Honor the Life Giver: Women

Originally posted by Sahabi
Seems I must continue to repeat myself....

1. If I talk about women it does not mean I am anti-men. If we discuss the beauty of trees does it mean I am anti grass? We are talking about the beauty of conception here. Stay on topic.

O rly?

Can you further expand on this direct quote from the OP, in light of that assertion?

Originally posted by Sahabi
The carriers of the womb should be cherished, honored, and respected. Men should be humble to even deserve equal status to her.

So men need to be "humbled" to "deserve" equality? Doesn't sound much like the equality you claim to be arguing for.

2. I do not promote feminism or female worship. Talking about the beauty of birth does not mean women are to be worshipped. We are talking about the beauty of conception here. Stay on topic.

O rly?

Can you further expand on this direct quote from the OP in light of that assertion?

Originally posted by Sahabi

To the Temple Body, the Earth, the Moon, the Queen... we owe thankfulness and gratitude unto her. The carriers of the womb should be cherished, honored, and respected.

What are "temples" for where you come from? Around here, they're used for worship. Merely "carrying the womb" accords no more justification for honor or respect than "carrying the testes" or carrying a brick with which to build a house.

3. One gender has NO superiority above another. Superiority given to gender is a separating illusion of Ego just as nationality, race, wealth, religion, etc. We are talking about the beauty of conception here. Stay on topic.

I have to wonder if you even read the OP, and I REALLY have to wonder if, in light of that, you wrote it, for that is NOT what it says. It's pretty clear, and self-explanatorily misanthropic. Now you seem to be trying to change the conversation from that to a promotion of the most boring sameness available to mankind - a sea of faces, all of a uniform androgynous sameness. There are fundamental differences in the genders, and most people are damned glad for those differences. Uniqueness and variety are what make the world go 'round. If we were all the same, 6,999,999,999 of us would be superfluous, completely unnecessary, especially if the parthenogenesis barrier in humans is ever breached per your claim. In that case, a single woman can wander the Earth forever, giving birth to a single offspring and perishing, since both of the two would be unnecessary. Only one would be necessary to carry on.

What you seem to see as a "separating illusion of Ego", from which I presume you are arguing for some sort of divisiveness, the rest of us see as the spice that makes life worth living. I for one don't want to be a cog in your unisex machine.

4. Male and Female are two manifestations of the One. There is only superficial difference for all is One.

If that were true, then one or the other would be completely unnecessary, It's very clear from the OP and your subsequent posts which gender you would prefer to eliminate. Would it be acceptable if, instead of acquiescing to elimination, us guys just go to our man-cave and leave you alone to your own devices? We've got beer, so we'll be OK...

Overall, it's pretty clear that the OP is arguing not in favor of equality, but rather in favor of feminine superiority. You seem to be mistaking homogenization for "equality". They are not the same thing.

reply to post by absolutely

you are proving the evil u r knowing the law at the maximum if fully dedicated to makes u a lawyer for relative rights, on the contrary the more u know the law the more u r forced to be under it below all rights, since u know the law then u can b right for urself without having to get ur right knowing the law is knowing the freedom superiority of all its applications dimensions, so u obviously mean oness creations as if there could b any credibility to lies to jump on acting for ur free will to get any positive reality from playing fully real what do not exist

Me no speak the gibberish.

I know the law. Therefore I am a source of rights. It's as simple as that. You do not know the law, because you cannot even speak it.

reply to post by Sahabi


You are calling those asexual creatures female.


Female is just a word.

If we go by the genes, there are many species that seem to have flip flopped. Assuming the xy chromosome still stands as some ambiguous "male", then many species with the XY chromosome members give birth and the XX...or sometimes XXX are the females.


You are trying to call everything that gives life female.

This is a false pretense constructed by your own bias.

Female is a word for humans, describing the member of the species that carries the living child as it develops. This member has breasts and internal genitalia. In many ways, who is the life giver? Without the sperm, life cannot begin? And yet, without the mother, it cannot progress. A more accurate term is the life maintainer, or the source of food for the parasitic fetus.


cell that self divides is neither male nor female. It is called a replicator. Replicators divide.

Some time billions of years ago, it is theorized that cells began eating each other, and somehow this caused sexual reproduction. In this sense, eons ago, the egg consumed the sperm and grew. In this case, the sperm again is the life giver because without it the egg would die. In this time before "uterus" organs, the cell simple consumed the matter and gave life.

www.scientificamerican.com...




So I suppose, in conclusion, please stop forcing your own subjective social constructions onto scientific matters.

Some males are females in species. Some females are males in other species. Some species have no sex. They simply replicate. Why we call them "daughter" cells, again, is just our own subjective reasoning.

reply to post by Sahabi


If your intention with this thread was to praise women for their Life-Bearing qualities and to highlight the need for more focus on female-energy in our current world, then that is understandable. But it seems there are times in your opening post where you hint at the inferiority of men compared to women and demand that women be worshipped because of their sexual organs.

A multitude of potential humans manifests as eggs in her ovaries without ever knowing a man

In other words, man's contribution to the creation process is not valued. The "women don't need men" argument as she does it all on her own apparently. Aren't sperm also potential humans?

The woman provides all of the energy, resources, protection, and time to construct a new being, therefore the offspring are forever indebted to her.

In other words, all women should be worshipped because woman have ovaries and host the new life. This of course ignores the contribution most men make towards the well-being of their women while she is pregnant. You know, like taking care of her and making sure her needs are met as well as taking care of the rest of the family's needs.

Men should be humble to even deserve equal status to her.

This is perhaps your most provocative statement. You imply that women are superior to men.

Men should be a women's helper and partner, not her controller or dominant.

Most men would agree with this and expect equal status for both sexes.

Who Knows Better The Meaning Of A Poem, It's Author Or It's Critics"?

The author of the opening poem is here to tell you the exact meaning behind the words written. Yet some have decided to attribute their own interpretation to the words first, instead of asking me.

There is a reason this thread is in 'Philosophy and Metaphysics' instead of 'Creation and Origins.' I am going beyond mere human development, and into the realm of metaphysics, quantum physics, and the concept of one interconnected, impermanent, codependent reality. I have used combinations of allegory, metaphor, simile, and symbolism.

The opening post is encompassing the totality of Life, not just human life. This is very important to note to understand the op.

I will continue shortly.

To talk highly about one thing does not mean to be in conflict to its perceived opposite. Let's get this immature way of thinking out of this thread.

To discuss the beauty of female means we are discussing the beauty of female. Why? Because that is the topic. If I wanted to discuss the beauty of male, I would do so in another thread.

What is so difficult about discussing positive qualities of one thing without drawing conclusions of negativity towards its perceived opposite? What is so difficult about staying on topic?

I really thought some people were more mature than this.

What is meant by "Men should be humble to even deserve equal status to her"?

This phrase is contrasting the male dominative mentality of much of the cultures around the world. For the most part, mankind has established dominance, control, and belittlement of female woman.

In regards to spirituality and religion, in order to lower Ego one must become humble. If there is pride, arrogance, or superiority in one's heart, they will never understand humble equality.

"deserve equal status to her" is not a statement of female supremacy. It is an acknowledgement that there is harmony and balance between all of the universal dualities. The male that seeks to dominate a woman should be gracious that there is equality between the gender duality. The equality, balance, and harmony eternally exists, but Ego has lead some males to believe the male is superior.

It is an idea of irony, not superiority.

Did you know they can make synthetic sperm now from stem cells?

www.theweek.co.uk...

Originally posted by Sahabi
Who Knows Better The Meaning Of A Poem, It's Author Or It's Critics"?

The author of the opening poem is here to tell you the exact meaning behind the words written. Yet some have decided to attribute their own interpretation to the words first, instead of asking me.

There is a reason this thread is in 'Philosophy and Metaphysics' instead of 'Creation and Origins.' I am going beyond mere human development, and into the realm of metaphysics, quantum physics, and the concept of one interconnected, impermanent, codependent reality. I have used combinations of allegory, metaphor, simile, and symbolism.

The opening post is encompassing the totality of Life, not just human life. This is very important to note to understand the op.

I will continue shortly.

A "poem" is intended to convey an image in words. It paints a verbal picture with masterful strokes. If this is the image you attempted to convey, you've failed - the evidence is right here in this thread. If one must ask the poet the meaning of his words, he has failed to choose the proper words to convey his meaning.

The words you have chosen convey the meanings that people have picked up on, and that has been explained time and time again.

I'm afraid I've entirely missed the "metaphysical" and ESPECIALLY the quantum physics portions. You may want to do a re-write and clarify a few things... It's a given that there is one reality, but it is composed of parts, which you seem to want to erase in favor of a homogenous, monolithic nothingness - if all are precisely alike, then all are unnecessary but a single part, which would necessarily convey the totality of everything within itself - the rest are entirely spurious and superfluous.

In that case, One can walk entirely alone - it can provide it's own companionship just as well as an exact replica of itself can.

Originally posted by Sahabi

What is so difficult about discussing positive qualities of one thing without drawing conclusions of negativity towards its perceived opposite? What is so difficult about staying on topic?

The difficulty lies in praising that one thing to the exclusion - nay, the minimization and belittling, of the other. It was NOT a passive omission, it was an active belittling, which can be plainly seen in the OP. That has been pointed out time and time again, with the net result that you just return and claim that your words mean something else. they do not. They are plain English, and they mean what they say.

YOU chose the topic, and wrote your piece. the rest reacted to WHAT YOU TYPED, and the result of that is that YOU claim now that your selected topic is not the topic at all, so that the rest are somehow "off topic" responding to the OP which YOU wrote.

If you want to be the One, then perhaps the rest should just leave the thread, and allow you to discuss things with yourself - we are not necessary here

Go ahead and have my post "off-topic"ed again. It's a hell of a thing for you to write a post, then claim that direct responses to what YOU wrote are somehow "off topic".

Originally posted by Sahabi
What is meant by "Men should be humble to even deserve equal status to her"?

This phrase is contrasting the male dominative mentality of much of the cultures around the world. For the most part, mankind has established dominance, control, and belittlement of female woman.

In regards to spirituality and religion, in order to lower Ego one must become humble. If there is pride, arrogance, or superiority in one's heart, they will never understand humble equality.

"deserve equal status to her" is not a statement of female supremacy. It is an acknowledgement that there is harmony and balance between all of the universal dualities. The male that seeks to dominate a woman should be gracious that there is equality between the gender duality. The equality, balance, and harmony eternally exists, but Ego has lead some males to believe the male is superior.

It is an idea of irony, not superiority.

My roomate found it offensive that you say men must be "humbled" in order to equal women. According to her, men are just not superior enough to require being brought low by a "humbling" in order to be dropped to the level of women for equality to occur.

Now she's pouting. Thanks for that!

If you want to keep running in circles here and put your own meaning and your own interpretation to my words, then go ahead. I will not back down to your incorrect attacks on my views. I am not a feminist, I work towards natural unity and harmony. A mankind void of superficial separations based on Ego.

There is no exclusion of male here. There is simply focusing on female for this thread. It's not my job to give all conceptual sides of any topic. The topic is female, birth, life, and creation... and that's what I'm talking about here.

You seem to nitpick my words and take them out of context in order to fit your assault on me. Put the words of my op in consideration with its whole and complete totality.

My OP say 'partnership.' What does partnership mean? It means an equal cooperation between the two in order to accomplish the goal of a harmonious One.

When a man and woman unify in marriage, often the man AND woman exchange vows of love, honor, respect, loyalty, cherishing, and helping. This is what I said in the OP, only we are keeping to the female aspect for this thread.

Just because I didn't throw a sack of balls in the OP does not mean it is anti male. The topic is female.

reply to post by nenothtu


Nothing to do with female superiority. It has everything to do with the male dominance of most cultures of mankind. Hard to understand?

Why is Female and Woman associated with Life Giver?


We are discussing existence and universal life, not solely human life. We are illustrating the mechanics of universal life in general in order to appreciate and see the beauty in our own conceptions within the human womb of a female.


In nature we see genderless asexual reproduction to produce offspring. We see females having 'virgin births' known as parthenogenesis. Is there any precedent for a male to reproduce offspring alone? There is plenty of precedent for female organisms to do this. Organs to create embryos is a conceptual female attribute.

Observing Life in all of its forms, genderless and female organisms can produce life alone... male organisms can not.

Acknowledging this fact is not attributing supremacy to the female. When thinking about universal Life in general, this concept simply allows us to appreciate the womb.

Appreciating an apple does not mean to be opposed to spinach. There is equal appreciation to be found in both without supremacy. We talk about apples here, we may discuss oranges later. Both are perfection manifestations of One.

I am choosing to focus on female in this thread. I have equally beautiful things to say about male, but I want to discuss women here.

Male and Female are One. Two expressions of infinite possibility. Do not twist my words to fit ideologies I do not promote.

What is meant by 'Temple Body'?


What is a temple? Quickly you may say, "a place to worship." No, that is what a 'House of Worship' is.

A Temple is a structure to house something sacred. What is more sacred than Life?

The housing of Life in a womb is the sacred thing being alluded to by the phrase "Temple Body."

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by absolutely

 

Me no speak the gibberish.

I know the law. Therefore I am a source of rights. It's as simple as that. You do not know the law, because you cannot even speak it.

you prove my point again the evil you are, how all that know are evil sources that you mean to justify since it is the support to be yourself living

i am a lawyer mister, your lack of respect to others affirm the standard you belong to totally outside of all rights, the law is the source of rights the more you know the law the more you point its reasons in order to mean its powers application on the ground,

laws by definition are absolute superiority constitutions as the exclusive justification of objective constancy that by definition is really free

you no speak gibberish stay one all far below the standard of means

reply to post by absolutely

you prove my point again the evil you are, how all that know are evil sources that you mean to justify since it is the support to be yourself living

What is evil? It has no definition in the secular world.

Support to be yourself living? Evil sources? What? This is not English.

i am a lawyer mister, your lack of respect to others affirm the standard you belong to totally outside of all rights, the law is the source of rights the more you know the law the more you point its reasons in order to mean its powers application on the ground,

The law has nothing in regards to respecting others. I do not respect those whom cannot argue their case.

You cannot argue your case for you have not put forward a clear one. Just random words pasted together that seem to indicate some ambiguous thing on evil.

laws by definition are absolute superiority constitutions as the exclusive justification of objective constancy that by definition is really free

Again. What are you saying? This is not English.

If I'm translating this to English correctly, the Constitution is the law of the land. But people say what goes into the constitution. And I know my constitution. Therefore I am a source of rights. For I correct those whom do not know it.

As far as I can tell, Lawyers are an unneeded profession. People should argue their own case, and judges say if a law is improper to the case of life and liberty. Judges should have priority to forward legality to congress people and be a citizen lobbyist.

So long there are lawyers, people will not learn the law.

you no speak gibberish stay one all far below the standard of means

This is not English.

There is no life with out a man and feminism has ruined the west. Honour that.