Does God have any moral responsibility to his children?

Started by Symmetric Chaos2 pages
Originally posted by -Pr-
lol, I said respect their views, not their actions.

If a person put me in prison I'd say the jailer wasn't respecting my belief that I should be free. How do you react to a being that holds the view that it should not respect your views? If you don't care then you'd have to take my side that respecting the simple existence of a belief is trivial.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I'm not arrogant enough to believe that a supreme being should place the same value on a human life that I do. Though at the same time, I reserve the right to retain the belief in the value of that life that I place on it.

Then you've adopted an odd sort of relativism. Within your own morality serial killers are bad and should be stopped from killing. At the same time you want to respect their desire to kill.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If a person put me in prison I'd say the jailer wasn't respecting my belief that I should be free. How do you react to a being that holds the view that it should not respect your views? If you don't care then you'd have to take my side that respecting the simple existence of a belief is trivial.

Then you've adopted an odd sort of relativism. Within your own morality serial killers are bad and should be stopped from killing. At the same time you want to respect their desire to kill.

By standing up for my own views. Sure, a supreme being might blink me out of existence, but I won't compromise who I am for the sake of a supreme being's superior knowledge when I don't agree with their morality. I wouldn't consider a supreme being the same as a jailer, though, so I'm not sure we're going to reach an accord on this.

Desires are one thing, actions are another. Sure, I believe that steps need to be taken to minimise danger, but I think it's important to make distinctions where they apply.

I think I'm getting my words twisted here, so I'll try to clarify, as I'm only going to sound like I'm contradicting myself.

I don't respect the desire to kill; I recognise and respect that it exists, even if I find it morally dubious.

I respect it's existence, in the sense that I believe and accept that it is a real thing. Just like a paedophile has the urge to molest children. I respect that the urge exists and that it is an actual construct, but I in no way believe that such beliefs should be entertained or celebrated. I acknowledge the existence of the desire and the belief, but I'd still work to suppress any dangerous action if it was threatening.

Does that make any sense? I haven't slept yet, so I'm not sure I'm coming across properly.

Re: Does God have any moral responsibility to his children?

First off, my religion is Quantum Perspective:

"Quantum Perspective is a theistic view about the nature of the cosmos, delving into quantum physics and parallel universe/M theory. It states Quantum Reality only exists within perspective, therefore perspective influences causality to result in a multi-verse of potentialities."

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Does God have any moral responsibility to his children?

Human parents have a moral responsibility to protect and try to raise their children to be what we think of as good citizens. Our laws, to some extent, make parents morally and legally responsible for the actions of their children.

God, our heavenly parent, is said to create our natures. Natures can only be followed. They cannot be changed,

They can be changed, we can, in our ignorance, deviate from our conscience and make decisions which are contrary to it. When we do, causality is no longer in the hands of our conscious existence, a precursor to the prime consciousness, the unreachable end-point of all evolution.

When that happens, we create microcasms in quantum reality, that are not of intelligent design, and are very flawed and imperfect. Cause and effect take over in a chaos, and we become victims of it. This is not good for evolution, God promotes omnibenevolence by virtue of being the outcome of evolution, not this devolution brought about by the paradox of choice.

which I think is why God is said to hate some of us even in the womb; even before we can either do good or evil. IOW, he intentionally creates those he knows will be evil.

In one potential parallel universe, one is born and becomes sour. However, there are infinite potentialities, therefore that very same individual could have followed his or her conscience, and gained better clarity to make the better choices that brings about a good potentiality as opposed to a bad one.

Whatever can happen does happen, it's up to the one with the causal eye, the one who holds perspective of his or her existence - to choose which of the infinite goods or bads to observe throughout their natural existence, and therefore benefit or suffer from said perspectives in life.

I know some will blame man’s sins on his free will and thus shift the burden of responsibility for our sins away from God but that urge to sin is controlled by the nature and inclinations that God himself puts in us. We do have free will but that does not explain why our will, will go to evil instead of good. That desire is part of the nature that God puts in us as the story of Esau shows. In a way, Esau had no choice.

If God were just one of many Gods in a God society, would that society demand that he take responsibility in the same way human society has decided that a human child’s parent must take responsibilities?

Yes we would.

The fact that God punishes or rewards us seems to indicate that he at least thinks that he has some moral responsibility; otherwise he could not morally retain the right to punish or reward. At present we have no clear picture of what heaven and hell are like. God does not provide full disclosure even though our soul is at stake. That is not justice.

Should God’s responsibility include full disclose of what our true reward and punishment is?

God did not seem to think so in Eden, where Adam and Eve knew of only the one punishment before the act of disobedience. They soon found that the one punishment became many. It was a complete surprise for them. To me, that was completely immoral of God. That is like God lying to Adam and Eve by omission.

Does God have a responsibility for the souls he creates?

And since he could insure that all come to a good end in heaven, is making sure we get there also part of his responsibility since he creates the natures we cannot help but follow?

Any good human parent with God-like powers would insure the best end for his child if he had the power of a God. I know you and I would as part of our inclination to love and protect our children.

If God does not, does that make man more responsible than God in terms of accepting responsibility for our children?

By very definition you're conscious mind is a precursor and yet one of infinite conceptions to and by God simultaneously. It is omnipresent, everything at once.

You and God are one in the same, so you have the power to determine how far you are able to bring about the most evolution in your lifetime that you can, by virtue of choice. Choice being the positive or negative reflection of your various causes and effects in life, which actually dictate its quality and is in itself a reflection of one's positive or negative outlook on life, perspective. There is no limit to what any sentient mind can achieve as their actions in life echo a positive or negative affect on the overall evolution of intelligence, there are certainly long shots for some, but not limits per se.

Whatever decision you make in life is irrelevant still, because in every single potentiality God has emerged as the ultimate plateau in the evolution of consciousness, it merely achieved existence differently in each potentiality.

In quantum physics, objects are not determined things. Objects are possibilities. Possibilities for what? Possibilities for consciousness to choose from. There is a need for a new science. A new science based on the primacy of consciousness.

"There is a need for a new science. A new science based on the primacy of consciousness."

Can we call it Kantian metaphysics like we did last time?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"There is a need for a new science. A new science based on the primacy of consciousness."

Can we call it Kantian metaphysics like we did last time?

Yes.

The Groundwork of the Metaphysic(s) of Morals (German: Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, 1785), also known as Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals, and Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, is Immanuel Kant's first contribution to moral philosophy. It argues for an a priori basis for morality. Where the Critique of Pure Reason laid out Kant's metaphysical and epistemological ideas, this relatively short, primarily meta-ethical, work was intended to outline and define the concepts and arguments shaping his future work The Metaphysics of Morals.
The Groundwork is notable for its explanation of the categorical imperative, which is the central concept of Kant’s moral philosophy.
The Groundwork is broken into a preface, followed by three sections. Kant's argument works from common reason up to the supreme unconditional law, in order to identify its existence. He then works backwards from there to prove the relevance and weight of the moral law. The third and final section of the book is famously obscure, and it is partly because of this that Kant later, in 1788, decided to publish the Critique of Practical Reason.

There is always room for more knowledge in science.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I suggest that it is you who should recognize that if you deny someone what will keep them alive, it is murder.

If you need proof, go deny someone their air and see how soon you are jailed for murder.

And do not call me son, child. You have way too much to learn before taking that liberty.

Start here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

Regards
DL

I suggest you learn what the word murder means. Start here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/murder

God could no more "murder" a human than you could "murder" an ant. Go stomp on an ant in front of a cop and see how quickly you don't get in any trouble at all

I shall call you what i wish, son. When you're clearly trolling you don't get respect. Son

Oh and one last thing- 😂

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then you believe in absolute moral relativism?

Well i wouldn't hold a child to the same standards of it's parents. Or a bear to the standards to a human. Our laws/morals don't apply to a god so just because we see something as wrong or unfair doesn't mean He would. Also we are fallable and God is not so saying this/that is wrong/right can be completely wrong yet we falsefully believe otherwise

Originally posted by Greatest I am

And do not call me son, child.

Do not call me child, kid!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Do not call me child, kid!

I was going to post again but their egos are taking up too much room.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Do not call me child, kid!

😂

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was going to post again but their egos are taking up too much room.

Sorry 😮

Originally posted by anaconda
god is a creation of man so no to god and yes to parents

+ 1

Regards
DL

Originally posted by -Pr-
Assuming god is real, then no, he has no moral obligation to us. Using our own standards, adults aren't children, and can't blame god for things they need to take responsibility for, because adults are supposed to know better, whereas actual children don't.

Also, applying our own moral standards to a supreme being is highly flawed, tbh, and can't be in any way practical.

At least imo.

But scriptures say that they are to be the same.
As above so below.

Remember your Genesis where God says, "they have become as Gods, knowing good and evil. God does think like us and we like him. From an esoteric POV of course. It is all myth.

If we are not to put human standards to morality then whose morality should we use if the absentee God do not come around to instruct in their non-human morality?

Regards
DL

Re: Re: Does God have any moral responsibility to his children?

Originally posted by Dolos
First off, my religion is Quantum Perspective:

"Quantum Perspective is a theistic view about the nature of the cosmos, delving into quantum physics and parallel universe/M theory. It states Quantum Reality only exists within perspective, therefore perspective influences causality to result in a multi-verse of potentialities."

They can be changed, we can, in our ignorance, deviate from our conscience and make decisions which are contrary to it. When we do, causality is no longer in the hands of our conscious existence, a precursor to the prime consciousness, the unreachable end-point of all evolution.

When that happens, we create microcasms in quantum reality, that are not of intelligent design, and are very flawed and imperfect. Cause and effect take over in a chaos, and we become victims of it. This is not good for evolution, God promotes omnibenevolence by virtue of being the outcome of evolution, not this devolution brought about by the paradox of choice.

In one potential parallel universe, one is born and becomes sour. However, there are infinite potentialities, therefore that very same individual could have followed his or her conscience, and gained better clarity to make the better choices that brings about a good potentiality as opposed to a bad one.

Whatever can happen does happen, it's up to the one with the causal eye, the one who holds perspective of his or her existence - to choose which of the infinite goods or bads to observe throughout their natural existence, and therefore benefit or suffer from said perspectives in life.

By very definition you're conscious mind is a precursor and yet one of infinite conceptions to and by God simultaneously. It is omnipresent, everything at once.

You and God are one in the same, so you have the power to determine how far you are able to bring about the most evolution in your lifetime that you can, by virtue of choice. Choice being the positive or negative reflection of your various causes and effects in life, which actually dictate its quality and is in itself a reflection of one's positive or negative outlook on life, perspective. There is no limit to what any sentient mind can achieve as their actions in life echo a positive or negative affect on the overall evolution of intelligence, there are certainly long shots for some, but not limits per se.

Whatever decision you make in life is irrelevant still, because in every single potentiality God has emerged as the ultimate plateau in the evolution of consciousness, it merely achieved existence differently in each potentiality.

Hard to separate the good from the not so good here. That is the problem with partially formed new age religions.

"You and God are one in the same,"

I agree with this and have in fact started a new O P on this issue.
Please have a look and opine on it.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=580857

Speaking of our natures, you said----------

'"hey can be changed, we can, in our ignorance, deviate from our conscience and make decisions which are contrary to it."

Our natures are fixed into a certain form. So to speak.
The only changes we can make are determined by that form and we cannot change it. We can change some aspects of how we act, that is just free will, but we cannot, let's say, become gay if we are straight or straight if we are gay.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"There is a need for a new science. A new science based on the primacy of consciousness."

Can we call it Kantian metaphysics like we did last time?

I would not mind that as it would then give me the opportunity to speak of the cosmic consciousness that I found through forcing my apotheosis.

Unfortunately people always want proof, and I cannot blame them, but no proof is available.

Lend me your ear.

The Godhead I know in a nutshell.
I was a skeptic till the age of 39.
I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian. Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake.

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.”

This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of O T God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheep where Gnostic Christians are goats.
This is perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.

During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.

I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.
This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness.

The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. He does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.

I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have tribal mentalities and poor morals.

I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help.

I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to discard whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship it but instead, raise my bar and seek further.

My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being.

Regards
DL