Is Yahweh breaking an objective moral tenet?

Is Yahweh breaking an objective moral tenet?

I have found few examples of an objective moral tenet but think that, --- the good of the many, outweighs the good of the few, --- to be an objective moral tenet. It seems correct in all situations.

You might disagree with an example where this tenet is not objective or applicable.

Yahweh seems to put the good of the few ahead of the good of the many. Scriptures indicate that the many will end in hell while the few will end in heaven.

In thinking of this, I also thought that Yahweh was breaking another moral tenet by putting his life above his own child’s. He sent Jesus to die instead of stepping up himself, to appease his own wrath against man.

Should fathers put themselves and their lives above their children’s, or should fathers protect their children at all costs?

I know that few like to answer moral questions as we all have a bit of moral coward in us.

Do try to answer both of my questions please.

Regards
DL

 

It is not uncommon for the majority to be wrong, including on issues of morality - it's not unique to your case. Racism is a highly popular position that is objectively morally wrong. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine is clearly morally wrong, but is highly popular among American Christians. Etc.

As for your second, the majority Christian version of that story includes that God the Father, God the Holy Spirit and Jesus are one. I don't believe Christians claim enough information about that relationship to support accusations.

 

Those questions are constant themes in movies.

In the first one the Boss has a gang of minions who gladly give their lives in service to their evil Boss. They usually get killed by the dozens, especially in James Bond and kung fu movies like Kill Bill.

The question about fathers and the lives of their children is a constant theme in movies, especially older western movies and tv western series. The old father was always trying to control his daughter’s or son’s life, usually with very bad results for all involved.

 

What about the thought example where a healthy universal donor walks into a hospital for a routine checkup, and gets taken apart in order to give his organs to five other patients? Or the fat man in the trolley problem?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

It seems to me that it is not obvious that the greater good is the best solution, so the tenet seems not objective (even though we might still agree with it).

 

https://www.crossexamined.org/cosmic-child-abuse-answering-moral-objections-to-the-atonement/

 

You can expand on that all you like buddy.

As to your first, true, but their view still outweighs the other.

Read more.

Regards
DL

 

I agree and that would apply to their whole religion.

They make a poor Jewry 2.0

Regards
DL

 

Our first tribes are our families. Wealth and other considerations, religious or political, are just tools to grow our genetic lines. It is a part of survival of the fittest.

In a western movie, the hero, seeing a man about to sacrifice his son for an imaginary god would use his gun.

Regards
DL

 

Show me yours and I will show you mine.

Regards
DL

 

Brain Washing ( Jesus Camp ''Highlights'' )

 

My what? My opinion is that we need to assess moral ideas not with hard and fast rules, but individually. It seems to me that the fact that reasonable people come to different conclusions means that it is not objective.

 

I do believe its moral for the individual to choose to sacrifice for the good of the collective.

I don't think its objective to try to judge God if/when He harms the many to help the few because we still don't know the full effects of His decisions, and we won't until we achieve omniscience. I am curious what some examples you think are God violating this moral tennet.

I do think fathers should protect their children at all costs, but it should be noted that too much protection becomes 'sheltering' and too much sheltering will damage children. There is a degree of harm that a human must necessarily experience in order to grow. And that is true in both the individual sense and the collective sense. As much as children need protection from too much harm, they need protection from too much protection as well.

 

Off topic, as usual.

That is why I ignore you.

Regards
DL

 

So you would sacrifice your child instead of stepping up.

Ok.

Regards
DL

 

That's incredibly vague... could you elaborate?

I would sacrifice my child's momentary happiness in exchange for a life-lesson that will benefit them in the future, sure. I would not sacrifice my child's life for my own. In between is a vast gulf of moral subjectivity.

Perhaps if you were to specify what it is you're referring to...?

 

The thread is about Yahweh and his sending his son to die instead of stepping up himself.

The thread proves Yahweh to be a moral coward and not worthy of spit.

Regards
DL

 

Seems to me in order for God to die, God must first become mortal. And isn't that who Jesus was- God + mortal?

I think He did precisely what you're saying he should've done.

 

Yaweh violates many human moral concepts. But if God is God, then God isn't human, and I don't see why God would apply human concepts of morality to him/her/itself. Squishing ants isn't "murder", right? Nor is a bacterium that gives you an illness evil.

 

Good. We agree that Yahweh is a satanic dick wad.

I want to focus on the morality of the act and not the reality of the act or anything else.

But to your point.
The notion of Yahweh, an immortal god, "dying", goes against the definition of immortal god. Therefore, there is no argument or need to discuss this.

Jesus is an archetypal good man myth that foolish people turned into a good human type sort of supernatural non-human chimera half breed type of god. WTF.

Discussing Jesus' words has merit. Discussing Jesus is a waster of time.

Regards
DL

 

We judge each others ideologies and that is how we choose life styles and have tried to civilize ourselves.

We can know that the laws on earth and the morals that create them can never be as in heaven, so we can judge that it is intelligent to ignore and in fact condemn the genocidal prick that so many presently idol worship.

Right?

Regards
DL

 

I didn't understand what I was being asked for. What were you talking about?

 

My bold. That really squashes the idea that human morals emanate from god, and takes away the moral superority that the theists espouse. Morals are a human construct which enables us to live together without too much murder, rape and genocide.

 

well its not, it promote rights of the democracy over rights of the individual, great way to fly if you enjoy no rights, keep up the good work, next stop marxist stalinism. Then you wont need to worry about it any more, complain and you will be dead.

 

It helps to be "chosen"

 

Im trying to talk about the morality of the act of God becoming mortal in Jesus and then sacrificing Himself for us, which is precisely what you said the moral thing would be for a father to do, but still makes Him a 'dickwad' somehow... But if Jesus is a 'myth', then He never could've been sacrificed in the first place... so what is it you really want to talk about? Cuz ur kinda all over the place here...