Faux-Males and Females.

[viole]

You could be missing the point? If Jesus is born of a virgin, he has no testosterone since the point of his birth isn't a giant whY?

So, did He have a tone of voice like K. Minogue, or something?

Non sequitur. History is full of reports of virgin births. Julius Caesar included, together with other emperors, who I suppose had a lot of testosterone. So, Christianity must have been inspired by these other myths. Maybe to make competition to the emperor. A sort of political statement.

ciao

- viole

 

[John D. Brey]

Non sequitur. History is full of reports of virgin births. Julius Caesar included, together with other emperors, who I suppose had a lot of testosterone. So, Christianity must have been inspired by these other myths. Maybe to make competition to the emperor. A sort of political statement.

Actually, all the other myths are part and parcel of the original prophesy given to Eve, that when the "seed of the woman" developed without, and in opposition to, the phallic-serpent, the offspring would be Messiah (Genesis 3:15).

All the virgin-birth myths are based on the ancient mythology come from Genesis 3:15 ---that the divine son of God would be born of a virgin. And for what it's worth, that myth preexists its written version in Genesis 3:15.

All the would-be claimants to the myth of virgin-birth are trying to write themselves into a biological situation that actually occurred at the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.



John

 

[John53]

What is it with this fixation on genitals?

You're gonna be sorry you asked that, I know because I scrolled down.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why do you suppose even aboriginal peoples often cover them up? What is it about genitals, and the male genitalia specifically, that requires it be covered up? Why does Dante station male genitalia as the pillar, the doorposts, to hell? Why does Medieval art picture Adam's genitalia as the serpent in the garden? Why do Jews place blood on that doorpost, and ritually bleed that serpent, as though it were like getting a Passover death itself; a get out of jail free card?

Why do some of the same kinds of persons who question my fixation on genitalia (and that, based on the reasons stated above) often begin their late night web-surfing for images of genitalia immediately after asking me why I'm fixated on genitalia? Why do some Jews who question my fixation on genitalia on Friday night, attend a bris Saturday morning (and yes it can be performed on sabbath), where they gather around a male genital being bled, at which point they celebrate with toasts and glad-handing once the demon has been gashed?

Which is worse in your estimation, an acknowledged interest in why humans are so interested in seeming disinterested in genitalia, or an admission that few things are as interesting to humans as genitalia, and or, the interesting phenomenon of convincing themselves they're disinterested in them by covering them up literally, cognitively, or bleeding them to death ritually, or in Origen's case, literally?

Since history makes it patently clear that humans are obsessed with genitalia, it might be scientifically correct to imply that those who feign disinterest in genitalia are probably sublimating their interest in other areas. History documents that people who sublimate passions tend to do it in areas, and in ways, that are actually more dangerous and troublesome than the thing they're running from through their sublimation; they often attack people who aren't sublimating their passions, as though sublimation is nine-tenths of Victorian puritanical virtue.



John

It could be correct that some people are fixated on genitalia and find it hard to accept that observation. Of course, pointing out something based on a growing body of evidence is not in turn evidence that the person pointing this out has an abnormal disinterest or interest.

It seems like you are saying that having a normal interest or a disinterest is the abnormality and having an interest that goes above and beyond is normal. Though, I often cannot make head or tale out of what you post. Clearly my intellect remains unaroused and flaccid by comparison. Yet I can conceive of the recognition of something that occurs at a much higher than average rate and that recognition is neither sign nor signal of an abnormality.

I am merely curious about the persistence of the phenomenon. Having read many posts, I see only a few of such prominence on this forum.

 

[MikeF]

IMO

Why do you suppose even aboriginal peoples often cover them up? What is it about genitals, and the male genitalia specifically, that requires it be covered up? Why does Dante station male genitalia as the pillar, the doorposts, to hell? Why does Medieval art picture Adam's genitalia as the serpent in the garden? Why do Jews place blood on that doorpost, and ritually bleed that serpent, as though it were like getting a Passover death itself; a get out of jail free card?

Why do some of the same kinds of persons who question my fixation on genitalia (and that, based on the reasons stated above) often begin their late night web-surfing for images of genitalia immediately after asking me why I'm fixated on genitalia? Why do some Jews who question my fixation on genitalia on Friday night, attend a bris Saturday morning (and yes it can be performed on sabbath), where they gather around a male genital being bled, at which point they celebrate with toasts and glad-handing once the demon has been gashed?

Which is worse in your estimation, an acknowledged interest in why humans are so interested in seeming disinterested in genitalia, or an admission that few things are as interesting to humans as genitalia, and or, the interesting phenomenon of convincing themselves they're disinterested in them by covering them up literally, cognitively, or bleeding them to death ritually, or in Origen's case, literally?

Since history makes it patently clear that humans are obsessed with genitalia, it might be scientifically correct to imply that those who feign disinterest in genitalia are probably sublimating their interest in other areas. History documents that people who sublimate passions tend to do it in areas, and in ways, that are actually more dangerous and troublesome than the thing they're running from through their sublimation; they often attack people who aren't sublimating their passions, as though sublimation is nine-tenths of Victorian puritanical virtue.



John

We human beings are no different than other species in that we are hard-wired with instinctual instructions to reproduce. This alone explains a human beings primary interest in genitalia. There is no mystery to be solved beyond that. I get that you take the Genesis story literally, which I find surprising as you refer to it a Bible-myth. Why not just leave the creation of Adam and Eve as God magic instead of trying to reconcile the story with inaccurate notions of our scientific understanding of biology?

 

[John D. Brey]

It could be correct that some people are fixated on genitalia and find it hard to accept that observation. Of course, pointing out something based on a growing body of evidence is not in turn evidence that the person pointing this out has an abnormal disinterest or interest.

It seems like you are saying that having a normal interest or a disinterest is the abnormality and having an interest that goes above and beyond is normal. Though, I often cannot make head or tale out of what you post. Clearly my intellect remains unaroused and flaccid by comparison. Yet I can conceive of the recognition of something that occurs at a much higher than average rate and that recognition is neither sign nor signal of an abnormality.

I am merely curious about the persistence of the phenomenon. Having read many posts, I see only a few of such prominence on this forum.

Why do you suppose the male-organ is covered up by homo sapiens? What about it justifies or motivates its being covered up as though there's shame associated with it?

But the act by which the will affirms itself and man comes into existence is one of which all in their heart of hearts are ashamed, and which therefore they carefully conceal; in fact, if they are caught in the act, they are as alarmed as if they had been detected in a crime. It is an action of which, on cool reflection, we think often with repugnance, and in an exalted mood with disgust.

Schopenhauer.​

Should an enlightened person unashamed of his natural accouterments walk down the street with an uncovered erection thumbing his nose at Victorian puritans? If so, then why don't we see it more often? Have you ever shown your unencumbered enlightenment in public? If not, why not? Perhaps you're just a social creature who finds the mess hall by following everyone else?



John

 

[dybmh]

Why do you suppose the male-organ is covered up by homo sapiens?

shrinkage?

Spoiler

 

[John D. Brey]

We human beings are no different than other species in that we are hard-wired with instinctual instructions to reproduce. This alone explains a human beings primary interest in genitalia. There is no mystery to be solved beyond that. I get that you take the Genesis story literally, which I find surprising as you refer to it a Bible-myth. Why not just leave the creation of Adam and Eve as God magic instead of trying to reconcile the story with inaccurate notions of our scientific understanding of biology?

You say we human beings are no different than other species that have a hard-wired instinctual instruction to reproduce. But no other mammal manufactures veils and coverings to cover up their genitals. Hell, monkeys play with them in front of the innocent youth watching them masturbate at the zoo.

Were your parents so enlightened and liberal-minded that they thought you no different than other biped mammals and thus let you whack off with the monkey at the zoo? That would have been a sight for sore eyes watching the two of you connect on a level that justified the belief you were apparently taught: that you and that monkey are entitled to the same sort of monkey business in public.

It is the glory of the human cerebral cortex that it -----unique among all animals and unprecedented in all geological time ---has the power to defy the dictates of the selfish genes. We can enjoy sex without procreation. We can devote our lives to philosophy, mathematics, poetry, astrophysics, music, geology, or the warmth of human love, in defiance of the old [reptile] brain's genetic urging that these are a waste of time ---time that "should" be spent fighting rivals and pursuing multiple sexual partners: "As I see it, we have a profound choice to make. It is a choice between favoring the old brain or favoring the new brain. More specifically, do we want our future to be driven by the processes that got us here, namely, natural selection, competition, and the drive of the selfish genes? Or, do we want our future to be driven by intelligence and its desire to understand the world?"

Richard Dawkins, introducing Jeff Hawkins, One Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence (bracket mine, based on earlier comment in intro. Last quotation is Dawkins quoting Hawkins).​

John

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why do you suppose the male-organ is covered up by homo sapiens? What about it justifies or motivates its being covered up as though there's shame associated with it?

But the act by which the will affirms itself and man comes into existence is one of which all in their heart of hearts are ashamed, and which therefore they carefully conceal; in fact, if they are caught in the act, they are as alarmed as if they had been detected in a crime. It is an action of which, on cool reflection, we think often with repugnance, and in an exalted mood with disgust.

Schopenhauer.​

Should an enlightened person unashamed of his natural accouterments walk down the street with an uncovered erection thumbing his nose at Victorian puritans? If so, then why don't we see it more often? Have you ever shown your unencumbered enlightenment in public? If not, why not? Perhaps you're just a social creature who finds the mess hall by following everyone else?



John

I believe my question was to an apparent obsession with discussing genitalia and not about genitalia themselves or the bearing of them in public.

 

[John D. Brey]

shrinkage?

Spoiler

Why couldn't Trojan just make a heated prophylactic?



John

 

[dybmh]

Why couldn't Trojan just make a heated prophylactic?



John

On a serious note, don't you think it is a bit rude to walk around uncovered wearing a condom? It implies that a person's primary objective is sexual. We are sexual creatures, but it's not all we are. We're more than that. Dressing conservatively communicates that a person is not completely focused on sex.

 

[John D. Brey]

I believe my question was to an apparent obsession with discussing genitalia and not about genitalia themselves or the bearing of them in public.

Are you equally offended by discussions of theology in pubic or private? Because St. Paul, the author of a lot of the New Testament scripture, claimed that we Christians are, get this, a circumcised organ (Philippians 3:3). That's theology, discussed, openly, and uncovered, by one of the greatest theologians of all time. Does Paul offend your sensibilities like I do? I'd take that as a compliment if you answer in the affirmative.

Eros and language mesh at every point. Intercourse and discourse, copula and copulation, are sub-classes of the dominant fact of communication. . . . Sex is a profoundly semantic act. . . . To speak and to make love is to enact a distinctive twofold universality: both forms of communication are universals of human physiology as well as social evolution. It is likely that human sexuality and speech developed in close-knit reciprocity. . . The seminal and the semantic functions determine the genetic and social structure of human experience. Together they construe the grammar of being.

George Steiner, After Babel, p. 39-40.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

On a serious note, don't you think it is a bit rude to walk around uncovered wearing a condom? It implies that a person's primary objective is sexual. We are sexual creatures, but it's not all we are. We're more than that. Dressing conservatively communicates that a person is not completely focused on sex.

Thus did God speak to Abraham when He bade him set His seal upon that part of his body where man is most akin to the animal and thereby sanctify and dedicate his body to His purposes. . . This is the summons the seal of Abraham brings to you --- stifle animal desires at their onset, stifle them at their birth.

Rabbi Samson Hirsch, Horeb, p. 170.​

John

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are you equally offended by discussions of theology in pubic or private? Because St. Paul, the author of a lot of the New Testament scripture, claimed that we Christians are, get this, a circumcised organ (Philippians 3:3). That's theology, discussed, openly, and uncovered, by one of the greatest theologians of all time. Does Paul offend your sensibilities like I do? I'd take that as a compliment if you answer in the affirmative.

Eros and language mesh at every point. Intercourse and discourse, copula and copulation, are sub-classes of the dominant fact of communication. . . . Sex is a profoundly semantic act. . . . To speak and to make love is to enact a distinctive twofold universality: both forms of communication are universals of human physiology as well as social evolution. It is likely that human sexuality and speech developed in close-knit reciprocity. . . The seminal and the semantic functions determine the genetic and social structure of human experience. Together they construe the grammar of being.

George Steiner, After Babel, p. 39-40.​

John

My question did not indicate offense and I didn't say I was or was not offended. You keep adding things that were not in my question, yet avoid a straight answer to that question.

Do you think asking questions universally indicates offense in the questioner? Don't you ask questions? Are we to assume that you are offended by something?

What one can learn from a simple question.

 

[wellwisher]

Meditating on the metaphysics of gender can lead to some interesting antinomies and or contradiction in the orthodox party-line. According to accepted physics, the universe began in darkness such that light came later. Likewise, in general biological orthodoxy, living organism were initially female, with males coming along later. In the standard metaphysics of religion and mythology, females are generally related to darkness, and males to light.

Notwithstanding the science and mythology, the Masoretic orthodoxy of Genesis chapter two has the male coming before the female even though, with natural science, it has darkness coming before light? The Masoretic orthodoxy reverses, or inverts, what we know to be true according to biology (females are antecedent to males) even though it agrees with science that darkness comes before light?

Additionally perplexing is the fact that in the science of biology, males aren't even binary oppositional entities that come along to court females. On the contrary, males are, in truth (so far as biology is concerned) merely faux-males and not males through and through (males able to exist before, or parallel to/with females). This suggest that in the same sense males are in fact merely faux-males, since they're just deformed or reformed females, so too, light must be faux-light, and not light through and through, since it too comes from darkness and is not, so far as scientific orthodoxy is concerned, a true binary opposition to darkness, since light would then have to exist before, or parallel with darkness in all cases.

John

I don't believe your concept of faux-male makes sense. Males are males and function as evolved. A faux-male would appear to be male but would not have the same characteristics.

I think you have gotten way off track with your male-female hypothesis.

I think I understand the confusion. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is a metaphor for the intellectual approach of seeing the world as being composed of opposites. The foundational example is good and evil. This approach is often applied to male and female as though they are plus and minus charges. The faux male claim is based on male and female not exactly polarized as opposites, even though the human brain and culture want to creates this POV. This impulse to polarize and divide is part of original sin. This schema is extrapolated into areas it never belonged.

The fact is, male and female were not designed to be opposites, but rather to be complementary, so the team can become more than the sum of its parts. The term faux male sense this polarization is not exactly based on opposites, but it still accepts the collective propensity to make this the case.

When things are equal and opposite, like positive and negative charges, there is an energy potential to combine, with the goal of lowering the energy. Evil tries to tempt good and good tries to destroy evil. But complements, are like two gears with opposite spin, that can reinforce each other's spin, to create leverage so their combined work becomes amplified and not depotentiated. Health couples in good relationships have this extra energy and ease of life.

The Bible story of the tree of knowledge of good and evil appears to be about a philosophical view that helped humans differentiate reality. It was based on creating a tension of opposites, like good and evil, that are mutually exclusive but cannot team up. It will come down to one team or the other. This has been extrapolates to areas where it does not make sense, such as male and female.

Modern women want to copy the men or become part of the socially defined good pole of the magnet that has all the social advantages. However, by doing so, this ruins their true complementary connection, since two gears with the same spin will fight and repel each other and cannot team up in a leverage type way. Two positive charges will repel.

It is not easy to convince people that opposites; based on the binary traditions of good and evil, can actually be complements by design, and that two different sets of skills and needs can create the best team, when they both specialize. In many sports, there is the defense and the offense. Although the jobs are opposite and the glory different they work as a team. But to be good at either and help the team, optimize, you cannot try to do both or else you will get tire and fall short at crunch time. It is about sustainability. But how do you get past the ancient propensity to polarize the teammates into two opposing teams that can never merge without the assumption of mutual self destruction, instead of complementary leverage.

 

[John D. Brey]

I think I understand the confusion. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is a metaphor for the intellectual approach of seeing the world as being composed of opposites. The foundational example is good and evil. This approach is often applied to male and female as though they are plus and minus charges. The faux male claim is based on male and female not exactly polarized as opposites, even though the human brain and culture want to creates this POV. This impulse to polarize and divide is part of original sin. This schema is extrapolated into areas it never belonged.

The fact is, male and female were not designed to be opposites, but rather to be complementary, so the team can become more than the sum of its parts. The term faux male sense this polarization is not exactly based on opposites, but it still accepts the collective propensity to make this the case.

When things are equal and opposite, like positive and negative charges, there is an energy potential to combine, with the goal of lowering the energy. Evil tries to tempt good and good tries to destroy evil. But complements, are like two gears with opposite spin, that can reinforce each other's spin, to create leverage so their combined work becomes amplified and not depotentiated. Health couples in good relationships have this extra energy and ease of life.

The Bible story of the tree of knowledge of good and evil appears to be about a philosophical view that helped humans differentiate reality. It was based on creating a tension of opposites, like good and evil, that are mutually exclusive but cannot team up. It will come down to one team or the other. This has been extrapolates to areas where it does not make sense, such as male and female.

Modern women want to copy the men or become part of the socially defined good pole of the magnet that has all the social advantages. However, by doing so, this ruins their true complementary connection, since two gears with the same spin will fight and repel each other and cannot team up in a leverage type way. Two positive charges will repel.

It is not easy to convince people that opposites; based on the binary traditions of good and evil, can actually be complements by design, and that two different sets of skills and needs can create the best team, when they both specialize. In many sports, there is the defense and the offense. Although the jobs are opposite and the glory different they work as a team. But to be good at either and help the team, optimize, you cannot try to do both or else you will get tire and fall short at crunch time. It is about sustainability. But how do you get past the ancient propensity to polarize the teammates into two opposing teams that can never merge without the assumption of mutual self destruction, instead of complementary leverage.

I agree with most of this. The one thing I would add is that to have a genuine unity, the two things being unified must actually be opposites. In biology, male and female are not true opposites since the male body is merely a transformation of the female body.

Jesus is the singular biological male in the entire biotic cosmos. His virgin birth is a sign to all the world that he's the singular male. There's hints throughout the scripture, most notably Isaiah 52:10-15 (exegeted properly from the Hebrew) that his naked body didn't have the appearance of the body of the faux-male of the human species.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

My question did not indicate offense and I didn't say I was or was not offended. You keep adding things that were not in my question, yet avoid a straight answer to that question.

Thank you for pointing out that I assumed something I shouldn't have assumed when I added the word "equally" in the first sentence. I should not have added that word since it assumes I already know you're offended by examinations of why the genitals are so important to humans that they must feign lack of interest by covering them up literally, figuratively, and cognitively.

Do you think asking questions universally indicates offense in the questioner?

Not necessarily. But if the question is covered in a codpiece that celebrates the question and or questioner in a particular way, then we're right back to glorifying the covering up of the question rather than letting the naked spirit of the question offend or not.



John

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you for pointing out that I assumed something I shouldn't have assumed when I added the word "equally" in the first sentence. I should not have added that word since it assumes I already know you're offended by examinations of why the genitals are so important to humans that they must feign lack of interest by covering them up literally, figuratively, and cognitively.



Not necessarily. But if the question is covered in a codpiece that celebrates the question and or questioner in a particular way, then we're right back to glorifying the covering up of the question rather than letting the naked spirit of the question offend or not.



John

My question wasn't to humanity and any general interest that exists among us. It was too you. You seem fascinated with them. I wonder why.

I see responses, but it does not appear likely that I will get an actual direct answer. As a result I've lost interest and do not wish to continue on. Perhaps that was your goal all along. Or maybe you had something else of equal merit under construction. Who can say. It was enough for me to point out the inconsistencies in your knowledge of biology. I hope that helped.

 

[Luchito Prays]

Meditating on the metaphysics of gender can lead to some interesting antinomies and or contradiction in the orthodox party-line. According to accepted physics, the universe began in darkness such that light came later. Likewise, in general biological orthodoxy, living organism were initially female, with males coming along later. In the standard metaphysics of religion and mythology, females are generally related to darkness, and males to light.

Notwithstanding the science and mythology, the Masoretic orthodoxy of Genesis chapter two has the male coming before the female even though, with natural science, it has darkness coming before light? The Masoretic orthodoxy reverses, or inverts, what we know to be true according to biology (females are antecedent to males) even though it agrees with science that darkness comes before light?

Additionally perplexing is the fact that in the science of biology, males aren't even binary oppositional entities that come along to court females. On the contrary, males are, in truth (so far as biology is concerned) merely faux-males and not males through and through (males able to exist before, or parallel to/with females). This suggest that in the same sense males are in fact merely faux-males, since they're just deformed or reformed females, so too, light must be faux-light, and not light through and through, since it too comes from darkness and is not, so far as scientific orthodoxy is concerned, a true binary opposition to darkness, since light would then have to exist before, or parallel with darkness in all cases.



John

Apparently it was a great waste of money from your part when you pay for biology classes to learn pseudo science.

Darkness before light in the universe is known in religion way before science found out about it.

In the Bible, it says that the God caused Adam to sleep, this is anesthesia.

From here, a surgical operation took place. Part of Adam's body was taken away to create the woman.

Until decades ago, this biblical part was not understood, but after clonation was performed, then the biblical narration made complete sense.

After removing part of Adam's body, the God closed the cut.

Later, perhaps after Adam recovery from surgery, the God brought him Eve.

Eve is Adam's clone.

Until today, we have not a method of using the flesh of a person in order to obtain another human being.

This will remind you forever, that man can't mess with the God, a being whom when compared with our knowledge, He is 6,000 years ahead in science and technology.

The biology you are talking here is nonsense.

I go for the winner: the God.

 

[John D. Brey]

Apparently it was a great waste of money from your part when you pay for biology classes to learn pseudo science.

. . . Then we both squandered a chunk of change. Me on science you on grammar.

Darkness before light in the universe is known in religion way before science found out about it.

In the Bible, it says that the God caused Adam to sleep, this is anesthesia.

From here, a surgical operation took place. Part of Adam's body was taken away to create the woman.

Until decades ago, this biblical part was not understood, but after clonation was performed, then the biblical narration made complete sense.

After removing part of Adam's body, the God closed the cut.

Later, perhaps after Adam recovery from surgery, the God brought him Eve.

Eve is Adam's clone.

Until today, we have not a method of using the flesh of a person in order to obtain another human being.

This will remind you forever, that man can't mess with the God, a being whom when compared with our knowledge, He is 6,000 years ahead in science and technology.

The biology you are talking here is nonsense.

This appears to be in line with my stance.

Since Eve is a clone, her and the first human's bodies must be identical (that's what a clone is) so that if Eve has a vagina, and she does, so did the first human who was put under anesthesia so that her labial flesh could be sutured together to form the true anomalous flesh in Genesis chapter two: the phallus created in the image of the serpent.

This being the case, the first male is a faux-male: a female transformed by surgery into the likeness of a male.

Jesus is the only human "born" male apart from the poison (Y chromosome), come, so to say, from the jowls of the serpent.



John