(Yesterday at 5:41 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(Yesterday at 5:37 pm)Jal Wrote: Yes, and He has become so good at it, by billions of years of practice,  that He manages to do it while SIMULTANEOUSLY managing 100 billion galaxies. THAT'S what we are supposed to praise Him for - that's why He merits our praise.  As I said, there is only one possible definition of merit/ meriting praise:

"Merit is a status achieved by freely choosing to labor/ suffer for a righteous cause, over an extended period of time."

He put in the  hard work. I'm sorry if you find that aspect disappointing.

Who decided that, you or God?  If God, why does he get to do his own performance reviews?  That seems inherently corrupt.  If it's just you, well, fuck off.

Who decided what? The definition of merit?

It's just my opinion, but I cannot imagine an alternative definition that makes any sense, i.e. good moral sense. 

For example suppose we judge people based on those born with the best genes,  or the most money, or the best looks. Is that really fair?
Isn't it more fair to judge them based on their deeds? Just sayin.

(Yesterday at 5:44 pm)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 5:41 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Who decided that, you or God?  If God, why does he get to do his own performance reviews?  That seems inherently corrupt.  If it's just you, well, fuck off.

Who decided what? The definition of merit?

It's just my opinion, but I cannot imagine an alternative definition that makes any sense, i.e. good moral sense. 

For example suppose we judge people based on those born with the best genes,  or the most money, or the best looks. Is that really fair?
Isn't it more fair to judge them based on their deeds? Just sayin.

Because not all of the runners start off at the same place. To judge them by their deeds is inherently unfair and thereby immoral.

I guess that would depend on whether disparities in deed reduced to disparities in those other things you think would be unfair? A guy is born a millionaire, gives half of it to charity. Particularly meritorious?

(Yesterday at 5:49 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I guess that would depend on whether disparities in deed reduced to disparities in those other things you think would be unfair?  A guy is born a millionaire, gives half of it to charity.  Particularly meritorious?

Suppose he hates money so it cost him nothing in terms of labor/suffering.  

God looks at the real cost involved to each of us individually, and judges us accordingly. 

Which is what the definition of merit condones.

(Yesterday at 5:43 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Here's what I don't get.  This god, being physical, is subject to all the laws of existence.  He's no less a slave than I am.  So why worship?

Because there is only one plausibly fair definition of merit/ meriting  praise, as I keep saying.

(Yesterday at 5:48 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(Yesterday at 5:44 pm)Jal Wrote: Who decided what? The definition of merit?

It's just my opinion, but I cannot imagine an alternative definition that makes any sense, i.e. good moral sense. 

For example suppose we judge people based on those born with the best genes,  or the most money, or the best looks. Is that really fair?
Isn't it more fair to judge them based on their deeds? Just sayin.

Because not all of the runners start off at the same place.  To judge them by their deeds is inherently unfair and thereby immoral.

God rewards the righteous (angels who never sinned, that is, never violated their conscience).
And He punishes sinners.

Yes, He must make some difficult decisions on how to judge two different people where:
(1). One person died at 15 years old.
(2) The other person lived to be 100 years old, therefore had  more chances to do things right.

I trust He will make these decisions wisely. But for starters, all of us are guilty in Adam, so it's not "immoral" for Him to condemn either of those two.

(Yesterday at 6:14 pm)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 5:43 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Here's what I don't get.  This god, being physical, is subject to all the laws of existence.  He's no less a slave than I am.  So why worship?

Because there is only one plausibly fair definition of merit/ meriting  praise, as I keep saying.

Plausibly isn't doing any work there. I've already pointed out how your standard is wrong. There must be some corruption in your system to endorse such an immoral code.

You shall know them by their fruits. Why should I listen to what you say when you've just indicted yourself?

(Yesterday at 6:11 pm)Jal Wrote: Suppose he hates money so it cost him nothing in terms of labor/suffering.  

I do t think that particular circumstance would modify much to my moral calculus, but I’m sure there are people who think so…and generally…we could probably come up with all sorts of other conditions where we’re not judging the deed itself but other things connected to it.

Quote:God looks at the real cost involved to each of us individually, and judges us accordingly. 

Which is what the definition of merit condones.

I do t see how adding or subtracting a god changes anything…or belongs in the definition at all. Consider the same setup but no one ever knows. Is a decent act less decent if it’s not known or judged by anyone, god or otherwise?

Let me put it in some different shoes. Let's suppose I'm weak-willed. I decide to have an abortion even though I know it's wrong. I just can't live with the thought of having to give birth to and raise a baby. I'm weak-willed. God decides that being weak-willed isn't enough of a handicap to explain my actions, given how horribly wrong they were. God knows how horribly wrong they were, but I didn't fully comprehend that. God decides to punish me for being willfully evil. I take him to court and point out that I have different values than God does. God wants to punish me according to God's values, but I argue I shouldn't be punished according to my values. Whose values should my punishment be decided by, mine or God's? If you say God, it sounds like God is just rigging the dice in his favor. He literally came from essentially nothing (his original matter), why should we trust him to set standards for us? Why trust God at all, except as a blind choice?

I guess this gets around to the point that the only reason we think God is perfect and moral is because God arranged for us to come to this conclusion. If a stranger came to you on the street, would you unconditionally believe them? That's foolish and stupid, and probably a form of irresponsibility which is morally culpable.