Terry Blanton wrote:
Nope, I make no assumptions about the worshiper. The condition is that G-d is Omnipresent. This is an interesting philosophy in that before there was a Creation, there was only the Creator. The only material to compose the Creation must come from the Creator; therefore, all that is, is G-d (depending on what the meaning of 'is' is :-) I further conjecture that to be the Creation, it must be not G-d; therefore, all that lives is separate from G-d. If G-d is all that is Good; then, all that is must be Evil
Whoops -- hold it right there.
First, how can something which is all good spawn something evil? How can pure evil come from pure good? Clearly it can't -- if the good gives birth to the evil then the good must have incorporated the evil to start with and the good must not have been pure good, after all.
The archetype for evil cannot be good.
Second, you have a fundamental semantic difficulty, which is that you have defined "good" as "that which G-d is or wants", have you not? And then you have taken that definition, which reduces "good" to little more than an alias for "G-d", and used it in an attempt to reason about the goodness of G-d and not-G-d. That's highly circular.
This problem is not unique to your approach, of course: it's a basic problem with any rational discussion of morality. Any attempt at defining "good" as anything except "that which God wants" tends to result in an awful lot of wasted paper. On the other hand, explicitly defining it as a synonym for God results in a very short discussion with little in the way of interesting conclusions.
and the end of Creation is the return to G-d. Is this why 'live' is 'evil' spelled backward?
God likes round numbers.
God works in decimal. (Hence dates such as 1000 and 2000 are significant.)
God speaks English.
Maybe we should ask Nora Barton <eg>.
"Thou art G-d"
-Stranger in a Strange Land
But Heinlein didn't leave out the 'o'. After all, if we're all in this together, how can it be wrong to refer to us all by name?
"Good is better than evil because it's nicer" -- Al Capp
*/"Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote:
Terry Blanton wrote:
> There is a general solution. If G-d is Omnipresent, there is but One > by exclusion; and, all monotheistic religions are worshiping the same > G-d by definition. > > "I am that I am"
Um ... You are assuming all those who _think_ they are worshiping the
One God are indeed doing so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=31637/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/>
