MattersOfTheHeart
Active Member
Ah, I equate "good" with perfection.
Not the ordinary usage of the word good, but the word in its totality is quite humbling.
Perhaps we aren't to far apart as things stand.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God decides to create and...
- Thread starter MattersOfTheHeart
- Start date
Not the ordinary usage of the word good, but the word in its totality is quite humbling.
Perhaps we aren't to far apart as things stand.
MattersOfTheHeart
Active Member
No, lust is a weekness or rather a physical reaction to external stimulus. The soul can either be influenced by this or not because we are embodied by flesh.
God is not embodied by flesh so is not susceptible to this.
MattersOfTheHeart
Active Member
Surely it is possible to sin for humans.
This is because we are measured against the goodness of God.
God is not measured against himself, he is the beacon or path to follow.
Much like, a dirt path can not walk down the dirt path, but rather people walk the path.
Akivah
Well-Known Member
The dictionary definitions of 'good' and 'perfect' are not synonymous. So yes, we are very far apart. We are using words with completely different meanings.
Webster defines good as:
a) of high quality
b) of somewhat high but not excellent quality
Webster defines perfect as:
a) having no mistakes or flaws
b) completely correct or accurate
Do you truly believe that something of "somewhat high but not excellent quality" is the same as "completely correct or accurate"? If so, it may explain your lack of English proficiency, since you believe an 85 grade (B) is the same as a 100 (A).
Walter Russell
Member
God created a perfectly polarized 2 way universe of interchange. Its our lack of understanding thats imperfect
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
There is no reason to believe that God is omnipotent to the extent that you understand the word. It could mean that you have a false understanding (perhaps rightly so) of the intent of the author when he wrote the word that has been translated and interpreted into the word which you now perceive to mean that "all things are possible".
Perhaps consider extending your view of the word omnipotent.
omnipotent:
- ruler of all, ruler of the universe, the almighty.
- παντοκράτωρ, παντοκράτορος, ὁ (πᾶς and κρατέω), he who holds sway over all things; the ruler of all; almighty: of God
http://biblehub.com/greek/3841.htm
I see nothing here about all things being possible, or nothing being impossible.
almighty:
- having absolute power over all
- relatively unlimited in power
- having or regarded as having great power or importance
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/almighty
Walter Russell
Member
God divided his light into 2 equal and opposite light conditions. One to generate, the other to radiate.
They're 2 halves of one.
These 2 conditions continuously give of themselves to each other to remain in balance. Neither could exist without the other.
Sin comes from sine, it represents time. All things trapped in time/sine/sin will eventually decay. This is due to law,not mans behavior. This is used merely as a control tactic for the elites who wish to control humanity.
Everything and everyone has a cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth. The universe and everything in it is a never ending cycle.
Just imagine a world in which this 1 simple law of balance was observed by the whole of mankind. Man giving freely to man and recieving equally as he gives. There wouldn't be anyone lacking of anything.
Man must balance his actions with equal and opposite reactions in order to be in harmony with creation and further realize his role as co creator with the creator.
Last edited:
If gods decides to do something, and god is perfect, then that something is done in a perfect manner. Whether its perfect to us doesn't matter, god could just as easily create perfect evil, if thats what it decided.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Are they? I think people who won't have a faith, aren't really considering those, actually.
MattersOfTheHeart
Active Member
So, it should go without saying, but I will say it anyhow. Topics and discussions such as these will often times open up smaller discussions for clarification to continue with the larger discussion.
The larger discussion is (from my position) God is perfect (and perfect is God), everything God creates, must be, by logical necessity, less than God and not as perfect as God, because that something is not God. Everything else in existence is not God, therefor anything created will be either slightly less perfect than God or exponentially less perfect.
How far a creation deviates from perfection is an interesting discussion, but a fringe topic at this point, so I will leave it for another time.
What you did bring up is "Good", "Goodness", "To be Good" and how it relates to perfection. You did so by presenting a websters explanation of the words as generally understood. Websters is not intended to be an exhaustive source for every word, but rather a general reference.
So I certainly accept your position that websters brief explanation demotes "Good" to a very specific thing, paraphrasing perhaps it is saying Goodness is good but not near perfection.
I would simply suggest if we look at it kind of reverse like, that part of Perfection, is a form of Goodness. Perhaps only the purest and best form of its meaning.
Example, I can not be perfect if I am not also full of Goodness.
Or if I offer this description of Good can one reject it's truth?
* Good
-To choose love over hate
-To sacrifice oneself when needed
-To treat others as we would want to be treated
-To be patient
-To control ones temperament
etc
etc...
The above list also defines "Good" and what it means to be good or have goodness in yourself.
But you already know all this.
So, when I say or relate Good to Perfection, I'm merely attaching them because they are both part of each other.
I never suggested that the word Good means exactly the same thing as perfection, I said it is part of the equation of perfection. Much like Patience, Tolerance, Long suffering and other words are part of the equation of defining perfection.
Aiviu
Active Member
Thanks for your answer and definintion. I could think of something alike... hope you dont mind if i conclude out of what you gave me by using my wisdom and knowledge given from love or what i call the ether of everyones heart.
Your definition of lights seems to be the same as the ether and where its from. While this certain place (where the ether is from) keeps the material world alive, the ether is givin consciousness to life. Every creation worth the ether's one true consciousness will be reborn to this place. As following: When we die we'll collapse into ourselfs, into our hearts from where the ether gave us its consciousness. That means if we followed it when we were alive in out actions as you said, Walter. Our true heart seems to be born into this place. We merely have to assign our self to this heart to be born with it. Thus we need ourselves to be evidenced to the ether and another ones ether who evidence us ahead of us. Sin is actually is bound to the material world which makes one undone to the heart. Half-ethered. Willing but can't assign the self because one is full of acting in sin. Sin means in my eyes to bound the ether to the mask of the world. But appearently this mask or illusion was the only way to learn about the ether. What meaning we gave to ether and who we assign the meaning of ether is who was created by the ether. The ether is in the eyes of those who love us but we merely have no recognition towards the ether itself. Thats the mask, illusion and the guiding sin to reveal the truth. No one who cant repend cant reveal.
What i can think of is that God is the ether of this place but not any creatures born directly there had or would follow the ether unconditionally thus givin it full recognition of their selves. God wants to take part in their hearts and not be pushed aside through sin as we exampled it when we were born as humans. Gods body in this place is the one who you truely love - while this love is the ether in reflection of their hearts. This seems to be the certain aim why we are born. We as humans doesnt noticing the ether we merely notice that something is lost. And we assign love to the world and we seek it in the world and find the fulfillment of it to sin for it. And we have to forget and belittle our selves. The things we had seen as we were true to the ether and how we evidenced ourselfs to another ones heart will be taken by the ether so we will be transported to this place.
Once again i enter "ether of heaven" into google and brought up Vedanta sutras "a distinction between the outer and the inner ether 1; and it is said that 'heaven"... .... strangley i come from the monothesic God theory and jesus as a child of it... It all seems to be far more connected then some used to claim that his religion is the only truth. Makes me thing of Willing is not enough. Merely acts of pure sefless love is needed to be evidenced to the ether in a heart and another.
Is goodness a concept that is independent from God, or is it identified with God Himself?
In other words, can I define what is good without appealing to any of God qualities?
Ciao
- viole
Akivah
Well-Known Member
I agree.
Judaism goes into this at length. It is obvious that G-d didn't create the world to be perfect. Otherwise, He wouldn't have included atonement within His Laws. Atonement wouldn't be needed if Creation was perfect. I'd could go deeper into this if you're interested.
I disagree with that. The word perfect doesn't denote how positive something is. Something could be perfectly negative as well. Perfect is more of a descriptor to what its attached to, such as perfectly cold, perfectly straight, perfectly chaotic, etc. No deviation from the subject occurs.
Well, G-d tells us that, in context, these are typically good actions. We do our best to do them, but G-d already knows, that we won't do them perfectly. Thankfully, G-d doesn't ask us humans for perfection. He knows better. He created us this way.
HekaMa'atRa
Member
What if creation is perfect based on the laws that govern this universe, and all the negative things we associate with life are a necessary component of life in this universe. Death, suffering, disease, war - are all just natural side effects of life created by a prefect being.
Agondonter
Active Member
Oh, geez. Another 'problem of evil' thread.
MattersOfTheHeart
Active Member
This is exactly what I'm stating is the state of affairs.
What people haven't understood yet is this doesn't mean God isn't perfect.
So I would agree with your assessment based on my research and what my heart tells me.
MattersOfTheHeart
Active Member
Goodness in my reality is not separate from God. If I'm being totally honest with you.
I realize many will say "I'm good and I don't believe in God" etc...
That argument has holes though because it can be asked where their goodness truly originated from and go back in time and you'll eventually find the goodness in that family is probably tied to a religious past that impacted future generations. So for those saying they don't need God, can't be so sure about that.
I also realize as mentioned already there are plenty of watered down versions of words in our society, like "awesome" or "amazing" to which have next to no meaning today.
"Good" is also like that sometimes. So in my reality "goodness" only exists if God exists.
Wether I need it or not is irrelevant, since He does not exist. I think you are confusing the impact of belief in X, if any, with the impact of X existing. You can believe in X commanding you to help the poor, without X actually existing. There is no logical sequitur from a positive belief to the existence of the object of said belief.
If God is good, which is unsubstantiated. I could symmetrically say that evil only exists if God exists.
That God exists and is good is only your assumption or, as you said, is valid only in your reality.
Ciao
- viole
Blastcat
Active Member
So, if God can't create a better world than we see... how is that not PERFECT?
MattersOfTheHeart
Active Member
I agree with your first point. You are correct.
As to your second point, you would be correct as well. That evil only exists because God exists.
The idea is if a single point, we will call A is the only thing in existence, and that point is perfect for arguments sake.
The moment A decides to split, or create, or somehow manifest something other than A, we can call B, it is logical that whatever B is, can not be A.
If B can not be A, then it seems logical it will be not perfect.
If something is not perfect, how far can that deviate? Is B evil, or good, or both?
If before our universe existed, it was just God (A) then the universe was manifested (B) how far will that manifestation be from it's origin?