Preview: a read-only copy of the forum. To post or reply, use the current forum.

Le problème de la question féminine dans ce livre

18 posts · 3 participants · started Jul 21, 2025, 9:34 AM

filsascendantParticipant
Jul 21, 2025, 9:34 AM
Sous prétexte d’une supposée longue inconduite historique de l’homme sur la femme, Jésus (selon ce livre), connaissant la faute d’Ève et la nature strictement réactive de la femm,e décide unilatéralement de faire un groupe d’apôtres féminin et de la déclarer l’égale de l’homme.

Je vois l’intention derrière la proclamation. Le mortel ascendeur n’a pas à directement composer avec l’être des choses mais avec la façon juste de composer.

Et la façon juste, pour un semi-animal de la première moitié du 20e siècle, est bien de composer avec la femme en égale.

Entre-temps, et comme cela faisant partie d’un plan, l’extrême inverse a été joué et la femme peut divorcer, traiter l’argent de la famille, boxer et prétendre à la présidence.

Une vague mondiale dont Donald Trump est une figure intéressante pose la question du rééquilibrage par la sagesse.

Personnellement, je vais prendre un peu de distance et cesser de brandir cette minorité et, enfin, assumer ma fusion avec l’Ajusteur.

Que l’administration change mon nom d’utilisateur “fils ascendant” en “En Fusion”.

Merci

Merci

Pulchrum nimis ut sit falsus
MaraParticipant
Jul 21, 2025, 2:08 PM
TOPIC: Le problème de la question féminine dans ce livre

(TOPIC: The problem of the women’s question in this book)

filsascendant wrote:

Sous prétexte d’une supposée longue inconduite historique de l’homme sur la femme, Jésus (selon ce livre), connaissant la faute d’Ève et la nature strictement réactive de la femm,e décide unilatéralement de faire un groupe d’apôtres féminin et de la déclarer l’égale de l’homme.

Translated:

“Under the pretext of a supposed long-standing historical misconduct of man towards woman, Jesus (according to this book), knowing Eve’s sin and the strictly reactive nature of women, unilaterally decides to create a group of female apostles and declare them equal to men.

“I see the intention behind the proclamation. The ascending mortal does not have to deal directly with the being of things but with the right way of dealing.

“And the right thing to do, for a semi-animal in the first half of the 20th century, is to deal with women as equals. In the meantime, and as if part of a plan, the opposite extreme has been played out, and women can divorce, manage the family’s finances, box, and aspire to the presidency.

“A global wave, of which Donald Trump is an interesting figure, raises the question of rebalancing through wisdom.

“Personally, I’m going to take a step back and stop brandishing this minority and, finally, embrace my fusion with the Adjuster.

“May the administration change my username from ‘ascending son’ to ‘In Fusion.’

“Thank you.”
MaraParticipant
Jul 22, 2025, 3:39 PM

filsascendant wrote:

Sous prétexte d’une supposée longue inconduite historique de l’homme sur la femme, Jésus (selon ce livre), connaissant la faute d’Ève et la nature strictement réactive de la femm,e décide unilatéralement de faire un groupe d’apôtres féminin et de la déclarer l’égale de l’homme.

(“Under the pretext of a supposed long-standing historical misconduct of man towards woman, Jesus (according to this book), knowing Eve’s sin and the strictly reactive nature of women, unilaterally decides to create a group of female apostles and declare them equal to men.”)

I would like to point out that you make a stereotype of women when you say we have a “strictly reactive nature”.

Jesus did create a women’s group.

150:1.0 [Part IV]

1. The Women’s Evangelistic Corps

^(1678.5) ^150:1.1 Of all the daring things which Jesus did in connection with his earth career, the most amazing was his sudden announcement on the evening of January 16: “On the morrow we will set apart ten women for the ministering work of the kingdom.” At the beginning of the two weeks’ period during which the apostles and the evangelists were to be absent from Bethsaida on their furlough, Jesus requested David to summon his parents back to their home and to dispatch messengers calling to Bethsaida ten devout women who had served in the administration of the former encampment and the tented infirmary. These women had all listened to the instruction given the young evangelists, but it had never occurred to either themselves or their teachers that Jesus would dare to commission women to teach the gospel of the kingdom and minister to the sick. These ten women selected and commissioned by Jesus were: Susanna, the daughter of the former chazan of the Nazareth synagogue; Joanna, the wife of Chuza, the steward of Herod Antipas; Elizabeth, the daughter of a wealthy Jew of Tiberias and Sepphoris; Martha, the elder sister of Andrew and Peter; Rachel, the sister-in-law of Jude, the Master’s brother in the flesh; Nasanta, the daughter of Elman, the Syrian physician; Milcha, a cousin of the Apostle Thomas; Ruth, the eldest daughter of Matthew Levi; Celta, the daughter of a Roman centurion; and Agaman, a widow of Damascus. Subsequently, Jesus added two other women to this group — Mary Magdalene and Rebecca, the daughter of Joseph of Arimathea.

^(1679.1) ^150:1.2 Jesus authorized these women to effect their own organization and directed Judas to provide funds for their equipment and for pack animals. The ten elected Susanna as their chief and Joanna as their treasurer. From this time on they furnished their own funds; never again did they draw upon Judas for support.

^(1679.2) ^150:1.3 It was most astounding in that day, when women were not even allowed on the main floor of the synagogue (being confined to the women’s gallery), to behold them being recognized as authorized teachers of the new gospel of the kingdom. The charge which Jesus gave these ten women as he set them apart for gospel teaching and ministry was the emancipation proclamation which set free all women and for all time; no more was man to look upon woman as his spiritual inferior. This was a decided shock to even the twelve apostles. Notwithstanding they had many times heard the Master say that “in the kingdom of heaven there is neither rich nor poor, free nor bond, male nor female, all are equally the sons and daughters of God,” they were literally stunned when he proposed formally to commission these ten women as religious teachers and even to permit their traveling about with them. The whole country was stirred up by this proceeding, the enemies of Jesus making great capital out of this move, but everywhere the women believers in the good news stood stanchly behind their chosen sisters and voiced no uncertain approval of this tardy acknowledgment of woman’s place in religious work. And this liberation of women, giving them due recognition, was practiced by the apostles immediately after the Master’s departure, albeit they fell back to the olden customs in subsequent generations. Throughout the early days of the Christian church women teachers and ministers were called deaconesses and were accorded general recognition. But Paul, despite the fact that he conceded all this in theory, never really incorporated it into his own attitude and personally found it difficult to carry out in practice.

138:8.11 [Part IV]

The apostles were at first shocked by, but early became accustomed to, Jesus’ treatment of women; he made it very clear to them that women were to be accorded equal rights with men in the kingdom.

Much later, after Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus, Paul did not follow through with Jesus’ teachings regarding women.

.

After Pentecost in the brotherhood of the kingdom woman stood before God on an equality with man. (194:3.14) Before the teachings of Jesus, “women had little or no spiritual standing in the tenets of the older religions”. This pertains to equality of spiritual standing. God is no respecter of persons. He does not play favorites.

27:3.1 [Part I]

The higher you ascend in the scale of life, the more attention must be paid to universe ethics. Ethical awareness is simply the recognition by any individual of the rights inherent in the existence of any and all other individuals. But spiritual ethics far transcends the mortal and even the morontia concept of personal and group relations.
BradlyParticipant
Jul 22, 2025, 4:18 PM
Indeed, we will remain a primitive, even barbaric, world and civilization until full suffrage and gender equality are universally achieved.

49:4.4 (564.6)Young are usually born singly, multiple births being the exception, and the family life is fairly uniform on all types of planets. Sex equality prevails on all advanced worlds; male and female are equal in mind endowment and spiritual status. We do not regard a planet as having emerged from barbarism so long as one sex seeks to tyrannize over the other. This feature of creature experience is always greatly improved after the arrival of a Material Son and Daughter.

"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
filsascendantParticipant
Jul 23, 2025, 8:54 AM
Bonjour,

Comme dit précédemment, il n’est pas douteux qu’il soit tout à fait bon que les femmes jouissent des mêmes droits que l’homme.

Et, même si je suis tout à fait sensible à l’idée que rien ne doit lui être interdit, je ne puis, tout comme le Père universel, m’empêcher de lier la féminité au oui intégral, à la côte d’Adam, à celle qui, loin des obligations matérielles, se réserve à la gestion de la bonne tenue du foyer.

Qu’elle soit traitée comme une fin en soi qui ne s’intéresse qu’aux choses de l’intérieur (comme son corps on porte naturellement la signature) et non pas sur les lourdeurs de ce qui se joue sur les rings de boxe ou dans les assemblées politiques.

Que la femme jouisse d’une destinée supra matérielle (Comment ne pourrait-elle n’être pas dans le monde des maisons ?) n’enlève, rien à la chose et j’aimerais comprendre quel est le rapport entre mon propos, et« la barbarie » (puisque ce mot m’est opposé).

L’on se croirait de retour un siècle plus tôt avec cette question car c’est le réajustement du réajustement qui se produit sous nos yeux.

Nous voulons une femme libre mais … une femme.

Pulchrum nimis ut sit falsus
BradlyParticipant
Jul 23, 2025, 11:33 AM

filsascendant wrote:

Bonjour,

Comme dit précédemment, il n’est pas douteux qu’il soit tout à fait bon que les femmes jouissent des mêmes droits que l’homme.

Et, même si je suis tout à fait sensible à l’idée que rien ne doit lui être interdit, je ne puis, tout comme le Père universel, m’empêcher de lier la féminité au oui intégral, à la côte d’Adam, à celle qui, loin des obligations matérielles, se réserve à la gestion de la bonne tenue du foyer.

Qu’elle soit traitée comme une fin en soi qui ne s’intéresse qu’aux choses de l’intérieur (comme son corps on porte naturellement la signature) et non pas sur les lourdeurs de ce qui se joue sur les rings de boxe ou dans les assemblées politiques.

Que la femme jouisse d’une destinée supra matérielle (Comment ne pourrait-elle n’être pas dans le monde des maisons ?) n’enlève, rien à la chose et j’aimerais comprendre quel est le rapport entre mon propos, et« la barbarie » (puisque ce mot m’est opposé).

L’on se croirait de retour un siècle plus tôt avec cette question car c’est le réajustement du réajustement qui se produit sous nos yeux.

Nous voulons une femme libre mais … une femme.

Translator app:

“Hello,

As previously stated, there is no doubt that it is entirely good for women to enjoy the same rights as men.

And, even though I am very sensitive to the idea that nothing should be prohibited to her, I cannot, just like the universal Father, help but link femininity to total acceptance, to Adam’s rib, to her who, far from material obligations, devotes herself to managing the good upkeep of the household.

Let her be treated as an end in itself who is only concerned with the inner things (like her body which naturally bears a signature) and not with the burdens of what takes place in boxing rings or in political assemblies.

That a woman enjoys a supra-material destiny (How could she not be in the world of homes?) does not detract from the matter, and I would like to understand what the connection is between my statement and “barbarism” (since this word is opposed to me).

One would think we are back a century ago with this question because it is the readjustment of the readjustment that is happening before our eyes.

We want a free woman but … a woman.”

"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
BradlyParticipant
Jul 23, 2025, 12:28 PM
Again…there are likely translation issues to be considered.

I think the barbarism in the quote is related to the tyranny of any man or men presuming to define femininity and limit or proscribe the proper or preferred arenas of female roles and expressions of their personal experience and social impact.

The rib is pure sexist mythology frankly. Men were not created first or without women and have no natural social dominance or universal superiority.

Human potential lies in the cooperative coordination of the male and female reality perspectives, which equally combine to cocreate what neither can do so well without the other.

Both male and female are less without the other, or more together than apart. The Master simply acknowledged this universe reality.

"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
filsascendantParticipant
Jul 24, 2025, 7:27 AM
La côte est une pure mythologie sexiste, à vrai dire. Les hommes n’ont pas été créés premiers, ni sans les femmes, et ne jouissent d’aucune domination sociale naturelle ni d’une supériorité universelle.

Ne faut-il pas un minimum de foi pour échanger sur ce forum

Pulchrum nimis ut sit falsus
BradlyParticipant
Jul 24, 2025, 12:01 PM

filsascendant wrote:

La côte est une pure mythologie sexiste, à vrai dire. Les hommes n’ont pas été créés premiers, ni sans les femmes, et ne jouissent d’aucune domination sociale naturelle ni d’une supériorité universelle.

Ne faut-il pas un minimum de foi pour échanger sur ce forum

Translator app:

“The rib is pure sexist mythology, to be honest. Men were not created first, nor without women, and do not enjoy any natural social dominance or universal superiority.”

Shouldn’t there be a minimum of faith to engage in this forum?

"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
BradlyParticipant
Jul 24, 2025, 2:03 PM
Couple of things to consider…

Neither our beliefs or knowledge measure or define our faith.

According to the Papers, even one’s disbelief and/or false beliefs do not and cannot prevent one’s faith: which is quite simply our response to our Deity Connections, as demonstrated by our morality and goodness and kindness and generosity and mercy and loyalty and duty and sharing and caring.

So, the manner of and method of God’s creation or our understanding of that or beliefs about it do not in any way measure anyone’s personal faith.

Papers 49 and 62 describe the planetary evolutionary creationism story regarding the appearance of mortals on each of the 7 trillion inhabited worlds and here on Urantia.

Evolutionary creationism is the story told in the Papers. There has never been males without or prior to females. According to the UB, the story in Genesis is primitive mythology.

But, also does the UB teach that our knowledge or understanding or beliefs or perspective of reality does not determine or define reality or our Deity Connections and personal faith or spiritization.

Such a wonderful relief and release from dogma and priests and the fear based salvation peddled by so many pulpits.

It is unwise to attempt to measure the faith of another, any other, ever. Our possible disagreements about the methodology of creationism surely do not determine the eternal adventures for all who respond in faith to the Spirit within.

The fruits of the Spirit are the only measure of any mortals faith experience.

(65.2) 5:2.6 The entire experience of Adjuster communion is one involving moral status, mental motivation, and spiritual experience. The self-realization of such an achievement is mainly, though not exclusively, limited to the realms of soul consciousness, but the proofs are forthcoming and abundant in the manifestation of the fruits of the spirit in the lives of all such inner-spirit contactors.

101:9.2 (1115.3)When you presume to sit in critical judgment on the primitive religion of man (or on the religion of primitive man), you should remember to judge such savages and to evaluate their religious experience in accordance with their enlightenment and status of conscience. Do not make the mistake of judging another’s religion by your own standards of knowledge and truth.

101:9.3 (1115.4) True religion is that sublime and profound conviction within the soul which compellingly admonishes man that it would be wrong for him not to believe in those morontial realities which constitute his highest ethical and moral concepts, his highest interpretation of life’s greatest values and the universe’s deepest realities. And such a religion is simply the experience of yielding intellectual loyalty to the highest dictates of spiritual consciousness.

"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
filsascendantParticipant
Jul 25, 2025, 3:34 PM
https://youtu.be/MjZBWN9QRWY?si=wJJQJ4iQhLHKEui5

Un homme à femme(s) désobéissante(s) marchera dans la crotte de chien.

Lex est quod notamus

À vous de voir.

Édit : j’ajoute la possibilité d’un pluriel car la polygamie est une option intelligente pour un homme intelligent (polygamie, pas tromperie).

Pulchrum nimis ut sit falsus
BradlyParticipant
Jul 25, 2025, 3:48 PM

filsascendant wrote:

Un homme à femme(s) désobéissante(s) marchera dans la crotte de chien. À vous de voir. Édit : j’ajoute la possibilité d’un pluriel car la polygamie est une option intelligente pour un homme intelligent (polygamie, pas tromperie).

Translator app:

“A man with a disobedient woman(s) will walk in dog poop.

It’s up to you.

Edit: I add the possibility of a plural because polygamy is a smart option for an intelligent man (polygamy, not deception).”

"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
filsascendantParticipant
Jul 25, 2025, 5:20 PM
Le problème étant que de dire cela à un primate risque de lui faire croire qu’il doit la violenter au lieu de se “violenter” lui-même. Mais déduire de cela qu’une femme bonne est une femme désobéissante, est un 🤡.

Pulchrum nimis ut sit falsus
MaraParticipant
Jul 25, 2025, 6:30 PM
I think this discussion is now off track. It has wandered into the weeds.

Yannick, my friend, get your head out of the weeds please.

48:6.26 [Part II]

Even on Urantia, these seraphim teach the everlasting truth: If your own mind does not serve you well, you can exchange it for the mind of Jesus of Nazareth, who always serves you well.
BradlyParticipant
Jul 25, 2025, 7:36 PM
Thank you Mara. So important to maintain focus and purpose in any classroom and topical forum as this one. Our ignorance and prejudice provide us so much opportunity to grow our reality perspective and appreciation of the Papers.

One last post from me with text on the subject from the UB we share and study together here:

84:6.3 (938.7)Male and female are, practically regarded, two distinct varieties of the same species living in close and intimate association. Their viewpoints and entire life reactions are essentially different; they are wholly incapable of full and real comprehension of each other. Complete understanding between the sexes is not attainable.

84:6.4 (938.8)Women seem to have more intuition than men, but they also appear to be somewhat less logical. Woman, however, has always been the moral standard-bearer and the spiritual leader of mankind. The hand that rocks the cradle still fraternizes with destiny.

84:6.5 (938.9)The differences of nature, reaction, viewpoint, and thinking between men and women, far from occasioning concern, should be regarded as highly beneficial to mankind, both individually and collectively. Many orders of universe creatures are created in dual phases of personality manifestation. Among mortals, Material Sons, and midsoniters, this difference is described as male and female; among seraphim, cherubim, and Morontia Companions, it has been denominated positive or aggressive and negative or retiring. Such dual associations greatly multiply versatility and overcome inherent limitations, even as do certain triune associations in the Paradise-Havona system.

84:6.6 (939.1) Men and women need each other in their morontial and spiritual as well as in their mortal careers. The differences in viewpoint between male and female persist even beyond the first life and throughout the local and superuniverse ascensions. And even in Havona, the pilgrims who were once men and women will still be aiding each other in the Paradise ascent. Never, even in the Corps of the Finality, will the creature metamorphose so far as to obliterate the personality trends that humans call male and female; always will these two basic variations of humankind continue to intrigue, stimulate, encourage, and assist each other; always will they be mutually dependent on co-operation in the solution of perplexing universe problems and in the overcoming of manifold cosmic difficulties.

"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
filsascendantParticipant
Jul 26, 2025, 7:16 AM
Je me vois opposer des citations qui corroborent mon propos.

Dans un couple, l’obéissance de la femme à l’homme, de la “réservée” à “l’agressif”, parle de travailler dans la même direction donnée par l’homme qui fait la volonté du Père.

Qui peut croire que le modèle en vigueur depuis quelques décennies consistant à ce que chacun fasse cavalier seul, ou pire, ouvertement en conflit quotidien puisse ressembler, de près ou de loin, à ce que Jésus voulais pour l’humanité ?

La complémentarité est ce qui est vi

sé.

Pulchrum nimis ut sit falsus
BradlyParticipant
Jul 26, 2025, 12:20 PM
filsascendant wrote:

Je me vois opposer des citations qui corroborent mon propos.

Dans un couple, l’obéissance de la femme à l’homme, de la “réservée” à “l’agressif”, parle de travailler dans la même direction donnée par l’homme qui fait la volonté du Père.

Qui peut croire que le modèle en vigueur depuis quelques décennies consistant à ce que chacun fasse cavalier seul, ou pire, ouvertement en conflit quotidien puisse ressembler, de près ou de loin, à ce que Jésus voulais pour l’humanité ?

La complémentarité est ce qui est vi sé.

Translator app:

“I see myself being confronted with quotes that support my argument.

In a couple, the woman’s obedience to the man, from the ‘reserved’ to the ‘aggressive,’ speaks of working in the same direction given by the man who is doing the will of the Father.

Who can believe that the model in place for the past few decades, which consists of everyone going their own way, or worse, being in open daily conflict, can resemble, even closely, what Jesus wanted for humanity?

Complementarity is what is vital.”

“Woman’s obedience“??????

Where’s that at in the Papers exactly?????

“Woman, however, has always been the moral standard-bearer and the spiritual leader of mankind.”

I appreciate the opportunity to explore what we are taught in the Papers, especially as compared and contrasted with our own misunderstanding and distorted reality perspectives.

With true liberty there is neither dominance or obedience. Free will is universal to all personalities.

54:1.8 (614.3) There is no error greater than that species of self-deception which leads intelligent beings to crave the exercise of power over other beings for the purpose of depriving these persons of their natural liberties. The golden rule of human fairness cries out against all such fraud, unfairness, selfishness, and unrighteousness. Only true and genuine liberty is compatible with the reign of love and the ministry of mercy.

54:1.9 (614.4)How dare the self-willed creature encroach upon the rights of his fellows in the name of personal liberty when the Supreme Rulers of the universe stand back in merciful respect for these prerogatives of will and potentials of personality! No being, in the exercise of his supposed personal liberty, has a right to deprive any other being of those privileges of existence conferred by the Creators and duly respected by all their loyal associates, subordinates, and subjects.

54:2.5 (615.2) No being in all the universe has the rightful liberty to deprive any other being of true liberty, the right to love and be loved, the privilege of worshiping God and of serving his fellows.

chauvinistic (adjective)
1. displaying excessive or prejudiced support for one’s own cause or group, in particular showing male prejudice against women
"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
filsascendantParticipant
Jul 26, 2025, 2:33 PM
Comme l’étymologie la montre sans ambiguïté possible , la matière mat er devra être soumise par le Père… l’Esprit.

(1274.5) 116:5.15 Les luttes spirituelles du temps et de l’espace sont liées à l’évolution de la domination de l’esprit sur la matière par la médiation du mental (personnel) ; l’évolution physique (non personnelle) de l’univers est liée à l’harmonisation de l’énergie cosmique avec les concepts d’équilibre du mental soumis à son contrôle.

N’en déplaise aux aficionados hypnotisés de la télévision activiste féministe et décadente, il est question de soumission et non d’invitation ou de complémentarité.

L’esprit objectif y verra de la dure contrainte … Je me contente de parler d’un tango.

Pulchrum nimis ut sit falsus

Reply on the current forum