Is God good?

I agree, I’m beginning to see the power that desire holds over us.

Yes, when you attain a level that is truly divine with respect to what you were used to. This satisfies.

Daily disciplined work as offering, release the concentration from its ping pong match -

To be satisfied spiritually, it is required to understand that the Earth is not a place to escape, but to explore. It is extremely deep and all of it is divinity. There is more divinity in the Earth than any race of men could possibly skim the surface of. But individual can get very nice paths into the deep light.

All is light, you know, Literally, contained light. There is no end to it, and it is closer than anything to all your thoughts.

Whatever work is given to this light out of adoration is returned in ways too sweet to commit to words.

I do not think so.

When we stop desiring what keeps us wanting life, we go to wanting death.

I have seen that in the old who complain when waking to just another day in bead or a chair, and not much of anything else.

The older I get, the more the pill to end such a waste of a life, becomes more desirable.

Regards
DL

Then it would seem as though it is better to want. It may be a drive that is crucial not only to our motivation. But also to our survival.

I can eradicate my lust from my spirit, but I refuse to do so… because it makes me sharp when I’m building a new plan for existence.

I don’t act out my lust. But that pent up lust that’s not fulfilled (by my own choice) makes me extremely motivated to fulfill it.

The sacrifice I make is laughable to me. I have forever to enjoy myself once this is done.

Indeed.

Regards
DL

encode_decode

Hello encode decode,

It is very nice to be speaking to you again. :evilfun:

You almost sound like you have someone in mind with the above.

Perhaps not necessarily. Some were never taught to think for themselves. Is that stupid? Reading the right kind of books is good for that. Also, teaching our children when they are young is helpful.
Is there a difference between ignorance (never having learned something) and stupidity? Perhaps I have chiseled away too much there. Humans are complicated. Nothing is really ever so black or white.
Some know how to but are too lazy to try. It takes so much time and effort. Some are afraid to.

.

lol You seem to be kind of down on humanity. I cannot fault you for that.

Those are the puppeteers, the manipulators, the despots. They are also the ones who are afraid of losing control.

[/quote]
By looking inward, by listening to one’s thoughts and those of others, observing, by an honest and humble evaluation of one’s self, et cetera…

Hello :smiley:

At the moment, I am just enjoying the simple activity of playing with my food before I eat it.

:laughing:

Your response made me smile, so thanks for that. It did more than that though - it was an exchange and that is something I truly appreciate :smiley:
I will read it again and see what I can pick out for a further exchange.

encode_decode

Aloha, :evilfun:

That sounds like a good zen moment to me, especially for someone who lives in his head as much as you do - still - having observed your signature. The thought may even occur in those moments that God is indeed good…or the Universe…depending on one’s perspective.

“Precisely the least, the softest, lightest, a lizard’s rustling, a breath, a flash, a moment - a little makes the way of the best happiness.”

  • Frederich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

I’m glad of that. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall to have observed it.

I myself might/would compare a good exchange to Ambrosia.

“The aspects of things that are most important to us are hidden because of their simplicity and familiarity.”

  • Ludwig Wittgenstein

Mira! :happy-sunshine:

Enjoy!

A while ago,
i had a direct perception of peace.
I realized that the peace of god
surrounds all physical matter and creation.
Like a transparent cloud surrounding objects.
about 1.5 feet thick.
It’s free and infinite and there for everybody.

Despite this, we can still suffer greatly,
usually because of a mental contraption.

One of my new friends did a test with me.
He sensed my bilocation.
I emanated calmness and peace,
as far as he was able to feel.
This was an encouraging test for me.

Depends what it is that you love. If you love evil, then that is not good. That’s arguably bad/evil.

Both love and and hate are provided that they can be rightfully satisfied. If you love x, but you see x suffer, and you can’t help x in anything, then you’d have been better off not loving x. Also, if x was evil, then again, you’d have been better off not loving x. If anything, you’d have been better off hating x. That way, you could have drawn some satisfaction from seeing him suffer.

Love of good, is good.
Hatred of good, is evil.
Love of evil, is evil.
Hatred of evil, is good.

If your love of God (the true good, the only Good) is sincere enough, you would feel no grief or fear. God ensures a perfect existence (meaning everyone gets what they truly deserve, regardless of how things appear at any given particular point in time). So what’s there to grieve or fear over? You do not sacrifice pure reason for the appearance of things, the latter conforms to the former. The latter must be interpreted in line with the former. For proof of God or a perfect existence, consider the following link:

philosophyneedsgods.com/2021/05 … ue-cogito/

If you think you can conquer evil by loving it (and I am not saying that you are saying this, just that I interpret it as a consequence of your approach with regards to love), then that is contradictory. If there are evil things/habits/traits about you, you do not love or embrace those things (unless of course you are evil). You do your best to sacrifice them for good. For example, if you are stingy, you sacrifice this in the name of generosity.

Evil should always be sacrificed for good (never the other way round), but some go too far and act oppressively as a result (some republicans come to mind). On the other end of the spectrum, some are too suppressive or lazy regarding good (they do not strive against evil with enough passion. They’re too “forgiving”.). Just as evil should be sacrificed for good, good should be salvaged and valued to the last atom’s weight. This entails forgiveness and generosity being potent. If x harms you and then asks for forgiveness, I think he should be forgiven if you have no clear reason to think him insincere in his apology to you. I’m not sure how we would be justified in seeking forgiveness for our sins, if we were unwilling to be forgiving. Also, how could we expect God to provide for us effectively, when we are tightfisted or stingy with regards to generosity yielding opportunities?

All you have to do is think about the pleasurable exclusive access problem to realize existence isn’t good yet. Also, everyone in existence is having their consent violated in some form, some worse than others.

So no, existence is not good yet. Just shades of better or worse.

The goal of existence is to make it good for everyone.

In the mean time, our struggles are to make it better, preferably using the technique of disempowering abusers. As like taking away a license for someone who’s hazardous on the road. This can involve prison or other methods. General welfare is important.

What if it’s the case that some deserve to be on the receiving end of pleasure whilst others don’t? Consider the attribute of generosity. Should you be generous towards someone who does not appreciate generosity at all? Should you be generous towards someone who’s idea of reciprocating this is to harm/rape you? Should you not then harm them? Should you not deprive them of pleasure in proportion to what they deserve?

Suppose you choose/consent to harming or insulting others. If you are then harmed/insulted, is that a case of you having your consent violated, or is that just a case of you being treated in a consistent manner with regards to your consent/choice? Look again, x has consented to insulting others. From the perspective of y, x is the other, and x has consented to insulting others. When x is insulted, is that x’s consent being violated, or is that x’s consent or standard being upheld/reciprocated?

Yes, I agree that there are shades of better and worse, and good and evil, but nobody’s consent is being violated in the way that I have put it above. No person who would not harm (and does not want to be harmed) has been harmed (again this is a matter of pure reason dictating that Existence is Perfect).

The goal is to be maximally in awe of existing and existence. This entails evil being sacrificed for good on all fronts. I try and work on my bad traits such that they are replaced with good ones. This is a case of evil being sacrificed for good. But this is not just an individual thing. When you force x to do community service, you are somewhat balancing the scales. The most extreme end of all of this is when you see potent evil potently suffer nightmare upon nightmare (Hell). Domination, pain, and pleasure, is sometimes perverted or evil, but in one context, it’s Perfection/Good.

We have to sacrifice evil for good, without being evil towards good in the process. We have to embrace/nourish/nurture good, without embracing/nurturing/nourishing evil in the process. If we’re too harsh, then we will suffer a loss of good. If we’re too lenient, then we will suffer a loss of good.

CR,

You are not a deep thinker. I understand that’s an ad hom.

There are two root problems with existence:

1.) the pleasurable exclusive access problem

1a.). Having the best time of your life while stomping on someone else’s heart (this includes all sex and marriage)

2.) the negative zero sum problem. (For one winner there is one or more losers.

I guarantee as we’re speaking right now that you are a psychopath, just like the demon you worship as god.

You do not exhibit a conscience in life or on these boards.

I’ll tell you how to test your gods…

Make this wish, and no other wish… sell your soul, and for no other bargain :

“We all live our desired experiences at nobodies expense”

If it doesn’t come true, it’s a false god.

It doesn’t come true. And now you know the truth… we all made this together. Gods will try to confuse you because they can’t grant the wish.

*end rant

“All you have to do is think about the pleasurable exclusive access problem to realize existence isn’t good yet.”

Existence, at all points in time, is demonstrably the best “good” it can be, — given the preceding history.

It can get better from now, as with every future and past now, but reality now is demonstrably as perfect as it can be, — given entropy and the anthropic principle.

Regards
DL

Not only does this have a gazillion contradictions in it, it’s word salad.

A perfect being cannot by definition make an imperfect existence. But we can prove it’s imperfect.

How do you try to handle this? You say it’s perfect at the time but gets more perfect.

That’s laughable.

Then you say it gets better from now. Actually, it can get worse than now. Think about the dark ages as an example of hundreds of years of crap after Ancient Greece.

Then you throw in complete word salad by saying that it’s true because of entropy and the anthropic principle.

That’s meaningless word salad.

I’m giving you proofs. What I wrote is not an opinion.

If your desired experience is to cut off your own arm permanently, then it is impossible for you to have your desired experience without it costing your own arm. Of course, if your arm is something that neither harms you nor benefits you, then you’re not doing something that costs/pays you anything. Where being benefited is your goal, if your arm benefits you, then you’re sacrificing something (your beneficial arm). This is costly but harmful for you. Where being benefitted is your goal, if your arm harms you, then you’re sacrificing something (your harmful arm). This is costly but beneficial for you. In both instances you pay something (your arm). In both instances a payment is made to you (harm or benefit).

Where goodness or being benefitted is your goal/wage/salary/reward/payment, the latter move (cutting off the evil arm) is reasonable, the former (cutting off the good arm) is not. Where evil or being harmed is your goal/wage/salary/reward/payment, the former move (cutting off the good arm) is reasonable, the latter is not. Having said that, it is unreasonable for anyone to seek evil (or being harmed as payment/reward) for their efforts or actions. It is unreasonable for anyone to be evil/unreasonable.

If everyone sought to harm each other and were successful in this, then everybody would live at each other’s expense (this is bad because everybody is harming each other). If everyone sought to be generous to each other and were successful in this, then everybody would live at each other’s expense (this is good because everybody is benefitting each other). If there are those who don’t want to engage in the latter two activities/deeds, then that is their choice. If there are those who want to be generous to those who harm them, then they are insane/irrational/evil. If there are those who are willing to truly harm another against his will, but object when this is done to them, then their objection is insane/irrational/unreasonable/evil. They should be put in Hell regardless of their cries for mercy. They should remain in Hell regardless of their begging for death (because they would harm another despite the other begging for death). They are being payed for what they are. They are being valued fairly. They are being treated as they ought to be treated with respect to their consent/choice/will.

Though of course it’s not really at each other’s expense (in the way I think you mean expense) when generosity is the case. It’s God being generous to the generous, and the generous being generous to the generous, which is essentially Heaven when generosity is absolute (to my interpretation of the Quran, Satan did not reciprocate God’s and Adam’s generosity, and Adam did not reciprocate God’s generosity). If there was to be a good way of living at each otter’s’ “expense”, then this is it. The alternative is that you have a solipsistic world wherein which nobody benefits or harms each other. You just play with non-sentient toys and try to draw happiness from such deeds (which may not be impossible, but it is certainly short-sighted and unambitious. It will not bring about maximum fulfilment/pleasure/joy/excitement/satisfaction/happiness. It’s the sort of thing you might expect of children, and we tend to attribute innocence to children (until they willingly approach the tree that they know they are not supposed to (evil), and then actually eat from it).

Where you take the word “cost” to mean that which you sacrifice despite not wanting to, or that which is taken from you, despite you not wanting it to be taken from you, then the following applies:

God is Generous to Himself (because He is Reasonable, Loveable, the Rightful/Righteous/Just, the Innocent, the Good, the Rich (everything belongs to Him, all are contingent on Him), the Sustainer). God never does anything costly to Him. For Him to do so, would be for Him to wrong Himself. He never does wrong. Thus, if God satisfies Himself via punishing us, then this is at cost to us. Where God Satisfies Himself via benefitting us, then this is at no cost to anyone. If God were to be Generous towards that which is unappreciative of Generosity, then He has not exercised Generosity (for it was not recognised). If He is not Generous, then He is not Loveable. If He is not Loveable, then He is not Perfect (because he cannot be as happy. He cannot be Happy/Satisfied/Fulfilled). If x thinks it’s better to exist via raping others, then he should be payed in accordance. He should be paired with others like him so that they can all rape each other. Of course, such a payment is costly to him. If x thinks it’s better to exist via benefitting others, then…

Domination, pain, and pleasure, is perfection in the context of God, Hell, and Heaven. In all other contexts, it is not Good (as in in comparison to Good, it is lesser or perverted. It’s not as good)

“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone. (Luke 18:19)

Of course, Jesus is being absolute with the standards good when he is saying God alone is good (because only God is absolutely/truly/completely/perfectly/omni good)

You can’t guarantee such things because you are not omniscient. You wrote something that had some intriguing elements to it two posts ago (and I feel like I’m being generous in saying this, but then again, generosity is my goal here), so I replied. But you seem to think yourself legendary because you were able to produce something with some intrigue despite the foundational contradiction in your belief system. So I doubt that I’ll reply to you after this. At some point it no longer feels like helping the needy. At some point, it no longer feels like a good deed. At some point, it starts to feel insincere to God/Good (as opposed to sincere to God/Good) to try and benefit you.

CR,

You don’t understand. If God cannot grant this wish, God is not good or God. It’s that simple.

Let me tell you something…

People are terrified of taking all spirits. You know why? Because they believe that evil wins or has already won. That attitude makes evil powerful.

Let me explain something else to you.

Evil doesn’t even want itself to win! Hell is pure imagination, nobody wants to go there. If they tell you they do, it is pure ignorance.

To make a perfect existence is to place everyone in their own reality that doesn’t have other beings in it that can suffer… (while they get all their desires met)…mirrors. It feels just the same to you, but you can’t possibly even hurt a blade of grass or a microbe. I consider a blade of grass as valuable as myself. I will die for a blade of grass. I will die for a piece of lint on a rug. I will die for a mote of dust.

You need to understand (and you will not always be this way). You are psychopathic right now, and extremely ignorant.

I did not say that.

It gets better if we make it so.

Regards
DL

God is good.
God is bad.
God is neither.
God is both.

What is good, what is bad?

That pain, poverty, illnesd, death are bad, if we look at it from the point of view of life being an eternal, perfect replication of what we assume god to be.

Here is the catch: Noonday would want such a life because it could nit start in the first place, everyone would be stuck in an eternity which consists only of a nominal existence. Life had to evolve intl a figurative paradise, which can never attain a choisless, static paradise, which can not possibly exist without a re-election.

Re-election is the mirror which creates an evolving God, a God who really is a multiplicity in a boundless unity.

God exists to create multiform images so that He himself becomes scalable to see the unity, tk which mannind aspires.

This unity has always existed in a Being that can only see Himself through His creations.

The bad part lays in Heraclitus truth that the unity was seek can only be experienced through eternal change, that can nit be pinned Disney tk Parmenedies’ eternally reified construct.

We humans can nit ser through the ‘esse est percipii’ to the realization of the cigito, because we fear our very doubt over the possibility f of pure essence.

The essential, can not be perceived, IT is the invisible glue that holds doubt in check, sl that an eternal existence would eliminate the fear if the painfully conscious fear or returning existence possible.