Is it moral for God to punish us?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Is it moral for God to punish us?

Is it moral for an all-knowing and all-powerful God to set in motion a history that he designs and then condemns others for?

We live in a history that God has set up and is fully responsible for. God, punishing man, who can do nothing but follow God’s plan and the nature God has put in us, is having innocent people suffer for the wrongs God himself has pre-destined and which cannot be altered.

For example.
God chose to have Jesus sacrificed. God, in his planning book would also have decided who would kill Jesus. There would be no way for that man to not kill Jesus or God’s plan would fall off the rails and in this case, we would not have a messiah or scapegoat to ride into heaven.

Some will say we have free will but as shown in the example above, Jesus’ killer could not refrain from killing Jesus without derailing God’s plan. Further, to pre-destine any one action or condition within a history changes all other conditions and pre-destines all conditions within the plan. Think the butterfly effect.

Having said the above and having shown that we have no free will if anything is pre-destined, I think it would be quite immoral for God to judge or punish us for being and doing exactly what he pre-ordained for us in his plan. We have no choice and to punish us is immoral.

Do you agree?

If not, why not?

Regards
DL

[Dingfod]

No god, no punishment.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

No god, no punishment.

U C 20/20

Regards
DL

[naturalist.atheist]

This whole morals thing in relation to an external alien being, all powerful or not, as compared to human social behavior, is a rather retarded thing to do. It would be like comparing the "moral" behavior of a tiger to the "moral" behavior of an earth worm. Just a very silly thing to do.

[bobsavegan]

Reward and Punishment is entirely an element of Human Social Justice. My Deist God does not care anything about it.

[Angakuk]

The answer to the question depends upon how one defines both morality and God. If one's definition of God includes the caveat that whatever God does is moral then answer would necessarily be yes. If one's definition of morality does not include God, then the answer would probably, but not necessarily, be no. If one's definition of God does not include omniscience or omnipotence, then the answer could be either yes or no, depending upon one's definition of what is moral.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

This whole morals thing in relation to an external alien being, all powerful or not, as compared to human social behavior, is a rather retarded thing to do. It would be like comparing the "moral" behavior of a tiger to the "moral" behavior of an earth worm. Just a very silly thing to do.

True. I take it you see only the human moral code?

Have you compared the codes religions give beside our secular codes and which do you think best?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by bobsavegan

Reward and Punishment is entirely an element of Human Social Justice. My Deist God does not care anything about it.

Not, if as you say, he has gone and will never return.

Are you curious as to what your children will become?

If so, what makes you think your Deist God would not have the same curiosity?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The answer to the question depends upon how one defines both morality and God. If one's definition of God includes the caveat that whatever God does is moral then answer would necessarily be yes. If one's definition of morality does not include God, then the answer would probably, but not necessarily, be no. If one's definition of God does not include omniscience or omnipotence, then the answer could be either yes or no, depending upon one's definition of what is moral.

So using your own definitions, whatever they are, give a yay or nay to the question.

Regards
DL

[bobsavegan]

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

Not, if as you say, he has gone and will never return.

Are you curious as to what your children will become?

If so, what makes you think your Deist God would not have the same curiosity?

Regards
DL

What does it mean when it is said that a person has values?

From Merriam-Webster...

a person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life.
"they internalize their parents' rules and values"

synonyms: principles, ethics, moral code, morals, standards, code of behavior
"society's values are passed on to us as children"

I believe that this definition answers the question as far as I am concerned. A person's values are determined in large part by our parent's example.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by bobsavegan

What does it mean when it is said that a person has values?

From Merriam-Webster...

a person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life.
"they internalize their parents' rules and values"

synonyms: principles, ethics, moral code, morals, standards, code of behavior
"society's values are passed on to us as children"

I believe that this definition answers the question as far as I am concerned. A person's values are determined in large part by our parent's example.

In a small way but not as much as you think or as much as it used to be.

Today, schools, the media and peers do 95% of the child rearing. How many minutes a week does a man rear his child these days?

This link says 30 min. It also says many more things parents should hear.

Philip Zimbardo - Yahoo Video Search Results

I'm not sure how your answer spoke to my question on curiosity but I hope you like the link.

Regards
DL

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

True. I take it you see only the human moral code?

Calling human social behavior a moral code, sorta misses the forest for the trees. It is an evolutionary adaptation. And like all adaptations, as long as it helps our species survive and thrive than it will persist. And if the environment changes and our "moral code" becomes maladaptive, then we either go the way of the Dodo or we get a new "moral code".

Have you compared the codes religions give beside our secular codes and which do you think best?

Regards
DL

Best at what? And to hear the religious tell it, all "moral codes" derive from religion. There is no such thing as "secular codes".

But from what I can see, mostly what religion does is claim ownership of social behavior that existed long before any of the existing religions. The kinds of behavior you would expect to find in a primate species where the main adaptation was deep cooperation.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

^^

+ 1

How would you phrase your first moral tenet?

Regards
DL

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

So using your own definitions, whatever they are, give a yay or nay to the question.

Regards
DL

My definition of God includes the caveat that whatever God does is necessarily moral. My definition of God does include omniscience or omnipotence. So, my answer would be yes, if God punishes then it is moral for God to do so.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

My definition of God includes the caveat that whatever God does is necessarily moral. My definition of God does include omniscience or omnipotence. So, my answer would be yes, if God punishes then it is moral for God to do so.

Rather a lot like the Christian view. Christians are not to put anyone above God for any attribute.

Isaiah 45:7 I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

Whose name then do you put above Gods for creating a higher form of evil.

Regards
DL

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

^^

+ 1

How would you phrase your first moral tenet?

Regards
DL

I think you missed my point. A specific set of morals is the facade of some of our adaptive behavior. Sorta like confusing the ability to communicate with language with a specific language. English is just a particular manifestation of a human adaptation that allows the species to communicate complex thoughts. Just as some specific set of laws is a manifestation of our species' social adaptations.

There are some interesting experiments:

https://www.wiwi.europa-uni.de/de/le...yAversionA.pdf

http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Karl.Sigmund/SciAm02.pdf

Ultimatum game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

Rather a lot like the Christian view.

And not coincidentally ... Angakuk isn't just a Christian, he's a professional Christian.

[thedoc]

Is it moral for you to assume that God will punish us?

Is it moral for you to assume that we will be punished at all?

Are you assuming that fallible human beings can transcribe and translate the word of God correctly?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

Whose name then do you put above Gods for creating a higher form of evil.

Regards
DL

Why do you assume that our being punished is evil?

Is the assayer being evil when he purges the ore of impurities, to obtain the pure gold?

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

My definition of God includes the caveat that whatever God does is necessarily moral. My definition of God does include omniscience or omnipotence. So, my answer would be yes, if God punishes then it is moral for God to do so.

But is it the case that what is moral is defined by God's actions, or is it that God chooses only to do that which is moral?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

My definition of God includes the caveat that whatever God does is necessarily moral. My definition of God does include omniscience or omnipotence. So, my answer would be yes, if God punishes then it is moral for God to do so.

I assume you mean omniscient and omnipotent? Omniscience, omnipotence and moral perfection are historically the three main properties ascribed to God, though funnily in the very first book of the Bible he didn't know where Adam and Eve were in the Garden, and called out to ask their location. But whatever.

Let's say I'm a hacker and I make a worm or a virus, and introduce it into computer networks to wreak havoc, and let's say the intruder works perfectly, taking down these networks. Under your reasoning, it would be the worm or virus that should be arrested, tried, and punished, and not its maker. Does this make sense?

What the OP says is if God pre-ordains the world to be as it is, then manifestly I have no choice but to commit an evil act, if I in fact commit an evil act. My act was pre-ordained by God. I am the worm or virus and God is the hacker. Yet while no one would imagine punishing a virus for the sins of its maker, with God, apparently, we are to make an exception and hold responsible what the maker made, and not the maker himself.

Let's say that you, Angakuk, excellent pastor that you are, nevertheless at some point in your life committed a vile act. (Please note I'm not suggesting that you did commit some vile act; this is merely a hypothetical. However, knowing you from your witty and sardonic posts, I wouldn't put such an an act past you. ) Now you die and stand before God, and he condemns you to hell for your vile act; but in addition to that, he informs you that he, God, pre-ordained you to do that act; and that you could not have done otherwise. Would you not protest? Would you not naturally ask God why you were being consigned to the Outer Dark for an act that God himself pre-ordained? And what do you suppose God would say in response to your protest?

Well, maybe you think he would say what God told Job: "Fuck you, I'm God, deal with it." And maybe you think that would be a satisfactory answer, but somehow I doubt it.

I saw Otello at the Met yesterday, in which Iago declaims, "I believe in a cruel God, who wills me to do evil." Perhaps that's the God you actually believe in, too?

I think that in order to to justify the ways of God to man, one must be able to rebut the argument in the OP: One must show that humans act freely, in some morally relevant sense, even in the face of God's omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection. If humans are not really responsible for their acts in some morally relevant sense, then Christianity is a gruesome joke. God would, indeed, be cruel God, punishing his creations for the sins that belong entirely to him.

[davidm]

Angakuk, as Ayn Rand told William F. Buckley when she first met him: "You're much too intelligent to believe in Gott!"

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I think you missed my point. A specific set of morals is the facade of some of our adaptive behavior. Sorta like confusing the ability to communicate with language with a specific language. English is just a particular manifestation of a human adaptation that allows the species to communicate complex thoughts. Just as some specific set of laws is a manifestation of our species' social adaptations.

There are some interesting experiments:

https://www.wiwi.europa-uni.de/de/le...yAversionA.pdf

http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Karl.Sigmund/SciAm02.pdf

Ultimatum game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I got your point and agreed.

Again, how would you phrase your first moral tenet?

I E. Jesus said 1, love God etc and 2, basically to do unto others etc.

What is your 1st moral tenet?

I go with deciding if I am to respond to whatever the situation is with either care for the other or harm to him or her.

Care being what I would prefer.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Is it moral for you to assume that God will punish us?

Is it moral for you to assume that we will be punished at all?

Are you assuming that fallible human beings can transcribe and translate the word of God correctly?

I do not think it the word od God at all. Only fools take a book literally when it begins with a talking serpent and donkey. If you believe that animals can talk human then ---------

Your first two points make no sense at all as morals are not involved in questions. Questions are amoral.

You must be a frightened Christian afraid to question God.

Is this woman your friend?

http://imgur.com/IBroXK9

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Why do you assume that our being punished is evil?

Is the assayer being evil when he purges the ore of impurities, to obtain the pure gold?

Are we inanimate objects? Apples and oranges.

Why would God create us with impurities and why are you not giving a straight argument to the question?

Seems that you cannot.

Regards
DL