God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-10-2012, 09:49 AM
God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
This question is more for theists but if any non-theist disagrees with the Ted link, please opine.

God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?

The first principle or morality is Harm/care of children. It is highlighted by the trait of compassion.

God ignores this throughout the bible by killing many of the weakest, most vulnerable and innocent, ---- children and babies.

God is showing a cowardly trait that contains no compassion or morality.

Children cannot be guilty of sin yet God kills them.

Yet those of the Abrahamic cults, Christians, Muslims and other believers, do not reject this cowardly and immoral God.

Why not?

Regards
DL

This clip shows the first five principles of morality.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

This clip shows what some think of God killing children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Greatest I am's post
05-10-2012, 10:00 AM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
Well, going by their twisted, immoral logic, God created everything and therefore he can give and take as he pleases.

Speaking of children not being able to sin. According to the Jewish belief, children less than 13 years old (or 12, for girls) cannot be held accountable for their actions, they cannot be guilty of sin as you said. So I wonder, just how does it fit with some Jews' belief that God punished the 6 million Jews who were killed during the Holocaust? Many of them were children, less than 12/13 years old... what did God punish them for?

The only thing they can say is that God punished them for their past-lives' sins... which obviously makes no sense, and immoral. Not to mention that it doesn't even make sense when we take the Jewish belief in Hell into consideration: According to the Jewish belief, people who're guilty of sin go through 11 months in Hell, and afterwards they're purified and can go on to Heaven. So how does it even fit with the idea that God punished them for their past-lives' sins if they're supposed to go through Hell and then to Heaven? How does the idea of resurrection even fit with all these?!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vlad's post
05-10-2012, 10:15 AM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
There's twisted, immoral logic? I thought there was twisted, immoral illogic.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Logica Humano's post
05-10-2012, 10:44 AM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
I've heard William Lane Craig say something like "God gave those innocent children a direct immediate admission into Heaven, so he really gave them the greatest gift imaginable." I doubt he's the only one who believes that it's OK for God to kill children because he takes them right to heaven, skipping the lifetime of potential suffering and possible sinning that might even lead them astray so they could have ended up in hell. Bypassing all of that for a guaranteed early admission into eternal bliss would really seem to be a great gift.

Heck, if God came right now and zapped me dead and took me to heaven (presupposing it's all real and all as wonderful as Christians think it's supposed to be), I sure wouldn't have any hard feelings. Actually, standing there in Heaven, with the realization that my atheism was totally wrong and I would have gone to hell for eternity, I would probably be quite grateful to God for giving me a shortcut to Heaven and sparing me from an eternity of hellish suffering. It would be quite a gift.

So I guess I can understand the true believers using some version of this as justification for God to give this gift to children.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2012, 11:13 AM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 10:44 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  I've heard William Lane Craig say something like "God gave those innocent children a direct immediate admission into Heaven, so he really gave them the greatest gift imaginable." I doubt he's the only one who believes that it's OK for God to kill children because he takes them right to heaven, skipping the lifetime of potential suffering and possible sinning that might even lead them astray so they could have ended up in hell. Bypassing all of that for a guaranteed early admission into eternal bliss would really seem to be a great gift.

Heck, if God came right now and zapped me dead and took me to heaven (presupposing it's all real and all as wonderful as Christians think it's supposed to be), I sure wouldn't have any hard feelings. Actually, standing there in Heaven, with the realization that my atheism was totally wrong and I would have gone to hell for eternity, I would probably be quite grateful to God for giving me a shortcut to Heaven and sparing me from an eternity of hellish suffering. It would be quite a gift.

So I guess I can understand the true believers using some version of this as justification for God to give this gift to children.
I've seen people (Jewish, anyway) who claim that God doesn't want humans to go straight to Heaven but first experience life (I wonder why, since everything we experience here is utterly meaningless infront of the eternal life of bliss that's supposedly waiting for us). So what, does God sometime want us to live first and then go to Heaven and sometime he doesn't?

And this only works if ALL those children were supposed to go to Heaven in the end (since God is all knowing, he should know their final destination). But then again people claim that the Jews who died during the Holocaust were all sinners apparently. So much excuses...

I guess God can't you to Heaven without making you suffer first. After all, what meaning will an endless life of happiness and bliss will have without a little bit of suffering? Although, wouldn't it lose any meaning BECAUSE it's eternal life of bliss? How does a life of suffering even compares to endless life of happiness? If you live such a life, your suffering becomes meaningless and you can't appreciate your endless life of bliss...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vlad's post
05-10-2012, 12:15 PM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 10:00 AM)Vlad Wrote:  Well, going by their twisted, immoral logic, God created everything and therefore he can give and take as he pleases.

Speaking of children not being able to sin. According to the Jewish belief, children less than 13 years old (or 12, for girls) cannot be held accountable for their actions, they cannot be guilty of sin as you said. So I wonder, just how does it fit with some Jews' belief that God punished the 6 million Jews who were killed during the Holocaust? Many of them were children, less than 12/13 years old... what did God punish them for?

The only thing they can say is that God punished them for their past-lives' sins... which obviously makes no sense, and immoral. Not to mention that it doesn't even make sense when we take the Jewish belief in Hell into consideration: According to the Jewish belief, people who're guilty of sin go through 11 months in Hell, and afterwards they're purified and can go on to Heaven. So how does it even fit with the idea that God punished them for their past-lives' sins if they're supposed to go through Hell and then to Heaven? How does the idea of resurrection even fit with all these?!

It does not.

You see 20/20.
Except that I do not think that Jews believe in hell at all.
Care to link me up to that info.

As to Jews in general, from the ones I talk to, the reject the bible, in terms of literal reading; but when Christianity usurped the Jewish God, they did not usurp their better theology and now end up with morals that any sane man would reject. Like human sacrifice and the notion that it is just to punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

Regards

DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2012, 12:17 PM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 10:15 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  There's twisted, immoral logic? I thought there was twisted, immoral illogic.

Sure. Just like twisted moral logic except in reverse.

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2012, 12:25 PM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 10:44 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  I've heard William Lane Craig say something like "God gave those innocent children a direct immediate admission into Heaven, so he really gave them the greatest gift imaginable." I doubt he's the only one who believes that it's OK for God to kill children because he takes them right to heaven, skipping the lifetime of potential suffering and possible sinning that might even lead them astray so they could have ended up in hell. Bypassing all of that for a guaranteed early admission into eternal bliss would really seem to be a great gift.

Heck, if God came right now and zapped me dead and took me to heaven (presupposing it's all real and all as wonderful as Christians think it's supposed to be), I sure wouldn't have any hard feelings. Actually, standing there in Heaven, with the realization that my atheism was totally wrong and I would have gone to hell for eternity, I would probably be quite grateful to God for giving me a shortcut to Heaven and sparing me from an eternity of hellish suffering. It would be quite a gift.

So I guess I can understand the true believers using some version of this as justification for God to give this gift to children.

Yes except that his view is faith based and thus based on nothing. He believes the immoral to be moral somehow based on nothing.

Scripture also disagrees with him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAO98N9pq...re=related

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2012, 12:32 PM
Big Grin RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 11:13 AM)Vlad Wrote:  [
I've seen people (Jewish, anyway) who claim that God doesn't want humans to go straight to Heaven but first experience life (I wonder why, since everything we experience here is utterly meaningless infront of the eternal life of bliss that's supposedly waiting for us). So what, does God sometime want us to live first and then go to Heaven and sometime he doesn't?

And this only works if ALL those children were supposed to go to Heaven in the end (since God is all knowing, he should know their final destination). But then again people claim that the Jews who died during the Holocaust were all sinners apparently. So much excuses...

I guess God can't you to Heaven without making you suffer first. After all, what meaning will an endless life of happiness and bliss will have without a little bit of suffering? Although, wouldn't it lose any meaning BECAUSE it's eternal life of bliss? How does a life of suffering even compares to endless life of happiness? If you live such a life, your suffering becomes meaningless and you can't appreciate your endless life of bliss...

It is rather silly.

Like you or I beating our wives every day so that she will know how good she can feel when we stop. Let's stop beating our wives. It makes us look as insane as God. Not that I believe you beat your wife but I have just talked myself out of beating mine. Big Grin

Damn. Now she will likely want sex again. Oh the hardship of it all. Sadcryface2

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2012, 12:39 PM (This post was last modified: 05-10-2012 12:44 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 10:44 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  I've heard William Lane Craig say something like "God gave those innocent children a direct immediate admission into Heaven, so he really gave them the greatest gift imaginable." I doubt he's the only one who believes that it's OK for God to kill children because he takes them right to heaven, skipping the lifetime of potential suffering and possible sinning that might even lead them astray so they could have ended up in hell. Bypassing all of that for a guaranteed early admission into eternal bliss would really seem to be a great gift.

Heck, if God came right now and zapped me dead and took me to heaven (presupposing it's all real and all as wonderful as Christians think it's supposed to be), I sure wouldn't have any hard feelings. Actually, standing there in Heaven, with the realization that my atheism was totally wrong and I would have gone to hell for eternity, I would probably be quite grateful to God for giving me a shortcut to Heaven and sparing me from an eternity of hellish suffering. It would be quite a gift.

So I guess I can understand the true believers using some version of this as justification for God to give this gift to children.

And that would be fine, if they did not 100% of the time put the lie to it in their own personal lives, by proving over and over again, that they, at some level do not really believe what they assert they believe. Over and over in every hospital, every day, people, and families who all *say* they believe that they believe in heaven, PROVE they really do not, as they desperately hang onto life, and refuse "humane" options, such as turning off the ventilators, and other mechanical devices. If Craig's wife, or he himself were in CCU/ICU, he would not say "I wish to go to heaven now, turn off my IV antibiotics, and turn off the vent". It's ALL a pile of bullshit. When worst comes to worst, they demonstrate that they don't really believe, what they *say* they believe.

I understand the premise of this OP is to point out the ridiculous (supposed) behavior of the Yahweh god.
But since there is no god, any discussion of what he/she/it does is irrelevant. The discussion should be about why, how and when the culture which cooked up the god(s) actually gave them the characteristics they did.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: