Philosexology
Philosexology is a study on the philosophy of human sexuality and its impact in the world. Not intended to be completely serious. Not intended to be completely funny. If you're familiar with the Judeo-Christian worldview, where the Holy Bible is essentially the Word of God, you'll relate to the neutrality in my writing.
I refrain from choosing decidedly, at least one over the other, on egalitarian and complementarian positions, and present the seemingly paradoxical biblical verses for both sides. The former issues arise from our self-concern as individuals while the latter issues arise from the inferential evidence in corporeal society. We read in Galatians 3:28 that "there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." God sent his Son as a male, presumably to be biologically (and biblically)* correct. If we interpret the passage in reference to an androgynous Holy Spirit, in proper context, it makes sense that our faith is something apart from any sexism - * In Genesis 2:22, "the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." The woman was made as a "helper" fit for the man, not necessarily inferior in God's eyes. The point is to show the logical consistency for Jesus Christ to appear as a man in similar fashion to God's first human creation. - This does not mean we are called to completely abandon our reality as male and female counterparts. (But this is what we're increasingly seeing of people today, the merging of two sexes into one gender, as a result of societies fed on a strictly environmental approach to sexual development). We both rely heavily on marriage to counterbalance our masculine and feminine traits (But with the heightened divorce rates and other factors, people have apparently evolved into a marriage of themselves). However, it is most important that we are called to unite as one in our faith in God the Son, like we unite in flesh in hope of our one. This is the only way to retrieve the same purity of soul Adam and Eden had before their naked indulgence. Our biological genes are permanently corrupted as a result of the great sin of pride, banning every human descendent from Eden. What it comes down to is shame, and overcoming our being ashamed. Here is a relevant scenario: Suppose humans are somehow above and beyond the material world, as it certainly feels like we might be in a sense. We live and feed off the earth, it's our survival amidst the happening** of earth's resistance. We are somehow in it together. ** Or the randomness. Yes, it's an allusion. Somewhere along the way it's important to make a distinction between entities in order for these things to make sense--spiritual and physical, internal behavior and external appearance, self-consciousness and consciousness, yin and yang, so on--likewise as male and female is evidence of a distinction in biology. Otherwise, there is no way around simplification in human affairs, just as it is nearly impossible to not stereotype a person. And yet we still feel obligated to communicate with others about things that personify us. There is a standard of decency in doing so, at least among those at terms with human ignorance and not so bent on the truth of selfhood. Everyone is flawed in some way, and we don't always hold that against them. When you begin to recognize that both your intentions and your actions make up who you are, you will take a first step towards progress in your life. In a final statement of digestion, of my experiences hitherto in life, summing up my entire perspective of the world mankind lives in, Never-Never Land or not, take it or leave it... At the roots of all current struggle in society at large is the rebellion of woman against man and man against God. This accounts for the global rise of feminization and secularization, both of which are respectively the most detrimental forces in contemporary times. It makes complete sense of the un-whole world. As "change" is no more growth than cancerous tumors. Is it not self-explanatory? |
Re: Philosexology
yo prov!
Quote:
Quote:
excellent. Quote:
how does "our self concern as individuals" give rise to an egalitarian approach? how does "the inferential evidence in corporeal society" give rise to a complementarian approach? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Philosexology
I'm getting bored with horn's imaginary friend.
|
Re: Philosexology
religion is sexy!
|
Re: Philosexology
i got bored after reading the first 5 or so lines =/
|
Re: Philosexology
Has horn gotten bored of Somethingawful and started to miss us this much already?
|
Re: Philosexology
Quote:
how did your a-level results go, little noob? |
Re: Philosexology
I feel humbled.
|
Re: Philosexology
So is horn prover or is prover horn or is prover just a mental chirstian with an online Fakeword Thesarus* or have I finally snapped and am hallucinating this because IT'S FREAKIN' ME OUT!
*patent pending |
Re: Philosexology
Here I thought this thread was about the desire about having sex with Phil while wearing a No, I wont fix your computer t-shirt.
This thread fails to deliver :( |
Re: Philosexology
Quote:
|
Re: Philosexology
Some thought-provoking questions for those interested in my study:
1. What, in God's name, gives people the idea they belong in and of this world? All of history screams of disease, suffering, and as inevitable as it is, death. If anything, we are creatures to a world of evil. 2. Why do people continue to believe they have a right over their bodies, when every good sense and every rule of law says otherwise? The shame of pubescence along with a bullish narcissism makes it a very gay world indeed. Welcome to the real world, my peers. |
Re: Philosexology
Vomit!
V O M I T |
Re: Philosexology
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Philosexology
Did you recently get dumped/divorced Prover ?
|
Re: Philosexology
Do people not agree that in general men are being emasculated by women? And is it just me, or does it feel like a touchy issue on this forum?
Example, an opinion poll: Asked what it meant to be a man in the 21st century, more than half thought society was turning them into "waxed and coiffed metrosexuals", and 52 per cent say they had to live according to women's rules. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...dy-claims.html But keep following those science fetishists who reduce sex into a Homo species. |
Re: Philosexology
It has always been the same, even in the time mankind consisted of cavemen.
Example, a conversation Woman: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah ugu ugu waaaaaaaaaaaa wugu wugu lalala xugagu * Man: Ugubugu ugudugu bugudugu ** * We need food. The children are hungry. Go fetch a moose or no sex tonight. And put on your brown hairy skinjacket! ** Darn woman. Ill get us a buffalo, will be back soon. All what happens now, did happen before too, only now we notice and "measure" it. By the way Prover... Ever thought of some good old brainwashing? :) |
Re: Philosexology
Quote:
so in these cases you could argue that women are a causal factor in "masculating"(is that the antonym for emasculate) men rather than emasculate them. this obviously depends on your definition of masculinity but i'm pretty confident you're not deviating too far from the norm. however. there are some cases where men do indeed appear to have had their masculinity cut down before them. particularly in their domination of women. unfortunately some women can get pretty unruly at times and just don't seem to understand that patriarchy + a caveman is all they are entitled to. some go so far as to expect equel pay for jobs and stuff. ridiculous as it is to those of us who understand what the bible tells us, it can regrettably lead to things like men not being able to title themselves with the appellation of "breadwinner" with the same verve as genghis khan. now. if you've been raised in a stupid, (barely) post christian society that encourages you to think little beyond how hard to cheer when jeremy kyle is bullying his latest idiot, then there are going to be problems here. the reason why, is because the filthy secularist legislation that requires women to be paid the same as men ensures exactly that. what it doesn't ensure, is an enlightened populace that is able to debunk archaic gender roles that they have been raised in. so we're left with equel pay for women but a bunch of idiots who feel like they've been robbed of their bread winner role. so what do we do? do we apologise to your telegraph polsters while burning some books, or do we keep the rights for women and decide it's best to try and educate ignorant pricks like yourself? i'm in the latter, you're in the former. i'm right, you're not. Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Philosexology
Hey horn dont you feel that everyone was "tricked" into this equal rights equal pay shit? In tha good old days the wage a man would receive was more than enough to raise the little fellas. Nowadays 2 working parents barely come up with the cash to pay for health, education, transport and etc. for their children. Clearly the wages have been slashed in half when women entered the bussiness :(
|
Re: Philosexology
Quote:
|
Re: Philosexology
Quote:
|
Re: Philosexology
Quote:
there aren't that many benefits to halving your country's workforce. |
Re: Philosexology
Quote:
|
Re: Philosexology
Quote:
please..... please take your crude definitions back to gayland, the land in which you reside. |
Re: Philosexology
Quote:
|
Re: Philosexology
Quote:
|
Re: Philosexology
Quote:
you're a cog (you're also rather obviously wrong. but you are frequently wrong so enjoying your present wrongness is a brief sensation. the enduring pleasure comes from your 'beliefs'. and it is a satisfying feeling indeed) |
Re: Philosexology
Quote:
if i'm frequently wrong, then could you, for the first time in my four years of posting here, demonstrate it. thanks. |
Re: Philosexology
yeah i was thinking the same thing but i couldn't be bothered to post it as he'll just tell me "you're wrong" or point out some minor grammatical error and then declare i'm unfit to educate the youth of tomorrow
|
Re: Philosexology
Quote:
|
Re: Philosexology
tomkry would work better
|
Re: Philosexology
hey prover i thought you got disillusioned and ****ed off?
quoting a document of no factual content in reference to an argument is idicoy |
Re: Philosexology
Quote:
Of course, taking out the improvements that would naturally occur due to new techs and stuff |
Re: Philosexology
Quote:
Also. Not all improvements in these services are resultant from technological advances. Infact, technological improvements have rather little to do with the improvements we've seen in education and transport. Rather it's based on us spending shitloads more money on it. It costs us more to use/fund, not because our personal wealth has dwindled, but because the service is of a much higher standard and consequently runs at a much higher cost. One reason why we're spending such vastly increased sums on these services is because as we increase what is on offer, we also increase peoples expectations. A good example of this is you feeling like you're financially worse off than those in the past despite it being very much the other way around. *let me know which one! |
Re: Philosexology
ah i see what you are getting. you mean something on the lines of "in 1920 it was ok to have a plank of wood as a driving seat for my ford T, whereas today i settle for nothing short of a leather seat" kind of thing?
Meaning that today´s standarts for food, education, confort, quality, etc are much higher than the days of yore, am i right? But then again, in the old days getting a plank of wood right required a lot more effort than today. Perhaps as much as leather seat today? |
Re: Philosexology
Does Prover have A. D. D. ?
|
Re: Philosexology
Quote:
|
Re: Philosexology
I want to re-open this thread for debate on a most relevant topic: sex-selective abortions. In countries like South Korea, China, India, and Taiwan, female fetuses are increasingly being aborted in favor of males. This prenatal technology has caused a shortage of over 90 million women in Asian countries alone. If humans are at liberty to have abortions, does it not follow that they should be allowed to decide them based on sex? Is this a blatant form of sex discrimination against the unborn child, or merely the freedom of choice? Either way, it will be hard to ignore the consequences of those actions sure to bring about lasting damages to a culture already struggling with gender issues.
Also, I would like to hear the opinions of those who live and die for egalitarian rights, particularly all the feminists and their supporters here, to see how they feel of course, and maybe what they think about this injustice towards unborn women. |
Re: Philosexology
More gay people is the answer. More gay people. Go forth and multip.. wait
|
Re: Philosexology
Quote:
As for choosing the sex of one's child I don't see how you can stop it once the technology is readily available. Some people in western countries are doing this too, it's just not an issue because they're not predominantly favoring one sex over the other. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Philosexology
As long as most people continue to make babies the fun way, I'm not too worried.
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:28. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018