[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Religion See other Religion Articles Title: Christianity: The Best Deal Women Ever Had Feminism is certainly one of the worst things that has ever happened to this country. One is tempted to call it the absolute worst, even worse than the century and a half of endless wars we have been tricked into fighting. Yes, those wars were horrors that destroyed many of our best men and saddled with enormous debt those it did not. Lincoln’s Communist War to Destroy the Union killed some 600,000 men, more than we have lost in any other war, raped uncountable women, black and white, and wrecked valuable property. But even those enormous horrors left the foundations intact. Lincoln’s destruction of the union did not seek to change the people. Feminism does. It is even worse a scourge than the suicidal madness of buggery, which affects a small, loud but inconsequential sub-culture of suicidal degenerates. Feminism affects us all. It seeks to turn society upside down, to change our human nature. Of course it cannot do that, but its attempt to do so is creating hell on earth. As we have seen, feminism promised women the world; it has given them loneliness and frustration, sent them forth to “find themselves,” only to discover that they have left their selves behind. We saw that feminism has become a main tool of the Communist section of the Conspiracy for World Government, which has been using it quite successfully to tear the nation apart by wrecking our families. The recent, lucrative kidnapping by the government of 462 children in Texas is a symptom of that process. Since feminism has turned out to be such an anti-feminine fraud – no surprise since it is largely run by bull dykes – we need to spend some time on the paramount question of which system on the contrary is best for women. In which world view have women flourished more than any other? In classical Greece, girls got no education. When a man brought guests home for dinner, the lady of the house was not allowed to eat with them. Adult women were considered little better than domestic animals or trash. Correspondingly, sodomy was rampant. In Aristophanes you will read that women are “the vilest of creatures.” Female infanticide was routine. Emperor Tiberius ordered nude women to wait on him while he gorged. Female prostitutes entertained him with group sex. Emperor Caligula committed incest with all his sisters and engaged in sex while he gluttonized. Emperor Domitian was another who specialized in incest. In Roman law, adultery was a crime that only a woman could commit. Marital faithfulness in the Roman Empire was almost unknown. Historian Will Durant is one easily accessible source for all this. In Old Rome, a husband could divorce his wife, kill her or sell her. He could even kill his married daughter. Today’s ultra-cool feminism presents itself as so avant garde, so liberated, so free. It is so hip, don’t you know, to appear half naked in public, with your boobs and belly button hanging out and the tasteful tattoo at the top of the crack above your heinie on view. It’s so liberated, so free, to climb onto a stool at the bar, toss down a few martinis, size up the metrosexual male beside you and then take him back to your place for some wham, bam, thank you, sir. Except that all this isn’t avant garde, isn’t out front at all. In many respects, isn’t it a replay of the Roman Empire at its ripest, when women were treated like hunks of meat? Of course, today’s emperors must be more discreet. Ain’t that right – “I did not have sex with that woman” – Bill Clinton? In the Muslim world, women are treated like cattle. Depending on where in that world they live, they must cover themselves so that only their eyes show, they are publicly flogged and sexually mutilated by clytoridectomy. Afghan women under the Taliban were forbidden to attend school. Women have been jailed in Iran for wearing lipstick. In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal for women to drive. Schoolgirls died in a fire there, forbidden to leave the burning building because they were “improperly dressed.” For sexual discrepancies, real or imagined, Islamic fathers kill their daughters and brothers kill their sisters. Afterward, they celebrate and call their monstrous crimes “honor killings.” Rape victims are punished, not rapists. This is starting to happen in the United States, where Communist world government traitor Bush is importing Muslims. Wouldn’t you think the putative feminist groups here would be protesting all this twenty four seven? So far, I haven’t heard a peep. The Chinese used to bind women’s feet to keep them small, starting in early childhood. Foot binding mutilated and crippled many Chinese women. Infection and gangrene were often the result. Did you know that widows used to be contemned, ostracized and buried or burned alive? Hindu India for numberless centuries enjoyed the practice of suttee. Widows were burned on funeral pyres. Other peoples around the world did it, including the Chinese and Scandinavians. Why did this stop? Where do women have the best lives today? Christianity stopped it. Women have the best lives where Christianity is strongest; the stronger that influence, the better their lives, the weaker the worse. Christianity liberated women. But notice that feminist leaders hate Christianity – hate it more than anything else – another proof of the fact that feminism is the main enemy of women. Feminism oppresses women but blames Christianity for its crimes. The Chinese government abolished foot binding in 1912, because Christian missionaries led a crusade against it. The English outlawed suttee in 1829 because Christian missionary William Carey harangued against it. When Carey’s Edict took effect many Indians lamented “that the foundations of Hindu society would be shaken if widows were not burned alive.” Some argued that the ban violated Article 25 of the Indian Constitution that guaranteed freedom of religion. In recent years, suttee has returned. Hindus rejoice. Once again, Indian widows are being burned. How do the killers get away with it? Remember that, in this multi-cultural world, all cultures and religions are essentially the same; none is superior to any other, so keep your trap shut, Pilgrim. Don’t complain. The world where Jesus chose to live was not immune from these problems. In the ancient Jewish world, women were forbidden to testify in court. According to one rabbinic teaching: “Let the words of the Law (Torah) be burned rather than be committed to a woman. . . .” (Jer. Sotah 19 a) “If a man teaches his daughter the Law, it is as though he taught her lechery.” (Sotah 3.4) There is also, “He who talks with a woman in public brings evil upon himself.” (Aboth 1.5) And there is, “One is not so much as to greet a woman.” (Berakhoth 43b) I am indebted to Dr. Peter Hammond of Frontline Fellowship in Cape Town for this Talmudic research. That is why the apostles were so dumbfounded and dismayed when they returned from town with provisions and discovered Jesus actually speaking to the woman of Samaria. Remember? The woman herself was shocked. “How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria?” (John 4:9) It was scandalous! The Master was actually talking to a Samaritan and, even worse, to a woman! Jesus clashed with rabbinic law by teaching Martha. In fact, look at the relationship between Jesus and New Testament women. Mark says many women followed Jesus (15:41). After His resurrection, Jesus appeared first to women, Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Mary, mother of James and others. (Luke 24:10) In fact, only women were there to see Jesus interred (Mark 15:47) and to find the tomb empty (John 20:1); the first to proclaim the Resurrection (Matthew 28:8). Women attended the very first prayer meeting (Acts 1:14); women were the first to welcome Christian missionaries to Europe (Acts 16:13) and the first European convert was a woman (Acts 16:14). Women were very prominent in the early Church. Among them were Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist, Mary, mother of Jesus, Mary of Bethany, who poured precious ointment on His head, Tabitha, also called Dorcas (Acts 9:36). Anti-woman feminists who hate Jesus teach that Paul was hostile to women. Is that so? Then why does Paul constantly praise and salute the many women he worked with? Why do so many women hang out with him wherever he goes? Was it his cologne or his doctrine? There is “our beloved Apphia” (Philemon 2). There is Phebe “our sister,” whom you should help “in whatsoever business she hath need of you; for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.” (Romans 16: 1-2) In the next verse, he lauds Priscilla, who has laid down her neck to save his. He entreats the Philippians to “help those women who labored with me in the gospel.” (4:3) These are just a few examples. Why would so many women flock to the early Church if Christianity were so “anti-woman?” Did they know something today’s womanoids and bull dykes do not? Women outnumbered men so much at the beginning that there were not enough Christian men available for marriage. Celsus, a Second Century critic, ridiculed believers, calling Christianity a religion that attracted women, a sign of weakness. Indeed, many Roman authors saw Christianity’s treatment of women as a threat to the entire social order, which of course it was. What did and does Christianity offer women? For instance, it commanded husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, a revolutionary idea. It gives Christian women the right to marry whom they please and to divorce unfaithful husbands, more revolution. For the first time, it gave women shared custody of their children, still more revolution. Women got these rights not from feminism, not from Janet Reno, but from Jesus. Before Jesus, widows were mostly on their own. But Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for taking financial advantage of them. (Mark 12: 40) In First Timothy 5, Paul talks at length about taking care of widows. In Acts 6, we learn that the Greek Christians murmured against the Hebrew Christians because their widows were neglected. The apostles appointed seven men as deacons to take care of them. Of course this lifted women to a status they had never enjoyed. Pre-Christian marriage was a mockery. Roman weddings featured obscene songs and sickening decadence. Christianity introduced beauty and solemnity to weddings; indeed it recognized marriage as a divine institution, a sacrament. Edward Gibbon commented in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, “The dignity of marriage was restored by the Christians . . . .” Did you know that Christianity practically invented privacy? The idea that sexual intimacy is a gift of God, only to be enjoyed between a husband and wife – one flesh – in the privacy of marriage was another revolutionary Christian thought. As Christianity spread, privacy spread along with it. Without Jesus, the adulterous woman would have been brutally killed, torn apart by stones. Jesus told her to stop and let her go. All these ideas – no adultery, “one flesh,” honor to the wife, etc. – constituted a totally novel sexual morality, which the Romans considered extremely offensive, a deliberate rebuke. In The City of God, Augustine says the Romans despised the Christians because they opposed Rome’s sexual depravities. Tertullian says Romans were so incensed by Christian contempt for their sexual immorality that they hated the very word, “Christian.” Does any of this sound familiar? Do not today’s degenerates consider Christianity a provocation, a rebuke? Where are we headed? We are headed, or, better, we are being led backward, not forward, backward to the morality of the ancient world, of Rome and its precursors, confused by a cloak of phony “toleration” and totalitarian multiculturalism.” What was the basis, the guiding principle, of those civilizations toward which we are returning? Was it not brute force? Was it not physical strength? Who has the physical strength? If the governing principle is nothing more than that, without Christian deference, would not women wind up back where they were before Jesus? Would they not wind up governed by sharia, covered head to toe, sequestered and – even worse – without lipstick? Yes, this seems utterly inconceivable today. Women have been “liberated.” They control family court. A facsimile of one could even be President. But as many mortgagors are learning these days, the world can go upside down in a Wall Street minute. A few years ago, there was a whiff, a hint of what could happen. Peggy Noonan is a columnist in New York. It is hard to understand how a woman as smart as she is could be a Republican, but she is. In fact, she was a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan. To be fair, she does say today that the Republican Party is dying. She couldn’t take more than five years of marriage and used to be a nasty feminist, but recovered; now she is normal. One month after Nine Eleven she wrote in her Wall Street Journal column that “men are back.” She was talking about the masculine men who “charge up the stairs in a hundred pounds of gear and tell everyone else where to go to be safe,” the men who said, “Let’s roll,” on Flight 93. “And their style is back in style. We are experiencing a new respect for their old-fashioned masculinity, a new respect for physical courage, for strength and for the willingness to use both for the good of others.” She recalls standing on the West Side Highway with other New York intellectuals, who used to be called “effete snobs,” cheering the construction workers and electricians and welders and medical workers who were healing and rebuilding the city. Now it really gets interesting: “Why? Well, manliness wins wars. Strength and guts plus brains and spirit wins (sic) wars. But also, you know what follows manliness? The gentleman. The return of manliness will bring a return of gentlemanliness, for a simple reason: masculine men are almost by definition gentlemen. . . .” What is a gentleman? A gentleman is a gentle man. His gentleness is a form of noblesse oblige. He has the power but he restrains it. He defers to a lady and to others who don’t have the power. He restrains it until the time comes to use it – in New York on Nine Eleven, in Pennsylvania on Flight 93. Then he unleashes deadly force. As Peggy says, he uses physical strength and courage “for the good of others.” Why is a gentleman a gentle man? For millions of men still among us it is because of Christianity. It is because Jesus was who He is. The Jesus haters have succeeded mightily in making Him illegal only because the gentle men Jesus has inspired have paradoxically let them, have defaulted. Without those Christian gentle men, Lenin’s “useful idiots” of the conspiracy for world government could not have come so close to victory, could not have gotten away with it. Where are we headed? Suppose, God forbid, that the chaos and collapse and Halliburton concentration camps erupt. Suppose we have Nine Eleven every day. Suppose the American Restoration requires physical strength. If by then the conspiracy has succeeded in banishing Christianity, we shall return to ancient Rome or worse, and the useful idiots who banned it will be even more unhappy. The gentleman will be gone. Brute force will replace him. What would the women do? Would they turn to womanoids like Hillary or predatory bull dykes like Reno? The question recalls “Six Days, Seven Nights,” in which Harrison Ford tells the heroine he thought New York women such as she want men who “get in touch with their feminine side” and “express their feelings.” Not when I’m being chased by pirates, says heroine Anne Heche, who in real life used to be Mrs. Ellen the Degenerate. When I’m being chased by pirates, I want men who are “armed and mean.” So I prefer to hope that since Jesus perseveres and overcomes, the Christian gentleman He inspires will endure as well and that the women will turn to him. Should all h-e-c-k break out, even the bull dykes – however many tattoos they have – could be converted to heterosexuality and Jesus. You say you oppose the status quo and want revolution, ma’am? Quit playing sissy games. Become a Christian.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: echo5sierra (#0)
Eegads does this reference imply that Stang believes the govt BS story that the passengers crashed the plane in PA to save others? THE FLIGHT 93 FRAUD- Smoking Gun Evidence
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." No, he doesn't believe the story the gov't put out.
Sometimes I wonder if Stang isn't a dominionist. He seems to ignore some scripture in favor of others to make his point. Here are some of beliefs of dominionism... seems to fit. Unmarried women are not allowed to leave the home of their father. Married women should not be allowed to leave the home of their husband. They should normally be restricted to roles of little or no authority. They should not be permitted to testify in court. They should not appear in public venues. They should not be allowed to talk to strangers. Why did he leave this out? Luke 18: 1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint; 2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: 3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. 4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; 5 Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. 6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. 7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? 8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
Why quote Luke 18? A widow gets justice from an evil man because she is pestering him. God says he will avenge his elect, in this case being the widow. How does that agree with dominionism? What dominionist beliefs are promoted in the article?
How does Luke 18 agree with dominionism? Read the posts again. It doesn't. Jesus uses the parable to show that women can be and have a right to be strong. And Stang has alot of material published and he is definitely borderline reconstruction/dominionistic.
Give me some quotes from his writings.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||