Is it moral for God to punish us?

[Greatest I am]

Precisely. Whatever God does, even if he punishes others for the same actions, and even if it is inconsistent with his nature, is moral.

Might makes right and no one is mightier than God.

Rather a sick slavish view.

You would make a lousy parent. You would have a, do as I say and not as I do policy.

That would be quite immoral.

How do you square that view with the fact that we are to emulate everything that God does?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

God does not exist. If he does, he defines morality and it is whatever he says it is.

God, even if there was one, does not have the monopoly on morals.

In fact, since morals are only developed by a species that lives in groups, God cannot even have ever developed a moral sense. He was/is alone in his species and has no need of it.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

No. It's an assumption based on unfounded premises.

Then refute it.

Just a straight denial is childish. Seems you do not like to think.

Regards
DL

 

[prometheus11]

Rather a sick slavish view.

You would make a lousy parent. You would have a, do as I say and not as I do policy.

That would be quite immoral.

How do you square that view with the fact that we are to emulate everything that God does?

Regards
DL

I'm not saying I feel that is the right way to do things, I'm saying that is gods way of doing things. A disgusting character.

 

[Desert Snake]

I tend to agree but have one irritating tenet that might be objective. I have yet to refute it.

The good/needs of the many outweighs the good/needs of the few.

Is that an objective moral tenet?

Regards
DL

This looks like a question that might need it's own thread.
There is a problem, in general, with these words, ''subjective'', and ''objective'', especially in the religious context. There are things that are ''subjective'', whether we want them to be or not. Ie, there really is no objective standard, that can logically be applied to the hypothetical situation. I call this ''necessary subjectivity'', or personal objectivity.

 

[prometheus11]

Then refute it.

Just a straight denial is childish. Seems you do not like to think.

Regards
DL

Show me the premises on which you claim otherwise.

Calling me names isn't making me want to deal with you too much, though.

 

[Greatest I am]

I'm not saying I feel that is the right way to do things, I'm saying that is gods way of doing things. A disgusting character.

On this we agree. At least for the mainstream Gods.

Now that I know you have a mind, care to refute the (possibly) objective moral tenet I put up?

As I said, it might be the only objective tenet that goes against the subjective description of moral tenets.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

This looks like a question that might need it's own thread.
There is a problem, in general, with these words, ''subjective'', and ''objective'', especially in the religious context. There are things that are ''subjective'', whether we want them to be or not. Ie, there really is no objective standard, that can logically be applied to the hypothetical situation. I call this ''necessary subjectivity'', or personal objectivity.

I hear you but to make that tenet subjective, I would need a scenario that justifies putting the good or needs of the few ahead of the needs or good of the many.

I cannot think of one. Can you?

Regards
DL

 

[prometheus11]

On this we agree. At least for the mainstream Gods.

Now that I know you have a mind, care to refute the (possibly) objective moral tenet I put up?

As I said, it might be the only objective tenet that goes against the subjective description of moral tenets.

Regards
DL

No. When you explain the premises you're assuming I'll address them if I have time.

 

[Greatest I am]

Show me the premises on which you claim otherwise.

Calling me names isn't making me want to deal with you too much, though.

That was when I thought you were promoting God as the decision maker of our moral standard.

Let's blame your delivery and be friends.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

No. When you explain the premises you're assuming I'll address them if I have time.

It is a self explanatory tenet. That is what makes it objective.

Note how no other explanation is given in this clip.

Regards
DL

 

[prometheus11]

That was when I thought you were promoting God as the decision maker of our moral standard.

Let's blame your delivery and be friends.

Regards
DL

You shouldn't have made that assumption since I never expressed that idea.

 

[prometheus11]

It is a self explanatory tenet. That is what makes it objective.



DL

Not accepted. Unstated assumptions/premises are still premises.

Consider what ideas must be held to agree with the tenet.

 

[Desert Snake]

I hear you but to make that tenet subjective, I would need a scenario that justifies putting the good or needs of the few ahead of the needs or good of the many.

I cannot think of one. Can you?

Regards
DL

Here is the problem with your proposal...you're assuming a position of objectivity...and if it can't really be objective /that's debatable/, then no, it wouldn't be some necessary addition to whatever the situation was, that, would theoretically be in this ''objective'' category. What I am saying, is that , it could be, but then you have other problems with the word usage; ie once you create a necessary condition for 'objective', then it changes the actual subjectivity in other scenarios, that might really be subjective.

Anyways, hope that explains why I would not agree with your assessment /necessarily./

 

[Greatest I am]

Here is the problem with your proposal...you're assuming a position of objectivity...and if it can't really be objective /that's debatable/, then no, it wouldn't be some necessary addition to whatever the situation was, that, would theoretically be in this ''objective'' category. What I am saying, is that , it could be, but then you have other problems with the word usage; ie once you create a necessary condition for 'objective', then it changes the actual subjectivity in other scenarios, that might really be subjective.

Anyways, hope that explains why I would not agree with your assessment /necessarily./

I think I follow but I would need a scenario that does change the objectivity to a subjectivity that reverses the tenet. I cannot think of one. You allude to a scenario to refute the tenet but do not show one.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Not accepted. Unstated assumptions/premises are still premises.

Consider what ideas must be held to agree with the tenet.

My assumption is stated. I assume that the good/needs of the many outweighs the good/needs of the few.

Regards
DL

 

[prometheus11]

My assumption is stated. I assume that the good/needs of the many outweighs the good/needs of the few.

Regards
DL

Yes. But why are you assuming that?

How creative are you? Challenge yourself to come up with a scenario where that assumption may not necessarily hold. Consider your underlying reasoning.

 

[Greatest I am]

Yes. But why are you assuming that?

How creative are you? Challenge yourself to come up with a scenario where that assumption may not necessarily hold. Consider your underlying reasoning.

I did and failed. I admitted that above, If you are brighter than I, which is the hope so that I might learn something, then let's have your scenario.

Regards
DL

 

[Fool]

I hear you but to make that tenet subjective, I would need a scenario that justifies putting the good or needs of the few ahead of the needs or good of the many.

I cannot think of one. Can you?

Regards
DL

The whole is other than the sum of the parts"

better to enter into life maimed and whole than in to hell with all members and divided.

bring me sunlight.

 

[Greatest I am]

The whole is other than the sum of the parts"

better to enter into life maimed and whole than in to hell with all members and divided.

bring me sunlight.

An honest, no, would have been good.

Regards
DL