God Is A He, And Can Never Be Called A "she"

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 March 2010 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1268074909' post='2068934']
One could argue that the roles on a biological level arise from a more basic reality and are a reflection of something deeper. I don't know though, not something I've studied before.
[/quote]

If we are ruled by our sex, then are we not merely animals?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='08 March 2010 - 01:04 PM' timestamp='1268075060' post='2068936']
If we are ruled by our sex, then are we not merely animals?
[/quote]
That's not even close to what I said.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 March 2010 - 02:06 PM' timestamp='1268075193' post='2068938']
That's not even close to what I said.
[/quote]

Did I say that you said that? No. I posed a question in response.

You missed my post before that one, which imo is more worthy to look at.

[Apotheoun]

I think that the physical receptivity of the wife during the conjugal act, in which she receives the seed of her husband, is being confused with volitional passivity on her part. The marital embrace involves synergy.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='08 March 2010 - 01:12 PM' timestamp='1268075547' post='2068942']
Did I say that you said that? No. I posed a question in response.

You missed my post before that one, which imo is more worthy to look at.
[/quote]
In that case, I'd probably agree. If we're ruled entirely by our sex, then we're rather less than human. I'd definitely suggest that our physical sex and our gender as a whole are reflective of a deeper spiritual reality, which, yes, does include differences between man and woman, both in gender roles and psychological tendencies, etc..

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='08 March 2010 - 02:13 PM' timestamp='1268075626' post='2068945']
I think that the physical receptivity of the wife during the conjugal act, in which she receives the seed of her husband, is being confused with volitional passivity on her part. The marital embrace involves synergy.
[/quote]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='08 March 2010 - 01:13 PM' timestamp='1268075626' post='2068945']
I think that the physical receptivity of the wife during the conjugal act, in which she receives the seed of her husband, is being confused with volitional passivity on her part. The marital embrace involves synergy.
[/quote]
I think you're probably right.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 March 2010 - 02:16 PM' timestamp='1268075777' post='2068949']
In that case, I'd probably agree. If we're ruled entirely by our sex, then we're rather less than human. I'd definitely suggest that our physical sex and our gender as a whole are reflective of a deeper spiritual reality, which, yes, does include differences between man and woman, both in gender roles and [b]psychological tendencies[/b], etc..
[/quote]

Ah yes. More men that women are diagnosed as sociopaths.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='08 March 2010 - 01:17 PM' timestamp='1268075850' post='2068954']
Ah yes. More men that women are diagnosed as sociopaths.
[/quote]
Probably because there are more male psychiatrists than female, and males are pretty much in the dark when it comes to understanding the female mind.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 March 2010 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1268075971' post='2068959']
Probably because there are more male psychiatrists than female, and [b]since the male mind is so simple[/b] males are pretty much in the dark when it comes to understanding the female mind.
[/quote]

I fixed it for you.

[Nihil Obstat]

I thought that part was just a given.

[HisChildForever]

Well, I thought it best to clarify. Since I am speaking to a male and all.

[Nihil Obstat]

<---- guy
<---- girl

[HisChildForever]

<--- HCF

[BarbTherese]

[quote name='Socrates' date='09 March 2010 - 05:22 AM' timestamp='1268074345' post='2068928']
How did this go from being a discussion of God's Divine Fatherhood to a discussion of who does what in bed?
[/quote]

This puzzled me too!
I am so far from any sort of theological and philosophical know how that it just aint funny. I look on it this way though. The Father loves The Son and this Love between them is The Holy Spirit. This is a reflection of human sexual love and the conceiving of a child. In this image there is imaged complete equality between husband and wife, child - not in roles for they differ as with The Blessed Trinity but in status as in The Blessed Trinity there are Three Really Distinct Persons equal in all things but One God. Hence there are three roles in mother, father and child all completely distinct roles - but only one humanity equal in all things.
In other words, someone said that human sexual love reflects a deeper reality.
What this thread at times seems to be struggling to prove is that one role is more important than another. I think that all roles in life everywhere are equally important - but we share a common humanity........there is one humanity, one human nature.

Have mercy! and blessings this Lent - Barb

Edited March 8, 2010 by BarbaraTherese

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='BarbaraTherese' date='08 March 2010 - 04:19 PM' timestamp='1268083187' post='2069050']
The Father loves The Son and this Love between them is The Holy Spirit. This is a reflection of human sexual love and the conceiving of a child. [/quote]

The Trinity is a reflection of sexual love?

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='08 March 2010 - 02:13 PM' timestamp='1268075626' post='2068945']
I think that the physical receptivity of the wife during the conjugal act, in which she receives the seed of her husband, is being confused with volitional passivity on her part. The marital embrace involves synergy.
[/quote]

Yes. Exactly. HCF seems to think that the passivity of the female anatomy is to be equated with all-encompassing passivity.

The conscious will of the man may achieve the impregnation of the woman even against the woman's consent; e.g., the woman is raped and fights against the act, but is overpowered. She has no control unless she chooses to kill the child by abortion. Her body does everything automatically with or without her consent, loosely similar to the soil doing everything automatically once a seed is planted. But only the man's active will is absolutely required. And regardless, even in the most ideal of marital embraces, the man's anatomy is the positive, the philosophically active, and the woman's anatomy is the negative, the philosophically passive. Actually, no matter how "active" the woman is during the sex act (whether for her own pleasure or that of her husband) she can only be re-enforcing the passivity of her body; she can only further emphasize the active, penetrating role of her husband's masculinity.

In the case of the Theotokos, Mary submitted to the passive reception of God's gift; her activity was [i]precisely [/i]in being passive, submissive, and receptive to the Word of God. Cooperation need not mean confusion between passive and active, nor making the two synonymous.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='08 March 2010 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1268088226' post='2069112']
The conscious will of the man may achieve the impregnation of the woman even against the woman's consent; e.g., the woman is raped and fights against the act, but is overpowered. She has no control unless she chooses to kill the child by abortion. Her body does everything automatically with or without her consent, loosely similar to the soil doing everything automatically once a seed is planted. But only the man's active will is absolutely required. And regardless, even in the most ideal of marital embraces, the man's anatomy is the positive, the philosophically active, and the woman's anatomy is the negative, the philosophically passive. Actually, no matter how "active" the woman is during the sex act (whether for her own pleasure or that of her husband) she can only be re-enforcing the passivity of her body; she can only further emphasize the active, penetrating role of her husband's masculinity.
[/quote]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='08 March 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1268085803' post='2069078']
The Trinity is a reflection of sexual love?
[/quote]
Negative.

[spoiler]But from a certain point of view sexual love (and all forms of authentic love) reflects the Trinity.[/spoiler]

[Hassan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='08 March 2010 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1268088226' post='2069112']
Yes. Exactly. HCF seems to think that the passivity of the female anatomy is to be equated with all-encompassing passivity.

The conscious will of the man may achieve the impregnation of the woman even against the woman's consent; e.g., the woman is raped and fights against the act, but is overpowered. She has no control unless she chooses to kill the child by abortion. Her body does everything automatically with or without her consent, loosely similar to the soil doing everything automatically once a seed is planted. But only the man's active will is absolutely required. And regardless, even in the most ideal of marital embraces, the man's anatomy is the positive, the philosophically active, and the woman's anatomy is the negative, the philosophically passive. Actually, no matter how "active" the woman is during the sex act (whether for her own pleasure or that of her husband) she can only be re-enforcing the passivity of her body; she can only further emphasize the active, penetrating role of her husband's masculinity.

In the case of the Theotokos, Mary submitted to the passive reception of God's gift; her activity was [i]precisely [/i]in being passive, submissive, and receptive to the Word of God. Cooperation need not mean confusion between passive and active, nor making the two synonymous.
[/quote]


How does this follow into a general fact about the female anatomy as a whole? It does not follow logically to deduce some holistic, general feature of the female anatomy from some feature of one aspect of the female anatomy.

Moving from (Ex) to (x) usually does not work in logic.