Has Spiritual Abusiveness Driven Some Men From America's Churches, “Volunteer” Organizations, and More?

The icon of Madonna and Child,
without Joseph ( social father of Jesus)
is what has caused the problem in the first place.
Gynocentric misandry, started 2000 years ago,
the icon should have been a family portrait,
i.e. Mary, Jesus and Joseph!

I've always found it interesting that the most powerful, all-knowing, supposed son of god is depicted mostly as a eunuch, a sexless absent-minded visionary with twelve slacker can't-get-rid-of-them friends.

Every alternative take on The Lord, perhaps suggesting he was a radical politician in Passolini's "The Gospel According to St. Mark", or an anguished lost & betrayed soul in Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" - these films are reviled and persecuted (and mostly unknown and ignored) as heretical.

Perhaps as Maurice Mok has insightfully suggested, the earthly father of Jesus was evaporated from the mythology, for the same reason that Jesus' is portrayed as a castrado.

The very disturbing notion of a verile masculine god would today no doubt be immediately banned from polite discourse in FemAmerica.

The Freudian problem of Jesus' love for Mary Magdalene (the whore) has never been resolved in the dogma....

You all realise of course that it was absolutely imperative for Joseph to be airbrushed out of history and out of Jesus' life. If Jesus was to be portrayed as the son of God, he could not possibly be the son of Joseph; still less, Heaven forbid, the son of some other man to whom Mary was not married. That would make Jesus a b*****d and impossible to erect into any kind of religious icon, let alone worthy of any claim to divinity.

Hence the massive and crushing drive to emphasise Mary's virginity and embed belief in the Immaculate Conception firmly into the heads of the faithful. The church simply could not afford to give Joseph any place in the picture. His presence would be far too dangerous, a continuous invitation to question the true paternity of the Saviour. Jesus could only have one father, and it was certainly never going to be anyone from earth.

So as surely as Joseph's role had to be dismissed and forgotten, so as surely Mary's role had to be elevated and celebrated to the point of divinity itself.

So could it be that the early Christian church, in its headlong and ruthless rush to elevate this man Jesus into the Godhead, unwittingly laid the foundations for misandry and the denigration of fatherhood that has followed? Have we all been brainwashed into the belief that somehow the question of who our father is, should be viewed with suspicion, as something dark and sinister, something we are better off not questioning? That we should cling exclusively to our mothers as the one and only true parent we have?

And is this one further reason why women have been able to get away with cuckolding their husbands so regularly throughout history?

I forgot to add that the image of the crucified Christ, became the defacto expectation of how all men should be treated.
It is a forgotton fact that prior to the Roman invasion of Jerusalem, the Jewishness of a child was determined by the father and not the mother,
since Torah has only paternal geneology. The Romans changed that, so as to restrict the Jewish population, and to be able to keep accurate census numbers for the Jewish population.
Finally, empires are built on fatherlessness, i.e. men separated from their children, off to work we go, we traded in our beards for ties!

Lame attempt at hyperbole. True about how He is represented in art and even intentioanlly to the women of the church. In fact many women in the demographic targeted would love a 30 ish guy who had zero sex drive, unlimited empathy, and wisdom beyond measure.
But the friends were chosen...he didnt want rid of them.
There is no Freudian problem save in those minds that dwell were Freud did.
Psuedo intellectual clap trap, self serving in its dismissal of any morals and responsibility.

I refer you to Jesus in Joseph's carpentry shop- Roman hypobole?
Why?, because this brief comment in the Bible, is just that- a brief comment.
I am reading from "The Jerusalem Bible- Index of Biblical Themes in the Footnotes" and read "Mary-see Women" and there is no entry for Joseph!
The second and third points I made in my previous post re: Torah and patriarchal lineages; and empires and fatherlessness are FACTS.
Whilst we're on the subject of hyperbole, hear's some more "hyperbole" from me- Why have mothers for 2 thousand years allowed their sons to be subjected to gynocentric misandry? could it be because of the 2 preminent icons of Catholism-Mary with Jesus (Madonna and Child) and crucified Christ, only.........

The feminist movement is up against nothing but short of collective TESTOSTERONE.
Man made in G-d's image, and we have been suffering ever since.
Stop Gynocentric Misandrty NOW.

Moreover Brown's sources were less than credible and have been debunked numerous times by people whom are not even religious. Such things as "The Sacred Feminine" and an all powerful unified goddess culture are no more than pop. culture revisionist history at work. I find it hilarious how feminists are trying to use a bunch of mythical figure(Jesus included) to prove that women are superior.

Religion is never going to be clear because it is not based on facts. One thing is for certain books like THE DA VINCI CODE are more about female empowerment than actual history which tells a MUCH different story. I prefer not to join the ranks of the diehard conspiracy theorists.

"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy5

"Feminism: The most organized form of nagging" ~ Peter Zohrab

*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis

Like, 1) Is this guy writing mainly about the spiritual abuse of men, by churches and society in general; or spiritual abuse by our churches, of men and society in general? It might help if the author chose one over the other.

2) Where the heck does this come from:

"Men should take steps to protect themselves from those who would destroy, or otherwise seek to harm them - for whatever reasons, whether it is in the Church, a “volunteer” organization, or “God forbid,” a Father’s or men’s rights organization."

Do any of you guys know what he is talking about; i.e. is he saying men's rights organizations abuse their members spiritually?? The only thing I can think of is maybe the little bit of egging on we give each other to get all excited, or to "wallow in our misery"..

-ax