Would Jesus, the Bringer of Light, condemn Yahweh for his mass murders?

[The_Foxer]

That is your issue, not in mine

Its' the only issue. You haven't brought up any other issue with it or defended your position. So what you really mean is that you aren't interested in truth or facts, you prefer delusions.

The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

That's not math, that's communism. Apperently math is something you're not familiar with.

See how easy it is to argue to where you cannot argue against the issue.

You didn't "argue" anything. You basically quoted star trek out of context and that's it. We were discussing math, you've stated something that has nothing to do with math, So it would seem like you don't know what math OR an 'argument' is.

I simply pointed out that you don't need morality to ponder most things and certainly not all things. I pointed out that you don't need morality to ponder math (and doing so has given us more information about our universe than any morality or philosophy ever has).

You're the one who desperately says "nuh uhhh! math is morality" and then runs off crying without explaining why. I offered several examples of why it's not, you can't offer even one where it is.

Sure you want to continue this? You're not looking any smarter as we go, that's for sure.

Morality is a social construct. It changes with time and society. And it's not very prevalent in the vast majority of decision making. At best the bible tends to preach false or contradictory morality. As noted so far in this thread - god has no problem killing people en masse, but claims it's a great evil that condemns your soul if done. And morality is not necessary for the consideration of most things in the univerise, including most works of fiction.

 

[French Patriot]

That's not math, that's communism. Apperently math is something you're not familiar with.

You might want to check your definitions.

You would put the good of the one above the good of the many, just like your genocidal, homophobic and misogynous hero, who hates the souls our real God created.

Regards
DL

 

[French Patriot]

At best the bible tends to preach false or contradictory morality.

Ignoring your other remarks and why you do not use morals to guide you, I will speak to this quote.

What you put is why Gnostic Christians pick out the good and reject the evil.

We recognize the evil ways in Yahweh/Jesus way back and dubbed him a vile demiurge and rejected his immoral ass.

Note how the inquisitions followed the more literal bible. We did not.

Who was more moral?

Can you even judge this?

Regards
DL

 

[The_Foxer]

You might want to check your definitions.

Those are the accepted definitions pretty much world wide. Sorry.

You would put the good of the one above the good of the many, just like your genocidal, homophobic and misogynous hero, who hates the souls our real God created.

So - by the genocidal homophobic misogynist that hates people's souls i assume you mean god. You know, the guy who slaughtered entire countries (genocide), forbids homosexuality (literally homophobic) and thinks women are his personal baby factories without even asking (misogynist) and condemns the souls of people who disagree with him to eternal damnation? That guy?

And all I said was that 2+2=4. Apparently that's put you into a mental tailspin.

 

[French Patriot]

Nice deflection from initial stupidity.

Regards
DL

 

[The_Foxer]

Nice deflection from initial stupidity.

Talking to a mirror are you?

Well it's not like anyone expected you to have a real argument or logical position. There's really no disputing that the 'god' character is by far and away the most violent, homicidal and bigoted character in the book. I'm not surprised you're a little bitter about that.

 

[French Patriot]

Talking to a mirror are you?

Well it's not like anyone expected you to have a real argument or logical position. There's really no disputing that the 'god' character is by far and away the most violent, homicidal and bigoted character in the book. I'm not surprised you're a little bitter about that.

??

Not my God man.

To what issue or topic are you alluding to, or was that garbage all your ADD will allow?

Regards
DL

 

[The_Foxer]

??

Not my God man.

Who said it was?

Ooopsie - what were you saying about ADD again? ROFLMAO

Ahhh well. like i said no one expected YOU to be able to come up with a coherent argument or position LOLOL!

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I have no idea what you two guys are arguing about.

 

[The_Foxer]

I have no idea what you two guys are arguing about.

Hard to call it an 'argument'. He said essentially that whatever you read or consider has to be viewed through or inform you moral code. And that it's usless unless it does. I pointed out that wasn't accurate, that there were many things that didn't require your moral code to consider. Math for example isn't moral, 2+2=4 no matter what your morals are.

He kind of went nanners after that and now it's mostly just me poking fun at his sillyness.

 

[French Patriot]

Hard to call it an 'argument'. He said essentially that whatever you read or consider has to be viewed through or inform you moral code. And that it's usless unless it does. I pointed out that wasn't accurate, that there were many things that didn't require your moral code to consider. Math for example isn't moral, 2+2=4 no matter what your morals are.

He kind of went nanners after that and now it's mostly just me poking fun at his sillyness.

I think it silly that I am talking morals and you are talking math.

Math matters, as the good of the many should be put above the needs of the few.

Those are numerical values.

You are not as bright as you think when deflecting so stupidly.

Regards
DL

 

[The_Foxer]

I think it silly that I am talking morals and you are talking math.

Yes - it is silly indeed to suggest math is a moral issue as you have done. So the logical course when i pointed out that some issues, such as math, were not moral issues would have been to agree.

Math matters, as the good of the many should be put above the needs of the few.

That's not math.

Those are numerical values.

No, those are not numbers. "many" is not a number. What you're talking about is size comparison, not numerical values. But even more importantly "math" isn't just "numbers". It's caluclation. If i say "one" - that's not math. It's just a number Math involves numerical or function interaction and calculation. What you've done is make a statement that has nothing to do with mathematical functions. You're just making a statement that has nothing to do with math and doesn't even have any numbers in it. And worse it's just an opinion, it's not even a repeatable result.

It is beyond idiocy to suggest that statement is mathematical.

And you'd have to be the grand high llama of idiocy to suggest it's silly to talk morality while i'm pointing out math is amoral, and then try to go on to claim math is morality. It isn't.

You are not as bright as you think

Still a hell of a lot brighter than you sparky LOL

Lets recap - I suggested that if there's big plot holes in the bible maybe books by better authors would be a better choice,

You suggested that any book that doesn't take you to a moral conclusion is useless.

I noted there are many books and topics that have nothing to do with morality that are valuable. There's math for example. Which as i noted tells us more about our universe than the bible has.

Now you're losing your teeny tiny little mind and freaking out demanding that math is moral (it very clearly isnt'), that vague communist axioms are the same as math (they're not) and that it's stupid to argue about it while arguing about it.

In the words of douglas adams - "I wish i had two heads like yours. I could have infinite fun banging them together".

Math is amoral.
The bible has a lot of plotholes and if that bothers you you should read something else
Books and discussions can have great value without morality being a factor in the slightest.

There you go. Try to absorb that and if it gives you a headache go have a cookie and a nap.

 

[French Patriot]

There you go.

Regards
DL

 

[The_Foxer]

Whatever kid. Next time do better.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Math matters, as the good of the many should be put above the needs of the few.

I'd generally agree that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but I don't think you can derive that moral position from mathematics. People's needs do not appear in mathematics, math is, in the simplest terms, just the study of all possible patterns and it's useful to science to the extent that those patterns show up in the physical world, but it doesn't assign any relative value to those patterns.

 

[The_Foxer]

I'd generally agree that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but I don't think you can derive that moral position from mathematics. People's needs do not appear in mathematics, math is, in the simplest terms, just the study of all possible patterns and it's useful to science to the extent that those patterns show up in the physical world, but it doesn't assign any relative value to those patterns.

Well obviously you can't derive a moral position from math, which was my point. His contention you could was just ridiculous.

But putting a pin in that, one has to ask if "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is even a question of morality? One might almost say it's more of a question of philosophy or even just social engineering. If we're using the fairly standard definition of 'moral' being the difference between 'right and wrong' or 'good and evil', are we REALLY saying that individual rights are inherently evil? Essentially that's what the saying means, that individual rights must not exist where the 'rights' of the 'society' or the 'more' conflict, so if we're saying it's a moral issue then individual rights must be immoral.

And i don't think you could make that argument at all - individual rights aren't immoral. Some people argue that societal rights or the 'greater good' or the 'many' should have the rights, not the individual, but like i said is that actually a 'moral' argument? I think it's just a different societal model, and more of a philosophical argument than a moral one.

Some of a person's reasons for believing that individual rights should not exist where the 'greater good 'is concerned may have moral relevance but the overall question it self really doesn't I believe.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

If we're using the fairly standard definition of 'moral' being the difference between 'right and wrong' or 'good and evil', are we REALLY saying that individual rights are inherently evil? ... i don't think you could make that argument at all - individual rights aren't immoral.

Agreed, you can't make that argument, it's just dumb. I don't think you can conclude that the statement "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" means individual rights are wrong or evil. I'd argue that without individual rights there are no rights worth talking about, subsuming individual rights under group rights leads to nasties like the rather odious British class system, or the Hindu caste system, and ultimately to worse nasties like fascism and national socialism. But I find myself wondering if this is really a matter of rights at all. It seems to me immoral for a society to allocate its resources such that a minority lives in relative plenty while everybody else is at or below subsistence level, for instance (North Korea comes to mind), but it's not clear to me where rights enter into that. Does it mean the minority has more rights than everybody else, or would privilege or status be better descriptors? I dunno. Matters of rights and morality and ethics have always seemed murky to me, always problematical and always in a state of flux, and subject to vast misunderstandings by large numbers of people. I've seen people claim they have a right to drive a car, for instance, which is false, anything that requires a licence can't be a right, it's a privilege, but these issues are rarely so clear cut. I think I'd probably also argue that there's no such thing as natural or inherent rights either, rights are granted by the societies we live in and don't exist otherwise, and politics is how we work these things out. But I'd also have to concede that I haven't spent much time thinking or studying about moral philosophy either. I'm of course aware of the rights granted by custom and statute to individuals in various societies, including our own, but I've always had trouble making sense of the larger picture.

Maybe that's why I went into science at university, I found it interesting and comprehensible. Philosophy... not so much.

 

[The_Foxer]

But I find myself wondering if this is really a matter of rights at all. It seems to me immoral for a society to allocate its resources such that a minority lives in relative plenty while everybody else is at or below subsistence level, for instance

Well one would have to look at whether or not the individual rights were equal in such cases. I tend to agree with your statments prior to this that without individual rights the abuses are horrid. However - You're suggesting here that it is 'immoral' for a society to allow for an imbalance in and of itself without further caveat. So lets consider two examples - society A has equal rights for all, but times are tough and some people manage to succeed while others struggle and do not. Society b on the other hand grants special rights and privileges to a certain class, allowing them to significantly repress and exploit others to corruptly take their wealth, leaving them destitute while the upper class thrives.

In the second case you may well have a point, depending on how we're defining "moral" or morality.

In the first case, it's more of a sadness or tragedy but if everyone had a legitimately equal chance of getting by and some just aren't then is that a moral issue?

And when you say "Society", as in it's wrong for "society" to allow this to happen, are you suggesting that they be forced to by threat of law? IF so - then you are indeed suggesting that their individual rights are being set aside. Which would mean that you're arguing that morality dictates that individual rights shouldn't be a thing, or at least there should be far fewer.

And what about cases where the minority has some need or situation that requires the rest of society to bend a bit? Such as disabled people, are you saying it's morally wrong to make buildings disabled-friendly just so the 'few' can benefit from the 'many's money? What about gays, or smaller religions? These are all cases where the majority is asked to accommodate their needs often at a determent to themselves - are those people immoral?

so i guess what i'm saying is it's way too complex to just say its' a moral issue. When it comes to personal rights, the needs of the many do NOT outweigh the needs of the few (or the one). There are MANY cases where the majority might well have to make accommodation for the few even at a cost, such as in the case of gays or some religions, in order to preserve the rights of the few (or the one). Once we determine that the axiom is not absolute and isn't true in all cases then we're moving it away from a statement about morality and more of a general philosophy. And frankly - when you think about it like that it's not one that stands up particularly well as either a moral OR philosophical axiom.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You're a provocative and intelligent thinker Foxie, and you've obviously given these matters much more thought than I have. Honestly I'd have to admit that I really don't know what I think about many of the issues you raise, I haven't thought about them enough to produce a defensible opinion, though I'd certainly agree that it's too complex to just say it's a moral issue, there are many layers of meaning and significance involved and in an exchange in a forum like this we can't do much more than scratch the surface. These seem to me matters for book length expositions and graduate seminars and such, which wouldn't work here. I do, however, always enjoy your posts and read them carefully, and look forward to more of them.

 

[French Patriot]

Whatever kid. Next time do better.

Impossible to go better than best, kid.

Regards
DL