• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Women. Religion’s longest running victims.

Gnostic Bishop said:
I am a Gnostic Christian and have no problem recognizing good from evil wit or without the Godhead that I know.

Strange that you cannot know without looking into you book first instead of your heart which is where Jesus said your laws should be written.

But your question assumed lack of belief I think and even if not, looking at atheists and how they recognize good and evil is more important here than what I believe. Let's have a look to see Christians are more moral with their book and God than atheists.



My morality is outward looking to see what others need before looking at my own needs. I mostly succeed but not always.

Yours as you have shown, may not be but you are trying to justify and I don't think you have done so. You seem to be hedging towards, --- we should look outwards to the needs of others first.

If that is so and that is the best in morals and the ideal position of morality, let me point out that your God does the opposite and is quite self-centered.

Why then do you not follow your God's example and do the wrong thing?
You are told by scripture to emulate him in all things.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...


Maybe you should start reading a bit more and stop watching YouTube videos. First problem with the video, it argues with the Church, not the bible. Second problem, the hominidae genus evolved from Chimpanzees which are known to rip the scrotum, face, and fingers off of other chimps and eat them when angered. They're also cannibalistic, they rape each other, and murder entire colonies of other chimps when competing for food and territory. They will murder and eat their own mates when distressed or refused the opportunity to mate. Hey! Just like humans that don't make distinctions between right and wrong. Third and biggest problem with your petty video, "Godless" countries still have defined morals implemented throughout their cultures because of past beliefs and religious principles that have been pounded into their culture historically. Therefore, they still have "morality", they're common peoples are still "moral" but that is because they abide by moral principles that were created by past and present religions.

I'm not saying that people who do not believe in God don't have moral principles. I'm saying that if there is not God, if the universe was a complete and utter accident and there was no design behind it that set it in motion, then the moral principles that man has found within himself are meaningless. They're just "mystical" feelings that we cannot define as right or wrong because we cannot use reason to define them. By reason, I mean what falls under what we can understand using logic, reductionism, empiricism, etc.... And by mysticism, I mean what we cannot understand using those things.

I have made it relatively obvious, that I am not a Christian. My definition of God is any given "thing" that set the universe in motion with design. Not some personal God that tweaks our daily lives, but a God that designed the universe to move forward, and give life to us. With that, there were morals that were given to man, that may be inexplicable, but are there, and because they were given to man, they have meaning. They were meant to be here to govern man, to help him. They are defined and objective. Without that design, they are not defined and are not objective. You could argue that they are here to benefit our survival from an evolutionary perspective, but even then, what makes it right or wrong? If they're only here to keep our species alive, what makes the survival of our species good or bad? Simply because we "feel" that way? What if someone "feels" like they really need to murder an innocent person? Is it right because they "feel" that way? Is it wrong because you "feel" like it is? Because your given distinction of right and wrong is innate to our species, it is right? Well, murder, hatred, competition, oppression, and covet for power are innate to our species as well. Are they good too?

What about people who can "reach into their hearts and make distinctions between good and evil", but their distinctions are completely different than yours? Their argument is just as valid as yours. Take Mao, Lenin, or Hitler for example. Mao decided that the elimination of masses of people was for the good of the whole. Lenin the same thing. Both were atheist. Both were following the teachings of Marx who said "Religion is the opiate of the masses.". If you read Anti-Semitist propaganda pamphlets, it is made clear that the European people were thought to be "better off" if the Jews were removed from Europe because of their cultural differences and beliefs. What makes that wrong if that's truly what the Nazia felt was a "good" solution?

You believe that your morality being outward looking to see what others needs are, before you meet your own needs is good, correct? Why is it good? Answer that for me.
 
Last edited:
There has been civilisations on this world much longer than we know. Endless civilisations have come and gone, and the Earth has been nearly destroyed and started over again many times. We just haven't been taught about it for whatever reason.

But the beginning was a kind of Garden of Eden, I gather, though when that was is anyone's guess, this Earth is billions of years old. The civilisations like Atlantis, etc. are quite recent in the history of the planet.

Anyway, there have been many Matriarthical societies in this world where women have held the political and financial power, etc. It's just a long time ago now and our history books only go a short while back.

By the way, the first civilisation is supposed to have been called Pangaea.

The Hopi call our present civilization the Fourth World:

Pangaea

Lemuria

Atlantis

Our present world

Atlantis used to be referred to as "The old world" after its destruction.
 
Last edited:
"Without God, what gives man any defined right or wrong? Everything would simply be. Not right, not wrong; just is."

I'm confused whether or not you are a theist or a deist. If the former, then your question makes sense to me. If the latter, it doesn't. Please elucidate.
 
infectedmushroom said:
"Without God, what gives man any defined right or wrong? Everything would simply be. Not right, not wrong; just is."

I'm confused whether or not you are a theist or a deist. If the former, then your question makes sense to me. If the latter, it doesn't. Please elucidate.
Click to expand...

I'm a theist. I don't believe that God sits in a throne and tweaks with our daily lives all of the time, but I do believe in "miracles" per say. I don't believe that God is answering our every prayer or something, but I believe that the universe was designed, and set in motion, and there were other things that came with it, such as "morality", and I believe that there certainly can be super natural occurrences, but I don't believe that God is intervening with our daily lives all of the time. I also don't believe that a "God" can be explained by pure reason and pure reason alone. We've been trying to do it for a while, and it just isn't happening. However, I do believe that reason gives evidence of God. For example, we know that the universe is not primordial and is an object of "creation". The universe is a mystery, and I don't think that my personal beliefs in what I would call God is in anyway an explanation to the mysteries of the universe, or the origins of our existence, but I don't believe that we were created upon random. If that makes any sense? My apologies if I have been a bit unclear in this post, I've been up for a while.
 
Last edited:
And to elaborate even more, I believe that there are things within us, or our own minds, that are not commonly accessed, and are inexplicable that can be accessed, but they don't necessarily have to be caused by the direct intervention of a God to happen or be accessed, but things that we are born capable of and just have to be accessed. But I don't know, It's just as probable that they are direct interventions of a God and I have no way of knowing either.
 
RichardMooner said:
However, I do believe that reason gives evidence of God.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Don't know why so many seem to struggle with this point. Materialist indoctrination, maybe. Which took over from religious indoctrination - although the naive or trusting in authorities would call this progress.

After all, we're only brought up with a little "maybe Jesus existed" crap (in a really boring way), with most of the time devoted to telling us that everything that has been discovered by what we call science is unquestionable truth.

The outcome of this is pretty predictable (agnoticism or atheism mostly).
 
Last edited:
flyhighk said:
I kinda agree. Women should have most of (if not all) the rights men have.

Yemen, saudi arabia, and vatican city are extreme examples of countries where women are seen as inferior.
Click to expand...
I would say it's the religion that's inferior to women, at least women are real and not make believe.

Religion is a tool for men to feel superior and an excuse to wage wars.
 
In ancient epochs, women were powerful, and it has taken this long for them to rise to power again. I really feel that women are more capable rulers of society than men are, even though they are meant to be co-rulers. Women are far more in touch with the needs of the collective than men are. I'm in a caregiving profession and as a man, I can see the way that women network effortlessly, and all based on mutual benefit and care. Men are still following the competitive model way too much. I feel that religion, combined with modern psychiatry (which in of itself was religiously informed) are the main reasons why men are so divided and afraid to come together. They don't want to be condemned or pathologized. Women have suffered direct violence and oppression across the board, but I feel that men's oppression is a lot more insidious and hard to pin down. We have a certain privilege that women still lack, but within that privilege comes a divided character.

The nurturing masculine and the nurturing feminine are not the same thing and I believe this is why feminism is suffering backlash. Although feminism can be a catalyst for mutual evolution between the sexes, men's coming of age has to be on its own terms, with women. We have to rise up together, essentially.

A lot of the women I see coming to power these days are basically men in women's skin. They are mimicking the testosterone driven, patriarchal power structures that need to be torn down. There are many who believe we can infiltrate this system and repair it from the inside but I completely disagree. We have to break the system to save it, and that involves grassroots collectivity. Women are the ones starting all that, not men. Men are still vying for power in the upper echelons. Women are holding space in the movements that are etching at the very foundation: they are the wise women, the old chrones, the mothers, and the medicine women.

The Divine Feminine, as it is embodied in both sexes, is what's going to save this planet. The Divine Masculine can only be realized once the Divine Feminine is restored to order. We're killing this planet, our very mother, and then thinking we can still make this system work. We have to go back to our source which is what the Feminine is going to show us how to do.
 
Sensational post. And I believe men's more aggressive nature and being less in lack with their spirituality and nurturing qualities is what caused them to be considered inferior in earlier, more peaceful societies. I think there have been times when there have been priestesses responsible for doing the spiritual and nurturing work, while men were mostly assigned to manual labour. The backlash was pretty ugly. It's astounding how bad it really got.
 
I have watched a documentary "The Secrets on Mary Magdalene" and how she has been portrayed/depicted in many different ways throughout the centuries but notably as the repentant sinner who joined Jesus and his disciples to spread the word of God . The discovery of the Gnostic Gospels has given new information on how Mary Magdalene and Peter has had an argument and how Peter complained that Mary was talking all the time but Jesus encourages Mary Magdalene to speak more. It also said on the discovered Gnostic gospels that Mary Magdalene said that Jesus had shared some teachings with her that he hasn't revealed to anyone else. Now I can understand why this is not accepted in the earlier centuries as women were not seen as equal to men.
 
Welp...as a man I suggest we chase the men out of the Parlaiments and Whitehouses and UN's and all the Kremlins of the world.

Lets do this!

(at least lets hope that gossip doesn't have the women pulling each others hair and plotting against their peers, because she's a bitch, or she's a slut and thinks she's all that. When women in a group get nasty with each other, they put men to shame!)
 
Think about women like Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, and Angela Merkel. They are good examples of "Men in women's bodies" types who are as capable for leading positions in politics, finanance, etc. as men are. There aren't that many of these women but the ones there are can easily do it.

Women are also getting educations and very intelligent days, so it's no longer like it's the norm that men are intellectually superior. There could be a gradual overtake step-by-step over time if they organised themselves. Not that I see that as ideal, that would obviously be a balanced male/female society.
 
Foreigner said:
In ancient epochs, women were powerful, and it has taken this long for them to rise to power again. I really feel that women are more capable rulers of society than men are, even though they are meant to be co-rulers. Women are far more in touch with the needs of the collective than men are. I'm in a caregiving profession and as a man, I can see the way that women network effortlessly, and all based on mutual benefit and care. Men are still following the competitive model way too much. I feel that religion, combined with modern psychiatry (which in of itself was religiously informed) are the main reasons why men are so divided and afraid to come together. They don't want to be condemned or pathologized. Women have suffered direct violence and oppression across the board, but I feel that men's oppression is a lot more insidious and hard to pin down. We have a certain privilege that women still lack, but within that privilege comes a divided character.

The nurturing masculine and the nurturing feminine are not the same thing and I believe this is why feminism is suffering backlash. Although feminism can be a catalyst for mutual evolution between the sexes, men's coming of age has to be on its own terms, with women. We have to rise up together, essentially.

A lot of the women I see coming to power these days are basically men in women's skin. They are mimicking the testosterone driven, patriarchal power structures that need to be torn down. There are many who believe we can infiltrate this system and repair it from the inside but I completely disagree. We have to break the system to save it, and that involves grassroots collectivity. Women are the ones starting all that, not men. Men are still vying for power in the upper echelons. Women are holding space in the movements that are etching at the very foundation: they are the wise women, the old chrones, the mothers, and the medicine women.

The Divine Feminine, as it is embodied in both sexes, is what's going to save this planet. The Divine Masculine can only be realized once the Divine Feminine is restored to order. We're killing this planet, our very mother, and then thinking we can still make this system work. We have to go back to our source which is what the Feminine is going to show us how to do.
Click to expand...

Well put and I agree with all except our impact on the planet. We are a flee on a dogs back.


"We have to rise up together, essentially.".

Yes but men cannot rise while having to stoop to take the hand of women because he has placed them too low.

We need to elevate woman. If half the wold is not equal then none of us can be.

Regards
DL
 
RichardMooner said:
It's kind of funny how you continually avoid my question because you don't have a solid answer. Whatever, I'm done with this. You've copped out on it many times now, and I'm afraid that's because you have no argument to present.
Click to expand...

This is an argument.
You do not speak to it because you cannot break it's logic and try to put your inadequacy on me. Child.

Regards
DL
 
Maya said:
I have watched a documentary "The Secrets on Mary Magdalene" and how she has been portrayed/depicted in many different ways throughout the centuries but notably as the repentant sinner who joined Jesus and his disciples to spread the word of God . The discovery of the Gnostic Gospels has given new information on how Mary Magdalene and Peter has had an argument and how Peter complained that Mary was talking all the time but Jesus encourages Mary Magdalene to speak more. It also said on the discovered Gnostic gospels that Mary Magdalene said that Jesus had shared some teachings with her that he hasn't revealed to anyone else. Now I can understand why this is not accepted in the earlier centuries as women were not seen as equal to men.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Gnostic Christians, being Universalists had to give women equality. Men could not say that the spark of God within them was somehow superior to the spark of God within women.

That equality for all may have been why Constantine had his new Catholic army decimate Gnostic Christians and burn their scriptures. That notion of equality for all was not allowed in his tyranny.

Regards
DL
 
PowerFarts said:
Welp...as a man I suggest we chase the men out of the Parlaiments and Whitehouses and UN's and all the Kremlins of the world.

Lets do this!

(at least lets hope that gossip doesn't have the women pulling each others hair and plotting against their peers, because she's a bitch, or she's a slut and thinks she's all that. When women in a group get nasty with each other, they put men to shame!)
Click to expand...

Especially in jail where 95% are male and 5% are female. Est..

Yep those women are sure vicious compared to men.

They must be a lot brighter though. Look mat how few get caught compared to stupid men.

Regards
DL
 
What about Cleopatra?

She was one of the most powerful rulers in the world at the time and Egypt was the richest country in the world. Even Cæsar had to court her. Or they had a kind of political marriage.

Cleopatra was in a class of her own, though. I think she's one of those "ruler souls". As opposed to me, I wouldn't trust myself to rule a kingdom.
 
So basically being forced to marry a Roman is somehow good for her in your view. Ok.


I have no comment.

Regards
DL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top