Have women always been this way?

[Repulsive RalfParticipant 356]

Firstly read Genesis chapter 6, events recorded in greater detail in the Greek and Roman legends about the gods who came down from Mount Olympus, bred with human females, who gave birth to demi-gods and monsters.

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

So, what do you think?, did the fallen angels force human women to marry them, or did human women see these magnificent gods take on human form and consider them the Alpha males of their day, choosing them rather than human males, resulting in such unimaginable horror that God had to cleanse the world with the flood and start again.

[AwakenedParticipant 35202]

It all sounds like fairy tales to me.

In a World of Justin Beibers Be a Johnny Cash

[BlacqueJacqueShellacqueParticipant 6890]

Repulsive Ralf wrote:

So, what do you think?, did the fallen angels force human women to marry them, or did human women see these magnificent gods take on human form and consider them the Alpha males of their day, choosing them rather than human males, resulting in such unimaginable horror that God had to cleanse the world with the flood and start again.

The part in bold. Like when they will always sympathize with an invading army. It’s the easiest, in the moment choice.

[AutoliteParticipant]

Have women always been this way?

Well, let’s have a look here and see…

http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.ca/

[Anonymous 42]

Repulsive Ralf wrote:

There were giants in the earth in those days

[anonymousyamParticipant 4605]

Repulsive Ralf wrote:

So, what do you think?, did the fallen angels force human women to marry them, or did human women see these magnificent gods take on human form and consider them the Alpha males of their day, choosing them rather than human males, resulting in such unimaginable horror that God had to cleanse the world with the flood and start again.

This is just mythological bulls~~~ rather then reality.

Now when it comes to the nature of women, women will be c~~~s whenever they are permitted to be them. If they are in a society where the men rule and control them they will not be c~~~s do the fact that the men will kick their asses for it but if they are in a society where they can be c~~~s and the man do not control them then they will be c~~~s.

It is really simple.

Just an east coast asshole who likes to curse, If you get offended by words like fuck, cunt, shit, piss, bitch or any racial slurs then you just scroll down.

[HitmanParticipant]

to answer the question,
if you take the bible literally,
i would think women chose the angels over men.
hypergamy.
that’s a BIG branch up to grab..
it’s their nature to do it.

[Anonymous 43]

yes. always. as soon as the first female thing got something in exchange for 10 minutes with her meathole, it was game on. As soon as the first make thing figured out his dick went into her meathole it was game over. Some other male thing was gonna have more and better things to trade for time with the best meathole.

here we are today 1,000,000 generations later. you couldn’t pay me enough to f~~~ a woman today. To hell with that noise.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Awakened wrote:

It all sounds like fairy tales to me.

Adam and Eve is a true story – which was written for a reason. We see it play out in divorce court and anti-family court every day: Woman destroys man’s paradise.

The only inconsistency …. is that in every painting of Adam & Eve, they had belly buttons. A minor detail that every artist who ever lived seems to have overlooked.

Also, Eve only had two sons.
So she probably f~~~ed them too.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[AutoliteParticipant]

Keymaster wrote:

Adam and Eve is a true story – which was written for a reason.

I’m not too sure about that. The talking snake thing was a little bit too ‘Walt Disney’ for me. I think if they had left that part of it out it might have helped the credibility a bit…

[MGTOWmonkey aka No More Fucks To GiveParticipant 6635]

Nature is nature. Its like asking have dogs always barked. They will continue to use that smelly hole to extract resources and live an easy life as long as men continue to let their nature overcome them.

Never lose sight of what brought you here.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Autolite wrote:

I’m not too sure about that. The talking snake thing was a little bit too ‘Walt Disney’ for me. I think if they had left that part of it out it might have helped the credibility a bit…

What about the talking donkey in Numbers 22:28-30 King James Version (KJV)

28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.

30 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, Nay.

[HitmanParticipant]

Keymaster wrote:

The only inconsistency …. is that in every painting of Adam & Eve, they had belly buttons.

keen observation.

Keymaster wrote:

Also, Eve only had two sons.
So she probably f~~~ed them too.

the first “motherf~~~ers” hahaha!!

Autolite wrote:

snake

damn snake.
i wonder if this is posted in the right area???
laughing at the memory of our bro, snake.
wish he had the b~~~~ to come back..
an apology and a hello would be fine..

[HitmanParticipant]

PistolPete wrote:

30 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, Nay.

do donkey’s say nay ?
that’s f’n funny pete !!!

[Silver FoxParticipant 2766]

From Tolkien:

“Of course, I in my timid body did not wish to have [dragons] in the neighbourhood, intruding into my relatively safe world, in which it was, for instance, possible to read stories in peace of mind, free from fear. But the world that contained even the imagination of Fafnir was richer and more beautiful, at whatever cost of peril.” (from his essay, “On Fairy-Stories”)

You can take the stories of talking animals at face-value in the Bible. They are what they are. You don’t have to believe them, but I think they at least add value to the story, whether you think they are true or not. 🙂

As for the original topic of this thread, I think women have been this way ever since Eve. KM had it right–women destroy man’s paradise, and man(gina) let it happen.

"Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife." --Apostle Paul

[GrumpyParticipant]

Hitman wrote:

damn snake.
i wonder if this is posted in the right area???
laughing at the memory of our bro, snake.
wish he had the b~~~~ to come back..
an apology and a hello would be fine..

Yep
I miss that f~~~er as well.

There was a time in my life when I gave a fuck. Now you have to pay ME for it

[SandalsParticipant 4253]

That giant skeleton video is a bit freaky.

The bible is both true and not true. Bible means “bibliography”. It’s just their way of interpreting life, that’s all. It’s a mix of new stories and old. That is what they had to deal with – war, family problems, government function, spirituality, relationships, betrayal, geological events (which are viewed as god), slavery, hypergamy, porn (Book of Solomon), etc… They wrote about it, just like we write about the Cat in the Hat.

Should we take the bible literally? Some of it I think. And some figuratively. It’s what happened to them. Even Jesus’s disciples asked, “Why are you always telling people stories? Why not just lay it to them straight?” And Jesus said, “Because if I give it to them straight, they won’t get it. They need it in the form of a story, so they can come to understand it on their own time. That’s the only way to get the message across” (not the exact quote, but basically) So… funny how “believers” debate about what is real or not in the bible. As Jesus says, “They need the story”.

I guess if girls need the story of the virgin Mary to stop f~~~ing everything that moves, then that’s what they need.

[narrow road travelerParticipant 1680]

The Bible is full of real people. Whether someone 100 generations later likes it or not.

Moses was a living human, David, Samuel, Joseph, Peter, Paul. All of them live like us posting on these boards.

Mythology is Zues, Athena, Aphrodite, Prometheus. Characters to explain common experiences in existence.

My own going my way moment was to stop thinking of a vast majority of the the people in the Bible as cartoon characters.
These people blood flowing through thier veins, and breathed air here.

These people chose to realize that God is the architect. Shame from others is irrelevant. Many of those beautiful people were murdered because they wouldn’t follow the crowd of lieing, feelgoodiness.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. --Sun Tsu

[MuglintarParticipant 1333]

Repulsive Ralf wrote:

or did human women see these magnificent gods take on human form and consider them the Alpha males of their day, choosing them rather than human males,

turn that thought upside down. The men of that age, who were educated, wealthy and decent in all ways, did not find an explanation, why these women would choose these “chads”. The ancient greeks were obsessed with science and logic (“logos” = science). At the same time, slaves, children, handicapped and women were not allowed to vote and therefore called “idiotas” as oposed to “iotas”= voicers (the free men allowed to vote and discuss in public). Up to nowadays we still use “idiot” as an expression for a person of limited mental abilities or “idiotic” which means “stupid”.
So when people like Aristotle, Socrates, Diogenes, Archimedes and all the other brilliant thinkers of ancient greece could not find any logic in the female decision, they considered a super-natural reason behind. Women must be tricked into choosing these guys, but guys who can trick women into false and illogic decisions, must have powers going beyond that of “normal” or decent men. Creatures with powers beyond those of “normal” men are “gods”, “demigods”, “angels”, “devils” or “demons”. Consequently their offspring must be supernatural, too. In their society it was common belief, that man, by his deeds, can evolve to semi-god status, Alexander the Great, for example.
The Idea of man being god-like, which is proven by his deeds in life, was also quite common in ancient egypt, babylon and other pre-christian societies.

the whole concept of “alpha f~~~s, beta bucks” and women profit from this, is quite old, just re-phrased from time to time.

There are evolutionary theorists who say, besides the commonly agreed alpha male, who would demand all the females of his tribe to be mating only with him, females also f~~~ed the smarter subordinate male, who would dare to mock the alpha in his absence and that this behaviour dates back to times of the precedor of homo habilis, homo neanderthalis, homo australopiticus, homo denovatis and, of course, modern man, too.
Following this thought, women have been cheating on man for all times that mankind exists – AWALT!

"Him, who delights in solitude, is either a wild beast or a GOD!" - Aristotle (Aristot. Pol. 1.1253a) 1 Hom. Il. 9.63; the passage goes on: ἐστὶν ἐκεῖνος ι ὃς πολέμου ἔραται.

[AutoliteParticipant]

PistolPete wrote:

What about the talking donkey in Numbers 22:28-30 King James Version (KJV)

The talking donkey at least is a little more likeable. I’m just sayin’, they should have dumped the talking snake in the Adam and Eve story and perhaps maybe used an anthropomorphic talking cat!

You know, make it more like those ‘Shrek’ pictures to give the bible a wider audience appeal. Personally I’d like to see a Quinton Tarantino written screen-play for the old testament. Now that would rock!

The bottom line is that people know anyway that animals don’t really talk. Except for my dog of course…

[Author]

Posts