Should God the Father adore man for teaching him better morals and ethics than what h

[Greatest I am]

It's 'God', else it is a use-mention error, but, yes, humans have outdone 'God' (the concept). Similarly, any History of God is not correct; should be History of 'God'. No need to mention something only self-referred to as having an actual usage.

+ 1

Yes. History of God is an odd term.

Regards
DL

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

Rebuttal GIA
If God taught man then man would conform to God’s teachings and laws. We do not and ignore many of his laws. I E, we have not stoned unruly children or fornicators for some time now. Since we have discarded many of God’s laws, we are in effect teaching him that his laws are not acceptable to civilized nations. Do you have an argument showing the reverse or do you concede my point of logic?

I contest your premise that if God taught man, then man would conform to God's teachings and laws. There is no evidence that this must be true. On the contrary, half the world rebels against its own teachers, whether they be parents, or school teachers, or some other kind of teacher. Just because there is a teacher, doesn't mean the student is necessarily obedient. Therefore, rejecting this premise, I don't concede your conclusions.

Rebuttal GIA
As above so below. On earth as in heaven. If men have such a responsibility then so does God. God is said to love us and love, like faith, must have works and deeds. So says James about faith and I say about love. What would your wife and family think of your love if you never showed it somehow?
Not much right?
The same applies to God.

While the "as above, so below" quote is really the opposite of how you use it, I won't argue this point. That is, what this phrase means is 'however it is above, that is how it should be below.' Therefore, your use of "below" examples to imply it must be so "above" is faulty. But I said I won't argue this point. I will concede that the laws of love, which we observe here on earth, do come from God, and though God is not bound by these laws, He nevertheless does not violate them, as they are essential to His nature.

Rebuttal GIA
If you say that God has no choice then you are saying that he has a limitation and is not omnipotent. I protest as you are cherry picking from the attributes given to him in scriptures and accepting those you can use while denying me those I can use.

Further, I would argue that God can do the evil thing and is not all good as in the story of Job, he admits to Satan moving him to destroy Job without cause. That is quite evil. Do you have an argument to refute this?

Regarding God's inability to sin. This does not violate His omnipotence. Omnipotence and omni-benevolence are not mutually exclusive attributes. We believe God is both. Supposing that an omni-benevolent (that is, an all (omni) good (bene) of will (volent)) God can will an evil doesn't make sense. It's nonsense, and omnipotence doesn't grant one the ability to do what is logically nonsensical. It isn't cherry-picking attributes. It's saying, God has both, so how do we understand this?

Rebuttal GIA
I agree with your last.
To your first, pick your option or we will go all over the place. There are tons of options and I will not argue in many different directions. There is no profit in that. Pick your poison and go with it.

Our moral definitions cannot be too far off the mark viv a vis God as we are told in Genesis 3 that we share his moral sense. 22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

I'll go with the third: there is information about God's actions that are not being considered. Namely, that God, as God, is a pure spirit, whereas we are not.

Rebuttal GIA
I can know this because if he has any responsibilities to execute toward his children they must be alive to enjoy them. If dead, he cannot.

Do you have children?
What was your wife do first after giving life?
She insured that it lived by feeding it. That was her first responsibility and the same applies to God.
I will have your argument against both God and your wife.

I agree, a human father's, and mother's first responsibility is to nurture the life of the child. However, the first responsibility changes once the child reaches the age of reason. Then the first responsibility of the parent is the child's spiritual well being.

I already argued that humans are different from God. God is a pure spirit. Humans are not. Therefore, the moral responsibilities are different. Human parents are physical creatures, and so are their offspring. Therefore, their first responsibility is the physical life of their offspring.

God, as a Father, is first and foremost our spiritual Father. Our parents are our physical parents, but God is our spiritual Father. Therefore, his first responsibility as our Father is our spiritual life. We see in Genesis that He immediately fulfilled that responsibility by warning his children away from spiritual death. Furthermore, seeing our ongoing spiritual sickness and death after the fall, He further shouldered the same moral responsibility by giving us a way back to spiritual life and health. God sees physical death as an evil, but He understands that spiritual death is a far greater evil. He can raise our bodies back to life, and has promised to do so, but He cannot raise our souls back from eternal death. That is a death by our own choosing, and He will not violate our freedom to make the choice. A husband cannot make his wife love him, when she chooses to hate him.

Rebuttal GIA
God is said to reward and punish. I submit that if he did not think he had some kind or responsibility then he would not.

If you have no children then think of your parents. Did they punish and reward you?
Yes they did. If you do have children then you are motivated to do so for the same reason. Responsibly.
Right?

I made an argument regarding this already. Please refer to my previous post.

Rebuttal GIA
God’s first children were Adam and Eve. They died. If you agreed above on responsibility for both God and your wife, then ignore this. If not and you think that God letting them die due to his locking away the tree of life is moral then please argue the morality of letting children die when they can be saved.

I believe I've addressed this above. If you need further clarification, please let me know.

Rebuttal GIA
True that we are defined differently but we can compare the moral actions of both and decide which we think is best.
As above so below says that it is necessarily and appropriate to apply the same kinds of rules between the two.

Again, I believe I've addressed this above.

Rebuttal GIA
No problem. I did offer it as fantasy.
Do you deny that do unto others should be a universal standard or was Jesus wrong in making it an important commandment?

If it is moral and good as God is supposed to be, then was God evil for not doing unto his children?

I think it is unworkable but that does not matter as it is to you to defend.

To the first question here, I would not argue with Jesus. Of course I agree with the commandment.

To the second question here, I disagree with the premise that God has not done unto His children. He has given us everything, provided us with every means for spiritual life.

Rebuttal GIA
You first deny hell and then refer to it and that is why I ignored the rest. I assume, yes assumed, that you were off on a rant and it sounded that way and since your logic seemed off at the start I thought we should clear that up first.

I did not deny hell. I denied that it is a place. The explanation was there.

Rebuttal GIA
I gave you a Gen 3; 22 quote above where he confirms what I stated.
Please get your quote that reveals this to be a lie or recant.

I acknowledge the scripture you quoted. However, I still disagree with how you're using it. You quoted the scripture as a support for our ability to judge God because, as you say, we have the same moral sense as He. I don't think God's knowing of good and evil is the same as our knowing of good and evil. Indeed, on the one hand, our knowledge is based in the experience of the loss of good and the suffering of evil. God's knowledge, on the other hand, is based on His understanding of His own nature, which is all-good, and the nature of the created universe, which came out of His own nature, and the ruin it would be to act counter to that. It's like comparing the knowledge of a car manufacturer (who can tell you how to, and how not to use the vehicle, because he knows what will make it run well and what will cause it to break down) to the the car operator (who can take the advice of the manufacturer, but won't really know if what the manufacturer says is true until the car breaks down due to misuse). One is principle-based knowledge, the other is experience-based knowledge. And given that God is omniscient, His knowledge necessarily vastly outstrips man's knowledge. So, can our moral senses be equal? No, they can't.

This is true in another sense as well. God's knowledge, His moral sense, is static. He knows, and that doesn't change. Our knowledge is not static. It's fluctuating all the time. What's clear to us now may be obscure to us five years from now, or what's obscure to us now may be clear to us five years from now. Our moral senses change all the time too. What we think of as good, or evil now may be entirely different five years from now. What's certain is that our moral sense will NOT be identical now and in five years.

No, we cannot judge God, because our moral sense is inferior. It is in a constant state of flux, and based on a very limited scope of information.

Rebuttal GIA
There is only one standard we can use. Man’s.
Do you know of another standard we can use?
You can say God’s but there is much ambiguity and contradictions in scriptures and if God’s word says for us to test then we must test by whatever standard we can muster. For here, there is only your mind and mine so our standard is the only standard we have.

It cannot be our own standard. Our standards are constantly changing. The standard has to be immutable, otherwise it can't be a standard. If the standard changes, then morality changes. If morality is changeable, is it really morality, or is it merely a practical approach to life?

Rebuttal GIA
You have confused me her. Ensure that what is of God?

I do believe what this scripture is mainly referring is actions, but likely also the fruits of actions, as well as the principles that guide the actions. This is not a scientific prescription to "test" everything to gain knowledge. Rather, it is a test to verify the Godliness of, well, whatever you're testing.

You also say that scriptures say to not put God to the test when I just quoted test all things. All includes God. All but God would exclude him. As to your last, did you mean temp and not test?
If we are all subject to scriptures and testing then Satan would be as well unless you have something that has scriptures exempting certain entities. If so, please provide the quote.

As per my above answer, what would be the meaning of testing whether God is Godly? Also, regarding the "test all things" quote, I argue that it means all objects, and not subjects. This is in keeping with the scripture, "judge not, lest ye be judged." The idea with that quote is that you may not condemn persons. And what is the worth of a test if it doesn't lead to a judgement? Therefore, I submit that, taken together, we must test and make judgements about actions, principles, fruits of actions, etc, but we must not test and make judgements of persons.

Thank you for taking the time to read through my lengthy responses. Regarding the other responses you made to my other post for the video, I haven't read through them yet. I'm fairly limited on time these days, and I'm staying up way past my self-appointed-for-my-own-physical-and-mental-health bedtime with this response. So, I may get to the other stuff in the next few days. We'll see. I know you're not going to be replying to whatever responses I make to it, and that's fine. I'm sure you'd like to at least hear what I have to say in response.

Anyway. G'night!

 

[Greatest I am]

I see that we will not get far.

I just jotted down a few thoughts while reading.
We are not having a decent dialog here as things will get longer, not shorter and morals are not at the fore.
These are not to argue. Just a well meaning goodbye.


“He nevertheless does not violate them, as they are essential to His nature.”

Does love kill or cure?
Has God killed?
I need say no more.
------------------------------------

“I'll go with the third: there is information about God's actions that are not being considered. Namely, that God, as God, is a pure spirit, whereas we are not.”

As above so below. Is your son not as pure to your image as you could make him?
Do you think God would do any less?

God is indicating his best feature. A moral sense. His greatest gift to mankind.

-----------------------------

“Our parents are our physical parents, but God is our spiritual Father. Therefore, his first responsibility as our Father is our spiritual life.”

Exactly. And Jesus says, our spiritual life is tied to our physical life via the brain, the temple of God, and it then follows that God’s first responsibility is to maintain our physical life. You make my point. Thanks.

He is clearly deficient in this so throw out all your omnis.


-----------------------------------

“To the second question here, I disagree with the premise that God has not done unto His children. He has given us everything, provided us with every means for spiritual life.”

Indeed. Including an immoral concept called hell and death while tempting us with other biblical text that show us all going to heaven. Your God is a trickster.


Regards
DL

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

These are not to argue. Just a well meaning goodbye.

Alright.

Does love kill or cure?
Has God killed?
I need say no more.

Love does both: see the man who kills in order to defend his family.

Exactly. And Jesus says, our spiritual life is tied to our physical life via the brain, the temple of God, and it then follows that God’s first responsibility is to maintain our physical life. You make my point. Thanks.

He is clearly deficient in this so throw out all your omnis.

I'm fairly certain Jesus never references the brain. Regardless, I have never argued that the spirit is not tied to the body. In fact, I do believe the body and soul are one, not two parts put together, but really just one. The human soul (that is to say, the life force of the body) is spiritual in quality.

Yet, there does exist an ordering, and spiritual life takes priority over bodily life because it is the source of the life of the body. Death of the spirit leads to physical death, and spiritual life leads to physical life. But sustaining physical life without spiritual life is meaningless. And spiritual life cannot be forced. Spiritual life consists in maintaining a loving relationship, a relationship of unity, with God, as He is the source of life. God cannot force this, as a relationship must be entered into willingly. Otherwise, this is rape. Our spiritual deaths, and therefore our physical death, is of our own choosing. Not God's.

Indeed. Including an immoral concept called hell and death while tempting us with other biblical text that show us all going to heaven. Your God is a trickster.

Hell is the choice of eternal death, which consists in deliberately refusing a loving relationship with God, thus cutting oneself off from life. It's not forced on anyone. It is chosen by all who enter into it.

 

[Greatest I am]

Sure. We all choose to sit in heaven and watch our friends and family fry and get uselessly tortured forever in your hell.
You, like those shown here are rather pathetic thanks to hanging on to your hate.

Nice God you follow.
No moral sense but nice of him to do unto others. Not.

[video=youtube;Lv_rmQuagpY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv_rmQuagpY&feature=player_embedded[/video]

Regards
DL

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

...fry and get uselessly tortured forever in your hell.

False attribution, a characterization popularized by modern media, and folk lore.

You, like those shown here are rather pathetic thanks to hanging on to your hate.

False characterization. I don't hate anyone.