Well is god dead? That's what I want to ask you all.
In case you're wondering, I am alluding to Friedrich Nietzche's quote from "The Gay Science" (I think that's where it started).
For those who don't know what I'm talking about, Nietzche is talking about the fact that the idea of God is dead. It no longer can be taken seriously because Christians have killed God. They have killed God through their own hypocrosy(sp?) according to Nietzche(Or at least, that's the message I got).
So, is God really dead?
Ooh, stretchy tables 
And on topic, yeah, it's true that many mainstream religious organisations do twist the bible's teachings to their own ends, and that hypocracy puts many off religion altogether, so in that respect, god is dead. There are, however, some that do try to follow the bible's teachings to the letter, if people look hard enough to find them, so overall, no, god isn't dead completely.
Learn how to format crap before you request titles. o.-
The bible has an underlying message, and it's a good one. But it's buried under layers of "don't eat FISH!!!", "Throw rocks at little kids that TALK funny!" and of course "KILL THE GAYS!!!"
People get all caught up on human inserted opinions and pretend they're following a god's orders (Like the Crusades).
[plug]
I tend to satire this in my short stories about Kyzarie. Funnily enough people always get the impression that the ruling body, also the main religious sect, is a evil tyrannical empire of sorts. Even after I explain it's not. I usually have show the similarities between their religion and Chrisitianity before they realize their own implications, lol.
[/plug]
As for the original topic, no, he's not. Most likely he lives on in the hearts of Christians and Agnostics who know there is a guiding force out there and it wants them to promote peace and understanding. Not judgmental hatred and bigotry.
~Tobe
I tend to see the Bible as more morals to follow, rather than absolute truth.
Quote:
The bible has an underlying message, and it's a good one. But it's buried under layers of "don't eat FISH!!!", "Throw rocks at little kids that TALK funny!" and of course "KILL THE GAYS!!!"
I think you're exaggerating the negative bits of the Bible. There's hardly enough of it to "bury" the rest of it. Maybe one out of 200 verses is objectionable in the way you're describing. And even that's a stretch.
As for whether Christians have "killed God through their hypocrisy," I have not read Nietzche and I don't know what that's supposed to mean. It sounds awfully melodramatic.
Quote:
As for whether Christians have "killed God through their hypocrisy," I have not read Nietzche and I don't know what that's supposed to mean. It sounds awfully melodramatic.
I think it's something along the lines of churches blessing troops before they go to war, when the bible clearly states war is wrong (plus the fact that the enemy is probably doing exactly the same on their side), and other things along those lines. Irrevocable contradictions in faith, basically.
I admit that I haven't read Nietzche either though, so if I'm wrong about this feel free to challenge me.
The Bible as a whole does not at all take a clear anti-war position. Even if this were the case, I can see the hypocrisy and contradiction, but I don't see how this equates to "killing God" except in the sense of an extremely exaggerated and (again) melodramatic metaphor.
Thinking back quite a bit to what I remember of Nietzsche, I think his comment that "God is dead, and we have killed him" stems from his view that society no longer required a God, and hence have begun to turn their back on such an idea. In essence, God was created by man to be an ultimate power, to control nature, and forces which man could not control. He also provided a social function in the Christian doctrine of preventing ubermensch from striving to achieve the power they have the capacity to command by making humbleness and modesty socially "right" or "correct" ways to act, but that is a bit of an aside. Since Science now gives man the understanding to control his environment, he no longer sees a need for God, and so "kills" him. The hypocrisy of the priesthood is just another nail in the coffin. I could be mis-remembering, however.
In any case, I don't believe that man has the power to kill God, if God exists. Man could ignore God, work against God, or otherwise act as though God is dead, but only God (or possibly Satan, depending on theological belief) would have the power to bring about the death of God, IMO.
Actually Dirk it depends on which dogma you follow. If you're saying that from a catholic standpoint, who have a doctrine that throws out what christian call 'The Old Testment', then yes I'm greatly over-exaggerating it. In fact I'm flat otu LIEING.
If you're speaking from a christian stand-point (which includes the 'Old testament), then no, I'm not over-exaggerating at all.
~Tobe
I like how people say a perfect deity is dead because his subjects aren't perfect. 
Nobody is perfect, but if a person claims to be from god then they must at the very least try to follow the commands god sets out. Who are humans to dictate to god how we worship him? Granted we all make mistakes, but blatantly flouting certain rules of whatever religion you belong to simply because you don't agree with them is clearly hypocracy. If a religion truly claims to be from god, it must follow him entirely...not prfectly, since perfection is impossible for Humans, but certainly to the very best of their abillity.
There is no such thing as a pick and choose religion, and if such exists, it is only logical that such a religion cannot truly be from god.
Quote:
I like how people say a perfect deity is dead because his subjects aren't perfect.
Who says the deity is perfect? I don't see God as perfect (Although many people disagree with my POV). I see God in terms of Christianity as a being who only shows so called "compassion" to float his powers and ego. I do not see him as kind and loving being.
Quote:
Who says the deity is perfect? I don't see God as perfect (Although many people disagree with my POV). I see God in terms of Christianity as a being who only shows so called "compassion" to float his powers and ego. I do not see him as kind and loving being.
Is it possible that this view has been created by the very thing we're discussing, the hypocracy of mainstream religions? It is true that peverse teachings such as, for example, the idea of hell, does seem to paint the god of the bible as a cruel, evil being who doesn't care for humankind. In truth, however, the docterine of hell is actually not a bible teaching, but an idea counjured by mankind themselves. The god the bible truly describes is indeed a kind, caring, loving god who wants the best for all his creations.
Quote:
Is it possible that this view has been created by the very thing we're discussing, the hypocracy of mainstream religions? It is true that peverse teachings such as, for example, the idea of hell, does seem to paint the god of the bible as a cruel, evil being who doesn't care for humankind. In truth, however, the docterine of hell is actually not a bible teaching, but an idea counjured by mankind themselves. The god the bible truly describes is indeed a kind, caring, loving god who wants the best for all his creations.
I see your point, but I still can not convince myself that the
bible is true to its word. Do not forget, who controlled the original transcripts of the Bible? The Roman Catholic Church.
Some may (And probably will) disagree with my views, but I personally feel that the RC Church "altered" the Bible to meet
political desires.
To be perfectly honest, personally I agree with you there. The bible has constantly been supressed and altered by many different groups over the years, adding in their own docterines such as hell and the trinnity, and removing important details like god's own name, YHWH (the tetragrammaten) commonly translated as "Jehovah". Also many have tried to resist it's translation out of the latin and hebrew tonges to avoid the general public being able to read it, often burning at the stake or having executed those that attempt such feats.
There are groups out there, however, who have compiled translations of the bible from the earliest manusctipts available, including sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, to provide a completely unchanged, unmodified version of the scriptures as close to the origional meaning as possible. These translations do exist, for those that truly are interested in what the bible teaches, and personally I believe that it is god's will that a copy of his unaltered words has survived down to our day, despite many trying to adjust and defame it, for all to read.
And as I said above, this is just my viewpoint baised on my own reaserch. Others are free to disagree if they so choose.
Sorry Wraith. I'm just naturally pessimistic.
You'll have to forgive me on that.
rofl don't worry you aren't the only one.^^
Trust me, there is an answer out there though. I believe I've found it, and if the loonyest person on Earth can, anybody could 
Trust me, I do believe there is a "god" out there somewhere, but I don't know if he is all loving. Maybe I've read too much Nietzche.
I've seen enough hardship during my life to feel like that myself sometimes, however when I do feel down, I take comfort from a few scriptures.
For example, 1 John 4 verse 8, which says "God is love." (itallics added)...not that he posesses love or that he shows love, he is love. He is the very personification of love, and it influences his every action.
Also John 3:16 - "For god loved the world so much, that he gave his only begotten son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed, but have everlasting life." He loved humankind so dearly that he let his dear son go through an agonising and painful death as a human, so that we would survive. Seeing that must have been so painful for him, but he did it, because he loved us.
In this world today it's difficult to see that sometimes, but the bible also says that the world is only the way it is because "The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one" (1 John 5:19) Satan the Devil, and god promises that soon he will step in and put an end to the suffering once and for all.
That's what the bible truly says about Jehovah god, not that he is an evil creature who punishes people by sending them to a firey hell. Personally, reading passages like that, and knowing the true reason why all this evil is going on in the world right now, encourages me and helps me to stay strong. After all, all the pain and suffering will be gone very soon
To say that Catholics throw out the Old Testament is utterly and laughably false.
And to say that the Bible, including the Old and New Testaments, or even the Old Testament alone, has a great deal of negativity, anti-homosexuality and whatnot is still an exaggeration. If you are talking about the last three books of the Pentateuch, then I'll concede that. But those are only three of the dozens of books, most of which have little material of the type you're discovered. Obviously, they're the ones that get the most attention, because they lend themselves to controversy, but I'm talking about the text and not the hype.
Quote:
For example, 1 John 4 verse 8, which says "God is love." (itallics added)...not that he posesses love or that he shows love, he is love. He is the very personification of love, and it influences his every action.
It really depends on how you define love. IMO, love is a state of the mind where you would do literally anything to ensure that person's hapiness,safety,etc.
Anything less is false love. According to the Bible (If I'm remembering this right), God let the "Devil" on the Earth to test mankind (I could be wrong though, It's been a while since I read the Bible). Why would someone that loves everyone let an entity that could destroy one's life?
Like I said, maybe I'm just way too pessimistic.
God loves people by allowing us to choose right or wrong. He isn't a genie, if God just granted all of our wishes then we would never develope a sense of character. There would be no point in living. Without dark times, humans couldn't understand goodness. Like learning to appreciate life. If life were perfect we wouldn't know how to appreciate anything.
Boy you're a nit picky son of a gun ain't ya, Dirk. Trying to take over Jimro's job as MG lawyer? He hasn't left COMPLETELY yet you know.
I never said "great deal", I never even stated a quantitative adjective or phrase at all. This alone should have denoted satire, but as always I assume sincerity wasn't on your agenda.
The list of "canonical", or whatever, books for the old testament is rather short though, needless to say the books of Pentateuch and the contents of the dreaded Leviticus are not among them. Maybe you should check it out. Of course, that depends on what your definition of 'is' is, Ay China? 😉
Of course once again the lawyers are drawing the topic off it's point. The point is that "God" is not dead, not because he never existed, but because there are still people like myself that believe these religious twits are all, well, twits. And that "God" wants peace on earth, not a buncha frothing at the mouth soccer moms demonizing gays, furrys, anime, brown people, rock music and whatever else they think they can blame stuff on.
In short: Shun bad, Acceptance good.
~Tobe
I'm not picking nits. You're making unfair assertions that the central message of the Bible (whatever that is) is "buried" with intolerance, and then that Catholics completely disregard the Old Testament (this is news to me, and I was raised by Catholics, schooled by Catholics, and have lived in the most Catholic state in the US for my entire life).
Quote:
The list of "canonical", or whatever, books for the old testament is rather short though, needless to say the books of Pentateuch and the contents of the dreaded Leviticus are not among them.
What on earth are you talking about? There are thirty-nine books in the Old Testament canon. That's a decent amount, more than the New Testament. And the Pentateuch (also known as the Torah) is the very foundation of the Old Testament canon and the Hebrew scripture.
My point is that the "shunning" in the Bible isn't nearly as prevalent as you seem to think. I'm wondering how much you've read of the Bible, or if you're just judging based on what you hear from the intolerant nuts who use obscure passages to support their intolerant nut views. After all, even Leviticus is twenty-seven chapters long and I'm willing to bet most people haven't a clue what's in there aside from the handful of quotes that get thrown around in debates. Leviticus is more boring than spiteful.
Religion doesn't make people into assholes. Just about all of those people would have been assholes anyway.
Quote:
It really depends on how you define love. IMO, love is a state of the mind where you would do literally anything to ensure that person's hapiness,safety,etc.
Anything less is false love. According to the Bible (If I'm remembering this right), God let the "Devil" on the Earth to test mankind (I could be wrong though, It's been a while since I read the Bible). Why would someone that loves everyone let an entity that could destroy one's life?
Like I said, maybe I'm just way too pessimistic.
It is true that god has allowed suffering to prevail for a time on this Earth, however the bible clearly explains why, and also gives hope for the future.
Back in the garden of Eden, Satan made a challenge to Jehovah, attacking him in two ways. First of all, he called god a liar, by claiming to Eve that she would not die as god said if she ate from the tree of life, defaming Jehovah's great name. And secondly, he implied that Humans were able to rule themselves without the need of god's assistance, an argument further backed up in the book of Job.
At the time, god could simply have crushed the rebels and started again from scratch, creating new humans in place of Adam and Eve, but really, would that have proved anything? God's name had been slighted...was he really a liar? And was it true that humans didn't need his assistance in their lives? Even had he acted there and then and eliminated the troublemakers, the questions would still have stood, and his entire authority would have been undermined. All the other angels who had not turned against him would have wondered if he truly was trustworthy, or if he was simply using his power like an evil dictator, crushing all who dissagreed with him.
So, to prove the answers to the two questions, Jehovah basically said "Okay, let's allow things to continue, and see how events turn out." He has allowed a testing time, to truly prove if he has been lying, and if he indeed has the right to rule. And the results we can see around us...human attempts at rule, coupled with Satan's evil influences, have resulted in nothing but horrendus wars, disease, death, and cruelty on an absolutely unpresedented scale.
Was it cruel for got to allow all this? Does this prove that he doesn't care? Well think of it this way: If you had a child that had a terminal disease, and you knew of an operation that would cure this child, and allow him to live completely free of pain and suffering afterward, would it not be loving to allow the child to undergo the operation in order to save his life in the future? The operation may cause him severe physical pain, however this pain would be short-lived, and the benefits that he would recive once it was completed would be completely immesurable!
In the same way, god is allowing this time of pain for us, to prove once and for all that he does indeed tell the truth, and to show anybody who may claim otherwise that humans simply cannot survive without his assistance. It deeply saddens him to see this happening...as Jesus said (words to the affect of: ) , "A sparrow doesn't fall to the earth without god noticing, and humans are worth more than many sparrows". However he knows that once this time of testing is complete, not only will his name have been cleared, but it will be completely clear that humans need god's assistance to live, and as such, no other evil creatures, such as Satan, will be able to challenge that fact and spread their influence through the world, as Satan is doing today. Jehovah will destroy Satan for good, and the fact that the debate has been proved completely will safeguard all life from such evil ever again.
And god promises that once the test is complete, he will restore the paradise conditions that Adam and Eve were first created in here on the earth, and all those who have done good and remained upright during the test will live in that world forever, as was his origional purpose. He even promises that those who have died, after living a good life, will be brought back to life to enjoy this world too...even those that have suffered to the point of death in this "operation" will be revived to recive their reward.
It is easy to become discouraged when we're enduring so much trouble, but we have to remember that it is not god's fault, but Satan's, and humankind themselves. Yes, we have to endure it, but only so that we can ensure our future is free of pain and full of joy, and this suffering is only a tiny blip in our lives compared to the eternal happiness Jehovah is promising, the "operation" to ensure our life afterward is pain-free and full of hapiness.
And as we mentioned earlier, god himself is not exempt from this pain either. He had to allow his own son, Jesus, to go through the pain of death in order to free us from sin. Does that mean he didn't care for Jesus? Surely not, and that's proved by what he said at Jesus' baptism: "This is my son, the beloved, whom I have approved." (Mattew 3:17) He was put in great emotional pain too, having to watch his own son go through that torture, however he endured it, because he knew that it was for a better future, not just for himself and Jesus but for all humankind, and also he knew that he would be able to raise Jesus back from the dead, just as he indeed did, and just as he promises to do for those who have died throughout this time of testing too. He suffered greatly just as we are doing, but all of it is to ensure that in the future, nobody will suffer at all. Surely this is the mark of a loving god, not an evil or uncaring one?
I have the link at work Dirk, it's an article at Catholic.com.
And what? I don't remember stating anything like you're saying I did.
All I said was the bible has a good underlying message about peace on earth once you dig through the stoneage crap it's buried in. The same stoneage crap "intolerant nuts ... use ... to support their intolerant nut views." Then you came in with the drama storm about how I was attacking your catholic faith and blah blah blah.
Stop playing victim. If I can't do it when Jimro is trouncing gays, you can't do it when I'm trouncing the bible. I'm the whiney staff member, the spot is filled. You are too late sir. GOOD DAY! 😛
~Tobe
Whats the point of the entire Marble Garden if someone can't express or defend their views without being branded as being either whiney or a smartass. The only real purpose this place has is to elevate egos and constantly one-up one another.
I mean WOW he opposed you, Toby. With intelligent opinion. Thats so NOT what he's supposed to do here.
I guess I have to point out the ":P" for those of you that missed it. Dirk didn't reply because it was a rib, one I continued in IM because my little find on the Catholic dogma was a tangent and I thought it should be continued in PM.
Funnily enough I was reading the article wrong. And my jibe at Dirk turned into egg on my face because I can't translate preacher to american well enough, lawl.
I don't see how it looks like he opposed me. Stepping back it looks like I made a smart remark, he wrote a novel on why I wrong about the article, I said I wasn't, he said I was and smarted back to quit talking out of my ass. I realized we were on a rather thread hoggish tangent and took it PM.
Yeah, yeah, DB, I'm horrible staff member because I'm imperfect and everyone else isn't. Nothing I ain't heard before or don't know. :p
~Toby
I don't think god is dead.
SET, if you simply must bump a three-month-old topic, you should at least try to add more to the discussion than a single line of unsubstantiated opinion.
Since it's been bumped, I guess I may as well come back to this with the fun comment that I don't believe anyone has made, which is that God (taking the monotheistic understanding of the term that Nietzsche was working with as well - omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal) CANNOT die unless it is his own will to die. Certainly, he cannot be killed by any other factor - being eternal and omnipotent - so either God exists and will continue to do so, or God never existed to begin with.
Hence, theologically speaking, God cannot have been killed, and so it is very unlikely that God is dead.
Admittedly, I'm dodging the issue of the death of Jesus, who is claimed to be God by Christians, but I doubt that was what Nietzsche was thinking of when he wrote the book. Hence why I think it was more intended as a social commentary on the necessity of a God to look after humanity.
Lets not forget that every time a natural disaster/terrorist attack occurs, whole droves of people you never gave a damn about religion suddenly develop a devout loyalty to God (for like a month or two). Also all those guys on death row seem to get real freaking pious come Needle Day. God, even if only as a concept and spiritual ideal, will never truly die.
Belief in God seems to be mainly be brought out when people fear death.
~Tobe
Whoa. I thought this topic was dead for sure. o_o
Quote:
Belief in God seems to be mainly be brought out when people fear death.
Couldn't agree more.
But anyway, I believe that Nietzche was saying that God could not be used as a means of worship or morality. Therefore forcing people to create their own morality, and not relying on a greater being of existence to do it for them.
But that's just my interpratation. But I do have access to quite a few of Nietzche's books, and I could look them up if anybody wanted me to.
As a seminarian and a strong passion for philosophy (though still a lot to learn), and I suppose nothing is harder to discern than 'who or what is God?' I look forward to my class 'philosophy of God' coming up in a month.
I find it interesting for some to say he 'exists' in the minds of agnostics and christians, but a confusing concept of cognitive 'existence' exists at the mention of 'God'. I suppose a play off of St. Anselm's ontological argument that 'no higher being can be thought of than God'.
Which sometimes is a profound argument, but not without criticisms from Nietzche*, Kant, or even Thomas Aquinas.
I believe Avena is right in that Nietzche seeks to rebuild the 'corrupt morality' of a 'people who have simply used God to create morality for their own means and to construct their societies around a human reality thought to be divine.'
I think Nietzche believes that morality, as a human invention should be limited to human limitations, whereas relying on the 'divine' is a subjective matter.
is God dead?
I don't think so, and feel his presence moreso in my life as time progresses, but ever encroaching doubt always enters with each new crisis, new failures and bad fortunes.
However, I am seriously observing my own life, and others, in the events of joys, triumphs, sorrows and failures, and it takes a pious man to notice God at all times, which I strive to do.
Again, faith makes God more believable and more elusive, but you can't help but find him in the consitencies of human nature in relation to the divine, but more so in the universal truths that we find within cultures, as well as the human heart.
Most religions base themselves off of the truths of the pursuit of happiness, grace is sorrow, repentance of sins (classically 'hamartia', or misgivings, soon to be called sins by koine greek speakers in the time of Christ).
God is a facinating subject (sorry I'm all over the place, this fever affects my...diction.. a bit), and as I said, can't wait to take an in depth class about him.
Glad to make my first post here, and on such a good topic.
God's not a woman, he's a big white guy in the sky/
And the deserts are reflections of his eyes/
He doesn't cry for us, And when he does, it's 'cuz he's drunk/
On the subject of what Nietzsche thought about morality, while he did believe that the divine should be removed from our concept of morality, his view was very much that the moral law worked well only as guidelines for those without the capacity to transcend it. As a means of controlling the masses, it was a marvelous tool. The big problem, so far as Nietzsche saw it, was that those with power - the ubermenschen - were being tied to the "moral law" by the weak, due to the Christian ideals of being humble and meek, enforced by "God", when the ubermenschen should be free to act as they chose.
Nietzsche's concept of how morality should be considered was egoistic - much more along the lines of "every man for himself". Essentially, follow the social norms only when it suits you more to avoid the sanctions society would use against you, and otherwise act in a way that best achieves the ends you are seeking to achieve. Indeed, in "On The Genealogy of Morals", he suggests that "good" originally meant "powerful", while "evil" originally meant "weak", and advocated that we return to such definitions in our current life.
That said, Nietzsche is notoriously difficult to piece together - relatively easy to read, but tends to go all over the place and hide his philosophy behind slogans and rhetoric. I would not consider myself an expert on Nietzsche by any stretch, just vaguely familiar with some of his views...
Quote:
Glad to make my first post here, and on such a good topic.
Welcome and it's nice to have a thoughtful newbie. 
Quote:
I think Nietzche believes that morality, as a human invention should be limited to human limitations, whereas relying on the 'divine' is a subjective matter.
Nietzche is not a subject I know much about, but I like your version more, heh. Even if interpreted from religious text everything but the most specific is subjective.
Nietzche, however, is very hard to piece together also because of his bout with syphillus (slowly destroying his cognative abilities, he was a very intelligent man though), and his sister, who would later take his works and edit/contrue them for the Nazi party.
Although I disagree with Nietzche on many accounts, I think that there is much ot learn from him in both his style of writting and his immense knowledge of the classics.
A lot of German philosophers in the 'Golden Age' of modern philosophy (Hegel, Nietzche, Kant, Shopenhauer, (I include Kierkegaard, though Dutch, because of his counter criticisms of Hegel (as Shopenhauer)), among many others) sought to break away from the foundations of their Greek forfathers in an attempt to recognize if the whole of Western Thought was brought about on erroneous philosophy/logic/thought/etc. Likewise, they sought a new contruct of thought in rationalism and idealistic (Hegel, Kant) means. Though I don't agree with this entirely, either, I do appreciate the effort by Kant and the hard-to-read Hegel on that matter.
On matters of god, and philosophy, I tend to stick with the guy first introduced to me, which was Kierkegaard. A Dutch philosopher who is said to be the father of existentialism, he centers his philosophy around God, and a Theistic philosphy at the time was...uncommon at the least.
I can go into that more, but this topic could and should be about Nietzche (who hated Hegel) as much as God.
It's almost bedtime for me, so I can't go into the sort of detail that I'd like to, but...
Just to throw a bit of variety in, reading the title of this thread reminded me of this movement.
For me, "God, the Stranger" and the gospels of the New Testament (although the Apocrypha're a whole other story) is most definitely dead - but it feels as though the Old Testament fundamentalists're going from strength to strength. It depends on who you believe in.
Hm... I don't know... again, I suppose we could be vague in that we say 'he is dead to some, alive to others' and dismiss it as just that, and perhaps it is and what some call faith.
For me, and from a historical standpoint, the God of the New Testament (although the same as the Old, we look more to the new as a 'perfection of the Old Law') is very much alive through the continued work of good men and women.
I won't go into the above too much, but observe that many of us look at the world and notice how an evil person, or one who does evil, even ourselves, can affect others and even rock the foundations of another's faith, shake one's faith in humanity (as seen in some recent topics here), or spread 'blackness' across the world.
An interesting thing to note, I suppose, is that when we see some 'evil' person or act, we brand them often as a 'monster', less than human... which is somewhat true, but not. An evil human act is commited by a human all the same.
But, it's strange that when a person does a good act, they aren't considered more than 'human' very often, which either means we think very little of good acts, or we should believe it is a human's nature to act justly and good.
Again, I suppose you could wonder what indifference and laziness attribute to the human person. In my line of goodness, where you find true goodness, you find God.
Not to be confused with the feeling good or what is 'good'. Even Thomas Aquinas says that every man construes his act so that it is 'good for him', in that no man will chose evil because it is evil to him.
Likewise, Socrates said that no man could ever do evil because of ignorance. All acts are good or indifferent, because no one would willing do harm to his person or his 'daimon'(guiding spirit)/spirit.
A little off tract, but I think God can be found in the human act.
