Why does God not stop the evil?

[Loudmouth]

Exactly what i'm saying. You can't logically determine that Hebrews killing anyone or anything outside of their own tribe is genocide. To do that makes the term meaningless.

2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Sam. 15:2-3)

Is that clear enough? God orders genocide, even the killing of infants who have not harmed anyone.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Exactly what i'm saying. You can't logically determine that Hebrews killing anyone or anything outside of their own tribe is genocide. To do that makes the term meaningless.

Let me make this easy for you. In Deutoronomy 2, your god orders the complete obliteration of the Amorites.

What would you call this?

 

[quatona]

Logic fail. You start with a flawed assumption (hurting others is wrong in every situation regardless) and further, this is overly simplistic.

That´s what you get when you insist that morality is absolute. Every added qualifier would render the statement relativistic.

 

[Freodin]

What is to prevent the conclusion that it is your way of thinking that is narrow? And how do such things help anything at all?

Well, I for my part have no problems assuming that the position of my opponent is correct - for the sake of the argument - and then drawing conclusions from it. I also have no problems evaluating his position without taking my own preconceived ideas into account.

The absolutists I debated with - eli included - are clearly incapable of doing so.

Logic fail. You start with a flawed assumption (hurting others is wrong in every situation regardless) and further, this is overly simplistic.

If you are going to claim to "take God into the picture," you are going to have to realize you don't know enough to be able to do what you are trying to do here. God always has surprises left for us.

Reading comprehension fail, I'm sorry.
See, I do not "start with a flawed assumption". I take into account both options (it either is wrong in every situation or it is not) and then draw the relevant conclusions.

The "flawed assumption", as you call it, is the absolutist position. That would be objective morality: the absolute truth of a moral statement that does not take into account any other circumstances beyond its own words.

Overly simplistic? Why, yes, I agree. You might have noticed that I do not adhere to the absolutist position... I am a relativist.

And that seems to be the "logic fail" that you try to attack: I have shown the objectivist position to be inconsistent. An objective moral cannot exist, or, if it existed, would have to be that specific that it becomes useless. All the morals that we use are subjective and intersubjective.

 

[Elioenai26]

So, having committed genocide, he is 'saved' and goes to heaven.

Speaking to the Christians in Corinth, many of which had been engaged in gross and wicked sin prior to hearing the gospel and accepting Christ, the Apostle Paul by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit writes:

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.11Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Bold mine.

So what is objectively wrong with genocide, if it is not going to preclude one from entering this hypothetical heaven of yours?

Do you agree that genocide is objectively wrong?

If you will answer that question in the affirmative, then I will answer your question. If not, then neither will I answer your question.

 

[Elioenai26]

Killing all Babylonians is not genocide?

Is genocide objectively wrong?

If you can say that it is your position that it is, then I will answer your question. If not, then I will not answer your question.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes, I can use it quite fine - as an expression of my subjective opinion and feeling.

I apologize for not being clear.

What I meant to say is that as a moral relativist, your relativism prohibits you from making meaningful statements regarding moral obligation. I.e. statements regarding what is right and what is wrong.

 

[Elioenai26]

That the relativist has no problems and is completely consistent in his worldview (as quatona has shown over and over again) to say that something is wrong in their subjective view (and, in extrapolation, in intersubjective views shared with others) is something that the absolutist just cannot imagine.

One who espouses a relativistic view of morality is prohibited from making meaningful statements regarding moral obligation i.e. statments regarding right and wrong.

 

[Elioenai26]

Commanding genocide is righteous and just?

Are you saying commanding genocide is wrong?

 

[Elioenai26]

So much for "objective morals".

If you are a moral relativist, which I gather you are, then your view prohibits you from making meaningful statements regarding moral obligation i.e. statements regarding whether an action is right and wrong.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Is genocide objectively wrong?

If you can say that it is your position that it is, then I will answer your question. If not, then I will not answer your question.

But you can't even consistently maintain that genocide is objectively wrong, even with your supposedly 'objective' moral framework. A bit hypocritical to demand that others call genocide objectively wrong when you can't bring yourself to do so.

 

[Elioenai26]

Describe moral nihilism, in your words, in a manner that differentiates it from moral relativism.

Moral nihilism and moral relativism are fundamentally the same. They are both illustrating that (ignoring objective ethics) moral arguments are arbitrary.

 

[Elioenai26]

But you can't even consistently maintain that genocide is objectively wrong, even with your supposedly 'objective' moral framework. A bit hypocritical to demand that others call genocide objectively wrong when you can't bring yourself to do so.

I just asked you if genocide is objectively wrong. Until you answer that, I see no reason to go any further.

 

[Elioenai26]

It's called empathy and reason. We have all the tools necessary for determing morality for ourselves without needing to read books written by men about imagined gods.

I agree. Its called a "conscience".

it is called empathy

Are you saying people should be empathetic?

 

[Elioenai26]

Elioenai believes in objective morals. That means that a moral statement like "hurting others is wrong" is either correct or false... in every concievable situation. If it is correct in a single instance, it is correct in every instance.

That is not the correct understanding of objective moral duties.

Since your understanding of objective moral duties is incorrect, the rest of your argument is incorrect or based on a strawman.

 

[Elioenai26]

stopping evil and suffering

Are you saying that people should try to stop evil and suffering?

 

[Elioenai26]

So if a person's god tells them to participate in human sacrifices then they are moral, correct?

No.

Before you were arguing that human sacrifices were immoral, but now you are making moral justifications that can be used to support human sacrifices. When your moral code is justified by "because my god says so" we see atrocities abound.

Depends on the god you are referring to.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I just asked you if genocide is objectively wrong. Until you answer that, I see no reason to go any further.

I do see a reason to go further. You want us to agree to the premise that objective moral values exist. Yet your own moral evaluations are hardly objective at all. You can't even consistently affirm that genocide is wrong. That sort of inconsistency calls into the question the 'objectivity' of the morality you insist we adhere to. It's obvious that you're desperate to sweep this problem under the rug, but it isn't going away.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Depends on the god you are referring to.

Interesting! So it is relative to the god you are referring to.

 

[Elioenai26]

I do see a reason to go further. You want us to agree to the premise that objective moral values exist.

Right now I want you to answer the question I asked you. It was quite simple I think.

Is genocide objectively wrong?