Noah unbelievably bad and no redeeming moments!

[moralist]

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

You're actually doing a pretty good job, Michael.

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.

Yes. Rather it is a Divine moral standard by which I freely choose to be governed, because it is in my own best interest to do what's right.Greg

[moralist]

Frank writes: His responses are always about the evil of their parents.

That's because it was the immoral actions of the parents which set into motion the just and deserved death of their first born males.

I fully understand that you completely deny the existence of any causal relationship between the immoral actions of parents and their effect upon the lives of their children...

...and that's why you will never understand how immoral people could set into motion such dire consequences that their children would actually die. This fact could only continue to escape you because you deny your own personal responsibility for the causal relationship of your actions to their consequences.

But not just immorality... stubborn pernicious immorality. For the deaths of the first born males was the last in a long series of lesser warnings for the Egyptians to change their immoral behavior.

There were many plagues that preceded this last drastic well deserved consequence. For a week the Nile was turned to blood and all the fish died. This was Egypt's drinking water supply. Then there was a plague of frogs. Then an infestation of insects. Then wild animals. Then a pestilence that killed their domestic animals. Then a plague of boils on the Egyptians skin. Then flaming hail. Then a plague of locusts. Then a plague of darkness.

The death of the immoral enslavers first born was the last and most drastic consequence which finally secured freedom for the Israelites.

There's a lesson here about successive warnings to cease doing evil:

Whoever ignores a gentle tap on the shoulder...

...gets the two by four over their head they deserve.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

Visiting the sins of the fathers on the children.

Very enlightened of you.

The only way to make that happen is to regard children as victims of their parent's mistakes.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Francisco Ferrer]

Frank writes: His responses are always about the evil of their parents.

That's because it was the immoral actions of the parents which set into motion the just and deserved death of their first born males.

I fully understand that you completely deny the existence of any causal relationship between the immoral actions of parents and their effect upon the lives of their children...

...and that's why you will never understand how immoral people could set into motion such dire consequences that their children would actually die. This fact could only continue to escape you because you deny your own personal responsibility for the causal relationship of your actions to their consequences.

But not just immorality... stubborn pernicious immorality. For the deaths of the first born males was the last in a long series of lesser warnings for the Egyptians to change their immoral behavior.

There were many plagues that preceded this last drastic well deserved consequence. For a week the Nile was turned to blood and all the fish died. This was Egypt's drinking water supply. Then there was a plague of frogs. Then an infestation of insects. Then wild animals. Then a pestilence that killed their domestic animals. Then a plague of boils on the Egyptians skin. Then flaming hail. Then a plague of locusts. Then a plague of darkness.

The death of the immoral enslavers first born was the last and most drastic consequence which finally secured freedom for the Israelites.

There's a lesson here about successive warnings to cease doing evil:

Whoever ignores a gentle tap on the shoulder...

...gets the two by four over their head they deserve.

Greg

Early in this thread you told me, "The first assumption you made is that the evil people who were destroyed were actually good and did nothing to deserve what they got."

Yes, I made the assumption that the babies who died in the Tenth Plague did nothing to warrant a death sentence. To be precise, Exodus does not say that it was the sins of the babies that brought about their destruction.

While you have made it quite clear now that "it was the immoral actions of the parents which set into motion the just and deserved death of their first born males," you have said nothing about the actions of their children.

Thus there is no reason to conclude that I was in error to think that those who died in the Passover plague did nothing wrong. Feel free to repeat your refrain about the "causal relationship between the immoral actions of parents and their effect upon the lives of their children." Feel free to tell me I don't understand how immoral people set dire consequences into motion. Those statements simply do not support your original claim that those who were destroyed did something to deserve destruction.

[moralist]

Bob writes:

Visiting the sins of the fathers on the children.

Yeah, people who hate God only look the bad side so that they can declare Him to be evil.

"You shall not make yourself any graven image to worship it or any likeness of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; You shall not bow down yourself to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing mercy and steadfast love to a THOUSAND generations of those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Only people who love God see the rest of that statement of moral law. It's a really good deal for anyone who chooses to take Him up on it.Heck, even if you keep His commandments and don't believe God exists, you still get exactly the same deal!

But since you're so obviously in love with the lie that God is evil...

...(shrug) objective reality will give exactly what you deserve.

Very enlightened of you.

I didn't create moral law, I only live by it. And you're just as subject to it as I am whether you like it or not.

And as far as enlightened, there's hardly a more childishly primitive knuckledragging attitude than unjustly accusing God for what happens as the result of your own failure to do what's right.

The only way to make that happen is to regard children as victims of their parent's mistakes.

Here, we agree. They certainly are.

Immoral parents are the only ones who hold all of the power to who make their children victims of their evil, for they're the only ones who are responsible for the lives of their children until the children grow to become responsible for themselves.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Was it God, Greg, that did all those nasty things to the Egyptians or Moses or just Mom Nature?

Was it God who told Moses to tell Pharaoh what would happen if he didn't do His (or Moses') will?

If God was involved why didn't He just send some drones after Pharaoh? Surgical strike? Instead of an angel after the first born?

Could the whole thing just be a good story shaped like clay through generations until finally written down and frozen with those Ten Cammandos frosting on the cake with a little Golden Calf genocide to make the pointy that you-don't-fool-around-with Mother Nature?

--Brant

all of the above?

[Brant Gaede]

Let's see, now: A child is kidnapped and murdered by a psychopath. Were the parents necessarily responsible for the evil that came on to that child?

Okay. That didn't happen: The child grows up and goes to college and as a freshman she is kidnapped and murdered. That's on her, right?

Okay, that didn't happen: The freshman graduates from college and goes on to become a doctor. In her 30s her car is crushed by a semi-tractor trailer that blew out one of its front tires because the driver neglected it and she is killed. That's all on her, right?

--Brant

self-responsibility can only go so far

[Ellen Stuttle]

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 [yada yada presumptions].

To what "conclusion" are you referring?

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

"[....] I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing mercy and steadfast love to a THOUSAND generations of those who love Me and keep My commandments."

What a prick and narcissistic intimidator.

Not an admirable fellow, by my standards, the Old Testament God. And I can't say a whole lot better for the New Testament upgrade, although at least the New Testament God has acquired a degree of conscience.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

What happens when the "generations" run out? There are only about 7-800 to go.

--Brant

end of the free ride

I'm preparing for 1) Yellowstone blowing up, 2) big comet or asteroid hit, 3) the next ice age; I've crossed General Thermonuclear War off my list

[moralist]

Brant writes:Was it God, Greg, that did all those nasty things to the Egyptians or Moses or just Mom Nature?

That's actually a fascinating thought provoking question, Brant...

Since I wasn't actually there, this could never be any more than a thoroughly subjective opinion as to how I believe those events unfolded. And my opinion is based solely on my own direct personal life experience of my own actions and their consequences, as well as my first person observations of the actions and consequences of others.

I believe that God created objective moral law which operates very much like objective physical law. Gravity is a good example because it is undeniably real, and both its existence and what it does are completely beyond any argument.

Gravity serves two purposes: It holds us safely onto the surface of the Earth and prevents us from being killed by being flung out into frigid airless space...

...or it utterly and impersonally kills everyone who is stupid enough to step off of a cliff by pulling them towards the surface of the Earth fast enough to crush them.

So, the question arises: Is gravity good or evil?

And the answer is: It all depends on how you choose to relate to it.

Moral law is exactly the same.

For everyone who loves what's right enough to live in harmony with moral law enjoys a happy productive prosperous meaningful life...

...while for those who hate moral law, it's their worst neverending hellish nightmare.

Completely different experiences...

... of exactly the same law.

Greg

[moralist]

Ellen writes:

What a prick and narcissistic intimidator.

Ellen, you have just revealed the attitude that has poisoned your life.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, oh.

--Brant

[moralist]

Greg

[tmj]

A created moral law(?) would by definition not be objective. The law would be of the intent of the creator and thoroughly subjective.

The primitive need to posit a creator brings more questions than it solves.

Morality and moral law are not the same thing. Morality is based on facts of reality(o'ist), not on the subjective intent of consciousness( even of supreme being).

What is the difference between gravity's 'existence' and 'what it does'? Do you mean that existence and identity are separable? It seems also in the example that gravity gets to decide if 'it' will keep us safe or destroy us. Does gravity decide , does it have a purpose?

[moralist]

A created moral law(?) would by definition not be objective.

It is when the Creator is objective... however, our personal experience of the objective reality of that moral law is subjective because we are subjective beings.

The primitive need to posit a creator brings more questions than it solves.

It may... but it does put an end to narcissism.

Morality and moral law are not the same thing. Morality is based on facts of reality(o'ist), not on the subjective intent of consciousness( even of supreme being).

As I see it, moral law is what governs the facts of reality.

What is the difference between gravity's 'existence' and 'what it does'? Do you mean that existence and identity are separable?

I'm on a need-to-know basis. I don't need to know what gravity is... only what it does.

It seems also in the example that gravity gets to decide if 'it' will keep us safe or destroy us.

Take another look... It's just the opposite... We are the only ones with the power to choose to keep ourselves safe or to destroy ourselves by how we each choose to relate to gravity by our own actions.

There is a tendency to blame (unjustly accuse) gravity because we stupidly stepped off a cliff. When objective reality is that gravity impersonally pulls everything, human or not, to the ground.

Does gravity decide

No.

We decide how it will affect our lives by our own actions.

does it have a purpose?

Yes.

It's up to us to choose which purpose for ourselves.


Greg

[dldelancey]

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

Deleted.

I hadn't finished reading the entire thread. I still haven't, but I see that it's more of the same kind of stuff I actively avoid. This is me avoiding it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... I see that it's more of the same kind of stuff I actively avoid. This is me avoiding it.

Michael

[tmj]

Moralist in #116

It may... but it does put an end to narcissism

You mean here, Icarus got what he deserved right? Cheecky little basterd shoulda followed the law.

Same with the Passover story(history?parable?allegory?), it's not like Moses was doing a John Brown, he was no abolitionalist, just following orders. I am not sure what purpose is served by having the hearts hardened, or the curious passage where God tries(?like failure is an option) to kill Moses on the way back to Egypt, maybe just typos the NIV decided to leave in.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Brant writes:Was it God, Greg, that did all those nasty things to the Egyptians or Moses or just Mom Nature?

That's actually a fascinating thought provoking question, Brant...

[....]

I believe that God created objective moral law which operates very much like objective physical law.

Gravity is a good example because it is undeniably real, and both its existence and what it does are completely beyond any argument.

I have yet to hear of an objective physical law proposed which could send "the angel of death" selectively to enter homes without lamb's blood on the lintel and selectively to strike dead the first-born sons residing in those homes. Methinks a consciousness would be needed to do this.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen writes:

What a prick and narcissistic intimidator.

Ellen, you have just revealed the attitude that has poisoned your life.

Greg

Presuming again.

And I note that you didn't answer the question in post #108.

Ellen

[BaalChatzaf]

I am assuming that since no one has posted this movie yet that everyone has gotten the message.

But just in case I thought I would comment, having just endured this pathetic rendering, that you should think twice before wasting your time and money on it.

Russell Crowe is a draw but here he becomes monomaniacal in following his thinking that The Almighty wants him to eradicate the human race once and for all.

Talk about religious fanaticism!

Perhaps the environmental lobby played a role in writing the script.

gg

In the biblical account Noah did not say a thing. He just followed orders.

Contrast this to Abraham who tried to talk God out of zapping Sodom and Gomorrah.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[moralist]

Ellen writes:

Presuming again.

It's just my opinion of your exceedingly ugly words. They reveal a lot about you and your attitude towards your own life. And that ugliness is pure venom.

And the erroneous conclusion in your previous post was that evil people don't deserve the consequences they set into motion with their own evil acts. It's the childish futility of angrily damning gravity as a "prick and a narcissistic intimidator" for getting exactly what you deserve when you step off a cliff.

Greg

[moralist]

Ellen writes:

I have yet to hear of an objective physical law proposed which could send "the angel of death" selectively to enter homes without lamb's blood on the lintel and selectively to strike dead the first-born sons residing in those homes. Methinks a consciousness would be needed to do this.

Moral law is just as impersonally objective as any physical law. It objectively afflicts only the evil while protecting the good...

...and it is not fooled by pretense.

Greg

[moralist]

Bob writes:

Contrast this to Abraham who tried to talk God out of zapping Sodom and Gomorrah.

Israel means to contend with God... which is what everyone is completely free to do. Ellen can even call God a prick for all the good it'll do her!

Sodom and Gomorrah illustrated the threshold of socially redeeming value that avoids complete destruction. Noah illustrated the same principle. When a society becomes completely infested with degenerates, the toilet gets flushed.

Greg