Impact of male god on human genders

[Immanuel Can]

So what is God to you then?

I would say that it matters not at all what God is "to me." I would say that God is who He is. My opinion about that has no weight at all.

Fair enough?

I would further say this: I am a very ordinary human being. I'm not a prophet, a seer, or a visionary of any kind. And I don't think anybody else around here is any of those things either. So nobody's got "privileged" powers here.

If there is any such thing as knowledge about God, then, it can come in only one way. From God. Left to our own devices, every one of us is simply in the dark.

[Dontaskme]

So what is God to you then?

I would say that it matters not at all what God is "to me." I would say that God is who He is. My opinion about that has no weight at all.

Fair enough?

Yeah, that's fair, God is what God is would be my opinion though.

I would further say this: I am a very ordinary human being. I'm not a prophet, a seer, or a visionary of any kind. And I don't think anybody else around here is any of those things either. So nobody's got "privileged" powers here.

I understand that, and to be honest I have a lot of respect for you because you have graced this forum always with dignity and impeccable poise, and displayed generous patience to other people who have been against your ideas.

If there is any such thing as knowledge about God, then, it can come in only one way. From God. Left to our own devices, every one of us is simply in the dark.

I get that.

And it's a long long subject that can go on for an infinite time, would you agree, simply because there is so much depth to cover on the subject.

We could start a whole new thread on it if you like?

.

[Immanuel Can]

I would further say this: I am a very ordinary human being. I'm not a prophet, a seer, or a visionary of any kind. And I don't think anybody else around here is any of those things either. So nobody's got "privileged" powers here.

I understand that, and to be honest I have a lot of respect for you because you have graced this forum always with dignity and impeccable poise, and displayed generous patience to other people who have been against your ideas.

Very kind. I do try.

If there is any such thing as knowledge about God, then, it can come in only one way. From God. Left to our own devices, every one of us is simply in the dark.

I get that.

And it's a long long subject that can go on for an infinite time, would you agree, simply because there is so much depth to cover on the subject.

We could start a whole new thread on it if you like?

It's entirely up to you. I'm happy to participate. And maybe a new thread keeps the OP poster here from getting annoyed about us going off her topic.

[Dontaskme]

It's entirely up to you. I'm happy to participate. And maybe a new thread keeps the OP poster here from getting annoyed about us going off her topic.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too, you're right.

I'll be back tomorrow - it's getting late here so will say goodnight, it's going to be a lovely thread huh?

[Immanuel Can]

It's entirely up to you. I'm happy to participate. And maybe a new thread keeps the OP poster here from getting annoyed about us going off her topic.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too, you're right.

I'll be back tomorrow - it's getting late here so will say goodnight, it's going to be a lovely thread huh?

Some people will think so. Others will say, "Are they STILL talking about that?"

But that's the nice thing about a new thread...nobody who doesn't want it is compelled to be on it.

"See" you tomorrow.

[Dontaskme]

It's entirely up to you. I'm happy to participate. And maybe a new thread keeps the OP poster here from getting annoyed about us going off her topic.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too, you're right.

I'll be back tomorrow - it's getting late here so will say goodnight, it's going to be a lovely thread huh?

Some people will think so. Others will say, "Are they STILL talking about that?"

But that's the nice thing about a new thread...nobody who doesn't want it is compelled to be on it.

"See" you tomorrow.

Lovely and well said IC, see you in the morrow...I'm really gone this time...byeee.

[henry quirk]

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.

It's considerably deeper than reproduction, I think. To reshape a society you have to reshape its foundation (the individuals), a difficult task cuz, at the core, individuals are like diamond, not clay. They aren't malleable. But: if you can find a body's tetrahedral plane you cut away (at) that core. Not exactly reshaping (you can't make person into anything) but more a paring & polishing. For some, sexual identity lies along that plane.

[Lacewing]

If there is any such thing as knowledge about God, then, it can come in only one way. From God. Left to our own devices, every one of us is simply in the dark.

So, for non-theists, this statement above is as compelling and logical as saying: "If there is any such thing as knowledge about Santa, then, it can come in only one way. From Santa. Left to our own devices, every one of us is simply in the dark."

Using the statement above, any person who claims to have knowledge of Santa, essentially sidesteps any personal involvement or responsibility for making any claims about Santa, by saying that the knowledge can only come from Santa. So then we must say, "uh, okayyyy...whatever". Any of us can essentially claim anything and show nothing. It's brilliant! How do we know a god is a he? He said so! Got it!

Really funny, I.C., to watch you come up with these bizarre rationalizations that seem so far below your intelligence and standards. I'm sure you would not accept them for any claims that other people would make about anything ELSE (would you?) -- but somehow you are able to use them in this instance with a straight face.

[Immanuel Can]

If there is any such thing as knowledge about God, then, it can come in only one way. From God. Left to our own devices, every one of us is simply in the dark.

So, for non-theists, this statement above is as compelling and logical as saying: "If there is any such thing as knowledge about Santa, then, it can come in only one way. From Santa. Left to our own devices, every one of us is simply in the dark."

That may well be. Atheists often claim "God" is merely a fictive concept. Naturally, they could not make sense of such a claim, since they have already closed their minds to the existence of God, outside of human imaginings. Thus, they would naturally think God could not possibly communicate anything about His nature.

Whether they're correct to come to that conclusion is, of course, a different question. And whether they are wise, judicious and safe in doing so is yet another. But it would seem that they will do it anyway.

[Lacewing]

If there is any such thing as knowledge about God, then, it can come in only one way. From God. Left to our own devices, every one of us is simply in the dark.

So, for non-theists, this statement above is as compelling and logical as saying: "If there is any such thing as knowledge about Santa, then, it can come in only one way. From Santa. Left to our own devices, every one of us is simply in the dark."

That may well be. Atheists often claim "God" is merely a fictive concept. Naturally, they could not make sense of such a claim, since they have already closed their minds to the existence of God, outside of human imaginings. Thus, they would naturally think God could not possibly communicate anything about His nature.

If something has not been proven to YOU, would you say that your mind is closed to it...or simply that it has not been proven to you?

And if someone believes something that you don't, is your mind closed to it...or do you simply not believe as the other person does?

I want to call attention to your words "closed their minds", because I think that is an inaccurate characterization. As I've shown in the examples above, you would probably not classify yourself in such a way in such circumstances. A mind is not closed if something simply hasn't been proven. You are free to believe whatever you want... and to think that you absolutely know it. But to say that other people's minds are closed because they do not think/believe the same way as you is arrogant and inaccurate.

Whether they're correct to come to that conclusion is, of course, a different question. And whether they are wise, judicious and safe in doing so is yet another. But it would seem that they will do it anyway.

And of course the same can be said about you and what you believe.

I wish it were possible to get past the insistence on "what is" (which varies for everyone), in order to have interesting discussions that are not built on any particular religious or political beliefs. It seems to me that theists and non-theists should be able to talk about shared spiritual issues, values, and dynamics -- and that people of varying political parties should be able to talk about dynamics and discrepancies between actual words and shared values. Instead, we continually war from our fortresses...and I think that disempowers us -- and keeps some "others" in power. It keeps us focused on warring rather than shared strength.

I've seen that your insistence on your god and trying to claim that others are validating it through their words as well, is a dance you apparently cannot stop. But if you could at least ask yourself what you feel and respond and expect as proof in all other areas of life, and in regard to the things that other people say and believe, then I think your characterization of non-theists would be more truthful. Your idea of god is meaningless to anyone else...and for good reason...because it has not been proven to them in the same way, if at all. Yet you insist that it applies to them, whether they believe it or not. What would you think if someone did the same thing to you, about something you absolutely didn't share their belief in?

It also seems strange that you cannot explore the impact of any god, believed to be male, on a civilization that is living surrounded by symbols and institutions and patterns and rules based on the "maleness on high" (real or imagined). I'm guessing (based on your responses) that such a conversation is just too "edgy" somehow, and fires up the mechanisms of your fortress.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is the subconscious existential crisis that drives you to cling [as a defense mechanism] to the idea the SOURCE cannot be negated.

There is no knowledge of what is occuring within the subconscious self, simply because none exists within the dream of separation realm of duality. The dream is known via experience, the dream is the surface mind of all known experience, it's the only reality known.

All DNA is - is a replicating molecule that churns out a myriad of mutational biological working functioning meat machines. The so called ''existential crisis'' is a strawman fallacy, it's a misguided belief structure mentally formed within the dream of separation, it has no place in reality whatsoever. You don't find it in other creatures realities, where they all start building their own churches where they can pray for eternal life and salvation.

Only the one who holds to the idea of being a separate self could come up with an idea such as an ''existential crisis'' because that sense of self then has to be defended. And yet there is no such self there that can be defended, except in this conception, the illusion within the dream of separation.

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.

But you have never not been free. There is just everything which is totally free because there is no one to be not free or imprisoned.

My point is that to let go of something is to assume there is someone to let go of something else, that's the net you are trapped in.

The SOURCE is always you...and you cannot as much as you would love to believe you can, let go of you.

There has to be something here that is doing the letting go of everything, that something is the everything. Everything cannot negate itself since everything is all there ever is was and ever will be...and that is knowledge.

Try negating the knowledge of YOU... HOW does that work for you? make yourself disappear and then tell me you still have knowledge of that disappearance...can you honestly know the absence of you.

Just who the heck do you think is having an ''existential crisis'' here? ..all you got is your imagined self...so tell me can that which does not exist fear it's own non-existence....??

You need to reflect deeper to understand the DNA loaded inherent existential crisis within yourself.

All you got is the imagined self??
How can you be so ignorant?
DNA wise, all humans has a self that is driven by primal instincts.
All the primal instincts will be triggered by the primal self without 'your' permission.
The most humans can do is to improve on their impulse control over the primal instincts to some degrees.
It is easy to understand the hunger, sex instincts thus open to impulse control but yet the majority are unable to modulate their hunger and sex drives/lust efficiently.

The existential drive is not so evident thus if one is not even aware of the existential elements how can they modulate the existential crisis.

The ignorant things you state above is due to the defense mechanism of the existence crisis which you are not aware of.
You are a coward in not daring to negate the SOURCE because your defense mechanism will trigger subliminal pains if your try to do so.
Whatever is the SOURCE to you is only a thought in your mind, you can learn to negate and give up what is merely thought and belief without losing anything real.

It is very obvious.
If you try to negate whatever is your SOURCE, you will immediate feel uneasy, uncomfortable but when you cling to the idea, it is comfortable and secure.

Note the psychological effects of ex-Muslims or ex-Christians where some have to go through like 2 years of cold turkey!! when giving up the belief in Allah and Yahweh respectively.

[Dontaskme]

The ignorant things you state above is due to the defense mechanism of the existence crisis which you are not aware of.
You are a coward in not daring to negate the SOURCE because your defense mechanism will trigger subliminal pains if your try to do so.
Whatever is the SOURCE to you is only a thought in your mind, you can learn to negate and give up what is merely thought and belief without losing anything real.

It is very obvious.
If you try to negate whatever is your SOURCE, you will immediate feel uneasy, uncomfortable but when you cling to the idea, it is comfortable and secure.

You are confusing the mind with source awareness. When you say to me ''...you can learn to negate and give up what is merely thought and belief without losing anything real...'' I perfectly understand that. But you are not understanding when I say you can negate thoughts and beliefs, but not the SOURCE of thoughts and belief.

The Source is not a thought or a belief in the mind. The Source has to be consistently available and prior to any thought or belief. Source is the dynamic space inbetween two thoughts that knows each and every thought as and when they arise in it. You first have to BE in order to be aware (think) + (know) you are being. CONSCIOUSNESS is primary...knowledge is secondary.

You are WRONG to say I'm wrong on my views about SOURCE. Source cannot be negated -

You are wrong to assume I'm uneasy, uncomfortable and insecure without Source.. in your own mind, you are perfectly right to say what you personally believe to be right, but you are wrong to project your belief onto another mind.

I perfectly understand that when 'thought' 'beliefs' or whatever are negated that source temporarily becomes latent, but that does not mean it's not there anymore, as there is no such state as NOTHINGNESS.
Therefore, conscious awareness and the contents, aka beliefs and thoughts arise in conjunction within the same instant when there is the desire, aka the DEMAND for knowledge.

So you are once again wrong in assuming I'm uneasy because it's the complete opposite with me, I'm uneasy sometimes at the idea I exist at all, although it's really fun when it's comfortable, but it sure is hell when it's not comfortable. It's uncomfortable for me sometimes because I know I cannot do anything about being, I cannot stop OR NEGATE myself from being, and I am uneasy and uncomfortable about that sometimes..So it's not the other way round like you like to assume.

And despite what you may think, I really do know what you are trying to say to me, I have been working on the sense of selfhood for nearly all my life, I've been shifting in and out of other dimensions since I was 4 years old, all the multiple dimensions of reality exist in the same place, namely, here now simultaneously...there is only HERE...heaven is right here and so is hell.

So I do get what you are saying, but I have my own unique reality to contend with, and that's all I care about. No one will ever change my mind about anything because I know truth. Jesus stated the truth is within and he was correct, seek and ye will find.

As for feeling uneasy at the thought of not wanting to negate SOURCE you are totally barking up the wrong tree with that idea, epecially when you aim it at someone like me, because your idea couldn't be farther that the truth in regard to how I feel about all this.
You have no argument with awakened people Veritas because there is no one there for you to bounce off.

Veritas Aequitas you can believe and say, do, feel or express anything you like, whatever feels right for you, but you can never project those ideas onto another mind as if your own beliefs are what's going on inside another mind. You have absolutely zero zilch access to another mind.

As for what I'm saying, it's all right and true for me as I am personally directly experiencing it through my being. So no matter how many times you try to refute or counteract what I am saying, let me tell you now, you will be wasting your time.



.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The ignorant things you state above is due to the defense mechanism of the existence crisis which you are not aware of.
You are a coward in not daring to negate the SOURCE because your defense mechanism will trigger subliminal pains if your try to do so.
Whatever is the SOURCE to you is only a thought in your mind, you can learn to negate and give up what is merely thought and belief without losing anything real.

It is very obvious.
If you try to negate whatever is your SOURCE, you will immediate feel uneasy, uncomfortable but when you cling to the idea, it is comfortable and secure.

You are confusing the mind with source awareness. When you say to me ''...you can learn to negate and give up what is merely thought and belief without losing anything real...'' I perfectly understand that. But you are not understanding when I say you can negate thoughts and beliefs, but not the SOURCE of thoughts and belief.

The Source is not a thought or a belief in the mind. The Source has to be consistently available and prior to any thought or belief. Source is the dynamic space inbetween two thoughts that knows each and every thought as and when they arise in it. You first have to BE in order to be aware (think) + (know) you are being. CONSCIOUSNESS is primary...knowledge is secondary.

You are WRONG to say I'm wrong on my views about SOURCE. Source cannot be negated -

You are wrong to assume I'm uneasy, uncomfortable and insecure without Source.. in your own mind, you are perfectly right to say what you personally believe to be right, but you are wrong to project your belief onto another mind.

I perfectly understand that when 'thought' 'beliefs' or whatever are negated that source temporarily becomes latent, but that does not mean it's not there anymore, as there is no such state as NOTHINGNESS.
Therefore, conscious awareness and the contents, aka beliefs and thoughts arise in conjunction within the same instant when there is the desire, aka the DEMAND for knowledge.

So you are once again wrong in assuming I'm uneasy because it's the complete opposite with me, I'm uneasy sometimes at the idea I exist at all, although it's really fun when it's comfortable, but it sure is hell when it's not comfortable. It's uncomfortable for me sometimes because I know I cannot do anything about being, I cannot stop OR NEGATE myself from being, and I am uneasy and uncomfortable about that sometimes..So it's not the other way round like you like to assume.

And despite what you may think, I really do know what you are trying to say to me, I have been working on the sense of selfhood for nearly all my life, I've been shifting in and out of other dimensions since I was 4 years old, all the multiple dimensions of reality exist in the same place, namely, here now simultaneously...there is only HERE...heaven is right here and so is hell.

So I do get what you are saying, but I have my own unique reality to contend with, and that's all I care about. No one will ever change my mind about anything because I know truth. Jesus stated the truth is within and he was correct, seek and ye will find.

As for feeling uneasy at the thought of not wanting to negate SOURCE you are totally barking up the wrong tree with that idea, epecially when you aim it at someone like me, because your idea couldn't be farther that the truth in regard to how I feel about all this.
You have no argument with awakened people Veritas because there is no one there for you to bounce off.

Veritas Aequitas you can believe and say, do, feel or express anything you like, whatever feels right for you, but you can never project those ideas onto another mind as if your own beliefs are what's going on inside another mind. You have absolutely zero zilch access to another mind.

As for what I'm saying, it's all right and true for me as I am personally directly experiencing it through my being. So no matter how many times you try to refute or counteract what I am saying, let me tell you now, you will be wasting your time.

Your problem is your inability to understand the sublime.
You need to think deeper.

If you see an apple and think of that apple, yes, the thought of the apple is different from the physical apple.

But it is different on the issue of your supposed THE SOURCE.
THE SOURCE is not anything like a physical apple.
You have not been to prove the existence of THE SOURCE like you can prove an apple on the table exists.
Now what you proposed as THE SOURCE is actually a transcendental illusion.
An illusion is not a real thing but merely a thought.
Thus THE SOURCE as a transcendental illusion is merely a thought.

In this case you are having a thought of a thought-illusion [The SOURCE].
But what you are experiencing is not any real SOURCE but actually that is a transcendental illusion.

It is like you are in a desert and insist the MIRAGE of an oasis[confirmed] you are seeing is real.
The MIRAGE is merely a thought in your mind, there is no real oasis out there.
If I ask you to negate the MIRAGE [though], it meant not to believe the MIRAGE is real.

So my point is to request you to negate the SOURCE means to negate the SOURCE-as-a thought-illusion.

You insist the SOURCE cannot be negated because it is real and always there. I am telling you, the SOURCE which you think is real and always there is actually a transcendental illusion in your mind.

Your mind had duped you to conclude The SOURCE is real but it is not, The SOURCE is actually a transcendental illusion. The SOURCE is something like a mirage.

If you can negate The SOURCE than you are freeing yourself from being deluded.
But I think you are being so entrenched in the delusion, it will not be easy for you to realize you are engaging with an illusion, a transcendental illusion.

[Dontaskme]

VERITAS... you are not showing me anything I don't already know.

The problem you have is that you say ( ''your mind'') that's where you trip yourself up. Of course I say it too.

However, no one is really tripping here ok?

There is no ''my mind''

I know what you are showing me, but you cannot use words to show me what you are showing me, as words are dual in nature...all these words are merely pointing to what you are trying to show me.

Yes I understand everything you are showing me, I get that the sign post is not the destination. The menu card is not the food..etc etc..

Please stop while your ahead, you wouldn't want to get a head of yourself now would you, else you'd end up with two of you...surely one is enough.

That which APPEARS to transcend never transcends.

.

[Sculptor]

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?

There is no doubt that when Constantine made Xity the state religion he was strengthening his own power as a man in a male controlled society.
These days; maybe the break up of the authority of the church all over the western world has helped to empower the LGBT(etc) community and without that imposing example of Kinder, Küche, Kirche has also opened up the field for the women's movement.

It is no surprise that Hilter pushed for Kinder, Küche, Kirche in his regime.

Possibly the no brainer of the month?