Impact of male god on human genders

[gaffo]

Does the MODEL of a male gender assignment to a GOD...

A) Tend to give males automatic superiority over females?

and

B) Enable males to be lazier and more ignorant in actually developing and demonstrating their spiritual potential?

Seriously, I'm asking what are the impacts to human genders, of assigning a male gender to A SINGLE GOD?

I think God is referred to as a male because it is the male that sires..desires itself...as and through itself the female, and that in order to do that the the male had to split in two to become FE/MALE. . through Adams gift of life to EVE....or something like that

In reality there is no male since all life forms start off as female. A female becomes a male only within the objective desire for the dream of separation where complimentary opposites reside together as one being.

Now the rest of the story is very long, but we are not really obligated to go along with any of that are we?

.

there is no female first reality. fact is first life was sexless and self-reproduction. sexes showed up long later - as to which, prob neither initially (just blobs that instead of fking themselves to reproduced, did the dance with other sexless blobs).

[Dontaskme]

there is no female first reality. fact is first life was sexless and self-reproduction. sexes showed up long later - as to which, prob neither initially (just blobs that instead of fking themselves to reproduced, did the dance with other sexless blobs).

But in reference to it's female start in life - the new life is already within the female inseparable from the female form, there is no ''other'' life form there separate from the life form that's already the pregnant ONE
IN/OUT of the ONE comes the many, APPEARING as the many of the ONE

In reality, it is only the biological genetic hormonal code that determines what reproducing organs will appear in the form..in reality life has no form except in this conception , only the mind is born not life, life FORMS are a BLANK SLATE which is just another concept for pure awareness without an object.

.

[Immanuel Can]

The non-theist doesn't believe in a god that he needs to hide or be shielded from!

That's the point! "Don't believe" doesn't change his real situation. He's then nothing more than a man in denial.

It is possible to be open-minded about "reality"... to accept that it varies for everyone...

No, that's not possible.

For you. I just told you it's possible for me.

You can believe it, sure; that won't ever make it true.

It's true for me...it works for me...so that means it's possible for me. I don't know why it's not possible for you.

It's not possible for either of us to go beyond, or differently, than reality actually allows. Belief is nothing, if the belief is not true.

There ARE other beliefs about reality. How could there not be?

Sure there are. There are all sorts of beliefs. But some of them are just not true.

Who decides which beliefs about reality are true?

Reality decides. You may believe in gravity, and if I chose not to, and jump off a roof; but gravity will prove which one is right.

Is it possible for everyone to agree on that?

a) People hardly agree on anything, but b) It's of absolutely no consequence that they do, in matters of reality. Reality will be reality anyway.

Is their spirituality wrong?

Am I "wrong" to think so?

See, you are the same: you believe some beliefs are wrong.

if such proof were available, would you be willing to believe it?

Yes!

Would you? No matter what it might be?

It would help if it were relevant. What proof do you have in mind?

You don't think two people can both be right while disagreeing?

It's a basic law of logic: "two genuinely equal and opposite arguments cannot be true at the same time and in the same way."

They don't have to be "opposite". They can just be different.

Not the point.

Of course people can have "different" non-conflicting beliefs. My belief that it will rain does not conflict with your belief that Manchester United will win the cup. But genuinely contradictory beliefs, like "There is one God," "There are no gods," and "There are many gods," are absolute contradictions. There is absolutely no way that more than one of these claims can even possibly be true, because the truth of any one of them negates the other two.

There are countless perspectives about gods and reality and truth.

Irrelevant. If there are ten different perspectives about who you might be in real life (as there no doubt are) that doesn't make any of them...far less ALL of them...right.

And you still didn't answer that question posed to you, by the way.

Which was?

"If someone believes something that you don't, does that mean your mind is closed to it...or does it simply mean that you don't believe as the other person does?"

I did answer that one. I guess you didn't like the answer?

I.C., you've had certain things "proven" to you in your life, and I've had certain things "proven" to me in my life. Would you say that something is proven when it is consistently reliable, accessible, and verifiable through results? That is my experience. The "realities" and "truths" and "perspectives" that I see -- which you say are impossible -- have consistently worked and delivered for me. They may not work or resonate for you, but they have for me, and continue to do so. So why would your idea of "reality" and "truth" cause me to reject what has been proven to me over and over?

If that is your real situation, then my expectation is that a good person would live and die with that truth. I never expect anyone to believe anything different than what they actually believe to be true on the best evidence they have.

But you raise the fundamental problem yourself: what happens when someone, who has been hitherto convinced of one view, runs into new information that contradicts that view? Does she think about it honestly? Does she reconsider? And does she ever change her view, now that she's set it in place?

Someone who never modifies her worldview is obdurate and unlearning. But someone who changes her worldview too quickly probably never had a worldview worth believing in the first place. So a firmness plus a flexibility is what is called for -- a commitment to truth as it is already known, but with an openness to change, if the demonstration or evidence becomes really compelling.

That's all I expect. Anything else would be unreasonable, I would say.

[Immanuel Can]

YHWH is male, His wife is Ashira.

you being a Christian should know of at least this per Judiasm.

I'm a monotheist, G. There is no "other" god.

[Lacewing]

…

I.C., you are much too rigid for me to talk with. But I really gave it a go!

You say there is only one reality -- and for some reason you think that YOU know THAT ONE TRUE REALITY. Regardless of ALL OTHER PEOPLE throughout history who have experienced reality to be otherwise.

YOU are a unique seer/knower -- alongside all of the other people (of differing beliefs/views) who have thought such a thing about themselves too!! It is laughable.

Such posturing and thinking must surely be to serve ego and the need for control. If there are those who do not think/believe the same, it's because those people HAVEN'T "LEARNED" what you have, or they cannot see THE TRUTH that you do. Thereby elevating the super-righteous truth seer, such as yourself, to the status of exceptionally chosen and able, in a way that all others lack and are yet to achieve. Glory be to I.C.!!!

If you honestly cannot see how incredibly ABSURD that is, then your intelligence must be severely compromised by and for your beliefs. Your one true reality does not acknowledge anything other than itself. There is nothing ELSE about reality for you to learn or see.

This assures that discussing anything with you for very long becomes boring as well as pointless. You are an impenetrable dense immovable wall of righteous knowing, and you are proud to sustain it against all approaches. You demonstrate no other agenda or desire.

You are in service to yourself and your fortress. Carry on.

[Immanuel Can]

…

I.C., you are much too rigid for me to talk with. But I really gave it a go!

Well, I appreciate that. And I'm sorry you feel that way.

You say there is only one reality -- and for some reason you think that YOU know THAT ONE TRUE REALITY. Regardless of ALL OTHER PEOPLE throughout history who have experienced reality to be otherwise.

No, I did not say I knew the one true reality. If you read what I said carefully, you'll note that I said there IS only one true reality. My views, like everyone else's, get tested against that.

I claim no personal epistemological privilege. Reality will be as hard on my views as on everyone else's. If I fail to recognize reality, I will pay the price for my mistake.

But it won't take much for you to recognize the truth of that, too. Try believing something that is not reality. Try believing, for example, that gravity does not apply to you...or try imagining that you are immune to diseases...or impervious to bullets...or that you will never need to sleep again...or that you can live without food or oxygen, or that you can swim the Pacific Ocean.

It will not matter one whit how firmly you choose to believe such things. It will not matter that it's "your opinion." It will not matter how many people agree with you that you can do it. None of that matters at all.

You will quickly experience this: that only reality matters. It's not snobbery to think so. It's the truth.

Thanks for the chat.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing, a question for you:

IYO Is there an objective logical relationship between Man and God? If there is, regardless of how it has been lost to humanity due to imagination created by the human condition, is it possible for some to verify what Man is and what God is and how they are related? If it is possible, how can it be done?

Of course without a logical relationship all we are capable of is imagination. The need for truth felt by those like Simone Weil is actually a human failing so just eat drink and be merry.

Ecclesiastes 8:15 New International Version (NIV)

15 So I commend the enjoyment of life, because there is nothing better for a person under the sun than to eat and drink and be glad. Then joy will accompany them in their toil all the days of the life God has given them under the sun.

1 Corinthians 15:32 New International Version (NIV)
32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,

“Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.”[a]

What is the essential message of these two passages?

[Lacewing]

Lacewing, a question for you:

IYO Is there an objective logical relationship between Man and God?

I do not believe in a god, so there is no relationship with something that is not there.

If there is, regardless of how it has been lost to humanity due to imagination created by the human condition, is it possible for some to verify what Man is and what God is and how they are related? If it is possible, how can it be done?

I think it is possible for humans to think or believe anything, including creating entire structures of reason, justification, stories, and supposed proof for anything. Humans can be convinced...and convince themselves...of anything, it seems.

Of course without a logical relationship all we are capable of is imagination. The need for truth felt by those like Simone Weil is actually a human failing so just eat drink and be merry.

You and I have talked about all of this at length, so I'm not sure why you're engaging me in it again, unless no one else is talking to you or you're jealous that I was investing my energy pointlessly with I.C., when I could have been doing it with you.

This phrase you use "the need for truth", seems to suggest that no one else besides you and Simone Weil care about seeing and understanding truth. You seem to claim this about anyone that does not think in your terms. It's a weird trip that seems aimed at serving yourself.

Yes, I think life is an opportunity to create and explore and enjoy as much as possible while we are in this physical world. For me, that includes a focus on truth and love/acceptance of all, in its many amazing forms. I would rather seek to know expansive truth through acceptance (and an ever-broadening of my understanding), than defining some contrived and static truth with ego and control.

In my experience, whole new levels of information and ability are available by getting "myself" out of the way. This means, not defining or insisting or forcing -- but rather, listening, observing, and allowing. There is a much larger flow that I can step into if I do not insist on clinging to or validating my thoughts. Everything is clear and perfect in that flow. It reflects completeness that can be accessed directly, without any need for stories, paths, structures, or relationships.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

I do not believe in a god, so there is no relationship with something that is not there.

Does that mean you don’t believe in meaning? What provides a person’s meaning is their God. God is meaning. If money supplies a person’s need for meaning then money is their God. You write that you don’t believe in God, all that means is that you only believe in an earthly source of meaning. Is that true?

I think it is possible for humans to think or believe anything, including creating entire structures of reason, justification, stories, and supposed proof for anything. Humans can be convinced...and convince themselves...of anything, it seems.

Quite true. People can believe in anything so gullibility is an asset for all those not called to the experience of the great questions of the heart like “who and what am I?” Gullibility is only an objective liability for those concerned with the experience of objective reality but are unable to get past their gullibility.

This phrase you use "the need for truth", seems to suggest that no one else besides you and Simone Weil care about seeing and understanding truth. You seem to claim this about anyone that does not think in your terms. It's a weird trip that seems aimed at serving yourself.

No. The need for truth begins with the recognition that we live in imagination which denies our humanity. A Minority seem to have it but the majority do not and prefer to try to justify absurdity with their imagination. Only a small minority are willing to sell what gives them the experience of meaning for the “pearl of great price which leads to the source of meaning.

Yes, I think life is an opportunity to create and explore and enjoy as much as possible while we are in this physical world. For me, that includes a focus on truth and love/acceptance of all, in its many amazing forms. I would rather seek to know expansive truth through acceptance (and an ever-broadening of my understanding), than defining some contrived and static truth with ego and control.

In my experience, whole new levels of information and ability are available by getting "myself" out of the way. This means, not defining or insisting or forcing -- but rather, listening, observing, and allowing. There is a much larger flow that I can step into if I do not insist on clinging to or validating my thoughts. Everything is clear and perfect in that flow. It reflects completeness that can be accessed directly, without any need for stories, paths, structures, or relationships.

You seem to belong in the world and some are in the world but not of it. I’m not criticizing you but am attracted to the mindset and the questions of those not of the world.

I recently visited Montauk NY with some others. I enjoyed a sunrise with a woman you would consider a witch. We discussed dunamis which I know of the power of god we sense in the world. She believed that Dunamis is God. We could discuss if nature is a tool of God or is God. I could never do it with you since your negativity would never allow it. One thing is proven true. People with this spirit killing attitude of denial should never be mods in a philosophy forum. They destroy the heart of philosophy. Yet I could discuss dunamis with a witch open to the concept of an ineffable God as the source of nature. Go figure.

[Lacewing]

Lacewing

I do not believe in a god, so there is no relationship with something that is not there.

Does that mean you don’t believe in meaning? What provides a person’s meaning is their God. God is meaning. If money supplies a person’s need for meaning then money is their God. You write that you don’t believe in God, all that means is that you only believe in an earthly source of meaning. Is that true?

I don't think there is a division between earth and spirit, Nick. You separate them. You think there's a division between a god and all else, right? To me, that seems absurdly contrived for some kind of self-righteous self-serving purpose. I can see meaning everywhere and in everything. To assign it only in one exclusive way seems very one-dimensional.

The need for truth begins with the recognition that we live in imagination which denies our humanity. A Minority seem to have it but the majority do not and prefer to try to justify absurdity with their imagination. Only a small minority are willing to sell what gives them the experience of meaning for the “pearl of great price which leads to the source of meaning.

Seriously Nick, you say this to me as if you haven't already told me this five-thousand-fucking-times. Your ideas of truth and meaning and a minority and pearls are your story. Hope you're having fun with that -- else you're wasting a great opportunity on earth. People who spend all their time rejecting earth because they imagine themselves as too good and holy, that they must therefore gaze at imaginary heavens, are tripping off of self-righteous, shallow, imaginings POSSIBLY because they haven't learned how to address their ignorance, fear, and hatefulness without rejecting everything.

You seem to belong in the world and some are in the world but not of it. I’m not criticizing you but am attracted to the mindset and the questions of those not of the world.

Why are you saying this to me? You pretend to be classifying/defining me with this little tidbit, yet you know that I'm a spiritual person and that I'm not tied down to anything. We've talked about it many times before. Seriously, are you having a senior moment... or are you lonely and just looking for someone to talk to and rumble with?

I enjoyed a sunrise with a woman you would consider a witch. We discussed dunamis which I know of the power of god we sense in the world. She believed that Dunamis is God. We could discuss if nature is a tool of God or is God. I could never do it with you since your negativity would never allow it.

The limits of our communication are due to YOUR LIMITS. Your idea of truth inaccurately imposes limits on everyone and everything, and keeps you blind to what else is actually there.

One thing is proven true. People with this spirit killing attitude of denial should never be mods in a philosophy forum. They destroy the heart of philosophy.

No... YOU destroy all kinds of things through your divisive and separatist mentality.

Yet I could discuss dunamis with a witch open to the concept of an ineffable God as the source of nature. Go figure.

If she had been listening to your speeches for years, that might affect your interaction. Likewise, if you made the accusing statements to her that you make to me, that would likely affect your interaction. Obviously, online awareness and interaction is different than in person. I could dress up like a witch and talk about all kinds of things with you (as I'm fully capable of doing with all kinds of people), and you wouldn't be obstructing and limiting our discussion with your preconceived notions about me.

I think you actually know/suspect that I do not fit into your twisted and resentful claims about people and life and spirit. It seems unfortunate that we can't talk about the commonality we see -- but you're too intent on making claims that accuse and divide people, while separating out yourself. It is a boring thing to watch you do, and it destroys discussion and connection. But it seems that it's all you know how to do.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

I don't think there is a division between earth and spirit, Nick. You separate them. You think there's a division between a god and all else, right? To me, that seems absurdly contrived for some kind of self-righteous self-serving purpose. I can see meaning everywhere and in everything. To assign it only in one exclusive way seems very one-dimensional.

Yes there is a basic division between the unchanging ineffable Absolute beyond the limits of time and space and the lawful process of creation I know of as the body of God which manifests within the ineffable Absolute. The point I am making is that meaning is relative and as a person’s psych matures they need a greater quality of meaning. A child is content with toys which appeal to meaning yet as some mature, they need more than toys and imagination.

People who spend all their time rejecting earth because they imagine themselves as too good and holy, that they must therefore gaze at imaginary heavens, are tripping off of self-righteous, shallow, imaginings POSSIBLY because they haven't learned how to address their ignorance, fear, and hatefulness without rejecting everything.

You are making a big mistake here. A truly spiritual person doesn’t reject the earth. Instead they experience it with a conscious human perspective rather than hide from it through imagination. The whole message of the Crucifixion is the value of consciously experiencing and transcending the power of the horrors that are possible possible for man on earth.

Why are you saying this to me? You pretend to be classifying/defining me with this little tidbit, yet you know that I'm a spiritual person and that I'm not tied down to anything. We've talked about it many times before. Seriously, are you having a senior moment... or are you lonely and just looking for someone to talk to and rumble with?

I believe that it is important to keep certain distinctions alive in society regardless of how they are denied. The difference between the results of a spiritual experience and fantasy is such a distinction. Just because a person indulges in emotional escapism doesn’t make them a spiritual person. Millions of dollars are made selling emotional escapism and calling it spirituality. People open to this distinction need sources to help them understand and prevent a genuine experience from devolving into emotional escapism. Philosophy can help in experiencing this distinction but the spirit killers are doing their best to deny and ridicule the authentic experiences of noesis or intuition.

The limits of our communication are due to YOUR LIMITS. Your idea of truth inaccurately imposes limits on everyone and everything, and keeps you blind to what else is actually there.

Yes. My idea of truth begins with the verifiable fact that we are the wretched man as described by Paul in Romans 7. Of course it is offensive. The experts will condemn such an offensive assertion. But seekers of truth will have the courage to verify it in themselves.

No... YOU destroy all kinds of things through your divisive and separatist mentality.

Yes, what can be worse than discussing Plato’s cave in a philosophy forum? It is intolerable when it is a forum dominated by secularism which glorifies the Great Beast. Introducing the concept of man’s nothingness in relation to a universal reality must be considered an intolerable divisive and separatist mentality. You are not telling me something I don’t know.

I think you actually know/suspect that I do not fit into your twisted and resentful claims about people and life and spirit. It seems unfortunate that we can't talk about the commonality we see -- but you're too intent on making claims that accuse and divide people, while separating out yourself. It is a boring thing to watch you do, and it destroys discussion and connection. But it seems that it's all you know how to do.

Your concept of commonality only includes good things people do for one another. It conveniently avoids the horrors and our hypocrisy which justifies it. The real commonality is that we live in Plato’s cave attached to the shadows on the wall and oblivious to the reality of the human condition which keeps us in psychological chains.

Of course it is too insulting to consider seriously for most. This has been proven both IRL and online. However there are a minority who do and profit from philosophy which discusses the questions of the heart which further open the mind to the reality of the human condition in the light of conscious human potential.

[Dontaskme]

Your concept of commonality only includes good things people do for one another. It conveniently avoids the horrors and our hypocrisy which justifies it. The real commonality is that we live in Plato’s cave attached to the shadows on the wall and oblivious to the reality of the human condition which keeps us in psychological chains.

I wonder if Lacy has a commonality with Hitler.

You are wasting your time arguing anything with LW, you'll never win an argument against a sociopathic narcissist like HITLER

.

[Lacewing]

Your concept of commonality only includes good things people do for one another. It conveniently avoids the horrors and our hypocrisy which justifies it. The real commonality is that we live in Plato’s cave attached to the shadows on the wall and oblivious to the reality of the human condition which keeps us in psychological chains.

I wonder if Lacy has a commonality with Hitler.

You are wasting your time arguing anything with LW, you'll never win an argument against a sociopathic narcissist like HITLER

Why have you suddenly got a bug up your butt? I thought you were ignoring me... after you told me you'd always liked me and enjoyed my humor (which I immediately and correctly guessed was one of your manic episodes). Now I'm Hitler???

[Lacewing]

Yes there is a basic division between the unchanging ineffable Absolute

Why would anything be "unchanging", Nick? Is there anything ELSE you can point to that exhibits an unchanging quality/nature? If not, your claim is at odds with everything.

a person’s psych matures they need a greater quality of meaning. A child is content with toys...

So, do you think that your psych is mature, and mine is that of a child?

People who spend all their time rejecting earth because they imagine themselves as too good and holy, that they must therefore gaze at imaginary heavens, are tripping off of self-righteous, shallow, imaginings POSSIBLY because they haven't learned how to address their ignorance, fear, and hatefulness without rejecting everything.

You are making a big mistake here. A truly spiritual person doesn’t reject the earth.

How am I making a big mistake to point out what people do?

You, yourself, reject all kind of attributes of humankind. Humankind is part of the earth. You reject parts of creation. You have your reasons -- but, still, it's true that you do so. You think there is something higher and better, and that the "lower and worse" should be rejected, right? You separate and divide and judge and reject... correct?

you know that I'm a spiritual person and that I'm not tied down to anything. We've talked about it many times before.

The difference between the results of a spiritual experience and fantasy is such a distinction. Just because a person indulges in emotional escapism doesn’t make them a spiritual person.

Are you saying that what I've experienced is emotional escapism -- whereas your experiences are "genuine"?

My idea of truth begins with the verifiable fact that we are the wretched man as described by Paul in Romans 7.

Aside from the fact that I don't know how you can verify some religiously fanatical notion like that, I can say that I've experienced truth that has demonstrated to be verifiable by me.

But seekers of truth will have the courage to verify it in themselves.

As I have? Or are you talking about verifying ONLY what you think is true?

Your concept of commonality only includes good things people do for one another. It conveniently avoids the horrors and our hypocrisy which justifies it.

What are you talking about? I'm referring to the commonality that we can all see/witness...regardless of our personal and unique spiritual ideas. I'm thinking of the conversations I've had with all sorts of people who think differently than I do, yet we found ways of having meaningful and inspiring conversations. Seems possible to me... but it sure seems difficult on this forum.

I'm getting tired of this forum again... and it's interesting timing. I'm starting a new creative/life phase that appears to have potential in several directions. My focus here on the forum has been to challenge what I see as rigid and fanatical thinking... and to get right up in its face. People say the most outrageous things (and there appears to be quite a lot of self-serving delusion), so it seems appropriate to respond frequently with "WTF"? I think the whole interaction is very funny and enlightening, which is what has kept my interest... but sometimes it becomes too old and shriveled up to be funny. Then it's time to step away and find something more fun and productive. I hope you're having fun, and not waiting until you die.

[Dontaskme]

I hope you're having fun, and not waiting until you die.

I'm already dead.

It's fun being dead. You get to play out all these different characters that are not real.

.