The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵

1.3K posts

The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵 banner
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵

The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵

@dStoolofWisdom

A certified philosopher, an atheist, a poet, a feminist, a son and a lover ⛧⃝𓄃

philosophy library Katılım Ağustos 2025
75 Takip Edilen85 Takipçiler
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵@dStoolofWisdom·
@iknowplacos So, men tells us what God probably wants, but God himself/herself/itself stays quiet 👏 This shows that the whole process is arbitrary and not based on facts. If God is genderless, nothing, I repeat nothing will make it offensive to use either genders or nothing at all👍
English
0
0
0
8
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵@dStoolofWisdom·
@iknowplacos So, the society arbitrarily sees the reference 'she' as degrading because of the patriarchal system, but not because god makes it so. I think this is not pragmatic, given the fact that God never said this himself/herself/itself. Just some bunch of men. I get the point, lol
English
1
0
0
11
Sam
Sam@iknowplacos·
@dStoolofWisdom The answer is in the tweet you just responded to...
English
1
0
0
10
Sam
Sam@iknowplacos·
@dStoolofWisdom It's grounded in the structure of society and the unspoken hierarchy therein. If you don't get it at this point, I can't explain further.
English
1
0
0
16
Sam
Sam@iknowplacos·
@dStoolofWisdom If our society was matriarchal, he would've gotten a "she". And in languages that don't gender their pronouns, they still give him their least offensive pronouns. Yorubas, as an example.
English
1
0
0
20
Sam
Sam@iknowplacos·
@dStoolofWisdom "It" sounds even more offensive imo. But the English language has a limited number of pronouns so they just went with the best one they had I guess. God taking make pronouns is an artifact of language like I mentioned earlier. Most cultures give him the least offensive pronoun
English
2
0
0
17
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵@dStoolofWisdom·
@iknowplacos Which is why it should be reasonable to replace all philosophical arguments regarding the existence of God as denoting a 'she' Why is 'she' degrading, given the fact that God has no genders? In fact, this should be commonplace, if it is remotely true
English
1
0
0
24
Sam
Sam@iknowplacos·
@dStoolofWisdom as degrading to "God". "God" as a concept has no gender
English
1
0
0
40
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵@dStoolofWisdom·
@iknowplacos I don't think the intent is of any importance here, given the fact that God is supposed to be genderless. Any intents should be secondary to this fact. This being said, God, if genderless should also be referred to as 'it' in all good faith. This should not be a problem at all.
English
1
0
2
17
Sam
Sam@iknowplacos·
@dStoolofWisdom Of course I have no problem with it (I'm not religious). It's just that when most people call God she, they do so with the intent of causing offence. And the reason it offends religious folks is because society is patriarchal and femininity is viewed as less. That comes off
English
2
0
0
75
roboticanimation
roboticanimation@newbreed1914·
You claim to have Egwusi, but the prepared version of your supposed Egwusi looks like the poo of a diarrhoea patient submerged in red oil. Must you always demonstrate thievery with everything you come across? Everybody knows that Egwusi is deeply rooted in Igbo culture and history, which is why we have the best ingredients for its delicious preparation. When properly cooked, its presentation is so mesmerizing that every tribe in Nigeria salivates to eat Igbo Egwusi, making it a nationally demanded cuisine in Nigeria.
roboticanimation tweet media
BoluTife@B0lutife

When they started claiming Egusi then, you tagged those people who called them out "useless". Whenever they talk down Amala, you either laugh or look away. You're suddenly angry now that they came for the GÈLÈ that you cherish so much.

English
11
6
42
16.3K
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵@dStoolofWisdom·
The fact that Jehovah Witness now allow blood transfusion, plus the fact that Deeper Life members are now allowed to use televisions gives us the insight that religious laws are arbitrary, far removed from the realm of objectivity, if such thing exists.
English
0
0
0
35
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵@dStoolofWisdom·
1) What happens to the lives lost to this delusion? 2) Is the church going to take direct responsibility for these people and their family members? 3) Should we agree now that religious laws are arbitrary and far from being objective and infallible?
English
0
0
0
11
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵
The Stool Of Wisdom𓃵@dStoolofWisdom·
Now that blood transfusion is said to be morally acceptable in Jehovah Witness, I wonder how the members are going to defend this new development. Should we just ignore the old arguments and move on? Should we just conclude that they are bunch of fools? Yeah, I think so.
English
1
0
0
33

Keşfet

@iknowplacos @_OKJ__ @Ksoodeux @newbreed1914 @elonmusk @BarackObama @taylorswift13 @cristiano