Is it because Abrahamicists are ugly incels? Or is Greco-Roman homosexual autism to blame? Pagan religions all worshiped female deities and spirits and women weren't handicapped and abused in most of those societies. Suddenly, this changed, and Abrahamic religions stopped considering women powerful divinities in their own right.
>>17407526I’m skeptical this is true given any Pagan society we have a wealth of material about like the Greco-Romans or Hinduism are so insanely giga-sexist it beggars belief.
greek mythology literally says that the gods created woman to destroy the civilization of mankind after meteors and thunderbolts didnt work. woman is literally the nigger of the world in greek myth
>>17407544>>17407554Yeah Greeks and Romans were a bunch of repressed homosexuals. I meant pagan societies outside of those.
>>17407557women were revered to a degree in germanic society, but they were also held to a certain standard. whores, adulterers and slutty women were shaved, stripped, beaten and chased from their village by their own family. the romans held similar punishments for vestal virgins who broke their virginal vows; they were buried alive. it is also a jewish misconception that the greeks and romans were universally homosexual. the spartans considered homosexuality, especially pederasty, to be a disgrace.homosexuality does not correlate directly to repression of women; repression of women came about as a necessary development of human evolution and is a pattern shared by all great ape societies
>>17407573Women are not naturally whores, like you imply. You drank the homo kool aid.
>>17407557You mean like the Asatruar, who didn't let women hold property or speak at the allthing?
>>17407599I mean like virtually all animist societies.
>>17407526Women don't wash their cunts.
>>17407598I never said they were, but you would be stupid and/or a simp to think whores havent always been around in every society. the fact germanic tribes had a harsh punishment for whoredom implies that it did exist to some degree and not every germanic woman was a perfectly pure valkyrie waifu.
>>17407526Abrahamism is spiritually dead nonsense. It's whole purpose is to uphold patriarchal world order.
>>17407526Nah, I would worship futa deity.
>>17407605I have no idea what an "animist society" is, and I don't think that you do either.
>>17407620Why are you obsessed with whores? And by the way, a whore is a woman with no standards, not a woman who cheats on her fat dumbass husband with someone of superior genetic stock, which is a healthy and natural desire.
>>17407636>I have no idea what an "animist society" isSo, go read about it. There's a tremendous amount of literature by ethnographists.
>>17407638>a whore is a woman with no standards, not a woman who cheats on her fat dumbass husband with someone of superior genetic stock, which is a healthy and natural desire.that is pretty much the definition of a whore anon. the germanic tribes took marriage vows pretty seriously. you dont get to just redefine words how you like them and then apply that reverse-engineered definition to a 2000 year old context. now get in the bog tranny, I tire of your larping
>>17407645Anyone calling that behavior whorish is not a pagan, but a repressed homosexual i.e. proto-Abrahamicist who would prefer women be docile and out of the way.
>>17407668Then why does everything they do and say suggest it?
>>17407641And none of that describes actual religions as practiced by human beings at any point in history.
Imagine thinking women rights are a straight concept.
>>17407680So, Christians don't attribute the fall of humanity to the woman, who is made after the man, from his rib (a naturally crooked bone)? And that's just Christianity.
>>17407675I advise you to look up what ethnography is.>>17407684The elimination of the other's rights is an elimination of the other. You want the other to put up no resistance, because you're a repressed homosexual.
>>17407526I am no simp
>>17407692"Simp" is a homosexual fabrication
>>17407690>You want women to put up no resistance because you’re a homo?
>>17407702No resistance = no existence, narc faggot.>>17407712>Christians don't actually read the BibleDamn, you got me there.
>>17407719But they do exist, in their submissive natural state.
>>17407573>women were revered to a degree in germanic society, but they were also held to a certain standardActually, were almost matriarchal >Despite their lack of direct political influence, Roman writers note that Germanic women had much influence in their society. [84] Some tribes believed that women possessed magical powers and were feared for this. [85] Female priestesses had a great influence on decisions made by the Cimbri and Teutones during the Cimbrian War, and by Ariovistus during his war with Caesar>Germanic epics, such as the Nibelungenlied and Beowulf, describe the strong influence that royal women had on their society
>>17407724If the other has no voice, it is not an other, but an object. >submissive natural stateWomen are naturally receptive, not submissive.
>>17407684And it's
>>17407726>>17407573in fact, Greco-Roman patriarchy (mainly Greek) is not necessarily a European standard. Mainly in the north, the Celts were much more liberal than the Hellenics and Latins.
>>17407736I never said it was. I just mentioned the fact that the Germanics had some that we would only see in 1890 or were matriarchal. they were more liberal. the Celts, however, I believe were more feminist
>>17407554Women didn't have full legal rights in pagan germanic society, and one of the most famous stories out of pagan iceland that stars a powerful female protagonist treats her as being insane and deviant.
>>17407742Okay, so explain why Eve is made from Adam's rib, why Eve eats the apple and not Adam, and why God is a He and not a She.
>>17407656im not calling that behavior whorish. it is whorish, as defined by the germanic tribes 2000 years ago. read germania you loony troon. or better yet just kys
>>17407732> but an object.Yes and?> not submissive.Maybe not to you.
>>17407741>Women didn't have full legal rights in pagan germanicNot true..Patrilineal tendencies were well known, for example, but it was not a widely requested norm for some reason.>The most important family relationships among the early Germanic peoples were within the individual family, a fact based on archaeological evidence from their settlements where longhouses appear to be central to their existence. Within the family unit, an individual was equally linked to both the maternal and paternal sides of the family. They preferred egalitarian succession, unlike the Hellenics, which was necessarily patrilineal. It was not very rare to see women with lands and names in Germanic societies, some were even vast traders.(I will post the book)could be represented through her male relatives and thus only exert influence behind the scenes.
>>17407761>Yes and?An object doesn't exist as an other. If you inhabit a world of objects, or want to, you're a narcissistic homosexual.>Maybe not to you.To no one.
>>17407726you pulled this from kikepedia, and failed to mention that women were also killed for being whores
>>17407741>insane>Revealing the warlike nature of their society, Tacitus reported that wives came to their husbands as a partner in toils and dangers; to suffer and to dare equally with him, in peace and in war.[93] Upon the death of their husbands and other male relatives on the battlefield and the defeat of their tribe, Germanic women are recorded by Roman historians as having killed their children and committed suicide. Such was the fate of the women of the Cimbri and Teutons after their defeat in the Cimbrian War
>>17407736is this still you OP? so now romans were based for being patriarchal? how many levels of jewry and well poisoning are you running on? ill admit you jews can be so slippery and devious its almost admirable
>>17407764>jooo sourcesNice argument...>to mention that women were also killed for being whoresAnd? How does that change the fact that they are a bit feminist and egalitarian? although the Celts were quite sexual deviants
>>17407772Then get fucked bitch
>>17407767so wait, if germanic society defined whoredom as having low standards, and not as being disloyal to your husband, why didnt the teuton and cimbri women take med cock and submit to their new conquerors? you dont understand a thing about germanic culture or moral attitudes, you tranny larper. germanic women would literally have died before letting another man than their husband fuck them. thats because whoredom was looked down on in german society, as tacitus and caesar both said
>>17407763Of course an object is an other. Everything that isn’t you is an other.
>>17407770I m not the OPSorry, monkey.your precise Celts would probably be the first to vote for women's rights if they could. Matriarchalism and degeneration were themes considered Celtic by the Romans. read Ammianus Marcellinu
>>17407773>da joooosanyone who says this, I immediately disregard. read an actual book like de gallo bellico for once you pseudo-intellectual geeky troon
>>17407770>so now romans were based for being patriarchal?Yes.
>>17407783im saxon not celtic, I dont care. we fucked both of you into submission
>>17407781>Of course an object is an otherHow, when it can't resist, and thus becomes an extension of the self, like an article of clothing or a tool? You lack an understanding of the established philosophical concept of otherness.
see how the mere mention of some more egalitarian patricians among the Germans and Celts makes EVERYONE dilate. friends, not everyone was a restricted patriarchy on a semiotic level like the Hellenics. Nobody said they were a paradise for women, but it is undeniable that they were more egalitarian and had some tendencies that were not patricaisi and their women had more influence, similar to the Sarmatians
>>17407789Both were somehow matriarchal
Women should be bigger than men
>>17407762women could inherit lands, but they weren't full legal persons, as evidenced by the fact that marriage contracts were arraigned as between suitors and the woman's father>>17407767Tacitus was a retard and got lots of things wrong, like claiming germanics didn't practice child killing via exposure. As between him and the actual myths and legends of the germanic people which portray female vikings as particularly shameful or aberrant, I'm going to choose the latter.
>>17407789>Next come the states of the Suiones, right out in the sea. They are powerful not only in arms and men but also in fleets. The shape of their ships differs from the normal in having a prow at each end, so that they are always facing the right way to put in to shore.>Bordering on the Suiones are the nations of the Sitones. They resemble them in all respects but one - woman is the ruling sex. That is the measure of their decline, I will not say below freedom, but even below decent slavery.
>>17407801clearly there were Roman exagaras, but when we have other sources saying the same thing, by different people, at different times and in different places, you can't just ignore it. That's what we have, if you have something better or a Germanic writing, feel free and post it.(you won't)The Germans still remain what I claim until proven otherwise by primary sources>women could inherit landsThat's the point, anon.
>>17407801>actual myths and legends of the germanic people which portray female vikings as particularly shameful or aberrantstill implies it happened enough to comment on, which was probably bizarre enough to tacitus that he didn't bother checking what other people thought of it. how do roman sources portray female legionaries?
>>17407726>>Germanic epics, such as the Nibelungenliedexcept female influence is portrayed as evil in the stories surronding Sigurthr. In Gripisspa, Gripir lays all the blame for the tragedy at the matriarch of the Nibelungs' feet. And then of course Brynhildar and Guthun each go on their own mad killing sprees. After Brynhildar's murder-suicide with all of her slaves, as she's riding to hell, a Jotunn farm lady calls her a scumbag for all of the ruin she has caused.
>>17407801women could inherit landsThis. They are right, very non-patriarchal kek we have the same shitty among Spartans and... it went to hell >but they weren't full legal personsIf they weren't, they wouldn't have land, since that was exactly what a person considered a citizen did in Germanic societies. only people with influence could>as evidenced by the fact that marriage contracts were arraigned as between suitors and the woman's fatherThat doesn't mean much. There are many examples in history and in the 19th century of women with patrilineal succession (but what he posted shows that this was not even a thing among the Germans) holding considerable power over land. or just look at the history of medieval England, it was so Germanic/egalitarian in some rights for women, that some women even criticized it kek. It's a Germanic tradition
>>17407790Because it’s not you, nigga. It’s something else AKA other.
>>17407815>still implies it happened enough to comment onWomen had many rights, about the warfare, was quite common.shield maidens, what they often did was women would accompany women into war with shields, that's literally why we use the word shield maidens, so they were kind of a backup when someone's male shield broke. , the woman brought the new shield to the soldier.read about the battle with The Wives of the Teutons. and they "defended" the wagon fort.for example, it wasn't really uncommon for Viking women to defend themselves against invaders on their farms or even at home, and like I said, it wasn't rare, and we have examples and in wars, something that happened often, women went to war as a kind of support
>>17407824From a subjective standpoint it's not something else if it can't resistance.
>>17407819>If they weren't, they wouldn't have landA freeman or karl had various landlord rights over and above simply owning land, like tax collection. I don't know of any women having this status. Typically all you see in norse sagas is women inheriting farms from their fathers, but even then this often will go to their sons instead.
>>17407818These are not just this epics. we have others that are more indirect, and in case you don't know, the stories necessarily portray a subliminal message for the listeners to reflect on, and as in this story (if you read it) it is not necessarily against female power and influence, (as we have similar cases with male rulers) but it was a message about how pride and low ambition can be damaging. It's not an anti-feminine power tale, if it were, there wouldn't be any feminine influence. The same argument could be used by feminists about men not being leaders in the various problem stories. that was semantics, anon.
>>17407827Is it you? No? Then it’s some other thing.
>>17407838Self and Other are two polarities on a spectrum, subjectively speaking. The more something else can resist, the more "otherness" it has. What appears to you as having a more distinct identity: an automatic sliding door, or a heavy iron door twice your size that requires both hands to open, if not a second person to aid you? If you answer anything besides the obvious, you're a faggot.Wanting the opposite sex to have no rights is akin to wanting the opposite sex's otherness to disappear. And that's narcissism, by definition.
>>17407835how the fuck is it semantics, you retardYou listed the Nibelungenlied as an example of matriarchal power in germanic society, but the actual stories Nibelungenlied is based on routinely depict women as being destructive and scheming.>Well just because every time a female attains power in Sigurthr poetry it precedes disaster isn't sufficient evidence to show that pagan germanics opposed females attaining power>It's not an anti-feminine power taleIt's not a power fantasy at all, it's a tragedy>The same argument could be used by feminists about men not being leaders in the various problem storiesGuthrun literally murders her children, grinds them up into hamburger meat, and feeds them to Attila the Hun, you can't just do a "durr what if the genders were reversed??!?!" thing here
>>17407831If they owned land as you stated, these types of things would also apply.>Typically all you see in norse sagas are women inheriting farms from their exactly, an evidence of the power, influence and direct that they had among the Germans. the Athenians already created the Spartans for this reason. It's interesting. And again, inheriting land was a minority and certainly wouldn't be just a facade, because if it was, the Germans were more retarded than I thought.>Typically all you see in norse sagas are women inheriting farms from their exactly. this is our point. they *could*>will go to their sons insteadGermanic successions were very complex and disputed. it wasn't even very linear in the sense of >just follow the lineagetwists were very common. but it happened enough to be remembered
>>17407846>more game of words..Well, I accept your concessionYou are isolating me and you have not even tried to read my arguments or understand how the sagas work, your anachronistic and simplistic vision does not concern me. goodbye>>17407849wait until he realizes what the Germans did pre-war with their divine women or how patrilinealism was so relative, that we have examples of literal friends inheriting lands
>>17407849>createdcriticized
Fools, however, projecting the LATINO patriarchy onto Nordcucks is totally different.Yeah your ancestors support the feminist 1° wave since the iron age.Seethe, dilate and coping
>>17407842No, self and other is not a binary any more than being pregnant is. Either it is or it isn’t, and random objects are not you.
>>17407873>No, self and other is not a binaryRight, that's why I called them polarities...>Either it is or it isn’tThat would be a binary. Holy fuck are you dumb
>>17407838"You" don't exist. Your mind is an illusion, a software running on the hardware of the brain.
>>17407878Typo, meant to say gradient.
>>17407866>>17407802Germanboos don't stop losingpatriarchy= Mediterranean. Celtcucks were at least good at the art, even if they were matrifocals. Germanics were just Egalitarianism's mommy's boys. I read in a school book that Germanic women did rituals with menstruation for fertility and no man could come close because it was in a state of "conservation" LOL LOL LOL LOL I'll see if I can find the book
>>17407881A mental self is more observably true than a physical true.
>>17407882They're polarities, not a binary. Not my problem you're not smart enough to grasp psychological nuance.
>>17407883Would you come close to a period ritual?
>>17407887Wake up call, there is no reality in which inanimate objects even have a psychology.
>>17407883>put a bag over your wife's head so you can still imagine you're fucking your friend's son's teenaged bussy Kino
>>17407892Take away someone's voice and right to act on their own and what's left in terms of being able to express any psychology? You've rendered them only slightly above the status of an inanimate object, only upheld by physiological functions, which you'd surely get rid of too if you could.
Whats happening in this thread?
>>17407912Abrahamicists are pissing and shitting themselves as their hallucinations are vanquished before their eyes
>>17407912The DEFEAT of the matriarchal cultures
>>17407912Mama_boy larpagans are pissing and shitting themselves as their hallucinations are vanquished before their eyes
>>17407913>>17407914>>17407919You will all bow to Terra Mater.
>>17407905Their psychology is expressed through submission, that itself is a kind of action.
>>17407889This is not a real question.The real question is: why have a ritual like this? so it is.The point is that, these menstrual blood rituals generally focus on the "divine feminine" or some fertility goddess, where they mainly use concepts such as the feminine being in a state of grace so great that men shouldn't come near it so as not to "ruin anything." think of it as that feminine sixth sense but ritualistic nanny shit. And therein lies the problem, conscious people know that female menstruation or the uterus is not sacred or deserves a ritual for it, no. The Greeks for example, knew that this was a state that girls were preparing to receive the Mediterranean seed from another Hellenic. it is and that. But I'll be fair, I couldn't find the book look for more tomorrow.
>>17407928Submission is a non-consensual act, a last ditch effort when all else has failed. It is the least action-like action one could take. Face it, you're a repressed homosexual narc who doesn't want women to exist as anything more than commodities and ornaments for your pleasure.
>>17407928>>17407929>>17407932See >>17407922
>>17407696Shut up simp
>>17407992Kill yourself, homo.
>>17407656Women sleeping around bring doubt on the offspring of the man she married and all she slept with. Nobody can definitively know whos child it is. This ruins knowing who your descendanrs and ancestors are, a very important thing in most pagan cultures.It makes inheritance challenging to pass on tribal wealth or titles, and can even lead to offspring killing eachother. Men chose not to participate in or value such societies or reshape them by force.They didn't have dna testing, and if there was ever doubt cast on who was the real father it forever harmed the offspring and thier security in society for life.A woman that was unfaithful risked ruining her children's lives.Only western europeans gave women rights generally.Native americans were pagans and most bartered and traded women as objects you could make children with. Revisionist noble savage crap pretends otherwise.Indians are pagan and required wives be burned alive when thier husbands died.The indian religion once stretched from afghanistan through most of asia south of china such as indonesia, thailand etc. Coving the largest stretch of the planet of any pagan religion.Chinese had concubines and harems.Literaly western euros gave women rights and few others, mostly revionist noble savage garbage attribute them elsewhere.The polynesians did as well.Most of the planet including a pagan planet, didn't.
>>17408090The main reason women have rights globaly today is because western europeans, one of the few people that gave women rights, conquered the planet and spread that concept across it. The british, the french, the germans, the dutch, even spain and portugal colonized or partialy or fully conquered most regions of the world and spread female rights as normal. Prior to that they were not.Women then pushed for and received more equal rights in these societies, but were only able to do so because they already had so many.Once that became the norm across most of the world the remaining parts of the world were pressured to give women rights too.Had it been people from most other parts of the world that had colonized or conquered the world instead and had thier culture dominate the planet women would not likely have rights.
>>17408090>>17408167Various Amerindian tribes were matriarchal and most societies with considerable ANE are at least matrilineal.Your shit stinks because the records simply don't emphasize a heavily patriarchal society back when we were all animists and we had to survive together. It wouldn't make any sense for modern patriarchal structures to even exist back then, when every man, woman, and even child had no choice but to participate and work.Today, we don't have any female deities. Abrahamic religions simply pray to a He. If you think this isn't significant, you're retarded. Religion permits symbolic exchange throughout society. To have female deities means to permit symbolic exchange of and even have respect for the anima. Simple as.
>>17407742you fucks literally do not read your own holy book faggot, this is why atheists always dunk on your retardation the second you try to preach using it, don't try to save face now
>>17408006Kill yourself, tranny coomer
>>17407742expain why circumcision is such a prevalent thing in the bible
>>17407557>I meant pagan societies outside of those.hindus, persians, chinese, arabs, africans were also misogynistic.
>>17407526In pagan societies women were passed around since childhood and daughters wee prostitutes and virgins were burned as offerings to a demon no-god.It wasn't until the law that men were forced to protect and take care of a woman and all of her offspring or they werent allowed to sleep with them.
>>17409678This isn't true btw. Women were literally preists and pharaohs in Egypt as well as preists and free folk in Greece and such
>>17407526What is there to like about women?
>>17409686All women? Like every single one was a priest?
>>17407526Women suck, you are a simp./thread
>>17409676Buddhism is uber misogynistic
>>17410356mind = broken
>>17407932No it’s not. Submission may be consensual or non-consensual. All of us submit to one force or another many times everyday. Women in particular tend to be predisposed to submissiveness by nature, but not exclusively, many people in general just prefer a submissive state of being and avoid alternative roles.
>>17410372I've got news for you: women are almost never truly submissive. Even when they're taking cocks down their throats, it's consensual, which means she's still in control. Female domination is an entirely different thing from the male, and you confuse it for submissiveness because you're not a subtle enough thinker. This is why women divorce left and right and have babies with men who aren't their spouses (even in the animal kingdom). It's even why they mastered the art of makeup and "femininity" — to manipulate and psychologically dominate men. They aren't submissive; you've been tricked.
>>17410356>bringing up faggots out of nowhereYou're a repressed homosexual
>>17410434All Meds and Abrahamicucks are. They're a blight on humanity.
>>17410427That’s not really relevant to the question of submissiveness as a choice and for some a preferred tendency. Anyone will at times assume submissive or dominant roles, everyday most of us submit to the state, to our employer, to our parents, to a God, to a million and one things. Conversely all of those relationships are always fluctuating. This doesn’t change the fact some people, especially women, just generally prefer the submissive role.
>>17410518The point is that women aren't naturally submissive at all. Their behavior isn't actually submissive. You call it "the submissive role" but it's really "the puppeteer role."
>>17410536You seem to be hyper fixating on the romantic and sexual roles of women contra men and the punctuating periods of deterioration in those relationships. What I’m talking about is more foundational than that, submissiveness as an attitude and submission/dominations as roles all of use assume in various guises everyday. There’s many women who are not of a submissive attitude, there’s many men who are, even people of a submissive attitude will at times assume dominant or insubordinate roles. I don’t think submissiveness in the psychology of many women is actually as calculated as you seem to think, rather it’s instinctual, a certain mentality will just lead people to feel more comfortable in a submissive role and anxious when circumstances require a dominant role be assumed.
>>17410559>What I’m talking about is more foundational than thatEven there you're wrong. The vagina doesn't "submit." It's not the penis, which can be suppressed. It contracts, envelopes, and absorbs by design. This isn't submission, but another kind of domination, one that is fundamentally incomprehensible to the male.
>>17410566Okay but that’s a poetic conceptualisation of the genitals and not relevant to psychology or philosophy on submission, domination or gender roles.
>>17410579All philosophy and psychology is poetic conceptualization. The very first philosopher is known for saying "all is water" — literally poetic conceptualization. Everything I wrote was intended to be understood in a psychological sense for women.
>>17410583That is extremely pretentious and gay
>>17407912A chud anon is getting destroyed by philosophy and logic and retreats his position into:>a-at l-least I have... le SEXO!>So what if I want women to be non-personal fuckholes, that doesn't make me deranged
>>17407526Respecting woman who aren't YOUR woman, is mega-cucked. What do you even get out of it? Women don't respect men if he isn't a Chad, so why treat them like princesses?
>>17407526Confucius hated women too putting them at the bottom of the food chain
>>17410343The religion is influenced by the south asian caste system so too Hindu and women are at bottom. Their only worth is to have children and serve men. Confucianism a defacto religion reinforces a social hierarchy and women at bottom. Their role is to have children and serve men. To this day in most of Asia women remain under the thumb of men.
>>17411380Neither the caste system or Hindu giga-misogyny were actually very well established at the time of the Buddha, historically it actually probably made Hinduism more casteist and sexist as a result of mutual influence rather than this being something Buddhism inherited from Hinduism.
>>17411380>Their only worth is to have children and serve menBASED ALERT!!!
women are inferior to men and society should reflect this foundational truth
>>17407748Because the masculine is order and being, while the feminine is chaos and destruction
>>17407686>So, Christians don't attribute the fall of humanity to the womanthe fall is caused by the woman, the man and the serpent. all three are at fault
>>17411516>child-birthing sex>destruction>>17411518How does the story add fault to the man?
>>17407526I want to beat the shit out of matriarchalists and humiliate them.
>>17407526Are you proposing that we should worship females because muh dick?
>>17411569Sure, why not? Sex is great
>>17407526I love womenI just think men will never be woment. Christian
>>17411597>I just think men will never be womenNot a true Christian then
>>17411590"Great" depends on the palate of taste of a person. Some people like some sentiments, some like others and naturally hate those, which are associated with acts that intersect with the acts and the state of the desired.
>>17411660Sex is great
>>17411677Not the greatest
>>17411680You've never had really good sex.
>>17411657trooning is unnatural>inb4 eunuch quote out of contextgelding humans is also unnatural
>>17412545Incel rage prompted by lack of access to good sex.
>>17411559Because Adam was dumb enough to let a woman tell him what to do.
Femanons are cute and have big butts! :D
>>17411677Sex is great but no one has great sex with submissive men, not even the man himself. Gays excepted obviously.
>>17412566Why would that do that? I'm not the guy who can't get good sex lol.
>>17412157>trooning is unnaturalNot for Christians.>>17412582What do submissive men have to do with this thread?
>>17412897Follow that chain of replies to the top. The question is literally should we worship women.
>>17412904Should we not worship both men and women? Appreciators of balance, fairness, and justice aren't submissive, they're just intelligent.
>>17412909Given his reasoning seemed to focus on physical sex I presume he was literally talking about women in general and not about constructing a pantheon that includes female deities.
>>17412912>women in general>a pantheon that includes female deitiesAs above, so below.
>>17412918But realistically men and women could not be mutually worshipping each other, neither could there be a state of just total indiscriminate mutual worship of all towards all. Fundamentally the worshipped and those who worship constitute two distinct classes that have assumed opposite roles.
>>17412924>realistically men and women could not be mutually worshipping each otherThat's actually what a relationship is supposed to be. Mutual respect. Worship is obviously a little bit of an extreme word.
>>17412928Truthnvke. Incels will never understand.
>>17412897>not for Christiansfor everyone, you parasite infested wretch
>>17413143When your brain falls out to make room for God's cum, anything becomes believable. Even "miracles" like discovering you're a woman in a man's body.
>>17413149that's not how Christianity works my dear gentlexir
>>17413155So Christians don't believe in miracles now?
>>17413156sticking things up (your) anus does not count as a miracle I'm afraidsorry xir, try another religion. I hear judaism is very progressive since it changes every day
>>17413161A miracle is that which makes no sense. Christians believe in miracles, so they should be able to believe in women who were born in men's bodies by mistake. Many Christian diaspora experience this today.
>>17413172read my previous posttroonism is a mental illness not a miracle
Christian churches welcome gays and trans now
>>17413194It requires mental illness to believe in miracles
>>17413215you are ignoring the crux of the issuethat mental illness leads to perditionit is driven by lust, pride, and envy The human body is designed a certain way for a reasonsaying "I know better than God therefore I will chop my penis and become a freak of nature" is not some miracle or enlightenment quite the opposite troons are victims, but they are not saints or heroes.
>>17413223It requires mental illness to believe in miracles
>>17413228bot broke down?oy vey, that's what (you) get for hiring DEI 'programmers'quality is not cheap
>>17413234Everything you said is irrelevant cope
>>17413223How do you christcucks know that god didn't intend and want troons to troon out?And by your same 'logic', many medical treatments should be forbidden since god made people that way, yet Pope Francis had surgeries for his diverticulitis. Was this mental illness since he was rejecting the form that god intended for him to have?
>>17413240and (your) opinion matters why?
>>17413248>false equivalencesurgeries were performed well before Christ my goythis is a history board, you should be familiar with such basic factstroonism is something entirely different from appendicitis or whateverif you think they're the same you're a drooling inbred
>>17413251It's logical, for starters
>>17413254lmao I hope you're trolling and not an actual troonotherwise I might actually feel bad and disengage
>>17413266So believing women can be born in men's bodies is illogical mental illness, but believing in talking snakes and magic Jews walking on water isn't?
>>17413253>ad hominemTroons have existed for just as diverticulitis; e.g. Elagabalus, "The emperor reportedly wore makeup and wigs, preferred to be called a lady and not a lord, and supposedly offered vast sums to any physician who could provide him with a vagina by means of incision"But elaborate as to how these are different in the eyes of our Lord? He made people get troonism and he made people get diverticulitis. You only claim false equivalency and don't actually provide a doctrinal difference between the wrongness in treating one disease and not the other?
>>17412076Any other fulfilling sentiment the is conductive to happiness is greater than the sentiment of lust, that is just common sense.
>>17413303*That
>>17407526>Why do Abrahamicists hate women?they don't, you have been sold falsehoods
>>17413274>magic jewsway to out yourxelf moshi
>>17413282I already covered thisno time to repeat myself because low iq jews can't into logic and theology >Elagabalusthe ideal Roman emperor is Hadrian and he never trooned out >inb4 he had a twinkmaybe, but he never trooned out regardless
>>17413800Out myself how, retard?
>>17413803>hadrianNon sequitur
>>17414131He was the only one who visited every province of the empireman took his job seriously Justinian was a workaholic too, but hardly ever left the capital.
>>17413919>B-b-but the jews say that god said that the book says that god said that the book is true
>>17414138Nah Caesar’s achievements are a lot more impressive
>>17407526Because are religions of goats fuckers
>>17414156My heart goes to both Aurelian and MajorianCaesar was impressive no doubt, magnetic personality, great vision, lots of energy etcBut those two really tried. They took the empire in its worst state and never allowed the flame to be extinguished for as long as they lived.
>>17414246Caesar also really tried. He put Gallia under the Roman boot and ended up winning the civil wars. He was immensely popular with the Roman people and his military, so much so that the city rioted when at his funeral. He paid every plebeian in his will and gave back rural land stolen by the elite during tbe 2nd Punic war. In addition to this, he was a skilled orator and even wrote grammar books / about grammar. He set up the foundations so that the empire would even be possible for these princeps to even larp as enlightened.
Reminder only fat cunts and dysgenic jews unironically call anyone Incel.Only a retard assumed this thread wasn't posted in bad faith.>>17407526>>17407544>>17407554>>17407557>>17407573
As for me, this is my covenant with you: you will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.
>>17413228
>>17413228https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT1R2kDPHFAShroud fabric:https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi3233part3.pdfStudy on radiocarbon result:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040603104004745New dating study on X ray scattering:https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47Polon studies:https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:210758-1Conclusion:https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm>We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.
>>17415129You shroudies have been trying this for like a year and every time you get btfo, you slink into the shadows, lick your wounds, and then come back spouting the same rot a couple weeks later.
Failed males (read: Abrahamicucks) will ruin the world
>>17415471>>17415486Whatever you say, reddit. Enjoy your declining birthrates, public displays of peace, and the stench of cow dung.
>>17415498You don't care if the shroud is real, you only care whether it's based. Paul says that Christianity is pointless if Jesus didn't rise from the death, but in your view it's pointless if it doesn't help you win the culture war.
>>17415516Nice try at strawman, reddit.
>>17407557They were anything but repressed
>>17415516And it's precisely by studying the statistics—especially now in our Godless societies—that we're able to measure exactly what happens when we deviate from the teachings of the LORD. No sanctity of human life = poison in the water supply for the sake of profit, pornography for the sake of profit (destruction of human connection and the ability to see holiness in all people), abortion and contraceptives (declining birthrates and the trivialization of sex), the industrialization of suicide.It's a two-way street. He is the way, the truth, and the life; if you're not heading towards Him, you're ultimately heading towards death.
>>17415543Why do you mix tradition with authority? Why does it need to be called "the Lord" to get across the concept of respecting one's ancestry and connection to the earth — which are the real things we've lost, and why humanity is currently spiraling into a pit of self-destructive hedonism?
>>17415543saying lutherans only supported regimes that killed christian children is disingenuous
>>17415590Are you sure about that?
>>17415590Are you really sure about that?
>>17415597
>>17415605>Pope Francis suggests international study into possible genocide in Gaza:https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/pope-francis-suggests-international-study-into-possible-genocide-gaza-2024-11-17/>Pope Francis suggests Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon are disproportionate and immoralhttps://apnews.com/article/pope-israel-lebanon-hezbollah-72b592696627d1a671e7419e98e354b6>Pope Francis slams world's 'shameful inability' to stop Israel-Hamas warhttps://www.reuters.com/world/pope-francis-slams-worlds-shameful-inability-stop-israel-hamas-war-2024-10-07/?utm_source=chatgpt.comSatan is the father of lies, you're just one among his many children.
>>17414146Do you not realize that I hate Abrahamicucks and trannies equally? They're cut from the same cloth: they believe in "miracles" and have no respect for biology.
>>17407526
