If God is perfect then....

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by Jepic

 

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

 

Robots can follow morals. Just program them to. Program them to not kill, not steal, etc. no emotion is required for this. Now if you are asking to explain the morals itself without emotions - the answer is obvious.

Happiness (good mental health) and not killing others is what is best for the survival of the species.

But morals have nothing to do with emotions! There isn't a book I have read about morality and philosophy where they tell you that emotions are the backbone to a moral being. Absolutely no book.

It is obvious that you either did not read what I typed or you have read it incorrectly. No where in there did I suggest that any emotion was necessary for morality.

"Now if you are asking to explain the morals itself without emotions - the answers is obvious."
See I misunderstood that line it seems.

reply to post by arpgme

Robots can follow morals. Just program them to. Program them to not kill, not steal, etc. no emotion is required for this. Now if you are asking to explain the morals itself without emotions - the answer is obvious.

I wasn't trying to imply they couldn't follow morals.

But why did someone program the robot to have that good moral? Ultimately it's tracing back to an emotional thinking person who via the emotional experience of being human created said particular moral principle.

reply to post by Jepic

To me the golden rule is good because it is a way of making people who are doing wrong realize just what damage they are doing to other people and good people realize what good they are doing to other people.

See you did what I asked you not to. You just restated the rule, but didn't explain why it's good.

You essentially just said the Golden Rule is good because it's good.

"One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself" is self-evident when it is understood that we are not separate from one another. We all arise in indivisible Light, Prior Unity, and once this is recognized, the wisdom of this rule, as well as Jesus' commandment to "Love thy neighbor as thyself", karma, etc., all become tacitly obvious because such morality or Love is inherent in our Prior Unity, the Conscious Light in which all conditions arise and no separation is known..

reply to post by bb23108


While you're online, perhaps you can search out the reply that i was so kind as to oblige you with, instead of sitting about idly while i do the work for an answer you so badly desire?

I would link you to it, but I can tell you it's somewhere around page 7 or 8 on the "God loves me" thread. thank you.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
While you're online, perhaps you can search out the reply that i was so kind as to oblige you with, instead of sitting about idly while i do the work for an answer you so badly desire?

I would link you to it, but I can tell you it's somewhere around page 7 or 8 on the "God loves me" thread. thank you.

LOL! Sitting idly while you do the work? You are unbelievable!

Other than your opening post of your main thread in your signature which I did appreciate aspects of, your responses I have read elsewhere lately were quick and not very considered, imo, given what the other posters were saying or asking.

Why did I say you did not answer me? Here is the question I initially asked, and your response (other than some kind of recap about your op relative to the Biblical God, that I clearly was not asking about when I asked the following):.

Does your argument hold up if you presume that the Divine is Conscious Light in which all conditions arise and are a modification of?

You responded:

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Does your presumption hold up if compared with the Bible, the source material from which all claims of love were taken in the original post of this thread?

So I asked you several times to actually answer my question but you kept saying you did. I still couldn't and still don't see how your question above is an answer, so I asked again for you to elaborate on that new thread you started. I also asked you the quoted section below, and you never answered, even though you keep saying you did.

Please tell me where you answered me. My posts are on page 11 and 12 of that same "God loves me" thread. My second question is at the bottom of page 12 - the next to last post of that whole thread - so please answer me on that thread, if you care to, rather than posting it here - unless you think it is relevant to this topic.

In case you don't see my second set of questions here it is:

Originally posted by bb23108
However, if you can see the errors in this presumption about God, and the various (and potential) horrors of such errors, then what about the presumption of separate self? Isn't that possibly the same error leading to innumerable mini-tyrants? Isn't the presumption that God is Other actually based in the same error that we are separate from all others? There are many myths we inherit and presume as real, absolute truths even - such as the world, and everyone in it, are separate from oneself. What about this core myth that has created all this presumed separation in the midst of indivisible light?

edit on 28-2-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)

Anyway, do you have anything you want to say to me about my actual post above relative to the golden rule?