Monthly Archives: May 2013

FREE Chapter from my Book, Religion’s Cell

bookcover (2)


Doctrines of the Church that Lead to Bondage and Abuse

By Cynthia McClaskey

I am giving this free chapter of my book because I want everyone to see how man has corrupted “translation” to put women into a place of inferiority and blame.  Placing blame on women has been the number one reason for the inequality and abuses that women have suffered for centuries. Because of what happened in the Garden of Eden, Eve and subsequent generations of women have been “forced” into a “curse” that God never made regarding women; but MAN did.  Today, many women in other countries have no rights, no autonomy, no protection from abuses. These lies of the “religious system” need to be exposed so changes in law can be made to protect women from abuse. It is time for women to be given back what was taken from them — their honor, dignity and autonomy.

I want to make sure that everyone understands that these passages do not in any way promote male power and control over women. It is when they are taken out of context and twisted that they become the tool of an abusive spirit and lead to the abuses that are pervasive in today’s churches.  Many other verses have also been corrupted by men to suit their agendas of keeping women in manipulative roles.  This corruption of scripture is covered at length on my blog, as it pertains to women, through the many articles .  My goal here is to shed light on how women became the brunt of religious abuse and corruption and how they became “labeled” as inferior to men.  In order to be thorough in presenting the truths that are about to follow, it means going back to the beginning of creation and starting in the Garden of Eden.  This information will require a different mindset on the part of the reader.  My prayer is that those who embark on this chapter will do so with a mind that is void of all bias and prejudice.   As mentioned in Chapter One of my book, “perceptions” of “truth” can hinder a person from understanding the real truth.  One must be able to lay aside all religious views.  Religious views will usually stand in the way of the acceptance of the truth.  This unbiased approach to what you are about to read is an absolute necessity as we embark on the following subject and weigh out the evidence regarding this topic.

— Cynthia McClaskey


Male and Female Created He Them

Genesis 1:26 – 28And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.   And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

 Genesis 5:2  – Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called THEIR name Adam, in the day when they were created.

When I first came across these passages, and the realization sank in for the first time that both Adam and Eve were called “Adam,” I was totally shocked.  As many times as I have read the book of Genesis, these passages never jumped out at me until about four years ago.  From these passages we see that God called both male and female “Adam.”  God said, “Let us make man [or “Adam”—same word] in our likeness. . . in the image of God made HE HIM, male and female made HE THEM.”  Notice that man is spoken of as both singular and plural.  Has anyone ever wondered why this is so?

To answer this question, it would be appropriate to refer back to history.   One cannot interpret scripture without researching the history behind it to find out culture, customs, laws and problems of the day that were being dealt with.   Historical research can usually bring to light obscure passages that many struggle with as to their interpretation and meaning.

As far back as the days of Jesus, there was a theory that had been held among the Jews regarding Adam.   These views that were held are recorded in the writings of Philo of Alexandria and tell us that the Jews believed that man was, in the beginning, both male and female in one person.  This belief was also found among other writings among other peoples.  The term for a person who is born both male and female is Hermaphrodite.  Webster defines Hermaphrodite as “the union of the two sexes in the same individual.”  According to The Evolution of Sex by Patrick Geddes and John Arthur Thomson, there are three stages of development of the reproductive organs of an individual:  1) Germiparity, 2) Hermaphroditism, 3) Differentiated Unisexuality.  In this book we are told, “One view of the matter is that hermaphroditism was the primitive state among multi-cellular animals” (Thomson, 1889, 1908 p. 84).  There are people today still born this way.  They are born with both female and male reproductive organs.  In such a case, the parents decide which sex they would like their child to be and an operation is done to make the transition to one particular sex.   This said, it was believed that after Eve was separated from Adam, human beings were born in pairs, male and female twins.  If this held true, then there would have been a male and female Cain, a male and female Abel, etc.  This would account for how Cain secured his wife.

If this belief or theory is true, then this would explain the Lord’s words in Matthew 19:4, where he speaks about the sanctity of marriage.  “Have ye not read, that He Who made [no “them” in the original] from the beginning made them male-female [no “and” in the original]” (Bushnell, 1923).  The rabbis of early history had always read this passage as male-female, not male and female!  One must realize too, that Jesus was speaking to men who were probably familiar with this theory.  Dr. Heeshon, in his book Talmudic Miscellany, says, “There is a notion among the rabbis that Adam was possessed originally of a bi-sexual organism, and this conclusion they draw from Genesis 1:27, where it is said, ‘God created man in His own image; male-female created He them’” (Heeshon, 1880). This view is not unreasonable, as we know that Hermaphrodites are still being born today.  Assuming this theory or early belief is true, let’s follow it through and see where it leads us.  Before we do that, let’s finish with Genesis 1:28, where God pronounces his blessings on Adam and Eve.  This verse literally translated would be as follows: “Be ye fruitful and multiply ye, and fill ye the earth, and subdue ye her; and have ye dominion” (Harper, 1886).  Notice that the plural is clearly expressed in each form.   When God said this to Adam and Eve, he was saying it to both the male and the female.  He shows us that we are to observe perfect equality of the sexes in obeying this command.

Keeping in mind that “Adam” is used to refer not only to Eve’s husband but to “mankind,” let’s follow through on the above theory mentioned. The following excerpt is from the book God’s Word to Women by Katharine C. Bushnell.  This excerpt goes to the end of this chapter.  I have entered it word for word as stated in her book due to the profound importance of the information that she shares with us regarding this theory we are discussing.  Here it is:

The second chapter (of Genesis) describes the elaboration of the first Adam into two sexes.  The second chapter nowhere uses the word “create” of Adam, but a totally different word — “formed.”  Please look up this same word, “formed,” in Isaiah 44:2, 24 and 49:5, and convince yourself that it is used there exclusively of all idea of creation.  Then turn to Isaiah 43:1,7; 45:18, and see how it is used of a process additional to creation.  This is what St. Paul refers to, where he says, “Adam was first formed then Eve,” – I Tim. 2:13.  He is speaking of development, not of original creation.  Adam and Eve (so far as their primal state is concerned) were created simultaneously; but Adam was “formed,” elaborated, first.

After Adam was created, Gen. 1:31 tells us, “God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good.”  Therefore Adam was very good; but this condition did not last.  2:18 tells us that presently God says: “It is not good that the man [or “Adam”], should be alone.”  The “very good” state of humanity becomes “not good.”  What had wrought signs of this change?  We are not told, but the following points should be weighed:  (1) Adam was offered “freely” the tree of life (2:16), but did not eat of it (3:22); (2) was made keeper, as well as dresser of the Garden, (2:15), but Satan later enters it.  (3) Had God simply meant by the words “not good” that one person alone was not a desirable thing, the Hebrew expression for “one alone” in Josh. 22:20, Isaiah. 51:2, etc., would seem more appropriate.  This expression means, “in-his-separation,” – and from whom was Adam “in separation” but from God?

Attention to some of these matters has been called by more than one theologian, only to be ignored by the generality of Bible expositors.  For instance, William Law, a learned theologian and one of the most accomplished writers of his day, declares: “Adam had lost much of his first perfection before his Eve was taken out of him; which was done to prevent worse effects of his fall, and to prepare a means of his recovery when his fall should become total, as it afterwards was, upon eating of the earthly tree of the knowledge of good and evil. ‘It is not good that man should be alone,’ saith the Scripture.  This shows that Adam had altered his first state, had brought some beginning of evil into it, and had made that not to be good, which God saw to be good, when He created him.”

The late Dr. Alexander Whyte, of Edinburgh, in his book Bible Characters, set forth some of the views of William Law, and also of an earlier writer, Jacob Behman, the great German philosopher (whose writings Wesley, in his days, required all his preachers to study), Whyte quotes Behman as teaching –

“There must have been something of the nature of a stumble, if not an actual fall, in Adam while yet alone in Eden. . .Eve was created [he should say, “elaborated”] to ‘help’ Adam to recover himself, and to establish himself in Paradise, and in the favor, fellowship and service of his Maker.”

As to Adam’s need, God said, “I will make a help meet for him.”  This word for “help” does not imply and inferior, but a superior help, in O.T. usage.  It occurs 21 times in the O.T.  here it is used twice of Eve.  In Isa. 30:5, Eze. 12:14 and Dan. 11:34 of human help; but in every other use made of the word it refers to Divine help, as, for instance, Psa. 121:2, “My help cometh from the Lord.”  Please notice, further, that the expression is not “helpmeet,” or helpmate, as is often quoted.  The word “meet” is a preposition, and Gesenius, the greatest authority as to the meaning of Hebrew words, defines this preposition as often implying, “As things which are before us, and in the sight of which we delight, are objects of our care and affections, hence Isa. 49:16, ‘Thy walls are before me,’ they have a place in my care and affections.”  With this preposition “before,” or “over against,” is coupled the adverb “as,” – the whole meaning “as before him.”

By the elaboration of Eve, and her separation from Adam, God intended the development of the social virtues, as an aid for Adam.  Again William Law says, “Could anything be more punctually [pointedly] related in Scriptures than the gradual fall of Adam?  Do you not see that he was first created with both natures [male and female] in him?  Is it not expressly told you, that Eve was not taken out of him, till such a time as it was not good for him to be as he then was?”

We do not know certainly how the decline in Adam began, but we should not overlook one fact:  The man (the woman side of humanity being as yet undeveloped), was placed in the garden “to dress and keep it” (2:15).  Two duties, not one, were laid upon Adam.  This second word is the same as used in 3:24, where the “Cherubim, and a flaming sword” are placed, “to keep the way of the tree of life.”  Lange’s Commentary says, “Adam must watch and protect it [the Garden].  This is, in fact, a very significant addition, and seems to give a strong indication of danger as threatening man and Paradise from the side of an already existing power of evil.”

That “power of evil” manifests itself a little later in the form of Satan.  Did not Adam let him enter the garden?  Verse 17 goes on to warn Adam as regards “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” and it seems legitimate to infer that he was not only to refrain from eating of this tree, but also to protect this tree from being tampered with by others, as it was, later, when Satan induced Eve to partake of it, and then the youthful Eve gave of the fruit of it to Adam, who ate also.

Overlooking some interesting points for the present, we pass on to Gen. 2:21.  The last clause of this verse is literally translated by Dr. Harper, in his Method and Manual, as follows: “He took one from his sides, and closed the flesh instead of it,” and the learned author of Genesis in Ellicott’s Commentaries, Canon Payne-Smith, speaks of the woman as coming from the flank of man, “so curiously from ancient times rendered ‘rib.’”

On the same point, Archdeacon Wilberforce has written interestingly to the following effect: “I do not profess to manipulate the Hebrew a single step in advance of the possibilities of any student who may possess the Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance, [the same can be said of Young Analytical Concordance], but the ‘rib’ seems to be a mistranslation.  The Hebrew word translated ‘rib’ in both the Authorised and Revised versions, occurs forty-two times in the O.T., and in this instance alone it is translated ‘rib.’  In the majority of cases it is translated ‘side’ or ‘sides,’ in other places ‘corners’ or ‘chambers,’ but never ‘rib’ or ‘ribs,’ except in these two verses describing the separation of Eve from Adam.  In the Septuagint version, which was the Scripture quoted by our Lord, the word is pleura, which in Homer, Hesiod and Herodotus is used for ‘side,’ not ‘rib,’ and in the Greek of the N.T. is invariably translated ‘side.’  There is a word in the O.T. the true translation of which is ‘rib’ and nothing else, and it occurs in Dan. 7:5, but this is a totally different word from the word translated ‘rib’ in the passage before us.”  We could have said all this, in fewer words, not quoting Wilberforce, and others, but then, we might have been accused of straining a point, because of sex bias.  Had God taken only a rib from Adam, the latter would not have exclaimed, “she is flesh of my flesh,” but merely, “she is bone of my bone.”  Let us never forget, when we hear a rationalist ridiculing the “rib” story of “creation,” that he is not in reality ridiculing the Bible, though he may think he is.  He is holding up to contempt a stupid mistranslation.

The separation of Eve from Adam was, then, an exceptional instance within the human race of what is well known to take place in lower orders of life.  Professor Agassiz, the naturalist, in describing gemmiparous or fissiparous reproduction, says: “A cleft or fission, at some part of the body, takes place, very slight at first, but constantly increasing in depth, so as to become a deep furrow . . . At the same time the contained organs are divided and become double, and thus two individuals are formed of one, so similar to each other that it is impossible to say which is the parent and which is the offspring.”  Each human body retains still abundant traces of a dual nature, in almost every organ and part.

The Bible is not a treatise on science, but wherever rightly translated it is found not to contradict science.  Nothing could be more unscientific than the representation that Eve was made from a single bone taken from Adam’s body.  We have already commented on the possible original bi-sexual nature of the human being — the androgynous, or hermaphrodite state, which persists, imperfectly, to the present time within the human family.

The idea that Eve was made out of one of Adam’s ribs has its origin in rabbinical lore.  One story says that “Eve was made out of a tail which originally belonged to Adam.”  Rav, the great head of the Babylonian rabbinical school, declared, “Eve was formed out of a second face, which originally belonged to Adam,” and another rabbi declares, “Instead of a rib taken from Adam, a slave was given to him to wait upon him.”  But Rabbi Joshua, in his commentary, has given the fable which has most pleased Christian commentators on the Bible.  It is quite general for them to quote it in part, or give some of its many variations.

Rabbi Joshua says: “God deliberated from what member he would create woman, and He reasoned with Himself thus: I must not create her from Adam’s head, for she would be a proud person, and hold her head high.  If I create her from the eye, then she will wish to pry into all things; if from the ear, she will wish to hear all things; if from the mouth, she will talk much; if from the heart, she will envy people; if from the hand, she will desire to take all things; if from the feet, she will be a gadabout.  Therefore I will create her from the member which is hid, that is, the rib, which is not even seen when man is naked.”  And this is the inane fable which lies at the basis of the idea that Eve must have been made out of Adam’s rib, whereas the Bible says God took one of Adam’s sides (or one part of Adam’s being), out of which, He “builded” her.

(Bushnell, 1923 pp. 16-17)

With this theory in mind, let’s enter into the next chapter and talk more about Genesis and God’s Law of Marriage that He instituted and, how this law was supposed to work. . . .  (For more, please see my book, Religion’s Cell: Doctrines of the Church that Leads to Bondage and Abuse.)

The State of the World Before Christ

before christAt the birth of Christ the Roman empire was comparatively, enjoying a state of peace ; but as to other nations, who were not subject to Rome, those of the eastern regions were strangers to liberty, owing, in a great measure, to their manners and effeminacy, and even to their religion; whilst, on the contrary, the northern nations, from their form of government, climate, and robust constitution of body, enjoyed the blessings of freedom.

All these nations, except the Jews, were devoted to the superstitious worship of many gods, over whom presided one deity, as supreme, yet in such a manner, that this supreme deity was even under the control of what the philosophers called “Eternal Necessity.”  As each nation differed in the names and qualities of their divinities, so did they also in their mode of worship. The Greeks and Romans, in process of time, became as ambitious in religion as in politics : they asserted that their gods were the objects of worship in all nations, and, therefore, gave the name of their deities to those of other countries. Hence arose great confusion in the history of the ancient superstitions ; and hence innumerable errors in the writings of the learned. Notwithstanding these varieties of religion, they produced neither war nor dissension among the different nations, the Egyptians excepted ; nor was this toleration exercised by any more liberally than by the Romans.

Departed heroes were generally the deities of almost all nations, though the natural world afforded many objects for worship. The sacrifices offered to these deities were according to their respective nature and offices.  Most nations offered animals, and many human sacrifices. Various classes of priests presided over the ceremonies, who abused their power in the grossest manner. Besides this public worship of the gods, the Greeks and eastern nations celebrated secret rites, called Mysteries. That this religion had no tendency to promote real virtue is most certain, because the objects of worship were notorious examples of crimes, rather than of virtues ; and as to the knowledge of future retribution, it was uncertain and licentious.  Hence the wiser part of mankind, about the advent of Christ, looked with contempt on this corrupt system of religion.

The consequence of this theology was a universal corruption of manners, leading to the impunity of the worst of crimes, as fully testified by Juvenal and Persius among the Latins, and Lucian among the Greeks.

At the time of Christ s appearance on earth, the religion and arms of the Romans were spread throughout the world. With the view of not only confirming their authority, but also of abolishing the inhuman rites practised by the barbarous nations who were under their yoke, the victorious Romans introduced every where their own system of religion.

Passing from this view of the Roman religion to those of other nations, we find them divisible into two classes, political and military. In the former class may be ranked the religions of most of the nations of the east, especially of the Persians, Egyptians, and Indians: under the military class may be comprehended the religion of those northern nations, the Germans, Bretons, Celts, and Goths.
Notwithstanding the many wise men who have existed in all the heathen nations, none were able to stem the torrent of superstition ; which must convince us that none but God could reveal the truth, pure and unalloyed by error.

At the time of Christ’s birth, two kinds of philosophy prevailed; one of the Greeks, adopted also by the Romans ; and the other of the Orientals. The former was simply called “Philosphy;” the latter, “Knowledge.  The followers of the latter pretended to be the restorers of the knowledge of God, which was lost on earth. The disciples of both these systems again subdivided into a variety of

Of the Grecian sects, there were some which were enemies to all religion ; and others who, though they acknowledged a Deity, yet cast a cloud over the truth. Of the former kind were the Epicureans and Academics ; of the latter, the Platonists, the Stoics, and the Aristotelians.

In all these sects, as there were many things maintained absurd and unreasonable, certain men of judgment and moderation determined to adhere to none of them, but to extract out of each reasonable doctrines, and to reject the rest. Hence arose a new form of philosophy in Egypt, and principally at Alexandria, which was called the “Eclectic,” and founded by one Potamon, of Alexandria. This sect held Plato in the highest esteem.

From this brief account of the ignorant and miserable state of the world at the birth of Christ, it is self-evident that mankind required some Divine teacher, to convey to the mind true and certain principles of religion and wisdom, and to recall them to the sublime paths of piety and virtue,

The Jews, at this period, were nearly in the same state as other nations, and were governed by Herod the Great, a man of the most vicious and tyrannical disposition.

— Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern, 1822

It was this state of the world that Christ came into. History tells us that many of the oriental philosophies and beliefs had infiltrated not only other pagan religions, but the Jewish religion from the time of the Babylonian captivity. From these corruptions came the many “rules” regarding women; the 10 curses of Eve; the subjugation; the servility.  What also came into being was the BIGGEST lie of all that I speak about in my book, Religion’s Cell.

Jesus came to undo all this superstition and to set woman in her rightful place as an equal to man, restoring the honor and dignity that was stripped from her because of these many corrupt belief systems.  As a result of the state of the world at Christ’s death, being that Christ did not stamp out all of the superstition and change existing laws regarding women, men soon stripped women of the autonomy, honor and dignity once more. To this day, women have borne the brunt of the abuses – sexual exploitation, rape, incest, murder, mutilation, emotional abuse, spiritual abuse.

Two Corruptions with Huge Consequences

corruption2The people, according to the example of the apostles, were chief in authority, (a regulation necessary at that time,) and had the power of electing their own rulers, and of rejecting any laws [or rules] proposed by them; they could also excommunicate or restore unworthy members. These privileges they had obtained in consequence of their general and public oblations.

A perfect equality [this includes an equality between male and female] and harmony reigned among the members of the church, as appears by their feasts of chanty, and by their mutual salutations of ” Brethren,” and ” Sisters.”

. . . All other churches chose their deacons in the same way ; and some chose also deaconesses, from among their devout widows and matrons.

— Mosheims Ecclesiastical History, 1822

The many articles on this blog continually point to the corruptions that have taken place in the church and in translation, that were done purposely by men of old to subjugate and control women. These changes went against scripture and were not the teachings or examples of God or his Christ, but man. Because the “fruit” of these corruptions and changes has been . . .

  • The sexual exploitation of women
  • The abuse of women – physical abuse, rape and incest
  • Subjugating women to men
  • Inequality of the sexes
  • Servitude of women to men
  • Emotional and spiritual abuse
  • Removal from authoritative positions in the world and in religion
  • Lack of protections from these abuses through civil laws

It is imperative that these corruptions be revealed for the sake of those women still suffering the bondage that these changes have brought into the world.  My books focus narrowly on several of the biggest lies ever propagated by men in order to control not only women, but the masses through fear. This blog focuses narrowly on even more corruptions not mentioned in my books.

Church history and the earliest manuscripts do not support many of the doctrines taught today in churches and religions across the globe; especially, regarding WOMEN. Therefore, these corruptions must be made known for the sake of equality, honor and dignity of women AND, to show the depravity, the pride, the arrogance and control-mongering to which men have resorted to gain sexual dominance.

Women had equality in the early church. They were leaders, deaconesses, had churches in their homes, and were apostles.

The members of the “assembly” of believers were in total control over every matter within their “assemblies.”

Corruption:  Women were removed from leadership positions in the church and relegated to servitude. As a result, they were denied autonomy, honor and dignity in religion and the world.

Corruption: There is one “man” as head of each assembly that has unquestionable authority in the lives of the believers and dictates “God’s” will in their lives [usurping the Holy Spirit’s position]. As a result, the masses blindly follow these “men of God” willingly doing what they are told to do….even to the point of murder and violence against those who disagree or believe differently.

The state of the church today is far from holy, pure and undefiled. The atrocities and abuses that lurk under the mantle, especially toward women and children, are criminal. These abuses thrive because of corruptions like these two that I mention and, the many others mentioned on this blog. It’s time to bring the corruptions out and set the truth before us; purging the filth that has permeated the church of God.

“RELIGION” Keeps Slipping Women “Wooden Nickels”

wooden nickelAndrew Murray defined humility as “nothing but that simple consent of the creature to let God be all, in virtue of which it surrenders itself to his working alone.”  Speaking of Christ, our example, he says: “His humility was simply the surrender of himself to God, to allow [God] to do to Him what He pleased, whatever men might say of him, or do to him.”

Please notice carefully a certain qualification in each of these definitions of humility. In the first, the creature “surrenders itself to GOD ALONE,” this is humility: in the second Christ does this, “whatever men around Him might say of Him, or do to Him.” Now, I ask, Is woman taught that it is “humility” for her to conduct herself after any such manner? Let us see. As to the first point, take, for instance, Dean Stanley’s teaching: “The authority of the husband is enthroned visibly upon her [the wife’s] head in token that she belongs to the husband alone, and that she owes no allegiance to anyone besides, not even to the angels before the throne of God.” Now, Mr. Murray’s definition as to humility speaks of GOD ALONE; Dean Stanley’s definition of a wife’s duty, as an allegiance to MAN ALONE. The first defines “humility;” the second defines “servility.” Since true humility EXCLUDES surrender to man (according to Mr. Murray), it is perfectly evident that exclusive allegiance to man would prevent woman from exercising true humility.

— Bushnell, 1923

Throughout church history, religious men of old have made it very clear that women must submit themselves completely to their husbands in every way; even if it was abusive. Women, for centuries, have been denied humane and ethical treatment based on this twisted teaching by men.  This attitude is contrary to what is set forth in scripture. According to Bushnell, “a dispute for the throne of God has existed between God and man ever since the Garden of Eden when humanity desired to be “as God.”  The culmination of this mindset will end when the Lord returns to “slay with the breath of His mouth” this “man of sin” who sets himself forth “as God” — 2 Thess. 2:3-8. But, what about women? What will God want women to do? Dean Stanly states, “Let women show their humility, their willingness to take a lowly place; let them put on a veil to show they owe no allegiance but to MAN ALONE,– not even to God’s own messengers, the angels before God’s throne.”

Am I the only one that sees how preposterous this teaching is? Men call this “humility” when, in fact, it reeks of arrogance, pride, control and self-interest. All this, clothed under the mantle of “God’s Will” for women using the terms “humility” and “womanliness.” According to Bushnell, “We observe that when an expositor and preacher of the Gospel wanders out of his path of duty “to preach Christ” as woman’s one example of conduct, and preaches “womanliness” instead, he sets up an idol of his own creation for women to worship; he turns himself to folly. We imagine such expositors would have been pleased had God sent into the world, an additional female Christ, to set women a female example; but since God did not see fit to do so, women are under obligation to endeavor, as best they are able, to follow the “manly” example of Jesus Christ, and leave the consequences with God. This is woman’s truly humble place. Any other is SHAM humility.”

SHAM humility is what fills many of today’s pulpits across the world by men whose only goal is to gain power and control over women. SHAM humility is filled with self-interest. True humility is filled with the “benefit of others,” before self. There is a big difference between the two. Men have placed this shroud of SHAM humility on themselves and used it to coerce and force women into submission to them. Christ was clothed in true humility and died to benefit the whole world, not himself. He put others before himself and raised them up to a place of honor before God, preferring them above himself.  True humility by men would raise women to this same place of honor and respect.

So, what was Christ’s attitude toward man, seeing HE ALONE is woman’s pattern?

John 2:23-25 – “Many believed in His name, when they saw the miracles which He did. But JESUS DID NOT COMMIT HIMSELF UNTO THEM, because He knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man: for He knew what was in man.”

What a great example for women to follow! Jesus did not trust “man.” He KNEW what men were all about. Jesus only committed himself to GOD ALONE. And yet, MEN want WOMEN to commit themselves to MAN (husband) alone. What is more amazing is that man takes this a step further teaching that women should be in subjection to ALL MEN.   Is man’s intent regarding women becoming clear yet? Men do not want a truly humble wife that follows Christ’s example, because Christ’s example sets forth that a woman should not trust blindly her husband. The marriage relationship was meant to be based on “equality,” not “inequality.” Inequality leads to abuse of women and, “idolatry” of the husband. Equality brings with it a “mutual trust” — a reciprocal tie and duty between both husband and wife. Bushnell said it well when she stated, “. . . this matter of the surrender of one’s entire person and conscience to the keeping of another human being is idolatry. — a deadly sin against God. Love does not require it. Never man loved as Christ; never man trusted himself to man less than Christ did. The more he surrendered Himself to God, the more humble He was; the less He committed Himself to man. Mark how he kept His conduct free from all human influences.”

To be GOD’S ALONE literally means to NOT be man’s in the least. Jesus let God do what He pleased with Him. He made no concessions to man. How differently religion has taught women! At every step of the way, religion has twisted teachings and corrupted scripture through translation to put women in a place of servility and idolatry to man. Women have been slipped the proverbial “wooden nickel.”  Everything a woman does is in reference to her SEX, not rather, with reference to her God! It is in reference to control, not honor and respect.

Men have made very sure that they have coerced and forced women into servitude; coerced and forced women into a second-class status; coerced and forced themselves into a place of sexual dominance, control and power over women through religious teachings as well as corruption through translation of scripture. Is it any wonder that Christ would not commit himself unto them?  Women should follow Christ’s example. Think about it.

Another Twist of Scripture to Subjugate Women to Abusive Husbands

michalThroughout the twenty years I was in the Independent Fundamental Baptist Cult, this next topic was one that I heard often in the preaching. Without fail, the theme of the message was that Michal was barren “as a punishment” from God for her words with David. The underlying message that was given was this:  If a wife disagrees with her husband, she will be punished by God.  This instills “fear” and causes emotional trauma to the woman because what she has to say becomes unimportant. It tells the woman that she has no say so in the way her spouse treats her. If he desires to be mean, hateful, and abusive, that she must endure it or God will punish her too.  Her desires and wants have no value in the marriage relationship and are of no VALUE WITH GOD.  This twisting of scripture places the man in a position of control and abuse that God never intended. Let’s look at this passage and hear from an expert whom I hold in much higher regard than the unlearned and secularly uneducated men that hold positions of leadership in most I.F.B. churches, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin. According to Telushkin, it makes no sense to believe that God is punishing Michal for her words. Here is a paraphrase of what Telushkin talks about in his book, Biblical Literacy and then I will expound further on this subject.

“David whirled with all his might before the Lord” (II Sam. 6:14). The text tells us that Michal looks out a window and sees David dancing in the streets and despises him for it. Afterwards, when David returns, there is an exchange between Michal and David. Michal meets him after his return with anger and scorn saying, “Didn’t the king of Israel do himself honor today–exposing himself today in the sight of slavegirls . . . as on of the riffraff might expose himself?”

David responds to this verbal slap with an arrow to the heart of Michal: “It was before the Lord who chose me instead of your father and all his family, and appointed me ruler over the Lord’s people Israel [that I danced]” (II Sam. 6:21). The chapter concludes with the verse “So to her dying day, Michal, daughter of Saul, had no children.”

Most Bible commentators generally sympathize with David; many explain Michal’s barrenness as God’s punishment for her angry words to David. But in truth, if Michal’s words were tactless, her husband’s were cruel. There is no reason to assume that God chose to punish Michal. More likely, after this brutal exchange the two never again were intimate.

— Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, Biblical Literacy

One wonders, when Michal went to sleep every night in the palace, was she thinking of David or Palti, the only man who ever loved her and that she had five children with. 2 Sam 21:8,9 – “But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, . . . And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest.”

No one stops to consider that Michal had been married for quite awhile before David took her from her husband! What kind of emotional attachment would she have to David by being FORCED to leave her husband and children!! The emotional TRAUMA alone is enough to chill one’s bones.  God is NOT going to punish further someone that is already suffering and is broken. If you think differently, then you do not serve the LIVING GOD that is full of compassion and mercy and love.  Michal was a broken women who was torn from her family by a King who showed no mercy,  compassion, love or care for Michal.  He did not love her. She was a tool used to keep Saul’s followers, and his enemies, at bay.  Michal, more than likely, was never intimate with David, because she KNEW he did not love her and did not care about her or her five children that she was taken from. David destroyed her marriage and family for his own SELFISH reasons.

David was human. He committed murder. He made some bad decisions. This was just one more to add to his list. BUT, to use this example in scripture to tell women that if they do not let an abusive husband have is way, that God will punish them is preposterous! More than likely, Michal did not have children WITH DAVID because she didn’t love him or want any children with him because of his cruelty toward her. And David. . . well, he didn’t FORCE himself upon her! That alone should make men realize that they DO NOT have a RIGHT to force themselves on their spouses and God does not expect women to submit to abuse.

The Fruit of the Corruption


Many religions of today look like this Apple. They are so corrupted that they may not be salvageable.

Gradually, however, the notion of a priesthood, of a sacred order of men, found its way into the new society. Gradually the congregations were willing to relieve themselves of the onus of maintaining a thoroughly Christian life, and to commit their spiritual concerns to the care of their bishops or presbyters. These, on their part, began to assume a certain superiority in rank, and to restrict to themselves the title of the cleri or clergy (heritage of God), a title which hitherto had comprehended the whole body of believers. It must be presumed that the Church, having her vision somewhat dimmed by the spirit of the world, failed to see the danger into which she was falling, and did not perceive that Jewish modes of thought, instituting a false comparison between the Levitical priesthood and the Christian ministry, were perverting her original character. The result of this change was equally disastrous to both parties, to the officers of the Church and to the rest of the congregation. — Edward Backhouse, Early Church History to the Death of Constantine

It did not take very long for men to corrupt what once was “pure religion and undefiled” before God. Throughout church history there is an obvious “trail of corruption” by men, in order to gain power, control, prestige and wealth.  Every article on this blog exposes this truth. Every  where men elevated themselves to leadership within the church assembly, they instituted “rules” in order to gain control and power over the congregations. This “superiority in rank” as Backhouse terms it, was a leaven of corruption of the worst kind. It was the beginning of a new kind of worship within Christendom that led to blindness on the part of the people.  Instead of worshiping God, they made MEN their idols and bestowed upon them all the power, honor and prestige that was only to be bestowed upon God and his Christ.

Through these many “rules,” congregants were willing to give up their freedoms for bondage to an institution and, to the men running them. Little did they realize the magnitude of the corruption and the end result of it that we see today in churches everywhere. Anyone that “touts” himself as a “man of God” is revered, trusted and, allowed to lead. Some are given huge congregations to lead and others, small. But, all are allowed blind trust and followship by the congregants.  Many are worshiped as gods and as a result, there are countless abuses hidden underneath this system of worship. The targets of the abuse? Women and children within the congregations. When there is inequality in any setting, their will also be abuse. One of the first changes of these men of the early church, was to subjugate women and remove them from positions of leadership. Using their perverted translations of the scriptures, men of old made sure that women were subdued and thus, they became the most abused race of human beings in world history. . . all because of men and their man-made “religions.” The fruit of religion, for women, has been sexual exploitation and mutilation, physical abuse, rape, incest and murder and servitude to wicked men.

Coming to the surface of mainstream media are the numerous pastors and priests that have molested, raped and murdered women and children under the guise of “religion.”  Also, coming to the surface are the countless numbers of pedophiles hidden within this system.  What is shocking is that the congregations that follow these abusers, continue to do so, even after the exposure, unless, it is murder. Jack Hyles and Jack Schaap are prime examples of this mindset. How sad a day it is indeed when man worship supersedes truth and righteousness and, love, compassion and grace toward our fellowman.

It’s time for people to wake up to the reality that you cannot blindly trust anyone and bestow upon them power, prestige and money. You would not trust a stranger in this manner; yet millions trust “strangers” shrouded under the title “Man of God.”

There Was No Hierarchy and All were EQUAL

equality“The whole body of Christians,” observes Hatch, “was upon a level ; ‘All ye are brethren.‘ The distinctions which St. Paul makes between Christians are based not upon office, but upon varieties of spiritual power. . . . The gift of ruling is not different in kind from the gift of healing. The expression, ‘He that ruleth,’ is co-ordinate with ‘he that exhorteth,’ ‘he that giveth,’ ‘he that showeth mercy.’  Of one or other of these gifts every Christian was a partaker. [This included the women]” “The kingdom of Christ,” says Dr. Lightfoot, “has no sacerdotal system. [Sacerdotalism is the belief that propitiatory sacrifices for sin require the intervention of a priest.]  It interposes no sacrificial tribe or class between God and man, by whose intervention alone God is reconciled and man forgiven. . . . Every member of the human family is potentially a member of the Church, and as such a priest of God [This includes the women]. … In the records of the apostolic Churches, the sacerdotal title is never once conferred upon [the special officers]. The only priests under the Gospel, designated as such in the New Testament, are the saints, the members of the Christian brotherhood. As individuals, all Christians are alike. . . . Tertullian,” he observes,” is the first to assert direct sacerdotal claims on behalf of the Christian ministry.” — Edward Backhouse, Early Church History to the Death of Constantine.

During the early era of the church, there were no such rulers in the church as Pastors and Priests. Every believer, under the Gospel, was considered part of a ‘brotherhood’ of believers that knew no such ruler over them. The early corruptions that ensued by those like Tertullian, brought into the early church, the Sacerdotal system and hierarchy that exists today.  Because of power, prestige and money, man has corrupted the simplistic system where all were equal and all had input in everything that the body of believers did to help the sick, the poor and the needy. Women and men were EQUAL under the original system that existed. Tertullian, and others like him, are responsible for the the male-dominated hierarchy that exists. . . a hierarchy that has brought much corruption to the church and, abuse of women throughout history. God never meant for women to be subjugated to men. Subjugation and servitude were woven into scripture [by translators] in order to gain control over women for sexual advantage and power, as history affirms. To learn more, please read the many articles on this blog, listed below for your convenience, that expose these changes that religious men of old have done in translation to place women in an unequal position, setting them up for abuse. They also expose the corruption and lies that have been inserted into translation to control and manipulate congregants for personal gain.

For those wishing to de-brainwash from a “religious” mentality and be set free “in truth,” here are just a few articles from my blog that will help in that process. John 8:32  “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Be sure to subscribe to my news feed so you don’t miss any subsequent articles!

Religion’s Cell Articles by Cynthia McClaskey

Do You GIVE to GET from God?

giving2“Little need be said on the subject of ALMSGIVING. The example so fully set by the Apostles was nobly followed by the Church. The East and the West vied with each other in their generous care of the widow and orphan, the sick, the poor  and the captive, in the relief of all who were in distress, far off or near. But a danger lay in the tendency, early developed, to regard acts of charity as meritorious in themselves, as entries on the right side of the ledger in the account between the soul and God. We find this erroneous notion beginning to show itself as early as in the Shepherd of Hermas. “If you do any good beyond what is commanded by God, you will gain for yourself more abundant glory, and will be more honoured by God than you would other wise be.” — Edward Backhouse, Early Church History from the Death of Constantine.

Throughout history we find this erroneous notion of giving to “gain from God” in place in many religious sects around the world. The populous as a whole believes that if they do this or that for God, they will be blessed of God. Not so. God does not give based on what WE do for him. God’s blessings are not guaranteed anyone just because they go beyond what God commands us to do. In fact, there are some people who will even use “giving” as a means to get from others what they desire for themselves. Preachers are notorious in doing this. They gain for themselves by forcing this “rule” of giving onto the backs of their congregants.  There are even some sects that teach that if they give their life for their “God” that they will gain this or that from God in heaven.  How deceitful this thinking is. Little do they realize that they cannot command God to give because of anything they do or do not do. God does not operate within the confines and parameters of man’s finite thinking.

Many Christians also believe that if they attend church, serve in the ministry, have a bus route, sing in the choir, go knocking on doors to tell people how to be saved, etc., etc., that God will surely bless them. Sadly, they soon find that the trials of life are no respecter of persons. Christians and non-Christians alike will suffer hardships; service or good deeds are not the STANDARD by which God doles out his hand of blessing.  They are not the measure by which God chooses who he is pleased with!

Usually, one who is “giving to get” from God, no matter what it is they are wanting from him, is only thinking about themselves. They attend church to gain God’s blessings. They work in the ministry to gain God’s blessings. They do this or that for others, to gain God’s blessings.  That’s selfish. They are only thinking about themselves and no one else.  Or, are they doing this out of fear that God will punish them if they don’t?   Again, that fear is selfish!  Either way, they are focused on themselves and what God will do for them if they do this or that.  Who sincerely would want to bless a selfish person? I mean, really bless.  It is only when we get our eyes off ourselves and our wants and needs and onto blessing others, and, being a blessing to others without ulterior motives of receiving in kind from ANYONE, even GOD, that we will see the hand of God move in our lives to bless. It is the good things that we do for others that no one else sees, that moves God’s hand of blessing in our lives. Sadly, most have forgotten that. Many have become so desperate for themselves and their needs, that they have forgotten that they are not alone in their need. Many others are in the same situation. If only they were indeed genuinely concerned for their fellow man and gave, out of their need, to help another in need, would they unlock the door to the storehouses of God’s blessings in their lives.

I am sure some may disagree with me on this issue, and that’s okay. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. . . and so, I am entitled to mine. If you disagree, then amicably “agree to disagree with me.”

The Offerings Do Not Go To The Church

givingOn ” the day called Sunday,” says Justin, “all who live in cities or in the country assemble in
one place, and the memoirs of the Apostles, or the writings of the Prophets, are read as long as time permits ; and when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying, Amen : and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given ; and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. They who are well to-do and willing give what each thinks fit ; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who sends assistance to the orphans, and widows, and the sick, and those who are in bonds, and strangers, in a word to all who are in need.” — Edward Backhouse, Early Church History to the Death of Constantine

On “Sunday” all the money that was collected was given to the orphans, widows, the sick, those who are in bonds, strangers, and those who were in need. The monies, food, water and wine that was brought by all was distributed amongst the families within the assembly including those who could not make the assembly. (Notice there is NO CHURCH BUILDING).


  • Given to the President of the assembly for his salary and needs.
  • Given for the salaries and needs of those on staff.
  • Used to pay for a building of worship.
  • Used to pay for the church’s Christian school.
  • Given to missionaries that came through to preach.
  • Used to buy a new car, new house or other luxuries for the president of the assembly.

All monies collected were given to those inside and OUTSIDE of the CHURCH assembly that were poor and in need. The corruption that came with the collection of monies is just another reason that we should question everything that a church does with our money. Why give money to a church when you can give to those in need yourself. God never commanded us to give to a religious institution. He commanded us to give to the poor and needy. When you give to a religious organization and they control where the money is spent, you are just throwing your money into the pockets of the leadership, and the majority of it, will never reach those who truly need it. Think about it. Who REALLY benefits the most from your giving? The church and its leader, or the poor and needy? The church and its leader, or those within the assembly that are poor and in need of it?

If you have not read my book, The Truth About Tithing, I would highly recommend one do so and learn the reason why churches push Tithing for the Gentile populous that were never under the Old Testament covenant that included tithing. Only the Jews were under that law and that covenant has been annulled through Christ and his sacrifice on the cross.

A little Early Church History on Baptism and Women Preachers

ordained women in the early church“That the Apostles generally made use of water-baptism cannot however, be doubted; although Paul’s thanksgiving for having himself baptised so few of the Corinthian converts is significant.

At first the act was of the simplest kind and might be per formed by any one.

“Even laymen have the right to baptise, for what is equally received can be equally given.”  – Tertullian.

How soon a superstitious value began to be attached to it we have seen in the story of the Apostle John and the robber. The earliest description of the rite to be found in any Christian author is contained (as in the case of worship) in Justin Martyr’s first Apology (A.D. 138). Probably by that time the new converts were required to pass through a course of religious instruction in preparation for it, whence they were called catechumens, i.e. persons under oral instruction. We have seen in the last chapter how great progress ritualistic ideas had made in Justin’s time, in regard to the bread and wine. The same is apparent in his manner of treating baptism.

Tertullian’s treatise on baptism was launched against the followers of a woman named Quintilla, a preacher of the Gospel at Carthage a little before his time. He is very severe and even scurrilous against the members of this sect, who rejected water baptism as useless, and held that faith alone is now, as it was in Abraham s time, sufficient for salvation. There were other sects at the same period who rejected both water-baptism and the Eucharist. Such were the Ascodrutae, who held, “that the divine mysteries, being images of invisible things, are not to be accomplished by the things which are seen, or the incorporeal by that which is visible and corporeal, but that the true knowledge of that which exists is complete redemption.” They were said to be “a sort of Gnostics,” and the truth which they held may perhaps have been largely mixed with error; but it is also possible that they may have incurred undeserved censure on account of their protest against the encroachments of ritualism. The Seleucians and Hermians, again, rejected water-baptism, maintaining that it was not instituted by Christ, and laying stress on John the Baptist s words : “I indeed baptise you with water,” etc. The number of such dissidents may have been much larger than history declares, and the fact of their existence indicates that even in this early age, there was not wanting in the Church a spirit of protest against the leaven of formality and ceremonial observances.”

— Edward Backhouse, Early Church History to the Death of Constantine, 1903

From the very early ages of Christianity, ceremony and “formality” began to creep into the early church (corruption). What came to mankind as “simple and easy to administer” became rallying points for religious men to elevate themselves and their “uninspired” interpretations into ritualistic observances and rules for early Christians to follow.  Also notice that there WERE women preachers of the Gospel, that were thus “labeled” by these early religious leaders to defame them and stop people from listening to what they had to say.  Nothing has changed much since that time. Women are still being “labeled” and castigated for preaching the Gospel by men who refuse to admit that God gave women “freedom” in Christ to do so as his redeemed. “We are neither male nor female in Christ Jesus.”

Men’s interpretations and preconceptions fill the anals of history with rhetoric regarding women and their service within the body of Christ; all of which, is designed to degrade and humiliate them, causing their words to fall on deaf ears. Throughout early history, the corruptions of men are well shown; as are the “attitudes” regarding women.  Every opportunity to “change” the simplicity of Christ into something only the “elite” can do, is well documented. Man has always taken advantage of what God has given to interject his own ideas, opinions and preconceptions.  Leaven is leaven. There is much leaven in the “church systems” of the world that have resorted to “rules,” “observances,” “rituals,” and religious dogma, to constrain people into a mold and belief system, that is not of God.