Women are like silly sheep

/ Sharkly / 9 Comments

carview.php?tsp=

Men usually only want to face one overarching challenge at a time, one big quest, one goal in life, with some other lesser side quests and goals that are nice to accomplish.
Men generally prefer to fight their battles on one front at a time, not to be fighting on every front every second of their day.  As a man you have a limited supply of energy and resources.  So, most men like to be able to focus their efforts to win convincingly at the battles that they do choose to fight.

Women are rebels.  God created them to be helpers of men.  So, they hinder where they should help. They interject their own counter-goals where a husband has made his goals clear. They harass him instead of comforting him. They nag instead of encouraging. They do the exact opposite of their intended purpose while claiming that all their rebellion is a due to some need or is good help.  They reflexively stray from their God-intended purpose of remaining in subjection to their husband in everything.

Women claim they can’t understand why their husband is bothered by their challenging behavior and by their intentional refusal to do what they know he truly wants. They know they’re going astray. They just don’t want to admit that they are defilers, active agents of Satan, working to degrade and to overturn God’s holy order of patriarchy, where their intended role is to obey and reverence the image of Jesus Christ in their own marriage, as though offering their service to the Lord Himself.  Instead, they defy, neglect, and disrespect the likeness of God, because that is what Satan wants.  They really are just silly rebels straying from God’s holy patriarchal order.
carview.php?tsp=Like sheep, women seem too hopelessly dumb to ever realize that while they may each stray in their own direction, and each act as if their own plan is smarter for them than their shepherd’s plan, they can only arrive at true marital peace by submitting their own will to their husband’s will, through faithful obedience.  Women only engender simmering contempt via their willful and stubborn rebellion.  But silly women stubbornly choose simmering contempt over peace (through respect and obedience) as if their lives depended upon them always straying from God’s purpose for them.

Most women certainly know that men don’t want them to be challenging, yet God made women to naturally revert to challenging behavior so that women would test men’s hearts the way we men try God’s patience. And that we could learn to relate to God, by having to rule over silly women in the likeness of how all-knowing God must shepherd fallible men. The point of all that struggle is to then apply what we learn from dealing with our own rebellious inferiors, to gain insight into God’s dealings with us.

We were made to reverence and serve God, just like how women were made to reverence and serve men.  Serving women was never man’s purpose.  Shepherding women is a training exercise teaching men insight into God’s dealings with us.

Feminazis

/ Sharkly / 8 Comments

At the turn of the twentieth century, women throughout Europe and North America were demanding that their governments give them the right to vote. Germany was no exception; women began to hold demonstrations for women’s suffrage there as early as 1910. They succeeded in 1919, when Article 109 of the Weimar Constitution stated that men and women have the same fundamental rights and duties as citizens, including the right to vote and to hold office. During the years of the Weimar Republic, the majority of the electorate was female, in part because so many men had died in the war or were so physically or psychologically wounded that they were unlikely to vote. In 1919, the first year women could vote in Germany, they held 10% of the seats in the Reichstag, and their numbers continued to rise throughout the next decade.
…
Mother’s Day was promoted as an important day of national celebration, along with the slogan Kinder, Küche, Kirche (“children, kitchen, church”) as the right path for German women. Historians Renate Bridenthal and Claudia Koonz write that many of Germany’s major political parties believed that reinforcing the traditional roles of women and men in the family “would provide stability in a social world that seemed to be rapidly slipping from their control.”

Granting women equality and power had further destabilized their society.

By the end of the decade, when economic uncertainty once again gripped Germany, an increasing number of women were turning toward conservative parties like the Nazis, who made Kinder, Küche, Kirche for women an integral part of their proposed program.

It seems like German women got the vote and then got what they voted for.  First, they had demanded a weak and permissive government which would give them equal rights to their husbands, and after that eventually brought about economic hard times, then they wanted a strong ruler (a tyrant) who would reform things quickly (by overriding the legislature) a man who fed women’s vanity to gain their support.

“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” ~ 1984 — George Orwell

Women were eager welcomers of the hard-nosed NAZIs.  Even in occupied France:

Moral of the story: Don’t hearken to women.

Women will weaken and disarm their own men, calling them “tyrants”, then welcome in more militant conquerors.  They don’t care to learn from history.  They want to repeat Eve’s curse of anti-patriarchal Feminist foolishness every chance they get.  They must be kept under subjection for the good of everyone.  They’ll deprive their husband of his power only to let that power be taken by a tyrant, or by strangers, anybody but their loving husband.  They’re cursed to desire to reject the one willing to rescue them at the cost of his own life.  These hoes ain’t loyal!  Wives are the image of Jesus’ ever-straying church, and husbands will either play the role of Jesus, ruling them with a rod of iron, or Jesus, sacrificially crucified to atone for their rebellion.

Husbands of kind wives remain naïve to the evils of womankind

/ Sharkly / 10 Comments

I think many men that have good wives who are actively trying to make their marriages work, have difficulty fathoming exactly what other men are up against when their wives actively work to tear their own home apart.

Proverbs 14:1  Every wise woman builds up her household, but the home of a foolish woman is destroyed by her own actions.

It seems like those sheltered men’s first inclination is to assume the best about any unkind wife and the worst about her husband, in any troubled marriage situation, as if the husband must just be a complete asshole to not even be able to get along with “the love of his life”.  There probably isn’t too much in their own relationship and life’s experience that would force them to question all the Feminist claptrap they’ve been marinated in for their entire life.  Consequently, they easily continue believing in it.

I was conned into marrying a skilled deceiver.  Much of what my ex-wife said in church premarital counselling was pure deception.  She claimed that she would never consider divorce an option, and that she knew that it was wrong to threaten divorce, like her parents would often do.  Within a month of marrying me she was literally screaming in my face that if we didn’t do things her way, we’d be getting a divorce.  And at that time, I thought I needed to preserve the marriage so as not to cause the Gospel to be blasphemed.  And I naïvely assumed the church would eventually help me in getting her straightened out. LOL   I spent the next 20 years in constant soul wrenching torment as my wife did everything in her power to try to get me to deny my faith as I fought to keep our marriage together and she repeatedly threatened it to usurp me.

At that time, I didn’t realize all churches were first and foremost dedicated to woman-worship, before the worship of God.  I’d had little reason to question their devotion to any things but money and power and God.  And I’d presumed they only wanted the money and power to aid them in their stated quest to evangelize the world.  The only reasons I’d ever wanted money and power, other than to escape the degradations of poverty, was so that I could accomplish my quest of bringing some of my inventions to life.  And I had always assumed that the church was at least as godly as me.

In fact, sometimes I worried I wasn’t very godly because churches never offered anything that appealed to me. The pastor would holler from the pulpit that, “If you don’t like to sing, you’re not going to like heaven!” And I’d be thinking “Oh crap!” Imagining that after only a few dozen hours of non-stop singing I’d faint and plumet off the back of the choir risers of heaven, down into hell. There was nothing there at church that was appealing to my masculinity. Nothing!

FWIW I don’t think heaven will be non-stop compelled singing. Because I’m headed there, and it would seem a form of punishment to me if I were forced to sing for all of eternity.  And God also claims heaven is a restful place and mentions there being periods of silence there.  Don’t let that pastor’s foolish words discourage you.

Oddly enough it wasn’t until after I had spent 20 years fighting tooth and nail to preserve my marriage, trying almost every possible thing, and yet still had my marriage severed, that I finally realized the church is collectively a great fraud.  And their doctrine on marriage is full of lies. With only one exception, all the pastors did nothing that helped my marriage, but instead those useless simps only undercut my headship, after they had all publicly lied, claiming to support men’s headship.

carview.php?tsp=

It seemed like the church had told me, “Once you get married, then you’ll finally be respected as a man, and we will all support you as the leader of your new home.” And then once I got married and my wife suddenly turned into a demon, they all said, “Welcome to hell! She’s your new lord and master now, boy. Try worshipping her more devoutly and perhaps then she can find it in her heart to forgive you for your sin of being born male.”  I said, “I was told there would be sex.” They glared at me and shouted, “What are you, some kind of control freak? This marriage isn’t about you and what you want! She’ll gladly give you all the sex you want once you achieve spiritual enlightenment and realize that you don’t need or want any sex, you worldly brute beast. Maybe if you thought about her needs [like her need to defraud her husband of all forms of intimacy] then she’d feel like being intimate with you. Did we mention that we think you’re a huge piece of crap for expecting anything rewarding from your marriage, and for expecting us to do anything other than kiss your defrauding wife’s butt.  Please leave a donation to support the work of The Feminist Queen of Heaven, if you can, on your way out.” At least that’s how I remember most of their intentionally emasculating and husband-disempowering church marriage counselling.

Those who haven’t been innocent of all wrong and yet been proverbially crucified as a criminal by their wife and church, can’t seem to fathom why, after I metaphorically died to my former life and rose again, those who joined together and nailed me to the cross no longer held any religious power over me.  Their doctrines of woman-worship had been blown from my life like dry chaff blown away by a leaf blower.

The churches all revealed their whoredom to me.  But I was separated out from the church by God who pulled me up out of that sleeping body’s side.  And God’s Holy Spirit showed me that in Ephesians 5 the husband is the image of God (Jesus Christ) and is charged with cleaning up his wife who is the image of that Great Whore that is the church who was betrothed to Christ but is presently out spreading her legs for the ruler(s) of this world.  Yeah, I said it!  Men are the image of God. (1 Corinthians 11:7) While women are the image of a defiled whoring church. (Ephesians 5:23-27)

To be quite frank, I now can see that only those of us Christian men who have endured particularly evil wives stand much of a chance of having the blinding scales fall from our eyes.  So that we can accept that women are not what the church has been telling us they are, “the glory and image of the eternal Father and His Son”.

From Eve, whose leading cost the first earthly likeness of God, Adam, his life, to the congregation betrothed to Christ, whom Jesus, “the Last Adam”, had to die to redeem, the image remains the same. The husband, in the glorious image of God, sacrificing his life due to the faults of his own defiler.(Revelation 14:4-5)

Those whom God hasn’t delivered from blindness refuse to accept it.  Nor can they fathom why the defiler should be in submission to her husband in everything.

For a man whose wife is seeking goals that are congruent with his own, and who consequently works towards their mutual benefit, it is probably hard to see much difference in letting his wife lead or leading himself, since they are both on the same team working towards the same goals.  He has probably had little experience with the opposite situation, where his wife is trying her very best to kill all of his hopes and dreams and to humiliate him into submitting to her in everything.  And without having that deeply uncomfortable experience that other men have had, he is left spiritually naïve and is still apt to idolize his wife, never fully appreciating God’s holy hierarchy.

“The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled.  For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers.” ~ M. Scott Peck

Many men have good marriages because they have kind and submissive wives who keep their marriages fun, and so they often give naïve advice, to other husbands under satanic attack, to submit to their wicked wives.  Even as it isn’t fitting in God’s kingdom for a husband to obey his wife as head, neither should men hearken to naïve simps who spew ignorant alternatives to God’s holy order of patriarchy.  Their marital good fortune has usually left them as Feminist fools, living lives of naïvety.

While a man with a kind wife might have initially known some elementary things about women that led him to select a nicer wife, his learning about women’s defiling nature generally slows upon his entrance into his dream of “happily ever after”.  His pleasing wife keeps him submerged within his pleasurable fantasy and oblivious to the multitude of things which some men continue to learn about women the hard way.

Does a wider range of choices lead to greater contentment?

/ Sharkly / 7 Comments

“[Women] choose wrongly, and most are stuck there.”

I’m not so sure. I think the problem is that young women had a choice between 4 billion different men, and now, due to hypergamy, they are second guessing whether they made the best possible choice they could have.

carview.php?tsp=

They never should have been faced with a choice between so many options. It is inevitable that women will begin second guessing such a choice. I discovered in business that sometimes offering too many choices leads to more likelihood of apprehension while ordering, and dissatisfaction and regret after the purchase.

For instance, if you take some girls to get ice-cream cones at a place with 31 flavors and three kinds of cones, it will take them all far longer to order.  Quite likely the sweet waffle cone will start dripping out the bottom end, and that girl who chose it might wish she’d chosen the sturdier standard cone.  The girl who chose mint and nuts will claim she now wishes she had gotten a better flavor.  The girl who chose chocolate might wish she had gotten the chocolate vanilla swirl, for more variety.  The “Fear Of Missing Out” (FOMO) will turn them all to second guessing their choices.

Now if you took those same girls to McDonalds and said, “Hey girls, their soft-serve ice cream machine is finally working.  Do you want ice cream?”  They’ll all say, “Yes daddy, we all want an ice cream cone!  Please, buy us each one.”  And you’ll get them all a plain vanilla sort-serve in a plain cone, because that’s the only option they offer, and nobody will even contemplate that their ice cream cone was a poor choice, because they had no choice besides whether they wanted an ice cream cone or not.

carview.php?tsp=

If their father gets to pick their husband, and their only choice is do they marry him or not, they’re a lot less likely to second guess their no-options choice between marriage and spinsterhood, later on, and a lot more likely to work to try to make the best of what was provided to them.

The patriarchy did it right!  Marry daughters off young, to a sensible man.

Men are saviors

/ Sharkly / 7 Comments

carview.php?tsp=

“[Men] also are normally happy with ‘good enough’ in a wife.”

“Women find this offensive.  First, because they can’t understand men come at intersexual relationships in a very different way from women. Women want only the best, and to them, ‘good enough’ isn’t anywhere near what they would want or accept given the choice.”

Considering the inspired imagery of Ephesians 5:
The Husband is the image of Christ. (God)
The Wife is the image of the church. (not God)
It naturally makes sense that the man has no chance of getting his equal or better.  He is not likely going to find a woman as sane and stable and forgiving and selflessly generous as he would be towards her.  Whereas the woman would be hard pressed to find a man as fickle, flighty, capricious, and stingy about fulfilling her vows as she is.  She is almost certain to be the weaker partner in the relationship.  So, the relationship is primarily based upon what she can get from him, how much he can raise her up, and save her from herself.

carview.php?tsp=

Whereas to a man, marriage is a great sacrifice, a partnership with a junior partner, a mentorship.  Sex is the primary positive thing he gets from the relationship, that he couldn’t get from a better suited male friend.  He knows from his youth, that he’ll be settling for a wife.  He will likely pay more to his wife and yet get less sex, and more constrained sex, than he could get from a prostitute.  He knows it is a sacrificial and loosing game from the outset.  Yet, nobly, he plays anyway, being willing to enter the marriage covenant while knowing he likely will give far more than he receives.

carview.php?tsp=

Thus, most men don’t count the cost, because they don’t want to realize how badly they’re being used.  They want to presume relative equality between their protection, the 50 hours a week they work for their wife, and the few household chores and occasional starfish sex they get in return.  He wasn’t looking to come out ahead, he just wanted access to the things he couldn’t provide for himself that only women can.

carview.php?tsp=

Women only want the best men for a relationship because their goal is to be a “taker”, taking the most they can from their relationship with a superior.
Whereas men realize that their relationship will be characterized by caring and giving and working and striving for their wife, and so her Sexual Market Value (SMV) isn’t as important as that he thinks she truly will love him and will be appreciative of all his sacrificial efforts on her behalf.

carview.php?tsp=

That’s also why so often husbands earn “our money” while she earns “her money”.
She didn’t enter into the relationship expecting to contribute a single cent that isn’t subtracted from the ledger she keeps in her head.  She’s not there to give more, she’s there to get more, and for most women, when they find themselves giving as much or more than their husband, the wife subconsciously or consciously switches into monkey-branching mode, hoping to swing over to a better provider of all the things she wants.  He is her savior.  She is his little sinner.

Modern Christianity is a passive slave morality

/ Sharkly / 9 Comments

Acknowledgement: Some portions of text presented here, were stolen from elsewhere on the internet, I’m unschooled about most philosophers, I have not read their works.

Friedrich Nietzsche accused Judeo-Christianity of fostering a slave morality, not a master morality. A morality he viewed as not stemming from the self-confidence of a ruling class, but a morality derived from the ressentiment of the impotent and oppressed masses:

Nietzsche wrote: “The Christian faith is from the beginning a sacrifice: sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of the spirit, at the same time enslavement and self-mockery …”

“It was the Jews who, with awe inspiring consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic value-equation (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = happy = beloved of God) and to hang onto this inversion with their teeth, the teeth of the most abysmal hatred (the hatred of impotence), saying, “the wretched alone are the good; the suffering, deprived, sick, ugly alone are pious, alone are blessed by God . . . and you, the powerful and noble, are on the contrary the evil, the cruel, the lustful, the insatiable, the godless to all eternity, and you shall be in all eternity the unblessed, the accursed, and damned!” Nietzsche – Genealogy of Morals

Nietzsche suggests that Christian morality is inherently structured as a form of slave morality’s ressentiment toward the masters, and it accomplishes revenge imaginatively, by means of passing judgment. The strong, active traits of the masters are vilified by the slavish, who come to regard their own passivity and weakness as virtues. This pattern pervades the moral ideals of Christianity. Many modes of self-assertion and self-expression are analyzed as sins on the Christian scheme, while passive suffering is deemed characteristic of the blessed.

Anyhow, Nietzsche was a nut, a wannabe Schopenhauer, but he is partly right. Christianity is meant to be an enslavement to God and righteousness. However, Christianity teaches that we all must serve something, and that serving our Creator, is preferable to serving selfishness or other ignorant sins. The truth sets us free to serve our heavenly Father, and His righteousness, by choice, not to each just selfishly serve our primal instincts like unthinking animals.

However, Christianity, as most people practice it doctrinally, has been led way off track into impotent apostasy. Christians think they shouldn’t enforce God’s law because of apocryphal lies added to the New Testament, like the Pericope Adultrae. And most of Jesus’ hyperbole is foolishly taken as literal commands adjuring us to become victims and losers in everything, replacing faithful enforcement of His Father’s righteous laws with “turning the other cheek” to become powerless pacifist punching bags who “resist not evil”, but instead assist every evil through misguided niceness.  Did Jesus not rather say “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”

Jesus Christ is not going to be returning to emulate our apostate churches for us. He is returning to rule, for a thousand years, with a rod of iron, to dash the wicked like a potter’s vessel, because that is how the all-wise and loving Son of Righteousness rules over unrighteous lawlessness.

Jesus Christ’s 3 years of ministry on earth as our suffering servant, was the cosmic aberration.  Nietzsche was right to point out that “God on the cross” was the ultimate symbolic inversion of ruling class morality. However, if Christians hadn’t been so confused and misled by written accounts of Jesus’ hyperbole and parables, and apocryphal additions to the New Testament, then right now, in the “Christian world” the just would be ruling over the unjust, capital sins would receive capital punishment, and righteousness would reign, with people genuinely afraid to commit wickedness. God’s will should be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Just because the church’s apostasy, and the world’s wickedness was foretold doesn’t make it right.  The most churched nation in the history of the world shouldn’t be exporting homosexuality, transgender insanity, Feminism, abortion, and an inability to love and support your own people (if you’re White) while importing kids for sex-trafficking.  Either I’m wrong, that the just should rule over the unjust, or the church is wrong.  No matter how much “nice” churchgoers want to hand everybody a participation trophy, we still can’t both be right.

2 Samuel 23:3 The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.

But muh church told me that we have to let a few unjust folks who don’t fear God rule over us, as we all “turn the other cheek” and “resist not evil” and never cast a stone.  /S

I used to bristle at my religion being called a “slave morality”.  But during my divorce I got to see just how enslaved the churches all truly are.  I metaphorically saw pastors bow their faces to the ground, licking a path to my ex-wife’s feet, and lift their eyes to plead with her for a chance to kiss her rebellious ass, in the name of their goddess of Feminism.  I got to see her rule over them all.  I got to see how one mouthy woman (who isn’t exceptionally smart) can easily put a whole church to silence, all backpedaling and murmuring hushed apologies to their goddess of Feminism.  I got to witness them accept an immoral woman’s lies, unquestioningly, while doubting every single word of an upright man they’ve known from birth.  I got to watch them abandon the Bible, which they claimed to believe, to suck up to my Feminism-delude ex-wife.  I got to see the church’s slaves to woman-worship all doing their simp-dance.

The truth has set me free from wanting any fellowship with those woman-worshipping idolaters.  I can’t put Jesus Christ first by attending a church that serves women first, before God’s commands, and claims that women are the representative likeness and image and glory of the Feminist goddess they serve and worship. (1 Corinthians 11:7)

Foremostly, today’s churches teach a sex-slave morality, of pussy-beggars, gynogrovelers, and effeminazis.  Real men who reject the church’s whore-worshipping aren’t welcomed to attend and mock their idolatrous pandering.  It would seem the only person Christians want to stand up against is the believing man who says, maybe they should get their own whores under control before they lie claiming to practice a religion with the power to transform similar whores outside of their church.

Bonus Content:

And of course, there’s always some fool trying to tell you that their brand of Christianity isn’t a “religion”.  Why are so many Christians now seemingly unable to comprehend the definition of the word “religion”?  You really can’t have an intelligent conversation with most of those queef-huffers.

Religion
noun:
1) The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe.

2) A particular variety of such belief, especially when organized into a system of doctrine and practice.

3) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

If your spiritual leader can’t even understand the definition of “religion”, maybe you should find a more knowledgeable shepherd.

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Today’s churches reflexively support frivolously divorcing women making their children fatherless to defraud the father of the maximum in “child support” money.  And the churches favor these younger attention-seeking hoochie mamas who’ve ditched their husbands, instead of genuine widows.  They practice the inversion of God’s intent.

Men walk around as images.

/ Sharkly / 5 Comments

Psalm 39:6a(NASB1995) “Surely every man walks about as a phantom;

Today I’d like to break down the first sentence of Psalm 39:6.  What follows is my personal translation of the verse:

Psalm 39:6(Sharkly’s translation) Surely, every man goes about as an image.  Surely, in vain do men clamor gathering things, while not perceiving who collects men.

Psalm 39:6(Young’s Literal Translation) Only, in an image doth each walk habitually, Only, [in] vain, they are disquieted, He heapeth up and knoweth not who gathereth them.

This verse was first brought to my attention while I was reading “Letter LI. From Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, to John, Bishop of Jerusalem”. Epiphanius’ letter did not survive, but we have Jerome’s translated copy of it. And he recorded that Psalm 39 says: “For all that every man walketh in the image.” And Epiphanius used that as one of his 7 Scriptural proofs that men maintained the image of God and had not lost the image of God at Adam’s fall, as Origen had claimed.

Since I think the image of God is very key to the unique dignity of men, I wanted to examine that verse since I had not previously been aware that the passage spoke of men being images. Various translations translate that verse in different ways to seemingly avoid telling us that we men walk about as images. The English word “image” is only used in a few English translations, while most other translations use words like “shadow” or “phantom”, and the KJV uses “in a vain shew”.

However, as Epiphanius pointed out the Hebrew word used (צֶלֶם tselem) means image. It is the same Hebrew word that is always translated as “image” all 16 times it appears elsewhere in the KJV Bible. Strangely King James’s translators chose to translate the word as “image” 16 out of 17 times, but they translated it as “in a vain shew” when it was clearly used in reference specifically to (’îš, ish) men or husbands in Psalm 39:6. It is the exact same word that was used five times in the phrase “image of God” in Genesis 1:26-27, 5:3, and 9:6. I really do think that translating (צֶלֶם tselem) as something other than “image” in only this one context was a blatant attempt to hide the inspired truth that God was once again indicating that only (’îš, ish) men or husbands, not women or wives, were made to walk about as His likenesses, imaging God here on earth.

And in that regard, Psalm 39:6 agrees with what is stated elsewhere in Scripture:

1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

James 3:8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. 9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. 10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.

While it might seem spookier to imagine yourself as a phantom or a ghost, or it might seem cooler to imagine yourself as a shadow or an F-4 Phantom II, fully armed and using afterburner, the truth is that we men are fashioned to be images of God our Father. And men inherited fatherly dominion to exercise as earthly images of God.

Fenbendazole cures cancer.

/ Sharkly / Leave a comment

I’m going to go on the record now, saying that Fenbendazole is a cure for cancer.  I do not currently profit off this site nor off your health or sickness in any way.  I am not a doctor, so I am free to speak the truth regarding the medical industry.  This will not be like my normal posts here.  Nor will I try to present this information in a convincing way.  I’m just going on the record saying that Fenbendazole cures most types of cancer.  I’m currently not aware of any type of cancer that it doesn’t cure.  For dosing protocols do your own research.  People first began curing themselves of late stage “terminal” cancers using Fenbendazole starting around 2017.  Since then, the information has gradually been spreading outside of the medical industry and more and more testimonies of people curing late-stage cancer with Fenbendazole are piling up.  Some folks say that Ivermectin can also be added synergistically along with Fenbendazole to cure cancer even more assuredly.  Fenbendazole is fat-soluble so I recommend taking it along with some vitamin E, and a bite of fatty food, like cottage cheese.

If you still think that the medical industry wouldn’t seek to profit off your extended illness you’re a special kind of fool.  If you still think the medical industry wouldn’t rather inject you with a dangerous and untested yet profitable product rather than other well-known safe and effective products, you’re a dupe for their industry propaganda.  And in that case, you’re likely not going to benefit from anything I’m writing on this topic.  You’ll go ask your doctor, they’ll lie to you, you’ll swallow their lies, hook line and sinker, and you’ll pay them for their lies, and feel smug with their high-priced industry propaganda.  However, I wouldn’t feel right not putting this information out where folks have a chance of benefitting from it.  So, I am posting it.  I have know about this for a while, and have posted about it elsewhere, and now I have come to be confident enough to officially announce here that Fenbendazole is the cure for cancer.

But wait there’s more:

Bonus cure: Brown Recluse spider bite

Brown Recluse spider venom contains active mildly alkaline enzymes that “eat your flesh”.  These enzymes can be neutralized quickly by applying a 50/50 mixture of DMSO and regular distilled white vinegar solution to the area.  The Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO), an organic solvent, can carry the acid through your otherwise liquid-proof skin to quickly neutralize the damaging enzymes and stop all the tissue damage in its tracks.  I’ve heard that mixing DMSO and ascorbic acid (vitamin C) powder also works.

Demoralization

/ Sharkly / 8 Comments

Demoralization

noun

  1. The act of corrupting or subverting morals.  Especially: The act of corrupting or subverting discipline, courage, hope, etc.

Demoralization is a dysphoric state that is characterized by the individual’s sense of disempowerment and futility.

Have you been demoralized?

Satan wants to demoralize men.  And Satan will use all the powers at his disposal.  It seems like every institution or group in our society has the disempowerment of individual men as one of its goals.  Whether they claim to want to “Smash the Patriarchy” or “Empower Women” or to achieve a “Kinder, Gentler Society”, they are all working towards taking the individual man’s power away, so that he can pose no threat to anyone, often purportedly for safety’s sake.

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American patriarch?” she probed.
“By taking away his power!”

They satanically invert God’s holy order of patriarchy in the name of safety, civility, or “women’s rights”.

BTW “women’s rights” are usually a misnomer or oxymoron, what they should most generally be called is “women’s wrongs”.  A “right” is, by definition, a right thing to do, which is protected by law, so that you are legally assured of your liberty to do that rightful act.  Linguistically speaking a wrong deed can never correctly be labeled as a “right”.  So, there can be no “right” to kill a child in the womb, because murdering the innocent is a moral wrong.

There can be no right to women’s liberation, because our loving God made women to remain in subjection under a man’s rule.  A widowed woman is a cosmic tragedy, and a woman who remains unguided by choice is a wrongdoing rebel working against God’s will for her.  A fatherless never-married woman dedicated to God would seek out a male guardian for leadership and guidance.  If you don’t see it that way your perspective has become Feminist.

God gave men dominion over the earth, and so naturally Satan wants to take that dominion away from men and set up illegitimate rule over men.

Psalm 8:4 What is [a] man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man[’ā·ḏām,] that thou visitest him?  5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.  6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

Note that in the verses above the singular masculine pronoun “him” is used because the Hebrew wording makes it clear that the dominion was given to a singular man, and that each son of Adam has singularly inherited that same dominion.  So that Jesus Christ, as a Son of Man inherited a rightful claim to all dominion on earth, and as the Son of God, He has been granted all power in heaven as well.(Matthew 28:18)

Yet Satan’s goal is to subvert that.  So, men are encouraged to give their power to women, and in a snap your power is forfeit, never to be returned to you.

Do you recall when KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov, described America’s demoralization?

Bezmenov described this process as “a great brainwashing” that has four basic stages. The first stage is called “demoralization” which takes from 15 to 20 years to achieve.

Bezmenov made the point that the work of the KGB mainly does not involve espionage, despite what our popular culture may tell us. Most of the work, 85% of it, was “a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare.” 

What does that mean?  Bezmenov explained that the most striking thing about ideological subversion is that it happens in the open as a legitimate process. “You can see it with your own eyes,” he said. The American media would be able to see it, if it just focused on it. 

Here’s how he further defined ideological subversion: 

“What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.” 

I think we’re nearly there.  Recently I’ve heard numerous otherwise sensible men opining that we should not go and vote when we have the opportunity.  Not that we should do other things instead, but just that we shouldn’t vote, or that that they aren’t going to vote, because they have been demoralized by talk of vote fraud, and Etc.  Make no mistake about it.  You can give all the rationalizations and excuses you want but saying you don’t think voting will do any good, or accomplish anything, is by definition a demoralized statement.  You are showing that you no longer have the discipline to go and do what is right because you have convinced yourself that it will likely be futile.  You no longer believe in the virtue of voting for the lesser of two evils, even if only done on principle.

God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right, even though I think it is hopeless.  ~ Chester W. Nimitz

Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote.  ~ George Jean Nathan

For example, here is the Catholic stance on voting:

Pope Pius XII decreed that there is a moral imperative (duty) for Catholics to vote in elections. 

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH – SECOND EDITION 

2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one’s country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community. 

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country: … 

Catholic leaders hold that not voting: “is a venial sin, against justice, the Fourth Commandment, social charity, and, if applicable, a sin of laziness, apathy, and irresponsibility.” 

But that commonsense morality far predates the Church of Rome.

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle writes: “For the lesser evil can be seen in comparison with the greater evil as a good, since this lesser evil is preferable to the greater one, and whatever preferable is good.” … “According to the guidance of reason, of two things which are good, we shall follow the greater good, and of two evils, follow the less.” 

When only offered a choice between two evils, it is morally right and good to choose the lesser evil.  And it is then a moral irresponsibility to forfeit that choice over to others who might choose the greater evil.

If it was a foolish mistake to allow women to vote, and to thereby gain some rule over us men, then think how much more foolish it is for us men to now not vote and thereby guarantee that women decide everything that gets voted upon.  That completes men’s abdication of our responsibility to lead.

Now some of you are probably asking, what if the evildoers cheat?  What if the election is rigged?  What if my vote is digitally switched or negated, then haven’t I wasted all that effort?

Well, if you always listened to your worst possible fears you’d never get out of bed or leave your house.  And if you become too fearful of being misunderstood, you’ll never try to communicate in any way.  Sometimes you just have to stand up and feel your manhood swing and then set about doing what’s right, and what needs to be done, regardless of the eventual outcome.  Sometimes being a man is a thankless job and there is no pep band to boost your spirit.  You just stand up for what is right because that’s what men of good courage have always done in spite of their opposition.

You do what is right because God will see your determination to stand up and be counted for His kingdom, even if some of those doing the counting will lie for their lord and master Satan.  You do what’s right because you’re a righteous person and not a sniveling coward ruled by fears and discouragements.  You exercise your right to vote for what is right because that’s your duty and it is not such a great burden that you can’t overcome your demoralization for long enough to go get it done.  You go and honor the sacrifice of those brave men who died to win you the right to go vote.  Everything doesn’t have to be about your personal depression,  your propensity towards feelings of hopelessness, and your lack of faith that God will reward your uprightness.

Or perhaps you say, you saw a funny George Carlin comedy bit where he recommends not voting as a way to try to absolve oneself of all responsibility for the acts of our feckless politicians.  Well, I saw it too, and I laughed, and yet I still choose to harken to sound moral teaching over any comedians’ jokes.  I find Dave Chappelle to be far funnier, yet I still wouldn’t listen to his comedy act as life-coaching.  You can’t joke your way out of your moral duties to God.  You just fulfill them, and carry on with your life, acting upon your faith that we will all eventually face God’s judgement.

You don’t want to be like the unfaithful servant in “the parable of the talents”. (Matthew 25:14–30) & (Luke 19:11–27)  Who, due to fears, didn’t make use of what he was entrusted with, and thereby angered his Lord.  He lost everything good in his future due to his demonstrated irresponsibility when he was tested, by not using the opportunity he had been given to act on behalf of his Lord.   Not everybody has been given the opportunity to vote and to exercise good moral stewardship thereby.  As you all should know, even the immoral are saying that “character and decency are on the ballot”.   Yes, there will surely be some cheating, but don’t you be the “wicked and slothful servant” who cheats the Lord by refusing to use what you have been entrusted with.

For the record, I am not saying that your vote will change history, or that we can vote our way to utopia.  I’m not saying that your choice isn’t entirely between crooked politicians.  I’m not saying there won’t be cheating.  I’m not saying there aren’t other more effective ways to influence the world.  I’m just saying, regarding voting, go do the upright thing.  Then you’re still free to go do all those other things you think might work better.   Voting is an easy task and there is no excuse for neglecting to speak up for what you believe is right, or least evil.  Don’t let the Demoralizer win a victory by getting you to bury your opportunity to exercise your right to this symbolic portion of dominion that you still have.  Or it too might get taken away.  Afterwards you can go spend the rest of the next four years doing whatever it is you think should work better.

Do we “Resist the devil” or “Resist not evil”?

/ Sharkly / 7 Comments

carview.php?tsp=

In this post, I will contradict the purported scriptural basis for complete nonresistance and point out and explain some more of Jesus’ hyperbole used in Matthew chapter 5.  This post is a follow-on, building upon my first post in this series.  If you haven’t read it, you will want to read it first.

My Mennonite father taught me the basis for the Anabaptist doctrine of nonresistance, but he didn’t seem to practice it.  Partly because it was contrary to his very masculine nature, and let’s not kid ourselves, partly because nonresistance just doesn’t work.  Even Mahatma Gandhi practiced “nonviolent resistance” not nonresistance.  But, when a man is only 100 pounds (45 kg), a hunger strike is likely to be far more effective than fighting.   I don’t think Gandhi would’ve gotten far brawling.

All kidding aside, I respect men like Leo Tolstoy and pious folks today who are still trying to practice nonresistance, even though I see nonresistance as foolishness.

Not to take up too much of your day, but, regarding the hyperbole in Matthew 5:38-42, I will direct you to read this scholarly paper as if it were the first portion of this post, so that I won’t need to plagiarize it nor make my own case, writing out most of his same points in my own way.  I just recently found it, in my preparation to write this post, while researching if anybody else saw that Jesus was using hyperbole when He said to “turn the other cheek”.  I agree with his evidence and his primary conclusion that Jesus was using a lot of hyperbole and other non-literal devices in His “Semon on the Mount”.

Those who teach that Jesus only spoke hyperliterally are like those of whom Jesus said, “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!”, in that they are busy swallowing literal camels, I reckon. /S

In case you’re wondering, I think Jesus’ sinlessness means that He didn’t break His Father’s moral law, not that He didn’t offend people until they publicly executed Him.

Anyhow, back to the scholarly paper I linked to above, now that you’ve read it.  The author claims that Jesus was likely reacting to the Jews gross abuses of the spirit of the law, while keeping to the letter of the law, which I currently have no basis to doubt.  But as far as the author’s speculation as to what Jesus was actually meaning, I think he is far too timid in his baby-step proposed departure from the literal interpretation, which he clearly showed was wrong.  He concludes that Matthew 5:39-42 is certainly hyperbole, by almost every indication, but then he cautiously asks the hyperliteralists to back down only one step from their unworkable “nonresistance”, that is seemingly complicity with evil.  There is room to recommend both forgiveness and mercy while returning all the way to affording others the justice of God’s “tooth for a tooth” laws.

What a twisted religion we’ve inherited, where the innocent are goaded to “turn the other cheek” and suffer doubly, while we consider it too cruel for the guilty to even get what they gave.

Here is the passage in question, plus the preceding verse (38):

Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:  39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.  40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.  41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.  42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

God our Father’s law calls for “eye for an eye” justice.  And so did the Code of Hammurabi and other ancient Near Eastern law codes.  Likely all stemming from the same legal traditions passed down from the dawn of humanity when God walked with the forefather of all men.  And the Jews had quickly come up with fitting fines that could be paid in lieu of getting an eye poked out or a tooth knocked out.

Jesus stated earlier in the sermon that He was not here to remove even a dot or stroke from a letter of His Father’s law, but to keep it.  Nor was Jesus sent to make following His Father’s law more difficult.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.  17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.  18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Do you see it?  We were all already condemned prior to repenting from our evil ways and accepting Jesus Christ’s lordship over us by faith.  Jesus did not need to ratchet up His father’s law to a harder new set of rules to condemn anyone, as we all already stood condemned.  Nor was Jesus even sent here to tamper with His Father’s law to bring greater condemnation against all men.  The Father’s law was not something poorly thought out that His Son needed to later come and correct.

Nor did Jesus abolish God’s 7 Noahic laws for all peoples, which were, each and every one, again commanded in the New Testament for us all, including gentile believers.  They are all still in effect over you, whether you care to know and obey them or not, until the earth and sky pass away.

I think we are negligent in (law #7) setting up courts of justice.   God’s just laws would be the basis for just courts.  But today, our courts serve the highest bidder, and the politically connected, while our “femily” courts serve Satan.  (Oops!  I just made a Freudian typo, but I think I’ll leave it there because I like it.)

Jesus said, “Give to him that asketh thee”.  I’ve never asked for a cent here before.  I freely share the truth that I have freely been given.  But for all those who still want to take that 100% literally, I am now asking you each for one million dollars, as a lesson.

carview.php?tsp=

If you don’t have one million dollars, just send me all you’ve got.  You can make all the necessary arrangements through my contact page.  You either need to give that to me, since I asked it of thee, or else you’re not fully obeying that scripture literally.  Change your belief about how literal it is, or else send me the money!  I’ll be pleased either way.

James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

James tells us to “resist the devil”.  Is the devil not evil?  I’d go as far as to say that we can’t always know the source of evil whether a person, or a demon, or the chief devil, Lucifer.  So, I think in that verse the phrase “the devil” is a personification of evil.  “Devil” is a descriptor or a title not a unique individual’s name, thus it isn’t capitalized, like a name such as Lucifer.  I don’t think James was telling us to go along with the influence of demons, but to only resist when we somehow sense it is Lucifer himself.  I think James was attributing all evil as being the will of the devil, and his crewmates.  And instructing us to resist such evil.

So, we are forced to decide whether God wants us to be people who literally resist evil, or people who literally never resist evil?  It is clear to me that the supposed command to “resist not evil” is the hyperbole.  Heck!  Most folks would insist that you should even resist the mere approach of temptation by evil, and not wait until the evil opportunity is upon you to start resisting that evil.

So, what is the upshot of the church’s silly belief that they should not resist evil?  What month did we just finish up here in the most highly churched nation on earth?  Oh, that’s right, it was abomination pride month, the month when we celebrate that which is an abomination to our Creator.  And our “Christian” nation is even risking global thermonuclear war just to make sure they can keep having gay pride parades in the ethnically Russian portion of Ukraine, enforced by our puppet regime led by a gay rent boy.  Do Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or Shinto majority nations historically celebrate gay pride month?  No, that sort of degeneracy only thrives in Christian nations.  Why?  Because only Christians have been brainwashed to think they’re commanded to “resist not evil”.

“He spake many things unto them in parables”

Jesus often said stuff that was misunderstood in His own time by most of those listening to Him.  Jesus wasn’t trying to save people through His teaching, He would only save people by His sacrificial death.  So, Jesus’ teaching was to call people to repentance and to see their own sinfulness and their need for His upcoming sacrifice.  And it was recorded because folks are still needing to be called to repentance to this day.  Repentance is at the heart of Jesus Christ’s Gospel message, not enabling evildoers here on earth through our own allowance, like God.  Our task is to realize our inadequacy to be with God and to ask for restoration, not to try to steal God’s role.

Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came up and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” 11 And Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. 12 For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, ‘You shall keep on listening, but shall not understand; And you shall keep on looking, but shall not perceive; 15 For the heart of this people has become dull, With their ears they scarcely hear, And they have closed their eyes, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their heart, and return, And I would heal them.’

Don’t be surprised that once the apostles all died the very next set of church leaders started trying to take the written down hyperbole of Jesus at face value.  Few of those who had heard Him even understood and got healed of their sin.

Jesus’ point, for folks like the Pharisees, who saw themselves as blameless before the law, was that to be as selfless as God, which is a requirement to “earn” your seat at His table, you’d have to not even resist those who do evil.  If God resisted evil there would be none!  He lets the wicked continue on living in wickedness, giving them chance after chance to repent, all while they sin against everything God stands for.  You’d have to ask those who hit you in the face for more, because that’s like God, who sent His servants the prophets, and they killed them, yet He sent them more, and He eventually sent His only begotten Son to evil men to be mocked, tortured, and killed.

God blesses sinners with rain and sunshine even while they curse His name.  Jesus was hyperbolically describing what sort of things you’d have to do to be perfect enough to earn your way into heaven by your godlikeness alone.  Which is an impossible task for sin-stained humans.

And, as if all that wasn’t impossible enough, Jesus then sarcastically asked them in verse 48 to: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If that were a literal command, a new law for us, nobody ever kept it.  Jesus later said, “my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”  He didn’t say my yoke is impossible, much tougher than my Father’s old yoke.  Matthew 5:39-42 is entirely hyperbole.  Jesus wasn’t literally asking you to follow all that to your destruction.  Nor did He follow that stuff while on earth.  He resisted evil!  Remember how he drove the merchants and money changers out of the temple?  The Bible never says that He asked to be scourged more, or to be crucified a second time.  Nor did the church in the book of Acts say, y’all have to give to us now because we asked you to.  Who in the New Testament was ever recorded as keeping anything of Matthew 5:39-42?  Only those who did not resist evil, and then got rebuked for it.  Hear what Jesus Christ said to the church in Thyatira:

Revelation 2:20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

So, did Jesus want them to resist evil Jezebel?  It sure sounds like it.

How far does Jesus want us to go in our intolerance of evil?

Luke22:36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

Apparently Jesus intended for His followers to go way farther in resisting evil than churches teach us.  That passage above doesn’t sound at all like total nonresistance.  The other scripture nonresistance proponents cite is when Peter tries to deliver Jesus with a sword by striking a man in the head and cutting his ear off.  Jesus did not take that opportunity to say there is never a place for violence, He seemingly just said, now is not the time, I don’t need your deliverance, Peter.

John 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

In Matthew’s Gospel Jesus adds a proverb generalizing how killers often are killed.  But not everyone who takes up a sword dies by a sword.  It is only a proverb.

52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.  53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?  54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Jesus knew He could not let Peter disrupt His capture, to fulfill Scriptures.  But He did not take the opportunity to make any blanket condemnation about using violence or never delivering the innocent.  So there really isn’t anywhere in the Bible where God meant to blanket command us to never use force, even deadly force.  And God is known for His death sentences for capital sins.  Did Jesus abolish every capital sin?  No.

Later in the “Sermon on the Mount” Jesus says:

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.  2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Although the Bible tells us to act justly and even to set up courts of justice, many church folks, while existing in a state of cognitive dissonance, will often quote, “Judge not, that ye be not judged”, as if it were a command prohibiting you from exercising any good judgement against them or somebody else for something they’ve done.  When, in fact, it is only a proverb, a wise generalization, which is explained in the next verse.  It truly is mind boggling how much the Scriptures have been twisted and perverted by the church in order to allow lawlessness and unfaithfulness to the truth.

It still has not fully dawned on my imagination what a faithful church and faithful Christian nations would look like if Christ-following men judged all things rightly according to God’s law and resisted the evil ones at every turn using all reasonable force, including executing capital sinners.  I suspect, like in the days of Noah, it would result in a completely changed world in only a couple months.

So how can you learn what God’s word really means?  Ask God to daily grant you insight into His word.  Ditch those false teachers who obviously haven’t been granted understanding into the mysteries of God’s word.  And pray that you will be!  And feel free to share your questions and insights with the others here, and like the Bereans, we’ll test things against the Scriptures.  The Father is seeking men to reverence Him and to serve His Son, in spirit and in truth, and to sharpen His chosen brethren.