Is God good?

Greeting, Kathrina

I am wondering how you define “heathens” here? Is this only from a Christian [or 'Cross-tian"] perspective?

My tribe’s ancestors, for at least the last 5000 years, believed - and most of them are willing to argue for this position - that there is only one God.

And one prominent rabbi published a best-selling book explaining at length that G-d {eluhenu, melech olom} is not all-powerful, and that is why bad things can happen to good people. I would add that, for example, if in some way they have attempted to violate nature’s laws they will pay a price for it: they will suffer, or die prematurely.

Incidentally, Ethics, in the new paradigm, recommends that we get away from tribalism. It notes that the latest findings in Genetic science informs us that we are 99.9 percent alike. Let’s appreciate and celebrate our diversity, keeping in mind that we are all one species…much more alike than different.
We are pre-wired to seek our own benefit, but are very confused as to what is in our best interest, and as to how to seek that benefit.

The reason I jumped to the conclusion I did, in the original post, regarding the etymology of the word “god,” is that I observe that while some people say “Oh my God!” and others say “Oh my Goodness!”; and they both seem to express certain emotions thereby. At least there seems to me to be an overlap in their meanings. This led me to set up that equivalence. Though I may be wrong. This may not be reason, but rather rationalization.

I wonder how his arguments ended up.

James had quite a bit to say about the nature of God and the meaning of the word “god” - even its origin. And looking over his posts (from here and elsewhere) and references it seems there really is a strong association between good and God.

It isn’t that “God” is the good rather it is that God (by the true meaning of the word) is to be thought of as the source of the good (sought so as to accomplish the good). So the word “good” probably came after the word “God”, not before (although perhaps simultaneously).

It is a valid thought that all wisdom comes from God (wisdom being the beneficial ideas) but it is also valid that all evil comes from God as well - it just depends on how you pray. Pray in a particular way and you receive evil - because even without knowing it, you would be praying for evil - you get what you pray for - so be careful (of course if you don’t know how to pray - you don’t get anything).

What I think it all amounts to to is - regardless of what you want (assumed to be the good) - pray to God for it (which is different than merely begging for it).

Whoever that Rabbi was - he couldn’t have known God (or just wanted to mislead people - wouldn’t be the first time).

Hey Stan

The evidence is in the offence taken by the ugly. :wink:

Nope, that comes closer to meno.

Now, back to your preposterous claims…

I double triple dare you to tie them all together such that value ontology, astrology and the gods become, oh, I don’t know, intelligible?

My tribe’s ancestors have always, for at least the last 200000 years (except the last 1000 to 200 years), believed that there are many gods.

The one god is selected so that he selects his people (at least in Judaism) as “his chosen people”; the many gods are not selected so that they select those who believe in them as “their chosen people”, but because they witness the lives of those who believe in them - for good or for evil.

Define “gods” :smiley:

:smiley:

This is what I said in one of my former posts (see above):

The Germanic word “God” originated from the substantivized second participle of the Indo-Germanic *ghuto-m of the verbal root *gheu- “to call, to invoke”. According to this, the gods would be the beings called (for instance by magic word).

I describe it by referring to history, to mythology, to the history of mythology, and especially to the history of language.

I think that one should take into account how people led their lives at that time. You can only define the word “God” if you say that you are making a scientific or philosophical investigation. Otherwise, you have to stick to the meaning that history gives. Meanings and definitions are not the same. Words have meanings and are not usually defined. Terms or concepts, however, are defined so that they can become words, i.e. acquire meanings.

Well, you only want a definition,i guess, but then you must also say what you want to use this definition for.

Now I am curious about your definition of the term or concept “God”.

_
I liked this post (although he had others concerning different definitional concerns for God) -

And this one -

The issue I have with James to this regard, is that he defines God as the 1 superiority. James considered himself an expert and so he perceives hierarchy as the law.

Existence is actually stranger than this… we have concepts like infinite regress and strange loops that make it possible for everyone to be God without violating the consent of a single existent.

Is there purpose to this negative zero sum existence ?

Only 2

1.) guard yourself to stay out of the deepest hell realms

2.) put everyone in their individual heaven forever

— the rest of this life has no purpose.

That is clearly not the work of even a slightly benevolent hypothetical creator being. God, if existent, can most accurately be defined as the supreme consent violator.

Every being in all of existence is having their consent currently violated. Doesn’t speak well for such hypothetical being.

If our definitions and perceptions of God could be proven to be non-existent, where would we stand, who would we have to stand on?

_
I just realized that in a different setting - I am having this same conversation concerning social media law -

Without the consistent enforcement of the law - there can be no universe at all.

James was saying that God (by definition) is that enforcement (omnipotent - impossible to defy) that creates the universe itself.

Maybe obsrvr,

Let’s say you have a dream where you have to put a condom in the microwave for exactly 16 seconds to save existence!

Makes perfect sense at the time… and then when you wake up, you’re like “what the fuck was that?! It makes no sense”

There are only 2 real laws in existence:

1.) existence will always exist
2.) as long as the consent of any being is being violated, existence is evil

That’s it.

Perhaps that is your dream - from which you have not yet awoken.

Every single fucking being in all of existence is having their consent violated in some way, shape or form. That’s not a dream. That’s reality.

That means that the holy name of god is: the supreme consent violator

Ni dieu ni maître, monsieur ecmandu

Or when (and if) you wake up you will find that it means that “every fucking being in all of existence” is yearning to do the impossible and suffering the consequences (suffering Hell).

I already know how to make existence perfect individual heavens for everyone, forever, without the possibility of violating a single consent forever.

It’s not impossible. Knowing all this; I have a vantage point that is informed with which to analyze existence; a vantage point that you lack.

Being awake is simply knowing that zero sum realities never work… that when you win, you lose and are sent to hell, and when you lose, you’re already in hell.

It’s the flaw of existence… hell forever for everyone.

You are not even close to awake. You haven’t even taken on adult responsibilities yet.

Until you isolate where you are, (which you haven’t done yet), you can’t start doing the work. You’re not doing the work yet.

Here’s how to make existence perfect:

You use platonic forms in a holographic 1 dimensional tube… platonic forms are the only non sentient existents in existence, they are aggregate templates that allow us to abstract categories.

Attached to this 1 dimensional holographic tube (each part has the nested whole) is us… desired Infinite regress strange loop hyper dimensional mirror realities…

We are mirroring the platonic forms to make a reality as immersive as this one with us being the only non reflected being in our reality (which makes it so that it’s impossible to violate another beings consent - even a virus, a microbe, a photon)

The mirror is bound to our individual desire manifestation matrice and we can change the shape of the mirror at will to make reality whatever we want it to be forever, using all the infinite raw materials in the platonic form tube.

I actually think it’s bizarre that you think you are awake and I am asleep. You couldn’t even define awake without my help.

Okay obviously we know how to make reality perfect in theory… but like how do we actually do it? Like what are we supposed to do? Do we make something? What’s the deal?