• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Gender Identity

AntaresVII

Lord of Minhiriath
Local time
Today 6:27 AM
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
94
-->
Location
Beyond the reaches of time, wandering among dreams
. . .
I don't follow.

Yeah, my case in point.

What is sacred to you? What do you hold most important in life? If you can't answer these things, you haven't thought about life in a serious way, nor have you taken responsibilities that entail where your trust in life belongs.
Yeah, still don't follow.
You're not making any case that this has anything to do with determining wether God has gender and if so what it is.

Unless you're trying to imply that because you think I don't have a proper conception of sacredness it must be true that I don't and because I don't for some reason that stops me from seeing accurately the issue at hand.

In which case your case is presumed and fallacious.

Whether my life contemplation is sufficient has nothing to do with the question.
I don't think you've quite understood the thread of my intention there. It's not about my "feelings", which I feel apart from you, it's the vibe that you project through your words and the direction of your intent.
I might guess that the reason you take issue with my apparent "direction of intent" is because, as I said, I trust my understanding of reality sans God better than my understanding of God, so when my understanding of reality conflicts with someones notion of God I assume the notion is wrong, whereas I would guess you take the approach of assuming your understanding of God is accurate, and when you encounter someone's notion of reality that conflicts with your concept of God, you assume that notion is wrong.

Obviously we should avoid assuming anything but with limited information and knowledge we have to start somewhere so assumptions we make.

So the conflict comes with thinking that your or my approach is better or worse.
Naturally we tend to be suspicious of people who use the other approach because we assume other people would fall into the same trouble as we would using the opposite approach. But that's just projection, and in truth neither way is any better than a stop-gap for our lack of information, knowledge, and I suppose wisdom as well.
Anyway, my approach to the whole discussion is essentially that of assuming that my notions of reality are accurate, and rejecting concepts of God that contradict them.

Your 'notion' has been described by many people in the past,
As have yours
and Christian philosophers and theologians have addressed them.
Likewise vise versa
Do you think no one in history have thought about what you have already thought about,
and that no one in the Christian realm of things have addressed them?
No, but I haven't found them yet, and you sure haven't presented their arguments in full or proper form.
To be blunt, you simply have not grasped the notions that underlie Christianity
If I am to take your arguments at face-value, neither have you.
, nor do you have an understanding of the metaphysical framework which bases Christian thought.
I don't pretend to know the orthodox Christian metaphysical framework, but your presentation of it has been all too easy to poke holes in.
Either the framework is weak and flawed, or you don't understand, or aren't properly communicating, that framework yourself.


I'm not challenging the logic of the theologians of mainstream orthodox Christianity,
I'm challenging your presentation of it. If you're saying that I shouldn't assume that a flaw in your presentation constitutes a flaw in their form, I know, and I don't.
I'm talking to you, not the combined great minds of christian theology.
We're both comparative idiots in the face of that group, and it would take at the least thousands of hours of study to cure that ignorance.

Failing that, I suggest we hold a discourse of consciously flawed individuals, not of preciously-held, supposedly sacrosanct ideologies.
We're all idiots here but at least we're trying. We don't have to take an attack on our flawed and weak arguments as an attack on our own being. I would guess that a major reason a lot of people are on this forum is that it has an above-average amount of intellectual maturity in that regard.
We can admit to having made and even believed poor arguments because we can separate personal pride from the equation.

If Socrates taught us anything it's that the closest any of us get to being smart is realizing we're stupid.
 

AntaresVII

Lord of Minhiriath
Local time
Today 6:27 AM
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
94
-->
Location
Beyond the reaches of time, wandering among dreams
No.

I asked because it relates the conversation we've been having to the topic of the thread. I do have an opinion on the matter, but that doesn't stop me from being willing and curious to hear what other people have to say.

And my question being "what is meant by gendering God", I'm not sure that it even could be asked in bad faith. It's a question, not an assertion.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 7:27 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,075
-->
From what I know, monotheistic religion is almost exclusive to the Abrahamic religions. I think it's a limitation of the English language that we cannot prescribe a pronoun to God without it stripping its personal aspect. If we refer to God as 'it', which is neutral, it would strip God of his personality. But if we ascribe he, or she, we are somewhat extrapolating a relationship that we have between ourselves to God- basically, using a pronoun points to a connection of personality rather than a 'force' or a 'power', aspects which are lower than God.

But I think to really get at the heart of your inquiry, we have to answer what sacredness is. I don't feel like you have a foundation of it, that's why God to you is just as empty as the X in a function of algebra (f(x)). The word God really has no meaning if we don't have the same understanding of it, both in terms of objectivity made through studies in theology, and through the subjective lived experience of religiosity.

God is a person. Persons have gender. The gender God is is sacred because anything touched by God is sacred. Birth is sacred because life begins that way. Life is touched by God. God is life, God brings life. Sacred because there is only one way to bring life and that is sex. God created them male and female. God invented sex to create life. Sx is a sacred creation.

How did God know both sexes were necessary. Why is life created in such a process?


Did you find my answer satisfactory?

You never fully elaborated. as seen above. the question of F(x) = G never was answered. discussing the term (sacredness) is next so we can answer God's gender.
 

AntaresVII

Lord of Minhiriath
Local time
Today 6:27 AM
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
94
-->
Location
Beyond the reaches of time, wandering among dreams
This was my response to the parts of your answer that related to the question:
As for the he she thing, I would presume it's because naturally, humans began as patriarchies, so they attributed power to a male pronoun rather than a female one. If there were more female figureheads, I guess it's presumable that that society would manifest itself as matriarchical and would have attributed power or authority to a female pronoun.
Ok, but if it's an arbitrary title why wouldn't the theologians of orthodox christianity reject it? It seems too convenient. If you have to specify and define and logically extrapolate every tiny detail about the nature of God, how would you leave out something as fundamental as the application of sex/gender?
You probably know better than I do if there's an official orthodox position on the issue, but I don't think "eh, whatever" is it.
Gender or sex wasn't an object of reverence or worship anyways;
Boy have I got news for you
the God of the Israelites were pretty damming of the Canaanite idols, which most were about deities of fertility, harvest, and war and the like.
1. These people were worshiping fertility, which goes up to what you said there ^^
2. Wasn't the issue the worshiping of false Gods? I don't think it was gender or sex-specific.
From what I know, monotheistic religion is almost exclusive to the Abrahamic religions. I think it's a limitation of the English language that we cannot prescribe a pronoun to God without it stripping its personal aspect. If we refer to God as 'it', which is neutral, it would strip God of his personality.
But what is that personality? If having a gender/sex gives personality, and that differs depending on the gender/sex, it matters a good deal whether God has sex/gender and if so which it is.
But if we ascribe he, or she, we are somewhat extrapolating a relationship that we have between ourselves to God- basically, using a pronoun points to a connection of personality rather than a 'force' or a 'power', aspects which are lower than God.
So it's an arbitrary projection on our part? That would seem to be something to avoid.
Your answer wasn't "satisfying" in the sense that it left me without any further questions and resolved the issue, but it wasn't an inherently poor answer, so I would say it "satisfied" the essential mark of giving fair thought and effort to the response.


As for AK's point, I don't think the f(x) thing was a question or implied one. I don't think you were saying that f(x) = G
(Maybe "you think that God's word is as empty as x as in f(x)", but that's not the same thing, and I went over it already.)
 

AntaresVII

Lord of Minhiriath
Local time
Today 6:27 AM
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
94
-->
Location
Beyond the reaches of time, wandering among dreams
God is a person.
What makes a person? I would think one would require a body (that and consciousness).
onestep and orthodox christianity say God has no body, so if you need one to be a person then God can't be.

Else, is consciousness all that is needed to be a person? Consciousness can't exist without something to be conscious of, but can that something not include a body?
Once could be an observer of reality without having interactive capability?
Ghosts/spirits basically?
Sacred because there is only one way to bring life and that is sex. God created them male and female. God invented sex to create life. Sx is a sacred creation.
Unless God didn't create sex (male/female), but only the framework for it to take form in creation, meaning sex is a transcendent property.
How did God know both sexes were necessary. Why is life created in such a process?
If God created the whole system it's an issue of fiat choice not knowledge of a "necessary" way.
As for why, we can't really know, but maybe because sex itself is transcendent of God's creation and is fundamental in reality itself?
 

onesteptwostep

logos, life, love, longsuffering
Local time
Today 11:27 PM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,405
-->
From what I know, monotheistic religion is almost exclusive to the Abrahamic religions. I think it's a limitation of the English language that we cannot prescribe a pronoun to God without it stripping its personal aspect. If we refer to God as 'it', which is neutral, it would strip God of his personality. But if we ascribe he, or she, we are somewhat extrapolating a relationship that we have between ourselves to God- basically, using a pronoun points to a connection of personality rather than a 'force' or a 'power', aspects which are lower than God.

But I think to really get at the heart of your inquiry, we have to answer what sacredness is. I don't feel like you have a foundation of it, that's why God to you is just as empty as the X in a function of algebra (f(x)). The word God really has no meaning if we don't have the same understanding of it, both in terms of objectivity made through studies in theology, and through the subjective lived experience of religiosity.

God is a person. Persons have gender. The gender God is is sacred because anything touched by God is sacred. Birth is sacred because life begins that way. Life is touched by God. God is life, God brings life. Sacred because there is only one way to bring life and that is sex. God created them male and female. God invented sex to create life. Sx is a sacred creation.

How did God know both sexes were necessary. Why is life created in such a process?


Did you find my answer satisfactory?

You never fully elaborated. as seen above. the question of F(x) = G never was answered. discussing the term (sacredness) is next so we can answer God's gender.
People have gender, persons do not. Learn what a 'person' is before you go off on dumb tangents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

@AntaresVII The link above applies to you as well.

Why do I feel like I have to teach every single little thing? I'm out of this thread now, bye bye.
 

onesteptwostep

logos, life, love, longsuffering
Local time
Today 11:27 PM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,405
-->

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 7:27 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,075
-->
Your tangent was. If you think your ideas are an extension of your being, then sure, you can consider yourself dumb. Depends on your metaphysical view.

:)

I believe you went on a tangent yourself and failed to see the heart of the matter.

What does sacredness have to do with God's gender?
 

AntaresVII

Lord of Minhiriath
Local time
Today 6:27 AM
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
94
-->
Location
Beyond the reaches of time, wandering among dreams
People have gender, persons do not.
By the wikipedia article you cite and any of the top listed definitions, that's only true if we're talking about legal persons, which we aren't.

Why do I feel like I have to teach every single little thing?
I've been wondering that too, since half the time you do it becomes clear that you really aren't in a position to be "teaching" whatever it is that you're so sure we've got wrong, let alone whether you're right.
Also, because we all don't know an infinite amount of things and the little we do know may overlap very little. You probably have relatively specialized knowledge of the concepts of orthodox christianity compared to myself or AK (I don't speak for AK but that would be my guess) and are thus in more of a position to clarify things when they are misunderstood (not that you do so).
Learn what a 'person' is before you go off on dumb tangents.
Unless you're hiding a definition of 'person' somewhere that actually makes what you said true, you should learn what a 'person' is (in context) before you accuse people of misusing the term and going off on dumb tangents.


The final thrust, who of us can resist trying to make it?
 

onesteptwostep

logos, life, love, longsuffering
Local time
Today 11:27 PM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,405
-->
It's not about legality, try again.

In fact, as I have said, I think it's pointless talking to you because you can't seem to grasp the underlying metaphysical assumptions about reality and grasp other worldviews. You think physicality is all that exists, and that everything is an extension of that physicality. That is materialistic epistemology, something you clearly seem to not understand.


Good bye.
 

onesteptwostep

logos, life, love, longsuffering
Local time
Today 11:27 PM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,405
-->
Your tangent was. If you think your ideas are an extension of your being, then sure, you can consider yourself dumb. Depends on your metaphysical view.

:)

I believe you went on a tangent yourself and failed to see the heart of the matter.

What does sacredness have to do with God's gender?

The heart of the matter is that you want to be a lyrical charlatan and push a syncretism. Time and time again, you try to "bridge" Christianity with whatever your thoughts are for some odd obessive reason, which I guess is due to your slight autism.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 7:27 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,075
-->
I do not understand Christianity because I am autistic.

fine, I'm ok with that.

I'm fine if you hate me

I am not fine that my intentions are viewed as negative.

You are accusing me of deceiving people.

Yet your the one never giving a straight answer.

You're the only one who thinks themselves as right and do not have to debate.

This is a forum, people discuss things not attack others and act superior to them.

You think you're superior and that all people not in the know are inferior.

We don't know what you know we know the average amount about Christianity.

You think we have bad intentions for debating only with average knowledge on the subject.

If a lack of knowledge is morally wrong in your eyes, then you have a wrong moral view.

stop confusing ignorance with willful ignorance. Doing that leads to child abuse.

Whatever the case may be in your eyes I am NOT a bad person for those reasons.

reasons you project on me.

(I am only pretending to participate, I don't respect you, you have an inferior thinking style and you are only here to deceive people)

A debate is about coming to shared conclusions, not who has the superior conclusion like you are.
 

onesteptwostep

logos, life, love, longsuffering
Local time
Today 11:27 PM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,405
-->
I don't care for superiority or any alpha power stance. Knowledge is not power, knowledge is truth, and truth to me is only Christ.

I never came here for a debate either, but to simply answer questions. If you thought that this was a debate, then you are framing the entire discussion falsely.

Moreover, I don't hate you, or anyone, just annoyed that my position isn't taken in and digested, but only listened to with the intention of arguing.

In addition, your autism has nothing to do with your inability to grasp Christianity. Don't be silly.
 

crippli

disturbed
Local time
Today 3:27 PM
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
1,728
-->
I can see this isn-nt solved. What if it's as simple as beiing feminine or masculine?
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 11:57 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,671
-->
That definition might serve you, but it's probably confusing for men within the middle area of the gradient who encounter women who act more masculine than them. Are those men no longer men? Or are those women no longer women?

What would happens when context changes? I am the most manly man at my workplace (which is feminine dominated). But if I joined a football team I would be comparatively femboy. Do I switch genders?

There is no objective landmark for gender unless you equate gender with biology.

1605261617835.png
 

AntaresVII

Lord of Minhiriath
Local time
Today 6:27 AM
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
94
-->
Location
Beyond the reaches of time, wandering among dreams
What would happens when context changes? I am the most manly man at my workplace (which is feminine dominated). But if I joined a football team I would be comparatively femboy. Do I switch genders?

There is no objective landmark for gender unless you equate gender with biology.
I think gender walks the line between an objective and relative measure, since there are practical limitations to how masculine or feminine a person can be, so the extremes are available as guides to a midpoint of sorts, though it's all grey area enough to be basically relative in a large swathe of the mid-zone.

I think the reason it becomes so vague is, as I've said, that all of us have the potential to and inevitably to some extent do manifest both masculinity and femininity. Gender though, is the overall lean towards one extreme or the other, and as such, one could be a relatively feminine member of a highly masculine group, but still clearly more masculine than feminine, assuming that the group is aware of the existence of highly feminine people for comparison.
Sans such awareness, it would make sense for the scale to be arrayed such that you are designated predominately feminine since the basis of comparison is limited, raising the question of whether any of us can say we really know what the full extent of possibility is in regards to being masculine or feminine.

So as for your question "what happens when the context changes", I think the relevant context is all the people we know of and all we know about people. Gender is determined in the context of society at large, as we know it. When we see people who appear overtly masculine or feminine, we aren't comparing them to just those people immediately surrounding them, but to all the people we know of.
We can make the distinction between judging someone to be relatively masculine or feminine in relation to someone else, and judging someone to be masculine or feminine in relation to everyone else.
When it comes to our perceptions of gender overall the context of comparison is broad enough that it doesn't really change.
 

crippli

disturbed
Local time
Today 3:27 PM
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
1,728
-->
That definition might serve you, but it's probably confusing for men within the middle area of the gradient who encounter women who act more masculine than them. Are those men no longer men? Or are those women no longer women?

What would happens when context changes? I am the most manly man at my workplace (which is feminine dominated). But if I joined a football team I would be comparatively femboy. Do I switch genders?

There is no objective landmark for gender unless you equate gender with biology.

View attachment 5580
I'm really drunk, as normally. And I will not say I am in frequency with Anthares. But that sounds very vise. As to the question about people in the middle. ?? Really, is there a difference? Some are in the middle, some are at the extrmes.

Next psragraph: people are .. unpredictable

Last psrsgraph. Correct. It is subjective.
 
Top Bottom