Concerning Halloween

By James B. Jordan

It has become routine in October for some Christian schools to send out letters warning parents about the evils of Halloween, and it has become equally routine for me to be asked questions about this matter.

 

“Halloween” [not Holloween] is simply a contraction for All Hallows’ Eve. The word “hallow” means “saint,” in that “hallow” is just an alternative form of the word “holy” (“hallowed be Thy name”). All Saints’ Day is November 1. It is the celebration of the victory of the saints in union with Christ. The observance of various celebrations of All Saints arose in the late 300s, and these were united and fixed on November 1 in the late 700s. The origin of All Saints Day and of All Saints Eve in Mediterranean Christianity had nothing to do with Celtic Druidism or the Church’s fight against Druidism (assuming there ever even was any such thing as Druidism, which is actually a myth concocted in the 19th century by neo-pagans.)

In the First Covenant, the war between God’s people and God’s enemies was fought on the human level against Egyptians, Assyrians, etc. With the coming of the New Covenant, however, we are told that our primary battle is against principalities and powers, against fallen angels who bind the hearts and minds of men in ignorance and fear. We are assured that through faith, prayer, and obedience, the saints will be victorious in our battle against these demonic forces. The Spirit assures us: “The God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly” (Romans 16:20).

The Festival of All Saints reminds us that though Jesus has finished His work, we have not finished ours. He has struck the decisive blow, but we have the privilege of working in the mopping up operation. Thus, century by century the Christian faith has rolled back the demonic realm of ignorance, fear, and superstition. Though things look bad in the Western world today, this work continues to make progress in Asia and Africa and Latin America.

The Biblical day begins in the preceding evening, and thus in the Church calendar, the eve of a day is the actual beginning of the festive day. Christmas Eve is most familiar to us, but there is also the Vigil of Holy Saturday that precedes Easter Morn. Similarly, All Saints’ Eve precedes All Saints’ Day.

The concept, as dramatized in Christian custom, is quite simple: On October 31, the demonic realm tries one last time to achieve victory, but is banished by the joy of the Kingdom. What is the means by which the demonic realm is vanquished? In a word: mockery. Satan’s great sin (and our great sin) is pride. Thus, to drive Satan from us we ridicule him. This is why the custom arose of portraying Satan in a ridiculous red suit with horns and a tail. Nobody thinks the devil really looks like this; the Bible teaches that he is the fallen Arch-Cherub. Rather, the idea is to ridicule him because he has lost the battle with Jesus and he no longer has power over us.

(The tradition of mocking Satan and defeating him through joy and laughter plays a large role in Ray Bradbury’s classic novel, Something Wicked This Way Comes, which is a Halloween novel.)

The gargoyles that were placed on the churches of old had the same meaning. They symbolized the Church ridiculing the enemy. They stick out their tongues and make faces at those who would assault the Church. Gargoyles are not demonic; they are believers ridiculing the defeated demonic army.

Thus, the defeat of evil and of demonic powers is associated with Halloween. For this reason, Martin Luther posted his 95 challenges to the wicked practices of the Church to the bulletin board on the door of the Wittenberg chapel on Halloween. He picked his day with care, and ever since Halloween has also been Reformation Day.

Similarly, on All Hallows’ Eve (Hallow-Even – Hallow-E’en – Halloween), the custom arose of mocking the demonic realm by dressing children in costumes. Because the power of Satan has been broken once and for all, our children can mock him by dressing up like ghosts, goblins, and witches. The fact that we can dress our children this way shows our supreme confidence in the utter defeat of Satan by Jesus Christ – we have NO FEAR!

I don’t have the resources to check the historical origins of all Halloween customs, and doubtless they have varied from time to time and from Christian land to Christian land. “Trick or treat” doubtless originated simply enough: something fun for kids to do. Like anything else, this custom can be perverted, and there have been times when “tricking” involved really mean actions by teenagers and was banned from some localities.

We can hardly object, however, to children collecting candy from friends and neighbors. This might not mean much to us today, because we are so prosperous that we have candy whenever we want, but in earlier generations people were not so well off, and obtaining some candy or other treats was something special. There is no reason to pour cold water on an innocent custom like this.

 

Similarly, the jack-o’-lantern’s origins are unknown. Hollowing out a gourd or some other vegetable, carving a face, and putting a lamp inside of it is something that no doubt has occurred quite independently to tens of thousands of ordinary people in hundreds of cultures worldwide over the centuries. Since people lit their homes with candles, decorating the candles and the candle-holders was a routine part of life designed to make the home pretty or interesting. Potatoes, turnips, beets, and any number of other items were used.

Wynn Parks writes of an incident he observed: “An English friend had managed to remove the skin of a tangerine in two intact halves. After carving eyes and nose in one hemisphere and a mouth in the other, he poured cooking oil over the pith sticking up in the lower half and lit the readymade wick. With its upper half on, the tangerine skin formed a miniature jack-o’-lantern. But my friend seemed puzzled that I should call it by that name. `What would I call it? Why a “tangerine head,” I suppose.’” (Parks, “The Head of the Dead,” The World & I, November 1994, p. 270.)

In the New World, people soon learned that pumpkins were admirably suited for this purpose. The jack-o’-lantern is nothing but a decoration; and the leftover pumpkin can be scraped again, roasted, and turned into pies and muffins.

In some cultures, what we call a jack-o’-lantern represented the face of a dead person, whose soul continued to have a presence in the fruit or vegetable used. But this has no particular relevance to Halloween customs. Did your mother tell you, while she carved the pumpkin, that this represented the head of a dead person and with his soul trapped inside? Of course not. Symbols and decorations, like words, mean different things in different cultures, in different languages, and in different periods of history. The only relevant question is what does it mean now, and nowadays it is only a decoration.

And even if some earlier generations did associate the jack-o’-lantern with a soul in a head, so what? They did not take it seriously. It was just part of the joking mockery of heathendom by Christian people.

This is a good place to note that many articles in books, magazines, and encyclopedias are written by secular humanists or even the pop-pagans of the so-called “New Age” movement. (An example is the article by Wynn Parks cited above.) These people actively suppress the Christian associations of historic customs, and try to magnify the pagan associations. They do this to try and make paganism acceptable and to downplay Christianity. Thus, Halloween, Christmas, Easter, etc., are said to have pagan origins. Not true.

Oddly, some fundamentalists have been influenced by these slanted views of history. These fundamentalists do not accept the humanist and pagan rewriting of Western history, American history, and science, but sometimes they do accept the humanist and pagan rewriting of the origins of Halloween and Christmas, the Christmas tree, etc. We can hope that in time these brethren will reexamine these matters as well. We ought not to let the pagans do our thinking for us.

Nowadays, children often dress up as superheroes, and the original Christian meaning of Halloween has been absorbed into popular culture. Also, with the present fad of “designer paganism” in the so-called New Age movement, some Christians are uneasy with dressing their children as spooks. So be it. But we should not forget that originally Halloween was a Christian custom, and there is no solid reason why Christians cannot enjoy it as such even today.

“He who sits in the heavens laughs; Yahweh ridicules them” says Psalm 2. Let us join in His holy laughter, and mock the enemies of Christ on October 31.

- See more at: http://americanvision.org/9630/halloween/#sthash.lwThI4OU.2rbOXINo.dpuf

Worry is the Absence of Faith and Faith is the Absence of Worry

"Do not worry about your life."

(Matthew 6: 25)

 

So much energy gets wasted on worrying. Worry is a burden that God never intended for us to carry. Worry is not taking God at His word. Worry is sin. Yet many people worry about things they either cannot change or about things that they later find never happened. When facing worry, realize worry is the absence of faith, whereas faith is the absence of worry. Three things are essential to rid oneself of worry.

1. Give it over to the Lord. If you truly have faith in God, then entrust the matter that worries you into God's hands. Believe that God will take care of the issue that is worrying you.

2. Be Confident. This is trusting God at His Word about an issue that worries you. It is a trusting assurance that the Lord will take care of the matter in your life that is worrying you.

3. Be Determined. Since God does not work according to our time schedule. We need to wait on the Lord to resolve the issue that is causing us distress. We need to determine in our hearts by faith. To determine: "deter" -to put off; so determine therefore means to "put off" worry and "press on" in faith trusting that God knows best.



The Kindness of this Present, Momentary Suffering?

"the FELLOWSHIP of His sufferings"

(Phil. 3: 10)

1. The REALITY of Suffering.

2. The REVELATION of Suffering.

3. The REWARD for Suffering.

4. The GIFT of Suffering.

5. The GUIDANCE of Suffering.

6. The GOOD that comes from Suffering.

7. The FRUSTRATION of Suffering.

8. The FELLOWSHIP of His Suffering.

9. The FRUITFULNESS of Suffering.

10. The CONSEQUENCES of Suffering.

11. The CROSS of Suffering.

12. The CROWN of Suffering.

 As much as we don't like hardships, pain and suffering are the TOOLS God uses to make a man and woman of God to resemble Christ. And none had suffered quite like Christ did on the Cross. So since Christ came into our world of suffering and pain and experienced it like none ever had, ought we not to count it a privilege in some small way to enter... into "the FELLOWSHIP of His sufferings" (Philippians 3:10)? Those who suffer the most, have the most to give to others. The GIFT of suffering helps us to love, understand, and empathize in a deeper level into what our neighbor is suffering. So let us consider this “momentary [and] light affliction” (2 Corinthians 4:17, Darby Trans.) a KINDNESS in this present life, as opposed to the eternal SUFFERING of hell that we so deserve. He suffered the CROSS for our sins so that we might not suffer the CONSEQUENCES of our sins in hell. When He came into our world, man gave Him a Cross; whereas Christ gave HIMSELF. Now that’s amazing Love. May we never forget that!

Does Deuteronomy 23: 20 on the Issue of "Usury" Prove that the Bible Favors Jews over Non-Jews?

" Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it."

(Deut. 23: 20, KJV)

 

Tonight I met two middle aged men downtown. We had quite a lively discussion about injustices the government and society at large heap upon those with disabilities, and about why these gentlemen discredit the Bible? According to one of these middle aged men, by the name of Calvin, the Word of God can't be trusted because it was written by a bunch of fascist Jews who own the banks that control everything. Also, The Bible can't be trusted because the Roman Catholic Church were responsible for putting together the Word of God as we have it today and is used to control the masses.  

So naturally, I asked him to prove his point by presenting to me evidence to why I should believe his outrageous claim. So he quoted to me two possible passages of Scripture taken from Deuteronomy 23: 28-29 or 28: 28-29 that speaks about how Jews were allowed to exploit non-Jews by charging them "usury" (interest). Since I had a small Bible on me, I looked up the passages Calvin had cited to me. The first thing I noticed was that verses 28-29 does not even exist in Deuteronomy 23, for it ends at verse 25! The actual verses that speaks about "usury" is verses 19-20. Secondly, he said the Deuteronomy passage is the first mention of "usury" in the Bible. This of course is false. The first mention of "usury" in the Bible is found in Exodus 22: 25. The third thing I noticed was the passage he mentioned in Deuteronomy chapter 28: 28-29 had nothing to do with "usury." Actually, from what he shared with me about the hardships he had  endured in life due to his disability and his apparent rebellion and animosity towards God and His Word made me wonder if the Lord was rebuking Calvin through Deuteronomy 28: 28-29 that I had read to him.  

Alexander Cruden, the author of Cruden's Complete Concordance defines "usury" as follows:

 

"By usury is generally understood in the Bible any interest on a loan, whether in money or in wheat or other commodities. Modern usage has confined the meaning of the word to an unlawful interest.  

The law of God prohibits rigorous imposing of interest or exacting it, or a return of a loan without regard to the condition of the borrower; whether poverty occasioned his borrowing, or a visible prospect of gain by employing the borrowed goods. 

The Hebrews were plainly commanded  in Ex. 22: 25, etc., not to receive interest for money from any that borrowed for necessity, as in the case in Neh. 5: 5, 7."[1]

 

The word "usury" is used 17 times throughout the Bible. 15 times in the Old Testament and 2 times in the New Testament according to Cruden's Concordance. (See Ex. 22: 25; Lev. 25: 36-37; Deut. 23: 19-20; Neh. 5: 7, 10; Psalm 15: 5; Prov. 28: 8; Isa. 24: 2; Jer. 15: 10; Ezek. 18: 8, 17, 13; 22: 12; Matt. 25: 27; Luke 19: 23.) The specific verse in question that Calvin quotes to demonize Jews is Deut. 23: 19-20. Verse 20 is the primary passage under question. It reads as follows: "Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it." (KJV). 

 The Jew was the 'lender' while the stranger was the 'debtor.' The stranger was required in the agreed amount owed to pay interest as well to the Jewish lender for the money or item borrowed. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines two words in relation to the lender and the one who borrows as follows. The Jew who is a lender is a usurer, "one that lends money esp. at an exorbitant rate." The Jew was required to charge usury that was only fair and reasonable. He was not to over charge interest to the stranger. By the time the New Testament era came, the infamous tax collectors were notorious for charging outrageous amounts of interest. Therefore they were hated by the people of that day. Now the borrower was charged usury. The term means "the lending of money with an interest charge for its use." 

In Matthew Poole's Commentary, he explains why the Jews were allowed to charge "usury" to strangers. He writes as follows:

 

"Ver. 20.  Unto a stranger, i.e. to a person of any other nation, for so that word is generally used, and therefore they who restrain it to the cursed Canaanitish nations seem to do so without any solid or sufficient grounds. And though the word brother is ofttimes used in a general sense for every man, yet I think I may affirm that wheresoever the words brother and stranger are opposed in the Jewish law, the brother signifies the Israelite only, and the stranger signifies any person of what nation or religion soever, whether proselyted to the Jewish religion or not, and so it seems to be meant here. And the reason why usury is permitted to a stranger, not to an Israelite, may seem to be this, because the Israelites generally employed themselves in the management of land and cattle, and therefore could not make any advantage of borrowed money to balance the use they should pay for it; and consequently it may be presumed that they would not borrow money upon use, but for want and poverty, and in that case, and principally for that reason, usury seems to be forbidden to them, as may be thought from Le 25:35,36. But the strangers made use of their money in way of trade and traffic with the Israelites, which was more gainful, and could much better bear the burden of usury, and reap advantage from money so borrowed; and these strangers here spoken of are supposed to be competently rich, and not poor, as may plainly appear by comparing this place with Le 25:35,36, where they are no less forbidden to take usury of a stranger than of a brother, in case of poverty."[2]

 

Authors Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe puts it this way for why Jews could be exempt from being charged usury, whereas Jews could charge usury to strangers.

 

"Of course, usury was not forbidden with strangers (non-Jews), but only with brothers (other Jews). If this seems partial, it is only because the laws forbidding usury on the poor (or one's brothers) were a divinely enjoined act of benevolence, not strictly a matter of business. When it comes to doing business, one is entitled to a reasonable profit on his investment. Since the risk of loss (from non-payment) must be covered, it is just to pay the investor an appropriate amount for his risk."[3]

 

After reading through all 17 passages of Scripture on "usury" in context with Deuteronomy 23: 20 there is nothing indicating unjust partial treatment of Jews over non-Jews. Unless Calvin is able to present indisputable evidence to support his case against the so called accusation he is leveling Against God's Word, he really doesn't have a valid case at all.   

My heart goes out to Calvin in the struggles he is going through in regards to his disability, but that does not in no way excuse him from attacking God's Word without warrant. The only other argument he tried to present was that the Book of Revelations was full of God's wrath and vengeance. That God was a mean tyrant. He fails to understand why the Book of Revelations speaks of God's judgment and wrath. He doesn't realize that God's judgment and wrath comes upon mankind in the last day because of their sin and rebellion against God.

---

[1] Alexander Cruden, Cruden's Complete Concordance, (Dugan Publishers Inc., Gordonsville, TN, Revised 1986), pg. 717.

[2] Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole's Commentary, (Power BibleCD 5. 2), Deut. 23: 20.

[3] Norman L. Geisler & Thomas Howe, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties, (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2008), pgs. 128-129.

Is Homosexuality a Choice?

by Mark Escalera

Those who hold to a secular, humanistic worldview have a penchant for being inconsistent. However, they are normally consistently inconsistent. Their answers have to change to suit their sinful lifestyles, and when the answers provide or offer tolerance to all (except for true believers), those answers have to change again just like the faulty science or research they want to appeal to in order to try and prove why they are the way they are.

One question that is often asked though is, “When did YOU choose to be heterosexual or homosexual?” They ask what they feel is the perfect question knowing that the answer given will quantify their own sin, grant them the right to be intolerant towards true Christians, and free themselves from the bonds of the laws of God.

So, let’s look at this question. When did I choose my sexual orientation? The question itself is wrong and is completely predicated on the removal of God from the equation.

If we are but a mere by-product of millions of years of evolution, then there would certainly be no “choices” in aspects of life such as sexual orientation and morality. Instead, my DNA or genes would influence who I was. It would then have an impact on my upbringing, environment, education, government, home life, etc., etc. The reason is because Darwinian evolution believes in the continued improvement and betterment of the species of animal known as man.

Thus, if I am merely an animal and one that is continuously evolving, I would be forced to accept that whether I was good or bad would be based on my DNA. This is why Hitler believed he was right to exterminate all peoples that he did not like. He was living out his beliefs.

It is this reason why Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood can operate with impunity in the wanton murder of millions of babies in the mother’s womb. They are acting out the logical conclusions of their belief. Evolution makes us better and abortion simply weeds out the weak and inconsequential in their minds.

Therefore, if I am but an evolutionary blip, then I cannot choose. I could no more choose who I want to have sex with than what morals I wanted to practice. In other words, if my evolutionary genes did not offer me the ability to make moral choices, I could kill with no conscience, or assault another person, and should have the freedom to do so.

After all, we do not kill animals that use their base instincts to kill or assault another animal, so why should we do this with human animals? There must be a level of consistency if we are going to apply evolutionary beliefs and still say that how I live or who I sleep with is not a choice.

However, there is another option. The option has a name and He is God. He alone is God and He will not give His glory to another. He demands worship and praise from all of creation, including man. This is the only God of the Bible.

This belief found in the pages of Scripture approaches the creation of man, not from the aspect of evolution, but from the aspect that God is Who He says He is and that He did what He says He did.
This belief is to be reflected in every aspect of every person who has ever lived. Sadly, sin entered the equation when Adam willfully and deliberately disobeyed God. When sin entered the world, it was passed to all of Adam & Eve’s children and their descendants.

Everything that God made in the beginning was good and with no imperfections. Even Satan was created as Lucifer and he was the highest of all the angelic beings. He worshiped at the foot of the throne of God and sang the praises of God. But pride entered his heart and he was cast from heaven.

He fell to earth and chose to deceive humanity into thinking they could be like God and know good and evil. Everything that God made Satan has tried over and over to make an evil counterpart. For example, God created marriage between one man and one woman until death parts them, but Satan quickly introduced polygamy, sex with children, bestiality, living together outside of marriage and homosexuality, and then persuaded mankind that these would be just as acceptable as long as they were simply committed to a “loving” relationship.

While DNA continues to grow weaker and more diluted from one generation to another, the one constant is that sin remains. It totally engulfs a person and makes them slaves to their depraved nature.

In one sense, man does not choose to make wise and good decisions because he is at enmity with God. Thus a person who practices sin is simply living out what is in their heart. A person can be just as sinful as a heterosexual as a person can be who is a homosexual. Satan seeks to persuade mankind that evolution is the answer and that God’s laws are not the moral basis of how the world is run.

However, there are morals and there are absolutes. God did not create but two genders – male and female. Not man, but God created the institution of marriage, thus He alone has the right to set the rules – one man and one woman for life. Not man, but God created government, thus He alone has the right to demand the rules be honored and obeyed.

In conclusion, this brings us back to the question of when did I choose my sexual orientation. I did not choose because there is nothing to choose. God who sets the rules made me a male. Therefore, He did the choosing for me. He instilled in my heart the desire to marry a woman who would be my companion.

The “choice” that I have is whether I am going to honor the God who created me and live according to what He made me, OR, I can disobey, dishonor, and show my hatred for the Creator by living in a way that evidences my rebellion. Males are designed by God to be the counterpart to females. God did not create males to have sexual relationships with other males, nor did He create females to have sexual relationships with other females.

Further, God did not create man to live outside the boundary of His laws. This means that God established the morals. We do not kill because God said do not kill. We do not commit adultery because God said do not commit adultery. We do not steal because God said do not steal.

As a human being, I am created in the image of God. I am NOT a by-product of evolution or an evolutionary process. I am NOT free to live any way that I want in opposition to God without being willing to pay the price for my sin and folly. I am bound by my conscience that was placed in me by God. I am bound by His laws because God is the giver of all that pertains to morality. I cannot and would not have any morals apart from God giving them because the theory of evolution does not lean towards the production of morality. Morals cannot appear out of thin air, there must be an Originator.

So, to answer from a Biblical perspective – when did I choose my sexual orientation? I did not choose because God made me a male. This means I am hardwired in every way to respond to a female. God does not make mistakes. If a male wants to respond to another male, or a female to a female, or a human to an animal, they can do so, but not because God created them to do so, but because Satan who hates mankind, and hates God even more, has duped mankind into believing that we were born in a certain way and that we do not have to obey God.

Therefore, the real question that must be answered has nothing to do with sexual orientation, but is about God. A person in the LGBT community can try to use this question to prove who they are, but they can only do so by appealing to evolution and not God.

The real questions that humanity faces are really about God. Is He real or is He but a figment of a deluded segment of mankind? If He is real, then His laws are just as real and we are bound to obey them or pay the price.

If He is but a figment, then I fear for the world because rape, assault, murder, and sexual perversions will continue and grow worse. Man left to himself will never be good because evolution does not permit man to be good. It requires him to do whatever is necessary to fulfill the mantra of the survival of the fittest.

So, here are the “choices” each reader has to make. Do you obey God or do you obey Satan? Do you believe you are here through random mutations and thus incapable of choosing either your morality or your sexual orientation, or do you believe that God created you in the very image of God?

To be consistent, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot believe in God and believe in evolution. You cannot obey God and obey Satan. You cannot be a good moral person and be a person who holds to no absolute truths. You cannot be a follower of Christ and be a person who willfully breaks His laws.

If you realize in any way that you have hope in something that provides no hope, then I have some additional information that you might like to read.

Before time began, God purposed in Himself that He would provide a means of restoring fellowship with fallen man. He desires to have fellowship just as He did with Adam and Eve in the garden, but He cannot stand to look upon sin. In addition, He told Adam and Eve that if they sinned, they would surely die.

This created a dilemma. How could a holy God look upon sinful man and have that fellowship restored? The answer is so simple that even a child can come to the point where they believe in the truth of God’s Word.

When the time was right (Galatians 4:4), God the Son laid aside His glory and took upon Himself human flesh and became a man (Philippians 2). Coming to this earth, He lived a perfect, sinless life. He did not sin, nor could He sin. John the Baptist saw Him coming across the hills of Judea and said, “Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.”

This means that Jesus Christ was willing to fulfill the law in its entirety and to also be the substitutionary atonement for our sins. In order to be able to face God, this substitution means that something or somebody had to die in our place and atone for the wrath of God. So, Jesus Christ went to the cross of Calvary and there took our sin upon Himself and suffered the entire wrath of God so that we do not have to do so if we but confess and repent of our sin while placing our faith in Jesus Christ alone for our salvation.

2 Corinthians 5:21 sums up the wonder of this message. “For our sake (humans) He (God the Father) made Him (Jesus Christ) to be sin Who knew no sin, so that in Him (Jesus Christ – God the Son) we (humans) might become the righteousness of God.” What is a further wonder is that the Bible states clearly that WHOEVER wants to come to Christ may come. He will make you a brand new creation and you will no longer be a slave to your sin.

The Trouble with Feminism Today

I want to start this blog by saying that I am not against women.  I love women! What I am against, is radical feminism and its ideology it promotes today. I especially am against its underlying messages that women are still oppressed today by men, and that women have a sense of entitlement, or that men are inferior to women and so on.

 I began my research into the topic of Feminism a few weeks ago. My research has uncovered quite a bit of information of misandry and blatant sexism being propagated and promoted by the media every where. This lead me to such websites and blogsites belonging to advocates of the Men’s Rights Movement where they have many articles and videos that exposes the hypocrisy of Feminism and how it has damaged today’s modern society, the primary victims being men. Over and over again, I see women being portrayed as victims and men being portrayed as the perpetrators.

I have watched some youtube videos posted by leaders of the MRM that were well researched in exposing Feminism. Also, I have read many articles by them as well. What I found most interesting was when I clicked on the reference cited, it lead me to either a completely different website unrelated to the reference documented, or to the actual website that told me the information I was looking for was either deleted or removed from that particular website. This happened too many times for me to discount this as a coincidence. This of course raised some questions in my mind as follows: Why was it removed? What was the reason for the website  to remove or delete such information? What are they trying to hide?  

I believe the answer to such questions is no doubt found in the fact that such websites have been either threatened or pressured by radical feminists to delete or remove such information that incriminates feminist propaganda.  Usually this will happen right after such information has been cited from the said website and made public. Perhaps some who read this may disagree with my assessment. However, it is a known fact that feminists who oppose the information made public by the Men's Rights groups often bully and pressure such websites to remove such statistics and facts that does not support feminist propaganda.

ARE MEN MORE VIOLENT THAN WOMEN?

A couple weeks ago I had posted a youtube video entitled "A Feminist's Dream Date." The video was satirical humour and was not to be taken seriously. But that did not stop a Facebook acquaintance from being offended by the video. She was a feminist through and through. Anyway, we ended up debating the issue about Domestic Violence. Typical of feminist propaganda she cited the false statistics that make men out to be the primary perpetrators of Domestic Violence. This is what she said to me in one of her responses:

"There are still many inequalities that are part of the cultural norm. Sexual assault and domestic violence happen to women at least nine out of ten times, men being the other one out of ten, and this happens every day to women. I am a victim of domestic violence myself. And economically, women earn about 7.5 to 8 cents to every dollar that a woman makes. These are facts. There are many, many other issues too of degradation and violation, oppression and discrimination women face every day. Feminism is a social theory that upholds the inequality still prevalent in social norms. The information is out there, academically, professionally, on the street, on social media, or wherever you want to look."

Yes, I don't doubt the information is out there to support her view on domestic violence. However, the statistics she shared in her above comment is nothing more than feminist propaganda that makes women out to be the victims and men to be the perpetrators. Such bias statistics is not based off of real scientific research, but is based on faulty feminist studies that purposefully demonizes men as the primary perpetrators of domestic violence. Feminists ignore real scientific research studies that have revealed that women are just as guilty of domestic violence as men are.  Here below is one of my responses back to her:

"Faye, I know the Family Violence Report was taken from the “Family of Men Support Society.” I am not denying that. It has been mentioned a couple of times in my responses to you. I didn’t think I needed to actually tell you where I got the report, since it is clearly quoted in the link mentioned a couple times in my responses for you to see.  As for the “Family Violence Report” being written from another source? No, it was written from the “Family of Men Support Society” themselves. Now as for saying “I need to do my research and stop being one sided.” I assure you, I have been doing just that. Why do you think I question the Statistics you mentioned. It is feminist propaganda designed to make women look like the victims and men like the violent perpetrators. I have taken the time to consider a few statistics mentioned online. The one you had mentioned, “Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile” on page 35, I looked at the “Statistics Canada; Juristat 85-002-XIE, Vol. 27, no. 4” as well, along with another Canadian one the “Gender Differences in Police-Reported Violent Crime in Canada, 2008.” And finally the "Resolution: Regarding the UN Study on Violence against Women, Nov. 4, 2006." Which was a report put together by Mark Rosenthal and supported by 116 Equal Rights groups around the world and submitted to the UN. What I found interesting about these reports was that none of them gave the 90 to 95% Domestic Violence that men supposedly perpetrate against women as feminist so often claim, though I can tell they were heavily influenced by feminism in primarily giving high numbers to the males being the perpetrators. Even if some of the reports say 90% of women suffer violence at the hands of men only goes to show their bias against men, and how their information is misleading the public. When many other scientific studies say the opposite. Here below, are the four reports I had looked at in a little more detail.

(1.) The “Family Violence in Canada” report you quoted was correct. It did say: "Over the past 30 years, the rate of spousal homicides against females has consistently been about three to four times higher than that for males." I do not believe that "Family Violence in Canada Report" you quoted was the one that "Family of Men Support Society" got their info from. Did you catch that Faye, not 9 times more, as you suggested in an earlier response to me, but rather 3 times more.

(2.)  However, the “Statistics Canada; Juristat, Vol. 27, no. 4” contradicted that report by giving this one:  “About 7% of women and 6% of men across the country are the victims of Domestic violence at the hands of a current or former spouse or common-law partner according to results from the 2004 GSS on Victimization” Page 2. This one I believe to be more in keeping with the facts.

(3.)Then there is the "Gender Differences, 2008" report from the Police, which again contradict feminist propaganda: "Police-report data show that in 2008, the rate of violent victimization for female and male victims was comparable, 1, 155 and 1, 150 per 100, 000 population, respectively (Table 1, Table 2). Moreover, throughout the preceding 5-year period from 2004 to 2008, the rates of violent victimization for men and women remained relatively stable (Chart 1)." pages 6-7. This again is quite different then the statistics you gave in the first report and in your responses to me. As you can see, men suffer from violence just as much as women do, whether it be at the hands of men or women.

(4.) Regarding the UN study on violence against women gave this interesting information: "5. Whereas, a compilation of 195 scientific studies of partner violence concludes, “women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with spouses or male partners,” 6. Whereas, according to a Statistics Canada report, 7% of women and 6% of men report violence by a current or previous partner in the previous five years. 7. Whereas, according to a recent international study of severe violence among dating couples, 55% was mutual violence, 16% was male-only, and 29% of violence was female-only." For women in the past 50 to 100 years ago, female spousal abuse was near non-existent as far as we know. For it to be near equal to male spousal abuse today, female spousal abuse has skyrocketed by the 100s in percentage.  That is a massive explosion in female spousal abuse!  This is what is not being honestly reported by the so called experts and professionals that you talk about Faye. The question can be asked "Why?"

Now as to sexual assault and abuse. I don't doubt that women suffer more at the hands of men than men do at the hands of women. Now that's not to say men do not suffer as much sexual abuse as women do. One study said that men are 3 or 4 (more or less) times more likely to not report sexual abuse to the authorities as women do. This also applies to domestic violence as well.

Perhaps one of the most devastating blows that can be given to the Feminist myth that men are more violent than women can bee seen in Dr. Martin S. Fiebert's Annotated Bibliography. Follow the link here: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm "

I know my response to my friend above was quite lengthy, but I believe necessary to show my point about how feminism is against men. It promotes hatred, sexism, and bigotry against men in today's society.

 WHO GAINS THE MOST IN DIVORCE COURT?

In divorce court women are almost always favored over the man. A recent book written by former feminist Dr. Helen Smith, entitle “Men on Strike” writes...

 

 



The Trouble with Offending Others Today

I came across a handful of pithy quotes from an unknown author on the topic of offending others. They are as follows: "Being offended doesn't make you right," "If you take things personally, you will feel offended for the rest of your life," "Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't control your emotions, so everyone else should do it for you." This last quote seems to say it best, "The world would be a better place if people would spend more time thinking and learning and less time being offended."



(Lord willing, I will continue this blog article and complete it in the near future).