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]

[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).

There is no reason why doubt in the bible stories shouldn't be an option for the individual seeking truth.

One only has to examine the very first story in the bible where human beings are mentioned, to realize that something is askew and that far more research will have to be undertaken in order to attempt to discover the actual truth...

And one should not be assuming The Creator has any vested interest in the bible as being "The Story of The Creator."

[William]

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.

viewtopic.php?p=1036063#p1036063

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."

It is the same in that I offer exactly the same type of support as you offer me. I say why I think my world view is correct.

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 think that this is not necessarily likely if I decide to be employed from time to time with being a "Soul Retriever" who injects myself into these loving communities and speaks with those who created these places and attempt to get them to come and have a look at The Overarching Story which is occurring outside of their loving community creations...to see that there is a vaster loving community to experience.

Rejection of "I AM" will lead to selfish choices, evil choices. That's true for Christians and non-Christians.

Therein the Overarching Story one will witness that what one regarded as "selfish evil choices" are not evident in said OS...and one will 'look back upon ones experience within the "worship of I AM" and understand that - on comparison - that situation was more induced by "selfish evil choices" than anything outside of it is.

Thank Goodness, I'm not relying on my own goodness and my own knowledge.

At the very least, if one is not engaging these attributes in relation to co-creating ones reality experience, one will wind up worshiping false imagery and missing out on the OS for as long a time as one remains this type of 'robot' - it is a kind of stupor which Soul Retrievers are engaging with and trying to give information to.

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.

I agree. This is why the Soul Retrievers have their task to perform...Love demands this...

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.

And I will continue to attempt to make my world view as clear to the reader as possible...these things take time I know.

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.

Only in as much as I reject the idea of worshiping any image of The Creator and so therefore will not be creating one for myself.
I certainly do not reject a Christians choice to experience such a thing for themselves.

You have reshaped your understanding. You have rejected those beliefs you once thought true.

I never thought such things as true or false. I viewed them with some suspicion. Such as this Christian expression I learned to understand that they were creations based upon things which Jesus had introduced into the physical universe reality experience because it was necessary to do so in relation to lovingkindness.

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.

My understanding of that is until Jesus, human beings had been creating horrific experiences in the next phase based upon equally horrific belief systems they had been taught in the previous and this was countered by Jesus giving to the public - something in which they could believe which would not create for them an horrific experience.
In doing so, the weight shifted from the predominance of the horrific to the more balanced outcome of the non-horrific. A shining beam of hope...

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 appreciate that this is the way you have decided I am 'doing things' but the fact of the matter I am not doing any such things in that way.

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.

When has calling oneself "Christian" had anything to do with The Creator accepting or rejecting a being?

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.

Well to be fair on my world view, I am not the one saying that one side will be destroyed while the other side is preserved. My world view does not see sides...rather it recognizes conditions which show differences.
If you can point out where in my view I am whitewashing any atrocity, I am open to discussing that with you.

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.

Because clearly your idea of The Creator permits such atrocities in the name of its image, if you are a Christian. Simply justifying such by saying "Others do it so why only point at us" doesn't change that.

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?

Not only am I saying that, but yes I am saying that is part of the recipe - there are obviously a whole chain of things which go together to make up an individual Christians beliefs and not all Christians share the same beliefs. They do however, have a similar outcome in relation to what they believe that they will be involved with in the next phase. Some are more 'hands on' and others are more 'face down'...

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.

I have not argued otherwise. Indeed I have consistently mentioned how beliefs will shape the individuals next experience. I call it 'putting an image of The Creator on The Creator. The ability to pick and chose which image that will be, is left to the free will of the individual to decide. So in that, obviously I would be wasting time and effort trying to convince Christians to drop all - masculine or feminine - references of The Creator. That is why I said "If what you say is the actual truth of the matter" in answer to your saying "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."
It clearly is because as you point out "Those references pick out a truth they see in God, a truth that is not "God is male."" As you say - they don't want to drop that reference, because that reference is about something they believe is true of God"

As has been shown. "God" is the masculine as "Goddess" is the feminine, whereas in truth "The Creator" is neither. Claiming that use of the word "God" is The Creators name, is simply reinforcing the idea that The Creator is Masculine.
Pretending otherwise just so's one can name The Creator "God" is transparent for what it is trying to hide behind the screen such thinking attempts to create with that.

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.

I am not holding Christians accountable for anything they project because their projections are understood by me in the context of The Overarching Story. They hardly affect me or my own journey, other than I am interested in seeing if I cannot assist any of them coming out from under the influence of their particular beliefs regarding The Creator. In that, it is hardly something which keeps me awake at night. I know that eventually they each and all will come out from under that spell.

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.

Some - such as your own - are more a problem than others - such as mine ... and less a problem than other realities individuals create for themselves as well.
Certainly having nice beliefs in which to enjoy in the next phase is a step in the correct direction...

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?

I am not the one who claimed that The Creator ordered the first human being not to obtained the knowledge of good and evil. I do however see the wisdom in that advice if it meant all of this could have been avoided.

My world view is that there are no things which are good or evil except that which we each deicide to accept or reject. In that, no one told Adam he was naked except Adam himself.

And for some reason, Adam decided that this was 'evil' [not good].

That is the mythology of Christianity I am referring , of which Christian Thinking believes in.

Once Christians such as yourself decided that these things are 'this' or 'that' the outcome of said beliefs determine the outcome of ones next experience, which in your case, is one where ' all 'evil' [what you consider to be evil] is taken out and therefore one can fall on one's face and worship ones image of The Creator...

...do you think you will be doing this forever?

[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).

There is no reason why doubt in the bible stories shouldn't be an option for the individual seeking truth.

One only has to examine the very first story in the bible where human beings are mentioned, to realize that something is askew and that far more research will have to be undertaken in order to attempt to discover the actual truth...

And one should not be assuming The Creator has any vested interest in the bible as being "The Story of The Creator."

'Should' be an option? Maybe. 'Could' be? Absolutely.
The 'Story of the Creator' was my terminology, for lack of a better description. It's obvious here that one description doesn't fit each individual's opinion and experience.

[The Tanager]

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 is the same in that I offer exactly the same type of support as you offer me. I say why I think my world view is correct.

How do these bolded statements not logically contradict each other? In the first two bolded parts you are agreeing that you aren't offering support as to why your view is true. In the latter, you are saying you do share why you think your view is true. Which is it? If it is the latter, then share why you think your version of the next life is correct, while the Christian view is incorrect.

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

I agree. This is why the Soul Retrievers have their task to perform...Love demands this...

Okay, but the context of my statement was that while you agree that I will experience Christian heaven as reality, you don't think my view of it as the eternal existence that I believe it is, is correct. In other words, you reject that belief as true.

Because clearly your idea of The Creator permits such atrocities in the name of its image, if you are a Christian. Simply justifying such by saying "Others do it so why only point at us" doesn't change that.

In no way did I say that. And, in no way, did I say being a Christian justifies such atrocities. If you are confused on that, point out where you thought I meant that and I will share what I actually was saying.

Once Christians such as yourself decided that these things are 'this' or 'that' the outcome of said beliefs determine the outcome of ones next experience, which in your case, is one where ' all 'evil' [what you consider to be evil] is taken out and therefore one can fall on one's face and worship ones image of The Creator...

...do you think you will be doing this forever?

Do you mean "fall on my face"? Because I did say more than that. Yes, I think the Christian idea of heaven is a place that goes on forever.

[William]

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 is the same in that I offer exactly the same type of support as you offer me. I say why I think my world view is correct.

How do these bolded statements not logically contradict each other? In the first two bolded parts you are agreeing that you aren't offering support as to why your view is true. In the latter, you are saying you do share why you think your view is true. Which is it? If it is the latter, then share why you think your version of the next life is correct, while the Christian view is incorrect.

I have been and will continue to do so.

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

I agree. This is why the Soul Retrievers have their task to perform...Love demands this...

Okay, but the context of my statement was that while you agree that I will experience Christian heaven as reality, you don't think my view of it as the eternal existence that I believe it is, is correct. In other words, you reject that belief as true.

I do not reject your right to choose to believe what you do. Free Will does not trump The Reality [True Image] of The Creator.
Free Will cannot override What Is I Am.

Because clearly your idea of The Creator permits such atrocities in the name of its image, if you are a Christian. Simply justifying such by saying "Others do it so why only point at us" doesn't change that.

In no way did I say that. And, in no way, did I say being a Christian justifies such atrocities. If you are confused on that, point out where you thought I meant that and I will share what I actually was saying.

If you follow the thread of that aspect of our conversation J, you will notice that I am using this in relation to the idea that I wouldn't call myself a "Christian" because of the long association Christianity has had with atrocity.
Therefore anyone arguing that they see no reason why this should make them hesitate in calling themselves "Christian" are arguing that the atrocities are "okay".
Also in defense of my argument, Jesus never called his followers "Christians" [its not in the Bible] so there is no scriptural reason for one having to go by that identification.
It is fine and acceptable for everyone not to do so.

Once Christians such as yourself decided that these things are 'this' or 'that' the outcome of said beliefs determine the outcome of ones next experience, which in your case, is one where ' all 'evil' [what you consider to be evil] is taken out and therefore one can fall on one's face and worship ones image of The Creator...

...do you think you will be doing this forever?

Do you mean "fall on my face"? Because I did say more than that. Yes, I think the Christian idea of heaven is a place that goes on forever.

So you won't always be prostrate before the image of The Creator on a throne? You will be doing other stuff as well yes?

[The Tanager]

How do these bolded statements not logically contradict each other? In the first two bolded parts you are agreeing that you aren't offering support as to why your view is true. In the latter, you are saying you do share why you think your view is true. Which is it? If it is the latter, then share why you think your version of the next life is correct, while the Christian view is incorrect.

I have been and will continue to do so.

I have seen no support offered for your belief about the afterlife being true. Perhaps I've missed it. You can restate it here, easily. Or you can quote yourself from before. Or you can wrongly assume I'm being disingenuous here and refuse to state it. Or you can make some quip. What will it be?

Okay, but the context of my statement was that while you agree that I will experience Christian heaven as reality, you don't think my view of it as the eternal existence that I believe it is, is correct. In other words, you reject that belief as true.

I do not reject your right to choose to believe what you do. Free Will does not trump The Reality [True Image] of The Creator.

Again, that is not what I've been saying. I don't reject your right to choose to believe what you do, either.

I do reject the truth of your belief about the next life that you've shared here. You also reject my belief about the next life. Not what I will experience as true, but that my belief that it is true, that Heaven is the eternal end, you reject that belief as true. You don't think it is truly eternal. You think I will experience it as eternal, but then eventually realize it isn't eternal.

If you follow the thread of that aspect of our conversation J, you will notice that I am using this in relation to the idea that I wouldn't call myself a "Christian" because of the long association Christianity has had with atrocity.
Therefore anyone arguing that they see no reason why this should make them hesitate in calling themselves "Christian" are arguing that the atrocities are "okay".

Or that being "Christian" is something other than that. By calling myself a Christian, I am not arguing that those atrocities were okay. In fact, I think those atrocities are decidely non-Christian in character. 'Christian' means being a disciple of Christ, not committing atrocities towards those who don't believe in Christ.

Also in defense of my argument, Jesus never called his followers "Christians" [its not in the Bible] so there is no scriptural reason for one having to go by that identification.
It is fine and acceptable for everyone not to do so.

Of course people can choose to go by other labels. But if "Christian" is defined as X and one fits that description, then they are, by definition, a Christian whether they want to self-identify as such or not.

So you won't always be prostrate before the image of The Creator on a throne? You will be doing other stuff as well yes?

Yes, as I initially said.

[William]

How do these bolded statements not logically contradict each other? In the first two bolded parts you are agreeing that you aren't offering support as to why your view is true. In the latter, you are saying you do share why you think your view is true. Which is it? If it is the latter, then share why you think your version of the next life is correct, while the Christian view is incorrect.

I have been and will continue to do so.

I have seen no support offered for your belief about the afterlife being true. Perhaps I've missed it. You can restate it here, easily. Or you can quote yourself from before. Or you can wrongly assume I'm being disingenuous here and refuse to state it. Or you can make some quip. What will it be?

As I have already already quipped; "I offer exactly the same type of support as you offer me."
I have seen no support offered for your belief about the afterlife being true.

As to information regarding afterlife experiences, the internet is your friend.

Okay, but the context of my statement was that while you agree that I will experience Christian heaven as reality, you don't think my view of it as the eternal existence that I believe it is, is correct. In other words, you reject that belief as true.

I do not reject your right to choose to believe what you do. Free Will does not trump The Reality [True Image] of The Creator.

Again, that is not what I've been saying. I don't reject your right to choose to believe what you do, either.

What have you been saying?

I do reject the truth of your belief about the next life that you've shared here. You also reject my belief about the next life. Not what I will experience as true, but that my belief that it is true, that Heaven is the eternal end, you reject that belief as true. You don't think it is truly eternal. You think I will experience it as eternal, but then eventually realize it isn't eternal.

Listen if you want to use the word 'reject' in the same way you use it in relation to my world view on the matter, fine. Perhaps the best way to agree is to ask you exactly how much of my WV you reject percentage wise...then we can compare the math.
Ultimately your WV being 'rejected' is not the same as you being rejected, so our WVs are indeed different in that, if I understood you correctly as to what your WV expects will happen to me. [Something along the lines of my being separated from The Creator and left to remain evil]

If you follow the thread of that aspect of our conversation J, you will notice that I am using this in relation to the idea that I wouldn't call myself a "Christian" because of the long association Christianity has had with atrocity.
Therefore anyone arguing that they see no reason why this should make them hesitate in calling themselves "Christian" are arguing that the atrocities are "okay".

Or that being "Christian" is something other than that.

This just happens to be the main attitude which causes schism. Unfortunately the schism is never complete enough to remove stain from thyself.
Nonetheless, my point remains valid.

By calling myself a Christian, I am not arguing that those atrocities were okay. In fact, I think those atrocities are decidedly non-Christian in character. 'Christian' means being a disciple of Christ, not committing atrocities towards those who don't believe in Christ.

It only adds to the worlds confusion. I see so little practical use for doing so. I pointed you to a Christians post to test out your claim you were not like those Christians [re "Bigotry"] and not only did you miss that entirely, but you went off on a tangent by focusing upon sex and gender...you showed that you prefer to argue against my WV on afterlife than correct fellow Christians who support past Christian atrocities.

Christianity was started for the purpose of coming up against religious practices [rather than buying into it] and today Christianity [regardless of denomination] has brought into it.

Jesus knew that would be the case of course. So did all the disciples.

Christians, however, know not.

Also in defense of my argument, Jesus never called his followers "Christians" [its not in the Bible] so there is no scriptural reason for one having to go by that identification.
It is fine and acceptable for everyone not to do so.

Of course people can choose to go by other labels. But if "Christian" is defined as X and one fits that description, then they are, by definition, a Christian whether they want to self-identify as such or not.

Not so. A label can be abused and rejected because of that. None have the right to call others what those others do not wish to call themselves.

So you won't always be prostrate before the image of The Creator on a throne? You will be doing other stuff as well yes?

Yes, as I initially said.

Remind me. Was it landscaping and gardening? Keeping the lawn edges neatly trimmed? Having brews and stew at Hub Mound Campfire? I forget what you initially said.

And while you are doing whatever it is, what will the guy on the throne be doing?

[The Tanager]

As I have already already quipped; "I offer exactly the same type of support as you offer me."
I have seen no support offered for your belief about the afterlife being true.

Oh, I see what you meant now. We were talking about images of The Creator. I said people could paint an image of the Creator in different ways and both be 'correct' (post 139). You then asked me what I meant by 'correct' and then stated that "In my mind this appears to show evidence that my understanding that individuals will experience what they believe because they will create their next experience [afterlife] based - in part - on the imagery of their beliefs" (post 140). I then shared what I meant by 'correct' and then stated that I didn't see how this was evidence for your view of the afterlife being true (post 151).

I wasn't making a positive claim that my view of the afterlife was true. I was analyzing your claim that such-and-such supported your view as true. Neither was I asked (that I saw) for support for my view being true. Perhaps I missed that because my focus was on analyzing your claim, where I like to take one thing at a time. Regardless, I have no problem supporting my views. It would probably be another thread, though, because I think the truth of my beliefs about the "afterlife" ultimately rests on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, which would risk derailing this thread.

Listen if you want to use the word 'reject' in the same way you use it in relation to my world view on the matter, fine. Perhaps the best way to agree is to ask you exactly how much of my WV you reject percentage wise...then we can compare the math.

I have no idea what the percentage is or if that could even be found out with the amount of beliefs we would have to inventory and compare.

Ultimately your WV being 'rejected' is not the same as you being rejected, so our WVs are indeed different in that, if I understood you correctly as to what your WV expects will happen to me. [Something along the lines of my being separated from The Creator and left to remain evil]

Yes, we disagree on the ultimate ends available to people. I think there are two possibilities and you think there is one.

I see so little practical use for doing so. I pointed you to a Christians post to test out your claim you were not like those Christians [re "Bigotry"] and not only did you miss that entirely, but you went off on a tangent by focusing upon sex and gender...you showed that you prefer to argue against my WV on afterlife than correct fellow Christians who support past past Christian atrocities.

In your response to that poster you claimed the poster's interpretation of Gen. 1:27 justified bigotry. Then you talked about how the poster's interpretation contradicted nature and the poster's own view that the Creator is Spirit. You then talked about how you would Biblically argue against the poster's bigotry, namely, that humans are "Of The Spirit" and might not successfully identify with is form.

That thread is in the Bible Study section and was offered as commentary on the book of Genesis. Therefore, I kept my main comments related to the understanding of Gen. 1:27 (the verse in question). I said that this verse does not justify bigotry towards intersex individuals, transgender individuals, etc. I was agreeing with you against the poster's interpretation of Genesis 1:27.

Your comments on whether some Christians' actions towards intersex individuals, transgender individuals, etc., are bigoted is a different issue that I felt off topic, but worth pursuing in a different thread, as I said. Do you want to be a part of such a thread and talk about it?

Not so. A label can be abused and then dropped because of that. None have the right to call others what those others do not wish to be called.

People do have the right to hold words to their meanings. Using those labels in talking to someone else is a different issue, though. Emotions, past experiences, etc. come into play. If someone fits the definition of "homosexual," but doesn't like that term, I wouldn't use that term in speaking to them.

Remind me. Was it landscaping and gardening? Keeping the lawn edges neatly trimmed? Having brews and stew at Hub Mound Campfire? I forget what you initially said.

And while you are doing whatever it is, what will the guy on the throne be doing?

In that post I also said revelling in the Creator's goodnes, love, joy, along with countless others, in deep relationship with the Creator and others. I alluded to CS Lewis' vision of eternity in The Last Battle. I think that will probably involve taking care of the Earth, gardening, landscaping, creating, engineering, sports, talks, eating, drinking, exploring, all kinds of joys of life. Where I am wrong, I am sure my vision will fall short of the reality in goodness and joy.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #189]

This thread has already expanded to include the discussion of imaging The Creator and in that 'afterlife expectations' would be relevant.

The overall point being that we do each have reasons for why we think what we do about what we each expect to happen re The Next Phase and these reasons include what Jesus has shown each of us, because we both declare as much...

As for percentage, with the amount of info we have shared already we have an inventory to compare. as we have discussed these at length already.

So from what you already have, how much of my WV do you reject percentage wise...then we can compare the math.

50%? More? Less?

The context I am using 'reject' is in that I do not reject any of your beliefs as coming true for you to experience. From what I can gather, you reject everything I think will happen for me, in the next phase.

Sure, I reject that what you will experience is the truth as in 'something I would want to experience for myself in the Next Phase' but to me it seems a redundant form of argument for you to have brought into this discussion. So what that we reject wanting to experience one another's preferred reality experiences [re afterlife]?

Another thing for me to mention here is that I do not think that my "Hub of The Holographic Realms" is some kind of permanent reality experience. There is more to experience than all of the Holographic Realms, but since eternity is never-ending, one can meander.

That we disagree on the ultimate ends available to people - [you think there are two possibilities and I think there is one] is not an issue for my WV. It is only a problem in relation to you [your WV]
Since The Creator is One, I will go with "One" as this seems reasonable for all the reasons I have so far given for the reader to contemplate [or not].

The other difference between our WVs is that mine does not have an 'ultimate ending' because once this cycle is complete [all come to the realization that we are The Creator playing hide and seek with Itself, The "end" is in regard to that realization. "Found".

Once found [re the individual] then that is 'The End" of that game [for the individual]...but still there are other things one can do re that understanding...

As to the bigotry - My main point was that I like to see evidence of someone's claims. You had the opportunity to complain about this false teaching in that thread and didn't use it.
That in turn tells me that your claims don't align with your actions. Therefore I can assume your claim is false.
Having said as much, that is not a judgement. I understand [more and more] how much underlying [subconscious] stuff happens with individuals, to which they are not consciously aware. If they are not doing this willfully, I think there is a good chance of convincing them to think outside that box and become intimately aware of those things within the subconsciousness. This involves introspection. A Will to be honest with oneself....stuff like that.

In that post I also said revelling in the Creator's goodnes, love, joy, along with countless others, in deep relationship with the Creator and others. I alluded to CS Lewis' vision of eternity in The Last Battle. I think that will probably involve taking care of the Earth, gardening, landscaping, creating, engineering, sports, talks, eating, drinking, exploring, all kinds of joys of life. Where I am wrong, I am sure my vision will fall short of the reality in goodness and joy.

In that I see no difference between what you will be doing and what I will be doing, in that we continuing in the spirit of Lovingkindness. This leads me to the understanding that our difference is in that you won't be dealing with things you think of as 'evil' and I will be dealing with those things, as I do not think of them as 'evil'.

Just misinformed - in need of more information which is not hidden behind a fog of misinformation.

You didn't answer my question re while you are doing whatever it is you are doing, what will the guy on the throne be doing?

[Miles]

.


...........................HOLY CA RUMBA!!!!


It just dawned on me, If god didn't have a gender, specifically male, how could he ever have impregnated Mary? Artificial insemination, with his essence kept in a wine glass or thimble perhaps? Nah. It would have to have been something involving good bedside manners. And thinking about it, doesn't the whole thing smell a bit of rape? Holy or godly rape no less, but still rape?

From the U.S. Department of Justice website;

An Updated Definition of Rape: (January 6, 2012)

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

And it would have been necessary to use some body part or object to get the little fellas inside. Can't expect them to find their way sitting outside.



.