Should God the Father adore man for teaching him better morals and ethics than what he has taught man?

Does God the Father have any moral responsibility to his children?

I think so. God the Father’s first responsibility to his children is to insure that they live. God the Father does not do so. Is God the Father moral or immoral for this sin of omission?

Human Fathers have as their first moral responsibility the protection of their children and a strong duty to insure that they live. Our laws make parents morally and legally responsible for the wellbeing of their children. If God the Father were just one of many Gods in a God society that society would demand that he take responsibility in the same way human society has decided that a human child’s parent must take responsibilities.

I believe God the Father’s society, if they were real, would demand this of God as care/harm and reciprocity are the corner stones of all moral systems and because man, a moral creature, demands that of himself and others and that should be the universal standard.

The fact that God the Father punishes or rewards us seems to indicate that he at least thinks that he has some moral responsibility to his children. If not, he could not morally retain the right to punish or reward. That being the case, it would be immoral for God to passively and negligently allow any of his children to die or take any active part in killing them.

God is doing these immoral, unethical and satanic things constantly.

Man seems to have developed a better moral code than God the Father.

What a game for your God the Father to play!
Create a place for eternal bliss on earth and heaven as well as a place for eternal suffering or death. Then he creates beings that he loves dearly and watches over. And in the end, decide which to consider "trash" and "throw away" into the place for eternal suffering or death and which to cling to and love in the place of eternal bliss. Even man, with all his faults, is greater and more responsible, moral and ethical to his children than God the Father is to his.

Is man more moral, ethical, responsible and loving than God the Father?

Should God the Father adore man for teaching him better morals and ethics than what he has taught man?

Should man adore God for teaching us what not to do by his immoral, unethical, irresponsible and unloving example?

Regards
DL

Better question - should there be a limit to the number of characters in a thread title?

My opinion - yes!

(March 8, 2013 at 9:16 am)Greatest I am Wrote: Should God the Father adore man for teaching him better morals and ethics than what he has taught man?

Does God the Father have any moral responsibility to his children?

I think so. God the Father’s first responsibility to his children is to insure that they live. God the Father does not do so. Is God the Father moral or immoral for this sin of omission?

Human Fathers have as their first moral responsibility the protection of their children and a strong duty to insure that they live. Our laws make parents morally and legally responsible for the wellbeing of their children. If God the Father were just one of many Gods in a God society that society would demand that he take responsibility in the same way human society has decided that a human child’s parent must take responsibilities.

I believe God the Father’s society, if they were real, would demand this of God as care/harm and reciprocity are the corner stones of all moral systems and because man, a moral creature, demands that of himself and others and that should be the universal standard.

The fact that God the Father punishes or rewards us seems to indicate that he at least thinks that he has some moral responsibility to his children. If not, he could not morally retain the right to punish or reward. That being the case, it would be immoral for God to passively and negligently allow any of his children to die or take any active part in killing them.

God is doing these immoral, unethical and satanic things constantly.

Man seems to have developed a better moral code than God the Father.

What a game for your God the Father to play!
Create a place for eternal bliss on earth and heaven as well as a place for eternal suffering or death. Then he creates beings that he loves dearly and watches over. And in the end, decide which to consider "trash" and "throw away" into the place for eternal suffering or death and which to cling to and love in the place of eternal bliss. Even man, with all his faults, is greater and more responsible, moral and ethical to his children than God the Father is to his.

Is man more moral, ethical, responsible and loving than God the Father?

Should God the Father adore man for teaching him better morals and ethics than what he has taught man?

Should man adore God for teaching us what not to do by his immoral, unethical, irresponsible and unloving example?

Regards
DL

You have obviously redefined 'morality' as the bible teaches it. So before I spend a month trying to decipher what you have written here I ask that you define morality.

God's a "He", though. Don't women have him by the balls?

(March 8, 2013 at 5:54 pm)Drich Wrote:

(March 8, 2013 at 9:16 am)Greatest I am Wrote: Should God the Father adore man for teaching him better morals and ethics than what he has taught man?

Does God the Father have any moral responsibility to his children?

I think so. God the Father’s first responsibility to his children is to insure that they live. God the Father does not do so. Is God the Father moral or immoral for this sin of omission?

Human Fathers have as their first moral responsibility the protection of their children and a strong duty to insure that they live. Our laws make parents morally and legally responsible for the wellbeing of their children. If God the Father were just one of many Gods in a God society that society would demand that he take responsibility in the same way human society has decided that a human child’s parent must take responsibilities.

I believe God the Father’s society, if they were real, would demand this of God as care/harm and reciprocity are the corner stones of all moral systems and because man, a moral creature, demands that of himself and others and that should be the universal standard.

The fact that God the Father punishes or rewards us seems to indicate that he at least thinks that he has some moral responsibility to his children. If not, he could not morally retain the right to punish or reward. That being the case, it would be immoral for God to passively and negligently allow any of his children to die or take any active part in killing them.

God is doing these immoral, unethical and satanic things constantly.

Man seems to have developed a better moral code than God the Father.

What a game for your God the Father to play!
Create a place for eternal bliss on earth and heaven as well as a place for eternal suffering or death. Then he creates beings that he loves dearly and watches over. And in the end, decide which to consider "trash" and "throw away" into the place for eternal suffering or death and which to cling to and love in the place of eternal bliss. Even man, with all his faults, is greater and more responsible, moral and ethical to his children than God the Father is to his.

Is man more moral, ethical, responsible and loving than God the Father?

Should God the Father adore man for teaching him better morals and ethics than what he has taught man?

Should man adore God for teaching us what not to do by his immoral, unethical, irresponsible and unloving example?

Regards
DL

You have obviously redefined 'morality' as the bible teaches it. So before I spend a month trying to decipher what you have written here I ask that you define morality.

Secular governments and laws, generally speaking, are more moral than most religious ones. Especially when compared to Christian and Muslim religions.

Other than that qualifier, the system of morality that I try to follow is represented in this clip.

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

Regards
DL

---

(March 8, 2013 at 6:41 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: God's a "He", though. Don't women have him by the balls?

If you are a male, your God will be a male. If female, your Goddess will be a female.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...kZg1ZflpJs

This speaker has the right idea except that the blind spot of idol worship that he rightly indicates we all have, even atheists, he also has to his own Godinabook.

Regards
DL

(March 8, 2013 at 5:54 pm)Drich Wrote: You have obviously redefined 'morality' as the bible teaches it. So before I spend a month trying to decipher what you have written here I ask that you define morality.

Biblical morality is 'do as God says, no matter what it is, and never think for, of, or by yourself at any time".

Morality implies involvement, and God is not subject to our morality. Therefore, what the Bible calls morals are not morals at all, they are directives, they are orders from outside which people must follow. There is no thought given to God's morals. Clearly, biblical morals are bad for peace, stability, enlightenment, growth, and happiness, that has been demonstrated time and time again. They follow no pattern and exhibit no consistency. Biblical morality holds human life in no regard (when you murder or steal, God leaps in and claims that he's been victimized). There is no trace of fairness or justice.

Biblical morals are nothing more than God's control system, and Biblical righteousness is "whatever god says it is". God allegedly created beings with advanced cognition and 'free will', and then proceeds to treat them as if they were pets. Which, really, is all the proof I need to deny the existence of that thing.

(March 11, 2013 at 7:52 am)Ryantology Wrote: Biblical morals are nothing more than God's control system, and Biblical righteousness is "whatever god says it is". God allegedly created beings with advanced cognition and 'free will', and then proceeds to treat them as if they were pets. Which, really, is all the proof I need to deny the existence of that thing.

Hey! I treat my pets much better than god treats, and has treated, man. When my dog disobeys me, I don't kill him, for one.

God is a really shitty pet owner.

I wanted to say "livestock" but the Bible doesn't mention there being any purpose for the creation of anything, which is funny when you think about how theists love to say that religion answers the 'why'.

(March 11, 2013 at 8:03 am)Ryantology Wrote: God is a really shitty pet owner.

I wanted to say "livestock" but the Bible doesn't mention there being any purpose for the creation of anything, which is funny when you think about how theists love to say that religion answers the 'why'.

I always thought of it more like a snowglobe; god created something he could shake up from time to time in order to be amused by all the pretty falling debris.

(March 8, 2013 at 9:16 am)Greatest I am Wrote: Should God the Father adore man for teaching him better morals and ethics than what he has taught man?

Loaded question – you haven’t demonstrated that man has taught god better morals and ethics.

Quote:Does God the Father have any moral responsibility to his children?

I’d say yes, but note that Biblically, only believers are his children.

Quote:I think so. God the Father’s first responsibility to his children is to insure that they live.

John 11
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.

Quote:The fact that God the Father punishes or rewards us seems to indicate that he at least thinks that he has some moral responsibility to his children. If not, he could not morally retain the right to punish or reward. [quote]
You need to support this argument. It’s not a given that right to punish or reward a person is contingent on responsibilities toward that person. If someone breaks assaults me or my family, I’ll punish him if possible. Doesn’t mean I have to support him thereafter.

[quote]Create a place for eternal bliss on earth and heaven as well as a place for eternal suffering or death. Then he creates beings that he loves dearly and watches over. And in the end, decide which to consider "trash" and "throw away" into the place for eternal suffering or death and which to cling to and love in the place of eternal bliss. Even man, with all his faults, is greater and more responsible, moral and ethical to his children than God the Father is to his.

Again, Biblically, they’re not all his children. Jesus called opponents children of Satan. By your logic Satan should be taking care of them.