Why does God have a gender?

[nobspeople]

The bible speaks of God as a 'he' or 'him'.
Is it possible that's not true? Is it possible God is an 'it' more than a 'he' or even a 'she'?

If God is not a 'he', would that change how you think of 'him'?
Would it change anything about 'his' story?

I've seen some believers see this concept as offensive. Are you one of those people that are offended if God is spoken about as a 'it' or 'she'?

[William]

It's interesting how such a simple question can cause such a ruffling of feathers.
Why?
Why does it matter if God's masculine, feminine, both, all or something else entirely?
For me, this points to the idea of the inability to fully understand such a being as God's said to be. Yet, here we have people saying they are right or they are wrong when it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things that I can see, at least.

If it doesn't really matter to you, then why did you ask?

The "it" here isn't if there is or isn't a gender (as I've already made my mind up there as most, if not everyone, have). It's about the opinion and thinking of others. Which, IMO, is more important.

If people think we, as posters, are here to 'debate' and 'change our minds', they're fooling themselves IMO. The real reason people are here is to learn about others' opinion, how others think and to argue.
This forum isn't a scientific journal, nor is it any type of 'peer review'. It's a place to learn about others, their thinking, and argue. While the intent may have been to debate, the reality is it's an arguing site.

I think you are somewhat correct but that you also miss the point. The exchanging of information is done through debate and this process is a type of peer review. Debate is arguing using the medium of discussion [which is required to be polite].

The way that it is not 'debating' in the sense you appear to be using, is where those involved have beliefs which are non-debatable - in that they are unwilling to change certain core religious [and anti-religious] beliefs they might hold, and these, therefore, can be identified - which is in itself interesting information.

I don't disagree of the exchange of info. Fact is, I've said on this very site many, many times that I've learned a lot through all the arguing (and debating for the few that are, as you say, polite). That said, what some consider polite others see (many times correctly) as condescension. Which, itself, is very telling of the individual, not the topic. Which is why I'm here.

I don't expect anyone to change their core beliefs based on something a stranger on an online forums says. If they do, I'd question their scruples and, in some cases, their faith is said core belief.

But this discussion isn't about the topic of the thread. Which is, in part, why, if Jesus used a masculine term, is God not masculine as many here seem to claim? I find that interesting.

For my part, the question that leads to is why do Christians use the masculine while claiming that The Creator is not really a "he" and is this simply because Jesus did, or are there deeper hidden reasons as to why they insist upon doing so.

I should start using your posts as a base for my responses as, what you say here, is exactly what I was trying to portray many posts ago. Thank you!

You're Welcome!

It might even be that Jesus never used the words "The Father" and these were inserted later by those who took over Christianity and made it an official [male dominated] religion.

One could argue that Jesus only ever used the words "The Creator", which is not gender specific but still points to the Entity he was referring to.

[William]

As far as things go, the nearest to the true image of The Creator is the frame on the left...["The Creator on a white background"] while the other two images are false [further from the truth] representations of The Creator.



If we then take both false images and superimpose these into each other, we get this;



which may relate [as an image] to what Christians refer to as "The God Of This World"

[The Tanager]

Okay. Yet mine includes yours [and explains what the process actually is] while yours simply rejects mine because it will not include mine

Yours doesn't include mine, it re-interprets mine into something different, thereby rejecting mine.

Because "this" is what then creates "that". This is something of a 'training' phase which prepares one for the next. Remember that I also say that one can consciously know that is what is taking place or one can be oblivious to that being the case.
As an example, if your beliefs included that your image of The Creator has created a heaven for you to enjoy [with all the things you hope to experience therein], then that is how you will see the next phase...how you will understand and experience it. As something you did not personally have an hand in creating.

Once again, this isn't offering support for your belief being true, it's just telling me what is the case if your view is true.

If it is what follows "because," then that's not support for your claim. It's just describing how you think we have control over it, via our direction connection to the Creator, not why it makes sense to believe we have control over it.

I said we create our next reality. I did not argue that we have 'control' over it. I thought that was the capacity in which you were using the word control. As in 'the determination of our beliefs produce the outcome of our next reality experience so in that capacity we have 'control'.

Thank you for the clarification. I still want to know why it makes sense to believe we actually do create our next reality.

That is the same regardless of what belief you have. Even those without religious beliefs will create their own realities. It is simply engaging ones individuate consciousness with the nature of that which allows for the environments to be created.
What I am saying above is that your expectations of what you will experience will be created by you, to be experience by as real. Are your expectations positive? If so, then therein is the positive you were asking about.

I know that is your belief. I'm not asking you what your belief is. I'm asking you why you think your belief is true.

So you are saying that you would drop your current beliefs if they are not true? If this is because you do not want to experience anything which isn't true, then how would you be able to tell the difference?

I would drop them if I realized they were not true, yes. How do I tell the difference? I look at evidences, use logic, continually re-assess and challenge my beliefs with ones that disagree, always remaining skeptical, always asking why a belief is viewed as true, and always keeping an open mind.

Lets us assume that you will hold your view until the day your body dies.
Then you immediately discover through experience the larger portion of what you believed in, regarding the next phase... turned out to be true for you. How would this make what I said would happen, somehow untrue?

Do you mean about creating our next reality? If so, then it wouldn't be me creating that reality, it would be conforming my thought to reality; reality creating my thought. Did you mean something else by "what I said would happen, somehow untrue?"

Of course I'd rather know that, if it were true. I assume you would say the same, if reality is different than you believe it to be, as well.

In what way could you imagine that the reality experience would be different for me, if it turned out I was incorrect?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you rephrase it?

But eventually we can. At this point, what about my world view on this, threatens your own?

Our views differ. They can't both be true. Each of our views "threatens" the other in that way.

Well you are making a half pie attempt at informing me. How were you using the word, in relation to replying to what I was arguing?

I used "iconoclast," you spoke of violence, and I said I didn't mean it in the violent sense that you seemed to be taking it, where the image is completely destroyed as false but that God sculpts it into something more true, pointing to something beyond itself that is Truth Himself.

Why should The Creator put on form and function in that way when [Occam's Razor] it is far more practical to allow for the individual to learn in their own time in their own way.

I don't think we do learn in our own time in our own way. We need help. We were always meant to need help.

Furthermore, what damage is done which cannot be rectified eventually? You do realize that we exist in an environment where damage is being done, but The Creator allows for that and does not always intervene [with or without invitation], do you not? Does that not show us that The Creator is not some convenient magician which we can call upon to fix our broken wings, not because The Creator cannot, or even will not, but because The Creator knows that we can do that for our self. How is that not lovingkindness?

Frist, Even though good can come from damage, that doesn't mean damage should be chosen.

Second, I do agree that God allows damage. I agree God is more concerned about our character than our comfort. I'm not saying your beliefs here logically contradict each other. Our divergence here is that you think we can do it for our self, given enough time and I disagree. If we cannot, then it is not loving to try to let us work it out on our own.

Just as we will create different realities to experience in the next phase. btw - your use of words is different when you are speaking of Christianity than when you are speaking of anything non-Christianity.

eg
[In relation to "other than" Christianity]
"We often need our images broken by another because we will fight to the death for our cherished beliefs and images."
and
[In relation to Christianity]
"It's not about destroying all images and beliefs to become a new worldview. It's about clarifying one's images and beliefs to truer and clearer ones."

I didn't have in mind the same contexts there that you do. I think Christians need images broken, some destroyed, but not all of them, and our personal understanding of historic Christian images refined. I haven't always been a Christian, so I did switch worldviews at a point. But if Christianity is not true, then the same applies. Whatever view is true would have adherents that need some images broken, some clarified, etc.

Perhaps in that, you are interpreting my world view as somehow threatening to destroy your own, which isn't actually the case, since my world view envelops and nurtures Christian and other beliefs. It does not 'break' them. Rather it uses them [false images and all] to eventually bring the individual into fuller knowledge and understanding.

"Enveloping" and "nurturing" sound nicer, but you are still destroying the beliefs of these worldviews. You "re-interpret" their views into something different to fit it into your worldview. "Bringing into fuller knowledge" is really replacing, i.e., out with the old and in with something new.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods - nothing more.

The belief or disbelief in The Creator can and does 'do things' and to say otherwise begs the question 'why then be a Christian' when such a statement comes from a Christian.

The Truth is, ALL belief [and non-belief] systems 'do' something.

No, people who hold those belief systems do things based off of their beliefs, which just are.

That may have been true in the beginning, when those in positions of power and influence were closest to the events which formed the original cult, ['cult' in the true sense of the word - not the perjorative ] but that was rather short lived in comparison to what then occurred as Christianity became an enabler for such corruption as practiced by the types of personalities which became its leadership - and which has been going on - to this day - for at least 2000 years.

I see every justification right there in that evidence that there is no requirement for a good honest individual to think that they have to refer to themselves as "Christian" and support the legacy of Christianity as it turned out to become.

That is a one-sided summary of the legacy of Christianity. That is the legacy of many Christians and not the legacy of many others. Every Christian has a mixed legacy. Christianity is too complex to have this one-sided summary, even at the most general level. Most of the good in our society today comes out of the legacy of Christianity in general as well.

You said I provided no meaning for the images concerning why I chose one over the other. I did. You can trust what I say about what I believe or you can speculate on them being excuses for something else.

Or I can understand that I do not have to make the call either way because there is another way which does not involve trust or speculation.

What is that third way?

The way I have been saying. There is no true image which can be placed upon The Creator. There are better ones than feminine and masculine, "It" is not really impersonal at all, but for want of a common image "The Creator" should be adequate. "It" "He" or "She" is of course, faster to type. But "The Creator" in and of itself, conjures up no images, masculine or feminine whilst retaining the personal inflection you yourself require.

So, in talking about why I chose the JW imagery (of Jesus, but applying it to the triune God) over the Earth imagery one can either think that I chose the JW imagery because:

1. Of the reasons I gave for my choice,
2. Distrust what I said and call my reasons excuses for something else, or
3. The Creator is a better imagery than both?

That's not a third way to think about why I said I chose one image over the other. You seem to be wondering whether I would choose "The Creator," "He," "She," or "It" as a more accurate reference? That's a completely different question than what we were addressing. Of those four, I would say "The Creator," too. I think "The Creator" better matches the JW image over the planet Earth one.

But "The Creator" is still incomplete because I believe God is just as much "The Sustainer" as well as many other things. I'd probably choose "I AM" over just about any name, but that, too, can be misunderstood and is still an image, not the real thing.

Adopting them as part of a bigger picture is the same as rejecting them.

Adopting Callum was not the same as rejecting Callum, whatever you might tell yourself to the contrary.

I haven't told myself the contrary regarding Callum. I'm talking about the logical necessity of rejecting certain beliefs when accepting other certain beliefs as true that logically contradict the rejected beliefs.

Yes it is. But it does not reject your picture at all. It gathers all such creations under its wings, like a mother hen gathers her chicks...

No, it doesn't. It reshapes the chicks into a new creation. What you've gathered under your wings is not what it once was.

I absolutely am rejecting your beliefs as true.

Then own it rather than making out like it is I who is doing the rejecting.

How is saying "I absolutely am rejecting your beliefs as true" not owning it? I own every bit of it. I don't see why you don't want to own that you reject other worldviews and the beliefs that make them up. It's simple logic. One cannot accept a belief as true and not, in the same moment, reject the opposing view as false.

I am not rejecting your beliefs as false so much as trying to explain to you that they are incomplete.I am not rejecting your beliefs as false so much as trying to explain to you that they are incomplete.

...

I can even accept that your compulsion to fall on your face and worship the image of The Creator you believe in, is not an uncommon one and that it is necessary for many individuate consciousnesses to go through that experience.

Right here you are rejecting my belief as false. I must go through the belief. That belief includes that the next phase is the last phase, that there is no further truth on a different state after that. But you think there is a different state. You are rejecting my belief as false, not incomplete, but a false one to be discarded for the real truth, however long it takes me.

On the contrary - it is Christianity who sees these as a 'problem' so ask those [such as yourself] why this is a 'problem'. I think one of the main reasons Christianity see such as a problem, is because strong independent Women don't need husbands who require passive wives. SIW can do without males and their images of The Creator and who feel so threatened that given the opportunity, such men would burn such Women alive, believing they are doing God a favor and while doing so, sing praises to their image of The Creator.

Non-Christians, whether male or female, are a 'problem' in the sense that I believe they are missing out on abundant life with God.

As far as I've read, the reasons given for burning "witches" is not that they didn't need husbands, but that these women were kidnapping children, killing people, causing damage around society, etc. I'm not saying they were right, just that your speculation on the motivation is either (1) wrong or (2) that they are lying about their motivations because they know their actions were going against Christianity or (3) they had a warped understanding of Christianity that wasn't in line with Jesus.

Thus, connecting the dots ... one sees "Image of god [largely] in the masculine = potential to murder those who differ] That is the math based upon the evidence of the evolution of all religions which have such masculine imagery cast upon the otherwise invisible Creator.

I don't think it's about the gender of one's imagery. Humans who have power mistreat those who don't. Societies that had female leaders and female deities also performed much injustice.

Indeed. So you should be able to agree with me that Christianity - like every religion - starts of as a Cult - in the scholarly sense.

Yes.

No. Rather I understand that they were only 'false' because they were incomplete - not the whole truth that I thought [was taught to think] they were.

Could you give me some examples? Especially a belief that you think was one of the most incomplete and what you believe about that issue now.

Yes - but you seem to be forgetting that "God" is not really the Creators "Name" - what "God" is, is the opposite gender of "Goddess" in relation to the idea of Celestial Beings. [which are also Creators re mythology].

The Creator has many names. God is one such way to refer to The Creator in English speaking communities.

Thus, using "God" as the "Name" of The Creator only serves to make concrete in the individuals mind, the idea that The Creator is a male being - is masculine. That is the only imagery which such use of the word can project.
Assuming you are being sincere and truthful with me, I therefore have to conclude [for now] that this is happening within a subconscious area of your mind, and for my part, I am attempting to bring that into the conscious realization of area of your mind.

And, yet, official teachings, and if you ask most Christians, you will hear them reject the idea that The Creator is a male being. For what you say above to be true, one must also assume that this is the only imagery that could be projected. It's clearly not. What you think an image projects is just that, what it projects to you because of your beliefs and experiences.

As Jesus once said to me, "Well, it's a start!"

He referred to The Creator as "The Father" - and it is easy enough to understand why he did so. But I am happy to assume that Jesus knew there was no real image one could place upon The Creator and - in the interim - thought it best to use something those folk could related to - since those folk would have likely stoned him to death if he even attempted to use a more feminine image [The Mother] as much as he used the masculine....sure - at first they would have laughed and mocked and hand waved away...but eventually they would have murdered him, thinking they were doing The Creator a favor...
Jesus used the tools available to him.
We in this more enlightened world, should be able to understand that, yes?

Jesus was eventually murdered. They tried to stone Him on many occassions before that. He taught many things they didn't believe and felt scandalous. Yet, He didn't bring in "The Mother" language.

Do you not believe that The Creator made man and woman in The Creators image? I am assuming you do believe that, because you say you are a Christian.

Yes. And I said that being made in God's image is about ruling over and taking care of the Earth and each other. This task is given to both male and female.

The use of gender specific words also have nothing to do with biological sexes. Biological sexes have nothing to do with what I am arguing...if you continue to use this in argument, then you have shifted the goalposts sufficiently enough to be arguing a strawman rather than arguing against what I am actually arguing.

If it's not about biological sex, then why is using "He" when speaking of God's strength or compassion or whatever a problem?

Why not? Are those thoughts in your head unlovable? Is The Creators voice absent from those thoughts in your head?

Relationships involve different individuals to me. My thoughts are an extension of me, not a different individual.

Maybe that is what Adam asked himself.

For my part, the story itself - specific to the knowledge of G&E - moved Adam from a state of simply observing and naming those things he observed, to judging those things as either 'good' or 'evil'. Perhaps the 'death' in that has to do with how he once had an uncomplicated world view and that died when he decided to complicate things by superimposing images of G&E onto those things.

Thus one might possibly recapture [resurrect] the uncomplicated world view by ceasing with the labelling of things as "Good" or "Evil".

So, the move from the uncomplicated world to the complicated one was..evil (or bad or lesser or whatever term you want to use that means the same thing), right? My point is that we can't get away from viewing things as good/evil. You claim you can, but in doing so, you are making such a judgment, thereby your view is self-defeating.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to William in post #172]

It might even be that Jesus never used the words "The Father" and these were inserted later by those who took over Christianity and made it an official [male dominated] religion.

One could argue that Jesus only ever used the words "The Creator", which is not gender specific but still points to the Entity he was referring to.

Totally possible. And it would make so much more sense, IMO. But, as someone pointed out earlier, the term he used (or is said to have used, at least) is a masculine term. Which, to me, isn't as neutral as one would expect if God didn't have the qualities that equated to masculinity at the time.

[William]

Okay. Yet mine includes yours [and explains what the process actually is] while yours simply rejects mine because it will not include mine

Yours doesn't include mine, it re-interprets mine into something different, thereby rejecting mine.

No it does not, although I appreciate why you think that it does. Yours is something you believe will be the only thing which can happen, while mine say's that it is one of countless things that is happening...in that, it is you who reject all [others] which are not the same as your own...

Because "this" is what then creates "that". This is something of a 'training' phase which prepares one for the next. Remember that I also say that one can consciously know that is what is taking place or one can be oblivious to that being the case.
As an example, if your beliefs included that your image of The Creator has created a heaven for you to enjoy [with all the things you hope to experience therein], then that is how you will see the next phase...how you will understand and experience it. As something you did not personally have an hand in creating.

Once again, this isn't offering support for your belief being true, it's just telling me what is the case if your view is true.

Of course. I haven't claimed otherwise. It is the same in relation to your world view, or anyone else's world view. Essentially my world view allows for all world views to be experienced as true for those who have different and sometime opposing world views - which is common throughout the Christian world as well. Even on this board there are various beliefs held regarding the afterlife which are otherwise in conflict with one another and cannot all be true otherwise.

If it is what follows "because," then that's not support for your claim. It's just describing how you think we have control over it, via our direction connection to the Creator, not why it makes sense to believe we have control over it.

I said we create our next reality. I did not argue that we have 'control' over it. I thought that was the capacity in which you were using the word control. As in 'the determination of our beliefs produce the outcome of our next reality experience so in that capacity we have 'control'.

Thank you for the clarification. I still want to know why it makes sense to believe we actually do create our next reality.

Nor have I argued that.

That is the same regardless of what belief you have. Even those without religious beliefs will create their own realities. It is simply engaging ones individuate consciousness with the nature of that which allows for the environments to be created.
What I am saying above is that your expectations of what you will experience will be created by you, to be experience by as real. Are your expectations positive? If so, then therein is the positive you were asking about.

I know that is your belief. I'm not asking you what your belief is. I'm asking you why you think your belief is true.

I have a whole thread post dedicated to answering that question - in the Member Notes forum. [link to index page] If you really want to know, that is probably the best place I can direct you. I am sure you can appreciate that to answer your question in this post would make said post far too long - and as it happens, our posts have become very long already...as they are prone to do when you and I are engaged in ongoing discussion - before that discussion inevitably circles back to where it began...

So you are saying that you would drop your current beliefs if they are not true? If this is because you do not want to experience anything which isn't true, then how would you be able to tell the difference?

I would drop them if I realized they were not true, yes. How do I tell the difference? I look at evidences, use logic, continually re-assess and challenge my beliefs with ones that disagree, always remaining skeptical, always asking why a belief is viewed as true, and always keeping an open mind.

Same.

Lets us assume that you will hold your view until the day your body dies.
Then you immediately discover through experience the larger portion of what you believed in, regarding the next phase... turned out to be true for you. How would this make what I said would happen, somehow untrue?

Do you mean about creating our next reality?

No. I meant your beliefs. Since your beliefs don't include you creating your own reality experience, I cannot have meant that.

If so, then it wouldn't be me creating that reality, it would be conforming my thought to reality; reality creating my thought. Did you mean something else by "what I said would happen, somehow untrue?"

If you didn't have that realization, how would your world view somehow make mine untrue?

Of course I'd rather know that, if it were true. I assume you would say the same, if reality is different than you believe it to be, as well.

In what way could you imagine that the reality experience would be different for me, if it turned out I was incorrect?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you rephrase it?

If I continued with my world view until the day my body dies, and it turned out to be incorrect, what do you believe I can expect to experience as a result.

But eventually we can. At this point, what about my world view on this, threatens your own?

Our views differ. They can't both be true. Each of our views "threatens" the other in that way.

Not true. While it may be true in relation to other world views and your own, my world view threatens no other world view.
Essentially my world view allows for all world views to be experienced as true for those who have different and sometime opposing world views - which is common throughout the Christian world as well. Even on this board there are various beliefs held regarding the afterlife which are in conflict with one another and cannot all be true, otherwise.

Well you are making a half pie attempt at informing me. How were you using the word, in relation to replying to what I was arguing?

I used "iconoclast," you spoke of violence, and I said I didn't mean it in the violent sense that you seemed to be taking it, where the image is completely destroyed as false but that God sculpts it into something more true, pointing to something beyond itself that is Truth Himself.

I am a sculptor myself. In the process of sculpting, one takes a block of stone and shapes it. Nothing about the stone is 'destroyed' in that process.

Why should The Creator put on form and function in that way when [Occam's Razor] it is far more practical to allow for the individual to learn in their own time in their own way.

I don't think we do learn in our own time in our own way. We need help. We were always meant to need help.

Help is provided as we need it. I did say that it is a co-creation...

Furthermore, what damage is done which cannot be rectified eventually? You do realize that we exist in an environment where damage is being done, but The Creator allows for that and does not always intervene [with or without invitation], do you not? Does that not show us that The Creator is not some convenient magician which we can call upon to fix our broken wings, not because The Creator cannot, or even will not, but because The Creator knows that we can do that for our self. How is that not lovingkindness?

Frist, Even though good can come from damage, that doesn't mean damage should be chosen.

I am not arguing "damage should be chosen" I am simply reminding you that we already exist within a reality experience where damage [as you put it] is done. Life is not snuffed out in that process.

Second, I do agree that God allows damage. I agree God is more concerned about our character than our comfort. I'm not saying your beliefs here logically contradict each other. Our divergence here is that you think we can do it for our self, given enough time and I disagree. If we cannot, then it is not loving to try to let us work it out on our own.

Firstly you have removed the co-creation aspect of my world view in order to argue then that The Creator is not personally involved with the processes my world view speaks to. You will have to correct that misinterpretation. I said no such thing.

Just as we will create different realities to experience in the next phase. btw - your use of words is different when you are speaking of Christianity than when you are speaking of anything non-Christianity.

eg
[In relation to "other than" Christianity]
"We often need our images broken by another because we will fight to the death for our cherished beliefs and images."
and
[In relation to Christianity]
"It's not about destroying all images and beliefs to become a new worldview. It's about clarifying one's images and beliefs to truer and clearer ones."

I didn't have in mind the same contexts there that you do. I think Christians need images broken, some destroyed, but not all of them, and our personal understanding of historic Christian images refined. I haven't always been a Christian, so I did switch worldviews at a point. But if Christianity is not true, then the same applies. Whatever view is true would have adherents that need some images broken, some clarified, etc.

It was through 'being a Christian' that I was lead by degree to the awareness I speak of re my world view. The process included having to reshape my understanding - I know how difficult the process is in relation to precious held beliefs as surely as I know it is not impossible to achieve, but does require the will to know the Truth.

Perhaps in that, you are interpreting my world view as somehow threatening to destroy your own, which isn't actually the case, since my world view envelops and nurtures Christian and other beliefs. It does not 'break' them. Rather it uses them [false images and all] to eventually bring the individual into fuller knowledge and understanding.

"Enveloping" and "nurturing" sound nicer, but you are still destroying the beliefs of these worldviews. You "re-interpret" their views into something different to fit it into your worldview. "Bringing into fuller knowledge" is really replacing, i.e., out with the old and in with something new.

It is the way of The Christ so I do not see what your complaint is here. Besides, it is not I who is "destroying" anyone's beliefs...rather it is the process each are going through which eventually will lead them to those conclusion of their own free will...it is the individual in all cases who makes the decisions in what to keep and what to retain.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods - nothing more.

The belief or disbelief in The Creator can and does 'do things' and to say otherwise begs the question 'why then be a Christian' when such a statement comes from a Christian.

The Truth is, ALL belief [and non-belief] systems 'do' something.

No, people who hold those belief systems do things based off of their beliefs, which just are.

I see no relevance re your statements about beliefs, here so will drop it until you can clarify.

That may have been true in the beginning, when those in positions of power and influence were closest to the events which formed the original cult, ['cult' in the true sense of the word - not the perjorative ] but that was rather short lived in comparison to what then occurred as Christianity became an enabler for such corruption as practiced by the types of personalities which became its leadership - and which has been going on - to this day - for at least 2000 years.

I see every justification right there in that evidence that there is no requirement for a good honest individual to think that they have to refer to themselves as "Christian" and support the legacy of Christianity as it turned out to become.

That is a one-sided summary of the legacy of Christianity. That is the legacy of many Christians and not the legacy of many others. Every Christian has a mixed legacy. Christianity is too complex to have this one-sided summary, even at the most general level. Most of the good in our society today comes out of the legacy of Christianity in general as well.

I simply point out reasons for why some prefer not to refer to themselves a "Christians", and that this is quite acceptable in relation to The Creator and the Individual.
It is no 'biggy'. More to the point - it is better to include Christian atrocity than to ignore or whitewash it with Christian do-goodery

"The Creator" is still incomplete because I believe God is just as much "The Sustainer" as well as many other things. I'd probably choose "I AM" over just about any name, but that, too, can be misunderstood and is still an image, not the real thing.

I Am is far better as it is not gender specific.

Adopting them as part of a bigger picture is the same as rejecting them.

Adopting Callum was not the same as rejecting Callum, whatever you might tell yourself to the contrary.

I haven't told myself the contrary regarding Callum. I'm talking about the logical necessity of rejecting certain beliefs when accepting other certain beliefs as true that logically contradict the rejected beliefs.

That is because you are using a strawman argument claiming I am rejecting your beliefs. That is not The Truth.

Yes it is. But it does not reject your picture at all. It gathers all such creations under its wings, like a mother hen gathers her chicks...

No, it doesn't. It reshapes the chicks into a new creation. What you've gathered under your wings is not what it once was.

The Creator is in the reshaping business, as you yourself have claimed. Therefore, if you have a problem with that, you have a problem with the way The Creator actually works and would need to take that issue up with The Creator.

I absolutely am rejecting your beliefs as true.

Then own it rather than making out like it is I who is doing the rejecting.

How is saying "I absolutely am rejecting your beliefs as true" not owning it? I own every bit of it. I don't see why you don't want to own that you reject other worldviews and the beliefs that make them up. It's simple logic. One cannot accept a belief as true and not, in the same moment, reject the opposing view as false.

This would only be true if what you say I am doing, is true. I will continue to show that it is untrue - you are misrepresenting what I am saying in order to then have an argument to present to contradict what I am not actually saying and have not actually said.
If you carry on doing this, our conversation will naturally end...for you are having an argument with someone you have invented and placed to represent me. That is not me, nor is what you say I am arguing, actually what I am arguing.

I am not rejecting your beliefs as false so much as trying to explain to you that they are incomplete. I am not rejecting your beliefs as false so much as trying to explain to you that they are incomplete.

...

I can even accept that your compulsion to fall on your face and worship the image of The Creator you believe in, is not an uncommon one and that it is necessary for many individuate consciousnesses to go through that experience.

Right here you are rejecting my belief as false. I must go through the belief. That belief includes that the next phase is the last phase, that there is no further truth on a different state after that. But you think there is a different state. You are rejecting my belief as false, not incomplete, but a false one to be discarded for the real truth, however long it takes me.

No I am not rejecting it any more than The Creator is rejecting it. The Creator in Lovingkindness is allowing you to believe whatever you want to believe and to experience those beliefs as real, for as long as you want to do so. When you finally decide that your beliefs have not been real, it will be because you yourself will see them as such. The Creator will always be with you to help you with whatever decisions you make, in whatever beliefs you have chosen to adopt, even if at some later time your yourself chose to reject what you once adopted.
Nothing in those actions actually show an image of an unloving Creator.

]On the contrary - it is Christianity who sees these as a 'problem' so ask those [such as yourself] why this is a 'problem'. I think one of the main reasons Christianity see such as a problem, is because strong independent Women don't need husbands who require passive wives. SIW can do without males and their images of The Creator and who feel so threatened that given the opportunity, such men would burn such Women alive, believing they are doing God a favor and while doing so, sing praises to their image of The Creator.

Non-Christians, whether male or female, are a 'problem' in the sense that I believe they are missing out on abundant life with God.

Certainly - these are your beliefs...

As far as I've read, the reasons given for burning "witches" is not that they didn't need husbands, but that these women were kidnapping children, killing people, causing damage around society, etc. I'm not saying they were right, just that your speculation on the motivation is either (1) wrong or (2) that they are lying about their motivations because they know their actions were going against Christianity or (3) they had a warped understanding of Christianity that wasn't in line with Jesus.

Whatever the case may be - we cannot know "why" these atrocities are done. The Creator is not a Murderer, regardless of "Why" murderers choose to murder.
The Creator knows that such actions are not The Creators actions...

Thus, connecting the dots ... one sees "Image of god [largely] in the masculine = potential to murder those who differ] That is the math based upon the evidence of the evolution of all religions which have such masculine imagery cast upon the otherwise invisible Creator.

I don't think it's about the gender of one's imagery. Humans who have power mistreat those who don't. Societies that had female leaders and female deities also performed much injustice.

Jesus told me that The Creator is not in the lying or murdering business. Did he tell you any different?

But some beliefs you once thought true, you now think are false, right?

No. Rather I understand that they were only 'false' because they were incomplete - not the whole truth that I thought [was taught to think] they were.

Could you give me some examples? Especially a belief that you think was one of the most incomplete and what you believe about that issue now.

I believed that I was the body...the human instrument. I was taught to believe this was the case. It wasn't completely The Truth because what I actually am is The Spirit within the body, using the body as a means of having the experience of 'being human'
I - like The Creator - have no 'true form' which can be set as an image. My 'true form' is not that of a human being.

Yes - but you seem to be forgetting that "God" is not really the Creators "Name" - what "God" is, is the opposite gender of "Goddess" in relation to the idea of Celestial Beings. [which are also Creators re mythology].

The Creator has many names. God is one such way to refer to The Creator in English speaking communities.

I have not argued otherwise. I have argued that it is not completely true and that this leads folk to having a false image of The Creator if that is the only image they choose to accept as 'real' and 'true'.

Thus, using "God" as the "Name" of The Creator only serves to make concrete in the individuals mind, the idea that The Creator is a male being - is masculine. That is the only imagery which such use of the word can project.
Assuming you are being sincere and truthful with me, I therefore have to conclude [for now] that this is happening within a subconscious area of your mind, and for my part, I am attempting to bring that into the conscious realization of area of your mind.

And, yet, official teachings, and if you ask most Christians, you will hear them reject the idea that The Creator is a male being. For what you say above to be true, one must also assume that this is the only imagery that could be projected. It's clearly not.

If what you say is the actual truth of the matter, I should have no problem convincing Christians to drop all references - masculine or feminine - of The Creator. As you argue, most Christians have already done this with the feminine [as they will not refer to The Creator as "The Mother" or "Her/She"] so it is really only a matter of doing the same in relation to "Him/He" "The Father" and "God"

Of course, as we both know, that is easier said than done which is why I make mention of the subconscious in that Christians think they are not being influenced by their use of imagery regarding the tendency to see The Creator in the masculine, but that is what is happening anyway. Do you have a better explanation?

What you think an image projects is just that, what it projects to you because of your beliefs and experiences.

What each of us think an image projects is just that, what it projects to each of us because of our beliefs and experiences.

As Jesus once said to me, "Well, it's a start!"

He referred to The Creator as "The Father" - and it is easy enough to understand why he did so. But I am happy to assume that Jesus knew there was no real image one could place upon The Creator and - in the interim - thought it best to use something those folk could related to - since those folk would have likely stoned him to death if he even attempted to use a more feminine image [The Mother] as much as he used the masculine....sure - at first they would have laughed and mocked and hand waved away...but eventually they would have murdered him, thinking they were doing The Creator a favor...
Jesus used the tools available to him.
We in this more enlightened world, should be able to understand that, yes?

Jesus was eventually murdered. They tried to stone Him on many occasions before that. He taught many things they didn't believe and felt scandalous. Yet, He didn't bring in "The Mother" language.

No he didn't. But he does if the opportunity arises for him to do so.

Do you not believe that The Creator made man and woman in The Creators image? I am assuming you do believe that, because you say you are a Christian.

Yes. And I said that being made in God's image is about ruling over and taking care of the Earth and each other. This task is given to both male and female.

This task has been given to The Spirits which indwell human instruments. Even those who are wearing Hermaphrodite form.

On the subject of ruling over and taking care of the Earth - would you mind taking a look at one Christians teaching on this, and my reply to that and perhaps giving your comment to that thread re that subject...{link}"Genesis For The Mildly Curious"

The use of gender specific words also have nothing to do with biological sexes. Biological sexes have nothing to do with what I am arguing...if you continue to use this in argument, then you have shifted the goalposts sufficiently enough to be arguing a strawman rather than arguing against what I am actually arguing.

If it's not about biological sex, then why is using "He" when speaking of God's strength or compassion or whatever a problem?

It is sufficiently a problem if that is not the best image to be using regarding The Creator.

I don't think the universe is in God's Mind. I think that imagery is not personal because I don't have real, loving relationships with thoughts in my head.

Why not? Are those thoughts in your head unlovable? Is The Creators voice absent from those thoughts in your head?

Relationships involve different individuals to me. My thoughts are an extension of me, not a different individual.

Not in relation to The Creator. The Creator is connected with these "different individuals" and this connection isn't simply through using words and written language.

Maybe that is what Adam asked himself.

For my part, the story itself - specific to the knowledge of G&E - moved Adam from a state of simply observing and naming those things he observed, to judging those things as either 'good' or 'evil'. Perhaps the 'death' in that has to do with how he once had an uncomplicated world view and that died when he decided to complicate things by superimposing images of G&E onto those things.

Thus one might possibly recapture [resurrect] the uncomplicated world view by ceasing with the labelling of things as "Good" or "Evil".

So, the move from the uncomplicated world to the complicated one was..evil (or bad or lesser or whatever term you want to use that means the same thing), right?

According to Christian Mythology, that is 'right', right?

My point is that we can't get away from viewing things as good/evil. You claim you can, but in doing so, you are making such a judgment, thereby your view is self-defeating.

Not at all. It is part of the "Born Again" process unlearning what has been learned, whilst still retaining key elements of that lesson. The individuate spirit consciousness now has a 'prior memory of another life it lived' as something useful to compare with the new life.

It is not about "judgement" at all, but rather it is about realization.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #172]

It might even be that Jesus never used the words "The Father" and these were inserted later by those who took over Christianity and made it an official [male dominated] religion.

One could argue that Jesus only ever used the words "The Creator", which is not gender specific but still points to the Entity he was referring to.

Totally possible. And it would make so much more sense, IMO. But, as someone pointed out earlier, the term he used (or is said to have used, at least) is a masculine term. Which, to me, isn't as neutral as one would expect if God didn't have the qualities that equated to masculinity at the time.

Yes you could argue that if you ignored that it is totally possible that it might even be that Jesus never used the words "The Father" and these were inserted later by those who took over Christianity and made it an official [male dominated] religion.

Remembering to, we must, [Yodaism] that Jesus was already getting in the face of the Male Dominated religion of his time...and that, that religion was instrumental in making sure he was taken out [murdered] so these male dominated religions deal with the threats they see, to those extremes but Jesus told us that The Creator was neither a liar nor a murderer, so it cannot have been The Creator who inspired them to murder...so we can comfortably doubt that we should expect The Creator is to be imaged in the form of a male human on a throne demanding worship...

[1213]

As far as things go, the nearest to the true image of The Creator is the frame on the left...["The Creator on a white background"] while the other two images are false ...

In Biblical point of view, human is the nearest true image of God, because:

God created man in his own image. In God's image he created him; male and female he created them.
Gen. 1:27

But, no Christian should make any images of God, because:

You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me, and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Exodus 20:4-6

[William]

As far as things go, the nearest to the true image of The Creator is the frame on the left...["The Creator on a white background"] while the other two images are false [further from the truth] representations of The Creator.



If we then take both false images and superimpose these into each other, we get this;



which may relate [as an image] to what Christians refer to as "The God Of This World"

In Biblical point of view, human is the nearest true image of God, because:

God created man in his own image. In God's image he created him; male and female he created them.
Gen. 1:27

But, no Christian should make any images of God, because:

You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me, and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Exodus 20:4-6

If you read back through the post you will understand that you observation above has been covered already. The agreement can only be possible, is that The Creator is without image, period.

That is just the nature of The Spirit. One simply has to accept this and get on with the co-creating of reality experience, with that in mind....

[The Tanager]

No it does not, although I appreciate why you think that it does. Yours is something you believe will be the only thing which can happen, while mine say's that it is one of countless things that is happening...in that, it is you who reject all [others] which are not the same as your own...

My view is that X is true. One X is that the Christian idea of Heaven is the final state where we worship as fully as possible. Your view is that this X is my next state of experience that will eventually need to be shedded for some other state of experience. That's not you saying my view is one thing that is happening. It's saying I'm wrong about X and X is really a Y.

Once again, this isn't offering support for your belief being true, it's just telling me what is the case if your view is true.

Of course. I haven't claimed otherwise. It is the same in relation to your world view, or anyone else's world view.

It's not the same. I am always willing to offer reasons for my beliefs being true, should people ask for them or the discussion call for them. It's fine if you don't want to support your beliefs as true, but if I ask for your support and you respond with a summary of what your belief is, then the disconnect is on your side. At least say something like: "I don't want to offer support for my view being true."

If I continued with my world view until the day my body dies, and it turned out to be incorrect, what do you believe I can expect to experience as a result.

Eternal separation from "I AM" and "I AM's" loving community. I know, how can I call that a "loving" community, right? Because love is willing the good of another. That means distinguishing between good and evil. Love doesn't allow evil to continue forever. Rejection of "I AM" will lead to selfish choices, evil choices. That's true for Christians and non-Christians. I still reject "I AM" and make selfish choices, damaging choices. Thank Goodness, I'm not relying on my own goodness and my own knowledge.

Not true. While it may be true in relation to other world views and your own, my world view threatens no other world view.
Essentially my world view allows for all world views to be experienced as true for those who have different and sometime opposing world views

Experiencing them as true is not the same thing as them being true.

Firstly you have removed the co-creation aspect of my world view in order to argue then that The Creator is not personally involved with the processes my world view speaks to. You will have to correct that misinterpretation. I said no such thing.

It seemed that way to me from some of your phrasings. I apologize for misunderstanding.

It was through 'being a Christian' that I was lead by degree to the awareness I speak of re my world view. The process included having to reshape my understanding - I know how difficult the process is in relation to precious held beliefs as surely as I know it is not impossible to achieve, but does require the will to know the Truth.

"Enveloping" and "nurturing" sound nicer, but you are still destroying the beliefs of these worldviews. You "re-interpret" their views into something different to fit it into your worldview. "Bringing into fuller knowledge" is really replacing, i.e., out with the old and in with something new.

It is the way of The Christ so I do not see what your complaint is here. Besides, it is not I who is "destroying" anyone's beliefs...rather it is the process each are going through which eventually will lead them to those conclusion of their own free will...it is the individual in all cases who makes the decisions in what to keep and what to retain.

But you do reject Christian beliefs as true. You have reshaped your understanding. You have rejected those beliefs you once thought true. You now hold opposing beliefs from them. You didn't envelop your former Christian beliefs, you changed your beliefs. The Christian misunderstandings were a stage you had to get through to get at the Truth, no matter what words you want to use to try to soften that.

No, it doesn't. It reshapes the chicks into a new creation. What you've gathered under your wings is not what it once was.

The Creator is in the reshaping business, as you yourself have claimed. Therefore, if you have a problem with that, you have a problem with the way The Creator actually works and would need to take that issue up with The Creator.

My problem is not that you do this, but that you do this and then claim you don't. And you then bring in other words to soften the edge, as though what you are doing isn't as intolerant or unloving as other people are. You can keep claiming you aren't doing this, but you simply are. Everyone does. It is logically inescapable.

I simply point out reasons for why some prefer not to refer to themselves a "Christians", and that this is quite acceptable in relation to The Creator and the Individual.

I realize those reasons for why some don't refer to themselves as Christians. I don't think the Creator would accept that as a good reason (but perhaps I misunderstood your point?) because I think the Creator is logical and I think it is irrational to reject beliefs based on the actions of those who claim to hold those beliefs. Beliefs find merit through evidence and logic.

It is no 'biggy'. More to the point - it is better to include Christian atrocity than to ignore or whitewash it with Christian do-goodery.

Yes, we should give the whole picture. You didn't, you gave one side. In response I didn't just give the other side, but admitted both as true.

Thus, connecting the dots ... one sees "Image of god [largely] in the masculine = potential to murder those who differ] That is the math based upon the evidence of the evolution of all religions which have such masculine imagery cast upon the otherwise invisible Creator.

I don't think it's about the gender of one's imagery. Humans who have power mistreat those who don't. Societies that had female leaders and female deities also performed much injustice.

Jesus told me that The Creator is not in the lying or murdering business. Did he tell you any different?

No. Not sure why you said that in response to what I said above.

The Creator has many names. God is one such way to refer to The Creator in English speaking communities.

I have not argued otherwise. I have argued that it is not completely true and that this leads folk to having a false image of The Creator if that is the only image they choose to accept as 'real' and 'true'.

Okay. Are you saying that some Christians only accept "God" and refer to The Creator in no other way?

And, yet, official teachings, and if you ask most Christians, you will hear them reject the idea that The Creator is a male being. For what you say above to be true, one must also assume that this is the only imagery that could be projected. It's clearly not.

If what you say is the actual truth of the matter, I should have no problem convincing Christians to drop all references - masculine or feminine - of The Creator.

I don't see why you think that follows. Those references pick out a truth they see in God, a truth that is not "God is male." They don't want to drop that reference, because that reference is about something they believe is true of God.

What you think an image projects is just that, what it projects to you because of your beliefs and experiences.

What each of us think an image projects is just that, what it projects to each of us because of our beliefs and experiences.

So we agree! And yet, you hold Christians accountable for what an image projects to you instead of what they tell you it projects to them. I don't get it.

It is sufficiently a problem if that is not the best image to be using regarding The Creator.

But every image we can think of is incomplete. That makes all images a problem.

Maybe that is what Adam asked himself.

For my part, the story itself - specific to the knowledge of G&E - moved Adam from a state of simply observing and naming those things he observed, to judging those things as either 'good' or 'evil'. Perhaps the 'death' in that has to do with how he once had an uncomplicated world view and that died when he decided to complicate things by superimposing images of G&E onto those things.

Thus one might possibly recapture [resurrect] the uncomplicated world view by ceasing with the labelling of things as "Good" or "Evil".

So, the move from the uncomplicated world to the complicated one was..evil (or bad or lesser or whatever term you want to use that means the same thing), right?

According to Christian Mythology, that is 'right', right?

No, I mean according to your beliefs. You want the uncomplicated world recaptured (resurrected), right? You think humans that judge things as good or evil took a step in the wrong direction, right? That there is a better way, right?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to William in post #177]

it is totally possible that it might even be that Jesus never used the words "The Father" and these were inserted later by those who took over Christianity and made it an official [male dominated] religion.

If that's the case (which we should think it at least a possibility) then that calls into doubt everything in the bible.
It's like sex: it only takes one time to get pregnant. It only takes one biblical change to call into question, potentially, everything else (assuming God does have a vested interest in the bible and how it spreads his story).