Why exactly is Satan bad?

[Ajax]

Yes… this is religious talk - It’s like someone recorded it and passed it around so that everyone can repeat the same mantra. Sheeples comes to mind.

Oh yes? Then who recorded the creation of the world according to Genesis? It's a little audacious for you to talk of sheeples

The word “die” is in plural and not singular - as if you could say “in dying you will die"

??? Can not understand what you mean..

The word death, in the natural mind, is when you stop breathing. That is a death but not the definition of death. Death is the absence of the Life of God in any area of your life.

Really? Then all Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists, agnostics and generally not Christians are dead according to your definition? Nah, they are happy and absolutely fine.

1st Death - separated spiritually from God. 2nd death - Thinking is no longer God thinking - mind thinking is separated from God. They reduced themselves to lying instead of speaking truth. 3rd death - the eventual death of the body.

They did die spiritually, separated from God, the moment they ate.

This is your thinking. Adam and Eve supposedly lived for 930 years afterwards and had 3 sons who had descendants, through their own mother.

 

[Kenny]

??? Can not understand what you mean..

When it is singular, we interpret that “He should stop breathing”. That isn’t the context of what the plurality of death means. When his spirit was separated from God he experienced the separation of God’s life in his spirit. Then it rippled through the rest of his being starting with his mind, intellect and emotions that resulted in the death of his body years later.

Really? Then all Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists, agnostics and generally not Christians are dead according to your definition? Nah, they are happy and absolutely fine.

OK. Please review my signature at the end of my post

This is your thinking. Adam and Eve supposedly lived for 930 years afterwards and had 3 sons who had descendants, through their own mother.

Actually, it says they had many sons and daughters.

 

[Kenny]

I'm a moral agent capable of moral reasoning.
I can look at actions and make a moral judgement.

I see no reason why your god should be exempt from that merely for being god.

Your a “moral agent” using which plumb-line?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your a “moral agent” using which plumb-line?

I don't understand your question

Moral Agent - Ethics Unwrapped

A Moral Agent is a person who can be held accountable for his or her actions because he or she has the ability to tell right from wrong.

ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu

A Moral Agent is a person who can be held accountable for his or her actions because he or she has the ability to tell right from wrong.


Are you asking how I discern right from wrong?
And if yes, is that a serious question? I'll be happy to answer off course. But it would strike me as kind of strange / bizar that an adult man, who's presumably a moral agent himself, would have to ask that question

 

[Ajax]

When it is singular, we interpret that “He should stop breathing”. That isn’t the context of what the plurality of death means. When his spirit was separated from God he experienced the separation of God’s life in his spirit. Then it rippled through the rest of his being starting with his mind, intellect and emotions that resulted in the death of his body years later.

When you're referring to death, die is a verb, therefore has no plural.

OK. Please review my signature at the end of my post

Does this mean you consider non Christians as dead?

Actually, it says they had many sons and daughters.

The only book which contains the names of two daughters is the Book of Jubilees, which is pseudepigraphal work and not included in any canon of scripture. Even if we consider they had daughters, then the boys had intercourse with the their sisters or their mother. In any case my example was to show that Adam and Eve did not die, and therefore we can safely assume that God lied according to Genesis.

 

[Kenny]

I don't understand your question

Moral Agent - Ethics Unwrapped

A Moral Agent is a person who can be held accountable for his or her actions because he or she has the ability to tell right from wrong.

ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu

A Moral Agent is a person who can be held accountable for his or her actions because he or she has the ability to tell right from wrong.


Are you asking how I discern right from wrong?
And if yes, is that a serious question? I'll be happy to answer off course. But it would strike me as kind of strange / bizar that an adult man, who's presumably a moral agent himself, would have to ask that question

What I meant is, we have found two “moral people” who have differences in what they view is moral. How does one determine which one is correct or, for that matter, if neither are correct?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What I meant is, we have found two “moral people” who have differences in what they view is moral. How does one determine which one is correct or, for that matter, if neither are correct?

You let them argue their case and evaluate their arguments based on the evidence presented and validity of the arguments.

 

[Kenny]

You let them argue their case and evaluate their arguments based on the evidence presented and validity of the arguments.

Then, in essence, there is no plumb-line and it can vary between one couple “arguments” vs another couple’s argument. For that matter, when two are in agreement and it isn’t “your morality” and even “immoral” it would not be “immoral” for them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What I meant is, we have found two “moral people” who have differences in what they view is moral. How does one determine which one is correct or, for that matter, if neither are correct?

One approach: find where you both agree, then work out from there, seeing what logically flows from thoss shared precepts or values.

You may find that on your point of disagreement, one of you - or maybe both - had to contradict things they already conceded as true in order to take that position.

So is there a point of agreement? I'd suggest something pretty fundamental, not controversial... e.g. "killing newborn babies is bad." Is that a point you can both agree on? If not, can you think of some moral statements you consider true that you think @TagliatelliMonster would agree on?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then, in essence, there is no plumb-line and it can vary between one couple “arguments” vs another couple’s argument. For that matter, when two are in agreement and it isn’t “your morality” and even “immoral” it would not be “immoral” for them.

You've been implicitly arguing throughout this thread that there's a "plumb line" external to God.

Arguing that God is good implies that there's an objective standard against which God's goodness can be measured.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then, in essence, there is no plumb-line and it can vary between one couple “arguments” vs another couple’s argument.

I'm not sure what you mean by "plumb-line".

For that matter, when two are in agreement and it isn’t “your morality” and even “immoral” it would not be “immoral” for them.

In the end, it's about the evidence and the validity of the logic / reasoning.
For the most part, this means that if someone doesn't come to the same conclusion, it just means that that person doesn't care about the evidence or rational reasoning.

Off course in morality there's a grey area and that's when you get into moral dilemma's, which certainly are a real thing.
But I'ld dare say that for the most part it's pretty straight forward.

Just think about it.
Why is rape wrong?

Surely you are capable of making reasonably argued case, based on evidence and logic, for why rape is wrong. Right?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Satan and his devils and demons do exists. Well, at least his devils and demons.

My life was in the hands of a powerful satanical-demon once, who I destroyed in the end, barely.

I have been attacked by demons and jinns (dark-spirits at least 20 times, 2 major.

But as I walk through the dark valley of death, I shall fear no evil, for Thy are with me. ♡

I used to fear them. Now they fear me.

 

[Kenny]

One approach: find where you both agree, then work out from there, seeing what logically flows from thoss shared precepts or values.

You may find that on your point of disagreement, one of you - or maybe both - had to contradict things they already conceded as true in order to take that position.

So is there a point of agreement? I'd suggest something pretty fundamental, not controversial... e.g. "killing newborn babies is bad." Is that a point you can both agree on? If not, can you think of some moral statements you consider true that you think @TagliatelliMonster would agree on?

I have no idea but isn’t that a great example of what I am attempting to point out? Get two people who believe abortions is fine - and then it is morally correct for them. Get two people who are anti-abortionists and for them they are morally correct! Who holds the plumb-line? Are the both correct? Are they both wrong? Is one right and the other wrong?

 

[Kenny]

You've been implicitly arguing throughout this thread that there's a "plumb line" external to God.

No… what I have been arguing is that there is a plumb-line that can only be in and through God.

Arguing that God is good implies that there's an objective standard against which God's goodness can be measured.

I think it is the opposite. There is a God standard to when man’s goodness can be measured.

 

[Kenny]

I'm not sure what you mean by "plumb-line".

A plumb-line is what people use to make sure that a wall is straight or whether the wall is off. It is the standard to make sure the construction is correct.

In this application, it is the line that helps us know whether or not our “morality” is straight and not slanted or bias.

In the end, it's about the evidence and the validity of the logic / reasoning.
For the most part, this means that if someone doesn't come to the same conclusion, it just means that that person doesn't care about the evidence or rational reasoning.

Off course in morality there's a grey area and that's when you get into moral dilemma's, which certainly are a real thing.
But I'ld dare say that for the most part it's pretty straight forward.

Just think about it.
Why is rape wrong?

Surely you are capable of making reasonably argued case, based on evidence and logic, for why rape is wrong. Right?

I agree totally in the case of rape although in some societies, if at war, raping those who you are fighting is encouraged and viewed as proper. In their society, you will find that they agree that “it is morally acceptable”.

In our society, we might agree that helping the needy is correct, yet you can find two people who say “I worked for my money and it is mine to do as I want and if I don’t want to help the needy, I am moral in my right to do so.

If the plumb-line that God sets is “love your neighbor as yourself”, an external plumb-line, then two people don’t have to argue because it is already set and we can judge accordingly,

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have no idea but isn’t that a great example of what I am attempting to point out? Get two people who believe abortions is fine - and then it is morally correct for them. Get two people who are anti-abortionists and for them they are morally correct! Who holds the plumb-line? Are the both correct? Are they both wrong? Is one right and the other wrong?

Again: you are completely ommitting the actual arguments these people would be presenting for WHY they think it is wrong or not.
It's not just some matter of opinion. It's a matter or moral reasoning.

 

[Shaul]

I'm a moral agent capable of moral reasoning.
I can look at actions and make a moral judgement.

I see no reason why your god should be exempt from that merely for being god.

A reasonable being with limited understanding and limited power would logically come to a conclusion that it can't pass judgement on an omnipotent and omniscient Being.

 

[Ajax]

I think it is the opposite. There is a God standard to when man’s goodness can be measured.

You are funny my friend!!

Lev 25:44 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Is this the standard upon which we must be measured? Is this God's morality?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A plumb-line is what people use to make sure that a wall is straight or whether the wall is off. It is the standard to make sure the construction is correct.

In this application, it is the line that helps us know whether or not our “morality” is straight and not slanted or bias.

So you mean a standard for morality.
That's easy: well-being vs suffering.

In simple terms:
Good are those things that maximize well-being / minimize suffering
Bad are those things that minimize well-being / maximize suffering


If you disagree with this simplistic foundation, then I have no clue what you are talking about when you use the word "moral".

I agree totally in the case of rape although in some societies, if at war, raping those who you are fighting is encouraged and viewed as proper.

Yeah... those are called warcrimes. Warcrimes are immoral.
So I don't really get your use of the word "although"

In their society, you will find that they agree that “it is morally acceptable”.

And if you would debate them on that point and have them actually present their reasoning, you will see that they wouldn't be able to present a valid argument for it.

In our society, we might agree that helping the needy is correct, yet you can find two people who say “I worked for my money and it is mine to do as I want and if I don’t want to help the needy, I am moral in my right to do so.

Every time you give such an "example", you seem to completely ignore the fact that no actual argument is presented.
I stated clearly right from the outset that both parties would have to argue their case, using rational reasoning and evidence.
You completely overlook this every time and instead just seem to be saying that it's all just a matter of mere opinion which doesn't need to be defended, for which no reasons must be given.

If the plumb-line that God sets is “love your neighbor as yourself”, an external plumb-line, then two people don’t have to argue because it is already set and we can judge accordingly,

That is just a variation of the golden rule and it is not original to christianity at all.
Every human society ever, with and without gods, have figured such out.
And once again, that idea itself is ALSO something that can be defended through moral reasoning. An actual case FOR it can be made, which does not at all require any appeals to any authorities - gods or otherwise.


On that subject, whenever you try to defend your moral case by appealing to an authority, you lose the argument by default. Because you essentially admit that you have no actual reason or defense for your moral judgement. Even if we agree on the general conclusion.

When the question is "WHY is x moral / immoral", the answer "because Y says so" is never valid.


Why is murder wrong? "Because the government says so!"
Or to take one of your own examples: why is rape in war moral? "because the warmonger commanders said so!"

Well, no....


When appeal to authority is seen as valid, that's when you end up with otherwise decent people engaging in attrocities.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A reasonable being with limited understanding and limited power would logically come to a conclusion that it can't pass judgement on an omnipotent and omniscient Being.

The best I can do is engage in moral reasoning to the best of my ability.
If that "omnipotent and omniscient" being engages in actions that us reasonable beings with "limited understanding" would be forced to conclude are monstrocities, then that is entirely the fault of that "omnipotent and omniscient" being, as that being would be perfectly capable of giving us the tools required to come to a more informed conclusion, being "omnipotent and omniscient" and all....

So if that being doesn't do so and then demands of us to act against our moral judgement to the best of our ability, I would say that that in and of itself would also be a monstrous immoral act.


To illustrate:
Suppose I have your loved one attached to an electric chair with cables running to a certain button and set it up so that it completely looks like pressing that button will electrocute your loved one.
Supppose I know that pushing said button will actually save a human from drowning in the next room and I choose not to convey to you that information and thus letting you think that pressing the button will electrocute your loved one.
Then I'ld command you to press the button while telling you pressing the button is the moral thing to do and threaten you with eternal damnation if you disobbey.

You would consider that to be pure emotional abuse and pure torture. You'ld think I was a monster. A sociopath. And you'ld be correct.
I could easily explain to you the reality of the matter, but I simply hoose not to. That would make me an immoral monster.

I'ld demand you to act against your better judgement. The fact that in reality while understanding the full picture it would actually be moral to press said button is completely irrelevant in this situation.


See how that nonsense backfires?
It means that even if you are correct, you are still wrong.........................................