What is the point?

[Vera_Ljuba]

What is the point to have “moral agents”? During our formative years a tremendous amount of energy is used to weed out the bad stuff (“evil”) and to instill good, kind behavior. To encourage honesty, to make us to be polite and kind to others, to be helpful. In other words, to change us into neat, little “pseudo-robots”. (Observe the word: “pseudo”!)

If we all would have kind, loving, honest, polite, good nature, all that energy could be used to teach us actual information, teach us to have a better use of our mind and body. There would be no need for police, laws, the whole judicial system would be unnecessary. There would be no need for armies, for weapons.

This whole “moral agent” stuff only has drawbacks; the lack of it would only have benefits. Think about it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What is the point to have “moral agents”? During our formative years a tremendous amount of energy is used to weed out the bad stuff (“evil”) and to instill good, kind behavior. To encourage honesty, to make us to be polite and kind to others, to be helpful. In other words, to change us into neat, little “pseudo-robots”. (Observe the word: “pseudo”!)

If we all would have kind, loving, honest, polite, good nature, all that energy could be used to teach us actual information, teach us to have a better use of our mind and body. There would be no need for police, laws, the whole judicial system would be unnecessary. There would be no need for armies, for weapons.

This whole “moral agent” stuff only has drawbacks; the lack of it would only have benefits. Think about it.

OK. So tell me how you get that ‘nature’ and ‘energy’ in places where there is nothing but bad. Places rife with drugs (you have heard of the current opioid epidemic, right?), prostitution, thievery, hunger, war, famine, gangs, filth, disease, natural disasters, and with near complete lack of educational materials of any kind.

Or even tell me how you get that 'nature and ‘energy’ in any given place, even a place with plenty of ‘good energy’ and enough food, clothing, shelter, and schools) when all around a given place there are places where others have ‘more’ or ‘less’. Tell me how ‘actual information’ (what? What information? What exactly is your definition?) and ‘better use of mind and body’ (how, without lack of adequate food, water, shelter, etc.) would keep any given person from wanting to have something somebody else has, and how they would just never even dream of taking it from somebody when there would be no consequences to that taking. . .

 

[po18guy]

What is the point to have “moral agents”? During our formative years a tremendous amount of energy is used to weed out the bad stuff (“evil”) and to instill good, kind behavior.

OK, but who sets the standard? And should not the standard of morality be like the laws of physics - unchanging?

To encourage honesty, to make us to be polite and kind to others, to be helpful. In other words, to change us into neat, little “pseudo-robots”. (Observe the word: “pseudo”!)

Uniform morality is now robotic? Not when free will still exists. Proof of free will is in the headlines. Morality convinces only those who will submit to it. They need training and societal pressure to remain in reasonable conformity.

If we all would have kind, loving, honest, polite, good nature, all that energy could be used to teach us actual information, teach us to have a better use of our mind and body. There would be no need for police, laws, the whole judicial system would be unnecessary. There would be no need for armies, for weapons.

Look up the definition of “concupiscence.”

This whole “moral agent” stuff only has drawbacks; the lack of it would only have benefits. Think about it.

Allowing mankind to form individual rules for life has resulted each and every butcher in recorded history. Such thinking is preferable only if you intend to be come a butcher.

 

[minkymurph]

What is the point to have “moral agents”? During our formative years a tremendous amount of energy is used to weed out the bad stuff (“evil”) and to instill good, kind behavior. To encourage honesty, to make us to be polite and kind to others, to be helpful. In other words, to change us into neat, little “pseudo-robots”. (Observe the word: “pseudo”!)

If we all would have kind, loving, honest, polite, good nature, all that energy could be used to teach us actual information, teach us to have a better use of our mind and body. There would be no need for police, laws, the whole judicial system would be unnecessary. There would be no need for armies, for weapons.

This whole “moral agent” stuff only has drawbacks; the lack of it would only have benefits. Think about it.

Everyone has the potential to love and the potential to hate. The potential to do good towards others and the potential to harm. Moral agents reinforce the more desirable aspects of human nature that make the world go around. Without them we would have anomie. That is their purpose. We have police, army and weapons to control who choose to ignore their promptings in spite of the fact they have been taught actual information in terms of a better use of mind and body - evidenced by your statement we expend tremendous amounts to energy in this pursuit.

There is though something in what you say. Someone once labelled schools ‘ivory towers’ that are a far cry from the world outside the gates. The school my children attend advocate being kind, loving, polite and have rules that reinforce these values. Once they come out through the school gate they immediately encounter a world where these values are not upheld and a gaggle of rude, inconsiderate adults whose main concern is what they need to do and where they need to be. This has prompted me to consider if our ‘dark’ side not only has a purpose but is necessary for survival.

I watched documentary about training marines. In this documentary it was said (I paraphrase) the army does not want mindless killing machines. They want them to have a sense or morality, but this runs contrary to what they need to do which put bluntly is kill people. When we kill someone our kind, polite, altruistic nature is not engaged. It is our dark side, but in these circumstances our dark side is used for good in that it is being used in defense of innocent life.

I have a vague recollection of a teaching in Judaism to the effect we need our dark side to survive. Jesus initially sent out his followers with no sword and no purse. At a later time he told them to take a sword and a purse, and be as cautious as serpents but innocent as doves. I think what he meant was we need a dark side to survive, but we can act as moral agents in using it for good.

 

[tonyrey]

OK, but who sets the standard? And should not the standard of morality be like the laws of physics - unchanging?
Uniform morality is now robotic? Not when free will still exists. Proof of free will is in the headlines. Morality convinces only those who will submit to it. They need training and societal pressure to remain in reasonable conformity.
Look up the definition of “concupiscence.”
Allowing mankind to form individual rules for life has resulted each and every butcher in recorded history. Such thinking is preferable only if you intend to be come a butcher.

There’s nothing wrong with butchery in the atheist’s scheme of things because there’s no such thing as “a better use of our mind and body”. The term “better” implies “superior” without any explicit reason being given for superiority. The stipulation “If we all would have kind, loving, honest, polite, **good **nature” also begs the question. It is a clear example of the fallacy Petitio Principii…

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

OK, but who sets the standard?

God, of course. Who else? He does not even have to enforce them, since he would truly “instill” the standard in our basic pattern, so we would not want to deviate from it.

Not when free will still exists.

“Free will” explains nothing. I know many people, who would never commit atrocities, because it would go against their nature. They have all the freedom to go and commit some mayhem, but they simply don’t want to do it.

Everyone has the potential to love and the potential to hate. The potential to do good towards others and the potential to harm. Moral agents reinforce the more desirable aspects of human nature that make the world go around. Without them we would have anomie. That is their purpose. We have police, army and weapons to control who choose to ignore their promptings in spite of the fact they have been taught actual information in terms of a better use of mind and body - evidenced by your statement we expend tremendous amounts to energy in this pursuit.

Good description of the reality.

There is though something in what you say. Someone once labelled schools ‘ivory towers’ that are a far cry from the world outside the gates. The school my children attend advocate being kind, loving, polite and have rules that reinforce these values. Once they come out through the school gate they immediately encounter a world where these values are not upheld and a gaggle of rude, inconsiderate adults whose main concern is what they need to do and where they need to be. This has prompted me to consider if our ‘dark’ side not only has a purpose but is necessary for survival.

I was talking not just the schools, but the homes and the churches. But basically you described it well. The question is that our “dark side” is only necessary for survival because there IS a “dark side”. It is self-reinforcing scenario. There is a “dark side” in others, so we need to develop the “dark side” in ourselves, as a protection. The best solution is NOT to have a “dark side”, so there will be no need to develop defensive powers, because there is no one to defend against.

I watched documentary about training marines. In this documentary it was said (I paraphrase) the army does not want mindless killing machines. They want them to have a sense or morality, but this runs contrary to what they need to do which put bluntly is kill people. When we kill someone our kind, polite, altruistic nature is not engaged. It is our dark side, but in these circumstances our dark side is used for good in that it is being used in defense of innocent life.

Well said. I did not want to bring up “basic training” as described so well in “Full Metal Jacket”. Yes, the army does not want mindless killing machines, it wants smart, efficient, capable killing machines.

I have a vague recollection of a teaching in Judaism to the effect we need our dark side to survive. Jesus initially sent out his followers with no sword and no purse. At a later time he told them to take a sword and a purse, and be as cautious as serpents but innocent as doves. I think what he meant was we need a dark side to survive, but we can act as moral agents in using it for good.

That is fine. You gave a good description of how the world operates today… but that is not what I am looking for.

Why not have everyone have a good nature, someone who does not want to harm others. Obviously I am talking about God, who could create everyone without negative attitudes, who could make everyone, kind, loving, caring - ALL THE TIME? (A am sure eventually someone will stumble upon the reason I brought this question up.)

 

[tonyrey]

Everyone has the potential to love and the potential to hate. The potential to do good towards others and the potential to harm. Moral agents reinforce the more desirable aspects of human nature that make the world go around. Without them we would have anomie. That is their purpose. We have police, army and weapons to control who choose to ignore their promptings in spite of the fact they have been taught actual information in terms of a better use of mind and body - evidenced by your statement we expend tremendous amounts to energy in this pursuit.

There is though something in what you say. Someone once labelled schools ‘ivory towers’ that are a far cry from the world outside the gates. The school my children attend advocate being kind, loving, polite and have rules that reinforce these values. Once they come out through the school gate they immediately encounter a world where these values are not upheld and a gaggle of rude, inconsiderate adults whose main concern is what they need to do and where they need to be. This has prompted me to consider if our ‘dark’ side not only has a purpose but is necessary for survival.

I watched documentary about training marines. In this documentary it was said (I paraphrase) the army does not want mindless killing machines. They want them to have a sense or morality, but this runs contrary to what they need to do which put bluntly is kill people. When we kill someone our kind, polite, altruistic nature is not engaged. It is our dark side, but in these circumstances our dark side is used for good in that it is being used in defense of innocent life.

I have a vague recollection of a teaching in Judaism to the effect we need our dark side to survive. Jesus initially sent out his followers with no sword and no purse. At a later time he told them to take a sword and a purse, and be as cautious as serpents but innocent as doves. I think what he meant was we need a dark side to survive, but we can act as moral agents in using it for good.

** **Sometimes we have no option because we are confronted a choice between two evils.Jesus had to decide whether to let Himself be punished unjustly or abandon His mission to liberate us from our servitude to sin, i.e. our selfishness and lack of love for others. In a sense He was an accessory because He gave His enemies the opportunity they needed. He didn’t evade capture or defend Himself but chose to sacrifice Himself for our sake, giving us a clear example of choosing the lesser evil. We have a right to self-defence but sometimes our physical survival is less important than the consequences of our behaviour which should be inspired by Our Lord’s love for us.

 

[minkymurph]

I was talking not just the schools, but the homes and the churches. But basically you described it well. The question is that our “dark side” is only necessary for survival because there IS a “dark side”. It is self-reinforcing scenario. There is a “dark side” in others, so we need to develop the “dark side” in ourselves, as a protection. The best solution is NOT to have a “dark side”, so there will be no need to develop defensive powers, because there is no one to defend against.

I used schools as just one example.

Your solution is utopian and it can be demonstrated every attempt to create a utopia of any nature will inevitably create a parallel dystopia. If the dyptopia is oppressive and prevails the result is revolution.

Why not have everyone have a good nature, someone who does not want to harm others. Obviously I am talking about God, who could create everyone without negative attitudes, who could make everyone, kind, loving, caring - ALL THE TIME? (A am sure eventually someone will stumble upon the reason I brought this question up.)

Because we would all be bored out our minds.

Being serious - relationships are complicated. No matter how nice people are sooner or later disagreements will arise. Some years ago my other half and I were members of a bike club. We went on Poker runs, held barbecues, folk nights, fancy dress parties, and various other club events, and were by and large a pretty happy bunch.

Then - one couple decided they could run things better than the founders of the club. In short, there was a big fight, people took sides, the club split in two and eventually everyone lost interest. Does this sound familiar? It should do, as history has a nasty habit of repeating itself. A desire to be the ‘agenda setter’ is endemic in human nature. We can be nice to everyone so long as we are calling the shots. I for instance would make a very benevolent dictator, but irrespective of how good things were you can be rest assured at some point someone would wish to depose me and take over.

To ensure humans would be kind, loving, etc. all the time, God would have needed to create humans without the capacity to choose to be anything else. Would this not as I think you put it be a psuedo goodness in that it is not chosen? As such, would it not lack fulfillment in that freely choosing good over evil is more fulfilling than doing it because we have been programmed not to do anything else?

 

[minkymurph]

To ensure humans would be kind, loving, etc. all the time, God would have needed to create humans without the capacity to choose to be anything else. Would this not as I think you put it be a psuedo goodness in that it is not chosen? As such, would it not lack fulfillment in that freely choosing good over evil is more fulfilling than doing it because we have been programmed not to do anything else?

A response that chosen is more more valuable and meaningful than one that does not involve choice.

 

[Vonsalza]

Why not have everyone have a good nature, someone who does not want to harm others.

Because, for approximately the 100th time, God desired in us a creature that was free to affirm him by choice. This necessitates the freedom to refuse and rebel.

And God DID create things that only do innate “good” in the classic sense. Trees. Wind. Mountains. Birds. The sun. The list is nigh-infinite.

This is what makes humanity the unique crown of all creation. As free moral agents, there is simply nothing else like us. Things like orangutans get close, but “no cigar”, as they say.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Your solution is utopian and it can be demonstrated every attempt to create a utopia of any nature will inevitably create a parallel dystopia. If the dystopia is oppressive and prevails the result is revolution.

Well, I am not aware of this law of nature. It can be demonstrated you say? I doubt it. And according to the old saying: “with God everything is possible”. Except of course logically contradictory events. But there is nothing illogical to have benevolence among us.

Being serious - relationships are complicated. No matter how nice people are sooner or later disagreements will arise. Some years ago my other half and I were members of a bike club. We went on Poker runs, held barbecues, folk nights, fancy dress parties, and various other club events, and were by and large a pretty happy bunch.

Then - one couple decided they could run things better than the founders of the club. In short, there was a big fight, people took sides, the club split in two and eventually everyone lost interest. Does this sound familiar? It should do, as history has a nasty habit of repeating itself. A desire to be the ‘agenda setter’ is endemic in human nature. We can be nice to everyone so long as we are calling the shots. I for instance would make a very benevolent dictator, but irrespective of how good things were you can be rest assured at some point someone would wish to depose me and take over.

To have disagreements does not need to lead to hostility. Conflict resolution is a very important branch of behavior. The world is large enough to accommodate divergent aims and behaviors. I like to watch the Bundesliga soccer games. The two teams are adversaries but not enemies. During the game they are pretty tough, both sides want to win. It does happen that there are fouls. But at the end of the game they are friends again, hug each other.

To ensure humans would be kind, loving, etc. all the time, God would have needed to create humans without the capacity to choose to be anything else.

No, not capacity, desire. Of course it would be a major “revamp” of human nature… something like the bonobos, who prefer “to make love, not war”. Their conflict resolution method is much better that the human approach.

Would this not as I think you put it be a psuedo goodness in that it is not chosen? As such, would it not lack fulfillment in that freely choosing good over evil is more fulfilling than doing it because we have been programmed not to do anything else?

And here is the question: “why”?

A response that chosen is more more valuable and meaningful than one that does not involve choice.

Why? Explain, please. This is the “point” of the whole thread.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Because, for approximately the 100th time, God desired in us a creature that was free to affirm him by choice.

Do you think that you are the “cat’s whiskers”? That you have a direct hot-line to God, who illuminated you of his desires? Somehow I doubt it.

This necessitates the freedom to refuse and rebel.

There are grades of “rebel”. You can “rebel” by not attending mass every week.

And God DID create things that only do innate “good” in the classic sense. Trees. Wind. Mountains. Birds. The sun. The list is nigh-infinite.

Yes, so it is not impossible.

This is what makes humanity the unique crown of all creation. As free moral agents, there is simply nothing else like us. Things like orangutans get close, but “no cigar”, as they say.

The “crown of creation”? Sheesh!

 

[minkymurph]

Well, I am not aware of this law of nature. It can be demonstrated you say? I doubt it. And according to the old saying: “with God everything is possible”. Except of course logically contradictory events. But there is nothing illogical to have benevolence among us.

It has nothing to do with the law of nature. It has to do with fact.

History and Political theory readily demonstrates attempts to create a utopia of any shape form or description will create a parallel dystopia. When you deal with humans you have human nature to deal with.

With God everything is possible, but what is possible is not necessarily desirable. Yes - God have created human nature in accordance with the criteria you outlined, but it would be not be goodness in it’s most true and fulfilling sense on the ground it would not be imposed and not freely chosen.

Benevolence is illogical were it is not appropriate. It could said to be benevolent to give a homeless person a significant sum of money, but illogical if they spent it on alcohol or drugs.

To have disagreements does not need to lead to hostility. Conflict resolution is a very important branch of behavior. The world is large enough to accommodate divergent aims and behaviors. I like to watch the Bundesliga soccer games. The two teams are adversaries but not enemies. During the game they are pretty tough, both sides want to win. It does happen that there are fouls. But at the end of the game they are friends again, hug each other.

Agreed. I used to play rugby - pregnancy put an end to my rugby career - does it every time. Yes we played tough, but it finished on the pitch.

No, not capacity, desire. Of course it would be a major “revamp” of human nature… something like the bonobos, who prefer “to make love, not war”. Their conflict resolution method is much better that the human approach.

And here is the question: “why”? Why? Explain, please. This is the “point” of the whole thread.

Honest answer? Outside of it is the way we are I don’t know. I stand over what I said in that it is a fact humans prefer to do something of their own volition irrespective of what it is rather than on the ground they have no choice in the matter. We value autonomy.
We would rather be wrong than have no choice. We would rather make a mess of things and then fix our own mess rather than have no choice. It is who we as humans are.

If any of us had the power to transform the nature of every individual human right now to be nothing but nice, kind and loving - would we do it? I would say most of us would at least draw breath first. This being the case, we should be too quick to determine what God should have done.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

History and Political theory readily demonstrates attempts to create a utopia of any shape form or description will create a parallel dystopia.

There is no evidence that this would happen each and every time, even if it did happen so far. But I don’t think it did. There are quite a few approximations, for example the kibbutzes and the hippie colonies. Small groups can have a harmonious existence without creating a parallel dystopia.

Honest answer? Outside of it is the way we are I don’t know. I stand over what I said in that it is a fact humans prefer to do something of their own volition irrespective of what it is rather than on the ground they have no choice in the matter. We value autonomy.

We certainly value our own autonomy, but we don’t necessarily value the autonomy of others. Especially the autonomy of psychopaths. So much so, that we try to isolate them from the society.

We would rather be wrong than have no choice. We would rather make a mess of things and then fix our own mess rather than have no choice. It is who we as humans are.

No, you cannot speak for everyone. But of course if you WOULD be right, it would only show that most humans are irrational.

If any of us had the power to transform the nature of every individual human right now to be nothing but nice, kind and loving - would we do it? I would say most of us would at least draw breath first. This being the case, we should be too quick to determine what God should have done.

And yet, it is what we try to achieve with our children. We try to “weed out” the undesirable behavior, and keep the desirable one. What is wrong with a guaranteed success in this respect?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Oh, another thread trying to tell God how He could have done this whole ‘humanity thing’ better.

Kind of like my 6 year old trying to tell me how to make dinner better. “First no vegetables. Ever. And don’t fix it when I’m busy. And I don’t want to sit at the table, I want to eat wherever I want and do what I want when I eat. And I don’t want to set the table. Or help clean up.”

From his point of view, he makes perfect sense. It would be great not to have to eat something he doesn’t want, particularly when there’s nothing he can see ‘gained’ from eating veggies. It would be great to just expect, whenever one chooses, something that is exactly what one wants, and to have it wherever one wants, without having to exert oneself in any way. Why on EARTH should we have this ‘ridiculous system’ that involves having to give up personal freedom, to have to do things we don’t want, to be ‘slaves’ for beings that really don’t seem to provide anything we want? And look at the behavior we get. . .tears, tantrums, whining, fighting, snark. . .couldn’t we adults KNOW that this would happen? Why wouldn’t we want to get the kind of wonderful behavior we would get if we only had done things the ‘right way’ to begin with. . .

 

[Vonsalza]

Do you think that you are the “cat’s whiskers”? That you have a direct hot-line to God, who illuminated you of his desires? Somehow I doubt it.

I don’t need a hotline. I have the Church and the scriptures.

There are grades of “rebel”. You can “rebel” by not attending mass every week.

I simply could not agree more. There are greater goods and greater evils.

Yes, so it is not impossible.

Not at all if you believe in an all-powerful God. Of course not.

But if God wants a creature to affirm Him of its own will rather than simply doing so by strict design, then He’s gotta make something will free moral agency.

This was accomplished with humanity.

The “crown of creation”? Sheesh!

Matthew 6:26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?

This is just one of loads of examples. God thinks you’re pretty important, apparently.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I don’t need a hotline. I have the scripture.

Ah… the “scripture”. The collection of old stories, written, collected and selected by very “fallible humans”. Sorry, that does not qualify as a description of what God supposedly wanted. No one, but NO ONE can speak for God. Not the “scripture”, not the pope, not the church, not the magisterium… NO ONE. If you wish to say that THIS is what God wanted, you need a direct quotation, along with God’s own voiceprint, image and all the paraphernalia surrounding God… with all the angels. Nothing else is acceptable.

I simply could not agree more. There are greater goods and greater evils.

So what is your point? Missing mass or blaspheming God is sufficient “freedom”. There is no reason to have more “freedom” than that. You said that to have freedom one must be allowed to “rebel”. There is no need for “extra” freedom.

Not at all if you believe in an all-powerful God. Of course not.

Right on. So there is no reason to give even “more” freedom.

But if God wants a creature to affirm Him of its own will rather than simply doing so by strict design, then He’s gotta make something will free moral agency.

The necessary “freedom” is already depicted above.

As I already said to Minky, we (as parents) want to trim the freedom of our children. We want to weed out their “evil” tendencies, we want to instill good behavioral patterns. We try to raise them to be good, loving, caring people. Unfortunately we don’t have the wherewithal to be fully successful. We try this, because we CARE about our children and we CARE about those that will be affected by the actions of our children. We try our best, and we cannot succeed. But God COULD be. And that is what you keep fighting against. Makes no sense at all.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Kind of like my 6 year old trying to tell me how to make dinner better. “First no vegetables. Ever. And don’t fix it when I’m busy. And I don’t want to sit at the table, I want to eat wherever I want and do what I want when I eat. And I don’t want to set the table. Or help clean up.”

If you don’t sit down with your kid and don’t explain why you set up these rules, then you are lousy, despicable parent. A good parent does get “down” to the level of the child, and explains the reasons for the rules.

 

[Vonsalza]

…you need a direct quotation, along with God’s own voiceprint, image and all the paraphernalia surrounding God… with all the angels. Nothing else is acceptable.

With this standard of evidence, you must have enormous difficulty accepting the potential reality of anything that has ever happened that you haven’t personally experience. All human history would be a good example.

In short, you’re being unreasonable here.

So what is your point? Missing mass or blaspheming God is sufficient “freedom”. There is no reason to have more “freedom” than that. You said that to have freedom one must be allowed to “rebel”. There is no need for “extra” freedom.

Says who? You?

God desires the maximum affirmation of the free moral agent. Your offered worship is the objective. Its relative value is derived by the reality that you can choose to express its opposite on the moral spectrum.

If you can be zealous for what is good and Godly, then you must be capable of being zealous for what is evil and ungodly.

The opposite of your provided missing of mass is obviously attending. But God wants more from you than “alright, dude. I’m here”.

As I already said to Minky, we (as parents) want to trim the freedom of our children… We try our best, and we cannot succeed. But God COULD be. And that is what you keep fighting against. Makes no sense at all.

The God-Parenting comparison breaks down here because the telos is not the same. God wants your unforced worship. Is worship the primary thing you want from your children? Of course not. The end goal is that you want them to be successfully and happily independent of you.

So of course it doesn’t make sense. The ultimate aim isn’t the same.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

With this standard of evidence, you must have enormous difficulty accepting the potential reality of anything that has ever happened that you haven’t personally experience. All human history would be a good example.

No, I have no difficulty at all, since I don’t care about history. Whether Caesar actually said “Alea iacta est”, when he supposedly crossed the Rubicon, is of no relevance. But, whether God wishes us to exhibit a certain behavior HERE and NOW would be of enormous importance. That is why I need more than some ancient scripts written by some unknown people, who had no direct access to God.

Says who? You?

No, said YOU. All you said that there is a need to have some freedom to disagree and “rebel”. I provided that. Changing the goalposts in mid-game is in very bad form.

God desires the maximum affirmation of the free moral agent.

Again, you try to speak for God. Don’t you realize that it is way above your pay grade?

The God-Parenting comparison breaks down here because the telos is not the same. God wants your unforced worship. Is worship the primary thing you want from your children? Of course not. The end goal is that you want them to be successfully and happily independent of you.

If so, then YOU should stop bringing it up. It is YOUR tactics to talk about the “Father”, and when I take you at your word, then you try to disown what you said before. That is not the best way to gain respect.