Noah unbelievably bad and no redeeming moments!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On the other hand, we have Moralist who argues that “people who do evil inflict the consequences of their immoral actions on their own offspring.” By this statement I take Moralist to mean that it is appropriate to punish a criminal by executing his son.

Francisco,

Are you serious?

I am astonished by this conclusion.

I read your post carefully and I still have no idea how you arrived at it.

On the surface, it looks like to me you are misrepresenting Greg's ideas on purpose. Like a smear.

However, I believe in your good will, so I have a suggestion. Rather than telling Greg what he thinks, why don't you ask him? And I don't mean ask him leading questions.

Here's a suggested question for a start: What do you think about society executing the children of anyone?

I don't speak for Greg, but I already know the answer to that. I think anybody who has read him but you does, too.

Since you declared categorically to the world that Greg believes society should execute children in order to punish their parents, it's reasonable to ask if he agrees whether society should execute children at all.

It's a conceptual hierarchy thing.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

On the other hand, we have Moralist who argues that “people who do evil inflict the consequences of their immoral actions on their own offspring.” By this statement I take Moralist to mean that it is appropriate to punish a criminal by executing his son.

Francisco,

Are you serious?

I am astonished by this conclusion.

I read your post carefully and I still have no idea how you arrived at it.

Looks to me like what Francisco is saying is exactly what Greg's defense of God implies.

Greg thinks that God was just to kill the first-born sons of the Egyptians as punishment for the parents' wrongdoing.

Greg is welcome to say that, no, that isn't what he thinks if it isn't.

Ellen

[Francisco Ferrer]

On the other hand, we have Moralist who argues that “people who do evil inflict the consequences of their immoral actions on their own offspring.” By this statement I take Moralist to mean that it is appropriate to punish a criminal by executing his son.

Francisco,

Are you serious?

I am astonished by this conclusion.

I read your post carefully and I still have no idea how you arrived at it.

On the surface, it looks like to me you are misrepresenting Greg's ideas on purpose. Like a smear.

However, I believe in your good will, so I have a suggestion. Rather than telling Greg what he thinks, why don't you ask him? And I don't mean ask him leading questions.

Here's a suggested question for a start: What do you think about society executing the children of anyone?

I don't speak for Greg, but I already know the answer to that. I think anybody who has read him but you does, too.

Since you declared categorically to the world that Greg believes society should execute children in order to punish their parents, it's reasonable to ask if he agrees whether society should execute children at all.

It's a conceptual hierarchy thing.

Michael

MSK, if you don't think my summary is fair, here is a word-for-word transcript of the debate, leaving out only comments addressed to other forum contributors.

Francisco, Post #23: " . . . I had decided that if God of the Old Testament existed, with his destruction of millions by the flood and the fire and brimstone in Genesis and by the Angel of Death in Exodus, he must be a homicidal maniac."

Moralist, Post #29: "The first assumption you made is that the evil people who were destroyed were actually good and did nothing to deserve what they got. That assumption naturally begets another in that you believe that there is no such thing as moral justice. For if God isn't just, certainly no one else could be either."

Francisco, Post #31: "Okay, what evil little tricks did the first born babies of the Egyptians play to 'deserve' the 'moral justice' of the death penalty?"

Moralist, Post #43: "People who do evil inflict the consequences of their immoral actions upon their own offspring."

Francisco, Post #45: "In Post #29, you wrote, 'The first assumption you made is that the evil people who were destroyed were actually good and did nothing to deserve what they got.' So what the first born babies 'did' to 'deserve what they got' was to choose evil parents to be born to?"

Moralist, Post #48: "Let's start at the beginning: Do you have any children? Please answer the question."

Francisco, Post #56: "Just as I thought: the evil action that the first born Egyptian babies committed was choosing wicked people as parents. Perhaps in the millennia since then the Tenth Plague has served as a good lesson for other babies: the selection of parents is not to be taken lightly. A little research ahead of time can save you a truckload of headaches later on. I sometimes wonder why so many kids today pick drug addicts, criminals and child abusers for moms and dads. Well, let's hope it's just a passing fad. And imagine all the controversy Obama could have saved himself if he hadn't picked a father from Kenya."

Moralist, Post #57: "I'm impressed. You're an excellent spokesman for evil, Frank.

I don't believe anyone else could have made it's case any better than you just did. Most notably, you've succeeded in completely ignoring the existence of any personal moral responsibility for the evil that rotten parents inflict upon their own offspring. You believe there is a complete disconnect between the immoral behavior of parents and the consequences which affect their children. I hope you don't have any kids because you'd really f**k 'em up with that attitude of total abdication of personal moral responsibility."

I then presented a recap of the debate to make sure that were talking about the same issue. However, the response I got from Moralist was about my failure to "acknowledge that children experience the consequences of their parents actions."

This is where we're stuck now.

Nevertheless, MSK, I will follow your suggestion.

Moralist, What do you think about society executing the children of anyone?

[moralist]

Brant writes:

All unhappy people?

--Brant

No.

There are valid reasons to be unhappy such as the loss of a loved one...

...but what I'm referring to is people who are unhappy with how their own lives are unfolding, and who angrily blame (unjustly accuse) others (or God) for the just and deserved consequences of their own failure to do what's morally right.

What they don't realize is the very attitude of angrily unjustly accusing others is what has poisoned their life.

Every evil act is preceded by the belief in a lie...

...in that the person who does evil believes themselves to be an "innocent helpless victim of the unjust oppression of others", and that others are the cause of the accuser's unhappiness with their own life...

...when it is that very act of believing the lie that they are not personally responsible for their own life which set into motion the consequences they fully deserve..

This is why Satan is aptly called "The Deceiver" as well as "The Accuser".

People are first choose to be deceived by believing a lie... then they angrily unjustly accuse... then they do evil.

Greg

[moralist]

Ellen writes:

Greg thinks that God was just to kill the first-born sons of the Egyptians as punishment for the parents' wrongdoing.

Yes... except what you left out in order to make God appear to be unfair, is that anyone who chose to put some lamb's blood over their door, their first born son didn't die.

God is perfectly objectively just and good... and people who do evil are not.

God created the perfectly fair and just moral law to which we are all accountable... and it is as physically real as the law of gravity. And people who do evil acts are the ones who themselves have set into motion the consequences they deserve...

...because everyone is personally morally responsible for their own life.

Ellen... if someone chooses to step off of a cliff, are you going to angrily and unjustly blame the utterly impersonal objective reality of the law of gravity because they chose to fall to their own destruction?

This is not a mere idle rhetorical question. It's well worth considering as our own happiness or unhappiness with our own lives rests upon the answer we choose.

Greg

[moralist]

Michael writes:

Since you declared categorically to the world that Greg believes society should execute children in order to punish their parents, it's reasonable to ask if he agrees whether society should execute children at all.

Of course not!

And I'm not the least bit offended by Franks unjust accusation.

For anyone who first believes in a lie will naturally express the lie they believe to others as if it was the truth. It's a perfectly logical reaction. Frank truly believes that lie to be the truth and gets exactly what he deserves in his own life as the result of his misplaced faith.

Acting on the belief in a lie always sets into motion negative consequences because lies are in conflict with objective reality.

In contrast, choosing to do good is in harmony with objective reality because it is a consequence of knowing the truth.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Catching up here . . .

I blame my mommy.

You fools! If you only kneeew the pooower of the DARK SIDE!

Greg, I think you can now drop your thousand steps to quote on OL and just hit the quote function now.

--Brant

Evil is so much fun! (said the actor)

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen writes:Greg thinks that God was just to kill the first-born sons of the Egyptians as punishment for the parents' wrongdoing.

Yes... except what you left out in order to make God appear to be unfair, is that anyone who chose to put some lamb's blood over their door, their first born son didn't die.

Were the Egyptians informed about the coming slaughter and the lamb's-blood way of avoiding it?

I don't recall something in the story about the Egyptians being warned.

And even if they were warned and they disregarded the warning, I don't think that the punishment was just.

Nor do I see how what God (reportedly) did could be considered just but a human executing a criminal's son as punishment of the criminal unjust.

I don't think it's legitimate for you to have it one way with God and another way with humans.

Ellen

[moralist]

Ellen writes in the defense of evil people:Were the Egyptians informed about the coming slaughter and the lamb's-blood way of avoiding it?

Sure. The Egyptians obviously saw the Jews putting lamb's blood on their doorways to protect themselves, but they didn't believe in God, or that there were any consequences to the evil of their enslavement of the Israelites.There was ample warning for this was just not an isolated incident, but another consequence in a long chain of plagues.

And even if they were warned and they disregarded the warning, I don't think that the punishment was just.

(shrug...) You are perfectly free to believe the lie that God is evil, just as you're free to unjustly accuse Him for the consequences of the evil that people do.Greg

[Brant Gaede]

If God = reality Greg can make valid points. Reality is neither good nor evil, it just is.

--Brant

pantheist

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen writes:Greg thinks that God was just to kill the first-born sons of the Egyptians as punishment for the parents' wrongdoing.

Yes... except what you left out in order to make God appear to be unfair, is that anyone who chose to put some lamb's blood over their door, their first born son didn't die.

Were the Egyptians informed about the coming slaughter and the lamb's-blood way of avoiding it?

I don't recall something in the story about the Egyptians being warned.

And even if they were warned and they disregarded the warning, I don't think that the punishment was just.

Nor do I see how what God (reportedly) did could be considered just but a human executing a criminal's son as punishment of the criminal unjust.

I don't think it's legitimate for you to have it one way with God and another way with humans.

I didn't know you believed in God.

--Brant

if you don't you can't play in His ballpark--you seem to be more concerned with God than Greg is

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is where we're stuck now.

Francisco,

I have a question and it's just a question. No hostility intended.

Do you equate God with society?

If not, I'm confused.

From what I have seen, Greg makes statements premised on belief in God, who can do what He pleases when He pleases. Within this context, according to the stories, GOD destroyed civilizations (including children) at times because the people were wicked in His eyes.

You translated this into Greg claiming SOCIETY can execute the children of criminal parents.

I missed the logic or any kind of statement to indicate the crossover from God to society.

How did you arrive at that?

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

Michael writes:

Since you declared categorically to the world that Greg believes society should execute children in order to punish their parents, it's reasonable to ask if he agrees whether society should execute children at all.

Of course not!

Splendid. Killing a child, especially one who did nothing wrong, would be unjust and undeserved.

Therefore, we should conclude that the killing of any children in Egypt on the first Passover, even those in dwellings without lamb's blood over the door, would be unjust and undeserved.

Debate concluded. As you exit, make sure to gather all of your belongings.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I didn't know you believed in God.

--Brant

if you don't you can't play in His ballpark--you seem to be more concerned with God than Greg is

I don't believe in God. I'm discussing the story as reported, and Greg's defense of God's reported action, and Greg's double standard in giving God a pass for behavior he wouldn't condone as done by humans.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

I didn't know you believed in God.

--Brant

if you don't you can't play in His ballpark--you seem to be more concerned with God than Greg is

I don't believe in God. I'm discussing the story as reported, and Greg's defense of God's reported action, and Greg's double standard in giving God a pass for behavior he wouldn't condone as done by humans.

Fair enough, but he's basically making secular arguments throwing in "God" to bridge over his frequently horrible reasoning. His religious arguments are smokescreens he lays down to manuever behind. He has learned a narrow frequency of spontaneous response that enables him to back-burner his brain while continually repeating himself. I don't think he's come with anything new in weeks--many, many weeks.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

This is where we're stuck now.

Francisco,

I have a question and it's just a question. No hostility intended.

Do you equate God with society?

If not, I'm confused.

From what I have seen, Greg makes statements premised on belief in God, who can do what He pleases when He pleases. Within this context, according to the stories, GOD destroyed civilizations (including children) at times because the people were wicked in His eyes.

You translated this into Greg claiming SOCIETY can execute the children of criminal parents.

I missed the logic or any kind of statement to indicate the crossover from God to society.

How did you arrive at that?

Michael

In Post #29, in response to my suggestion that the God of the Old Testament was homicidal, Moralist wrote, "The first assumption you made is that the evil people who were destroyed were actually good and did nothing to deserve what they got."

One could infer from that statement that Moralist must think that the Egyptian children killed by the Tenth Plague did something wrong and deserved what they got.

I do not see how one can infer anything else.

I later brought up the hypothetical example of a judge ordering the execution of a child whose mother committed a crime to illustrate the disconnect between the sins of the parent and the supposed "just" and "deserved" death of the child.

I suggested not that Moralist had called for society's killing of sinners' children, but rather that such would be the logical consequence of his defense of the "justice" of the Tenth Plague. I was quick to admit that I did not know this for certain because Moralist, like any good wrestler, had refused to be pinned down.

On the other hand, we have Moralist who argues that “people who do evil inflict the consequences of their immoral actions on their own offspring.” By this statement I take Moralist to mean that it is appropriate to punish a criminal by executing his son. However, it is hard to know Moralist’s exact position because instead of directly addressing question 2), Moralist keeps clinging to 1), which is quite a non-controversial opinion.

The essential question, then, is not whether Moralist thinks that it's good for society to execute the babies of bad parents, but how he can treat such an action as "just" and "deserved" when it is ordered by God?

To answer your first question last: society exists, God does not. I do not equate the real with the imaginary.

[moralist]

Brant writes:

God = reality Greg can make valid points. Reality is neither good nor evil, it just is.

--Brant

pantheist

You got it, Brant.

We are the only ones who make this world good or evil by our own actions. Belief in God isn't even necessary... just the acknowledgement of the objective reality of moral law that our own actions set into motion just and deserved consequences.

So choose wisely...

Greg

[moralist]

Ellen writes:

I don't believe in God. I'm discussing the story as reported, and Greg's defense of God's reported action, and Greg's double standard in giving God a pass for behavior he wouldn't condone as done by humans.

You could only have arrived at that conclusion because you condone the evil behavior of people, and defend their evil through your belief that the consequences they set into motion by their own evil acts were "unfair".

This attitude of unjustly blaming the objective reality of the law of "moral gravity" instead of the evil that people do carries with it implications for your own life which you fully deserve.

Greg

[moralist]

Frank writes:

Splendid. Killing a child, especially one who did nothing wrong, would be unjust and undeserved.

Try reading, Frank. My answer was negative. The evil parents did is what killed their own first born. You unjustly blame gravity instead of rightly holding the person responsible for their own choice to step off a cliff.

We each have totally different views on this issue because you deny the objective reality of the existence of any personal moral responsibility for the consequences of your own actions...

...while I affirm it.

Greg

[moralist]

Brant writes:Fair enough, but he's basically making secular arguments throwing in "God" to bridge over his frequently horrible reasoning.

Whenever I use the term "God", you could just as well substitute "objective reality". Functionally' they're the same except God created the laws by which objective reality operates.

His religious arguments are smokescreens he lays down to maneuver behind. He has learned a narrow frequency of spontaneous response that enables him to back-burner his brain while continually repeating himself. I don't think he's come with anything new in weeks--many, many weeks. --Brant

There's nothing new about the consequences people deserve for doing evil... or good, for that matter. It's the same as it's always been... always is... and always will be. :wink:Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

I see. When society kills an evil person's baby, the baby does not deserve it.

When God kills kills an evil person's baby, the baby does deserve it because of the "personal moral responsibility for the consequences of your own actions."

Presumably, the baby's "own actions" would collectively include any actions by his parents. Sort of like babies being born sinners because and Adam and Eve's disobedience.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One could infer from that statement that Moralist must think that the Egyptian children killed by the Tenth Plague did something wrong and deserved what they got.

I do not see how one can infer anything else.

I later brought up the hypothetical example of a judge ordering the execution of a child whose mother committed a crime to illustrate the disconnect between the sins of the parent and the supposed "just" and "deserved" death of the child.

I suggested not that Moralist had called for society's killing of sinners' children, but rather that such would be the logical consequence of his defense of the "justice" of the Tenth Plague.

. . .

To answer your first question last: society exists, God does not. I do not equate the real with the imaginary.

Francisco,

Here is a frame you did not use.

In Greg's understanding (as I understand this), it is appropriate for God to do whatever He pleases. God is the author of morality (the author of everything humans can know, for that matter) so anything He does is moral. Further, it is not appropriate for society--under any circumstances--to execute children based on the crimes of their parents (or, I believe, execute children, period, but Greg can supply that detail if any reason to do so arises).

Since you do not believe God exists but society does (as you stated), why are you concerned with what Greg believes God does or does not do and claim that society acting like God (in this sense) is a "logical consequence"--seeing that Greg has specifically stated the contrary? (I won't even go into the God/human, which can mean God/society, division running throughout all of his writing.)

That's the part I don't get.

I can understand saying you don't agree with Greg about God. I don't understand ignoring the fact that he holds God has one context and people have another, then trying to nail him as if he thinks both are the same.

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

I wrote, "I suggested not that Moralist had called for society's killing of sinners' children, but rather that such would be the logical consequence of his defense of the 'justice' of the Tenth Plague. I was quick to admit that I did not know this for certain because Moralist, like any good wrestler, had refused to be pinned down."

This describes a stage in the debate before Moralist had answered "Of course not!" to your question about whether society should execute children at all.

Now the only remaining mystery is why Moralist should consider the deaths of the Egyptians children "just" and "deserved." The fact that God of the Old Testament, in the view of His believers, is omnipotent hardly leads to the conclusion that he is "just" or metes out "deserved" consequences, which is what Moralist suggested in his first response to me.

But perhaps what you mean is that a supposed omnipotent being would have the power to turn the deaths of little children who did nothing into "just" and "deserved" actions; that because of His powers, God can make an innocent being guilty and yet still innocent. Moreover, omnipotence could mean that God can cause the children to be deserving and yet undeserving of life in the same sense, in the same place, and at the same time. All things are possible, even a thing being simultaneously A and non-A.

Perhaps, you are more fundamentally asking why I am troubling Moralist with matters of logic when the very belief in a god defies all logic.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Now the only remaining mystery is why Moralist should consider the deaths of the Egyptians children "just" and "deserved."

Francisco,

I don't see the mystery, but I'm not going to argue as if I were Greg.

To me it's clear that he derives morality from God. He does not apply morality to God, i.e., use morality to govern God.

One standard for God (which is not quite correct, because in this manner of thinking, God is the standard, i.e., God is the source of morality). And one standard for people.

Humans are below God in hierarchy in this manner of thinking. What's more, death exists for humans but not for God, so the death of human children is totally different when framed by these two contexts.

That is very clear to me and apparently not clear at all to you. But I've given it my best shot. I simply have other things to do.

Agree or disagree, call it good or evil, a confused manner of speaking, whatever, but I believe it is a good thing to understand correctly what someone means for discussion about that to be of substance and not just a conflict of personalities.

I hope you solve the mystery to your satisfaction.

As to Greg, I think he is mistaken about your intentions. I think you are interested in being good and intent on it. I believe that is your fundamental moral desire from what I have read of you so far.

Like I said, two good men...

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

Belief in omnipotence implies a being with the power to conjure up a non-contradictory contradiction, a truthful falsehood, an impossible possibility, a meaningful meaninglessness, a non-existent existence.

Yes, if God does it, it is moral. But, more importantly, because it is an act of God, it can be simultaneously moral and immoral. There are simply no logical limits.

Now, I will readily admit that I do not know the particular shape and character of Moralist's theology. But that is due largely to the slipperiness of his argumentation.

Example: early in the thread he suggested that the people who died from God's wrath did something to "deserve what they got." Yet, here we are in Post #100 and we still do not know what the Egyptian children did to deserve the Angel of Death. His responses are always about the evil of their parents.

Now I understand that an omnipotent God has the power to write a non-contradictory contradiction. But do believers like Moralist also enjoy that power?

And, by the way, thanks for the kind words. I'm glad I've been released from the Potential Troll corral.