God and morality

[Fanman]

Gary Childress stated:

Assuming the Bible is an accurate description or record of God. And assuming there is such a thing as a conscious, humanlike God responsible for the beginning of the universe who understands English and every other language conceivable and is male in gender, though I'm not sure if that means God has a penis or not, and if so, where in heaven does he alleviate himself. Is that what rain is?

The topic is called "God and morality". Therefore, it presupposes His existence. I'm working on the proviso that He exists. And reasoning from a framework that purportedly provides information about Him: The Bible. Based on your reply, please define "humanlike" relative to the Biblical God.

[MikeNovack]

The topic is called "God and morality". Therefore, it presupposes His existence. I'm working on the proviso that He exists. And reasoning from a framework that purportedly provides information about Him: The Bible. Based on your reply, please define "humanlike" relative to the Biblical God.

I did not take it so. Rather thought it meant any god or gods and morality. Which would include none. Except that most here would not understand the term/concept, with "devis" (gods) and none I would also include "demis" << divine beings, but not what we normally call gods -- thus Hopi kachinas are not exactly gods >>

To be considering only the Christian conception of God to me a waste of time.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your opinion on what philosophy is doesn't matter very much.

Oh heavens it certainly does. Simply because I am asserting that your comprehension of “what philosophy is” is obviously defective. It is lop-sided, very personalized, and seems to be conjoined with an unbalance strongly noticeable in you.

And it is not “opinion” but is rather foundational, absolutely foundational, to original philosophy. If there are first principles to philosophical pursuit I submit you do not know what these are.

I regret having to inform you that you degrade its spirit and its positive and creative possibilities.

[Alexis Jacobi]

To be considering only the Christian conception of God to me a waste of time.

Can you describe more why that is?

[FlashDangerpants]

If there are first principles to philosophical pursuit I submit you do not know what these are.

Your use of the word "if" there demonstrates for sure that you don't.

[Fanman]

The topic is called "God and morality". Therefore, it presupposes His existence. I'm working on the proviso that He exists. And reasoning from a framework that purportedly provides information about Him: The Bible. Based on your reply, please define "humanlike" relative to the Biblical God.

I did not take it so. Rather thought it meant any god or gods and morality. Which would include none. Except that most here would not understand the term/concept, with "devis" (gods) and none I would also include "demis" << divine beings, but not what we normally call gods -- thus Hopi kachinas are not exactly gods >>

To be considering only the Christian conception of God to me a waste of time.

It says, God. That's the distinction used in the BIble.

[Immanuel Can]

Last answer: no, it's the intrinsic moral nature of the world, as designed by God. Things are either being used as He intended when he made them, or abused as He did not.

That is, of course, the answer by way of Christian understanding.

Of course. Did it need stating?

Christianity inherits from Judaism a range of imperatives that deal on “social justice”.

Hmmm...partly. But the Christian conception of justice isn't really "social" primarily, as it is in modern Judaism. It's personal. Christians do not believe in "social justice" because "society" can never be expected to be "just." All they can do is encourage their society to do the right thing, but they can't seize the political machinery and expect it to issue in justice.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If there are first principles to philosophical pursuit I submit you do not know what these are.

Your use of the word "if" there demonstrates for sure that you don't.

No, in fact it doesn’t. You have made and continue to make false claims one after another. Yet you believe your methods to be sound.

There is something wrong with how you conduct yourself.

[FlashDangerpants]

If there are first principles to philosophical pursuit I submit you do not know what these are.

Your use of the word "if" there demonstrates for sure that you don't.

No, in fact it doesn’t. You have made and continue to make false claims one after another. Yet you believe your methods to be sound.

There is something wrong with how you conduct yourself.

I am comfortable with being disliked by the Hitler fan.

In furtherance of my earlier point about Mannie being a sociopath or whteer his exact deal is, I did notice that when he saw you flapping around trying to avoid saying Hitler is evil he seized on that as an opportunity to attack me....

And while we're at it, in furtherance to an even earler point about Mannie being an idiot, he fucked up royally with that one.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Of course. Did it need stating?

It needs emphasizing. Because your “outrageous beliefs” and the “pictures” you invest in, and “believe”, are of the same substance as the others I name.

Older metaphysical systems that are peculiar to the Medieval period.

This is why I exclaim: you perform an amazing feat. You are a modern, a product of a revolution in thought, yet you perform a mystic leap from modernity back to the Gospel age, and — Oh look! There’s IC scaling the hill to Gethsemane!

Where you have a very difficult time of it is in coordinating the view that God created this world and The world that Gid created.

Ancient man did this without a thought. No thought was needed really. Or only mythic thought.

But as I point out if the Christian God created the world, that God is psychopathic. That is, if the cruel world of Nature is his “thought”.

This is why in my take we can only resort to the notion of metaphysical structures that are totally metaphysical to Nature and World. If we do not have the metaphysics all the mesns we have of holding onto large systems of value, collapse.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I did notice that when he saw you flapping around trying to avoid saying Hitler is evil he seized on that as an opportunity to attack me....

You’re paranoid. No one attacks you. We only wish to take you to a calm place and to speak very very gently to you, hoping we might bring you back into the human fold …

And while we're at it, in furtherance to an even earler point about Mannie being an idiot, he fucked up royally with that one.

He is a zealot which is not quite the same as being an idiot.

[FlashDangerpants]

And while we're at it, in furtherance to an even earler point about Mannie being an idiot, he fucked up royally with that one.

He is a zealot which is not quite the same as being an idiot.

He's clumsy and makes idiotic errors. That time round he tried to argue that God's moral law is founded on something other than opinion, and then he just wrote that "Things are either being used as He intended when he made them, or abused as He did not" which clearly shows that is all just opinion.

He didn't need to give the game away like that, he just isn't smart enough to see when he is doing these things.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course. Did it need stating?

It needs emphasizing.

Not really. I've been completely open about that.