End3 Has Some Unfinished Business With The Redneck Prof.

[Guest end3]

 

Here's the scary part BAA. "If you love me you will keep my commands". Obedience leads us to morality.

 

Only if the moral authority in question demonstrates itself to be moral.

 

You would obey without reflecting on the morality of the command?

 

Isn't this just a restatement of the original question?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

No. End3.

 

You have made the claim that everything is subjective.  You then followed this claim with the claim that there is an objective morality that we should all be subject to (I don't have the same elephantine memory as BAA, but if you'd like, we could get him to provide specific references).

 

So, according to your own arguments, even if there was an objective morality, it would be perceived through your subjectivity, which means it would be untrustworthy.  Thus, whatever you say your god wants you to do, be it genocide or saving lives, you can no longer be trusted to act in an objectively moral way.

 

You have not answered the question beyond stating that whatever seemed right to you at the moment is what you would do.  This is not objective morality; this is subjective belief. 

 

Do you really want to become a better person, as you claim, or not?

[bornagainathiest]

End,

 

You are frightening me.

I find it very disturbing that you don't properly understand the nature of the questions being put to you, that you don't know at a gut level that genocide is always wrong and that you unquestioningly look to the Bible for moral guidance.

 

Immoral people are openly wicked and corrupt.

But amoral people (those who do not have a moral compass) are morally clueless and look to authority figures for moral guidance.  This is what you appear to be doing.  When asked simple and easy-to-answer, Yes/No moral questions you seem confused and unable to fathom out what is right and wrong for yourself.  So, in the absence of an inner moral code, you look to the Bible and unflinchingly stick to what it says.  

 

Even if that's divinely sanctioned genocide?

 

I wonder if you'll trot out your usual,  "We can't know" argument, which absolves you of all moral responsibility and leaves you making moral decisions on a faith-in-scripture basis?

 

Presumably you'd reject the notion that we can know enough to know good from evil?

 

That for you, the only acceptable standard is absolute knowledge, which only comes from God via the Bible?

 

That you have no extra-Biblical moral sense whatsoever to guide you?

[Guest end3]

No. End3.

 

You have made the claim that everything is subjective.  You then followed this claim with the claim that there is an objective morality that we should all be subject to (I don't have the same elephantine memory as BAA, but if you'd like, we could get him to provide specific references).

 

So, according to your own arguments, even if there was an objective morality, it would be perceived through your subjectivity, which means it would be untrustworthy.  Thus, whatever you say your god wants you to do, be it genocide or saving lives, you can no longer be trusted to act in an objectively moral way.

 

You have not answered the question beyond stating that whatever seemed right to you at the moment is what you would do.  This is not objective morality; this is subjective belief. 

 

Do you really want to become a better person, as you claim, or not?

I'm arguing/assuming that God was once present with humanity. If we are just discussing God with us as the Holy Spirit, then I do not see anything to base my objective morality on other than my subjective faith in the Bible. If we are only assuming the latter, then I'm going with choice "b", do not kill as I have never had as much certainty from God required to kill someone.

[Guest end3]

End,

 

You are frightening me.

I find it very disturbing that you don't properly understand the nature of the questions being put to you, that you don't know at a gut level that genocide is always wrong and that you unquestioningly look to the Bible for moral guidance.

 

Immoral people are openly wicked and corrupt.

But amoral people (those who do not have a moral compass) are morally clueless and look to authority figures for moral guidance.  This is what you appear to be doing.  When asked simple and easy-to-answer, Yes/No moral questions you seem confused and unable to fathom out what is right and wrong for yourself.  So, in the absence of an inner moral code, you look to the Bible and unflinchingly stick to what it says.  

 

Even if that's divinely sanctioned genocide?

 

I wonder if you'll trot out your usual,  "We can't know" argument, which absolves you of all moral responsibility and leaves you making moral decisions on a faith-in-scripture basis?

 

Presumably you'd reject the notion that we can know enough to know good from evil?

 

That for you, the only acceptable standard is absolute knowledge, which only comes from God via the Bible?

 

That you have no extra-Biblical moral sense whatsoever to guide you?

I don't think we really know what we would do put in certain situations. If the creator of the universe is telling me to off the bad guys because it is ultimately a moral outcome, I expect I would. Perhaps you are being a stickler for the def of genocide. From our previous discussions, I think science leans towards behaviors being inherent. So is it necessary to kill the whole bunch? I hope not but it may be. That's the price you pay for being a stupid shit and teaching your kids to be stupid shits. Boom, you can all be in stupid shit afterworld together...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Let me try to simplify things for you End3.  Let me try to put things into a perspective that you can (hopefully) understand.

 

Here goes:

 

The only difference, at this point, between you and Jihadi Johnnie, is:

1.)  You haven't decapitated anybody... yet

2.)  You believe in different interpretations of the same god (objective morality).

 

See how this works?  You are exactly the same as a terrorist; except that so far you haven't acted upon your beliefs.  Some might argue it's because you aren't a true believer; others might claim that you simply lack faith.  I argue that deep down inside of you, you know that there is an objective reality outside of your subjective beliefs and you just don't want to have to admit it to yourself (or to us) and that is exactly the reason you ran away last time.

 

Tell me I'm wrong (and be willing to admit that you'd rather commit genocide than live peacefully with your fellow humans).

[Guest end3]

Let me try to simplify things for you End3.  Let me try to put things into a perspective that you can (hopefully) understand.

 

Here goes:

 

The only difference, at this point, between you and Jihadi Johnnie, is:

1.)  You haven't decapitated anybody... yet

2.)  You believe in different interpretations of the same god (objective morality).

 

See how this works?  You are exactly the same as a terrorist; except that so far you haven't acted upon your beliefs.  Some might argue it's because you aren't a true believer; others might claim that you simply lack faith.  I argue that deep down inside of you, you know that there is an objective reality outside of your subjective beliefs and you just don't want to have to admit it to yourself (or to us) and that is exactly the reason you ran away last time.

 

Tell me I'm wrong (and be willing to admit that you'd rather commit genocide than live peacefully with your fellow humans).

Look, I made myself clear. I will not kill on my faith alone. But, if Jihad Johnboy and their buddies come to my part of the world to reek havoc, yes I will. Yes I will, yes I will, yes I will.

 

Certainly I would rather people eat barbque and drink beer together or whatever their culture allows as peace and prosperity, but that is not what is happening. If you are in the crowd of let's know them and to each his own, I am too to a certain point. They have crossed that certain point with me.

 

Ok, I think we have concluded the "unfinished business" with the Prof if I am not mistaken.

 

Blessings as always...

[mymistake]

 

Look, I made myself clear. I will not kill on my faith alone. But, if Jihad Johnboy and their buddies come to my part of the world to reek havoc, yes I will. Yes I will, yes I will, yes I will.

 

Certainly I would rather people eat barbque and drink beer together or whatever their culture allows as peace and prosperity, but that is not what is happening. If you are in the crowd of let's know them and to each his own, I am too to a certain point. They have crossed that certain point with me.

 

Ok, I think we have concluded the "unfinished business" with the Prof if I am not mistaken.

 

Blessings as always...

 

 

On page 1 you made it clear that you would kill on faith alone.  You don't seem to get that Jihad Johnboy is you.  You are in your part of the world.  You are you.  Wherever you go there you are.

 

Your conclusion that God would be moral is not justified because it is something you need to prove but instead you simply assumed.  It is a fallacy to assume what you need to prove.

 

 

 

 

Back when I was 22 years old I was at the height of my Christian fundamentalism and I was brainwashed just as bad.  By that I mean I had convinced myself that I would do anything to obey God.  

 

It's a terrible way to live.  I really hope you rethink this before the day comes when your faith is put to the test.  If 9-11 had happened ten years earlier I probably would have signed up in the Army 

 

in order to fight Gods' holy war.  And I would have thought that Iraq/Afghanistan was Armageddon.  I'm so glad I'm not brainwashed in that cult anymore.  I hope you get your thinking right too. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

End,

 

You are frightening me.

I find it very disturbing that you don't properly understand the nature of the questions being put to you, that you don't know at a gut level that genocide is always wrong and that you unquestioningly look to the Bible for moral guidance.

 

Immoral people are openly wicked and corrupt.

But amoral people (those who do not have a moral compass) are morally clueless and look to authority figures for moral guidance.  This is what you appear to be doing.  When asked simple and easy-to-answer, Yes/No moral questions you seem confused and unable to fathom out what is right and wrong for yourself.  So, in the absence of an inner moral code, you look to the Bible and unflinchingly stick to what it says.  

 

Even if that's divinely sanctioned genocide?

 

I wonder if you'll trot out your usual,  "We can't know" argument, which absolves you of all moral responsibility and leaves you making moral decisions on a faith-in-scripture basis?

 

Presumably you'd reject the notion that we can know enough to know good from evil?

 

That for you, the only acceptable standard is absolute knowledge, which only comes from God via the Bible?

 

That you have no extra-Biblical moral sense whatsoever to guide you?

I don't think we really know what we would do put in certain situations. If the creator of the universe is telling me to off the bad guys because it is ultimately a moral outcome, I expect I would.

 

This is what I find so shocking and disturbing, End.

That you cannot seem to recognize that genocide is always wrong.

That you cannot find anything within yourself that rejects the idea of killing men, women and children.

That if God told you that a certain group of people were irredeemably evil and must be killed, you'd willingly obey his order.

 

Perhaps you are being a stickler for the def of genocide. From our previous discussions, I think science leans towards behaviors being inherent. So is it necessary to kill the whole bunch? I hope not but it may be. That's the price you pay for being a stupid shit and teaching your kids to be stupid shits. Boom, you can all be in stupid shit afterworld together...

 

 

Amoral people have looked to authority figures for moral guidance throughout history.

Not having a moral compass of their own they gladly embrace what others tell them is right and true and moral.  

But there's a terrible catch! 

 

These amoral people are unable to question the morality of the authority they are slavishly following.  

After all, if they can't see for themselves when something is immoral, how can you possibly recognize an immoral command when it's given to them?  

.

.

.

End, can you recognize that God's command to kill every Amalekite man, woman and child is... immoral?

.

.

.

If you can't, then I'm afraid for you.  Very, very afraid.

[mymistake]

 

 

I don't think we really know what we would do put in certain situations. If the creator of the universe is telling me to off the bad guys because it is ultimately a moral outcome, I expect I would. Perhaps you are being a stickler for the def of genocide. From our previous discussions, I think science leans towards behaviors being inherent. So is it necessary to kill the whole bunch? I hope not but it may be. That's the price you pay for being a stupid shit and teaching your kids to be stupid shits. Boom, you can all be in stupid shit afterworld together...

 

 

See that part I put in blue?  That means you will murder (not just kill but murder) on faith alone.  Words have meaning.

 

We are not being sticklers on the meaning of genocide.  Rather you have lost yourself in moral relativism.

 

Remember I don't have to hold the Biblical patriots who commited genocide (in the story) as my heroes or as righteous.

[gall]

Here's the scary part BAA. "If you love me you will keep my commands". Obedience leads us to morality.

 

 

hope not serious such a load of shit...

 

Morality has nothing to do with obedience. I doubt if morality is even real. It changes based on perception so how valuable can it really be? Now if you want to talk about ethics I say have at thee.

 

Short of that this statement is about as valid as eating monkey poop.

[Guest end3]

 

Here's the scary part BAA. "If you love me you will keep my commands". Obedience leads us to morality.

 

 

hope not serious such a load of shit...

 

Morality has nothing to do with obedience. I doubt if morality is even real. It changes based on perception so how valuable can it really be? Now if you want to talk about ethics I say have at thee.

 

Short of that this statement is about as valid as eating monkey poop.

 

Your point is there are meandering ethical standards vs. something fixed? Obedience is necessary to both IMO.

[Guest end3]

 

I don't think we really know what we would do put in certain situations. If the creator of the universe is telling me to off the bad guys because it is ultimately a moral outcome, I expect I would. Perhaps you are being a stickler for the def of genocide. From our previous discussions, I think science leans towards behaviors being inherent. So is it necessary to kill the whole bunch? I hope not but it may be. That's the price you pay for being a stupid shit and teaching your kids to be stupid shits. Boom, you can all be in stupid shit afterworld together...

 

See that part I put in blue?  That means you will murder (not just kill but murder) on faith alone.  Words have meaning.

 

We are not being sticklers on the meaning of genocide.  Rather you have lost yourself in moral relativism.

 

Remember I don't have to hold the Biblical patriots who commited genocide (in the story) as my heroes or as righteous.

 

You fail to comprehend the details MM. Try again. Moral relativism...ha.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So, End3, why do you think it is that we cannot sit down and eat barbecue and drink beer with Jihadi Johnnie and his cronies?  Why do you think there is so much division between Jew, Gentile, and Muslim?  Is it because our blood is red and theirs is not?  Is it because our hearts beat and theirs do not?  Is it really down to skin color?

 

Or do you think maybe, just maybe, it is that subjective reality (faith) separates us?  This is what you and ISIS have in common--faith.  This is why you, and they, would be willing to kill for nothing more than the idea that one imaginary friend is better than the other.

 

There IS no objective reality that would command genocide; ONLY subjective perception (faith) would compel such atrocity. 

 

So, in the end, if you admit that you would be willing to kill for your faith (and MM has already pointed out that you have), then, at best, you are no better than the very people you hate and would commit genocide against.

 

Are you certain our business is finished?

[mymistake]

 

 

I don't think we really know what we would do put in certain situations. If the creator of the universe is telling me to off the bad guys because it is ultimately a moral outcome, I expect I would. Perhaps you are being a stickler for the def of genocide. From our previous discussions, I think science leans towards behaviors being inherent. So is it necessary to kill the whole bunch? I hope not but it may be. That's the price you pay for being a stupid shit and teaching your kids to be stupid shits. Boom, you can all be in stupid shit afterworld together...

 

See that part I put in blue?  That means you will murder (not just kill but murder) on faith alone.  Words have meaning.

 

We are not being sticklers on the meaning of genocide.  Rather you have lost yourself in moral relativism.

 

Remember I don't have to hold the Biblical patriots who commited genocide (in the story) as my heroes or as righteous.

 

You fail to comprehend the details MM. 

 

 

Wrong.  There is no detail you can cite that will change the result.  There is nothing that makes genocide good.  If your God commands genocide then you will murder.  

 

 

Edit:

I just wanted to add that End I hope one day you grow enough that you think you would be able to stand up to God and tell him that some things are wrong - that there are some things you won't do.

[Guest end3]

So, End3, why do you think it is that we cannot sit down and eat barbecue and drink beer with Jihadi Johnnie and his cronies?  Why do you think there is so much division between Jew, Gentile, and Muslim?  Is it because our blood is red and theirs is not?  Is it because our hearts beat and theirs do not?  Is it really down to skin color?

 

Or do you think maybe, just maybe, it is that subjective reality (faith) separates us?  This is what you and ISIS have in common--faith.  This is why you, and they, would be willing to kill for nothing more than the idea that one imaginary friend is better than the other.

 

There IS no objective reality that would command genocide; ONLY subjective perception (faith) would compel such atrocity. 

 

So, in the end, if you admit that you would be willing to kill for your faith (and MM has already pointed out that you have), then, at best, you are no better than the very people you hate and would commit genocide against.

 

Are you certain our business is finished?

Don't know why you feel a need to twist what I am saying. I agree there is no objective reality that would command genocide and that my faith is subjective. I am attempting to convey that if THERE WERE the objective reality of God and He were next to me that I darn sure might do what He commands. But as of now, I have faith in that He says He will exact justice. My faith is not in taking the Spirit and becoming a human bomb, a murderer, like the jihadists.

 

I'm sure you or MM or BAA will spin it again.

[mymistake]

I did not spin anything End.  Those were your very words.  Not my fault if you use words but you pretend they mean something other than what your words mean.

 

 

 

I am attempting to convey that if THERE WERE the objective reality of God and He were next to me that I darn sure might do what He commands.

 

And that was in the context of God commanding genocide just like the Bible portrays in the Old Testament.  The way out of this trap is to realize that thank goodness that there is no God.  If THERE WERE then you would be up a creek without a paddle.  Isn't it wonderful that you don't have to be a murderer?

 

No spin.

 

 

 

 

(edited for clarity)

[bornagainathiest]

No, I'm already too scared to stick around End.

 

Too scared of your potential willingness to kill real people at the command of an invisible authority.

 

That scares the living **** out of me... and so I'm gone!

[Fweethawt]

I read this thread about an hour ago prior to posting this. Then, it occurred to me that End3 really is no different than members of ISIS or Al Queda.

 

Then I returned only to find that the Professor already arrived at this conclusion...

 

I am sad...

 

I'd hoped to have something to contribute here.

 

*sniffle*

 

 

It really does seem like the more we get to "Know" End3 through His "Grace" that he shows to us, the more of a complete piece of sub-human trash he appears to be.

[Guest end3]

I did not spin anything End.  Those were your very words.  Not my fault if you use words but you pretend they mean something other than what your words mean.

 

 

 

 

I am attempting to convey that if THERE WERE the objective reality of God and He were next to me that I darn sure might do what He commands.

 

And that was in the context of God commanding genocide just like the Bible portrays in the Old Testament.  The way out of this trap is to realize that thank goodness that there is no God.  If THERE WERE then you would be up a creek without a paddle.  Isn't it wonderful that you don't have to be a murderer?

 

No spin.

 

 

 

 

(edited for clarity)

 

No, that's just your only way to reconcile this. The story is consistent but you are unwilling to accept that. Every time you get threatened you turn to "it's all make believe" rather than thinking through how it fits or doesn't. You do this regularly.

[mymistake]

 

No, that's just your only way to reconcile this. The story is consistent but you are unwilling to accept that. Every time you get threatened you turn to "it's all make believe" rather than thinking through how it fits or doesn't. You do this regularly.

 

 

 

 

 

I never get threatened by your beliefs.  I never get threatened by my old beliefs.  I never get threatened by anybody's belief.  It's never.

 

If you think you can reconcile this without you being a murderer waiting for God's orders then you can explain yourself at any time.  Go ahead.

 

Show us all how you are right and I am wrong.  Go on.

[bornagainathiest]

Back again, having noticed three things about this thread.

 

1.

Without any kind of prior agreement and based only his replies, six members of this forum have separately arrived at (more or less) the same conclusion about End3's morality.  I find that significant.  

.

.

.

2.

I missed this.  End answered my question with a question and I failed to respond to him with an answer.  I'm fixing that oversight now.

 

Posted Today, 12:57 PM

bornagainathiest, on 03 Mar 2015 - 5:31 PM, said:

 

end3, on 03 Mar 2015 - 4:17 PM, said:

Here's the scary part BAA. "If you love me you will keep my commands". Obedience leads us to morality.

 
Only if the moral authority in question demonstrates itself to be moral.
 You would obey without reflecting on the morality of the command?

 

Isn't this just a restatement of the original question? 

 

My answer is No, it's not a restatement.

The RNP asked you to say which of two options was the more moral, after having reflected upon their morality.  My question concerns your thinking before you make that choice.  

 

End, would you obey God's command to commit genocide without questioning the morality of such a command?

(Please note that this is an easy-to-answer, Yes/No query that requires a single word response from you.  Thanks.)

.

.

.

3. Lastly, I noticed that End3 had completely skipped over post # 34, which contained two vital questions I'd like him to answer.

 

How does an amoral person recognize the morality/immorality of a command they are given?

 

Can End3 recognize that God's command to kill every Amalekite man, woman and child is immoral?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[Guest end3]

 

No, that's just your only way to reconcile this. The story is consistent but you are unwilling to accept that. Every time you get threatened you turn to "it's all make believe" rather than thinking through how it fits or doesn't. You do this regularly.

 

 

 

 

I never get threatened by your beliefs.  I never get threatened by my old beliefs.  I never get threatened by anybody's belief.  It's never.

 

If you think you can reconcile this without you being a murderer waiting for God's orders then you can explain yourself at any time.  Go ahead.

 

Show us all how you are right and I am wrong.  Go on.

 

No, you may have your safety.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

To begin with, End3, you are simply being dishonest (or conveniently forgetful).  You DID say in the thread that is now locked (Subjective Morality...) that there WAS an Objective Morality and that we should all be subjected to it.  In that context, you meant that said Objective Morality was god.  You can be honest and admit that or I can pull a BAA and go back and find the scripture and verse in which you said it.  Nonetheless, now you are trying to throw the word "if" into the equation as though it had been there all along; as in "if" there was an Objective Morality (god) and "if" that Objective Morality (god) were standing next to me and "if" that Objective Morality (god) said "Kill all the Jews"... then, and only then, would you do it... but in the meantime, you're just content to have subjective faith that your Objective Morality (god) is objectively moral.

 

Secondly, I don't think the word "spin" means what you think it means in the context in which you used it.  According to the Israelites, god (objective morality) was standing right there telling them to commit genocide.  According to the writings of Hitler, god (objective morality) had told him to annihilate the Jews.  According to the boys who flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center, allah had commanded them to kill infidels, and more specifically, Americans.  For you to make the statement that you would, without reservation, do as your Objective Morality commanded is no different from the ancient Israelites, the Nazis, the jihadists, or ISIS. 

 

Nobody is spinning your words but you.

 

All that notwithstanding, the point I'm trying to get you to realize is that objective morality does not require subjective faith.  It requires objectivity, which is why it is called "objective" morality.  Granted, different situations may require different responses, but genocide is never going to be one of them for one who is objectively moral.

 

You simply cannot say that you have no intentions of becoming a mass murderer so long as you are willing to blindly follow the "objective morality" (god) through your "subjective perceptions" (faith); because you have no way of knowing from one day to the next what your "objective morality" might command you to do.

[mymistake]

End you won't demonstrate because you cannot.  You know I am right.  You may not want to admit it but you can't demonstrate anything different.

 

God ordering genocide in the Bible was evil.  No circumstances can change that.  You know you will lose if you try so you do not try.