to your expertise but it doesn’t seem to me that adoracion has to refer to worship.”

        There’s that pesky context issue again. I assure you, they mean worship. People do the same thing in English.

        “Fill my heart with song
        Let me sing forevermore
        You are all I long for
        All I worship and adore”

        ~ Fly me to the Moon, Frank Sinatra

        But you know when someone really means worship.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        By the way, I don’t mean to give the impression that the Catholic Church is all bad. It’s a hell of a lot better than the “health, wealth and prosperity” false gospel that is sweeping Latin America right now.

        For example, in Nicaragua, Ortega is throwing Catholic priests into prison, or exiling them, because they won’t bend the knee to his neo-Communist revival. Meanwhile, many Protestant “pastors” are bending the knee to keep their positions.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Sharkly says:

    “You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High.”

    I object to that neutered translation. The word “children” is masculine and should be rendered literally as “sons”.

    Psalm 82:6 (ESV)
    I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;

    All of the gendered words in the verse are masculine: you, gods, sons, Most-High, all, and you. There are not even any feminine nor neuter gendered words in that verse.

    Like

    • info says:

      Actually Elohim talked about here isn’t about “God’s” but the ruling Angels over the Nations. They also along with Satan went rogue:

      More on the Divine Council:

      Elohim was a hebrew generic term for Spiritual beings:

      Like

      • Sharkly says:

        I watched your 3 videos, and the two publishers don’t fully agree with each other except that neither of them wants to accept men as being honored by being called “gods”. To them it just has to be somebody else.

        The last video said that “elohim” could only refer to divine/spiritual beings that belong to the heavenly realm. Men belong to the earthly realm. Yet in 9 other places the Bible uses the masculine word “elohim” to refer to men, rendered as: the godly, the great, judges, the mighty, and rulers. So, the video’s publisher is either willfully lying, ignorantly lying, or willing to upend and recast 9 other passages where “elohim” refers to men, just to keep men from receiving an honorific title in the one passage where the word got translated as “gods”. And when Jesus quoted from Psalm 82 in Greek, He also used a masculine word for “gods”, “Theoi”, which can also refer to men. What a divine coincidence.

        The simplest most literal explanation is that Psalm 82 was actually referring to mortal men, who must die, as being gods, and sons of the Most High. And Jesus also quoted it in John 10 as if it were referring to men when the Jews accused Jesus of “blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” Jesus correctly pointed out that the Father Himself had told men, to whom the word of God was sent, “ye are gods”, so how are you Jews now claiming I’m blaspheming for saying, I also am the Son of God?

        My assessment is that those video publishers were willing to go to fantastical lengths (even making up their own strict word rules out of thin air to suit their pet theory) just to prevent men from being honored as sharing in the glory of God our Father, by also being called “gods” since we are His sons and His own true image here on earth.

        To honor Catholics, 😉 here’s what the New Catholic Bible (NCB) tells us:

        1 Corinthians 11:7 (NCB)
        It is not right for a man to have his head covered, since he is the image of God and the reflection of his glory, whereas woman is the reflection of the glory of man.

        So, how do you dodge the apostle Paul’s painfully clear explanation there?

        Some folks here claim I must hate women because, like the, supposedly “misogynist”, Apostle Paul, I don’t teach women that they are goddesses, nor God’s image, nor God’s glory.

        But I say that y’all can’t admit that men alone are God’s image and glory and that He calls us His “sons” and “gods”, even though God’s word clearly tells us all that, because you hate men. I call that “internalized misandry”. It’s a thing! Stop hating men. Embrace masculine glory!

        Like

    • Jack says:

      Sharkly,

      “I object to that neutered translation.”

      Since you pointed this out (with the link to BibleHub), I changed the quotation of Psalm 82:6 in the OP from the NKJV to the ESV.

      This is the first time I’ve ever found the NKJV to be inadequate or misleading. I’ve heard a lot of good reviews of the ESV, so I’ll use this translation from now on.

      Like

      • Sharkly says:

        Yeah, the old King James translation is one of the few English translations that almost always translates the gender of words the same as the original text. I was pretty surprised to see that anomaly myself. I’d probably still trust KJV more than the ESV in most cases. The “interlinear” translation views at biblehub.com are a phenomenal resource. You can run your cursor over the words in the verse and instantly see the gender of all of them. A decade ago I’d have had to ever-so-slowly look up every Hebrew or Greek word in my huge yet fine print Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, just to find out far less than what Bible-Hub has compiled from multiple dictionaries, at the click of a button.

        Like

  6. Derek Ramsey says:

    “…the pedestalizing of Mary has never sat right with me”

    And it shouldn’t ever sit right with you. It is an idolatrous invention of the late 4th century.

    Tertullian wrote in “The Flesh of Christ” that Mary was a virgin until Christ physically opened her womb:

    “…she was a virgin, so far as (abstinence) from a husband went, and yet not a virgin, as regards her bearing a child. [..] Indeed she ought rather to be called not a virgin than a virgin, becoming a mother at a leap, as it were, before she was a wife.”

    Her hymen was broken and her ‘virginity’ lost by the birthing process, though she could not have yet become a wife until she had sex. But the Roman Catholic church holds that Mary experienced no pain in childbirth, no tearing, no blood, such that her virginity was preserved, in order that she might be pedastalized as perpetual virgin and worshiped (see Pius XII, Fulgens Corona, using the same language for worship as condemned in Exodus 20:5). Of course perpetual virginity also means that Mary never had sex (and thus could never have been legally married to Joseph and makes the Bible a liar) and never had children, two more absurd claims.

    But it was Gregory of Nyssa (c.394), Ambrose (c.397), John Chrysostom (+ 407), Proclus of Constantinople (c.446), Theodotus of Ancyra (c.446), Peter Chrysologus (c.450), Leo the Great (c.461), Severus of Antioch (c.538), Romanos the Melodist (c. 560), Venantius Fortunatus (c.600), and Gregory the Great (c.604) who invented the idea very late. When this heresy arose in the late 4th century, immediately men like Jovinianus — who was ultimately imprisoned for the crime of rejecting novel doctrinal inventions — objected. Faithful Christians were forced to flee into the wilderness from whence the Paulicians, Bogomils, Patarines, Albigensians, Cathari, Waldenses, and Anabaptists (among others, including Claudius, Bishop of Turin) would come.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

      “Of course perpetual virginity also means that Mary never had sex (and thus could never have been legally married to Joseph and makes the Bible a liar).”

      You’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, and your argument is very much akin to what a Pharasee would make. You just made a legal argument, forgetting that nothing about the Holy Family is going to be played by the rules of normal humanity. Jesus had to be born of a virgin in order to prove his Divinity. If Joseph would have had sex with her at any time, we could seriously call into question Christ being God, since we wouldn’t have assurance that he wasn’t just another guy. C’mon, His being conceived of the Holy Spirit is a major tenet of Christianity, evidenced by its inclusion in the Creed. Do you even understand what you’re saying?

      We get it, you hate Mary. You hate her so much you’re willing to contradict a required belief in order to tear her down. You should ask yourself why.

      Like

      • Sharkly says:

        Derek isn’t denying Jesus’ virgin birth. He is only denying that Mary stayed a virgin perpetually even after having given birth.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

        Mary remaining a Virgin strengthens the argument of Christ’s Divinity. It can’t be, “We broke the rules for the Jesus child, but otherwise everything was normal.” Nothing about the Holy Family or His life worked that way. Are you people that dense?

        Like

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        @Bardelys

        “Mary remaining a Virgin strengthens the argument of Christ’s Divinity.”

        Christ’s divinity is not a contingency. Mary’s “perpetual” virginity avails nothing.

        “We get it, you hate Mary. You hate her so much…”

        There is no hate, except of idolatry, but a deep and abiding love of scripture. I—and the early church—stand with its testimony.

        …you’re willing to contradict a required belief…”

        Father Carol couldn’t figure out why the early church didn’t accept the “required” belief. His error—which is quite common—is not mine.

        Tertullian recognized the actual logical contradiction of saying Jesus went through the birth canal but Mary’s hymen stayed intact. Furthermore, he recognized that scripture attests that Mary lost her virginity when she and Joseph had sex after Jesus’ birth. Origen taught that Mary’s sin was unbelief. Irenaeus taught that Mary was a sinner in the line of Adam.

        Early church fathers Origen and Irenaeus declared that the only required beliefs are those found in scripture: the completed and preserved holy tradition. To go against scripture is to contradict it.

        Apostolic tradition demands rejection of Marian idolatry.

        “Are you people that dense?”

        Quite the contrary, I followed Cardinal John H. Newman’s advice to get deep into history. The more I shed historical ignorance, the more I find Roman Catholicism is refuted. The majority of my citations come from Roman Catholic sources, so you can see the truth for yourself in the words of your own churchmen.

        Like

  7. Sharkly says:

    FWIW, I really have never blogged much specifically about female agency, because I’ve always taken it as a given. In Genesis 3 our just God holds the woman accountable for her sin and punishes her for it, proving that she had the moral agency to have properly chosen to obey God and Adam, instead of the deceitful temptations of the Serpent.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Derek Ramsey says:

    Jack, if you don’t do a “Artisanal Toad on Woman’s Agency”, your series will be incomplete, IMO.

    Liked by 4 people

  9. Pingback: Deep Strength on Women’s Agency | Σ Frame

  10. info says:

    Since the topic about virginity in partu have come up. My take about the doctrine in regards to our Lord’s mother is manyfold.

    One is that it sets up the false dichotomy of asexual ideal mother and roommate vs wanton whore who monopolizes all Eroticism.

    It’s like as if the ideal man shouldn’t desire to eat at all because all hunger is lust for food.

    This also helps set up the justifications for Augustine to have brothels for men to spend their eroticism only on whores like a sewer system. However virtuous these men are. Even they are affected by hatred of the body that the Gnostics of the Age exemplified.

    Like since all desire for food is lust then only junk food will be available to eat to exhaust our lust for eating.

    I think that compared to the plausible notion of our Lord Jesus setting his virtuous mother in a high position. It’s more damaging and the fruit more destructive.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Lastmod says:

    I’m half Polish. Let me tell you….Pope John Paul was the first non-Italian pope in about 500 years. Him being Polish was greater than being catholic to Poles.

    That said….my dad’s Polish / Catholic side…Mary is prayed to. Prayed for. Venerated. Worshiped. Pictures of Mary in the house. As a little boy, I thought that Mary was “god” because I saw nothing of Jesus or about him. I think I was about eight or so when I realized I was part of the same religion as my dad’s side. I found it odd bc I never heard or saw Jesus. Only Mary. The Anglicans, for their gazillion faults… at least as boy I learned about Jesus.

    Now, maybe it’s just a Polish Catholic thing. I do know that the Catholic church is special to Poland bc it was the protector and steward of their language, culture and art for centuries when there was no Poland.

    For how much Poles claim their Catholism, way too many….Nay most have 1.5 children if that in their marriages. Roost even wrote a book about Poland and how “easy” they were to bed.

    Polish women like most Slavs need to wax everything by the time they hit thirty or they look sixty. Polish Catholics worship Mary. They do.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Jack says:

    I’ve received some complaints that the comments under this post have been derailed by the Catholic Virgin Mariolatry stuff. I suggest that Derek should copy the arguments that have been presented above and carry on with the discussion at his place. I will delete the comments that are unrelated to the OP after a few days. Readers interested in the OP shouldn’t have to wade through that stuff.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sharkly says:

      I happen to think that the discussion regarding Mary is very relevant to, and even somewhat foundational to, the topic of how Christendom generally views women and their moral agency, as compared to men. And it’s also relevant to what has caused Christendom to differ from my personal view a bit. Please don’t censor the well-intended efforts of those involved who have contributed to the topic. Otherwise, it would seem to me that you’d prefer the very foundational ground of Feminism within Christianity (the effort to make women more like God) left unexplored and undisturbed.

      Like

      • Jack says:

        Sharkly,

        “I happen to think that the discussion regarding Mary is very relevant to, and even somewhat foundational to, the topic of how Christendom generally views women and their moral agency, as compared to men.”

        OK… How does it relate?

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        I don’t actually like the term “moral agency” as it is a bit obscure and not very self-explanatory. I might just prefer to say that women are “answerable” or “accountable” to God for their choices.

        I think Derek has given a good explanation for why the doctrines surrounding Mary, and leading to her deification, relate to the question of women’s moral agency, and how the church and all of Christendom has come to view women’s moral agency. And, to me, that was the departure portal by which Satan led the church into great heresy, from which no church has ever fully recovered.

        Even today, even in America, Catholics may still talk about “… Mary’s place as the greatest of all saints …”

        Yet Jesus Christ didn’t mention his mom when He said, “Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist:”

        Was Jesus lying? Did Mary not have a mother? Why do Catholics still feel that way?

        The director of small groups at my wife’s church a “nice guy” once came to my house and for a couple hours, for every single wicked thing I told him that my wife had done, he desperately tried to figure out for me how it could be my fault. He was pathologically unwilling to see her as being capable of sinning, all of her own accord. When asked if women have a sin nature and can sin on their own, he would begrudgingly say, “yes”. But then, like a dog returning to its vomit, he would directly return to trying to blame me for every single bit of my wife’s wickedness, as if he believed her to be a goddess who would never sin unless she was somehow forced to.

        How did he get that way? Don’t you want to discuss the church doctrines that led him to acting and speaking as if women could not possibly be solely responsible for any evil? I’m pretty sure I’m not the only man who has had a church try to blame them for all of their wife’s evil. That behavior is abhorrent. It’s origin merits discussion.

        Like

    • Derek Ramsey says:

      My apologies. I’m out and will bother you no more.

      Like

    • Derek Ramsey says:

      “I will delete the comments that are unrelated to the OP after a few days.”

      You can delete them now. I’ve saved a copy. But it is not off-topic. Sharkly stated in the OP:

      “…the state-coopted Church of Rome then made women into the image of deity… [..] The Protestant reformation to some degree forced the roll back of the deification of Mary [..] Patriarchy has crumbled in the Western world as the inevitable result of the church having given away men’s divine birthright, “The image of God”, and its accompanying divine worthiness and reason to rule, to women.”

      Sharkly obviously believes that a church that worships a woman is necessarily going to have a distorted view of the agency of women. So the discussion of Mariology is 100% on point and completely relevant in this context.

      Why did you allow such a post to be made if you were going to censor comments directly relevant to the content of the post?

      Like

      • Jack says:

        “Why did you allow such a post to be made if you were going to censor comments directly relevant to the content of the post?”

        So far, I haven’t seen how it relates. No one has tried to tie it into the OP until I said it was off topic.

        “…a church that worships a woman is necessarily going to have a distorted view of the agency of women. So the discussion of Mariology is 100% on point and completely relevant in this context.”

        I’m following you now. If this can be tied in to the topic of agency, then I see no need to clean up the comments. However, if the connections are well made, then I expect the comments will be extensive.

        Like

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “So far, I haven’t seen how it relates.”

        Unless you are employing the Socratic method, I’m perplexed that you can say this. Is the problem that you are unfamiliar with Mariology and its claims? I already cited a 20th century venerated Pope who said that Mary was indeed worshiped. If the church worships and submits to a woman’s authority, this makes her agency higher than man’s.

        “I expect the comments will be extensive.”

        Are you aware of the authority assigned to Mary? Beyond mere worship, all yield to Mary, including the Popes and God himself. Methodius, a 9th century monk, said that God is indebted to Mary:

        “You have lent to God, who stands in need of nothing, that flesh which He had not, in order that the Omnipotent might become that which it was his good pleasure to be. [..] Hail! Hail! Mother and handmaid of God. Hail! Hail! You to whom the great Creditor of all is a debtor. We are all debtors to God, but to you He is Himself indebted.” (Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna, chapter 10)

        The 19th century Father Peter Julian Eymard said of the annunciation:

        “The angel is the first to salute. He is, indeed, the less worthy of the two. Mary is sovereign here, and since the Three Divine Persons are awaiting an answer, she holds in her hands the fate of the world. Ah, how powerful is that lowly maiden!”

        The Apparition of Mary in LaSalette, France, in 1846 said “If my people will not obey I shall be compelled to loose my Son’s arm.” The officially approved for devotion Apparition of Mary in La Laus, France, declared that the Pope can command God to come down from Heaven to the altar by virtue of his priesthood, but he cannot command the Mother of God “who does as She pleases.” That’s the kind of statement that will really attract the attention of a modern feminist.

        The legendary Archbishop Fulton Sheen called Mary the “Tabernacle of the Lord” (Exodus 33:9), which required Mary’s sinlessness. When Pope Pius IX declared the Immaculate Conception, he said:

        “[Mary was] as the ark and house of holiness [..] never stained with the least blemish” (Ineffabilis Deus)

        And again when he declared Mary’s Assumption in Munificentissimus Deus he referenced Mary as the tabernacle and the Ark. This is why I noted that Irenaeus said Jesus was the Ark of the Covenant. It is idolatry to place Mary in the rightful place of the divine Jesus. It is the same when Pius IX, Pius X, and Leo XIII declared that Mary—not Jesus—crushed the head of the serpent.

        Should I go into Mary as Mediatrix (or co-redemptrix)? Father Tomas Livius (who cites Ephrem in the late 4th century) attributes the redemption of the penitent thief on the Cross to Mary, at the right hand of Jesus. He has John yielding his position to Mary.

        So, we can make the following claims:

        1) (Some) Roman Catholics place Mary, a woman, at the level at least equal to Jesus, the apostles, the Pope, and higher than other men. Men must submit to her. It logically follows that she has greater agency than men.

        2) Placing Mary in the place of the divine Jesus is idolatry, whether or not there is worship.

        So we have female agency, submission of men to women, and worship of a woman. It is the logical conclusion that if Mary has such agency, then Patriarchy—which is based on sex (not honor or priority)—cannot be sustained. Full female agency—and sexual equality—follows.

        “No one has tried to tie it into the OP until I said it was off topic.”

        Because it is fully implied, hardly worth mentioning. How can the agency of women matter if you are worshiping a woman? What relevance is agency if you’ve given a woman divine properties? How can you be concerned with female agency if men are required to submit to the authority of a woman, especially on matters of faith and doctrine? Agency is necessarily assumed.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. RICanuck says:

    Wow, this turned into a Catholic/Protestant bun fight.
    If you really want to see vicious, watch the intra-Catholic bun fights.

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      The heretics and dissenters that are closest to you are always the biggest threat.

      Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      I’m getting really tired of the Catholic/Prot arguments, the “Mary….veneration, worship, or idolatry?” discussions.

      Please, please, PLEASE, people. Common ground.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Lastmod says:

      Protestants, particularly in the USA worship “program / ministry” always praying for ministry. Always praying for that next donation for the “new” building program, new sound system, new lighting. More money for ministry for a diaper program for all the parents, a “bold” new ministry to “reach out to the community and bring people to the church….we mean jesus”

      It goes on…

      Orthodox a gazillion saints to pray to and for despite them being dead. Praying to and for the seven blessed martyrs in 832 AD is a bit off (or whatever). Painted icons, reading liturgical texts that “venerate” the icon (painted wood) and the Bible says nothing about doing that either.

      Anglicanism tied more in British culture and tradition, meant to tie into the monarchy proper.

      I love tradition, and its probably important but the Bible I have read twice through never mentions:

      *pray to Mary
      *pray to painted icons
      *have a youth ministry
      *have a youth pastor
      *liturgical texts
      *a pope / bishop / reverend or vicar
      *a diaper ministry
      *sunday school
      *harvest festival
      *rosary
      *”hail Mary” or other such things, Jesus taught all how to pray in the Bible.
      *purgatory
      *different levels of hell (all I have ever read was lake of fire / a place of gnashing teeth and maggots)
      *altar boy
      *Mens group
      *Praise ministry

      and I could list sixteen-ton more…..

      I saw a clip of blow-hard Andrew Tate recently explaining why he became a Muslim. “Yeah…..okay……whatever, who cares” is what you might say or think.

      This guy was banned from twitter for his strong, unapologetic stances about women, sex, roles, and being a man

      I found him a first class douche, but…..when he mentioned his “conversion” he mentioned that Islam RESPECTS and FEARS God. he mentioned that Christianity is rote with pointless ritual and stands for nothing today. And…..he is kinda right.

      Not that I am converting to Islam or even thinking about it. Christianity, even the “red pilled” side still thinks just reading someone a scripture is going to make them drop everything, accept Jesus and live a holy life…and then be told by the same group “who do you think YOU are showing us all up here????”

      Someone one day will read the Bible and actually believe it, and that man will indeed impact the world, and inspire men like me. Not going to happen sadly in my life

      Liked by 6 people

      • thedeti says:

        Lastmod is a perfect exemplar of men who haven’t really left Christ, but have left churchianity. There are many of these men. They’re speaking out, and they have important things to say.

        These are men who continue talking about God, or god, and worship, and the meaning of life, and searching for answers. Having not surprisingly failed to find those answers at a North American “Christian” “church”, they declare themselves nonChristians or agnostics or atheists or whatever. Doesn’t matter – they didn’t leave Christianity. They left a churchian cult that is in no way Christian.

        I can tell their hearts are still turned toward God, or Jesus, or Higher Powers, because they don’t proclaim they have the answers – no. It’s because they are still searching for answers. They’re still looking. They’re still trying to find it.

        And I don’t blame them one bit for saying “I’m trying to find answers, and the Churchian Cult doesn’t have them”.

        Liked by 5 people

      • caterpillar345 says:

        Lastmod – I think this is the best comment I’ve ever seen from you. Insightful and incisive.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        “Someone one day will read the Bible and actually believe it, and that man will indeed impact the world, and inspire men like me.”

        The last man in my lifetime who did that was Billy Graham. His message, his work, and his life speak for themselves.

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        I pointed out the other two big players (Protestantism / Orthodox) to show it isn’t just Catholics who have issues and problems with idoltry / veneration / worship which easily and quickly get blurred into just that.

        I am more concerned with what your church will do in the next fifty or hundred years than what it has done or what it was, or its traditions at this point.

        A catholic friend of mine pointed out a few years back before he quit going……. “How come we are behaving like prots now? I mean, every week we now have some angry woman with a guitar leading us in song. The organ is even leaving the Catholic church.”

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “Someone one day will read the Bible and actually believe it, and that man will indeed impact the world, and inspire men like me.”

        You know how I know this statement is false? Because there are men living in (imperfect) obedience to what they read in the Bible right now.

        You are – of course – free to continue blaming other men for your rejection of Christ. Good luck with that.

        Like

  14. cameron232 says:

    Related to the original post. As I told Sharkly awhile back the Catholic Mariology created feminism thing doesn’t bear scrutiny. The nations that first gave women the vote, bowed to women were Protestant nations not Catholic nations. Same for U.S. states. It wasn’t the Mary-loving Catholic countries. Weak hypothesis that fails.

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      Addendum comment. The Mary worshipping Church, in its greatest catechism, produced the following statement:

      “On the other hand, the duties of a wife are thus summed up by the Prince of the Apostles: Let wives be subject to their husbands. That if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear. Let not their adorning be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.

      To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband’s consent.

      Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience.”

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sharkly says:

      cameron232,

      You can’t determine the origin of the doctrines of Feminism by observation of where women first voted. (New Zealand) If you just looked at the world and where Marxism held the most power, you might figure that Marx and Engels are probably a Russian and a Chinaman. But they, the originators of Marxism, were both German, from a country that has never been entirely Marxist, despite its originators both being from there. However they met in Paris, and worked together in Brussels and London, all places that haven’t been fully Marxist either.

      In the same way, you can’t claim that Marx and Engels couldn’t have been developing Marxism in London, because its still part of a constitutional monarchy or a parliamentary democracy depending on whom you ask.

      It is important to see how Feminism arose and how it took root in the Christian West, and to see what its theological underpinnings are in order to overturn its foundation stones and walk-back its advances.

      Politics is downstream of culture which is downstream of religion.

      To win the political battle against Feminism long-term, we need to start by invalidating the Feminists core religious belief, that women are equal to men, by virtue of both sexes being presumed to equally image our Most High Father and Son Godhead. Until that is done, we’re losing.

      Why are Christians always on the defensive against Feminism in the church? Because the foundations for Christo-Feminism were long ago laid in all the churches, and they are still set firm in all of the churches. We surrender to Feminism’s motivating dogma of sexual-moral-equality, before we even begin to try to contend with the foul false doctrines which jut out from that illegitimate foundation.

      What you mean to say is that my recounting of church history doesn’t bear your unwilling scrutiny, because you don’t want to believe what I’m telling you, so any excuse is going to be good enough for you to discount my recounting of what happened. And Derek Ramsey has gone far further, even quoting notable Roman Catholic Church figures who admit to what went on. This needs to be examined. And obviously we can’t investigate the rot which started in the church of Rome, without upsetting a few Catholics. But it bears examination. Not just calls for joining hands ecumenically and singing a round of Kumbaya.

      I don’t call for censorship when people knock Protestants. If my beliefs can’t stand up to scrutiny, then I should find ones that do, or learn to defend mine better. Nor do protestants claim their churches to be infallible. So if you find and identify a problem in Protestantism, I’m open to trying to help fix it. And ideally that’s what we should be up to, trying to help fix the problems, warn the uninformed, correct the misguided, and expose the wickedness, leading many to repentance, to redemption, and to righteousness. But first the truth must be sought out.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Jack says:

    From Derek’s comment above:

    “How can the agency of women matter if you are worshiping a woman? What relevance is agency if you’ve given a woman divine properties? How can you be concerned with female agency if men are required to submit to the authority of a woman, especially on matters of faith and doctrine? Agency is necessarily assumed.”

    No, this does not throw women’s agency out the window (but yes, in another sense it does). Here’s a rhetorical question to bring out the application. If people worshipped virgins who gave birth to God (i.e. the virgin Mary), then we might think women would be more hesitant to lose their virginity, use birth control, etc. (and thereby exercise moral agency) if they wished to retain their goddess-like status. But in fact, we observe the opposite effect in the Catholic church. I would say this is a consequence or a symptom of idolatry. But if this is the case, how then can we assume women have agency?

    Like

    • Derek Ramsey says:

      “If people worshipped virgins who gave birth to God, then we might think women would be more hesitant to lose their virginity, use birth control, etc. (and thereby exercise moral agency) if they wished to retain their goddess-like status. “

      That’s exactly what happened, at least initially. Priestly celibacy, the elevation of (e.g. consecrated) virginity, the scorning of marriage and sex, and first two Marian doctrines (“Mother of God” and “Perpetual Virgin”) arose together in that era. Their origins are linked.

      By the time Mary was firmly set as Perpetual Virgin and Mother of God, Catholic women were no longer encouraged to shun marriage and sex. Ironically, those are now considered “tradcath” behaviors.

      The third and fourth Marian doctrines, “Immaculate Conception” and “Assumption”, were proclaimed infallibly in 1858 and 1950 (respectively), in the specific context of the Apparitions of Mary. The fifth Marian doctrine (“the Spiritual Mother of all Peoples, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces and Advocate”) is widely accepted, but not declared infallibly.

      The emphasis now is on Mary’s authority and supremacy. Virginity itself isn’t very important (Mary isn’t at risk of losing it!). Mary’s perpetual virginity is a virtue signal indicating her high status and authority. Whereas previously one could ensure in his mind that he was not actively or actually worshiping Mary, the new doctrines set Mary up as an idol by passively assigning to her roles reserved to Christ. To wit…

      “But in fact, we observe the opposite effect in the Catholic church. I would say this is a consequence or a symptom of idolatry”

      …the focus has changed. But I don’t follow your reasoning:

      “But if this is the case, how then can we assume women have agency?”

      The mere existence of the choice implies agency. It doesn’t matter what the observed choice is.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “The mere existence of the choice implies agency. It doesn’t matter what the observed choice is.”

        No. The existence of a choice offers an opportunity to exercise agency. It doesn’t automatically bestow agency. The ability to create a choice implies agency.

        Like

      • ramman3000 says:

        “No. The existence of a choice offers an opportunity to exercise agency. It doesn’t automatically bestow agency. The ability to create a choice implies agency.”

        I disagree. Agency (of a person) is the exercise of power or authority, which may or may not include creating choices, and may or may not include a hierarchy (e.g. delegation). Agency includes the authority to make and to create choices. An agent has the right to create choices, but he also has the right to choose among choices presented to him. Choices are often created organically and implicitly*, but the authority to make choices is not.

        We can see both of these at play in the story of Lot. When the men of Sodom showed up at Lot’s door, Lot demonstrated agency. Having authority over his daughters, he presented the city’s men a choice. But he did not create the choice of whether or not to accede to their demands, even though he had full authority on that matter to give in or not (regardless of the consequences).

        * If the weather forecasts a Category-5 hurricane aimed straight for your wooden shack, you didn’t create the choice to stay or go. The hurricane created the choice implicitly, you merely have the authority to decide what choice to make.

        Like

      • ramman3000 says:

        Choice is an abstract concept. It isn’t real (in the sense that nothing abstract is real, as Charlton often notes). Only the exercise of authority—which is agency—is real.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        RamMan3000,

        “Only the exercise of authority — which is agency — is real.”

        I would clarify this statement to read, “The proper exercise of agency is determined by the structure of authority.” See my post for today and you’ll understand.

        Like

  16. feeriker says:

    “The last man in my lifetime who did that was Billy Graham. His message, his work, and his life speak for themselves.”

    Sadly, Billy’s legacy is being carried forward by his heretical son, Franklin, who isn’t fit to even hold his father’s Bible. It’s a tragedy how many great Christian leaders of previous generations we’ve lost whose successors are, to put it kindly, not up to filling their predecessors’ shoes. The current generation of “Christian” “leadership” is responsible for the church’s capitulation to the culture, hence the rot.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. cameron232 says:

    I didn’t call for censorship of you Sharkly. I didn’t request Jack not publish your thoughts or comments. I don’t think you identify as Protestant anyway since you regard their churches as daughter harlot churches from their origins in the 16th century. I suppose that makes you some sort of restorationist, albeit one without a physical church and only a place online (not intended to be an insult just an observation).

    I don’t think the Marx and Engels comparison holds up. You’re talking about an entire civilization built on Catholicism and its Marian devotion. And the reality is feminism rose in the societies that rejected Catholicism and Marian devotion, and really not too long after the reformation (Englishman Bruce Charlton will tell you it goes back to the early 1600s) and in England, much as it pains this Anglophile to admit it. And 1960s feminism, the most virulent form yet, is basically a Jewish-woman creation. Lemme tell you – they REALLY don’t like Mary.

    As someone above said, you’re talking about religion whose greatest creature is a modest virgin woman whose high place was obtained by submissive obedience, submitting to God’s (the ultimate alpha male) grace more completely than any other creature.

    And the Marian devotion religion had male headship explicitly codified in its first and greatest catechism (never rescinded) while I don’t see equivalents in Protestant confessions for the most part.

    You and Derek have prompted me to review the basics on Catholic Mariology and have thus done me a service by enabling me to strengthen my convictions on Mary’s place as the greatest of all saints and a worthy object of veneration and devotion. Thanks to both of you.

    Some useful materials including the Biblical case for Mary’s place:

    https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/mary/

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      Another thing. Protestantism made women equal by explicitly codifying in its confessions that women could divorce their husbands (for adultery.) Even though the so-called Matthean exception clearly appears (if you regard it as an exception – I don’t) to be for men only. Protestantism did much more to make women equal by making the marriage (“partnership”, “contract”, “covenant”, etc.) and its dissolution “equal.”

      Like

      • info says:

        @carmeron232

        I see this strain in the Anabaptist movement like at Munster as well. Even as the Reformed sought to recover Church Tradition as it was originally by going back to the Ante-Nicene Fathers and so forth.

        Egalitarianism is a pernicious enemy ever since the heretics of the first few centuries of Christianity appointed Women as Bishops on the Basis of (Galatians 3) “No male or female in Christ Jesus”.

        It hasn’t gone away along with Gnostic infections. Egalitarianism has been tortured out of the text especially recently.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Sharkly says:

      I think this is a good discussion, cameron232. Yes, you’re right, I’m not your typical Protestant. As I’ve said the Protestant reformation didn’t go far enough. It was a strong external force for rolling back the deification of Mary within the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), but the Protestant reformation did not, to my current knowledge, even postulate returning the “image of God” back to being seen as innate to men only.

      Yes, I agreed with most of what I know about the protestant changes from the RCC. I don’t think the church should have been selling indulgences to sin, nor that salvation could be found by kneeling and kissing the pope, or that salvation came through following church traditions rather than by grace through faith, and Etc.

      I think a historically honest Catholic would admit that the RCC’s ruling cabal had gotten pretty rotten and was ripe for reformation when Martin Luther, one of their own priests, boldly stood up and confronted the papacy on their having hijacked the church and continuing to lead it wrongly. The Vatican itself now grudgingly recognizes Luther as a “witness to the gospel”, 500 years after his church reforming confrontation. The RCC is prone to changing rather slowly. Continuing to believe that the RCC is imbued with infallibility, however, is an act of the willfully blindest sort of faith. IMHO

      Protestant denominations and unaffiliated protestant churches, on the other hand can change rather rapidly, often with just the change of a few key people, and just about anybody can start their own Protestant church of their own variety, leading the Protestants to be able to rather quickly jump on board with following popular trends.

      The imperially coopted Church of Rome first changed the apostolic and patristic church’s unanimously held doctrine that only men were made in the image of God. The European Protestants, back then, lacked access to many or most writings of those early church fathers, and also to early manuscripts of the Bible. Early Protestants also received their Bibles complete with apocryphal Latin additions, made by the Church of Rome, like the Pericope Adulterae, which unbeknownst to them, were not in any of the existing earliest Greek manuscripts but which first appear as marginal notes in Latin, which were later incorporated directly into the text of succeeding Latin Manuscripts. Is it not unsurprising that the ill-equipped Protestants at that time (like daughters who knew no different) only protested challenging the most glaring corruptions of their RCC mother church?

      Anyhow, these young Protestant daughter churches unquestioningly accepted that women were made in the image of a self-professed masculine God, whom they dissonantly viewed as a hermaphrodite when it came to His imaging. They had no idea that the God-emasculating false doctrine passed down to them, was so evidently not the original doctrine of Christ’s body, the church. Nor would the Vatican readily share with distant outsiders all the fragile and antiquated evidence contradicting the RCC’s current positions.

      However, in this new information age, far more of that evidence is now available to be examined online, at the click of a button.

      Garbage in, garbage out
      Anyhow, the quickly evolving protestant daughter churches, in their formative years, were not privy to the fact that they had been given false information regarding women being the image of our Father & Son Godhead, and consequently they viewed women as morally equal with men. And they took that false doctrine and ran with it. While the Vatican plodded along slowly not ever acknowledging that their church’s doctrine had been altered, even though they had plenty of inculpatory evidence, of their departure from sound doctrine, in their own archives.

      So, yes, the unknowledgeable Protestant daughter churches ran with the Feminist doctrines of sexual equality which were passed on to them by the “Mother of Harlots”, who was being willingly unfaithful to the original doctrine of Christ’s church, in order to seduce men by their natural propensity to desire to worship women above God.

      It should be no marvel that some of the rapidly malleable Protestant churches more quickly pushed their Feminist heresy into their surrounding cultures which then pushed that emasculating heresy into their nation’s politics. That Protestant nations more quickly advanced Feminism is not proof that most of the foundation for their Feminist false doctrine didn’t originate from their mother in Rome. If anything, that is evidence that the Mother of Harlots was wise to her own lies, and was more hesitant to try to push them as devotedly. Letting her silly daughters rabidly advance her deceptions for her.

      Ultimately it is Satan who wants to emasculate the image of our Father & Son Godhead and to thereby subjugate men, who fall so easily to their natural propensity to worship women, who unquestionably are men’s most apt defilers. So, one cannot ever discount Satan’s influence in all of this deception, among all churches. We must first identify Satan’s attack against men, who are God’s image, in order to stop the blow. Satan’s evil plan really isn’t some incredible rocket science, but instead the understandable plan of a cartoon villain. Satan again is using men’s natural virtues against us, our humble willingness to show kind favor to women and our protective instinct to defend the weaker vessel’s honor. We let women be taught that they are the image of God Most High, and therefore be presumed as morally equal to men in the highest possible regard, because men are naturally quite generous with women and foolishly don’t perceive what that sacrifice of our categorical moral authority will cost us.

      Here is Satan’s attack: When everybody is perceived to be the image of God, then nobody is really perceived to be the image of God.

      Neither sex then has any innate moral authority over the other and men’s manifest God-created headship is thereby completely denied by women and completely abdicated by men and returned back to a God who rarely intervenes indisputably in our world. Men are left trying to reclaim their headship solely via biblical fiat, after their church spent a lifetime deceitfully convincing their wife that they are the moral equal or even superior of any man.

      Churchmen are left telling their wives they have to give them back their moral headship, solely because women are gullible. And usurping wives respond back: Not that gullible! I’ve got the pu$$y, and I’m keeping the headship, which I equally deserve. And churchmen then are doctrinally forced to knuckle under to “preserve” their family and to occasionally receive some of their marital due again.

      It ain’t rocket science. Men need get their godlike moral authority to rule back. And not just by some divine fiat that seemingly conflicts directly against women’s perceived moral authority to be equals. In that perceived moral conflict, women will act as their own “agents” or arbiters and most all women will then rule in their own favor, against their husbands having full moral authority over them. In case you haven’t noticed society’s rules now set men up to fail. And the churches instigated that!

      Like

      • Joe2 says:

        “In case you haven’t noticed society’s rules now set men up to fail.”

        In accord with your observation, our legal system has as it’s symbol “Lady Justice”.

        Portraying Justice as a female figure dates back to depictions of Themis and Justicia in ancient mythology.

        Themis, known for her clear-sightedness, was the Greek Goddess of Justice and Law.

        In Roman mythology, Justicia (Justice) was one of the four Virtues along with Prudence, Fortitude and Temperance.

        These female goddesses symbolically establish headship over society.

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        Joe2,
        I realize that Feminism or feminine idolatry is one of men’s natural weaknesses. And so, Satan will try to utilize that, both within the church and without. I realize there were both goddess worship and matriarchies long before the first advent of Christ. However, if you asked the church today to pray to Diana the goddess of Ephesus, they would recognize that as idolatry and object to doing it. The church is pretty immune to overt external calls for goddess worship.

        But the Feminist conquering of Christian minds came from Feminist doctrine being pasted over the earliest church’s “misogynist” doctrines and then being passed off as more Christian to future generations. And today the earliest church fathers’ claims, that women aren’t the image of God, have been suppressed within the church and are usually only brought up and quoted by angry women’s studies majors. Usurping Feminists are one of today’s best sources for citing information on the first church’s beliefs on women. Feminist attempts to demonize the early church fathers, shines a light on their wisdom and the cohesiveness and functionality of their doctrine.

        For example:
        Women were not only regarded as the cause of all sin, they were also seen as inferior and weak in both mind and character and also as not having been created in the ‘image of God’. Keane (1987:2) said that women, in the history of the church, represented the imago Dei in a secondary sense. 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 became the underpinning text of the church fathers’ views that women were not made in the image of God (Sawyer 1996:149-150). The phrases ‘becoming male’ and ‘women turned into man’ became important themes and were frequently used in early Christian literature as well as in non-Christian texts such as those of the Koine culture (Vogt 2003:49). Femininity and masculinity stood in contrast and the phrase ‘becoming male’ refers to the development from a lower to a higher state of moral perfection (Vogt 2003:49).

        Excellent!

        Like

  18. Pingback: Artisanal Toad on Women’s Agency | Σ Frame

  19. Sharkly says:

    For those who might want to read more about the doctrine that men, but not women, are the image and glory of God, here are a couple posts from my blog on that topic:

    Sharkly – Heresiarch or Church Reformer?

    Genesis 5:1-5

    Like

  20. Pingback: On the Concept of Agency | Σ Frame

  21. Pingback: Did Eve have Agency? | Σ Frame

  22. Pingback: Jack on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  23. Pingback: Kyojiro Kagenuma on Women’s Agency | Σ Frame

  24. Pingback: Zippy Catholic’s View of Female Hypoagency | Σ Frame

  25. Pingback: Bruce Charlton on Agency | Σ Frame

  26. Pingback: Red Pill Apostle on Women’s Moral Agency | Σ Frame

  27. Pingback: D. Bradley on Women’s Moral Agency | Σ Frame

  28. Pingback: Donal Graeme on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  29. Pingback: Rollo Tomassi on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  30. Pingback: Dalrock on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  31. Pingback: Deti on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  32. Pingback: Catacomb Resident on Moral Agency | Σ Frame

  33. Pingback: What we’ve learned about Female Agency | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s