# Some Thoughts on God
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423
**Category:** Religion and Spirituality
**Created:** [October 16, 2026, 9:48pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423 "2026-10-16T21:48:02Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2026, 1:31pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423/21 "2026-10-17T13:31:16Z")
I go off habit. I try to say they, but it requires intention.
---
### Author:  [@greenfuse](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/greenfuse)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2026, 2:24pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423/22 "2026-10-17T14:24:32Z")
You could say ‘God’. It can sound a little awkward when it comes twice in a sentence, where we would normally use a subject pronoun, but it might (or might not) come more naturally to the vocal chords.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2026, 3:48pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423/23 "2026-10-17T15:48:05Z")
I do say God. I say a lot of other words, too. When I want to refer to Jesus as gender-neutral, I say Logos… but that’s usually not the reason why I’m calling him that.
---
### Author:  [@VesselOfVirtue](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/VesselOfVirtue)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2026, 4:16pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423/24 "2026-10-17T16:16:56Z")
I would like to participate on this topic too because it’s interesting to me but i’m having a hard time finding a point in the OP and comments thereafter.
What exactly are you trying to say about God @Socrates ?
---
### Author:  [@Socrates](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Socrates)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2026, 8:58pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423/25 "2026-10-17T20:58:35Z")
> [@anew1](#):
>
> It is only so-call ‘bad’ if children are “dying” from starvation, which could be stopped, and prevented, with some money, and the businesses, people, and so-called “charities” around the world, who are monetary rich, do not provide money that could and would stop and prevent children “dying” from starvation, then being ‘profitable’ is a bad thing, and a Wrong thing.
Only by profit can anybody be fed, and the Catholic Church was, at least while it was still The Catholic Church, at the forefront of that effort.
This is out of idiosyncracy. Its aim is to represent God on earth.
Now, to you: since you are alive, I can only assume you have made money (profit) and not used it to procure food for children.
So what gives? Evil?
> [@anew1](#):
>
> Are you here saying “it is the wrong word” from ‘your perspective’ or from the ‘church’s perspective’?
From the ‘language’ perspective.
> [@anew1](#):
>
> Did ‘you’ not once wonder that “If God created everything”, “then who created
No, it was clear to me that God had been the one thing that had always existed, until He created everything else.
I think this is incorrect doctrine, confusion that inevitably creeps in from millenia of holding together all religious thought, but no, it wasn’t difficult to understand at all as a child.
> [@anew1](#):
>
> Were you allowed to question their claims and/or definitions?
Yeah. I would spend hours asking questions and getting answers.
> [@anew1](#):
>
> For example, did you ever question the “catholic church” or “catholic teachers/preacher” about the seem ludicrousness that God loved and cared about ‘us’ personally and/or had a plan for each person?
No. This was beyond me to formulate. It was just a feeling.
> [@anew1](#):
>
> WHY, exactly, do you think or believe that ‘I’ am like what you just said here?
Because of your characterization of the Catholic Church, holier than thou and spiteful and arrogant. Not to mention ignorant.
> [@anew1](#):
>
> What ‘conspiracy theory’, exactly?
That the Church pursued some mission other than what it professed.
> [@anew1](#):
>
> I seem to have ‘hit a nerve’, as some people say. Are you a “devout christian” or something like this?
Yeah, not the first time I come across this arrogance. Yes, I would say I’m pretty devout.
> [@anew1](#):
>
> People can believe and mean a lot of things, but this NEVER necessarily means that what they say, believe, and mean is True nor even close to being True.
But this is different from claiming they were cynically pursuing something different than what they professed.
---
### Author:  [@Socrates](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Socrates)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2026, 9:02pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423/26 "2026-10-17T21:02:08Z")
> [@VesselOfVirtue](#):
>
> What exactly are you trying to say about God @Socrates ?
Do you mean, other than what I said?
---
### Author:  [@VesselOfVirtue](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/VesselOfVirtue)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2026, 9:19pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423/27 "2026-10-17T21:19:47Z")
> [@Socrates](#):
>
> Do you mean, other than what I said?
Yes.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
---
### Author:  [@Socrates](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Socrates)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2026, 10:05pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423/28 "2026-10-17T22:05:41Z")
If I think of anything to say other than what I’ve said, I’ll post it here or on another thread, so keep an eye out.
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2026, 10:16pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423/29 "2026-10-17T22:16:33Z")
> [@ghatzige](#):
>
> Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the world (or the cosmos, or the universe, whichever term you prefer) was created by a Creator, whom we shall call God, without implying any particular gender or form. What characteristics might this God possess?
An ability to create the Universe; All there is; Totality; or Everything, clearly.
And, the One and only thing that has ‘this ability’ is God, Itself, which, as I have already mentioned, God, in the physical form, is the Universe, Itself.
Furthermore, since God is said to be eternal, and the fact that the Universe, It-Self, is eternal, then this fits together perfectly. The Truth is God did not create the Universe all at once, once upon a time in the past, but is Creating the Universe - It Self - NOW. The Universe is IN Creation - ALWAYS - NOW. The Universe is in a constant state of change – alive and living – and through this evolutionary process Everything is Created, all at once, NOW. ‘In the beginning’ is NOW, and at every moment of NOW, the living God/Universe has Created It-Self - Everything - all at once, continually.
> [@ghatzige](#):
>
> Religions around the world tend to attribute anthropomorphic qualities to God, such as mind, wisdom, love, intention, and will.
And your point is?
Are you ‘trying to’ justify the use of the anthropomorphic “he” here as well?
> [@ghatzige](#):
>
> Yet, apart from human beings (who constitute a tiny fraction of the cosmos) the vast majority of creation exhibits no obvious signs of these characteristics.
I am not sure if you are trying to make a point here or not.
> [@ghatzige](#):
>
> In other words, we seem to attribute to God qualities that are meaningful and useful to us, but that do not appear to be universal features of the universe.
Okay. I am not sure how attributing False claims/qualities to God is actually meaningful and useful, but if some people want to keep doing attributing False things, like God is “he”, then okay.
> [@ghatzige](#):
>
> My opinion is that, if we wish to explore the possible characteristics of God, we should begin by examining the fundamental characteristics of the cosmos itself, rather than projecting our own human qualities onto the Creator.
I agree, totally.
> [@ghatzige](#):
>
> From this perspective, worshipping God becomes meaningless.
I would suggest that worshipping God as though It is a “he”, or has some kind of ‘personhood’ at all, is, and would be, Truly meaningless. However, ‘whorshipping’ the very Thing - the Universe, It Self - that Creates and provides Life could be something worthy of ‘worshipping’ (if worshipping is the Right word here).
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2026, 10:24pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423/30 "2026-10-17T22:24:02Z")
> [@Ichthus77](#):
>
> I do say God. I say a lot of other words, too. When I want to refer to Jesus as gender-neutral, I say Logos… but that’s usually not the reason why I’m calling him that.
The word “jesus” is ‘a name’ placed upon a male-gendered human body. The word ‘God’, however, is ‘a name’ placed upon some Thing that is NEITHER a male-gendered body NOR could even be any gender at all.
As 'greenfuse" just pointed and said;
> [@greenfuse](#):
>
> You could say ‘God’.
Surely, in the days when this is being written, human beings had evolved enough to KNOW that still referring to God as a “he” is ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, and Truly OUTDATED.
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 12:08am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423/31 "2026-10-18T00:08:08Z")
> [@Socrates](#):
>
> > [@anew1](#):
> >
> > It is only so-call ‘bad’ if children are “dying” from starvation, which could be stopped, and prevented, with some money, and the businesses, people, and so-called “charities” around the world, who are monetary rich, do not provide money that could and would stop and prevent children “dying” from starvation, then being ‘profitable’ is a bad thing, and a Wrong thing.
>
> Only by profit can anybody be fed, and the Catholic Church was, at least while it was still The Catholic Church, at the forefront of that effort.
Does anyone else here agree that only by profit can anybody be fed?
> [@Socrates](#):
>
> Now, to you: since you are alive, I can only assume you have made money (profit) and not used it to procure food for children.
>
> So what gives?
I am not sure what you are asking here exactly.
> [@Socrates](#):
>
> Evil?
What does the word ‘evil’ mean or refer to, to you, exactly?
> [@Socrates](#):
>
> > [@anew1](#):
> >
> > Are you here saying “it is the wrong word” from ‘your perspective’ or from the ‘church’s perspective’?
>
> From the ‘language’ perspective.
So, to you, is calling God a “he” the Wrong word from the ‘language’ perspective also?
> [@Socrates](#):
>
> > [@anew1](#):
> >
> > Did ‘you’ not once wonder that “If God created everything”, “then who created
>
> No, it was clear to me that God had been the one thing that had always existed, until He created everything else.
>
> I think this is incorrect doctrine, confusion that inevitably creeps in from millenia of holding together all religious thought, but no, it wasn’t difficult to understand at all as a child.
I am not sure what you are saying and meaning here.
> [@Socrates](#):
>
> > [@anew1](#):
> >
> > Were you allowed to question their claims and/or definitions?
>
> Yeah. I would spend hours asking questions and getting answers.
And do all of those answers still hold true, to you?
> [@Socrates](#):
>
> > [@anew1](#):
> >
> > For example, did you ever question the “catholic church” or “catholic teachers/preacher” about the seem ludicrousness that God loved and cared about ‘us’ personally and/or had a plan for each person?
>
> No. This was beyond me to formulate. It was just a feeling.
Okay.
> [@Socrates](#):
>
> > [@anew1](#):
> >
> > WHY, exactly, do you think or believe that ‘I’ am like what you just said here?
>
> Because of your characterization of the Catholic Church, holier than thou and spiteful and arrogant. Not to mention ignorant.
Could that ‘perception’ that ‘you’ have ‘me’ here be wrong or incorrect?
> [@Socrates](#):
>
> > [@anew1](#):
> >
> > I seem to have ‘hit a nerve’, as some people say. Are you a “devout christian” or something like this?
>
> Yeah, not the first time I come across this arrogance. Yes, I would say I’m pretty devout.
So, if someone has not yet read your words or heard you speak about “christianity” before or about ‘your devotion to “chrisitanity”,’ previously, then ‘that one’ you will call “arrogant” because they simply asked you a simple clarifying question about this, correct?
> [@Socrates](#):
>
> > [@anew1](#):
> >
> > People can believe and mean a lot of things, but this NEVER necessarily means that what they say, believe, and mean is True nor even close to being True.
>
> But this is different from claiming they were cynically pursuing something different than what they professed.
Why did you say, ‘cynically’, here?
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 1:11am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423/32 "2026-10-18T01:11:33Z")
Jesus referred to God as Father. … and he did not refer to the Holy Spirit as mother. I’m pretty sure you’re just gonna have to deal with that.
but there’s also this:
[https://www.christian-thinktank.com/female\_all.pdf](https://www.christian-thinktank.com/female_all.pdf) (scroll to overview list… first one is semi-relevant)
and this:
Pasted/rearranged from Bing AI overview:
While God is fundamentally spirit and beyond gender (John 4:24), the Bible frequently uses **feminine metaphors** to describe God’s character and actions. Several passages emphasize God’s role in giving life and nurturing creation. For example, Deuteronomy 32:18 refers to God as the one who **bore Israel,** and God is depicted as a **mother eagle** carrying Israel on her wings (32:11-12). Isaiah portrays God as a **nursing mother** providing comfort and sustenance (49:15), and likens God’s comfort to that of a mother consoling her child (66:13). God is also compared to a **mother hen** gathering her chicks under her wings, illustrating care and protection (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34). In the Wisdom literature, such as Proverbs 8 and Sirach 24, **Wisdom is personified as a feminine figure** , described as present with God before creation, guiding and sustaining humanity.
(Maryann/Ichthus77: This last part is associated with Logos here: [http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.php.](http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.php.))
---
### Author:  [@Socrates](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Socrates)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 3:45am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423/33 "2026-10-18T03:45:44Z")
> [@anew1](#):
>
> Why did you say, ‘cynically’, here?
For the same reason this question is cynical.
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 9:27am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423/34 "2026-10-18T09:27:13Z")
> [@Ichthus77](#):
>
> Jesus referred to God as Father. … and he did not refer to the Holy Spirit as mother. I’m pretty sure you’re just gonna have to deal with that.
I am not sure that ‘that’ is even something to be ‘dealt with’ or to ‘deal with’ from the outset. But anyway.
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 9:28am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423/35 "2026-10-18T09:28:32Z")
> [@Socrates](#):
>
> > [@anew1](#):
> >
> > Why did you say, ‘cynically’, here?
>
> For the same reason this question is cynical.
But, from the outset, the question was not and is not cynical.
---
### Author:  [@greenfuse](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/greenfuse)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 11:13am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423/36 "2026-10-18T11:13:44Z")
> [@anew1](#):
>
> > [@greenfuse](#):
> >
> > You could say ‘God’.
>
> Surely, in the days when this is being written, human beings had evolved enough to KNOW that still referring to God as a “he” is ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, and Truly OUTDATED.
Surely you can see that I was suggesting a way for her not to use a gendered pronoun, given that she does not think God is a ‘he’. She understood, in any case.
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 11:50am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423/37 "2026-10-18T11:50:55Z")
That was exactly what I saw, understood, and was agreeing with.
---
### Author:  [@Socrates](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Socrates)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2026, 3:51am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423/38 "2026-10-19T03:51:06Z")
But then on the other hand yes it is.
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2026, 5:21am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423/39 "2026-10-19T05:21:52Z")
From whose perspective?
The writer/speaker or the reader/listener?
Remember only one KNOWS the True intention and meaning. The other only THINKS they know.
---
### Author:  [@Socrates](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Socrates)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2026, 5:26am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423/40 "2026-10-19T05:26:02Z")
From the perspective of what it is that the thing is.
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/some-thoughts-on-god/86423.md?page=3)