/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Equality of what?

Yes, I do believe it's satanic.

Sure a women is equal in the way that she is also human.

And should be treated with respect and dignity.

But the bible is really clear concerning gender roles..

Ephesians 5:22-33

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, …

1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

Sorry for dubbleposting btw

Deuteronomy 22:5

“A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

Yes, and it's a sin as old as the Garden. It's also a sin that Christ came to save us from, and we need to remember that!

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)

>>647735

Silence woman!

1 Timothy 2:12

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

>>647735

1 Corinthians 14:33-35

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

>>647730

Unironically this, it's as old as the garden from the very first sin of ignorance on eve's parts. Then worse was, Adam who didn't reign in his woman, and what's worse is he knew what would happen, and still went for it. This has been happening since day one. But come on new age feminism? Single mother households better, im sorry nobody buys it anymore.

>>647726

This.

The world changes OP and so do the practises and beliefs of men. Equality of gender roles is not good. Men are not meant to be penetrated by women. Likewise, men are not meant to be lead by women.

Let men love their wives and let women submit to their men.

>>647745

Ah sorry but I am not trolling =p

Also I am not implying you are a woman.

We are not equal to God,

A man and women are different.

1 Timothy 2:13

I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.…

Like I've said ofcourse you have to treat women good and with respect.

1 peter 3

Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

No, you're completely right. Baph*met is painted as a figure with breasts and a penis.

Satanic is everything that is an inversion of Christianity. And, therefore, an inversion of natural law.

I say you talk with your priest about it.

>>647751

>>647750

Yes, all fair points, I thought you were talking about Christ-chan. Both men and women are equal spiritually was my point, there is a natural hierarchy to which you refer, but there is no gender in heaven.

>>647722

> Is feminism the work of Satan? Or just misguided people?

Not as a thing specifically, no.

Just made by humans, and whenever people do identity politics, you end up with a lot of wackos there, be the subject about your country, your sex, your race, etc.

>>647763

13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

16 To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;

with painful labor you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you.”

A woman should always be under the authority and protection of a man. First her father, and then her husband. From the cradle to the grave, she should always be under a man's thumb.

>>647813

What if the woman is unmarried and her father dead?

>>647814

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Widows-And-Orphans/

>>647735

>and hopefully also before the law of the land,

This begets egalitarian philosophies in the minds of the populace.

Not to mention most feminists practice witchcraft

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jul/05/witches-feminism-books-kristin-j-sollee

"witches, sluts, and feminists embody the potential for self-directed feminine power, and sexual and intellectual freedom"

lol

Feminism is satanic lol

>>647823

Thank you!

>>647725

The sexe- uh the gend- uh….p-people…that's still ok to say, right?

>>647722

Men, as individuals, races, classes, or sexes are only equal with respect to their dignity before God, in all other respects they are unequal, and God is the author of these differences.

>>647722

Feminism was started by the Jesuits.

>>647722

>>649690

So yes, without a doubt, Feminism and it's cohorts are a lie straight from the mouth of the devil himself.

Woke: women are satanic

The very fact they claim to want "Equality" but constantly push for gender role reversals, breakdown of tradition, destruction of family, arbitrary female quotas, etc… means they're liars and not of God.

Reminder that the bible gives paternal genealogies multiple times in the bible, it is literally patriarchy: the book. All progressives push for things contrary to the teachings of the bible.

It is the work of Satan, since it is the work of Satan to make people think women and men are equal.

That is the first lie of feminism, which then reaches the logical conclusions: since men and women are equal, any statistical difference in jobs/hobbies/whatever must be caused by OPPRESHUN and obviously must be compensated with affirmative action

>>647722

> Is feminism the work of Satan?

Yes, first feminism is a Jewish trick. Second, the first woman desired equality was Eve; only she desired equality with God himself.

>>648755

Genesis 12

The Lord had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

2 “I will make you into a great nation,

    and I will bless you;

I will make your name great,

    and you will be a blessing.

3 I will bless those who bless you,

    and whoever curses you I will curse;

and all peoples on earth

    will be blessed through you.”

The Abrams is blessed.

Oops.

>>650433 Meant for >>647735

>>647801

Anything contrary to God is ultimately Satanic.

>>647735

Feminism is entirely about - if you forgive me the cringy term - "female supremacy" in society. They already are equal. They even have a lot of special rights and treatments, everywhere. Nowadays, literally every feminist is lieing maliciously to get ahead, to get their stupid "me me me"-ideology ahead, to provide their indeed satanic "my body my choice"-ideology and what not else.

Furthermore, none of your cheek ! You better not draw a comparison between entirely secular bullflowery which is a political agenda, with divinely revealed Truth and the Sacrifice that the Lord made for us. What an incredible audacity and display of ignorance.

Great, another thread full of feudal LARPers or mudslimes considering women to be subhuman.

I doubt that there will ever be normal thread about omen on this board

>>652442

Quizzical about how cheek but willing to learn.

>Posting from another IP

>>652475

>ad hominem

>butthurt

I can smell the estrogen from that post.

>>647722

>Is feminism a satanic lie?

No, it's an attempt to make western women act like jewish women, who wear all the pants and have all the control.

>>647722

Most things are a satanic lie. Feminism is a perversion of gender roles. There would be no transexual movement without the idea that women are basically men with special privileges and protections.

what modernist parish do you attend?

Lecture about gender and sexuality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyVObGmVoIU

Yes, feminism drives man and woman apart, and destroys femininity. It's against God's will

>>647750

>>647813

Does that mean we should not allow women to do anything? What if they want to share ideas or create something, should we stop them or allow them? I understand the fact that most women are only interested in satanic evil things but what about the good ones, should we not use their gift of intelligence given by god?

this is a serious question not a troll. I am a relatively new christanon.

And as many on this board are saying a Women should live under our thumb, does that mean women are less humans than us. Do they understand that this kind of thinking led to feminism 1 and feminism 2.

And didn't jesus break this type of thinking by talking to a Samaritan women which was considered to be below one's standard in the ancient times.

Equality is satan

>>655273

>does that mean women are less humans than us

No. But it most certainly mean that they have different properties which must be accounted for. Properties which, if not accounted for (as is the case with modern applications of equality) are likely to yield disastrous, destructive results.

>Do they understand that this kind of thinking led to feminism 1 and feminism 2.

No, the kind of thinking that led to feminism was the "tabula rasa" idea: the idea that all people are really just blank slates, written onto by their culture and immediate society. Without tabula rasa, women would've continued living under men's thumbs and nobody would've questioned it.

Feminism is not a "natural" backlash, it's the fruit of unnatural ideas.

>>648705

Is it Christian for a woman to have her hair short?

>>655270

>What if they want to share ideas or create something, should we stop them or allow them?

There's nothing to stop except for trying to seize authority and leadership over men. They just aren't meant to be leaders, supervisors or any things like that. And rather it should be encouraged for them to do what is best, which is to be keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands. There's no reason not to be doing those things, there isn't a woman that's somehow above those things.

>does that mean women are less humans than us.

Only according to the world. The world tells you that being a cog in the money machine is what makes you human. But actually, this is stripping away your individual qualities and attaching a number value to you. But the word of God tells you that living according to the purpose you were made is always the best for you and everyone around you.

>Do they understand that this kind of thinking led to feminism 1 and feminism 2.

Of course it did, because feminisim is an act of resistance and rebellion. It isn't a positive affirming movement, it is a negative reaction movement. But after destroying a life, it offers nothing for you in return.

>>655419

My guess? As long as it is feminine and wholesome, so no dyke or mohawk hairstyles.

>>655431

Indeed Christanon, a very correct answer to my query, would you mind if i ask a few more questions?

> My sister though very conservative in modern sense due to my father(not religious), is trying to be a doctor and as much as she loves children, It's a fact that if she becomes one she will not be able to give proper time(as my mother did) to her own. Should she be stopped? or is she just practicing her gift to help humans.

> I've seen lots of christian women being happy after having children, but being a young man I am unable to wrap my head around the fact that how could women not want more, or is wanting more than what you are capable a sin?

> Personally speaking my own experience with modern women in projects has not been good, I found them too loud or too into gossip, having a short time-attention span, or too many useless activities. Should they be completely barred from such works? Also giving this statement I have also found a few women who are able to do projects with a straight-concentrating mind, personally from my viewpoint they are treated badly by other women (who do demeaning things) and even other men(who say demeaning things). Are such women in the wrong? or their counterparts who laugh at them wrong?

>>655392

Christanon, How can we say Tabula Rasa is wrong? Except the fact that it leads to formation of feminism, is their any other point in which tabula rasa could be considered wrong?

>>655941

>It's a fact that if she becomes one she will not be able to give proper time(as my mother did) to her own. Should she be stopped?

You can become convinced that the teaching of Scripture on this matter are true. Then it's just a matter of trying to help them make the best decision because you want them to succeed, unless it's your own daughter or wife there isn't much else impingent on you.

>Personally speaking my own experience with modern women in projects has not been good,

I know, it's the same. But the worst is when they are in a command position above you.

>Should they be completely barred from such works?

Not sure what you're thinking of by projects, but living the corporate dream isn't supposed to be the purpose of life and more people just understood this, before the jews took over, anyway. Now it's all degenerate.

Freedom of association should be in place, like before the "civil rights" laws forced everyone to open their workplace to outsiders. You can't force someone to hire indiscriminately, that's unconstitutional.

>>655942

Tabula rasa is like the lennon song imagine, it's just so wrong that it isn't even pretending to be true except as an ideal where you just discard reality. And a really fuɔking dumb ideal too.

>>656099

Thanks for the answer, May GOD Bless You.

Gnosticism, occultism, Satanism, and Pharisaism have been obsessed with inverting gender roles and interchanging the sexes since ancient times. Things like LGBT, feminism, etc are just attempts to turn these ideas into mass movements.

>>655419

Only when the ends have been scorched off as she's burning at the stake.

>>647722

Anything that is not of the Lord is almost certainly the work of the spirit of anti-christ. Seeing as women are not to have authority over men in the Lord's eyes than feminism must be from Satan. Their is no other explanation.

>Is feminism the work of Satan?

Not by necessity, although there are people in who are tools of Satan just as there are in other movements. This is just one thats particularly susceptible to corruption like most political movements.

>Why do so many Christians fall for it?

Well firstly because there was a legitimate problem with the mistreatment of women - indeed up until the end of the 20th Century married men could legally rape their wives in the west. Likewise the growth in technology and literacy has greatly reduced the practical differences between men and women which makes aside from making some change necessary has also led to people forgetting the more fundamental differences.

Finally because there is a rather dangerous notion of equality in most 18th Century onward political ideologies that dominates in both capitalism and socialism.

>>656304

>married men could legally rape their wives in the west

[citation needed]

>>656463

>[citation needed]

No worries

For the US

>The legal history of marital rape laws in the United States is a long and complex one, that spans over several decades. Traditional rape laws in the US defined rape as forced sexual intercourse by a male with a "female not his wife", making it clear that the statutes did not apply to married couples. The 1962 Model Penal Code stated that "A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty of rape if: (…)".[128]

>The criminalization of marital rape in the United States started in the mid-1970s and by 1993 marital rape was a crime in all 50 states, under at least one section of the sexual offense codes.[129]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape#United_States

UK

>R v R [1991] UKHL 12[a] is a court judgment delivered in 1991, in which the House of Lords determined that under English criminal law it is possible for a husband to rape his wife.

>In 1990, the defendant, referred to in the judgment only as R to protect the identity of the victim, had been convicted of attempting to rape his wife. He appealed the conviction on the grounds of a purported marital rape exemption under common law. R claimed that it was not legally possible for a husband to rape his wife, as the wife had given irrevocable consent to sexual intercourse with her husband through the contract of marriage, which she could not subsequently withdraw.

>Both the Court of Appeal and subsequently the House of Lords upheld the rape conviction, declaring that a marital rape exemption did not exist in English law.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_R

>>656511

>The control was social.

Yeah and that control was heavily biased towards men as it was not morally wrong and not worth punishing men who forced themselves on their wives and even worse that women who tried to separate from abusive men were treated like whores.

>Not saying there were no abuses, but these are part of human history.

There were systemic and entrenched abuses not just rare aberrations. One of the downsides of an enforced (whether by the state or not) patriarchal society is that it can be very very easy for men to forget or discount the views and experiences of women particularly when it is not in their personal or direct interests. If men were capable of empathising and respecting women feminism would never have taken off.

>And this is when you try get rid of them all that you enter in an utopia and in some kind of dictatorship. The christian must be patient and thank God for his tribulations.

That seems like a false dichotomy and one that has been proven false by history. Women gaining the right to actually own their property, sign contracts and not be raped at whim was achieved without dictatorship. Nor was that achieved by women patiently and quietly waiting for men to just hand this to them.

Dont throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to womens rights.

>>656537

>If men were capable of empathizing and respecting women feminism would never have taken off.

If men at the time were capable of throwing the Jews out of their government and their countries, feminism would have never taken off probably along side of the decline of the belief of Christ that we are seeing now in the west :^(

>>656541

Cant say I share that view of history and society.

>>656304

>the growth in technology and literacy has greatly reduced the practical differences between men and women

Real literacy (i.e. readers using their ability to actually read substantial works) has declined catastrophically since the 17th century, and men and women have very different reading habits. Reading YA and Fifty Shades of Gray does not make women literary geniuses, nor does studying Women's Studies or Sociology or other BS mean they have anything to contribute to human thought. Technology has only increased the difference between men and women. Technology means that women can now legally kill people for merely being inconvenient to them. No man enjoys such a privilege. Technology has increased female power so far beyond what any man has that men have been reduced to a subservient slave caste, working their entire lives so that women can extract wealth from their bodies via the government. The difference between men and women has never been greater.

>>656537

>women who tried to separate from abusive men were treated like whores.

Aha. They're not abusive just because you say they are.

>>656566

>Real literacy (i.e. readers using their ability to actually read substantial works) has declined catastrophically since the 17th century

Do you have source and metric for this?

>men and women have very different reading habits

By literacy I meant simply the ability to read and write fluently and accurately, not understanding of the Cannon.

>Technology has only increased the difference between men and women.

I would have to disagree here, technology in vastly reducing the amount of physical strength and endurance needed has meant the differences in productivity and what is mens/vs womens work have shrunk. Then you add medical technology to this and bearing children is vastly safer and less taxing. Women displacing men in the economy is something that is really only feasible in a literate and industrial/post industrial economy.

>Technology means that women can now legally kill people for merely being inconvenient to them.

Not at all this is purely a social/moral issue rather than a technological one - even in the age of the Church Fathers it was a problem. For it being legal and accepted check out infanticide in pre colonial polynesian society for instance of this in practice.

>Technology has increased female power so far beyond what any man has that men have been reduced to a subservient slave caste, working their entire lives so that women can extract wealth from their bodies via the government

I think this is a tad hyperbolic and akin to feminists who think that all women prior to the 20th century were cattle who were kept barefoot and pregnant. Take a look at some of the laws regarding women prior to modern times if you want to see what real legally enforced subservience is.

Were men banned from parliament, higher education and required to surrender all their legal assets on marriage to their wives (as well as potentially have your parents required pay a large fee to your wife for the privilege) you might have a case to make and thats ignoring a whole bunch of other factors

>The difference between men and women has never been greater.

The conflict perhaps might be greater but I dont think your argument regarding access to abortion demonstrates this point.

>>656584

>Aha. They're not abusive just because you say they are.

And they were not free form abuse just because you say they are? I dont see the point you are trying to make unless you think I just made up the fact that abused women who tried to separate form their abusive husbands were shamed.

>>656589

>abused women who tried to separate form their abusive husbands were shamed.

Someone isn't abused only for the simple fact that they say they are. This is the crucial failing point on which this whole premise collapses.

>>656599

>Someone isn't abused only for the simple fact that they say they are

So is it your belief that the historical reports of physical and sexual violence were all fabrications? My whole point was that the social control was male dominated and heavily favored men, this being evidenced by the fact that women who were being victims of abuse faced harsh shaming if they separated/left (and not divorce) their husbands. I dont see how this ceases to be the case because not all wives were genuinely abused.

>>656609

>My whole point was that the social control was male dominated

Actually it was God dominated, and it favored men being masculine, that's all.

>if they separated/left (and not divorce) their husbands.

Yeah see, this is just a narrative that's been taught. There is no reason to go back on marriage vows, those were supposed to be serious. But to get over that they had to come up with a narrative and it's built up itself to the point today where any lie must be believed. No sorry, I don't believe it, and I'm working secretly to undermine it.

Read this. Of course it's satanic.

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/05/30/hysteria-grips-man-up-headquarters/

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/05/28/pattersons-crimes-against-feminism/

They are trying to destroy Christian masculinity and godly masculine authority.

>>656620

>Actually it was God dominated, and it favored men being masculine, that's all.

Why is having sex with unwilling women and taking their property masculine?

>No sorry, I don't believe it, and I'm working secretly to undermine it.

Well youve kind of put in an an odd corner - this is essentially like the Athiests who demand proof for the Resurrection but refuse to acknowledge the Bible or any Christian source due to a perception of bias. Is there any evidence that would change your mind?

>>656537

The soy is strong in this one.

>>656720

How so? Ive pointed out the flaws and corruption in it as well as the dangerous toxic ideology that is modern equality. Would you rather I falsify history and say out that women were not legally disadvantaged and marginalised in the past?

>>656746

>toxic

>>656778

?

>>656828

>The ideal and the attitude that wants to make the world perfect is the basic of all fascist totalitarian regime

Again I dont see the dichotomy here just saying one want to have women enjoy some more rights or better treatment doesn't equal an attitude or desire to create a perfect world. It would be akin to me saying distributionists, the Chartists or indeed any Christian who wants a non secular society wants/ed to create a fascist totalitarian regime.

>but never slavery, mass massacre and massive process of dehumanization.

Thats simply not correct, the Caliphate of Islam and the British and particularly Spanish empires were both patriarchal societies that practiced those policies and neither of those are atheist examples from the 19th and 20th centuries.

>But in a traditional patriarchy the problems for women was solved by the christian vision, and the social control, by the church (for example the priest of the village), the neighbors, the other members of the parish,etc

Is this something you are deducing from your faith or is it a sourced opinion? You would be surprised by how diverse the treatment of women has been even under the Christian vision.

>It don't like women's rights, specifically if they are legally enforced by the state

What about their rights generally? Even just simple things like being able to go to university.

>I like when people love their wife, mother,etc… because of the social tissue and of the infused christian virtues in the society.

As do I, just as I like it when people can solve the problems of sinful and criminal behavior through the same means.

>>656894

>It would be akin to me saying distributionists, the Chartists or indeed any Christian who wants a non secular society wants/ed to create a fascist totalitarian regime.

Bad example because there you are not fighting for wordly matters but for the supremacy of the spiritual onto the temporal, the return to tradition (which fight for the spiritual progress) instead of some progressive material ideal. Don't you see you can give women rights and a place in society without the inference of the state ? It happens when societies are spiritually sane, but if you fight for women rights with a worldy perspective, feminism happens.

>Thats simply not correct, the Caliphate of Islam and the British and particularly Spanish empires were both patriarchal societies that practiced those policies and neither of those are atheist examples from the 19th and 20th centuries.

No matter what did the califate of Cordoba it is nothing compared to Hitler or Stalin. What are you talking about with spanish or british ? (only some massacre in the new world I suppose, so in a foreign land, it have nothing to do with the traditional society). And even because of the period it was not anymore a traditional society (you know there have been the renaissance).

>You would be surprised by how diverse the treatment of women has been even under the Christian vision.

Of course you can't do generality, but you can't also do case by case.

>What about their rights generally? Even just simple things like being able to go to university

You have the right to be in favor of women's right but how is that a christian imperative ? Where are the verses ?

>As do I, just as I like it when people can solve the problems of sinful and criminal behavior through the same means.

There are diverses means for a reason, the state can't fight sins only the church. That's why I defend the place of the society.

>>656917

>Bad example because there you are not fighting for wordly matters but for the supremacy of the spiritual onto the temporal,

How are the distributionists and chartists not concerned with worldly matters?

>Don't you see you can give women rights and a place in society without the inference of the state ?

Well yeah I literally said as much in the last part of the post - potential for such things doesnt really equal those things happening though.

>No matter what did the califate of Cordoba it is nothing compared to Hitler or Stalin.

What do you think it would have been like if Muhammad had access to modern technology like they did? Likewise you are moving the goalposts by your logic patriarchy is meant to prevent slavery, massacre and dehumanisation the fact that two patriarchal societies of the 19th and 20th Centuries were more extreme doesn't have any bearing on that point.

>What are you talking about with spanish or british ?

Because those were patriarchal societies which practiced slavery, mass murder and dehumanisation on a global scale - kick starting the transatlantic slave trade - which you say does not happen under such societies.

>(only some massacre in the new world I suppose

The British rule in India alone lead to the deaths of at least 29 million people and that number gets closer to the 50 million mark if you use the same metrics which we do with communist countries. Likewise look into the Spanish silver mining in Latin America and you will see race based gulags.

>And even because of the period it was not anymore a traditional society (you know there have been the renaissance).

Why do you think traditional society ended in the 14th Century?

>Of course you can't do generality, but you can't also do case by case.

So were the Italians wrong to allow women to go to university about 500 years before other countries or where those other countries wrong for taking so long?

>You have the right to be in favor of women's right

Then why do you not like them? Or do you mean the state forces people to be in favour of them?

>Where are the verses ?

In Ephesians 5 particularly towards the end half. Men have often forgotten it has more than verse 22 and 23.

>There are diverses means for a reason,

Does the state have any role to play in your view or should society handle everything?

>>656930

>How are the distributionists and chartists not concerned with worldly matters?

I was responding to the "Christian who wants a non secular society". For the others they are talking about a social non private problem, it have no link with familial problems, that's when the state is too much concerned by what is happening to the family that there is a problem.

>potential for such things doesnt really equal those things happening though.

That's how it must be done if it can be handle by a smaller group, respecting like that the principle of subsidiarity of the church. Otherwise it's unnatural.

>What do you think it would have been like if Muhammad had access to modern technology like they did?

In a traditional society there can be no modern technology.

>Because those were patriarchal societies which practiced slavery, mass murder and dehumanisation on a global scale - kick starting the transatlantic slave trade - which you say does not happen under such societies.

It didn't happened in the country themself, europeans are not responsible for this, only some families and a lot of jews.

>The British rule in India alone lead to the deaths of at least 29 million people and that number gets closer to the 50 million mark if you use the same metrics which we do with communist countries.

For the brits they have always been assholes. and there were not catholic anymore, apostolic yes ! I suppose…

>look into the Spanish silver mining in Latin America

Lots of lies for this subject, I won't go there.

>Why do you think traditional society ended in the 14th Century?

Little bit too early. Also there have been countries that have stayed traditional for a long time. But the renaissance is the beginning of modern logics (protestantism, profanation of church with profan style music,…)

>So were the Italians wrong to allow women to go to university about 500 years before other countries or where those other countries wrong for taking so long?

The italy that had the stupid pope it did ?

>In Ephesians 5 particularly towards the end half. Men have often forgotten it has more than verse 22 and 23.

What link with equal rights ? like the right to go to university ?

>Does the state have any role to play in your view or should society handle everything?

Familial matters should of course handle by the society, else it can quickly become totalitarian.

Do you think society is nowadays still a patriarchal society.

>>656930

>Because those were patriarchal societies which practiced slavery

>kick starting the transatlantic slave trade

And patriarchy societies ended it.

>>656945

>social non private problem, it have no link with familial problems.

The majority of the femminist issues were social ones like the right to won property, attend universities, vote, and not get payed less money solely because of their gender.

>That's how it must be done if it can be handle by a smaller group, respecting like that the principle of subsidiarity of the church. Otherwise it's unnatural.

And what when it cant be handled by the small group?

>In a traditional society there can be no modern technology.

When does technology become modern? Could you not argue Roman sanitation ended traditional society ?

>It didn't happened in the country themself

I take it you dont count the Irish as being part of the UK during the Empire period then? Regardless those countries conquered and ruled these lands - the fact that they tried to hide the ugliness of their greed and brutality does not make it go away.

>europeans are not responsible for this, only some families and a lot of jews.

Brush up on your history and you find the depressing truth that the jews werent responsible for this - the slave trade only worked because of Christian demand and willingness to engage in it. Likewise with the Jews did not force the Spanish to enslave native americans in Silver mines or for the British to turn India into a fragile Opium farm nor did the Jews prevent the British from delivering relief during famines. European people were directly responsible for this and it could not have happened without them.

>For the brits they have always been assholes.

>Lots of lies for this subject, I won't go there.

You are avoiding the point of here of patriarchal societies doing what you say patriarchy prevents. Likewise dont make the mistake of assuming that just because the black legend of Spain was a meme that the polar opposite was true.

>Little bit too early. Also there have been countries that have stayed traditional for a long time.

Seems like a difficult way of defining traditional society.

>The italy that had the stupid pope it did ?

You didnt answer the question here anon who was in the right?

>What link with equal rights ?

You are being a bit sneaky here and changing my words from womens rights to equal rights. Womens rights are found verses 28 and 33.

>Familial matters should of course handle by the society, else it can quickly become totalitarian.

Which matters relating to women do you see as being non familial, I get the sense the line is blury for you.

>Do you think society is nowadays still a patriarchal society.

Outside of a handful of countries no I do not think society is a patriarchy or defined by patriarchal values.

>>656959

Which is why its such a weak argument to hold patriarchy as having a causal role when it comes to slavery and slavery prevention.

>>656960

>The majority of the femminist issues were social ones like the right to won property, attend universities, vote, and not get payed less money solely because of their gender.

And you spoke about a familial issue in the begining so, you just now abandon your initial point. Also yes, they shouldn't have the same social rights but that's another debate.

>And what when it cant be handled by the small group?

the family can handle familial problems, or else a larger group : the parish, or even the community,…

>When does technology become modern?

When you have the eyes fixed on the material world you are not anymore a traditional society. Same with the romans, they were degenerates with their polytheistic religion, that's why they cared that most about sanitation etc for the aristocrates

>I take it you dont count the Irish as being part of the UK during the Empire period then? Regardless those countries conquered and ruled these lands - the fact that they tried to hide the ugliness of their greed and brutality does not make it go away.

Yes Ireland is not the english land

>European people were directly responsible for this and it could not have happened without them.

You are not answer, it's only some families that are responsibles,like for the jews.

>You are avoiding the point of here of patriarchal societies doing what you say patriarchy prevents

It does prevent it in their land. That's about the people against the states, not about what the state or some elite do in foreign land.

>You didnt answer the question here anon who was in the right?

Don't change again the goal of this conversation.

>Which matters relating to women do you see as being non familial

only a few, women should be attached to their families

>Which is why its such a weak argument to hold patriarchy as having a causal role when it comes to slavery and slavery prevention.

There were no slavery in Christendom but only in the above mentionned degenerate roman empire, and it was clearly different from what it have been in america, this were not an in-human process.

>>656930

>Because those were patriarchal societies which practiced slavery, mass murder and dehumanisation

Ok, so far we've had you argue that you definitely don't want to create a perfect society. Yet here you are pointing out the fact that it has NEVER been perfect as an argument for an even worse model— western culture today, which is worse in every way.

If ripping apart an infant with pliers isn't dehumanization, what is?

>>656960

>You are being a bit sneaky here and changing my words from womens rights to equal rights. Womens rights are found verses 28 and 33.

Oh really? The right to divorce and to abort infants is found there?

Society not being perfect is no excuse for you to make it even worse. And since you deny trying to make society "perfect" already, what's your excuse? It seems you support all the vast and growing problems of this current society because you come here to support its false narrative. The whole "rights" issue is about getting freedom to sleep with men then kill off the child, the rest is a simple distraction.

You know what though, you don't have the right to pre-meditative murder in that situation.

>>656960

I forgot that point

>You are being a bit sneaky here and changing my words from womens rights to equal rights. Womens rights are found verses 28 and 33.

the bible is not about rights, it's about familial love. Also yes you are in favor of some rights to be equals like the vote or access to education. The bible is not about that, the fathers didn't talk about that, the later tradition neither, it's not a christian imperative.

>>656970

>And you spoke about a familial issue in the beginning

The spousal rape part?

>the family can handle familial problems, or else a larger group : the parish, or even the community,

But the line is drawn at the state?

>When you have the eyes fixed on the material world you are not anymore a traditional society.

So technology has nothing to do with it, instead its a philosophy?

>Yes Ireland is not the english land

UK =/= English and you skipped the whole part about ignoring abuses committed just because they weren't imposed on one group.

>You are not answer, it's only some families that are responsibles,like for the jews.

Are you saying the British and Spanish Armies/Navies were composed of and or lead by Jews? The Kings and Queens of these countries during these imperialist times were not Jews, nor were the founders and leaders of the British East India Company or the various conquistadors or even the Viceroys. Outside of Slave Merchants all you get is Jews being guilty of that conduct at a higher rate than Europeans. Jews were nowhere near a big enough in power or population in Spain or the UK to be able to create and run their Empires.

Can you show some proof of all these deaths, dehumanisation and slavery just being the work of a few families and jews?

>It does prevent it in their land.

Firstly ignoring all non European patriarchies aside - this is literally dehumanisation in action "we killed tens of millions of brown people and enslaved many others to make money" but that doesnt count because they weren't ethnically Iberian or British. Likewise and challenging your point the big anti slave push only happened well after the Renaissance period you talk of.

>Don't change again the goal of this conversation.

Ok Ill answer your question yes this happened in the same Italy which has that pope you dont like and not some other Italy.

>only a few, women should be attached to their families

Since its so few for clarities sake could you list them?

>There were no slavery in Christendom but only in the above mentionned degenerate roman empire

Unless you mean Christ's Kingdom then you are simply misinformed there was legal slavery in Europe (excluding colonies) up until the 18th century. If you include serfdom that goes into the the 19th Century.

>>656973

>.Yet here you are pointing….

My only contention is that patriarchy is not a cure all prevention for those evils you mentioned and can exist or not exist just as easily within it. Nothing crazy there, and certainly no justification of abortion.

>Oh really? The right to divorce and to abort infants is found there?

I never argued for abortion or the right for divorce being a necessary or desirable part of femminism. Separation does not =/= divorce.

The divorce debate at a scriptural level tends to be in Matthew 19:9 not Ephesians.

>Society not being perfect is no excuse for you to make it even worse.

I agree %100.

>It seems you support all the vast and growing problems of this current society because you come here to support its false narrative.

I literally called it out as toxic and full of satanic corruption in my first post. I dont know why you keep on straw manning me as some pro abortion type just because I say that patriarchy doesn't fix everything and that not every relaxing on restrictions imposed on women was irredeemably evil.

Its not the most important matter for Christians but lets not pretend its some modern meme.

>the bible is not about rights, it's about familial love

As the foundation text on ethics rights can only exist on a religious foundation and as a Christian this means that yes it and tradition are the source of any human rights and obligations.

>The bible is not about that, the fathers didn't talk about that, the later tradition neither.

What of the story of Susanna and what of the efforts and works of Jerome on the matter? Likewise the conduct of the Benedictine and Dominican orders?

>>657035

Had some formatting problems the "Its not the most important matter for Christians but lets not pretend its some modern meme." was in reference to your comment "it it's not a christian imperative"

The problem is knowing what equality means, we are different but of equal value not equal in all ways

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKFvvufS8lo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2H36gFpyPg

https://soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/dr-catherine-pakaluk-edith-stein-on-the-gestalt-of-the-feminine-soul

Good resources if you want more in depth/academic stuff with this

>>657035

>The spousal rape part?

yes

>But the line is drawn at the state?

the traditions and/or the Church

>So technology has nothing to do with it, instead its a philosophy?

It's a combination, the two goes together.

>there was legal slavery in Europe (excluding colonies) up until the 18th century.

there were no slaves during the medieval age. And of course serfdom doesn't count.

>I say that patriarchy doesn't fix everything and that not every relaxing on restrictions imposed on women was irredeemably evil.

Glad we can agree then, now we can stop this stupid argument. Patriarchy is the model for a traditional country but there have been bad patriarchy in the past (ex: romans with the pater familias, XIX and XX patriarchy). Patriarchy is not a miracle remedy, only traditional Christendom is. Now I see positively some relaxation on restrictions, women were clearly more free legally in the middle age than during the XX century, the control being social. Now the problem was in your first post because you advocated for state inference in the familial matters. That's why I defended christian patriarchy (which is not responsible for colonial problems since they comes from the elite that have then adopted modern logics). I don't defend every patriarchy but christian and traditional ones, I also don't defend all legal restrictions against women but mostly social one, so we agree, we just have different perspective. In hope to clarify our misunderstanding

>>657047

>there were no slaves during the medieval age.

Can you show your source for this claim?

>In hope to clarify our misunderstanding

It does, though I wish you would look into the area a bit more deeply because there are a lot more complexities and problems which cant be explained by modern logics and jews.

Ive had heartbreaking moments reading the accounts of women who have suffered horrific abuse which was allowed to go unabated due to family matters being private from the state and the idea that a woman upon marrying a man gives consent forever.

>>657052

>Can you show your source for this claim?

It's a widely accepted fact, I base myself on a probably unknown historian for you, not even famous in my country, it won't help.

>Ive had heartbreaking moments reading the accounts of women who have suffered horrific abuse which was allowed to go unabated due to family matters being private from the state and the idea that a woman upon marrying a man gives consent forever.

Yes I understand, but we can't fix everything, it's this women, her husband, their family and maybe community and God's affairs.

>>657055

>It's a widely accepted fact

Well its not really an accurate one. Slavery in absolute numbers might have decreased greatly with the rise of feudalism but it was still a problem particularly in the Mediterranean and Rumanian regions.

>Yes I understand, but we can't fix everything,

Its not about trying to fix everything just creating a society where a women can safely separate from genuinely abusive men - if people through their representatives create a law that allow this cant this be said to be the community in action?

>>657061

>Mediterranean and Rumanian regions.

I don't know for everycountry in the world but I know for immense majority of christian ones.

>where a women can safely separate from genuinely abusive men

but a women can do it if she have a good reason, no need for a law about it. She can go to her parents etc and the problem is solved whitin the family. representatives represent nothing but themself, they can't be trusted and the rule of the majority can't be trusted neither. That's the limit of laws, they can be usefull but they are dangerous tools leading to this will to fix everything I talked about. We need to Christianize the families, not to control everything through cold, impersonal laws.

>>657035

>My only contention is that patriarchy is not a cure all prevention for those evils you mentioned and can exist or not exist just as easily within it.

Wait, what evils? You mean divorce and abortion? Yes, actually reinstituting godly authority in the household would prevent those evils. Overthrowing authority causes those evils, namely divorce, broken households and abortions. This is all because someone used the modern police state to overthrow natural authority. Remove the police state, and things very quickly return to normal.

And secondly, why is not being a "cure all protection" an argument against something? I thought we agreed there is no such thing as perfection. So why are we talking about cure all protections again? And yes, in this case it IS a very strong protection against those things, but my point here stands anyway.

>Separation does not =/= divorce.

Right, separation is divorce.

Malachi 2:15-17

And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?

>I dont know why you keep on straw manning me as some pro abortion type just because I say that patriarchy doesn't fix everything

Because you're arguing against the natural order and calling it patriarchy when in reality it was ordered according to God and by the order of nature itself. So because you are arguing against the order of nature and trying to provide justification for destroying it, that means you are supporting this very problem.

>just creating a society where a women can safely separate from genuinely abusive men

You mean destroy the family for financial gain. What right do outside influences like the government have to judge between family? Much less between Christians? And why is it ok to go back on your vow? Why is that not a problem to you.

>>657052

If any person (not just a woman) is wrongfully abused then the state should inact God's justice against the abuser. You are appealing to people's emotions in order to put forth your own arguments. This is not about whether abuse, pain, or suffering should be acceptable. It's about what God wants for his people.

>>657071

>Wait, what evils?

I think I might have confused you with another poster over IDs. The evils I was referring to was slavery, mass murder and dehumanisation.

>>657071

>Right, separation is divorce.

Divorce is divorce. Separation doesn't end the marriage and allow a person to remarry.

>Because you're arguing against the natural order and calling it patriarchy

In not one of my posts have I said patriarchy is a bad or undesirable thing.

>So because you are arguing against the order of nature…

Something to consider was the introduction of the law in the which stripped women of their property in England against the natural order as it it was introduced during the High Medieval period?

>You mean destroy the family for financial gain.

I think you missed the term genuine in that sentence. It was to escape being beaten and raped when family and church pressure did not intervene.

>What right do outside influences like the government have to judge between family?

For the same reason why outside influences have to step into prevent abortion and punish criminal behavior.

>And why is it ok to go back on your vow?

It isnt, just as it isnt ok for men to go back on their vows and not love and honor their wives. separation is the final option of preventing marital rape and severe violence

>Why is that not a problem to you.

I would ask the same of you in relation to the above. For me the I view separation as a last option and one that makes reconciliation at least possible whilst not allowing for bigammy or fornication.

>>657074

>If any person (not just a woman) is wrongfully abused then the state should inact God's justice against the abuser.

Well thats actually the unpopular opinion in this thread and why people are so up in arms at my posts.

>You are appealing to people's emotions

Look at the arguments that came before that, that little part at the end was simply showing some of my motivation in not just ignoring this and moving on.

Ofc it is. It is literally the -ism to end all -isms, and it actually the root cause of many of them. Want to know why the West is doomed? Look no further than feminism and all the attendant social ills and evils that accompany it.