This is an interesting idea. We can see that human population is growing exponentially, so too are our impoverished humans, global warming, mass overpopulation, etc. From that point of view it may seem illogical to have children from this point until we have found permanent measure to plateau population rates, as well as care for the human beings who have already been brought into this world.
However, in defense of having children I have two propositions:
1. The first being that evolutionary traits enable humans to desire a family. For means of sustaining their bloodline, populating their community, and sustaining humankind. Without this evolutionary drive humans would simply go extinct. This seems to evidently be against the nature of humans.
2. Which is simply an extension of #1 is the society has the status quo of procreation. As societies evolved, our evolutionary instincts have evolved into the idea of the nuclear family, and (in some cases) aversion or distaste for those who wish to remain childless. Humans are majorly expected to have children and continue their bloodline. This perpetuates the society and is thus a good thing.
So, given the two reasons above, it would seem that it is logical to have children. This does not seem to be fallacious in the problem of over-population, for example. Rather, we can see it logical to have children if there is an intelligent design behind the procreation.
Let me know what you think, these are just a few thoughts off the top of my head.

Lots of questions in here so I am going to focus on the ~main~ themes/questions I observed.
To begin, God is never proving Himself to Satan, He's already established this. However, God allows the Adversary to test Job so as to demonstrate Job's unfaltering faith in God. God is not directly pulling the strings of suffering, but rather taking a passive seat and allowing such tragedies to fall upon Job.
You ask why God, who is supposedly all-good, to allow such things to happen, especially as it appears as if He is capable of demonstrating Job's faith without the gratuitous pain. This is a great question and one which I feel no one has a succinct answer to, but I will attempt to provide a semblance of an answer,
While the book of Job, upon first reading, may seem like God and Satan pulling the strings of Job's life and thus forcing his hand, it is exactly the opposite. God shows Satan of Job's faith through allowing Him to freely reject or maintain his faith through the trials. Allowing Job the free will to make these decisions is the only way to show Satan that Job is truly faithful and not just "good" because God says it is so.
Next, yes, God does have the foreknowledge of Job's decision making and thus knows from the beginning that Job will maintain his righteousness throughout his trials. This begs the question as to why the trials would even need to occur. With free will, while God knows what path Job will take, he still has the option to take a different path. God is not deciding which path Job will take, that is solely upon Job.
While I do not fully understand why Job, or anyone, must endure such trials I have to believe that there is a greater purpose I am not able to or meant to comprehend (this sucks, I know, still trying to discern why, allllllllll the time). What is evident in the book of Job is God's willingness to let His people suffer in the name of free will, and His ability to remain just in the face of such suffering.
Let me know what you think, this topic and book have been heavy on my heart recently.

"Having God be ascribed one gender over another inherently grants the gender similar to God's an aspect of holiness and righteousness. The argument is laid out below:

1. If God is made in the image of man, then God is not female.
2. If God is not female, then God contributes to patriarchal roles in our society.
3. If God is made in the image of man, then God contributes to patriarchal roles in our society."

Okay, new point.
So if we are to reverse this to say
1. If God is made in the image of woman, then God is not male ...
3. If God is made in the image of woman, then God contributes to matriarchal in our society.

If the above statement I've copied from Ms. Eagles is true, how would this change the culture of modern Christianity. Would the same disparities in gender occur, however, this time in favor of women?

It seems as if this would follow if the statement is true.

Is it possible that the discrepancies in the church only mimic those of modern society? If God was popularly regarded as a female wouldn't there still be gendered discrimination perhaps in favor for men given the state of society? Churches and religious culture do not operate in a vacuum from secular culture.

Even if we granted that man is made in the image of God, would that mean man is inherently more holy and righteous?

"If God is already viewed as a physically separate entity, working spiritually within all, then why would they need a gender? God should be viewed as an omnipotent entity in our universe and the ascribing of gender roles to God creates a hierarchy within the church that undermines the presence of women. Although the gendered image of God has become the norm for Christianity, viewing God through a genderless perspective aligns with the view of God as a separate entity and also allows for every person to truly be created in the image of God."

I am entirely in agreement with you in terms of God not needing a gender, as They are beyond this Universe and those conceptual identities of gender. However, what can be said of the value of using gendered pronouns when discussing God.

For example, when we read that humans are made in Imago Dei, the "image of God," then we are immediately connected to God in a way that is inalienable and provides a palatable way to begin one's conceptions of God. If we referred to God without any gendered pronouns would we lose some of the connectivity that was probably intended by the writer(s) of Genesis?

It seems as a concurrent theme throughout the Christian Bible that God is a God who relates to his creation, namely humans. Would it truly be better aligned with the notion of God as a separate entity? In the Gospels we see a portrait of Jesus, who is not wholly God and wholly man. Yes, God is above Creation but God is also fully a part of Creation. Without gender we may lose the foundational understanding that God is both God and Man.

Let's begin by revisiting the graph you provided in your original post, Wallows.
I am failing to see how the graph falls in on itself, given that the self returns to normal. Perhaps rather than a linear graph if the graph were laid out in a circular pattern you would find it more compelling.
Regardless, let's now look at a quote from one of your clarificatory posts:

"I'm going to be blunt here and say that the end of the analysis is suicide. If one's self cannot attain deep aspirations, as we all mostly have, or belonging, as Reagan closed off all mental asylums, which some could have called "homes". then there is very little to live for a schizophrenic."
Deep aspirations is meant here as societal normalcy and finding a social fit, yes?

I suppose my objection would then be that the highest good society has to offer is finding ones fit in society. Additionally, equating societal belonging with self care is objectionable.
If the highest good society has to offer is fitting in, then the highest good would be an ever changing good.
The highest good must be non changing.
Society's standards for fitting in are ever evolving.
Therefore, fitting in can not be the highest good society has to offer.

The graph's equation of self care and societal belonging seems entirely contradictory. Seeing as only a certain number of people determine who and what belongings in society at any given period of time then the vast majority would be conforming to the minorities standards. Going against one's nature would be the opposite of self-care, and is seemingly detrimental to the self.

Those were just a few of my half-baked ideas that do not necessarily go together. :smile: