Would a moral God step up to his responsibilities?

[Greatest I am]

Would a moral God step up to his responsibilities?

God cannot do miracles. If he could, he would.

From God’s POV, all here must be perfect. He began in perfection and would not back slide to anything less. That’s scripture. It is to us to see things as he does.

From mankind’s POV, all here is not perfection. This contrary and wrong POV is promoted by religion and is generally accepted to some degree by most people. I tend to agree with God even as most do not.

From a moral stand point, most will agree, that if one sees a wrong that they can right; they will do the right thing and right the wrong. This is the right thing to do.

The fact that there are preventable human evil acts being perpetrated by mankind, supposedly created by God, and he does not act, means that a moral God does not exist.

A moral God takes responsibility and God is not stepping up. A moral God would. If he could that is. Just as all of us would. We are in his image and know that stepping up is a good idea.

Perhaps God is not the miracles working super God. You know the one. The one that man has created to hold all of his hopes and wishes, dreams and desires, loves, ---- and hates ---, and although never seen in any real way, --- believers will kill for Him. Insanity.

If God does exist, and is not moral, then what good is he to mankind or you?
Would you want life without morals?

No wonder then that Eve, the first to be as God/human, ----yes there is a difference, ---- had the wisdom to have adam/mankind, eat of it. What a wonderful myth.

Believers who follow a God without morals, Bible God, should question why they do.
God has a basis in reality but certainly not like the God without morals that has somehow been molded by what was initially, a rather beautiful ideas. The Bible.

To think and act God like, is to ----- do unto others.
If God creates man, then it should be for a best end. Not an evil end like hell. Fact is, many millions die daily of easily preventable cause. Allowed to by a miracle working God who just does not step up.

The fact that God, who by definition, would have the attribute of taking responsibility, as any good entity would, proves beyond any doubt that a moral miracle working God cannot exists.

And if there is a miracle working God, mankind should give him a thumbs down for his lack of morals.

Can a moral God exist?
Is it moral for God, who wants relevance to mankind, to not step up?
As a creator God does he have any responsibility to what he creates?

Regards
DL

 

[NMSquirrel]

From God’s POV, all here must be perfect. He began in perfection and would not back slide to anything less. That’s scripture. It is to us to see things as he does.

more on this in a bit..

From a moral stand point, most will agree, that if one sees a wrong that they can right; they will do the right thing and right the wrong. This is the right thing to do.

The fact that there are preventable human evil acts being perpetrated by mankind, supposedly created by God, and he does not act, means that a moral God does not exist.

notice how your first example was talking about ppl, if someone saw a wrong being done, means an attempt to make it right..
how many ppl actually do this?

then you associate Mans failure to act as God's failure to act?

now back to:
" From God’s POV, all here must be perfect."

this i struggle with, although once in awhile someone brings up a good point for it..(like if it was perfect he would not need to intervene)

<edit>
of course there is the fallacy of assigning humanities morals to God..IOW the question becomes how do you define 'moral'?

 

[Greatest I am]

more on this in a bit..



notice how your first example was talking about ppl, if someone saw a wrong being done, means an attempt to make it right..
how many ppl actually do this?

As stated, most who can will.
Atheist or believer.

then you associate Mans failure to act as God's failure to act?

Certainly. What should I use? A dog?

now back to:
" From God’s POV, all here must be perfect."

this i struggle with, although once in awhile someone brings up a good point for it..(like if it was perfect he would not need to intervene)

True and I think he does see things as what I call evolving perfection. As I stated above though, almost no one sees things that way. God and I are in a lonely crowd.

<edit>
of course there is the fallacy of assigning humanities morals to God..IOW the question becomes how do you define 'moral'?

Since man made God, his morals would be man's morals.
That is even biblical, they have become as God's, knowing good and evil.

Regards3
DL

 

[SciWriter]

Another good demonstration of the failing and flailing notion of God. RIP.

 

[Arioch]

@NM --

Of course we use human morals to judge the behavior of god. What other standard of morality could we use?

 

[kx000]

Would a moral God step up to his responsibilities?

God created the world, he is responsible for nothing if he doesn't want to be.

God cannot do miracles. If he could, he would.

He can and he does.

From God’s POV, all here must be perfect. He began in perfection and would not back slide to anything less. That’s scripture. It is to us to see things as he does.

If God saw humans as perfect tribulation would not be necessary.

From mankind’s POV, all here is not perfection. This contrary and wrong POV is promoted by religion and is generally accepted to some degree by most people. I tend to agree with God even as most do not.

We are not perfect, far from it. The problem is as Americans we blame the Middle East, and the Middle East blames the West...

From a moral stand point, most will agree, that if one sees a wrong that they can right; they will do the right thing and right the wrong. This is the right thing to do.

Yes. We are all of God.

The fact that there are preventable human evil acts being perpetrated by mankind, supposedly created by God, and he does not act, means that a moral God does not exist.

Think as life like a play with God being the audience. Sorry, but we have to save ourselves or were not worth saving.

A moral God takes responsibility and God is not stepping up. A moral God would. If he could that is. Just as all of us would. We are in his image and know that stepping up is a good idea.

God can not cure the evil inside of you.

Perhaps God is not the miracles working super God. You know the one. The one that man has created to hold all of his hopes and wishes, dreams and desires, loves, ---- and hates ---, and although never seen in any real way, --- believers will kill for Him. Insanity.

I would not kill in the name of God, I would kill in the name of my beliefs which are true and just.

If God does exist, and is not moral, then what good is he to mankind or you?
Would you want life without morals?

But God is moral.

No wonder then that Eve, the first to be as God/human, ----yes there is a difference, ---- had the wisdom to have adam/mankind, eat of it. What a wonderful myth.

What?

Believers who follow a God without morals, Bible God, should question why they do.
God has a basis in reality but certainly not like the God without morals that has somehow been molded by what was initially, a rather beautiful ideas. The Bible.

To think and act God like, is to ----- do unto others.
If God creates man, then it should be for a best end. Not an evil end like hell. Fact is, many millions die daily of easily preventable cause. Allowed to by a miracle working God who just does not step up.

Don't blame God, blame man. We were made perfect. Even with original sin we were perfect in Gods eyes. And to him we can still obtain perfection.

The fact that God, who by definition, would have the attribute of taking responsibility, as any good entity would, proves beyond any doubt that a moral miracle working God cannot exists.

If God were immoral we would be a race of slaves. Just because one CAN, doesn't mean he WILL.

And if there is a miracle working God, mankind should give him a thumbs down for his lack of morals.

What?

Can a moral God exist?
Is it moral for God, who wants relevance to mankind, to not step up?
As a creator God does he have any responsibility to what he creates?

No he does not, we are responsible to ourselves.

 

[kx000]

God is perfect. We can be but are not. God is on the side of good, what side is the human race on?

 

[NMSquirrel]

@NM --

Of course we use human morals to judge the behavior of god. What other standard of morality could we use?

so for lack of other standards we judge on what standards we have?

one can measure the position of a particle with an ohmmeter cause there is no other way to measure it..?

 

[Greatest I am]

Knowledge

“God created the world, he is responsible for nothing if he doesn't want to be.”

Don’t you know?
You seem to fathom everything else of the unfathomable God.
-------------------------------

“He can and he does.”

You have a miracle to point to do you?
Go ahead.
----------------------------------

“If God saw humans as perfect tribulation would not be necessary.”

Scripture does say that all of his works are perfect. So much for your faith.
Tribulation is recent and was created as a depository for the hate that Christians have to live with thanks to their dogma.
-------------------------------------

“Yes. We are all of God.”

Yep, and tradition says that most will end in hell. Much of God belongs in hell.
Right?
--------------------------------------

“Think as life like a play with God being the audience.”

Sure. He is then entertained by human suffering and death.
Quite the God you follow.
----------------------------------

“Sorry, but we have to save ourselves or were not worth saving.”

So much for the vicarious atonement of Jesus.

I would continue pal but you are just too weird for me to bother with.

Get better or get lost please.

Regards
DL

 

[kx000]

You think you are so wise, but all you do is twist words to your connivence.

Get better or stay lost.

 

[arfa brane]

Why are you all so sure that your externalisation corresponds to what God is?
How is that you can do this in the first place? Is it because you have an internal concept first of all?

So which concept is 'real' then? The internal one, or the external one that depends on an internal concept. (Unless of course you want to believe that you can have a concept "outside" of your own mind, like some people seem to).

 

[NMSquirrel]

Going back to the OP,
"Would a moral God step up to his responsibility?"

how long does a parent have responsibility for their kids?

the OP question frames the question in a 'we are too immature to guide ourselves' perspective.
like the spoiled child, who doesn't want to take responsibility for their own actions and insists the parent is responsible for their own lack of responsibility.

again i bring the analogy of; If your parents tell you if you touch the flame you will get burnt, so the child(assume older child) ignores that advice and touches the flame and gets burnt, how is it the parents fault that he got burnt?

(keep in mind above comments when replying to last comment)

 

[Greatest I am]

Going back to the OP,
"Would a moral God step up to his responsibility?"

how long does a parent have responsibility for their kids?

For their child, not too long. They grow up.
To their child. Always.

the OP question frames the question in a 'we are too immature to guide ourselves' perspective.

B S.
What you see was created by man. not some absentee God.
Man is quite capable and responsible.
At least non-Christian man is.
Christian man would rather shed his responsibilities. For sin, onto a scapegoat Jesus. For life, God did it.

like the spoiled child, who doesn't want to take responsibility for their own actions and insists the parent is responsible for their own lack of responsibility.

Exactly what Christians do vis a vis Jesus.

again i bring the analogy of; If your parents tell you if you touch the flame you will get burnt, so the child(assume older child) ignores that advice and touches the flame and gets burnt, how is it the parents fault that he got burnt?

In this case, the parent turned on the heat on purpose and sent his child to get burnt. In fact God demanded the murder of Jesus.

Do an analogy on that for the right perspective of your murdering God.


(keep in mind above comments when replying to last comment)

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Why are you all so sure that your externalisation corresponds to what God is?
How is that you can do this in the first place? Is it because you have an internal concept first of all?

So which concept is 'real' then? The internal one, or the external one that depends on an internal concept. (Unless of course you want to believe that you can have a concept "outside" of your own mind, like some people seem to).

No one can know what God is till he stops playing hide and seek.
Then again, how does a myth show itself?

Regards
DL

 

[kx000]

Why are you all so sure that your externalisation corresponds to what God is?
How is that you can do this in the first place? Is it because you have an internal concept first of all?

So which concept is 'real' then? The internal one, or the external one that depends on an internal concept. (Unless of course you want to believe that you can have a concept "outside" of your own mind, like some people seem to).

Not every mans beliefs are true. How do you know which God to pray to? Common sense.

 

[NMSquirrel]

“
the OP question frames the question in a 'we are too immature to guide ourselves' perspective.
”
B S.
What you see was created by man. not some absentee God.
Man is quite capable and responsible.
At least non-Christian man is.
Christian man would rather shed his responsibilities. For sin, onto a scapegoat Jesus. For life, God did it.

its not a question of either/or..
look at the questions raised by atheists here on sciforums, MOST always blame God for everything Bad that happens in the world..(If there was a God then X would/would not have happened.)
not trying to argue against how religion does/doesn't line up with that attitude, just arguing you cannot use that argument to single out christians as it applies to both theist and atheist or more accurately Anti-theist.

 

[lightgigantic]

@NM --

Of course we use human morals to judge the behavior of god. What other standard of morality could we use?

Given that humans lack any claim to omni-hood, its not clear on what basis one could apply human morals to god.

For instance humans don't control one's arrival at the point of birth or one's destination after death, therefore the act of killing is generally categorized as a moral blight (although even this can be superseded for the case of defense, protection of property etc). God on the other hand, has control over these issues, hence its absurd to apply such a set of morals to his acts.

 

[wynn]

Given that humans lack any claim to omni-hood, its not clear on what basis one could apply human morals to god.

When it comes to choice of religion, we use human standards to judge God's behavior as described by various religions:


The ne plus ultra of wickedness is embodied in what is commonly presented to mankind as the creed of Christianity.
I will call no being good who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow creatures; and if such a creature can sentence me to hell for not so calling him, to hell I will go.
-- John Stuart Mill

 

[lightgigantic]

When it comes to choice of religion, we use human standards to judge God's behavior as described by various religions:


The ne plus ultra of wickedness is embodied in what is commonly presented to mankind as the creed of Christianity.
I will call no being good who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow creatures; and if such a creature can sentence me to hell for not so calling him, to hell I will go.
-- John Stuart Mill

then you would have to be clear in what fashion one applies them, since its obvious not all of human morals are pertinent to an omni-personality

 

[wynn]

then you would have to be clear in what fashion one applies them, since its obvious not all of human morals are pertinent to an omni-personality

Like I said:

When it comes to choice of religion, we use human standards to judge God's behavior as described by various religions.

The various religions present different ideas of what an omni-personality is.

For example, some Christian schools believe that the mark of an omni-personality is to condemn the majority of his parts and parcels to eternal damnation, based on one irrevocable decision by those parts and parcels.
Some Christian schools also believe that an omni-personality doesn't really have a name and a face.
They also find it inconsistent with an omni-personality that he would be always happy.

Other religions have different ideas about what makes for an omni-personality and what doesn't.


You seem to be talking about judging God without reference to particular religious ideas.

I do not think we can assess God without reference to particular religious ideas.
It's not like we have a non-denominational, neutral idea of what an omni-personality is.