Or is that rather a dead deified man-god?

Anyway, you'd have to be either a total megalomaniac and/or sadist to be a god.

Billons of people would worship and pray to you, but you would be willing to snuff out their lives in an instant for no reason at all.

Think of all the lives that you'd have to ruin.

Think of all of the pain and suffering that you'd have to inflict like a mean kid who likes to torture small animals.

I'm glad I'm never going to be a god, nor would I ever want to be one. No thank you.

You'd have to be a demented nut to believe that you could become a "god."

That God may not be good, as all demonstration not only suggests but seems to prove ineluctably, has frightened me on occasion. Best that there is no God at all, if this is true.

Like the idea that we don't fight fascists because we will win (we may not in fact win), we fight fascists because they are fascists, I oppose a bad God because it is bad. Again, better there were no God at all. We'll see (or not).

Human

> Like the idea that we don't fight fascists because
> we will win (we may not in fact win), we fight
> fascists because they are fascists, I oppose a bad
> God because it is bad.

That is nicely put.

"Like the idea that we don't fight fascists because we will win (we may not in fact win), we fight fascists because they are fascists, I oppose a bad God because it is bad. Again, better there were no God at all. We'll see (or not)"

I like Chris Hedges too, but he has seen way too much.

As cruel as the modern world is, it's at least within the realm of imagination. Yesteryear's cruelty was beyond imagination.

Just the design for life to kill other life for survival alone is proof for me that a god is malevolent and cruel if it existed.

A god is supposedly so powerful that it can create universes, yet it couldn't come up with something better than watching animals kill each other. That seems deeply twisted.

I can't imagine having to make excuses for invisible God anymore. No groveling. No mental gymnastics. No offerings. No lying.

When I was in Kathmandu many years ago, I heard about a girl who is considered a living goddess. Every so often she is changed for another young girl and so the cycle continues.

It is just part of their culture. I doubt the girl thinks of herself as some megalomaniac. She is just chosen and she retires.

> When I was in Kathmandu many years ago, I heard
> about a girl who is considered a living goddess.
> Every so often she is changed for another young
> girl and so the cycle continues.

That's a fairly common prehistoric pattern in human history. It was done in much of Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe, and the Vedic peoples in the Indian Subcontinent associated the annual king (in most contexts it was a male who served as deity) with its version of the Indo-European horse sacrifice.

There was often a seasonal aspect to the ritual: the new god was chosen at the beginning of the year and killed at its end. That the Nepalese goddess "retires" represents a more civilized, and probably later, iteration of the old pattern.



ETA: It wasn't just the pastoral Indo-European cultures that did that. It was very common among agriculturalists who needed to appease the gods in order to guarantee a good year for their harvests.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2025 03:33PM by Lot's Wife.

Remember reading that in freshman English class.

Shirley Jackson, "The Lottery" -- my first introduction to dystopian literature.