NSA Admits it Executes the Powers of Saint Peter to Loose and to Bind Sunday, Apr 13 2014 

The shield on the eagle’s breast is drawn from the Great Seal of the United States, and represents the states drawn together under a single chief that unites them and represents Congress. The key in the eagle’s talons represents security. It evolved from the emblem of St. Peter the Apostle, and his power “to loose and to bind.” The circular shape of the seal is a symbol of eternity.

http://www.nsa.gov/about/faqs/about_nsa.shtml#about9

The Myth of Gender Equality; Male Supremacy Acknowledged the Lesbian Spirit Rejected Tuesday, Feb 11 2014 

Deut. 28: 58 “If you are not careful to observe all the words of this law which are written in this book, to fear this honored and awesome name, the Lord your God, 59 then the Lord will bring extraordinary plagues on you and your descendants, even severe and lasting plagues, and miserable and chronic sicknesses. 60 He will bring back on you all the diseases of Egypt of which you were afraid, and they will cling to you. 61 Also every sickness and every plague which, not written in the book of this law, the Lord will bring on you until you are destroyed. 62 Then you shall be left few in number, whereas you were as numerous as the stars of heaven, because you did not obey Yahowah your God.

 Moses

“If human experience has established anything at all, it is the truth of that principle announced by the Hebrew prophet when he declared that the great aim of God in ordaining a permanent marriage tie between one man and one woman was ‘that He might seek a godly seed.’ God’s ordinance, the only effective human ordinance  for checking and curbing the first tendencies to evil, is domestic , parental government. When the family shall no longer have a head, and the great foundation for the subordination of children in mother’s example is gone; when the mother shall have found another sphere than her home for her energies; when she shall have exchanged the sweet charities of domestic love and sympathy for the fierce passions of the hustlings; when families shall be disrupted at the caprice of either party, and the children scattered as foundlings from their hearthstone,- it requires no wisdom to see that a race of sons will be reared nearer akin to devils than to men. In the hands of such a bastard progeny, without discipline, without homes, without a God, the last remains of social order will speedily perish, and society will be overwhelmed in savage anarchy. ”

R.L. Dabney, The Southern Magazine, January, 1871 Vol. 8, pg. 332

“Must not God be avenged on such a nation as this? His vengeance will be to give them the fruit of their own hands, and let them be filled with their own devices. He will set apart this fair land by a sort of dread consecration to the purpose of giving a lesson concerning this godless philosophy, so impressive as to instruct and warn all future generations. As the dull and pestilential waves of the Dead Sea have been to every subsequent age the memento of the sin of Sodom, so the dreary tides of anarchy and barbarism which will overwhelm the boastful devices of infidel democracy will be the caution of all future legislators. And thus, ‘Women’s Rights’ will assist America ‘to fulfill her great mission,’ that of being the ‘scarecrow’ of the nations. ”

R.L. Dabney, Ibid., 334

Introduction

The reason I began this essay with “Male Supremacy Acknowledged” instead of “Male Supremacy Defended”, or some type of  combative phrase is because Male Supremacy is simply a fact of life and one needs only read the statistics to see it. Male Supremacy needs no defending, it simply needs revealing. In keeping with their Counter-Reformation, the Jesuit Order of the Roman Catholic Church has used the Epicurean Philosophy that they resurrected from the graves of Greece through their master disciple Descartes, to disenfranchise the common, moral, religious white man and has empowered the selfish, wicked white man, “nearer akin to devils” predicted by Dabney above.

Before I begin I want to address those women who believe the Bible, and live to serve their husbands and further their race through a stable family. If that is you, the vitriol and anger that you will read in this essay is not directed at you. Peace to you and your family.

Before I display the Bible’s teaching concerning gender relations I want to sweep away all the presumptions of the western “liberated” woman.

Also, an admission: There is no doubt that Christianity created an unnatural view of sex extending from their Gnostic theology with Augustine and the rise of the asceticism and monasticism of Christianity. This is clearly stated in the Kinsey’s Female Volume, page 89. I exposed the Christian Monastic conspiracy here when I was still a Christian:

http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/concerning-orthodoxy/against-ancient-christianity

The Jesuits have deceived our people to espouse the Enlightenment Philosophy and as was shown above, this has made Yahowah himself our enemy.  Our race is being driven into Genocide via Miscegenation and the women who refuse to bear any children are growing as well. Truly, as Moses prophesied, we are being made a people few in number.

Feminist, Jody Day of Gateway Women states,

“I truly believe that being a childless/childfree women is one of the unfinished businesses of feminism and it is up to pioneers like us to say the unsayable, think the unthinkable and live our gloriously unacceptable (to others) lives so that this taboo can be busted right open!”[1]

Gretchen Livingston and D’Vera Cohn of the Pew Research Center state in their article Childlessness Up Among All Women; Down Among Women with Advanced Degrees,  

“The most educated women still are among the most likely never to have had a child. But in a notable exception to the overall rising trend, in 2008, 24% of women ages 40-44 with a master’s, doctoral or professional degree had not had children, a decline from 31% in 1994.

By race and ethnic group, white women are most likely not to have borne a child.”[2]

Feminism is simply the development of the Enlightenment and the first and second French Revolutions.  As we have seen for some time now, this was all a creation of the Jesuits. The Enlightenment was meant to destroy the Protestant Reformation while the French Revolution was meant to take revenge on the Catholic nations that suppressed the Jesuits in 1773.  The Enlightenment begins with Jesuit trained Galileo and his Heliocentrism, followed by Jesuit trained Descartes and his revival of “ancient Greek opinions concerning atoms”.[3] The Women’s Rights Movement was begun in 1791 with the French playwright and political activist Olympe de Gouges. She published the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen 1791, which was modeled after the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789. Gouges argued for universal equality of the sexes. Later in 1848, these principles would be enshrined in The Declaration of Sentiments by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott. I have refuted the Enlightenment here (Heliocentrism will be considered in a later blog):

http://drakeshelton.com/2013/01/19/the-failure-of-secular-philosophy-to-the-university-of-louisville/

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 here:

http://drakeshelton.com/2013/11/18/the-bible-and-human-rights-an-examination-of-the-declaration-of-the-rights-of-man-1789-approved-by-the-national-assembly-of-france-august-26-1789/

and I have shown that the French Revolution was created by the Jesuits here:

http://drakeshelton.com/2012/07/15/secularism-the-handmaid-of-the-jesuits/

http://drakeshelton.com/2011/12/30/the-secularization-of-protestant-nations-the-jesuit-agenda-to-destroy-the-reformation-in-ed-drake/ 

Fast Facts About Male Exploitation In The United States

1. Only men are required to be drafted and sent to die for the United States. The Selective Service System of the United States Government states,

“Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male immigrants living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service.”[4]

2. Taking paid work and household duties into consideration, Fathers worked 47 hours a week, while Mothers worked 39 in 2011.[5]

3. Men are the slaves of women.

a. They do the hardest and most dangerous jobs to keep women’s lives comfortable. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries Charts, 1992-2012 page 8 shows that 92% of occupational fatalities were men.[6] Page 19 shows that the most dangerous jobs are:[7]

1. Logging workers
2. Fishers and related fishing workers
3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers
4. Roofers
5. Structural iron and steel workers
6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers
8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers
9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers
10. Construction laborers

Consider also garbage men, taxi drivers, firefighters, miners, and police officers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 85% of all police officers are men.[8]

According to the United State’s Department of Labor’s 20 Leading Occupations of Employed Women, we see that the jobs women do are considerably safer and less stressful jobs than men perform.[9]

b. Outnumbered over two to one, 258,000 Southern men died to defend Southern women from the invasion of a Northern Army.[10] The same story runs today as well.  2011 Demographics PROFILE OF THE MILITARY COMMUNITY, Updated November 2012, page 17 shows that 85.5% of active duty military personnel are male. Yet this does not imply that the 14.5% female population is involved in combat.[11]

In fact, The Washington Post states in its article, “Three women pass Marine ‘grunt’ test, but Corps holds off on letting them in infantry” by Craig Whitlock,  November 20, 2013,

“For the first time, three enlisted women have passed the Marine Corps’ grueling infantry course, carrying the same rifles and lugging the same 85-pound packs on the same 12-mile hikes through the piney woods of North Carolina as the men. The female Marines are scheduled to graduate Thursday at Camp Geiger, N.C. — a historic development as the U.S. military prepares to open ground combat forces to women. ”[12]

It appears then that the G.I. Jane persona that we have been led to believe has regularly existed for so long, is actually a myth.

Clearly then, women get paid less, not because they are women but because the men are taking the most risk and subjecting themselves to the most danger. Also “Men Earn More Money and Promotions Because They Work More Hours Than Women”.[13]

c. Women complain about the glass ceiling that keeps them from ascending into the highest positions of power in America, yet more men are trapped in the “glass cellar” that keeps men in jobs with the most danger.

d. Men are expected to be the unpaid bodyguards of women. They are to receive violence but never return it. They are expected to give up their seats for women and at one time they were expected to stand up as a woman entered the room and were also expected to bow to them. They also help women put on their jackets. Men are often seen walking along side of the highway in desperation. Who ever saw a woman in this condition?  Men are also more likely to be homeless.[14]

e. Men are less likely to be able to go to college.

“On a national scale, public universities had the most even division between male and female students, with a male-female ratio of 43.6–56.4. While that difference is substantial, it still is smaller than private not-for-profit institutions (42.5-57.5) or all private schools (40.7-59.3). The nearly 40-60 ratio of private schools was most surprising, though perhaps this is partly due to the fact that most all-female schools are private. Nevertheless, the female domination of higher education prevails across all types of schools.”[15]

f. Violence against women is abhorred but violence against men is entertainment. We are the gladiators for women’s amusement in Football, MMA, Boxing, Wrestling, Ice Hockey, Rodeos, Auto Racing, etc.

Fast Facts About Female Supremacy In The United States.

1. The Government takes the side of women in America.

a. “Across a wide range of jurisdictions the estimates are that mothers receive primary custody 68-88% of the time, fathers receive primary custody 8-14%, and equal residential custody is awarded in only 2-6% of the cases.”[16]

This leaves the burden of two households on the Father. Is it then any wonder that “Divorced men are more likely to have heart disease, high blood pressure and strokes than married ones – are also 39% more likely to commit suicide”?[17]

Men are so ridiculed by other men for depression as if it was a sign of weakness, that when faced with suicidal thoughts, instead of seeking help men just commit suicide.

When I was in college I ministered at a detention center in Greenwood, Sc. Most of the men that attended my Bible study were men in prison for failure to pay child support. And get this; if a woman tells you she is using birth control and isn’t, if you get her pregnant she can still sue you for child support!

b. The fact that women complain of how often the men don’t pay shows that women are not qualified to chose their lovers.

2. Breast cancer receives much more research funding and publicity than prostate cancer despite similar number of victims.[18]

3. Men commit suicide over 3 times the rate women do.[19]

4. “Across the industrialized world, women still live 5 to 10 years longer than men. Among people over 100 years old, 85% are women”.[20]

5. “Males were nearly 4 times more likely than females to be murdered in 2008”.[21]

6. Women spend the most money in America:

“Female shopping trips are most important to the mass merchandiser and dollar store channels, while male shopping trips are of greater relative importance within convenience/gas, grocery and warehouse club outlets. Women spend more money per trip than men in all of the channels examined, but in many channels, the differences between the sexes are not as great as one might expect. Nevertheless, spending differences do indicate that women drive the larger stock-up or planned trips as they outspend males by $14.31 per trip in supercenters and by $10.32 per trip in grocery stores.”[22]

7. It has been my life experience that women are far more competitive with each other than men are with men and when given power have shown themselves just as bloodthirsty if not more bloodthirsty and warlike than men. My fathers come from England. One of the reasons my Fathers left England was religious persecution. One of the most famous persecutors was Bloody Mary. She killed hundreds of Protestants by burning them alive for their religious beliefs. Queen Isabella engaged in War with Portugal and enabled the conquest of North America via Christopher Columbus. In recent years Margaret Thatcher, the “Iron Lady” engaged in the Falklands War.

White Men In Protestant Countries Have Made All Of The Most Significant Accomplishments Even After The Liberation And Higher Education Of Women

In the Fourth Session of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent we Read,

“DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS

Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,–thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,–print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author’s name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed; and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned.”[23]

Here we see that it was the Protestant demand for Bibles that opened the Freedom of the Press in the West. Subsequently, the Treaty of Westphalia which ended the failed Catholic War of Protestant Annihilation, The Thirty Years War, is, in defiance of the local University’s denial of facts, the true end of Catholic dominance in Europe and thus the true end of the middle ages, introducing the modern period.

At this point the Protestant Nations exploded with Scholarship, Culture, Literature, Art, and Science, created the highest Civilizations that have ever existed and have dominated the world since. The reason why this was possible is because the Protestant Reformation opened the press, which gave the Bible to the people and thus raised the people’s morals and the Protestant Governments allowed freedom of thought and invention.

England had already entered their Protestant Golden Age with blessed Elizabeth, which produced Sir William Shakespeare but picking right up from Westphalia is the production of one of the greatest minds to ever exist, Sir Isaac Newton.  Protestant Germany produced the great Lutheran Johann Sebastian Bach. The Protestant Dutch enter their Golden Age with Rembrandt (His Father was Dutch Reformed). The Protestant Presbyterian Scottish produced Adam Smith who invented modern Economics and James Watt who invented the Steam Engine.

In grievous pain the modern Feminist will look upon this horrifying period of History and complain that there are no women participating in all this glory because they were being systemically suppressed by the evil white man. In reply I would simply ask the reader to consider the technological accomplishments that have taken place since women began to receive Professional Education in the mid 19th Century.

The following is taken from Technology A World History by Daniel Headrick published by Oxford University Press, 2009 where we see a list of the most significant inventions since the mid 19th century. The text says on page 138,

“Almost all technologies introduced since World War II originated in the United States, Germany, Great Britain or the Soviet Union.”

1. Beginning in the 1860s, William Kelly of Kentucky as well as Henry Bessemer (Englishman) and Sidney Gilchrist Thomas (Englishman) invented the methods used to produce enough Steel to enable industrial mass production.[24]

2. Italian Alessandro Volta invented the battery.[25]

3. German Ernst Werner Siemens and the Belgian Zenobe Gramme invented dynamos to generate electricity.[26]

4. Englishman Joseph Swan and American Thomas Edison in 1878-1879 invented the light bulb.[27]

5. Edison built a generating plant and an entire system of wires, switches, fuses and meters to light an entire building in Manhattan.[28]

6. Scottish Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone in 1876.[29]

7. In the 1890s Nicola Tesla (Serbian but Accomplished in America) and American George Westinghouse introduced AC or Alternating Current.[30]

8. Swedish Alfred Nobel produced Dynamite in 1866.[31]

9. German Heinrich Hertz discovered electromagnetic waves other than light.[32]

10. In 1895 the German Wilhelm Roentgen discovered X-Rays.[33]

11. In 1895 Italian Guglielmo Marconi discovered “that electromagnetic waves could be used to transmit information…By 1899 he succeeded in sending a signal across the English Channel and two years later across the Atlantic Ocean.”[34]

12. In 1859 the first internal combustion engine was invented by Frenchman Etienne Lenoir.[35]

13. In 1883 German Karl Benz invented an internal combustion Engine that would operate in a vehicle.[36]

14. In 1896 American Henry Ford began to perfect the manufacture of the new Automobile, the Model T in 1908.[37]

15. In 1892 German Rudolph Diesel invented the Diesel Engine.[38]

16. In the early 20th century German Ferdinand von Zeppelin began to manufacture airships that were frequently used in Germany until the Hindenburg crashed in 1937.[39]

17. In 1903 the American Wright Brothers invented the first airplane.[40]

18. In 1945 Jewish American J. Robert Oppenheimer and his team built the first atom bomb.

19. In 1939 German Hans von Ohain built the first jet engine.[41]

20. German Konrad Zuse built the first digital computer. Englishman Max Newman, and American Howard Aiken made considerable additions.[42]

21. Americans John Mauchly and J. Presper Eckert invented the first calculator.[43]

22. The first rocket was invented by German Werner von Braun.[44]

23. In 1928 Englishman Alexander Fleming invented antibiotics.

24. The Russians invented the first Nuclear Power plant in 1954 “followed by Calder Hall, Britain, in 1956”.[45]

25. In 1957 the Russians[46] led by Sergei Korolev invented Sputnik.

26. In 1961 Russian Yuri Gagarin was the first cosmonaut.[47]

27. “In 1947-1948, Walter Brattain, William Shockley, and John Barden…created the first transistor”.[48]

28. The Television was invented by the Scottish man John Baird. (The invention not the name was mentioned in the referenced Book)

29. In 1975 Stephen Wozniak and Steve Jobs “assembled their first computer circuit boards”.[49]

30. In 1981 IBM purchased an operating system from a small software firm called Microsoft founded by Bill Gates and Paul Allen.[50]

31. In 1989 Englishman Tim Berners created the World Wide Web.[51]

32. In 1953 James Watson and Francis Crick “came up with the double-helix model of deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA.”[52]

33. In the 1950s the first Genetically Modified plant was invented by American Norman Borlaug.[53]

100% men! And as a rule we are looking at white men from Protestant Countries. Not one woman is mentioned in this volume as having accomplished anything in the realm of civilization since her supposed liberation. Most of these men did all these things when the Patriarchal Protestant Religion absolutely dominated the lives of men here and elsewhere in Europe and the British Isles. These men were generally raised up in homes where they were disciplined, the Fathers ruled the house, and the Bible was taught to them from their childhood. When you look at their pictures, you see men, with intense looks about their faces and they are dressed like Professionals. This was the manhood of possibly the greatest Gentile generations in world history. Today things are much different. These are the cultural archetypes that I have grown up with in this country:

pothead

Justin Bieber spends time in Hollywood

punkpic

sports pic

All of these archetypes, the wigger, the pothead, the punk-grunge and the sports-fan are all distinct modes of the same psychological nihilism that permeates the minds of the youth here in America. These young people have been taught to hate their fathers, to hate their family’s religion, to hate their history, and to firmly believe that things were never better in the past. The previous generation was raised to rule; the present generation is being raised to serve as subjects and political slaves.

Pause

Thus, if women do not pull equal weight, if they do not have equal contributions to civilization, and if they do not have equal responsibilities in a society, as they don’t and never will, even in secular terms, they should not enjoy equal, privileges and franchise.

Luk 12:48 From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

Moreover, these women have shown themselves incapable of choosing a qualified mate and raising a family as they have murdered over 50 million of their own children since  Roe v. Wade.

The Sexual Revolution Was Based on Lies, Rape and Torture

Before the sexual revolution our country was an extraordinarily moral people being ruled by a Government that upheld many Biblical laws concerning sexual practice.  Drs. Phyllis and Eberhard Kronhausen, state in a survey they conducted, Sex Histories of American College Men, (Ballantine Books, New York, 1960), p. 219,[54]

 “sex without love seemed utterly unethical. Some of them did not even think it right to kiss a girl unless they were “in love…In the college group as a whole one still finds considerable resistance toward premarital intercourse…premarital intercourse is considered highly objectionable for reasons which are primarily derived from religious tenets and beliefs and… overvaluation of virginity with particular respect to the female. This overvaluation of female virginity also prevails in the lower educational groups but there it is apparently not taken quite as seriously as in the upper educational groups…. [I]t remains a fact that this group engages in relatively little premarital sexual intercourse….

The average modern college man is apt to say that he considers intercourse “too precious” to have with anyone except the girl he expects to marry and may actually abstain from all intercourse for that reason.”

This is completely contradictory to the modern Atheist and modern Christian theories of man that the world always has been a degenerate corrupt and perverted place and that no philosophy whatever, will ever make things better.

Due to the fraudulent data of Alfred Kinsey (Which will be proved later) men like Morris Ernst and David Loth argued in their American Sexual Behavior and the Kinsey Report  pages 126-131 that these Biblical laws should be abrogated.

These changes were to be found in the Model Penal Code. Dr. Reisman states,

“According to Kinsey’s authorized biographer, Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy, ‘The American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code of 1955 is virtually a Kinsey document…. At one point Kinsey is cited six times in twelve pages.”[55]

“Morris Ploscowe, one of the Model Penal Code’s principal authors, argued–based on Kinsey’s findings–that “When a total clean-up of sex offenders is demanded, it is in effect a proposal to put 95 percent of the male population in jail…. Of the total male population 85 per cent has had pre-marital intercourse….” Ploscowe introduced to the legal profession what Kinsey had certainly envisioned:

One of the conclusions of the Kinsey report is that the sex offender is not a monsterbut an individual who is not very different from others in his social group, and that his behavior is similar to theirs. The only difference is that others in the offender’s social group have not been apprehended. This recognition that there is nothing very shocking or abnormal in the sex offender’s behavior should lead to other changes in sex legislation…. In the first place, it should lead to a downward revision of the penalties presently imposed on sex offenders.”[56]

Today, The Kinsey Institute promotes,

“XIII World Congress of Sexology Valencia Declaration on Sexual Rights…

We hereby urge that societies create the conditions to satisfy the needs for the full development of the individual and respect the following SEXUAL RIGHTS:

3. The right to sexual equity and equality. This refers to freedom from all forms of discrimination, paying due respect to sexual diversity, regardless of sex, gender, age, race, social class, religion and sexual orientation. …

7.The right to associate freely. This means the possibility to marry or not, to divorce, and to establish other types of sexual associations.”

Are these statements suggesting the future legality of pedophilia?

Reisman states,

“In summary, the four 1948 Kinsey books, (1) Sex Habits of American Men: A Symposium on the Kinsey Report; (2) The Ethics of Sexual Acts; (3) About the Kinsey Report; and (4) American Sexual Behavior and the Kinsey Report; all say “thank you” to Kinsey for his legal aid in “educating juries and judges.” The statement often repeated by Indiana University, Kinsey’s employer, that Kinsey’s “findings” were embargoed to media and scholars-at-large is refuted by these four complex books, released within a very few months of Kinsey’s 1948 volume. Although he did not want to do so, Kinsey was expected to write the Female volume instead of his tome calling for a repeal of sex laws. However, these four books by legal and social science elitists launched the legal revolution better than Kinsey could have done himself as a mere zoologist. They, as academics, legal experts and scholars, spoke for Kinsey.”[57]

Roe v. Wade cites Kinsey’s work via the Model Penal Code. Linda Jeffrey, Ed.D. and Colonel Ronald D. Ray, J.D, state in their work A History of the American Law Institutes Model Penal Code,

“As 21st Century readers well know, when challenging American law, who the judge is has become more important than what the law says. It is no coincidence that obscenity laws were being rewritten and a newly created zone of privacy was being established as a precedent to argue for the killing of the unborn. Here are some interesting facts discovered while researching the seven supreme Court Justices who agreed with Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton on January 22, 1973—Harry Blackmun, (author of the opinion), Potter Stewart, William Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, Warren Burger, and Lewis Powell, and a few others who directly influenced their decisions.

Thomas Clark retired from the supreme Court in 1967, citing a conflict of interest with his son Ramsey Clark, who was appointed Attorney General. However, by the time Roe was decided in 1973, his vote was already cast in the abortion debate, with the publication of his article, “Religion, Morality, and Abortion: A Constitutional Appraisal,” in the Loyola University Law Review in 1969, which was cited by Blackmun in the Roe v. Wade opinion. Clark’s stalwart hostility toward Christianity was recorded in the supreme Court opinion he wrote, Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), which removed prayer and Bible reading from government schools.”[58]

This citation can be read in Footnote 37 of Roe v. Wade – 410 U.S. 113 (1973).[59]

Roe V. Wade, Footnote 37, 

“Fourteen States have adopted some form of the ALI statute. See Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 41-303 to 41-310 (Supp. 1971); Calif.Health & Safety Code §§ 25950-25955.5 (Supp. 1972); Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 40-2-50 to 40-2-53 (Cum.Supp. 1967); Del.Code Ann., Tit. 24, §§ 1790-1793 (Supp. 1972); Florida Law of Apr. 13, 1972, c. 72-196, 1972 Fla.Sess.Law Serv., pp. 380-382; Ga.Code §§ 26-1201 to 26-1203 (1972); Kan.Stat.Ann. § 21-3407 (Supp. 1971); Md.Ann.Code, Art. 43, §§ 137-139 (1971); Miss.Code Ann. § 2223 (Supp. 1972); N.M.Stat.Ann. §§ 40A-5-1 to 40A-5-3 (1972); N.C.Gen.Stat. § 14-45.1 (Supp. 1971); Ore.Rev.Stat. §§ 435.405 to 435.495 (1971); S.C.Code Ann. §§ 16-82 to 16-89 (1962 and Supp. 1971); Va.Code Ann. §§ 18.1-62 to 18.1-62.3 (Supp. 1972). Mr. Justice Clark described some of these States as having “led the way.” Religion, Morality, and Abortion: A Constitutional Appraisal, 2 Loyola U. (L.A.) L.Rev. 1, 11 (1969).”

The actual article can be read here:

http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=llr

where we see Mr. Clark, being enabled by the Jesuit School of Loyola to argue for the reception of new abortion laws which ultimately succeeded.

The Lies

The Kinsey Institute states,

“Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953) reported that: 37% of males and 13% of females had at least some overt homosexual experience to orgasm; 10% of males were more or less exclusively homosexual and 8% of males were exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55. For females, Kinsey reported a range of 2-6% for more or less exclusively homosexual experience/response. 4% of males and 1-3% of females had been exclusively homosexual after the onset of adolescence up to the time of the interview. Kinsey devised a classification scheme to measure sexual orientation. It is commonly known as the Kinsey Scale”.[60]

“69% of white males have had at least one experience with a prostitute”[61]

“Males: Kinsey estimated that approximately 50% of all married males had some extramarital experience at some time during their married lives (p. 585, 587, Male).”[62]

“Extramarital Sex Incidence

Males: Kinsey estimated that approximately 50% of all married males had some extramarital experience at some time during their married lives (p. 585, 587, Male).

Females: Among the sample, 26% of females had had extramarital sex by their forties. Between 1 in 6 and 1 in 10 females from age 26 to 50 were engaged in extramarital sex, (p. 416, Female).”

“Premarital Sex

Occurs in:

Males: 67-98%, depending on socioeconomic level. 68% by age 18 had experienced premarital coitus, (p. 549-52, and Table 136, p. 550, Male).

Females: about 50%, (p. 286, and Table 75, p. 333 and Table 79, p. 337, Female).”[63]

Dr. Reisman retorts,

“Among the 62 groups for which Kinsey claimed to have collected 100 percent samples, Terman counted “four delinquent groups, two penal groups, and one group in a ‘mental’ institution… three classes of junior high school students… three rooming-house groups, two groups of conscientious objectors and a group of hitchhikers.” He notes that “it is unlikely that[these men were] representative of the U.S.”[64]

thelies1

Paul Gebhard admits in the documentary One in Ten: The Kinsey Percentage by Madelene Pretorius, Manhattan Center Studios, around the 21 minute mark that 55% of the less than college-educated male sample were prisoners.[65]

This sophistry also plays a role in the abortion data in Volume 3.  In the Female Volume, page 53, Kinsey defined a married woman as a woman who had merely cohabitated with a man for at least a year. That would not have been representative of the US population’s idea of marriage. Now to Volume 3:

On page xi we see that the data of the Kinsey Institute was of “immediate importance” to the participants of a Planned Parenthood Conference in 1955, and on page xiii that Kinsey’s work was the Foundation for Volume 3 of the Kinsey Institute and Gebhard reminds us of “the debt science and society in general owe to Dr. Kinsey”. On page 14 we read that the sample from which data was received by the Kinsey institute was a highly irregular sample. It states that the women involved in this study were, “made up of persons who had some interest in, and comprehended the value of, sex research”. Most American women at this time would not have been interested in divulging their most intimate sexual experiences with total strangers. On page 16 we read that 58 per cent of his sample were unmarried and “of those who did marry, a relatively large number were subsequently separated, divorced, or widowed” along with many common law marriages.  Yet at this time “Eighty-two percent of the female population in 1950 was married (out of non-widows between the ages of 18 and 64)”.[66]

Thus, the Kinsey data is the foundation for the modern Abortion movement and that data given by the Kinsey institute is clearly skewed. We are then faced with a huge conspiracy.

The Rape and Torture

In the male Volume, page 161 Kinsey stated that sobbing, groaning, crying, fainting, fear, pain and collapsing were a part of an orgasm, indicating evidence of rape and of Kinsey’s pedophile and/or sadomasochist tendencies as if that had happened to himself. Kinsey states that the subject will

“fight away from the partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax”.

Sounds like rape does it not?

Page 177 states that Kinsey employed 9 adult male subjects to calculate the data from such experiences. On page 180 we see that a child had 26 orgasms in 24 hours evidencing clear torture!

In the Female Volume, page 53 we see that the Kinsey group defined a married woman as a woman who had cohabitated with a man for at least a year. This was clearly a misrepresentation of what marriage meant to the US population in the mid 20th century. On page 83 we see that the Kinsey group prepared these pedophile rapists to calculate their activities and on page 84 that they were

“urged to write us for instructions.”

Page 86 and 88 admits that their data was based, at least in part, on the activities of prison inmates.

Secret History was a long-running British television documentary series. In Secret History: Kinsey’s Paedophiles in their interview with Paul Gebhard, Gebhard admits at the 31-33 minute mark,

That was rather easy. We got them in prisons, a lot of them…. We’d go after them…. Then there was also a paedophile organization in this country… not incarcerated…they cooperated… You had one in Britain… a British paedophile organization.”[67]

Gebhard admits, November 2, 1992, in his telephone interview with J. Gordon Muir, M.D., that the persons doing the timing were “parents at our suggestion”! Then immediately admits to suggesting the same thing to “nursery school personnel”. J. Gordon Muir, M.D., asked Gebhard how the experimenters and observers just happened to have stopwatches to so accurately record the exact time these children were orgasmic. Gebhard says,

“they do if  that we tell them that we’re interested in it.”[68]

The Kinsey Institute acknowledged the allegations made also by Esther White,

“The ‘Esther White’ allegations: In a British documentary, from 1998, a woman says she was sexually abused by her father and grandfather, and that her father justified it as doing research for Alfred Kinsey by filling out questionnaires, and claimed he was paid by Kinsey for abusing his daughter.”[69]

In Secret History: Kinsey’s Paedophiles’ (1998) director, Tim Tate stated that Esther White and her mother swore a Statutory Declaration that what they said was true before White was interviewed for the documentary. [70]

Is it then any surprise that our laws have been changed to protect sexual predators at the expense of women and children?

The University of Kentucky’s Center for Research on Violence Against Women’s Top ten things advocates need to know article states that,

“A national study estimates only 37% of reported rapes are prosecuted”

and of those only

“18% of prosecuted rape cases end in a conviction”![71]

And guess what? Atheist apologists and modern young people will blame God for all of this! Yet Yahowah revealed to man sexual laws and principles and ordained institutions that this country generally followed until 50 years ago and these laws produced a very moral society as has been proved. This country, following Ernst and Loth, rejected Yahowah’s laws and principles and opened the gates of hell upon themselves, (and folks these sexual issues are only the beginning) and then they have the nerve to turn around and blame God!? Unbelievable! Reader if you ever come across a young person or a Feminist who is bitter at God for some terrible thing that has happened in their past, do not let them manipulate you! Ask them some basic questions:

1. Do you believe that the slavery institution is a sin?

2. Do you believe in racial equality?

3. Do you believe in gender equality?

4. Do you believe that people are free to think and act as they please as long as they don’t physically harm someone else?

If yes, then all of this chaos that you are living in is your Reconstruction Fantasy come true, and you have no one to blame but yourself! This is what you wanted! You are getting exactly what you deserve!

Isa. 3:10 Say to the righteous that it will go well with them, For they will eat the fruit of their actions. 11 Woe to the wicked! It will go badly with him, For what he deserves will be done to him.

The Disastrous Effects of Women’s Suffrage and Sexual “Liberation”

In 1962 Hugh Heffner published The Playboy Philosophy. In it he cites Kinsey’s work numerous times to justify the need for his explicit literature. [72] Thus, Kinsey’s work is the basis for the modern Pornography industry and if it can be proven, which it will in a moment, that there is a correlation between modern pornography and the sex trafficking industry, the basis for the modern sex slave trade. Reisman catalogs the change:

reismancatalog1

reismancatalog2

reismancatalog3

reismancatalog4

Here then is the plague of modern man’s wisdom. Nambla even roots itself in Kinsey’s work.[73]

Statutes like Jessica’s law, the Adam Walsh Act, Carlie’s Law, the Amber Alert, Megan’s Law and the Jimmy Ryce Act all testify to the cruel, merciless and deviant nature of Reconstructed America today. Just do a Google search on Sex offenders in your local neighborhood and you will be shocked and what we have become.  California Law Firm Estey & Bomberger’s website Child Molestation & Sexual Abuse Statistics states,

“The number of victims of childhood sexual abuse and molestation grows each year. This horrific crime is directly tied to the growth of pornography on the Internet. Studies conducted by the FBI have shown that pornography is extremely influential in the actions of sex offenders and serial murders. Further, statistics show that 90 percent of the predators who molest children have had some type of involvement with pornography. According to Charles Keating of Citizens for Decency Through Law, research reveals that 77% of child molesters of boys and 87% of child molesters of girls admitted imitating the sexual behavior they had seen in pornography they had watched.  Roughly 33% of girls and 14% of boys are molested before the age of 18, according to the U.S. Justice Department. Nearly 2/3 of all sexual assaults reported involved minors and roughly 1/3 involved children under the age of 12. In most cases, however, child molestation goes unreported. Estimates are that only 35% of sexual abuse is reported. Kids can be frightened or embarrassed and many times do not say anything.”[74]

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Trends in Reportable Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the United States, 2007, National Surveillance Data for Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, and Syphilis, in the United States,

“19 million new infections occur each year”.[75]

According to the New York Times, Health Guide,

“Current trends project that 1 in 3 American women will be sexually assaulted at some point during her life.”[76]

The FBI estimates that 300, 000 young people are sex slaves in the US.[77]

According to the Trafficking in Persons Report, U.S. Department of State,

“It is estimated that as many as 27 million men, women, and children around the world are victims of what is now often described with the umbrella term “human trafficking.”[78]

And who are the people buying these sex slaves? Mostly men addicted to hard core porn as we saw above from Estey & Bomberger.

When exploiting one of these sex slaves, the predator will tape it and make a porno out of it.  According to the European Online Grooming Project, March 2012 Final Report – Executive Summary, which deals with sexual abuse via the internet,

“The relative ease in which illegal content could be sourced was an important maintaining feature – some [Sexual predators, a.k.a. “online groomers”-DS] talked about viewing pornography and indecent images as a normal part of their life.  The scale of indecent material  available online also had a  bearing on some behaviours – with so much material online to view, groomers do not feel isolated or ‘different’ viewing the content.”[79]

Again, according to the European Online Grooming Project,

“As well as maintaining or supporting online sexual offending, for some online groomers viewing adult pornography and indecent images of children was discussed as having a role in escalating deviant behaviour by:

o Saturation: some men did not become so easily aroused when masturbating to a particular type of image. Consequently they moved from images they saw as mild to material that was ever more explicit and thus arousing again.

o Denial of harm to child: the features of some images were focused on to justify and

continue offending, such as those showing the young person smiling.

o Fantasy:  indecent images helped ‘bring to life’ the young person being groomed online. For example, one participant talked about asking a young person to describe themselves in detail so he could quickly match that description to an indecent image. The image was then used during masturbation whilst concurrently chatting to the young person.

o Demand fuelling status: as well as meeting individual needs, there was also kudos and credibility in being a provider of indecent image material. In turn, this made some individuals feel important and so want to create and share more images of abuse…”[80]

According to the OECD Family Database, SF2.4: Share of births out of wedlock and teenage births, the United States has a 40% illegitimacy rate! [81]

According to Legal Momentum, The Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund, Single Motherhood in the United States  – A Snapshot (2012), half of American mothers will spend some time as the single custodian of a child![82] HALF!!!!!!

The pill was First made legal here in 1960 but Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), a United States Supreme Court case, established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married couples and thus, by implication, the right of unmarried couples to engage in nonprocreative sexual intercourse. The children produced from these selfish relationships are generally unwanted. According to the Guttmacher Institute, Facts on Induced Abortion In the United States, 53 million abortions have been performed in America since Roe V. Wade, AND OVER 1 MILLION ARE MURDERED EACH YEAR! [83]

This genocide is unforgivable and the Politicians, doctors, nurses, educators and activists who have performed or advocated for this evil should be given a Dilation and Evacuation.[84] As they have done so shall it be done to them. Their penalty should be death by torture. They should be ripped limb from limb with a “grasping instrument (forceps)…to grasp larger pieces of tissue” just as they advocated be done to tens of millions of infant children.

Exo. 21: 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

And yet we are to believe that in traditional marriage people are abused!!!!! Isn’t that just precious?  Margret Sanger developed the pill to liberate women from the “tyranny” of pregnancy.  Once sex was disconnected with pregnancy, the old bargain, sex for marriage (physical and emotional stability for life long companionship) collapsed. What then have women left to offer?  Not only do they have nothing to offer in exchange for life-long companionship, the fact that women now have sex with so many men, drives men even further from committing to a woman many of his friends have already had sex with. This leaves these “liberated” women mostly single as they ascend into their later years, bitter, and alone. I have taken a survey of the middle to later aged women at my work and most of them are single and of course we have plenty of single “baby-mamas”.

The problem is even worse in the Christian Church. I never had to play an emotional chess game with a woman until I became a Christian. For all their sins the pagan women that I grew up with as a pagan myself , though definitely affected by Feminism,  generally acknowledged male supremacy and lived to find a man and  never engaged in any form of class warfare.  That is, I never found myself engaged in a competition of emotional supremacy, at the beginning of an attraction, until I met a Christian woman. These women are so drunk with their own sense of moral supremacy it baffles the mind.  Not only do they not believe that the woman was made for the man (1 Cor. 11:9), they view men as the great burden on humanity, full of sexual perversions and grotesque dependencies. She thinks to herself, “He is only showing interest in me because he is weak. He wears his dependencies on his sleeve. I will have my foot on his neck in no time.” These women are the great conquerors in the world, always on a moral crusade to supplant the world to their pietistic extra-biblical principles of abolition morality where they proclaim themselves to be more holy than Yahowah himself. These women are the immediate source of all the class warfare in this Country. And gentlemen, do not be fooled by their outward display of  modesty with their long dresses or even their head-coverings. They are not wearing those things to show their openness to meet the needs of the men they were created to serve. Because of this we know they are not wearing them to glorify Yahowah. They are wearing them to feed their seething pride and they are simply using this as an angle to further show their moral supremacy over the men they condescend to on a weekly basis.

Feminist women will demand that these terrible social consequences are the inevitable results of equality. That is true, and the Christian Pastors, in their fear and cowardess refuse to face the root issue. Men and women are not equal and they never will be.

The Bible’s Teaching on Gender Relations

Supremacy and Subordination

Principles of supremacy and subordination are ultimately grounded in the relationship between the Father and the Son. Like nature does not imply absolute equality.

John 14:28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Here then I catalog a series of Early Fathers on the interpretation of John 14:28 affirming an ontological subordination that pertains not to a denial of homoousios but an affirmation of the Father’s hypostatic Monarchy and the Son’s subordination to the Father as his source and origin:

Alexander of Alexandria, Epistles on Arianism and the Deposition of Arius 1.12

“That He is equally with the Father unchangeable and immutable, wanting in nothing, and the perfect Son, and like to the Father, we have learned; in this alone is He inferior to the Father, that He is not unbegotten. For He is the very exact image of the Father, and in nothing differing from Him. For it is clear that He is the image fully containing all things by which the greatest similitude is declared, as the Lord Himself has taught us, when He says, My Father is greater than I. John 14:28 And according to this we believe that the Son is of the Father, always existing. For He is the brightness of His glory, the express image of His Father’s person.”

Athanasius, Discourse 1 Against the Arians. 58,

“But since he has here expressly written it, and, as has been above shown, the Son is Offspring of the Father’s essence, and He is Framer, and other things are framed by Him, and He is the Radiance and Word and Image and Wisdom of the Father, and things originate stand and serve in their place below the Triad, therefore the Son is different in kind and different in essence from things originate, and on the contrary is proper to the Father’s essence and one in nature with it. And hence it is that the Son too says not, ‘My Father is better than I John 14:28,’ lest we should conceive Him to be foreign to His Nature, but ‘greater,’ not indeed in greatness, nor in time, but because of His generation from the Father Himself , nay, in saying ‘greater’ He again shows that He is proper to His essence.”

Eusebius of Caesarea to Euphration of Balanea

“(2.) For the Son of God himself, who quite clearly knows all things, knows that he is different from, less, and inferior to the Father, and with full piety also teaches us this when he says, “The Father who sent me is greater than me” [John 14:28].”

Gregory Nazianzen, Fourth Theological Oration (Oration 30),

“VII. As your third point you count the Word Greater; and as your fourth, To My God and your God. And indeed, if He had been called greater, and the word equal had not occurred, this might perhaps have been a point in their favour. But if we find both words clearly used what will these gentlemen have to say? How will it strengthen their argument? How will they reconcile the irreconcilable? For that the same thing should be at once greater than and equal to the same thing is an impossibility; and the evident solution is that the Greater refers to origination, while the Equal belongs to the Nature; and this we acknowledge with much good will. But perhaps some one else will back up our attack on your argument, and assert, that That which is from such a Cause is not inferior to that which has no Cause; for it would share the glory of the Unoriginate, because it is from the Unoriginate. And there is, besides, the Generation, which is to all men a matter so marvellous and of such Majesty. For to say that he is greater than the Son considered as man, is true indeed, but is no great thing. For what marvel is it if God is greater than man? Surely that is enough to say in answer to their talk about Greater.”

Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John (Book II).6

“Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage also, through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this be but the Father?”

(Book VI).23

“or the Father who sent Him, He who is theGod of the living as Jesus Himself testifies, of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, and He who is greater than heaven and earth for the reason that He is the Maker of them, He also alone is good and is greater than He who was sent by Him.”

On Origen: Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787),

“The Father is called by Origen ho theos, the God, while the Son is simply theos, God by participation and sharing in the Father’s divinity. The Father is in consequence greater than the Son, for as Christ said, ‘The Father is greater than I,’ and the Son is in turn greater than the Holy Spirit.” (pg. 49)

Hilary of Poitiers, On the Councils, or, De Synodis or On the Councils, The Faith of the Easterns (Schaff, NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS VOLUME IX),

“11…For it is plain that only the Father knows how He begot the Son, and the Son how He was begotten of the Father. There is no question that the Father is greater. No one can doubt that the Father is greater than the Son in honour, dignity, splendour, majesty, and in the very name of Father, the Son Himself testifying, He that sent Me is greater than I. And no one is ignorant that it is Catholic doctrine that there are two Persons of Father and Son; and that the Father is greater, and that the Son is subordinated to the Father, together with all things which the Father has subordinated to Him, and that the Father has no beginning and is invisible, immortal and impassible, but that the Son has been begotten of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, and that the generation of this Son, as is aforesaid, no one knows but His Father.”

Bishop Bull in his A Defence of the Nicene Creed catalogs many passages from the Pre-Nicene and Nicene fathers affirming the subordination of the Son to the Father’s Monarchy beginning on page 627. By the way, I do not affirm subordination at the level of nature but of hypostasis.

Mark Xu also offered a catalog of Fathers who deny auto-theos and subordinate the Son to the Father here:

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/a-response-to-sean-geretys-going-beyond-what-is-written-by-mark-xu/

And of course David Waltz has provided a catalog to the same effect here:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/03/some-subordinationism-in-justin.html

and here:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/search/label/Subordinationism

Here are some more that Mark Xu gave me:

Eusibius the Historian

“The living Logos who was, in the beginning, God by the side of the Father, the first and only offspring visible and invisible, the captain of the spiritual and immortal host of heaven, the angel of great counsel, the fabricator of all things along with the Father, the true and only begotten child of God, the Lord and God and King of all begotten, who has received lordship and might, together with DEITY ITSELF, and power and honor FROM THE FATHER, according to the mysterious ascription of divinity to him in the Scripture, “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God, all things were through him, and without him was no single thing.”

Ecclesiastical History Lib I, iiLeob Classical Library, Eusebius Vol. I Page 18 Kirsopp Lake

Origen

“But suppose there should be some among the multitude of Believers, who must therefore be capable of difference in Opinion, who, out of rashness should suppose that our Saviour is the God over all: However, we are not to be charged with that notion, who assent to his own words, when he say, The Father which sent me is greater than I.(Contra Cels. Lib VIII Chap. 14)”

St. Irenaeus

“But when we hold to the Rule of truth, that is, that there is ONE GOD ALMIGHTY, who created all things by his Word. He who made the World; for the World consist of all things: He who formed Man: He who is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: Superior to whom there is not any other God, or Principle, or Virtue, or plenitude, ****THIS IS THE FATHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. ***UNUS DEUS OMNIPOTENS **** HIC PATER DOMINI NOSTRI JESU CHRISTI****

Lib I, C 22 (New Advent) C19 (Old version)

We have already declared, that those who were preachers of truth, and the Apostles of liberty, called no other being God, or named any other being Lord, but the *****ONLY TRUE GOD THE FATHER*****, and his WORD, who in all things has the pre-eminence.******NISI SOLUM VERUM DEUM PATREM*****

Lib III, C 15 (New Advent) C 16 (Old version)

Justin the Maytr

We are not therefore Atheists while we worship the creator of the universe. Also we will farther demonstrate, that we do with good reason Honor and esteem him in the second place, who has been our master, in teaching us these things ,as knowing him to be the Son of him that is REALLY GOD; and the prophetic spirit in the THIRD   PLACE.

Apol I. 13

But that we are to worship GOD alone he has thus persuaded us, saying, The greatest Commandment is this, thou shalt worship the LORD THY GOD, and him only shalt thou serve, with all thy heart, and with all thy might, even the Lord God that made thee. And when one came to Him and said, Good master, he answered, saying, There is none Good but God alone, who made all things.

Apol I. 16

For next after GOD we adore and love that *****Word which is derived from the unbegotten and inessable GOD.”

Apol II. 13

Paul Makes The Same Argument That The Subordination Of Women Is Not Arbitrary But Ontologically Based In Their Origin In Man Just Like The Son’s Subordination To The Father

1 Tim 2:11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

1 Cor. 11: 3: “The head of the woman is the man.”

1 Cor. 14:34: ” Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.”

Eph. 5:22-24: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord, for the husband is the Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.”

1 Tim. 2: 11-12: “Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence”

1 Tim. 5:14: “I will, therefore, that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”

Titus, 2: 4-5: “That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

1 Pet. 3: 1, 5, 6: “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, that if any obey not the word they also without the word may be won by the conversation of the wives; for after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.”

Gen. 3:16 To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”

Num. 30: 1 Then Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the sons of Israel, saying, “This is the word which the Lord has commanded. 2 If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth. 3 “Also if a woman makes a vow to the Lord, and binds herself by an obligation in her father’s house in her youth, 4 and her father hears her vow and her obligation by which she has bound herself, and her father says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand and every obligation by which she has bound herself shall stand. 5 But if her father should forbid her on the day he hears of it, none of her vows or her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the Lord will forgive her because her father had forbidden her.6 “However, if she should marry while under her vows or the rash statement of her lips by which she has bound herself,7 and her husband hears of it and says nothing to her on the day he hears it, then her vows shall stand and her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand. 8 But if on the day her husband hears of it, he forbids her, then he shall annul her vow which she is under and the rash statement of her lips by which she has bound herself; and the Lord will forgive her. 9 “But the vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, everything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her.10 However, if she vowed in her husband’s house, or bound herself by an obligation with an oath, 11 and her husband heard it, but said nothing to her and did not forbid her, then all her vows shall stand and every obligation by which she bound herself shall stand. 12 But if her husband indeed annuls them on the day he hears them, then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows or concerning the obligation of herself shall not stand; her husband has annulled them, and the Lord will forgive her. 13 “Every vow and every binding oath to humble herself, her husband may confirm it or her husband may annul it. 14 But if her husband indeed says nothing to her from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or all her obligations which are on her; he has confirmed them, because he said nothing to her on the day he heard them. 15 But if he indeed annuls them after he has heard them, then he shall bear her guilt.”

Men have a superiority over all women with reference to privileges and franchise. Men are the ones who have their blood shed and their bodies broken for the maintaining of civilization and men are the ones who have and continue to invent the most important devices in modern technology. Thus, the rule that Scripture sets down is in front of us on a daily basis and only pathological liars, devoted to the downfall of the Protestant Reformation, deny it.

Head Coverings

1 Cor. 11:1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. 

Head Coverings in Public Worship by Brian Schwertley states,

“The contrast that Paul sets up between men and women in v. 5 is even clearer than v. 4. Here the apostle uses the phrase “having her head uncovered” or literally “unveiled.” The Greek word in all its various forms used throughout this section (e.g., v. 5, akatakalupto- “unveiled”; v. 6, ou katakaluptetai- “is not veiled”; v. 6, katakaluptestho- “let her be veiled”; v. 7, ouk opheilei katakaluptesthai- “ought not to be veiled”; v. 13, akatakalupton- “unveiled”) clearly refers to a cloth covering or veil.

This interpretation is supported by the Septuagint (i.e., the Greek translation of the Old Testament completed in 247 B. C.), which used the various forms of katakalupte to describe a fabric of cloth covering. In Geneses 38:4-15 the same word (ekalupisato , katekalupato) is used to describe Tamar covering herself with a veil. It is obvious that it does not refer to a hair covering. In Isaiah 47:2-3 we read: “Take the millstones and grind meal. Remove your veil (apokilupsai to katakalumma), take off the skirt (anakalupsai tas polias)…. Your nakedness shall be uncovered (anakaluphthesetai). Once again the covering is cloth or fabric.

The word akaluptos or covering is derived from the word kalumma, which means a veil. Regarding kalumma Greg Price writes: “This word is used some eighteen times in the Greek Old Testament (Ex. 26:14; 27:16; 34:33, 34, 35; 39:20; 40:5; Num. 3:25; 4:8, 10, 11, 12, 14 twice, 25 twice, 31; 1 Chron. 17:5). In all of its uses in the Greek Old Testament and in the Greek New Testament (2 Cor. 3:13, 14, 15, 16), it never refers to hair as a veil but always to a fabric veil. Thus, when seeking to identify the nature of the veil that covered the head or the veil that is to be removed from the head, unless the context specifically designates kalumma (or one of its derivatives) to be the hair (which is never the case), it ought to be assumed that the veil referred to is a fabric veil worn over the hair.

Second, the covering of a man’s head is associated with shame by the apostle Paul. The background of this assertion is the Old Testament where in times of sorrow or when men experienced shame they covered their heads with a cloth covering. In 2 Samuel 15:30 we read: “So David went up by the Ascent of the Mount of Olives, and wept as he went up; and he had his head covered and went barefoot. And all the people who were with him covered their heads and went up, weeping as they went up” (cf. Esther 6:12). “Another instance of the Hebrew word is in Jeremiah 14: 3-4, when men are ashamed and confounded, and covered their heads, because of a dearth brought by God’s judgment. The only other Old Testament occurrence of this word in the grammatical Qal stem is in Ester 7:8; it would seem that in each of these Old Testament events an external cloth covering is what is in view.

Third, the idea that the covering refers to hair and not a cloth veil is rendered impossible by Paul’s comparison between being uncovered and having short mannish hair. In verse 5 the apostle says that being uncovered is bad because it is shameful like having short hair (i.e., shorn or shaven). It would be absurd for Paul to say that it is wrong or shameful for a woman to have short hair in public worship because having short hair is like having short hair. Note further what the apostle says in verse 6: “For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn.” Would it make sense for Paul to say, “If a woman has short hair, then let her also have short hair”? No, not at all! The apostle is saying that if a woman is going to appear in church without a veil or cloth covering which is shameful then she might as well cut her hair short like a slave or lesbian. The apostle’s analogy only makes sense if he is comparing one shameful activity to another shameful act. If both activities are identical, then the whole analogy is nonsense. Some Christians have attempted to circumvent this analogy by defining shorn and shaven in two different manners: one meaning short hair, while the other pointing to a bald head. This argument falls to the ground when we observe the fact that Paul uses the terms as synonyms in verse 6: “shorn or shaved.” The covering can only refer to a cloth or veil; hair simply does not and cannot work in this context.

Fourth, in verse seven Paul says that man is not to be covered because “he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.” Thus, the woman must be covered. Only God’s glory is to be uncovered during the service. In verse 15 we are told that a woman’s long hair is her glory. Since only God’s glory is to be uncovered during public worship the woman’s glory must be covered. “The hair of a woman cannot be both the glory and that which covers the glory! Nothing can be both ‘A’ and ‘non-A’ at the same time and in the same way. Paul taught us that the object which is the glory cannot also cover the glory! And he taught us that only God’s glory is to be seen in the worship service.” Obviously then, the woman’s glory (i.e., her long hair) must be covered with a cloth fabric of some kind

There is one common objection to all the proceeding arguments. It usually takes the form of a question. Doesn’t Paul explicitly say in verse 15 that her hair is given to “her for a covering”? In other words, why should a woman wear a veil for a covering when Paul says that long hair is her covering? There are a number of reasons why long hair could not be the covering that Paul requires throughout this chapter. As noted, the meaning of the word for covering used in verses 4, 5, 6, 7 and 13 clearly refers to a cloth covering or veil in Scripture. Interestingly, when the apostle refers to long hair as a covering he uses a completely different Greek word (paribolain) in order to distinguish one type of head covering from another. “The fact Paul consistently uses different forms of kalumma (katakalupto, akatakaluptos, akatakalupto) in 1 Corinthians when referring to the veil to be worn in worship, but suddenly introduces peribolaion when referring to the natural covering of the hair, strongly urges that a distinction is being drawn between two different kinds of head coverings. Why introduce a different word if not to distinguish one head covering from another?”[12] Further, (as noted) if long hair is substituted for a cloth covering in verses 5 and 6, the passages make no sense whatsoever (e.g., “If your hair is cut short, then let it be cut short”). If Paul’s main concern in chapter 11 is to teach women that they must come to the worship service with long hair then why not simply teach on the necessity of women having long hair all the time as a law of nature. There would be no reason to have a separate discussion about long hair in public worship because a woman’s hair is not something that can be removed and replaced in a moment when one desires. Also, the idea that the head covering is long hair would require one to interpret the head covering in reference to men in verse 4 as long hair, which is extremely unlikely.

Paul’s reference to long hair as a natural covering comes in a series of reasons for the use of a cloth covering in public worship. The argument for long hair takes one of Paul’s sub-points for the use of a cloth veil and makes it the main proposition of the whole section. If Paul’s only and main concern was simply that women keep their hair long while men keep their hair short, then why not begin the discussion with this point? Also, why would Paul use a word for a cloth covering throughout his argument and then use a different Greek word in verse 15 if he was only concerned about hair styles? One of the greatest problems for the long hair argument is that short lesbian-like hair on women and long effeminate styles on men is not simply a problem for public worship but is also a clear violation of God’s law relating to maintaining the God ordained difference between the sexes. If women were trying to look like men, which was common lesbian behavior in the Greco-Roman world, Paul would have dealt with this perverse behavior in his section on sexual immorality and would not have treated the matter as something only improper in public worship.

Obviously then, the apostle is pointing to nature or the natural order where a woman’s long hair is a natural covering as supporting evidence for the use of a cloth covering in public worship. “The implication is that as nature has provided women with a head-dress of hair, she is intended, not, of course, to consider this as a substitute for further covering, but to wear a head- dress when she is praying to God in the company of men, nature being regarded as supplying the norm even for such attire…

Regarding the argument in favor of long hair as a covering one more thing needs to be noted. It has been the experience of this author that virtually everyone (pastors, elders, sessions, individuals) who argues for long hair as a covering in public worship, does not require women to have long hair. Why is this fact important? It is important because it reveals that at least for many people the long hair argument is little more than an excuse to avoid the real sign of submission–a cloth head covering.”

Paul’s mention of Angels refutes the custom argument because Angels cover themselves in worship.

Isa 6: 2 Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.

Paul’s mention of Nature refutes the custom argument. Schwertley says,

“First, it presupposes that Paul was enforcing a Greek custom with no historical or textual support. Was it the universal practice of Greek or Roman women to walk about in public veiled as the cultural argument assumes? If it can be established that it was not the common practice for Greek or Roman women to wear veils in public or in their religious rituals, the whole cultural argument falls to the ground. After an exhaustive study of the dominant practice regarding head coverings in Paul’s day, the German scholar Oepke essentially concludes that Paul was imposing a biblical custom upon the Greeks that was contrary to their normal practice. Note the following conclusions of his study. He writes:

It used to be asserted by theologians that Paul was simply endorsing the unwritten law of Hellenic and Hellenistic feeling for what was proper. But this view is untenable. To be sure, the veil was not unknown in Greece. It was worn partly as adornment and partly on such special occasions as match-making and marriage (–559), mourning (–559, cf. also Penelope), and the worship of chthonic deities (in form of a garment drawn over the head). But it is quite wrong that Greek women were under some kind of compulsion to wear a veil in public. Plut. may seem to suggest this. …But the first passage refers to the Roman custom, concerning which Plut. may not have been too well informed, and the second reflects special Laconic customs. Passages to the contrary are so numerous and unequivocal that they cannot be offset by two sayings of the sage of Chaironeia which are not apodictic and which may have been occasioned by special trend. The mysteries inscription of Andania (Ditt. Syll., 736), which gives an exact description of women taking part in the precession, makes no mention of the veil. Indeed, the cultic order of Lycosura seems to forbid it. Empresses and goddesses, even those who maintain their dignity, like Hera and Demeter, are portrayed without veils, whereas hetaerae occasionally wear hoods. Helen appears before Paris with the upper part of the body uncovered, but with a veil. At the time of Tertullian Jewesses were prominent on the streets of North Africa because they wore veils (De Corona, 4, ed. F. Oehler, I [1853], 424 ff.; De Oratione, 22 [CSEL, 20, 193]). Hence veiling was not a general custom; it was Jewish. If the veiling of Jewish women was common in the West, we may presume that it was an accepted rule in the East. The Jew regarded it as typical of Gentile women that they should go about unveiled (Nu. r., 9 on 5:18, Str.-B., III, 429)…. Yet, though the custom [i.e., of wearing a veil] was applied with particular stringency by the Jews, it was oriental rather than distinctively Jewish. The home city of Paul, i.e., Tarsus, is the frontier. Evidence of the veil in Tarsus is provided by Dio Chrys. Or., 33, 46 and coins bearing the image of Tyche of Tarsus. There are exceptions. But Tarsus is stricter than the rest of Asia Minor. In general one may say that etiquette as regards the veil becomes stricter the more one moves east. This rule is brought out clearly by the provisions of an old Assyrian code. Married women and widows must be veiled when in public places. On the other hand, the head of the harlot, here equated with the slave, must remain unveiled under threat of severe penalties. When a man wishes to make one of these his legitimate wife, a special act of veiling is demanded. Paul is thus attempting to introduce into congregations on Greek soil a custom which corresponds to oriental and especially Jewish sensibility rather than Greek. In principle the demand ought to extend to all women in all situations. In practice, however, Paul applies it to married women in the churches, and in the first instance he restricts it to the sphere of life which stands directly under the jurisdiction of the congregation, i.e., divine worship.”[Oepke, “Kalupto” in Gerhard Kittle, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 3:562-563. Emphasis added.]

McKnight notes that William Ramsay, who was an expert on the Greek culture of Paul’s day, concurs. He writes:

Historically, it was a covering commonly worn in public by women of Jewish origin but not by the Greek women. The covering used by Jewish women is thought by many commentators to have been a large piece of cloth which was a common article of clothing such a shawl or cape. The cloth would serve as a head covering at any time it was appropriate. Concerning the difference in Greek and Jewish custom, we find that Dion Chrysostom (writing in 110 A. D.) recognized nothing that was “Greek” about the Tarsians (of the Greek city of Paul); but he did find one thing worthy of praise. He was very pleased with the extremely modest dress of the Tarsian women, who were always deeply veiled when they went abroad. And this was in spite of the fact that it was utterly different from the Greek customs. (The Cities of St. Paul, William Ramsay, p. 202). In other words, a covering was not the custom in other cities and especially Greek cities.”[Clyde McKnight, Concerning The Head Covering, Internet article, http:/home:texoma.net/~moses/headcover.htm.]

If it was the cultural practice of Greek or Roman women to wear head coverings in public or during their religious rituals, then one could understand the argument from culture. But, the teaching of Paul was in direct contrast to the Greco-Roman practices of that day.[ There was a cult in the Greco-Roman world where both men and women covered their heads during the pagan sacrifice. This practice, however, was not something that influenced the apostle’s teaching on public worship at all. Jewish men began to cover their heads in the public service of the synagogues probably a few generations after the close of the N.T. canon of Scripture. The priests who ministered in the temple service covered their heads during their ministrations. This practice, however, should not be considered a contradiction to Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11 because: (a) the priest sacrificial duty’s were ceremonial; (b) the priests were not worshipping in a public service with their families but were serving God by themselves as a special class set apart; (c) The turban on the head of a priest has a completely different meaning [than] the veil on the head of a woman. (d) The priests were wearing a special uniform. “Essentially a uniform draws attention to the office or function of person, as opposed to his individual personality. It emphasizes his job rather than his name” (G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979], 138). Regarding the high priest’s dress, Wenham adds: “In putting on these clothes he took to himself all the honor and glory of the high priesthood…. His glorious clothing symbolized the significance of his office. Probably symbolic significance was also attracted to the individual items in the priestly attire, but that now escapes us” (Ibid, 139). Kellogg writes: “The official robes of the high priest marked him…as the servant of the God of the tabernacle, whose livery he wore. For these colours, various modifications of light, all thus had a symbolic reference to the God of light, who made the universe of which the Mosaic tabernacle was a type” (S. H. Kellogg, The Book of Leviticus (Minneapolis, MN: Klock and Klock, 1978 [1899]), 193).] The apostle was not honoring Greek practice, nor was he instructing women to wear cloth veils in worship because their non-use would have been offensive to Greek society. Paul’s inspired teaching (if any thing) would have been offensive to Greek culture. It would have been considered a distinctly Jewish or eastern practice. Clearly, the apostle was imposing a biblical practice upon a distinctly pagan culture. The idea that Paul was following Greek culture rather than directing it has no merit whatsoever. What all of this means, then, is that modern American, European, African or Asian culture must submit to Paul’s directives in 1 Corinthians 11 whether or not his instructions are culturally acceptable or not. The Bible is to direct culture and not the other way around. Further, it has been the experience of this author that modern women throughout the United States do indeed understand the significance and meaning of the head covering. This understanding is one of the reasons that the head covering is so strongly hated and opposed by feminists of all types.

[Sounds like Paul is commanding that we Judaize!]

Second, Paul’s example of men with long hair as being against nature would not have been acceptable to many Greeks. James Moffat writes:

[H]is Greek hearers must have welcomed an appeal to nature. But they would be taken aback by being asked if long hair was not disgraceful for men. What of the long-haired Spartan heroes in far-off days? What of philosophers at the present day who wore their hair long as an ascetic trait, or to show their indifference to the world? Why, ‘the Greek wears long hair on his head because he is a Greek, not a barbarian,’ as the moralist Apollonius protested (Epist. viii.). Paul thought it effeminate, however, and praised the braided tresses (I Pet. iii. 3) of women as not merely a glory, or ornament, but as a sort of covering.

The implication is that as nature has provided woman with a head-dress of hair, she is intended, not, of course, to consider this as a substitute for further covering, but to wear a head-dress when she is praying to God in the company of men, nature being regarded as supplying the norm even for such attire.[James Moffatt, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (London: Houghter and Stoughton, 1958), 154.]

When considering ancient hair styles Aune writes:

Long hair was often regarded by the Greeks a sign of effeminacy in male (H. Herter, “Effeminatus,” RAC 4:629) or moral laxity in a female Ps. Phocylides 212). Fashions change, however, for Greek men once favored long hair (Herodotus 1. 82; Plutarch Lysander 1; co. Plato Phaedo 89 B-C) though by the fifth century B. C., only Spartan men wore their hair long (Aristophanes Aves 1281-82; Philostratus Vita Apoll. 8.7). The Romans wore their hair long until the third century B. C., after which they considered long hair either barbaric or old fashioned (Juvenal 5.30). The Gauls wore their hair long, and as a result northern Gaul was called Gallia Comata, “long-haired Gaul.” Apollonius of Tyana, following the practice of philosophers, wore his hair disheveled (Philostratus Vita Apoll. 8.7). Parthian warriors wore their hair long (Plutarch Crassus 24.2), and many interpreters have understood the demonic locust army as mytho-poetic imagery for the Parthian threat (see Excursus 16A: Rome and Parthia). [David E. Aune, Revelation 6-16 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 532]

The teaching of Paul that long hair on a man is shameful was not universally accepted in the ancient world, nor is it accepted today.”

This appeal to nature is made numerous times in scripture to speak to sexual issues.

Deut. 22: 5 “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

Rom. 1: 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

In Gal 3:28 Rav Shaul was simply stating that race or gender does not bar one from entering the Covenant of Abraham, via Messiah.  If this verse is doing away with gender distinctions it follows very clearly then that women can become Elders and marry each other. This is why liberal denominations have flourished so well in our post racial Christian society: by taking these anti-racial and egalitarian interpretations of Rav Shaul and the Law. Those who believe in the liberation of women must allow women to be preachers and to allow sodomites to marry. That is the consistent logical implication of this philosophy. Also this passage would only speak to those who are in Messiah. What of those outside of him? Do they get de-racialized and de-sexed because of Messiah too? Do we have the Eastern Orthodox Christus Victor Universal atonement raising its head here? Thus, the context here is not secular. It is ecclesiastical. Yehoshuwah dissolves the significance of race as it regards covenant status. He does not dissolve race itself. Thus, the Christian anti-sexist, anti-racist position conflates substance with mode and circumstance.

Objections

When faced with these devastating facts modern women will usually throw up two objections:

  1. What about the education of women?

ANS. This is a continuum fallacy. In keeping with Protestant tradition, all peoples in our country should be taught basic skills such as reading, math, history, etc. that they may read the scriptures and feed from them. However, that a woman should put herself in debt to attend college, and drive herself to compete with men in the world, thus eliminating her ability to raise a family, is a clear violation of Scripture.

Titus 2: 3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

  1. Abortions take place whether they are legal or illegal!

ANS. This is another continuum fallacy. During prohibition alcohol was illegal but people still got drunk. That doesn’t mean that prohibition did not keep a lot of people from drinking.  Far less people got drunk during prohibition than after.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would plead with any female reader that considers herself liberated to reconsider her dishonest, insulting, shameful, disgraceful, ungrateful, illogical, baseless, ignorant, and quite frankly bloodthirsty attitude toward men, toward children and toward her responsibilities in society. May Yahowah grant our nation repentance before Rome grabs complete control of this dis-unified, demoralized and ignorant apostate Protestant Nation and we find ourselves right back under the Inquisition that our Fathers fled from 400 years ago.

Shalom Aleichem


[3] John Robertson, The Case for the Enlightenment (Cambridge University Press: New York, 2005 ), 96

[24] 112-113

[25] 113-114

[26] 114

[27] 114-115

[28] 115

[29] 115

[30] 116

[31] 116

[32] 118

[33] 118

[34] 118

[35] 119

[36] 119

[37] 119-120

[38] 120

[39] 120

[40] 120

[41] 131

[42] 132

[43] 132

[44] 133

[45] 135

[46] 136

[47] 137

[48] 137

[49] 142

[50] 142

[51] 143

[52] 144

[53] 145

[54] Judith Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences (The Institute for Media Education, Inc., Crestwood, Kentucky, 2003), 101

[55] Reisman, 188, citing Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy, Sex, Alfred C. Kinsey, The Measure of All Things, (Chatto & Windus, London, 1998), 449

[56] Reisman, 189, citing Morris Ploscowe, “Sexual Patterns and the Law,” in Sex Habits of American Men, A Symposium on the Kinsey Report (Albert Deutsch, editor), Prentice Hall, New York, 1948, pp. 125-126, 133-134

[57] Reisman, ,195-196

[64] Reisman, 97, citing, Louis Terman, “Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male: Some Comments and Criticisms,” Psychological Bulletin 45, 1948, 447

[68] Kinsey Syndrome, 1:08-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVwbVRNwm6s

[70] The Kinsey Syndrome, 1:17-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVwbVRNwm6s

[80] Ibid., 12-14

Catholic Education Website Worships George III Saturday, Jan 25 2014 

Along with worshiping the man, they also point out a very important piece of history,

“While some of our Founding Fathers defended or ignored the Reign of Terror, King George was singular in fighting against the French Revolution. He granted refuge to thousands of Catholic clergy and laity, and he later cooperated with the Holy See in opposing Napoleon…. While some of our Founding Fathers defended or ignored the Reign of Terror, King George was singular in fighting against the French Revolution. He granted refuge to thousands of Catholic clergy and laity, and he later cooperated with the Holy See in opposing Napoleon. His Prime Minister Castlereagh was a close friend and host of the Papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Consalivi, whose portrait hangs in Windsor Castle. The King’s relations with the Pontiffs were benign. He funded the Stuart memorial in St. Peter’s Basilica, and in 1807, he granted Cardinal Henry Benedict Stuart, last of his line, the immense annuity of £4,000.”

As I have pointed out many times, this man was in league with the Papists in destroying us as a Protestant people pursuant to the Counter-Reformation.

A Papist to the End; Never Question Where George Bush’s Allegiances Lied Saturday, Jan 25 2014 

Christianity: The Spirit of Antichrist and the Mother of All Conspiracies Friday, Jan 3 2014 

My first movie!!!! I would like to thank David K. and Gigi M. for their support which made this movie possible.

The Treason of Roman Catholicism in the History of English Jurisprudence Thursday, Dec 5 2013 

The Roman Religion requires its members to devote themselves and work for the intrusion of a foreign power. The attempts of the Romanists to dodge this accusation is absurd once we read just a cursory History of England’s praemunire law. Let the reader take note that Henry VIII’s (though, no doubt a monumental slut) rebellion against the Papacy was not some great apostasy in England. It was one of a long line of acts of resistance to Roman usurpation.

The following is from the Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume 2, Book 4, Chapter 8, by the famous Sir William Blackstone,

“The very nomination to bishoprics, that ancient prerogative of the crown, was wrested from King Henry the First,[1] and afterwards from his successor, King John, and seemingly, indeed, conferred on the chapters belonging to each see, but by means of the frequent appeals to Rome, through the intricacy of the laws which regulated canonical elections, was eventually vested in the pope. And, to sum up this head with a transaction most unparalleled and astonishing in its kind, Pope Innocent III had at length the effrontery to demand, and King John had the meanness to consent to, a resignation of his crown to the pope, whereby England was to become forever St. Peter’s patrimony, and the dastardly monarch reaccepted his scepter from the hands of the papal legate, to hold as the vassal of the Holy See, at the annual rent of a thousand marks.

Another engine set on foot, or at least greatly improved, by the court of Rome, was a masterpiece of papal policy. Not content with the ample provision of tithes which the law of the land had given to the parochial clergy, they endeavored to grasp at the lands and inheritances of the kingdom, and (had not the legislature withstood them) would by this time have probably been masters of every foot of ground in the kingdom. To this end they introduced the monks of the Benedictine and other rules, men of sour and austere religion, separated from the world and its concerns by a vow of perpetual celibacy, yet fascinating the minds of the people by pretenses to extraordinary sanctity, while all their aim was to aggrandize the power and extend the influence of their grand superior, the pope. And as, in those times of civil tumult, great rapines and violence were daily committed by overgrown lords and their adherents, they were taught to believe that founding a monastery, a little before their deaths would atone for a life of incontinence, disorder and bloodshed. Hence innumerable abbeys and religious houses were built within a century after the Conquest, and endowed, not only with the tithes of parishes which were ravished from the secular clergy, but also with lands, manors, lordships and extensive baronies. And the doctrine inculcated was, that whatever was so given to, or purchased by, the monks and friars, was consecrated to God himself, and that to alienate or take it away was no less than the sin of sacrilege.

I might here have enlarged upon other contrivances, which will occur to the recollection of the reader, set on foot by the court of Rome, for effecting an entire exemption of its clergy from any intercourse with the civil magistrate: such as the separation of the ecclesiastical court from the temporal; the appointment of its judges by merely spiritual authority, without any interposition from the crown; the exclusive jurisdiction it claimed over all ecclesiastical persons and causes; and the privilegium clericale, or benefit of clergy, which delivered all clerks from any trial or punishment except before their own tribunal. But the history and progress of ecclesiastical courts,  as well as of purchases in mortmain,’ have already been fully discussed in the preceding volumes, and we shall have an opportunity of examining at large the nature of the privilegium clericale in the progress of the present book. And therefore I shall only observe at present, that notwithstanding this plan of pontifical power was so deeply laid, and so indefatigably pursued by the unwearied politics of the court of Rome through a long succession of ages; notwithstanding it was polished and improved by the united endeavors of a body of men who engrossed all the learning of Europe for centuries together; notwithstanding it was firmly and resolutely executed by persons the best calculated for establishing tyranny and despotism, being fired with a bigoted enthusiasm (which prevailed not only among the weak and simple, but even among those of the best natural and acquired endowments), unconnected with their fellow-subjects, and totally indifferent what might befall that posterity to which they bore no endearing relation,—yet it vanished into nothing when the eyes of the people were a little enlightened and they set themselves with vigor to oppose it. So vain and ridiculous is the attempt to live in society without acknowledging the obligations which it lays us under, and to affect an entire independence of that civil state, which protects us in all our rights, and gives us every other liberty, that only excepted of despising the laws of the community.

§ 107. 4. Statutes of praemunire: a. Edward I to Richard II.

Having thus in some degree endeavored to trace out the original and subsequent progress of the papal usurpations in England, let us now return to the statutes of praemunire, which were framed to encounter this overgrown yet increasing evil. King Edward I, a wise and magnanimous prince, set himself in earnest to shake off this servile yoke. He would not suffer his bishops to attend a general council till they had sworn not to receive the papal benediction. He made light of all papal bulls and processes, attacking Scotland in defiance of one, and seizing the temporalities of his clergy, who under pretense of another refused to pay a tax imposed by parliament. He strengthened the statutes of mortmain, thereby closing the great gulf in which all the lands of the kingdom were in danger of being swallowed. And, one of his subjects having obtained a bull of excommunication against another, he ordered him to be executed as a traitor, according to the ancient law. And in the thirty-fifth year of his reign was made the first statute against papal provisions, which, according to Sir Edward Coke, is the foundation of all the subsequent statutes of praemunire, which we rank as an offense immediately against the king, because every encouragement of the papal power is a diminution of the authority of the crown.

In the weak reign of Edward the Second the pope again endeavored to encroach, but the parliament manfully withstood him, and it was one of the principal articles charged against that unhappy prince that he had given allowance to the bulls of the See of Rome. But Edward the Third was of a temper extremely different, and, to remedy these inconveniences first by gentle means, he and his nobility wrote an expostulation to the pope; but receiving a menacing and contemptuous answer, withal acquainting him that the emperor (who a few years before at the diet of Nuremberg, A. D. 1323, had established a law against provisions, and also the king of France had lately submitted to the Holy See, the king replied that if both the emperor and the French king should take the pope’s part, he was ready to give battle to them both, in defense of the liberties of the crown. Hereupon more sharp and penal laws were devised against provisors, which enact severally that the court of Rome shall present or collate to no bishopric or living in England, and that whoever disturbs any patron in the presentation to a living by virtue of a papal provision, such provisor shall pay fine and ransom to the king at his will, and be imprisoned till he renounces such provision; and the same punishment is inflicted on such as cite the king, or any of his subjects, to answer in the court of Rome. And when the Holy See resented these proceedings, and Pope Urban V attempted to revive the vassalage and annual rent to which King John had subjected his kingdom, it was unanimously agreed by all the estates of the realm in parliament assembled, Edward III (1366), that King John’s donation was null and void, being without the concurrence of parliament, and contrary to his coronation oath; and all the temporal nobility and commons engaged, that if the pope should endeavor by process or otherwise to maintain these usurpations, they would resist and withstand him with all their power.“‘ In the reign of Richard the Second it was found necessary to sharpen and strengthen these laws, and therefore it was enacted by statutes 3 Richard II, c. 3 (Benefice, 1379), and 7 Richard II, c. 12 (Benefice, 1383), first, that no alien should be capable of letting his benefice to farm, in order to compel such as had crept in at least to reside on their preferments; and, afterwards, that no alien should be capable to be presented to any ecclesiastical preferment, under the penalty of the statutes of provisors. By the statute 12 Richard II, c. 15 (Benefice, 1388), all liegemen of the king, accepting of a living by any foreign provision, are put out of the king’s protection, and the benefice made void. To which the statute 13 Richard II, st. 2, c. 2 (Benefice 1389), adds banishment and forfeiture of lands and goods; and by c. 3 of the same statute, any person bringing over any citation or excommunication from beyond sea, on account of the execution of the foregoing statutes of provisors, shall be imprisoned, forfeit his goods and lands, and moreover suffer pain of life and member.

§ 108. b. The Statute of Praemunire: 16 Richard II (1392).—

In the writ for “the execution of all these statutes the words praemunire facias, being (as we said) used to command a citation of the party, have denominated in common speech, not only the writ, but the offense itself of maintaining the papal power, by the name of praemunire. And accordingly the next statute I shall mention, which is generally referred to by all subsequent statutes, is usually called the statute of praemunire. It is the statute 16 Richard II, c. 5 {Praemunire, 1392), which enacts that whoever procures at Rome, or elsewhere, any translations, processes, excommunications, bulls, instruments or other things which touch the king, against him, his crown and realm, and all persons aiding and assisting therein, shall be put out of the king’s protection, their lands and goods forfeited to the king’s use and they shall be attached by their bodies to answer to the king and his council; or process of praemunire facias shall be made out against them, as in other cases of provisors.

§ 109. c. Praemunire under Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI.—

By the statute 2 Henry IV, c. 3 (Religious Houses, 1400), all persons who accept any provision from the pope, to be exempt from canonical obedience to their proper ordinary, are also subjected to the penalties of praemunire. And this is the last of our ancient statutes touching this offense; the usurped civil power of the Bishop of Rome being pretty well broken down by these statutes, as his usurped religious power was in about a century afterwards; the spirit of the nation being so much raised (1131 against foreigners, that about this time, in the reign of Henry the Fifth, the alien priories, or abbeys for foreign monks, were suppressed, and their lands given to the crown. And no further attempts were afterwards made in support of these foreign jurisdictions.

A learned writer, before referred to, is therefore greatly mistaken when he says” that in Henry the Sixth’s time the Archbishop of Canterbury and other bishops offered to the king a large supply if he would consent that all laws against provisors, and especially the statute 16 Richard II, might be repealed, but that this motion was rejected. This account is incorrect in all its branches. For, first, the application, which he probably means, was made not by the bishops only, but by the unanimous consent of a provincial synod, assembled in 1439, 18 Henry VI, that very synod which at the same time refused to confirm and allow a papal bull, which then was laid before them. Next, the purport of it was not to procure a repeal of the statutes against provisors, or that of Richard II in particular, but to request that the penalties thereof, which by a forced construction were applied to all that sued in the spiritual, and even in many temporal, courts of this realm, might be turned against the proper objects only, those who appealed to Rome or to any foreign jurisdictions: the tenor of the petition being, “that those penalties should be taken to extend only to those that commenced any suits or procured any write or public instruments at Rome, or elsewhere out of England; and that no one should be prosecuted upon that statute for any suit in the spiritual courts or lay jurisdictions of this kingdom.” Lastly, the motion was so far from being rejected, that the king promised to recommend it to the next parliament, and in the meantime that no one should be molested upon this account. And the clergy were so satisfied with their success, that they granted to the king a whole tenth upon this occasion.

And, indeed, so far was the archbishop who presided in this synod from countenancing the usurped power of the pope in this realm, that he was ever a firm opposer of it. And, particularly, in the reign of Henry the Fifth he prevented the king’s uncle from being then made a cardinal and legate a latere (in attendance) from the pope, upon the mere principle of its being within the mischief of papal provisions, and derogatory from the liberties of the English church and nation. For, as he expressed himself to the king in his letter upon that subject, “he was bound to oppose it by his ligeance, and also to quit himself to God and the church of this land, of which God and the king had made him governor.” This was not the language of a prelate addicted to the slavery of the See of Rome, but of one who was indeed of principles so very opposite to the papal usurpations, that in the year preceding this synod, 17 Henry VI (1438), he refused to consecrate a bishop of Ely that was nominated by Pope Eugenius IV. A conduct quite consonant to his former behavior in 6 Henry VI (1427), when he refused to obey the commands of Pope Martin V, who had required him to exert his endeavors to repeal the statute of praemunire (“execrabile illiud statutum (that execrable statute),” as the holy father phrases it), which refusal so far exasperated the court of Rome against him, that at length the pope issued a bull to suspend him from his office and authority, which the archbishop disregarded and appealed to a general council. And so sensible were the nation of their primate’s merit, that the lords spiritual, and temporal, and also the University of Oxford, wrote letters to the pope in his defense, and the house of commons addressed the king to send an ambassador forthwith to his holiness, on behalf of the archbishop, who had incurred the displeasure of the pope for opposing the excessive power of the court of Rome.”

§ 110. d. Statutes of praemunire under Henry VIII, Elizabeth and James I.—

This, then, is the original meaning of the offense which we call praemunire; viz, introducing a foreign power into this land, and creating imperium in imperio (a government within a government), by paying that obedience to papal process, which constitutionally belonged to the king alone, long before the Reformation in the reign of Henry the Eighth, at which time the penalties of praemunire were indeed extended to more papal abuses than before; as the kingdom then entirely renounced the authority of the See of Rome, though not all the corrupted doctrines of the Roman church. And therefore by the several statutes of 24 Henry VIII, c. 12 (Appeals to Rome, 1532), and 25 Henry VIII, c. 19 and 21 (Crown, and Peter-pence, 1533), to appeal to Rome from any of the king’s courts, which (though illegal before) had at times been connived at, to sue to Rome for any license or dispensation, or to obey any process from thence, are made liable to the pains of praemunire. And, in order to restore to the king in effect the nomination of vacant bishoprics, and yet keep up the established forms, it is enacted by statute 25 Henry VIII, c. 20 (Annates, 1533), that if the dean and chapter refuse to elect the person named by the king, or any archbishop or bishop to confirm or consecrate him, they shall fall within the penalties of the statutes of praemunire. Also by statute 5 Elizabeth, c. 1 (Queen’s Supremacy, 1562), to refuse the oath of supremacy will incur the pains of praemunireand to defend the pope’s jurisdiction in this realm is a praemunire for the first offense, and high treason for the second. So, too, by statute 13 Elizabeth, c. 2 (See of Rome, 1571), to import any agnus Dei, crosses, beads or other superstitious things pretended to be hallowed by the Bishop of Rome, and tender the same to be used, or to receive the same with such intent, and not discover the offender, or if a justice of the peace, knowing thereof, shall not within fourteen days declare it to a privy counselor, they all incur a praemunire. [BLESSED QUEEN BESS!-DS] But importing or selling mass-books, or other popish books, is by statute 3 Jac. I, c. 5, § 25 (1605), only liable to a penalty of forty shillings. [BUT STILL A CRIME! BLESSED QUEEN BESS!-DS] Lastly, to contribute to the maintenance of a Jesuit’s college, or any popish seminary whatever, beyond sea, or any person in the same, or to contribute to the maintenance of any jesuit or popish priest in England, is by statute 27 Elizabeth, c. 2 (Jesuits, 1584), made liable to the penalties of praemunire. [BLESSED QUEEN BESS! - DS]

§ 112. 5. Penalties of praemunire. —

Having thus inquired into the nature and several species of praemunire, its punishment may be gathered from the foregoing statutes, which are thus shortly summed up by Sir Edward Coke: “that, from the conviction, the defendant shall be out of the king’s protection, and his lands and tenements, goods and chattels forfeited to the king: and that his body shall remain in prison at the king’s pleasure; [or (as other authorities have it) during life":" both which amount to the same thing; as the king by his prerogative may any time remit the whole, or any part, of the punishment, except in the case of transgressing the statute of habeas corpus. These forfeitures, here inflicted, do not (by the way) bring this offense within our former definition of felony; being inflicted by particular statutes, and not by the common law. But so odious, Sir Edward Coke adds, was this offense of praemunire, that a man that was attainted of the same might have been slain by any other man without danger of law: because it was provided by law w that any man might do to him as to the king's enemy, and any man may lawfully kill an enemy. However, the position itself, that it is at any time lawful to kill an enemy, is by no means tenable: it is only lawful, by the law of nature and nations, to kill him in the heat of battle, or for necessary self-defense. And to obviate such savage and mistaken notions," the statute 5 Elizabeth, c. 1 (Supremacy of the Crown, 1562), provides that it shall not be lawful to kill any person attainted in a praemunire, any law, statute, opinion or exposition of law to the contrary notwithstanding. But still such delinquent, though protected as a part of the public from public wrongs, can bring no action for any private injury, how atrocious soever; being so far out of the protection of the law that it will not guard his "civil rights, nor remedy any grievance which he as an individual may suffer. And no man knowing him to be guilty can with safety give him comfort, aid or relief.”

If you are a Roman Catholic, get out of my Country!


[1] The Investiture Controversy

The Temporal Power of the Pope Over Circus (Church) and State Friday, Nov 29 2013 

Papal Bull, CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO , Promulgated February 15, 1559 by POPE PAUL IV (23 May 1555 – 18 August 59)

“1. We, considering these same things to be very grave and dangerous, that the Roman Pontiff, who rules the offices of God and our Lord Jesus Christ on earth and who holds the fullness of power over kingdoms and kings, and who judges all, and by no one at this time is judged

2…We approve of and renew with the fullest vigor that they may be uninterruptedly observed and to be filled with new vigor if perhaps they lack any vigor; and indeed whosoever who has deviated at all from the Catholic Faith or who has fallen into some heresy or has incurred or has incited or committed schism will, upon being caught or confessed or convicted or (may God in His mercy and goodness deign to avert this) will deviate at any time in the future or who will fall into heresy or who will incur or incite or commit schism at any time in the future, and who will at any time in the future have deviated or fallen into or have incurred or incited or committed or will be caught or will confess or will be convicted, of whatever state, degree, order, condition and preeminence, even if they be with episcopal, archepiscopal, patriarchal, primatial or other major ecclesiastical dignity or the honor  of cardinalate and anywhere of the places of the Apostolic See, both perpetual and temporal, with the office of legate or secular, even though they may be distinguished with the authority of excellence of a count, baron, earl, duke, king or emperor and We will and determine that anyone whosoever of them to incur the aforesaid sentences, censures and penalties.”

http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/cum-ex-apostolatus-officio.pdf

Case Studies in Modern Day Roman Feudalism Sunday, Nov 24 2013 

 

Great documentary detailing how Corporations in America pay no taxes.

The Medieval Origins of the ‘Financial Revolution’ by John H. Munro Thursday, Nov 21 2013 

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/10925/2/MPRA_paper_10925.pdf

Did the Catholic Church Really Outlaw the Reading of Scripture by the Common Man? Wednesday, Nov 6 2013 

From the Index of Forbidden Books

“Rule 4. General Rule. Translations of 
a forbidden book into any language are also 
forbidden, if they faithfully reproduce the 
original. 

i. The General Decrees Prohibit the Follow- 
ing Publications… 

Rule 10. The following classes of pub- 
lications require the approbation of the 
bishop of the place where the work is to be 
published, or of some higher authority, 
which is to be printed in the beginning or 
at the end of the work and must be re- 
newed for every new edition. 

a. Books on theology, Church history, 
canon law, natural theology and ethics, and 
all editions of the Bible or parts of it in any 
language. “

https://archive.org/stream/romanindexofforb00bettiala…

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 154 other followers

%d bloggers like this: