What is the point?

[minkymurph]

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.

I agree - God could be successful but would go further and say He is. He just doesn’t use the methods you have suggested He should - giving us no choice in matter.

My children are now teenagers and as such I am now introducing them to the concept of using their dark side for good reasons. My youngest son has autism and he once asked, ‘Should we always tell the truth?’ I am currently in the process of educating him that it is not always in his best interests to be as brutally honest as he characteristically is.

A sign of maturity is being able to manage contrasting and competing principles and resolve the issues they raises effectively.

 

[Vonsalza]

But, whether God wishes us to exhibit a certain behavior HERE and NOW would be of enormous importance.

Giving a nod to the desires of any particular view of God (such as the Catholic one) requires the agreement that such a god exists. It’s like you’re asking someone to build the second floor of a building without constructing the first.

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.

So is misquoting, respectfully.

I’ve been consistent with the theme that the free moral agent must be free to rebel to the same degree that they are free to conform. I’ve believed this for literally decades; it’s no new innovation on my part.

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

I’m not speaking for God. For one example, He told us that He is jealous.

If so, then YOU should stop bringing it up.

Huh?
You brought up the parental reference here, I’m afraid. It just didn’t work.

 

[reggieM]

Giving a nod to the desires of any particular view of God (such as the Catholic one) requires the agreement that such a god exists. It’s like you’re asking someone to build the second floor of a building without constructing the first.
.

Interesting and valid analogy. You have to start with a certain foundation - to pun off of that.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I agree - God could be successful but would go further and say He is. He just doesn’t use the methods you have suggested He should - giving us no choice in matter.

My children are now teenagers and as such I am now introducing them to the concept of using their dark side for good reasons. My youngest son has autism and he once asked, ‘Should we always tell the truth?’ I am currently in the process of educating him that it is not always in his best interests to be as brutally honest as he characteristically is.

A sign of maturity is being able to manage contrasting and competing principles and resolve the issues they raises effectively.

It is better to be happy than mature. Don’t forget I argue against the current state of affairs, and I argue that the “human nature” needs to tampered with. If you look at the statistical distribution of humans, you will see that everyone is able to commit atrocities, but the overwhelming majority of the people simply does not want to. There is only a very small minority which actually wants to do those “evil” things. They are the ones, who - for some reason or another - are not trainable. And no one would miss them if they simply did not exist.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I’ve been consistent with the theme that the free moral agent must be free to rebel to the same degree that they are free to conform. I’ve believed this for literally decades; it’s no new innovation on my part.

I have never seen anything as nonsensical as this. “Freedom” cannot be measured.

To have freedom simply means to be able to make choices. If one has the freedom to choose a striped necktie over a plain one, then there is already freedom. Some people assert that one needs to make “morally significant” choices to have real freedom. Which is nonsense. For them I propose that choosing to “blaspheme God” (which is the worst sin of all) is more than sufficient for real freedom. Now comes you, who talks about being able about some “equal” amount to conform and to rebel.

I’m not speaking for God. For one example, He told us that He is jealous.

You keep talking about what God (allegedly) wants. No one can speak for God, what he wants or does not want.

You brought up the parental reference here, I’m afraid. It just didn’t work.

It is a standard argument for believers. They are the ones who call God: “the Father”, capitalized, no less.

 

[Vonsalza]

I have never seen anything as nonsensical as this. “Freedom” cannot be measured.

Nothing qualitative can, by definition.

I love my children more than I love my dog. But I do love my ever-faithful little canine companion.

The absence of a quantitative scale does not refute the reality of the thing.

You keep talking about what God (allegedly) wants. No one can speak for God, what he wants or does not want.

As I’ve mentioned previously, God has spoken for Himself on the topic numerous times. If you refuse to recognize scriptures then I see how your point would be valid. But then, why are you debating this with a Catholic that accepts them as a given?

It is a standard argument for believers. They are the ones who call God: “the Father”, capitalized, no less.

In many contexts, it works well.

This isn’t one of them.

The use of comparison or proxy will always carry the inherent flaw of not being identically the same as the concept you’re trying to convey. This is one of those many places where the relationship you have with God and your parents is different.

God wants your worship. You mother, presumably, doesn’t.

 

[reggieM]

As I’ve mentioned previously, God has spoken for Himself on the topic numerous times. If you refuse to recognize scriptures then I see how your point would be valid. But then, why are you debating this with a Catholic that accepts them as a given?

Yes - and the prophets spoke for God and Jesus certainly did.

 

[minkymurph]

It is better to be happy than mature.

I don’t see the need to trade one for the other.

Don’t forget I argue against the current state of affairs, and I argue that the “human nature” needs to tampered with. If you look at the statistical distribution of humans, you will see that everyone is able to commit atrocities, but the overwhelming majority of the people simply does not want to. There is only a very small minority which actually wants to do those “evil” things. They are the ones, who - for some reason or another - are not trainable. And no one would miss them if they simply did not exist.

My theory is successful ‘tampering’ is the result of a combination of external and internal elements. There is only so much external tampering can do. Change has to come from within.

There is evidence that once you cross a certain line there is no way back from it. The world would not miss people who cross this line.

 

[inocente]

I have never seen anything as nonsensical as this. “Freedom” cannot be measured.

To have freedom simply means to be able to make choices. If one has the freedom to choose a striped necktie over a plain one, then there is already freedom.

You’re telling me I have to wear a necktie, and my only wiggle room is choosing which. That’s not freedom at all, that’s just a sop trying to make me forget I’m not free!

And you made me agree with Vonsalza.

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.

Moral agency is knowing right from wrong and taking responsibility for our actions.

Without moral agency, no one would know right from wrong and no one would care. Surely what you’re proposing isn’t removing moral agency but increasing it to the max? Although getting everyone to agree to a single notion of right and wrong probably needs a combination of genetic engineering with ongoing ‘education’ at the gulag.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Nothing qualitative can, by definition.

As soon as you introduced the word: “equally”, you made it a quantitative evaluation.

As I’ve mentioned previously, God has spoken for Himself on the topic numerous times. If you refuse to recognize scriptures then I see how your point would be valid. But then, why are you debating this with a Catholic that accepts them as a given?

It does not matter if you take it as a “given”. He did not speak to us, here and now.

God wants your worship.

That is God’s problem. If he wants our worship, he needs to do two things. One is, manifest his existence to ALL of us. Two is, to behave in a fashion which deserves that worship. Of course I cannot imagine why would God want to be worshipped. Such a childish attitude. But, then again, all the tyrants wanted to be “worshipped” and the less they deserved it, the more adamant they were in “wanting it”.

 

[reggieM]

Of course I cannot imagine why would God want to be worshipped.

It’s for your own good.

You already love some things. In fact, there is something that you give a higher degree of love to than anything else. You sublimate yourself to that thing. It’s a form of worship. You honor, praise and follow that.

What God is saying is to give your love and your self to something greater - to the greatest good possible.

We become what we love - and by worshipping God, we become like Him, more perfect, more filled with goodness.

So, God wants us to worship Him because it’s the best thing we can do with our lives - and He loves us, so He wants the best for us.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You’re telling me I have to wear a necktie, and my only wiggle room is choosing which. That’s not freedom at all, that’s just a sop trying to make me forget I’m not free!

Do you wish to have absolute, total, unlimited freedom? That would be irrational. Our “freedom” is always relative to the circumstances. The example of the necktie simply wanted to emphasize that most of our decisions are NOT of “moral” nature.

And you made me agree with Vonsalza.

That is your problem.

Moral agency is knowing right from wrong and taking responsibility for our actions.

Within the constraints of our abilities. The constraints are partially external (physical) and partially internal (due to our inherited nature and the education - “programming” - we receive).

Without moral agency, no one would know right from wrong and no one would care.

Knowing right form wrong is completely different from being able to act on the “wrong”. During our formative years our parents try to educate us to the degree that we always make the right choice, automatically (or semi-automatically). Our freedom hinges on two constraints, the external ability to perform an act, and the internal “desire” to perform it. And that is what we try to achieve with our children. Teach them to develop an internal “compass”, which would guide them in the proper direction.

Surely what you’re proposing isn’t removing moral agency but increasing it to the max? Although getting everyone to agree to a single notion of right and wrong probably needs a combination of genetic engineering with ongoing ‘education’ at the gulag.

There is no need for the ongoing education, IF the initial programming was successful. We are unable to perform a perfect “programming”, no matter how hard we try. Our attempts to “program” our children is laudable. (Of course there are always exceptions. Some parents prefer to raise little psychopaths). God could make that “programming” without any errors.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It’s for your own good.

You already love some things. In fact, there is something that you give a higher degree of love to than anything else. You sublimate yourself to that thing. It’s a form of worship. You honor, praise and follow that.

What God is saying is to give your love and your self to something greater - to the greatest good possible.

We become what we love - and by worshipping God, we become like Him, more perfect, more filled with goodness.

So, God wants us to worship Him because it’s the best thing we can do with our lives - and He loves us, so He wants the best for us.

If there is something I would NOT want, is to be “like” God. Someone, who does NOT help the ones in need, who does NOT heal the sick, who does NOT feed the hungry, who does NOT protect the weak and downtrodden. Someone who is vainglorious, jealous, mean and selfish, someone who sends you into eternal suffering for some minuscule lack of “worship”. Someone who demands you to debase yourself, for whom the worst “sin” is “pride”.

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Vonsalza]

And you made me agree with Vonsalza.

I’m as shocked as you are. I mean that in the best way, per Reggie’s suggestion on my tone.

As soon as you introduced the word: “equally”, you made it a quantitative evaluation.

Perhaps in some way, yes. But not in one that’s measurably scalar.

I love all my children equally. I still can’t measure that. If you have kids, you hopefully encounter the same problem.

It does not matter if you take it as a “given”. He did not speak to us, here and now.

This is an unreasonable standard. When my state’s general assembly created the state constitution years ago, I was not personally consulted. Thus, for me, it’s void?

Of course not.

Moreover, today He speaks to and through His Church.

That is God’s problem. If he wants our worship, he needs to do two things.

I think this is your core issue; the presumption that God, should it exist, will behave as you think is reasonable, not as God thinks is reasonable.

One is, manifest his existence to ALL of us.

Some would argue that this has been done and disbelievers simply reject it. Dawkins himself said that if he encountered a Damascus Road event, he’d likely write it off as a hallucination.

I think I need to find that Youtube link…

Two is, to behave in a fashion which deserves that worship.

Again, many would argue that this already occurs.

Thematically, I think most of your problems here aren’t very objective.

Of course I cannot imagine why would God want to be worshipped. Such a childish attitude. But, then again, all the tyrants wanted to be “worshipped” and the less they deserved it, the more adamant they were in “wanting it”.

Who could be more justified in “tyranny” than God? In light of that, it’s absolutely astonishing He has given us the free moral agency to scorn and insult Him. If that’s not a gift of freedom and benevolence from a “dictator”, I’m not sure what is.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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.

What on earth made you assume that I haven’t or hadn’t explained?

He’s 6. We have been going over ‘the rules’ since he was born, the way that most parents/grandparents do, in age appropriate ways so that understanding ‘deepens’.

I guess you don’t have children.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Perhaps in some way, yes. But not in one that’s measurably scalar.

Then it is not “equal”.

Moreover, today He speaks to and through His Church.

Some would argue that this has been done and disbelievers simply reject it.

Again, many would argue that this already occurs.

Only in your (plural) opinion.

I think this is your core issue; the presumption that God, should it exist, will behave as you think is reasonable, not as God thinks is reasonable.

There is only one reasonable way. And, of course you still presume that you have access to God’s thoughts. :tsktsk:

Who could be more justified in “tyranny” than God? In light of that, it’s absolutely astonishing He has given us the free moral agency to scorn and insult Him. If that’s not a gift of freedom and benevolence from a “dictator”, I’m not sure what is.

Does God feed the hungry? Or heal the sick? Or protect the weak?

 

[reggieM]

If there is something I would NOT want, is to be “like” God. Someone, who does NOT help the ones in need, who does NOT heal the sick, who does NOT feed the hungry, who does NOT protect the weak and downtrodden. Someone who is vainglorious, jealous, mean and selfish, someone who sends you into eternal suffering for some minuscule lack of “worship”. Someone who demands you to debase yourself, for whom the worst “sin” is “pride”.

Pride is just idolatry of self. It is loving one’s own self over anything else. It’s selfishness. Arrogance.

I think it would be good for you to have a better understanding of the Divine Economy. This includes justice.
Humility is not debasing yourself - it is seeing yourself for what you really are.

A person goes to eternal suffering because they worship something that is trivial. They say with Satan, “I will not serve God” - they may have hatred or envy of God. Some think they are superior to God - that their goodness is greater than the goodness of God.

However, these people have committed many sins and produced a lot of evil in the world. They caused the very suffering that they blame God for.
They did nothing to alleviate the suffering that they cause by their own evil - which permeates the world.

 

[reggieM]

Does God feed the hungry? Or heal the sick? Or protect the weak?

Ask the people who are in eternal beatitude if God has done something good for them.

 

[reggieM]

I’m as shocked as you are. I mean that in the best way, per Reggie’s suggestion on my tone.

That was a very nice surprise - from you both.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

What on earth made you assume that I haven’t or hadn’t explained?

He’s 6. We have been going over ‘the rules’ since he was born, the way that most parents/grandparents do, in age appropriate ways so that understanding ‘deepens’.

Excellent. Does God explain anything to us? Nope.

I guess you don’t have children.

Your guess is incorrect.