Is Yahweh breaking an objective moral tenet?

[Gnostic Bishop]

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

 

[Gormur]

This is something not covered in scripture but I think it covers part of your question. When people go to Heaven, they will themselves there. That is, they want to go there and be with their Creator, so that's their destiny

If the scripture were to cover this topic, I might actually like it and continually read it. As it is though I've read the entire Bible, well since I was young I finished it many times and I just don't see an answer here

How do you have tenets without acknowledging man's desire to find peace?

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

This is something not covered in scripture but I think it covers part of your question. When people go to Heaven, they will themselves there. That is, they want to go there and be with their Creator, so that's their destiny

If the scripture were to cover this topic, I might actually like it and continually read it. As it is though I've read the entire Bible, well since I was young I finished it many times and I just don't see an answer here

How do you have tenets without acknowledging man's desire to find peace?

Peace? Peace is overrated.

Answer my questions and I will reciprocate.

Regards
DL

 

[MountainTrails]

I'm not sure you will find a satisfying answer. You speak of objective moral tenets, yet those are from a human perspective and with human thinking and probably a ton of cultural values thrown in. The common metaphor is usually along the lines of something like we have trouble counting past our fingers, and God's dabbling with tensor calculus, or maybe something from Abbott's Flatland. We're not gonna get it.

Generally speaking, something simple like "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" presumes a lot, including that all things under consideration are equal. "1 mosquito does not equal 1 human" in my value system. I'd also probably pile into what "need" actually means, and then it starts looking more like a multiobjective optimization problem and less like an ethics one.

 

[Gormur]

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

I don't understand the first question you posed. See my understanding was of his death being a sacrifice to believers so that they would be granted access to Heaven

It's hard for me because I don't believe any of this, but still going in chronological order and putting the theology together proves impossible; for me

Peace

 

[Jabberwocky]

I'm not sure you will find a satisfying answer. You speak of objective moral tenets, yet those are from a human perspective and with human thinking and probably a ton of cultural values thrown in. The common metaphor is usually along the lines of something like we have trouble counting past our fingers, and God's dabbling with tensor calculus, or maybe something from Abbott's Flatland. We're not gonna get it.

Generally speaking, something simple like "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" presumes a lot, including that all things under consideration are equal. "1 mosquito does not equal 1 human" in my value system. I'd also probably pile into what "need" actually means, and then it starts looking more like a multiobjective optimization problem and less like an ethics one.

I've toyed with the idea that the Golden Rule is in a sense an objective moral tenet, but I don't know if it holds water.

What I mean is that in order to do unto others, there has to be a relational analysis between oneself and the other. It doesn't necessarily require any moral assumptions or absolutes but it does require information.

 

[Brendan12]

Yahweh the category.. is perfectly christic..

But the agent behind it is trapped in the same mental games as anyone else..

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I'm not sure you will find a satisfying answer. You speak of objective moral tenets, yet those are from a human perspective and with human thinking and probably a ton of cultural values thrown in. The common metaphor is usually along the lines of something like we have trouble counting past our fingers, and God's dabbling with tensor calculus, or maybe something from Abbott's Flatland. We're not gonna get it.

Generally speaking, something simple like "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" presumes a lot, including that all things under consideration are equal. "1 mosquito does not equal 1 human" in my value system. I'd also probably pile into what "need" actually means, and then it starts looking more like a multiobjective optimization problem and less like an ethics one.

Mosquitoes?

Let me rephrase for you.

Do the good of the many mosquitoes not outweigh the needs of the few mosquitoes?

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I don't understand the first question you posed. See my understanding was of his death being a sacrifice to believers so that they would be granted access to Heaven

Who was denying us access to heaven if not Jesus?

Could that immoral judge not just recind his unjust condemnation of us without suicide?

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Yahweh the category.. is perfectly christic..

But the agent behind it is trapped in the same mental games as anyone else..

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Regards
DL

 

[Gormur]

Who was denying us access to heaven if not Jesus?

Could that immoral judge not just recind his unjust condemnation of us without suicide?

Regards
DL

I don't know what you're saying. I'm looking at it from a historical point of view.

The Jews who decided to follow this man, Yeshua (Jesus) had a view that there was a waiting area; sort of like Catholicism has, purgatory. This is from Judaism. Then these Messianic Jews changed their ways, meaning that they could be accepted into Heaven, which is also a Jewish concept

 

[MountainTrails]

Mosquitoes?

Let me rephrase for you.

Do the good of the many mosquitoes not outweigh the needs of the few mosquitoes?

Regards
DL

I was looking for a boundary or maybe some precision. Still, if you want to judge God by human standards and thinking, he's in charge of the mosquitoes too and has to balance it all out, so mixed-species problems seem in scope. We can limit it to people, though, and keep things a whole lot simpler.

To answer your question, not necessarily. "Hey, guys, we've decided the tribe is looking a little thin and needs more protein. You guys lost, so, sorry there, mates, but you do look delicious." Does the "good" there (better nutrition for the larger group) outweigh whatever "need" the BBQ guys have (perhaps to stay alive)? I would say no.

Perhaps an absurd example, perhaps not.

Anyway, what do you think of my comment about judging God from a human perspective and understanding? That's the sticking place, I think. We are, as far as I can tell personally, bound up significantly in/with time, or by our perception of it, which profoundly affects our understanding of life, death, existence, eternity. We also have a fairly narrow and low band of intelligence as a species. If God is the creator of all that, and we're the created, these "God on trial" approaches start to look sketchy as "lack of standing/comprehension" seems a legitimate criticism.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Anyway, what do you think of my comment about judging God from a human perspective and understanding?

Why not? That is what scriptures and common sense would have us do. Test all things says scriptures and hold to the good.

All believers have judged their gods to be good or they would not idol worship them. Even the satanic genocidal Yahweh, Christians call good.

I would say no.

Those who sacrificed babies because of limited resources did not agree. They needed food producers and not inactive mouths to feed. Knowing human nature and how we love babies, that had to be tough decisions for all who lived where resources were finite.

Regards
DL

 

[Vastness]

Yes, traditional religious beliefs about Heaven being accessible only to a chosen few who are fortunate enough to be born into the correct religion are, probably, objectively morally dubious, as far as any ideas about objective morality make any sense at all.

As far as the Jesus/Son/Father question you asked, you may as well ask what type of feed is best for a unicorn. I thought Jesus was supposed to be both God himself and the Son of God? Ergo, Yahweh did in fact sacrifice himself, as his son was somehow also the embodiment of God. The entire Jesus mythology is garbled nonsense anyway, this question is vacuous, IMO. Why even construct a universe where the only way to save the inhabitants from their own pre-encoded sinfulness was to send an avatar of himself to be crucified anyway? Many more strange things going on in the Jesus story than this.

 

[Gormur]

God is the creator of Heaven and Earth, possibly Gehenna and or Hell as well. Jesus was supposedly a human male

He wouldn't in theory actually be God because God is omnipotent. That means he, Jesus would just be himself. Then in Heaven he would be alongside God as the Trinity

The part I don't get is who the Holy Spirit is. It seems like it appears even before Jesus' death, after which it was called the Holy Ghost

I appreciate spiritual explanations but in this case there isn't one

 

[Jabberwocky]

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three aspects or faces of God, at least that's how I've seen it explained. I've seen other explanations too. I think of it as God, Jesus, and Jesus" Church.

 

[Gormur]

The son of God would be Jesus. In spiritual form, Jesus would be the Holy Spirit or Jesus Christ (Holy ghost). The father would be God as He would be the father of Jesus

That's what I was taught at school

 

[Brendan12]

Yeshua means going with the way.. Jehovah means jealous God(Yod)..

But the texts have yet to describe the perfect still.. yah weh shin vey hey

Yod Weh

Ad Adonai

 

[Gormur]

Yeshua means going with the way.. Jehovah means jealous God(Yod)..

But the texts have yet to describe the perfect still.. yah weh shin vey hey

Yod Weh

Ad Adonai

You're wrong. Yeshua is deliverer. Jehovah is the Latin translation of Yahweh, which refers to God

Jews, however use the name of God from Genesis; Hashem, which means the creator. This is Biblical Hebrew

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Yes, traditional religious beliefs about Heaven being accessible only to a chosen few who are fortunate enough to be born into the correct religion are, probably, objectively morally dubious, as far as any ideas about objective morality make any sense at all.

As far as the Jesus/Son/Father question you asked, you may as well ask what type of feed is best for a unicorn. I thought Jesus was supposed to be both God himself and the Son of God? Ergo, Yahweh did in fact sacrifice himself, as his son was somehow also the embodiment of God. The entire Jesus mythology is garbled nonsense anyway, this question is vacuous, IMO. Why even construct a universe where the only way to save the inhabitants from their own pre-encoded sinfulness was to send an avatar of himself to be crucified anyway? Many more strange things going on in the Jesus story than this.

Indeed, and moral thinkers say that the immorality around substitutional punishment, and Christians embracing those immoral tenets, is what will kill Christianity.

The sooner the better in my view, given the harm that fascist religion continues to do to society.

Regards
DL