Rintendo wrote:They are derivative of the human condition insofar as our naming conventions. How you might define "good" is different than how another person might describe it even if, for the sake of argument, whe call it a function of altruism. Christian Missionaries to the native populations have very good intentions--they believe there is an afterlife predicated upon the acceptance of Christ as Savior, therefore to impress this upon people for their own good is, well, "good". It is altruistic--they are giving up their time to help. Is it really "good"? If they are right, then "yes". If they are wrong about this acceptance of Christ then its less "good".
Exactly. Seems as if we're all in agreement.
Rintendo wrote:I have always argued that we created God in our image. In fact, by attempting to define god/God/G-D at all using philosophy, systems engineering, religious references...WORDS...we are doing just that.
If we stop and feel and allow ourselves to internally "know" what G-D is then we are at least being honest enough and humble enough in our search for a being that we believe quite possibly either created the entire universe or is the entire universe.
If that is the case then our feelings on the subject should never be uttered as they will automatically be tarnished/changed by the mere use of words and, thus, God will be lost.