Why does God not stop the evil?

[Loudmouth]

No, I'm saying the instances you cite are continually done for purposes other than what you accuse. It is the PURPOSE that is the point of the story, which you would rather gloss over, making it meaningless.

Immoral acts can still provide a purpose. The purpose of the Holocaust was to exterminate the Jews because they were part of a conspiracy to oppress the Aryan people. The purpose of killing those they saw as unfit was to improve the Aryan people. It was still immoral even if it had a purpose.

What we all agree is immoral you would claim is made moral by simply attaching the phrase "because God says so" at the end of it.

 

[seeking Christ]

What we all agree is immoral you would claim is made moral by simply attaching the phrase "because God says so" at the end of it.

If you're going to ignore what the other person says and repeat your script ad nauseum that's not a conversation.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you're going to ignore what the other person says and repeat your script ad nauseum that's not a conversation.

Then why did you ignore my question asking if it was moral and immoral, and instead start talking about purposes?

 

[seeking Christ]

You are acting on the false assumption that God ordered murder based on who people were, (race, etc) and before any of this can possibly make any sense to you you need to see the PURPOSE.

Which ironically enough is "stopping the evil."

This much may or may not be clear to you from your own examples you used to try to make your point, but you must at least concede it was not done for the purpose of eliminating a race?

 

[Tiberius]

Elioenai, you responded to my answer to your situation about Tim and Dave by asking me if you could ask another question. I said yes, but I'm still waiting on the question...

 

[seeking Christ]

Elioenai, you responded to my answer to your situation about Tim and Dave

I can't keep track of if it was you or not, but someone had stated that in the OP's hypothetical Dave killed Tim because Tim was an atheist. Without looking, I don't think that's the reason the OP gave for it. This becomes revealing ...

 

[Tiberius]

I can't keep track of if it was you or not, but someone had stated that in the OP's hypothetical Dave killed Tim because Tim was an atheist. Without looking, I don't think that's the reason the OP gave for it. This becomes revealing ...

No worries.

That person wasn't me. Elio asked, "Do you think it is wrong for Tim to kill Dave because Dave is an atheist and Tim does not like atheists?" This was post 576.

The very next post, I said, yes and gave my reasons (Tim is forcing something on Dave that Dave doesn't want. I also mentioned that such forcing is wrong, unless it is for the greater good.) In post 581, Elio replied to this post, asking only if he could ask me another question. That was the last conversation I had with Elio about this.

A few posts after my response to Elio's original question, you asked me if there was ever a situation where Tim killing Dave could be for the greater good. Post 580.

There were at least two replies. Elio himself replied with the terrorist/sniper situation in post 582. I replied in post 585 with a similar situation where Dave is about to kill a child, blow up a plane, or suffering without hope of recovery.

Hope that clears it up.

 

[Elioenai26]

Elioenai, you responded to my answer to your situation about Tim and Dave by asking me if you could ask another question. I said yes, but I'm still waiting on the question...

You said yes to my question, and then gave your reasons. All of those reasons I agree with.

The question I want to ask you, and I need you to understand clearly what I am asking. It is simple. The question is this:

Tim is an atheist
Dave is a Militant Muslim.

These are two contrary or opposing views.

Now,

Is it wrong for Dave to rape Tim, even though it is Dave's opinion/preference/view/desire/conviction that he is right in raping atheists?

If you say yes Elioenai26 Dave is wrong, then this is the same exact thing as saying that Dave is objectively wrong. For objective simply means in this context: "independent/not dependent on/regardless of human opinion (Dave's opinion)."

If you say that Dave is objectively wrong then you affirm that there is at least one objective moral duty that exists. It is this: "Raping a person(s) because they do not believe in God is wrong." It being an objective moral duty simply means that it is wrong to do this EVEN IF the rapist's OPINION is that it is right.

 

[seeking Christ]

Elio asked, "Do you think it is wrong for Tim to kill Dave because Dave is an atheist and Tim does not like atheists?" This was post 576.

Wow, I don't know how you do it. Should we elect you official historian?

We all have our filters. I have never known anyone to have such dislike for atheists that they would even wish harm on them, let alone act on it, even as minor as a practical joke.

A few posts after my response to Elio's original question, you asked me if there was ever a situation where Tim killing Dave could be for the greater good. Post 580.

Yeah but since I goofed on the context my question then became unintentionally loaded

And yet looking at your answers, you both gave situations where Tim killing Dave would be "stopping the evil." Hm. There seems to be a pattern emerging ...

 

[Tiberius]

And yet looking at your answers, you both gave situations where Tim killing Dave would be "stopping the evil." Hm. There seems to be a pattern emerging ...

Is it so surprising that people's subjective morality can come to the same conclusion?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, I'm saying the instances you cite are continually done for purposes other than what you accuse. It is the PURPOSE that is the point of the story, which you would rather gloss over, making it meaningless.

And what would be the purpose of a story about genocide?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And you have perfectly described the question begging attitude that ethical subjectivists maintain. Its the same as saying, "a subjectivist approach to morality is best because morality is a subjective concept!!"

You cannot argue that objective moral values and duties do not exist because morality is subjective, and then when asked why you believe moral values and duties are subjective say: "because morality is subjective!"

Mark Mar Mark, do you not see this is question begging? In order for you to argue in favor of ethical subjectivism, the burden of proof is on you to provide good premises for it. Saying : "ethical subjectivism is the preferable meta-ethic because morality is subjective does not count as a premise because it begs the question. This is basic undergraduate philosophy.

In fact Mark, if you will notice, moral objectivism is so obviously true, I have no need of even utilizing an argument to prove it.

So in summary, subjectivists are expected to argue for their case, but you are immune from that requirement.

 

[seeking Christ]

Is it so surprising that people's subjective morality can come to the same conclusion?

And what would be the purpose of a story about genocide?

Since the reply to both is so similar, I'll address both by pointing to the thread title: God stopping the evil. That's the purpose of Biblical stories only later termed "genocide," and the pattern emerging that Tiberius is referring to.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Since the reply to both is so similar, I'll address both by pointing to the thread title: God stopping the evil. That's the purpose of Biblical stories only later termed "genocide," and the pattern emerging that Tiberius is referring to.

That only creates more problems than it solves. What evil did the children do that God so urgently needed to stop by commanding their destruction?

 

[seeking Christ]

That only creates more problems than it solves.

Finally, something we can agree on! I knew it had to happen sooner or later

What evil did the children do that God so urgently needed to stop by commanding their destruction?

That's a rather broad question, and needs specific examples to be addressed. So far we still need to back up and get Loudmouth to actually read the text(s) he has cited, to see what it has to say about what was going on. I've made it easy for him, but still no response.

Maybe you'd like to address it? One step at a time.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You said yes to my question, and then gave your reasons. All of those reasons I agree with.

The question I want to ask you, and I need you to understand clearly what I am asking. It is simple. The question is this:

Tim is an atheist
Dave is a Militant Muslim.

These are two contrary or opposing views.

Now,

Is it wrong for Dave to rape Tim, even though it is Dave's opinion/preference/view/desire/conviction that he is right in raping atheists?

If you say yes Elioenai26 Dave is wrong, then this is the same exact thing as saying that Dave is objectively wrong. For objective simply means in this context: "independent/not dependent on/regardless of human opinion (Dave's opinion)."

If you say that Dave is objectively wrong then you affirm that there is at least one objective moral duty that exists. It is this: "Raping a person(s) because they do not believe in God is wrong." It being an objective moral duty simply means that it is wrong to do this EVEN IF the rapist's OPINION is that it is right.

That doesn't display objectivity. The view it is wrong is dependent on the opinions of Tim, and the rest of society, who would agree with Tim based on very good reasoning by methods I've described to you before.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Since the reply to both is so similar, I'll address both by pointing to the thread title: God stopping the evil. That's the purpose of Biblical stories only later termed "genocide," and the pattern emerging that Tiberius is referring to.

And why do you figure an all-powerful, all moral being would resort to a heinously immoral act like genocide to stop the evil?

Not to mention, if those people have the free will I hear so much about, then isn't the genocide an act that violates their free will? What good is free will, if exercising that free will is going to get you, and your city slaughtered?

One would assume a loving moral being would find a non-violent way to resolve the problem. Surely, an all powerful being must have the ability to do that.

 

[Freodin]

Freodin thinks the Holocaust was good for Germany. He gave his reasons. So this destroys your statement that "we all unanimously agree that the holocaust was a moral travesty."

So much for my request of "consider that carefully".

You haven't even tried to answer my question, instead misrepresenting (in a quite insulting way) my position. Is that the way a moral person acts?

Let me repeat my question: You have already stated that the extermination of a danger is morally right. Why would it not be right in the case of the Final Solution?

I do have an answer to that question. I would like to see if you, in your "objective, absolute" worldview, can come up with one.

Secondly, even if every gentile on the earth all unanimously agreed that the holocaust was good for Germany, that does not make the holocaust good.

You keep asserting that. You keep claiming that you are here to "demonstrate" that. When will you start to do so?

What meta-ethic do you adhere to?

Mostly a moral relativist position. It could very roughly be described as consequentialist / utilitarist, but I found that these systems do not correctly describe my position.

 

[seeking Christ]

And why do you figure an all-powerful, all moral being would resort to a heinously immoral act like genocide to stop the evil?

Quite the strawman there.

Not to mention, if those people have the free will I hear so much about, then isn't the genocide an act that violates their free will?

No sir. Everyone dies. No one wants to. Our dominion ends at death. Do you know how you can tell?

Dead people can't do anything.

This is really basic stuff. I'm surprised you need me to explain this to you.

What good is free will, if exercising that free will is going to get you, and your city slaughtered?

Free will isn't what got you slaughtered. Neither is the color of your skin. How many more ridiculous assumptions will we see before anyone is willing to look at what is right before your face?

One would assume a loving moral being would find a non-violent way to resolve the problem.

There seems to be a problematic word there, indicative of stinkin thinkin. Can you guess which one it might be?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Quite the strawman there.



No sir. Everyone dies. No one wants to. Our dominion ends at death. Do you know how you can tell?

Dead people can't do anything.

This is really basic stuff. I'm surprised you need me to explain this to you.



Free will isn't what got you slaughtered. Neither is the color of your skin. How many more ridiculous assumptions will we see before anyone is willing to look at what is right before your face?



There seems to be a problematic word there, indicative of stinkin thinkin. Can you guess which one it might be?

You do recognise that you haven't actually answered any questions? Like my question regarding the command to kill even the children?