Is there anything a God could do that would make him evil?

[Moral Orel]

Making the offer was perfectly legitimate. You can accept it, counteroffer, or not take it.

As a rich land owner, I shouldn't make offers that are not a fair wage. You don't think it's immoral of me to take advantage of your desperate situation?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You said the bully stopped, so he was rehabilitated.

No. That is not what rehabilitated means.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What was done was for the good of getting the bully to stop, not for the good of giving the bully what he deserved, so it wasn't for the sake of justice.

It was good and best for both the bully, and for everyone else present, and for everyone who heard about it later.
It was immediate justice.
Not necessarily complete though - that might not have even been possible.
The bully most likely, OR just possibly, deserved more discipline/ training/ punishment later, depending on appraising his attitude, behaviour and motives by his parents or other authorities.
Best though, is what happened, short and sweet, good and right, and no hangovers.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No, you gave "everyone agreed" as the reason that it was right and good.

No. Everyone agreed because it was right and good and best.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

As a rich land owner, I shouldn't make offers that are not a fair wage. You don't think it's immoral of me to take advantage of your desperate situation?

If you take advantage, that's human and normal.

If I agree to the wage, then it is good, just, right.

Just like Jesus said: the landowner offered to a worker standing idle by, to work for the day.
Then Jesus offered someone else work for 6 hours.
Then Jesus offered someone else work for 4 hours.
THen Jesus offered someone else work for 2 hours.

At the end of the day, the worker who worked for 2 hours , in the front of the line now, was paid and received the agreed upon wage amount.
Then the worker who worked for 4 hours received his agreed upon wage.

While the other workers were watching, they saw that those two workers received the same as those who worked all day had been offered, so they thought they would receive more.

Then the worker who worked 6 hours came up and received his wage - the amount agree upon and no more.
Then the worker who worked 8 hours , still hoping or thinking he would surely get more, came forward and was paid the wages that he had agreed upon...... and he got upset ....

"But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?

Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.

Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?

Is thine eye evil, because I am good? So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen...
— Matthew 20:1–16, King James Version"

 

[Moral Orel]

If you take advantage, that's human and normal.

And it's human and normal to be immoral. Is it moral to take advantage?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

And it's human and normal to be immoral. Is it moral to take advantage?

If an offer is made and accepted, there's no morality involved.

 

[Moral Orel]

If an offer is made and accepted, there's no morality involved.

Alright, then you don't have a problem with rich folk taking advantage of poor folk, and we'll just disagree then.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Alright, then you don't have a problem with rich folk taking advantage of poor folk, and we'll just disagree then.

The rich have oppressed and taken advantage of the poor for thousands of years.

THAT is NOT what you asked about.

 

[Moral Orel]

The rich have oppressed and taken advantage of the poor for thousands of years.

THAT is NOT what you asked about.

I asked if it was immoral for a rich person to take advantage of a poor person, and you said that if the poor person agrees, then morality isn't involved. You just said it's human and normal of me to take advantage.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I asked if it was immoral for a rich person to take advantage of a poor person, and you said that if the poor person agrees, then morality isn't involved. You just said it's human and normal of me to take advantage.

Right.
As you noted too.
Your question was if it was immoral. Not if it was done.
No , it is not immoral - morality is not involved.
Yes, it is done, EVERY DAY. Has been for many generations.
It is still not immoral .
It is often taking advantage, yes.

 

[Silmarien]

You're getting to the heart of the problem with Christians overly Platonic thinking. Good and bad aren't absolutes, they are relational and therefore relative.

Christian theology tried to shoehorn Platonism into their religion, and it almost worked. But one might as well be a Platonist, then, it would be alot less of a bore to the rest of us. Platonists never conquered Europe at the point of a sword and burned witches at the stake or persecuted homosexuals.

As someone who is in fact a Platonist, and has in the past tried to ditch revelation, I would like to point out that the Platonists were philosophical elitists. They were not exactly egalitarian, and were much more concerned with their own private mystical experiences than liberating the oppressed. The whole drive towards social justice you can (and should) get with Christianity is very much absent from Platonism. And "shoehorning" is definitely the wrong word for the complicated relationship between Platonism and Christianity.

Also it's worth mentioning that Christians never actually conquered Europe at the point of a sword. The Romans accomplished that well before the empire converted to Christianity, and engaged in quite a bit of persecution with no clear religious motivation themselves, so this narrative that Christianity is the root of all evil doesn't hold much water.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Also it's worth mentioning that Christians never actually conquered Europe at the point of a sword. The Romans accomplished that well before the empire converted to Christianity, and engaged in quite a bit of persecution with no clear religious motivation themselves, so this narrative that Christianity is the root of all evil doesn't hold much water.

"Couterfeit" Christianity (or sometimes called "Churchianity") , NOT true Christians.

 

[cloudyday2]

That is never the way in Scripture, nor from the Father --- the deception you describe "makes sense" to those corrupted by the world, in line with the world, the pernicious world.

Wouldn't it be nice if God used hell to deal with non-Christians that way? In other words, imagine if God secretly has no intention of sending anybody to hell regardless of their acceptance of Jesus, but he wants to use hell to motivate a few more people to turn their lives around by becoming Christians. Maybe in reality God has a second heaven in mind for the non-Christians, or maybe God will simply allow them to rest in peace.

 

[cloudyday2]

As someone who is in fact a Platonist, and has in the past tried to ditch revelation, I would like to point out that the Platonists were philosophical elitists. They were not exactly egalitarian, and were much more concerned with their own private mystical experiences than liberating the oppressed.

When you mentioned the wish to ditch revelation through Platonism does the emphasis on private mystical experiences that you mentioned make that impossible? I guess I am wondering if you are defining revelation such that it doesn't include private mystical experiences?

 

[Silmarien]

When you mentioned the wish to ditch revelation through Platonism does the emphasis on private mystical experiences that you mentioned make that impossible? I guess I am wondering if you are defining revelation such that it doesn't include private mystical experiences?

No, I was defining revelation in the more public sense. I've never really had an issue with the notion of private revelation--that probably has something to do with the distinction between miracles and mysticism. We have much less difficulty wrapping our heads around subjective mysticism than objective miracles these days, which is kind of interesting.

 

[FireDragon76]

No, I was defining revelation in the more public sense. I've never really had an issue with the notion of private revelation--that probably has something to do with the distinction between miracles and mysticism. We have much less difficulty wrapping our heads around subjective mysticism than objective miracles these days, which is kind of interesting.

Aren't a great many "public" revelations really private, such as Saul's conversion? Yet his writings make up a majority of the New Testament.

Also, many scholars are doubtful as to the extent that Jesus' resurrection was a public event, an "objective" event, and not something that can be explained as an unusual but not uncommon spiritual experience, such as after-death communication.

 

[Silmarien]

Aren't a great many "public" revelations really private, such as Saul's conversion? Yet his writings make up a majority of the New Testament.

Also, many scholars are doubtful as to the extent that Jesus' resurrection was a public event, an "objective" event, and not something that can be explained as an unusual but not uncommon spiritual experience, such as after-death communication.

Public as in the public sphere, not privately experienced only by me. I'd consider Islam to be a public revelation also, and things like the Old Testament and the Vedas as well, even though we don't entirely know where they come from. If the tradition says it's divinely inspired, then it's a revelation in the public sense.

I'm familiar with biblical scholarship. I'm honestly not impressed by much of it, but that's a different issue.

 

[zippy2006]

You know, I like you and you strike me as a fairly genuine inquirer, but you have this tendency to slip into sophism when it suits you, and that really impedes discourse. Let me take two swipes at the problem, one serious and one in jest:

My example is very simple. If I sock you in the nose, then I deserve to be socked in the nose. Do you disagree that is justice, fairness, equity?

It is simple, but it is also particularly bad. Here's a few reasons:

1. There is no significant consensus that such an act would be just.
2. It involves a kind of vigilante justice, which is commonly perceived to be problematic.
3. It badly conflates retribution with revenge.
4. It intentionally conflates three distinct things: retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence.
5. Opinions on the example are (therefore) highly unlikely to yield any progress or common ground regarding the idea of justice.

I disagree that your example is about justice though. Keeping a promise isn't justice. Paying a fair wage is. What if your property is 100 acres? Thirty dollars isn't a fair wage for a yard that size, so you keeping your promise isn't justice. What if I do a terrible job? It isn't fair for you to have to pay me the full thirty dollars. Being a liar is bad, sure, but it isn't about fairness or equity.

First let's just remember that I explicitly used the qualifier "ceteris paribus" in anticipation of sophism. Beyond that let's work through your answer logically:

I disagree that your example is about justice though. Keeping a promise isn't justice.

Why isn't keeping a promise just?

Paying a fair wage is.

Paying a fair wage is just. That doesn't mean keeping a promise isn't. Granted, this is vacuous given your definition, for you are saying that paying a fair wage is fair. Indubitably.

What if your property is 100 acres? Thirty dollars isn't a fair wage for a yard that size, so you keeping your promise isn't justice.

So the fact that unjust promises are possible means that it isn't just to keep promises? Are you able to differentiate between an exception and a rule?

What if I do a terrible job? It isn't fair for you to have to pay me the full thirty dollars.

Again, this simply isn't an argument against the justice of promise-keeping. If I tell you that lakes are good for swimming, and you point to a frozen lake in Canada as a counterargument, you haven't contradicted my claim in any real way, you've just engaged in a bit of sophism.

Being a liar is bad, sure, but it isn't about fairness or equity.

It is also unfair and unjust to lie, but breaking a promise does not necessitate a lie.

And you don't think equity and fairness have intrinsic value?

It's a new thought of mine, but now that I'm thinking about it, no. Not intrinsic value, anyways.

Imagine this:

Orel: My boss only paid me half of my paycheck!
Zip: Is that a problem?
Orel: Yes!
Zip: Because it's unjust (or unfair)?
Orel: No... Because you're supposed to be remunerated for labor.
Zip: Why are you supposed to be remunerated for labor? Because it's just, right, fair?
Orel: No...
Orel: Maybe it's a problem because we both agreed, contractually, to a certain wage.
Zip: Why do we have to honor contracts and promises? Because it's just, right, fair?
Orel: No...​

Trying to run away from the intrinsic value of justice is a very strange position, indeed. Justice is a very difficult, broad, simple, and complicated idea.

 

[zippy2006]

[Facetiousness: ON]

Suppose I offer you $30 to mow my lawn. After you mow the lawn consider two of my options: pay you or don't. The first is just, the second is not. It is just--ceteris paribus--to fulfill one's promises.

I disagree that your example is about justice though. Keeping a promise isn't justice. Paying a fair wage is. What if your property is 100 acres? Thirty dollars isn't a fair wage for a yard that size, so you keeping your promise isn't justice. What if I do a terrible job? It isn't fair for you to have to pay me the full thirty dollars. Being a liar is bad, sure, but it isn't about fairness or equity.

Bro, do you even sophism?

My example is very simple. If I sock you in the nose, then I deserve to be socked in the nose. Do you disagree that is justice, fairness, equity?

I do not agree that it is justice, fairness, or equity. What if I gave you a wedgie before you socked me? What if I thoroughly enjoyed being punched in the nose, and you knew that? What if I was wearing brass knuckles? What if your nose was broken and infected by a prior fight? What if, as a child, you lost your nose in a horrific accident (for one cannot deserve to be punched in something that they do not have)? What if you had claws coming out of your knuckles like Wolverine, and your punch killed me? What if, between the two punches, I used a time machine, lifted weights at the gym for three years, came back to that exact instant, and punched you with such force that you were comatose for three months?

No, I'm afraid I cannot agree to such a statement. Much more would have to be proven to me before I could conclude that such a response would be equitable, much less equal. There are just too many holes in your theory, far too many holes. I would never be taken in by such rash propositions.