Impact of male god on human genders

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Impact of male god on human genders

Post by Lacewing » Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:29 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:53 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:37 am
A god, real or imagined in varying degrees across humankind, can become a significant symbol affecting the lives of all humans...
So your position is that it would not matter whether or not God was real; it would amount to the same problem, you think?
I.C., I've answered this many times. As I've said, this topic is not about whether or not a god exists. You really are persistently rigid in your thinking, aren't you? Is such required in order to continually protect your beliefs?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:53 am
I believe in the Biblical God. He chooses His own pronouns...I don't. We never had any ability to assign Him His.
So you don't think that men have interjected their own interpretations throughout history??? Really???

Wouldn't that explain why there are so many DIFFERENT interpretations of a god? All of these men...interpreting their idea of a god, as a male like themselves. A male god who sees females as inferior. How convenient for human males! You cannot see this?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:53 am
I'm not the Creator. He assigned me my gender, and you yours...
You don't get to apply your god to me. That's very arrogant. Imagine me applying MY GOD (if I had one) to you. It's absurd.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:53 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:37 am
Why would a god even need to be identified as a he or she?
You've got the question backward. God doesn't "identify as" anything but who He is.
No, the question is NOT backward. Regardless of WHO identifies god as a "he"...why would a god be a gender?

If such a question is too hard for you to answer of your own god, imagine that we're talking about someone else's god. Why would THAT god have a gender? What purpose does gender serve for a god? Wouldn't a god be beyond gender? Wouldn't gender be something that HUMANS identify with and interpret to serve themselves???

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2703
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Impact of male god on human genders

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:04 am

Male and female [i.e. in term of sex, not sexuality] is as defined within the DNA and its dichotomy.

Ever since the first humans exist, it it proven from DNA and observations the human male is generally stronger than the females in terms of muscles & physical strength, hormones and aggression, and other distinct factors.
As such the human males in generally has dominate over females since the beginning.

The idea of God is an invention of humans to deal with an existential crisis and due to the dominating factor above, the grandest God initially is always defined in terms of the stronger male factors.

So the fact is it is the male gender that had influenced the emergent of the dominant male god which subsequently also influenced and reinforced the natural male dominance.

I believe the above principles still prevail in the Abrahamic religions which comprised of appx 70% of theists where 90% of all humans are theists at present.

However the above natural male dominance in terms of the physical is now being questioned via feminism which is only a recent very thing.

However I believe the Abrahamic believers will maintain the male as dominant over the female as commanded by their God. To counter their God's command would mean going to Hell.
Example which devout Muslim would dare to question the Allah;s sanction of man over their woman, else they will go to hell as per their contract with Allah.

Some Abrahamic believers many tone down their God commanded domination over the females but they will not give it up totally, i.e. at least will maintain a 51% for man with 49% for the woman.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Impact of male god on human genders

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:09 pm

Age wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:07 am
I wonder how many "others" NOTICE how often and how quick it is that the one's who BELIEVE the strongest are the first ones who want to leave and say "Bye"?
The reasons for this are far, far simpler than you're imagining.

Your questions were:
1. How would assigning 'God' a neutral gender, which 'IT' IS ANYWAY, benefit the female gender?

And,

2. Why do you call God a "he"?
Both have been asked-and-answered already. Go back up the strand of conversation, and you'll find these answers.

Nobody wants to go over the same territory again...it stalls the conversation.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Impact of male god on human genders

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:33 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:29 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:53 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:37 am
A god, real or imagined in varying degrees across humankind, can become a significant symbol affecting the lives of all humans...
So your position is that it would not matter whether or not God was real; it would amount to the same problem, you think?
I.C., I've answered this many times. As I've said, this topic is not about whether or not a god exists.
I didn't ask that, actually. I asked whether or not you thought the existence or non-existence of God has any IMPLICATIONS about the topic. You seem to say it does not, but I sincerely think it really does.

Again, I give you this case, to show why it does: If I assign you a gender...say, I decide LW is a 45 year old male, who lives in his parents' basement...would that irritate you?

Why?

Because you're real. You already have a "gender," so nobody has any legitimacy in "assigning" you one that is not your own.

If God is real, then His situation is the same as yours in that: nobody has a right to "assign" God any gender.

But if God is not real, then it doesn't matter what you "assign," because there is no real referent to which to compare your "assigning."
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:53 am
I believe in the Biblical God. He chooses His own pronouns...I don't. We never had any ability to assign Him His.
So you don't think that men have interjected their own interpretations throughout history??? Really???
You mean, "So you don't think men made God male?" Answer: No, I do not. I think God is whatever God is -- not just in regards to "gender" issues, but in regard to everything.
Wouldn't that explain why there are so many DIFFERENT interpretations of a god?
It's one POSSIBLE explanation. That does not make it the RIGHT or BEST explanation. There are many explanations that are not very good, such as that LW was put on earth by aliens. That's possible, but neither probable nor the best explanation.

The only thing that could lead one to think it was a better explanation than others would be the assumption that all human beings have to have equal access to the knowledge of God at all times. For then, we would have to explain why the differing interpretations (all known to be equal) do, in fact, differ.

But there's no area of our experience in which equal knowledge is pre-guaranteed to all people. People have different levels of knowledge, in regard to any question you could choose. And that's an empirically obvious statement. So why would we think that equal knowledge of the nature of God was pre-guaranteed to all cultures and people, always at the same time?

We would not. There would be no reason to suppose that. So the simple explanation for differing interpretations of God is differing levels of knowledge about God.
All of these men...interpreting their idea of a god, as a male like themselves. A male god who sees females as inferior. How convenient for human males! You cannot see this?
It might turn out to be "convenient": but if it is, the "convenience" is incidental, if God does exist. If He does not, then the "convenience" might not be incidental, but it's also neither morally wrong (since there would be no objective wrong, then) nor would it be "better" for the fictive god concept to be assigned another gender. It would be equally "convenient" for any other arrangement to pertain, then.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:53 am
I'm not the Creator. He assigned me my gender, and you yours...
You don't get to apply your god to me. That's very arrogant. Imagine me applying MY GOD (if I had one) to you. It's absurd.
I'm sorry to offend you, but if God exists (as I believe He does) then your ire does not count against Him having assigned you your gender. That's just how it would be, whether you choose to believe it or not. "Arrogance" is not involved. It's just how it is, rationally speaking.
Regardless of WHO identifies god as a "he"...why would a god be a gender?
This is backward. In order to predicate something of a noun, the predication has to exist before the noun does.

For example, "redness" has to exist before you can say, "The apple is red," and have that saying mean anything. "Gender" did not exist before God, so it cannot be that humankind merely predicated it of God. In predicating "gender" of God, we are working backward, trying to attribute the features of the creation to the Creator. Thus, only what He says about Himself is rightly informative. Our human predications are backward. We're trying to understand the nature of the painter by reference merely to one of his paintings.
Wouldn't a god be beyond gender?

In a sense, yes -- this is the issue. God is not "a human male." But all we know are "human males," (and, of course, "maleness" in lower animals -- but that's even less useful as an analogy to the Creator). God is, so to speak, a "super-male" -- He is beyond mere "maleness" as we know it, but not by way of being neuter. He is what all "maleness" ought to have come to, what it ought to have been, but never is, among human beings
Wouldn't gender be something that HUMANS identify with and interpret to serve themselves???
Not even close. There are two sexes. And we all know that because every molecule of human DNA identifies exactly which one we are.

We didn't "invent" gender. It is what it is. The Postmodernists have that dead wrong -- scientifically wrong, objectively wrong and morally wrong. And one can't get much more "wrong" than that. :wink:
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4973
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

is this 'philosophical' enough?

Post by henry quirk » Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:01 pm

"We didn't "invent" gender."

Exactly right. Gender (psychological) is inextricably intertwined with sex (biological). Moreover, gender extends out from sex.

Plainly, XX or XY lays the foundation for consistent physical and mental characteristics; the distinct, non-interchangeable, 'female' and 'male'. Culture doesn't create these distinctions, it only recognizes them.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: is this 'philosophical' enough?

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:02 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:01 pm
Culture doesn't create these distinctions, it only recognizes them.
Or fails to...

And then becomes lunatic and suicidal.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4973
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: is this 'philosophical' enough?

Post by henry quirk » Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:28 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:02 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:01 pm
Culture doesn't create these distinctions, it only recognizes them.
Or fails to...

And then becomes lunatic and suicidal.
Yep. We disembed ourselves from sumthin' as obvious as 'he' and 'she', lop the 'ab' offa 'normal', but expect the hunky-dory to come rainin' down

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6971
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Impact of male god on human genders

Post by Dontaskme » Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:58 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:04 am

The idea of God is an invention of humans to deal with an existential crisis
Perhaps it's the other way around.

The existential crisis was an invention of humans to deal with the idea of God?

Don't forget all known concepts are born only from knowledge, including the God concept.

If there is such a phenomena known as the existential crisis it's because something has become not only aware it is born but in that knowledge has also become aware of it's opposite which is the knowing it will die.

Now all we have to do is work out what that ''something'' is

I doubt even if there was/is a God that it would care about living and dying since I doubt even God itself has no idea who, what, or how it IS ??

Which makes the whole idea of an existential crisis nothing more than a rather damp squid to be honest, nothing to get hung up about, all much a do about nothing, a simple mindless tale told by a fool.

On the other hand...there still remains the mystery...what, who, where, when, how?






.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: is this 'philosophical' enough?

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:04 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:28 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:02 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:01 pm
Culture doesn't create these distinctions, it only recognizes them.
Or fails to...

And then becomes lunatic and suicidal.
Yep. We disembed ourselves from sumthin' as obvious as 'he' and 'she', lop the 'ab' offa 'normal', but expect the hunky-dory to come rainin' down
It's suicidal, because people who don't understand genders also can't reproduce. And a society that doesn't reproduce itself ceases to exist.

I heard someone once say, "The future belongs to those who show up for it." Truer words were never spoken. If we can't figure out reproduction, we won't "show up" in the future at all.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Impact of male god on human genders

Post by Lacewing » Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:31 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:33 pm
I think God is whatever God is -- not just in regards to "gender" issues, but in regard to everything.
So, you get to claim what "that is" without recognizing or acknowledging any personal responsibility for any delusion in your interpretation?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:33 pm
the simple explanation for differing interpretations of God is differing levels of knowledge about God.
Really? It's "different levels of knowledge" rather than differing interpretations that produce completely different gods with differing requirements and agendas?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:33 pm
Lacewing wrote:All of these men...interpreting their idea of a god, as a male like themselves. A male god who sees females as inferior. How convenient for human males! You cannot see this?
It might turn out to be "convenient": but if it is, the "convenience" is incidental, if God does exist. If He does not, then the "convenience" might not be incidental, but it's also neither morally wrong (since there would be no objective wrong, then) nor would it be "better" for the fictive god concept to be assigned another gender.
So basically your position is:
There is a god.
That god is male.
You know this because "He says so".
There is no impact on human genders due to a god being male (or any gender).
A neutral gender would serve the female agenda. :lol:
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:53 am
I'm not the Creator. He assigned me my gender, and you yours...
Lacewing wrote:You don't get to apply your god to me. That's very arrogant. Imagine me applying MY GOD (if I had one) to you. It's absurd.
I'm sorry to offend you, but if God exists (as I believe He does) then your ire does not count against Him having assigned you your gender. That's just how it would be, whether you choose to believe it or not. "Arrogance" is not involved. It's just how it is, rationally speaking.
Then, if it's not arrogance on your part, it is supreme foolishness. For you to claim that you know a god that affects me, above and beyond what I know as truth, is completely absurd. We all have our own relationships with the infinite. We all have our own interpretations. You can deny this, and try to superimpose YOUR ideas onto everyone else, but that is arrogance or foolishness. There is no logic in what you are doing: you imagine there must be "a creator", a "super male" :lol: , and you imagine to know this creator and to speak to how this creator affects everyone else.

My perception of spirituality is that everyone has their own "knowledge" and experience, and we are all innately spiritual beings. Many people may perceive that there are gods of certain forms and/or characteristics associated with certain beliefs, requirements, and/or agendas -- and this has been demonstrated in many varying ways throughout human history. The variations are countless, while each person may see profound truth and value in their variation. Naturally it does not go well when someone's idea of a god is superimposed onto someone else's understanding of spirituality. Is that arrogance or foolishness when someone does that? Would you want it done to you? You would think it was absurd, wouldn't you? To each his own.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:33 pm
He is what all "maleness" ought to have come to, what it ought to have been, but never is, among human beings
Then it's a big failure, yes? It's not and never is what it "ought" to have been. Which brings into question the whole absurd concept.

Maybe it's such-a-concept itself that has failed to take MORE into consideration because doing so might threaten/dismantle some rigidly-held beliefs which are more desirable and necessary than greater truths.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:33 pm
Lacewing wrote:Wouldn't gender be something that HUMANS identify with and interpret to serve themselves???
Not even close.
Your arrogant response is absurd. Humans absolutely DO identify with gender and interpret it in ways to serve themselves. If you don't see that in the world we live in, then I guess that would explain the limits of your perception. And that limited perception is not a good demonstration for claiming to know of a god.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Impact of male god on human genders

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:59 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:31 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:33 pm
I think God is whatever God is -- not just in regards to "gender" issues, but in regard to everything.
So, you get to claim what "that is" without recognizing or acknowledging any personal responsibility for any delusion in your interpretation?
Of course not. That's the point.

Delusions don't matter. Opinions don't matter. Social utility does not matter. And in this matter, no agenda -- male, female or neuter -- matters. Only what God IS matters.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:33 pm
the simple explanation for differing interpretations of God is differing levels of knowledge about God.
Really? It's "different levels of knowledge" rather than differing interpretations that produce completely different gods with differing requirements and agendas?
Oh, there's no reason why a fallacious view of God could not ALSO be so constructed as to serve an agenda, of course. However, saying what is genuinely true of God is not a matter of agenda. It is what it is.
So basically your position is:
There is a god.
That god is male.
You know this because "He says so".
Correct.
There is no impact on human genders due to a god being male (or any gender).
No. My answer there is, "Agenda has nothing to do with it."
A neutral gender would serve the female agenda.
It would serve the egalitarian "inclusionist" agenda...those who imagine that a neutered "god" would allow "inclusion" of other genders. And you can see that the Feminists have already associated themselves with this strategy. Why else do you think we have odd words like, "chair" instead of "chairman," or have to say, "police officer" instead of "policeman"? It's because Feminism thinks this neutral language serves their agenda. And it does.

But I'm sure you know that.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:53 am
I'm not the Creator. He assigned me my gender, and you yours...
Lacewing wrote:You don't get to apply your god to me. That's very arrogant. Imagine me applying MY GOD (if I had one) to you. It's absurd.
I'm sorry to offend you, but if God exists (as I believe He does) then your ire does not count against Him having assigned you your gender. That's just how it would be, whether you choose to believe it or not. "Arrogance" is not involved. It's just how it is, rationally speaking.
Then, if it's not arrogance on your part, it is supreme foolishness. For you to claim that you know a god that affects me, above and beyond what I know as truth, is completely absurd.
Not at all. The same is true of everything that is real.

Cancer will affect you, whether you believe in it or not. Age will affect you, whether you believe in it or not. Gravity will affect you, whether you believe in it or not. Oxygen, or the lack thereof, will affect you, whether you believe in it or not.

Reality doesn't bow to our "knowing." It is what it is. We have to come to "know" it, not imagine that it waits for us to know, before it has any impact on us.
We all have our own relationships with the infinite.

Yes, we all do. Some are in a good relationship with God, and some are in a relationship of antagonism. But let's not pretend it makes no difference which it is.
My perception of spirituality is that everyone has their own "knowledge" and experience, and we are all innately spiritual beings.

So far, so good.
Many people may perceive that there are gods of certain forms and/or characteristics associated with certain beliefs, requirements, and/or agendas -- and this has been demonstrated in many varying ways throughout human history. The variations are countless, while each person may see profound truth and value in their variation.
This does not even address the issue of their truthfulness. Yes, people may have all kinds of beliefs. That does not mean those beliefs are true.
To each his own.
Yes, each person has his/her own responsibility for his/her relationship with God. But you've forgotten that a relationship has two ends -- there's the human end, but there's also God's end. And would you imagine that He is less than you when it comes to having a say about the terms of such relationship?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:33 pm
He is what all "maleness" ought to have come to, what it ought to have been, but never is, among human beings
Then it's a big failure, yes?
Human masculinity? Yes. Just like human femininity is a failure. We are not what we ought to be.

But we can be what we are now not.
Humans absolutely DO identify with gender and interpret it in ways to serve themselves.

You misunderstood my response. I did not mean that humans do not warp things. I'm saying that their warped readings have nothing to do with what is really true about gender. They're simply wrong.

My comment read:
"There are two sexes. And we all know that because every molecule of human DNA identifies exactly which one we are.

We didn't "invent" gender. It is what it is. The Postmodernists have that dead wrong -- scientifically wrong, objectively wrong and morally wrong. And one can't get much more "wrong" than that." :wink:
It's the Postmodernists who are messed up. Yes, their interpretation is different, dishonest, unscientific, unrealistic and manipulative. And yes, it serves their agenda.

But truth doesn't care about agendas. It just is what it is.

Age
Posts: 3311
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Impact of male god on human genders

Post by Age » Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:23 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:09 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:07 am
I wonder how many "others" NOTICE how often and how quick it is that the one's who BELIEVE the strongest are the first ones who want to leave and say "Bye"?
The reasons for this are far, far simpler than you're imagining.

Your questions were:
1. How would assigning 'God' a neutral gender, which 'IT' IS ANYWAY, benefit the female gender?

And,

2. Why do you call God a "he"?
Both have been asked-and-answered already. Go back up the strand of conversation, and you'll find these answers.

Nobody wants to go over the same territory again...it stalls the conversation.
What can also be noticed as a very common by believers is when they can NEVER answer a question they say things like; "The question/s have been answered preciously, YOU go and look for them".

But what also becomes OBVIOUSjustlikein this scenario is that the question/s have not been answered at all. This is evidenced when one goes LOOKING.

Unless, of course, that what I am saying can be proved otherwise.

By the way, you not answering my questions stalled the conversation and nothing else. You stopped the conversation because you are completely incapable of providing honest answers to my questions without contradicting your own beliefs or without proving your own beliefs wrong.

Age
Posts: 3311
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Impact of male god on human genders

Post by Age » Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:33 pm
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:29 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:53 am

So your position is that it would not matter whether or not God was real; it would amount to the same problem, you think?
I.C., I've answered this many times. As I've said, this topic is not about whether or not a god exists.
I didn't ask that, actually. I asked whether or not you thought the existence or non-existence of God has any IMPLICATIONS about the topic. You seem to say it does not, but I sincerely think it really does.

Again, I give you this case, to show why it does: If I assign you a gender...say, I decide LW is a 45 year old male, who lives in his parents' basement...would that irritate you?

Why?

Because you're real. You already have a "gender," so nobody has any legitimacy in "assigning" you one that is not your own.

If God is real, then His situation is the same as yours in that: nobody has a right to "assign" God any gender.
So WHY do you assign the "he" gender to what is in essence obviously just an It?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:33 pm
But if God is not real, then it doesn't matter what you "assign," because there is no real referent to which to compare your "assigning."
You really can not move passed the IF God exists or not, can you?

Your insistence to keep bringing this completely off topic issue into the conversation just so you can keep entering the word "he" into this as well, as though the "he" word has any truth at all in this is just plain obvious. Although you are probably doing it without even knowing you are,. This is because you are being led by your own BELIEFS without even recognizing and knowing you are. You BELIEVE God is "a he", and you can not move past this.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:33 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:53 am
I believe in the Biblical God. He chooses His own pronouns...I don't. We never had any ability to assign Him His.
So you don't think that men have interjected their own interpretations throughout history??? Really???
You mean, "So you don't think men made God male?" Answer: No, I do not. I think God is whatever God is -- not just in regards to "gender" issues, but in regard to everything.
Okay, so what, to you, IS God then?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:33 pm
Wouldn't that explain why there are so many DIFFERENT interpretations of a god?
It's one POSSIBLE explanation. That does not make it the RIGHT or BEST explanation. There are many explanations that are not very good, such as that LW was put on earth by aliens. That's possible, but neither probable nor the best explanation.

The only thing that could lead one to think it was a better explanation than others would be the assumption that all human beings have to have equal access to the knowledge of God at all times. For then, we would have to explain why the differing interpretations (all known to be equal) do, in fact, differ.

But there's no area of our experience in which equal knowledge is pre-guaranteed to all people.
False

The very reason common sense exists is literally because ALLpeople have had equal experiences, and thus have gained equal knowledge.

Just uncovering what that equal knowledge reveals a LOT about thy True selves.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:33 pm
People have different levels of knowledge, in regard to any question you could choose. And that's an empirically obvious statement. So why would we think that equal knowledge of the nature of God was pre-guaranteed to all cultures and people, always at the same time?
Because it is True.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:33 pm
We would not. There would be no reason to suppose that. So the simple explanation for differing interpretations of God is differing levels of knowledge about God.
And just different and WRONG teachings.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:33 pm
All of these men...interpreting their idea of a god, as a male like themselves. A male god who sees females as inferior. How convenient for human males! You cannot see this?
It might turn out to be "convenient": but if it is, the "convenience" is incidental, if God does exist.
But that is the whole point of this thread. That is to SHOW 'you' WHAT impact assigning obviously WRONG terms, like "he", onto God has on 'you',

Assigning WRONG terms is NOT just "incidental" but a very huge MISTAKE, which has been going on continuously for thousands of years now, I will add.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:33 pm
If He does not, then the "convenience" might not be incidental, but it's also neither morally wrong (since there would be no objective wrong, then) nor would it be "better" for the fictive god concept to be assigned another gender. It would be equally "convenient" for any other arrangement to pertain, then.
God is NOT gendered. Full stop.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:33 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:53 am
I'm not the Creator. He assigned me my gender, and you yours...
You don't get to apply your god to me. That's very arrogant. Imagine me applying MY GOD (if I had one) to you. It's absurd.
I'm sorry to offend you, but if God exists (as I believe He does)
Do you have any actual evidence that God exists?

Or, Do you just believe God exists?

Your ability, or inability, to answer these questions will reveal a lot about 'you' and your real 'self'.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2703
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Impact of male god on human genders

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:06 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:58 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:04 am

The idea of God is an invention of humans to deal with an existential crisis
Perhaps it's the other way around.

The existential crisis was an invention of humans to deal with the idea of God?

Don't forget all known concepts are born only from knowledge, including the God concept.

If there is such a phenomena known as the existential crisis it's because something has become not only aware it is born but in that knowledge has also become aware of it's opposite which is the knowing it will die.

Now all we have to do is work out what that ''something'' is

I doubt even if there was/is a God that it would care about living and dying since I doubt even God itself has no idea who, what, or how it IS ??

Which makes the whole idea of an existential crisis nothing more than a rather damp squid to be honest, nothing to get hung up about, all much a do about nothing, a simple mindless tale told by a fool.

On the other hand...there still remains the mystery...what, who, where, when, how?
Nope!

The existential crisis is a default of the generic inherent DNA within all humans.
As such the existential crisis is a spontaneous emergence based on the inherent nature of the DNA.

The existential crisis operates beyond ordinary awareness, i.e. it operates spontaneously within the subconscious mind subliminally where the ordinary person is not aware of it at all.

In the ordinary sense, the momentary awareness of death and the fear generated is not an existential crisis per se. This is always an temporary awareness for all humans except the mentally ill.

It is the subconscious existential crisis that drives you to cling [as a defense mechanism] to the idea the SOURCE cannot be negated.
Note the point if you are able to let go of everything including negating the SOURCE you will be totally free whilst engaging and interacting in reality.

The existential crisis is not a mystery to the main Eastern Philosophies.
In Buddhism the existential crisis is represented in the Buddha Story [a myth] highlighting the pains [dukkha] of existence associated with illness, old age leading to death.
Pragmatic Buddhism provide a life problem solving technique to deal with the inherent existential crisis.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193&p=377268&hil ... ng#p377268

Jainism also provide a similar Life Problem Solving Technique

Both the above tread the Middle-Path, not like your 'my only way or the highway' driven by a one-tracked mind imprisoned by the existential crisis.

Age
Posts: 3311
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Impact of male god on human genders

Post by Age » Fri Oct 04, 2019 4:20 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:06 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:58 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:04 am

The idea of God is an invention of humans to deal with an existential crisis
Perhaps it's the other way around.

The existential crisis was an invention of humans to deal with the idea of God?

Don't forget all known concepts are born only from knowledge, including the God concept.

If there is such a phenomena known as the existential crisis it's because something has become not only aware it is born but in that knowledge has also become aware of it's opposite which is the knowing it will die.

Now all we have to do is work out what that ''something'' is

I doubt even if there was/is a God that it would care about living and dying since I doubt even God itself has no idea who, what, or how it IS ??

Which makes the whole idea of an existential crisis nothing more than a rather damp squid to be honest, nothing to get hung up about, all much a do about nothing, a simple mindless tale told by a fool.

On the other hand...there still remains the mystery...what, who, where, when, how?
Nope!

The existential crisis is a default of the generic inherent DNA within all humans.
As such the existential crisis is a spontaneous emergence based on the inherent nature of the DNA.

The existential crisis operates beyond ordinary awareness, i.e. it operates spontaneously within the subconscious mind subliminally where the ordinary person is not aware of it at all.

In the ordinary sense, the momentary awareness of death and the fear generated is not an existential crisis per se. This is always an temporary awareness for all humans except the mentally ill.

It is the subconscious existential crisis that drives you to cling [as a defense mechanism] to the idea the SOURCE cannot be negated.
Note the point if you are able to let go of everything including negating the SOURCE you will be totally free whilst engaging and interacting in reality.

The existential crisis is not a mystery to the main Eastern Philosophies.
In Buddhism the existential crisis is represented in the Buddha Story [a myth] highlighting the pains [dukkha] of existence associated with illness, old age leading to death.
Pragmatic Buddhism provide a life problem solving technique to deal with the inherent existential crisis.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193&p=377268&hil ... ng#p377268

Jainism also provide a similar Life Problem Solving Technique

Both the above tread the Middle-Path, not like your 'my only way or the highway' driven by a one-tracked mind imprisoned by the existential crisis.
WHY do you still NEED life problem solving techniques?

To me there are absolutely NO problems at all in Life. Obviously, other than those ones that you make up AND see, which you then NEED to use some imagined and UNNECESSARY technique to help you.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Age and 5 guests