Is becoming like God evil?

reply to post by autowrench

I guess it would depend on how you define the word "God." In the Genesis story of Creation, it is clear there are more than one present. Were these really Gods? Doubtful.

In the interest of making everyone aware of the all-around context, so as to not work with an incomplete database of interpretations and definitions, I'd like to add something here.

When the word "elohim" was used, some say it was in reference to the supposition that there were Three and One in the Beginning. The spirit, which was with the Father, and the Son, which was the Father. So basically, a guy with multiple personalities and a ghost. Plural, therefore Elohim, otherwise known as god. The thing is, without the Father, there is no holy ghost.

So now, we have a sanctified ghost with multiple personalities. Seems legit.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

No. Humankind cannot be relied upon to dictate morals...this is the reason morals had to come from without, and not within. Do you think a man would have taken orders and been told exactly what his morals should be if it came from another man? No, he would have demanded to know what makes this man know more than other men, or more important than other men, that he can say what morals are right and what is wrong.

That's why they needed a God. Constantine himself admits the Bible is a collaboration of dozens of myths from other faiths, and you need only do the research to find that Jesus' story is repeated, in paraphrase, by another document in the British museum...a document that predates ANY Biblical record by over 1,000 years.

My point here is that morals are one reason the Bible was necessary, word of God or no. No mortal man would have been able to successfully establish such a code; a god, however, is another matter entirely. Remember, these people lived in superstitious times, when Thor was believed to be the god of thunder and you musty offer milk to appease the pestilence fairies. In all honesty, it was a rather clever game of chess. Unfortunately, people look at the game and see only the cover story. Why? Because it offers hope, and an escape from the hopelessness of controlling everything in life. It offers a deal: behave, or you suffer eternal damnation. As an unruly species, perhaps that was best...at the time, anyway.

So I believe the phrase here is: CHECKMATE.

There are still pieces on the board my friend. BTW, nice work on Charles and justice.

Where do morals come from?
Do they not come from interactions between those of the same species?

For instance, where do lions learn how to act around lions and who or what is a lions God?
It will be other lions. Right?

The same with any animal. They learn how they should act by acting within their group. Right?

I hope you said yes. You are bright enough to recognize the above as truth.

Now. God is said to be only one of his kind.
Where did he learn his morals? Why would he even need to develop morals being all alone and especially, where did he learn how corporeal man should act and be when he is not even corporeal?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by grahag
If there's a God that created us and he gave us the ability to make ourselves Gods, do you think that he might have made a mistake?

If so, then it must be a mistake for us as parents to want our children to be as good or better than we are.

What do you wish for your children?
Would God want less for his?

Regards
DL

That's exactly the way I see it. If God is perfect, and he made us able to achieve Godly status, then it's not evil.

And conversely, it would then be evil of him to punish A & E for trying to do just that. Right?

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am


OK, God is evil and you as the "Greatest I am" can replace him as the good God, since you are God's judge. There you go, see where that get's you... hey ya never know, since the Bible God is so evil and you're such a perfect judge, maybe it's time for a replacement, oh great one.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by autowrench

 

I guess it would depend on how you define the word "God." In the Genesis story of Creation, it is clear there are more than one present. Were these really Gods? Doubtful.

In the interest of making everyone aware of the all-around context, so as to not work with an incomplete database of interpretations and definitions, I'd like to add something here.

When the word "elohim" was used, some say it was in reference to the supposition that there were Three and One in the Beginning. The spirit, which was with the Father, and the Son, which was the Father. So basically, a guy with multiple personalities and a ghost. Plural, therefore Elohim, otherwise known as god. The thing is, without the Father, there is no holy ghost.

So now, we have a sanctified ghost with multiple personalities. Seems legit.

www.youtube.com...

If Christianity via Judaism was influence by the other eastern religions, and I think they were, then God was androgynous.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

OK, God is evil and you as the "Greatest I am" can replace him as the good God, since you are God's judge. There you go, see where that get's you... hey ya never know, since the Bible God is so evil and you're such a perfect judge, maybe it's time for a replacement, oh great one.

You have a problem with God being judged do you?

Meanwhile, you have judged a genocidal God who even has his own son needlessly murdered as good.

Hmm.
Yes. I think I am a better judge of morality than you are.

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am


Thank you for the compliment on my breakdown of basic justice.

Where do morals come from?
Do they not come from interactions between those of the same species?

Morals come from our understanding of what we should or should not do. It isn't even restricted to members of the same species, because at this point, we are the only ones who have morals AS A FACT (so to speak). And it isn't even fact...we're still arguing about it in Cabinet meetings and Congressional gatherings.

In the end, morals are an expression of what makes us feel comfortable and what makes us feel terrible. Morals are the emotional plumbob of detecting radiation. There is no exact guidebook...that's why morals aren't called laws. Otherwise, we wouldn't call it our "moral compass", we'd call it our "legal guide".

For instance, where do lions learn how to act around lions and who or what is a lions God?
It will be other lions. Right?

Respect for each other's survival. If one lion doesn't respect another's survival, its own survival is put at risk. And no, lions have no gods. In all truth, humans are the only creature to ever have a god. That is because we are the only creature to ever seek another meaning besides survival. Lions don't care where they came from, or where they're going. They get hungry, they eat. They have to relieve themselves, they find a bush or a patch of grass. They get horny, they mate. If they get tired, they sleep. Life is simple for them. If there is one issue that is common to all humans, it's that we overcomplicate our lives. And this may, in fact, be a subconscious desire to create meaning...and we eventually go overboard with it. When we want something, we don't do it halfway.

The same with any animal. They learn how they should act by acting within their group. Right?

One of the most basic biological processes in the animal kingdom. It does nothing to prove morals. Instead it proves that we learn what is expected of us by watching others around us.

Are you suggesting that morals are created by societal standard? Or is societal standard molded by our personal morality? There's a question for you.

Now. God is said to be only one of his kind.

Many things are said about God, and they all contradict one another if you look too closely. That is why we stick to mantras instead of in-depth discussions...repetition is less revealing than critical thinking skills.

Where did he learn his morals? Why would he even need to develop morals being all alone and especially, where did he learn how corporeal man should act and be when he is not even corporeal?

First, I would suggest you let go of all your preconceptions regarding this "God" person, because in presuming to know anything about him, you presume to know something that is infinite in nature, which is simply impossible for a human being.

Second, I view "God" as one simple thing: love. Love is a good word for Source. Love is understanding, and understanding breeds awareness. And awareness is one of the key characteristics of Source. And love will, at all times, refrain from harming anything unless absolutely necessary. A good philosophy, yes? And therefore an excellent source of morals.

Does that answer you?

reply to post by Greatest I am

Jesus was one with the father in spirit who willingly gave himself as a final sacrifice, reconciling the problem of human evil and resolving the paradox of the karmic wheel. You've not only judged God but you've totally misunderstood him and his intentionality from his own perspective. Don't assume, it doesn't look good, and you don't look too good from the tone and spirit of your posts. That you then have the audacity after declaring every facet of the Biblical God "evil", to call yourself "the Greatest I am" is absurd, ridiculous and more than a little arrogant and highly distasteful. That's right, I don't think you yourself are a very likeable or lovable person in your self righteous indignation, and presumptuousness. God OTOH still loves you in spite of this rather distasteful aspect of your character, lucky you, that he died to cover your sins as well regardless of what you think or believe.

Edit to add: Just for the record, the historical evidence would actually indicate that Jesus "threaded the needle" (by a thread), and after spending three days in the tomb, hung around for a bit (even employing the art of disguise) and then enjoyed a full and happy life generating the space of eternal happiness and bliss for his followers (who would themselves be murdered for their inspired faith in him). His was a "Great Work" which you simply do not understand or cannot fathom. What's sad is that no matter what anyone says or tries to illuminate for you, you've convinced yourself that you are absolutely right that the God of Jesus is immoral and evil, but I'm here to say that you've arrived at this conclusion without having fully investigated, and in your arrogance and presumptuousness, you're unable to re-examine the story with an open mind free from extreme contempt, prior to any re-investigation.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

That you then have the audacity after declaring every facet of the Biblical God "evil", to call yourself "the Greatest I am" is absurd, ridiculous and more than a little arrogant and highly distasteful.

Coming from the one basing his entire faith on a book that hasn't been updated in hundreds of years, and firmly believes that a two thousand-year old corpse is going to save our entire world in one day and restore peace and harmony in a society that hasn't been at peace in centuries.

...Right. Okay.

that he died to cover your sins as well regardless of what you think or believe.

Interesting...allow me to pick at that a little. He died to cover all of the sins for ever and ever? So he planned for us to be this way? What sort of parent clearly plans for their children to disobey them, and still sets it up so that unless they remain humble and subservient, they will go to hell for having the free will that their parent chose to give them? Give free will, and then say "Choose me or choose hell." That's a loving parent, alright.

And let's not mention that this god is a loving and merciful god, yet literally calls himself Jealous, according to the Bible. Oh, I forgot...Jealous has two meanings, and the only recorded incident of "jealous" ever being used in a positive sense is when talking about God. Wow, what a coincidence, eh? Maybe providence is real, after all!

And if it is, it's just a cover for tyranny. Have fun with that.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

There is no hell in Christ who obliterated hell. His was (and is) an unconditional love, and an invitation. You too assume much too much.

Can anyone tell me what BMNM means in old Hebrew? I'm testing something out...

reply to post by AfterInfinity

When the word "elohim" was used, some say it was in reference to the supposition that there were Three and One in the Beginning.

"Elohim" in Hebrew means "mighty ones" and "master of masters," I am told.

The word is identical to the usual plural of el meaning gods or magistrates, and is cognate to the 'l-h-m found in Ugaritic, where it is used for the pantheon of Canaanite Gods, the children of El and conventionally vocalized as "Elohim" even though this is a speculation as Ugaritic as a consonantal written language only recorded consonants. Most use of the term Elohim in the later Hebrew text imply a view that is at least monolatrist at the time of writing, and such usage (in the singular), as a proper title for the supreme deity, is generally not considered to be synonymous with the term elohim, "gods" (plural, simple noun). Hebrew grammar allows for this nominally-plural form to mean "He is the Power (singular) over powers (plural)", or roughly, "God of gods". Rabbinic scholar Maimonides wrote that the various other usages are commonly understood to be homonyms. The plural form ending in -im can also be understood as denoting abstraction, as in the Hebrew words chayyim ("life") or betulim ("virginity"). If understood this way, Elohim means "divinity" or "deity".

source

Most theologians know that the Trinity doctrine is not scriptural. Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament, not even once, and yet Christians crow this at every opportunity. Historians also know that the Trinity doctrine is not authorized in the New Testament. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Apostles of Jesus ever heard of a Trinity.

Now a lot of Pagan Religions had a trinity of Gods. But Christianity didn't steal anything from the Pagans, did they?