Jump to content

Why are women portrayed as the baddy in religion?


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Macnamara said:

The DIVISIVENESS that you talk about is a modern issue created by the identarianism of marxism. It is marxism that has created the so called 'battle of the sexes'. It is marxism that has got western women now believing that their 'career' is more important than having children and a family.

 

This is not proving to be a strategy for success in the sense of perpetuating a society but the marxists KNOW it won't be successful which is why they do it. EVERYTHING the marxists do including injecting people with covid jabs is designed to harm and sabotage our societies and what i'm saying is that all of that sabotage is coming from the same cabal of sabbatean kabbalist supremacists

 

 

 

Some facts –

 

Feminists and their perspectives on the church fathers' beliefs regarding women: An inquiry

 

Hannelie Wood

 

Department of Philosophy, Practical and Systematic Theology, University of South Africa, South Africa

 

Introduction

 

Women were oppressed, marginalised and dominated in a male-centred world. In a patriarchal society, men are viewed as superior, stronger and more rational than women, and that God created men to dominate. In the same patriarchal society, women are viewed as deviant, incomplete, physically mutilated, emotionally dependent, unstable, naturally weaker, unintelligent and rationally inferior. In brief, patriarchy is a system in which women experience discrimination, subordination and physical, mental and spiritual violence, as well as abuse and oppression (Wood 2013:155).

 

We cannot deny or ignore that patriarchy exists, and, from a feminist point of view, patriarchy as a system is intrinsically evil. The church fathers and their views on women were influenced substantially and significantly by philosophical voices, such as that of Aristotle and Plato, amongst others. Therefore, a brief account on Aristotle's and Plato's ideas about women will be touched upon. The article will furthermore explore feminist voices, regarding the church fathers' thinking about women, and how these views have contributed to women's subordination and domination. Special attention will be given to the Latin church fathers, such as Tertullian (c. 155-255), Cyprian (c. 200-258 AD), Jerome (c. 347-419), Ambrose (c. 339-397) and Augustine (354-430), and the Greek church fathers, such as Clement of Alexander (c. 150-215), Origen (c. 185-254) and Chrysostom (c. 347-407).

 

 

Plato and Aristotle

 

Ancient Greeks held a very low opinion of women in such a way that the latter were required to be passive homebodies and were mainly considered responsible for bringing forth and raising children (Du Bois 2007:1). Greek biology believed that women were inferior to men and labelled them essentially as childbearers and housekeepers. Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle reflected and reinforced the discourse on women's status throughout history, and their views on women also influenced the views and thoughts of the church fathers about women in Christian theology

 

 

The church fathers' perceptions of women

 

The Latin and the Greek church fathers' writings reflect the times and conditions within which they lived. It finds expression in their dualistic view of the soul and body: God and nature, and male and female. During the period 1-590 AD, Christianity became firmly rooted in the Graeco-Roman culture and this period marked a concerted effort to restrict the role of women in the church and society. This is reflected in the above discussion on Plato and Aristotle. Women were allowed to engage in charitable works, but were forbidden to undertake religious instruction or to administer the sacraments. Women were not considered equal to men (Isherwood & McEwan 2001:57-58).

 

Views of the church fathers, such as the Latin church fathers - Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome and Augustine - and the Greek church fathers - Clement of Alexander, Origen and Chrysostom - were not only built upon the anthropology of Plato (428/427-348/347 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC) but also on Scripture and especially those of Paul. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was often cited and used as a justification for gender inequality. They based their views of women on texts such as Genesis 1:27, Genesis 2:20-23 and Genesis 3:1-24 in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, gender inequality supporting texts included 1 Timothy 2:8-15, 1 Corinthians 11:7-9, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 and Ephesians 5:22-23. Lerner points out that these texts were interpreted in different ways, either literally or allegorically. Literally, they pointed to the innate inferiority of women and, allegorically, they referred to the human mind whereby the higher intellect belongs to men and the lower intellect belongs to women (Lerner 1993:141). Lerner (1993:140-143) states that according to the church fathers, women were responsible for sin as the root of all evil. Knight (1974:117) contends that the creation story implies women's subordination and the myth of the virgin birth contributed to sex being viewed as unclean and displeasing to God.

 

Snip

 

Origen disapproved of the sexual act even within marriage (Phelips 1931:203). Weinrich (1991:258) states that Origen described women as 'worse than animals' because of their constant state of lust. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 on women speaking in public, Origen argued that women are not permitted to do so as female prophets never spoke publicly

 

Snip

 

Jerome viewed women as the root of all evil. He declared that a clean body signifies a dirty mind because he found all aspects of sexuality repugnant (Strachan & Strachan 1985:6). It is often stated that he had a 'love affair with virginity' because he saw virginity as better than marriage (Ide 1984:85).

 

Snip

 

According to Phelips (1931:203), Augustine believed that it was an incontestable social and religious truth that women were subordinate to men. He was of the opinion that it is according to the natural order for men to rule over women and for women to both serve and be subservient to their husbands. For Augustine, nothing was worse than a house where the woman commands and the man obeys; therefore, the husband must always rule over his wife.

 

Chrysostom described women as weak and flighty, a fault of nature, evil, as temptresses and as mischievous (Knight 1974:121). Chrysostom believed that it was God who maintained the order of each sex. God gave men supremacy as leaders of business of the state, the marketplace, the administration of justice, the government and the military (Lampe 1981:124). Women, on the other hand, were assigned the presidency of the household and other so-called inferior matters (Keane 1987:5).

 

Snip

 

The following are a few examples of the thoughts on the inferiority of women's bodies in the Hippocratic Corpus.

 

Before conception women were already inferior

 

The Hippocratic Corpus contains medical treatises which are associated with the physician Hippocrates (Stewart 1995:584) and is based on perceptions that the human body consists of fire, water, air and earth, and an imbalanced human temperature was the proof of the absence of one of these elements (Martin 1995:148).

 

According to the theory of the uterus having two chambers, men come from the hot right chamber (considered to be more superior to the left side), whereas women come from the cooler left chamber (Harlow 1998:159). According to the embryonic process theory, the male embryo comes from the right side of the testicle because the blood coming from the right side of the testicle is thicker and hotter than that of the left testicle. For men to produce male embryos, they were advised to bind their left testicle (Rousselle 1988:48). Women also have two testicles, but they remained internal and were less perfect (Harlow 1998:159; Rousselle 1988:48).

 

Snip

 

Women have no control over their bodies

 

Because women are more porous and draw moisture faster from her belly to her body, they are more inclined to draw blood to their breasts, which prone them to go mad; thus, they are more irrational than men in behaviour (Hippocratic Corpus, Deceases of Women, 1.1).

 

 

So we see evidence of the Church Fathers and the Greeks before them proclaiming Women as inferior form over 2000 years ago.

 

But you believe it is the Sabbatean Marxists that have broken down the unequal union of a Man dominating his wife out of a misguided belief that blood in her breasts causes a women to go mad?

 

F*ck me Mac, history is dripping with historical misogynism from the Christian and Greek philosophers. This cruel discrimination of women based on tenuous interpretations of the scripture started firmly in the Ancient World and continued until the 19th Century – this is a matter of historical fact. Its got nothing to do with Marxists.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pi3141 said:

Feminists and their perspectives on the church fathers' beliefs regarding women: An inquiry

But you believe it is the Sabbatean Marxists that have broken down the unequal union of a Man dominating his wife out of a misguided belief that blood in her breasts causes a women to go mad?

F*ck me Mac, history is dripping with historical misogynism from the Christian and Greek philosophers. This cruel discrimination of women based on tenuous interpretations of the scripture started firmly in the Ancient World and continued until the 19th Century – this is a matter of historical fact. Its got nothing to do with Marxists.

 

Truth Bombs about Feminism, Male Creativity & Generation Snowflake - Camille Paglia

 

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pi3141 said:

But you believe it is the Sabbatean Marxists that have broken down the unequal union of a Man dominating his wife out of a misguided belief that blood in her breasts causes a women to go mad?

 

men didn't have the vote for most of history either. In britain it was the landed gentry who had the vote. Once working men won the vote, women got the vote soon after

 

so who were these landed gentry that were controlling britain? well much of the land in britain was and still is held by the bloodlines who conquered britain in 1066. The normans invaded and set up fuedalism in britain which was administered by jewish scribes brought in from regions of france like troyes where there was a kabbalah school under rabbi rishi. Also out of that area came the knights templar whose first move was to secure temple mount in jerusalem as their headquarters so that they could dig into the mound. I suggest that they knew what they were looking for because they were descendents of the people who had buried things there before the romans sacked the city in 70AD

 

Those knights templar were part of a kabbalistic network across europe who gained massive land holdings and were bankers and the first trans national corporation. They created freemasonry in britain and interbred with the norman aristocracy and with the sabbatean-frankists like the rothschilds. It's that occult network that created marxism and which has gained control of the church and also 'capitalism' as they control all the central banks and the mega corporations. This is why the banks were bailed out in 2008 instead of being allowed to fail. The royal family is part of that network

 

That network took the land from the british people and it was them who had the power and the vote for most of our history and even now they still control the game because the two party system is an absolute farce.

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So with our being pushed off the land......and it wasn't just the anglo-saxons in england that were dispossessed by the norman invasion and the imposition of fuedalism but also the scots and the irish and welsh too. There's a book called 'the poor had no lawyers' that breaks down the stages of the land grabs in scotland.

 

feminism doesn't look at all of this historical context, which is what camille paglia says in that clip above. Why doesn't it look at that? It doesn't look at that because it is a psyop being run by the sabbateans to divide and rule our society and they want to hide the historic crimes of the kabbalistic network that actually runs this country

 

As part of this process of being pushed off the land we have also become disconnected from the seasons and the globalist, sabbatean, corporate socialists have created a global economy where our food is brought from all over the world so that we don't have to have a seasonal diet anymore where we eat what is readily available to us in our own geographic locale. This then detached us from our food, from the source of our food and from nature and suddenly we find our diet is this highly processed, highly packaged, corporate mush that makes people over-weight and diabetic etc.

 

This of course causes the sabbateans to launch another psyop to once again cover their tracks so this time they tell you that fat is beautiful and part of the new normal to hide the fact that they have been feeding you shite for decades.

 

So how does this tie into women? isn't it interesting that as women have been pushed by the marxists into the work place that the standards of western diet have gone down? This is because without someone in the home prioritising food, the standards drop leading to drops in health and fertility across our society.

 

Now modern feminism would say 'well Mac you are clearly arguing that women should just stay at home and cook'. But that is not what i'm saying. What i'm saying is that as a society we have moved away from food and its production and our seasonal calendar of not only growing and foraging but also of festivals and community and that in that kind of world where food is central to the whole human experience it is not a second rate position to be the person at the centre of that; in fact that should be a highly regarded lynch-pin position and that women and men who have been duped into moving away from that into meaningless paper shuffling jobs have been robbed of a more complete human experience

 

is this guy 'oppressing' his wife? or are they both working together to run a farm and produce amazing food? if you told this woman that she was being 'oppressed' because she wasn't pursuing a 'career' in some souless corporation she'd likely look on you with pity because you are the one who is being oppressed

 

 

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread started off discussing the religious roots of women's oppression and blame and I said it's more visible within the mythology of the Abrahamic/Babylonian religions. However that doesn't mean women get an easier time of it in other cultures such as the far east or indigenous tribal cultures.  

 

This talk of the Normans and Sabbateans has got me thinking. How the Normans started off as Vikings who then invaded and settled in northern France, re-identifying as Normans in Normandy, converted to Christianity and carried on their empire building. Not just in England, then the whole British Isles and reidentified as the English nobility and eventually the United Kingdom and the British Empire.  Meanwhile they continued south and took over various lands in the mediterranean and middle east, down as far as Libya and north Israel/Palestine. So what I see happening is a group of shapeshifting bloodline families with no attachment to culture, nation or religion or roots in a landscape, just anonymous empire building around the world to extend their power base but with deniability of moral blame because they simply deflect blame onto those actual cultures who they have infiltrated and controlled. 

 

Another point of discussion is around conspiratorial movements which appear in history and avoid blame for what came before. In history we see the Sabbateans, Illuminati and Freemasons for example appearing as if from nowhere and sometimes disappearing in the official history but what if these are just outgrowths of a much older hidden network of control which creates these organisations as projects to conduct its work in the outer world and so most people won't join up the dots between them. 

 

As another bit of research I've been looking into Platonism and its influence in western philosophy and religion. With this example below, it rings bells with some more recent radical communist ideas about breaking down the traditional family and private ownership: 

 

"While Plato's writings do discuss the concept of the ideal city-state (the Republic), where he proposes a communal approach to family and child-rearing, it is important to understand the context and intention behind these ideas.

In Plato's ideal city-state, the focus is on the pursuit of wisdom and the common good of the community. He suggests that in this ideal society, the traditional family structure and private property would be replaced by a more communal arrangement, where children would be raised collectively and there would be no individual ownership. "  

 

Platonism has also had an influence in Judaism and Christianity (and by extension Islam) so is this another example of conspiratorial control going back to ancient times, or just the flow of ideas through different institutions.  It looks to me like a useful way of weakening societies by introducing idealistic sounding improvements which just end up centralising power with the oligarchs. 

 

Edited by Campion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Macnamara said:

Truth Bombs about Feminism, Male Creativity & Generation Snowflake - Camille Paglia

 

 

 

Amelia Earhart Did She Face Bias and Discrimination?

Joan E. Knapp, Amelia Earhart Chair


The answer is definitely YES! Amelia Earhart was not alone as all women pilots for the most part faced bias and discrimination from male pilots and the general public. Here’s how Amelia faced bias and discrimination and what she did to fight it and to support other women pilots through the years.


Childhood: Even as a child, Amelia (AE) faced both bias and discrimination as a girl. She defied conventional feminine behavior by climbing trees, “belly slammed” her sled to start it downhill and hunted rats with a .22 rifle. Her mother made AE and her sister Muriel “bloomers” so they could be tomboys. Her mother supported both of her daughters even against her mother’s opposition.

 

Link - https://zontadistrict8.org/amelia-earhart-did-she-face-bias-and-discrimination/#:~:text=Childhood%3A Even as a child,so they could be tomboys.

 

 

How did Amelia Earhart overcame her obstacles?


Amelia Earhart's biggest obstacle?
There are several big obstacles that Amelia Earhart encountered including being a woman pilot.

 

What obstacles did Amelia Earhart have to overcome?
Amelia Earhart had to first overcome prejudice and the obvious problem of money

 

What obstacles did Amelia Earhart faced in life as an aviator?
Simply the fact of being a woman in aviation was obstacle enough.

 

Link - https://www.answers.com/Q/How_did_Amelia_Earhart_overcame_her_obstacles

 

 

The lady in your link talks of Amelia Earhart as a role model, but Amelia struggled with male oppression, domination and prejudice.

Yet what we're supposed to take from Earhart's example is that women should be homemakers only, like they were in the 1920's - 1930's?

 

Is that it, is that your personal view, that women are homemakers, companions for the male and to bear and raise children, is that your view of Women? 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a 'shoot from the hip', it is specifically directed at Mary of Bethany, she is the 'beloved Disciple that Jesus loved'. She is the Scribe use to write the Gospel of John the Baptist and the Revelation of John the Baptist:

Joh:1:35-40:

Again the next day after John stood,

and two of his disciples;
And looking upon Jesus as he walked,

he saith,

Behold the Lamb of God!
And the two disciples heard him speak,

and they followed Jesus.
Then Jesus turned,

and saw them following,

and saith unto them,

What seek ye?

They said unto him,

Rabbi,

(which is to say,

being interpreted,

Master,)

where dwellest thou?
He saith unto them,

Come and see.

They came and saw where he dwelt,

and abode with him that day:

for it was about the tenth hour.

Joh:21:24:

This is the disciple which testifieth of these things,

and wrote these things:

and we know that his testimony is true.

One of the two which heard John speak,

and followed him,

was Andrew,

Simon Peter's brother.

 

Any questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Campion said:

It looks to me like a useful way of weakening societies by introducing idealistic sounding improvements which just end up centralising power with the oligarchs. 

 

 

Thats how it works, find popularist policies that people can't really disagree with 'for the greater good' 'for the sake of the children' etc etc and those policies just tighten the noose around our necks, but everybody agrees intellectually so it must be right.

 

Someone once said 'the more laws you make, the more criminals you create'

 

The fact is, because of the existing social oppressions and injustices, it makes room for the extremists to push their agenda.

 

The immigration problem gives credibility to the far right, the anti-smoking lobby gives weight to stricter laws, health ministers dictating what people put in their own bodies, etc

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wayfaring Stranger said:

Any questions?

 

Yeah man, WTF?

 

😀

 

Also, John the Baptist did not write Revelations, it was John the Apostle.

 

But even that story is a fantastical pile of horsesh*t.

 

What bearing does it have here?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Macnamara said:

men didn't have the vote for most of history either. In britain it was the landed gentry who had the vote. Once working men won the vote, women got the vote soon after

 

so who were these landed gentry that were controlling britain? 

 

 

Link - CBP-8886.pdf (parliament.uk)

 

Establishment

 

In the context of church and state, the term “establishment” is ambiguous. In broad terms it refers to a formal relationship between a church and the state in which it operates. This can take a variety of forms. For example, the Church of England has statutory representation in the House of Lords, the Church of Scotland does not, although both are accepted as “established” churches.

Both the UK’s established churches have a relationship with the monarch, who promised to protect them upon his Accession in September 2022 and Coronation in May 2023.

 

Historical background

 

As a Christian church, the Church of England has a deep provenance. A crucial development, however, was its renunciation of papal authority when King Henry VIII failed to secure an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon in 1534. Although there was a brief restoration of papal authority under Queen Mary I and King Philip, the English Reformation produced a Church of England independent from Rome and closely connected to the English state.

 

Relationship with other aspects of the constitution

 

The Crown

The Sovereign holds the title “Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England”.12 These titles date back to the reign of King Henry VIII, who was initially granted the title “Defender of the Faith” in 1521 by Pope Leo X. When Henry VIII renounced the spiritual authority of the Papacy in 1534, he was proclaimed “supreme head on earth” of the Church of England. This was repealed by Queen Mary I but reinstated during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, who was proclaimed “Supreme Governor” of the Church of England.

The Church of England acknowledges that the King’s Majesty, “acting under God and according to law, has supreme authority in both ecclesiastical and civil causes”.1

 

snip

 

Establishment used to entail financial support from the state. However, not since the first half of the 19th century has the Church of England received any grant not equally available to other denominations. Two forms of taxation which used to benefit the Church of England no longer exist. The church tax (for the maintenance of church fabric and worship) was abolished on a compulsory basis in 1868, while the tithe was phased out from 1936. In the 2004 case of Aston Cantlow v Wallbank, Lord Hope concluded that “the Church of England as a whole has no legal status or personality”.

 

 

 

It took nearly 2000 years for the Church influence of us to be, almost, completely removed. But we still have the Lords Spiritual and we still have a great Christian presence in Parliament.

 

I have shown you scholarly citations to support the fact that the Church introduced the suppression of Women, although they was mainly following what philosophers had said before, but they propagated it into our Western culture. The Church supported the rule of the King when Rome had authority and then supported, but interfered with, the rule of Parliament for several hundred years more, even having its own taxes enforced by the state. And not until very recently can we say they have no legal status but they still coronated the King and they still have representatives in the House of Lords influencing decisions made there.

 

Who were the landed gentry?

 

They were not Jews, and in fact they were mostly Anti-Semetic as the Jewish expulsion from various English cities throughout history attests to.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And more citations-

 

The Church of England and British Politics since 1900, edited by Tom Rodger et al

 

Richard Harries reflects on the C of E’s part in 20th-century politics

 

HISTORIANS of Britain after 1914 wrote about politics without reference to religion and about religion without reference to politics. Although this demarcation has been breached in recent decades, the rationale of this volume is that it needs to be broken down much further.

 

By politics, however, the authors do not just mean the State, but political culture, and by the Church of England, not just official pronouncements by dignitaries, but the work of parishes and the part played by laypeople. They believe that recent studies show that “the Church of England’s influence on politics was deeper, more various and longer lasting than many historians of modern Britain have allowed.” The authors of the 14 studies are all well qualified for this task, including a good number of professors of history; and the chapters are all extensively referenced.

 

Snip

 

Peter Webster considers Parliament and the law from 1943 to 1974, and Stephen G. Parker and Rob Freathy show how the Church of England’s involvement in education in the 20th century went from being highly acrimonious to succeeding, through state support and deft adaptation, in “defending and rationalising its own interests politically and educationally”.

 

Laura Ramsey argues that the work of various Church of England agencies on marriage and moral welfare from 1918 to 1945, emphasising sex as a gift and the mutuality of the marriage relationship, prepared the way for much-needed later legislation. The chapters are sharply focused and scholarly, and different people will be interested in different areas, but, overall, the authors succeed in showing that the influence of the Church of England over the past 100 years in our political culture has been more pervasive than is usually recognised.

 

The Rt Revd Lord Harries of Pentregarth is a former Bishop of Oxford, and an Hon. Professor of Theology at King’s College, London. His latest book is Seeing God in Art (SPCK, 2020).

 

 

Link - The Church of England and British Politics since 1900, edited by Tom Rodger et al (churchtimes.co.uk)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pi3141 said:

 

Yeah man, WTF?

 

😀

 

Also, John the Baptist did not write Revelations, it was John the Apostle.

 

But even that story is a fantastical pile of horsesh*t.

 

What bearing does it have here?

The same Disciple of John that wrote the Gospel of John is the same one that wrote Revelation. The Apostle John was not even at the cross or the toms 3 days later, how could he be an eyewitness. There were only women at those two events:

Joh:19:25-26:

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother,

and his mother's sister,

Mary the wife of Cleophas,

and Mary Magdalene.

 

The mother of James is also the mother of John.

Lu:10:38-39:

Now it came to pass,

as they went,

that he entered into a certain village:

and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
And she had a sister called Mary,

which also sat at Jesus' feet,

and heard his word.
But Martha was cumbered about much serving,

and came to him,

and said,

Lord,

dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone?

bid her therefore that she help me.
And Jesus answered and said unto her,

Martha,

Martha,

thou art careful and troubled about many things:
But one thing is needful:

and Mary hath chosen that good part,

which shall not be taken away from her.

 

Do you want to deny Mary was involved in the Gospels or that women have no role in the Bible? Are these women 'all baddies'?

Ro:16:1-6:

I commend unto you Phebe our sister,

which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
That ye receive her in the Lord,

as becometh saints,

and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you:

for she hath been a succourer of many,

and of myself also.

 

Perhaps men who do not see the role women played in the Bible are the 'baddies' they claim women are. They probably believe 'other flesh' of birds and animals have no souls as well.
Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
Ro:16:6: Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us.


When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I was including events in the Bible as where that trait came from. The 'adulteress' that was brought before Jesus was missing the man involved in the event. Is that not also 'persecution'?

Also in the Bible is the part the Clefgy were to print many Bibles, enough that each family had one. to that end it would be the parents that taught their children, rather tha only some Priests could show what was true and what was not. To that end it is Christian men, as well as women, who have been silenced over the centuries.

There were two Christian groups in Europe by the time the events below happened. On side would be false Christian, the other side would be Romans:13 Christians. Which Church would be the one persecuting 'fellow believers'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
Martin Luther
Martin Luther OSA (/ˈluːθər/;[1] German: [ˈmaʁtiːn ˈlʊtɐ] (audio speaker iconlisten); 10 November 1483[2] – 18 February 1546) was a German priest, theologian, author, composer, former Augustinian friar,[3] and is best known as a seminal figure in the Protestant Reformation and as the namesake of Lutheranism.

Luther was ordained to the priesthood in 1507. He came to reject several teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church; in particular, he disputed the view on indulgences.
.
.
In 1501, at age 17, he entered the University of Erfurt, which he later described as a beerhouse and whorehouse.[18] He was made to wake at four every morning for what has been described as "a day of rote learning and often wearying spiritual exercises."[18] He received his master's degree in 1505.[19]

(in part)

 

Why are Denmark and Sweden involved in the Protestant Reformation Wars?

 

Is this not also a for of persecution 'from TPTB'. Opium was outlawed only for 'commoners', it was always available to 'the Royals' and rich people, at a much steeper price

than before.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heroin/etc/history.html
c.3400 B.C.  The opium poppy is cultivated in lower Mesopotamia. The Sumerians refer to it as Hul Gil, the 'joy plant.' The Sumerians would soon pass along the plant and its euphoric effects to the Assyrians. The art of poppy-culling would continue from the Assyrians to the Babylonians who in turn would pass their knowledge onto the Egyptians.
.
.
1300's       
Opium disappears for two hundred years from European historical record. Opium had become a taboo subject for those in circles of learning during the Holy Inquisition. In the eyes of the Inquisition, anything from the East was linked to the Devil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, pi3141 said:

The Crown

The Sovereign holds the title “Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England”.12 These titles date back to the reign of King Henry VIII, who was initially granted the title “Defender of the Faith” in 1521 by Pope Leo X.

 

It took nearly 2000 years for the Church influence of us to be, almost, completely removed. But we still have the Lords Spiritual and we still have a great Christian presence in Parliament.

 

They were not Jews, and in fact they were mostly Anti-Semetic as the Jewish expulsion from various English cities throughout history attests to.

 

no there isn't a large christian presence in parliament or else our society wouldn't be a marxist mess that is currently trying to destroy christianity and christmas etc

 

what there is in there is a lot of freemasons but unlike christians they won't pin their colours to the mast and instead will hide and pretend to be other things eg christians or muslims

 

I don't believe 'the crown' is the king or queen and once watched a jurisprudence professor struggle to explain what the crown was as it is what the legal system claims its authority from but it is not the monarch. Imo it is the freemasonic hierarchy including the corporation of the city of london banking district

 

jews were not really entirely expelled though as many simply became crypto-jews proclaiming christianity outwardly whilst in secret continuing their kabbalistic beliefs which is why there are secret freemasonic lodges in some large houses and also why some have masonic furniture that acts as a lodge.

 

When edward I expelled jews from england many of them simply went north to scotland where they were sheltered by robert the bruce who had taken the throne by murdering his rival comyn in a church which is not allowed for christians so he was excommunicated by the pope and the entire country became excommunicated as a result. Many knights templar also fled to scotland when they were expelled from france. There is a legend that it was them who helped the bruce win the battle of bannockburn and who used their paris gold to replenish the scottish army as bruce went from a man living in caves to suddenly heading up an army. Within the city of london there is the inns of court which is also known as 'the temple'

 

Cromwell welcomed jews across from amsterdam and the amsterdam jews bankrolled william of oranges invasion and takeover of the throne in 1688. Freemasonic lodges then came out into public in the early 1700's in all the home nations where each was given a grand lodge but they had been there all along, out of sight. here is the duke of kent who is a member of the royal family as head of the grand lodge of england:

 

00096E4B00000258-0-The_Duke_of_Kent_who_

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, pi3141 said:

How did Amelia Earhart overcame her obstacles?

 

she didn't overcome....she disappeared...

 

but most men would not be able to get themselves a plane to fly across the ocean on a whim.

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, pi3141 said:

Stephen G. Parker and Rob Freathy show how the Church of England’s involvement in education in the 20th century

 

the reason anyone could even read in europe was largely down to christianity....are you going to give them any credit for that?

Literacy—Part 1: Why we taught ourselves to read

In late 2021, UK Column's Alex Thomson recorded a one-and-a-half-hour discussion with his father, which is embedded here as an audio upload. That discussion has been turned into three transcribed segments of half an hour each, which in turn concern the 'why', the 'who' and the 'how' of dissidents who educate themselves without waiting for directions from the Establishment.

https://www.ukcolumn.org/literacy-part-1-why-we-taught-ourselves-to-read

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Wayfaring Stranger said:

Do you want to deny Mary was involved in the Gospels or that women have no role in the Bible? Are these women 'all baddies'?

 

 

No! Absolutely not!

 

I want to read the complete Gospel of Mary, I'm sure the church has got a copy - can you ask them to release it please, its been 2000 years and it was only in the 1900's when we found fragments of it that we know it actually exists.

 

So please, can you get the Church to release the Gospel  of Mary, or can you give me the reason why they haven't?

 

Is it because they incorrectly labelled her a Prostitute throughout history?

 

 

 

Edited by pi3141
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are women portrayed as the baddy in religion?

 

To understand that question we have to first understand that the church is controlled by freemasons.

 

You can then ask why women weren't traditionally allowed into freemasonry? Yes they did create co-freemasonry and the order of the eastern star but for a long time women were frozen out of freemasonry because it is a male mystery school

 

It is a solar, phallic cult. The obelisk is a stylised solar phallus.

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Macnamara said:

Why are women portrayed as the baddy in religion?

 

To understand that question we have to first understand that the church is controlled by freemasons.

 

I'm kinda with you on this, but those Freemasons come from the Egyptian Mystery schools and have only been known as Freemasons for 1000 years or so. That mystery school that instituted the Masonic tradition is itself distinct from, and predates  Freemasonry.

 

Freemasons are another front of the cult.

 

 

1 hour ago, Macnamara said:

It is a solar, phallic cult. The obelisk is a stylised solar phallus.

 

Totally agree and you can add Magic Mushroom cult to that as well, as John Allegro showed in his work after translating the Dead Sea Scrolls on behalf of the church. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Macnamara said:

To understand that question we have to first understand that the church is controlled by freemasons.

 

This makes a lot of sense in countries with a strong masonic presence like Britain. But when you say 'the church' do you mean the whole Christian church or just certain  denominations like the C of E and the Roman Catholics? 

 

Or are we saying that the ancient forerunners of the masons in the mystery schools were there right at the beginning of Christianity to shape it as anti-women? But then as the opening post mentions it goes way back before Christianity with the Old Testament stories about Adam & Eve etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pi3141 said:

 

No! Absolutely not!

 

I want to read the complete Gospel of Mary, I'm sure the church has got a copy - can you ask them to release it please, its been 2000 years and it was only in the 1900's when we found fragments of it that we know it actually exists.

 

So please, can you get the Church to release the Gospel  of Mary, or can you give me the reason why they haven't?

 

Is it because they incorrectly labelled her a Prostitute throughout history?

 

 

 

Mary M. was listed as being possessed by 7 demons.

Lu:8:2:

And certain women,

which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities,

Mary called Magdalene,

out of whom went seven devils,

M't:27:61:

And there was Mary Magdalene,

and the other Mary,

sitting over against the sepulchre.

 

This is who the 'other Mary' is:

Zip, zam, zowwie, swoosh:

Here you go, the Gospel written by Many of Bethany, aka beloved Disciple of John the Baptist:

Joh:1:35-40:

Again the next day after John stood,

and two of his disciples;
And looking upon Jesus as he walked,

he saith,

Behold the Lamb of God!
And the two disciples heard him speak,

and they followed Jesus.
Then Jesus turned,

and saw them following,

and saith unto them,

What seek ye?

They said unto him,

Rabbi,

(which is to say,

being interpreted,

Master,)

where dwellest thou?
He saith unto them,

Come and see.

They came and saw where he dwelt,

and abode with him that day:

for it was about the tenth hour.
One of the two which heard John speak,

and followed him,

was Andrew,

Simon Peter's brother.

Lu:10:38-42:

Now it came to pass,

as they went,

that he entered into a certain village:

and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
And she had a sister called Mary,

which also sat at Jesus' feet,

and heard his word.
But Martha was cumbered about much serving,

and came to him,

and said,

Lord,

dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone?

bid her therefore that she help me.
And Jesus answered and said unto her,

Martha,

Martha,

thou art careful and troubled about many things:
But one thing is needful:

and Mary hath chosen that good part,

which shall not be taken away from her.

Joh:21:24:

This is the disciple which testifieth of these things,

and wrote these things:

and we know that his testimony is true.

 

Would modern persecution include the times of the Christian witch hunts? Part of the overall Christian Reformation Wars, rather than women were the start and end of violent persecution by a 'criminal entity'?

I was surprised to read this about opium and 'the masses'. 3400BC-1300AD, suddenly it becomes something only available on the Black Market:??

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Campion said:

 

This makes a lot of sense in countries with a strong masonic presence like Britain. But when you say 'the church' do you mean the whole Christian church or just certain  denominations like the C of E and the Roman Catholics? 

 

Or are we saying that the ancient forerunners of the masons in the mystery schools were there right at the beginning of Christianity to shape it as anti-women? But then as the opening post mentions it goes way back before Christianity with the Old Testament stories about Adam & Eve etc. 

 

Some researcher/authors like robert graves and margaret murray argue that there was in the past a matriarchal, lunar religion that was then superseded by a patriarchal, solar religion.

 

But before we start overly romanticisng things we can ask some questions about the nature of cults of the past for example were they engaging in sacrifice? We know that substances like henbane have been found by standing stones in britain which date back thousands of years suggesting that the people then were using entheogenic substances to explore inner space. It's interesting that the first thing the church does when it welcomes someone into it is take holy water and mark a cross across the forehead where the third eye is as if to shut that door to inner sight

 

However as i say it might be simplistic to demonise them for this. For example were the aztec priests a mushroom cult and were they then cutting peoples hearts out in sacrifice to the 'gods' which they encountered in altered states of consciousness? If so then we can understand why the christian church might be reticent about that

 

Crowleys, jewish, secretary israel regardie warns against astral travel without a proper banishing ritual lest 'dog faced demons' then move into your vacated body, kinda like driving your car into a rough part of town and then leaving it parked and unlocked with the keys in the ignition whilst hoping that some bad actor doesn't then step in and hijack it

 

So i'm loathe to view this in a black and white way

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, pi3141 said:

Totally agree and you can add Magic Mushroom cult to that as well, as John Allegro showed in his work after translating the Dead Sea Scrolls on behalf of the church. 

 

'he was a fungus, among us...'

Jesus Was A Mushroom By Darryl Cherney

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

For example were the aztec priests a mushroom cult and were they then cutting peoples hearts out in sacrifice to the 'gods' which they encountered in altered states of consciousness? If so then we can understand why the christian church might be reticent about that

 

mayan carvings of 'UFO's' as some might claim OR are they stylised magic mushrooms?

 

tumblr_m5kirwAeuv1r85v47o1_1280.jpg

Edited by Macnamara
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Macnamara said:

mayan carvings of 'UFO's' as some might claim OR are they stylised magic mushrooms?

 

tumblr_m5kirwAeuv1r85v47o1_1280.jpg

 

I see UFO.

 

I have lots of interest in Ancient Astronauts theory.

 

I've said before, for me, religious stories or books like the Bible are like a tapestry or docu-drama of real events with many possible truths, from many sources, woven into the stories. 

 

Alien visitation or spirit world communication is not beyond any possibility or constraint that I know of to explain some of these stories, even if they were drug induced. 

 

You can have spiritual experiences with drugs.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...