Monday, January 16, 2017

Mark Armstrong on Negligent Authorities and Abortion

Mark Armstrong, leader of the Intercontinental Church of God, has another weekly update (January 13, 2017). First he discusses the tragic massacre at Fort Lauderdale then he denounces the authorities for not stopping him and other violent individuals. He makes the sensationalist implication that the fear of being labelled racist or bigoted prevented persons from being stopped before committing acts of mass violence.
So, let's see.  The brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon had come to the attention of authorities, having raised a number of red flags, and were deemed to not pose a threat.  The “couple” who shot up the office party in San Bernardino were deemed not to pose a threat, even though they were known to have traveled to and from terrorist havens.  The Orlando nightclub shooter had been under investigation, even interviewed by authorities before they determined that he posed no threat.  Anyone suggesting that any of these murdering half-wits presented a danger to society before they killed people would have been branded a racist and a bigot.
He then condemns certain religious leaders for participating in dedicating a Planned Parenthood facility that had recently opened in Washington, D.C. He uses this information to recite his opposition to abortion. This position is widespread in the COGs and elsewhere so this viewpoint does not provide any reason for a person to join the Intercontinental Church of God since many others also believe the same view.
As shocking as it seems to our sensibilities, a group of “religious leaders” gathered in the nation's Capitol this week to hold a ceremony “blessing” the new $20 million, 27,000 square foot Planned Parenthood abortion facility.  The “clerics” donned religious garb and posed for a group photo at the event where the facility was repeatedly praised as doing “sacred work.”  It was organized by a ridiculous outfit that claims to bring “the moral force of religion to protect and advance reproductive health, choice, rights and justice through education, prophetic witness, pastoral presence and advocacy.” To apply that kind of language, appearing to grant divine sanction to the “service” this facility provides reeks of evil.

But there they are, so called “Christian leaders,” a Rabbi and a couple of Hindu priests, proud as can be.  They even prayed (not sure to whom) for “blessings” on the abortion facility. You'd have thought we would have grown accustomed by now to evil being presented as some lofty moral ideal.  But this one takes the cake, with queer matrimony getting runner up.
He then complains that "the American heartland" and president elect Trump are labelled as racist and bigoted. Reading these words it sounds as though he is complaining about how he thinks he himself and his organization are viewed by others. These words seem designed to stir up resentment among his followers at leftists.
The howls of racism and bigotry aimed at the American heartland and the incoming president are heard in our mainstream media and in the foreign media as well.  They are applied to the abortion argument, as if difficulty in arranging an abortion is tantamount to slavery.  And we've all heard, or been subjected to the almost universally accepted notion that to oppose “gay” anything and everything makes you bigoted.
He expresses hope that the Trump Administration will make society more aligned with his views. Most COGs tend to lean to the right in regards to political matters. I do not condemn them for this but it is important to note this fact since it explains so many of their political stances which may be found in their writings.
Truth is fallen in the streets as never before in the United States.  Evil is paraded as “good,” even as having a “spiritual” and religious component.  We can hope, with a turnaround in governance and hopefully on the panel of the Supreme Court, that we'll see some semblance of sanity going forward.  But it won't be quick and it might well get ugly. 
He then links his topic of condemning abortion with vilifying the acceptance of refugees by the US government. It seems a bit odd linking those two topics together.
Last week's Update showed that there had been about 25 terrorist attacks in the first week of 2017.  The poor, frightened and displaced refugees have been financed, welcomed and given every benefit of the doubt all over Europe, and to a lesser degree the United States.  We've been told time and time again, that it was done out of an obligation to the “poor.”  That's as big a lie as calling what they do at the abortion clinic “sacred work.”  The lies have been so bold, and repeated in the mainstream press so often that they may never be fully exposed, at least not in the present age.
He then mentions at the end of the main narrative his belief that Christ will soon return and make the world right.
Some of us are aware of a time in the future when God will set everything right on this earth, and you can guarantee no one will characterize any heinous sin as “sacred.”
Imagine living in a world in which a man like the author of this weekly update gets to be in charge forever. What a thought.

Sunday, January 15, 2017

PCG's Brad MacDonald Moans About Minorities and Protesters

In a previous post it was mentioned that Brad MacDonald made a remarkably bitter broadcast on PCG's Trumpet Daily radio broadcast (January 3, 2016). Let's take a closer look.

He mentions that there have been a problem in some places of teenage mobs getting out of hand in some shopping malls. He complains about this and then choose to focus his ire on teenagers, particularly those who happen to be minorities and/or African Americans.
But these warring or these unstable teenagers are just another outward sign of America's lawless, abusive, out of control young people. We've seen this evident in the rise of the flash mobs a year or two ago. We've seen this evident in the gangs of teenagers roaming some of America's streets just randomly beating people in the streets. 
Now it's a fact that most of these teenagers are minorities. It's a fact that a huge number of America's out of control teenagers, out of control youth are inner-city blacks. (11-12 minutes.)
He then cites a newspaper article to blame the Obama Administration for exacerbating this problem.
[The reporter] makes the point that America's out of control youth, especially America's out of control minority youths, really are a function of the White House over the past eight years. (12 minutes.)
He then complains about the Obama Administration, the Justice Department and the Education Department have tried to reduce the disproportionate rate of disciplining African Americans in schools.
President Obama's policies have dramatically increased youth rebellion. They've dramatically increased teenage lawlessness. His policies have fundamentally transformed teenage culture, especially, especially in the minority communities. (20 minutes.)
How pathetic it is that he should use his position to slur minorities and African Americans in such a way. What effect will statements like this have among PCG members who are predominantly white? Also there are African Americans who are members of PCG. What must go through their minds hearing their young people being singled out in such a way?

After this he complains about an "entitlement culture" which he accuse the Obama Administration of promoting.
But there's no doubt that millions are taking advantage of the benefit system. There's no doubt that America could save a lot of money by addressing some of the exploitation taking place. (29 minutes.)
He also scare mongers about the federal debt.
Consider the national debt as well. This is another massive problem that Donald Trump will inherit. And that doesn't have an easy solution. [He complains that the federal debt was $10.6 trillion in January 2009 and is now $19.7 trillion.] ... President Obama has added nine trillion, nine trillion to America's debt. By far more than any other president, (30-31 minutes.) 
This claim is quite misleading because it fails to account for inflation and economic growth. Once one compares the federal debt with GDP growth it will be seen that in fact the United States was more indebted per capita back in the 1940s because of World War II.

Furthermore about half of the federal debt is owed to Americans. Also the US debt is a sovereign debt that no one can force the United States government to default. The debt is denominated in US dollars and the US government is the source of the currency. So no one can force the US government to default on the federal.

The federal debt is simply not as much of a problem as MacDonald implies.

He then scare mongers about homosexuals, a community often viewed as an easy target within the COGs.
Consider the empowerment that has occurred over the past eight years of special interest groups. The LGBT community. President Obama has invited these groups into the White House. He's created all sorts of councils and working groups to improve conditions. He's created all sorts of laws and policies and regulations defending these groups. He's created an expectancy. Many of these groups. All of these groups. They expect to be protected and defended. And these are powerful groups. And they won't react positively to being cut back. To being confronted. (32-33 minutes.)
He then scare mongers about Black Lives Matter protesters and makes the inflammatory accusation that these protesters want "to create violence". Instead of talking about the problem of police brutality he makes his followers fearful and afraid of politically active African Americans.
Think about the Black Lives Matter movement. Barack Obama has empowered this movement. This is a dangerous movement. This is a movement that wants to create violence in America. This is a movement that wants to undermine America's government, undermine America's systems. (33-34 minutes.)
This inflammatory accusation refuses to deal with the problem of police brutality and racial discrimination which have caused many African Americans to try and resolve these pressing issues through protests and political activism.

He scare mongers that Trump's attempts to change things will lead to more trouble in the short term future.
There's a culture of grievance compensation that has been cultivated over these past eight years. People who feel victimized expect, they demand, compensation. For eight years they've been told that this is what they deserve. Can that be taken away without making some of these people very, very upset? (35-36 minutes.) 
He then accuse President Obama of promoting a culture of lawlessness.
Consider the culture of lawlessness that we've seen develop over the past eight years. Again Mr. Obama is not the source of lawlessness. He's not the originator of lawlessness. He's not the first person to show, you know, a lesser regard for the rule of law. 
But he has been America's president for eight years and in that capacity he has made lawlessness mainstream. Mr. Obama has undermined and destroyed the respect for the rule of law. He's flouted America's Constitution repeatedly. He's made it OK to not uphold laws or to circumvent the laws. Eight years on it is today more culturally accepted to reject a law, to reject a policy if you don't agree with it. Culturally there is a lot less respect today for the law and for the rule of law. People are just less concerned, they are less concerned today about lawlessness. (36-37 minutes.)
He criticizes the hope that many right wing Americans have for the upcoming Trump Administration. PCG teaches that the United States is fated to be conquered by a German led European superpower. This message is taught regardless of whether the president is Democratic or Republican.

PCG's audience tends to lean to the right so most of PCG's audience would be inclined to view Trump's victory positively. Perhaps some of them might think that there will be no catastrophe with a new Republican president. MacDonald seems to want to get rid of this glimmer of hope from his audience by insisting that this catastrophe is still fated to occur.
As I said at the beginning there are so many people, so many people, so many Americans, especially conservatives who are just charged up and amped for Mr. Trump to become president. They really believe that he's going to turn things around for the United States. But in fact the solutions to America's problems are bigger than one man. The solutions to America's problems are much, much bigger than that. (46 minutes.)
He then insists that Gerald Flurry's 2013 booklet, America Under Attack, which ridiculously labelled President Obama as "another Antiochus," is still not redundant even though President Obama will soon be leaving office to be replaced by Trump.
If you havn't requested and studied our book, America Under Attack, now is the time to do it. Now is the time to do it. That book is not redundant now that Mr. Obama is leaving the White House. It's not redundant. In fact it will probably become more important with time and it will certainly be vindicated more and more as time goes on and proved true. (52-53 minutes.)
In other words even though a Republican will soon be placed in the presidency MacDonald still wants his followers to be fearful and afraid of leftists and to still view Gerald Flurry's 2013 booklet as fully relevant despite a Republican president taking office.

This diatribe against the hope of many right wing Americans that things will improve under Trump shows the unhelpfully negative attitude towards attempts to manage society within PCG's 1%. So many people are trying to make America more in line with their ideals and PCG's 1% chooses to insist that such efforts cannot solve America's pressing problems. PCG offers no hope for a better future until after a cataclysmic World War III when we need solutions today, not in the future.

Some wonder why do PCG's members continue to stay in PCG despite the many problems within it. Part of the reason for this is because PCG's followers are taught to be afraid and fearful of so many that they have a harder time noticing the problems among themselves. Why be fearful of sending in three tithes to PCG when they are taught to be afraid of so many other people who are supposedly out to "get them" somehow?

Saturday, January 14, 2017

Eleven Palestinian Homes Demolished in Kalansua, Israel

Recently eleven buildings belonging to Palestinian citizens of Israel were demolished heightening tensions. Haaretz published the following scathing editorial criticizing this act for inflaming tensions.
Although there was no urgent need to tear down the structures, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wishes to aggressively advance “enforcing building laws in the Arab communities.” He and Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan know perfectly well that such acts won’t solve the problem, but only exacerbate it. There are more than 50,000 houses that were built without a permit in Arab and Druze communities in Israel. Applying the law “blindly” means erasing entire neighborhoods and leaving half a million people without a roof over their heads. 
Netanyahu knows that every demolition increases the rising tension among the state’s Arab citizens and contributes to their loss of confidence in the state, and that this tension could spill over to violence and unnecessary clashes. He could also have anticipated that the massive demolitions in Kalansua would be seen as indeed they were seen: as an act intended to inflame emotions, sow frustration in the Arab population and curry favor with the rightist voters, who are still angry about the anticipated evacuation of the Amona settlement outpost. (Brutality in Kalansua, Haaretz, January 13, 2017.)

Defense Secretary Nominee Wishes to Maintain Current Policy Concerning Jerusalem

While some call for the US government to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move the embassy to Jerusalem President-elect Trump's nominee for Defense Secretary, James Mattis, has stated that he wishes the current policy was maintained.
Retired Marine General James Mattis, President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for the post of Defense Secretary, said Thursday that the capital of Israel was Tel Aviv. 
"Right now, I'd stick with the U.S. policy," the retired Marine general told Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is vetting his nomination. "The capital of Israel that I go to is Tel Aviv." 
Mattis made the statement in response to a question posed to him by Sen. Lindsey Graham. Official U.S. policy doesn't recognize Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, which Israel claims as its capital. The U.S. embassy is in Tel Aviv, however U.S. policy doesn't explicitly state that Tel Aviv is Israel's capital. 
Mattis also explained that "that's where all the government people are." While Israel's Prime Minister's Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are both located in Jerusalem, the Israeli Defense Ministry and the IDF headquarters - two places that Mattis has visited many times when he served in the U.S. military - are in fact located in Tel Aviv. (Capital of Israel Is Tel Aviv, Says Trump's Pentagon Pick Mattis, Haaretz, January 12, 2017.)


















Netanyahu Scandal in Israel

Are the COGs watching this to see if it is a sign of Christ's return? Currently there is much concern in Israel about evidence of collusion between Prime Minister Netanyahu and the owner of popular Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth to rein in the freely given newspaper Israel Hayom (which is sponsored by casino magnate Sheldon Adelson) and use Yedioth Ahronoth to keep Netanyahu in power.

Media Mogul Told Netanyahu: We'll Make Sure You Remain Prime Minister.

Netanyahu Promised to Media Mogul to Stifle Adelson's Daily: 'We Can Legislate It, We'll Set Up a Committee'.

Friday, January 13, 2017

How Events in the Holy Land Can Affect America

While the COGs carefully watch the Holy Land to see a sign that Christ will soon return it turns out there are other reasons it is worth paying attention to events over there. 
The most widely-anticipated policy change is moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (which in the short-term would require just switching the signs in front of U.S. diplomatic facilities). Another possibility is kicking the official representatives of the Palestinians out of Washington. A third is ending aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA). 
Why focus on these three? Among other reasons, because all are already required by law: a 1995 law requires the transfer of the embassy; a 1988 law bars the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the recognized representative of the Palestinians, from operating in the U.S.; and Congress has for nearly two decades passed legislation every year barring funding to the PA. However, Congress also gives presidents the authority to waive implementation of each of these laws, in an arrangement that lets legislators score political points with pro-Israel hardliners, while leaving space for presidents to preserve responsible policies. 
Until now, presidents from both parties have consistently exercised these waivers; by merely ceasing to do so, Trump could change any or all of these policies, immediately and on his own. (Lara Friedman, Think Trump’s Policies On Israel-Palestine Have Nothing To Do With You? Think Again, Huffington Post, January 6, 2017.)
 Furthermore it turns out there is a law which requires the United States to withdraw and defund any United Nations organization which admits the Palestinians as a member. That is one reason why UNESCO passed their recent resolution about Jerusalem. America was not a member and paid nothing to them and so had no say because of this law.

Monday, January 9, 2017

Critiquing John Chrysostom's Anti-Semitic Rant (Second Homily)

Continuing from Part 1 let us continue to look at John Chrysostom's infamous anti-Semitic polemic, Against the Jews.

In AD 387 John Chrysostom, bishop of Antioch, gave a series of homilies to his flock denouncing Judaizers and Jews in the days leading up to the Day of Atonement. Today this series of homilies is viewed as yet another shameful moment in the development of the infamous hatred that is known as anti-Semitism.

Five days before the Day of Atonement he delivered his second homily. At some point a large part of this homily was lost. Since it was noticeably shorter than the other homilies scholars speculated that part of it was lost. It was not until the 1990s that the rest of the second homily was recovered from a Greek manuscript.

Let's take a look.
Against those who fast the fast of the Jews and against the Jews themselves. Delivered after the other homily has been given and five days before the Jewish fast.
HWA and his various imitators tended to insist that it was Sabbath keeping that was a defining sign of the "true church" during the time of Catholicism's ascendancy. But by 387 when John Chrysotum made his vicious denunciation of Judaizing Christians he chose to focus on their observance of the fast on the Day of Atonement. Although he does mention Sabbath keeping in the first homily (VIII, 1) nevertheless Sabbath keeping seemed to be of little concern to him. He seems much more concerned with their observance of the fast on the Day of Atonement and listening to the ram's horn on Rosh Hashanah.

At the end of the first homily John Chrysostom called upon the congregation to seek these Judaizing Christians and get them to stop observing Judaistic practices. In the second homily he encourages these efforts.
I hoped that with the span of many days you might be able to track down with all fearlessness those who are suffering from this disease and restore them to health. ... I have gotten a head start in talking to you, the fishermen, that you may sweep up your weaker brothers in your nets and bring them to hear what I have to say. ... Those of you who did fish and have your catch securely in your nets, remain steadfast and bind them tight with your words of exhortation. Those of you who have not yet taken this goodly catch have time enough in these five days to trap and overcome your prey. So let us spread out the nets of instruction; like a pack of hunting dogs let us circle about and surround our quarry; let us drive them together from every side and bring them into subjection to the laws of the Church. (I, 2-4.)
He then derogatorily compares the Jewish community with a man who refuses a freely given pardon from the Emperor for not converting to Christianity. The Jews described in the Old Testament as observing various Jewish practices are excused but the Jewish community of his time are condemned.

He then complains that the husbands do not control their wives as effectively as he wishes. He viciously insists that those who attend a synagogue while participating in the Feast of Trumpets are possessed by demons.
Yet when the hour set for the services summons you to the church, you fail to rouse your wife from their sluggish indifference. But now that the devil summons your wives to the feast of the Trumpets and they turn a ready ear to this call, you do not restrain them. You let them entangle themselves in accusations of ungodliness, you let them be dragged off into licentious ways. For, as a rule, it is the harlots, the effeminates, and the whole chorus from the theater who rush to that festival. 
And why do I speak of the immorality that goes on there? Are you not afraid that your wife may not come back from there after a demon has possessed her soul? Did you not hear in my previous discourse the argument which clearly proved to us that demons dwell in the very souls of the Jews and in places in which they gather? Tell me, then. How do you Judaizers have the boldness, after dancing with demons, to come back to the assembly of the apostles? After you have gone off and shared with those who shed the blood of Christ, how is it that you do not shudder to come back and share in his sacred banquet, to partake of his precious blood? Do you not shiver, are you not afraid when you commit such outrages? Have you so little respect for that very banquet? (III, 4-5.)
So it would seem these Judaizing Christians of 387 had a practice of attending Jewish synagogues. How very different this is from how Armstrongite authors have described the supposed "true church" in the late Roman Empire.

Even though the crucifixion occurred three and a half centuries beforehand John Chrysostum viciously describes Jews of his time as being guilty of the crucifixion blaming Jews collectively for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. This vicious accusation would be used to inflict so much pain and suffering to Jews throughout the centuries.
What greater evidence could there be that a man does not love our Lord than when he participates in the festival with those who slew Christ? (III, 8.)
At this point we go into the rediscovered portion of this homily.

He proceeds to denounce Jews as "abominable and lawless and murderous and enemies of God" for not agreeing with his religion. It is noticeable once again how he focuses on the fast on the Day of Atonement rather than describing them as Sabbath keepers as HWA and Co. would have us expect.
Now then, let me strip down for the fight against the Jews themselves, so that the victory may be more glorious—so that you will learn that they are abominable and lawless and murderous and enemies of God.  For there is no evidence of wickedness I can proclaim that is equal to this.  But, in order to amass forensic-style speeches against them, I shall first demonstrate that even if they had not been deprived of their ancestral way of life, even so their fast would be polluted and impure.... I shall demonstrate that not only the fast, but also all the other practices which they observe—sacrifices and purifications and festivals—are all abominable. (p. 32.)
He then insists that the law was only given because Jews were sinful. Instead of being viewed as a chosen people he twisted their chosenness as something shameful.
When a well-born and free man has a female slave who is licentious and pulls in all the passers-by for immoral relations with her, he does not allow her to go out into the neighborhood, to show herself in the alley-way, to rush into the marketplace; instead, he confines her upstairs in the house, shackles her with iron, and orders her to remain indoors at all times, so that both the spatial restrictions of the place and the compulsion of the chains will be her starting-point for chastity. God acted in the very same way:  the Synagogue being his licentious slave-woman, gaping after every demon and every idol, and rushing to make sacrifices to the idols in every spot and in every place, he confined it in Jerusalem and the temple, as though in the master's house, and ordered it to sacrifice and celebrate festivals at appointed times there only, so that both the spatial restrictions of the place and the observance of the times would keep it, even unwillingly, in the law of piety.  Sit there and be modest, he says; let the place train you, since your character did not. (pp. 36, 38.)
He then hysterically insists that slaughtering the Passover lamb anywhere outside of Jerusalem is like murder.
Therefore, whenever they sacrifice the Passover [lamb] either here or elsewhere, they are manifestly murderers.  For if, when someone does not bring his sacrifice to the doors of the Tent of Witness, the sacrifice is reckoned as blood and murder, and if these people make their sacrifices not only outside the temple, but even outside the city, indeed everywhere on earth, then it is quite obvious that they are enmeshed in the pollution [of murder] to an enormous degree. (p. 40.)
He ridicules their religion and insist that it is not possible for them to observe their religion unless they controlled Jerusalem, a possibility he dismisses not having any hope. He states that Jerusalem is closed off to Jews. Unlike some today he seems to have had no expectation of Jews moving to the holy land as a sign of Christ's return.
And that is why I called their fast impure right from the beginning:  because it is carried out unlawfully.  Indeed, their Passover and Feast of Tabernacles, and whatever else they do, are profane and abominable; what they carry out is not worship, but lawlessness and transgression and outrage committed on God.  You see, if they did not dare to do any of these things during their sojourning in a foreign land (as my discourse has proved), when they expected to recover their ancestral city and return to the temple, then they are obligated much more now to stay idle, to refrain from action, and not to carry out any of these things—now that there is no longer any hope that they will recover Jerusalem.  For that city shall not rise up again in the future, nor will they return to their prior form of worship.  It was to make this clear to them that God opened up the whole world to them, and made that spot alone inaccessible, and thus there are imperial laws keeping them away and not allowing them to set foot in the doorway of the city—that city is and will remain off-limits for them at all times. (p. 42.)
John Chrysostum states that Jerusalem was inaccessible to Jews in his day. He insists that Jews being forbidden to enter Jerusalem and the end of sacrifices at the Temple was a thing caused by God to get them to give up their religion in order to join his religion.
But on the very day of their fast, I will demonstrate that it [i.e., Jerusalem] will not rise again—if you are present again with the same enthusiasm and I see this hall made just as magnificent as it is now with the multitude of the listeners. Today, on the other hand, it is necessary to tell you why God opened the entire world to them, but made that city alone inaccessible to them.  Why, then, did he do this?  He knew their obstinacy and shamelessness, their willfulness and disobedience; he knew that they would not easily choose to give up their former way of life, conducted with sacrifices and burnt offerings, and go toward the higher, more spiritual life of the Gospels.  What, then, did he do?  After tying their worship of him to the necessity of sacrifices, he furthermore confined the sacrifices themselves to the temple, and after doing this, he made the place off-limits for them, so that, from the fact that they were not allowed to set foot in Jerusalem, they would become aware that it was now not permissible for them to sacrifice—and from the absence of sacrifice they would be taught not to cling to the rest of their forms of worship any longer, and would be able to see that it was no longer the proper time for that way of life, that instead, God was calling them to a different and greater philosophy. (p. 42.)
John Chrysostum states it was God's will to visit calamity upon the Jewish community to let the forces of the Roman Empire to sack the Temple in Jerusalem.
In the very same way, God, wanting to lead them to more solid nourishment, but then seeing them constantly running back to Jerusalem and its way of life, walled off the city like a mother's nipple with bile and the bitterest juice—the fear of the Romans—and by means of imperial decrees he made it become off-limits for them.  His intention was that because of the desolation and the soldiers' weapons, they would stand aloof from that homeland and little by little become accustomed to rejecting their desire for milk and slipping into a love and craving for solid nourishment.  For even though emperors caused the desolation, they were moved by God to do so, and this is clear from [a comparison with] the previous periods, when not even the ruler of the whole [world] was strong enough to take the city, since God was favorable to them. (p. 44.)
Curiously John Chrysostom then complains that most of the Judaisers he condemns were women. This raises intriguing possibilities. It is not possible today to verify his claim that most of these Judaizers were women. This raises an intriguing possibility: that his hostility towards Jews and Judaizers was partly motivated by sexism. Could be possible that a misogynistic attitude motivated his production of this infamous attack on Jews?
But not only to men do I address these comments, but also to the women, through their husbands.  For indeed, I know that most of the crowd that is drawn to go there is composed of women.  Now then, the blessed Paul says, "Husbands, love your wives"; and again, "The wife should fear her husband." But I am seeing neither wives' fear nor husbands' love.  For if the wife feared her husband, she would not have dared to go.  If the husband loved his wife, he would never have allowed and tolerated her going.  For what is worse than this outrage, I ask you?  A free and believing woman goes out of the house and goes off to a synagogue?  Does she know any other place at all, apart from the church and the time spent there?  But if she were going off to a lover, would you not have stood up?  Would you not have been inflamed?  Would you not have posted guards on all sides?  But as it is, you do not see her going off to commit adultery with a man, but going off to [be with] demons—and you allow this impiety?   If she commits a transgression against you, you punish her; but if she commits outrage against her Lord, you overlook it?  If she wantonly abuses your marriage, you are a harsh and inexorable judge; but if she tramples on the covenants with God, you are careless and slack?  How can these [offenses] be worthy of forgiveness?   And yet, God does not act that way, but rather in the opposite way:  When he himself is outraged, he overlooks it; when you are treated that way, he punishes.  Do you wish to learn that he honors your affairs more than his own? (p. 45-6.)
And John Chrysostum's second homily came to an end but he still was not finished. He still had more to say to demonize Jews and discourage Judaizers.