The virtue of God vs. the virtue of Jesus –
We all understand that it is not virtuous to allow an innocent person to be tortured or die if we have the power to prevent it at no cost to us. I bet if you, or any of us had the all powerful capabilities that God has, and you had the power to miraculously prevent the torture and suffering of millions of people and also your son (referring to Jesus) without any effort, wouldn’t you do so?
Why doesn’t God do it?
It’s apparently his world, his rules, his creation, his plan, right?
If it’s because he has a plan for everyone, and if we are supposed to incorporate God’s ethics into our own life, how then can it be considered moral for one human to attempt to prevent the torture of, suffering, or death of another human, when God doesn’t always do it?
Are we just intervening in God’s omniscient plan when we take action to prevent an untimely death or chronic suffering of a loved one?
If there is no way to determine if saving a life is going to veto God’s plan, how can saving a life be virtuous?
Should we take action in preventing the terminal suffering and untimely death of others even though God doesn’t always take action even after desperate prayers from so many people?
If so, should we assume we have more power and knowledge than God?
In the Bible, God gives the command to not kill. If God wanted to be more precise in a moral command, he should have commanded to not murder, because murder is always an initiation of unjust death, where killing can be justified if defending against initiations of violence of equal proportion. It could also be the case that not “killing” was mistranslated over time from a commandment to not murder, but God should have foreseen that since he’s all knowing, eh?
Nonetheless, most virtues of the Bible and Christianity come from the teaching and examples of Jesus, not from God.
This series focuses on knowing God, not necessarily about knowing Jesus, however it should be noted that while God does not have mercy on all who suffer, and his commandments don’t apply to himself, since, according to the Bible, God has committed genocide on entire populations including women, children, and animals to fulfill his plan; on the other hand, the virtue of Jesus is arguably unmatched by any other person in Biblical history.
Jesus was a great example of empowering the individual in order to help others. Jesus exemplified the virtues of charity for those who need help, food shelter and care for the weary, kindness to strangers and love for enemies who know no better, patience, temperance, thankfulness, love, etc.
These teaching of Jesus are reflected in modern Christianity and other Jesus based religions.
That is why Christians donate much more personal time and money to charitable causes around the world compared to atheists on the progressive left who claim to be about helping the less fortunate, but it does not manifest, since the progressive atheists want the almighty State to do what it cannot do as well as dispersed organization can.
The U.S. is a Christian nation, and the world is a better place because of those who have learned from the teachings of Jesus.
So why was Jesus such a fine example virtue and morality, and humble about it too, while his alleged father (God) was a terrible example of virtue and morality?
And God is the almighty King that must be worshiped?
Whether or not you think Jesus was the son of God and ascended to Heaven on Easter Sunday, the example of Jesus that has spread across the world has been one of the greatest advancements in virtuous interactions among Sapiens.
By the way, according to the Bible, Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday and rose on the 3rd day which would be a Saturday, so instead of Good Friday it should be Good Wednesday and Easter Saturday, not Sunday, but most people blindly celebrate the Babylonian version of “Easter” which originated from sun god worship where they would celebrate the pagan solar idols such as the Easter bunny goddess. You can thank Constantine for that too. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good holiday with treats and family.
While leftist atheists are stuck in the primitive paradigm of Marxist collectivism and central planning which only benefits the elite wealthy ruling class, the Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus promote individualism and dispersed planning which results in more equal altruism.
However, both leftist atheism and Christianity are faith and belief based religions. This is not how to align perception with reality.
Impartial processing of empiricism and not adhering to conclusions is how to align perception with reality.
Which leads us to our next question; Is it harmful to tell young ones what to believe?
Do you want the next generation to be subservient sheep, or autonomous thinkers?
Most religious folks say they have a right to believe what they believe upon their own volition. But then they will deny to their child the very right that they claim for themselves.
If a child is told to have a certain belief because the parent is the authority and the parents know what the children should believe, isn’t that the same ad verecundiam fallacy that the atheist professor in the film “God’s not Dead” used to tell the students what to believe and not believe?
Believe in X conclusion because I have a position of authority over you is irrational.
Do you want to raise someone who would only speak in your voice, or would you rather let them have a voice of their own?
Must they look like you, and talk like you?
Must they be loyal to your conclusions, or should they learn to think for themselves and draw independent conclusions?
Do you want to raise an obedient clone or do you want to raise a child to think and reason for herself?
For example, I would rather tell my kid everything about creationism and intelligent design, and also tell her everything about chromosome mutations and epigenetic adaptations that evolve over time, along with all the incorrect theories of Darwinian species based evolution, and help identify any fallacies on all sides, and allow the kid to gather more evidence and proper reasoning to decide for herself what is true or false.
Do you want your kid to learn what’s right or wrong just because you said so, or would you rather make the case objectively by perhaps showing her how violations of an individual have consequences that are laws of nature, and that right and wrong are independent of what anyone arbitrarily things?
If you tell them what is right or wrong base on “because I said so”, later on they may be taught that things are good or bad because God says so. And still later, when they are taught civics in government schools, they will be taught that things are good or bad because the government said so.
Next thing you know, they will proudly speak the Fabian Socialist pledge of allegiance, and think taxation is virtuous and necessary without questioning anything invoked from authority while believing they are free.
They are taught that it’s good to obey the law and bad to break the law, but “the law” in a Statist society is just whatever this third party of humans that we give arbitrary rulership to says it is.
Wouldn’t you rather raise a kid who understands the difference between moral commandments reigned down from some arbitrary ruler, from universal morality in nature?
Do you want your kid to have independent rational judgment, or would you rather she obediently believe every fantasy and superstition that the “authorities” in her life have told her to believe?
Is it harmful to have children believe Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy are for real?
What happens when a child grows up and figures out those are not real?
How can that child fully trust the parents to be honest with them in other areas of life after that?
And what’s the purpose of making someone believe that imaginary things are real?
Many Disney characters and stories have beneficial life lessons that children learn while still understanding that those things are imaginary. The magic of Disney doesn’t need to be real for the message to be absorbed into real life. Likewise, the lessons of giving and exchanging that come from Santa and the Tooth Fairy don’t need to be real for it to be absorbed.
Most parents don’t try to fool their kids into believing that the world of Narnia is for real, even though it has many Christian parallels within the Chronicles. The lessons are just as potent and can be absorbed even though it’s known to be imaginary.
In that case, there’s no purpose or benefit to fooling children into believing in Holiday and tooth characters.
There’s nothing wrong with having imaginary fantasy worlds. Some of the best memories and life lessons a person may have are encased in worlds of video games, fiction books, art, and imagination.
This is a wonderful thing to nurture. The importance lies in knowing the difference between real and imaginary by learning a process of reasoning which one can use to tell the difference.
Teaching young ones to have faith based beliefs and to become attached to conclusions will steer them away from living in concordance with reality.
Thanks for finishing part 7 of this 8 part series.
Join me next time for the conclusion that doesn’t tell you what conclusion to have.
