Patriarchy is anti-life.

elsbet

Superstar
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
5,122
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
1,367
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

Star
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
2,525
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.
 

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,122
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.
 

Helioform

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
3,195
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.
 

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,122
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.
That's the biggest challenge... but people can be educated.
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
1,367
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.
 

elsbet

Superstar
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
5,122
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

Star
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
2,525
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

Star
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
2,525
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!
 

PaulyWaug

Rookie
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
14
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.
 

PaulyWaug

Rookie
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
14
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).
 

PaulyWaug

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

 

elsbet

Superstar
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
5,122
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.
Jezebel was a sneaky, conniving thing. I was just re-reading the story of her demise last night in 2 Kings. They called for her (proper) burial because she was a King's daughter, but there was nothing left to bury, really. According to the word of Jehovah, she was eaten by the dogs.

And Jehu cometh in to Jezreel, and Jezebel hath heard, and putteth her eyes in paint and maketh right her head, and looketh out through the window...​
And Jehu hath come into the gate, and she saith, `Was there peace [to] Zimri -- slayer of his lord?'​
And he lifteth up his face unto the window, and saith, `Who [is] with me? -- who?' and look out unto him do two [or] three eunuchs;​
And he saith, `Let her go;' and they let her go, and [some] of her blood is sprinkled on the wall, and on the horses, and he treadeth her down.​
And he cometh in, and eateth, and drinketh, and saith, `Look after, I pray you, this cursed one, and bury her, for she [is] a king's daughter.'​
And they go to bury her, and have not found of her except the skull, and the feet, and the palms of the hands.​
And they turn back, and declare to him, and he saith, `The word of Jehovah it [is], that He spake by the hand of this servant Elijah the Tishbite, saying, In the portion of Jezreel do the dogs eat the flesh of Jezebel,​
and the carcase of Jezebel hath been as dung on the face of the field in the portion of Jezreel, that they say not, This [is] Jezebel.'​
Gruesome, isn't it? But she carefully arranged the murder of an innocent man so her husband could take possession of his vineyard-- feeling any kind of pity for her would be difficult. The disdain is warranted.

I'm sure Jesus was exposed to Eleusis when He created him, but I doubt He would have been influenced by his philosophy-- you cannot compare the Author of the universe to His creation-- especially those who are fallen. The matriarchy that you are proposing is led by a false god, just like the existing (supposed) patriarchy, and nowhere in the bible is that endorsed.
 

PaulyWaug

Rookie
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
14
Jezebel was a sneaky, conniving thing. I was just re-reading the story of her demise last night in 2 Kings. They called for her (proper) burial because she was a King's daughter, but there was nothing left to bury, really. According to the word of Jehovah, she was eaten by the dogs.

And Jehu cometh in to Jezreel, and Jezebel hath heard, and putteth her eyes in paint and maketh right her head, and looketh out through the window...​
And Jehu hath come into the gate, and she saith, `Was there peace [to] Zimri -- slayer of his lord?'​


And he lifteth up his face unto the window, and saith, `Who [is] with me? -- who?' and look out unto him do two [or] three eunuchs;​


And he saith, `Let her go;' and they let her go, and [some] of her blood is sprinkled on the wall, and on the horses, and he treadeth her down.​


And he cometh in, and eateth, and drinketh, and saith, `Look after, I pray you, this cursed one, and bury her, for she [is] a king's daughter.'​


And they go to bury her, and have not found of her except the skull, and the feet, and the palms of the hands.​


And they turn back, and declare to him, and he saith, `The word of Jehovah it [is], that He spake by the hand of this servant Elijah the Tishbite, saying, In the portion of Jezreel do the dogs eat the flesh of Jezebel,​


and the carcase of Jezebel hath been as dung on the face of the field in the portion of Jezreel, that they say not, This [is] Jezebel.'​
Gruesome, isn't it? But she carefully arranged the murder of an innocent man so her husband could take possession of his vineyard-- feeling any kind of pity for her would be difficult. The disdain is warranted.

I'm sure Jesus was exposed to Eleusis when He created him, but I doubt He would have been influenced by his philosophy-- you cannot compare the Author of the universe to His creation-- especially those who are fallen. The matriarchy that you are proposing is led by a false god, just like the existing (supposed) patriarchy, and nowhere in the bible is that endorsed.
Patriarchy not endorsed by the bible? Delusional. God is consistently referred to as the father and women are ordered to be silent. The Illuminati pyramid/all seeing eye represents the hierarchical nature of patriarchy, with the elite at the top and the poor masses at the bottom. The perfect circle (the original sacred symbol of humanity) represents perfection and equality (i.e. matriarchy). In matriarchy, women do not dominate men as patriarchal men dominate women. This is impossible due to women being physically weaker than men. These men willingly let their women have voices and influence because they know it is best for them. There are few matriarchies left in the world, namely the Hopi Indians and the Mosuo tribe of China. The Mosuo vocabulary lacks words that describe war and r*pe. The Hopi have a radically different view of women than do Christians.

""Schlegel explains why there was female superiority as that the Hopi believed in "life as the highest good ... [with] the female principle ... activated in women and in Mother Earth ... as its source"[11] and that the Hopi "were not in a state of continual war with equally matched neighbors"[12] and "had no standing army"[12] so that "the Hopi lacked the spur to masculine superiority"[12] and, within that, as that women were central to institutions of clan and household and predominated "within the economic and social systems (in contrast to male predominance within the political and ceremonial systems)",[12] the Clan Mother, for example, being empowered to overturn land distribution by men if she felt it was unfair,[11] since there was no "countervailing ... strongly centralized, male-centered political structure"."
 
Last edited:
Top