Total Posts:99|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Inerrancy: Is God a Moral Monster?

Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 1:40:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This post is in response to an interesting red-herring brought up in this debate,

http://www.debate.org...

Here are the questions regarding the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy,

In 1 Samuel 15:3, "God" says this: "No go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him: but put to death both man and woman, child and infant.."

Questions:
1. Was "Put to death both man and woman, child and infant" the word of the Lord whom you worship?

2. Can God issue that same command today? Why or why not?

3. If you did believe you were commanded by God, could you and would you obey?
If not, why not?

4. If the god of the Bible who is supposedly love can order genocide and barbarianism, then why can't any god that is allegedly love do the same thing?

5. If ... God ordered [you] to commit genocide, why or why not would [you] obey [G]od?
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 2:06:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 1:40:00 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
This post is in response to an interesting red-herring brought up in this debate,

http://www.debate.org...

Here are the questions regarding the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy,

In 1 Samuel 15:3, "God" says this: "No go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him: but put to death both man and woman, child and infant.."

Questions:
1. Was "Put to death both man and woman, child and infant" the word of the Lord whom you worship?

2. Can God issue that same command today? Why or why not?

3. If you did believe you were commanded by God, could you and would you obey?
If not, why not?

4. If the god of the Bible who is supposedly love can order genocide and barbarianism, then why can't any god that is allegedly love do the same thing?

5. If ... God ordered [you] to commit genocide, why or why not would [you] obey [G]od?

I don't know why you're posting it here, but okay . . .

1) I don't worship, or acknowledge the existence of, a god.

2) Since he doesn't exist, no.

3) Unless someone can persuade me that voluntarism is correct, no.

4) I don't have a good answer to that question.

5) See my answer to 3.

Your turn.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 2:10:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 1:40:00 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
This post is in response to an interesting red-herring brought up in this debate,

http://www.debate.org...

Here are the questions regarding the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy,

In 1 Samuel 15:3, "God" says this: "No go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him: but put to death both man and woman, child and infant.."

Questions:
1. Was "Put to death both man and woman, child and infant" the word of the Lord whom you worship?

2. Can God issue that same command today? Why or why not?

3. If you did believe you were commanded by God, could you and would you obey?
If not, why not?

4. If the god of the Bible who is supposedly love can order genocide and barbarianism, then why can't any god that is allegedly love do the same thing?

5. If ... God ordered [you] to commit genocide, why or why not would [you] obey [G]od?

This is the problem with divine command theory, there is no appeal to reason or consequences such as human well being. It doesn't matter how horrific the consequences are, in DCT if God commands it............end of argument.

Once people are of that mindset now all you have to do is convince them that God wants such and such person dead. Homosexuals, witches, atheists, catholics, protestants, trinity deniers, americans working at the word trade tower on sept 11.

How are you going to reason with some one who invokes DCT and believes its God will to kill the infidel ? or to kill the Amalekitess ? What are you going to do ? argue with your own faith based assertion that God did not command them ? appeal to consequences ? well guess what, they don't give a rats what you say............your an infidel or Amalekite.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 8:49:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 1:40:00 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
This post is in response to an interesting red-herring brought up in this debate,

http://www.debate.org...

Here are the questions regarding the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy,

In 1 Samuel 15:3, "God" says this: "No go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him: but put to death both man and woman, child and infant.."

Questions:
1. Was "Put to death both man and woman, child and infant" the word of the Lord whom you worship?


No.

2. Can God issue that same command today? Why or why not?


No.

3. If you did believe you were commanded by God, could you and would you obey?
If not, why not?


No. This is a counterpossible as far as i'm concerned.

4. If the god of the Bible who is supposedly love can order genocide and barbarianism, then why can't any god that is allegedly love do the same thing?


They couldn't.

5. If ... God ordered [you] to commit genocide, why or why not would [you] obey [G]od?

Again, a counterpossible.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 9:45:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 1:40:00 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
This post is in response to an interesting red-herring brought up in this debate,

http://www.debate.org...

Here are the questions regarding the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy,

In 1 Samuel 15:3, "God" says this: "No go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him: but put to death both man and woman, child and infant.."

First, the Amalekites were not destroyed. The king never intended to do so, despite God's command. This command easily, could fall under an Isaac situation.

Second, that denies omniscience of future consequences.

For example if God killed Hitler as a baby, you would have labeled God a baby Killer. If God allowed Hilter to do what he did, you label God responsible for all of the deaths. Simply put a human is not in a good place to know if such a command is inherently wrong rather than apparently wrong.

Given the concept of tribal justice taught by the surrounding culture, there is good reason to think, whether God commanded or not, that there was extreme concern about the children growing up in households to murder their adopted parents, after the evil older Amalekite generation was wiped out by the adoptive parents.

You would have to give a better plan that the Jews of that era could have accomplished.

- To give the concept of a morally sufficient act.
We recognize despite the countless men, women and children killed in the firebombing in Dresden Germany and Tokyo or the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we had morally sufficient reasons to protect the innocents and the 'good' people of the world from an evil culture.
Stopping the evil of Imperial Japan and Hitler's Germany was 'the greater good', even at the cost of the evil cultures innocents to save our own.


Questions:
1. Was "Put to death both man and woman, child and infant" the word of the Lord whom you worship?

Yes.


2. Can God issue that same command today? Why or why not?

God is capable of issuing any command, but tribal retributive justice is not a large concern in world culture today. We also have means and methods that can accomplish integration not available to the Jews of the day.


3. If you did believe you were commanded by God, could you and would you obey?
If not, why not?

Given that you know nothing of how God commands different actions.... this is a setup question. Let me redirect.
If you were pulled into heaven and given commands from an obviously divine being what would you not do, when given moral sufficiency to an act? You are neglecting that God would NOT give you a moral sufficient reason or moral compulsion to follow such a command.


4. If the god of the Bible who is supposedly love can order genocide and barbarianism, then why can't any god that is allegedly love do the same thing?

This is just a denial that God is Just, and that it is more loving to perform the greatest 'Good' for the whole world rather.
Is it not more loving to stop the butchery of the Amelekites for all future generations?

Would you have not firebombed Dresden Germany? It slaughtered countless children of the evil German empire, to save the rest of the world. Moral sufficiency.


5. If ... God ordered [you] to commit genocide, why or why not would [you] obey [G]od?

Again, I would have acted to protect the world from Imperial Japan and Hitler's Germany.
You would be an evil person to fail to act against these evil cultures.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 11:14:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
@Gileandos, God wouldn't have to kill Hitler to stop world war II. An omnipotent God could skew something else to stop the sequence of events of him rising to power.

Same goes for this example. There would be other options other than genocide.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 11:43:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 1:40:00 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
This post is in response to an interesting red-herring brought up in this debate,

http://www.debate.org...

Here are the questions regarding the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy,

In 1 Samuel 15:3, "God" says this: "No go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him: but put to death both man and woman, child and infant.."

Questions:
1. Was "Put to death both man and woman, child and infant" the word of the Lord whom you worship?

2. Can God issue that same command today? Why or why not?

3. If you did believe you were commanded by God, could you and would you obey?
If not, why not?

4. If the god of the Bible who is supposedly love can order genocide and barbarianism, then why can't any god that is allegedly love do the same thing?

5. If ... God ordered [you] to commit genocide, why or why not would [you] obey [G]od?

What I find immoral are the ten plagues that God rained down on the people of Egypt for the stubbornness of their pharaoh.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 11:46:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 11:14:44 AM, phantom wrote:
@Gileandos, God wouldn't have to kill Hitler to stop world war II. An omnipotent God could skew something else to stop the sequence of events of him rising to power.

Same goes for this example. There would be other options other than genocide.

Again that is an assumption of a particular version of omnipotence is in play. Given that the typical Theistic claim from mere philosophy to Christianity is a 'maximally supreme' God restricted by Human freewill and Angelic freewill, such a statement cannot be used.

You cannot say there 'was some other possible way'. A limited person has no way of knowing there was some other way.

Additionally, I was very clear that God would give moral sufficiency to the person who received such a command.

Summary:
It is fallacious to conclude that God is NOT Self limiting to allow other free agents in the universe and within the moral circumstances. Additionally, it would be erroneous to suppose that moral sufficiency is not behind every act of an 'all good' God, simply because it is not known to you, a limited being.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 1:53:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 9:45:09 AM, Gileandos wrote:
First, the Amalekites were not destroyed. The king never intended to do so, despite God's command. This command easily, could fall under an Isaac situation.
Oh, so he disobeyed God. Isnt that a sin? Isnt that wrong?
Second, that denies omniscience of future consequences.

By claiming that, you are denying free will.

For example if God killed Hitler as a baby, you would have labeled God a baby Killer. If God allowed Hilter to do what he did, you label God responsible for all of the deaths. Simply put a human is not in a good place to know if such a command is inherently wrong rather than apparently wrong.

So every single baby in that city would grow up to be hitler? Is that what youre trying to say?

There wasnt a single person who would grow up to be a decent man?

Furthermore, The king became Hitler in a sense, didnt he?

Given the concept of tribal justice taught by the surrounding culture, there is good reason to think, whether God commanded or not, that there was extreme concern about the children growing up in households to murder their adopted parents, after the evil older Amalekite generation was wiped out by the adoptive parents.

Sure. But the question isnt whether their currently outdated superstition was the problem, but rather, were the children ACTUALLy going to grow up being little hitlers?

You would have to give a better plan that the Jews of that era could have accomplished.

Sure. Heres a better plan. Dont kill the children.


- To give the concept of a morally sufficient act.
We recognize despite the countless men, women and children killed in the firebombing in Dresden Germany and Tokyo or the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we had morally sufficient reasons to protect the innocents and the 'good' people of the world from an evil culture.
Stopping the evil of Imperial Japan and Hitler's Germany was 'the greater good', even at the cost of the evil cultures innocents to save our own.

Except that we recognize, if possible, that it is always just and good to spare those innocents when possible. When the Allies entered Germany after the Nazis fell, did the troops start indiscriminently slaughtering the women and children on the streets? Of course not, because they would be no better than the Nazi themselves. When Japan surrendered and the US came in, did they start shooting women and children at random? of course not.

So when the King had slaughtered the armies, and all that was left were the innocent civilians hiding in their homes, was it good and just for the soldiers to be ordered to start slaughtering the civilians, women and children alike?

God is capable of issuing any command, but tribal retributive justice is not a large concern in world culture today. We also have means and methods that can accomplish integration not available to the Jews of the day.

How do you know that Hitler didnt receive that command?


Given that you know nothing of how God commands different actions.... this is a setup question. Let me redirect.
If you were pulled into heaven and given commands from an obviously divine being what would you not do, when given moral sufficiency to an act? You are neglecting that God would NOT give you a moral sufficient reason or moral compulsion to follow such a command.

Although this is wrong, since God hardened the pharaohs heart in Exodus before, what youre basically asking is whether we would be robots to God, accept his commands without question no matter how immoral it would seem to us. And of course, the answer is NO. It would be immoral to do so.


This is just a denial that God is Just, and that it is more loving to perform the greatest 'Good' for the whole world rather.
Is it not more loving to stop the butchery of the Amelekites for all future generations?

Is it not more loving to stop the butchery of the amelekites for all future generations, but spare the children because they are innocent?

Would you have not firebombed Dresden Germany? It slaughtered countless children of the evil German empire, to save the rest of the world. Moral sufficiency.

Would I have firebombed dresden Germany indiscriminately? Would i have firebombed Dresden Germany after the Nazi armies surrendered, and the war was won? Unless these babies were taking up arms, Unless there wasnt a single child who didnt surrender, then no, moral insufficiency.

Again, I would have acted to protect the world from Imperial Japan and Hitler's Germany.
You would be an evil person to fail to act against these evil cultures.

Again, what you, or rather, God, proposed, isnt the same. If the entirety of the Amalekites had surrendered, Gods orders would still stand, no? By that analogy, it would be slaughtering the entire nation of japan after they surrendered to the US. Acting like that, would make you an evil person. Absolutely.

The question here isnt whether necessary civilian casualties is wrong, it is the question of unnecessary civilian casualties. The firebombings of Tokyo were not percise. Even thought they targetted military installations, there were civilian casualties. Soldiers storming into a city, is precise. Your sword doesnt magically fling into children and babies. If the US COULD firebomb military installations without hitting civilians, would they have chosen that option? Would it be more moral to choose that option? I would say, yes, absolutely. This is why your God is immoral.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 2:17:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 9:45:09 AM, Gileandos wrote:

Second, that denies omniscience of future consequences.

For example if God killed Hitler as a baby, you would have labeled God a baby Killer. If God allowed Hilter to do what he did, you label God responsible for all of the deaths. Simply put a human is not in a good place to know if such a command is inherently wrong rather than apparently wrong.

Given the concept of tribal justice taught by the surrounding culture, there is good reason to think, whether God commanded or not, that there was extreme concern about the children growing up in households to murder their adopted parents, after the evil older Amalekite generation was wiped out by the adoptive parents.

You would have to give a better plan that the Jews of that era could have accomplished.

We don't need to deny God his omniscience, just his desire to do good. We can't assume that, since that is what is in question.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 2:50:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 1:53:27 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/5/2012 9:45:09 AM, Gileandos wrote:
First, the Amalekites were not destroyed. The king never intended to do so, despite God's command. This command easily, could fall under an Isaac situation.
Oh, so he disobeyed God. Isnt that a sin? Isnt that wrong?

You are unfamiliar with the Isaac Story, a divine command does NOT equal divine intention. God commanded Abraham to kill, but did not actually intend the death of Isaac.

Second, that denies omniscience of future consequences.

By claiming that, you are denying free will.

Nope. Hence, God allowing sin.


For example if God killed Hitler as a baby, you would have labeled God a baby Killer. If God allowed Hilter to do what he did, you label God responsible for all of the deaths. Simply put a human is not in a good place to know if such a command is inherently wrong rather than apparently wrong.

So every single baby in that city would grow up to be hitler? Is that what youre trying to say?

There wasnt a single person who would grow up to be a decent man?

The point was the hypocrisy of judging an omniscient being with a limited perspective.
You missed the point or you need to be more clear in making yours.

Given the concept of tribal justice taught by the surrounding culture, there is good reason to think, whether God commanded or not, that there was extreme concern about the children growing up in households to murder their adopted parents, after the evil older Amalekite generation was wiped out by the adoptive parents.

Sure. But the question isnt whether their currently outdated superstition was the problem, but rather, were the children ACTUALLy going to grow up being little hitlers?

Nothing in my post suggested they would be 'little hitlers'. The tribal system would have demanded retribution upon the Jews when they become 'of age'. Raising your future killers of yourself and your children is not considered wisdom in any generation. Feel free to try it if you want...


You would have to give a better plan that the Jews of that era could have accomplished.

Sure. Heres a better plan. Dont kill the children.

That was remarkable acrimony, but such an absurd statement misses the intellectual heart of your problem. You just killed of your children and the fathers of your children.


- To give the concept of a morally sufficient act.
We recognize despite the countless men, women and children killed in the firebombing in Dresden Germany and Tokyo or the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we had morally sufficient reasons to protect the innocents and the 'good' people of the world from an evil culture.
Stopping the evil of Imperial Japan and Hitler's Germany was 'the greater good', even at the cost of the evil cultures innocents to save our own.

Except that we recognize, if possible, that it is always just and good to spare those innocents when possible. When the Allies entered Germany after the Nazis fell, did the troops start indiscriminently slaughtering the women and children on the streets? Of course not, because they would be no better than the Nazi themselves. When Japan surrendered and the US came in, did they start shooting women and children at random? of course not.

We certainly did slaughter 'innocent' men, women and children in Germany and Japan. You are unfamiliar with History?


So when the King had slaughtered the armies, and all that was left were the innocent civilians hiding in their homes, was it good and just for the soldiers to be ordered to start slaughtering the civilians, women and children alike?

Given the moral sufficiency of such a command to protect your own future children....





Given that you know nothing of how God commands different actions.... this is a setup question. Let me redirect.
If you were pulled into heaven and given commands from an obviously divine being what would you not do, when given moral sufficiency to an act? You are neglecting that God would NOT give you a moral sufficient reason or moral compulsion to follow such a command.

Although this is wrong, since God hardened the pharaohs heart in Exodus before, what youre basically asking is whether we would be robots to God, accept his commands without question no matter how immoral it would seem to us. And of course, the answer is NO. It would be immoral to do so.

Reread the paragraph. We are all given moral sufficiency for divine commands.



This is just a denial that God is Just, and that it is more loving to perform the greatest 'Good' for the whole world rather.
Is it not more loving to stop the butchery of the Amelekites for all future generations?

Is it not more loving to stop the butchery of the amelekites for all future generations, but spare the children because they are innocent?

Again, you merely slaughtered your own children by such a decisions. Who has more guilt and shame upon them?


Would you have not firebombed Dresden Germany? It slaughtered countless children of the evil German empire, to save the rest of the world. Moral sufficiency.

Would I have firebombed dresden Germany indiscriminately? Would i have firebombed Dresden Germany after the Nazi armies surrendered, and the war was won? Unless these babies were taking up arms, Unless there wasnt a single child who didnt surrender, then no, moral insufficiency.

No babies in Dresden were taking up arms, yet the decision was clear. We had moral sufficiency to protect our own innocents, than the innocents of an evil culture.


Again, I would have acted to protect the world from Imperial Japan and Hitler's Germany.
You would be an evil person to fail to act against these evil cultures.

Again, what you, or rather, God, proposed, isnt the same. If the entirety of the Amalekites had surrendered, Gods orders would still stand, no? By that analogy, it would be slaughtering the entire nation of japan after they surrendered to the US. Acting like that, would make you an evil person. Absolutely.

Given now you have come to a point of more understanding, you need to read an entire post first and then respond.

You are just asserting that the temporal decisions of the children upon futures generations would be inert. The Story of Haman shows this not to be the case.


The question here isnt whether necessary civilian casualties is wrong, it is the question of unnecessary civilian casualties. The firebombings of Tokyo were not percise. Even thought they targetted military installations, there were civilian casualties. Soldiers storming into a city, is precise. Your sword doesnt magically fling into children and babies. If the US COULD firebomb military installations without hitting civilians, would they have chosen that option? Would it be more moral to choose that option? I would say, yes, absolutely. This is why your God is immoral.

That is outright neglecting the historical actuality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The decision was a destruction campaign upon civilians not a military target. And no the firebombings were total and NOT targeted.

Your claim of moral superiority over God, when you are obviously wrong is amusing. All you did in this post is kill your own children and the innocent children of a good society for the sake of sparing an evil society.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 2:54:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 2:17:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/5/2012 9:45:09 AM, Gileandos wrote:

Second, that denies omniscience of future consequences.

For example if God killed Hitler as a baby, you would have labeled God a baby Killer. If God allowed Hilter to do what he did, you label God responsible for all of the deaths. Simply put a human is not in a good place to know if such a command is inherently wrong rather than apparently wrong.

Given the concept of tribal justice taught by the surrounding culture, there is good reason to think, whether God commanded or not, that there was extreme concern about the children growing up in households to murder their adopted parents, after the evil older Amalekite generation was wiped out by the adoptive parents.

You would have to give a better plan that the Jews of that era could have accomplished.

We don't need to deny God his omniscience, just his desire to do good. We can't assume that, since that is what is in question.

It is not an assumption given the knowledge of objective morals. The correct question would be, in this situation, is there conceivably a morally sufficient reason for such a command.
We can conceive, "Yes, there is a morally sufficient reason and yes God is in a better place to know this."

At this point, such a circumstance poses no evidence against God being good, but serves as good evidence God is wholly Good.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 2:54:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 2:50:11 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Your claim of moral superiority over God, when you are obviously wrong is amusing. All you did in this post is kill your own children and the innocent children of a good society for the sake of sparing an evil society.


^lol! exactly..
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 4:18:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 2:54:38 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/5/2012 2:17:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/5/2012 9:45:09 AM, Gileandos wrote:

Second, that denies omniscience of future consequences.

For example if God killed Hitler as a baby, you would have labeled God a baby Killer. If God allowed Hilter to do what he did, you label God responsible for all of the deaths. Simply put a human is not in a good place to know if such a command is inherently wrong rather than apparently wrong.

Given the concept of tribal justice taught by the surrounding culture, there is good reason to think, whether God commanded or not, that there was extreme concern about the children growing up in households to murder their adopted parents, after the evil older Amalekite generation was wiped out by the adoptive parents.

You would have to give a better plan that the Jews of that era could have accomplished.

We don't need to deny God his omniscience, just his desire to do good. We can't assume that, since that is what is in question.

It is not an assumption given the knowledge of objective morals. The correct question would be, in this situation, is there conceivably a morally sufficient reason for such a command.
We can conceive, "Yes, there is a morally sufficient reason and yes God is in a better place to know this."

At this point, such a circumstance poses no evidence against God being good, but serves as good evidence God is wholly Good.

Numbers 15:32-36
King James Version (KJV)
32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.

So what is more likely, that a morally perfect being would order this or that this is the result of the imperfections of a bronze age culture?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 6:46:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 4:18:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/5/2012 2:54:38 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/5/2012 2:17:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/5/2012 9:45:09 AM, Gileandos wrote:

Second, that denies omniscience of future consequences.

For example if God killed Hitler as a baby, you would have labeled God a baby Killer. If God allowed Hilter to do what he did, you label God responsible for all of the deaths. Simply put a human is not in a good place to know if such a command is inherently wrong rather than apparently wrong.

Given the concept of tribal justice taught by the surrounding culture, there is good reason to think, whether God commanded or not, that there was extreme concern about the children growing up in households to murder their adopted parents, after the evil older Amalekite generation was wiped out by the adoptive parents.

You would have to give a better plan that the Jews of that era could have accomplished.

We don't need to deny God his omniscience, just his desire to do good. We can't assume that, since that is what is in question.

It is not an assumption given the knowledge of objective morals. The correct question would be, in this situation, is there conceivably a morally sufficient reason for such a command.
We can conceive, "Yes, there is a morally sufficient reason and yes God is in a better place to know this."

At this point, such a circumstance poses no evidence against God being good, but serves as good evidence God is wholly Good.

Numbers 15:32-36
King James Version (KJV)
32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.

So what is more likely, that a morally perfect being would order this or that this is the result of the imperfections of a bronze age culture?

Again, this is nothing more than the idea, "because I see no sufficient reason for God to command this, thus God is not moral or the Bible is not moral, etc etc..."

Your just saying you can place your limited perspective and judgment upon these divine commands.

But we know that a warranted slippery slope is a huge issue. If the world had acted to stop Hitler prior to him securing the resource rich countries, Hitler would have been FAR FAR less of a problem.

God giving a command of compulsory rest, with a punishment that need never be acted upon due to the severity of the punishment/fear of punishment, stops the slippery slope of the negligent Jews.

The command ensures the Jews understood the importance of the command due to the severity of consequence. Hence, the post-exile Jews following this command to a fault. Given the warrant of a slippery slope, and the Jews tendency to becoming outright evil as they exactly did, such commands are not a sign of God being evil but is ACTUALLY evidence for His protection of the entire nation and the descendants.

So again, such a command is not something that a limited being could use to condemn God, but is actually evidence for a limited being to see that God is indeed a protector of the greater national good.
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 7:06:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 2:10:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/5/2012 1:40:00 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
This post is in response to an interesting red-herring brought up in this debate,

http://www.debate.org...

Here are the questions regarding the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy,

In 1 Samuel 15:3, "God" says this: "No go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him: but put to death both man and woman, child and infant.."

Questions:
1. Was "Put to death both man and woman, child and infant" the word of the Lord whom you worship?

2. Can God issue that same command today? Why or why not?

3. If you did believe you were commanded by God, could you and would you obey?
If not, why not?

4. If the god of the Bible who is supposedly love can order genocide and barbarianism, then why can't any god that is allegedly love do the same thing?

5. If ... God ordered [you] to commit genocide, why or why not would [you] obey [G]od?

This is the problem with divine command theory, there is no appeal to reason or consequences such as human well being. It doesn't matter how horrific the consequences are, in DCT if God commands it............end of argument.

Once people are of that mindset now all you have to do is convince them that God wants such and such person dead. Homosexuals, witches, atheists, catholics, protestants, trinity deniers, americans working at the word trade tower on sept 11.

How are you going to reason with some one who invokes DCT and believes its God will to kill the infidel ? or to kill the Amalekitess ? What are you going to do ? argue with your own faith based assertion that God did not command them ? appeal to consequences ? well guess what, they don't give a rats what you say............your an infidel or Amalekite.



This. This is EXACTLY what I was arguing.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 7:18:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 6:46:41 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/5/2012 4:18:13 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/5/2012 2:54:38 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/5/2012 2:17:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/5/2012 9:45:09 AM, Gileandos wrote:

Second, that denies omniscience of future consequences.

For example if God killed Hitler as a baby, you would have labeled God a baby Killer. If God allowed Hilter to do what he did, you label God responsible for all of the deaths. Simply put a human is not in a good place to know if such a command is inherently wrong rather than apparently wrong.

Given the concept of tribal justice taught by the surrounding culture, there is good reason to think, whether God commanded or not, that there was extreme concern about the children growing up in households to murder their adopted parents, after the evil older Amalekite generation was wiped out by the adoptive parents.

You would have to give a better plan that the Jews of that era could have accomplished.

We don't need to deny God his omniscience, just his desire to do good. We can't assume that, since that is what is in question.

It is not an assumption given the knowledge of objective morals. The correct question would be, in this situation, is there conceivably a morally sufficient reason for such a command.
We can conceive, "Yes, there is a morally sufficient reason and yes God is in a better place to know this."

At this point, such a circumstance poses no evidence against God being good, but serves as good evidence God is wholly Good.

Numbers 15:32-36
King James Version (KJV)
32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.

So what is more likely, that a morally perfect being would order this or that this is the result of the imperfections of a bronze age culture?

Again, this is nothing more than the idea, "because I see no sufficient reason for God to command this, thus God is not moral or the Bible is not moral, etc etc..."

Your just saying you can place your limited perspective and judgment upon these divine commands.

But we know that a warranted slippery slope is a huge issue. If the world had acted to stop Hitler prior to him securing the resource rich countries, Hitler would have been FAR FAR less of a problem.

God giving a command of compulsory rest, with a punishment that need never be acted upon due to the severity of the punishment/fear of punishment, stops the slippery slope of the negligent Jews.

The command ensures the Jews understood the importance of the command due to the severity of consequence. Hence, the post-exile Jews following this command to a fault. Given the warrant of a slippery slope, and the Jews tendency to becoming outright evil as they exactly did, such commands are not a sign of God being evil but is ACTUALLY evidence for His protection of the entire nation and the descendants.

So again, such a command is not something that a limited being could use to condemn God, but is actually evidence for a limited being to see that God is indeed a protector of the greater national good.

Lol. Even if your response had merit, how could you possibly say that Hitler's concentration camps were wrong, commenting from your painfully "limited perspective and judgement"? Indeed, this is the problem with the extreme scepticism approach. What you advocate necessarily morphs into moral paralysis.

Also, God commanding the killing of children for instance is wholly problematic for a few reasons.

Firstly, characterising such a thing a morally permissible in any circumstance offends our deepest moral intuitions. Any moral system which accommodates killing women and children is certainly a system alien to us.

Second, God is typically defined as being omnipotent. Is it really feasible that a being who can perform any actions which are logically possible, had to resort to killing children to preserve the greater good? I see no good reason to think so.

Third, when you say "God can issue any command", what is this if not moral relativism. Under this view, should we punish/treat or revere the Yorkshire Ripper, who claimed revelation from God when killing women?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 8:37:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 2:54:38 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/5/2012 2:17:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/5/2012 9:45:09 AM, Gileandos wrote:

Second, that denies omniscience of future consequences.

For example if God killed Hitler as a baby, you would have labeled God a baby Killer. If God allowed Hilter to do what he did, you label God responsible for all of the deaths. Simply put a human is not in a good place to know if such a command is inherently wrong rather than apparently wrong.

Given the concept of tribal justice taught by the surrounding culture, there is good reason to think, whether God commanded or not, that there was extreme concern about the children growing up in households to murder their adopted parents, after the evil older Amalekite generation was wiped out by the adoptive parents.

You would have to give a better plan that the Jews of that era could have accomplished.

We don't need to deny God his omniscience, just his desire to do good. We can't assume that, since that is what is in question.

It is not an assumption given the knowledge of objective morals. The correct question would be, in this situation, is there conceivably a morally sufficient reason for such a command.
We can conceive, "Yes, there is a morally sufficient reason and yes God is in a better place to know this."

At this point, such a circumstance poses no evidence against God being good, but serves as good evidence God is wholly Good.

Is there any command or situation where the answer to the question "Is there conceivably a morally sufficient reason for such a command" is "No"?
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 12:58:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 1:40:00 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
This post is in response to an interesting red-herring brought up in this debate,

http://www.debate.org...

Here are the questions regarding the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy,

In 1 Samuel 15:3, "God" says this: "No go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him: but put to death both man and woman, child and infant.."

Questions:
1. Was "Put to death both man and woman, child and infant" the word of the Lord whom you worship?

2. Can God issue that same command today? Why or why not?

3. If you did believe you were commanded by God, could you and would you obey?
If not, why not?


4. If the god of the Bible who is supposedly love can order genocide and barbarianism, then why can't any god that is allegedly love do the same thing?

5. If ... God ordered [you] to commit genocide, why or why not would [you] obey [G]od?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 1:04:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.iep.utm.edu...

^I suggest reading up prior to making false assumptions on DCT.

Sometime this week I'll begin to deal with this question in greater detail. For now, let's just say the current ethos of discussion is expected.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 8:19:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 12:58:40 AM, vbaculum wrote:



Wow. The pinnacle of atheism. If you cannot defeat Christianity take the following steps of atheistic sophistry:

1. Lie.
2. Lie REALLY Big.
3. Lie so much that it is inconceivable for a teenager or twenty something to doubt you.
4. Ridicule the Lie as though it were truth.
5. Ridicule the Lie so badly that the person cannot see the lie for the appeal to ridicule.
6. Wrap the appeal to ridicule of the strawman lie, within Ad Hominem circumstantial attacks.
7. Make those attacks so fast and so many, that a teenager or twenty something will NEVER do their research.

Atheism = Epic win baby!
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 8:40:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 7:18:08 PM, unitedandy wrote:

Lol. Even if your response had merit, how could you possibly say that Hitler's concentration camps were wrong, commenting from your painfully "limited perspective and judgement"? Indeed, this is the problem with the extreme scepticism approach. What you advocate necessarily morphs into moral paralysis.

Also, God commanding the killing of children for instance is wholly problematic for a few reasons.

Firstly, characterising such a thing a morally permissible in any circumstance offends our deepest moral intuitions. Any moral system which accommodates killing women and children is certainly a system alien to us.

Second, God is typically defined as being omnipotent. Is it really feasible that a being who can perform any actions which are logically possible, had to resort to killing children to preserve the greater good? I see no good reason to think so.

Third, when you say "God can issue any command", what is this if not moral relativism. Under this view, should we punish/treat or revere the Yorkshire Ripper, who claimed revelation from God when killing women?

All of these question miss a clear distinction and the understanding of objective moral values.
I gave morally sufficient reasons why God would order the death of enemy tribes by the Jews. You did nothing to detract from that indeed, we as the Allies all agreed that firebombing Dresden resulting in the deaths of around 100,000 innocents certainly had moral warrant for us. To even the further problem, condemning God for such, while not condemning us is special pleading and hypocritical.

To counter this, by not acting in such a way against an evil society, all you do is condemn your own innocents to death, the soldiers and the future children.

Given the retributive nature of the Tribal system, revenge was within their cultural teachings. It is why God specifically told the Jews, "revenge is mine". The Jews were not allowed to take tribal retributive actions.

***
How can we as limited being make moral judgments upon other limited beings? We can due to the objective moral source. We look to the perfect moral being and calculate the moral value set. Much like mathematicians who use objective mathematics and numerical values to calculate. Some may do it badly but nonetheless it is still objectively valid.

However, this is VERY distinct from a limited being making a judgement upon an unlimited omniscient being. We cannot begin to make such a calculation.

Firstly, characterising such a thing a morally permissible in any circumstance offends our deepest moral intuitions. Any moral system which accommodates killing women and children is certainly a system alien to us.

No it does not. You just ignored the entire post of the moral warrant for Nagasaki and Hiroshima as a purely civilian campaign of destruction. We do choose to protect our own innocents than those of an evil society.

Any decision to the contrary is merely your personal choice to murder your own innocents for the sake of an evil societies innocents.

Second, God is typically defined as being omnipotent. Is it really feasible that a being who can perform any actions which are logically possible, had to resort to killing children to preserve the greater good? I see no good reason to think so.

Again, you are just using your own definition of omnipotence and then condemning such a failure to live up to it. By EVERY theological definition God is self limited due to other moral agents within the universe. God has restricted His actions due to the other moral agents.
NOT a hard concept but one you continue to ignore.

Third, when you say "God can issue any command", what is this if not moral relativism. Under this view, should we punish/treat or revere the Yorkshire Ripper, who claimed revelation from God when killing women?

That is why we have the Church of divinely lead leadership and Theological consensus of scholars. The Church has traditionally evaluated all such claims in light of their own relationship with God. This accusation is merely a problem for a secular led nation. No Theocratic concept would ever have such a problem.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 8:57:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 8:37:55 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/5/2012 2:54:38 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/5/2012 2:17:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/5/2012 9:45:09 AM, Gileandos wrote:

Second, that denies omniscience of future consequences.

For example if God killed Hitler as a baby, you would have labeled God a baby Killer. If God allowed Hilter to do what he did, you label God responsible for all of the deaths. Simply put a human is not in a good place to know if such a command is inherently wrong rather than apparently wrong.

Given the concept of tribal justice taught by the surrounding culture, there is good reason to think, whether God commanded or not, that there was extreme concern about the children growing up in households to murder their adopted parents, after the evil older Amalekite generation was wiped out by the adoptive parents.

You would have to give a better plan that the Jews of that era could have accomplished.

We don't need to deny God his omniscience, just his desire to do good. We can't assume that, since that is what is in question.

It is not an assumption given the knowledge of objective morals. The correct question would be, in this situation, is there conceivably a morally sufficient reason for such a command.
We can conceive, "Yes, there is a morally sufficient reason and yes God is in a better place to know this."

At this point, such a circumstance poses no evidence against God being good, but serves as good evidence God is wholly Good.

Is there any command or situation where the answer to the question "Is there conceivably a morally sufficient reason for such a command" is "No"?

1: Objective moral values is stating that 'morals are very real and do exist outside of humans'
2: God's nature as the perfect moral agent is the source of the objective moral values.
3: Morals are within the 'nature' of God. As a circle is by nature what it is. It is objectively a circle and calculated thus.
4: You do not need to identify God's nature as the source of objective morals prior to calculating them.

Now all of this is distinct from a concept of a being who knows 2,000 years from now and we who cannot figure out tomorrow's agenda with any real certainty, much less a year from now.

No one is saying we cannot know the warrant of God's actions. We merely need ask God. We can look to the Theocratic institutions that God setup on earth for guidance if we do not have a personal relationship.

However, before making these decisions we are called to have:
1: Correct cognitive experience (theological training) at a certain age (30 in the Bible)
2: Personal relationship with God.
3: Personal relationship with the Church and Scholastic councils.

So I agree that a limited being without the divine process given to us, is woefully inadequate to determine if God is warranted in His moral judgement. That is why we should not listen to atheists. However, we have good reasons to listen to Theological scholars and their consensus concerning the morality of God's actions.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 9:38:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 8:40:04 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/5/2012 7:18:08 PM, unitedandy wrote:

Lol. Even if your response had merit, how could you possibly say that Hitler's concentration camps were wrong, commenting from your painfully "limited perspective and judgement"? Indeed, this is the problem with the extreme scepticism approach. What you advocate necessarily morphs into moral paralysis.

Also, God commanding the killing of children for instance is wholly problematic for a few reasons.

Firstly, characterising such a thing a morally permissible in any circumstance offends our deepest moral intuitions. Any moral system which accommodates killing women and children is certainly a system alien to us.

Second, God is typically defined as being omnipotent. Is it really feasible that a being who can perform any actions which are logically possible, had to resort to killing children to preserve the greater good? I see no good reason to think so.

Third, when you say "God can issue any command", what is this if not moral relativism. Under this view, should we punish/treat or revere the Yorkshire Ripper, who claimed revelation from God when killing women?

All of these question miss a clear distinction and the understanding of objective moral values.
I gave morally sufficient reasons why God would order the death of enemy tribes by the Jews. You did nothing to detract from that indeed, we as the Allies all agreed that firebombing Dresden resulting in the deaths of around 100,000 innocents certainly had moral warrant for us. To even the further problem, condemning God for such, while not condemning us is special pleading and hypocritical.

To counter this, by not acting in such a way against an evil society, all you do is condemn your own innocents to death, the soldiers and the future children.

Given the retributive nature of the Tribal system, revenge was within their cultural teachings. It is why God specifically told the Jews, "revenge is mine". The Jews were not allowed to take tribal retributive actions.

The analogy doesn't work because bombing cities in the second world war was at best a necessary evil. Such constraints obviously don't impinge an omnipotent being. Moreover, there is some debate over whether there is such a thing as a just war, especially to the extent that one kills a massive number of innocents. Thirdly, if God values free-will (as you claim below), killing a tribe, many of whom were unable to exercise free-will yet (babies and children) is wholly counter to this.

***
How can we as limited being make moral judgments upon other limited beings? We can due to the objective moral source. We look to the perfect moral being and calculate the moral value set. Much like mathematicians who use objective mathematics and numerical values to calculate. Some may do it badly but nonetheless it is still objectively valid.

Even judging the actions limited beings means that we, as fellow limited beings, must make judgements upon a load of things we can't hope to understand. Either we bite the bullet and evaluate it as best we can, and as such, apply the same standards universally, or we turn to either moral paralysis or moral relativism.

However, this is VERY distinct from a limited being making a judgement upon an unlimited omniscient being. We cannot begin to make such a calculation.

Firstly, characterising such a thing a morally permissible in any circumstance offends our deepest moral intuitions. Any moral system which accommodates killing women and children is certainly a system alien to us.

No it does not. You just ignored the entire post of the moral warrant for Nagasaki and Hiroshima as a purely civilian campaign of destruction. We do choose to protect our own innocents than those of an evil society.

Any decision to the contrary is merely your personal choice to murder your own innocents for the sake of an evil societies innocents.

Again, if God intervenes this way, this impinges upon free-will, does it not? You're asserting 2 contradictory assertions:

1. God commanded the killing of children for the greater good
2. God can't intervene to preserve the free-will of all creatures.


Second, God is typically defined as being omnipotent. Is it really feasible that a being who can perform any actions which are logically possible, had to resort to killing children to preserve the greater good? I see no good reason to think so.

Again, you are just using your own definition of omnipotence and then condemning such a failure to live up to it. By EVERY theological definition God is self limited due to other moral agents within the universe. God has restricted His actions due to the other moral agents.
NOT a hard concept but one you continue to ignore.

Okay, as I said, either free-will prohibits Him from intervening, or it doesn't.

Third, when you say "God can issue any command", what is this if not moral relativism. Under this view, should we punish/treat or revere the Yorkshire Ripper, who claimed revelation from God when killing women?

That is why we have the Church of divinely lead leadership and Theological consensus of scholars. The Church has traditionally evaluated all such claims in light of their own relationship with God. This accusation is merely a problem for a secular led nation. No Theocratic concept would ever have such a problem.

So you guys are "evaluating" God from your "limited perspective and judgement"?Lol. What about Islamic scholars who see it as communicated revelation to forcibly implement the faith all over the world? That's the problem when deferring to authority. Whose authority? The catholic church? The Mormon church? Does anyone still really take these organisations seriously? People who defer difficult moral decisions to authorities, be the earthy ones or otherwise, are not only in danger of believing morally abhorrent things, they're also shirking responsibility for their own actions.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 10:59:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 9:38:18 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 5/6/2012 8:40:04 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/5/2012 7:18:08 PM, unitedandy wrote:

Lol. Even if your response had merit, how could you possibly say that Hitler's concentration camps were wrong, commenting from your painfully "limited perspective and judgement"? Indeed, this is the problem with the extreme scepticism approach. What you advocate necessarily morphs into moral paralysis.

Also, God commanding the killing of children for instance is wholly problematic for a few reasons.

Firstly, characterising such a thing a morally permissible in any circumstance offends our deepest moral intuitions. Any moral system which accommodates killing women and children is certainly a system alien to us.

Second, God is typically defined as being omnipotent. Is it really feasible that a being who can perform any actions which are logically possible, had to resort to killing children to preserve the greater good? I see no good reason to think so.

Third, when you say "God can issue any command", what is this if not moral relativism. Under this view, should we punish/treat or revere the Yorkshire Ripper, who claimed revelation from God when killing women?

All of these question miss a clear distinction and the understanding of objective moral values.
I gave morally sufficient reasons why God would order the death of enemy tribes by the Jews. You did nothing to detract from that indeed, we as the Allies all agreed that firebombing Dresden resulting in the deaths of around 100,000 innocents certainly had moral warrant for us. To even the further problem, condemning God for such, while not condemning us is special pleading and hypocritical.

To counter this, by not acting in such a way against an evil society, all you do is condemn your own innocents to death, the soldiers and the future children.

Given the retributive nature of the Tribal system, revenge was within their cultural teachings. It is why God specifically told the Jews, "revenge is mine". The Jews were not allowed to take tribal retributive actions.

The analogy doesn't work because bombing cities in the second world war was at best a necessary evil. Such constraints obviously don't impinge an omnipotent being.

You are just saying what I call a morally sufficient act is your personal definition of necessary evil. You then follow up by again citing a personal definition of omnipotent being.

Moreover, there is some debate over whether there is such a thing as a just war, especially to the extent that one kills a massive number of innocents.

This again is you merely murdering your own innocents by citing a complaint of the definition of 'Just'.

Thirdly, if God values free-will (as you claim below), killing a tribe, many of whom were unable to exercise free-will yet (babies and children) is wholly counter to this.

That is just you again personally defining free will to something you personally understand. Not a valid complaint against what I laid out above. Reread for author's intent.


***
How can we as limited being make moral judgments upon other limited beings? We can due to the objective moral source. We look to the perfect moral being and calculate the moral value set. Much like mathematicians who use objective mathematics and numerical values to calculate. Some may do it badly but nonetheless it is still objectively valid.

Even judging the actions limited beings means that we, as fellow limited beings, must make judgements upon a load of things we can't hope to understand. Either we bite the bullet and evaluate it as best we can, and as such, apply the same standards universally, or we turn to either moral paralysis or moral relativism.

False trichotomy while neglecting what I already stated.
When a certain group of limited beings out of shared common experience have an unlimited being as a resource, they invariably are in a better position to determine moral sufficiency.


However, this is VERY distinct from a limited being making a judgement upon an unlimited omniscient being. We cannot begin to make such a calculation.

Firstly, characterising such a thing a morally permissible in any circumstance offends our deepest moral intuitions. Any moral system which accommodates killing women and children is certainly a system alien to us.

No it does not. You just ignored the entire post of the moral warrant for Nagasaki and Hiroshima as a purely civilian campaign of destruction. We do choose to protect our own innocents than those of an evil society.

Any decision to the contrary is merely your personal choice to murder your own innocents for the sake of an evil societies innocents.

Again, if God intervenes this way, this impinges upon free-will, does it not? You're asserting 2 contradictory assertions:

1. God commanded the killing of children for the greater good
2. God can't intervene to preserve the free-will of all creatures.

Now you are just asserting a false dichotomy of God's possible interaction, based upon your personal definition of free will.
3: God does not allow absolute free actions. Everything in life has constraints and guardrails. This does not detract that actual freedoms within those guardrails do exist.




Second, God is typically defined as being omnipotent. Is it really feasible that a being who can perform any actions which are logically possible, had to resort to killing children to preserve the greater good? I see no good reason to think so.

Again, you are just using your own definition of omnipotence and then condemning such a failure to live up to it. By EVERY theological definition God is self limited due to other moral agents within the universe. God has restricted His actions due to the other moral agents.
NOT a hard concept but one you continue to ignore.

Okay, as I said, either free-will prohibits Him from intervening, or it doesn't.

False Dichotomy. Limited intervention is neither complete prohibition of free will or complete intervention.



Third, when you say "God can issue any command", what is this if not moral relativism. Under this view, should we punish/treat or revere the Yorkshire Ripper, who claimed revelation from God when killing women?

That is why we have the Church of divinely lead leadership and Theological consensus of scholars. The Church has traditionally evaluated all such claims in light of their own relationship with God. This accusation is merely a problem for a secular led nation. No Theocratic concept would ever have such a problem.

So you guys are "evaluating" God from your "limited perspective and judgement"?Lol. What about Islamic scholars who see it as communicated revelation to forcibly implement the faith all over the world? That's the problem when deferring to authority. Whose authority? The catholic church? The Mormon church? Does anyone still really take these organisations seriously? People who defer difficult moral decisions to authorities, be the earthy ones or otherwise, are not only in danger of believing morally abhorrent things, they're also shirking responsibility for their own actions.

That is just you stating "I do not see or understand...."

Just because you do not understand does not invalidate a divine command. Again not a hard concept.
Science functions VERY well by using the historical church model of peer review and scholastic consensus augmented via personal education/experience.

I could make all of these same complaints against science as a process and scientific institutions but they would be invalid.

Scholastic consensus and peer review augmented by personal education/experience is very valid in mathematics. The calculation of objective numerals and
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 11:26:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 8:19:58 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/6/2012 12:58:40 AM, vbaculum wrote:



Wow. The pinnacle of atheism. If you cannot defeat Christianity take the following steps of atheistic sophistry:

1. Lie.
2. Lie REALLY Big.
3. Lie so much that it is inconceivable for a teenager or twenty something to doubt you.
4. Ridicule the Lie as though it were truth.
5. Ridicule the Lie so badly that the person cannot see the lie for the appeal to ridicule.
6. Wrap the appeal to ridicule of the strawman lie, within Ad Hominem circumstantial attacks.
7. Make those attacks so fast and so many, that a teenager or twenty something will NEVER do their research.

Atheism = Epic win baby!

What in this video is a lie (other than that the wing is the best part of a baby)?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 11:41:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 8:57:27 AM, Gileandos wrote:

So I agree that a limited being without the divine process given to us, is woefully inadequate to determine if God is warranted in His moral judgement. That is why we should not listen to atheists. However, we have good reasons to listen to Theological scholars and their consensus concerning the morality of God's actions.

Well, I was going to clarify my point, but if your stance is just to not listen to atheists, then I really don't see the point in continuing the discussion.

Cheerio!
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 12:12:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Gil,

Instead of cutting through all the nonsense, I'll just pose a relatively simple question:

If the command was to rape, torture and kill a child for the greater good, would you do it?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 12:57:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/5/2012 8:37:55 PM, drafterman wrote:

Is there any command or situation where the answer to the question "Is there conceivably a morally sufficient reason for such a command" is "No"?

This is a good question.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!