My Video On Evolving Morality And Creationism

[Guest end3]

As humans, we do a lot of evil things. At times, our evolved humanity rises above our base instinct and, through our intellect, we realize the mistakes of our people, and we try to make corrections.

 

sounds reasonable

 

If we recognize that we have advanced in our morality by condemning genocide, condemning slavery, and emancipating women, we recognize that these views are primitive.

 

I would not choose the word primitive. I see that it has changed.

 

While I oppose the death penalty, those in favor (on a law-making level), at least recognize that reasons for the death penalty should never be for retribution. It should only be to create a deterrence, and they value the idea that it should be without cruel and unusual punishment (unlike the stoning and burning of the OT that encouraged an eye-for-an-eye payback).

 

We can talk deterrence, but I find it hard to believe no eye-for-eye payback is involved.... deterrence could be achieved by many means.

 

Our moral Zeitgeist has evolved. I find it difficult to comprehend any religious person who would want to believe that their God ordered genocide, slavery and created laws that amounted to forcing sexual relationships on uncooperative females. I can understand bronze-age men writing about such things. That was par for the course. It would be expected from a bronze-age mind- not from an omniscient, holy supreme being. It's Occam's Razor - What's the simplest explanation for a man who claims a god wants people to commit genocide, enslave people, beat slaves, enslave women, rape women, stone disobedient children? If you ever hear of a man saying that God wants people to do this, you know you wouldn't believe it. You know you would think the person was mad. Why do you want to believe that because an ancient document with no established author, time of writing, or even original documentation heard from a God who commanded things like genocide?

 

I have stated that I too find this hard to comprehend. But I am a firm believer in personal revelation through the Holy Spirit. I believe we share the same convictions in these matters, but I also believe that we understand by His pace. I am stating that I reserve my Spiritual opinion until He either shares that understanding with me, or the possibility that it never happens.

 

With regard to this being a point of views from morality, please see my prior post to AM dated 4/30 12:21 PM. (#23)

 

 

Edited by Antlerman to fix quote errors that had asprin99 saying everything End3 was saying.

[Guest end3]

One thing you may wish to do as a generally good practice before you hit the submit button for a post, is to do a ctrl+A, ctrl+c to select all and copy to your buffer - just in case the board does a weird hiccup. That way you just try again (or open notepad), and do a ctrl+v to paste the buffer back. That way, it's all there!

 

thank you

 

Just a brief observation before you continue your response, if we don't have enough perspective to make conclusions about God, then why go so far as to give the benefit of the doubt at all? Do you have enough perspective to have faith even?

 

I don't believe the ideas that I would share with others concerning certainty and conclusiveness about God would be other than those I feel as having gained through the Holy Spirit. Other perspectives I try to weigh. To your last question.....isn't that the purpose of evangelism, for people to hear the Word, and gain perspective via the Word/Spirit prior to accepting Christ?

 

....come on AM, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Legion]

I just saw the video the other day. And despite the fact that, for technical reasons, I was unable to watch the last 15 minutes of it, I thought it was good.

 

Well done Aspirin and Antlerman.

[Antlerman]

I just saw the video the other day. And despite the fact that, for technical reasons, I was unable to watch the last 15 minutes of it, I thought it was good.

 

Well done Aspirin and Antlerman.

Well thanks, but he really did it. All I did was read text under the influence of tequila.

[Antlerman]

Just a brief observation before you continue your response, if we don't have enough perspective to make conclusions about God, then why go so far as to give the benefit of the doubt at all? Do you have enough perspective to have faith even?

 

I don't believe the ideas that I would share with others concerning certainty and conclusiveness about God would be other than those I feel as having gained through the Holy Spirit. Other perspectives I try to weigh. To your last question.....isn't that the purpose of evangelism, for people to hear the Word, and gain perspective via the Word/Spirit prior to accepting Christ?

That's it? That's your response to everything I said?

 

So what does the Holy Spirit tell you about genocide? My guess is that it's your head saying "give God the benefit of the doubt", not your heart. What people call the spirit is usually nothing more than their moral conscious, or 'gut knowledge'. Personally I doubt you're heart is telling you it's maybe OK on any level. I think it's your theology trying to defend itself.

 

....come on AM, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

You would actually wish to challenge me to a head on debate? By all means... but maybe you can start by addressing what I've already brought up.

[Guest end3]

AM, I anwered the easy one first...my apologies...and then the board said I had too many quote boxes, so I had to redo this one.....the fish in a barrel thing....debate strategy on my part....I think it is working, you? lol

 

"So you're saying that even though we find those actions abhorrent (which you've not denied they are, BTW), you're dealing with it by saying God is sovereign and by faith you're sure he must have had a good reason, that you as a limited human don't have the capacity to understand at this time? "

 

yes

 

" Tell me how much that sounds like a child in denial of his father's 'good reasons' for doing criminal acts to others? "I love my dad, I trust my dad. I'm sure he was justified somehow in raping my sister"."

 

The difference is dad is not God

 

"Now that may sound extreme, but it's not. The fact is it is abhorrent to you. You just don't know how to reconcile it and struggle with finding some justification for it. Because you seem unwilling to go with Occam's Razor and choose the simpler explanation that it's not the word of God, but the word of man, you put yourself in the position of having to find excuses or "faith" away the horror of it that God would command a woman's hand to be cut off for touching the testicles of man while she tried to defend her husband, or the sanctioning of child rape of their enemies, or the low class position of women; or the full scale slaughter of men, women, children, and babies, dogs, cats, sheep, oxen, everything.

 

yes, but not by finding excuses

 

"And if he had committed acts of genocide, like a Nazi war criminal, how would you have come to process your understanding of his acts to feel good about him?"

 

either by a "Zeitgeist" understanding or a Spiritual one. This case seems to be very representative of our discussion, as we are taking the two very choices. (Zeitgeist is a new word for me, so I hope I am using it correctly)

 

"This is not just acts of 'discipline' a child learns to appreciate about their parents as they themselves become mature and begin to see the wisdom of it. This is genocide and rape. There are NO moral justifications for this."

 

Back to sovereignty here...it's God, it's His choice. As I said the other day, he chooses who he chooses. I am hoping that reconcilliation to all men happens.

 

"What concerns me End3 is that you leave room for there to be some. "

 

yes I do

 

"Would you be one of those who could be persuaded by others it was justifiable in their call to act on it? "

 

Not with my present understanding

 

"What does your heart tell you is true, versus what you think you should believe about God and the Bible?"

 

My heart tells me that God is the judge

 

"I'm largely a relativist in my thinking, but in no way does that translate into we can't know anything at all, so we can't make any judgment calls of right and wrong behavior. "

 

I agree, but we often make the incorrect judgement...

 

"We derive our moral standards from society. This is why you see God in the old testament reflecting that society's morals. Pretty simple, one you abandon the idea of Direct Revelation."

 

Why do you put it in this perspective, why not God has presented the morals relative to man's development

 

"

We "genocide" all the time as humans......to produce better crops, to kill weeds, to kill ants, dogs for being gun shy, less than superstars in sports, illiterates in education, the wrong race, we kill disease...some have good fruit, some not.....we don't know immediately at the time. The Bible says you won't know until later, but have faith the fruit will be good.

No we don't! That's not genocide. We may abuse our habitat, and that's a separate moral issue. But genocide has to do with human life being exterminated by the direct actions human against other humans."

 

"You have faith the fruit of genocide will justify it? Come on... no you don't"

 

I am faithful that God knows whether his fruit smells.... and I have told you my take on it as of today.

 

"Think about this, why couldn't a God of infinite Wisdom persuade humans with that wisdom? People don't love war and death. Most people prefer peace, wisdom, happiness, and community. What sort of mentality would not understand that about those he claims to love so much? Do you persuade your children with stoning and dismemberment?

 

God must be pretty impotent emotionally to have to resort to violence, wouldn't you say?"

 

I think that it's his "plan" for humanity.

 

"We judge Hitler because of his actions towards human life. Period."

 

Not true. We could judge him from many perspectives. This is the one we hold highest, I think, on the list.

 

"It's not because we didn't fully appreciate his "bigger picture" plan. The end does not justify the means."

 

We can somewhat speculate on the end, and the means are becoming more and more evident from my perspective.

 

"So which is the easier explanation: God had his reasons of Wisdom in this, that one day we'll understand; or man created this image of God as an expression of their views at that time? "

 

the latter, but again, the easy way is very seldom the right thing to do.

 

"Be honest."

 

I am....

 

edited by END for mispellings and sucky editing in the first place...

[Guest end3]

So what does the Holy Spirit tell you about genocide?

 

this is what I am trying to get across...the Holy Spirit has not given me an understanding on this. If He had, then the understanding would rest on my heart.

 

My guess is that it's your head saying "give God the benefit of the doubt", not your heart.

 

that is correct

 

What people call the spirit is usually nothing more than their moral conscious, or 'gut knowledge'. Personally I doubt you're heart is telling you it's maybe OK on any level. I think it's your theology trying to defend itself.

 

Possibly a way to test the things "I know" is to review them with scrutiny. I will pull my a few of my children's sermons, and put them on the block for analyses. Does this sound resonable?

 

Because, I repeat because, I would never, never consciously permit myself to disperse BS in that setting. I will admit, I have been guilty of "fertilizing" out of that setting...

[Antlerman]

"So you're saying that even though we find those actions abhorrent (which you've not denied they are, BTW), you're dealing with it by saying God is sovereign and by faith you're sure he must have had a good reason, that you as a limited human don't have the capacity to understand at this time? "

 

yes

 

 

" Tell me how much that sounds like a child in denial of his father's 'good reasons' for doing criminal acts to others? "I love my dad, I trust my dad. I'm sure he was justified somehow in raping my sister"."

 

The difference is dad is not God

That’s right. We should be able to hold God to a higher standard than a human. The fact remains, it’s a criminal act and since we are to emulate God…………… should it be OK for human dad to do it too then?

 

Since when does sovereignty allow a contradiction of moral standards? Can God command all to love while he himself hates? Does sovereignty allow God to contradict his nature? If we hate, then are we sinning if this is not a contradiction of God’s nature? To allow for God’s sovereignty to contradict His nature completely undercuts the entire premise of Christianity and opens the door for this to be considered morally consistent with God’s nature:

 

 

 

BTW, I’ve noticed you’ve ignored the comparative religious analysis that was offered in all of this. You don’t find it the least bit curious how those sort of stories of tribal gods fighting alongside the tribes who worship them is commonplace back then? Somehow, all those are fabrications, while this story is the genuine article? Hail stones from heaven, or lightning bolts from Zeus… hate to say it but Yahweh looks awfully similar to all the other tribal deities.

 

 

"And if he had committed acts of genocide, like a Nazi war criminal, how would you have come to process your understanding of his acts to feel good about him?"

 

either by a "Zeitgeist" understanding or a Spiritual one. This case seems to be very representative of our discussion, as we are taking the two very choices. (Zeitgeist is a new word for me, so I hope I am using it correctly)

I’m saying there is no spiritual value in genocide. Can you imagine singing, “Nearer my God to thee,” as you hacked the limbs off of little children in a village in an effort to exterminate their bloodline from the planet earth? How in the name of anything sane, can there be any spiritual value in that? Exterminating bloodlines? Doesn’t that sound like primitive tribalism to you? And by primitive, I mean just that.

 

You can’t possibly connect spiritual truth in God to a writer of antiquity putting a command into the mouth of God to order the dismemberment of humans. This is a tribal war deity, not the later universal spiritual deity that developed in the history of the Jews, which later took on the Greek influences, which later became the Jesus the Son of God myth.

 

"This is not just acts of 'discipline' a child learns to appreciate about their parents as they themselves become mature and begin to see the wisdom of it. This is genocide and rape. There are NO moral justifications for this."

 

Back to sovereignty here...it's God, it's His choice. As I said the other day, he chooses who he chooses. I am hoping that reconcilliation to all men happens.

Back to what I said, sovereignty with God does not allow for a contradiction of nature – if that nature is going to be defined as Love by the Christians.

 

"What concerns me End3 is that you leave room for there to be some. "

 

yes I do

 

"Would you be one of those who could be persuaded by others it was justifiable in their call to act on it? "

 

Not with my present understanding

But with enough convincing persuasion, you would raise a machete against a little child and hack his limbs off, then drag his virgin sister off to a tent to keep prisoner for a month, after which you would forcibly have sex with her and send her out into the street if she didn’t please you?

 

Let me be blunt. If I were God, I would see someone who would be willing to do that, as not having the first clue what spirituality meant! I would reject them. Instead I would look for those who would be willing to stand up to the point of saying NO to God himself if they were being told, persuasively or otherwise, to commit acts of barbarity against human life in God' name. I would deem them as genuinely righteous, and not the one’s who claimed to follow me while not understanding the essence of what the sanctity of Life meant.

 

 

"What does your heart tell you is true, versus what you think you should believe about God and the Bible?"

 

My heart tells me that God is the judge

Bull. You’re heart tells you it’s wrong. You’re head is trying to reconcile this.

 

"I'm largely a relativist in my thinking, but in no way does that translate into we can't know anything at all, so we can't make any judgment calls of right and wrong behavior. "

 

I agree, but we often make the incorrect judgement...

My heart helps me discern what is the good and right, and what is immoral. When it comes to genocide, the repulsion alone should pretty much lay to rest any question about finding some value in it, whether done by a human or done by a sovereign God?

 

Are you a coward? To me if God exists and I have to stand before him and give account, then I will hold my head high as one who was sincere in my judgment of the moral offensiveness of mass-murder in the name of God. I would rather go to hell with my soul, than go to heaven without it.

 

"We derive our moral standards from society. This is why you see God in the old testament reflecting that society's morals. Pretty simple, one you abandon the idea of Direct Revelation."

 

Why do you put it in this perspective, why not God has presented the morals relative to man's development

Because “I am the Lord. I change not”. “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever”. If God’s nature is a moral one, which Christians claim, then that nature does not change. It’s absolute.

 

Are you suggesting that God would say murder and genocide is OK in order to accommodate primitive peoples, until they grew socially at which point they would be told it’s now bad??

 

"

We "genocide" all the time as humans......to produce better crops, to kill weeds, to kill ants, dogs for being gun shy, less than superstars in sports, illiterates in education, the wrong race, we kill disease...some have good fruit, some not.....we don't know immediately at the time. The Bible says you won't know until later, but have faith the fruit will be good.

No we don't! That's not genocide. We may abuse our habitat, and that's a separate moral issue. But genocide has to do with human life being exterminated by the direct actions human against other humans."

 

"You have faith the fruit of genocide will justify it? Come on... no you don't"

 

I am faithful that God knows whether his fruit smells.... and I have told you my take on it as of today.

You have no opinion yourself whether it stinks of something foul or not? Turning a blind eye to it?

 

Don’t know about you, but I’d rather be true to what I see as right and wrong, even if it cost me my life. Again to repeat myself,

“I’d rather go to hell with my soul, than go to heaven without it.”

[Antlerman]

"We judge Hitler because of his actions towards human life. Period."

 

Not true. We could judge him from many perspectives. This is the one we hold highest, I think, on the list.

But God’s off the hook when he does it because he’s sovereign? Think about that. There’s a word for that: Hypocrisy.

 

Isn’t God supposed to be the Good Sheppard who leads by example, or is he a Tyrannical Sovereign Dictator who is free to violate his own ethical laws when it serves him?

 

"It's not because we didn't fully appreciate his "bigger picture" plan. The end does not justify the means."

 

We can somewhat speculate on the end, and the means are becoming more and more evident from my perspective.

 

"So which is the easier explanation: God had his reasons of Wisdom in this, that one day we'll understand; or man created this image of God as an expression of their views at that time? "

 

the latter, but again, the easy way is very seldom the right thing to do.

Nuts you say!

 

You have no self-confidence End. Honestly that’s what I’m hearing through all of this. You can’t trust what you know is right, because you don’t want to be wrong about this. Think about it. Isn’t that selfish, really? Afraid to say no, in case you might be wrong and have to be responsible for it? Honestly, I don’t know how compromising like this on clear cut issues can do the soul any good. I think that’s what finally set me free from the hold of religion on me. It was standing up on my own two feet and being true to myself. It’s why I tout to this day that ‘Sincerity” is the highest, most sacred word in the exercise of our humanity.

 

Aren’t Christians supposed to be moral, or are they cowering subjects unwilling to be stand for morality on their own? Are Christians willing to concede that atheists and non-Christians have more moral fiber than they do?

 

“So what does the Holy Spirit tell you about genocide?”

 

this is what I am trying to get across...the Holy Spirit has not given me an understanding on this. If He had, then the understanding would rest on my heart.

 

My guess is that it's your head saying "give God the benefit of the doubt", not your heart.

 

that is correct

The day you understand what it is to be true to your heart, is the day you will cross over past all this conflict.

[Guest end3]

I am going to respond to the post later, but just glancing at your response........

 

I don't think you are hearing.

 

One, I AGREE with today's morals...I would NOT hack off children's limbs whilst prasing God. Are we clear?????

 

Because it is HIS .....HIS....HIS....plan, or until I feel I understand via the Spirit, why those events transpired, then I reserve judgement....

 

This does not make me an immoral bastard by today's standards....

 

Coward???, I have stood in that damn church and told them the absolute truth through my perception, regardless, without receiving a dime...

 

Danced, literally, on Easter Sunday giving the children's sermon on a Church of Christ stage in Fundieville, USA...You tell me...

 

 

Trust me AM, I will respond to the crap you have put forth here. Your arrogance is overwhelming at the moment....

 

 

edited for spelling and capitalization

[Kuroikaze]

One, I AGREE with today's morals...I would NOT hack off children's limbs whilst prasing God. Are we clear?????

 

Because it is HIS .....HIS....HIS....plan, or until I feel I understand via the Spirit, why those events transpired, then I reserve judgement....

 

This does not make me an immoral bastard by today's standards....

 

I would say that it makes you someone who is incapable of making clear moral judgments, what ever your standard for personal behavior, anyone who tries to justify genocide (or even claim it could be justified) on ANY basis, in ANY context, honestly scares me a bit.

 

You say it doesn't make you an immoral bastard by today's standards, this assumes there is a clear standard today that genocide is wrong, in many places in the world these things are still going on. This is hardly a problem that has been dealt with, and thus only an academic question. It is still going on, in many places being committed by "religious" people who according to you, should know better.

 

People who have trouble questioning authority figures (and god is nothing but a divine authority figure, might makes right and all that) on an issue that is about as close to "black and white" as you can get, at least seem ripe for manipulation by their religion or government. You claim you are not, but I'm sure most of the people who have engaged in "ethnic cleansing" thought of themselves as decent people at one time, and perhaps still do.

 

Who is least likely to be manipulated into such an act, the person who thinks it is always wrong no matter what, or the one that thinks it might be justifiable in certain contexts? I think that is a question that at least warrants an examination.

 

P.S. if any thing said herein offends you I make no apology save to say that it was not mean to offend, but to make you think.

[Antlerman]

I am going to respond to the post later, but just glancing at your response........

 

I don't think you are hearing.

 

One, I AGREE with today's morals...I would NOT hack off children's limbs whilst prasing God. Are we clear?????

 

Because it is HIS .....HIS....HIS....plan, or until I feel I understand via the Spirit, why those events transpired, then I reserve judgement....

 

This does not make me an immoral bastard by today's standards....

 

Coward???, I have stood in that damn church and told them the absolute truth through my perception, regardless, without receiving a dime...

 

Danced, literally, on Easter Sunday giving the children's sermon on a Church of Christ stage in Fundieville, USA...You tell me...

 

 

Trust me AM, I will respond to the crap you have put forth here. Your arrogance is overwhelming at the moment....

 

 

edited for spelling and capitalization

Before you go off scalping me one... you should read the conditions that I set forth. All I'm doing it setting up the scenario that if your premises are true, what position it puts you in in order to be consistent with them. If you take that as me passing judgment, there's not much I can do there. I think I've repeated multiple times through this that I doubt you are what your adopted position would place you into. I'm only pointing out the contradiction for you to look at. I'm not sure how that makes me dishing out "crap." Clearly something about this is upsetting to you.

 

Footnote: How much simpler would it be to just acknowledge the OT was not the dictated words of God, and just accept that the war god Jehovah ordering genocide was just a tribal people's stories? None of the rest to explain it works, when you're talking a eternal, unchanging moral God. The other option is to change God from the God of Love, back into an ancient war god.

[Guest end3]

"Since when does sovereignty allow a contradiction of moral standards? "

 

Since morals are relative

 

 

what's the picture?

 

 

"BTW, I’ve noticed you’ve ignored the comparative religious analysis that was offered in all of this. You don’t find it the least bit curious how those sort of stories of tribal gods fighting alongside the tribes who worship them is commonplace back then? Somehow, all those are fabrications, while this story is the genuine article? Hail stones from heaven, or lightning bolts from Zeus… hate to say it but Yahweh looks awfully similar to all the other tribal deities."

 

One discussion at a time....moderator

 

 

"Exterminating bloodlines?"

 

Certainly a possibility

 

"Back to what I said, sovereignty with God does not allow for a contradiction of nature – if that nature is going to be defined as Love by the Christians."

 

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

 

"What concerns me End3 is that you leave room for there to be some. "

 

yes I do

 

 

 

"Let me be blunt. If I were God, I would see someone who would be willing to do that, as not having the first clue what spirituality meant! I would reject them. Instead I would look for those who would be willing to stand up to the point of saying NO to God himself if they were being told, persuasively or otherwise, to commit acts of barbarity against human life in God' name. I would deem them as genuinely righteous, and not the one’s who claimed to follow me while not understanding the essence of what the sanctity of Life meant."

 

I understand this.....does allowing for a possibility that God would prove to me that these killings were done in Love seem too far out of bounds for you? I think it does....

 

 

 

"What does your heart tell you is true, versus what you think you should believe about God and the Bible?"

 

 

"Bull. You’re heart tells you it’s wrong. You’re head is trying to reconcile this. "

 

Isn't that exactly what I said?

 

 

"My heart helps me discern what is the good and right, and what is immoral. When it comes to genocide, the repulsion alone should pretty much lay to rest any question about finding some value in it, whether done by a human or done by a sovereign God?"

 

Does the expression, "I've had a change of heart" ring a bell?

 

"Are you a coward? To me if God exists and I have to stand before him and give account, then I will hold my head high as one who was sincere in my judgment of the moral offensiveness of mass-murder in the name of God. I would rather go to hell with my soul, than go to heaven without it"

 

See, that would be the problem....but seems as though you have chosen your path. I personally find it cowardly to find the path of least resistance and call it right.

 

"We derive our moral standards from society. This is why you see God in the old testament reflecting that society's morals. Pretty simple, one you abandon the idea of Direct Revelation."

 

"Because “I am the Lord. I change notâ€. “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and foreverâ€. If God’s nature is a moral one, which Christians claim, then that nature does not change. It’s absolute. "

 

Did I not mention previously that I thought there was no inconsistency in the OT and NT? I think I did

 

"Are you suggesting that God would say murder and genocide is OK in order to accommodate primitive peoples, until they grew socially at which point they would be told it’s now bad??"

 

I am saying that there, IMO, were two different means to accomplishing the same thing, OT- law, rules, physical NT law, rules, Spiritual

 

 

"You have no opinion yourself whether it stinks of something foul or not? Turning a blind eye to it?"

 

sure, but on this matter I am patiently waiting....if called to act on it today, I would act instinctually act, to protect my family, or to protect the meek so to speak.

 

"Don’t know about you, but I’d rather be true to what I see as right and wrong, even if it cost me my life."

 

You have never changed your moral perception in your whole lifetime?

 

" Again to repeat myself,

“I’d rather go to hell with my soul, than go to heaven without it.â€

"

 

Scary....

[Guest end3]

AM,

 

It is not my intention to move towards hostility...although I will meet hostility with same. Words like coward do not come across well and "I would rather die!"....again, this comes across to me as hostility.....I respect your opinion and will move forth from here with respect.

 

Thanks.

[Kuroikaze]

See, that would be the problem....but seems as though you have chosen your path. I personally find it cowardly to find the path of least resistance and call it right.

 

And ours is the path of least resistance? What are you smoking? How is being a non-theist in a world made up of mostly theists the path of least resistance?

 

Personally I think groveling before a genocidal maniac for fear you might be next on his list would the be the path of least resistance. But that's just me

 

Standing up and saying one stands for something takes effort, saying you don't know if something is wrong or not because god hasn't told you what you think yet is not the "harder" path if you want to start making distinctions.

[Guest end3]

Please,

This is a difficult enough conversation with one person, I would like to suggest we limit the participants for now. K....I do appreciate the comments, and am reading and trying to listen.... We can do whatever AM suggests as he is the chief here. Thanks

[Kuroikaze]

I understand this.....does allowing for a possibility that God would prove to me that these killings were done in Love seem too far out of bounds for you? I think it does....

 

Wow....just wow...

 

Murder is not a loving action...the fact that you think it could be.....just....wow

[Kuroikaze]

Please,

This is a difficult enough conversation with one person, I would like to suggest we limit the participants for now. K....I do appreciate the comments, and am reading and trying to listen.... We can do whatever AM suggests as he is the chief here. Thanks

 

I don't mind, though this isn't the arena, I didn't see any reason not to chime in.

[Antlerman]

See, that would be the problem....but seems as though you have chosen your path. I personally find it cowardly to find the path of least resistance and call it right.

 

And ours is the path of least resistance? What are you smoking? How is being a non-theist in a world made up of mostly theists the path of least resistance?

By all means participate. It helps having someone say this in their words. It's not two separated dialogs going on here. It's the same issue and you're on target like a well-sharpened arrow.

 

Personally I think groveling before a genocidal maniac for fear you might be next on his list would the be the path of least resistance. But that's just me

My sentiments as well. It's the weaker position than taking a stand.

 

Standing up and saying one stands for something takes effort, saying you don't know if something is wrong or not because god hasn't told you what you think yet is not the "harder" path if you want to start making distinctions.

It definitely is the path of least resistance, as it abrogates all responsibility. The harder path is to make a commitment. But the irony is that the weaker path of least resistance is often the most costly in the long run. It usually costs you your integrity.

 

 

BTW there is a difference between this notion of 'path of the least resistance', and Occam's Razor of the simplest of two choices. The simplest choice, may in fact be the hardest choice to act on. That should settle that confusion between simple choice, and least resistance. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

 

Please continue to participate. You're comments are quite good.

[Guest end3]

Ok,

Let me give an example so it will make my position more clear. We are obviously having troubles...

 

When I was a child, I owned a package of plastic army men. I would spend time setting them up into two sides and killing the bad, evil, mean side. To the little green guys, I was effectually the omnicient God, although I did not actually mold the plastic nor formulate the polomers. I said who was good and who was bad and who would win. I determined by my rules who would win and thus survive......the little guys had little choice. "These are my guys" I said....

 

 

I never contemplated playing another way as a child, but if possible, I could have given all the army men the choice to be on my side.....the side that is going to live remember, as my team(God's), is going to win.

 

Regardless of the discussions between the little green guys..... God's team is going to win......And in addition to that, He sends his own Son to the battlefield to explain how God decides on who is going to live. But, and I repeat but, some of those little guys say horse hockey on the Son, and on the big guy with all the power and choose to believe that they have the answers, so much so, that they kill the Son...

 

welcome to the discussion K, I will try to address your comments.

[Kuroikaze]

Ok,

Let me give an example so it will make my position more clear. We are obviously having troubles...

 

When I was a child, I owned a package of plastic army men. I would spend time setting them up into two sides and killing the bad, evil, mean side. To the little green guys, I was effectually the omnicient God, although I did not actually mold the plastic nor formulate the polomers. I said who was good and who was bad and who would win. I determined by my rules who would win and thus survive......the little guys had little choice. "These are my guys" I said....

 

 

I never contemplated playing another way as a child, but if possible, I could have given all the army men the choice to be on my side.....the side that is going to live remember, as my team(God's), is going to win.

 

Regardless of the discussions between the little green guys..... God's team is going to win......And in addition to that, He sends his own Son to the battlefield to explain how God decides on who is going to live. But, and I repeat but, some of those little guys say horse hockey on the Son, and on the big guy with all the power and choose to believe that they have the answers, so much so, that they kill the Son...

 

welcome to the discussion K, I will try to address your comments.

 

Ok....so "might makes right?" That is what I'm getting from this analogy.

[Antlerman]

"Since when does sovereignty allow a contradiction of moral standards? "

 

Since morals are relative

 

 

what's the picture?

This has nothing to do with relativism. Relativism does not excuse any and all behavior. It simply acknowledges the relative means by which cultures determine codes of conduct. I'm a relativist, and I quite strongly object to acts of barbarity and inhumanity. You should really try to understand what it really demonstrates before attacking it. That's a Straw Man argument.

 

What the picture does have to do with is what I said about your position. It allows for God to be used as an absolute justification for this sort of thing - making it infinitely more dangerous than relativism, IMO.

 

"BTW, I’ve noticed you’ve ignored the comparative religious analysis that was offered in all of this. You don’t find it the least bit curious how those sort of stories of tribal gods fighting alongside the tribes who worship them is commonplace back then? Somehow, all those are fabrications, while this story is the genuine article? Hail stones from heaven, or lightning bolts from Zeus… hate to say it but Yahweh looks awfully similar to all the other tribal deities."

 

One discussion at a time....moderator

It's part of the video presentation, which is the topic of this discussion.

 

"Let me be blunt. If I were God, I would see someone who would be willing to do that, as not having the first clue what spirituality meant! I would reject them. Instead I would look for those who would be willing to stand up to the point of saying NO to God himself if they were being told, persuasively or otherwise, to commit acts of barbarity against human life in God' name. I would deem them as genuinely righteous, and not the one’s who claimed to follow me while not understanding the essence of what the sanctity of Life meant."

 

I understand this.....does allowing for a possibility that God would prove to me that these killings were done in Love seem too far out of bounds for you? I think it does....

Answer: Yes. It does seem too far out of bounds for me.

 

There was a debater who once said during debate, "I say this in love.... because I love to say it!" The commenced with his attack. So when I hear, "prove to me that these killings were done in Love", all I can hear is "because I love to do it!". "Killing done in love"? I don't mean to sound impolite, but are you joking? Was the rape of little girls part of this act of love? Are you really serious here?

 

 

 

"My heart helps me discern what is the good and right, and what is immoral. When it comes to genocide, the repulsion alone should pretty much lay to rest any question about finding some value in it, whether done by a human or done by a sovereign God?"

 

Does the expression, "I've had a change of heart" ring a bell?

I would hate to ever have a change of heart over genocide being an acceptable practice by either man or a god. Apparently genocide is an open ended issue for you, that under certain circumstances is morally correct? Isn't this exactly what you are saying?? You could have a change of heart about it?

 

I couldn't.

 

 

 

"Are you a coward? To me if God exists and I have to stand before him and give account, then I will hold my head high as one who was sincere in my judgment of the moral offensiveness of mass-murder in the name of God. I would rather go to hell with my soul, than go to heaven without it"

 

See, that would be the problem....but seems as though you have chosen your path. I personally find it cowardly to find the path of least resistance and call it right.

As said before this is actually the harder path as it goes against the mainstream. "Few there be that find it". Whose in the majority in this country, atheists?

 

BTW, I didn't mean to directly call you a coward. It was meant as a rhetorical question. I should have stated it, "Wouldn't it be the path of the coward to..." My apologies. I didn't mean this as an attack.

 

"We derive our moral standards from society. This is why you see God in the old testament reflecting that society's morals. Pretty simple, one you abandon the idea of Direct Revelation."

 

"Because “I am the Lord. I change not”. “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever”. If God’s nature is a moral one, which Christians claim, then that nature does not change. It’s absolute. "

 

Did I not mention previously that I thought there was no inconsistency in the OT and NT? I think I did

 

I which case you should abandon the argument that this was said to refute, namely "Why do you put it in this perspective, why not God has presented the morals relative to man's development" So then you would not have God changing message mid-stream to suit a culture. God's laws would be absolute and unchanging. Genocide would be good for all time, or not at all ever, OT or NT.

 

I'm leaving you little room to wiggle here.

 

"Are you suggesting that God would say murder and genocide is OK in order to accommodate primitive peoples, until they grew socially at which point they would be told it’s now bad??"

 

I am saying that there, IMO, were two different means to accomplishing the same thing, OT- law, rules, physical NT law, rules, Spiritual

Are you making a correlation between genocide of human babies, cats, dogs, oxen, and little boys (except for virgin girls), as a physical act that foreshadows the spiritual act of eternal torture he plans to exact upon the non-chosen ones?

 

What exactly do you mean, if not this?

 

"Don’t know about you, but I’d rather be true to what I see as right and wrong, even if it cost me my life."

 

You have never changed your moral perception in your whole lifetime?

Not on genocide. Save some sort of mind damage happening or selling my very soul to Lucifer, I would hope that would never happen.

 

I think that's the point Asprin99 makes in his video. We can all almost universally agree that genocide is immoral. But there's always going to be some I suppose who are "undecided" about it. Not me. Not this issue. This isn't just war we're talking about, we're talking genocide - the absolute slaughter of all men, women, and child of an entire race of human beings, simply because they are that race or ethic heritage.

 

" Again to repeat myself,

“I’d rather go to hell with my soul, than go to heaven without it.”

"

 

Scary....

Why? You'd rather sell your soul to survive?

 

That's scarier. People who would do that, are capable of anything.

 

"What does it profit a man to gain the whole world if he loses his own soul". Jesus

[Neon Genesis]

Ok,

Let me give an example so it will make my position more clear. We are obviously having troubles...

 

When I was a child, I owned a package of plastic army men. I would spend time setting them up into two sides and killing the bad, evil, mean side. To the little green guys, I was effectually the omnicient God, although I did not actually mold the plastic nor formulate the polomers. I said who was good and who was bad and who would win. I determined by my rules who would win and thus survive......the little guys had little choice. "These are my guys" I said....

So, are you saying that God is an immature child who always has to have his way and we're just his playthings that exist for his amusement? The problem with your analogy is that God is not a child and human lives are not toys and God should really grow up already. Why would you want to worship what you're essentially saying is a spoiled brat?

 

 

I never contemplated playing another way as a child, but if possible, I could have given all the army men the choice to be on my side.....the side that is going to live remember, as my team(God's), is going to win.

What did innocent children do to deserve being God's enemy? And what gives grown people whether deity or not the right to treat human lives as mere toys?

 

Regardless of the discussions between the little green guys..... God's team is going to win......And in addition to that, He sends his own Son to the battlefield to explain how God decides on who is going to live. But, and I repeat but, some of those little guys say horse hockey on the Son, and on the big guy with all the power and choose to believe that they have the answers, so much so, that they kill the Son...

So, are you saying that innocent children are God's enemies and God hates children and can decide which child he wants to kill without any sort of punishment for killing that child because God is a spoiled brat?

[Antlerman]

Ok,

Let me give an example so it will make my position more clear. We are obviously having troubles...

 

When I was a child, I owned a package of plastic army men. I would spend time setting them up into two sides and killing the bad, evil, mean side. To the little green guys, I was effectually the omnicient God, although I did not actually mold the plastic nor formulate the polomers. I said who was good and who was bad and who would win. I determined by my rules who would win and thus survive......the little guys had little choice. "These are my guys" I said....

Two words: Free Will

 

We are not plastic soldiers. We are supposedly God's most special creation, made in his own image nonetheless! So is this how you see God dealing with his children? Like plastic soldiers?

 

What your analogy is is a sort of hyper-Calvinism, where every single thing, our salvation and our damnation is predetermined by God. That theology makes little room for free will and grace to have any sort a legitimate meaning.

 

I never contemplated playing another way as a child, but if possible, I could have given all the army men the choice to be on my side.....the side that is going to live remember, as my team(God's), is going to win.

Did you treat your human friends as objects or people?

 

My guess is you treated them as people. But you're saying God's morality is different that ours and he treats us as objects, like plastic toys?

 

Regardless of the discussions between the little green guys..... God's team is going to win......And in addition to that, He sends his own Son to the battlefield to explain how God decides on who is going to live. But, and I repeat but, some of those little guys say horse hockey on the Son, and on the big guy with all the power and choose to believe that they have the answers, so much so, that they kill the Son...

 

How can they say anything that the Child playing with His plastic toys isn't making them say, since they are 100% predestined to be on the winning or losing team? Actually, the soldiers that killed the Son in your analogy would also have had no choice in the matter, as the child who set up this whole charade was the one controlling the all scenes that played out. He determined ahead of time that they would attack the Son in his game he created with all his soldier toys.

 

Is this really your theology? Hyper-Calvinism?

[Kuroikaze]

I comment on the notion of "might makes right" morality, because I don't think its meaning is often clearly defined in these discussions.

 

First, I would say, in what is generally considered "normative" morality, is defined by the results of the action. The results are undesired by the persons involved, therefore immoral, or they are desired and therefore moral.

 

Of course this is not as easy at it first sounds, because anywhere there is more than one person involved there is a chance they will disagree on what results are desired. However, that is what society and laws are for, so that we can build a consensus (at least on the most important things) on what results are in fact the desired ones.

 

I'd say on the topic of genocide it is about as "black and white" as it can get, because genocide is always a zero sum game.

The people that are killed are not the only ones who suffer, the culture who did the killing will often, themselves, become victims of other groups who attack them out of fear they will be next on the list. Hobbs described this idea in great detail in "Leviathan," he felt that much violence was due to a state of anarchy. Anarchy creates a state in which people fear that others will attack them, and so they attack first to avoid being attacked, from there is spirals into more and more killing, either as a "protective" measure, or to get revenge.

 

I could comment more on this, whole books have been written, but this will do for this discussion.

 

 

 

"Might makes right" morality differs in one major way from "normative" morality. The results of an action are incidental, and totally unimportant. Only one thing is important in this type of morality, the desires of the one in charge. It is a very simple and basic form of morality.

 

Now, the motivations of the person in charge do no matter one bit, he could care about the people he is in charge of, he could hate them, his choices could be based on his whims, his desires, or fulfilling the desires of another. It also does not matter how much power he has, he could have a lot of power, most power, or ALL power and it makes no difference.

 

The point is that all morality is now dependent on this being, he COULD have our interests in mind, the key word here being "could," but as I think I have shown, there is no way in which genocide could be considered beneficial to the human race, so clearly in this instance, this is not the case.

( you have already admitted you do not have an answer for this yourself, but trust god has his reasons, which is exactly what troubles me about your position )

 

Besides, in the case of god, no one can even agree what he wants exactly, which further muddles this issue.

At least in "normative" morality one can be sure what others want, even if it differs from your own desires.

 

"might makes right" is certainly simple, all one must do is simply obey what they are told, but at the cost of considering the suffering of others as important to moral choices.

 

I do think that your analogy in your previous post is pretty much arguing for this type of moral system. It should be obvious why most of the world has abandoned such systems