Impact of male god on human genders

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Unfortunately its your autism again where you think off tangent from what my point is.
Your "To me there are absolutely NO problems at all in Life" may be applicable to your delusion but it is not for normal humans on earth.

If your house where you are staying and present is burning strongly in one section, you insist there is no problem [ordinary sense] at all?
As such, to you, since there is no problem, you will stay where you are?
This would be stupidity!

The point is I introduced "Life Problem Solving Technique."
By intellectual protocol, you and both of us should established agreement on the terms and phrase above before we proceed further. If we cannot agree, then we should not proceed.

The point is while I am talking about 'apples' you blindly decide to talk about 'oranges', i.e. non-sequitor, red herring, straw man. That is the common result from autism or some other mental issue.

[Age]

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.

Unfortunately its your autism again where you think of tangent from what my point is.
Your "To me there are absolutely NO problems at all in Life." may be applicable to your delusion but it is not for normal humans on earth.

If your house where you are staying and present is burning strongly in one section, you insist there is no problem [ordinary sense] at all?

YES.

As such, to you, since there is no problem, you will stay where you are?
This would be stupidity!

To ASSUME what you just did here now is, to me, even far MORE STUPID.

You say it is my autism why I think off tangent, so what is the reason WHY you can think so off tangent that it has gone past the point of STUPIDITY?

If you did that till that body burned till it stopped breathing and stopped pumping blood, then yes some people would say that was a stupid thing for you to do.

The point is I introduced "Life Problem Solving Technique."

I do NOT care what you introduced. I asked you a very simple and very basic clarifying question. If you are to STUPID to answer it, then so be it. But going on some other tangent is NOT answering the very basic and very simple question.

Also, WHY would you spend time using some problem solving technique if you consider the house you are in when it is burning down, a problem?

Most people I know would just get out, without much thought at all NEEDED. So, I am still wondering WHY you NEED 'life problem solving techniques'?

Like I suggested earlier, IF you STOPPED causing/creating problems, then there would be NOTHING needed to be solved.

By intellectual protocol, you and both should established agreement on the terms and phrase above before we proceed further.

If this is what you BELIEVE, then establish what the terms and phrase above actually are, to you, and then I will see if I agree or not.

The point is while I am talking about 'apples' you blindly decide to talk about 'oranges'. That is the result from autism or some other mental issue.

YEP, from your perspective, it is SOLELY my mental instability that causes ALL of your confusion and life problems here, which you then NEED your life problem solving technique to overcome.

What do you propose were the 'apples' that you were talking about which you propose I blindly decided to talk about 'oranges'?

To me, you clearly when on with your usual BELIEFS, about your existential crisis and usual such stuff, and then made sure you wrote that you have the 'life problem solving techniques' to overcome ALL of your life's problems.

I THEN just asked you the simple clarifying question; WHY do you still NEED life problem solving techniques? in regards to your 'apples'.

And THEN I just went on to say that, to me, there are NO problems in Life, other than those ones that you create for yourself, which obviously is in line with your 'apples'. So, I can NOT see how I "blindly decided to talk about some thing different, like 'oranges'".

What I can SEE, however, is your total INABILITY to clarify what it is that you are 'trying to' say, which, by the way, what has your 'apples' actually got to do with what we were talking about, which was; The impact on human genders from assigning 'maleness' onto God.

[Dontaskme]

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....??



.

[Immanuel Can]

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".

Except in this case, you'll find that the answers are there.

If you stay with the conversation, you'll know what's worth commenting on, and what's not. And my suggestion would be that you think carefully and select before you start typing. Right now, you're just gratuitously objecting to everything. You need to settle down, and focus on what's essential, and especially on what's not been discussed adequately already.

The point of a line of philosophical conversation is to advance the knowledge of both participants...not to gainsay gratuitously anything the other person offers, and to "win" by sheer volume. It's a cooperative, cumulative thing, not an adversarial one. And it's a focused project, not a collocation of random objections. Try to keep your responses of similar length to the passage with which they deal.

All of this will help you get more responses.

P.S. -- In your message to AV mention Autism...do you mean Asperger's, in particular? I know and like quite a few people with this group of conditions.

[Immanuel Can]

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. But then you tell me it's "obvious" that the Supreme Being is an "it." In other words, you claim I cannot know, but it's "obvious," you say, that you do.

Just how?

You BELIEVE God is "a he", and you can not move past this.

The important question is, "SHOULD a person 'move past' this?"

For if it's the right answer, then to "move past" it would be to trade the right answer for a wrong one.

Okay, 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.

Wouldn'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.

Why would we think that knowledge of God would be any different than that?

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.

Yes, of course.

And 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.

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',

But how can you know "obviously" what the right gender of God is? Unless I miss my guess, you don't believe He exists. Thus, there is neither a right nor a wrong gender to attribute to this allegedly fictive entity. You can call "it" what you will, you suppose.

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?

Do 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.

We 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.

Now, back to the gender issue: what is the source of your certainty that you know that God is of neutral, impersonal gender? ("it")

[Age]

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".

Except in this case, you'll find that the answers are there.

IF the answers were there, then why do you not just say what they are and where they are?

The reason people usually do not say what the answers are and nor where they are is because they are NOT there at all.

If you stay with the conversation, you'll know what's worth commenting on, and what's not.

Just another attempt at deflection. The conversation now is about your inability to answer some very basic and simple clarifying questions. The reason WHY you can not do this has already been given.

And my suggestion would be that you think carefully and select before you start typing.

I did, and that is WHY I asked you the questions I have.

Do you really think or believe your completely arrogant attitude is helping you at all here now?

Right now, you're just gratuitously objecting to everything.

LOL You will 'try' any thing to deflect. What am I supposedly objecting to?

You need to settle down, and focus on what's essential, and especially on what's not been discussed adequately already.

What has been SHOWN is your quite OBVIOUS inability to clarify your responses.

What do you propose is "essential"?

What has not been discussed adequately already could be millions upon millions of things? Do you have any thing in particular?

Your arrogance is blindingly OBVIOUS now.

The point of a line of philosophical conversation is to advance the knowledge of both participants...not to gainsay gratuitously anything the other person offers, and to "win" by sheer volume.

What are you on about now?

To advance the knowledge of both participants, then you HAVE TO answer the clarifying questions posed to you. When you do not, just like you have not here, then you are the only one stalling the advancement of knowledge. If you do NOT clarify what it is that you are saying, then you are NOT really saying anything at all, thus you are advancing anywhere at all either.

It's a cooperative, cumulative thing, not an adversarial one. And it's a focused project, not a collocation of random objections. Try to keep your responses of similar length to the passage with which they deal.

You are beyond belief.

Is there any thing else you could 'TRY TO' deflect with?

All of this will help you get more responses.

If you CAN NOT answer simple clarifying questions, then there is nothing more that I really want, response wise.

P.S. -- In your message to AV mention Autism...do you mean Asperger's, in particular? I know and like quite a few people with this group of conditions.

Why? What is the difference between autism and aspergers, to you?

Oh, and by the way, you have not yet replied to my questions that I asked you before, which were;

Do you have any actual evidence that God exists?

Or, Do you just believe God exists?

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

Also, you said that these next two questions have been answered, YET I could NOT find them anywhere when I went LOOKING FOR THEM.

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"?

You say the answers to these two question you have provided already and are THERE. But I can NOT see them any where. Maybe you might care to inform us readers where THERE is exactly? Otherwise us readers might start thinking that thee actual Truth is you have NOT answered these questions at all. And, if this is the case, then what would that make you out to be?

You can keep ignoring SHOWING what your answers are and/or keep 'attempting' those ridiculous 'tries' at deflecting like you have been doing in this thread, once again, but as I said 'you' are just revealing more about your 'real' self, than about any thing else.

Also, if you can NOT see your completely arrogant attitude in your responses, nor just how OFF TOPIC you are in your responses here, then just be aware that "others" CAN.

[Immanuel Can]

Why? What is the difference between autism and aspergers, to you?

Diagnostically, Autism is usually said to be farther on the spectrum than Asperger's. The symptoms are somewhat different. Asperger's, I know much better than Autism. But I also know ADHD, ODD and Tourette's, all of which many diagnosticians think are on the same spectrum.

Oh, and by the way, you have not yet replied to my questions that I asked you before, which were;

Do you have any actual evidence that God exists?

Or, Do you just believe God exists?

I find actual evidence for God, is the answer. And I gave you the best available reference. But you'll only know that if you're willing to look at it.

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"?

I answered the second one. The first one is just wrong in its required assumption, and cannot be answered by reason of that.

Now, a final note: I'm not insulting you. I never have. And I'm not "one upping" you, you'll note. Furthermore, I have not used a single ad hominem remark to denigrate your character. You might want to modify your own tone to be compatible with that. If not, you cannot be very surprised if any answers you get are very, very brief....or no more at all.

[Age]

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.

But then you tell me it's "obvious" that the Supreme Being is an "it."

YES, I more or less just said that.

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.

You 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.

For 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?

Okay, 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.

Wouldn'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.

Why 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?

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.

Yes, of course.

Which is EXACTLY the tradition you are carrying on here.

And 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" '.

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',

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.

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.

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"?

You 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".

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.

Do 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.

We 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.

Now, 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.

[Age]

Why? What is the difference between autism and aspergers, to you?

Diagnostically, Autism is usually said to be farther on the spectrum than Asperger's.

What do you propose autism is usually said to be farther from exactly, which you also say aspergers is closer to?

The symptoms are somewhat different.

So, WHAT ARE the difference in symptoms?

This is WHAT I asked you, which was; What is the DIFFERENCE between the two?

Saying; "The symptoms are somewhat different", OBVIOUSLY does NOT tell me what the DIFFERENCE IS, to you.

Asperger's, I know much better than Autism. But I also know ADHD, ODD and Tourette's, all of which many diagnosticians think are on the same spectrum.

Who cares?

Does not discussing these issues, in this thread now, not concern you now that "lacewing" might get "irate" with you?

If no, then that does not surprise me that you only worry about these sort of things, when it is time to provide "evidence" for what you believe and say is the truth.

If yes, it still does concern you now, then WHY are you discussing these TRULY off-topic things now?

Oh, and by the way, you have not yet replied to my questions that I asked you before, which were;

Do you have any actual evidence that God exists?

Or, Do you just believe God exists?

I find actual evidence for God, is the answer.

You find actual evidence for God, is the answer to what (question) exactly?

I asked you which of two scenarios is right. I did NOT ask you anything about what you are answering here.

And I gave you the best available reference. But you'll only know that if you're willing to look at it.

Giving me a link of what "other" people write down and say does NOT provide me with what evidence 'YOU' have.

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"?

I answered the second one.

No you have not.

You have cunningly 'tried to' answer but you obviously have not.

You may call God a "he" because you say you have evidence that God is a "he". But stating; "he says he is a he" is NOT evidence that God is a "he". Stating; "because it is written down in a book", is also NOT evidence that God is a "he".

Obviously the bible was written by human hands, and the hands of a male gendered human being at that. What is worse is in those times when the bible was first written the male gender of the human species actually believed that males were stronger and more superior than the female gendered human beings. Believing that what is written down by human beings is actual, irrefutable FACT, especially it is written by one of the genders who is writing some thing like God just happens to be that gender also, to me, instantly disqualifies that God is therefore a "he".

The actual evidence that SHOWS just how often and how very quickly 'you', human beings, misinterpret, misunderstand, and just plain distorted what is being told you, then that also instantly disqualifies that God is a "he" just because male gendered human beings say "it is so", does NOT make it so.

The first one is just wrong in its required assumption, and cannot be answered by reason of that.

Well you were the one that suggested that if God was assigned a neutral gender than that would benefit the female gender somehow.

If you can NOT clarify on that, then so be it.

Now, a final note: I'm not insulting you.

'you' NEVER could, no matter how hard you 'tried to'.

There is absolutely NOTHING you could say that would even come close to insulting me.

I never have.

You may not have 'tried to' do it blatantly obviously, but you have certainly 'tried to' do it cunningly and very sneakingly like.

But this is how evil and the devil work. They cause you to do things without you even noticing just how much you are doing it.

And I'm not "one upping" you, you'll note. Furthermore, I have not used a single ad hominem remark to denigrate your character. You might want to modify your own tone to be compatible with that. If not, you cannot be very surprised if any answers you get are very, very brief....or no more at all.

Why would I be surprised if you just carry on the way that you have been, that is; NOT answering my clarifying questions directly, OPENLY nor Honestly.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, I think I'm really done now.

Be well.

[Dontaskme]

Well, I think I'm really done now.

Be well.

If you are absolutely certain about your God, and it's gender and it's existence, then why bother arguing with other people about what you are already absolutely certain about in your own mind? what do you hope to gain by discussing what you are already sure and certain about with others? What's the point in that?

.

[Immanuel Can]

If you are absolutely certain about your God, and it's gender and it's existence, then why bother arguing with other people about what you are already absolutely certain about in your own mind? what do you hope to gain by discussing what you are already sure and certain about with others? What's the point in that?

My decision not to deal any longer with "Age" has nothing to do with the discussion itself, or whether or not I'm willing to consider particular issues. It has to do with "Age's" conversation style. It's unnaturally antagonistic and defensive.

I'd be curious to know how old she is, and whether or not she has any Autism-related condition, as she seems to have revealed in conversation with others. But there's definitely an obsessive-compulsive element, sort of a narrow-focus circling back. It's non-linear, recursive, and highly emotive rather than sequential and rational. And it's highly defensive, manifested as aggression and insults. She doesn't know the difference between attention and provocation of people...she thinks she has to do the latter in order to get the former. That's why she chooses the aggressive, unsubtle style.

I've seen it before. I've known similar people, and I'm not put off by Asperger's Syndrome or related conditions. I'd like to understand the situation there, but she won't give me enough information -- or trust -- to know how to respond so as to be helpful. I certainly don't want to become confrontational with her, and certainly not insulting. But her aggressive attitude doesn't allow for another kind of conversation, and she doesn't respond to understanding, at the moment.

On the other hand, if you wish to discuss the issue, I'm quite happy to. But I think I've gotten as far as I can get with "Age."

What's on your mind?

[Dontaskme]

If you are absolutely certain about your God, and it's gender and it's existence, then why bother arguing with other people about what you are already absolutely certain about in your own mind? what do you hope to gain by discussing what you are already sure and certain about with others? What's the point in that?

My decision not to deal any longer with "Age" has nothing to do with the discussion itself, or whether or not I'm willing to consider particular issues. It has to do with "Age's" conversation style. It's unnaturally antagonistic and defensive.

I'd be curious to know how old she is, and whether or not she has any Autism-related condition, as she seems to have revealed in conversation with others. But there's definitely an obsessive-compulsive element, sort of a narrow-focus circling back. It's non-linear, recursive, and highly emotive rather than sequential and rational. And it's highly defensive, manifested as aggression and insults. She doesn't know the difference between attention and provocation of people...she thinks she has to do the latter in order to get the former. That's why she chooses the aggressive, unsubtle style.

I've seen it before. I've known similar people, and I'm not put off by Asperger's Syndrome or related conditions. I'd like to understand the situation there, but she won't give me enough information -- or trust -- to know how to respond so as to be helpful. I certainly don't want to become confrontational with her, and certainly not insulting. But her aggressive attitude doesn't allow for another kind of conversation, and she doesn't respond to understanding, at the moment.

On the other hand, if you wish to discuss the issue, I'm quite happy to. But I think I've gotten as far as I can get with "Age."

What's on your mind?

She has revealed she has Autism in her Introduction in the new members section on the forum. She gave a detailed account actually about her life which was very interesting to read.

Is she a she? she might be a he...I can't remember if he/she wrote it down in the introduction.

.

[Immanuel Can]

She has revealed she has Autism in her Introduction in the new members section on the forum. She gave a detailed account actually about her life which was very interesting to read.

Is that so? How interesting. I'll have to check it out. With me, she was quite cagey about any details at all.

I couldn't find it, though. Got a link?

[Dontaskme]

She has revealed she has Autism in her Introduction in the new members section on the forum. She gave a detailed account actually about her life which was very interesting to read.

Is that so? How interesting. I'll have to check it out. With me, she was quite cagey about any details at all.

I couldn't find it, though. Got a link?

You'll have to scroll through, it's there somewhere, but I think it's under the name of Ken..that's why I'm not sure she is a she?