Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:32 pm
Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:10 pm
So WHY do you assign the "he" gender to what is in essence obviously just an It?
A curious comment.
You suggest I don't know what the gender of the Supreme Being would be, and I'm just "assigning" a gender.
YES.
IF any one was to call God a "he", then it is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that that one has just "assigned" that gender, based on their own BELIEFS, which have just come from "other" unknowing and mistaken human beings.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:32 pm But then you tell me it's "obvious" that the Supreme Being is an "it."
YES, I more or less just said that.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:32 pm In other words, you claim I cannot know, but it's "obvious," you say, that you do.
Just how?
1. Because if some one is unsure of what some thing actually IS, then referring to 'it' as an 'it', is perfectly acceptable.
2. I also KNOW what 'God' IS exactly because I KNOW that that definition can be agreed with and accepted by EVERY one.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:32 pmYou BELIEVE God is "a he", and you can not move past this.
The important question is, "SHOULD a person 'move past' this?"
Is there a 'SHOULD' in Life, for human beings?
If you do NOT want to move past your OWN distorted BELIEFS, then just carry on the way you are now.
God certainly does NOT care what you BELIEVE or do NOT BELIEVE. The Truth remains the same either way.
By the way, is it BETTER that a human being moves past that extremely ancient way of thinking and of incorrect saying of calling God a "he", then YES I would suggest that it is a better thing to move past on.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:32 pmFor if it's the right answer, then to "move past" it would be to trade the right answer for a wrong one.
Exactly as I stated:
You can NOT move past this.
Your BELIEFS are just to strong for you.
To you, God is a "he" and there is NOTHING in the Universe that could change this BELIEF you have, correct?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:32 pmOkay, so what, to you, IS God then?
This is the point. It doesn't matter what God is "to me." What matters is what He actually is.
So, you once again, are COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of answering my clarifying questions posed to you.
By your response here are you suggesting that what God actually IS is really completely unknown to you?
You can not even provide us with what God is, TO YOU. Let alone providing any thing about what God IS, ACTUALLY.
The ONLY thing that you have even slightly enlightened us to is that God is a "he", which in Truth is so laughable consider what God IS, ACTUALLY.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:32 pmImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:33 pmWouldn't that explain why there are so many DIFFERENT interpretations of
But there's no area of our experience in which equal knowledge is pre-guaranteed to all people.
False
Manifestly true, actually.
I know the capital city of Uganda. Do you? How about the capital of Eritrea? I know it; do you? How about my hair colour. I know it; do you? Likewise, I do not know yours. So what I say is true: equal knowledge is not pre-guaranteed to all people.
But that is NOT what you said previously.
Previously you stated; There is NO area of OUR EXPERIENCE, in which equal knowledge is pre-guaranteed to all people.
This, to me, is OBVIOUSLY FALSE.
There ARE areas of OUR EXPERIENCE, in which equal knowledge is pre-guaranteed to ALL people.
It is these COMMON areas of experiences, in fact, where the KNOWLEDGE of right and wrong IS uncovered, which then leads to discovering and KNOWING what is actually right and wrong in Life, which then leads on to how the Truth of things gets revealed. But you are a long, long way from there YET.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:32 pmWhy would we think that knowledge of God would be any different than that?
Why would YOU ASSUME that the knowledge of God is the way you BELIEVE it is?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:32 pmImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:33 pmWe 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.
Yes, of course.
Which is EXACTLY the tradition you are carrying on here.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:32 pmAnd potentially, the right teaching as well. For if God exists, then there are not just a multitude of wrong answers about Him, but a right answer as well.
And one of those OBVIOUSLY WRONG answers is that 'God is a "he" '.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:32 pmBut 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',
But how can you know "obviously" what the right gender of God is?
How can you be so BLIND?
God is NOT gendered, therefore there is NO right NOR wrong gender of God.
Were you really serious with your question here?
To even just ASSUME God is gendered ,SHOWS just how much impact assigning God A gender has had on you.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:32 pm Unless I miss my guess, you don't believe He exists.
I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.
Also, you are going to keep 'trying' and 'trying' and 'trying' to keep reaffirming to yourself that God is a "he".
Asking a person whether "he" exists or not, is just plain stupidity.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:32 pm Thus, there is neither a right nor a wrong gender to attribute to this allegedly fictive entity.
ANOTHER great and prime EXAMPLE of a human being making up an ASSUMPTION, then asking a supposed "clarifying question" on the pretense that they were waiting for an answer, but truthfully 'jumping straight to a CONCLUSION', and then just carrying on under the illusion that their own ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION is true, right, and correct.
Why would you call God a "fictive entity"?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:32 pmYou can call "it" what you will, you suppose.
Which is EXACTLY what you are doing.
You have absolutely NO idea nor clue what God IS actually, yet you will keep calling It a "he".
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:32 pmImmanuel 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.
And you know this...how?
Because I KNOW what God IS.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:32 pmDo you have any actual evidence that God exists?
Of course. People who believe things contrary to, or in the absence of evidence are not rational. And I have discussed this very widely on this website.
To me, people who BELIEVE, non stop, are NOT rational or at least NOT open at all. But that is another story.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:32 pmWe could go over a huge list, at the expense of making people like LW very irate that we are hijacking the present subject. So rather than do that, I will point you to this,
https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-ab ... 5/1700029/ and move on, so LW doesn't get mad. After all, we do owe LW to stay on topic.
LOL You have yet to even get remotely close to even start discussing what this thread is actually about. Yet here you are now not wanting to disclose any supposed "evidence" that YOU have, under the pretense of not wanting to upset "lacewing".
You really do make me laugh "immanuel can".
In case you have NOT yet noticed people are ALREADY upset with you because you have frequently MISSED what this thread is actually about.
By the way, there is absolutely NOTHING in that link that tells me what actual evidence 'YOU', "immanuel can" has.
You say that you have evidence that God exists, but if you do not want to disclose what that "evidence" IS that YOU HAVE, then so be it.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:32 pmNow, back to the gender issue: what is the source of your certainty that you know that God is of neutral, impersonal gender? ("it")
LOL
LOL
LOL
So, you do NOT want to talk about what "evidence" you have that God exists, because that would make as you say, "lacewing" irate because 'we' are supposedly hijacking what you call "the present subject", BUT then your next line to me is you wanting to know why I am certain God is NOT gendered.
Are you at all aware what this THREAD is about?
If yes, then what is this thread about EXACTLY, and I will let "lacewing" say if that is correct or not. (If "lacewing" wishes to).
If you do not know what this thread is about, then just let us know and we will inform you. But I will give you a clue in advance. This THREAD is NOT about what gender or not God is. (That should help you answer what this thread is about. That is; IF you were ever going to.)
God, Itself.