Where exactly did this idea originate? I don't believe it's a Christian idea, for example; perhaps it was a pagan idea or something from the Eastern world? What am I missing? And what is your opinion on the conclusion of that imbecile in the related photo?
>>18536284The divine feminine and divine masculine have extremely old roots in Hinduism, down to purusha being the masculine and prakriti the feminine, though I don't know if this is the 'origin' of the ideas to begin with. Some may think of the divine masculine and feminine in terms of polytheistic deities and not ontological partitions of the divine. I'm sure someone knows a ton more than I do on the matter.
>>18536284All this mental illness about "energy," "sacred," or whatever it is, is projecting "magic" or "spiritual purposes" onto human biology, like that retard in your photo did is a Paleolithic intellectual regression and comes from humanism. There's nothing sacred in humans as abstract, nor is there masculine or feminine "energy." complementarianism is feminism in disguise, and a true redpill is when you realize that the sexes have different ends, and one is more destructive than the other, and that trying to reconcile the feminine mind with the masculine mind is retarded.
>>18536288I should have suspected it was something Hindu... I'm not very surprised.>>18536292I agree with your post, but wouldn't this concept be of Hindu origin?
>>18536284Holy shit, why are these bastards barking about "sacred X and Y" in 2026? I thought that was restricted to 47-year-old feminist women from California. Did this guy actually make a wall of text based on this SAAR concept? >>18536292>complementarianism is feminism in disguiseBingo
>>18536284From a Christian perspective, Christian theology argues that no human being possesses deities or hidden mystical power within themselves. This stems from Eastern religions, as he correctly stated here>>18536288Christianity has always affirmed that the worship or reverence of the energies of the universe transfers the glory of the Creator to creation.
>>18536292Cuckplementarians leave the door to the church cracked open like this so that egalitarians can bust through.
>>18536292>a true redpill is when you realize that the sexes have different ends, and one is more destructive than the other, and that trying to reconcile the feminine mind with the masculine mind is retardedthe easiest way to confirm that you are speaking to an insect is the presence of this uncritical retarded levelling. the "male mind" is at cross purposes with the "female mind"? no doubt men on average have certain traits and preference more than women do, but to assert irreconcilable incompatibility among collective minds is, essentially, to ignore what a human mind is. any genuine human being (aka the <10% that are not retarded NPC slave cattle) has a mind with genuine personality capable of rational reflection and free decision - this type of mind is the one entity in the universe that is maximally independent from circumstances and able to freely determine any outcome it so wishes, in accordance with its own personal (rather than collective) nature. a mind that can be perfectly summarised by what it shares with the collective is, plainly put, a totally undeveloped vulgar and superficial parody of what a mind is supposed to be. so when people say that the "male and female minds are irreconcilable" what they are really telling you is that they are operating on the level of slave cattle and think everyone else does too ("should" doesn't even come into question as the is-ought distinction is only realised by minds with rudimentary intelligence, which these are not).
>>18536439>feminist seething
>>18536284>Sacred feminine Women have a genetically ingrained impulse towards self-correction through provocation. Everything they do is a subconsciously driven expression of subverting their own well being as a means to reach an eventual conclusion delivered by the deliberation of a man.This isn't to say that they secretly want to be controlled, although an overwhelming number of them consciously do. They don't 'want' anything, they don't know what they want. Women simply operate on a reptile brain reflex, compelling them to gravitate towards chaos and disarray until a natural equilibrium reconfigures them into suppliant stability.When you interact with a woman, you're interacting with an algorithm programmed by epochs of iterative evolution, optimized around the context of being biologically inferior to their opposite gender. Their only hope of having any advantage in a gender competitive sense is through mental influence and emotional manipulation there's no "Sacred feminine">>18536292Correct
>>18536422Complementarianism is when your wife gives you permission to lead.
>>18536422No. Its a cucktholic copeThe culture hears the feminist premise, the church hears the conservative conclusion, and both nod in approval. >Saar Women are equally gifted, equally capable, equally intelligent, but should refrain from leadership for the sake of order.>check-out muh female church doctors
>>18536514It's not a solely catholic problem.all denominations now promote complementarianism, which is merely a recapitulation of egalitarianism. Thus would include Gary Chapman, the "Five Love Languages" dude. The Bible is patriarchal throughout, and that includes its teaching on marriage. We need to affirm that for the good of men and women. Medieval church was even more patriarchal than Islam
>>18536284>Where exactly did this idea originate?Hinduism>And what is your opinion on the conclusion of that imbecile in the related photo?It treats men and women and interchangeable “widgets”. Cuck
>>18536284>Where exactly did this idea originateNew age made up bullshit for modern witches
>>18536284It's an Early European Farmer concept, which you find in the pagan myths, so it's 5-7 thousand years old.You'll find it in Greek/Roman, Vedic, Norse... and in Catholicism since it's really a pagan religion.
