The Moral Argument

[Oncedeceived]

Here´s just one example of many:
Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
I have problems imagining that they had been attacked by those women, infants and sucklings first.
I also see a subtle difference between "slaying" and "marrying" a woman.

The Amalekites had actually attacked them repeatedly, killing their old, weak, women and infants from behind. That is why God said to destroy them, they were a nomadic people that preyed upon other people.

A subtle difference? Not sure what you are saying here.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The Amalekites had actually attacked them repeatedly, killing their old, weak, women and infants from behind. That is why God said to destroy them, they were a nomadic people that preyed upon other people.

A subtle difference? Not sure what you are saying here.

I don't believe Jericho struck first.

Ai did not strike first, but did kill some Jewish soldiers in self defense when Joshua invaded for the first time. After that failed attack, Joshua went back and killed a man who sabotaged the attack by hoarding wealth and thus angering Jehovah. For some reason, Joshua killed his family as well. Then Joshua led the army back to Ai and defeated it, as far I recall.

Let me know if either of those were provoked.

If you find that they weren't, let's see where your new goalposts are. Yes, I noticed your refusal to make a firm commitment on your moral stance.

Jericho is in Joshua 6 and Ai is in Joshua 8. Have at it. I encourage you to read the first dozen chapters to ensure you get the full context.

 

[quatona]

The Amalekites had actually attacked them repeatedly, killing their old, weak, women and infants from behind.

The Amalektite women and children and toddlers had done that?

That is why God said to destroy them, they were a nomadic people that preyed upon other people.

Yes, that´s exactly what genocide means: eradicate an entire people, no matter what the individuals had done or not done.

A subtle difference? Not sure what you are saying here.

You said they were to "marry them". The bible says they were to "slay them". Unless, in Christianspeak "marrying" and "slaying" are synonyms, there is a difference.

 

[bhsmte]

The Amalektite women and children and toddlers had done that?

Yes, that´s exactly what genocide means: eradicate an entire people, no matter what the individuals had done or not done.


You said they were to "marry them". The bible says they were to "slay them". Unless, in Christianspeak "marrying" and "slaying" are synonyms, there is a difference.

You gotta watch out for those Amalekite toddlers. Very dangerous!

 

[Davian]

What about morality for the survival of society and the common good?

I do not know what you mean. To me, that is all morality is.

Again, this presupposes that humans have an intrinsic value attached to them. What does it matter , objectively speaking, that we survive or not, or that the greater good should matter more than the individual egoistic and sometimes psychopathic good?

It doesn't matter.

And if it doesn't matter, there is no presupposition that humans have any intrinsic value (beyond what a person/family/society/population puts on them). We can theorize (evolutionary theory) that groups of social animals with a morality that works towards the common good rather than the "individual egoistic and sometimes psychopathic good" had a survival advantage over those groups that didn't.

Where do you ground that intrinsic human value in reality? Because this is what this argument is about. Not how we acquire knowledge of the good or bad but where it is rooted in reality; why it exists.

I see it as rooted in reality, based a varying mix of reason, compassion, empathy, and relative human wellness, the Silver Rule, and the social contract. It exists because that behaviour evolved with as as social animals.

What gives a human value without God? That is the problem.

I do not see a problem. Your question makes as much sense to me as "What gives a human value without Gribbg?".

So it seems to me that, in order to be coherent, you should either believe right and wrong exist and that humans have a value and that God must exist along with them; or that right and wrong don't exist and humans don't have value and God doesn't exist either.

Why can you not make a determination of right and wrong based on reason, compassion, empathy, and relative human wellness, the Silver Rule, and the social contract?

The second option really seems to suck to me. Does that make it not true, no, I didn't say that.

So it sucks. But, it still beats the alternative by a long shot (not existing at all).

But it certainly contradicts my experience of life and reality.

Indeed. And the Earth seem flat, and to hang in space while the Cosmos rotates around it. The desk on which my computer monitors rest seems to be of a solid material, and not mostly empty space.

Why should I believe that then?

I don't know. For me, it would seem a more coherent description of reality, and I want to believe as many true things as possible, and as few false things as possible.

What motivates you to be here in this forum?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't believe Jericho struck first.

Ai did not strike first, but did kill some Jewish soldiers in self defense when Joshua invaded for the first time. After that failed attack, Joshua went back and killed a man who sabotaged the attack by hoarding wealth and thus angering Jehovah. For some reason, Joshua killed his family as well. Then Joshua led the army back to Ai and defeated it, as far I recall.

Let me know if either of those were provoked.

If you find that they weren't, let's see where your new goalposts are. Yes, I noticed your refusal to make a firm commitment on your moral stance.

Jericho is in Joshua 6 and Ai is in Joshua 8. Have at it. I encourage you to read the first dozen chapters to ensure you get the full context.

Ah, you are correct. They did not attack you are correct. This one is totally God's judgement against the Canaanites. All the Canaanites behavior was very evil including child sacrifice, adultery, incest, homosexuality, bestiality and idolatry. God had given them centuries to change their behavior but they didn't and finally God passed judgement upon them and told the Jews to destroy them all including the animals due to the bestiality. God will pass judgement on a sinful and evil people. He will give a people time to repent and in fact, Jonah went to warn Nineveh and they repented and God didn't destroy them.

Now what "firm" commitment on my moral stance am I refusing?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The Amalektite women and children and toddlers had done that?

The Jews had allowed some people to survive in the case of the Amalekites and Canaanites and disaster came about from that. Later Jews started behaving like Canaanites. God had to judge against the Jews for their Canaanite behavior.

Yes, that´s exactly what genocide means: eradicate an entire people, no matter what the individuals had done or not done.

Then it isn't genocide even from your definition. They did evil. It was capital punishment from God.

You said they were to "marry them". The bible says they were to "slay them". Unless, in Christianspeak "marrying" and "slaying" are synonyms, there is a difference.

Are you talking about two different passages, I'm still not sure what you are saying here.

 

[bhsmte]

Justifying the killing of women and children.

Back away slowly.............................

 

[quatona]

Justifying the killing of women and children.

Back away slowly.............................

...and then we keep hearing "Without God everything would be permissible."

 

[quatona]

Then it isn't genocide even from your definition.

Why not? Because some survived? Then the Holocaust wasn´t genocide, either.

They did evil.

Who? The toddlers?

It was capital punishment from God.

Collective "capital punishment". :banghead:

Are you talking about two different passages, I'm still not sure what you are saying here.

IIRC when you said the Jews were to marry their victims' women you didn´t qualify a particular passage.[/QUOTE]

 

[bhsmte]

...and then we keep hearing "Without God everything would be permissible."

All goes back to; whatever God commands is good, even if it means the killing of women and children.

And hey, no matter what type of life you lead, just join the party and you will be saved. Those others who don't join the party and live lives of caring for others, they are doomed.

I can't believe I ever went along with this theology.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why not? Because some survived? Then the Holocaust wasn´t genocide, either.

My mistake, I didn't read your statement correctly. Genocide is an act willed my man against others. God is not a man, He gives life and takes life.

Who? The toddlers?

The Canaanites and the Amalekites burned their own children. They had no value for life at all. God knows whether or not the toddlers would do evil as did their parents and yet they went to heaven so it was a win for them. Most of them would have faced death at their own parents hands.

Collective "capital punishment". :banghead:

Yes, judgement. They had heard of it as well and didn't give heed to it either and they were wiped out like God said He would.

IIRC when you said the Jews were to marry their victims' women you didn´t qualify a particular passage.

Well there was both so I don't know what you are wanting me to say.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Ah, you are correct. They did not attack you are correct. This one is totally God's judgement against the Canaanites. All the Canaanites behavior was very evil including child sacrifice, adultery, incest, homosexuality, bestiality and idolatry. God had given them centuries to change their behavior but they didn't and finally God passed judgement upon them and told the Jews to destroy them all including the animals due to the bestiality. God will pass judgement on a sinful and evil people. He will give a people time to repent and in fact, Jonah went to warn Nineveh and they repented and God didn't destroy them.

Now what "firm" commitment on my moral stance am I refusing?

I asked you repeatedly to take a firm moral stance on whether or not it is OK to destroy and pillage a village that hadn't struck you first. You've now moved the goalposts, exactly as I predicted.

Why, so you can move the goalposts afterwards? That's not how this works. You have to commit to a moral stance now and then we test the Bible to see if it is compatible with what you consider to be morally correct.

As far as your justification for the war crimes ordered by God:

Do you have any actual evidence that the inhabitants of Jericho and/or Ai were engaged in these activities? Even biblical evidence? You are just giving me the company line of, "Oh those guys, yeah, they sacrificed children to idols and etc."

Do you not think that this could've been war propaganda to encourage the Jewish warriors to attack what is in truth a peaceful village doing nothing wrong other than squatting on land that had been vacant for 400 years?

Also, as you are Christian, I will help myself to the assumption that you are pro-life and that you live in America or some western nation that allows abortion. I'll help myself to the assumption that your God finds this practice to be abominable. Wouldn't it then be perfectly just if you and your entire family were slaughtered by a group of men fighting at God's behest? Or perhaps your daughters, if you have them, could be taken as war booty. This is all perfectly justified by the logic you are using.

Lastly... Jephthath sacrificed his own child. I know, I know, Jehovah did not ask for that or even want it. But if a foreigner had been observing it, wouldn't it maybe look like the Jews engage in that practice regularly? How do you know a similar situation hadn't happened with the inhabitants of Jericho/Ai, presuming, of course, that you can even provide reasonable evidence that these things occurred?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The reason why I mentioned human value wasn't an appeal to emotions; it was me being consistent with what I'm saying. If a human doesn't have a special value, then how can anything wrong or good be done to one of them?

The problem arises when one questions the scale / level of this "special".
A human is special in context of other humans, of human society.
In other words, a human is subjectively special. Not objectively.

Mars doesn't care about humans on this planet. Neither do super novae in our proximity or impacting asteroids.

It is us humans to impose this special value upon us. It's not objectively the case.

In a universe without God, morality is neutral and nonexistant.

You keep claiming this.......

If you do believe humans have an intrinsic value and that right and wrong exist, then you'll have a dilemma here.

I don't.
I don't require gods or anything like it, in order to value human life.

So, yes, it is a big problem. If they do exist, then what best explains there existence?...

The existence of humans explains the existence of human morality.
We are a social species that depends on cooperation for survival, well-being, prosperity,...

Without morals, humans society simply would not survive.

If human value is just sujbective, only developped through evolution because it permits us to get along well and survive, then it is not real and doesn't mean anything. It's that simple.

I don't see how that makes any sense.
Human morality is very real, regardless if it is imposed upon us by some god, by aliens or through evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Rape, slavery, genocide? Despite what you say about human value, you seem to believe that it is bad nonetheless.

Your god thinks slavery is ok. Your god also ordered genocide on several occasions and even engaged in it himself.

Well, according to the bible, at least.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't remember them attacking anyone first. If you do then present it.

Interjection where it wasn't requested!

Deuteronomy 20:10-15

When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. And when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. ESV​

So first God orders them to lie. Then, if they believe the lie and try to make peace with the Israelites, they only have to be slaves. If they don't believe the lie and resist, then they get murdered. Except for the women and little ones (lumped in with the animals), who are nothing more than the cities' "spoil", which the soldiers take as "plunder" (doesn't say anything about marriage).

Is there anything that the ancient Israelites won't do if God says it? Is there anything that God won't say to do? Other than worship and obey of course.

 

[Moral Orel]

Rape, slavery, genocide?

All okay in the Bible.
No law against rape in the OT. In fact, God ordered forced marriages, which lead to forced sex (rape).
No law against slavery even in the NT. In fact, God ordered forced labor to some peoples that the Israelites conquered.
No law against genocide in the OT. In fact, God ordered plenty of genocide.
So to be a Christian is to believe these morals are all subjective, not objective. It was okay for the ancient Israelites, it can be okay again if God says so, therefore it is not objectively wrong because even God doesn't think it is wrong all the time for everyone (not objectively wrong according to Christians anyways).

 

[quatona]

Genocide is an act willed my man against others.

...and it was an act willed by men against others. Unless you claim that God temporarily removed their "free will", or something. It was genocide.

God is not a man, He gives life and takes life.

...here humans were at work. It was genocide.
The summary of your argument: Committing genocide is good when God commands it.

You and I have nothing to discuss anymore.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The Amalekites had actually attacked them repeatedly, killing their old, weak, women and infants from behind. That is why God said to destroy them, they were a nomadic people that preyed upon other people.

A subtle difference? Not sure what you are saying here.

Therefor, it is okay to obliterate them all? Toddlers and babies included?
I find it amazing that people even dare to defend such practices... and on top of that, those same people dare to lecture us on morality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ah, you are correct. They did not attack you are correct. This one is totally God's judgement against the Canaanites. All the Canaanites behavior was very evil including child sacrifice, adultery, incest, homosexuality, bestiality and idolatry. God had given them centuries to change their behavior but they didn't and finally God passed judgement upon them and told the Jews to destroy them all including the animals due to the bestiality. God will pass judgement on a sinful and evil people. He will give a people time to repent and in fact, Jonah went to warn Nineveh and they repented and God didn't destroy them.

Now what "firm" commitment on my moral stance am I refusing?

Once again, defending the practice of killing toddlers and babies.