(November 11, 2013 at 9:42 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Well, if morals are absolute, then it shouldn't matter if god is equal to man or not, right? An absolute moral system doesn't change depending on who is performing the action. What you're pimping for here is a might makes right system, which is just scary, not to mention relativistic.

I think the phrase would be more accurate here if you said, "The Almighty makes right."

---

(November 11, 2013 at 10:01 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: I'm not presupposing that God = man

But I am presupposing that a moral system from a god would mean man striving to be like God as a way of achieving equal morality. A tyrant like Stalin or Hitler would therefore be quite godlike (Abrahamic God at least, probably Greek and Roman gods too)

"Striving" being the key word here.

Because you cannot see what the Omnipotent sees you can never act on complete certainty.

And, again assuming that we are talking about the Christian God and the theology behind the Christian God, God is the one that gave life to all mankind, God takes away life and is the only way that life and decides what will happen to the soul (the eternal part of you) after death. - This means that every time someone dies (which we all will!) your theory would have to call God a murderer. EVERYTIME! Not just the flood.
But He is the One that gave the life and everything that sustained that life to begin with. He creates life, but gets no credit for that???? A little too convent in your moral code.
There is no way for man to strive to that level of power. We cannot create life and then sustain in this same way. Who are we to question Him when He made everything that we are and have? It is quite humbling when you think about it, as it should be.

So the only way for God to live up to your moral code is to give everyone immortality without ever having to recognize His power (which is called heaven - where the immortal soul goes) or just not create life in the first place. Or would that be immoral as well?

Now, in reverse, the only thing you need to do to live up to God's moral code is to be a little more humble and open.

God gives and God takes away, and when God speaks, you listen.

---

(November 12, 2013 at 10:12 am)Tonus Wrote:

(November 11, 2013 at 7:03 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote: So, if we are looking for some common ground between us, I would that the morality of certain actions can conditional on the intent, circumstances, and consequences. But certain acts are absolutely immoral (lying to someone who has a right to the truth).

Is there any of this that you disagree with?

I will agree with that, yes. There are specific acts which are always immoral, and therefore absolute morals exist. Killing an innocent person without cause or necessity would strike me as an inherently immoral act. Would you agree with that?

Killing innocents as immoral? Yes

(November 13, 2013 at 3:12 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: I think the phrase would be more accurate here if you said, "The Almighty makes right."

I prefer "The Almighty makes righty"

(November 13, 2013 at 3:12 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: And, again assuming that we are talking about the Christian God and the theology behind the Christian God, God is the one that gave life to all mankind, God takes away life and is the only way that life and decides what will happen to the soul (the eternal part of you) after death. - This means that every time someone dies (which we all will!) your theory would have to call God a murderer. EVERYTIME! Not just the flood.
But He is the One that gave the life and everything that sustained that life to begin with. He creates life, but gets no credit for that???? A little too convent in your moral code.

I disagree. Unless god personally intervenes in every single act of procreation, god has created the system that allows life to be created. It's not the same thing. We are directly involved (and therefore responsible) for the creation of our children, but we would not be directly involved in the creation of our grandchildren. Well, barring any fritzl-esque activities, anyway.

Likewise, death is a part of that system, so unless god directly intervenes in order to make death occur, god is not directly responsible for it. We call god a murderer for those instances in which god has directly intervened to inflict death.

Quote:There is no way for man to strive to that level of power. We cannot create life and then sustain in this same way. Who are we to question Him when He made everything that we are and have? It is quite humbling when you think about it, as it should be.

I wouldn't count on that being the case for much longer:

'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists

(November 13, 2013 at 3:12 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: I think the phrase would be more accurate here if you said, "The Almighty makes right."

And if that's what you believe, then you've got no morals at all, just commands, and those can be countermanded at any time. If god commanded you to kill a baby, would you do it?

G-C is a GOOD little slave Esquilax....



he kinna help himslef

(November 13, 2013 at 3:12 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Killing innocents as immoral? Yes

And yet there are Biblical stories where god, either directly or through others, is responsible for the death of innocent people. Job's children and workers are massacred by Satan with god's tacit approval. Numerous nations in the land promised to the Israelites are slaughtered to the last woman and child (with occasional exceptions allowing virgin girls to be taken as wives). Nearly the entire world by a flood.

Either god committed immoral acts, or some other explanation must be given. The first is seemingly the easiest, though I find it unconvincing (the devil killed those people!) but the others require explanations that I consider to be too much of a stretch (there were no innocents to spare). Remember that we're talking about an act that is absolutely immoral, which is to say that there cannot be a circumstance in which it is a moral act. Is god immoral, or does his authority render an immoral act moral?

So, your view is that since god gets to make life, he gets the special privilege to take it away to and it not be the immoral actions of a tyrannical asshole?

People granted some human dictators the same leeway too, "he protects us from the evils of the world that we can't handle, so he has every right to be so hard and cruel to us." A celestial North Korea indeed.

(November 13, 2013 at 6:39 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: I disagree. Unless god personally intervenes in every single act of procreation, god has created the system that allows life to be created. It's not the same thing. We are directly involved (and therefore responsible) for the creation of our children, but we would not be directly involved in the creation of our grandchildren.

I disagree, we are directly involved, but it is through participation. We hold no jurisdiction over the creation of our children. Just because you want a child does not mean you get one. This proves lack of jurisdiction.

(November 13, 2013 at 6:39 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: Likewise, death is a part of that system, so unless god directly intervenes in order to make death occur, god is not directly responsible for it. We call god a murderer for those instances in which god has directly intervened to inflict death.

If you use this argument you can no longer turn to the 'Problem of Pain' argument because you are saying that He is not responsible for disease and hunger or any sort of death (that doesn't come directly from His hand).

You have to choose and, personally, I would go with the idea that He does control it all. It makes for a much more lively conversation.

(November 13, 2013 at 6:39 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: I wouldn't count on that being the case for much longer:

'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists

When you can show me a synthetic soul with free will, I'll be more impressed. But that is pretty amazing. Thanks for the share.

---

(November 13, 2013 at 7:54 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 13, 2013 at 3:12 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: I think the phrase would be more accurate here if you said, "The Almighty makes right."

And if that's what you believe, then you've got no morals at all, just commands, and those can be countermanded at any time. If god commanded you to kill a baby, would you do it?

This is a fallacy.

Just because there are rules to follow does not mean that there are no morals. There is no connection here.

Orders are not 'in and of themselves' immoral. They can go either way. Choosing to follow orders is not an intrinsically immoral action either.

Are you suggesting that because you make your own rules in life you are more righteous then me? Because, if you are, then for me to be AS righteous as you I would have to follow YOUR rules, which would mean I would be taking orders again. No win for me, all righteousness for you.

(November 13, 2013 at 3:47 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote:

(November 13, 2013 at 6:39 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: Likewise, death is a part of that system, so unless god directly intervenes in order to make death occur, god is not directly responsible for it. We call god a murderer for those instances in which god has directly intervened to inflict death.

If you use this argument you can no longer turn to the 'Problem of Pain' argument because you are saying that He is not responsible for disease and hunger or any sort of death (that doesn't come directly from His hand).

In an existence with God, take a step back and look at that reality. The consequences of death aren't particularly bad. Suffering for 'years' in the scope of an eternal existence is fairly meaningless.

Life is (supposedly) 'a gift.' Like a Sony Walkman. If you give someone a Sony Walkman, and it breaks via use or an accident. That's okay. If they stuck the Sony Walkman in the garbage disposal, that's a bit of a jerk move.

I think the idea is supposed to be respectful of the Sony Walkman you were given. Even if you know you're getting an ipod for Christmas.

(November 13, 2013 at 9:36 am)Tonus Wrote: And yet there are Biblical stories where god, either directly or through others, is responsible for the death of innocent people. Job's children and workers are massacred by Satan with god's tacit approval. Numerous nations in the land promised to the Israelites are slaughtered to the last woman and child (with occasional exceptions allowing virgin girls to be taken as wives). Nearly the entire world by a flood.

Either god committed immoral acts, or some other explanation must be given. The first is seemingly the easiest, though I find it unconvincing (the devil killed those people!) but the others require explanations that I consider to be too much of a stretch (there were no innocents to spare). Remember that we're talking about an act that is absolutely immoral, which is to say that there cannot be a circumstance in which it is a moral act. Is god immoral, or does his authority render an immoral act moral?

Once again, you drag God down to the place of men. Morality is here to help humans interact with each other in a way that is best for everyone. The morals for Man are absolute.

Remember the immortal soul.
God creates life and acts for the good of all man. It is absolutely wrong for man to kill an innocent because man has no authority over the immortal soul or life on this Earth. The absolute of absolutes here is God's authority. If God takes an innocent from this life, what do you suppose happens to that innocent? Something unjust? Something immoral?

EVEN if I take the life of an innocent, what happens to that innocent?

What happens is the ultimate good. If you could give a child everlasting good, would that be immoral in your eyes? But you do not have that authority, so you must act in a way equal to your authority. And you do not have the authority to kill.

He has power and understanding that we cannot understand. He sees the big picture, what we should strive to see. That it is what gives God absolute authority.

---

(November 13, 2013 at 11:06 am)TheBeardedDude Wrote: So, your view is that since god gets to make life, he gets the special privilege to take it away to and it not be the immoral actions of a tyrannical asshole?

People granted some human dictators the same leeway too, "he protects us from the evils of the world that we can't handle, so he has every right to be so hard and cruel to us." A celestial North Korea indeed.

Dictators do not equal God.

Define tyrannical asshole. You assume that authority is intrinsically evil. This is a fallacy. Just because someone is in charge does not make them an "asshole."

(November 13, 2013 at 4:12 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote:

(November 13, 2013 at 9:36 am)Tonus Wrote: And yet there are Biblical stories where god, either directly or through others, is responsible for the death of innocent people. Job's children and workers are massacred by Satan with god's tacit approval. Numerous nations in the land promised to the Israelites are slaughtered to the last woman and child (with occasional exceptions allowing virgin girls to be taken as wives). Nearly the entire world by a flood.

Either god committed immoral acts, or some other explanation must be given. The first is seemingly the easiest, though I find it unconvincing (the devil killed those people!) but the others require explanations that I consider to be too much of a stretch (there were no innocents to spare). Remember that we're talking about an act that is absolutely immoral, which is to say that there cannot be a circumstance in which it is a moral act. Is god immoral, or does his authority render an immoral act moral?

Once again, you drag God down to the place of men. Morality is here to help humans interact with each other in a way that is best for everyone. The morals for Man are absolute.

Remember the immortal soul.
God creates life and acts for the good of all man. It is absolutely wrong for man to kill an innocent because man has no authority over the immortal soul or life on this Earth. The absolute of absolutes here is God's authority. If God takes an innocent from this life, what do you suppose happens to that innocent? Something unjust? Something immoral?

EVEN if I take the life of an innocent, what happens to that innocent?

What happens is the ultimate good. If you could give a child everlasting good, would that be immoral in your eyes? But you do not have that authority, so you must act in a way equal to your authority. And you do not have the authority to kill.

He has power and understanding that we cannot understand. He sees the big picture, what we should strive to see. That it is what gives God absolute authority.

---

(November 13, 2013 at 11:06 am)TheBeardedDude Wrote: So, your view is that since god gets to make life, he gets the special privilege to take it away to and it not be the immoral actions of a tyrannical asshole?

People granted some human dictators the same leeway too, "he protects us from the evils of the world that we can't handle, so he has every right to be so hard and cruel to us." A celestial North Korea indeed.

Dictators do not equal God.

Define tyrannical asshole. You assume that authority is intrinsically evil. This is a fallacy. Just because someone is in charge does not make them an "asshole."

Being in charge and and using that station to take life as you see fit, is being a tyrannical asshole.

What does it say about morality, if the average person could be seen as more moral and kind than a god who kills at will? (not unlike a serial killer)