Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

Your word "they" presents a problem/
You may have collected as many as 4 ? atheists who you
claim agree with {14}, but a mere 4 is not representative of
atheism.

My view is that 99.99% of world-atheism rejects {14}

I have been on the web a long time and I have read
many and many atheist-Christian threads and I have
NEVER seen one {1} atheist agree with {14} and post
one single word in support of {14}. Not One! Not even
one time. EXCEPT your 3 nor 4 that you claim agree
with {14} By the way, I notice that your 4 have remained
quiet as a mouse and have not come forward and said
yes the God-That-Does-Not-Exist has also caused all
the good things in the world. Don't hold your breath. lol

Atheist are not going to let the
God-That-Does-Not-Exist "get His foot in the door."
They understand very well what is at stake.
They have decided to "keep Him out" and they are
going to do whatever it takes to get that done.
And admitting that the
God-that-Does-Not-Exist also causes all the good in the
world does not "sit well" with them
They don't like that.

* I don't recall ever asserting "all over the place."
* I do recall saying atheists ought to celebrate the good that
the God-That-Does-Not-Exist causes along with their celebration
of the evil that the God-That-Does-Not-Exit causes.

* I don't tell anybody what to post.

* Nonetheless I can make a personal opinion comment about what
I view as being inconsistent. People can always ignore it. I mean
I am not following people around the forum and insisting that they
post in support of {14}.

* I ONLY mention it in this thread.

* And mostly ONLY when talking to you about it.

I have "hit a nerve" , , ,
* All this is actually funny-absurd. Its all taking place ONLY here in
this thread and its clear to me that I have "hit a nerve" because
it never dies. I think to myself. "Well this thread is dead" Yet it
always "springs back to life."
*Why? My view is that I have "hit a nerve" in the atheist mind.
Otherwise they'd just "let it go" -- but THAT is not happening
is it?
* Maybe this thread will soon die a natural death? , , , LOL , ,

Thanks. LOL

* So true.
* I never doubted it.
Their point is about God's Omnibenevolence:
This thread is NOT about God's Omnibenevolence:
Again where is THEIR thread on that subject?

* I do not desire to resolve it.
* They need to start their own thread to resolve their own issue.
* If they did, it'd fizzle and die in a flash, me thinks.
* They can prove me wrong easy enough.
* The "Start New Thread" button is waiting for them.
* What's the problem?
* In fact you could start one!
* On God's Omnibenevolence: -- that He is NOT Omnibenevolent.

"Their point" again.
The "Start New Thread" icon is waiting for them.
They could title it this:
The God-That-Does-Not-Exist Is Not Omnibenevolent.
They are wrong if they are posting in this thread.
This thread is NOT about their point -- this thread is about MY
point, which is this:

JAG Writes:
___________________________________________
"My point is NOT that God IS good or that God IS evil.
My point is that God PERFORMS both good and evil acts
based upon {6} through {14}. Remember {6} through {12}
is what atheist say --- {6} through {12} is NOT what JAG
says. I do NOT have to be consistent with a position
that I do NOT hold. But atheists do. Why? because they
DO hold {6} through {12} to be true and they DO advocate
for {6} through {12} all the time in threads."___JAG
_____________________________________________

"Their point" again.
* LOL
* If THAT is what its "come down to" then we are back to
them starting their own thread.
They could title it this:
The God-That-Does-Not-Exist Is Not Omnibenevolent.


______________


My view is that 99.99% of world atheism rejects {14}

I have been on the web a long time and I have read
many and many atheist-Christian threads and I have
NEVER seen one {1} atheist agree with {14} and post
one single word in support of {14}. Not One! Not even
one time. EXCEPT your 4 that you claim agree
with {14} By the way, I notice that your 4 have remained
quiet as a mouse and have not come forward and said
yes the God-That-Does-Not-Exist has also caused all
the good things in the world. Don't hold your breath.

His foot in the door , , ,
Atheist are not going to let the
God-That-Does-Not-Exist "get His foot in the door."
They understand very well what is at stake.
They have decided to "keep Him out" and they are
going to do whatever it takes to get that done.
And admitting that the
God-that-Does-Not-Exist also causes all the good in the
world does not "sit well" with them
They don't like that.
That just might , , just might , , , cause them to have to
reconsider their atheism --and THAT is a no no.

* I don't recall ever asserting "all over the place."
* I do recall saying atheists ought to celebrate the good that
the God-That-Does-Not-Exist causes along with their celebration
of the evil that the God-That-Does-Not-Exit causes.

* I don't tell anybody what to post.

* Nonetheless I can make a personal opinion comment about what
I view as being inconsistent. People can always ignore it. I mean
I am not following people around the forum and insisting that they
post in support of {14}.

* I ONLY mention it in this thread.

* And mostly ONLY when talking to you about it.

* But it "gets under the skin", don't it?

I have "hit a nerve" , , ,
* All this is actually funny-absurd. Its all taking place ONLY here in
this thread and its clear to me that I have "hit a nerve" because
it never dies. I think to myself. "Well this thread is dead" Yet it
always "springs back to life."
*Why? My view is that I have "hit a nerve" in the atheist mind.
Otherwise they'd just "let it go" -- but THAT is not happening
is it?

* Maybe this thread will soon die a natural death? , , , LOL , ,

*Thanks.

* So true.
* I never doubted it.
Their point is about God's Omnibenevolence:
This thread is NOT about God's Omnibenevolence:
But they could start their own thread.
They could title it this:
The God-That-Does-Not-Exist Is Not Omnibenevolent.
I predict they will not.
I predict that if they do, they'll have maybe 5 posts and then thread-death.
I mean how many times can one "repeat Richard Dawkins" in principle
without dozing off? How many different ways can one say that
the "God of the Bible is a filthy pig" without dozing off?

* I do not desire to resolve it.
* They need to start their own thread to resolve their own issue.
* If they did, it'd fizzle and die in a flash, me thinks.
* They can prove me wrong easy enough.
* The "Start New Thread" button is waiting for them.
* What's the problem?
* In fact you could start one!
* On God's Omnibenevolence: -- that He is NOT Omnibenevolent.
The God-That-Does-Not-Exist Is Not Omnibenevolent.

"Their point" again.
The "Start New Thread" icon is waiting for them.
They could title it this:
The God-That-Does-Not-Exist Is Not Omnibenevolent.

* Why have I not seen a NEW Thread started in which atheist
make their point -- the one you keep on talking about?
* They can even use my summation of {1} through {12}
{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.

You know very well that {1} through {12} is what they believe.

____________

I will tell you exactly why they have not started a thread about
what you keep saying is "their point." Its because atheists in the
Religion section do NOT enjoy talking to one another in lengthy
discussions. They ONLY get their kicks out of bashing Christianity
and that demands that some Christian be present in the thread
to provide then that opportunity. And my view is that there are no
Christians here in this Forum that are interested in discussing
what you keep on calling "their point." So? So they'd be talking
to themselves ONLY and they already agree that the
God-That-Does-Not-Exist is evil. , , LOL , , so the thread
would be born still birth.



``

 

* There is that word "they" again.
* Are you certain you can speak for atheist?

My view is that this below had not been demonstrated
to be "an unintelligible mess."

{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross

___________________________________________
"My point is NOT that God IS good or that God IS evil.
My point is that God PERFORMS both good and evil acts
based upon {6} through {14}. Remember {6} through {12}
is what atheist say --- {6} through {12} is NOT what JAG
says. I do NOT have to be consistent with a position
that I do NOT hold. But atheists do. Why? because they
DO hold {6} through {12} to be true and they DO advocate
for {6} through {12} all the time in threads."___JAG
_____________________________________________

This thread is NOT about God's Omnibenevolence:



``

 

I found it amusing the number of times you mentioned atheists
in just one post. This thread is NOT about THEM. Even though
you are determined to FORCE it to be about THEM.

This particular thread is about this:

{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross

___________________________________________
"My point is NOT that God IS good or that God IS evil.
My point is that God PERFORMS both good and evil acts
based upon {6} through {14}. Remember {6} through {12}
is what atheist say --- {6} through {12} is NOT what JAG
says. I do NOT have to be consistent with a position
that I do NOT hold. But atheists do. Why? because they
DO hold {6} through {12} to be true and they DO advocate
for {6} through {12} all the time in threads."___JAG
_____________________________________________

This thread is NOT about God's Omnibenevolence:




``

 

Note: My opening Post and this thread is not on the subject of God's
Omnibenevolence.
__________

This below deserves its own separate posting block:

{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross

Many atheists want it both ways.
They want to say that the "God-That-Does-Not-Exist causes
or is ultimately responsible for the evil in the world. They say
this in threads all the time. They base this on {6} through {12} up
there.
So? So if {6} through {12} are not true, then they ought to stop
claiming that the God-That-Does-Not-Exist is ultimately responsible
for the evil in the world.
And if {6} through {12} is true, then God is also responsible for causing
the good in the world, Hospitals, Warm Beaches, the Red Cross, etc
and we're back to {13} and {14} being true.

_________

Scot me up Beamy.


`

 

I think Sweden would be a cool country to visit.
I traveled the world.
United States Navy.
Went to 27 countries.
Traveled 50,000 miles which is 2 times around the globe.

Always loved the Lutherans.
Martin Luther was a great men, me thinks.
I'm a Protestant.
A Baptist type.

* Probably believe in the Golden Rule?

Maybe later on.

* I love my Catholic brothers/sisters
* That's very much unlike many Protestants on the Internet.
* Some of the most hateful stuff you can imagine takes place
between Protestant and Catholics in Religious Forums on the
Internet.
* Sad to say its mostly the Protestants that post the worst stuff.
* No tolerance.
* Not to mention not much LOVE.
* Not good.

I bet that was interesting.
I never before thought about religions having their own music.

* Interesting.
* I wanted to visit England, but alas never did.
* I's on a Heavy Cruiser and we never docked
in any of those countries.

Noted.

* What about the New Testament?
* Ever read the New Testament all the way through?
* That's quite a book.

Can you name 5 moral/religious truths?
5 things you truly believe.

True, me thinks.

Its not over till its over.

_________


Thanks again for the insights.


```

 

I've never encountered any, and you haven't provided any evidence that any atheists want it both ways.

Which is in no way denying that God would be the cause of good as well. It's just disproving God's omnibenevolence, which disproves the Christian God.

So, atheists are _not_ saying what you claim they're saying. You're just attacking a strawman.

Not if it's irrelevant to the argument. And it is. If it's irrelevant, then it's a deliberate distraction to bring it up, which is good reason to not state it.

But it is the argument of the atheists that you're attacking for being inconsistent, therefore you have to acknowledge it is their argument, which will lead you to acknowledging that the atheists are being totally consistent. To not do that is lying by omission. You are being dishonest. It's possible that you didn't realize you were being dishonest, but now you do, so you have no excuse for it from now on.

No. I reject your childish demands. You don't get to dictate the terms of debate just because the conversation is going in a way that makes you look bad. We've torn apart your bad argument, so you should address that now, instead of declaring that nobody is allowed to tear apart your bad argument.

 

Go start your own thread.

My opening Post and this thread is not on the subject of God's
Omnibenevolence.

This particular thread is about this:

{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross

___________________________________________
"My point is NOT that God IS good or that God IS evil.
My point is that God PERFORMS both good and evil acts
based upon {6} through {14}. Remember {6} through {12}
is what atheist say --- {6} through {12} is NOT what JAG
says. I do NOT have to be consistent with a position
that I do NOT hold. But atheists do. Why? because they
DO hold {6} through {12} to be true and they DO advocate
for {6} through {12} all the time in threads."___JAG
_____________________________________________

Many atheists want it both ways.
They want to say that the "God-That-Does-Not-Exist causes
or is ultimately responsible for the evil in the world. They say
this in threads all the time. They base this on {6} through {12} up
there.
So? So if {6} through {12} are not true, then they ought to stop
claiming that the God-That-Does-Not-Exist is ultimately responsible
for the evil in the world.
And if {6} through {12} is true, then God is also responsible for causing
the good in the world, Hospitals, Warm Beaches, the Red Cross, etc
and we're back to {13} and {14} being true."___JAG


____


Scot me up Beamy.



``

 

The author of "the Jews and their lies" a polemic that was at every Nazi rally. A great man who propagated antisemitism culminating in the death of six million Jews at the hands of mostly Christians. Great to see who your heroes are!

 

The author of "the Jews and their lies" a polemic that was at every Nazi rally. A great man who propagated antisemitism culminating in the death of six million Jews at the hands of mostly Christians. Great to see who your heroes are!

 

"The most important truth you’ll ever discover is that God loves
you — and the proof is that He sent His Son into the world to give
His life for you. The Bible’s promise is true: “For God so loved the
world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in
him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

Don’t doubt any longer, but by faith reach out and receive God’s gift
of salvation today. By a simple prayer of faith admit to God that you
know you are a sinner and are sorry for your sins, and then open
your heart and life to Jesus Christ. He’ll transform your life right
now, and He’ll also give you hope for the future."
https://billygraham.org/answer/all-christians-agree-on-the-essentials-of-the-gospel/



``

 

Potentially. Probably depends on exactly when you would have asked.

The line between religious songs and songs from areas where certain religions are dominant and seep into songs is a bit unclear, but just like Christianity has gospel, Catholic mass, Christmas carols, plain chant, etc., most religions have a great range of songs and music that can be associated with them.

Not all parts of it, and not in a coherent go. I'm sure I'm missing out a fair few letters, and most of what I have read were a long time ago. Also, it's been different translations.

Have you read material from other religions?

I don't really think of it as that. In my experience, proclaiming something as truth is something people do when they've lost track of why they actually think it is the truth, which in turn can mean that they have forgot what it really meant, or never really knew it (for instance, may have been tricked by fancy rhetoric or personal biases). It is usually the sign of people who won't admit their insecurities, maybe even to themselves.

There are not a lot of moral ideas that I believe have no exceptions or caveats. I guess I believe that proclamations of truth should not be used as truth on its own, just as a reminder for a line of argument, which we could examine and see if it applies.

If I say "murder is wrong" (as I might, sloppily), I don't mean to say there can't be times where it couldn't be justified (for instance, if the opportunity arose to murder Hitler, the question would at the very least be ambiguous), I would simply mean that there are circumstances under which murder is bad, and we could/should consider (or in this case, maybe already have considered) whether it would be bad in whatever context I said it in.

Well, to answer the question, let's come up with five things.

I guess I can be said to believe that it is important to see the opposite side of any issue you're engaged in.

Together with the fact that people rarely change their minds, that means that I believe that it is often more important, or more pressing, to find out not what the truth is, but how to build a world in which people who believe different things are able to coexist.

I happen to believe that morals are subjective, although not escapable. In particular, I believe that morals are derived from evolutionary processes, but I don't mind considering other sources.

I've mentioned notions of non-cognitivism before. I don't know that it qualifies as a religious belief, but I believe that people often use the same word to mean different things, and I like to construct my thoughts so that I don't even consider them the same unless it's been pointed out that's what they are (for instance, there was a discussion about whether the Christian God is a different god to the Muslim God, or just a different interpretation of the same god, and under non-cognitivism, this is solved trivially by simply stating that the word "different" is meaningless until you've decided on a definition). I think it is a moral decision to think so, but I am aware that that means very little to anyone else.

Can't think of a fifth good one right now.

 

Are you sure?
You mean you believe in The Golden Rule only potentially?

Are there times when you would NOT apply The Golden Rule?

Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing.
"The Golden Rule" - "So in everything do to others what you
would have them do to you."

I can't even conceive of a situation where anyone would consider
it NOT to be proper to live by The Golden Rule, can you?

I mean can we find even one exception/caveat to The Golden Rule?
Where we could say, 'We do not need to apply The Golden Rule to
this situation?

______

Swensson, I read your whole post very carefully.
Thank you for taking the time to write that up.
I appreciate it.

I will give your post some thought and make an attempt
to compose some 1/2 way intelligent replies.

I appreciate your posting style. You write well.

PS

My understanding of The Golden Rule is that it was
intended to be applied in the normal activities
of regular human living, and not applied to say
a "would be murderer" who breaks into your
home in the middle of the night. I do not see
how we could apply The Golden Rule to a
"would be murderer" under those conditions.

However , , ,
I think The Golden Rule could be applied in a war
situation. say you were a soldier and you have
one of the enemy in your cross-hairs, and you
have the option to shoot him in the belly, or shoot
him in the leg. Which would you choose?

If you were on the receiving end of the bullet
which would you choose? Probably you'd
say "Shoot me in the leg", right?

The Golden Rule:
"Do to others as you would have them do
to you."

There would be a lot of situations in War time
when you could NOT apply The Golden Rule,
eg. if you were a fighter pilot and were ordered
to do a bombing run.

It can get complicated right quick.


``

 

No. I'm directly addressing the topic of this thread, a topic that, amusingly, you're now running from. If you're going to keep refusing to address the thread topic, you should go elsewhere.

You started this thread by attacking the "atheist disproof by omnibenevolence" argument. Call that "ADO". Because ADO is the bedrock beneath your reasoning, ADO is the central premise of this thread.

Yet you refuse to address the purpose of ADO. That's because doing that reveals that you're making up a strawman about atheists. Addressing it shows you're wrong, so you refuse to address it. Yes, it is that obvious.

Atheists aren't trying to have it both ways. Atheists are totally consistent. You're making up a strawman about what atheists supposedly think.

You've moved on to only being an interesting psychology study. Why are you so emotionally attached to your strawman belief here?

 

If you start your own thread then you can discuss whatever
subject you wish.

My opening Post and this thread is not on the subject of God's
Omnibenevolence.

This particular thread is about this:

{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross

___________________________________________
"My point is NOT that God IS good or that God IS evil.
My point is that God PERFORMS both good and evil acts
based upon {6} through {14}. Remember {6} through {12}
is what atheist say --- {6} through {12} is NOT what JAG
says. I do NOT have to be consistent with a position
that I do NOT hold. But atheists do. Why? because they
DO hold {6} through {12} to be true and they DO advocate
for {6} through {12} all the time in threads."___JAG
_____________________________________________

Many atheists want it both ways.
They want to say that the "God-That-Does-Not-Exist causes
or is ultimately responsible for the evil in the world. They say
this in threads all the time. They base this on {6} through {12} up
there.
So? So if {6} through {12} are not true, then they ought to stop
claiming that the God-That-Does-Not-Exist is ultimately responsible
for the evil in the world.
And if {6} through {12} is true, then God is also responsible for causing
the good in the world, Hospitals, Warm Beaches, the Red Cross, etc
and we're back to {13} and {14} being true."___JAG


___________

Scot me up Beamy.




``

 

Your thread isn't about Martin Luther or The Golden Rule either, but you seem more than happy to discuss those things here.

Your initial point has been addressed a long time ago - I'm not aware of anyone who has said an omnipotent god wouldn't be responsible for all good things too. If that was truly the sole purpose, with zero interest in considering any of the consequences of that statement, why are you keeping the thread alive?

 

* I am 100% satisfied with that, "Honest" Joe.

* Maybe we will see some of your fellow atheists give the
God-That-Does-Not-Exist the credit for "all good things too."

* I will be looking forward to seeing them start a thread with
a title such as:
"We Atheists Thank The God-That-Does-Not-Exist For
All The Good Things He Does." Then they can start
listing those good things and giving thanks for them.

* A more interesting question is why are you continuing
to show up here in this thread?

* Regarding keeping this thread "alive": This thread is the
place where I chat with Swensson. Because that is what
I want to do. What is that to you?

* 'Course, this is the Internet and anybody can pop-in
and post whatever they want to. So far as I know you
can start talking about Hunting & Fishing if you want to.

* No offense intended but I am not going to discuss
this subject with you. I mention that because you
just now quoted me and addressed a post to me.

*But you feel free to post any points you want to make.

* Posters can discuss what they want to discuss.
* And with whom..
* And when.
* And where {which thread}
* What. Whom. When. Where.

* That's super-great to hear.
* Thank you.
* My concerns have been totally satisfied.
* Thank you again.
* That means that all agree with this below:

JAG Writes:
My opening Post and this thread is not on the subject of God's
Omnibenevolence.

This particular thread is about this:

{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross

___________________________________________
"My point is NOT that God IS good or that God IS evil.
My point is that God PERFORMS both good and evil acts
based upon {6} through {14}. Remember {6} through {12}
is what atheist say --- {6} through {12} is NOT what JAG
says. I do NOT have to be consistent with a position
that I do NOT hold. But atheists do. Why? because they
DO hold {6} through {12} to be true and they DO advocate
for {6} through {12} all the time in threads."___JAG
_____________________________________________

Many atheists want it both ways.
They want to say that the "God-That-Does-Not-Exist causes
or is ultimately responsible for the evil in the world. They say
this in threads all the time. They base this on {6} through {12} up
there.
So? So if {6} through {12} are not true, then they ought to stop
claiming that the God-That-Does-Not-Exist is ultimately responsible
for the evil in the world.
And if {6} through {12} is true, then God is also responsible for causing
the good in the world, Hospitals, Warm Beaches, the Red Cross, etc
and we're back to {13} and {14} being true."___JAG



``

 

Why would anyone do it - it'd be irrational? Why don't you post a thread about all the bad things an omnipotent god you don't believe in would be responsible for? It has been explained to you multiple times why some people bring up the problem of evil around proposed omnipotent and omnibenevolent gods. You might not like that explanation but you can't simply ignore it.

Because I still don't think you're being honest in your underlying motives and I don't want anyone to be caught out.

You've specifically dismissed anyone who try to discuss things you don't want to with the line that this thread is about one thing and one thing only. You're free to discuss or not discuss anything you want but you can't legitimately say this thread is about only one thing but then bring up other things yourself. I don't like double standards and I will point out when people are guilt of them.

 

* You feel free to unburden your soul any time you get the urge, "Honest" Joe.
* I have zero interest in your views "Honest" Joe. 0.000
* I can ignore whatever I want to ignore with regard to what you post.
* Posters can discuss what they want to discuss.
* And with whom..
* And when.
* And where {which thread}
* What. Whom. When. Where.



``

 

I don't think your war analogue holds up, the rule doesn't command you to shoot him in the leg, it commands you to lay down your arms, perhaps even aid the enemy. Shooting them in the leg is doing unto others something you would not have had done to yourself. The golden rule has no room for "well, I have to shoot him somewhere".

There are criticisms based on preference. There are people who take their lives (in particular, there are people who want martyrdom or suicide-by-cop, in which death is something done unto them). I do not want them to do unto me what they want for themselves. Similarly, some people like to be spanked, I would not want them to do unto me what they would have done to themselves. People arguing this line of thought will often say that the golden rule is inferior to the platinum rule, "doing unto others as they would be done by".

In a similar vein, I would like person A to give all their money to me, but I do not believe that that makes me morally obliged to give away all my money. This in particular highlights the fact that the golden rule may give conflicting advice, it may demand that I donate my only dollar to several people.

There are also times when the utility of an action is not proportional. I might want a person to lay down their coat so that I don't have to tread in a puddle, but since it would cost much more to them than I might gain, I think that person is justified in not doing so, despite what the golden rule says.

The golden rule places down some (in my opinion) arbitrary lines around actions and sources of justification. For instance, if I protect an ally in combat by killing an attacker, the golden rule focuses on the act of killing the attacker, and whether you would like being killed, and pays no regard to the ally (since there is no doing done unto the ally).

I view the golden rule as I've mentioned before, not as a truth, but as a reminder of many good principles. Principles which aren't always true, but which deserve some thought when we think of certain issues.

The golden rule invokes the idea that we shouldn't just think about our own well-being, but also that of others. I personally think that is better captured but the Veil of Ignorance, but it is a good principle even though it has its caveats.

The positive golden rule (as it is in Matt. 7:12) invokes a morality of action rather than inaction ("do unto others" rather than "do to no one what you dislike" of Tobit 4:15). A sensible thing to consider, but not a moral absolute in my view.

I don't see the logic behind your statement that there are times in for instance war that the principle wouldn't hold. As mentioned above, there are plenty of ways in which I think the golden rule does poorly, but I don't see how wartime circumvents it, indeed, I think that might be one of the times when it matters most. However, I think the modern military machine has got very good at getting people to fail to apply or consider the golden rule.

Now, I don't imagine that I at that age knew of all of these issues, but some of them may have stopped me from just accepting it outright.

 

Swensson,
Thank you for writing that up.
You put some time and thought into that.
Much appreciated.

Permit me to disagree.
The short answer:
The soldier fighting in a just war could "take the leg shot" instead
of the "death shot to the belly" because he was fighting for truth and
goodness to be established, but did not necessarily need to kill
the enemy soldier in order to accomplish that good goal.
Hopefully he could both:
{1} Establish goodness and truth
and at the same time , , ,
{2} Spare a human life

{Sure there would be situations where you could not "take the leg shot"
but you COULD have mercy in those instances where it was possible
to show mercy. I would always choose to take "the leg shot" where
it was possible to do that. It'd be impossible if you were firing a
machine gun, or throwing a hand grenade, or on a bombing run,
and such like, nonetheless , , ,

, , , I would personally choose to apply the Principle Of Love when I
could apply it --- that's the best that is humanly possible, and when
you have done your best, that's all you can do.}

The longer explanation:
* The Golden Rule as given in Matthew 7:12 is a Christian doctrine.
* Christianity is not a pacifist Faith.
* Christianity is not against fighting a morally justified war.
* World War 2 is an excellent example of a justified war.
* Nazism had to be defeated with the sword of The Allies.
* A Christian had a moral obligation to fight in that war on the
side of truth and goodness -- and eliminate Nazism and
vanish it off the planet.

The God of the Bible is not opposed to a just war.

"The Lord is a Warrior, the Lord is His name." Exodus 15:3

Nations can wage war , , ,
The Governments of nations have been established by God
and they do not "bear the sword of nothing" and they have
been given authority to "bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
This principle can be applied to war, as long as it is a just war.
Romans 13: 1-7 is about Governments established by God
and given the power of the sword.

The nations called The Allies in World War 2 gathered together
and "brought punishment" on The Axis powers who were
trying to enslave the world to their evil social and political
agenda and stopped them with military force. Good!

______

This is worth mentioning , , ,
Some wars were not morally justified, for example World War l
was un unnecessary war that slaughtered millions for no good
reason. World War 1 was, for the most par, fought between
Christian states that ought to have known better than to kill
each other by the millions for no good purpose.

________

Regarding The Morally "Just War Doctrine":
I am a Protestant {Baptist}
Nonetheless, the following seems reasonable to me:
I think World War 2 met all these conditions.
{of course this is arguable}

The just war doctrine of the Catholic Church found in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church,
in paragraph 2309, lists four strict conditions for "legitimate defense by military force":[27][28]

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated (the power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Contemporary_Catholic_doctrine

__________


More later , , , ,



``

 

You mentioned the Veil Of Ignorance.
I was ignorant.
i googled:

Start quote.
"The "Veil Of Ignorance" is a method of determining the morality of issues.
It asks a decision-maker to make a choice about a social or moral issue
and assumes that they have enough information to know the consequences
of their possible decisions for everyone but would not know, or would not
take into account, which person they are. The theory contends that not
knowing one's ultimate position in society would lead to the creation of
a just system, as the decision-maker would not want to make decisions
which benefit a certain group at the expense of another, because the
decision-maker could theoretically end up in either group.[1] The idea
has been present in moral philosophy at least since the eighteenth
century. The Veil Of Ignorance is part of a long tradition of thinking in
terms of a social contract that includes the writings of Immanuel
Kant, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and
Thomas Jefferson. Prominent modern names attached to it are
John Harsanyi and John Rawls.
End quote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance#:~:text=The "veil of ignorance" is a method of,not take into account, which person they are.

As an aside:
I don't see how it'd be even remotely possible to get the message of
The Veil Of Ignorance across to the people { The Mob } that are
creating the social mess that we have today in the streets of America.
They'd probably "set you on fire" with gasoline and a match while you
were attempting to "engage them intellectually."


Scot me up Beamy.



``

 

You noticed that too.
/Grin
Ain't that the honest truth , , truth honest
Merely read threads for proof of that.

That is a human longing.
Human history has been plagued with hostility and
war or the-principle-of-war namely politics.
"Politics is war by another name." and
"Politics is war by other means."

When humans are not killing each other with
bullets, they're "killing each other" with their
words -- check out Washington D.C. where
the HATE runs thick and strong between
America's two political parties almost all the
time.

Regarding human beings not being unified:
Christianity solves it.
Consider these 2 passages from the Book of
Revelation chapter 21

Here is how human history ends:
_____________________________________
Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth . . .
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying,
“Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the
people, and he will dwell with them. They will be
his people, and God himself will be with them
and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from
their eyes. There will be no more death’ or
mourning or crying or pain, for the old order
of things has passed away.” Rev. 21
___________________________________


This one is especially clear , , ,
________________________________________
I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord
God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city
does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for
the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp

. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the
earth will bring their splendor into it. On no day will its
gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there.
The glory and honor of the nations will be brought
into it. Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will
anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful,
but only those whose names are written in the
Lamb’s book of life. Revelation 21
_____________________________________

The human race totally unified at last.


JAG


```

 

I can see your point. However consider these points:
(1} There are "just wars."
{2} Pacifism in this present world is 100% non-workable.
{3} Therefore we have an Armed Police Force.
{4} Therefore we have American Military Armed Forces.
{5} No sane person prefers war to peace.
{6} Nations start was, not individuals.
{7} Individuals are "caught up" in the emotion of the moment
and if its a volunteer force they volunteer, usually for patriotic
reasons.
(8} Soldiers are not personal enemies. They don't even know each other.
{9} Soldiers on both sides know this.
{10} You can have LOVE in your heart and still be a soldier.
{11} As a soldier you fight for a cause greater than yourself.
{12} Now knowing {1} through {11} , , would you:
A} Shoot the man in the leg?
or
B} Shoot the man in the belly?
_____________

I would always pick B if I could do that.
I would prefer that I be shot in the leg {a mercy shot}
and not shot in the belly {almost a certain death shot}

The Principle: Even in the worst of times, apply the
Principle Of Love, when you CAN apply it.

In war there would be many situations where you
could NOT apply this principle.

JAG

 

Yah , , ,
There could be 3 choices:
{1} Shoot him in the leg.
{2} Shoot him in the belly.
{3} Don't shoot him anywhere.
On 3 you'd be, just for that moment, with an
enemy soldier in your cross-hairs, laying aside
the regular rules of war, and showing mercy to
a fellow human being. I betcha there has been
a lot of soldiers who did exactly that -- in the long
history of human wars. I hope so anyway.

``

 

At it’s core, the golden rule is a simple balancing equation, a=b where b=a. You can be substituted for either variable. Use that approach and, IMO, it will serve you well, or at least balance your conscience.
When discussing things like policy or law, I used to say, never advocate for a law you wouldn’t trust your worse enemy to enforce.