1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Androgynous Phallus.

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by John D. Brey, Sep 16, 2021.

  1. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,025
    Ratings:
    +276
    Religion:
    Christian
    In Galatians 3:28, Paul deconstructs not only gender-duality, or in the context of the previous threads in this series, bi-gendered gender, but he also sneaks in a somewhat theologically disturbing nuance of his deconstruction of gender when he claims that just as the bi-gendered species is on its way out with the birth and death of Christ, so to is the distinction between the Gentile and the Jew on its way out in the body of Christ.

    There is neither Jew nor Gentile . . . neither male nor female: for you are all unified in Christ Jesus.​

    The previous two threads on this subject revealed an exegetical gem/prism that releases a new reading of Paul in Galatians 3:28. The previous threads pointed out that the so-called male, i.e., the gender thought of as male in scientific and Jewish orthodoxy, is actually nothing of the sort. It's merely a half-way point, maybe even a retroactive doppelganger, of the singular male who must exist before you can have a true Duke's mixture of male and female. In other words, as noted already in the previous threads, before the female ovum can transform from female flesh into male flesh, you need to have male flesh that's not firstly female flesh, or else your alleged male is really a masculine, a phallic, female.

    What is fancied a "male" today is merely a masculinized, phallicized, female, since in the transformation that takes place in the womb, the embryo clearly transitions from female, with labial flesh, and genital opening, to the stage known as the primordial phallus, eventually arriving at the closing of the vulva, and its covering up by the foreskin of the phallus. You clearly have a female in male clothing. At best you have the cross-dressing female that made the virgin birth and the cross necessary.




    John
     
  2. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,025
    Ratings:
    +276
    Religion:
    Christian
    Before cross referencing Paul's elimination of the distinction between Jew and Gentile with his elimination of male and female, and specifically in the new contextual understanding that the male is merely a faux-female, a bi-gendered female, a phallic-female, something should be said about the ontological problem with noting that you need a genuine male, before you can mix the two to come up with the masculine-female gallivanting today as a male through and through.

    If the female form is the ontology of living organisms, if there isn't an original male (such that at best the male is an evolutionary transformation of the female form), then there appears to be, and maybe it's even worse than mere appearances, no possible way for a male to exist as anything other than an evolutionary transformation of the female, who is the ontological ----original----form?

    One theoretical way to fix the problem would be to suppose that the first female, ha-adam, and the latter clone Eve, are themselves a later stage of true ontological reality ---- i.e., that the original female form is itself a latter stage of ontological reality.

    This fix requires positing that true ontological reality is hidden not only in the fallacious phallic-female, too readily taken as a male, i.e., the second gender in evolutionary asymmetry, but also in the nature of the female body itself, such that it too is a latter stage of the original, ontological form, and archetype, which it, the female body, hides within its structure even as the phallic-female hides the fact that it's really a Duke's mixture of an alleged male and the female form it masculinizes merely by covering up, and hiding, the female form.

    If this is the case, then is there a way to deconstruct the female form, as we deconstruct the faux-female form (as in the thread on The Primordial Phallus) in order to arrive at something hidden since the foundation of the world?

    The problem is clear. Whereas we can see (simply by observing fetal development), that today's male is merely an evolutionary transformation of the female form, i.e., we merely need to reverse the stages where the female embryo transforms to the male to see the relationship between the two, we can't, on the other hand, deconstruct the pre-male female form to see the ontological male who both the female form, and the phallic-female form would be covering up.



    John
     
    #2 John D. Brey, Sep 16, 2021
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2021
  3. John53

    John53 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2017
    Messages:
    2,332
    Ratings:
    +1,961
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Can you explain this in simple terms because I have no idea what you are trying to tell me?
     
  4. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,025
    Ratings:
    +276
    Religion:
    Christian
    The idea of "recapitulation theory" is that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Or in simpler terms, the developing embryo goes through the stages of evolution leading from the past organisms in the chain of its evolutionary development to the current one:

    [​IMG]
    We know for a fact that the human embryo starts from a x chromosome cell, a female cell, and only develops into the so-called male if a y chromosome causes morphological changes in the default development of the cell. From this we know that the default human is female, and only morphological changes caused by the insertion of the y chromosome changes the default body, female, into the transformed body, phallic-female (errantly labeled "male").

    But until the rise of modern science, we didn't know that the embryo started as a female, and transformed into the so-called male. We didn't know that our sons are really daughters since the existence of the penis, or phallus, covers its tracks, so to say, so that until recently we didn't know that the penis is originally a vulva.

    In the transformation from a daughter to a son, there's a stage that science calls the "primordial phallus." At this stage of development, the developing penis still has the opening that becomes the vulva absent the y chromosome:
    [​IMG]
    With these scientific facts at our disposal we can say with some factual precision that our sons are really just phallic-daughters; and that a so-called "male," is really just a transformed female. Which leads to the factual logic that the human race is really just one gender with two types: female, and phallic-female. There aren't really two distinct genders so far as fetal development is concerned since there is no such thing as an organism that's purely male while there does appear to be an original, or pure, female. In this sense it's logically incorrect to speak of two genders rather than two kinds of one gender: female and phallic-female.

    To have a "male" gender, you'd have to have an original male who didn't arrive as merely a biological or morphological transformation of the pre-existing female form.

    The Bible implies that Jesus is that pre-existent, singularly male, son: that Jesus is the only human male born as a male and not merely a phallic-female. Jesus is the first, born, male, in the history of life on earth. Which makes examination of his conception (virgin), morphology (?), and theology, the key to the past, present, and future, of mankind. If he's the original male, the only true male, that's a truly significant piece of information such that deconstructing Jesus becomes the most important scientific past-time any person could ever have. That you're the only person with even a passing interest merely implies that females and phallic-females have no desire to rock the boat, or upset the apple cart from whence the first apple came that caused all the disease and distress that exists in this godforsaken, fallen, realm.



    John
     
    #4 John D. Brey, Sep 17, 2021
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2021
  5. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,025
    Ratings:
    +276
    Religion:
    Christian
    The thread seeder quoted Galatians 2:28 where St. Paul gives a mythologized account of what's been said here up to this point. And before John53 asked for a simplification (given in the previous message in the thread) I noted that part and parcel of Paul's stupendous revelation in Galatians 2:28 revolves around the fact that he deconstructs, or dissects, the distinction between Jew and Gentile with the same izmel (or knife) he uses to deconstruct gender. He's implying that something in the revelation of the fallacy of dual gender inheres in what he appears to be implying is a fallacy in distinguishing Jew from Gentile, such that Paul's linking of the two (dual gender, and, Jew and Gentile) gives us an opening into the profound genius of Paul, as well as the even greater revelation his genius is providing for us.

    This is to say that even as the penis covers its tracks to imply our sons are "males," rather than merely phallic-females (when in truth our sons merely transformed daughters, i.e, the completed transformation of the primordial phallus), so too, the Jew, all of whom are born as messianic sons of God, likewise cover the tracks that would show that they, the Jews, are, to the Gentiles, as the phallic-female is to the original female: merely a transformation of the Gentile, and not an (the) ontological, or original, species of mankind that the Talmud refers to as a Jew.



    John
     
    #5 John D. Brey, Sep 17, 2021
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2021
  6. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,025
    Ratings:
    +276
    Religion:
    Christian
    In the same sense that the so-called "male" is factually, scientifically, merely a transformed female, likewise, a Jew is factually, scientifically, at best, a transformed Gentile, since Abraham was born to Gentiles in the normal, Gentile (genital) way, and only became a Jew through the transformation of his already Gentile body. Paul's logic recognizes the remarkable truth that neither the male gender, nor the Jew, are the originality, the ontological foundation, that they both merely represent since they're only a transformation of that from which they come and not a true binary opposite.

    To have an actual "male" he would have to be as ontologically original as is the female. He can't be merely a transformation of the female. And to have an actual Jew, he would have to be as ontologically original as the Gentile. He can't be merely a transformation of the Gentile since then he's merely a kind of Gentile, and not a new species through and through. In both cases, the male, and the Jew, there's no real, genuine, binary opposition, but rather, merely a quasi-binary transformation. The so-called male is really only a transformation of the pre-existing female, while the so-called Jew, is merely a transformation of the pre-existing Gentile.



    John
     
    #6 John D. Brey, Sep 17, 2021
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2021
  7. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,025
    Ratings:
    +276
    Religion:
    Christian
    Although the Jew comes after the Gentile in the evolution of the human race (as the male comes after the female in the evolution of living organisms), the Jew's existence, even in its merely transitional form, is required in order to deconstruct the original form so as to gain a greater understanding regarding the need for the transitional form in the first place. It's to reveal the purpose for the transition from Gentile to Jew. Similarly, even though the phallic-female is merely a transitional form of the original female, this transitional form (the phallic-female) is required in order to deconstruct the transitional form, in hopes of revealing a greater appreciation concerning the existence of the original, ontological female.

    In the later case, deconstructing the ontological female (by dissecting the transitional form) is supposed to reveal the missing link in the evolution of life: the ontological male ----who should come with, or before, the ontological female, in order to create a true binary relationship between the two rather than merely a transitional one. The same is the case for the Jew too. The transitional Jew is required in order to dissect the body of the Gentile (ala brit milah), in order to find the missing link in the transition from Gentile to Jew required to establish Gentile and Jew as a true binary oppositions rather than merely a transitional one.



    John
     
    #7 John D. Brey, Sep 17, 2021
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2021
  8. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,025
    Ratings:
    +276
    Religion:
    Christian
    With all this in mind, brit milah stand out like a sore thumb or else the second thumb on the hamsa-hand. It's literally too perfect in its symbolic import since it both dissects the fallacious male, who's really merely a phallic-female, as it also transforms the Jew's alleged "male" organ into its earlier form, the primordial phallus.

    It accomplishes both of these feats by removing the foreskin that covers up the truth that the male is merely a transitional female (the second ritual cut ---periah --- symbolizes opening up the vulva under the foreskin so that the transitional organ returns to its primordial state: the primordial phallus), even as it reveals that the Jew was never supposed to be merely a transitional form of the Gentile, but something hidden in the Gentile from the start.



    John
     
  9. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    3,025
    Ratings:
    +276
    Religion:
    Christian
    Furthermore, the perfection of brit milah as a symbol for these things becomes even more profound if we realize that the first stage of a ritual circumcision, milah, reveals the primordial phallus as the purpose for the uncovering of the transitional form (the phallus) in order to reveal the primordial, still androgynous, phallus, while if we intuit that meaning fast enough (i.e., during the ritual), we can thereby picture the second stage of ritual circumcision ---periah ----as the opening of the membrane of virginity of a primordial phallus, an androgynous phallus, so that the ontological male, hidden in the ontological female, is allowed to come out of the primordial phallus not as the product of the post-primordial phallus phallus, i.e., by means of phallic-sex, but as the true ontological male come out of the primordial phallus at periah, and not nine months after the consummation of the union of the female and the phallic-female in the profanity of phallic-sex. The true male is just as original, just as ontological, or feasibly more, as the original female, though he's hidden in the original female at the beginning of life. He's neither a transitional form of the female, nor a product of the combining of the female and her transitional form through phallic-sex.



    John
     
    #9 John D. Brey, Sep 17, 2021
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2021
Loading...