Is it moral for God to punish us?

[Jaded Sage]

What caused you to say God tortured the child? Were you already against God the first time you read it? You also say God acted out of anger, but the passage does not.

Torture requires severe suffering but there is nothing in the text to suggest that. How do you explain your false claim that God was angry? Did your bias cause you to misread it? I am detecting a pattern with you. Now your bias against me is causing you to see an amoral statment as an immoral statement. You don't seem qualified to be talking about any of this. Your bias is horrible.

It says David was angry. Are you open to the possibility that you misread it?

We are talking of God and not David.

If I miss-read, I am sure you would correct me.

Regards
DL

Yes, that's what I'm here to do. It says God killed the child because of David's mistake. Is it possible that was the best punishment to show David the error of his ways?

[Jaded Sage]

So intentionally giving a baby a killing sickness is not torture. Ok.

More of your sick morals.

Regards
DL

Greatest, I think you are being a little harsh on sage. He/She doesn't understand what you are getting at, I don't think. Not to mention, you have no idea of this God you speak of....magic beings can perform magic for effect. He could have created a fake baby to kill...you don't know what an omnipotent God knows. Plus...according to the bible, if one is inclined to believe it...Satan was MUCH worse. So bad, in fact, that is mankind punishment...that is...going to hell. God's place is supposed to be much better.

Anyway, as far as the basic message goes, of the rules of how to 'be' good. The bible's 'rules' are pretty good....that is until one starts ignoring them in lieu of the stories.

Read the bible with purity of heart, and I think you'll do okay. If not, it will take you to a dark place. And that is where it's brilliance lies. It is a mirror that way. How you read it says a lot about who you are, i think.

I would prefer he not go easy on me. That might be counter-productive. I prefer he fight fair though. That is productive. If you understand him, I invite you to take up his position, and argue without bias.

[Jaded Sage]

We haven't established that God tortured the child. We have to do that before we decide whether it is immoral or not. It's unethical to jump to conclusions.

[Jaded Sage]

Can't somebody just give me a fair fight on this issue? This is a great opportunity. I need someone who hasn't already formed an opinion, or is opening to questioning what they think.

[Walker]

Can't somebody just give me a fair fight on this issue? This is a great opportunity. I need someone who hasn't already formed an opinion, or is opening to questioning what they think.

Well if you don't mind restating your position and the issue very briefly, I'll see if anything pops up.

[Jaded Sage]

Can't somebody just give me a fair fight on this issue? This is a great opportunity. I need someone who hasn't already formed an opinion, or is opening to questioning what they think.

Well if you don't mind restating your position and the issue very briefly, I'll see if anything pops up.

Good show!

First there is this passage:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

In it, God takes a life. All I mean to argue is that it is POSSIBLE that God was justified in His action—that doing it was morally right, and that not doing it would have been morally wrong. I'm not suggesting it definitely WAS right, just that it isn't impossible that it was right.

[Greatest I am]

[

It says David was angry. Are you open to the possibility that you misread it?

We are talking of God and not David.

If I miss-read, I am sure you would correct me.

Regards
DL[/quote]

Yes, that's what I'm here to do. It says God killed the child because of David's mistake. Is it possible that was the best punishment to show David the error of his ways?[/quote]

That possibility would exclude justice.

Would you think it just if your child was murdered for something you did?

Perhaps more importantly, would your wife?

Regards
D

[Greatest I am]

Can't somebody just give me a fair fight on this issue? This is a great opportunity. I need someone who hasn't already formed an opinion, or is opening to questioning what they think.

Well if you don't mind restating your position and the issue very briefly, I'll see if anything pops up.

Good show!

First there is this passage:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

In it, God takes a life. All I mean to argue is that it is POSSIBLE that God was justified in His action—that doing it was morally right, and that not doing it would have been morally wrong. I'm not suggesting it definitely WAS right, just that it isn't impossible that it was right.

13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord.

Tell us, should the admitted sinner be punished or his child?

Regards
DL

[Jaded Sage]

That possibility would exclude justice.

Would you think it just if your child was murdered for something you did?

NOW we're getting somewhere! I disagree. It would not necessarily exclude justice.

That would depend entirely on what I did. I would consider it improper to render a judgement on that before knowing what the crime was. If I am now unable to imagine something that would warrant—maybe that's the word we should use instead of justify, warrant—it, that does not necessarily mean that such a thing doesn't exist.

It would be disorderly to begin answering your second question before we finish answering the first. I've already sort of addressed it.

[Walker]

duplicate

[Walker]

Can't somebody just give me a fair fight on this issue? This is a great opportunity. I need someone who hasn't already formed an opinion, or is opening to questioning what they think.

Well if you don't mind restating your position and the issue very briefly, I'll see if anything pops up.

Good show!

First there is this passage:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

In it, God takes a life. All I mean to argue is that it is POSSIBLE that God was justified in His action—that doing it was morally right, and that not doing it would have been morally wrong. I'm not suggesting it definitely WAS right, just that it isn't impossible that it was right.

I read it as a story of natural law rather than morality. It’s a story of inevitability more than a story of justice.

David was a king, his intent was powerful, not to be taken lightly, not even by him.

David’s reckless intent of death set natural forces in motion. Once David realized that the death he intended was his own, he repented his intent of death, and was spared death.

But he had already set the forces of inevitablity into motion, and though his intent to punish the rich man with death was of the past and forgiven by God, the causality that David set into motion with his intent to not only punish but destroy, had to play out. Causality must play out. Natural law. David’s life was spared by the grace of God, but the inevitability of causality punished him for his intent of loss, with loss.

Such is the way of old karma that remains after God's forgiveness, even for David graced by God.

[Greatest I am]

That possibility would exclude justice.

Would you think it just if your child was murdered for something you did?

NOW we're getting somewhere! I disagree. It would not necessarily exclude justice.

That would depend entirely on what I did. I would consider it improper to render a judgement on that before knowing what the crime was. If I am now unable to imagine something that would warrant—maybe that's the word we should use instead of justify, warrant—it, that does not necessarily mean that such a thing doesn't exist.

It would be disorderly to begin answering your second question before we finish answering the first. I've already sort of addressed it.

You are not nearly as bright or manipulative as you think.

I have no time for those who think that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is somehow just and who never show an argument to back up their idiocy.

Regards
DL

[artisticsolution]

Art,

Define 'good'.

I think mebbe we're talkin' past one another, mostly cuz we don't have a common definition.

Good is that which is not bad...LOL.

I believe that people make the mistake in thinking when they think 'subjectivity' (namely theirs) is the highest form of morality. I suppose if we were magic omnipotent beings, it would be, as we could see things clearly. But we don't have that power, so subjective morality is akin to a whim...Any wild hair we get could be 'moral' to us at any given time...diluting the word 'good'. But don't think I am advocating Objective morality, that is nuts too. lol

It's just not practical to think we have to choose one

So I say, there is absolutely no reason to call justified killings or self defense "Good", when we have a better word, which is 'justified'.

The word 'Justified' should not be used as a synonym for good, as it merely means to have an account for...give reasons for....which means the situation was grave enough to warrant an explanation....which does not mean 'good'.

Good is synonymous with peace, health, sound, etc. It is the absence of Bad.

Where there is justice there is a bad scene happening somewhere in the mix.

[artisticsolution]

That possibility would exclude justice.

Would you think it just if your child was murdered for something you did?

NOW we're getting somewhere! I disagree. It would not necessarily exclude justice.

That would depend entirely on what I did. I would consider it improper to render a judgement on that before knowing what the crime was. If I am now unable to imagine something that would warrant—maybe that's the word we should use instead of justify, warrant—it, that does not necessarily mean that such a thing doesn't exist.

It would be disorderly to begin answering your second question before we finish answering the first. I've already sort of addressed it.

You are not nearly as bright or manipulative as you think.

I have no time for those who think that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is somehow just and who never show an argument to back up their idiocy.

Regards
DL

But aren't you doing just that, Greatest? You are punishing Jade by accusing her of being immoral. If she does not understand, then you are punishing the innocent as well.

Besides, if she is innocent, she truly believes that God is magic. And thus, she has you beat. For is God exists, as you and she thinks he does, he is magic and transcends good and evil. .

My point here is, Jade is not the enemy if she doesn't understand. There can only be guilt in ignorance. There is absolutely no guilt in innocence.

Jade,

Have you ever read 'fear in trembling' by Kierkegaard? If not I highly recommend it. If you want to read someone who has given a lot of thought to what it means to be good. If you are truly a 'knight of faith' you will not understand it...but perhaps in time you will...who knows.

Greatest is just being cynical thinking you would believe it justified to have your baby murdered for your wrong doing. But there is no wrongdoing if you seriously don't understand what is wrong with that scenario. If you can't understand then you can't be held responsible.

What greatest is getting at is, it is impossible to imagine a Good God, causing pain toward an innocent individual for the sins of another. It just doesn't make sense. K explained it best in fear in trembling when he told the story of a preacher preaching to his congregation about abraham and Issac...and how the preacher showed great ignorance of the story. He said something to the affect of how, if, the preacher and the congregation truly understood the story, then they would give every criminal the benefit of the doubt because one cannot know, in this case, who God told to murder, steal , rape, etc. If God told Abraham to kill...and the preacher and the congregation admired Abraham for obeying God, then they have to admire the man sitting next to them who committed sin because God told them to...or the man on death row, who claimed God told them to kill. But they wouldn't...they would seek justice for the man sitting next to them...but cheer and admire Abraham.

Most people can't think for themselves and instead believe what they are told, it is why greatest thinks you are immoral...because he thinks you believe in a God who could do such vile things because you have been brainwashed by society. It is a case of going with the herd or going with what you know is right all alone.

So you see, there is no way of making yourself understood to another, if God has told you to do something bad. Only the knight of faith would believe something so absurd as it's okay to kill an innocent baby.

Now, ask yourself this, would you believe Hitler, if he told you, that God told him, to kill the jews? Would you still think it right to kill baby Hitler if you had a chance to go back in time in this case?

And, If you would still think Hitler deserved justice even though it is possible God told him to murder...then why not seek the same justice for God who killed an innocent baby for the sins of another?

[henry quirk]

"Good is that which is not bad."

I agree, so: since it's not bad to shoot a child rapist in the head, it must, therefore, be good to shoot a child rapist in the head.


"Good is synonymous with peace, health, sound, etc. It is the absence of Bad."

I agree, so, since the child rapist deprives the child of peace and health and etc, it must be good to remove his bad (by way of a shotgun blast in the face) so as to restore the child's peace and health and etc.

I'm glad we're on the same page, you and me.