Subjective Morality: A Case In Point

[midniterider]

Christian: Has a question. Prays To Jesus. Brain of Christian comes up with an answer.

 

 

 

 

We're assuming your moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard, your subjective views?

I digress Prof. Adios amigo.

 
You assume Jesus' moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard? A 2000 year old book? Christians pray to Jesus (which is their imagination) for an answer. Their brain pulls out some moral decision based on what they were taught by their family members ( or eventually discovered thru trial and error what was right and wrong), and it is repackaged as a revelation from Jesus. A non-believer just pulls out an answer in the same fashion but doesn't give the sky fairy credit for his own thinking.

 

I'm arguing FOR SUBJECTIVITY to an Objective Standard. Now magically everyone has moved from knowing some objective standard without faith to subjectively knowing a subjective standard. Wow, just wow.

 

Finally, we can get this thread back to what it was meant to be.  End3 is arguing that we should be subject to, or subjects of, an Objective Standard, which he chooses to call jesus.

 

So, now that we're all back at square one, End3, if your Objective Standard (god, jesus, yahweh, the holy spirit) ordered genocide, would it be more moral to follow those orders or reject them and try to save as many lives as you could?

 

Before you answer, here's a little reminder:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63235-gods-mighty-plan-of-salvation/

 

7 pages of End3 saying we should commit genocide against the Muslims.

 

 

So why should we be subject to this Jesus when we can and do run our own lives? Morality has a basis of doing no harm to others but everything we do is generally on a case-by-case basis. Not every answer is Yes or No, do this or do that. Sometimes we have to be creative to do the better thing than what the rule is in some dusty 2000 year old book.

 

The other problem with being subject to this objective standard (Christian standard) is that it's author is non-existent. Common sense is a better objective standard. Why not interact with and do right by people who are living .... following the will of mythical personalities is irrelevant.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

We're assuming your moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard, your subjective views?

 

I digress Prof. Adios amigo.

 

You assume Jesus' moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard? A 2000 year old book? Christians pray to Jesus (which is their imagination) for an answer. Their brain pulls out some moral decision based on what they were taught by their family members ( or eventually discovered thru trial and error what was right and wrong), and it is repackaged as a revelation from Jesus. A non-believer just pulls out an answer in the same fashion but doesn't give the sky fairy credit for his own thinking.

 

I'm arguing FOR SUBJECTIVITY to an Objective Standard. Now magically everyone has moved from knowing some objective standard without faith to subjectively knowing a subjective standard. Wow, just wow.

 

Finally, we can get this thread back to what it was meant to be.  End3 is arguing that we should be subject to, or subjects of, an Objective Standard, which he chooses to call jesus.

 

So, now that we're all back at square one, End3, if your Objective Standard (god, jesus, yahweh, the holy spirit) ordered genocide, would it be more moral to follow those orders or reject them and try to save as many lives as you could?

 

Before you answer, here's a little reminder:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63235-gods-mighty-plan-of-salvation/

 

7 pages of End3 saying we should commit genocide against the Muslims.

 

Total deflection of the conversation....we went from you know without a picoliter of faith to "well, your idea of morality sucks". You ready to move to the next paragraph or do you wish to "waller".

 

 

Don't talk about deflection if you're going to carry on dodging the Prof's outstanding questions, End.

 

Posted Yesterday, 06:22 PM

 

 

Posted 31 December 2014 - 04:04 PM

end3, on 31 Dec 2014 - 6:37 PM, said:

end3, on 31 Dec 2014 - 6:37 PM, said:

I've already answered that. God hasn't told me to kill someone.

Let me ask you this. So is there moral evolution?

 

 

end3, on 31 Dec 2014 - 5:47 PM, said:

end3, on 31 Dec 2014 - 5:47 PM, said:

 

If God were to decide on genocide, then that would be different....it's His creation.

 

So it was a sin in my mind for him to cheat and not a sin choosing to undermine Hitler.

 

I don't understand why God would choose to wipe out a people. That is why it would be called faith.

 

No, you answered it without answering it.  First you say that saving lives would be moral; then you backtrack and say that if god decides on it, then it's different.  You understand that the Nazi's believed (subjectively) that they were doing god's will in exterminating the Jews.  Hitler, himself, mentioned several times that he was doing the lord's work.

 

So, which is it?  Is committing a god-ordained genocide moral?  Or is saving lives moral?

 

Answer these questions first; then later we can talk about moral evolution.

 

 

[midniterider]

End3 wrote...

 

"Idiots!  Stupid shit!  That's a fucked up life [of yours] BAA.  Your conclusion is moronic. Antagonistic bitch!  Your whining ass position. Fuck you, BDP." 

.

.

.

His displayed morality betrays his own Biblical values...

 

(love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control)

 

...destroying any argument he might make for the god of the Bible.

 

What, precisely is 'better' about Christian morality than what civilized society has brought us?

What, precisely do Christians DO better than non-Christians as a result of this Christian Standard?

[bornagainathiest]

 

End3 wrote...

 

"Idiots!  Stupid shit!  That's a fucked up life [of yours] BAA.  Your conclusion is moronic. Antagonistic bitch!  Your whining ass position. Fuck you, BDP." 

.

.

.

His displayed morality betrays his own Biblical values...

 

(love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control)

 

...destroying any argument he might make for the god of the Bible.

 

What, precisely is 'better' about Christian morality than what civilized society has brought us?

What, precisely do Christians DO better than non-Christians as a result of this Christian Standard?

 

 

See if you can get End to answer questions those about himself, Rider.

 

Oh... and don't forget to remind him that non-Christians are at least as lost and broken as he is, while Ex-Christians are twice as lost and broken as he is.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Total deflection of the conversation....we went from you know without a picoliter of faith to "well, your idea of morality sucks". You ready to move to the next paragraph or do you wish to "waller".

 

Deflection, End3?  It would be of benefit to you to go back and read the OP.  The question of whether sparing life is more moral than genocide is at the very heart of this conversation.  And, yes, I know the answer without a pico-Liter of faith.

 

Nor did I say anything about your morality sucking.  In keeping you honest, I simply wanted you to be reminded of your own words before you answered the question, which you still haven't done.  And that's what's got you pissed off: you don't want to have to answer the question.

 

So, no, whether I'm ready to move on or not, none of us can until you answer the question.

 

If your Objective Morality (god) ordered genocide, would it be more moral to obey his commandment, or reject it and attempt to save as many lives as possible?

[mymistake]

 

 

We're assuming your moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard, your subjective views?

 

I digress Prof. Adios amigo.

Dude, you should listen to Jesus.  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

 

Kind of ironic how the 'sinners' get it but these fundies are clueless.

 

Mike,

 

That would be a general rule but doesn't mean that by following that we are omniscient.

 

 

Nobody claimed they were omniscient.  Do you have a point?

 

 

 

I don't believe we may make one single moral decision based on our feelings and expect that would be best for another. I could submit hypotheticals, but that would be minutia. Basically we can't predict what would be best for another because we can't see in their future but what we CAN do is offer a what we would consider to be objective morality to that one decision in hopes that the moral outcome will remain true.

 

 So then, pray to Jesus (which is, in the end, our own imagination) and make a moral decision based on what Jesus (yourself) wants.

 

You do remember where Jesus says forgive them Father for they do not know?

 

 

I do.  Did Jesus need to explain the situation to God because God didn't understand?  

[mymistake]

 

 

We're assuming your moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard, your subjective views?

 

I digress Prof. Adios amigo.

 

You assume Jesus' moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard? A 2000 year old book? Christians pray to Jesus (which is their imagination) for an answer. Their brain pulls out some moral decision based on what they were taught by their family members ( or eventually discovered thru trial and error what was right and wrong), and it is repackaged as a revelation from Jesus. A non-believer just pulls out an answer in the same fashion but doesn't give the sky fairy credit for his own thinking.

 

I'm arguing FOR SUBJECTIVITY to an Objective Standard. Now magically everyone has moved from knowing some objective standard without faith to subjectively knowing a subjective standard. Wow, just wow.

 

 

 

So you don't know what any of those words mean.

[midniterider]

 

 

 

We're assuming your moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard, your subjective views?

 

I digress Prof. Adios amigo.

Dude, you should listen to Jesus.  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

 

Kind of ironic how the 'sinners' get it but these fundies are clueless.

 

Mike,

 

That would be a general rule but doesn't mean that by following that we are omniscient.

 

 

Nobody claimed they were omniscient.  Do you have a point?

 

 

 

I don't believe we may make one single moral decision based on our feelings and expect that would be best for another. I could submit hypotheticals, but that would be minutia. Basically we can't predict what would be best for another because we can't see in their future but what we CAN do is offer a what we would consider to be objective morality to that one decision in hopes that the moral outcome will remain true.

 

 So then, pray to Jesus (which is, in the end, our own imagination) and make a moral decision based on what Jesus (yourself) wants.

 

You do remember where Jesus says forgive them Father for they do not know?

 

 

I do.  Did Jesus need to explain the situation to God because God didn't understand?  

 

 

Being the triune god he of course needed to have a conversation with himself. :-)

[Orbit]

End, all humans, unless they are defective, are born with empathy. That's how we know how to treat others.

While you experience the world through your own subjective lens, you, unless you are defective, objectively can be said to have empathy. No faith is needed. This makes you nice to people, because you, on a basic level, would like them to be nice to you.

 

That should clear up the question of morality. It comes from empathy, which defined as the ability to feel the emotions of others. It is given context within your culture. It is not due to individual subjectivity.

 

And the word "objective" does not come into play here, except that you can be objectively observed to possess the human trait of empathy.

 

Not hurting others is an action produced by empathy.

 

Empathy, not faith, is the basis for human morality.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Where are you, End3?

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

Recently, in this most auspicious forum, we have been invited to believe that everything is subjective; and while I can't help but rejoice over the idea that a christian is inadvertently admitting that objective morality doesn't come from the bible or its god (because how can it, if everything is subjective?), it has gotten me in the mood to consider morality, by looking at the actions of one man.

 

His name was Oskar Schindler.  Many of us are familiar with his story from the film "Schindler's List".  I, however, have gone further into researching his life.  I've even visited the Oskar Schindler museum in Krakow built inside the old D.E.F. factory.  I think he will be a fair representation of the questions I ultimately want to ask.

 

First, a little background.  According to the bible (that's the book where objective morality comes from, by the way) it is perfectly moral to commit genocide against "inferior" races.  We see this with the Amalekites, as an example.  So, for the Nazi's to seek a "Final Solution" to the "Jewish question" was perfectly within biblical guidelines.

 

Oskar Schindler, however, sought to undermine the Nazi regime every chance he got; and this included ultimately rescuing over 1,000 Jews, clearly flying in the face of the very regime that had "Gott Mit Uns" (god With Us) inscribed onto their belt buckles, and their biblical mandate of exterminating "inferior" races.

 

The bible also makes it very clear that adultery is wrong.  Oskar Schindler was a shameless womanizer, despite being married to a most faithful wife.  Clearly, he fell short of the glory of god on that score as well.

 

So, my first question is this:  From the position of objective morality, as demonstrated by the sacred text, which of Schindler's sins was greater--undermining the extermination of an "inferior" race, or cheating on his wife?

 

My second question:  From the position of subjective morality, as demonstrated by godless humanity, which of Schindler's sins was greater?

 

 

great Thread and Post, your my new favorite i enjoy your thoughtfulness in the matter. its a difficult issue forgive me if i get it wrong but here is just my 2cents not much just sharing thoughts

 

The first order of business(borrowed from BAA) is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the Genecide in what God did and what Nazi's was trying to do.

 

Unlike us, God knows the future. tthe Nazis did NOT, so they acted selfishly,but with God he knew the results would be if Israel did not completely eradicate the Amalekites. If Israel did not carry out God’s orders, the Amalekites would come back to torture the Israelites again. Saul claimed to have killed everyone but the Amalekite king Agag (1 Samuel 15:20). Obviously Saul was lying…just a couple of decades later there were enough Amalekites to take David and his men’s families captive (1 Samuel 30:1-2). After David and his men went take back their own captives rescued their families, 400 Amalekites escaped of the ones that were orinally supposed to be killed. If Saul had fulfilled what God had commanded him, this never would have occurred. Several hundred years later, a descendant of king Agag, Haman, tried to have the entire Jewish people exterminated. So, Saul’s incomplete obedience almost resulted in Israel’s destruction. God knew this would occur, so He ordered the extermination of the Amalekites ahead of time. 

 

With the nazis not being able to see the future OR the fact the jews were not even doing anything wrong to the nazis or other people but the Amalekites WERE doing many things wrong to people to their own community and to other people..... the jews were NOT doing thing wrong TO the Nazis, so for the Nazis to try and attempt genocice on innocent blood, was NOTjustified Three FOLD.

1 they acted seflishly,

2 did not know the future if the jews would hurt anyone(in an attempt to stop them from doing more harm) and

3the jews were not doing anything TO the Nazis that warranted them genocide.

the Amalekites commited atrocious acts against humanity 

 

This was an honest foundational misunderstanding.

it is not quite, but close to the fallacy of division or equiviocation fallacy. naming similar events and conflating them as if they had same purpose intent or motivation is inaccurate assesment. Two people can do the same thing with different motivations

 

So this changes the stance and shifts the intentional purpose of your questions now

 

instead of greater or lesser sin, now,

one is a sin and one is not. Him rescuing people...NOT as sinCheating on his wife IS

 

Schindler' then was not breaking Gods law by rescuing people he was helping. because aformentioned Nazis commited genocie was not justified, so him resucing them was a good thing.

 

Him cheating on his wife is a sin, the bible advocates to stay in marriage at all costs, only with infidelity and harsh continuous violence is divorce even accepted

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

i know im far behind and have not read the entire thread on any sub discussions, im just addressing the OP at the moment

[Ravenstar]

After the religious based slaughter today I don't have the heart to try to explain immorality to anyone still in the delusion of religion...

 

It makes me fucking nauseous.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

After the religious based slaughter today I don't have the heart to try to explain immorality to anyone still in the delusion of religion...

 

It makes me fucking nauseous.

if moral relativism is true then why is anyone wrong? one needs a standard to judge by, from which good and bad comparisons can be made....and this STANDARD if it is not objective or abolsute, how then can accurate judgment calls can be made about anything? if people abide by their own moral code? how can person A tell person B they are wrong if they both following their society or culture moral code. Does this mean no one is wrong? and everyone is right?

 

 

What is the universal standard of morality

If there is none or no such thing then

 

people are only morally wrong for doing something if it doesn't abide within their society or culture?

 

If an entire society or culture preferred raping of little girls are they NOT wrong because all occupants of their society says its okay? And their behavior is not judged against the rest of the world and other societies if moral relativism is true they couldn't be told they were wrong

[mymistake]

A1, double face palm on justifying genocide.  That is pure willful ignorance.  You should feel ashamed.  Your imaginary friend does not know the future.  That Old Testament passage was a propaganda piece.  It was an attempt to fool the Jewish people into waging a war of genocide.  Lies told about the Amalikites do not make any of the baby Amalikites guilty even if those lies come from the Bible.

 

 

Regarding morality the standard can be objective but it cannot be absolute.  Humans evolve and a thousand years from now the moral behavior today will seem just as primitive to our descendants as the Old Testament seems to non-belivers today.  However there is a universal cause of our morality.  That would be the social teamwork humans do in order to survive.  Family is our most basic survival unit and our values are derived from what promotes families surviving.  Make no mistake the few good things found in the Bible were put there by con artists who noticed the underlying principle.

 

Today there are cultures that marry off little girls to be raped as soon at they get their first menstruation.  The rest of the world can and does tell them that they are wrong.  And rightly so.

 

 

 

By the way it is getting to the point where I no longer am surprised when Christians justify genocide.  It is ingrained in the religion.  Christianity builds up core beliefs one on top of another until you have such an entrenched world view that accepting atrocities in the Old Testament comes naturally.  Christianity is the very source of moral relativism.  

[Ravenstar]

NOWHERE do I subscribe to moral relativism. If you knew a QUARTER of what I do about history it would become plain that morality has EVOLVED greatly over the centuries… and most of it was in SPITE of religion, not BECAUSE of it.

 

You didn't see the video last week of a baboon that saved his comrade from death on a rail track, did you. Yup.. a baboon. He not only pulled him from the track.. his buddy was unconscious, so he dunked him in water to revive him.

 

A baboon has more morality than your sky fairy.

[mymistake]

NOWHERE do I subscribe to moral relativism. If you knew a QUARTER of what I do about history it would become plain that morality has EVOLVED greatly over the centuries… and most of it was in SPITE of religion, not BECAUSE of it.

 

You didn't see the video last week of a baboon that saved his comrade from death on a rail track, did you. Yup.. a baboon. He not only pulled him from the track.. his buddy was unconscious, so he dunked him in water to revive him.

 

A baboon has more morality than your sky fairy.

 

 

I can no longer subscribe to an objective morality handed down by the gods.  Moral evolution is the right way to describe it, isn't it?  Like that baboon we have a certain level or morality common to all mammals.  But then our species built upon that as we survived in small family units, then tribes, then cities and eventually countries.

[midniterider]

 

After the religious based slaughter today I don't have the heart to try to explain immorality to anyone still in the delusion of religion...

 

It makes me fucking nauseous.

if moral relativism is true then why is anyone wrong? one needs a standard to judge by, from which good and bad comparisons can be made....and this STANDARD if it is not objective or abolsute, how then can accurate judgment calls can be made about anything?

 

God says thou shall not kill, then he orders killing. Where is his standard? His morality is relative, isnt it?

 

if people abide by their own moral code?

 

Human based morality is not absolute nor is it perfect. It's trying to do good and not always being able to do the best for everyone.

 

how can person A tell person B they are wrong if they both following their society or culture moral code. Does this mean no one is wrong? and everyone is right?

 

There are often moral conflicts.

 

What is the universal standard of morality

 

Case by case try not to harm someone else.

If there is none or no such thing then

 

people are only morally wrong for doing something if it doesn't abide within their society or culture?

 

How many different cultures' moral rules can 1 person follow? Right now I'm breaking Afghanistan's rules for not being a Muslim. Glad I dont live there. I can only follow the rules of the culture I'm currently part of.

 

If an entire society or culture preferred raping of little girls are they NOT wrong because all occupants of their society says its okay? And their behavior is not judged against the rest of the world and other societies if moral relativism is true they couldn't be told they were wrong

 

Who told you raping little girls was wrong? The bible? No. Your parents? More likely.

 

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

 

    If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

 

Sorry, but morality isnt determined by Jebus Christ and certainly not the bible. Whether you call it relative or absolute, morality comes from people trying to take care of each other.

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

A1's justification of divinely-approved genocide does not rest on any moral difference between the God and the Nazis.

Instead he argues that what justifies God is His ability to see the future - not his inherent goodness and morality.
 

"Unlike us God knows the future.  The Nazis did not, so they acted selfishly.  But with God he knew what the results would be if Israel did not completely eradicate the Amalekites."
 
This is the key point of A1's argument. 

Because the Nazis couldn't know the future - they acted selfishly. 

Their selfishness, their immorality and their evil is a direct result of their inability to know the future  So, by implication, if the Nazis had been able to see the future, they would NOT have been acting selfishly, immorally and wickedly.  Their acts of genocide would be just as moral and justifiable as God's.  Their knowledge of future events would have totally justified and excused the horrors of Auschwitz, Treblinka and Belsen.  Just as God's knowledge of the future totally justified and excused him ordering the complete eradication of the Amalekites.

 

According to A1, knowledge of the future justifies genocide.

 

Therefore, according to A1's argument - morality and goodness come from power. 

Because God is all-powerful and all-knowing and the Nazis were not, God is therefore good and moral - but the Nazis were evil and immoral.  Thus A1 successfully argues that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.  Thus there is NO moral or ethical difference between Adolf Hitler and Yahweh, the god of Israel. 

.

.

.

A1 probably didn't realize that he was making this argument... but he did make it.

.

.

.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

[Ravenstar]

Oh!  Thanks BAA!  So psychics are moral no matter what they do because they know the outcome? (sorry, couldn't resist)  hmmm.. the Nazi's were experimenting with psychic phenomena...

 

Can someone please explain to me what the point was of creating EDEN if the only thing that matters is the (non corporeal?) afterlife?  Seriously, this is one thing that has been bothering me about christian doctrine… Genesis seems to claim that we were 'created' to live (physically) forever in perfect bliss ON EARTH… sooooo, what was the point of creating paradise? 

 

This relates to your assessment BAA, because the excuse here for Yahweh's immorality seems to be that anything (and therefore anything that happens - even horrible things) he does is A-OK because well, Heaven. This doesn't explain why Adam and Eve were placed on earth in the first place or why Eden was made. Wouldn't it make more sense, even if there was some sort of penalty for messing up, to RESTORE the original plan? Was it that a Plan A that didn't work so we are now going to Plan B? What kind of omniscient being needs a plan B?

 

Or could it be that the storymakers couldn't reconcile the REALITY that everything dies and nothing ever comes back from death so the 'reward' for following the rules is something no one can ever prove? It also covers the 'justice' of Yahweh because it happens 'outside' of our reality, and is also impossible to prove.

 

The appeal to authority* is something I've never understood on a personal level. Of course, I expect those in authority to be answerable to the rest of us. Silly me.

 

* especially an authority that is invisible and unmeasurable and well, seems rather non-existent.

[bornagainathiest]

No! No! Ravenstar... that's wrong.  

 

Everything and anything god does is A-OK... only ...because he is ALL knowing.

 

Heaven doesn't come into A1's argument.

 

God's goodness and morality are the result of his perfect foreknowledge - period.

[Ravenstar]

[mymistake]

A1, I am the all knowing God.  Give me your lunch money or else suffer the consequences of living in rebellion against me.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

A1's justification of divinely-approved genocide does not rest on any moral difference between the God and the Nazis.

Instead he argues that what justifies God is His ability to see the future - not his inherent goodness and morality.

 

"Unlike us God knows the future.  The Nazis did not, so they acted selfishly.  But with God he knew what the results would be if Israel did not completely eradicate the Amalekites."

 

This is the key point of A1's argument. 

Because the Nazis couldn't know the future - they acted selfishly. 

Their selfishness, their immorality and their evil is a direct result of their inability to know the future  So, by implication, if the Nazis had been able to see the future, they would NOT have been acting selfishly, immorally and wickedly.  Their acts of genocide would be just as moral and justifiable as God's.  Their knowledge of future events would have totally justified and excused the horrors of Auschwitz, Treblinka and Belsen.  Just as God's knowledge of the future totally justified and excused him ordering the complete eradication of the Amalekites.

 

According to A1, knowledge of the future justifies genocide.

 

Therefore, according to A1's argument - morality and goodness come from power. 

Because God is all-powerful and all-knowing and the Nazis were not, God is therefore good and moral - but the Nazis were evil and immoral.  Thus A1 successfully argues that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.  Thus there is NO moral or ethical difference between Adolf Hitler and Yahweh, the god of Israel. 

.

.

.

A1 probably didn't realize that he was making this argument... but he did make it.

.

.

.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Damn... I mean, just... Damn!  This is what happens when an upvote just isn't enough.

[midniterider]

A1's justification of divinely-approved genocide does not rest on any moral difference between the God and the Nazis.

Instead he argues that what justifies God is His ability to see the future - not his inherent goodness and morality.

 

"Unlike us God knows the future.  The Nazis did not, so they acted selfishly.  But with God he knew what the results would be if Israel did not completely eradicate the Amalekites."

 

This is the key point of A1's argument. 

Because the Nazis couldn't know the future - they acted selfishly. 

Their selfishness, their immorality and their evil is a direct result of their inability to know the future  So, by implication, if the Nazis had been able to see the future, they would NOT have been acting selfishly, immorally and wickedly.  Their acts of genocide would be just as moral and justifiable as God's.  Their knowledge of future events would have totally justified and excused the horrors of Auschwitz, Treblinka and Belsen.  Just as God's knowledge of the future totally justified and excused him ordering the complete eradication of the Amalekites.

 

According to A1, knowledge of the future justifies genocide.

 

Therefore, according to A1's argument - morality and goodness come from power. 

Because God is all-powerful and all-knowing and the Nazis were not, God is therefore good and moral - but the Nazis were evil and immoral.  Thus A1 successfully argues that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.  Thus there is NO moral or ethical difference between Adolf Hitler and Yahweh, the god of Israel. 

.

.

.

A1 probably didn't realize that he was making this argument... but he did make it.

.

.

.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So God knew ahead of time that he was going to create evil Amalekites that he would have to later kill because he is a just God. lol. God couldn't have just created nice Amalekites to begin with. And what about free will that God supposedly allows people. Genocide seems to preempt free will, doesnt it? What other Lying For Jesus do we get to hear today?