As an agnostic of the first water, let me splain something. There is a distinct difference between being aware of something and knowing about that something. Many or all have experienced “something”, and we can give that something any name we wish, but it does not follow that we now know anything other than the fact that we have experienced “something”. We can say “God is like…” until we run out of words, and it does absolutely nothing to help us know anything.
To suggest God is this or that is anthropomorphizing. We attempt to explain “God” in our terms. The experiencing of that which we call God is beyond our puny attempts to contain all that name is in words.
To suggest that God is male or female is past ridiculous. It is nothing more than human attempts to assign attributes to that which they may not know. Experience God? Yes. KNOW God? Foolishness.
I am going to try and break you of your Agnosticism. The true meaning of Agnostic is admittance of NOT KNOWING!
Now that we have established that you admit that you do not know, How can you come back to try and correct me? It is like the blind thinking they can lead someone who sees!
It is very fundamental that as an Agnostic that you do not bother to try and correct anyone and imply that they are wrong. The best you can do is to ask how can I know this when so many others do not! And that my friend is a very very valid question. You would do well to seek that answer for yourself, instead of sitting around and avodcating that people should never bother to learn because you in all your admitted ignorance believe that people cannot know God.
You are being the very symbol of a paradox has nothing to base your position on because it breaks against itself!
You are not reading or if you are, you are reading into. Not knowing does not mean not experiencing. Perhaps this is lost on you, but read it again about 10 times and think about it.
Not knowing does not mean not experiencing.
The ‘true’ meaning of agnosticism is whatever I say it is. Nothing more, nothing less.
I’ll ignore the derisive tone of your statement - this time.
I don’t sit around.
I don’t advocate people should not bother to learn
I admit no ignorance of God.
It seems rather obvious that you are having problems with understanding the difference between experiencing and knowing. There is absolutely nothing paradoxical about that statement.
It might be a good idea to let go of a little bit of certainty. That others have a different viewpoint doesn’t make them wrong.
Is there a difference between being male, and being 'like' a male? For example, the famous nude Statue of David. Is that statue really [i]male[/i] or is it a genderless lump of stone that represents a male?
In the case of God, I agree he posesses personality traits that make Him easier to compare to a human male than a female. I disagree, though, that this makes it technically correct to say "God is male".
It is apparent that people are on the hard ball road to make things out to be as they wish them to be.
in a quote from tenetive.
The ‘true’ meaning of agnosticism is whatever I say it is. Nothing more, nothing less.
Since your the progenitor of this word I should defer to “whatever YOU say it is”. I dont think so.
Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,†as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, “knowledge,†which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things†hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as “Gnostics†a group of his fellow intellectuals“ists,†as he called themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,†Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.
Now that we know the word is an adaptation from what etymology states is GNSIS which is knowlege the very meaning of Huxley’s usage is to claim ignorance*.
This label plainly states that experience means nothing because under that statement no amount of experience yeilds knowledge as such knowledge is UNKNOWABLE.
So again. How can you, being an admitted ignorant*, claim to know what you know?
*if you wish to take the term ignorant as an insult then you misunderstand its meaning.
What purpose does muddling the water with complete abstract comments such as these serve?
Everywhere I go I see people trying to blur the lines everywhere I go. I can only think that something is offensive to them for some reason and just cannot stand the way things are.
God refers to Himself as Male. Why is it that people just cant Believe God? Is someone implying God is a liar?
People back in the day who Experienced God had no mistakes about it, its only with all this new age psycobabble that is causing peopel this kind of distress. This is not to imply that this question has not been discussed in the past, but psycology certainly helps to make the issue worse!
And the people today who have recieved the Holy Spirit likewise have no uncertain questions about it. There has always been a resounding GOD is Male reply when the question is asked!
Muddying the water? It seemed like a pretty straightforward question to me. You said that God is a male because His personality is more like a male than a female. I was simply asking if that’s enough- statues, paintings, trees, all sorts of things can share qualities that we think of as male or female, without actually BEING either one.
I’m a Christian, and you really are preaching to the choir here- no, I don’t think God is a male, because I think to be male, He’d have to be a physical creature, an animal. But you can define the word any way you want. I would just suggest that “Anything that seems non-submissive and comandeering” might be a little too broad of a definition for ‘male’, and may get you into trouble down the road.
It is obvious that you place a great deal of faith in definitions, as if somehow those definitions are reality. So go ahead and let the words be the reality. It isn’t an uncommon position to take.