God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?

Greatest I am

Greatest I am

Valued Senior Member
God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?

The first principle or morality is Harm/care of children. It is highlighted by the trait of compassion.

God ignores this throughout the bible by killing many of the weakest, most vulnerable and innocent, ---- children and babies.

God is showing a cowardly trait that contains no compassion or morality.

Children cannot be guilty of sin yet God kills them.

Yet those of the Abrahamic cults, Christians, Muslims and other believers, do not reject this cowardly and immoral God.

Why not?

Regards
DL

This clip shows the first five principles of morality.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

This clip shows what some think of God killing children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI
 
Death, or leaving the earth (again) is not the end, God knows this.

Further, death, or the end is a lie. We are eternal.
 
kx000 said:
Death, or leaving the earth (again) is not the end, God knows this.

Further, death, or the end is a lie. We are eternal.
Click to expand...

Your answer is based on the belief that such is true- which requires faith.

We have plenty of strong evidence that dying sucks. Sometimes, it hurts real bad, too. Not just the one who dies.
We have no evidence that you get to "live" after your brain shuts down and all the processes that make you, "you" stop.

The short answer is: That "God" is based entirely on old ideas invented off the heads of Old men who seemed pretty cruel. All that lopping off of foreskins and such.
 
Neverfly said:
Your answer is based on the belief that such is true- which requires faith.

We have plenty of strong evidence that dying sucks. Sometimes, it hurts real bad, too. Not just the one who dies.
We have no evidence that you get to "live" after your brain shuts down and all the processes that make you, "you" stop.

The short answer is: That "God" is based entirely on old ideas invented off the heads of Old men who seemed pretty cruel. All that lopping off of foreskins and such.
Click to expand...

You can not prove the cease to my existence.
 
Neverfly doesn't really need to disprove or prove your existence, all he has done is pops the bubbles that are your arguments. Your response is a red herring. Could you define “existence” to begin with? Having to call upon supernatural (supernatural being nothing to begin with and is as made as up the tooth fairy) forces as valid justification or as the objective purpose for your life is not akin to a valid argument if they cannot withstand any forms of scrutiny. One-hundred invalid assertions or invalid arguments do not add up to one valid argument.
 
Saturnine Pariah said:
Neverfly doesn't really need to disprove or prove your existence, all he has done is pops the bubbles that are your arguments. Your response is a red herring. Could you define “existence” to begin with? Having to call upon supernatural (supernatural being nothing to begin with and is as made as up the tooth fairy) forces as valid justification or as the objective purpose for your life is not akin to a valid argument if they cannot withstand any forms of scrutiny. One-hundred invalid assertions or invalid arguments do not add up to one valid argument.
Click to expand...

By natural forces of the universe we can exist forever in nature.
 
kx000 said:
By natural forces of the universe we can exist forever in nature.
Click to expand...

Elucidate.

And I'm not picking on you- You made a claim and I'm asking you to provide a valid response.
Please detail what forces (Natural means physical and can be measured) are at work that overcome the need for the brain.

Demonstrate that the death of a child is not a cessation of existence and while you're at it, demonstrate that the child suffers none due to Gods care in manipulating the death in such a way that a school bus ramming a pylon at 50 mph and then flipping over doesn't hurt the child in the process of knocking the life out of it. Or maybe all those children that die of birth defects, genetic defects, disease (You're hard pressed on this one to show there's no extreme suffering before death), stolen from a baby swing by a mountain lion, shaken, dropped, left in the bathtub for a moment and ploop-- So on; explain how suffering is removed from the situations.

I mean really, by that argument, murder and suicide should be legal and quite acceptable to society.

"Oh, by the way, I forgot to tell you; Jim went home to God last night."
"Oh! Wonderful! How did he get to go?"
"Well, you know how it was his birthday and, you know dear I didn't have a penny to my name. After 35 years of marriage I wanted to give him something really special.:)"
"Auntie, that is special. What a wonderful thing! Oh that IS good news- what a thoughtful gift."
"Yeah and it only took 37 stab wounds. Not bad for an old lady, huh?"
 
Neverfly said:
1. Your answer is based on the belief that such is true- which requires faith.

2. We have plenty of strong evidence that dying sucks. Sometimes, it hurts real bad, too. Not just the one who dies.
3. We have no evidence that you get to "live" after your brain shuts down and all the processes that make you, "you" stop.

4. The short answer is: That "God" is based entirely on old ideas invented off the heads of Old men who seemed pretty cruel. All that lopping off of foreskins and such.
Click to expand...


1. So is your answer. Unless there's something you're not telling us.

2. We have plenty of evidence that medicine sucks, and sometimes hurts real bad. Not just to the one who takes it.

3. We have no (scientific) evidence of such phenomena because science can't go there. So either way it is completely based on belief.

4. The short answer is you don't believe in God because you don't want to, so you'll paint the worse possible scenario (in your mind), to justify
your position.

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
1. So is your answer. Unless there's something you're not telling us.
Click to expand...
Yes. I am God. But you can call me 'Daddy.'

Jan Ardena said:
2. We have plenty of evidence that medicine sucks, and sometimes hurts real bad. Not just to the one who takes it.
Click to expand...
We have plenty of evidence that medicine exists in real life and that it can work very effectively. We have no evidence of any heaven, life after death, etc. No evidence of any prayer healing- In fact in studies done, the one prayed for occasionally got worse. Though that's to be statistically expected, anyway.

Jan Ardena said:
3. We have no (scientific) evidence of such phenomena because science can't go there. So either way it is completely based on belief.
Click to expand...
Of course science cannot measure what doesn't exist- that's kinda basic.
I always get a kick out of this one. "what science cannot explain"... as if there's anything 'beyond' that was designed to be hidden from this "Science thing" to make sure we have to have faith, or something. You know how "God" deliberately made it appear as though the Universe is billions of years old by setting the rays of light in their position as IF they had been traveling for billions of years before reaching us, buried dinosaur bones to trick us and test our faith and made erroneous Carbon Decay.
Riiiiight. :rolleyes:
Meanwhile, all the other physics works just fine, including that needed for weapons to kill millions. That's a picky, God, there. Leave nuclear weapons alone, but jazz up any physics that might call 2,000 year old desert scribblings into question. Lovable.

Jan Ardena said:
4. The short answer is you don't believe in God because you don't want to, so you'll paint the worse possible scenario (in your mind), to justify
your position.

jan.
Click to expand...
You have no idea whether I want to believe in a God or not. However, I'm unwilling to lie to myself over a want. It's not that I hate God or don't want to believe- It's that I can't believe in such... See above- some explanations needed to justify the belief are just way too absurd. Gotta grow up, sometime, right? No more Santa when you catch mommy wrapping boxes labeled "Mattel" and hiding receipts from Toys R Us.
 
Jan Ardena said:
1. So is your answer. Unless there's something you're not telling us.

2. We have plenty of evidence that medicine sucks, and sometimes hurts real bad. Not just to the one who takes it.

3. We have no (scientific) evidence of such phenomena because science can't go there. So either way it is completely based on belief.

4. The short answer is you don't believe in God because you don't want to, so you'll paint the worse possible scenario (in your mind), to justify
your position.

jan.
Click to expand...

1. Which medicines “suck”? the ones that have saved lives or the preventative brands? I don’t see mass breakouts of polio, or smallpox anymore now-a-days and I am sure that cancer patients now are far more grateful for the medicine that exist instead of just hearing that they have cancer and dying a slow painful death( grated chemo and radiation are detrimental to the body but it’s better than just rotting away untreated)
2. Oh and I’m sure that NOMA has absolutely nothing to do with that? Or is it that it might be just a little difficult to test variables such as: Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, Omniscient, Omnipresence, Statelessness, Timelessness, with our puny human systems of scrutiny and just chalk it up to the supernatural?
3. Right so the theist and polytheist don’t think of the “best” possible scenarios to justify their beliefs?
 
Neverfly said:
Elucidate.

And I'm not picking on you- You made a claim and I'm asking you to provide a valid response.
Please detail what forces (Natural means physical and can be measured) are at work that overcome the need for the brain.

Demonstrate that the death of a child is not a cessation of existence and while you're at it, demonstrate that the child suffers none due to Gods care in manipulating the death in such a way that a school bus ramming a pylon at 50 mph and then flipping over doesn't hurt the child in the process of knocking the life out of it. Or maybe all those children that die of birth defects, genetic defects, disease (You're hard pressed on this one to show there's no extreme suffering before death), stolen from a baby swing by a mountain lion, shaken, dropped, left in the bathtub for a moment and ploop-- So on; explain how suffering is removed from the situations.

I mean really, by that argument, murder and suicide should be legal and quite acceptable to society.

"Oh, by the way, I forgot to tell you; Jim went home to God last night."
"Oh! Wonderful! How did he get to go?"
"Well, you know how it was his birthday and, you know dear I didn't have a penny to my name. After 35 years of marriage I wanted to give him something really special.:)"
"Auntie, that is special. What a wonderful thing! Oh that IS good news- what a thoughtful gift."
"Yeah and it only took 37 stab wounds. Not bad for an old lady, huh?"
Click to expand...

Well put.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMaK6k4oZ20&list=UULhtZqdkjshgq8TqwIjMdCQ&index=27&feature=plcp

Regards
DL
 
Jan Ardena said:
4. The short answer is you don't believe in God because you don't want to, so you'll paint the worse possible scenario (in your mind), to justify
your position.

jan.
Click to expand...

And believers base the best, even with evidence against, with faith in fantasy, miracles and magic from a genocidal son murdering God who is somehow good.

Who is more delusional?

Regards
DL
 
Biblical Response to the Vidoe Clip

This is serious question which deserves a serious answer, as it deals with one of the most difficult Biblical themes for 21st century people to understand, namely God’s right to judge and to punish, and the way He exercises that right.

First of all, let us consider this principle:
God created mankind, and God made people to be free moral agents. Therefore God is ultimately responsible for the actions of every human being. Consequently, God has a moral obligation to bring every human being into judgement, to reward the good and to punish the evil.

There are certain things that God is not morally obliged to do. For instance, He is not obliged to be nice to everybody or to try to make everybody happy. He is obliged to give everyone the opportunity to find fulfilment, but has the right to withhold that opportunity from those who are deserving of punishment. He is not obliged to meet these obligations in this earthly life, and He has the absolute right to do as He pleases in the lives of men, so long as He meets His obligations at some time.

Now let us look in detail at the points raised by the speaker in the film clip.

1. God was responsible for the famine that took the Israelites into Egypt. Correct. You’ll find the full story in Genesis chapters 41 to 47 inclusive. But God was also responsible for giving warning that the famine was coming and providing seven years of abundance prior to it so that preparation could be made, and raising up Joseph to manage the whole thing on behalf of both Egypt and Israel.

2. God tormented Egypt with 10 plagues. Correct. You’ll find the full story in Exodus chapters 1 to 14. Why punish all Egypt, when it was Pharaoh who was at fault? Was it only Pharaoh who had Israelite slaves? In the days of slavery in America, was it only the president who had slaves? Of course not. The people of Egypt were guilty, not only Pharaoh. Did they have to suffer the plagues? No. At any point, Pharaoh could have let them go, but chose to defy Moses and God. Interestingly, the first 3 plagues affected the whole land, but from number 4 onwards, the region of Goshen, where Israel dwelt, was exempted. Did the Egyptians know this? Yes. Could they have taken advantage of it and found refuge in Goshen? Yes. Did they? It appears that some did (Exodus 12:37-38). Why did God drown the entire Egyptian army but leave Pharaoh untouched? Was Pharaoh really untouched by all of this? His country was ruined. His army was annihilated. He was totally humiliated.

3. God slew the first-born sons of everyone in Egypt – innocent children who had nothing to do with it. Firstly, were they all innocent children? Many of them would have been adults, waiting for their fathers to die so that they could come into their full inheritance. Did they suffer? We do not know. Did their parents suffer? Of course. Did Pharaoh suffer? Of course. The most important person in a man’s life in those days was his first-born son, his heir, and “the first sign of his strength”. Israel was God’s “first-born son”, whom Egypt was holding in slavery. Did God have the right to punish Egypt by depriving them of their first-born sons?

4. The Promised Land was already populated, and God commanded Israel to commit an act of genocide. Correct. See Deuteronomy 31:3-5. The people who lived in Canaan were totally corrupt. Their practises included child sacrifice, which is an abomination in the sight of God. God warned the Israelites that if they did not eradicate the Canaanites, then they would be corrupted by them, begin to worship their gods, and bring down upon themselves the same judgement that God was bringing, through Israel, on the Canaanites. This is exactly what happened. Read the book of Judges and 1 and 2 Kings to get a flavour of the wickedness that God was trying to get rid of. However, it was His own people who embraced that wickedness. As He said through Isaiah the prophet, “my name is blasphemed among the gentiles because of you”. He had them deported to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzer. After those days, idol worship and child sacrifice were unknown among the Israelites.

5. God commands King Saul to annihilate the Amalekites – men, women, children, and animals. Correct. Read the story in 1 Samuel chapter 15. The reason for this destruction is given in verse 2. (Read the book of Esther and you’ll see why. Haman, a descendent of king Agag sought to destroy the Jews throughout the Persian kingdom.) The speaker says that God was angry with Saul for warning the Kenites to stay away. This is incorrect. Saul did right to warn the Kenites, because they were on friendly terms with Israel. Moses’s wife was a Kenite. He also says that Saul kept some of the animals to feed his army. Also incorrect. See verse 15. So why was God angry with Saul? Simply because he disobeyed the Lord’s express command. See Samuel’s judgement in verses 22-23. Samuel hacked Agag to pieces with the sword. Correct. If Saul had done a complete job this would not have been necessary, and Haman would not have tried to annihilate the Jews later on.

6. God struck the illegitimate child of David and Bathsheba with a terminal illness. Correct. Read the story in 2 Samuel chapters 11 and 12. In this case I have no explanation as to why God did it this way. If I get any insight into it I will come back with an update.

7. David “selects” the Moabites for execution. Correct (2 Samuel 8:2), but this had nothing to do with God; it was David’s action, and there is no indication whether God approved of it or not.

8. What could the people of Noah’s day have done that was so bad that they deserved to be annihilated? Read Genesis 6:1-8, which gives the reason.

9. “Our God is not good – he is only on our side”. The speaker recognises quite rightly that God is and always has been on Israel’s side. Even when they were in rebellion against Him and committing such abominations as child sacrifice, He was still on their side because He had entered into a covenant with them that He would be their God and they would be His people. And He is still on their side today, as everyone has discovered who has ever attempted to wipe them out. It cannot be done, because they are the people of God. Does this mean that God will let they away with any type of behaviour? Absolutely not. God requires them to walk in His ways, and will work with them and continue to discipline them until they do. But is it right to say that “our God is not good” because He metes out punishment to those who resist Him, rebel against Him, and oppose His purposes? What would we say about a God who did not do such things? God has to judge. He has a moral obligation to do so. We may not understand why He does what He does, and we may not like the way He does it, but the bottom line is that it is His responsibility, His moral duty, and He will continue to fulfil that duty whether we like it or not.

This is obviously not a comprehensive answer to the question, but at least it gives you some pointers to enable you to see that the God of the Bible is not violating any principles of morality.
 
Greatest I am, et al,

I always get in trouble when I comment on these types of issues. But I'm often confused to whether we are discussing science (something that is testable and amenable to metrics) or theological beliefs (something that has earned the trust and confidence of man and amenable to human predisposition).

Greatest I am said:
Sure but you cannot know if your consciousness lives on.

I believe it does but cannot prove it and neither can you.
Click to expand...
(QUESTIONS)

  • What is "consciousness?"
  • What is a "sentient being?"
  • Are "consciousness" and "sentience" related; if so - by what?
  • Is it a natural ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences? Or, does the entity require "consciousness" and "sentience?"
  • And are religious beliefs subjective perceptual experiences? Or are religious beliefs the natural consequence of human phycological development and induced by societal interaction?

(COMMENT)

Clearly, in some measure, religious beliefs are subjective. But we only get there through the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR).

In the opening question where these thoughts are entertained, there is an error:

  • God ignores this throughout the bible by killing many of the weakest, most vulnerable and innocent, ---- children and babies.
  • God is showing a cowardly trait that contains no compassion or morality.
  • Children cannot be guilty of sin yet God kills them.

The Supreme Being (SB) (GOD; if and only if - there is a SB)is not subject to the limitations of humanity. There is no concept of "Right & Wrong" that is applicable to the SB; only outcomes. Compassion and morality are human inventions, not supernatural enlightenment or devine guidance.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
RoccoR said:
Greatest I am, et al,

I always get in trouble when I comment on these types of issues. But I'm often confused to whether we are discussing science (something that is testable and amenable to metrics) or theological beliefs (something that has earned the trust and confidence of man and amenable to human predisposition).


(QUESTIONS)

  • What is "consciousness?"
  • What is a "sentient being?"
  • Are "consciousness" and "sentience" related; if so - by what?
  • Is it a natural ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences? Or, does the entity require "consciousness" and "sentience?"
  • And are religious beliefs subjective perceptual experiences? Or are religious beliefs the natural consequence of human phycological development and induced by societal interaction?

(COMMENT)

Clearly, in some measure, religious beliefs are subjective. But we only get there through the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR).

In the opening question where these thoughts are entertained, there is an error:

  • God ignores this throughout the bible by killing many of the weakest, most vulnerable and innocent, ---- children and babies.
  • God is showing a cowardly trait that contains no compassion or morality.
  • Children cannot be guilty of sin yet God kills them.

The Supreme Being (SB) (GOD; if and only if - there is a SB)is not subject to the limitations of humanity. There is no concept of "Right & Wrong" that is applicable to the SB; only outcomes. Compassion and morality are human inventions, not supernatural enlightenment or devine guidance.

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...


Nice post.
I'd like to think it will make him think before making these threads.

jan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top