comment on my web site, click the links….tell me what you feel

tHISS IS BRANDON DUNN. I DISAGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENTS BECAUSE I AM ONE OF THE MOST HIGHLY INTELLIGENT SPECIMENS TO WALK THE EARTH SINCE THE LUMBERJACKS. WHEN I WAS A YOUNG BOY I ACCIDENTALLY BLEW MY FINGERS OFF WITH A M80 FIRECRACHER. NONETHELESS, ATHEISTS ARENT REAL.

Welcome to the 11th Humanist Symposium.
Humanism is a way of thought that affirms the inherent dignity and worth of human life……

…if man is a fallen manifestation of an unfallen and unmanifest God, then for the Christian theist, it is appropriate (rather than infantile) to consider God as masculine. After all, God’s greatest and most influential defender in the realm of the real is the manifest Jesus.

I suppose that the word “man” here encompasses both male and female (or are you saying God “manifested” men but not women?), so your argument is that because God created people in both masculine and feminine versions it follows that God must be masculine. Well, I can’t see how that follows. Your next sentence doesn’t help me. In that sentence you argue that because Jesus, who is male, is “God’s greatest and most influential defender” why of course God must therefore also be male. Again, I can’t see why. My wife is probably my “greatest and most influential defender” but it doesn’t follow that I am female or feminine because she is.

I’m sure it makes sense to you, but it just baffles me. Here’s something else I am too literal-minded to understand.

“God” is the “one-ness” of all, where “one” is “none”, the sum of all being zero. In other words, God is the “unmanifest”.

So, if “one” is “none” then doesn’t that make God the “none-ness” of all. Doesn’t none mean zero. And to say that God is “unmanifest” sounds to me like saying that God is just an idea or concept not brought into existence yet. Combine that with saying God is zero or none, and it seems like you should find atheism very agreeable.

Why are you a theist if you believe that God is some sort of nothing or none-ness? But then I read your next sentence

Satan, then, is the “manifest” and is in direct to opposition to God by the nature of being manifest.

and I think, well, by “all” you mean God (the “unmanifest”) plus Satan (everything “manifest”, the earth and all our bodily lives). But you also said that the sum of all is zero. But if the sum equals zero, then instead of God being

the “one-ness” of all, where “one” is “none”

it would seem that God must actually be negative, else how can God plus Satan equal zero? Or maybe you intend that everything “manifest” is negative and everything “unmanifest” is positive. Or maybe you mean that Satan and God are both zero, and so of course zero plus zero equals zero, and we have no need for negative or positive.

Never forgetting, naturally, that Satan is really us human beings:

First, there is the “fallen Satan”—body of man. Then, there is the “unfallen Satan”—soul of man.

Does this mean Satan is masculine too?

Fortunately there’s always Hinduism with its “language of pseudo-profundity”. Good thing we haven’t been swayed by Hinduism’s nonsense about reincarnation, or the supposed

wisdom of “knowing” that we “were never born” and that we “will never die”

Taken literally, I’d agree that’s absurd. You are right to dismiss it, confident in the assurance that

“God” is the “one-ness” of all, where “one” is “none”, the sum of all being zero

and ever mindful that human beings are Satan manifested in body and soul and summed to zero with God. Did I get it right?