Butterflyleo:


A "person" is not gender specific and He or She is used to show gender specification.

Same way you cannot use IT for a gender neutral position.

Dalaman your school is a sham.

It can be used to describe a person be it a she or a he.

It's me is a perfect example.

Go back to your adult evening school.

Butterflyleo:


Ogbeni stop quoting me and get back to work you are doing FOC oh ye antagonistic spokesperson for a God you say does not exist.

A mentally Ill person is someone who claims something does not exist and despite this claim, still constantly talks and nags about this non existent thing round the clock.

That is a person who has mental health issues. Its a psychological disorder known as extreme dissociation disorder.

Look it up.

You aint seen nothing yet.

we will always be here to show it to u such a lair and delusioned person u are whenever u claim to be the spokesman of a creator u made up in ur head

rekinomtla:
What question is this? there family members believe in God, hence they stupid and ignorant and a bunch of liars according to atheists. Their mothers are just grass eating morons according to them.

Smh

Butterflyleo:


Chai see illiterate on the world wide web.

When did A PERSON become gender specific and portray A HE or A SHE SPECIFICALLY?

You no go school dalaman. If you did then you flunked it.

No wonder you understand nothing you read.




Maybe when you want someone to help you call your brother you would say "call IT for me" or IT is IT that I am calling"


Maybe that would show you are calling a female or a male or a person.

Illiterate!

All they taught you how to do is plagiarize in your evening school that is why you are notorious for it here.

It can be used for a he or she.

You said your God is a he meaning to you your God is a person. It can be used to describe a person. I as a he can refer to my self as it. It's me is an example. A male or female can refer to themselves as it.

Again it's me is an example.

dalaman:


It can be used to describe a person be it a she or a he.

It's me is a perfect example.

Go back to your adult evening school.

Ogbeni abeg shut up and stop displaying your illiteracy openly. Even the person who liked this comment of yours is in the same category of illiteracy as you are.

IT can be used to describe A PERSON!

A PERSON IS EITHER MALE OR FEMALE AND YOU CANNOT USE IT WHEN FOCUSSED ON GENDER SPECIFICATION OH YE ILLITERATE!

You use Gender specific pronouns when doing so and that is why words like HE OR SHE are gender specific and Englisb does not support gender neutral qualifications.

IT is for a person. You are a person but SPECIFICALLY A MALE SO CANNOT QUALIFY YOURSELF SPECIFICALLY AS AN IT BUT AS A HE.

Go back to school.

frank317:


You aint seen nothing yet.

we will always be here to show it to u such a lair and delusioned person u are whenever u claim to be the spokesman of a creator u made up in ur head

The creator of the universe he imagined in his deluded head is a he, according to him.

dalaman:


The creator of the universe he imagined in his deluded head is a he, according to him.

And upgraded to an IT according to you an atheist

Butterflyleo:


Ogbeni abeg shut up and stop displaying your illiteracy openly. Even the person who liked this comment of yours is in the same category of illiteracy as you are.

IT can be used to describe A PERSON!

A PERSON IS EITHER MALE OR FEMALE AND YOU CANNOT USE IT WHEN FOCUSSED ON GENDER SPECIFICATION OH YE ILLITERATE!

You use Gender specific pronouns when doing so and that is why words like HE OR SHE are gender specific and Englisb does not support gender neutral qualifications.

IT is for a person. You are a person but SPECIFICALLY A MALE SO CANNOT QUALIFY YOURSELF SPECIFICALLY AS AN IT BUT AS A HE.

Go back to school.

Is he not used to describe a person? He is used to describe a person.

Is it not as used to describe a person? It can be used to describe a person.

You claim you God is a person and I described your God as it based on your portrayal, so what is the brouhaha all about?

Butterflyleo:


And upgraded to an IT according to you an atheist

It can be used to describe a person. It's not an upgrade you fool!.

RuthlessLeader:

Is butterflyleo really mentally disturbed? Because that would explain the inconsistency and immaturity his posts are full of

Isn't it obvious?

dalaman:


Is he not used to describe a person? He is used to describe a person.

Is it not as used to describe a person? It can be used to describe a person.

You claim you God is a person and I described your God as it based on your portrayal, so what is the brouhaha all about?

Ogbeni you are a fish brain. In fact a fish brain is even better than you.

IT is used to describe a person same way THEY is the plural for group of persons.

But when dealing with GENDER SPECIFICATION you cannot use IT for a he or a she. You strictly use HE or SHE.

IT is strictly for use as a PERSON qualifier but not a GENDER QUALIFIER.

Your illiteracy is reserved for 5th world countries .

dalaman:


It can be used to describe a person. It's not an upgrade you fool!.

Abeg shut up. Its an upgrade because it pulls in he and she and puts them together without GENDER SPECIFICATION.

In other words you said God can be all genders.

That is the upgrade

You no get sense I swear.

dalaman:


Is he not used to describe a person? He is used to describe a person.

Is it not as used to describe a person? It can be used to describe a person.

You claim you God is a person and I described your God as it based on your portrayal, so what is the brouhaha all about?

I said God is a HE (GENDER SPECIFIC) You came with IT (describing PERSON with no gender specification)

Stop lying to the gallery.

Butterflyleo:



Ogbeni you are a fish brain. In fact a fish brain is even better than you.

IT is used to describe a person same way THEY is the plural for group of persons.

But when dealing with GENDWR SPECIFICATION you cannot use IT for a he or a she. You strictly use HE or SHE.

IT is strictly for use as a PERSON qualifier but not a GENDER QUALIFIER.

Your illiteracy is reserved for 5th world countries .

You've just acknowledge that it can be used to identify a person. You said your God is a person and I used it to identify it as you claimed. What then is the wahala?
Or are you saying that I must refer to your God as a he ?

OK, sorry your God is a he, and you are his spokesperson according to your deluded imaginations.

Butterflyleo:


I said God is a HE (GENDER SPECIFIC) You came with IT (describing PERSON with no gender specification)

Stop lying to the gallery.

OK, your God is a he and you are his spokesman according to your delusions. Happy now?

dalaman:


You've just acknowledge that it can be used to identify a person. You said your God is a person and I used it to identify it as you claimed. What then is the wahala?
Or are you saying that I must refer to your God as a he ?

OK, sorry your God is a he, and you are his spokesperson according to your deluded imaginations.

Your own ode is beyond redemption.

This is how they teach kindergarten children this thing and I will do same with you now.

A PERSON CAN BE EITHER MALE OR FEMALE. PERSON SIMPLY ENTAILS A HUMAN.

GENDER SPECIFICATION ENTAILS IDENTIFYING THE GENDER OF THAT PERSON. IS THE PERSON A HE OR A SHE.

YOU CANNOT USE IT TO QUALIFY A GENDER BUT CAN USE IT AS A GENERAL GROUPING BUT NOT GENDER SPECIFICATION.

I CALLED GOD A HE (WHICH IS GENDER SPECIFIC) YOU CALLED GOD AN IT (WHICH IS A GENERAL GROUPING).

Dalaman go and enrol in a proper school. In fact go and begin again from creche. You know nothing.

Butterflyleo:


Your own ode is beyond redemption.

This is how they teach kindergarten children this thing and I will do same with you now.

A PERSON CAN BE EITHER MALE OR FEMALE. PERSON SIMPLY ENTAILS A HUMAN.

GENDER SPECIFICATION ENTAILS IDENTIFYING THE GENDER OF THAT PERSON. IS THE PERSON A HE OR A SHE.

YOU CANNOT USE IT TO QUALIFY A GENDER BUT CAN USE IT AS A GENERAL GROUPING BUT NOT GENDER SPECIFICATION.

I CALLED GOD A HE (WHICH IS GENDER SPECIFIC) YOU CALLED GOD AN IT (WHICH IS A GENERAL GROUPING).

Dalaman go and enrol in a proper school. In fact go and begin again from creche. You know nothing.

OK, the creator of the universe is a he and you are his spokesperson according to your delusions. Hope that makes you happy.

There should be a rule against derailing a thread.

beatmonster:


fine tuning argument is not stupid, it calls for further investigation - It could be an intelligent being / intelligent beings, infinite force or whatever.

Don't tell me it happened by accident because the probability is zero

Can you show calculations on how the probability is zero? And what do you mean by "accident"?

dalaman:

He confessed himself that he is mentally ill.

Please where?

Analysis of Section Initiate Degree 4 Monograph 1
(Defending AMORC against Pierre S. Freeman Critics)

The diagram in the Practical Application that closes the monograph summarises this explanation for better understanding.
The Rosicrucian Order takes great insult in the fact the Pierre S. Freeman had the audacity of criticizing the monographs, when they aim to help members only gain more knowledge and learn more about the universe, cosmos, ether and our existence.

___________________________________________________________


This particular monograph is built on the lessons of the Nodin Manuscript. The lessons focus on existential knowledge about the cosmos, the ether and our existence. Nodin’s manuscript offers explanation for topical issues like existence, the relationship between matter, atoms, molecules and protoplasm, and the role of Ether in the material as well as in the immaterial world.

The Imperator, Christian Bernard stressed in his letter to members of the Rosicrucian Order the importance of the first three temple degrees that familiarize us on the topics of life, consciousness and matter. The fourth degree, to him, is all about knowledge that explains how the inner self can be provoked into conscious thoughts, leading to its manifestation. He stated that a pre-requisite for it is to preview lessons on such techniques as mental projection, visualization, meditation among others.

The class master gave insight into the man behind the Nodin Manuscript, Nodin himself. According to the class master, information about Nodin’s personal life was not really known but Nodin could be said to be a very knowledgeable member of the Order. Many of his lessons reflected Rosicrucian beliefs to a very great extent, and are being used by class masters, imperators and Grand masters to make and explain monographs. The focus of Monograph 1 of the Master Monograph, according to the class master was just to pinpoint some of the very essential laws of the Nodin Manuscript, as they relate to the Order and to the subject of Ontology.

The etymology of ontology was revealed, with its meaning translating as “the science of being”. In Rosicrucian terms, it means the study of the laws that govern life, matter and consciousness. Rosicrucian ontology entails the study of the three forces that factor in the order, which are the soul, the spirit and the vital force (in no particular order). These forces according to previous monographs are all distinct on the plane where they act, but are of the same origin i.e. the Ether. All cosmic life and even the law of duality are believed to source from the Ether and holds value for the Rosicrucian Order due to the belief stemming from notable Greek philosophers and earlier members of the order. The primordial energy is said to be bipolar, having the Universal soul and the nous or noose as poles. Previously, the universal soul was assigned a positive value while the negative pole was the nous/noose. Like the primordial energy, the spirit is also considered to be of dual nature and possess both positive and negative polarities.

Furthering teachings of the Nodin manuscript in the order, pre-empted by research and more insight into the subject have come to discover that like nous and universal soul are for primordial energy, the spirit is the negative while the vital force is the positive force. The negativity assigned to the spirit is due to its direct linkage with the material world. The vital force in contrast is assigned a positive value due to its immaterial nature.

The diagram in the Practical Application that closes the monograph summarises this explanation for better understanding.
The Rosicrucian Order takes great insult in the fact the Pierre S. Freeman had the audacity of criticizing the monographs, when they aim to help members only gain more knowledge and learn more about the universe, cosmos, ether and our existence.

Support AMORC at : www.watchingout4AMORC.org
Please like us on facebook at https://www.facebook.com/watchingout4AMORC/