reply to post by For(Home)Country
What if the woman becomes the painter on which man is the canvas?
I would simply refer you to my post on page 2, where I described masculine/feminine in the context of
"I'll grant you that as real human beings, we're not in rapport exclusively with either the masculine or feminine principal. A man does possess
feminine qualities. A woman does posses masculine qualities."
This is depicted in the yin/yang symbol: within the white swirl, there is a central black dot. Within the black swirl there is a central white dot.
I would also refer you to my post on page 3 where I said:
"I tend to think of biological male and biological female as physical, impure (impure meant literally, not as in "dirty") manifestations of
Being a man does not mean that one exhibits purely yang, nor does being a woman mean that one will exhibit purely yin. Yes, a woman may "write" upon
the canvass of a man. However, generally speaking, someone who manifests in a male body will probably be more in tune with yang forces than someone
who manifests in a female body. A man will generally have more paint, and a woman will generally have more canvass.
So if a woman paints upon the canvas of a man, then she paints upon the canvas of a man. This happens as part of the natural flow of events. The shape
of the riverbed guides the water, but so too does the flow of the water shape the riverbed.
Does that answer your question?
Why is it that a wife should be a virgin and a man experienced in sex before they enter into marriage?
Please stop assuming that I believe things I have not said. I am not saying it "should" be this way. I am saying that it is a valid solution to some
problems some people may have.
However, I thought the metaphor was clear: a man who practices painting may become a better painter. A virginal bride may be spoiled and damaged by a
man who has no idea what he's doing. It is possible for a man to become similarly damaged, but since he "has less canvas" than a woman, he's less
likely to. By "knowing" several women, provided a man does not become damaged in the process, he may come to know what he really wants, and learn
how to properly create it in the woman he chooses.
Would you think there is something a little 'more' special about two virgins both engaging in sex for both of their very first times as opposed to
only one or the other being a virgin, or neither of them?
"Special" is very vague. You appear to be assiging value to a thing for the sake of assigning value to it. I would prefer to work with
so we can make choices that are likely to give us the results we want.
The primary benefit of two virgins is that all
canvass in either
of them is available for pure, unblemished use by the other. For some
couples this will be ideal.
I'm sure there are other people out there that would feel the same, and others that wouldn't.
Yes. It's difficult to say what is "best" because different people may work differently, have different needs, different awarenesses, etc. Some men
may need "practice." Some women may need "de-frosting."
Like with eating pigs, I think it's best to understand what's going on, rather than simply confining oneself to a few general rules. The rule of not
eating pig can be a disservice if it leads to someone starving to death. Making a rule of "two virgins married" may prove to be a similar disservice
if a man who doesn't know what he wants is coupled with a woman is is scared to death of men. In a case like this, the canvas of the woman is
unreceptive to the mans paint. But her paint will tend to write on his canvas the idea that men are scary. So the man learns that he is evil, which he
then reinforces upon her by writing to her canvass, and the two create a cycle that is not very healthy for either of them. In a case like this, both
of them sleeping around, he so that he may learn what he wants, and she so that she may relax and learn that men are not evil, and that it is proper
to be a woman...may be of benefit.
what experiences cement your belief in incarnation?
Well, first off I'd object to your suggestion that my belief is "cemented." I don't firmly belive in reincarnation. It simply seems the best
explanation. I recognize that it's not the only expanation, and I recognize that I'm not in a position to directly know.
To answer the question though, it's not quite so much that I believe
in reincarnation, as that I can see no reason to assume that
consciousness would be limited to one incarnation.
It would require its own thread to do the concept justice, but starting from the assumption that we're spiritual beings, and that the mechanics does
exist for us to experience physicality...what possible reason could there be to assume that there would be a limit of one physical body over the
course of eternity?
[edit on 24-10-2009 by LordBucket]