Patriarchy is anti-life.

Todd

Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
726
Likes
1,190
#21
There is NO “balance” when men & women compete for control/leadership, and this is especially true in marriage.

Without leadership, there can be no order.

That is why feminism is deadly to the family unit and society in general.

My understanding of men (To the best of my limited knowledge, having never been a man so I cannot say for certain since my mind is wired completely different than a man’s) is this:

A man would rather be respected than loved. (given the choice)

Also, Men have strengths that are better suited for leadership than women. Men are stronger than women. (Feminists get all triggered about this but I challenge any woman that doubts this to go arm wrestle the nearest man & you’ll quickly discover this is true). It is what it is.

Women simply have different strengths than men which make us ideal for domestic work, nurturing children & keeping the Home.

Why do people have such a hard time accepting this?

Without a woman fulfilling her role at home, you cannot have a strong family unit.

Without a strong family unit, you cannot have a healthy, functional society.

Feminism does not liberate women, it undermines & sabotages our very important role in life & creates disorder in the home.
I agree with most of what you say in this post about roles of men and women. However I disagree that leadership cannot be shared. If the women is clearly better at a certain role then she is capable of leading when it comes to that aspect of family life or society.
 




Last edited:

Vytas

Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
613
Likes
1,024
#22
Universal quote which fits everywhere not just in family. :)
There is no issue at all, some people are in dire need of problems if they need to create stupid divisions like that...All i see in there is another ego driven rebellion against the way God ordained things...

“The man may be the head of the household. But the woman is the neck, and she can turn the head whichever way she pleases.”
 




Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
1,163
Likes
1,455
#24
I agree with most of what you say in this post about roles of men and women. However I disagree that leadership cannot be shared. If the women is clearly better at a certain role then she is capable of leading when it comes to that aspect of family life or society.
We always run the finances. :|
 




Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
173
Likes
220
#25
I agree with most of what you say in this post about roles of men and women. However I disagree that leadership cannot be shared. If the women is clearly better at a certain role then she is capable of leading when it comes to that aspect of family life or society.
The authority still falls on the shoulders of the man.

If he designates things for the wife to look after that is fine, but a wife should not overstep the boundaries into disobedience and usurp his authority.

I’m in charge of the Home when my husband is at work. I am the authority figure to our 4 children when he’s away, but once he steps in the door, that authority is passed back to him.
 




Todd

Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
726
Likes
1,190
#26
We always run the finances. :|
Who is we?
In my marriage the first 10 years I handled the finances (at least paying the bills) and my wife spent everything else, often spending the bill money before I could pay the bills. It was a constant struggle. Eventually my wife came to the point that she was convicted in her prayer time and felt as though God told her to handle paying the bills, so she could see what I was going through.

It took some faith to agree, but I felt God was in it, so I agreed. There were some rough moments but she learned a lot and gained new respect for the finances. We left it that way for about 5 years before switching back.

We now have two checking accounts. Both of our names are on each of them. One is strictly for bills and saving and the other is grocery and play money. She can spend whatever she wants from the grocery/play account, though now she often takes money out that account and transfers to the bill pay/ saving account because she understands the importance of saving now.
The authority still falls on the shoulders of the man.

If he designates things for the wife to look after that is fine, but a wife should not overstep the boundaries into disobedience and usurp his authority.

I’m in charge of the Home when my husband is at work. I am the authority figure to our 4 children when he’s away, but once he steps in the door, that authority is passed back to him.
You are confusing authority with leadership.

So when your husband walks in the door your children no longer obey you? I respect your humility in your marriage, and I acknowledge your belief in God ordained authority, but I think you are short changing yourself in the area of leadership.

A good leader in a position of authority, will recognize, acknowledge and nurture the leadership of those that are under their authority.

My wife acknowledges me as the head of our household, but we truly make major decisions on everything together. I never “lord” anything over her.
 




Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
4,953
Likes
8,270
#28
Why not focus on balancing matriarchy and patriarchy instead of falling for obvious gender biases here...really.
Instead of trying to balance them, we could get rid of the idea of both. Society shouldn't be controlled by one group, the patriarchy should be removed but that should not give space for a matriarchy to arise.
 




Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
517
Likes
755
#30
Instead of trying to balance them, we could get rid of the idea of both. Society shouldn't be controlled by one group, the patriarchy should be removed but that should not give space for a matriarchy to arise.
I agree somewhat. I'm still on the fence on the idea of humans needing leaders at all, or if we could all function like cells in a living organism - without any kind of top down hierarchy. Maybe it's possible in an awakened populace, but I see a lot of weak and ignorant people out there who need someone to make decisions for them.
 




Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
173
Likes
220
#33
I believe that medieval monarchies had what looked like a good idea, mainly a king and a queen ruling over the populace. It wasn't perfect but it was stable. What really matters is the way they rule and not wether the main leader is a man or a woman. Some queens were truly cruel and almost more "man-like" than some of the kings...so I don't think you can lump all men or women in the same basket. Every individual is made up of female and male aspects which varies.
I agree somewhat. I'm still on the fence on the idea of humans needing leaders at all, or if we could all function like cells in a living organism - without any kind of top down hierarchy. Maybe it's possible in an awakened populace, but I see a lot of weak and ignorant people out there who need someone to make decisions for them.

The only way that would work is if we all followed the Bible.

That is very unlikely because there are way too many atheists, humanists & self-absorbed snowflakes out there.
 




Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
1,163
Likes
1,455
#34
6000 years of patriarchy. Wars, genocides and rapings. Suppression and domination of the ancient women centered matriarchal civilizations (which ended when the minoan civilization fell). The religions of Abraham (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) have untold amounts of blood on their hands. They use the concept of evil and Satan to dehumanize their opponents and justify what could otherwise not be justified, killing another human being. They don't even follow their own prophet's teachings. Jesus is the prince of peace and he was killed because he spoke out against the roman imperialist patriarchy. He was spreading the wisdom of the goddess and they could not tolerate it. His teachings threatened the violent Roman empire and its lust for domination. Women loved Jesus so much, in fact it was the reason why Christianity rose to dominance in the Roman empire. The Roman government needed to take it over and use it for their own purposes and along came the apostle Paul (who actually never met Jesus and openly mocked him, including the fact that he had long hair) and corrupt his message.

So now we have the American empire which is basically the extension of the Roman Empire. It will try to carry out Patriarchy's ultimate goal; the end of life and the flesh. The American government has shown its true colors through Trump. He symbolizes what has always been true about their philosophy; fascism. Its disdain for women and femininity (i.e. life itself). They are obsessed with nuclear war, they desire it. The patriarchal god will try to carry out his mission with this terrible weapon. I recently watched an interview on Democracy Now, the American government has been longing to nuke Russia and China since the end of ww2. If this is carried out, most of life (if not all) will die out. North Korea is a puppet state of China. We are at the brink my friends.
The (fallen) goddess was not promoted by Jesus. That is one of the craziest notions I've heard around here, to date.
 




Todd

Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
726
Likes
1,190
#35
I agree somewhat. I'm still on the fence on the idea of humans needing leaders at all, or if we could all function like cells in a living organism - without any kind of top down hierarchy. Maybe it's possible in an awakened populace, but I see a lot of weak and ignorant people out there who need someone to make decisions for them.
Organic leadership rather than hierarchy is what Jesus taught the disciples, yet the institutionalized church is the epitome of top down hierarchy.
 




Todd

Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
726
Likes
1,190
#36
The only way that would work is if we all followed the Bible.

That is very unlikely because there are way too many atheists, humanists & self-absorbed snowflakes out there.
Don’t blame it on the unbelievers Claire. The church is the epitome of hierarchy top down leadership!
 




Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
14
Likes
5
#38
The (fallen) goddess was not promoted by Jesus. That is one of the craziest notions I've heard around here, to date.
Jesus's teachings were in direct conflict with the existing patriarchal order. He lived 3 miles away from Sepphoris (a major Hellenic city) and it was likely that he was exposed to the Mysteries of Eleusis (which have their roots in Minoan culture). This would explain his belief in the equality of the sexes, pacifism and resurrection. There are many stories in Genesis that explain the transfer of power from matriarchy to patriarchy, a matriarchy that Jesus's teachings were connected to.

The snake was considered sacred to goddess worshiping societies as it symbolized rebirth ( which was a core tenet to their belief system). This would explain why the bible's authors decided to connect the snake with Satan and evil.

Jezebel was a Phoenician (Phoenicians were descendants of the Minoans) princess who was married into the Hebrew society, she was a high priestess of the goddess Asherah and she was the poster girl for defiant matriarchal women. The patriarchal authors of the bible made clear of their disdain for her.

"But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars and chop down their Asherim and burn their carved images with fire". Deuteronomy 7:5

“You shall not plant any tree as an Asherah beside the altar of the Lord your God that you shall make." Deuteronomy 16:21

The story of Cain and Abel was also clear indication of the transfer of power from the previous order to the next. Abel (pastoralist) represented the patriarchal nomadic Hebrews, Cain (agriculturalist) represented the farming Canaanites. Of course the patriarchal god chose Abel over Cain, it was a symbolic story of his preference.
 




Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
14
Likes
5
#39
Those that are referred here would sacrifice their children to idols. I for one have no problem with doing away with such people.
Do you commend child sacrifice?

And you still haven't answered my question about your quote.

Where in the Bible does it say this?


I used to be like you, I was an atheist for almost 30 years untill a few months ago. I hated Christians with the power of a thousand suns.
I would have loved for all of them to disappear.
I used to give quotes from Scripture that I took from the Internet, without any idea of any context, to show how wicked Christianity is, trying to give the people I was speaking to the impression that I knew what I was talking about.
I judged Christ by the people that liked to call themselves Christians. Just because someone SAYS the're Christian doesn't mean they're a follower of Christ. I judged wrong.

You're probably aware that the people that call themselves Modern Satanists are attention seeking atheists that live by a somewhat just set of rules. If a lot of them are upstanding citizens, give to charity and what not, should I start praising Satan because they bear his name?
If someone isn't like Christ , they're not his followers. "You will know them by their fruit"' They can stamp that name on their foreheard if they want, it will still be only a name, not a truth.

"Narrow is the way that leadeth unto life''. If all the Christians that you love to hate would be followers of Christ we would have songs like "Highway to Heaven" and "Stairway to hell"'. But we don't, LOL
I hope that one day, sin will stop clouding your judgement, like it did for me.
27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27

Pretty sure that's from the new testament. I'm actually not an athiest and I don't hate Jesus, I admire him very much. I'm trying to make a distinction between him and the bible (which was compiled and edited by his slayers the Romans).
 




Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
14
Likes
5
#40
Very insightful documentary on the christian conversion of Europe and the supplanting of the mother goddess by the father god.