Why does god put the needs of the few above the needs of the many?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Why does god put the needs of the few above the needs of the many?

That moral tenet is about the only objective moral tenet I know of that has not been shown to ever be subjective. Yahweh seems to be doing the wrong thing.

We are told that most of us will end on the wide road to hell while the few end on the narrow path to heaven.

It is demonstrable that nature creates for the best possible end.

Why does Yahweh not follow the better rules he gave nature, and creates us for the worst possible end for the vast majority of us?

A decent father would not have the morals or ethics Yahweh seems to follow.

If true, then we end with more souls lost to Satan than souls saved by Yahweh. Even as scriptures say that Yahweh wills that all souls be saved.

God not getting his will is not allowed. God must always come out ahead. Something is not right for god.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

 

[Politesse]

If your theology ascribes seemingly contradictory motives to God while asserting that God is without contradiction, then it seems clear that there is either something wrong with God, or something wrong with your theology. Which is more likely?

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

If your theology ascribes seemingly contradictory motives to God while asserting that God is without contradiction, then it seems clear that there is either something wrong with God, or something wrong with your theology. Which is more likely?

My theology/ideology, Gnostic Christianity, does not have contradictions.

Christianity does, and it is their thinking at issue. Not mine.

Regards
DL

 

[Rhea]

We are told that most of us will end on the wide road to hell while the few end on the narrow path to heaven.

It is demonstrable that nature creates for the best possible end.

It’s a good point.

“Most people are good.”
“Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity”
“The moral arc of the universe bends toward Justice”
“Generally speaking, people don’t do mea things on purpose”

And yet this mythology espouses permanent punishment for a majority. It contradicts nature.

A decent father would not have the morals or ethics Yahweh seems to follow.

A decent parent would not ever torture one of their own children, ever for any reason, ever, period.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

We are told that most of us will end on the wide road to hell while the few end on the narrow path to heaven.

It is demonstrable that nature creates for the best possible end.

It’s a good point.

“Most people are good.”
“Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity”
“The moral arc of the universe bends toward Justice”
“Generally speaking, people don’t do mea things on purpose”

And yet this mythology espouses permanent punishment for a majority. It contradicts nature.

A decent father would not have the morals or ethics Yahweh seems to follow.

A decent parent would not ever torture one of their own children, ever for any reason, ever, period.

Thanks much. We agree on some things.

“Most people are good.”

I would say that we are mostly good and do evil to each other only when we compete, as forced to by our selfish gene.

“Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity”

I like this.

“The moral arc of the universe bends toward Justice”

I would say bends towards survival of the fittest. I do not see justice involved here.

“Generally speaking, people don’t do mea things on purpose”

When we follow the dictates of our selfish gene, it dictates when we will do good to each other by cooperating or when we will do evil when we compete and create a loser to that competition.

Regards
DL

 

[Bomb#20]

Why does god put the needs of the few above the needs of the many?

That moral tenet is about the only objective moral tenet I know of that has not been shown to ever be subjective.

You mean the moral tenet "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."? No, logic clearly dictates that Mr. Spock's lines are not written by Vulcans. If we're going to get our moral theories from science fiction writers, check out Ursula K. Le Guin's take on the question.

 

[skepticalbip]

Why does god put the needs of the few above the needs of the many?

Could be because the stories in the Bible are tribal tales about the Israelite tribes. God is the Israelite god that looks after the Israelites that worship and obey him. No one else is worthy of that god's concern.

Sorta like Baal was the main god of the Canaanite tribes who looked after Canaanites who worshipped and obeyed him. So Baal didn't give a shit for the Israelites and was unconcerned about their suffering.

It seems to be that humans like to think of themselves as special. If a group creates a god that treated everyone equally then no one would feel special. If, OTOH, they create a god only treats a chosen few well and fucks over the rest then those chosen few will feel really, really special.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Why does god put the needs of the few above the needs of the many?

That moral tenet is about the only objective moral tenet I know of that has not been shown to ever be subjective.

You mean the moral tenet "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."? No, logic clearly dictates that Mr. Spock's lines are not written by Vulcans. If we're going to get our moral theories from science fiction writers, check out Ursula K. Le Guin's take on the question.

I look forward to the logic trail that refutes the tenet of the good of the many outweigh the good of the few.

Or is "No", your best argument?

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Why does god put the needs of the few above the needs of the many?

Could be because the stories in the Bible are tribal tales about the Israelite tribes. God is the Israelite god that looks after the Israelites that worship and obey him. No one else is worthy of that god's concern.

Sorta like Baal was the main god of the Canaanite tribes who looked after Canaanites who worshipped and obeyed him. So Baal didn't give a shit for the Israelites and was unconcerned about their suffering.

It seems to be that humans like to think of themselves as special. If a group creates a god that treated everyone equally then no one would feel special. If, OTOH, they create a god only treats a chosen few well and fucks over the rest then those chosen few will feel really, really special.

Good thinking.

They all want to be the literal Noah.

They forget that if Noah had been worthy, he would not have ever finished the Ark.

Doing Midrash on Jewish constructs is a must if we are to understand and reduce the harm the Abrahamic creeds are still doing.

Regards
DL

 

[J842P]

Why does god put the needs of the few above the needs of the many?

That moral tenet is about the only objective moral tenet I know of that has not been shown to ever be subjective.

You mean the moral tenet "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."? No, logic clearly dictates that Mr. Spock's lines are not written by Vulcans. If we're going to get our moral theories from science fiction writers, check out Ursula K. Le Guin's take on the question.

I look forward to the logic trail that refutes the tenet of the good of the many outweigh the good of the few.

Or is "No", your best argument?

Regards
DL

You haven't presented any argument you've merely asserted it.

 

[Jarhyn]

If your theology ascribes seemingly contradictory motives to God while asserting that God is without contradiction, then it seems clear that there is either something wrong with God, or something wrong with your theology. Which is more likely?

My theology/ideology, Gnostic Christianity, does not have contradictions.

Christianity does, and it is their thinking at issue. Not mine.

Regards
DL

Bullshit.

Like, the first thing you have to do in trying to be less wrong about the world (to know more, to understand more) is to first accept that you are wrong. I am sorry. You lose the game. Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

 

[Bomb#20]

I look forward to the logic trail that refutes the tenet of the good of the many outweigh the good of the few.

Or is "No", your best argument?

Well, in the first place, what J842P said.

And in the second place, how much does "the good of X" weigh? What are the units of good? If three kids go out to get ice cream cones but one of them gets a mosquito bite, does two times the good of an ice cream cone "weigh" more units of good than the third kid's pain of a mosquito bite minus the pleasure of his ice cream cone? You seriously think you can answer a question like that without being subjective?

Try reading this:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...thium-miners-to-save-their-land-idUSKBN2080GV

So tell us, objectively, how much atmospheric carbon avoided by how many electric car batteries does it take to outweigh N farmers' and herders' livelihoods being destroyed by interference from Portuguese lithium mines?

 

[Keith&Co.]

That moral tenet is about the only objective moral tenet I know of that has not been shown to ever be subjective.

Never?

If i'm leading a comnando behind enemy lines, my priority is the mission, then the lives of my men, THEN all the other fuckers around me. I will sacrifice quite a few of the enemy to accomplish my directive and then get my men home again.

The needs of MY few exceed the shit out of the needs of their many.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I look forward to the logic trail that refutes the tenet of the good of the many outweigh the good of the few.

Or is "No", your best argument?

Regards
DL

You haven't presented any argument you've merely asserted it.

No.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

If your theology ascribes seemingly contradictory motives to God while asserting that God is without contradiction, then it seems clear that there is either something wrong with God, or something wrong with your theology. Which is more likely?

My theology/ideology, Gnostic Christianity, does not have contradictions.

Christianity does, and it is their thinking at issue. Not mine.

Regards
DL

Bullshit.

Like, the first thing you have to do in trying to be less wrong about the world (to know more, to understand more) is to first accept that you are wrong. I am sorry. You lose the game. Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

Your did not even show the contradiction in Gnostic Christianity you were talking about or allow an argument.

You win this non-argument hands down, like a child.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

That moral tenet is about the only objective moral tenet I know of that has not been shown to ever be subjective.

Never?

If i'm leading a comnando behind enemy lines, my priority is the mission, then the lives of my men, THEN all the other fuckers around me. I will sacrifice quite a few of the enemy to accomplish my directive and then get my men home again.

The needs of MY few exceed the shit out of the needs of their many.

Quite a twist to the concept.

We are talking an ingroup saying, not what one does with the enemy.

Like you, when in such a position, I to would kill the many.

Regards
DL

 

[Keith&Co.]

We are talking an ingroup saying, not what one does with the enemy.

Ah. So there are unstated conditions on this objective moral tenet. In other words, it's subjective.

So, in a divisional competition for recognition, i might consider every other guy in my division to be an opponent, and my need for the Captain's letter exceeds theirs,.

In a departmental competition, my division needs the day off more than the other divisions deserve it.

But the ship-wide competition for Space Of The Month draws our department together to defeat those rat bastards in Engineering, or Supply.
And a week later, we all support those same rat bastards for the Engineering inspection that will be part of which ship gets the Battle E awarded thus year, us or those fuckers making up the rest of the squadron.

The subjective value of the needs of me doesn't change, but how generous i am with my definition of myself.
Me, my group, my ship, my navy, my nation, my species....

Seriously, on Tuesday, we detect a Russian "fishing trawler" in suspicious waters, we go to battlestations torpedo and monitor. Ready to 'blow him to Mars' as the cowboy said, while hiding our presence from the enemy though it's peacetime.

Friday, a "fisherman" falls overboard during a storm, we'd surface to help rescue our fellow sailor.

Because even if this is only an in-group saying, the lines between groups overlap.

 

[ruby sparks]

Thoughts?

Imagined entities of our superstitious minds don't 'do' anything. The imaginings of them might, but that's all.

I guess the potential arrival of that response was a bit obvious.

Another way to put it might be to say that I think you've asked the wrong question. 'Why have humans invented an imaginary god that supposedly cares about the few rather than the many?' might be better, imo (temporarily assuming it's true that the imaginary god in question is said to do that).

I think scepticalblip had a decent shot at answering it in post 7.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

We are talking an ingroup saying, not what one does with the enemy.

Ah. So there are unstated conditions on this objective moral tenet.

You have added those in. Not me.

If you want to do that, ignore what I put and begin your own O.P. or scenario with your conclusions and I will see if I agree.

In the meantime, love your friends and hate your enemies.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Thoughts?

Imagined entities of our superstitious minds don't 'do' anything. The imaginings of them might, but that's all.

I guess the potential arrival of that response was a bit obvious.

Another way to put it might be to say that I think you've asked the wrong question. 'Why have humans invented an imaginary god that supposedly cares about the few rather than the many?' might be better, imo (temporarily assuming it's true that the imaginary god in question is said to do that).

I think scepticalblip had a decent shot at answering it in post 7.

He did. yes.

I wrote as I did because it was meant to draw in theists. If I had put imaginary in the title, it would discourage them.

Decent apologists are already near non-existent and I want to encourage their presence, not discourage them.

Regards
DL