Inerrancy: Is God a Moral Monster?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

At 5/6/2012 12:58:40 AM, vbaculum 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?

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?

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"?

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.

***
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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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"?