Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:01 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:23 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:32 am My point is just that IF the Supreme Being exists, then nobody would have "assigned" anything to Him.

Don't humans assign all kinds of ideas to things that exist?

They certainly do.

But then, is your supposition that God is one of these "things that exist"? I'm just asking, not mocking.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:32 am In other words, He assigned US gender...we didn't "assign" Him anything.

What are you basing this claim on?

God's sovereign pre-existence. IF God exists, then inescapably, we are the contingent and created beings, and He would be the self-existent and necessary One.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:32 amHowever, IF it were the other way around, the way Nietzsche thought it was, for example, and God is merely a human invention, then it doesn't at all matter what gender we "assign" Him, because He wouldn't then exist anyway...

So, are you saying that the imaginary things people assign ideas to, don't affect/impact anything/anyone else?

Not very much. The gender of Santa Claus or the Easter Rabbit cannot be of much consequence, if any at all. And and question about it can be offset by reference to the gender of Cinderella and Snow White.

Perhaps if NO ONE believes it is real. But that's not the case is it? Therefore, all sorts of beliefs are built upon it, and affect even those who don't believe it. Correct?

Ah. Now we get down to it.

So your question would be as follows:

There's no such thing as "God."
But some people believe there is, and this belief is of consequence to them.
Assigning God a masculine identity is a manipulation that serves a male agenda.
So we should manipulate it to assign a feminine or neutral identity, to serve a feminine agenda.

Is that your position? I just want to clarify before we go on. Again, I'm not mocking. Feel free to change the wording above until it reflects what you would really say, if you don't like my wording.

I am just wondering how assigning It a neutral identity would/could serve a feminine agenda at all?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:10 pm I am just wondering how assigning It a neutral identity would/could serve a feminine agenda at all?

Good question. I'm waiting to see what LW says about that.

I.C...I'm going to respond to all of your comments, but please note that this topic is not about (YOUR favorite topic of) whether or not there is a god. It is about the impacts that occur for both males and females when there is any idea of a god being a male. If you're going to be honest for a change, please put down the snake and stop dancing around. Your dance is not new.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:01 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:23 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:32 am My point is just that IF the Supreme Being exists, then nobody would have "assigned" anything to Him.

Don't humans assign all kinds of ideas to things that exist?

They certainly do.

But then, is your supposition that God is one of these "things that exist"?

No. I was responding to your statement that IF a supreme being existed, humans would not assign anything to it. Yet we both know that humans assign ideas and meanings to EVERYTHING whether it exists or not. Yes?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:32 am God's sovereign pre-existence. IF God exists, then inescapably, we are the contingent and created beings, and He would be the self-existent and necessary One.

Based on a certain idea and model believed (and possibly created) by humans. Why do you think there could be no other possibilities than what you state?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:32 amThe gender of Santa Claus or the Easter Rabbit cannot be of much consequence, if any at all.

Do you not see the difference between a god and Santa Claus when speaking about the power of the impacts on humankind?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:32 am

Perhaps if NO ONE believes it is real. But that's not the case is it? Therefore, all sorts of beliefs are built upon it, and affect even those who don't believe it. Correct?

Ah. Now we get down to it.

You know my position. Why do you act like you've just perceptively discovered something? My position does not change the question I'm asking. My responses are to your snake dance, in which you try to lure people into debating whether a god exists or not, because that's how you pleasure yourself. But that is not the issue. The issue is, that whether or not a god exists, humankind has come to speak of the idea as a "male".

What is the reason for a god to be a male?

And what impact does this then have on human males and females?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:32 am So we should manipulate it to assign a feminine or neutral identity, to serve a feminine agenda.

How would a neutral identity serve any gender's agenda?

It's interesting that you seem to jump to thinking that if it's not seen as "male", then it serves females?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:30 pm Well the very reason WHY God was assigned the male gender, in the beginning, was because the male gender thought that they had automatic superiority over the female gender.

This appears to be the case. As is also reflected in the stories about Adam (a male) being the first human created by god, and the female being created from Adam's rib, as well as there being a SON of god (another male figure), and all of Jesus' disciples were male. The one woman he was close to was identified as a whore. Of course his mother had to be given some high status because she bore him. But I don't think she was represented as offering wisdom or council... just a common vessel for his glorious entrance into the world.

IF the idea of god were a female, I don't think the story would have been the same. It is thick with male superiority. And this is the same kind of world we live in. Whether a person believes in a god or not, males tend to reign supreme. How could anyone think this DOESN'T have an impact on both males and females? Male babies are "preferred" by some cultures. Males often have a sense of entitlement that they have done nothing to earn. Females are considered inferior to males in countless ways. How could this NOT set up all kinds of distorted and destructive dynamics?

Females in the animal kingdom seem to naturally receive more reverence/regard than females in the human species.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:30 pm Is it really true that the male gender (all males) are lazier and more ignorant than the female gender (all females) in actually developing and demonstrating thee spiritual potential?

In my experience -- and based on discussions with male and female friends -- it appears (in general) that women tend to be more open to spiritual matters than men do. Men typically use their physical might. And when they are associated with a gender that supposedly rules the Universe, there seems to be less motivation to develop their spiritual side. They can simply claim to know and speak for god, and that's their instant ticket to glory, that no one should question. And they're satisfied with that. Natural spirituality and intuitive wisdom is often seen as something evil and NOT of god.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:50 pm Does the MODEL of a male gender assignment to a GOD...

A) Tend to give males automatic superiority over females?

and

B) Enable males to be lazier and more ignorant in actually developing and demonstrating their spiritual potential?

Seriously, I'm asking what are the impacts to human genders, of assigning a male gender to A SINGLE GOD?

I think God is referred to as a male because it is the male that sires..desires itself...as and through itself the female, and that in order to do that the the male had to split in two to become FE/MALE. . through Adams gift of life to EVE....or something like that

In reality there is no male since all life forms start off as female. A female becomes a male only within the objective desire for the dream of separation where complimentary opposites reside together as one being.

Now the rest of the story is very long, but we are not really obligated to go along with any of that are we?

.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:45 pm I.C...I'm going to respond to all of your comments, but please note that this topic is not about (YOUR favorite topic of)...

I've stayed scrupulously on topic. You can't imagine that it makes not difference to your question whether or not it's about a real entity, can you?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:01 pm ...is your supposition that God is one of these "things that exist"?

No. I was responding to your statement that IF a supreme being existed, humans would not assign anything to it. Yet we both know that humans assign ideas and meanings to EVERYTHING whether it exists or not. Yes?

But not genders to everything.

Anyway, such an "assigning" works hugely differently for fictive things than it does for real ones. I can "assign" the Easter Rabbit to be female, if I like. But can I assign LW a gender, and have that be the same thing? Of course not; because LW, being a real person, already HAS a gender. So that means that if I "assign" one to LW, I'm "misassigning", if I guess wrong. Does it not?

But there is an additional difficulty: if the concept "God" describes the Supreme Being and Creator, then it means that human beings, being only creations themselves, have been assigned their genders by God. And in that case, humans didn't "assign" God His masculine identity. It was His already, before it was any of ours.

This means that if you're hoping to convince any Theists, you would have to show that God actually was the "gender" you were "assigning." But if you're only talking to Atheists, then they don't even believe God is real, so assigning anything to Him would make no sense to them.

In other words, the danger of not sorting out your suppositions is that, at the end of the day, you'll end up talking to no one. Neither group will have a reason to see your question as intelligible, then.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:32 am God's sovereign pre-existence. IF God exists, then inescapably, we are the contingent and created beings, and He would be the self-existent and necessary One.

Based on a certain idea and model believed (and possibly created) by humans. Why do you think there could be no other possibilities than what you state?

Notice above the hypothetical, "IF," capitalized just for your notice.

I'm not telling you what you must believe; I'm only trying to show you what any Theist is going to say is the case, and I presume you're trying to talk to/about some of them, no?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:32 amThe gender of Santa Claus or the Easter Rabbit cannot be of much consequence, if any at all.

Do you not see the difference between a god and Santa Claus when speaking about the power of the impacts on humankind?

Certainly. But I believe God is real. And as I say, I don't expect that you necessarily choose to.

And if that's true, then what you're complaining about is the gender of a fictive person. If you believe that, the sensible thing would be to argue not that the concept "God" is gender-biased, but that it refers to no real thing. Otherwise, you end up arguing, "This thing I don't believe exists has the wrong gender": and nobody can make good sense out of a claim like that. it's gender cannot be "wrong," if the word has no real referent.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:32 am

Perhaps if NO ONE believes it is real. But that's not the case is it? Therefore, all sorts of beliefs are built upon it, and affect even those who don't believe it. Correct?

Ah. Now we get down to it.

You know my position. Why do you act like you've just perceptively discovered something?

I wanted to be certain of what your position on that was. I thought it might be that, but I owed you to hear it from you.

The issue is, that whether or not a god exists, humankind has come to speak of the idea as a "male".

What is the reason for a god to be a male?

And what impact does this then have on human males and females?

So let me get this straight, then: this concept "God," which you believe to be a fiction, has been traditionally presumed to be masculine. You see this as somehow less fair than if God had been attributed feminine or neutral gender.

In which case, I was right when I summarized your case. Basically, it reads,

There's no such thing as "God."
But some people believe there is, and this belief is of consequence to them.
Assigning God a masculine identity is a manipulation that serves a male agenda.
So we should manipulate it to serve a different agenda.

The problem, of course, is to ask why the manipulation of a concept in favour of one agent is morally or objectively "better" than manipulating the same concept to serve any other. They're all just manipulations of a fictive concept. Those all look morally equal...and objectively, there's no way to say one's "better" than the other, from an Atheist perspective.

So we might ask, "What gives anybody the right to co-opt the "God" concept to feminine or other agenda uses?" And if they have such a right, what made it "wrong" for men to co-opt the concept in the first place? (assuming that's what they did)

Why is it moral for a woman to do precisely the same kind of manipulation that she excoriates men as having done?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:45 pmDo you not see the difference between a god and Santa Claus when speaking about the power of the impacts on humankind?

What about the impacts on children though!! when they found out Santa Claus wasn't really a male or female, even worse that poor old Santa wasn't anything at all for that matter? I think those children would have learnt by now all they need to know about such fictional ideas.I hardly doubt there would be any impact at all regarding the God fiction, it'd be no different to the Santa fiction, but supposing there was an impact, it would probably go something like...Meh, scratch head, Hmm now where have I heard that one before, next joke please!!

In fact that which lives has no gender, it's a blank slate. It's only the imagination aka knowledge within the fictional constructs of mentation that places a gender upon a blank slate.




.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:31 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:10 pm I am just wondering how assigning It a neutral identity would/could serve a feminine agenda at all?

Good question. I'm waiting to see what LW says about that.

But I am asking'you', "Immanuel can", the question. Considering you are the one who posed your question as though it was even a possibility, you therefore should at least be able to answer my question.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:53 pm You can't imagine that it makes not difference to your question whether or not it's about a real entity, can you?

I can imagine that it makes a difference to you. It does not make a difference to me because I'm talking about a cultural issue that involves both believers and non-believers, all of whom are affected by the established structure of belief.

A god, real or imagined in varying degrees across humankind, can become a significant symbol affecting the lives of all humans, even such that a supposed "gender" of that god can have far-reaching consequences throughout society for human genders. That's what this topic is about. Are you able to recognize that there are far-reaching consequences?

How do YOU personally know that the god you speak of is a "he"?

Why would a god even need to be identified as a he or she? How does that make any sense?

Please answer these questions directly without veering off-track to distort and misinterpret in order to blow a bunch of smoke and avoid answering.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:31 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:10 pm I am just wondering how assigning It a neutral identity would/could serve a feminine agenda at all?

Good question. I'm waiting to see what LW says about that.

But I am asking'you', "Immanuel can", the question. Considering you are the one who posed your question as though it was even a possibility, you therefore should at least be able to answer my question.

It's simple. Lots of Feminists are advocates of what they call "inclusive" language. But you know that, surely.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:37 am A god, real or imagined in varying degrees across humankind, can become a significant symbol affecting the lives of all humans...

So your position is that it would not matter whether or not God was real; it would amount to the same problem, you think?

Just asking. Because it's got to be pretty obvious to anyone it's not.

How do YOU personally know that the god you speak of is a "he"?

I believe in the Biblical God. He chooses His own pronouns...I don't. I'm not the Creator. He assigned me my gender, and you yours...We never had any ability to assign Him His.

Why would a god even need to be identified as a he or she?

You've got the question backward. God doesn't "identify as" anything but who He is.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:45 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:31 pm
Good question. I'm waiting to see what LW says about that.

But I am asking'you', "Immanuel can", the question. Considering you are the one who posed your question as though it was even a possibility, you therefore should at least be able to answer my question.

It's simple. Lots of Feminists are advocates of what they call "inclusive" language.

And lots of, so called, "malinists" are advocates of what is called "exclusive" language. It is 'you', of the male gender, after all, who wrote the bible in the beginning. So, it is 'you', of the male gender, who misheard the actual Truth of things, in the beginning, and interpreted with your own account of things, then wrote the misinterpreted versions down. All whilst 'trying to' exclude the female gender as being weaker and/or inferior.

The very reason WHY God was referred as a "he" in the beginning, was because those of the male gender in those times actually believed that they were stronger and superior. That was back then about 2000 years ago. In the days of when this is written, not much really has changed. Some people still actually believe males are stronger and superior and still WRONGLY reference God as a "he".

By the way, your response here in NO way answers my actual question posed to you. So what if lots (or just one or two) of supposed so called "feminists" are advocates for some thing or not. IF you are to answer my question, then you need to explain HOW assigning God a neutral identity would benefit the female human gender in any way at all.

If you can not explain that in any way, then maybe that is an actual SIGN that God is in fact by Nature NEUTRAL gendered.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:45 amBut you know that, surely.

What I know and/or do not know is of no relevance here.

I asked 'you', "immanuel can", How assigning It or God a neutral identity would/could serve a feminine agenda at all?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:53 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:37 am A god, real or imagined in varying degrees across humankind, can become a significant symbol affecting the lives of all humans...

So your position is that it would not matter whether or not God was real; it would amount to the same problem, you think?

Just asking. Because it's got to be pretty obvious to anyone it's not.

How do YOU personally know that the god you speak of is a "he"?

I believe in the Biblical God. He chooses His own pronouns...I don't. I'm not the Creator. He assigned me my gender, and you yours...We never had any ability to assign Him His.

Why would a god even need to be identified as a he or she?

You've got the question backward. God doesn't "identify as" anything but who He is.

I could be WRONG but I think 'you', "immanuel can", have MISSED the whole point of this topic.

Why do you call God "a he";

1. Because God is "a he"?

or

2. Because you BELIEVE God is "a he"?

Or,

3. For some other reason.

If it is 1, then what proof and/or evidence that God is actually "a he"?

If it is 2, then there is one actual piece of proof AND evidence of what impact assigning the WRONG terminology of "he" has on human genders. If people BELIEVE that God is "a he", but have NO actual proof NOR evidence for this, then the actual repeated saying, "because God said so", "because it is written in the bible", is more evidence AND more proof that because some people of all genders BELIEVE males are stronger and superior, then they also BELIEVE that because God (the BELIEVED superior "male") supposedly said "it is written in the bible therefore it must be true", then they also sub and un-consciously BELIEVE that that carries more weight. Another impact is the reinforced bias confirmation in the male of the human species that they are superior and/or stronger, so they then BELIEVE that what they BELIEVE holds more weight and more truth if it goes against what one of the female gender is saying. Even to the point that if one or any of the female gender is saying things that goes against what some of the male gender are saying, then those of the female gender get labelled and called names like "feminists" and such, as though they are of lesser, weaker, and/or inferior class than "others" are. Add these to the countless other examples of how assigning that completely and utterly disturbingly WRONG terminology of "he" to 'God', Itself, then the actual impacts of calling 'God' a "he" has had on all people of human genders can be easily and simply witnessed and observed.

If it is 3, then what is the other reason WHY you call 'God' a "he"?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:15 am What I know and/or do not know is of no relevance here.

You never said a truer word.

Bye.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:39 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:15 am What I know and/or do not know is of no relevance here.

You never said a truer word.

Bye.

So, I asked you two clarifying questions:

1. How would assigning 'God' a neutral gender, which 'IT' IS ANYWAY, benefit the female gender?

And,

2. Why do you call God a "he"?

YET, you are completely and utterly incapable of answering either of these two most very basic and very simple clarifying questions. The very best you can come up with is, "Bye".

I wonder how many "others" NOTICE how often and how quick it is that the one's who BELIEVE the strongest are the first ones who want to leave and say "Bye"?

If I am not mistaken, this thread is about, What impact misappropriating the term "he" to 'God' has on human genders.

If I am also not mistaken, 'you', "immanuel can", appeared to have not yet noticed and recognized this, and instead wanted to pursue some matter of IF 'God', Itself, exists or not.

Considering the FACT that the 'God', which you prescribe to, could NEVER even exist anyway, it seems absolutely ludicrous, to me, to even think about going down the path that you 'tried to' go.

One actual impact of WRONGLY calling 'God' a "he" can be witnessed and observed throughout this thread. One of the male gendered ones could not even consider any thing else, and that one is now absolutely disheartened and in disbelief to learn that his idol is NOT who he thought he was. It turns out that 'God' is an 'It' and not a "he" at all. And one of the male gendered has to now consider that the female gender is on actual par and equal grounding as the male gender is, and worse still ALWAYS IS.