Anyway I was musing over this while doing some homework and thought it made plausable sense. Anyway as most of us know, the catholic church blames women for the release of disease and death onto the world by eating the apple of truth. I believe this is a ridiculous cause of hate twoards women. When Eve ate the apple she only balanced the world of men by releasing what we must know. I also hold high beliefs that if there is a god He gave up once he booted eve out of his paradise.

My thoughts on god: When eve ate the apple she ruined his perfect creation of a perfect place. Its like a child gettin 'sea monkeys' for a pet and finding out that they are only shrimp. once the child finds out he doesnt want anything to do with them any more (poor comparison but i could only thing of that).

Also I blame Catholicism for the hatred twoards homosexuals. I think being homosexual is fine, some might differ saying that "well the purpose of life is to procreate". Is it written anywhere that procreation is what we are meant to do? Love is what it is. Its in the eye of the beholder.

Kinda OT here but i would like to also mention that the definition of Homosexual is someone who likes the same sex. NOT someone who DRESSES and ACTS like the opposite sex while having sexual attraction to the same sex. That is what we think of when we think of gays. but those are gays those are Fags. those 'fags' are creations of like michael jackson and Queen. burn in fucking hell fags.

"The female of the human species shares...motherly love with the female of various animal species; that love is an impersonal, instinctive, naturalistic trait of woman devoid of an ethical dimension, and it can be displayed in clear contrast to ethical values. Such a love does not in any way depend on higher principles, but rather is blind and can be unjust. A mother loves her child only because it is her child, and not because she sees in it the embodiment of what is worthy to be loved. The absolute mother will be ready not only to give her own life...but even to stain herself with crimes unforgivable...to save or defend her child."

and, "On the Demeter side, the obscure and predominant desire of woman to be a mother does not meet in man a kindred elementary need to beget. Where such a desire exists in man, it belongs to a different plane, which is ethical, rather than naturalistic (the idea of continuation of the stock, family or caste, and so on)."



- Julius Evola, The Metaphysics of Sex



This is a common perspective of Woman as an embodiment of the merely Natural (as opposed to Man, who is Supernatural). The merely Natural is obviously, only an Effect, an expression, of the supernatural. The effect is obviously relative to the Cause. Thus, Eve (nature, effect) is Born of Adam (supernature, cause), and thus, obeying Eve, seeing nature(an effect) as a Cause, is a regression, one that paralyzes man's spiritual faculties and degrades his potential.

That lesson in some form is present in just about every Tradition. It is by no means unique to Catholocism, or even Christianity, or even Monotheism.



(Editted a font coding mistake)

[This message has been edited by Spirit of '22 (edited 09-11-2003).]

Condemnations of homosexuality flow forth from the conservative sects of most organized religions. It's hardly an exclusively Catholic thing.

And I seriously doubt that modern day misogynism is derived from resentment towards a nonexistent woman found in the millenia-old, mistranslated myths of some semi-nomadic shepherds and farmers.

quote:Originally posted by My-Excuse:

I think being homosexual is fine, some might differ saying that "well the purpose of life is to procreate". Is it written anywhere that procreation is what we are meant to do?

If we use the Biblical record of creation, we find in Genesis, the commandment to Adam and Eve to "....be fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth, ....".

If homosexuality was alright, why didn't God make two men or two women to begin with? He made a man and a woman, and I'll leave it to you to decide whether that's the way it's supposed to be.

EDIT: Spelling

[This message has been edited by noraa_boy (edited 09-11-2003).]

That's if you subscribe to a literal reading of Genesis.

If you do, then just let me be the first to inform you that the majority of claims in Genesis have been directly disproven. Most noteably the ark myth.

quote:Originally posted by My-Excuse:

Is it written anywhere that procreation is what we are meant to do?

Darwin seemed to think so.

Yep you read it correctly, women are the blame for all mans problems. If she didn't eat from that tree i wouldn't have to be humping this shitty job. Also women wouldn't have pains in child birth.

Leave it to a woman to fuck it up for everyone.

I thought the Genome project discovered we are all from the same female? However long ago it was, and she was black...so the wiggers are half right I guess...?

quote:Originally posted by redemption:

I thought the Genome project discovered we are all from the same female? However long ago it was, and she was black...so the wiggers are half right I guess...?

Not possible.

For a human woman to have a human child, she must have sex with a human male.

If there is a human male, and a human woman, then there must have been at least two humans before that, for the two currently in question to have been born human.

This is overly-simplified, of course, but the fact is that we are not all descended from one single woman.

this is what I've learned.

Eve was tempted, but Adam was supposed to help her.

Guess what? he didn't.

Why? Adam knew ALOT better then her.

I think he's referring to the "Mitochondrial Eve" theory. Basically, it claims that human Mitochondria is all descended from one woman in Africa.

some people here have little esteem for women

d way i figure all that stuff in the bible regarding the inferiority of women were all products of male dominated societies

Thats a superficial and surface level reason. It does not address, for example, why every civilization is "male-dominated."

quote:Originally posted by Spirit of '22:

Thats a superficial and surface level reason. It does not address, for example, why every civilization is "male-dominated."



i beg to differ. not every civilization or culture is male dominated. in asia there are a number of matriarchal cultures or cultures where women possess key roles in society. If I am not mistaken there was even a factual basis for the amazons which the greeks seem to sprinkle every so often in there literature.

youre statement gave me an idea though. why is it that cultures/societies/civs become "male dominated". what leads to the whole "eve getting the apple from the snake passing it to adam bit?"...just wondering

i beg to differ. not every civilization or culture is male dominated.

Of course there were woman-dominated cultures, but not Civilizations. Civilization is a masculine thing.

There are civilizations, however, that after a period of decadence, become female dominated, but that is for a short time and not characteristic of the civilization. It always denotes a time of upheaval and decay.

If I am not mistaken there was even a factual basis for the amazons which the greeks seem to sprinkle every so often in there literature.

There was. But they were a tribe, if they were real, not a Civilization.

youre statement gave me an idea though. why is it that cultures/societies/civs become "male dominated". what leads to the whole "eve getting the apple from the snake passing it to adam bit?"...just wondering

I already told you. Scroll up. Men are embodiments, manifestations, of a supernatural principle, of Being, of immortal, solar, divine light. Women are manifestations of a different principle, of plastic, contignent, Natural becoming.

Man (in the sense of the species mankinde) is a microcosm of reality. In reality, supernature shapes and defines nature, which is a physical copy that expresses an unmanifested, invisible world of principles. Men are the supernatural principles, and women are the natural expressions. Men are the sky, women the earth. Yin and Yang. Sounding familiar?

So, just as Nature exists relative to Supernature, women exists relative to man. Thus, she is created second, and of Man, not of God. And thus, she is subject to man. I am not saying this to justify something that is somehow not meant to be or unnatural. I am telling you the actual reason that underlies the "male-dominance" of civilization.



From a psychological perspective, men, because of their nature as Masculine (defined above) are loyal to Ideas. They are inclined to this, and happiest when called on to defend or affirm a principle. They will give their lives or take the lives of others for this. Women, because of their nature, are loyal to People.

As mothers charged with the protection and nurturing of their young, they are less inclined to sacrifice anything for an abtraction like principles, and prefer instead support and comfort that will protect their children. This is essentially a passive, easily dominated path compared to the masculine nature that is ready and willing to leave the home rather than remain in it to care for children, and actively subject the world beyond it.



On the biological plane, woman is subject to man because of his instinct and contingent lifestyle. Man, in wishing to forward his genes, obviously cant do so effectively without women thinking him desirable, and without a food source and net of support for his offspring. So he does the glorious, attention-getting job of hunting and defending. As a father, he cannot provide an infant with milk and so is a bad choice to remain with the children, and thus, this role is reserved for the mother. As a mother, her duties occupy much of her free time and demand 100% dedication to the children's needs.

The fathers, however, are off hunting and fighting, since them staying home with the children instead = starvation, so they have the time and experience and inclination to form civilized trappings. Also, their hunting lifestyle depends primarily on Cooperation. Even the least able among the men is still needed somewhere on the hunt if large animals that will care for the clan are to be killed and brought home. At home, howwever, often days away, women tied to their children are more likely to get competitive, since the survival and welfare of their children is aided, not diminished, by their selfishness and hording. A cooperative elect can easily subject a much larger force of people who compete amongst themselves.