Slavery, Rape, And Genocide

[Roz]

Yes, but it matters not.  God wills it, so kill it! 

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

Roz i be honest I dont think i could ever provide a satisfying and or respectable answer to the versers you presented. Im sorry. I rather be honest than say i know for certain what is going on, i can share my thoughts on the fact that IF in our View God is jsut and we trusted he did the right thing then, Objective morality comes into play because any verse you present that seems BAD or WRONG could well be justified if objective morality does not exist... IF it wrong only to you or to me or to anyone else, then it is wrong simply because of personal taste and nor objectivly and personal taste cannot dictate with authority that God is wrong FOr what he did or didnt do

[Roz]

1A, thanks for being honest and saying "I don't know" instead of being like other christians and coming up with bullshit excuses.

 

However, you really should look at SD's response to you.  It's very thorough.  For me, I made a choice not to fire at you after you gave your testimony, because even though I disagree with it you were asked and you did give it in honest fashion.  I fire at the christians who lie to my face.

 

Still, this is just me and my choice.  Please take a look at SD's response, I can't phrase it any better than he can.

[sdelsolray]

Roz i be honest I dont think i could ever provide a satisfying and or respectable answer to the versers you presented. Im sorry. I rather be honest than say i know for certain what is going on, i can share my thoughts on the fact that IF in our View God is jsut and we trusted he did the right thing then, Objective morality comes into play because any verse you present that seems BAD or WRONG could well be justified if objective morality does not exist... IF it wrong only to you or to me or to anyone else, then it is wrong simply because of personal taste and nor objectivly and personal taste cannot dictate with authority that God is wrong FOr what he did or didnt do

You appear quite confused.  FIrst things first.  One thing at a time.  Define "objective morality".  But first, define "morality".  I strongly suspect you have never considered the meaning of either and simply repeat them from other sources without thinking about them.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

And GUS you have 97 posts i know you want to come in guns blazing but that is a sure fire way to push people further away then have them closer, same with saying people are losing their minds and talking to them is pointless. I just feel this isnt biblical to come off to people thsi way. Im on your side but i just feel this isnt the proper way to speak to people

[sdelsolray]

And GUS you have 97 posts i know you want to come in guns blazing but that is a sure fire way to push people further away then have them closer, same with saying people are losing their minds and talking to them is pointless. I just feel this isnt biblical to come off to people thsi way. Im on your side but i just feel this isnt the proper way to speak to people

Gus is special, at least according to Gus.  According to Gus, he is not required to provide evidence of his bald claims (he made nearly 100 mere assertions in his short stint here).  He can't be bothered with such a menial task.  Any such request is deemed a personal affront (to Gus of course).

 

But then again, Gus did honor us, once or twice, with written support, in his own words no less, for his personal theism.  He informed us of things such as, 'I saw a miracle healing once.", and 'You can't explain it so GODDIDIT.'  Impressive to Gus, no doubt, but rejected as infantile theist canards by most anyone else.  Not surprisingly, Gus then pulled the 'I'm being persecuted' card and ran away.  Now he is back.  Let's see what will happen.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

Roz i respect you, and your intellect and I dont want you to hold back from ripping me a new one if you feel i need it, I mean you only trying to help ROFL. truthfully, i just dont want that to be a roadblock between our conversations i will never take what you say personally, you care about people in general and you would simply be sharing thoughts and I live in America and that is perfectly okay not North Korea though they WILL blow your head to smitherings lol

TO SD
Objective morality is morals that are based OUTSIDE of yourself. Subjective morals are those that depend on you, your situation, culture, and your personal taste. SM(subjective Morals) can change become contraditory, and might differ from person to person. In this worldview there is no SHOULD or SHOULDNT or OUGHT morality is just up for grabs, I mena What if there were a global economic meltdown and social turmoil ensued so that robbing people at gunpoint to get food became common place. Roberry would then be the social norm. Would such a norm be wrong then? if it is NOT wrong, then you affirm situational ethics and cant complain when the situation suits someone elses fancy, cand you get robbed at gunpoint.

 

IF theft is wrong WHY is it wrong? if it is your opinion that it is wrong, that is nice but opinions dont make ethical standards, so how then would you be granted ultimate authority to say anything what GOD did or didnt do is objectivly wrong?  if its wrong because it is wrong then that is begging the question. Besides that would mean there was a moral standard outside of yourself to which you must answer and that is what you are trying to avoid happening.

 

objectivly Morality is not a merely a collection of concepts agreed upon because it stops the guy with the gun from taking your food. SD after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you on a dark road and you a taking food home to your hungry family, who would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is wrong and that God is watching or someone who sees a need and points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?

[Roz]

I don't hold off because I don't want to offend heh.  Ask the christian here, I'm infamous at speaking my mind.

I made a decision to not attack you because you've not been dishonest with me.  If I see that you are, believe me you'll know it.

 

If you continue to say "god is real because of objective morality" then the burden is on you to explain why your god was a moral monster and that every fiber of your being is at odds with infanticide, child molestation, child rape, and lifetime ownership of people.

 

 

Here's secular morality for you. 

[Ravenstar]

Roz i respect you, and your intellect and I dont want you to hold back from ripping me a new one if you feel i need it, I mean you only trying to help ROFL. truthfully, i just dont want that to be a roadblock between our conversations i will never take what you say personally, you care about people in general and you would simply be sharing thoughts and I live in America and that is perfectly okay not North Korea though they WILL blow your head to smitherings lol

TO SD

Objective morality is morals that are based OUTSIDE of yourself. Subjective morals are those that depend on you, your situation, culture, and your personal taste. SM(subjective Morals) can change become contraditory, and might differ from person to person. In this worldview there is no SHOULD or SHOULDNT or OUGHT morality is just up for grabs, I mena What if there were a global economic meltdown and social turmoil ensued so that robbing people at gunpoint to get food became common place. Roberry would then be the social norm. Would such a norm be wrong then? if it is NOT wrong, then you affirm situational ethics and cant complain when the situation suits someone elses fancy, cand you get robbed at gunpoint.

 

IF theft is wrong WHY is it wrong? if it is your opinion that it is wrong, that is nice but opinions dont make ethical standards, so how then would you be granted ultimate authority to say anything what GOD did or didnt do is objectivly wrong?  if its wrong because it is wrong then that is begging the question. Besides that would mean there was a moral standard outside of yourself to which you must answer and that is what you are trying to avoid happening.

 

objectivly Morality is not a merely a collection of concepts agreed upon because it stops the guy with the gun from taking your food. SD after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you on a dark road and you a taking food home to your hungry family, who would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is wrong and that God is watching or someone who sees a need and points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?

You don't understand secular ethics… it's an entire field in it's own right. I don't need an outside force to ensure my 'morality'… weirdly, there are far more religious people in prison, per capita than non-religious. We become more moral as we evolve.. it is a necessary function of being social animals and is evidence when we study the animal world and the primates in particular.

 

I don't see the evidence that religion supports morality. In mainly non-religious countries (such as Sweden and Norway) there is far less crime…and far more 'humanity' in the form of social support and humane laws... why is that I wonder?

[midniterider]

Objective morality Exists Point Blank Period. Hence why everyone last Atheist in here will look at the old testament and say objectivly the things that happened in it are wrong. I dare one you say the things in the old testament are Good, not a single one will say that. Ic an guarantee that 100% unless some will say opposite jsut because. Yet they dont want to claim objective morality but that is all they practice by saying anything in the OT is wrong, they are making an objective claim. If they are NOT,

 

then...that leaves open the possibilty that the things in the OT were perfeectly fine. Whatever floats their boat in their society they should be allowed, using their line of logic, a society norm is different for each society and a society taboo is different for each society and culture. For one society to claim all other societies are wrong or even that ANOTHER one like the OT is wrong they are trying to take their subjective morality and make an objective claim.

 

Objective morality does not exist. Point Blank Period...Boom chaka laka laka! Some things in the bible are good. Some aren't.

 

Morality is an agreement between people. The people who  wrote the  bible had a somewhat different idea of morality than us people here today. Morals vary from culture to culture.

[midniterider]

Roz i be honest I dont think i could ever provide a satisfying and or respectable answer to the versers you presented. Im sorry. I rather be honest than say i know for certain what is going on, i can share my thoughts on the fact that IF in our View God is jsut and we trusted he did the right thing then, Objective morality comes into play because any verse you present that seems BAD or WRONG could well be justified if objective morality does not exist... IF it wrong only to you or to me or to anyone else, then it is wrong simply because of personal taste and nor objectivly and personal taste cannot dictate with authority that God is wrong FOr what he did or didnt do

 

If it's only wrong to God but not to me or other people then it's subjective morality. But morality is only a way of thinking about things. It isn't a 'thing' that exists independently on it's own. Just like your logical absolutes do not exist on their own...they are just thoughts people have.

[midniterider]

IF theft is wrong WHY is it wrong? if it is your opinion that it is wrong, that is nice but opinions dont make ethical standards, so how then would you be granted ultimate authority to say anything what GOD did or didnt do is objectivly wrong?  if its wrong because it is wrong then that is begging the question. Besides that would mean there was a moral standard outside of yourself to which you must answer and that is what you are trying to avoid happening.

 

objectivly Morality is not a merely a collection of concepts agreed upon because it stops the guy with the gun from taking your food. SD after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you on a dark road and you a taking food home to your hungry family, who would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is wrong and that God is watching or someone who sees a need and points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?

 

False dichotomy and oversimplification of morality. Is life black and white? If there's an economic meltdown, the Christians who believe stealing is wrong will be adapting their ethics to suit the moment.  If  that means robbing people, then they will rob people. Or even kill if it means staying alive. Do you think that only non-Christians commit crimes? That's ridiculous.

[seven77]

I find it rich when anyone who believes in the Christian God wants to speak on such topics of morality.

 

Lest you forget, Yahweh [God, The Lord, El, Jehovah] crucified his own son, according to the folklore of the Bible. Forget for a moment about all of the evil Amekelites and all of the others killed in his name. HE KILLED HIS OWN SON.

 

God has no morals and his Holy Word has none either. To base your life on a book full of ancient goat herders' tales is foolish. To attempt to lecture those who have shunned a moral code based on the depraved ignorance of the Bronze Age tribesmen who wrote it is an exercise in futility, not to mention a disgusting display of ignorant bravado. Yet 1AcceptingAThiest1 persists in his attempts, perhaps because he thinks that Christ will show his holy strength through 1AcceptingAThiest1's weaknesses.

 

It may be hard to wrap your mind around, 1AcceptingAThiest1, that some would reject the Holy Ethical Moral Code. However, this doubt does not impact most ex-Christians in the least. All of your arguments ultimately circle back to us [non-believers, believers in a moral code that derives its origins from sources other than the Holy Bible] being willfully ignorant of your particular brand of Christianity and the absolute reality of the Lord's existence.

 

What you fail to see is that few of us have the patience or the energy to spare on hand-feeding you the information that you seek. If you want to debate or discuss morals, then go do some reading and get back to us. If you want to defend your God, quit praying and start reading. Stop being so adamantly obtuse in the name of your Lord.

 

 

IF theft is wrong WHY is it wrong? if it is your opinion that it is wrong, that is nice but opinions dont make ethical standards, so how then would you be granted ultimate authority to say anything what GOD did or didnt do is objectivly wrong?  if its wrong because it is wrong then that is begging the question. Besides that would mean there was a moral standard outside of yourself to which you must answer and that is what you are trying to avoid happening.

 

objectivly Morality is not a merely a collection of concepts agreed upon because it stops the guy with the gun from taking your food. SD after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you on a dark road and you a taking food home to your hungry family, who would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is wrong and that God is watching or someone who sees a need and points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?

 

 

I do not need God or his Word to tell me that it is wrong to kill or steal. Killing other human beings is wrong because it violates their autonomy. It is also a violation of our animal nature. It is rare that animals in the wild kill their own kind. The human sickness of murdering other humans is a unique aberration of our kind. I desire to rise above this sort of sickness and it is a weak person who kills or harms those that are lesser [weaker, smaller] than they. Sometimes killing is justified, as in self-defense. Others may not share my point of view and I am ok with that. I feel no need to justify my moral code to anyone except those who are personally affected by it.

 

It is wrong to steal because it is wrong to take what I did not earn or what was not given to me. 9 times out of 10, you can get what you need by earning it or asking for it. The one time that you can't, take initiative and strive for it. The concept of God is a parasitic one that violates nature. Do you see lions gathering to pray for Aslan to provide them a gazelle to eat for dinner? You do not see this sort of behavior in the animal kingdom because it is ineffective and simplistic. Humans are the only ones that appeal to invisible forces to provide for their needs and that sort of behavior is counter-intuitive to our self-preservation instincts.

 

---------------

 

Those are my opinions.

 

Agree, Disagree, Disregard, I do not care.

[Roz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

1. "The existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the person to try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance"
2. "When dissonance is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person will actively avoid situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance"^[1]

I suppose this is why IH, Gus, End3, and other apologists inevitably reach the conclusion "the people that god had ordered exterminated deserved it because they were evil."  "Can't you see my god was morally justified in ordering believers just like myself to stab little children to death?  They were going to grow up to kill us!  It's what our god says!"

 

Had this been any other religion (cough, Islam...) I'm willing to bet that christians would join in on the moral outrage. 

 

Example from http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone.  But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

 

But since it is THEIR god yeshitwa who said ³ Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy^[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

 

They can't help but defend what their god ordered and what fellow believers did in their holy book. 

 

End3 kept suggesting that genetic predispositions of the Amalekite infants would make them into murderers one day, so yeshitwa ended their lives to prevent that from happening.

 

Gus suggested that killing those infants and children was a greater good, that they're now in heaven thanks to that (yes, WLC).

 

And IH did a variation of End3's suggestion, which was linking an apologetics paper dictating that the Amalekites were attacking first, so what did you expect Israel to do?  They had to kill everything, including the children!

 

Now they're all feeling persecuted, woe is them, see how they suffer for their lord's sake! 

 

Religion clouds the mind, no matter how great the intellect. 

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

The following commentary,I think, explains

the reasons for the war Israel waged on the Amalekites.

It is worth reading if you are interested in the background

and history of the conflict.

 

http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2013/08/the-amalekite-genocide/

 

I think I'll take a shot at breaking this down into parts and posting a response to each of the points made here. It may take a while though. I'll do my best to keep my post civilized, though when believers defend or rationalize actions committed by their god that I consider to be the actions of a blood-thirsty monster, keeping calm about it is difficult.

[Roz]

 

The following commentary,I think, explains

the reasons for the war Israel waged on the Amalekites.

It is worth reading if you are interested in the background

and history of the conflict.

 

http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2013/08/the-amalekite-genocide/

 

I think I'll take a shot at breaking this down into parts and posting a response to each of the points made here. It may take a while though. I'll do my best to keep my post civilized, though when believers defend or rationalize actions committed by their god that I consider to be the actions of a blood-thirsty monster, keeping calm about it is difficult.

 

 

You're a more patient man than I am, kudos for the attempt.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

The following commentary,I think, explains

the reasons for the war Israel waged on the Amalekites.

It is worth reading if you are interested in the background

and history of the conflict.

 

http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2013/08/the-amalekite-genocide/

 

 

After reading the entire thing, I have a few objections regarding the author’s positions and arguments. I will explain these objections and why I have them.

 

My First Objection

 

Regarding the reason for why the people of Israel were Yahweh’s chosen people, I am not convinced that the reason given by the author fits in with the idea of Yahweh being an omniscient god that knows the future.

 

The author states, “But they weren’t chosen so God could bless them and curse everyone else. They were chosen to be God’s conduit of blessing to the whole world.”

 

If I were to assume that Yahweh really is God and that he designed the universe and everything in it, I do not think that this argument is convincing, at all.

 

Why is it not convincing? Well, here is the reason why; the author says, “God knew that the Amalekites would always oppose Israel—that the children of the Amalekites would do it when they grew up, and their descendants too—as we see with Haman in the book of Esther.”

 

The author claims that Yahweh (God) knew ahead of time that the Amalekites would always oppose Israel. The reason he supposedly knows this is obvious; he is supposed to be an omniscient god. However, if he already knew that the Amalekites would always be against him and Israel and that they would need to be destroyed, but chose to allow them to exist anyway, then it looks to me like he purposefully created the Amalekites for the purpose of destroying them.

 

If Yahweh already knew everything that would ever happen, before it happened, then he is directly responsible for everything (assuming that he is omnipotent; since, without omnipotence, he’d be completely powerless to change the future). If he is directly responsible for everything, then only he can be blamed if those that he already knows are going to hurt his chosen people do so.

 

 

My Second Objection

 

The author states, “The Amalekites had chosen not to be part of the means by which God blessed the world, and now they chose to oppose the means God was using to bring blessing to the world. If God was going to keep on blessing the world, he needed to stop the Amalekites.”

 

The author also says, ““You see, the Amalekites’ national identity is set up against Israel and against God’s plan to bless the world. But there is a way out—they just have to renounce that identity and join in with the people who worshipped and served God. They have to get rid of the thing that means they will be going against God. Maybe some of them did. But many of them didn’t.”

 

It’s almost as if the author truly believes the Amalekites had a choice. If Yahweh already knew beforehand what the Amalekites would be like before they ever existed, then clearly they had no choice but to be what they were.

 

Being omniscient, Yahweh can’t be surprised. It’s not like the Amalekites could have all said, “Oh, let’s go and serve Yahweh and then we can become friends and allies to Israel” and ended up doing something that Yahweh didn’t expect. If Yahweh is omniscient, than something like that cannot possibly happen.

 

It looks to me as if Yahweh planned all of this from day one. Since I don’t actually believe that Yahweh exists, it would be pointless to try and identify his motivations for planning something like that. As believers in Yahweh, the Judeo-Christian god, I advise all Christians to think long and hard about this. By simply assuming that everything your god does is for a good purpose and putting him on a pedestal, it shows me that you are either unwilling or incapable of thinking about the topic at hand. It shows me that you just want to believe, not think or investigate.

 

My Third and Final Objection

 

At one point, the author attempts to defend the murder of innocent children. He asks this, “Suppose that you met Stalin, or Harold Shipman, or some notorious evil person, before they had done the majority of their evil, but after they had set themselves irrevocably on that course. Suppose you somehow knew all the evil they would do, all the lives they would destroy, and that the only way you could stop it was by killing them, and that was within your power. Could it be right to kill them in such a situation?”

 

Honestly, I do not think the author asked the correct question. I think a better question would be, “If you were about to become a parent and knew beforehand that your future child would grow up to become Stalin, Harold Shipman, or some notorious, evil person; would you willingly allow them to be born and then kill them before they’ve had a chance to grow into the monster you know they will one day become?”

 

If I knew that one of my future children would become a violent dictator, serial killer, or something else like that, but allowed them to be born anyway, knowing that they would have to be eliminated to prevent them from harming others, then it would mean that I brought them to life just so I could kill them or have others kill them for me. If I were to do such a thing, I would be no different than the monster I was attempting to prevent the child from becoming. In the Bible, Yahweh does exactly that.

 

My answer to this new question is, “If I knew that my future child would turn into a monster after being born, I just wouldn’t have children. If I don’t bring them to life, then there is no reason to violently murder them to prevent them from harming others”.  

 

 

The reason why I and many other ex-Christians object to Christians’ attempts to justify genocide and infanticide is because it is impossible to get around the “omniscient god” thing. If you (asking Christians here) believe that your god knows everything that happens before it happens, then how can you consider it justice if your god orders humans to be murdered (or even worse, sends them to Hell to be tortured forever)? If you believe that your god knew what someone like Stalin would become before he ever existed, but created him anyway, then how can you blame Stalin for the things he did? Shouldn’t you blame your god for creating him anyway, despite knowing who he would become?

 

Christians reading this post, if you are willing or able to think about this, then do think about this. As I have said before, if you just put your god on a pedestal and say that his intentions are always good and cannot be questioned, then it shows me that you are either incapable or unwilling to think about this topic or investigate. It doesn’t matter if you were indoctrinated to believe what you do, nor does it matter if you decided for yourself that Christianity was the right religion, if you just make assumptions about your god’s intentions, but do not actually try to think about this, then it shows me that you don’t want to think or investigate, but that you just want to believe.

[Roz]

Bravo CG, I just have to add one thing.  There's the personal component that no one wants to tackle, christian or otherwise.  The human being asked by the omniscient god.  Christians like to refer to the story of Abraham and how their god lovingly intervened, but conveniently skip over this, the story of Jeptath, and the infanticide of David and Bathsheba's first child.

 

Would you do it?  It's actually in play, and yes some christians already followed through with it.

[sdelsolray]

Ditto.  Excellent deconstruction, Crazyguy123.  I read John Allister's blog post when Ironhorse first posted the link.  It is a crude and infantile apologetic, full of common mere assertions, fallacies and wishful thinking for which Christian Apologetics are known.  It also contains unintended rational conclusions for which Christian Apologists avoid like a plague.  You identified three.

 

To a fully indoctrinated, willfully ignorant and shallow theist like Ironhorse, that blog is like heroin for the heroin addict.