For popular or very good threads
The young Willie Wonka helps the character “Noodle” find her mother.

This is on the theme that ethics are to be found in many life areas. As well as ample motivation to help other people.
 
And if someone is looking for “absolute” ethics, you’ll just asking for too much.

The most we can hope for is to acquire skills in different life areas. And if something is a “between the cracks”-type of deal, then a person needs to just wing it, adjusting as they go.
 
Last edited:

“While about four-in-ten Christians (39%) say the Bible’s text is the word of God and should be taken literally, 36% say it should not be interpreted literally or express another or no opinion. A separate 18% of Christians view the Bible as a book written by men, not God.”

————

So, very close between most common and second-most common.
 
I think God used the signs and possibly even other things to bring about a result which didn't have to involve taking away Pharoah's ability to choose.
To me, this is kind of “lawyering” the situation so that God gets off the hook.

Why would God, instead, not try to soften Pharaoh’s heart? For example, maybe He has Pharaoh come across a young nephew who’s down in the dumps because the slightly older boys won’t let him play with them.
God softening someone's heart could also face the same free-will issue if he's taking over control of someone to make them a certain way.

The one problematic issue I see in this story is God overriding someone's will. I don't see him going along with a path that would lead to destruction (the signs) as being a problem. I'm of course open to hearing views for and against why that would be an issue, but even then I wouldn't give that too much weight if all the people that suffered were immoral. But if you have God also killing innocent children, then that gets into the immoral territory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
The one problematic issue I see in this story is God overriding someone's will. . . . . But if you have God also killing innocent children, then that gets into the immoral territory.
I think you’ve rediscovered the tension between—

Immanuel Kant’s “Categorical Imperative,”

&

John Stuart Mill’s “Principle of Utility.”

———

And I’m guessing this conflict and tension has echoed through a lot of human thought.
 
https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fbe74d2dc-4b99-47ff-8ef0-cc479c345421_872x418.jpeg


To me, the consequences are more important than the motive. Of course, they are.

And it is pleasure or pain, broadly defined. In fact, I prefer to use the terms happiness and suffering.
 
Last edited:
https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fbe74d2dc-4b99-47ff-8ef0-cc479c345421_872x418.jpeg


To me, the consequences are more important than the motive. Of course, they are.

And it is pleasure or pain, broadly defined. In fact, I prefer to use the terms happiness and suffering.
Is it correct to say that this is like the means (motives?) and the ends (consequences)? Jesus talked about the heart. The OT talked about not punishing the righteous with the wicked.

So in that sense, I'm thinking both would apply in Christianity. You would think an all-good and omnipotent God would have no problem with that holding that standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
Is it correct to say that this is like the means (motives?) and the ends (consequences)? Jesus talked about the heart. The OT talked about not punishing the righteous with the wicked.

So in that sense, I'm thinking both would apply in Christianity. You would think an all-good and omnipotent God would have no problem with that holding that standard.
God does hold that standard. The problem is, we as people are not righteous. We can do good things, but that does not make us good. Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: Since we are all sinful creatures, we all deserve punishment (Rom.6:23). However, God made a way for us to avoid the punishment we have earned. Jesus took our place; became our substitute and paid the debt we incurred through His death on the cross. When a person repents and turns to Christ for forgiveness, God imputes the righteousness of Christ onto the believer (Rom.4:6-8). The believer is then clothed with the righteousness of Christ and avoids God's wrath at sin. This is how our all-good, omnipotent God justifies His holiness.
 
Is it correct to say that this is like the means (motives?) and the ends (consequences)? Jesus talked about the heart.
I guess if we really want to spilt hairs we could say “the means” (action pathway) is different from “the motive” (the emotion in your heart),

but I’m happy rolling them together.

Ends vs Means is something were used to.
 
The OT talked about not punishing the righteous with the wicked.
Then how in the world did God kill the “first born” ? ! ? Unless you were a believer and knew to put blood on the doorframe.

And in my time as a Christian for a year and a half, a little at age 13, all of age 14, and almost half of age 15,

this never came up.

If it did, the standard fundamentalist move would be to turn it back to yourself,

to ask, Are you trying to justify sin?

And since we’re sexual beings, and that’s frequently in the back of our minds, at least a little, you got me!

The way to be less obsessed with sex is to masturbate on a regular basis. That’s much better than trying to “abstain.”

——-/—-

And this is a great illustration of how (evangelical) Christians focus on internal thoughts and internal “sins,” and not try to make a positive difference in the world.