Why God is known as a He

[Iwannaplato]

Personalising God: A Convenient Danger


Most of the time, discourse and debates about God are pointless.

Both sides, whether staunchly theist or atheist, are simply arguing about a concept.

Throughout the ages, the most enduring concept of God is of some kind of all-powerful super-being. He is usually envisaged as an old man with a long white beard and flowing robes, sitting on a throne in the heavens looking down on the creation and casting judgement on his lowly creations.

The irony is that while theologians say that God created us in His image, we have essentially created God in our image. Because we humans consider ourselves the highest form of life on the planet, we conceptualize God as a more powerful version of ourselves, complete with a personality and human traits such as will, anger, love, and vengefulness.

This anthropomorphized conception of God can lead to problems, because, the human ego being what it is, we are then inclined to proclaim that “my God” is better than “your God”.

What we fail to realize is that my ‘personal God’ is just a symbol for the formless, impersonal, universal consciousness which, for lack of a better word, Vedanta calls Ishvara.



You are the truth right here and now...but Religion has led you away from what you already are.

The truth is all here...if your interested, if you are not interested, then that's ok too...because it's all the same one reality whether it's seen as interesting or not.

I'm just a messenger, and no one is being forced to read this message. No thing cares, where truth be known or not, because no thing will ever alter or change the living truth...because its forever unbroken, unchangeable and constant, infinitely forever eternal.


https://www.unbrokenself.com/vedanta-god/

Man if I believed those things, I wouldn't waste time proselytizing. I'd go for a walk in the woods, which I will later anyway. It's all just peachy, there are no selves, just Self, no thing cares, it's all just fine in it's infinite unchangingness...

And still, aware of this, you want to type online when there is no problem anywhere? Given that knowledge, this is activity you are drawn to?

Vedanta is a partial truth, and please don't assume I am unfamiliar with Vedanta.

Vedanta implicitly doesn't like emotions. It is monist while actually being dualistic and judgmental. Try it out at the source, in India. You'll find out real fast what they think of the limbic system, should you choose to love it yourself.

and still no reason for God to be a he.

[Harbal]

You will never experience anything outside of your own awareness. Everything that you see and perceive appears in this awareness - in you.

The entire world of form is, therefore, nothing but an appearance in the Self.

Yes, so what is taking place within my awareness is what I call reality, even though the contents of my awareness are of a different quality to the matereal they corespond with. I can only construct my modal of reality from what is in my awarenes, regardless of what state of affairs may or may not prevail in any other state of existance. Human language is not really adequate for the discussion of these matters, is it?

[Dontaskme]

Human language is not really adequate for the discussion of these matters, is it?

No it's not adequate, human language fails, you are right. Non-duality simply means the end of knowledge. But the mind does not want the knowledge of self to come to an end.

So when philosophy demands the knowledge of Self or God, which is essentially the same idea, then words will somehow find away to express itself, using the only tool available...Ultimately, it's entirely up to the reader to accept what it is they think they are looking for in their philosophical study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

Like I said, I'm just a messenger here...readers can take it or leave it...there is no obligation to understand anything, unless there is a demand to understand ..in which case, it will always be the self talking to itself anyway, engaging a philosophical dialog with itself alone.

[Belinda]

Personalising God: A Convenient Danger


Most of the time, discourse and debates about God are pointless.

Both sides, whether staunchly theist or atheist, are simply arguing about a concept.

Throughout the ages, the most enduring concept of God is of some kind of all-powerful super-being. He is usually envisaged as an old man with a long white beard and flowing robes, sitting on a throne in the heavens looking down on the creation and casting judgement on his lowly creations.

The irony is that while theologians say that God created us in His image, we have essentially created God in our image. Because we humans consider ourselves the highest form of life on the planet, we conceptualize God as a more powerful version of ourselves, complete with a personality and human traits such as will, anger, love, and vengefulness.

This anthropomorphized conception of God can lead to problems, because, the human ego being what it is, we are then inclined to proclaim that “my God” is better than “your God”.

What we fail to realize is that my ‘personal God’ is just a symbol for the formless, impersonal, universal consciousness which, for lack of a better word, Vedanta calls Ishvara.





You are the truth right here and now...but Religion has led you away from what you already are.

The truth is all here...if your interested, if you are not interested, then that's ok too...because it's all the same one reality whether it's seen as interesting or not.

I'm just a messenger, and no one is being forced to read this message. No thing cares, where truth be known or not, because no thing will ever alter or change the living truth...because its forever unbroken, unchangeable and constant, infinitely forever eternal.


https://www.unbrokenself.com/vedanta-god/

You have a clear idea of Vedanta but you lack historical and anthropological perspective and you show your ignorance in your post. What you write about the history of God, and the nature of anthropological inquiry is simply wrong. Like IC you are stuck in your favourite idea and won't or can't learn something new. We all have favourite ideas and some of us try to learn new ones that may be true for us.

( I like your favourite idea and I dislike IC's favourite idea but my likes and dislikes are beside the point)

Harbal likes novels by a serious writer. Novels are a legitimate way to learn philosophy, and even, with reservations, history and anthropology

[Iwannaplato]

Like IC

I should probably know this, but who is IC?

[Dontaskme]

You have a clear idea of Vedanta but you lack historical and anthropological perspective and you show your ignorance in your post. What you write about the history of God, and the nature of anthropological inquiry is simply wrong. Like IC you are stuck in your favourite idea and won't or can't learn something new. We all have favourite ideas and some of us try to learn new ones that may be true for us.

( I like your favourite idea and I dislike IC's favourite idea but my likes and dislikes are beside the point)

Harbal likes novels by a serious writer. Novels are a legitimate way to learn philosophy, and even, with reservations, history and anthropology

No philosophy is my philosophy.

Yes, we can all learn something new, anytime we desire the demand for knowledge..even if that new learning is learning to unlearn what we are learning, it's all the same difference where there is none.

We tend to want to model the same one naked reality with whatever suit suits us the best. That's just our human nature, to cover up what we can never cover up.

[Harbal]

Harbal likes novels by a serious writer. Novels are a legitimate way to learn philosophy, and even, with reservations, history and anthropology

I'm not actually much of a reader, Belinda, and what I do read isn't all that serious. I just happened to stumbble across an author (Barbara Pym) who turned out to be a delight to read. She would certainly not be to everyone's taste.

[Belinda]

Harbal likes novels by a serious writer. Novels are a legitimate way to learn philosophy, and even, with reservations, history and anthropology

I'm not actually much of a reader, Belinda, and what I do read isn't all that serious. I just happened to stumbble across an author (Barbara Pym) who turned out to be a delight to read. She would certainly not be to everyone's taste.

By "serious" I mean true to the human condition and not simply entertainment alone.

[Harbal]

By "serious" I mean true to the human condition and not simply entertainment alone.

I would say that Barbara Pym observes the human condition with 20/20 vision, but only explores the lighter side of it. She isn't really for those who are more interested in the darker side of humanity, but if you don't like being put on the edge of your seat, and do like having a slight but constant grin on your face for the duration of your reading session, she might very well suit you.

[Belinda]

By "serious" I mean true to the human condition and not simply entertainment alone.

I would say that Barbara Pym observes the human condition with 20/20 vision, but only explores the lighter side of it. She isn't really for those who are more interested in the darker side of humanity, but if you don't like being put on the edge of your seat, and do like having a slight but constant grin on your face for the duration of your reading session, she might very well suit you.

Really quite like Jane Austen then! That is a fine prospect. Thank you. I will close with a secondhand bookseller directly.