Is ethics easy?

[McCulloch]

We can know right and wrong fairly easy,

Correct English grammar might be quite difficult, but ethics, according to JP Cusick, is a simple matter.

[JP Cusick]

The analogy that an omnipotent omniscient God would need to raise children in a similar fashion that human parents might raise their children is actually an extremely failed analogy. So this idea that God is "raising children" is actually an extremely weak apologetic argument for this God.

It troubles me when people see God as "omnipotent and omniscient" because it does not say that in the Bible, and it does not say that in any scripture in the entire history of mankind.

So where does this idea of omnipotent and omniscient really come from?

And why would an Atheist ever make such a claim of omnipotent and omniscient about God?

There is huge scriptural evidence that those concepts are not true about the real Father God, and people just project their own ideas when the ideas are just plain old wrong.

Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power ~ and yet the scriptures tell us that God has limits on His power. God can not lie, Titus 1:2, so God can not break His own commandments, and there are other limitations too, so the claim of omnipotent is not sound.

To be omniscient is to know everything ~ and yet from the very beginning the Bible tells otherwise, as here = "... God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? " Genesis 3:9

It would honestly be immoral to know everything, and God is not immoral.

The mere fact that there exist mental ill humans is proof positive that there is no "Fatherly Parent God" who is trying to raise humans as his children.

I find psychology to be so interesting that I am as much a fanatic about mental health as I am about religion, so I can not fathom your reasoning here.

Having mental illness does not make the person as any less of a child of God.

There are other physical problems which are arguably worse then severe mental illness, as like being still born could be viewed as worst, even though some might judge still born mentally ill as better. We humans need to be careful when we attempt to play God with other people.

I myself view the terminology of "Father and children" as probably being a metaphor - but the implication even if it is just a metaphor would still be profound.

Finally, if we are God's "children" then we too would be Gods who are simply in a childlike growing stage at this point. That might not sound too bad at first, but this doesn't fit in with a monotheistic Christianity. If we are all "Child Gods" then Christianity would need to be infinitely polytheistic because as humans mature to Godhood they would become independent God in their own right, just as a human child becomes an independent human adult.

The monotheistic Christianity is wrong, and I do not follow the sheep to their doom.

The very name of "Yahweh Elohim" means = Father of the Gods (plural), so the real message is definitely and correctly "infinitely polytheistic".

Humans are demiGods (child Gods) and if we look at our self realistically then right now we humans do indeed fill the role of Gods.

Quote KJV = I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. ~ Psalms 82:6

Jesus quoted the scripture = " You are Gods ..." John 10:33-37

This would then also bring up the question of whether the Biblical God was once a human child before growing up to become a God himself.

We are told about Jesus being the son who grew up as a child, but no one really knows what the Father God really is.

The worldwide scriptures gives us hints and clues about the Father but no definite sort of description nor representation.

In short, this anthropomorphism of the Biblical God fails in so many ways. It doesn't work as an apologetic argument for this religious paradigm because it actually creates far more contradictions and problems than it pretends to solve.

The word or spokesperson otherwise known as Jesus the Christ is the one continuous anthropomorphism, and that is enough for most people.

The Father God is somehow different and beyond any of that.

[Divine Insight]

So where does this idea of omnipotent and omniscient really come from?

Matt.19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Mark.10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

Luke.18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

If you reject that with God all things are possible (i.e. God is omnipotent), then according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke you reject the teachings of Jesus.

And why would an Atheist ever make such a claim of omnipotent and omniscient about God?

When an Atheist is debating with a Christian the claim of omnipotence has already been made by Jesus according to the verses posed above. So unless the Christian wants to deny the teachings of Jesus they too must accept that the Christian God is omnipotent.

There is huge scriptural evidence that those concepts are not true about the real Father God, and people just project their own ideas when the ideas are just plain old wrong.

You'll have to take your complaint up with Jesus, he's the one who claimed that with God all things are possible.

Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power ~ and yet the scriptures tell us that God has limits on His power. God can not lie, Titus 1:2, so God can not break His own commandments, and there are other limitations too, so the claim of omnipotent is not sound.

As an Atheist with respect to Christianity I agree with you.

The Bible is filled with self-contradictory claims. I won't argue against that. Again, you'll have to take that up with Jesus. According to Jesus "With God all things are possible". Whether this means it's possible for God to lie I can't say. Maybe it's possible, but God just wouldn't choose to do it? That's not the same as it being impossible.

To be omniscient is to know everything ~ and yet from the very beginning the Bible tells otherwise, as here = "... God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? " Genesis 3:9

So do you think that God really didn't know where Adam and Eve were hiding?

In fact, haven't you seen human parents go into a room where a small child was hiding from them and pretend to not be able to find them?

It would honestly be immoral to know everything, and God is not immoral.

Why would it be immoral to know everything? Especially for a creator God to know everything. Can you cite anywhere in the Bible where this God made a covenant with man for man's "Right to Privacy"?

The mere fact that there exist mental ill humans is proof positive that there is no "Fatherly Parent God" who is trying to raise humans as his children.

I find psychology to be so interesting that I am as much a fanatic about mental health as I am about religion, so I can not fathom your reasoning here.

Having mental illness does not make the person as any less of a child of God.

That's not the point. The point is that if God is the Parent and he knows the child has an illness and he can cure it and doesn't, then he's not a very caring parent.

Wouldn't you cure your mentally ill child if you could?

There are other physical problems which are arguably worse then severe mental illness, as like being still born could be viewed as worst, even though some might judge still born mentally ill as better. We humans need to be careful when we attempt to play God with other people.

The problem is that in Christianity the idea is that everyone is being judged based on their moral choices. A person who is mentally ill cannot be held responsible for the choices they might make. Therefore having any mentally ill childern in a family where the children will be judged on the choices they make makes no sense.

So mental illness is a HUGE problem in a religious paradigm that claims that people will be judged on the choices they make.

I myself view the terminology of "Father and children" as probably being a metaphor - but the implication even if it is just a metaphor would still be profound.

In pure abstract philosophy I wouldn't argue against a possible paradigm where the creator is the father of the entities he creates. My only argument is that this particular scenario doesn't fit the Biblical paradigm for various reasons, some of which I just covered above.

Finally, if we are God's "children" then we too would be Gods who are simply in a childlike growing stage at this point. That might not sound too bad at first, but this doesn't fit in with a monotheistic Christianity. If we are all "Child Gods" then Christianity would need to be infinitely polytheistic because as humans mature to Godhood they would become independent God in their own right, just as a human child becomes an independent human adult.

The monotheistic Christianity is wrong, and I do not follow the sheep to their doom.

The very name of "Yahweh Elohim" means = Father of the Gods (plural), so the real message is definitely and correctly "infinitely polytheistic".

Humans are demiGods (child Gods) and if we look at our self realistically then right now we humans do indeed fill the role of Gods.

So do some child "Gods" then eventually grow up to become "Demons" like Satan?

Also, wouldn't that then mean that Satan (and humans who become evil Gods) are also Gods in their own right.

Again that's not the Biblical paradigm. Satan is not supposed to be a "God".

Quote KJV = I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. ~ Psalms 82:6

Jesus quoted the scripture = " You are Gods ..." John 10:33-37

I agree that Jesus was attributed with having made this argument. This is why I personally believe that Jesus was most likely a mystic-minded Jew who actually became well-educated in Mahayana Buddhism and was trying to teach that philosophy within the framework of the original Jewish Scriptures.

Because after all, that's what the Buddhists believe. Tat T'vam Asi. "You are that". Basically meaning, you are the thing we refer to as "God".

This would then also bring up the question of whether the Biblical God was once a human child before growing up to become a God himself.

We are told about Jesus being the son who grew up as a child, but no one really knows what the Father God really is.

The worldwide scriptures gives us hints and clues about the Father but no definite sort of description nor representation.

I agree. In fact I go further and suggest that the Biblical scriptures are so extremely vague they basically loan themselves to just about anything anyone and dream up in their imagination.

That being the case they really aren't very helpful at all. You may as well just toss the scriptures out and dream up your own stuff. You might very well end up with a far better paradigm that doesn't contain as many self-contradiction.

In short, this anthropomorphism of the Biblical God fails in so many ways. It doesn't work as an apologetic argument for this religious paradigm because it actually creates far more contradictions and problems than it pretends to solve.

The word or spokesperson otherwise known as Jesus the Christ is the one continuous anthropomorphism, and that is enough for most people.

The Father God is somehow different and beyond any of that.

Well, don't forget that Jesus also supposedly claimed the following:

John.10:30 I and my Father are one.

Again, I see this as a reflection of Buddhism. Tat T'vam Asi or "You are That"

You are this "God" that you are trying to find.

I and my Father are one in the same.

Note: I'm not claiming to know what Jesus might have supposedly said or taught. All I can do is point to some of the things he is quoted to have said according to the authors of the Gospels. My main point is that the Bible overall is extremely self-contradictory. And so to actually hold Jesus up as supposedly supporting any imagined interpretations of the Biblical scriptures overall seems rather futile.

At best all a person can possibly say is "I think Jesus might have been trying to teach such and such".

I can do that myself. But I wouldn't call myself a "Christian" just because I have guesses of what Jesus might have been trying to teach.

[JP Cusick]

Matt.19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Mark.10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

Luke.18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

If you reject that with God all things are possible (i.e. God is omnipotent), then according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke you reject the teachings of Jesus.

It probably does not matter to you but I am very disappointed that you of all people would make such a claim.

So you took the text out of context and it never ever meant that God was omnipotent.

Matthew and Mark are verbatim:
" Who then can be saved?
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. "

This one is more precise in Luke 18:26-27 "
26 ... Who then can be saved?
27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. "

They are talking about salvation, "Who can be saved?", and Jesus is explaining that God can and will save every person.

I suppose that modern humans would seem omnipotent (all powerful) to a Neanderthal, but it would still not be accurate.

Or as on the Star Trek movie where V'ger could not comprehend its imperfect and unusual kind of Creator.

To view our God as all powerful (omnipotent) is a human fallacy based on the vain glory of human dreams - as do children when they look up to their Father.

So do some child "Gods" then eventually grow up to become "Demons" like Satan?

Also, wouldn't that then mean that Satan (and humans who become evil Gods) are also Gods in their own right.

Again that's not the Biblical paradigm. Satan is not supposed to be a "God".

Of course Satan is a God.

And yes a basic teaching of the Bible is that there are evil Gods, as there was a rebellion and war in the heavens.

The 1st of the 10 commandments declares that we are not put any other of the Gods before the Father, Exodus 20:3

[2ndRateMind]

Is ethics easy?

Ethics is both easy and hard.

The 'easy' bit is deciding our own ethical positions.

The 'hard' bit is persuading others to adopt them as better than their own.

These days, it is particularly hard, since many people need to be persuaded that ethical positions are not mere opinion, and that some ethics are objectively 'better' than other ethics.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Tcg]

As such to first know right from wrong is fairly easy, as like this:

............. Wrongs .................... Rights
1) To lie is wrong - to be honest is right.
2) To steal is wrong - to never steal is right.
3) Adultery is wrong - monogamy and marriage are right.
4) Violence is mostly wrong - nonviolence is mostly right.
5) Selfishness is wrong - helping others in need is right.

My response to each:

1. If the life/wellbeing of my child is dependent on lying to someone who wishes them harm, I'll lie without a moments hesitation.

2. If the life of others depends on stealing, I'll steal.

3. Marriage often goes very wrong and the idea that monogamy is the default state amongst humans is nothing but a fantasy.

4. Mostly? If violence is needed to protect those I love, I will employ violence.

5. Unless you provide for yourself, you'll have nothing to provide to others.

[JP Cusick]

1. If the life/wellbeing of my child is dependent on lying to someone who wishes them harm, I'll lie without a moments hesitation.

2. If the life of others depends on stealing, I'll steal.

3. Marriage often goes very wrong and the idea that monogamy is the default state amongst humans is nothing but a fantasy.

4. Mostly? If violence is needed to protect those I love, I will employ violence.

5. Unless you provide for yourself, you'll have nothing to provide to others.

Right and wrong are given as commandments, but people still have the option of doing wrong or of doing right.

My finding, and I see it as absolute, is that to lie or cheat or steal will always come out negatively and counterproductive, and it is just foolish and folly to go otherwise.

There is no life of a child dependent upon a lie - you might be able to dream up some crackpot scenario but even then it can only be based on unrealistic conclusions.

Nobody has their life depending on stealing, and monogamy is the high ideal for people to strive after, and violence is mostly wrong while nonviolence is mostly right.

I see it as misguided to question right from wrong, because the only real debate is if a person will do right and reject doing wrongs, because right and wrong are well known.

[Tcg]

Right and wrong are given as commandments, but people still have the option of doing wrong or of doing right.

Your belief that commandments decree right and wrong is not compelling evidence to conclude that the commandments you refer to are indeed ethical.

There is no life of a child dependent upon a lie - you might be able to dream up some crackpot scenario but even then it can only be based on unrealistic conclusions.

To deny the very real possibility that a human life could depend on breaking one of the "commandments" you have listed is not realistic.

Nobody has their life depending on stealing, and monogamy is the high ideal for people to strive after, and violence is mostly wrong while nonviolence is mostly right.

The fact that you view monogamy as "the high ideal for people to strive after", provides evidence only that this is your belief. It provides no help in determining whether or not it is or even should be an ideal for all humans.

Your use of the word "mostly" once again while referring to violence indicates that you have no absolute way to determine what is ethically right or wrong when it comes to violence. This is clear evidence that right or wrong is not well known and in fact can in some situations be very difficult to determine.

[JP Cusick]

Your belief that commandments decree right and wrong is not compelling evidence to conclude that the commandments you refer to are indeed ethical.

To deny the very real possibility that a human life could depend on breaking one of the "commandments" you have listed is not realistic.

The fact that you view monogamy as "the high ideal for people to strive after", provides evidence only that this is your belief. It provides no help in determining whether or not it is or even should be an ideal for all humans.

Your use of the word "mostly" once again while referring to violence indicates that you have no absolute way to determine what is ethically right or wrong when it comes to violence. This is clear evidence that right or wrong is not well known and in fact can in some situations be very difficult to determine.

I stand by what I posted as being accurate and true, but I understand that other people do not comprehend in the same ways as I do.

When I was young (under 25) then I would reject everything that I now see as absolutely correct today, and before I turned 40 then I would reject near half of what I know to be true now.

If you can not judge right from wrong then you go ahead and tell lies and to steal, and just keep on believing that lies and stealing can save lives, because reality will teach you soon enough - as it does teach us all.

And if you reject monogamy then you go ahead and screw around all you want, because the hard hurting realities of real life will teach you soon enough - as it does teach us all.

I really do not want you or anyone to believe me - as I want you to believe your self - and if you seek the truth sincerely then in due time it will lead you to God - because God is the giver of right from wrong.

[Tcg]

I stand by what I posted as being accurate and true, but I understand that other people do not comprehend in the same ways as I do.

This comment simply indicates that you believe what you posted is accurate and true. It provides no evidence nor reasoning to support the conclusion that your belief in this matter is accurate.

If you can not judge right from wrong then you go ahead and tell lies and to steal, and just keep on believing that lies and stealing can save lives, because reality will teach you soon enough - as it does teach us all.

I thought an attack on another poster's character was against the rules of this forum? This is both a misrepresentation of my post and a mistruth about me. I never stated that I practice lying nor thievery, but simply stated the conditions in which it would be the ethical choice to do so.

And if you reject monogamy then you go ahead and screw around all you want, because the hard hurting realities of real life will teach you soon enough - as it does teach us all.

Another attack on my character which is neither true nor accurately represents my post adds nothing to the discussion. I do practice monogamy, but do not assume that it is some greater human ideal simply because it is my preference. If others choice not to practice monogamy, it is not a moral failing on their part, but simply a reflection of their preference.

I have not attempted in any way to turn this discussion of ethics into an attack on your moral character and I would appreciate it if you would show me the same respect by not turning your argument into an attack on mine.

I really do not want you or anyone to believe me - as I want you to believe your self - and if you seek the truth sincerely then in due time it will lead you to God - because God is the giver of right from wrong.

I have sought the truth sincerely and it lead me to the obvious conclusion that there is no reason to believe that god/gods exist.

You've provided no support for your assumption that there is a god nor have you provided any reason to assume that a god is "the giver of right from wrong". Most importantly for this discussion, you provided no reason to conclude that this god's opinion on right in wrong is truly ethical.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 19 by Tcg]

I thought an attack on another poster's character was against the rules of this forum?


I double checked the rules of this forum and found that my memory of what I read was correct:

1. Personal attacks of any sort are not allowed. Comments about any person that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.