Remember me
[Forgot password?] [Register]
[Login]
menu

New Reply

New Reply
Your name:


For faster posting and no restrictions: [Login] [Register]



Topic:
Is God's moral above humans?

Message:


Smileys:


Spam prevention:


 


Click only once, it may take up to 30 seconds to post.
By submitting this form you agree to our posting rules, privacy policy and our disclaimer.

Topic Review (Latest First)

Posted by Guess3390
03-03-2019 02:10 PM

God is the most high so, yes.

Posted by Macho
04-19-2016 08:47 PM

Yeah there’s no doubt Plato developed the Theory of Forms, however, the dialogue I posted has a more Socratic vibe.

I know god’S was frequently used, I was just pointing out that god in the modern sense ( christian god ) wasn’t used by the Greeks at that time.

Posted by Ricdog
04-18-2016 03:33 AM

Macho wrote:

Ricdog wrote:

Van Hohenheim wrote: So this is to Ricdog, I made an allusion to this when we we’re debating but never pursued this point deeply. What I’m referring to is good cannot create bad, god you claim is good, but bad cannot come from good unless the good is not good.
This is from “The Republic” by Plato
“And is he not truly good? and must he not be represented as such? Certainly. And no good thing is hurtful? No, indeed. And that which is not hurtful hurts not? Certainly not. And that which hurts not does no evil? No. And can that which does no evil be a cause of evil? Impossible. And the good is advantageous? Yes. And therefore the cause of well-being? Yes.“



Can you tell me the chapter and section of The Republic that this is said in. I wanna go back and look at context on my version.

Anyway i’m not sure this holds up to Plato’s overall philosophy. After all Plato considered this reality to be a miss perfect representation of upper perfect forms. Which sort of contradicts this statement your trying to make. If reality is ultimately grounded on the Form of the Good (which is perfect), how could it have created imperfect world’s like ours? Ironically Platonism is used as an example of explaining how evil exists while God still maintains his perfection.

Plus further explanation would go to Aristotle, who in some ways was an anti-Plato in many issues. His metaphysics into suggesting distinctions of different categories of causes (efficient, material, etc...) would lead someone to reevaluate which type of cause brings forth a moral dilemma. For example is a material cause worthy of moral discussion but not an contingent cause?



“Book II The Individual, The State, and Education”
It’s almost at the end of the 2nd book were Socrates and Adeimantus are creating the ideal state.
To make it easier to follow:

Socrates:ďAnd is he not truly good? and must he not be represented as such?"
Adeimantus:“Certainly."
Socrates:“And no good thing is hurtful?"
Adeimantus:“No, indeed."
Socrates:“And that which is not hurtful hurts not?"
Adeimantus:“Certainly not."
Socrates:“And that which hurts not does no evil?"
Adeimantus:“No."
Socrates:“And can that which does no evil be a cause of evil?"
Adeimantus:“Impossible."
Socrates:“And the good is advantageous?"
Adeimantus:“Yes."
Socrates:“And therefore the cause of well-being?"
Adeimantus:“Yes”


You have to remember that Plato is writing about Socrates and what he said, so he might not be writing about his personal philosophy. But, yes, later on Plato does start to deviate from Socrates to his own personal philosophy and uses Socrates as his mouthpiece. So that might explain some contradicts if there are some.

And I noticed you used “God”, that’s a mischaracterization of Plato. Plato didn’t believe in “God”, I don’t even think “God” was known at that time in Greece or even created at all in his modern sense.

Anyway the reason I bring this up is because it reminded me of this discussion and how I briefly touched on the subject of Good cannot create Evil.



Yes it is a bit of a gray line where Socrates and Plato start to differ in philosophy. But point stands that for sure we know Plato was the one that came up with the Theory of Forms. Which holds reality as being distortions of higher perfect realms. It is ultimately this part of Plato’s philosophy which influenced a lot of future theology since it deals with the metaphysics of reality vs “higher realms” (aka heavens and such).

The term “God” was used in ancient times by philosophers quite often. But of course that didn’t make them monotheists, rather it was a term used to simply refer to the divine. That being said, Plato was a particular guy since his philosophy definitely influenced, and was more in line, a lot of the future of western monotheism.

Posted by Macho
03-26-2016 02:23 PM

Ricdog wrote:

Van Hohenheim wrote: So this is to Ricdog, I made an allusion to this when we we’re debating but never pursued this point deeply. What I’m referring to is good cannot create bad, god you claim is good, but bad cannot come from good unless the good is not good.
This is from “The Republic” by Plato
“And is he not truly good? and must he not be represented as such? Certainly. And no good thing is hurtful? No, indeed. And that which is not hurtful hurts not? Certainly not. And that which hurts not does no evil? No. And can that which does no evil be a cause of evil? Impossible. And the good is advantageous? Yes. And therefore the cause of well-being? Yes.“



Can you tell me the chapter and section of The Republic that this is said in. I wanna go back and look at context on my version.

Anyway i’m not sure this holds up to Plato’s overall philosophy. After all Plato considered this reality to be a miss perfect representation of upper perfect forms. Which sort of contradicts this statement your trying to make. If reality is ultimately grounded on the Form of the Good (which is perfect), how could it have created imperfect world’s like ours? Ironically Platonism is used as an example of explaining how evil exists while God still maintains his perfection.

Plus further explanation would go to Aristotle, who in some ways was an anti-Plato in many issues. His metaphysics into suggesting distinctions of different categories of causes (efficient, material, etc...) would lead someone to reevaluate which type of cause brings forth a moral dilemma. For example is a material cause worthy of moral discussion but not an contingent cause?



“Book II The Individual, The State, and Education”
It’s almost at the end of the 2nd book were Socrates and Adeimantus are creating the ideal state.
To make it easier to follow:

Socrates:ďAnd is he not truly good? and must he not be represented as such?"
Adeimantus:“Certainly."
Socrates:“And no good thing is hurtful?"
Adeimantus:“No, indeed."
Socrates:“And that which is not hurtful hurts not?"
Adeimantus:“Certainly not."
Socrates:“And that which hurts not does no evil?"
Adeimantus:“No."
Socrates:“And can that which does no evil be a cause of evil?"
Adeimantus:“Impossible."
Socrates:“And the good is advantageous?"
Adeimantus:“Yes."
Socrates:“And therefore the cause of well-being?"
Adeimantus:“Yes”


You have to remember that Plato is writing about Socrates and what he said, so he might not be writing about his personal philosophy. But, yes, later on Plato does start to deviate from Socrates to his own personal philosophy and uses Socrates as his mouthpiece. So that might explain some contradicts if there are some.

And I noticed you used “God”, that’s a mischaracterization of Plato. Plato didn’t believe in “God”, I don’t even think “God” was known at that time in Greece or even created at all in his modern sense.

Anyway the reason I bring this up is because it reminded me of this discussion and how I briefly touched on the subject of Good cannot create Evil.

Posted by Ricdog
03-25-2016 09:40 PM

Van Hohenheim wrote: So this is to Ricdog, I made an allusion to this when we we’re debating but never pursued this point deeply. What I’m referring to is good cannot create bad, god you claim is good, but bad cannot come from good unless the good is not good.
This is from “The Republic” by Plato
“And is he not truly good? and must he not be represented as such? Certainly. And no good thing is hurtful? No, indeed. And that which is not hurtful hurts not? Certainly not. And that which hurts not does no evil? No. And can that which does no evil be a cause of evil? Impossible. And the good is advantageous? Yes. And therefore the cause of well-being? Yes.“



Can you tell me the chapter and section of The Republic that this is said in. I wanna go back and look at context on my version.

Anyway i’m not sure this holds up to Plato’s overall philosophy. After all Plato considered this reality to be a miss perfect representation of upper perfect forms. Which sort of contradicts this statement your trying to make. If reality is ultimately grounded on the Form of the Good (which is perfect), how could it have created imperfect world’s like ours? Ironically Platonism is used as an example of explaining how evil exists while God still maintains his perfection.

Plus further explanation would go to Aristotle, who in some ways was an anti-Plato in many issues. His metaphysics into suggesting distinctions of different categories of causes (efficient, material, etc...) would lead someone to reevaluate which type of cause brings forth a moral dilemma. For example is a material cause worthy of moral discussion but not an contingent cause?

Posted by Jurassic DIO
03-03-2016 10:07 AM

A boundless God would have no morality. Quite literally pure evil as he does nothing while countless suffer in this unending nightmare.

Posted by Macho
03-03-2016 12:58 AM

So this is to Ricdog, I made an allusion to this when we we’re debating but never pursued this point deeply. What I’m referring to is good cannot create bad, god you claim is good, but bad cannot come from good unless the good is not good.
This is from “The Republic” by Plato
“And is he not truly good? and must he not be represented as such? Certainly. And no good thing is hurtful? No, indeed. And that which is not hurtful hurts not? Certainly not. And that which hurts not does no evil? No. And can that which does no evil be a cause of evil? Impossible. And the good is advantageous? Yes. And therefore the cause of well-being? Yes."

Posted by Ricdog
12-31-2015 03:03 PM

Other than Captain Save-a-ho, everything else seems quite on the front. Anyone wants some? NO, good. goodnight!

Posted by Ricdog
12-31-2015 03:00 PM

Steven wrote:

Van Hohenheim wrote: I’ve heard people argue that God can do as he pleases because, well he’s god he’s allowed to do anything he wants.

Do most theist agree with this?


*Edit: This is the christian god, being discussed.




Just from God’s actions we can see that he/she is a damn psychopath...
Its morals aren’t in no way or form above our own...

In the religion i was born is was:racist,misogynist,homophobe and a criminal..Christianity...

How can someone even dare to compare this God to us?He is a symbol of fear to our own acestors...

Let’s compare how we(humans) do things compared to god...

We(men) began treating women with respect,the respect they deserved..We stopped telling them what to do,and what they are capable of doing(being possessive)..

Racism=People stopped being as they were..We gave the black people the rights all people deserve..No more slaves..How fucked up is that?Imagine that Jesus didn’t say shit when he came,and that he even supported slavery..

I guess that people who love the same gender deserve to die in pain...Well,guess what?They fucking don’t....
The world started to open their damn eyes for once..It’s none of your business who people love...
You,the church,god,has no damn right to tell people what to do.
They aren’t breaking any common sense laws,they aren’t threatening anyone.It’s not bad.It’s only love between two people,who give consent to each other...


Criminal...God killed the population of Earth 2 times already,because he fucked up...
He let the snake talk to the people,when he/she was all-knowing..
He let them eat the damn apple,him/her being all-knowing...
Adam and Eva were very young,didn’t have the notion of good or wrong..Guess how good of a father god is?

He/she hates so many things that he/she created,and all people want to call him/her all-knowing,all-powerful,all-loving....

Give me a break...

God’s morality is worse than a 5 year old’s from our generation...

ON TOPIC:

He can’t do things just because he’s god......
If a mother gives birth to a child, that doesn’t give her the right to kill the child....Take that analogy and shove it up some dumb fucks ass..



Steven wrote: I’ve heard people argue that God can do as he pleases because, well he’s god he’s allowed to do anything he wants.

Do most theist agree with this?



To the extent he has his free will, yea.

Steven wrote:
Just from God’s actions we can see that he/she is a damn psychopath...
Its morals aren’t in no way or form above our own...



Here comes the self-righteous rant on how good and ethical one is compared to all those other “bad” people. lol

Steven wrote: We(men) began treating women with respect,the respect they deserved..We stopped telling them what to do,and what they are capable of doing(being possessive)..



HAHAHAH!!! Damn, Captain Save-a-ho to the rescue!!!! Yes the fight for Woman’s Rights is over, woman no longer complain world wide. We treat them with respect. LOOOOL

Captain Save-a-ho wrote: Racism=People stopped being as they were..We gave the black people the rights all people deserve..No more slaves..How fucked up is that?Imagine that Jesus didn’t say shit when he came,and that he even supported slavery..



Looks like Captain Save-a-ho is joining the self-delusional idealistic group of progressives. Of course we stopped racism, racism is dead right? Like 50 years ago, there is no more racism. Them minorities crying out daily about injustice are just ignorant! loooool

Captain Save-a-ho wrote: You,the church,god,has no damn right to tell people what to do.
They aren’t breaking any common sense laws,they aren’t threatening anyone.It’s not bad.It’s only love between two people,who give consent to each other...



yes of course, the superior being and father of humanity has no say in their ways! We want to be independent and o what we want, like a 12 year old yelling at his parents to leave him alone. HAHAH

Such common sense is indistinguishable from common nonsense.

Captain Save-a-ho wrote: Criminal...God killed the population of Earth 2 times already,because he fucked up...
He let the snake talk to the people,when he/she was all-knowing..
He let them eat the damn apple,him/her being all-knowing...
Adam and Eva were very young,didn’t have the notion of good or wrong..Guess how good of a father god is?



You tell him Captain Save-a-ho!!!!! How dare we be held accountable for our own actions! Yea we made the choice of talking to the snakes, sinning in Jericho, etc...but fuck it, this is all daddy’s fault!

Captain Save-a-ho wrote: God’s morality is worse than a 5 year old’s from our generation...



Yea, daddy just doesn’t understand huh? We know whats right. Just like a freshman who thinks he knows more than the professor.

Captain Save-a-ho wrote: He can’t do things just because he’s god......
If a mother gives birth to a child, that doesn’t give her the right to kill the child....Take that analogy and shove it up some dumb fucks ass..



WOW, are you sure about that Captain Save-a-ho??? We’ve all heard mother’s quote: “I brought you into this world, its only fitting that I also take you out!"

Posted by Macho
11-01-2015 03:14 PM

Where did Hellfigher go? Reverse psychology is easily edible for children, it seems.

Edited 11-01-2015 03:15 PM by Macho

Up to ten (10) latest replies / posts from the original topic shown.

The Lounge Forums ©Silicon.dk ApS 2012 - Privacy Policy - Disclaimer - FAQ - Contact