Do you have value for respecting children? Why not the greatest glory for the smallest child?

Why don't you want to respect children? Why do you hate children if you don't want the greatest glory for the smallest child?

(April 6, 2013 at 9:54 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Do you have value for respecting children? Why not the greatest glory for the smallest child?

Why don't you want to respect children? Why do you hate children if you don't want the greatest glory for the smallest child?

Don't you have value for respecting non-children also? Utilitarianism values everyone's happiness, so everyone (not just small children) wins. (Well, usually, but there are some problems with pure utilitarianism)

Why not the greatest glory for the smallest child? Why give happiness/honor to adults, why not the greatest glory to the smallest child? Surely small children are cuter than adults, so if they are cuter, they should have more glory?

Prove me wrong. If utilitarianism says that you must give the greatest honor (because happiness entails honor and social position) to the greatest number, why not give the greatest glory to the smallest child, since small children have not done as many bad things as adults.

Why are you racist against children?

(April 6, 2013 at 10:02 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Why not the greatest glory for the smallest child? Why give happiness/honor to adults, why not the greatest glory to the smallest child? Surely small children are cuter than adults, so if they are cuter, they should have more glory?

Oh, but adults are more muscular! Surely this strength means they should be glorified! Or maybe we could treat them equally...

(April 6, 2013 at 10:02 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Prove me wrong. If utilitarianism says that you must give the greatest honor (because happiness entails honor and social position) to the greatest number, why not give the greatest glory to the smallest child, since small children have not done as many bad things as adults.

Non-sequiter. What does doing the greatest good to the greatest number have to do with the number of bad things that number has done?

(April 6, 2013 at 10:02 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Why are you racist against children?

Why are you racist against non-children? With an aging population, you are racist against way more people than I am.

But if you treat them equally, you will constrain yourself to devalue the accomplishments of each.

Bad things versus good things: the greatest good for the greatest number rewards all actions equally, so there is equal rewards for different levels of goodness, people are not rewarded for doing good, the differences are erased.

In contrast, the greatest glory for the smallest child principle (GGSC principle), defines the payment of glory in terms of the smallness of the child, when children are smallest, it is when they have done less wrong, so they should be the ones who receive the benefit.

(April 6, 2013 at 9:12 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Jesus called people fools all the time.

Matthew 5:22 but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.

Maybe Jesus shouldn't have been calling people fools all the time.

It has a Children of the Corn creepiness vibe to it.

What does that statement mean? Does the child in question even lift? Is his glory achieved through lifting? Are we talking about Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Tonus: Matthew 5:22 Some manuscripts brother or sister without cause from the NIV notes, I think that is probably what it is.


Also:

Matthew 23:17, 19
Ye fools and blind.

Luke 11:40
Ye fools.

Luke 24:25
O fools, and slow of heart to believe.

1 Corinthians 15:36
Thou fool.

Galatians 3:1
O foolish Galatians.


μωρός
mōrós; fem. mōrá, neut. mōrón, adj. Silly, stupid, foolish, from which the Eng. word "moron" is derived. Used of persons meaning morally worthless (Mat_5:22). It is a more serious reproach than raká (G4469), raca, which scorns a man by calling him stupid, whereas mōrós scorns him concerning his heart and character. Used of things (2Ti_2:23 "foolish and ignorant questionings" [a.t.]; Tit_3:9). In Mat_5:13 and Luk_14:34, it refers to salt that has lost its flavor, become tasteless (mōraínō [G3471]).


Jesus calls people fools. He also says, condemn not, lest you be condemned.

Notice that the concept of foolishness in the Greek is connected to someone who has no moral character, this is because for God, wisdom is linked to their moral character.

Atheists try to make it impossible for people to have a moral character, I use the harsher form that says atheists are "morally worthless" because they advocate a nihilistic view of the world.

So Jesus says "condemn not lest ye be condemned", but I do condemn atheists, because Jesus says "repent or perish", and they are μωρός, morally worthless. That is the essence of what they are, a kind of nihilistic lack of wisdom, that leads them to be bad people.

Yeah, so after warning people that calling one another "fool" was to risk eternal judgment, he runs around calling people "fools." Then again, he was god, so he could afford to be a hypocrite. The best part is that in verse 48 he tells his listeners that they "must be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect." But he gives them an example that they can't follow without risking hellfire. Which is kind of funny, when you think of it.

Jesus might be an asshole, but he's my kinda asshole!