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

[Neverfly]

fondle your mothers breast (assuming that you are not a 9 month old baby)

What about your wifes breast... is that ok? Fact is, the infant is doing so for sustenance, not sexual pleasure.

shoot someone with an automatic rifle (assuming you are not a solider engaged in the theatre of war)

Ten commandments said, "That shalt not kill." It did not say, "Thou shalt not kill unless told to do so by a superior officer." It also doesn't mention defense or whether it's ok for us to kill bacteria or hunt... It really is a vague commandment. He should have put more thought into that...

repeatedly engage in acts like incest, rape, theft and J walking (assuming you are not a dog or a donkey)

gain employment as a prison guard yet only get paid about 1/17th of the lowest wage bracket and not be allowed to go home for several years

IOW if you have a personality who dictates the (repeated) creation , maintenance and annihilation of not only universes but also the individuals within them, it doesn't stand to reason that such a persons morality should be dictated by moral standards for the said created, maintained and limited persons[/I]

Anyway the only thing you've demonstrated is that Morality is Not Absolute, but rather- dictated by the wants of a society.
In a cannibalistic society, killing and eating brains is fine. But its not fine in ours. We don't want to be eaten. We're funny that way. We evolved avoiding predators. But in a society that has very limited options for food- such extremes can seem admissible when necessary. When one is trying to scare the holy living crap out of the enemy, too, it seems.

It's fine to kill in ours- if you're a soldier. It's fine to commit sodomy- if you're gay. It's fine to send an 18 year old to war, but it's not ok to take Terry Schiavo off life support. We don't mind some kid getting killed for his country, but no one wants to be taken off of life support. It's not ok to have sex with a child in our society because no one wants their babies sexed up. But it is ok to hand condoms to a child because no one wants to have to raise an early grandkid.
Our MonkeySphere behavior and influence determine what we decide is moral or not.

And our concepts for morality don't always make a whole lot of sense.

 

[lightgigantic]

What about your wifes breast... is that ok? Fact is, the infant is doing so for sustenance, not sexual pleasure.

Ten commandments said, "That shalt not kill." It did not say, "Thou shalt not kill unless told to do so by a superior officer." It also doesn't mention defense or whether it's ok for us to kill bacteria or hunt... It really is a vague commandment. He should have put more thought into that...

Anyway the only thing you've demonstrated is that Morality is Not Absolute, but rather- dictated by the wants of a society.
In a cannibalistic society, killing and eating brains is fine. But its not fine in ours. We don't want to be eaten. We're funny that way. We evolved avoiding predators. But in a society that has very limited options for food- such extremes can seem admissible when necessary. When one is trying to scare the holy living crap out of the enemy, too, it seems.

It's fine to kill in ours- if you're a soldier. It's fine to commit sodomy- if you're gay. It's fine to send an 18 year old to war, but it's not ok to take Terry Schiavo off life support. We don't mind some kid getting killed for his country, but no one wants to be taken off of life support. It's not ok to have sex with a child in our society because no one wants their babies sexed up. But it is ok to hand condoms to a child because no one wants to have to raise an early grandkid.
Our MonkeySphere behavior and influence determine what we decide is moral or not.

And our concepts for morality don't always make a whole lot of sense.

hence if morality has such a diverse range of applications even on the platform of mundane society, it doesn't follow to offer a caricature rendition when taking it to issues beyond it

 

[wynn]

This is what you are not addressing

If you don't believe me, just try any of these exercises :

fondle your mothers breast (assuming that you are not a 9 month old baby)
shoot someone with an automatic rifle (assuming you are not a solider engaged in the theatre of war)
repeatedly engage in acts like incest, rape, theft and J walking (assuming you are not a dog or a donkey)
gain employment as a prison guard yet only get paid about 1/17th of the lowest wage bracket and not be allowed to go home for several years (assuming you aren't convicted of a crime and sent there, despite your employment credentials)

etc etc

So as far as the OP is concerned, trying to bring the moral issues of humanity to god is just like trying to bring the moral issues of civilians to soldiers, of adults to 9 month old babies, of dogs top humans, prisoners to prison guards etc.

IOW if you have a personality who dictates the (repeated) creation , maintenance and annihilation of not only universes but also the individuals within them, it doesn't stand to reason that such a persons morality should be dictated by moral standards for the said created, maintained and limited persons

Its got nothing to do with might dictating what is morally reprehensible

The point is that what is morally reprehensible or not, is relative.

I might find it reprehensible to approve of wife-beating. But perhaps God doesn't. Perhaps God believes that wives should be beaten.

As things stand, I would have to take a human's word for it that God approves of wife-beating. I resent that.

not even if they said on the authority of "sravanam kirtanam wifebashunum"?

This is not funny.

 

[Neverfly]

hence if morality has such a diverse range of applications even on the platform of mundane society, it doesn't follow to offer a caricature rendition when taking it to issues beyond it

It does if "God" is as much a product of societies wants as "morality" is.

 

[phlogistician]

By natural forces of the universe we can exist forever in nature.

That's just word salad. What is that 'we' part you speak of? Our personality? Our personality that relies on a working brain? One would have thought if there were such thing as a spirit, it would be able to operate without the requirement of a fully working brain, so brain damage would not impair us, the 'spirit' would find a way to express itself. Yet we know brain damage impairs us, and that rather puts a dent in any notion of an external spirit that could endure post mortem.

 

[lightgigantic]

It does if "God" is as much a product of societies wants as "morality" is.

then once again you are dealing with a non-standard definition of god that cannot anymore be held accountable for floods, famines etc than you can.
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

The point is that what is morally reprehensible or not, is relative.

sure .. hence you have morality relevant for soldiers, parents, children and even dogs ... and on top of this, god, who enjoys an ontological category that belongs exclusively to him.

I might find it reprehensible to approve of wife-beating. But perhaps God doesn't. Perhaps God believes that wives should be beaten.

As things stand, I would have to take a human's word for it that God approves of wife-beating. I resent that.

I dunno
sounds like a rather radical interpretation of the last verse of siksastakam or something

This is not funny.

I guess its quite possible that someone could either have a wife that looks like a mrdanga or a mrdanga that looks like his wife and they might only notice their error when they sit down to eat a meal cooked by their mrdanga.
:shrug:

 

[Greatest I am]

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.
.

Was Jesus evil?
God/Jesus sent him or himself, depending on how deep your delusion goes, to be punished and die.

How was your ticket to heaven purchased? With innocent blood?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzuxyq3ltls&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

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

Not surprising that you get into trouble because all those questions you should have your own answers to and I am not interested in your trying to deflect away from the O P.

"The Supreme Being (SB) (GOD; if and only if - there is a SB)is not subject to the limitations of humanity"

Have you not made up your mind as to whether there is a God or not?
If not, get off the fence and speak your beliefs.

As to limitations, God seems to have many. He cannot even reproduce a true son and had to use another man.s woman and produce a half breed chimera. Did God pay child support or was he a deadbeat dad?

I agree with your last.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I don't believe that "God" exists. So it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to attribute actions to a non-existent being.

Perhaps we could treat this "God" as if he was a fictional character in literature, in the manner of forming opinions about the fictional behavior of Sherlock Holmes.

But I can't see myself getting upset or angry or indignant about it.

I wasn't raised in any theistic tradition. So these kind of literary-criticisms aren't battles that emotionally engage me. I'm just not very passionate about the perceived immorality of characters in myths that I've never had any belief in.

I too believe it is all myth but if I am to engage theists, I have to get into their mind set.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Makes you wonder about the "Created in his image" part.
Either way, since the entity doesn't exist, they simply had to "explain" why he "allowed" terrible things to happen as "his will." It's very basic. A lack of a God, moral or immoral, goes much further to explaining his non-interference.

+ 1

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I think that GIA is engaging in something like critical-theology. It's theology, since it accepts the Bible stories as a given. But it's critical, since it implicitly denies your own assertion that theology is "something that has earned the trust and confidence of man". The argument there would seem to be with your word "earned". GIA is seemingly asserting that at least some aspects of religious tradition are on their face immoral and unethical, and hence don't deserve mankind's assent. (I agree with GIA on that, btw.)



Thank you.
I wish I had your education and better communication skills.
I am just an uneducated hick who is pleased that someone who speaks with such eloquence agrees with me.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

IOW if you have a personality who dictates the (repeated) creation , maintenance and annihilation of not only universes but also the individuals within them, it doesn't stand to reason that such a persons morality should be dictated by moral standards for the said created, maintained and limited persons.

This would make a lot of sense except for the fact that the bible says that mankind has inherited the capability of becoming as Gods, God's own words in Genesis, in the moral sense, when A & E ate of the tree of knowledge.

Those who do not judge God and his morals are thowing away their inherited rights.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

moreso if you go around trying to play god as dependent on mundane morality ...
:shrug:

Mundane!

Tell us my friend, are morals to be self-centered or are they to be centered towards others?
Should you do unto others first or do unto yourself?

Regards
DL

 

[MLJHILTON]

This thread is a tired retread of these:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?114359-Issues-of-morality-shuts-Christians-up

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?114035-If-you-accept-this-as-universal-morality-you-will-reject-God

I've posted a response to the first of these two, which I think incorporates the second one as well. I'd be intersted to see GIA's response to me.

 

[MLJHILTON]

Greatest I am, et al,

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

I can't agree with you here. That God is not subject to the limitations of humanity is certainly true, but compassion, righteousness, justice and so forth are not limitations. God attributes these to His own character. See Exodus 34:6-7. "The Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion, and sin. Yet He does not leave the guilty unpunished."

 

[lightgigantic]

Mundane!

yes
as opposed to being relevent to circumstances dictated by eternity, being beyond birth and death, etc.

Tell us my friend, are morals to be self-centered or are they to be centered towards others?

I already explained how reciprocation in a moral context depends entirely on the playing parties.

eg

If you don't believe me, just try any of these exercises :

fondle your mothers breast (assuming that you are not a 9 month old baby)
shoot someone with an automatic rifle (assuming you are not a solider engaged in the theatre of war)
repeatedly engage in acts like incest, rape, theft and J walking (assuming you are not a dog or a donkey)
gain employment as a prison guard yet only get paid about 1/17th of the lowest wage bracket and not be allowed to go home for several years (assuming you aren't convicted of a crime and sent there, despite your employment credentials)

Should you do unto others first or do unto yourself?

Regards
DL

depends entirely on who the other is and what is to be done.
For instance, should a prison guard release the prisoners under his care to do unto others?

IOW what is apparent in your analysis of the whole god thing on any one of your numerous threads is a type of cripple minded thinking that doesn't even address the varied positions of personalities even in mundane society, what to speak of god, a person who is above and beyond any other inhabitant of the universe.
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

This would make a lot of sense except for the fact that the bible says that mankind has inherited the capability of becoming as Gods, God's own words in Genesis, in the moral sense, when A & E ate of the tree of knowledge.

That would make a lot of sense except that its not a fact. I think you would be hard pressed to find a source outside of your own fertile and probably drug induced imagination that states how A & E became omnipresent creators, maintainers and annhilaters of all universes by eating from the tree of knowledge

Those who do not judge God and his morals are thowing away their inherited rights.

Regards
DL

Its becoming more and more apparent that you are simply confused. Understanding that distinct constitutional differences between god and the living entity is less than the ABC of spiritual life. Even those religions that do advocate in some sort of radical (and arguably foolish) manner that the living entity can come to be the omnipresent, summum bonum god have their wits about them to declare that this occurs only on a platform above and beyond the type of mundane morality and petty envy of god that you are wallowing in.
:shrug:

 

[Greatest I am]

I've posted a response to the first of these two, which I think incorporates the second one as well. I'd be intersted to see GIA's response to me.

I did so. See you there but not tonight.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I can't agree with you here. That God is not subject to the limitations of humanity is certainly true, but compassion, righteousness, justice and so forth are not limitations. God attributes these to His own character. See Exodus 34:6-7. "The Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion, and sin. Yet He does not leave the guilty unpunished."

Then he did not love them if he has to go from correction and discipline to punishment.
In human parenting terms, if a parent must go to punishment, it is likely that they have failed to correct and discipline properly and the shame of having to punish is their's, not the child's.

Proverbs 3:12
For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Your God says that he hates some even in the womb. They are not yet born and are hated. Quite the unconditional love by a God whose first moral principle, as you stated at the other post, is LOVE.

Quite a contradiction my friend.

Regards
DL