Is God a He? Your god is not God

Testing the logic of middle eastern monotheism. Not only in name but in deed, YHWY defies the natural order

“If time, space, and matter didn’t exist prior to the moment that our universe came into existence, then logic would dictate that God would not be subject to time, space, or matter—TEP336

IF, is the key word here. You’d be hard pressed to prove there was ever nothing. Before there was something, there was the Tao.

Gods existence would be subject to the Tao, for YHWY doesn’t exist in the decorated form of Christianity, but is only half a god. It is the only way god could be a ‘He’. For He, is only in relationship to she, or the Yin principle—the feminine. Your god is not God. If yin and yang could be split apart, only then could YHWY rule the world in the patriarchal masculinity of the Hebrew religions. It hasn’t. May as easily have a one sided coin. All of nature and unature is the Tao, with both sides irrevocably linked like north and south, hot and cold, male and female.

If God actually were the lone, one true god hiding in the void, it would not be a patriarchal figure head, but an it. Higher and lower beings are both subject to the Tao, which is the isness of existence—the essence of what is. It is what a god would be made from. All gods are subject to it. As a He, YHWY, is only half of every manifestation of reality in the cosmos, which is evidenced by the masculine brutality of his religion fashioned after the kings court of the Tigress and Euphrates culture.

The Tao is the doing. It is the underlying web of being. It is this isness that sprouts forth creations interconnected web of life. It is the background —the comfortable, safe, unnoticed endscape that illuminates the landscape.

All gods would arise from the Tao, which is everlasting. God is subject to it and would die, just as all that arises in the Tao. The void existed before god, he would have to came out of it. The void is without form, but neither exists without the other.

If god is a He, he is only half a god. The masculine and feminine, the yin and the yang, are infinitely bound with every game of life in the balancing ups and downs of equilibrium—between them is the void, the Tao. Hebrew religion has no balance. Logic would say their god is not god. Your god is a human construct from a male driven culture that has held the feminine principle hostage for 3000 years.

According to logic, monotheism is really dimidium-theism, or semi-theism. No wonder Christianity never meets or approaches its objectives—it is missing half of the whole equation. No wonder they want to punish the ineffable traits of being human—they’re playing with half a deck.

If anything at all is obvious, the Hebrew god is constructed of only half of the whole picture, with the feminine principle suppressed by the men of the Middle East—out of ignorance, lust, greed, or insecurity —Most likely all of the above…

Your god is not a god. It is a poorly constructed and chauvinistic half understanding of the universe.

Author: jimoeba

Alternatives to big box religions and dogmas

164 thoughts on “Is God a He? Your god is not God”

  1. Via the internet: The workings of Tao are vast and often beyond human comprehension. In order to understand it, reasoning alone will not suffice.

    Any responses you get to this post should prove to be … interesting.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. Of course it is a challenging topic, but reason and our actual observations of the two principles alone, suggests that the monotheism of the Hebrew religions are missing half of the equation. You can see it manifest in the religion as well where the feminine principle is absent or subservient.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

  3. Brilliant! To attach a male gender to an impersonal force is anthropomorphism at its egocentric/misogynistic worst/best. The notion of a male god came out of the Middle East and is explored superbly in The Genius of the Few by Christian O’Brien who posits that the entities humanity wrongly called Gods were in fact dysfunctional physical beings who set up camp at the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers hence the “masculine brutality of his religion fashioned after the kings court of the Tigress and Euphrates culture.” Yahweh was an unpleasant single male whose lust for preeminence in the region prompted his splintering of the Hebrews off into a militant sect. O’Brien laments that our inherited worship of a very “human” entity has robbed us of a connection with the numinous presence that permeates and nurtures ALL life. In his own lifetime O’Brien intuited a relationship with this wholly benign loving force but was unable to name it because no religion, even the more advanced Eastern religions can accurately labelled the unnamable. It is only in the expansion of our consciousness into infinity that we exhibit and connect with the characteristics of mutable permanence of God/force/life. I think it is reasonable to say we are God inasmuch as we example life and pressure our own limitations in a constant curious flow.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. The one simple fact that Hebrew religion is missing this inseparable key point from what is evident everywhere, would make one say hmmm?
      Great comment Wendy. It is possible to get a glimpse by reason. It can hardly happen ever with a clouded mind of beliefs. Linear thinking is a real bugger. If you’re believing, your one track is too occupied to catch it without a strange bit of luck.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

            1. Perhaps the best descriptive words are … the universe just “is.”

              Or, as some people have expressed — the universe is within us.

              Liked by 1 person

  5. So Tao is this another name for God.

    I could say that before there was God, there was only peanut butter, and eternal stickiness of stickiness Ness. But I would just be using other terms to essentially say that God existed before God.

    Indeed even to say that “no God“ exist is merely to say that “no God“ equals God.

    The words don’t matter. They only matter in so much as an individual is trying to assert its own primacy over another, which isn’t very Tao, At all.

    It’s interesting how atheists carved their argument only paying attention to that which supports what they already know it’s true.

    In my mind, there’s no difference between being an atheist and being a religious person. An atheist is just believing the theology of atheism. In the same way as Taoists are believing the theology of Taoism.

    I’m not really sure how people think that they escape this fact. Rather, I know very well how they escape it: Through denial and selective reasoning.

    🤙🏾

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. …. Or actually, I would say that the religion of atheism only arises against the theistic religion. There’s nothing that an atheist can argue which would be able to allow its brand of religion to escape it’s theological assertions. that is, only by reliance upon the ability for definition to indicate true things can we define ourselves into situations. But this does not get to the truth of the matter that atheism so vehemently often proclaims. Like Richard Dockins, his views on things are so myopic and stubborn, it’s almost ridiculous to read anything by him, that is, and less I’m trying to make a career out of selling books or writing papers. Which really has nothing to do with atheism. They would be more righteous calling themselves pure capitalists. 😁

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. We are born atheists. Indoctrination and belief as a virtue is a curse to the human mind. That’s why psychotherapy is so important in the west. To undue that damage is the new right of passage. The Christian god fails the most basic litmus test. Where is the feminine principle in monotheism? Where is gods Yin?

        Liked by 4 people

        Reply

        1. How very Atheist of you. I wonder how that is any different than a Christian saying that we are born into sin?

          You could elaborate upon what you think is different, and the Christian would go on an elaborate how they think they are correct. I’m not sure why they are in a different and what is actually happening. Sure they can come up with various arguments. But I’m also not sure why a Taoist needs to be atheist. You are maybe. But at the same time we have zillions of denominations of Christianity also.

          Honestly, I’m not really sure how anyone can claim to know such beginnings. When you were born did you think to yourself that you were an atheist. Maybe but I doubt it. Sure, you can look at children that are not you. You can think back to some idea about yourself in your growth and say oh yeah back then I was an atheist. But ultimately I would have to push you on that and to say that, no you weren’t. Only now that you say you were where are you Ever. But you were not that when you were a baby. Nor are any babies except in as much as you want to think that they are.

          For Christians and other types of religions, they would say that babies are blessed children of God.

          I’m not really sure where we’re getting to here .

          I don’t argue religious cosmology. I just say there’s a bunch of people who believe different things and everyone argues and nothing gets done but people getting drunk on the weekends going water skiing and coming up with things to argue about. 😄. Oh yeah, and then occasionally we or we have a leader who is an idiot, and then occasionally we have a leader who is intelligent. I’m not really sure which ones which. But it happens all the time.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. “ How very Atheist of you”. Sure there are no gods, but is there nothing at all? I have gone on this thought process about 5 years now, avoiding expert opinion and anything to do with professional atheism. I was a Christian since birth, so about 50 years. I only trust me. If I can’t trust myself, how could I even trust my mistrust in myself? What a quandary that becomes. The answer is in reasons like this post that get me closer in my own discovery. I have a cursory knowledge of the Tao, but on my way to work this morning I realized yhwy is at odds with this principle of yin and yang, which is really indisputable.
            As for your last statement about born in sin—no immutable attribute of oneself can be a sin. Original sin carries a whole other host of unnecessary baggage—like we are somehow visitors here on probation being watched and tested without knowing it’s a test. Crazy, really.

            Liked by 3 people

            Reply

            1. Yes. However, I would offer the opposite of Christianity is not atheism. I would say that atheism is like bait of Christianity: together they function to uphold a particular kind of view on reality. Within Christianity, sure there’s God and the devil. It’s just taken as an automatic coupling, that the religion of Christianity is this contained sphere of its self professed theology.

              Yeah I would say a more thorough investigation is to say that the reality it’s self is being informed by a Christian type duality. Christianity is just like a reflection, a dupe, a Patsy, so people can get a feeling that they’re escaping some sort of particular problematic or incorrect way of viewing things, where is actually the real motion, the real work of the mythology is occurring behind the curtain. And atheism is the completed motion Of Christianity as an intrinsic mythological world.

              Perhaps Taoism could be said to be the true polemic; yet, One could argue, like I have been with you here, that the truth of the matter is nothing that can really be spoken about. It does not mean that we can’t know it, though. Hence, philosophically speaking, we come to a certain impasse that directs us then to be careful about how we speak about things, rather than what arguments we should be making.

              Liked by 2 people

            2. “ together they function to uphold a particular kind of view on reality.”. Absolutely true. Two banks of the same stream. Without them I wouldn’t know where I stand. Imagine how blissful the world would be if everyone believed?
              The gentleman this post was directed at made some statements about withdrawing from family and friends because they were bad for his faith. But really if there were no opposition how would he truly judge if his beliefs were valid? How would his faith be tested. Really the best way to crack religion is to allow them to persist in their folly. Many have no alternative, no idea what else has been said. He new nothing of Buddhism, Hinduism, or the Tao, so he was certain Christianity was the best game in town. It isn’t.

              Liked by 3 people

      2. Atheism isn’t a religion though. My wife who is an atheist isn’t practicing an “atheist” religion. There is no theology of atheism. She doesn’t hold any beliefs about the world related to her atheism beyond she just doesn’t see evidence for the existence of a divine being and otherwise mostly doesn’t talk or think about it. Likewise, in some cases you can be an atheist and still belong to some of the mainstream religions.

        Anti-theistic atheism, on the other hand, can function as a loose group identity for some people and be extremely dogmatic. They’re not just saying, “Yeah, I don’t see evidence for God,” but going further and arguing religion poisons everything, everything about religion is bad, if you disagree with me your a dumb, naive, harmful person, and even how wonderful, smart, great thinkers they are because they are atheists.

        Liked by 4 people

        Reply

        1. Thanks.thought about the distinction there. Yes that is a good point.

          I imagine that if I was convinced that there was no God that exists, then I would have nothing to say about it. Any opinions as to the existence of God would be met with a “next topic”. Because the very idea of God would have no meaning whatsoever. The existence of such a thing would be outside of my ability to reckon, and thereby I could have no opinion on it whatsoever.

          So I would push back a little bit and say that in so much as I would identify myself as an atheist, there is a whole string, indeed, a whole network of beliefs that accompany the necessity for me to state my position as a “atheist”.

          I am there by only an atheist to the extent that I am making proposals as to what I believe as opposed to what other people are saying about what they believe. In this sense I would say that both of them behave as a religion. The very activity involved is religious, whether it has a text that is numbered to its sentences and phrases and codified in various volumes. Although, I would bet that in a world where we’ve gotten beyond such polemics, we would dare buy very easily be able to assemble various volumes and phrases and sentences and words into a system of belief that we call atheism. In the same way that we might codify ancient Greek mythology to say that it is a mythology. I’ll be at that dermatology within it held many religions.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

            1. There would be no believing of any kind. If The only reason being that God’s existence or nonexistence does not depend on whether or not anyone believes in it. It’s a moot point. It’s like saying that I believe that I’m standing on the sidewalk. It has nothing to do with what I Believe So far is the actuality of its existence.

              However, I could say I believe I’m walking down the sidewalk as a statement which suggests that I’m not sure what I would call this but I’m walking down. That is, I believe I’m walking down the sidewalk, but it could be a path.

              But whether or not it is actually a sidewalk or not Is beyond my power to determine, so far as my ability or capacity to believe.

              I similarly, I could say I believe God exists, but I would be saying in his much as I’m not sure. I believe that God exists but it could be that French vanilla lemonade is actually what is existing and not God at all. It’s a moot point, it makes no sense. Rather, it only makes sense to the extent that I feel that there is some sort of power behind the word “belief”. There is some sort of power, but it lays outside of my ability to believe, because, what would I say You establish the veracity of my belief? I would have to extend an infinite series of beliefs, I would have to say that I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe… at what point does my believing merely become an unsubstantiated effort into nothingness?

              However if I’m saying I believe that God exists, but it could be that an orange spaghetti sauce is actually what is wet existing, then there is no infinite extension of beliefs because the belief resides ultimately in the option that we cannot ever decide upon. That’s what makes it a moot point. It is well, that’s why I’m only saying something about the existence of God in reference to what someone else is saying, and I’m not really saying anything about God‘s actual existence. I am merely taking up a position of belief in reference to a whole series or network of beliefs.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. So if god were real, one wouldn’t have to believe in it. It would be knowledge, to use your sidewalk analogy. That is my position when it comes to deities. If you have to believe in it it doesn’t exist.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. I guess what I’m saying is that you if you have to believe in it then we cannot know whether it exists or not.

              Lol

              There are things that I do not believe exist and yet they affect me. And vice versa. I am not sure, though, if there are things that I believe exist that do not affect me. I can’t be sure. If I am believing that this is a tasty apple, and I take a bite of it and it happens to be, I don’t know, a jimson weed root or some magic mushrooms, I don’t think it mattered whether I believed in it or not. But the fact that I believed that it was just a simple apple would probably affect other things that I believe, whether or not they actually exist.

              I do not believe that psychoactive plants exist. Their existence is outside of my ability for believing. So it is that whatever affect they might be having on me has nothing to do with whether or not I believe it, but indeed whatever belief I am having, would necessarily be affected.

              Like

            4. Maybe belief should be separate from believing-in. There are trivial beliefs that help us navigate from day to day. They don’t cause wars or religious strife.
              “ if you have to believe in it then we cannot know whether it exists or not”. There’s only one right answer. The knower and the knowing is one and the same. The seeker is the sought, and what is sought is the seeker. That is why it is so elusive. Trying to examine anything we are pretending it is separate from ourselves and always eludes discovery.

              Like

    2. No, Tao is not another name for god. There is no god nor is the Tao a monarchial boss with no complimentary feature.
      Can you name for me anything that does not have an opposing force or condition that is in any kind of state, other than proposed god of the Hebrews, yhwy? It doesn’t take much observation to see that abrahamic religions only present half of the picture that is present in all things. Christianity has held the feminine principle at bay for 2000 years, Judaism for more than three. Doesn’t that make you wonder?
      By the way, we communicate in words. It appears that you’ve made a decision to cling to your belief, which is not faith at all, but anxiety.
      The Tao is not a doctrine but a method and a dialog to see reality as a whole self regulating organism. It has no boss. That would be like saying you can tell your hair how to grow or decide how to function your spleen. You have no control over it, you just do it. Tell me how you do that?

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. All I’m saying is that The argument that you’re trying to make falls flat, and less you already believe that there is an argument to be made about what is fundamentally truth of the situation so far as God. Because my question would always ask “what do you mean by God?” I could just keep asking that question over and over again and you would have to keep replying in response to that question “what do you mean by..?”

        Maybe Tao it’s just the name of this process. But I don’t think that there’s any argument that gets us there. Because someone who doubts ultimately could just continue to ask what do you mean by that. To the extent that I would give them a reply, I’m kind of contradicting what I mean, so far as actuality or the truth of the matter, the “thing“ that Tao post to be indicating.

        I think they only reply on the argument to be made would just still be silent. That would be the only way that you could fully express the meaning of Tao. Unless you believe that your words are communicating something essentially true.

        I’m not saying that it’s wrong or that it’s incorrect, I’m just saying that it defeats the purpose of what it’s trying to argue, and that’s a fact.

        Unless I really think that I’m convincing someone of something. Which is fine, but then that is not Tao, it could be atheism, but fundamentally it is some thing else that you’re not even talking about.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. Oh. And just because I point something out in its truth, does not mean that I’m exempt from it or that I’m indicating that some thing is wrong about it. I am indicating something very Tao about it. It is what it is, it does what it does, in the same way that I cannot exempt myself from it no matter how hard I try or what argument I make.

          So, like I said, certain arguments are pointless to make because of the meaning that they’re trying to convey contradicts the argument that they’re putting forth.

          Again, unless I’m trying to prove someone wrong. Then how am I being Taoist in the least if I’m attempting to correct some thing that I see is incorrect?

          Again, I’m not exempt from this situation. I’m just describing it and calling it out for what it actually is.

          Quite Tao, but also not.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. When the language and culture is so deeply rooted in Christian-think, I would seem that helping it move aside is my way of the Tao. It is just as natural as any other developed point of view.
            Even the great masters say you can’t really talk about it, then go on to talk and write about it. It’s as natural as a bird singing, or a cricket chirping.

            Liked by 3 people

            Reply

            1. I’m sure there are good ways that is Christian, as well as fucked up ways that are Christian. And I’m sure they’re idiots who are Taoists, as well as good ones.

              I know what you’re saying. I’m kind of being the devils advocate here.

              Liked by 2 people

            2. No worries. This all should be very obvious but I guess it’s not. There is no secret handshake or special knowledge. It’s all right out in the open. We were just trained to see it from a certain angle since being raised in deceptions of every kind.

              Liked by 3 people

            3. I like what you’re saying. I’m just pushing you a little bit. Well I’m always seeking is someone to give me a good reason why what I’m saying might not be so true. This is how I learned. I don’t really want to assert myself in a search and try to prove to people that I am correct. Rather, in a way I could say that I want to present myself so people can point out problems in myself. Thereby I learn and grow.

              Liked by 2 people

        2. I’m just stating a glaring observation that God is not god nor could he surpass the Tao by only exhibiting one side of a situation that obviously has two. Where Abrahamic faith is a masculine only means at crowd control, and women of course, since Christian morality is ultimately sexual purity.

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

          2. Came here from Maka’s place, and I am not sure I buy one of your fundamental points, Jim: The concept that the universe is bimodal, ying and yang, of two natures. Is that true, or is that true only from the perspective of a portion…and only a portion…of the biology of one small planet? You are assuming that bimodal sexual reproduction is somehow a fundamental part of the nature of reality, and I am not sure that is true at all. I thin things are a lot more complicated than that

            Liked by 2 people

            Reply

            2. Unicellular animals can remember where food is for up to 90 minutes and will overcome obstacles to get to it. It is an integral part of a complex ecosystem. By using the highlighted terms of “masculine and feminine” we see the abrahamic is lacking, but he is also impervious to stimuli, light and dark, up and down. The amoeba is a complex organism that has characteristics that take years to partially understand. Yin and yang are present in all things if we investigate it.
              You might easily identify among higher civilizations, and certain a god would have all those traits and more.

              Liked by 1 person

      1. Ah, Jim, I read all the content. Usually I enjoy everything you write, and the commentary that you inspire. Am I not allowed to dislike some things? I was not criticizing, I was giving you “my” inspiration. The discussion of the Tao held nothing of interest for me.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

          1. It isn’t about what fits with me or not, and I don’t want to start a war with you, I just didn’t feel good about your post or the comment section. Let’s leave it at that, can we?

            Liked by 2 people

            Reply

  9. I recall feeling confused when I was first exposed to Taoism. My instructors made a distinction between philosophical and popular Taoism. The former happened in caves and on mountaintops, while the latter happened in streets and temples. There isn’t a clear distinction though, because, as you point out, the philosophy is quite happy for any sort of thing to exist, even things that people in other religious traditions would consider supernatural. It is a difficult thing for those of us steeped in Western dualism to grasp. I remember one professor characterizing the basis of daoism as a “secondary abstract”. I don’t think that is exactly on target. More like hylomorphism slapped upside the head with a hefty chunk of Berkelian empiricist idealism. Or maybe it is best to just characterize it as aseity, which does not tolerate any trappings – like the qualities of personhood.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. If you can shake off the Christian mindset it isn’t as hard to grasp. I don’t think as a believer I would have been impartial enough to see it. Like one comment said “the Tao is another name for god”. Not really. I suppose if your fixated on the idea of the figure head you could call it god, but it isn’t.
      Thanks Kieth. Great comment. It isn’t supernatural, it is nature. No card tricks, no magic or hocus pocus secret handshakes or mysterious revealed knowledge. It just looking at the world from a different point of view that isn’t Hebrew in nature. We’ve a long way to go…

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  10. Look . . . YHWH wasn’t always a misogynist. He was actually quite cool with women before his wife, Asherah, left him for Ba’al. Then all hell broke lose and he became the jealous “Thou shalt have no gods before me!!’ misanthrope he is today. What he really needs to do is to get laid.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. The world would come apart at the seams (unless of course he authored some instant immunity because his love is hard for us regulars to comprehend) if he partook in a sexual deed.

      Like

      Reply

    1. Hieyem doing well thank you. Glad you enjoyed it. It is interesting to me Jeff, that outside of Christian-think they must really get a chuckle out of this almighty god thing.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  13. How we view the world and whether there is “more” (or not) is a very personal thing for many of us. And unfortunately, it seems whenever we give a “name” to any one perspective, it becomes debatable (which is why I think rawgod reacted as he did). Of course, this is how we communicate so it’s pretty hard to avoid.

    Personally, I like the idea behind the Tao perspective, but it’s too bad it has an association with East Asia because for some people, that immediately puts it in a negative light.

    (BTW, in one of your responses you wrote: The gentleman this post was directed at … . I wonder if he’ll stop by and read it …)

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  14. IT goes by any name, but it is beyond all names
    it comes in all forms, but it is beyond any form
    it cannot be spoken of, for it comes before language and concepts
    it is neither comfortable, nor safe
    for it is without any quality.
    think you know It, you are deceiving yourself
    for it cannot be known, for it is beyond known and knower.
    god is one without a second,
    so, how can ONE know itself?? one can only BE itself 💜

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. “ for it cannot be known, for it is beyond known and knower.”
      Is it? Isn’t the known and the knower and Tao one and the same? I know I’m mixing philosophies, but isn’t that essential it?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. fair question.

        can the Tao be known? can you know the flow, or do you just become one with the flow? can you know your beingness, or do you just melt with the beingness?
        in a state of totality, there is no known and knower. subject/ object apply only to the phenomenal world. Tao, or Self (of Hinduism) or Buddha mind are all non-dual states of being.
        why “the Tao that can be spoken of, is not the eternal Tao”

        to be, but not know you are, is the highest. pure awareness😊

        how is father doing??

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

      2. How can the knower and known be the same? The terms not only imply subject and object, they’re an almost Cartesian dualism.

        I think the problem arises from the illusion of circular self-regard. The notion that we can stand outside ourself observing ourself standing outside ourself observing ourself standing outside ourself … . Hofstadter thought that was the essence of sentience, but he was into programming languages with recursive function calls. Like Damasio on the neurological basis of consciousness, Hofstadter blew his stack. Modeling mind with its artifacts always seems to over-reify the metaphor.

        The true Tao cannot be spoken because speech would divide it into subject and predicate. It cannot be known because knowing would divide it into subject and object. The set cannot contain itself, the formal system cannot prove itself. Seeking to know God is Godelian.

        That’s why judging yourself is nonsensical. You can’t stand in judgement because there’s nowhere to stand.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

        1. Well said, but;
          The knower and the known imply subject and object simply by the way we were raised to interpret it. Zoom out a little. If the true Tao cannot be spoken because language would divide it into subject and predicate, isn’t that same language structure also applying to everything we try to examine as somehow separate from ourselves? It’s a bit of an illusion, but we are inside of what we are looking at, and inside your brain we are seeing what we’re inside of. It is not outside you—it is you.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. If the true Tao cannot be spoken because language would divide it into subject and predicate, isn’t that same language structure also applying to everything we try to examine as somehow separate from ourselves?

            Exactly.

            Language (including symbolic languages) is inherently dualistic. To call something a ‘cat’ is also to imply all that is not ‘cat’. The eternal Tao is non-dual. To speak it is to lose it. To lie.

            That’s why Indian systems of formal logic which try to define the boundaries of dualism employ the Tetralemma of Negation. You can’t say what the non-dual is, only what it is not. And the dualistic law of the excluded middle is insufficient to the task.

            It’s a bit of an illusion, but we are inside of what we are looking at, and inside your brain we are seeing what we’re inside of. It is not outside you—it is you.

            And likewise it’s not inside you either.

            The mind isn’t the brain or visa-versa. My mind is my entire universe. It’s non-dual. There is nothing in my universe that is separate from it.

            My brain is an object within that universe. With sufficiently high resolution reflective 3D imaging I could stand ‘outside’ my brain and observe it. I couldn’t do that with my mind, no matter the resolution, because the reflection itself would be an object of my mind and so would have to contain itself. Infinite recursion again. For the same reason I couldn’t really know my mind from the inside. My mind would have to contain my mind containing my mind containing my mind …

            Liked by 2 people

            Reply

  15. Jim, there’s only one source for a constantly male obsession of total power. It has TWO tangible locations. Care to guess its symbol and its anatomical location? 🤣 😉

    That’s where it all started and that’s where those men “in power” can only find satisfaction and contentment, I should think. And those Alpha’s wanna keep it all there, always the same, always about that anatomical part (and race?) and the misguided FEELING of glorification—perhaps, probably, totally… self-glorification? 🤭

    But we wise ones, we broader-minded ones, deeply educated in science… know full well the hand that rocks the cradle and provides all life, especially human life. The only power that men possess is what their uncontrollable “fluid” selects as a gender. BWAHAHAHAHA!!! So fitting isn’t it. And we can’t even control that can we!? 🤣🤣🤣

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. It works so well to tell those you want to control that GAWD told you this is how it is supposed to be.
      Seems like most religious innovators were just creepers and entitled. Phalically speaking, of course.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. 🤣 YES!!! In the end, they are ALL “just creepers and entitled” according to self… and yes indeed, “Phallically speaking“! Bwahahaha! That’s all it essentially has been about that symbol and self-glorification. Period. And of course one race or one religion—which paradoxically EVERYONE/EVERY religion claims to be… same ole same ole, lead by the very same gender of Homo sapien phallically obsessed men.

        Man… it’s like the silent movies of Keystone Cops isn’t it? 😉

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  17. I may not know enough to comment on this but what if He/She means Yin/Yang? What if it’s referring to the same thing. Not sure if that makes any sense I was just thinking about what you were talking about.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  18. Yin and yang is essentially polarity. If you understand that key point you ultimately see that everything in the universe goes together and contains its opposite. God is masculine only. We would have to have a mother in heaven or be at odds with the entire cosmos.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. God is NOT masculine only. He is an incorporeal being in Judaism and Christianity. Gender doesn’t make sense in that context.

      Historically YHWH may have been conceived as a male deity who was one of many deities back when the Israelites may have continued to hold polytheistic beliefs, but God developed into a genderless abstract being.

      Also, Judaism has the conception of the Shekhinah via its mystic Kabbalah tradition.

      “ In contemporary Jewish discourse, the term shekhinah most commonly refers to the divine feminine, or to the feminine aspect of God — God as mother, nurturer, protector and compassionate one. ” – Shekhinah, The Divine Feminine from myjewishlearning website.

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-divine-feminine-in-kabbalah-an-example-of-jewish-renewal/amp/

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. I know that no serious theologian really believes god is an male deity, but how can the church (even Judaism) escape that imagery from its roots? Your own comment seem to betray your beliefs. “YHWY, conceived as a male deity”, is further developed in Jewish mysticism, which is not mainstream Jewish thought. Of course there are mystics in every culture, but what this is is not Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, but the fringes trying to implement esoteric practices into their culture while hanging on to their false religions.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. These aren’t my beliefs though. I don’t believe there is some real divine presence called the Shekhinah anymore than I believe Jesus was resurrected after dying for everyone’s sins. A person can understand something without believing in them.

          The concept of the Shekhinah is a part of normative Judaism and is a feminine word since Hebrew is a gendered language just like Spanish and many other languages. Kabbalah just developed this idea of the Shekhinah further. Likewise, Kabbalah influences ideas in normative everyday Judaism all the time such as the idea of tikkun olam.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. Thank you. It is often assumed I believe the things I write about when I am simply understanding different pov, presenting alternatives to Christian thought processes.
            “Tikkun olam is a concept in Judaism, interpreted by some within Orthodox Judaism as the prospect of overcoming all forms of idolatry, (Buddhic) and by other Jewish thinkers as an aspiration to behave and act constructively and beneficially”.
            If I were to take a stab at that it too, comes across as a masculine principle, always under the impression that the world can be fixed, primarily in the west by correct belief, which is an illusion in itself.
            “That there is a divine presence” really needs defining since the imagery here is deific in nature, which is idolatry at its core. I would say divine isn’t a ‘holy’ principle at all, but ultimately what is of the core of this all encompassing, self governing organism, which is you. It. All of the above.

            Liked by 3 people

            Reply

            1. When it became part of normative Judaism it essentially became a term that means “Jewish social justice.”

              My understanding of it is that we each have a role and are capable in fixing and improving the world. Often these can be concrete things like recycling instead of throwing your trash on the ground or participating in social justice movements or advocating for the disenfranchised, helping the poor, etc.

              Liked by 2 people

            3. Yes, Jewish conceptions of social justice apply to and include gentiles. They fight and assist in causes that is supposed to make the world a better place for everybody.

              Liked by 1 person

      2. Isn’t it interesting that while God developed into a genderless abstract being, the entity that currently exists in Jewish/Christian circles is always identified as a male.

        -IF- there were a god, I would tend to think it would be more of a “presence” rather than a object.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

          1. Knowledge is still the original sin.

            You know, I think it is jim.

            Not just knowledge but discernment. The knowledge of good and evil. The splitting of the universe into is and is not; or is and should be. The separation of self from other; subject from object; God from Creation. The loss of the eternal, unsayable Tao. Dualism.

            Obviously when you’re in a state of innocence, when you don’t know you’re naked and are unashamed, there can be no sin. You just do what you do because you’re part of what is. But when you separate yourself from the universe you’re now acting upon it and being acted upon by it. You’re exercising volition. Creating karma and vipaka. Going down the whole free will/determinism rabbit hole. Blamable.

            A lot of creation myths centre on logos. The first person/people/gods/demiurges walking the earth, naming things into existence; winnowing; separating. Land from waters, light from darkness.

            Yeah, I think knowledge is the first sin jim. The theft of fire that alienates us from the gods. Maybe it’s something to celebrate. Maybe not. Dualism’s like that.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. It is something to celebrate once you see it. But can any immutable attribute of oneself actually be a sin? Even with obedience, did god or did god not program disobedience into the puzzle? The yetzer hara? The Jews had to incorporate this wayward spirit to save face for god.

              Like

            2. But can any immutable attribute of oneself actually be a sin?

              I’d suggest the sin is in seeing ‘attributes of oneself’ as something separate from the overall whirl of the cosmos.
              If you’re gonna start appropriating stuff like ‘attributes’ or ‘knowledge’ or ‘volition’ from the universe then I guess you have to wear them. But if your ‘will’ is just an expression of the rest of creation – there’s no separation between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ – then, thy will be done I guess. I can’t see any sin in that.

              Liked by 1 person

        2. How will you respond to the Muslim who says, “Allah is. That’s where I begin.”
          Or to the Hindu who says. “Brahman is. That’s were I begin.”
          Or the Rasta man who says, “Jah is. That’s where I begin.”
          Or to the Native American who says, “Gitche Manitou (The Great Spirit) is. That’s where I begin.”
          Or the Norseman who says, “Thor is. That’s where I begin.”

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. I might respond, “Jesus Christ claimed to be the beginning and end, the first and last, the Alpha and Omega.”
            “Whadda YOU think?”

            If you respond, ‘Nothing of the sort,’ I’d probably say, “Okay.”
            Because Christ said, “If anyone hears my voice..” If you don’t hear him, what more can I say?

            Like

            Reply

            2. Jesus knew many wouldn’t believe. And was especially harsh on unbelief, especially the bible thumpers of his day:
              “Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.”
              God wants personal relationship, not brown-nosers. ‘The knowledge of God, not impersonal sacrifices.’

              Like

            3. That’s actually a little bit funny. The natural man is actually the believer. Everybody has them. It was a neat little koan (religious barrier, a test) to reward mankind for doing what he can’t help but do. Belief as a virtue is a contradiction of humanity. Finding the right belief? There aren’t any. If you have to believe in it it isn’t real.
              Even physics points this out. When you get down to what stuff is really made of, there’s nothing to discover but forms of energy.

              Like

            4. God is definitely edgy- he orders up a slew of sacrifices to show us what he DOESN’T want: ‘They’re not enough, not sufficient.’ All the while leading civilization up to ONE sacrifice: himself. Jesus Christ is the blood of God.

              Like

            5. Reminds me of Matos Moctezuma.
              Nevertheless, god sacrificed himself, to save us from himself. Makes perfect sense.
              Even as crazy as the Aztec religion was, they never concocted something this ridiculous
              Btw, since he knows his sheep and they know his voice, can one make themselves know his voice? Why does he need proselytizing?

              Like

            6. I’m not a soul-winner, Jesus is. I introduce people to Christ by my walk more than by my words because my heart is wrapped up in him, not prospective proselytes. ‘Love God first, then your neighbor as yourself.’

              Like

            7. If your god needs you to get the word out, he is not god.
              Loving god first and then your neighbor as yourself doesn’t fair to well. What happens when you don’t really love yourself, or you allow the churches to dictate policy (what god intended) we get what we have today.
              Whether you believe it or not it changes nothing.

              Like

            9. All the while leading civilization up to ONE sacrifice: himself. Jesus Christ is the blood of God.

              It’s not really a sacrifice if you can just create a replacement with no effort.

              Liked by 1 person

            10. How can this even be real sacrifice if he knew he was the bosses son and he would be resurrected? How hard would it really be to remain sinless when you know father is watching your every move and all of eternity is counting on you not blowing the assignment?

              Like

            11. “Jesus Christ claimed to be the beginning and end, the first and last, the Alpha and Omega.”

              From what I can remember, the author of Revelation (John) claims he heard that in a vision. How do we verify the authenticity of that claim? Or any of the other claims attributed to Jesus?

              Like

            13. Exactly. And given that there’s no evidence to substantiate those claims, I see no compelling reasons to adopt them as my personal beliefs.

              Liked by 1 person

  20. We’re all agnostics- we don’t know it all. Perhaps WE are the She. Christ is the bridegroom and believers his bride.
    The bible asserts that God is a Spirit. And so are we: ‘In her heart she says, “I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.”‘

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. This being the spirit world is as plausible as not. It feels real enough, but it’s all relative to the experience. Christ is not the bridegroom. He didn’t find his situation peculiar to himself. If he was the only son of god, (equal in power and authority to god) why did he think he could teach it to others? That they could realize that too?
      If you have to call it god, there is nothing that is not god. Everything that would happen happens to god. That is the real conclusion of any form of omnipotence

      Like

      Reply

      1. Again, God reveals; one doesn’t “buy into” him. Your he/she discussion clouds the issue–God is revealed in ‘Jesus Christ, in flesh and blood.’

        Like

        Reply

        1. I haven’t clouded the discussion, but redirected it. Why is god a he? Straighten that out and maybe some of what you say can start to make sense?

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. To me it appears you’re making a straight path crooked. ‘Confusion by analysis.’
            Christ is a man and Christ is God, and said “No man [or woman] comes to the Father, but by me.”

            Like

            Reply

            1. But Jesus also didn’t find his situation peculiar to himself. That it was a method that could be taught. “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us”
              Realization of the self is not unique to Christianity, only misinterpreted by the Hebrew language and culture.

              Like

            2. Good point, Jim. A staggering one, to me- that God stooped to mix earth and flesh and blood with his Spirit (in Christ), and then offer himself to us. He wants to be known that intimately. Even has the angels scratching their heads!

              Like

            3. What do you mean stooped? This is the Christian mindset that you are separate from your environment. It simply cannot be that you are separate from it. Even if there were deities in charge, it’s all their doing. This separate, yet depreciating common sense of today’s Christian culture isn’t helping humanity to the next level—beyond belief mode, which belief is the biggest barrier to societal and spiritual awakening.

              Liked by 2 people

            5. That is nonsense. Sorry, but all this is inconsequential to what is. Neither does it stand any course of logic or reason for an omnipotent “being” (whatever that is) to need or desire anything, let alone worship and have opinions about how his gadgets must behave or suffer torment after coming out of nothing. Something like waking up in a war zone and being forced to choose sides based on where you were born.
              Then of course, being judged for choosing or not choosing the right belief. Now the game is to see past it all. It’s a good one.

              Like

  22. I don’t think Jesus KNEW he was the Son of God anymore than I KNOW that I’m a child of God. I believe and learn, as he believed and learned. “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.”

    Apologist I am not- I can’t argue my way out of a paper bag. But, I CAN tell who I know and believe and live. I’m drawn to God, and I believe he’s behind it. I’m not trying to proselytize- I’m simply telling you who I believe.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      1. Yes, I’m talking about my God, yet not trying to convert anyone. If so, my bad. If you’re not interested, not drawn to any god, so be it.

        Like

        Reply

      1. CHRIST is my life, not the Bible. The bible experts get a rush from arguing theology and doctrines, and pass over the life of God indwelling my flesh and blood. I gradually get to know him personally by believing that who and what crosses my path are his doings.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

            5. Non-human sentient beings seem to us humans to have no sense of god(s) or knowledge. They live, they adapt to their surroundings as they find them, and some, like ant and bees, manipulate the world as they find it to allow them to live in huge groups all working together to one purpose, the survival of the species.
              To take that concept to a macro-level, life lives to produce more life.
              Humans too live to produce more life, just like every other species on this world. Unfortunately, in our arrogance of superiority, we have learned to destroy life needlessly. And to change other beings to serve us unnaturally. If there is a “god” in life, it is humanity ruling over non-human species. The biggest problem is, we have little compassion for others. The “it” is all about us. And right now we are on the road to destroying not only ourselves, but possibly destroying all living beings along with ourselves. Thus we have taken the power of a “god” unto ourselves.
              If we do not soon find humility we are going to perish.
              WHAT ELSE MATTERS? Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned. Now that same fiddle is in our hands. We talk, we discuss, we debate, and we diagree. All the while, the world as we know it is ending. I hope we enjoy our dance.

              Liked by 3 people

  23. Jesus told his followers, ‘Love one another with my love, with my spirit.’ That’s why he insisted, ‘You must be born again.’

    Like

    Reply

  24. I respectfully disagree with your following assertion: “Your god is not a god. It is a poorly constructed and chauvinistic half understanding of the universe.” I can give several examples of women leaders of the Bible who were treated in high esteem compared to the Ancient Near East culture that surrounded them.

    Deborah was a judge who headed the army of ancient Israel (Judges 4-5). This was a high official role. Huldah was a prophetess who verified the authenticity of the book of the Law of the Lord given through Moses as a scholar (2 Kings 22:14). Miriam, the daughter of Aaron, was a prophetess and triad leader during the Exodus from Egypt (Ex. 15:24). The book of Esther is celebrated every year to commemorate her faithfulness and heroism. Another book devoted to Ruth, which functions liturgically on a Jewish holiday called the Shavuot–a day to honor women.

    Mary of Magdalene – She traveled with Jesus and His disciples throughout the region of Galilee and Judea. She was present at two of Jesus’ most important events: The Crucifixion and the resurrection. Her testimony to the resurrection demonstrates the type of faith that she had. In fact, it shows us how much greater her faith was than the men disciples who had struggled believing that Jesus rose from the dead. Mary, the mother of God – The gospel mentions Mary as the mother of God and the most blessed among women.

    These are just a few examples of why your assertions are not true. Don’t conflate the surrounding culture of patriarchalism with the Judeo-Christian worldview just because they existed in the same history of time.

    I hope this at least gives you a different perspective. Have a good day my friend.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. If I were to conflate the surrounding culture of patriarchalism it would be apparent that these people from the time of those women you mention had a lapse in judgement. It is far from the norm of judeo-christo-Islamo behavior.
      Is god a he? If so, where is his complimentary other half of pure maleness?

      Like

      Reply

          1. God transcends socially constructed notions of gender. He is neither male nor female, but is described in both categories.

            In fact, The first part of God’s name in Hebrew, “Yah,” is feminine, and the last part, “weh,” is masculine.

            Moreover, in the book of Deuteronomy, God is described as giving birth to Israel, a female characteristic. In the New Testament, Jesus told us to pray to our “Heavenly Father”, a male characteristic.

            Paul concludes how our Christian theology should be in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

            Like

            Reply

            1. Hey … you’re pretty good at this! Although the core belief that there is no “god” sorta’ takes away from all your faith-based “proofs.” 🙂

              Like

            3. Worldview? Not sure that I have one. At my age, I just sorta’ take life as it comes … and hope to make it a few more years. 🤞

              As for the “religious” perspective? Not a believer in God or gods, although I do tend to think (as I addressed in my book) that there is a “Universal Presence.” No gender, doesn’t need prayers, is not in any way an “entity.” Hope that answers your question.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. All these things you quote are at odds with how god behaves. The entire religious structure of “his word” oozes masculinity, although Christian philosophy sometimes has said different, it’s never taught to the sheep.
              I asked my evangelical friend the other day to tell me what god is; a father, a man up in heaven. It is the most common mythology in Christianity. No serious theologian believes in the god of the Bible. They have expounded it through reason to be more in line with Hindu and Buddhic thought

              Like

            5. Jim, thanks for your feedback. First, I am not quoting from theologians, denominations, or religious traditions; I am exegeting from the Biblical text. Herein lies the focus of the debate–all else is just hearsay.

              The following examples give more evidence to suggest God speaks in both genders to provide equality for all. Don’t we want to avoid both extremes, patriarchy and matriarchy? As you said, we need both the yin and the yang, the masculine and the feminine forces, in order to provide balance to the universe.

              In Genesis 1:2, the “spirit of God hovering” uses a feminine-ending verb מְרַחֶ֖פֶת. This same verb is also used in Deuteronomy 32:11, where God is compared to a mother eagle. “Like the eagle that stirs up its nest, and hovers over its young, God spreads wings to catch you, and carries you on pinions.”

              Similarly, in the gospel of Matthew 23:37, Jesus declared, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” (see also Luke 13:34). This is another motherly illustration expressed by Jesus, the male Son of God.

              In Isaiah 66:33, God is speaking in first person. “As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.” This is a clear reference to God’s feminine nature.

              Another parable that Jesus taught expresses this notion of God represented allegorically as a woman: “Or what woman having ten silver coins, if she loses one of them, does not light a lamp, sweep the house, and search carefully until she finds it? When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.’ Just so, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

              Thoughts?

              Like

            7. Seems like the church has been exactly what father wanted. Christians like to separate themselves from Christianity, but I do not afford them that. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

              Liked by 2 people

            10. If all of this is as you say, why, in every culture where the churches had carte blanche control over its people (or indigenous cultures) did it result in tight, masculine control? This is the cause of abrahamic religion. Whether intended or not, this is what it does. Not an occasional masochist or two, but in every town and hamlet (and everywhere it planted its flag) where the gospel had unfettered control.
              No christian can escape the imagery of the bearded grandfather figure watching over his children. Why? Because that’s the way of the religion.
              I’ll answer that—because the Christian church is modeled after the kings court of the Tigress and Euphrates, male dominated cultures.

              Liked by 2 people

  25. This is definitely an interesting idea, but I don’t think God is literally considered male, is he? In Hebrew, there’s no neutral gender… so God was he. Also, obviously, the vast majority of the world is historically patriarchal. In Judaism, which I can speak to, rabbis would tell you that God isn’t actually male – that’s just the default language.

    -David

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I agree that no serious theologian believes this, but very difficult for the mainstream believers to escape that imagery of the bearded white man watching everything you do. I have two very good friends, one evangelical and one catholic, and at the end of our long talks this is what they believe, which is really the graven image of idolatry.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. interesting.

        I guess my perspective is different because I was raised Jewish. Jews are very insistent on God not having any sort of physical body and being impossible to see, etc., etc.

        I would assume it’s the same for Islam, which, from what I’ve been told, has a similar concept of God to Judaism.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. I find it interesting how much that aligns more with Hindu and Buddhic thoughts on what god is, or is not. I think part of the problem in christianity is worshipping the messenger while ignoring his esoteric teaching which also aligns closely with eastern philosophies.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

    2. Perhaps God is neutral in your form of Judaism, but in Orthodox Judaism, no WOMAN can be ordained or serve as a Rabbi. To me, that certainly says something about gender preferences.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

Leave a reply to atheistsmeow 🍁⚛🎵🎗😺🐾😸🎗🎵⚛🍁 Cancel reply