Faux-Males and Females.

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Just put it as tomboys and gurley men and call it a day.

 

[Luchito Prays]

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



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

Nope.

Your assumptions take you nowhere.

Same as the God can clone man, same as well the God can do it making the female version.

It is known that Adam had no navel, of course, same with Eve.

However, the tits in man and woman are still different. A woman can produce milk even if she had no child, while the man can't. In both sexes tits might produce pleasure when playing with them but is because these are sensitive, no other reason. Pleasure on tits is not a woman's characteristic.

And, perhaps Adam didn't have tits, but the children did.

The malice in your topic is your attempt for others to accept the idea that man can be also a woman.

Nice try, but nature clearly says no.

Your thoughts are just opium dreams, lol.

 

[John D. Brey]

Nope.

Same as the God can clone man, same as well the God can do it making the female version.

The Roman church got into trouble discerning truth when they persecuted Copernicus for teaching sound science, based on factual actualities, while the church clung to their misreading of scripture.

This thread is about a Copernican revolution even bigger than the original Copernican revolution. So it's natural that those who get their "truth" handed down to them through dusty orthodoxy will distort science to attempt to make their false claims work.

A clone produces an identical facsimile of the one cloned. If Eve has a vagina, and is cloned from the first human, the first human had a vagina.

Good exegesis and theology don't need a god-of-the-gaps, or miracles, to explain what it can't.





John

 

[John D. Brey]

However, the tits in man and woman are still different. A woman can produce milk even if she had no child, while the man can't. In both sexes tits might produce pleasure when playing with them but is because these are sensitive, no other reason. Pleasure on tits is not a woman's characteristic.

And, perhaps Adam didn't have tits, but the children did.

. . . Exegesis of the gaps.

The first human had large breast and would have given birth to messiah apart from phallic sex if the desecration found in Genesis 2:21 hadn't occurred. Science proves this when it points out that the breast on the human female begin to enlarge at puberty rather than at conception. In no other mammal do the female breast enlarge without phallic sex. Only in the human do the breast reveal the existence of a virgin pregnancy by enlarging prior to copulation.

Sound, accurate, science, serves theology, while it shows the distortions that exist for those who cling to their moldy outdated orthodoxy.



John

 

[Dan From Smithville]

. . . Exegesis of the gaps.

The first human had large breast and would have given birth to messiah apart from phallic sex if the desecration found in Genesis 2:21 hadn't occurred. Science proves this when it points out that the breast on the human female begin to enlarge at puberty rather than at conception. In no other mammal do the female breast enlarge without phallic sex. Only in the human do the breast reveal the existence of a virgin pregnancy by enlarging prior to copulation.

Sound, accurate, science, serves theology, while it shows the distortions that exist for those who cling to their moldy outdated orthodoxy.



John

Where is the science that backs up the claim that breast development is designed to facilitate virgin birth?

Does science prove anything?

What you seem to be saying is that there is no change in human breasts due to pregnancy and that is not true.

You are making big leaps here and claiming it is science, when it is your interpretation using evidence from science and incomplete evidence at that.

 

[John D. Brey]

Where is the science that backs up the claim that breast development is designed to facilitate virgin birth?

Does science prove anything?

What you seem to be saying is that there is no change in human breasts due to pregnancy and that is not true.

You are making big leaps here and claiming it is science, when it is your interpretation using evidence from science and incomplete evidence at that.

I stand corrected. Science doesn't prove that humans were originally all female and designed to give birth apart from serpentine-sex. But it lends itself to that "interpretation" since in no other mammal do the female's breasts enlarge apart from a viable pregnancy.

In the Gospels, Mary was found pregnant when her adolescent breasts began to enlarge. Ha-adam was created pregnant with gloriously תפארת enlarged breasts. In kabbalah, specifically the image of Adam Kadmon (the primal human), the breast are considered an ornament revealing the glory of God's wisdom in the creation of the primal, archetypal, human: he created the human already pregnant with Messiah such that the enlarged breasts are the passion causing organ of organs.



John

 

[metis]

The Roman church got into trouble discerning truth when they persecuted Copernicus for teaching sound science, based on factual actualities, while the church clung to their misreading of scripture.

This was actually the prevailing belief even outside the Church. However, as more evidence came in the Church changed its position-- but all so slowly.

 

[John D. Brey]

This was actually the prevailing belief even outside the Church. However, as more evidence came in the Church changed its position-- but all so slowly.

Yes it was the prevailing belief at the time. Even as today the prevailing belief throughout Judeo/Christian thought is that the first human was firstly a male. That belief can be more soundly and easily defeated ----with science and exegesis of scripture ----than anything Copernicus showed. And still orthodoxy clings to a complete falsehood that does more damage to Jewish and Christian thought than belief in a flat earth, or a geocentric cosmology.


John

 

[metis]

Even as today the prevailing belief throughout Judeo/Christian thought is that the first human was firstly a male.

Not with Catholics, mainline Protestants, and Reform Judaism as they accept the ToE.

 

[Luchito Prays]

A clone produces an identical facsimile of the one cloned. If Eve has a vagina, and is cloned from the first human, the first human had a vagina.

Good exegesis and theology don't need a god-of-the-gaps, or miracles, to explain what it can't.

That is "your cloning": you have a male, then you only can clone another male.

God's cloning is way more advanced.

Remember, He is 6,000 years ahead from our current science.

You can check it in the book of Genesis

 

[Luchito Prays]

. . . Exegesis of the gaps.

The first human had large breast and would have given birth to messiah apart from phallic sex if the desecration found in Genesis 2:21 hadn't occurred. Science proves this when it points out that the breast on the human female begin to enlarge at puberty rather than at conception. In no other mammal do the female breast enlarge without phallic sex. Only in the human do the breast reveal the existence of a virgin pregnancy by enlarging prior to copulation.

Sound, accurate, science, serves theology, while it shows the distortions that exist for those who cling to their moldy outdated orthodoxy.



John

Again your imaginations are silly.

For you a woman having large breast at puberty before conception means a case of inherited "virgin pregnancy".

How do you know if you don't have other mammals as reference to validate such claims? Your interpretations don't have any support.

Only woman cries like hell at the moment of having a baby, other mammals don't do that. Then, this is telling you that man even when is a mammal, was made different than the rest of mammals.

Your comparison is not valid.

Men are apples, and the other mammals are bananas. Both are fruits but are still different.

Nice try.

 

[Luchito Prays]

In the Gospels, Mary was found pregnant when her adolescent breasts began to enlarge.


John

Girlfriends of mine started to have enlarged breasts after I was playing with them all the time.

Just playing with a woman's breasts will cause their enlargement and this enlargement in many cases will stay permanent.

I don't need studies about it, I saw it with my own eyes.

Even more, some women massaging their own breasts can do the same.

 

[John D. Brey]

Even more, some women massaging their own breasts can do the same.

. . . You appear to be massaging your argument such that it enlarges in your mind.



John

 

[Luchito Prays]

. . . You appear to be massaging your argument such that it enlarges in your mind.



John

It appears that someones never had a girlfriend.

 

[John D. Brey]

It appears that someones never had a girlfriend.

. . . You seem to be focusing on just the tip of the argument.




John

 

[Luchito Prays]

. . . You seem to be focusing on just the tip of the argument.




John

Hey! Your so called studies forgot to check reality before making silly conclusions.

In my neighborhood there were a few girls who used to go out with several boys. This is literal, several boys.This is when they reached the last years of high school.

For us it was very easy to recognize them.

Between the girls in their classrooms, these (easy to go with boys) girls, had huge, but huge breasts. Lol.

The voice that run in those years, was that the male hand released hormones and similar ideas, and by touching the girls breasts, these will increase their size.

You don't see the same behavior in other mammals, because the bull can't play with the cow breasts, neither the rabbit, or the wolf with their females.

Your theory is silly, and no need to discuss it anymore.

 

[John D. Brey]

Your theory is silly, and no need to discuss it anymore.

. . . Says the guy who thinks fondling a girl's breasts causes them to grow huge. Reminds me of the movie Southern Comfort, or Deliverance. Does a fiddle serenade also cause enlarging of the breasts? What about eating black-eyed peas sauteed in Jack Daniels? Maybe we could get uncle Goober to judge whether they enlarge or not? Of course you and he will have to carefully examine them before, during, and after, like grandpa used to do. Reverend Jimbo said large breasts are the work of the devil. A good Pentecostal man marries a woman flat as a board and never looks at them in so much as candle light for fear of enlarging the serpent's power over one's life.



John

 

[ajay0]

In religious mythology and metaphysics, male and female are supposed to be true binary oppositions like "being" and "non-being." But they're not. And that's significant as a foundation and basis for correcting flawed metaphysical assumptions.

John

In Hindu religious philosophy, Brahman is considered to be male and static while Shakti is considered to be female and dynamic.

Both are said to complement each other.

The first and ultimate principle of the Universe is a feminine power, Shakti, whose personified form is Beauty and whose essential nature is consciousness and bliss. It exists eternally associated with the male principle, Shiva, who plays a secondary role. The “Srichakra” is the diagrammatic representation of their union. ~ Adi Shankaracharya ( Soundarya Lahiri )

 

[John D. Brey]

In Hindu religious philosophy, Brahman is considered to be male and static while Shakti is considered to be female and dynamic.

Both are said to complement each other.

The first and ultimate principle of the Universe is a feminine power, Shakti, whose personified form is Beauty and whose essential nature is consciousness and bliss. It exists eternally associated with the male principle, Shiva, who plays a secondary role. The “Srichakra” is the diagrammatic representation of their union. ~ Adi Shankaracharya ( Soundarya Lahiri )

A primary point is the fact that to arrive at the true power of complementarity you need true duality. Darkness is an absence of light. But light is not merely an absence of darkness. Removing all darkness doesn't produce light, while removing all light does produce darkness. This produces a true binary duality subject to complementarity.

Understanding this simple dichotomy empowers all the mystics of history. Why does darkness appear to come before light if it's secondary to light in the sense that it doesn't have an essence of its own, but is the lack of the other? You would need light to even "know" what darkness is since without light, without duality, complementarity, you have nothing.

In this sense darkness is the nothingness that can't even know it exists, or what it is, without light. And light can exist, without "knowing" precisely what it is (though unlike darkness it has genuine essence) without the existence of darkness. Since light has essence, it isn't utterly dependent on the existence of darkness. It just needs darkness to reveal its true essence. It needs darkness to receive, so to say, true enlightenment.

Vision, empiricism, reverses the true asymmetry of reality since it appears that darkness is antecedent to light. But all true mystics, all true scientists, learn to distrust empiricism the moment they take the fork in the road that leads to enlightenment. The person who's never said "You're a liar" to their eyes isn't fit for science or theology since they chose the fork they stick in a nice T-bone steak rather than the fork in the road leading to enlightenment.

John

 

[Luchito Prays]

. . . Says the guy who thinks fondling a girl's breasts causes them to grow huge. Reminds me of the movie Southern Comfort, or Deliverance. Does a fiddle serenade also cause enlarging of the breasts? What about eating black-eyed peas sauteed in Jack Daniels? Maybe we could get uncle Goober to judge whether they enlarge or not? Of course you and he will have to carefully examine them before, during, and after, like grandpa used to do. Reverend Jimbo said large breasts are the work of the devil. A good Pentecostal man marries a woman flat as a board and never looks at them in so much as candle light for fear of enlarging the serpent's power over one's life.



John

Your messages show lots of intellect but zero experience in life.

This is the reason why your words can't show wisdom.