Correct. Now prove these things aren't Go(o)d and that they don't exist. :-)The burden is yours, to prove they are.
No it's not. I state that these things are good.
You may not like the idea of having to prove something but this is the way of the world. Allow me to quote from Pianodwarf:
It's a burden of proof issue. […] the one claiming a [positive] is making a claim that extends ontology, and such claims always carry a greater burden of proof than claims that an ontological extension does not exist. – Pianodwarf
So are love and joy and all things associated by this Indian good things. Putting my word form aside for a minute. :-)
“An old Cherokee told his grandson “There is a battle between two wolves inside us all. One is evil. It is anger, jealousy, greed, resentment, inferiority, lies and ego. The other is go(o)d. It is joy, love, peace, hope, humility, kindness, empathy and truth.”
The boy thought about it, and asked “Grandfather, which wolf wins?”The old man quietly replied. “The one you feed.”
I see that you are quite keen on this piece of folklore as you have seen fit to post it elsewhere. You, however, will be the first to admit that there are difficulties with it and thus it really states nothing.
The first problem is that “good” and “evil” have been emotively personified for the purpose of propaganda – imagine the wolves being replaced by “cute puppies”: a different image arises.
The second is that there is no attribution to the story. This is important. The reader really wants to know what sort of a life the “old grandfather” led. Did he keep to his own advice? How do we know? Do the Cherokee have a list of revered philosophers?
However, the real problem, to which you are apparently blind, is “How do we know which wolf is which?” We know that “good” and “evil” are subjective and we each have our own ideas. In the extreme, “good” and “evil” are pretty clear but the devil is in the detail – where is the line?
You, of course, are fortunate. This distinction has been mysteriously revealed to you and you can pronounce upon each and every action to say whether it is “good” or “evil”.
Can you supply a broad guide to help the rest of us?
I present the wisdom of the Cherokee
It’s a bit limited isn’t it? Are you keen on believing the words of primitive peoples? (You apparently are, as you rely heavily on the writings of a discarded ‘gospel’ author.)
suggest that this is synonymous with many religions, philosophies and spiritual traditions. And therefore these things can be equated to this thing called Go(o)d for want of a better metaphor.
1. The “and therefore” is a non-sequitur. There is no “therefore” about it. It is this lack of critical thinking that lets you down and why you are unwilling to expose your ideas to the light of supporting evidence.
2. “Go(o)d” -> do you think that is clever? It is certainly vague and, like the battling wolves, it leaves everything open to personal interpretation.
In Ancient Greek "God" is "Theos", in Hebrew its "YHWH" and the name for "Good" in Greek is "Agathos" in Hebrew "TOBH". They are not the same word. Nor do they have the same meaning.I think they do.
“I think they do.” -> Not much of an argument is it?
You are using the mythology of holy books, to make your case and God in those is certainly not good.No I'm not. I only reference the Gospel of Thomas as an authentic interpretation of Jesus.
Which is a source of mythology and, for you, “a holy book.” It is certainly part of the circular reasoning of your inexplicable stance.
Look, EES, we would like some consistency here. We would also like something other than your word. We would like some of the harder questions answered.
Let me tell you a folktale:
“An old Blackfoot pulled out his iPad and opened a Word document. “Look,” he said to his grandson, “here is an interesting quote that I’ve saved: “There is a desire to understand the world inside us all. There are people who think that the answer is held in books of folklore whose stories were made up by Stone Aged civilisations. These people have little experience of critical thinking. They would sit in a darkened tepee and work out an answer without reference to the real world. You can find them on the internet telling you that they alone have the answer. You will find that they don’t because they don’t have all the questions or data. They just want to have everyone be like them. But they do not know who they are. They are a dime a dozen.”
The boy thought about it, and asked “Grandfather, how shall I know these people?”
The old man scrolled down the page and quietly replied. “They are the ones who have confused ideas; they are the ones who speak in parables; they are the ones who invent new words and give other words vague meanings that only they know; they are the ones who do not employ critical thinking. They are the ones who think only they know the truth. Shun them as you would a leper with cholera.”
Note: this is not a view held by Rome's Christianity. Whilst the Biblical record, both NT and OT, hold some valid wisdom, they also hold a lot of corruptions designed to service Empire. You have to watch those assumptions, me thinks.
So you say you are right and the purveyors of Rome's Christianity say they are right. How are we to know who is telling the truth?
(PS ‘methinks’ is one word)