“The Gender Agenda” by Lis Goddard & Clare Hendry.

This book came into my possession courtesy of our local vicar, who lent it to me after having read my review of “Simply Christian” by Tom Wright.

The work is a discussion between two Christian women regarding female leadership and involvement in the Church.

I can hardly think of a topic more relevant in this day and age where female priests seem to be the only vicars left, in addition to female bishops, even female lesbian bishops!

With the emphasis on LGBTQ and egalitarianism it is certainly surprising to read the actual Holy Bible and see how the texts contrast with our “modern values. ”

In my review of “Simply Christian” I wrote among other things this:

“I’m also questioning the presence of female priests and authority figures within Northern European churches when it is explicitly said in 1 Timothy 2 (12) : “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.” I guess it can be counter-argued that women are keeping the faith alive and that it is better with female priests than no priests.”

That is probably a good place to start, because the Holy Bible does certainly not come across as a feminist manifesto, to put it that way, even though Lis Goddard seems to think so.

Her interpretation of The Holy Bible hinges on our Bibles being translated wrong … which means that both my copy of the Bible and Clare Hendry’s copy are faulty.

Lis Goddard zooms in on what could have been the intended or original meaning of certain words in the texts and she also seem to believe that Genesis depicts a gender-neutral Utopia of sorts, before the Fall….

Eve is created from Adam’s rib and God first turns to Adam when Eve has not only been disobedient but has brought her man into disobedience as well. A great deal of people will read this as follows: God created the man first, gave him a companion “of him,” and was upset with Adam when he failed in his leadership, punishing both parties (even the snake).

Lis Goddard and those who agree with her, would claim that there was no such thing as any leadership to begin with. That Adam and Eve were equals, that both were leaders in their own right, but that the Fall distorted this Utopia leading to gender-unbalance, which was finally corrected with the arrival of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom.

My impression after reading “The Gender Agenda” is that joining a Bible reading group might put you into a situation where after staring at certain passages in the Bible for a prolonged period of time, you’ll start seeing all sorts of strange things…Everything that is all of a sudden isn’t and everything that isn’t is.

In other words: if you analyse something long enough you’ll eventually get whatever you desire, seeing your own reflection after turning what you are reading into a mirror.

The same can be observed in a lot of modern journalism.

I’m not saying this to be rude, but the book certainly gives off this vibe and as I result I opened up my Bible again to read Genesis to see what I had missed.

The passage that Goddard and Hendry constantly fall back on doesn’t even occupy a full-page. It is a remarkably short section spanning from Genesis 2 (18)  up until the Fall in Genesis 3. After reading this section again, a couple of times, I find it difficult to agree with Goddard’s interpretation.

A good point made by Hendry is that if a woman is supposed to listen to her husband, and he is the head of the household, then how does that work out if a woman is to be the head of a Church? This might be the reason as to why there were supposed to be male monarchs back in the day. Will a female Queen be “King enough”? Or will she be swayed by her husband as “the head,” in effect meaning that the man is ruling the territory rather than the actual Queen?

Yet with all of this said; it is written in the Bible that women should study, prophesy, and pray, not to forget that there are important female characters present in the Biblical texts which is something that anti-Christian critics wouldn’t acknowledge or downplay. Women are to have a role and be active, the question is how.

An interesting point made in “The Gender Agenda” is that Paul was writing to different Churches, helping them with whatever issues that they were facing. It was also mentioned that women and men were probably seated according to their gender, just like in the synagogues, which can explain why Paul says that women need to be quiet in Church. No gossiping and chit-chat in other words. Here is an interesting quote from 1 Corinthians 9 (22):

“To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”

That quote might shed some light on Paul’s letters. It is also of interest to note that disagreements was a factor from the very beginning of the establishment of the various Churches:

“I appeal to you brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgement. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’e’s people that there is quarrelling among you, my brethren.” 1 Corinthians 1 (10)

I would recommend reading Goddard & Hendry’s book as it is extremely relevant in today’s Church environment. If you’ve attended any Church services in Scandinavia or the U.K., then you’ll know what I mean.

Reading the Old & New Testament will instantly put you in a situation where you’ll be worried that you’re supporting heresy, which is probably why young people turn to Islam or Orthodox Christianity.

Pluralism and political correctness is hurting Northern churches, who would probably gain more by proclaiming God as the God and the Holy Bible as the Truth. If you start doubting yourself, then others will do as well and in today’s political and spiritual environment, I don’t know if that’s the best way forward.

To conclude; it is certainly at odds with everything in our modern pop-culture to be a practising Christian, especially if you are a woman, since being: argumentative, loud, not modestly dressed and especially having authority over men are all characteristics that are currently being celebrated, in addition to abortion. Nothing gains wider praise than women involved with the military, ministry or politics. So if you are looking at the Bible and Christianity through a conservative lens you’ll probably think that you’ve woken up in Hell, or at least in a world that is in a state of absolute chaos.

I Just Finished The Old Testament!

Why The Bible Is Dangerous & Why The Political Correctness Brigade Wants To Keep It Away From You.

The Lion Encyclopaedia of Jesus.

 

“Simply Christian” by Tom Wright.

“Nobody was expecting anyone, least of all a Messiah, to rise from the dead. A crucified Messiah was a failed Messiah. When Simeon ben Kosiba was killed by the Romans in AD 135, nobody went around afterwards saying he really was the Messiah after all,…” (p.96)

This book was lent to me by my local priest who recommended it when I told him that I was reading the Holy Bible.

After I was done reading the scriptures in its entirety (which took me over a year), I ventured into Wright’s work, which is a very straightforward and easy read.

The book is very enjoyable and explains Christianity and what it really is and what it really means.

Nothing beats having the source material though and it is vital to always keep in mind that the Bible is the number one “document” or more fittingly “Testament,” to which believers are to stay true.

“Once we glimpse this vision of the Holy Spirit coming to live within human beings, …” (p.111)

I therefore recommend people who are either turning to Christianity or becoming practising Christians to actually read the Holy Bible rather than not reading at all, or only reading Church approved interpretations of the Holy works.

It is not an easy undertaking reading the scriptures, because a lot of the Old Testament make for repetitive reading, but it is worth it due to those parts that aren’t, and especially since it exposes you to all of that which is normally excluded from pop-culture and mainstream Church services. It is quite staggering how much that has been left out and how limited modern Christianity is when it comes to what it quotes….

I’ve written before that I was going to review the New and Old Testament, and that I’m working on a very long entry for the Old, this is all true, but I wanted to read what our priest had recommended first.

I’m glad that I did because there were certain aspects of the Christian faith that I hadn’t quite figured out, such as “God-time,” meaning that the past, present and future isn’t linear when dealing with God.

“Somehow, God’s dimension and our dimension, heaven and earth, overlap and interlock.” (p.110)

I choose to start my Testament reviews with “Simply Christian” so that others too can read and enjoy this work, hopefully avoiding misconceptions and confusion. My reviews of the Old and the New Testament are based on my reading of the uncensored source text and is not based on politically correct, modern-Church approved, filtered, interpretations. I intend to address: slavery, the role of women, the fact that you should not rebel against your government, the early persecution of Christians, and the divisiveness that Jesus’ presence brings into this world, all of which is based on the Holy texts themselves, but aspects that modern-churchians and pop-culture never mention.

On that note it might be fitting to reveal that Wright’s work is not particularly politically correct, and that I was somewhat surprised that my local vicar would recommend something that must surely stand opposed to a great deal of what is being promoted within Church communities today.

“But setting it out in this way feels a bit like trying to describe my best friend by offering a biochemical analysis of his genetic makeup. It is important. Indeed, if he didn’t have that makeup he wouldn’t be the same person.” (p.154)

It was a relief that the book wasn’t filled with post-modernist falsities, yet there were some conclusions that Wright arrived at that puzzled me, and his digestible promotion of Christianity appears very mild, if re-visiting the New Testament after having read “Simply Christian.”

Wright concludes that global economic justice must be one of the many goals of Christians today but the Holy Bible itself states that: “If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” 1 Timothy 5 (8)

I’m also questioning the presence of female priests and authority figures within Northern European churches when it is explicitly said in 1 Timothy 2 (12) : “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.” I guess it can be counter-argued that women are keeping the faith alive and that it is better with female priests than no priests.

I also think it is important to quote James 2 (17) & (26) since it is written that: “So faith by itself, if it has no works; is dead.” “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.”

“You become like what you worship.” (p.127)

“How many times have I been grateful, faced with nightfalls both metaphorical and literal, for the old Anglican Collect which runs:

Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee, O Lord;

and by thy great mercy

defend us from all perils and dangers of this night;

for the love of thy only Son,

our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.” (p.142)

“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” (p.144)

 

I Just Finished The Old Testament!

It’s the 1st of July and I’m officially done with reading The Old Testament!

I’ve been working on a huge review of it and have plenty of notes since there is so much that can be addressed and contemplated when reading through these texts.

A lot of what is contained within these pages is as relevant today as it was back then, since human traits stay the same regardless of time. This is sadly the reason as to why people try to say that the Bible is outdated. God forbid you read this and draw parallels to our world today and realise, in your moments of private reflection, that our societies are ill and in need of healing. I don’t think you are supposed to see that or figure it out.

I’ve always been a quick reader, or I used to be when I was younger. It has taken me a very long time to read through this though, since The Holy Bible isn’t written to be a page turner. I therefore wandered off quite often, but finally managed to pull through it 🙂

I would recommend everyone to take the time to read it. It is regarded as the most influential piece of literature ever, and the longest reigning “bestseller” world-wide. Not to forget how it changed the filter through which generations before us perceived the world; delivering values upon which our ancestors modelled their societies.

This ideological spectrum also worked retroactively. When looking at “Viking texts” written by Monks, you can obviously sense how Christianity influenced how certain Viking stories were formulated and immortalised in the written form. How were these stories before Christianity? What is the whole truth?

Falsification due to propaganda and remodelling due to new standards is nothing new. It has happened before and we are witnessing it now, this time around, due to “political correctness.”

If you want to preserve your Holy Scriptures, or anything else of value, you ought to get some stone tablets. Who knows the extent of the cultural loss humanity has suffered whenever there’s been a moment of environmental “divine intervention?” Violent “climate change” has happened numerous times. It is actually quite frightening if you look into it. Carving things into stone increases your chances of keeping the flame of culture and faith alive.

Books and texts can in many ways be perceived as programming tools; the coding for various programs, internalised by our “human avatars” in order to interact and engage with this interactive, recyclable, organic, mortal world. The more dependent we become upon our technology the more vulnerable do we render our cultural inheritance. Especially since the art of storytelling is increasingly watered down by the dulling of our capacity for memorising extensive material.

My own spiritual journey has taken me from philosophy in my childhood, to flirting with intellectual Satanism and the occult in my teens, to meditation and mental training in adulthood and has now landed me in the Christian camp.

My approach to the spiritual was a quest for self-empowerment but ironically enough it wasn’t until I re-opened my heart to others through prayer that I found the inner peace that I had been yearning for. For many years I only found happiness if there was any good news regarding my music, after the 22nd of February this year I woke up again after 13 years in slumber. What an amazing experience! I do feel in many ways like I’ve come around full circle. I thank fate for bringing me to the empty church “in the middle of nowhere” that set me on the Christian path. I certainly understand now why people say that they’ve been “Born Again,” such an experience doesn’t have to involve drugs, crime or alcohol. It can be an emotional experience as well.

Prayer is greater than meditation since you direct your heart towards others.

That is where true peace is found, not in a self-focused spiritual quest.

 

Having A Raison D’être & An End Game – The Impression One Can Get.

When reading about the Iraq war last year I was stunned to see the willingness to sacrifice the integrity of Europe on the altar of momentary territorial access needed in order to get into Iraq.

“Plan Of Attack” by Bob Woodward.

“Decision Points” by George W. Bush.

I was further mystified by the fact that 4-star Army General (ret.) Colin Powell came across as the one lone voice of reason, since he tried to raise awareness of tribalism and ethnic diversity in the targeted area.

The reading certainly gave me the impression that humans are simply being seen as replaceable cogs in the machinery by the establishment.

Culture and ethnicity simply doesn’t matter, it is all about momentary victory, without any overarching solid narrative selling a clearly defined End Game, that will be reached by many separate actions all serving the same underlying objective.

This is a startling realisation.

When reading “The Art Of War” I was surprised about what sort of advice it contained. Prolonged warfare with no end in sight is depicted as one of the worst projects that a Nation can ever engage in. A group that engages in warfare also have to ensure that they have access to an efficient supply line, taking advantage of whatever resources the group can get their hands on as they expand into a territory. A war effort should be swift and precise, without too much meddling from sovereigns located far away. The people who are on the ground need to be able to do what is necessary to reach their goal in a completely mobilised way, to the extent that this is possible.

All of this certainly made me question the sort of warfare that people my age have grown accustomed to. All of our Nations’ war efforts seem concentrated in “alien territories,” fighting and training “aliens” that might turn on the West later, and all of our Nations’ major war efforts seemingly drag out for ever…

No proper end game that logically makes sense is ever presented to the public and when getting an insight into the world of those who run these things, it doesn’t really seem like these characters know what the deal is either (unless a battle ground is simply needed in order to train soldiers and test new equipment).

Warriors & Citizens – American Views of Our Military edited by Kori Schake & Jim Mattis.

A parallel can be drawn to hacker activists, who don’t seem too concerned with allies. They’ll attack an enemy of the West one day only to target Western political and military structures the next, potentially jeopardising the integrity and safety of a Nation State or its military operations.

When reading about community organisers you see this pattern of behaviour once again.  A lot of left-wing activism simply cancels itself out, since the only common denominator seems to be emotionalism. Due to this you’ll get contradicting agitation and advocacy that will leave someone like myself slightly confused, as there is no End Game in sight anywhere.

If you look at Islamic agitation in Europe it is very easy to understand what their End Game and overarching goal is. They engage in demographic expansionism into Europe, which gradually gives them a political advantage. Wealthy Muslim power-players buy themselves into Western Corporations which gives them cultural influence and leverage. Street-level Muslims carve out their own territories and then defend these. Mosques are erected further cementing a claim to a specific territory boosting confidence, while a romanticized fantasy of Islamic Imperialism, appealing to people’s sense of identity and innate penchant for ancestry-worship, is promoted. Of course, as always, not all. But you don’t need every member of a specific group to behave in this particular fashion for it to have its desired effect. My impression of European Islamification is that there is a long-term vision, coupled with a willingness to commit to certain behaviours, in order to eventually reach a clearly defined outcome: Nation States that become compatible in their policies and in their cultures with the Muslim faith, preferably paving the way for a new “Golden-Age.” Of course it is of importance to point out the ethnic and racial diversity within Islam, and that there are numerous conflicting denominations within the faith as well. As an example: we can now clearly observe, imported tribal disagreements and feuds, in Europe, in addition to all of our own inter-ethnic issues that we had from before….

Inter-ethnic dissonance is very prevalent in Africa; which is generally referred to as the most diverse continent on the surface of the earth.

So what can be said of the West? What is our End Game? What can be observed and what conclusions can be drawn? 

What would make sense, instinctively,  would be to have common ancestry as the glue holding Europe together. Race has become way more inclusive than what it used to be, since we now largely see Race as something observable, while ethnic groups give us what has become our European Nation States, with its specific cultures and characteristics.  Back in the day these used to be chopped up into various tribes that probably displayed a lot of similar traits to one another, hence our generalisation regarding population groups contained within the boundaries of the modern Nation State: an extended family sharing common ancestry and a similar distribution of genetic traits on average.

It would make sense if our Nation States in Europe concerned themselves with the protection of our shared and individual cultural heritage, doing everything to ensure the survival and majority status of white children (and mixed whites) in the only territory that actually belongs a 100% to whites, protecting our continent’s borders and integrity.

A strong unified Europe and more broadly speaking, a strong unified West with the more multi-racial configurations found within territories conquered by whites, would in theory make sense.

Is this an End Game for what is collectively known as The West though? No.

This would be a racist objective. It would insinuate that Ethnic-Europeans have a natural claim to a specific territory and that conquest is a legitimate way to establish a Nation, which is what a white presence in all other territories other than Europe is a result of. (To my knowledge … It certainly looks that way when observing strange geographic settlements by Whites and the presence of dark-skinned indigenous groups).

The prevalent mythos championed in the West is this:

  1. that all other groups are minorities, even if Europe looks very small when compared to other continents, and we are outnumbered globally speaking.
  2. That the magic soil theory is truth, meaning that you’ll automatically become  Swedish by simply breathing the air in Sweden.
  3. That all human beings are born equal due to a blank slate, and that genetics simply don’t exist.
  4. That talking about genetics and genuine diversity is dangerous because that will instantly turn you into Hitler and result in a new Holocaust.
  5. That it makes sense to celebrate white ethnic groups becoming minorities, after years of civil-rights battles in the U.S.A. to ensure equal opportunity regardless of skin colour, and after years of Whites trying to do good towards previously marginalised and abused non-white minority groups within their domains. Not to forget: the constant focus on the challenges faced by so-called (and genuine) minorities within traditionally White-majority constructs. None of this paints minority-status in an appealing light … yet we should do everything in our power to lay the groundwork for our own marginalisation…. which is particularly interesting when reading about the merciless brutality in other parts of the world perpetrated by non-white majorities…
  6. That previous white expansionism will just be forgotten, since Whites have decided to “play nice,” which means that we no longer have any enemies and don’t really need any borders….
  7. That only white ethnic groups can be guilty of racism and imperialistic activity.
  8. That white ethnic groups are not under any circumstance “indigenous” and that there will at no point be any need to give any white demographic the status of “protected group.”
  9. That race and/or ethnicity is only real and only counts if/when dealing with “indigenous people,” who can under no circumstance be white. These “indigenous” groups are also the only ones entitled to certain territories that have to be protected in order to ensure their survival.
  10. That charity is only needed in the 3rd world as it is probably your own fault if you are poor and hungry in the superior, egalitarian, socialist inspired constructs that make up the Western World.
  11. That you have to import workers from Africa and The Middle East, rather than employing individuals from territories closer to your own, or within your own continent.
  12. That mixing on a massive scale is always peaceful and not the result of violent demographic change or militant conquest.
  13. That re-writing history and engaging in gas-lighting on a National and/or Continental level is perfectly alright in order to salvage vanity projects initiated by international organisations, that might look good on paper and in theory; until inserting the human factor into the equation actually implementing the idea.

Ok. So this doesn’t look too promising. Then what about Christianity? This is multi-racial, multiethnic and global. It is way more inclusive and has been used as a unifying factor in Europe before…

The West has continuously acted as an enemy to Christian groups in the Middle East, facilitating genocidal persecution of genuine Christian minority tribes. Western governments not only promote the build-down of Christianity within Europe and all other territories under White influence, they actively side with Nations and regimes known for violent Christian persecution.

What about human-rights, enlightenment ideas, world peace and the “human race”?

Western governments have repeatedly sided with regimes guilty of outrageous human rights abuses, making themselves guilty of gross hypocrisy since human rights and the protection of humanity as a whole has become the main narrative and general raison d’être of Western groups.

Portraying oneself as a defender of the human race also becomes tricky as you cannot possible go out there and claim that population group A needs more protection and privileges than population group B as this would be racist and undermine universal rights. And how on earth can you even say population group A and B when race/ethnicity isn’t even real? You cannot say that religious group A is more guilty of persecution than religious group B, because why would religious group B be more righteous or in need of more protection than the other? Are you a bigot or what?

Who are you to say that Terrorists don’t have rights or don’t have a point, when you claim to be a defender of all of humanity? And how on earth do you even define a “War on Terror” or “Terrorists”? Any person or group could fall into this category when nothing is specified.

These kind of points can be spinned indefinitely putting The West in a situation where none of its actions can be seen as righteous and/or legitimate.

It opens up the door for a potential legal, moral and PR nightmare where The West and its natural inhabitants never win.

It also puts Western Nation states in a situation where an enemy cannot be clearly defined, at least not in public, due to important exotic alliances and potential diplomatic disasters. By relying on exotic alliances for abstract military operations, the West paints  itself into a corner, where they cannot kick out subversive elements within their own nations if these stem from their good “friends and allies.”

The West is forced into a position where it cannot really look after the interests of its own inhabitants, nor enforce the heritage and integrity of itself.

Not to forget that The West is put into an incredibly awkward situation when Western leaders cannot clearly formulate anything, if interested in maintaining good international relationships.

This results in cringe worthy narratives that leaves all of those who don’t just parrot our “modern shared values” confused and puzzled. What are we all about really? Does anyone know?

What about Capitalism then? A support for this must surely be a constant factor from The Americans at least? 

No. Think again. The U.S.A. is willing to tolerate oppressive communist regimes that in the long run pose a threat to the American experiment and their global influence, as long as the U.S.A. can gain from such an alliance in the short run.

So what is The End Game of The West? 

Strangely and worryingly enough there doesn’t seem to be one……(but I might be very wrong, after all, who knows what goes on behind the scenes…).

At best it can be argued that there are forces within The West championing stability trough whatever means by expanding the police state and surveillance of their own citizens. This though is worked against by leaders who don’t want to acknowledge the effects of demographic change. In addition it facilitates the very form of governance that Western Nations are outspokenly against, not to forget that the identity destruction currently happening in The Western world work against any conservation efforts intended to protect our cultural and ethnic inheritance, while simultaneously compromising stability and security; in short, all of it compromises the survival of those people who occupy the territories that we collectively refer to as The West.