PDA

View Full Version : Is Yahweh breaking an objective moral tenet?



Gnostic Bishop
01-06-2020, 07:04 AM
Is Yahweh breaking an objective moral tenet?

I have found few examples of an objective moral tenet but think that, --- the good of the many, outweighs the good of the few, --- to be an objective moral tenet. It seems correct in all situations.

You might disagree with an example where this tenet is not objective or applicable.

Yahweh seems to put the good of the few ahead of the good of the many. Scriptures indicate that the many will end in hell while the few will end in heaven.

In thinking of this, I also thought that Yahweh was breaking another moral tenet by putting his life above his own child’s. He sent Jesus to die instead of stepping up himself, to appease his own wrath against man.

Should fathers put themselves and their lives above their children’s, or should fathers protect their children at all costs?

I know that few like to answer moral questions as we all have a bit of moral coward in us.

Do try to answer both of my questions please.

Regards
DL

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2020, 11:55 AM
I have found few examples of an objective moral tenet but think that, --- the good of the many, outweighs the good of the few, --- to be an objective moral tenet. It seems correct in all situations.

Without getting into alleged deeds of alleged Yahwehs, it is not that simple. Even if one accepted that there were any moral tenets at all, and that in some sense maximising the good was one of them, there are many subsidiary questions to consider:

* How much good for the many vs how much good for the few? A significant amount of good for the few may outweigh an insignificant benefit for the many.

* How much good do the many and the few already have? If the few are very deprived of the good, then a certain amount of it for them may outweigh the same amount for the many. (Essentially this may collapse into the first question - giving a dollar to a poor person rather than a rich person provides the poor person with more benefit, unless they immediately waste it.)

* Who is more worthy of the good? If the many are criminals, perhaps they don't deserve it. This is probably the defence that hellfire-believing Christians would attempt, the problem with it being that it the underlying doctrine of original sin is monstrously unjust and any deity employing it would be obviously evil.


Should fathers put themselves and their lives above their children’s, or should fathers protect their children at all costs?

When it comes to humans I would say there isn't a right answer. It may be noble for a father to sacrifice his life to save his child, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for him not to.

Patrick Byrom
01-06-2020, 04:41 PM
Is Yahweh breaking an objective moral tenet? I have found few examples of an objective moral tenet but think that, --- the good of the many, outweighs the good of the few, --- to be an objective moral tenet. It seems correct in all situations.That is a rather extreme form of the ethical philosophy of utilitarianism. I can think of many cases where most people would reject its application. For example, I'm in favour of progressive taxation, but I'm not in favour of taking so much money from Bill Gates that he's reduced to a mere millionaire, even though that could benefit an enormous number of people. A communist would probably have a different view, of course.

Patrick Byrom
01-06-2020, 04:48 PM
... * Who is more worthy of the good? If the many are criminals, perhaps they don't deserve it. This is probably the defence that hellfire-believing Christians would attempt, the problem with it being that it the underlying doctrine of original sin is monstrously unjust and any deity employing it would be obviously evil.Based on his recorded speech, I think we can safely say that Yahweh is a deontologist, rather than an utilitarian :) In other words, if you follow his rules, he rewards you; if you don't, he punishes you.

Gnostic Bishop
10-06-2020, 04:02 AM
Without getting into alleged deeds of alleged Yahwehs, it is not that simple. Even if one accepted that there were any moral tenets at all, and that in some sense maximising the good was one of them, there are many subsidiary questions to consider:

* How much good for the many vs how much good for the few? A significant amount of good for the few may outweigh an insignificant benefit for the many.

* How much good do the many and the few already have? If the few are very deprived of the good, then a certain amount of it for them may outweigh the same amount for the many. (Essentially this may collapse into the first question - giving a dollar to a poor person rather than a rich person provides the poor person with more benefit, unless they immediately waste it.)

* Who is more worthy of the good? If the many are criminals, perhaps they don't deserve it. This is probably the defence that hellfire-believing Christians would attempt, the problem with it being that it the underlying doctrine of original sin is monstrously unjust and any deity employing it would be obviously evil.



When it comes to humans I would say there isn't a right answer. It may be noble for a father to sacrifice his life to save his child, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for him not to.

I disagree, given that in this case, Yahweh had a choice to make and made the wrong one. Things were even and he still chose to have his son die to fill Yahweh's own requirement for a sacrifice.

I cannot reply to your anecdotal examples as I do not have enough information.

I do agree with Yahweh being evil. That is a Gnostic Christian view that I share.

regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
10-06-2020, 04:06 AM
That is a rather extreme form of the ethical philosophy of utilitarianism. I can think of many cases where most people would reject its application. For example, I'm in favour of progressive taxation, but I'm not in favour of taking so much money from Bill Gates that he's reduced to a mere millionaire, even though that could benefit an enormous number of people. A communist would probably have a different view, of course.

I too favor a just taxation system. The one in place today favors the few rich, who are supposed to use their gift from the tax man to produce more jobs.

They do not do so in great enough numbers, while they can well afford it thanks to screwing regular tax payers all of these past years.

I like billionaires, when they do what they are supposed to do.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
10-06-2020, 04:08 AM
Based on his recorded speech, I think we can safely say that Yahweh is a deontologist, rather than an utilitarian :) In other words, if you follow his rules, he rewards you; if you don't, he punishes you.

The problem is that his rules are satanic just as his religion is.

What else can be said of s homophobic and misogynous religion?

Regards
DL

Kevin Bonham
10-06-2020, 10:43 AM
I disagree, given that in this case, Yahweh had a choice to make and made the wrong one. Things were even and he still chose to have his son die to fill Yahweh's own requirement for a sacrifice.

I wrote "When it comes to humans". In the purported Yahweh case the whole thing is absurd because there is no need for anyone to die. It is also absurd because Jesus only dies temporarily - granted, he has a miserable time of it dying, but then he comes back a few days later and is supposedly still around, perhaps even to return in physical form. This undermines the value of the "sacrifice" - what has Jesus lost that he now cares about?


I cannot reply to your anecdotal examples as I do not have enough information.

They were general hypotheticals, not anecdotes.

Patrick Byrom
10-06-2020, 01:20 PM
The problem is that his rules are satanic just as his religion is. What else can be said of s homophobic and misogynous religion?
Regards
DLI'm not saying that I agree with the rules. And most Christians also seem to agree that the rules largely don't work in practice, so they just ignore the ones that don't seem appropriate.

Gnostic Bishop
14-06-2020, 08:00 AM
I wrote "When it comes to humans". In the purported Yahweh case the whole thing is absurd because there is no need for anyone to die. It is also absurd because Jesus only dies temporarily - granted, he has a miserable time of it dying, but then he comes back a few days later and is supposedly still around, perhaps even to return in physical form. This undermines the value of the "sacrifice" - what has Jesus lost that he now cares about?



They were general hypotheticals, not anecdotes.

Thanks for this.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
14-06-2020, 08:02 AM
I'm not saying that I agree with the rules. And most Christians also seem to agree that the rules largely don't work in practice, so they just ignore the ones that don't seem appropriate.

Hipocracy, and forcing it onto people, is one of the reasons I dislike the supernatural god religions.

It creates fools and hypocrites by it's very description and reliance on the faith of fools.

Regards
DL