Motivation in Morality

[stevil]

If you allow someone to abuse a child and you are not acting in the best interest of the child.

In many ways it comes down to the law. As a member of society, we all have a vested interest in the law, we need to know it and not break it otherwise we ourselves face legal jeopardy but we also expect the law to be there for the mutual benefit of society. If law is focused on tangible things that impact the safety and stability of society rather than frivolous morality stuff and if the people within society want to be in a safe and stable society, then you have alignment. Helping to enforce law will be for the benefit of each person and then we all have a vested interest in law enforcement rather than leaving it upto the police.

You allow unruly people in society and is disrupts the society. So from the individual situation to the government we have an obligation to act.

More than unruly, but behaviour that is downright dangerous.
We don't necessarily have an obligation to act but perhaps a vested interest.

Many of these situations don't need judgements just actions as they are obvious and not acting is actually contributing to making things worse.

Not really making things worse. I certainly don't advocate for vigilante justice, nor for ill equipped people trying to be the hero.

In USA at the moment they have people saying that the Democrats stole the election.
Society is being destabilised, either by the Democrats if they stole the election or by the Republicans if they are spreading the big lie. Either way, what action are the people of USA to take? Are they to take up arms against the Democrats, or are they to take up arms against the Republicans?
Someone is seeking to destabilise society, but who is it?
If the people take up arms, then it will most likely to be those armed people who would be destabilising society. The people taking action.
Presumably they would be doing it because they believe they are in the right, they believe they are obligated.

First by you stepping in you can now understand why governments have to sometimes step in to situations to protect people and keep the order.

Yes, absolutely, I'm not an anarchist.

Second smacking children are a contentious issue and divides society. I can see both sides.

If you take morality out of the picture then it is a non issue.
Government don't need to interfere in people's family affairs, but at least we are seeing that items shouldn't necessarily come down to a vote, where the majority gain dominance on the minorities.

I guess the government decided that for the small number of kids who are smacked where adults go too far that was enough to stop everyone. Though I agree this is government overstepping the mark. Its the PC culture society is becoming where it seems governments are making silly rules that lack common sense.

Therefore you need a foundational document which limits the power of government to interfere in people's lives and decisions.

Fair enough. So obviously you don't want to see the kid harmed. So what difference does that make for an unborn kid who you say is being killed by abortion. Isn't death a greater harm?

The death of a fertilised egg or a fetus isn't a harm to society.
We don't get the parents or the friends of the fertilised egg fighting back to protect the egg or to seek out vengeance. Society goes on as if nothing happened.

In both situations the women is exercising her right to determine what should happen to the kid they are responsible for.

If a woman murders her kid, then her partner, the grandparents, cousins, uncles and aunties, care givers, teachers, friends etc will get upset and some will seek vengeance if government doesn't deal with the situation.

So stepping in to save a kid from being bashed and harmed you obviously see something is not right in that situation even if that’s based on the kids wellbeing and safety.

"not right" isn't the phrase I would use, but I would step in anyway.

So you see other situations where a kid or someone is being bashed and harmed and you think this is also not right for the victim.

Again, it's not about being "not right" it is about having a safe and stable society. I would also hope that if myself, my wife or my kids are under physical attack that someone in society will step in to help out.

At what point do you think the people doing the bashing should be stopped. Or do you keep coming to the rescue.

If I see two gang members fighting, I'm not going to help out.
If people have weapons, I'm not going to help out.
My own safety comes first.

If it is just two youngish kids and they aren't really doing much actual harm to each other, I might not step in.

This is all academic though, I've not been in that kind of situation. It is all interesting to say what I think I would do, but until the situation arises I guess you don't actually know what you would actually do.

Isn't coming to the rescue all the time a bit late? What if the bashing causes a kid brain damage? So therefore it makes sense to draw the line and say that people who bash kids should be stopped in the first place. Therefore we have to intervene for people’s safety and make a distinction that bashing kids is wrong.

Or just make a law to outlaw violence as it makes society dangerous rather than because it is wrong.
We can debate in the parlamentary chamber and in the courts if something is harmful and dangerous, but it is hard to debate if it is "wrong"

So therefore a line is drawn. But who determines what is unsafe, unstable and hinders thriving.

It would be upto the courts, opposing lawyers would need to argue a case for and against.
It would be interesting to hear the case on why abortion, same sex marriage, gay sex, divorce, prostitution etc are dangerous for society.
That argument would be quite different from an argument as to why these things might be classified as immoral, or "wrong".

Statistics show that stable marriages make families and society safe and stable and help children thrive.

What do statistics show about married people in an abusive and violent household?

We aren't looking for the perfect society. Just one where the government only intervenes where they have to, in order to keep society safe and stable. Two people getting divorced does not make society unsafe or unstable. Although I do grant that it may have a large impact on the children.

But as a society we promote the opposite through easy divorce laws. Should we promote policies and guidelines that help marriages stay together.

I have no problems with government or community organisations providing subsidised marriage counselling for those who want it.

Isn’t that making a moral judgement either way? Or should we just stay out of marriages altogether.

I don't think government should be asking "is this moral?" or "Is this immoral?"
I think government should be asking, "Is this causing issues in society?" and if so, "What can be done to mitigate the risk of those issues so that society is better off?"
It might be in providing marriage counselling, in providing financial support, in providing assistance to help people find jobs, homes etc.

Who determined that it wasn't dangerous and destablilizing for society. Stats show where there is prostitution there is also other problems even when its legal.

We don't need a perfect society.

In many societies killing is accepted such as abortion, and euthanasia, execution, in war etc. so a moral judgement has to be made in each of these cases.

No, I don't think a moral judgement is needed.
Does govt need to interfere to stop abortion? - No
Does govt need to interfere to stop euthanasia? - No
Does govt need to kill people in executions? - No
Does govt need to send people to war? - ???

But what about in all those less obvious situations like smacking/abusing kids, easy or hard divorce laws, stay at home motherhood or be pushed into work, marriage laws etc. where it depends on how a society rules on these things as to whether they cause unsafe and destabilizing situations.

Could be up for debate. I'd be interested to hear the arguments on both sides.

The only reason we would have moral obligation is if the fetus was human life because then abortion would be murder of an innocent life.

It is human life. But I have no moral obligation and I don't consider govt or society as having a moral obligation here.

This is a good point for morality in that human life is regarded as precious and should be protected.

I disagree with this. Sorry.

Not every situation is related to safety and stability. In the US constitution human life is upheld as an important value because it was recognised that it came with certain rights.

I don't agree with the USA constitution.

This is a good question. First I am not saying that we should have a theocracy. I am saying that a society that requires governance cannot help but involve morality in some of their governance as morality is interwoven throughout everything we do. Governments have to step in otherwise we will end up having all sorts of groups claiming the moral high ground.

Morality is quite a problem because there is no way to resolve the disputes, no way to discover moral truths.
Therefore we need a better basis to put constraints on the power of government.[/QUOTE]

 

[stevevw]

In many ways it comes down to the law. As a member of society, we all have a vested interest in the law, we need to know it and not break it otherwise we ourselves face legal jeopardy but we also expect the law to be there for the mutual benefit of society. If law is focused on tangible things that impact the safety and stability of society rather than frivolous morality stuff and if the people within society want to be in a safe and stable society, then you have alignment. Helping to enforce law will be for the benefit of each person and then we all have a vested interest in law enforcement rather than leaving it upto the police.


More than unruly, but behaviour that is downright dangerous.
We don't necessarily have an obligation to act but perhaps a vested interest.


Not really making things worse. I certainly don't advocate for vigilante justice, nor for ill equipped people trying to be the hero.

In USA at the moment they have people saying that the Democrats stole the election.
Society is being destabilised, either by the Democrats if they stole the election or by the Republicans if they are spreading the big lie. Either way, what action are the people of USA to take? Are they to take up arms against the Democrats, or are they to take up arms against the Republicans?
Someone is seeking to destabilise society, but who is it?
If the people take up arms, then it will most likely to be those armed people who would be destabilising society. The people taking action.
Presumably they would be doing it because they believe they are in the right, they believe they are obligated.


Yes, absolutely, I'm not an anarchist.


If you take morality out of the picture then it is a non issue.
Government don't need to interfere in people's family affairs, but at least we are seeing that items shouldn't necessarily come down to a vote, where the majority gain dominance on the minorities.


Therefore you need a foundational document which limits the power of government to interfere in people's lives and decisions.



The death of a fertilised egg or a fetus isn't a harm to society.
We don't get the parents or the friends of the fertilised egg fighting back to protect the egg or to seek out vengeance. Society goes on as if nothing happened.


If a woman murders her kid, then her partner, the grandparents, cousins, uncles and aunties, care givers, teachers, friends etc will get upset and some will seek vengeance if government doesn't deal with the situation.


"not right" isn't the phrase I would use, but I would step in anyway.


Again, it's not about being "not right" it is about having a safe and stable society. I would also hope that if myself, my wife or my kids are under physical attack that someone in society will step in to help out.


If I see two gang members fighting, I'm not going to help out.
If people have weapons, I'm not going to help out.
My own safety comes first.

If it is just two youngish kids and they aren't really doing much actual harm to each other, I might not step in.

This is all academic though, I've not been in that kind of situation. It is all interesting to say what I think I would do, but until the situation arises I guess you don't actually know what you would actually do.


Or just make a law to outlaw violence as it makes society dangerous rather than because it is wrong.
We can debate in the parlamentary chamber and in the courts if something is harmful and dangerous, but it is hard to debate if it is "wrong"


It would be upto the courts, opposing lawyers would need to argue a case for and against.
It would be interesting to hear the case on why abortion, same sex marriage, gay sex, divorce, prostitution etc are dangerous for society.
That argument would be quite different from an argument as to why these things might be classified as immoral, or "wrong".


What do statistics show about married people in an abusive and violent household?

We aren't looking for the perfect society. Just one where the government only intervenes where they have to, in order to keep society safe and stable. Two people getting divorced does not make society unsafe or unstable. Although I do grant that it may have a large impact on the children.


I have no problems with government or community organisations providing subsidised marriage counselling for those who want it.



I don't think government should be asking "is this moral?" or "Is this immoral?"
I think government should be asking, "Is this causing issues in society?" and if so, "What can be done to mitigate the risk of those issues so that society is better off?"
It might be in providing marriage counselling, in providing financial support, in providing assistance to help people find jobs, homes etc.




We don't need a perfect society.


No, I don't think a moral judgement is needed.
Does govt need to interfere to stop abortion? - No
Does govt need to interfere to stop euthanasia? - No
Does govt need to kill people in executions? - No
Does govt need to send people to war? - ???


Could be up for debate. I'd be interested to hear the arguments on both sides.


It is human life. But I have no moral obligation and I don't consider govt or society as having a moral obligation here.



I disagree with this. Sorry.


I don't agree with the USA constitution.


Morality is quite a problem because there is no way to resolve the disputes, no way to discover moral truths.
Therefore we need a better basis to put constraints on the power of government.

Ok so rather than answering each point individually I will sum up what is basically the different issues here. You are saying that you don't use morality as a measure or guide for determining how society should act to ensure they have a safe and stable society. I agree with this but add that there are many examples where laws are underpinned by morality and don't necessarily relate to safety and stability.

But even if laws relate to safety and stability this doesnt negate that they may be underpinned by moral values because we would have to ask ourselves why we value safety and satbility ie safety because we value human life which is a moral value. We have to step back and see that western societies have certain values which may be different to other nations and cultures and this is primarily because of our Christian origins.

I am also saying that there are many situations which are not laws but rather social conventions which are not compulsory behaviours but are underpinned by moral values. They can be enforced by organisations and political parties because they have determined them to be the best way to behave ie a person should not sleep around with staff, should not be sexually perverse or a party animal in their private time ect and must follow the ethics of the entity you work for whether you agree or not.

Then there are the social norms/conventions which are also morally based but cannot be enforced by law and ethics but are rather preferred and socially frowned upon if broken. Thes einclude people not sleeping around with everyones wife, not pushing in line, being selfish such as being greedy, profits before people, being anti social, bullying ect ect.

So not every behaviour is related to law and much of society is built on moral values which make up who we are today. We cannot avoid involving morality in our personal, social, political and legal lives.

I will respond to one point you made as it provides examples. You said

No, I don't think a moral judgement is needed.
Does govt need to interfere to stop abortion? - No

So what if the unborn fetus is regarded as human life. Will not killing it make society unsafe and unstable.

Does govt need to interfere to stop euthanasia? - No

So are you saying we should leave assisted suicdes up to the person wanting to die and/or the person doing the assisted suicide.

Does govt need to kill people in executions? - No

Why, what if it acts as a deterrent to others not to kill. Who decides whether its right or wrong.

Does govt need to send people to war? - ???

Well I suggest morality is heavily involved in war.

Also you said you disagreed when I said that if the fetus was regarded as human life and precious then this is a good moral reason why the government should get involved and stop abortions. What did you mean.

 

[stevil]

Ok so rather than answering each point individually I will sum up what is basically the different issues here. You are saying that you don't use morality as a measure or guide for determining how society should act

People/individuals take actions, not society, each individual.
I don't know how people should or shouldn't act. It is not for me to determine of others.

to ensure they have a safe and stable society.

Us humans are social creatures. We don't typically seek solitude by finding a cave deep in the forest and living out our lives alone. So we need/desire a society of other people and collectively we do need some rules so that our society is functional, stable, safe. And in a global world we desire our particular society to be thriving.
This is the basis, doesn't matter what each person's culture is, what their religious beliefs are, we need this basic thing from society.
So for now, let's not worry about determining if something is to be labelled as "wrong", "right", "moral", "immoral" lets just for now, simply focus on having a safe and stable and perhaps thriving society.
We appoint some people to focus on this purpose, we call these people, our appointed government.
We want them to only focus on this purpose, we don't want them to get excited about power and then force other things on just. Just these simple things.

I agree with this but add that there are many examples where laws are underpinned by morality and don't necessarily relate to safety and stability.

Sure, but for now let's not worry if you can call these things moral or having moral underpinnings.
There are many things that people classify as immoral that are not made against the law.
Lets just focus on a base set of rules to have a safe and stable and perhaps thriving society. That's it. Maybe some of these things some people would call "moral" OK, so what? I'm focussed on the "safe" part. You can also call it moral too if you want. I don't care about that, I'm not going to stop caring about having a safe society just because you call "safe" a moral. I'm not going to want to make divorce illegal just because some people think divorce is "immoral". I am unconcerned about these labels. They have no importance to me.

But even if laws relate to safety and stability this doesnt negate that they may be underpinned by moral values

Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't, depends who you ask. But me, I don't care. Label them however you please, it isn't an argument I'm going to get involved it. I don't know if they are immoral or not, I don't know of a way to discover whether they are immoral or not. I just ignore that part.

because we would have to ask ourselves why we value safety and satbility ie safety because we value human life which is a moral value.

Or perhaps something more practical rather than an ideal, we want safety because we ourselves want a place to live our own lives and be safe. We ourselves want our loved ones to also be safe. Our partners, our children, our friends.

We have to step back and see that western societies have certain values which may be different to other nations and cultures and this is primarily because of our Christian origins.

Countries now are integrated, we have members of our countries from all sorts of cultural backgrounds. It doesn't make sense to focus on Christian origins, but instead to focus on being inclusive to all.

I am also saying that there are many situations which are not laws but rather social conventions which are not compulsory behaviours but are underpinned by moral values.

How do we differentiate what should be a law and what shouldn't?
For many it's not a matter of outlawing all "immoral" acts. Why outlaw some and not others?
It suggests to me that law shouldn't be based on what is moral or immoral but something else instead. We can simply ignore these labels when coming up with practical laws.

They can be enforced by organisations and political parties because they have determined them to be the best way to behave ie a person should not sleep around with staff, should not be sexually perverse or a party animal in their private time ect and must follow the ethics of the entity you work for whether you agree or not.

There are some practical rules that companies often come up with. The owners of those companies can come up with rules if they like. Not sure what else to say about that.

Then there are the social norms/conventions which are also morally based but cannot be enforced by law and ethics but are rather preferred and socially frowned upon if broken.

I don't really bother with this. Each person has their own beliefs. I try not to judge.

These include people not sleeping around with everyones wife, not pushing in line, being selfish such as being greedy, profits before people, being anti social, bullying ect ect.

People can decide for themselves how they want to behave, what reputation they want to build for themselves.

So not every behaviour is related to law and much of society is built on moral values which make up who we are today.

Society doesn't have moral values. Individuals can though.
I don't really care too much about people's individual beliefs. I don't go around judging others, although, if someone has a reputation for lying, cheating, stealing, I would think twice about loaning them things or trusting them when they tell me things.

We cannot avoid involving morality in our personal, social, political and legal lives.

I have no interest in whether some people are labelling things with moral labels. It has not interest to me. I only care if my society is safe, I don't care if it is moral or immoral. I will be concerned if my neighbor is doing things that make my neighborhood unsafe, I won't be concerned if my neighbor is doing what some people would consider to be "immoral"

So what if the unborn fetus is regarded as human life. Will not killing it make society unsafe and unstable.

I don't see how abortions make society unsafe. I don't see fights breaking out. I don't see revenge happening.

So are you saying we should leave assisted suicdes up to the person wanting to die and/or the person doing the assisted suicide.

I don't see a reason why euthanasia should be illegal. It doesn't make society unsafe.

Why, what if it acts as a deterrent to others not to kill. Who decides whether its right or wrong.

I don't care if it is right or wrong. Not the question I would be asking.
"Does society need to kill this person in order to make society safer" is the more appropriate question.

Also you said you disagreed when I said that if the fetus was regarded as human life and precious then this is a good moral reason why the government should get involved and stop abortions. What did you mean.

Government should get involved if abortion makes society unsafe. I don't care if abortion is immoral. I don't deem a fetus to be precious to society.

 

[FireDragon76]

Don't conflate consequentialist ethics and virtue ethics, the two are very different. Virtue ethicists are interested in motivation, consequentialists are not.

 

[Treeplanter]

Don't conflate consequentialist ethics and virtue ethics, the two are very different. Virtue ethicists are interested in motivation, consequentialists are not.

To whom are you speaking?

 

[loveofourlord]

I remember this coming up in a show about afterlife, won't say what as to not directly spoil it. But one of the main chars was always donating to charities and giving their money away. BUt they were still a bad person because her motivations were not pure, it was because she liked the praise, and the way it made her feel, plus showing up others and such. It was when they came to that realization they realized they were not nescarily a good person.

Their deeds were good, but they were still a self-absorbed narcissist.

 

[Treeplanter]

I remember this coming up in a show about afterlife, won't say what as to not directly spoil it. But one of the main chars was always donating to charities and giving their money away. BUt they were still a bad person because her motivations were not pure, it was because she liked the praise, and the way it made her feel, plus showing up others and such. It was when they came to that realization they realized they were not nescarily a good person.

Their deeds were good, but they were still a self-absorbed narcissist.

There's nothing wrong with liking praise - so I hesitate to say that one is a 'bad person' on this basis...

It's just that one cannot, in good conscience, be regarded, on the basis of seeking praise, as a 'good person'

To be regarded as a good person requires that good deeds be accompanied by right intentions!

 

[loveofourlord]

There's nothing wrong with liking praise - so I hesitate to say that one is a 'bad person' on this basis...

It's just that one cannot, in good conscience, be regarded, on the basis of seeking praise, as a 'good person'

To be regarded as a good person requires that good deeds be accompanied by right intentions!

I should quanlify it was because they wanted the praise for being a good person.

 

[Treeplanter]

I should quanlify it was because they wanted the praise for being a good person.

In my opinion, wanting to be praised for being a good person does not 'a bad human being' make

Nor, for that matter, does "showing up others and such"
{agreed, showing up others is not necessarily good, but nor is it necessarily bad as far as I can see}

I believe that there is such a thing as a moral neutrality wherein one is neither morally good or bad


Now, a god who claims to be morally perfect and yet wants/needs/demands to be praised as such is a different matter entirely...

 

[loveofourlord]

In my opinion, wanting to be praised for being a good person does not 'a bad human being' make

Nor, for that matter, does "showing up others and such"
{agreed, showing up others is not necessarily good, but nor is it necessarily bad as far as I can see}

I believe that there is such a thing as a moral neutrality wherein one is neither morally good or bad


Now, a god who claims to be morally perfect and yet wants/needs/demands to be praised as such is a different matter entirely...

I'm not saying one can't want praise for doing a good deed and not be good, it's just their motivation and what else. There is always the problem of false piety, people that act pious t be seen as doing that, rather then for it's own sake. I think I remember something in the bible about that can't remember....hmmm.

 

[Treeplanter]

I'm not saying one can't want praise for doing a good deed and not be good, it's just their motivation and what else. There is always the problem of false piety, people that act pious t be seen as doing that, rather then for it's own sake. I think I remember something in the bible about that can't remember....hmmm.

Agreed - motivation is crucial

If one is to be regarded as a truly 'good' person then it's not enough just to do that which is right
One must also do that which is right for the right reason{s}!

 

[Herbivore Wolf]

I agree with Treeplanter on this point, that motivation for an act underlies and forms the foundation for it's morality. (At least I think that's what you said.) I was hoping to ask you about your definition of morality, Treeplanter. If you didn't mind, could you more precisely define "needless harm"? I understand this may seem rather obvious, but for the sake of clear communication, I wanted to be sure we were on the same page.

 

[Herbivore Wolf]

Treeplanter...

If I'm correct, you came to this thread to establish that the Lord in Christian Scripture doesn't deserve our devotion. I would very much like to discuss that with you, if you'd be interested. I don't plan on calling you names, or becoming angry, or dismissing you. I've followed every post in this thread from the start, and I would like to address your point. I believe that motivation underlies everything, that it is the basis of morality. I was curious as to a few issues you brought up, especially the way you would point out thing about the Lord's actions that distinctly bother you. Would you discuss these things with me?

 

[Treeplanter]

Treeplanter...

If I'm correct, you came to this thread to establish that the Lord in Christian Scripture doesn't deserve our devotion. I would very much like to discuss that with you, if you'd be interested. I don't plan on calling you names, or becoming angry, or dismissing you. I've followed every post in this thread from the start, and I would like to address your point. I believe that motivation underlies everything, that it is the basis of morality. I was curious as to a few issues you brought up, especially the way you would point out thing about the Lord's actions that distinctly bother you. Would you discuss these things with me?

Sorry, I haven't spent much time here the last couple of weeks...

That said, I would be happy to have a discussion with you

I'm getting ready to go out for the evening right now, but I did see your last post dated on the 31st of July and I do plan on providing some additional thoughts on morality and what I define as 'needed' vs 'needless' harm as soon as I can find the time

I look forward to the conversation!

 

[Herbivore Wolf]

I as well. Please, enjoy your evening.

 

[Herbivore Wolf]

How are you today, Treeplanter?

 

[Treeplanter]

How are you today, Treeplanter?

Hi Herb,

Sorry that it's taken me this long to get back to you!
{and forgive me for not rereading through this thread, myself}

To be honest, I'm not sure that this will shed any more light on the subject {given that it might already, as you say, be rather obvious}, but in the interest of clear communication, these are my thoughts/definitions:

Morality is simply the differentiation between right and wrong - between good and evil

Good and evil are human constructs
We created and define these concepts

In short,
Good is simply that which is beneficial to us {such as salvation and resurrection}
Evil is that which is detrimental to us {such as being drowned}

Where God consciously and purposefully inflicting harm upon us is concerned,
A NEEDLESS harm {or evil} is a harm that IS NOT REQUIRED in order to achieve His desired end
A NEEDED harm {or evil} is a harm THAT IS REQUIRED in order to achieve His desired end

Human beings, limited as we are, sometimes have no other choice except to inflict harm in order to achieve a greater good

Ex: We sometimes have no other choice except to cut people open in order to remove cancer

God, on the other hand, can ALWAYS remove cancer WITHOUT cutting a person open
God is NEVER, EVER REQUIRED to inflict harm upon us {cutting us} in the course of removing cancer

Let's look at the Great Flood
God decided to drown the entire human race
This, by definition, includes babies and children

Giving God the benefit of the doubt, I trust that He drowned the innocent babies and children alongside the wicked with the intent of saving them from a fallen world and resurrecting them to a better one

This is a good and moral end
However, God chose the evil and immoral means of drowning by which to achieve this end

He didn't have to!

God, being omnipotent, could have saved and resurrected those babies WITHOUT causing them harm {evil} in the process

Instead, God consciously and purposefully chose to do them harm
God consciously and purposefully chose to drown innocent babies and children

This was, by definition, NEEDLESS

To consciously and purposefully inflict needless ham upon another is immoral

God, having consciously and purposefully inflicted needless harm upon us, is immoral

On this basis, God is not worthy of our devotion

If, on the other hand, I am wrong and God DID NEED to drown babies and children in order to save and resurrect them - then He is not immoral, but rather inept

In which case He is unworthy of our devotion due His weakness

Either way, God is unworthy

 

[Herbivore Wolf]

Hi, Treeplanter.

Thank you for laying some of this out for me. I hope to respond soon, but I seem to have caught a minor cold bug. I will study further until I am able to come back with a clearer focus. For now the sniffles have my head feeling fuzzy. I look forward to the conversation!

 

[Treeplanter]

Hi, Treeplanter.

Thank you for laying some of this out for me. I hope to respond soon, but I seem to have caught a minor cold bug. I will study further until I am able to come back with a clearer focus. For now the sniffles have my head feeling fuzzy. I look forward to the conversation!

Sounds good

Feel better!

 

[Herbivore Wolf]

Sounds good

Feel better!

Hello, Treeplanter. Mask your pardon for keeping you waiting for so long. What I thought was a mild cold turned out to be coronavirus. I am fully recovered, and eager to discuss. Tonight I will spend time with family after work, and tomorrow I will try to review your posts during lunch. Thank you for your patience and understanding.