Bible god repented of Evil?

Why do religionists/fideists say the bible god is pure and without sin or even the thought of evil? So, is the god of the bible, an Evil bible gOD? Yes, even just using the bible we can see the bible god is a real moral monster. Don’t take my word for it here is an unholy trinity of verses exposing the hidden monster god myth the bible hides and champions as the same time. *Isaiah 45:7 The bible god said, I create darkness, I create evil: I do all these things. = Evil bible god. *Job 2:3 The bible god said to satan, you incited me against Job to ruin Job without any reason. = Evil bible god. *Exodus: 32:14: The bible god repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. = Evil bible god. All this is evidence of the evil god, even repenting of evil himself. This helps show just how bad the bible myth of god actually would be. Thank gOD he is not real. Of course, the bible claims its god does not repent. Numbers 23:19 = More lies as always, the bible itself contradicts this. Ps. here is one more verse to push the point, the bible god repented that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart, Genesis 6:6. Most don’t know this but Exodus was the first book written in the old testament before Genesis and educated christians actually know this… (Well it’s the Institute for Creation Research so let’s not over use the term “Educated Christians”). Check out their link:  http://www.icr.org/books/defenders/582...

A Challenge to My Democratic Political Thinking

“One question I do have is what if the public decides democratically it has no use for your brand of politics? What happens then?” Well, a global hypothetical of change is always in play for any social structure and can only be met with a hypothetical of ideas as well. Thus, things may always need to change or adapt to needs but for me this alway should strive to social well-being as its society that is in question, and psychological well-being as society is but a community of individuals. Also note that “democratic” is not referring to the political party in this instance, but a democracy, specifically direct democracy. Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy) is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on) policy initiatives directly. This differs from the majority of modern Western-style democracies, which are indirect democracies. Depending on the particular system in use, direct democracy might entail passing executive decisions, the use of sortition, making laws, directly electing or dismissing officials and conducting trials. Two leading forms of direct democracy are participatory democracy and deliberative democracy. Most countries that are representative democracies allow for three forms of political action that provide limited direct democracy: referendum (plebiscite), initiative, and recall. Have you ever felt like the government doesn’t really care what you think? Professors Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin I. Page (Northwestern University) looked at more than 20 years worth of data to answer a simple question: Does the US government represent the people? Their study took data from nearly 2000 public opinion surveys and compared it to the policies...

Power Authority Oppression

Limiting the power to a point in authority, maximize the potential for oppression. This is referring to the need for greater inclusion of many instead of the exclusion driven only by the few. Moreover, how this greater inclusion can be adopted is non hierarchical political structure and more direct democracy. Such as a “Heterarchy” which is a system of organization where the elements of the organization are unranked (non-hierarchical) or where they possess the potential to be ranked a number of different ways. Definitions of the term vary among the disciplines: in social and information sciences, heterarchies are networks of elements in which each element shares the same “horizontal” position of power and authority, each playing a theoretically equal...

The Ontology of Humanistic Economics in Society?

I am against classifying humans by wealth, even though I agree that is how it generally is in our world. To me we are all equal, the factor of “money” should not disseminate difference as humans as it is external to them and not them. And wealth inequality should concern you too. We should wonder if any psychological issues are attached to say being rich or poor? Like how wealth may lower compassion or how poverty harms the brain, etc. All human beings are 99.9 percent identical in their genetic makeup. Ref Ref Ref Ontology of Money using Humanistic Economics in Society: First a prosocial humanistic Social theory should motivate your economic system not the economic system motivating your social theory. Humanistic sociology seeks to shed light on questions such as, “What is the relationship between a man of principle and a man of opportunism?” It can be seen that any answer to such a question must draw on experience and facts from many disciplines. In sociology, anthropology and linguistics, structuralism is the methodology that elements of human culture must be understood in terms of their relationship to a larger, overarching system or structure. It works to uncover the structures that underlie all the things that humans do, think, perceive, and feel. Structuralists influenced by humanistic sociology will interpret data in terms of opposing valuations, contrasts, and relations. Interpretation of the data must be contextual. Structuralism allows for a realist analysis (structures represent an organized reality) in relation to the larger social system. By understanding the larger social system, you are differentiating from post-modernism, which seeks to describe society by its lack of structure, or fragmentation. Structuralism...