Is God competent or incompetent?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

You don't. Its an intrinsic characteristic of your own morality....as I said you just act....your innate morality or immorality dicates the type of person one is.
If all you are doing is weighing your actions against how you think you should act then you are merely acting in accordance with the constructs of the morality as defined by the society within which you exist. For example if you are a shopkeeper and you are handed too much money from a customer making a purchase do you think about keeping the extra money or do you think it is morally right; thus making you a better person to give the overpayment back? Or without though, do you just give the extra money back? By weighing the options of giving the extra payment back you are using the customer as a frame of reference to judge your own moral standing; I gave him his money back therefore I am an honest merchant.

If one begins with decent morals, fine to only take your own leadership.

If one begins with less of a moral grounding, best to look to others for better morals. To say society does not play a role is foolish.

I know of a tribe where the woman have more than one husband. Morals might show this as a poor situation and the men do not like it but they put up with that possible immorality because of the living conditions of utter poverty and the fact that property is owned by women in their culture basically accepts their situation as moral.

Cannibalism in some tribes is also a good example of where looking and adopting what is seen in other communities is healthy for the morals of others.

Morality, I think, has to be a collective thing more than an individual thing.

Reality is a collective hunch and we have to consider the collective.

Regards
DL

 

[The Scotsman]

Cannibalism

Very interesting....read R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 and the summing up from Lord Coleridge regarding the law and morality!

Morality, I think, has to be a collective thing more than an individual thing.

Why? Surely individuals are capable of being intrisically moral beings, for example if I make a promise that I know I cannot keep, that has nothing to do with anyone else. The moral worth of an action is not the consequences of it but in the intention for which the act is done.

I know of a tribe where the woman have more than one husband

....and? Marriage is a contract between the state and people and has nothing in itself to do with morality or ethics.

Free will is only the ability to choose.

yes and no. Its the confinement of action within the laws of nature, cause and effect etc. We act as the slaves of our own appetites and desires everything we do has a purpose or an end which we are seeking to satisfy.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Where have I promoted such an idea?

Show the quote or be seen as the liar you are.

God confirms later in Gen 3 that man gained his moral sense.

They have become as God's etc.

Have you even read your bible? Gen 3 is a small chapter and if my poor memory can remember the drift of it, why can't yours?

Or is lying all you have?

Regards
DL

No, unlike you all I have is truth. First off Chapter three, and your distortion of it. I suspect you are referring to this verse:

"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

Knowledge of good and evil does not mean they gained their moral sense as you falsely state. They had their moral sense in the garden before Satan deceived them. Adam knew he was not to eat of the fruit of the tree. Eve knew the same. However, she allowed Satan to deceive her, and Adam followed her lead. The end result was the sense of conscience, and the shame that occurs from the knowledge of good, and evil. In this case your "memory" is as distorted as your teachings.

Now, where do you "lead others to follow Satan rather then God?" In your false teachings. Take this thread as an example.
"Is God competent or incompetent?" If He is "incompetent" as you are claiming, what is the alternative? It certainly is not God, nor is it His son Jesus. The alternative you present is only one, or two, disbelief in God, or belief in Satan as god.

As Jesus said in John 8: 41-45

" 'Ye do the deeds of your father.' Then said they to him, 'We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.' Jesus said unto them, 'If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.' "

Go ahead. Challenge my knowledge of scripture. I have shown you to be a false spirit in the past, and will do so again.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Why? Surely individuals are capable of being intrisically moral beings, for example if I make a promise that I know I cannot keep, that has nothing to do with anyone else. The moral worth of an action is not the consequences of it but in the intention for which the act is done.

Indeed. We all contribute to the collective.

Your promise does effect the one you make it to so to say it has nothing to do with another would not be correct.

In morality, the Golden Rule comes to mind. Would you like to be promised something that is a false promise?

I do agree with your last. All such decisions are subjective.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Knowledge of good and evil does not mean they gained their moral sense as you falsely state.

Really. Where do you get it then?

They had their moral sense in the garden before Satan deceived them.

Then God had no reason to deny them the tree of knowledge as they would already have it.

Why would God want to, as he says, have their mental eyes closed?

However, she allowed Satan to deceive her, and Adam followed her lead.

Allowed?

Did God/scriptures not say that Satan could deceive the whole world?

If Satan could not deceive Eve, why did God put Satan in Eden?

"Is God competent or incompetent?" If He is "incompetent" as you are claiming, what is the alternative? It certainly is not God, nor is it His son Jesus. The alternative you present is only one, or two, disbelief in God, or belief in Satan as god.

That is not true. What is wrong with finding a competent God?

If you are to compare the competence of God and Satan, just count the bodies. Who would you prefer to meet? God or Satan? Not that either are real except to those whose minds have deteriorated to belief in the supernatural.

Go ahead. Challenge my knowledge of scripture. I have shown you to be a false spirit in the past, and will do so again.

Wow. What a delusional and inflated ego.

You brag without showing where you did this.

Regards
DL

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Really. Where do you get it then?

Scripture, something you know nothing of:

Romans 8: 14-16

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

Then God had no reason to deny them the tree of knowledge as they would already have it.

Why would God want to, as he says, have their mental eyes closed?

Ignorant as usual. God sais He created them perfect. Was there a special reason why they should know evil when all they needed to know was good?

Allowed?

Did God/scriptures not say that Satan could deceive the whole world?

If Satan could not deceive Eve, why did God put Satan in Eden?

Don't know where this is coming from. God says Satan, like you, would try to deceive the whole world. I know of no scripture where it says he can. If you are ignorantly referring to Revelations 12, then you must be made aware of the time frame, and the last few verses in the course of events. Obviously believers are not deceived, only the foolish, and those like you:

"When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the wilderness, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

That is not true. What is wrong with finding a competent God?

You are not trying to "find" a competent God, you are promoting an incompetent god.

If you are to compare the competence of God and Satan, just count the bodies. Who would you prefer to meet? God or Satan? Not that either are real except to those whose minds have deteriorated to belief in the supernatural.

Here again you reveal your true intent, and lies.

Wow. What a delusional and inflated ego.

You brag without showing where you did this.

Regards
DL

I only need one, and this is just one example. Not a brag, just the truth.

 

[The Scotsman]

Indeed. We all contribute to the collective.

But what if the collective only wants to maximise its own desires; if the collective action or inaction is only desirable or beneficial to the majority? Is that necessarily moral? For example a train is out of control and has no way of stopping, up ahead is a set of points, you are in charge of the points. Each track has workers on it unaware of the train and you have no way to tell them. On the main track are 10 workers on the spur is 1 worker if you do nothing 10 are certain to die if you turn the point 1 is certain to die. What do you do and why?

 

[The Scotsman]

Your promise does effect the one you make it to so to say it has nothing to do with another would not be correct.

I think you may have misunderstood the proposition. My meaning was if I make a promise to someone that I know I cannot or will not keep is made without reference to any third party or circumstance. For example if you ask me do I want to go for a drink after work there are three possible options, yes, no or maybe. Two are unequivocal those options are solely down to me. Do I promise to meet him in the pub knowing I won’t keep it or do I look forward to a cold brew!

 

[The Scotsman]

In morality, the Golden Rule comes to mind. Would you like to be promised something that is a false promise?

What about actions or inactions? As above what maxims would you think governs moral actions or inactions?

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Was there a special reason why they should know evil when all they needed to know was good?

If you know the good of a thing, that also tells you the evils of it. No?

He created them perfect.

So you think not having a moral sense is perfection. Not surprising.

Scripture, something you know nothing of:

If scriptures give you your morals, and they say that justice is an eye for an eye etc, what do you think of God who contradicts that when he kills for a lot less than killing?

You are not trying to "find" a competent God, you are promoting an incompetent god.

Really? Which God am I promoting?

If you want an answer, should you reply, keep your ignorant and stupid personal comments to yourself or you will be ignored.

Then again, your ilk used Inquisitions because they, and you now, could not argue your points and used violence to grow.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

But what if the collective only wants to maximise its own desires; if the collective action or inaction is only desirable or beneficial to the majority? Is that necessarily moral? For example a train is out of control and has no way of stopping, up ahead is a set of points, you are in charge of the points. Each track has workers on it unaware of the train and you have no way to tell them. On the main track are 10 workers on the spur is 1 worker if you do nothing 10 are certain to die if you turn the point 1 is certain to die. What do you do and why?

The closest thing to an objective moral statement, although it is still subjective, is that the good of the many outweigh the good of the few.

So yes, the majority rules and sets the standard.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I think you may have misunderstood the proposition. My meaning was if I make a promise to someone that I know I cannot or will not keep is made without reference to any third party or circumstance. For example if you ask me do I want to go for a drink after work there are three possible options, yes, no or maybe. Two are unequivocal those options are solely down to me. Do I promise to meet him in the pub knowing I won’t keep it or do I look forward to a cold brew!

I guess it would depend on if you want to be seen as a man of your word or not.

I am near phobic about lying and try hard to be a man of my word.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

What about actions or inactions? As above what maxims would you think governs moral actions or inactions?

We were speaking of promises and the actions should follow whatever your word or promise said.

There could be permissible lies and actions if the intent is benevolent.

Take a dying person at an accident scene. If you tell them they will be ok and promise to make sure they are ok, while knowing they are dying, I doubt that anyone would accuse you of lying or breaking a promise even though technically you were. The benevolence makes it forgivable.

As I said, all morals and the ethics they produce are all subjective.

Regards
DL

 

[The Scotsman]

So yes, the majority rules and sets the standard.

I guess it would depend on if you want to be seen as a man of your word or not.

There could be permissible lies and actions if the intent is benevolent.

Interesting, 3 different constructs to the same reasoning of morality or immorality all dependent on the person and the action. Back to the OP. You infered that because God as you call it created the Garden of Eden which produced original sin or evil thus he failed. The Garden of Eden for me is an allegory for "a state of mind" I think the bible calls it "paradise" or if you like a modern construct more in line with John Rawls' then use "the veil of ignorance" or the "original position". Within our state of paradise/veil of ignorance there is no race, colour, creed, rich or poor, ill or healthy there just "is" (a bit like from Genesis that you were discussing with Trapper - in the begining was the word - the Greek is better "Logos") divided into male and female and within is the serpent (evil tempter) which is for me an allegory for choice. We choose to do or abstain from doing an act or acts which have consequences for us as the person and for those around us based on our action or inaction (as we've discussed above), eat the apple or don't eat the apple, to slake a desire or act as a moral person or as Kant put it Categorical versus Hypothetical Imperitive.

I think you are wrong God as you call it did not create evil as evil is not a "thing" its a choice as you have in your 3 answers above - different choices produce different outcomes and within our non-freewill state of existence we apply terminologies to concepts so we can rationalise them. Evil is a choice the same as acting morally is a choice.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Interesting, 3 different constructs to the same reasoning of morality or immorality all dependent on the person and the action. Back to the OP. You infered that because God as you call it created the Garden of Eden which produced original sin or evil thus he failed. The Garden of Eden for me is an allegory for "a state of mind" I think the bible calls it "paradise" or if you like a modern construct more in line with John Rawls' then use "the veil of ignorance" or the "original position". Within our state of paradise/veil of ignorance there is no race, colour, creed, rich or poor, ill or healthy there just "is" (a bit like from Genesis that you were discussing with Trapper - in the begining was the word - the Greek is better "Logos") divided into male and female and within is the serpent (evil tempter) which is for me an allegory for choice. We choose to do or abstain from doing an act or acts which have consequences for us as the person and for those around us based on our action or inaction (as we've discussed above), eat the apple or don't eat the apple, to slake a desire or act as a moral person or as Kant put it Categorical versus Hypothetical Imperitive.

I think you are wrong God as you call it did not create evil as evil is not a "thing" its a choice as you have in your 3 answers above - different choices produce different outcomes and within our non-freewill state of existence we apply terminologies to concepts so we can rationalise them. Evil is a choice the same as acting morally is a choice.

I agree for the most part, but doing evil towards others is also a requirement if you are to succeed in life.

Here is the longer explanation.

--------

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind.

That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability as the author and creator of human nature.

Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all do evil/sin by nature then, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree with Christians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that can only be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has been forcibly withheld.

Much has been written to explain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.

First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.

In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act.

Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.

As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.

Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

This link speak to theistic evolution.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...cept-evolution-and-big-bang-180953166/?no-ist

If theistic evolution is true, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not really any original sin.

Doing evil then is actually forced on us by evolution and the need to survive. Our default position is to cooperate or to do good. I offer this clip as proof of this. You will note that we default to good as it is better for survival.

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Regards
DL