Is it moral for God to punish us?

[Jaded Sage]

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?

First of all, I'm a guy.

Second, and this will be interesting to Kierkegaard fans, one of the things that I can't make fully understood to you is the ridiculousness of the claim that I am trying to manipulate. That is because only I know with 100% certainty that I am not (you can be 99% at best). The force that such an assertion strikes me with is intense. Either this person is simply dishonest, or this person is so confused that he mistakes sincerety for insincerety. Either way, the dishonesty and the confusion work the same, when they make it difficult to divine his difficulty and correct it.

The base part of me is insulted that you think I think God is magical. The noble part of me is disappointed that you'd make such a claim without understanding my position better, in order not to misrepresent it. If your only defense is ignorance, I have not decided yet whether that is appropriate, as it does portay me correctly as innocent, but it does so by incorrect means. I wonder if we should compare it to the radical conservative radio show host who instills bigotry into his listeners and by doing so, makes them the most adamant about our safety, and therefore the most responsible of all.

Kirkegaard's intention was not to justify murder. It was to gently point out that righteousness looks like wicknessness to those who are most confused by their own wickedness. He talks about how the pauper resigns his love for the princess and then in an act of faith believes he will nevertheless get her. The story ends with him getting his love, but nobody believes it. They think he's crazy. He is. Just like Abraham.

Protip: when the angel intervenes, that's the move in the infinite.

Also, we'd have to hear all timetraveling arguments. The consensus appears to be that we have an obligation to kill hitler, seeing as how almost every movie brings that up.

[artisticsolution]

"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.

No...you are thinking I said "good is the opposite of bad" I did not say that.

Good is the Absence of bad.

There is a difference. Can you see it?

The way you describe good...as subjective...one is prone to make mistakes in judgment. What I am saying is there is nothing wrong in saying, we are flawed. Damined if we do and damned if we dont....if you will. It's either be honest with ourselves that situations of this type are not ideal or dilute the meaning of Good so that we no longer know what good looks like. Scenarios such as you describe set up a world where we invent bad so that we may be seen as good. It's dnumerous in the subjective hands such as hitler...who thought he was doing good to rid the earth of jews

[Hobbes' Choice]

"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.

No...you are thinking I said "good is the opposite of bad" I did not say that.

Good is the Absence of bad.

There is a difference. Can you see it?

The way you describe good...as subjective...one is prone to make mistakes in judgment. What I am saying is there is nothing wrong in saying, we are flawed. Damined if we do and damned if we dont....if you will. It's either be honest with ourselves that situations of this type are not ideal or dilute the meaning of Good so that we no longer know what good looks like. Scenarios such as you describe set up a world where we invent bad so that we may be seen as good. It's dnumerous in the subjective hands such as hitler...who thought he was doing good to rid the earth of jews

This is bogus too. You might as well say that bad is the absence of good.
There are things morally neutral neither good nor bad. And in fact that is the default position. It is only when, observed by a human, that things are looked upon with a sense of usage or value. That is when good and bad is nominated.

[artisticsolution]

This is bogus too. You might as well say that bad is the absence of good.
There are things morally neutral neither good nor bad. And in fact that is the default position. It is only when, observed by a human, that things are looked upon with a sense of usage or value. That is when good and bad is nominated.

Yes....bad is the absence of good.... the same way black is the absence of white. When you add white to black you make gray.

So? It's grey...big deal. The sky didn't fall in by me saying that.

I am supposed to lie and say dark gray is black now? What is wrong with calling dark gray, 'dark gray'?

[Hobbes' Choice]

This is bogus too. You might as well say that bad is the absence of good.
There are things morally neutral neither good nor bad. And in fact that is the default position. It is only when, observed by a human, that things are looked upon with a sense of usage or value. That is when good and bad is nominated.

Yes....bad is the absence of good.... the same way black is the absence of white. When you add white to black you make gray.

So? It's grey...big deal. The sky didn't fall in by me saying that.

I am supposed to lie and say dark gray is black now? What is wrong with calling dark gray, 'dark gray'?

You seem to be labouring under the delusion that good and evil are forces in the universe rather than pure inventions of human interest.
What is good for one person is evil for another. The existence of one is NEVER predicated on the existence of the other; and not defined by it.
Things are good or bad in the interests of the observer; they are not the absence of anything.

[artisticsolution]

This is bogus too. You might as well say that bad is the absence of good.
There are things morally neutral neither good nor bad. And in fact that is the default position. It is only when, observed by a human, that things are looked upon with a sense of usage or value. That is when good and bad is nominated.

Yes....bad is the absence of good.... the same way black is the absence of white. When you add white to black you make gray.

So? It's grey...big deal. The sky didn't fall in by me saying that.

I am supposed to lie and say dark gray is black now? What is wrong with calling dark gray, 'dark gray'?

You seem to be labouring under the delusion that good and evil are forces in the universe rather than pure inventions of human interest.
What is good for one person is evil for another. The existence of one is NEVER predicated on the existence of the other; and not defined by it.
Things are good or bad in the interests of the observer; they are not the absence of anything.

Really? So no thing isgood and no thing is bad...so according to Hitler getting rid of jews is good. So be it , then?

Isnt b it time we at least can admit somethings are bad?

And I think I've made it clear if you took the time to read my words that I am not talking about metaphysical good and evil...as I don't belive in spooks.

I am talking bad and good as it applies to the practical.

If there is a thing as 'good' then it it opposite of the thing that is called 'bad'. Literally speaking.

Now....there may be good mixed with bad...and bad mixed with good, of course. But saying that good is in the eye of the beholder has made us lose sight of what the unadulterated version of the word means. It takes one to a cynical place of , This is as good as it gets. And it condones diluted meanings where one can get confused. Just take a look at the world around us...people are too stupid to know what good is, if we don't at least have a rational definition.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Yes....bad is the absence of good.... the same way black is the absence of white. When you add white to black you make gray.

So? It's grey...big deal. The sky didn't fall in by me saying that.

I am supposed to lie and say dark gray is black now? What is wrong with calling dark gray, 'dark gray'?

You seem to be labouring under the delusion that good and evil are forces in the universe rather than pure inventions of human interest.
What is good for one person is evil for another. The existence of one is NEVER predicated on the existence of the other; and not defined by it.
Things are good or bad in the interests of the observer; they are not the absence of anything.

Really? So no thing isgood and no thing is bad...so according to Hitler getting rid of jews is good. So be it , then?

Isnt b it time we at least can admit somethings are bad?

And I think I've made it clear if you took the time to read my words that I am not talking about metaphysical good and evil...as I don't belive in spooks.

I am talking bad and good as it applies to the practical.

If there is a thing as 'good' then it it opposite of the thing that is called 'bad'. Literally speaking.

Now....there may be good mixed with bad...and bad mixed with good, of course. But saying that good is in the eye of the beholder has made us lose sight of what the unadulterated version of the word means. It takes one to a cynical place of , This is as good as it gets. And it condones diluted meanings where one can get confused. Just take a look at the world around us...people are too stupid to know what good is, if we don't at least have a rational definition.

We can agree that some things are bad, and that others are good. We can and must argue with each step and justify those aspirations, and give our reasons.

But it would be a mistake to pretend that the way we feel about them somehow reflects a universal a truth about the universe. This delusion has been one of humanity's greatest errors since earliest times.
I'm sure Ghengis Khan probably thought he was dead right; that the Mongol nation was destined to rule Asia, by god. And we know that Hitler thought much the same about the Arian race.
And in those claims their followers were invited to share that delusion.
The only way to unpack this approach is to reject it utterly. If not all humans are at the mercy of the next crack pot idea.
"Make American White Again", says Trump and like morons people are allowed to believe and follow.

[marjoram_blues]

HC wrote:
We can agree that some things are bad, and that others are good. We can and must argue with each step and justify those aspirations, and give our reasons.

But it would be a mistake to pretend that the way we feel about them somehow reflects a universal a truth about the universe. This delusion has been one of humanity's greatest errors since earliest times

Yes, Yes, Yes !!!
Another 'goodie'

Haven't really been following this. Have there been any cool answers to the thread title, yet?
Starting with a 'Yes, it is moral for God to punish us, because...' or 'No...' or 'If...'
OK, never mind. I'm being lazy. Forgive me for jumping in...I should stay outta religious waters...but felt a deep need to Amen the Hobbsy One.

[manden]

The true God , the real creator of the universe , does not punish us !

We punish us ourselves !

[Jaded Sage]

Whatever happened to that post about how God killing David's baby was wrong? What if I told you the fact that he mourned while the baby was alive and rejoyced when the baby was dead was the kind of thing blasphemy leads to (a kind of out-of-seasonness) and suggests the baby would have grown to be the same, and therefore God was obligated to kill it, even honoring the child by making him an instrument to teach those who heard Him?

[manden]

The true God does not punish us !

[Hobbes' Choice]

Whatever happened to that post about how God killing David's baby was wrong? What if I told you the fact that he mourned while the baby was alive and rejoyced when the baby was dead was the kind of thing blasphemy leads to (a kind of out-of-seasonness) and suggests the baby would have grown to be the same, and therefore God was obligated to kill it, even honoring the child by making him an instrument to teach those who heard Him?

Are you claiming to know the mind of God, now?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Is it Moral For Jaded Sage to Punish Us?

Re: Please refrain from responding to any more of my posts.
Sent: Sat Dec 19, 2015 2:30 pm
by Jaded Sage

You're a teenager, aren't you?
Re: Please refrain from responding to any more of my posts.
Sent: Wed Sep 09, 2015 4:21 pm
by Jaded Sage

My mistake. I didn't mean to tell you what to do. I meant to ask you to do something. You seem hostle to me, but that could be my misperception. I think we do not understand one another's styles. So it can be frustrating. It looks like I am trying to get others to do the work for me, but I am trying to get an unbiased idea. If I come up with my own example of a deep thought, I could be influenced by my own biases. Also I have trouble coming up with my own example, because I am reevaluating what I think a deep thought is. I presented one, so others wouldn't have to. But you disagreed, and when I suggested that maybe we should wait for another opinion, you ignored it. It was not my intention to discount your opinion. I just wanted as many as possible before deciding to whether move forward or not with it as the example. I like this example because it is in pop culture (also it takes the pressure off of all of us to come up with one, and if it isn't good, nobody gets upset), and it seems like most people would hear that said of it, that it is deep, and think nothing of it, essentially agreeing that it is. That is to say, most people would agree it is a deep thought (regardless of whether it is one). I am working on developing my own understanding of what a deep thought is and I think it might be radically different from what we usually imagine it to be. But I think if we come up with a few examples, as many as possible, it would help develop the idea.
Re: Please refrain from responding to any more of my posts.
Sent: Wed Sep 09, 2015 3:56 pm
by Hobbes' Choice

Jaded Sage wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Jaded Sage wrote:
Please refrain from responding to any more of my posts. You don't seem to know basic procedure, you have too many big falsely preconceived notions, you have a poor attitude, and a poor work ethic. Because of these things, you are getting in the way more than you are making a contribution.


I'll do as I please on an open forum!


So long as you act like a child and have nothing worthwhile to share, I will ignore you.


Good, you have little to offer. But you don't get to tell me what I can and cannot do.

[Jaded Sage]

Whatever happened to that post about how God killing David's baby was wrong? What if I told you the fact that he mourned while the baby was alive and rejoyced when the baby was dead was the kind of thing blasphemy leads to (a kind of out-of-seasonness) and suggests the baby would have grown to be the same, and therefore God was obligated to kill it, even honoring the child by making him an instrument to teach those who heard Him?

Are you claiming to know the mind of God, now?

I suppose I am, at times.

[attofishpi]

Whatever happened to that post about how God killing David's baby was wrong? What if I told you the fact that he mourned while the baby was alive and rejoyced when the baby was dead was the kind of thing blasphemy leads to (a kind of out-of-seasonness) and suggests the baby would have grown to be the same, and therefore God was obligated to kill it, even honoring the child by making him an instrument to teach those who heard Him?

Are you claiming to know the mind of God, now?

I suppose I am, at times.

That's ok, it means you understand aspects of God to the point that you yourself know God.
I know God exists. I know a sage exists. I know Hobbes is a deluded arrogant dork.