Why can't ? be female?
Options
Comments
-
The assumption that we live in a closed universe is an old model.
The universe is expanding.
On top of that thought is that the driving force behind this expansion is consciousness, that at the spot root of everything consciousness brought forth matter, not vice versa.
Everything has consciousness evey living thing every so called living thing.
The crazy part about all of it is that while wee are trying to establish what is and what isn't on this plane of existence, the universe we live in isn't even real, it's a hologram.
I'm not gonna post videos, find that ? out with searches if you choose. -
Ghost Leopard wrote: »Ok then what matter is consciousness made of and where is it located?
Matter creates consciousness. You can call it a reaction. It happens in brains from what we've observed so far. -
Ghost Leopard wrote: »The assumption that we live in a closed universe is an old model.
The universe is expanding.
On top of that thought is that the driving force behind this expansion is consciousness, that at the spot root of everything consciousness brought forth matter, not vice versa.
Everything has consciousness evey living thing every so called living thing.
The crazy part about all of it is that while wee are trying to establish what is and what isn't on this plane of existence, the universe we live in isn't even real, it's a hologram.
I'm not gonna post videos, find that ? out with searches if you choose.
Yes, it's expanding and the closed universe is seriously old, only the bible belt science books will have that ? in it. The conscious universe is a hypothesis, a possibility, but still no mathematics to back it up as a scientific theory. The hologram is a theory and it could be very plausible, but if it's all a hologram, where is it projecting from? Questions we must asked ourselves, I think we need more work in this matter before we can define as a absolute. -
Ghost Leopard wrote: »The assumption that we live in a closed universe is an old model.
The universe is expanding.
On top of that thought is that the driving force behind this expansion is consciousness, that at the spot root of everything consciousness brought forth matter, not vice versa.
Everything has consciousness evey living thing every so called living thing.
The crazy part about all of it is that while wee are trying to establish what is and what isn't on this plane of existence, the universe we live in isn't even real, it's a hologram.
I'm not gonna post videos, find that ? out with searches if you choose.
An isolated system is a system that doesn't transfer energy/matter externally; the expanding Universe does not conflict with this.
The bolded isn't correct using the definition of "consciousness". However, it further supports my statement that " The 'human soul' is a myth.". -
In the many traditions that precede religious movements in modern times, the divine feminine was primarily worshipped. Even the pre-Islamic Arabs worshipped the feminine deities primarily.
-
Ghost Leopard wrote: »Ok then what matter is consciousness made of and where is it located?
I respect your arguments in this thread, many of which I have come to experience personally; but I honestly think that it'll bare no fruit. Scientific atheism is a compelling paradigm without the experiential knowledge of the esoteric doctrine. But those leading that said path are doing so for a reason, just as we have our reasons to believe otherwise. It's come to me through experience that its a waste of time to argue about it.
-
Gold_Certificate wrote: »If "? " was a female, Abrahamic religions would be a lot less ? .
Plus, the whole "? watches you ? " thing, would be mad ? .
Co-sign the bolded.
A lot of ? ? in the Old Testament.
Involves circumcising every male in the household and having layers and layers of foreskins.
The Abrahamic ? is indeed a ? .
@ohhhla man who is that in your sig? -
The ontological argument states that ? is supremely perfect. Since menstruation is contrary to perfection ? can't be a woman.
-
The ontological argument states that ? is supremely perfect. Since menstruation is contrary to perfection ? can't be a woman.
Than why is ? masculine and goddess masculine? We need to get rid of both terms, but before patriarchal societies took a hold of most of the world, humans typically believed in a goddess as the highest order. -
Goddesses were masculine?
Most goddesses were relegated to feminine things: the goddess of fidelity, and the goddess of fertility, and the goddesses of love and beauty.
Then look at the gods: The ? of war, the ? of the underworld, the ? of death. Hell the Sea is personified as a woman and who rules the sea? A man.
Dominance, which is a primary attribute of an omnipotent being, has historically always been attributed to masculinity.
-
Goddesses were masculine?
Most goddesses were relegated to feminine things: the goddess of fidelity, and the goddess of fertility, and the goddesses of love and beauty.
Then look at the gods: The ? of war, the ? of the underworld, the ? of death. Hell the Sea is personified as a woman and who rules the sea? A man.
Dominance, which is a primary attribute of an omnipotent being, has historically always been attributed to masculinity.
I meant feminine, I was typing fast. @elward -
But, I know what you mean, but the egyptians had Ma'at as feminine and Ra, actually a lot of African nations always have a male ? and a female goddess and they were equals or the female was a tad bit higher, but never the other way around until much later.
-
If we all are birthed by a female then what happened to as above so below?
-
just depends on how you percieve it
-
If we all are birthed by a female then what happened to as above so below?
Good question, that needs to be explored and historians, archeologists, and others want to look at this further. I have an idea may be dominance and control freaks. Like fashion designers are majority ? and yet they have dominated on how we perceive that super thin women are the best. -
SouthpawSour wrote: »SouthpawSour wrote: »
"Man" is a general term in certain contexts. "Mankind" is a term that includes women.
When ? made "man" in "his" own image it can mean ? made males, it could also mean ? made females in "his" own image. The sex of this image is not specified.
"Man" is merely a species of animal, it can literally be either sex.
Over-thinking, Man comes before Wo-man. ? being the original represents Man and nothing comes before Him. Man (meaning Man and Woman) consist of spirits within them and ? consists of the Father (Male before Female), The Son and the Holy Spirit therefore Man was made in His image because man has a spirit that comes from ? .
You have no proof whatsoever that ? is male or female, it could be either. As was mentioned "man" is a general term, and if you want to consider the society that translated the bible it could have been mistranslated on purpose.
? is neither though. Jesus is a man. -
How do we know ? isn't and its been a typo all along.
-
? would have to be a species to be considered a male or female. ? , ? ain't a species.
-
Goddess worship was for most of mankind was the norm than later down the line male worship. Also, ? is masculine, so we need to stop saying ? if you want to go down that route.