48 replies to this topic

[dogonstar111]

I apologise if I am posting in the wrong place. please feel free to move it if so mods.

Look I just wanted to run this idea , or was it a feeling? I dunno, but whatever it was, it began as a seed but has slowly grown up into beanstalk proportions, such that I now feel that I have discovered the switch that has turned this planet into a living hell.
It really is quite simple and in fact, I remember my mother once saying, and this may well be the true source of this sky high growth, "there would never be any war if women were in charge". Now as things stand at this time, I am not quite as certain that it is as true as it was 20 years ago because increasingly, some women are starting to take on the psychopathic predator role that has been the mans domain, whist others are accepting of their role as sex object and have been thus sucked into accepting the idea that they only exist because men allow them to.
It got me thinking about who is, and who was, and who should be, the dominant sex. If we look at religion it is almost a universal attitude that women exist to give service to the man. The bible states that God made man first, and then created woman from the rib of the man. Now the first thing that that proves to me is that the bible is the biggest load of old baloney ever accepted as being the truth, and forming the basis of a way of life for so many people. That aside it occurred to me that the way in which women was supposed to have been created from the rib of man is really pretty demeaning and only really happened by way of God wishing to give something to man to play with, almost a second thought like. I mean, it is not a particularly prestigious entry into existence, and to me, it absolutely smacks of sexism. Its like these men who wrote the bible were carrying some long-standing hatred of women and needed to create a religion that kept the female subserviant. The only reason that I can come up with as to why there would be such strength of desire for this to be, is if at some stage the roles had been the opposite.
Now to me, and I am a male, it has to be the female who first gave birth to the man. Even if a creature is androgenous, it has to take the sex of the female in order to give birth. Then I thought about why we call the earth Mother and why we call nature Mother. Do these terms remain with us from pre-antiquity to a time where the female was dominant. My belief is that God is nature and nature is God. Therefore if such an entity as God does exist at all it must be female.
I wasonce  told that women have a much larger pineal gland than men. I believe that it is the pineal gland that enables humans to experience the multi-dimensional universe which is the source of all of the mysteries of the universe. That also must mean that the female is always going to be better predisposed to understanding the significance of things that most of us have no capacity to even believe the existence of. If you look at the main influences of the New Age you find that the dominat figures are female. Blavatsky, Bailey and Beasant, with each of them trailing a high ranking Freemason behind them. Does this reflect the true oirigins of man and womankind.
More and more I believe it does. I believe that man was created a lesser sex, hence the small pineal gland. He did not need a large one because his job was hunter gatherer and supporter of wife and child. That aspect remains of course, or at least it did until male policy suddeny changed and determined that women should go out and work as well. Of course, at the time, women always got the suybservient roles as assistant or secretary to the man who made all of the decisions. Because of the nature of man who seems always to have needed to go out and fight in order to prove himself and gain self esteem, I wonder whether or not one day, he got so p***ed of with being made to feel small by the boss woman that he vowed to seek revenge. The only weapon available was sheer brute force. Did he suddenly realise that he could overpower the female and bring her to submission by beating the crap out of her?
It would explain why it is that all of the advances in technology forged by man have all been made in an attempt to replicate the natural powers that used to be available to the first dominant females. You know the internet (cosmic consciousness/telepathy), space flight (astral travelling), mind control (hypnosis), medicine (healing), etc. Is that why some of the most influential people in the world of mysticism have been females. Is that why some men need to go into deep meditation in order to get the pineal activation that formerly, was constant and continuous to the female. Is it because men have assumed control that we have lost touch with the reason for our existence in the first place. Should we be looking to the paranormally talented females in the world to develope and pass on their abilities to their daughters so that we can get some real wisdom and insight into how we shoukd be behaving on this planet. `Should ALL men be sacked from positions of power and influence returned to a life of fetching foods and building homes (jobs for Masons). Have we allowed stupid, idiot, pea brained men to take us all completely down the wrong path of evolution. Did Mother Nature make a mistake by creating the man too strong or possibly too psychotic. Was the whole idea about having secret societies to give men the opportunity to escape the influence of the woman and plot her downfall. Is that why Masons hate women? Is that why Masons called themselves Masons because it was their job to build houses for the women?
Well I would be really interested to get a few points of view. I am sure that there are many more people with iniights and knowledge of the roots of the war of the sexes. I think however, that it would be really hard to argue that the world would not be a better place if men did just do what the women told them and never started to get delusions of grandure.

[Ryu]

Spirituality is NOT gender orientated, it is RELIGION that can be that way.
Religion and spirituality are not synonymous nor dependent on one another.

In some cultures males were viewed as being "superior" while other cultures seen the female as more important...in most cases however it seems that many cultures seemed to ascribe certain "gender" attributes to nature.

Of course if you are speaking only of the christian religion then often women seemed to be viewed as even less than slaves were but christianity doesn't seem to be concerned with male or female so to speak, merely dominance.

[Hilander]

I would say its male since most religions are written to control women.  However they overlooked one thing we women often want to do what you men do.

[dogonstar111]

Hilander, on 09 January 2013 - 12:46 AM, said:

I would say its male since most religions are written to control women.  However they overlooked one thing we women often want to do what you men do.

Exactly my point. Are we swinging back the other way with women now wanting to compete with men on their level. Men never competed with women on their level because they just did not have the brain power and had to use brute force, but having attained dominance, they have set about competing against the supernatural brain power of the female by trying to repliucate it with technology.

[dogonstar111]

Quote

name=]']]

Quote

Spirituality is NOT gender orientated, it is RELIGION that can be that way.

It may not be at this time but my argument takes us back pre-history. Our spirituality lies dormant in the pineal gland that has slowly withered away over thousands of years. Females still possess a larger one than men and, one assumes, always have. Jesus was birthed by immaculate conception. If he was the son of God surely that makes God a woman, his mother.

Quote

Religion and spirituality are not synonymous nor dependent on one another.

agreed

Quote

In some cultures males were viewed as being "superior" while other cultures seen the female as more important...in most cases however it seems that many cultures seemed to ascribe certain "gender" attributes to nature.

Of course if you are speaking only of the christian religion then often women seemed to be viewed as even less than slaves were but christianity doesn't seem to be concerned with male or female so to speak, merely dominance.

Certainly not just Christian, I mean I was recently reading some text from Tantra, that I always supposed was somewhat more enlightened, but was shocked to discover that the female was depicted as a slave and server of her "Lord's" desires. My point is why do most religions, and even non-religions like Freemasonry, or plain old aitheistic soiciety, always do their best to keep the female in subservience?

[notforgotten]

God, the angels, demons, and Jesus as the Son of God is neither male nor female. Spirituality and religion is neither male nor female.

Edited by notforgotten, 09 January 2013 - 01:38 AM.

[The Id3al Experience]

Hilander, on 09 January 2013 - 12:46 AM, said:

I would say its male since most religions are written to control women.  However they overlooked one thing we women often want to do what you men do.

I beleive religion was to control the Mass, not a gender...

[Hasina]

The Id3al Experience, on 09 January 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

I beleive religion was to control the Mass, not a gender...

I'm along a similar thinking path, that we also came up with it to just explain what we didn't actually know.

[notforgotten]

Christ delivers us from being evil spirits (like demons) in the afterlife. He's a most loving saviour.

[SpiritWriter]

Both!

[Ryu]

Dogonstar111, maybe I was unclear..the very concept of "spirituality" has NEVER been gender orientated though some may mistake it as such.

There is no "swinging" here as most religions, by and large, don't change unless its adherents want it to.

But since it is clear you are referring only to christianity then it was never about gender and certainly not about treating women as equals...there was no change...ever.
Religions will only change when the people who abide by them decide it is time for a change....

[Beany]

I think estrogen & testosterone play as big a rule as any cultural or religious influence, as well as the nurturing female role. and one of the reasons I moved away from Christianity is the attitude about women. I personally don't believe in the accuracy or inerrancy of the bible, and for me it seems that the written word is used to confirm or approve of the poor treatment of and lack of respect for women. But hey, it's a patriarchal system, and they're all pretty much the same in that regard, it's often about power over, and it's NEVER about women having power over men.

[dogonstar111]

Ok. let me tell you what I had hoped would come of this. What I am looking for is some females out there who have the sense that my theory about the origins of sexist male attitudes, that have undeniably been predominant in recorded history, represent an  inversion of a  time when the woman was God and man was her servant. Times that have long been blotted from the historical landscape by men, desperate to hold on to the advantage gained having used physical strength as aversion therapy to stop women from using their powers.
Can anybody else see how the mystery schools, and the teachings of same, have been commandeered by men who do not have the innate skills and knowledge to practice them, so instead keep it all shrouded in secrecy.  Is this not clearly indicated by the manner in which relatively modern exponents like Blavatsky and Bailey, found themselves descended upon by the male bastion of Freemasonry, in order that their innate knowledge could  be used to further the psychopathic male dream of a NWO. Does this relationship reflect the fact that Freemasons, at the core, still carry the secret of female superiority that existed in a time that has been erased from history?
Does the New Testament give us a clue about mans true origin that the old testament deliberately misrepresents, by telling us that Jesus was a virgin birth? "Behold, she needeth not a man to give her a child. She is God and she may give birth to Jesus through immaculate conception. The blood of men serves only to poison the earth and it must  therefore be dispensed with and a new beginning created by woman giving birth to a pure man." Does this lend weight to the idea that the seed of modern man came from the stars and was manifest in the Hebrew scribes who created all religions with the certain knowledge that it would serve their purpose, which was to create war and conflict and enable them to gather up all of the gold, wealth and power that was possible, and wipe out any man that carried a semblence of the purity of woman, such as Jesus, as a result of their union with them?

[Darkwind]

I think men are bigger as an adaptation to protect women who are vulnerable during pregnancy. Women played a role in that they picked big males for mates.  Unfortunately for women, it also lead to them becoming property in many societies. The idea in religions men have dominion over women IMO is related to property rights. Many women who join new age Pagan religions do so because women are considered powerful and equal to men.

[Ciss]

dogonstar111, on 09 January 2013 - 12:02 AM, said:

I apologise if I am posting in the wrong place. please feel free to move it if so mods.

Look I just wanted to run this idea , or was it a feeling? I dunno, but whatever it was, it began as a seed but has slowly grown up into beanstalk proportions, such that I now feel that I have discovered the switch that has turned this planet into a living hell.
It really is quite simple and in fact, I remember my mother once saying, and this may well be the true source of this sky high growth, "there would never be any war if women were in charge". Now as things stand at this time, I am not quite as certain that it is as true as it was 20 years ago because increasingly, some women are starting to take on the psychopathic predator role that has been the mans domain, whist others are accepting of their role as sex object and have been thus sucked into accepting the idea that they only exist because men allow them to.
It got me thinking about who is, and who was, and who should be, the dominant sex. If we look at religion it is almost a universal attitude that women exist to give service to the man. The bible states that God made man first, and then created woman from the rib of the man. Now the first thing that that proves to me is that the bible is the biggest load of old baloney ever accepted as being the truth, and forming the basis of a way of life for so many people. That aside it occurred to me that the way in which women was supposed to have been created from the rib of man is really pretty demeaning and only really happened by way of God wishing to give something to man to play with, almost a second thought like. I mean, it is not a particularly prestigious entry into existence, and to me, it absolutely smacks of sexism. Its like these men who wrote the bible were carrying some long-standing hatred of women and needed to create a religion that kept the female subserviant. The only reason that I can come up with as to why there would be such strength of desire for this to be, is if at some stage the roles had been the opposite.
Now to me, and I am a male, it has to be the female who first gave birth to the man. Even if a creature is androgenous, it has to take the sex of the female in order to give birth. Then I thought about why we call the earth Mother and why we call nature Mother. Do these terms remain with us from pre-antiquity to a time where the female was dominant. My belief is that God is nature and nature is God. Therefore if such an entity as God does exist at all it must be female.
I wasonce  told that women have a much larger pineal gland than men. I believe that it is the pineal gland that enables humans to experience the multi-dimensional universe which is the source of all of the mysteries of the universe. That also must mean that the female is always going to be better predisposed to understanding the significance of things that most of us have no capacity to even believe the existence of. If you look at the main influences of the New Age you find that the dominat figures are female. Blavatsky, Bailey and Beasant, with each of them trailing a high ranking Freemason behind them. Does this reflect the true oirigins of man and womankind.
More and more I believe it does. I believe that man was created a lesser sex, hence the small pineal gland. He did not need a large one because his job was hunter gatherer and supporter of wife and child. That aspect remains of course, or at least it did until male policy suddeny changed and determined that women should go out and work as well. Of course, at the time, women always got the suybservient roles as assistant or secretary to the man who made all of the decisions. Because of the nature of man who seems always to have needed to go out and fight in order to prove himself and gain self esteem, I wonder whether or not one day, he got so p***ed of with being made to feel small by the boss woman that he vowed to seek revenge. The only weapon available was sheer brute force. Did he suddenly realise that he could overpower the female and bring her to submission by beating the crap out of her?
It would explain why it is that all of the advances in technology forged by man have all been made in an attempt to replicate the natural powers that used to be available to the first dominant females. You know the internet (cosmic consciousness/telepathy), space flight (astral travelling), mind control (hypnosis), medicine (healing), etc. Is that why some of the most influential people in the world of mysticism have been females. Is that why some men need to go into deep meditation in order to get the pineal activation that formerly, was constant and continuous to the female. Is it because men have assumed control that we have lost touch with the reason for our existence in the first place. Should we be looking to the paranormally talented females in the world to develope and pass on their abilities to their daughters so that we can get some real wisdom and insight into how we shoukd be behaving on this planet. `Should ALL men be sacked from positions of power and influence returned to a life of fetching foods and building homes (jobs for Masons). Have we allowed stupid, idiot, pea brained men to take us all completely down the wrong path of evolution. Did Mother Nature make a mistake by creating the man too strong or possibly too psychotic. Was the whole idea about having secret societies to give men the opportunity to escape the influence of the woman and plot her downfall. Is that why Masons hate women? Is that why Masons called themselves Masons because it was their job to build houses for the women?
Well I would be really interested to get a few points of view. I am sure that there are many more people with iniights and knowledge of the roots of the war of the sexes. I think however, that it would be really hard to argue that the world would not be a better place if men did just do what the women told them and never started to get delusions of grandure.

I like it when others are not too afraid to speak their heart, so being a female I will give you my point of view...The bible is full of shizz! and very seemingly unfair shizz too, but it is designed to reveal the reader's heart. There are some great things in it though, someone was inspired to write, "lean not to the left or to the right, remove your foot from evil" ...stand up straight and walk between these two...

It also says the right side of the body is male and the left side female, what parts of the brain controls each of these sides?

I would be upset for my own daughter to say to my own son "you are the lesser" neither would I tolerate the son to say the same of the daughter...they are equal and when they ask me how I know this I will simply tell them the bible's point of view, there are only two males, father and son and we can't see them, they are the greater than all of us because all of us (regardless of what we say the flesh has to be) is female, which makes us all gay and equal to each other...are you wearing the clothes or are those clothes wearing you? Before the Lord ever took the female out of himself there had always been both in one flesh and we will at some point return there to the male, back into his bossom and when we do it gives him back his womb and He/She/It births us again...

God loves all us females regardless of how gay we are and for all you females that just thought you were males, you might want to check your suit, I think you put it on inside outward, your womb is dangling!