It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Religious Conspiracy Against Women

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Slightly off topic, and slightly not: I don't think I can ever take the complaint about the supposed ill treatment of women in Christianity seriously ever again after seeing some comments in a recent political thread. Those comments basically boiled down to how a certain female candidate shouldn't be elected due to the fact she has young children at home. And due to that fact, she needs to basically be at home breast feeding them instead of serving her country.

Whether you agree with that or not is not really the subject matter. What is, is the fact Bible passages such as a woman should keep silent in church or that a woman will be saved through child bearing isn't terribly different from 'This candidate will keep silent in politics' and she will be 'a good citizen through staying at home and breast feeding.'

Not very different. Self righteous secular 'progressive' society showed itself to me in that thread to be hypocrites. They could care less about the advancement of women- they just want to bash the Bible for saying something very close to what they themselves still believe regarding the place of women.

[edit on 10/5/2008 by AshleyD]




posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 





Tell me your joking here in this?? Feudalism in the western world ended with Charles the 1st and the loss of his head in 1649 by the Puritans and Oliver Cromwell.


No,it ended in Britain,not the western world.

The end of feudalism changed society in Britain.It gave way to the Agriculture Revolution (1695) which paved the way for the revolutions in textiles and power.The first mechanical device of the era is usually attributed to Jethro Tull and his seed drill.(1701-1703)










[edit on 5-10-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Ashley D,

The body politic, to me, has become a type of whoredom...bartering and selling the souls of the voting public for lucre/power.

They will do and sell whatever is expedient at the time for votes or divide and conquer as I stated in my just previous post to Jakyll.

I also know from the Word ...that when God chooses so he will use a woman for His purposes as well as a man...Ruth, Deborah, Ester.
There is another woman ..her name escapes me at the moment ...from the Olde Testament. She is known for driving a tent stake through a kings head who was at war with the Children of Israel.
As I recall the portion from the Olde Testament ..this woman's husband was a general in the Israeli army and was not valorous or enthusiastic about persuing the enemy. Ironically it was his wife who was to kill the enemy king.
My apologies for not remembering the name.

Ashley D,
I do not give the body politic much credit in history or even belief as it is obvious to me that their main belief system is one of expedience..not Truth. By this I mean Truth with a capital T.
Also ..Ashley..it is obvious to me with the last few candidates that the grasp of history by the body politic is even poorer than mine.

While I dont actually know enough about her...what I see in that woman you are describing ..I initially like. You cannot be a weakling and raise a family up in Alaska...male and female both. You have to have something on the ball. I like her better than her running mate.
She comes across as down to earth..I like that in a male or a female. I pray that politics does not corrupt her to badly.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Hey, thanks a bunch. It's so true there were a lot of strong women in the Bible and in Christianity. Since this subject matter of allegedly oppressed female Christians and Jews has been discussed so much on ATS and refuted so thoroughly, I chose to instead point out the hypocrisy I see in secular society against women while at the same time they moan about the way females were treated in Biblical times.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Name any society in the entire history of this planet that was both 1) A matriarcy, and 2) rose above the level of grass huts.

Not a village. Not a single woman. A SOCIETY that was run by women that rose above a third-world condition.

You can talk about "equality" all you want. But riddle me this, Batman: Have women, as a whole, been responsible with their new found freedoms? Or have they demanded "equality" without equal responsibility?

Here's the command that God gives to women: "Obey your husbands". You see that? Women aren't even commanded to love their husbands, merely "obey". Now compare that to the command given to husbands in regards to their wives. See who has the harder job.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 



Thank you for expending such energy within your contributions to this thread.

Thank you, too, for putting my brain back on track !

I can't believe I am still so ... well ... STUPID !

I began by starring the OP and some posts immediately following.



Then you put things in much clearer and more honest perspective.

You're correct ! YOU ARE CORRECT imo.


Yes ! Men take RISKS to earn the bacon. Physical risks. They risk their lives. Daily. For decades. In order to bring home the money which supports their wives and children. They operate cranes, drive massive semi-trailers, work on high platforms to install a variety of life's necessities, clean multi-storey windows, etc.

Sure, some women undertake risky jobs too, but they are many fewer in number than males.

Then you illustrated, quite truthfully, who generally determines how the family income is spent. Yes, it's usually the woman who chooses houses, cars, holidays, etc. Everything you've written is true. True as of right now. It's a different world compared to even fifty years ago.

And as soon as you pointed it out, I could see that the OP was designed to appeal to the emotions rather than the intellect. It was a replay of the old Women's Lib arguments that so many women (myself included) fell for several decades ago. Misery loves company. I'm so disgusted with myself for falling for it again. Because what it achieved was a massive increase in divorce -- and a rawer, NOT better, deal for women (and children) generally.

After the success of the Women's Lib movement, many women found themselves without a male breadwinner, without a father for their children. Many women were forced then to play the role of two full-time parents as well as being required to work full-time. Millions of children, worldwide, paid for Women's Lib. They were raised in acrimony and without the balancing effect of a father.

On the other hand, women CAN now obtain loans to buy homes and cars. And women comprise 50% or more of the workforce. They can earn substantial salaries and enjoy prestigious careers and recognition. In order to achieve this or even to attempt it, they are required to place their children in child-care quite often. Many now spend most of their childhood in the care of people who are not their parents.

Women now equal males in heart-attacks and other life-shortening illnesses. They are prone to the same stress as males and are adopting the same 'coping' mechanisms: drinking, smoking, etc.

So thank you again, OrangeTom. I seem to remember disagreeing with you quite heatedly in this forum in past years. Can't remember the issue under discussion then. However, once I began reading your posts in this thread, I was blown away with admiration for you. I've starred everything you've contributed and would happily star it all repeatedly, because you have striven, at considerable expense to your time and energy, to present the reality, for the benefit of unknown others who might chance across this thread.

Don't think I've ever been so impressed by anyone in ATS before.

Congratulations for having such insight, intelligence and powers of articulation. You've caused me to rethink my own attitudes. I DO determine how money is spent in our household. My spouse DOES take considerable risks in order to earn that money. I AM the stronger partner. I DO get 'my own way' far more than he. I HAVE been taking that situation for granted. In NO way could I claim to be 'downtrodden' any longer, by organised religion in particular. I HAVE suffered in the past as consequence of misogyny, but that's no longer the case. I SHOULD have dismissed the OP's appeal to emotions and beliefs which are no LONGER relevant. The only thing I can say in my own defence is that at least I was honest enough to recognise the truth within your posts, OrangeTom.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Women have been treated all sorts of ways. It's crazy...

I've even heard that the elites of the world want to get rid of women simply because they reproduce too much...because one man can impregnate 1,000 women.

It seems like they get treated in every way except equal. It has got to stop.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


Intresting way in which you made your point. You have come to pretty much the same conclusion to which I have arrived.

Here from page 3 of this thread....I posted...


This religion has been around for thousands of years..long before Christianity in it's pedigree. Yet as a historical track record it did little anywhere you see it in the world and world history ..in changing the lifestyle of the ordinary person..the ordinary peon. It mostly supported the Royalty and the priesthood class. Mostly where you found it ...a few people lived well on the labors of others...the rest had almost nothing...a below subistence level standard of living.


About what I am curious sir chancealot is by what means or sources did you come to pretty much the same conclusion. I ask this as I know it is not the standard format taught in educational institutions verses the "Victim Dictum " so popular today.

I keep repeating this concept about occult esoteric religions...but it is important to recognize this across the board that it permeates education and the body politic both ..as the body politic finances and pays for our public education institutions teaching this type of "Victim Dictum" as a standard format.

The truth of this is hidden..which is the definition of occult..meaning hidden, concealed, esoteric, known only by a chosen few initiates.
The truth about these so called matriarchial societys is that they were femminine...not female per se..but femminine..meaning ...of this world and the power of this world. Another word for this pattern is Feudal. The power resting in the hands of a few..the royalty and priesthoods. This is why so many social structures never raised above a level of grass huts....or a basic substance level. A few ..the royalties and priesthood class had a little and the rest had almost nothing. This is also the same template as Communist countries. Communist countrys and economys are feudal/femmine in their nature. Just like these nations from ancient history.
Socialism and social programs ..run amok.. are the same template as the femminine... a few will wind up taking the RISKS for everyone else...which is exactly where we are headed ..just like the UK and much of Europe. Not enough seed corn left to plant for next years crop.

Nonetheless..I find it intresting that you have come to pretty much the same conclusion as have I.

Thanks for your post,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Dock6
 


Dock 6,

Wow!!!! I catch so much flack in threads like this I am somewhat taken back by your post. Totally unexpected and also appreciated. For your post and support in this I thank you.

I am also encouraged by your lengthy new thought process.

I should tell you that in years past..I too was heavy into the women's movement and bought into the standard mantras. Somewhere along the line I began to see that not all was as advertised.

What I began to realize was how insidious was the inner workings behind this movement and its hijacking into what it has become today.

What these issues are today has become about is votes. They are not about issues per se..but about votes for the political parties...in particular ..one political party which has made a career out of catering to women and others in high electoral vote states. For they have determined that women and the effeminate are very influential economically and therefore influential for votes. A system of issues must needs be created to get the women and the effeminate males on the emotional treadmill such that their votes can be, malleable, controlled, guaranteed, and predictable when stepping into the voting booth.
What these issues for votes have become is a substitute security blanket ..government provided and funded surrounding the issues of sexualty and security. In otherwords the government as a substitute male without risks. All this and more in order to cultivate votes. It has been disasterous on the family unit. In this effect on the family unit/children you are quite correct.

Back beginning with Phil Donahue ..years ago..the power of emotional puppet strings was not lost on the body politic. The audience was mostly women..and easily emotional women. Hence the "Victim Dictum " as a standard format was brought onto the scene/born and then carried over to the body politic.
I have seen enough of this emotional puppet technique string done to see it easily on these threads and spot it for what it is. Be very careful when watching television or listening to the radio when someone tries to put you on the emotional puppet strings. I am not saying emotions are bad..but just be very careful about them. Emotions can often mislead and confuse us when clarity is instead needed.

I don't have a problem with women working and earning moneys. I just know that with most women ...social functions and beliefs/values are very different from men. This is not equality. I don't care who is singing the mantra.

However...you make a good point in your post about children being raised by those not their parents. I will expand on this a bit more.

Children are indeed paying the price for this affluence...in leaps and bounds.
I see a lot of males today who are raised in front of a television or peer group and have as high or higher maintenance conditions than do many females. And they often justify their entitlements in similar manner to females. They have female pattern thinking and values/consumption levels. This does not bode well for them if they have to function in an environment with real men. It also does not bode well for the women who must count on them. This shows up clearly in marriage statistics.
Sad but true.
We are also seeing a noticable increase in the women/females of this country beginning to bear the fruit of a television/peer group education. It is showing up more and more in the nightly news.

Oh..another thing I am in agreement with you on ..I have noticed that there seem to be as many if not more women smoking out here than men. Have you noticed this trend?? At least around here I notice it.

There are however ..also what is noticable to me is a group of women who have not bought into the mantra of their mothers and grandmothers times. The femminist movement. They have opted to be stay at home moms. I think this is comimg back. Slowly but coming back. Or perhapsed they are taking longer to rejoin the work force. Spending more of time with thier children before going back to work.
I am thinking that some of these women are realizing that the movement did not make thier mothers and grandmothers lives happy,fulfilled and content..especially in thier autum years.

Nonetheless..I am grateful for your post and encouraged that at least one person out here gets it.

Thanks for your post,
Orangetom



[edit on 6-10-2008 by orangetom1999]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
So, while the oppression of women in Islamic society is now talked about at length, why don't we take the same tone with Christian oppression of women?

Sorry I haven't read the entire thread. I agree with the entire OP. S & F

Christians who claim the entire Bible is the "inerrant word of God" cannot deny the words of Paul and Peter deem women lesser than men.

They just can't explain why "God" didn't make "wives, obey your husbands" one of the Commandments if he DID encourage Paul and Peter's opinion.

I know why, though, it's because it makes no sense.

If it were a command, wives could get away with ANYTHING, so long as their husband told them to do it(at least, as far as God was concerned). But since it makes no sense, it wasn't added to the top ten. Period.

Now, I believe women do enjoy, by nature, letting the husband take the lead. But to say that it's a command goes against the very nature of God, who is supposed to have given us a "free will". That being the case, it isn't a "sin" to go against your husband's command, or even consider yourself his equal in the home, as far as decision making goes, and everything else.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Name any society in the entire history of this planet that was both 1) A matriarcy, and 2) rose above the level of grass huts.

Not a village. Not a single woman. A SOCIETY that was run by women that rose above a third-world condition.

You can talk about "equality" all you want. But riddle me this, Batman: Have women, as a whole, been responsible with their new found freedoms? Or have they demanded "equality" without equal responsibility?

Here's the command that God gives to women: "Obey your husbands". You see that? Women aren't even commanded to love their husbands, merely "obey". Now compare that to the command given to husbands in regards to their wives. See who has the harder job.



lol.....
ya, sure....
which do you think is harder...staying home trying to take care of the needs of your hungry children...or sitting on a bar stool, drinking away the grocery money that should of been used to feed those children...
all the "obey you husband" bit does is attempts to force the women to just accept it without an alternative. it makes the husband the automatic default in every decision....no matter how stupid, how harmful, how deadly it might be for the rest of the family. everyone makes mistakes....at least if the man and the women have the freedom to mesh out their differences, some of these mistakes might be avoided. neither should have a default, and both should have the option to say to the other, I just ain't gonna go along with this, if you want to go ahead, but you will go it alone.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 





The truth about these so called matriarchial societys is that they were femminine...not female per se..but femminine..meaning ...of this world and the power of this world. Another word for this pattern is Feudal.


Matriarchal means a family,society,community,or state governed by women.It doesn't mean there was just some female influence,it means they made the rules etc.Matrifocality is a society where women occupy a central position.And feudalism is a political and military system,not social.





In most of occult writings ....the power is in the males...even in the fertility principles.


The oldest known religious cult is that of the Earth Mother/Mother Goddess,it can be traced back to the Paleolithic era.(24,000–22,000 BC) She may have been the dominant figure but the fertility rites and principles were equal because,in the case of humans,its all to do with the reproductive processes.Which is 2 halves coming together to make 1 whole.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 





Have women, as a whole, been responsible with their new found freedoms? Or have they demanded "equality" without equal responsibility?


Yes and no.
Not all women act the same,just as all men don't.You get a sense that the answer is just no,but that goes from all the things mentioned in the press.Responsible women just don't get as many headlines.

And I think that after being oppressed for so long women have a right to go a 'lil wild and experience life to the full.That doesn't mean they should be totally irresponsible though.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
...in the case of humans, its all to do with the reproductive processes.Which is 2 halves coming together to make 1 whole.


~Applauds~

Yes, two halves, not 60/40. In two halves you cannot have a greater value.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
For anyone fool enough to think that the past was all rosy for women because they could be married with children without having to work,make choices,take risks etc,i recommend reading this;
www.hastingspress.co.uk...


Oh,and thank you mmariebored


[edit on 6-10-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 


jakyll,


Matriarchal means a family,society,community,or state governed by women.It doesn't mean there was just some female influence,it means they made the rules etc.Matrifocality is a society where women occupy a central position.And feudalism is a political and military system,not social.


I am with Sir Chancelot on this one...


Name any society in the entire history of this planet that was both 1) A matriarcy, and 2) rose above the level of grass huts.

Not a village. Not a single woman. A SOCIETY that was run by women that rose above a third-world condition.


This matriarchal society stuff has great appeal..but no matter how you catalogue it ...it produces the same fruit as feudal structures. By feudal I mean where the main classes of influence are the Royalty and the priesthood class who live well off the labor and fruits of everyone else.
It is the same with most military juntas. or dictatorships. This is also the fingerprint of Communist structures...or workers paradises.

Any system you want to name has a social structure. The key ..no matter what our educational systems try to tell us...is what is the fruit that they bear...not what is the name of the system... or how they are catalogued.

mmariebored,


Yes, two halves, not 60/40. In two halves you cannot have a greater value.


You do realize that this is nonsense..yes??

The concept of 50/50% among women ..and even among men is like stupid. Its 100/100%. As a general rule...women can count faster than do most men. Especially moneys.
No woman I know is interested in a man giving only 50%. They are smarter than that. They will quickly wonder and maneuver to get control over the other 50%..especially moneys. Most men of whom I know will be dumb enough to plod along and think they are getting a good deal at 50%.

50/50% looks and sounds good on paper...and in the classrooms. It is 100/100% This nonsense is where most men sell themselves way short.
They are happy and content,good for another 100,000 miles, because they have sports, the swimsuit edition, television, and can strike oil once in awhile.

The greater value is in 100/100%..in two. You can have a greater value indeed.

jakyll,


For anyone fool enough to think that the past was all rosey for women because they could be married with children without having to work,make choices,take risks etc,i recommend reading this;


What on earth possesses you to think that life in the past was all rosey for men as well?? I cannot imagine what you are thinking here. I suggest here that your education or thinking are skewed..both about the past and also today. Skewed by a political education.
Most men did not live social lives of affluence...and also were not educated in the past...could not read or write.

Some of the stuff you post comes across precisely like our body politic here skimming for votes. You are not telling the whole story.
The men did not have it all that great in the past..anywhere you went on this earth...they perished at a higher rate than did the women. Still do today.

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 





I am with Sir Chancelot on this one..


Whats this got to do with what i said?
I wasn't talking about the success of failure of a matriarchal society,i was talking about what it is as you seem to be mixing it up with a matrifocality society.





What on earth possesses you to think that life in the past was all rosey for men as well?? I cannot imagine what you are thinking here. I suggest here that your education or thinking are skewed..both about the past and also today. Skewed by a political education.


Is this thread about men?
No,its about women and how women were/are treated.Of course men had a hard life in the past,and still do,i'm not a bloody idiot! So don't try and treat me like one in an attempt to show that your theories are right!



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 



Whats this got to do with what i said?
I wasn't talking about the success of failure of a matriarchal society,i was talking about what it is as you seem to be mixing it up with a matrifocality society.


No you were not talking about the success or failure of a matriarchal society. Both Sir Chancealot and I are indeed referring to this success or failure historically. The fruit. And We are talking about it. Not "Victimization Politics."

No matter what you call it or use to describe it...what fruit did they bear?? That is the record which is going to be seen historically.

And no this thread is not about men. It is about a conspiracy against women. And like a lot of the "Victim Dictum" today, the "intelligences " on here must use a time warp technique to make it look like this is still going on here today. They must stick everyone back in a time warp to make their points. The problem is that when they do this ..they only tell part of the story..not the whole. They not only do not tell the whole story about back in history ..but they also do not tell the whole story about what is going on today. This is precisely how a politician works. And I know that the bulk of education in western social structures is paid for by the body politic. Not a difficult set of dots to connect.
In order to preach and teach the political line..only part of the story must be told in order to default through on "Emotions." I will always attempt to tell the bigger picture if I know of it.
This political line is always good for votes...in the voting booth..based on emotions being properly stroked/reinforced.
It looks intelligent and sophisticated..but it simply is not the whole story nor true. It does like a good tabloid..sell a lot of copy.. to people who do not know much history..but know a lot of television and movies...emotions.
One can see this clearly in many of the posts on here.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
mmariebored,

You do realize that this is nonsense..yes??

The concept of 50/50% among women ..and even among men is like stupid. Its 100/100%. As a general rule...women can count faster than do most men. Especially moneys.
No woman I know is interested in a man giving only 50%. They are smarter than that. They will quickly wonder and maneuver to get control over the other 50%..especially moneys. Most men of whom I know will be dumb enough to plod along and think they are getting a good deal at 50%.

50/50% looks and sounds good on paper...and in the classrooms. It is 100/100% This nonsense is where most men sell themselves way short.
They are happy and content,good for another 100,000 miles, because they have sports, the swimsuit edition, television, and can strike oil once in awhile.

The greater value is in 100/100%..in two. You can have a greater value indeed.

No woman is interested in giving a man 50%? You have some serious issues with women, it seems. I do agree that most married people are out to protect themselves, just look at the stats for failed marriages. But all people are different. Only an unfair, greedy shrew would take more than 50%, particularly if they know they deserve only 50. It makes no sense to take more, and if you marry into a fortune then it's not really yours to take. I'm assuming this is part of what you're talking about.

"The greater value is 100/100", you mean live like roommates and don't consider yourself bonded to each other? I wish it were so simple...
But then, some people actually do find happiness, so really it's a matter of opinion.

Wait. Did you use the word "like" out of context in the second sentence?


And like a lot of the "Victim Dictum" today, the "intelligences " on here must use a time warp technique to make it look like this is still going on here today.

You must not be aware of the massively increasing religions who DO take us back in time to when women were treated like slaves. What do you think happens when a religion like that grows? It effects the laws in that country. This is one of the reasons I'm all for the separation between church and state but even that won't save us from being consumed by the idiot ideologies of a whole country covered in dogmatic barbarianism.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by mmariebored
 


mmariebored,

You like manner to jakyll..or even madnessinmysoul...cannot possibly be serious about a statement like this one in your first sentance...


No woman is interested in giving a man 50%? You have some serious issues with women, it seems. I do agree that most married people are out to protect themselves, just look at the stats for failed marriages.


Do you realize, in the femminine angle or point of, view how contradictory this statement is to those who can see past it..how implicit ..not explicit.
Implicitness not explicitness is the very fingerprint of the body politic..it is also the essence of the occult...of which also the body politic is.

No woman is intrested in giving a man 50%...surely you jest. A thinking person starts from a position of 100%...not 50%.

How does one become out to protect themselves ....and give 100%?? Or for that matter..even 50%?? How do you do it and be so insecure you spend so much time and resources "protecting ones self." In this protection concept one would be hard pressed to give 50% much less 100%. Ive told many a woman and even men with whom Ive had to work and entrust my life and safety to them on a job..I am not intrested in thier insecuritys.

No woman is intrested in giving a man 50%...
Ever heard of the concept of the " the appearance of commitment...so that one never really has to be committed??" I can assure you that this is a concept that a woman would pick up on light years faster than the average male out here. And they are not likely to educate a man or male in this concept. To risky...to much vulnurability/insecurity at stake. Better that the males stay hooked on thier drugs of sports, the swimsuit edition, television and their oil shortage.

Oh..and there is another word or term for the appearance of commitment so that one never has to really be committed. It is called "male expendability and disposability."

Sorry mmariebored...but you are in error..I have just as many issues with males as females. Males can often be some kind of dumb. This is actually quite good/fortuitious for women of certain calibers in which I am wont to describe in certain threads.
Are all women like this ..certainly not. But it is more common than made known and catches alot of flack when someone is wont to put light on it..both from males and females as evidenced by threads like this one.


Wait. Did you use the word "like" out of context in the second sentence?


the word like used in that quote above..refers to the olde phrase...in like manner.

I am well aware of the religions of which you speak and I dont agree with them for many reasons. Chief among these reasons being once again ...the one stated above and to which Sir Chancelot makes reference. These religions do not ,like the ancient goddess religions, bear any lasting fruit which will help the average peon...male or female. They are indeed a form of bondage. I have no use for them.
Once again..it is necessary to inspect the fruit.
I know this also about these nations from whence so many of these religions, of which you speak, originate....that any real progress which was to help the ordinary peon..came not from within these nations but from outside these natiions and specifically from Western Christian nations.

Thanks,
Orangetom




[edit on 8-10-2008 by orangetom1999]




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join