The Moral Argument

[DogmaHunter]

The Canaanites and the Amalekites burned their own children. They had no value for life at all.

Therefor, it is permissable to kill their toddlers and babies?

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.

Killing toddlers and babies thus is a good thing - they all went to heaven?

Most of them would have faced death at their own parents hands.

Their parents were killed. Better kill the toddlers and babies as well - just to be safe?

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.

The toddlers and babies heared of it and didn't comply?


There's no end to the moral bankrupsy it seems.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

I agreed that they were not provoked. No goalpost was moved, I acknowledged you were correct. That doesn't mean there was no good reason for the action.

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?

The information is coming the Bible and if you wish to judge the actions of God by way of the Bible then the Bible is the issuer of information from which that action was based. It is based on judgement against an evil people which is totally consistent with what the Bible claims. God judges the actions of people and we see that when there was even a few righteous people, HE will somehow get those people out of the judgement. Noah and his family, Rahab and Lot and his family were did no evil and so were taken out of the way before He destroyed the city.

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.

I live in the US and yes, God finds the practice abominable and other behaviors in this country as well. God could very well allow His protection from this country and many think the reason this has not happened is the majority of Christian believers and the time frame we live in. God is holding back His hand of full judgement against the evil of the world for the end days. When Jesus was crucified and rose again, that began the time of the gentiles. God knows the number of those who will become believers and He is waiting until the full number comes in and then, once they are all saved He will begin judgement.

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?

Again, God knows.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The information is coming the Bible and if you wish to judge the actions of God by way of the Bible then the Bible is the issuer of information from which that action was based. It is based on judgement against an evil people which is totally consistent with what the Bible claims. God judges the actions of people and we see that when there was even a few righteous people, HE will somehow get those people out of the judgement. Noah and his family, Rahab and Lot and his family were did no evil and so were taken out of the way before He destroyed the city.

What evil did the 2-week old babies and toddlers do?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Interjection where it wasn't requested!

Sorry?

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).

Was it a lie? In the instance you are citing they don't claim that they will go through peacefully as in other passages which when the people let them go through and they didn't touch anything or anyone going through. Peacefully here means without bloodshed. So it wasn't a lie. They were told that if the opened the gates they would not be attacked. The people knew what that entailed in that time. IF they didn't want to be taken over, which of course is understandable they could fight and with a fight comes bloodshed and woman and children without protection or a way to make a living. If you had read on, it does say marriage. Sexual intercourse without marriage was against the Jewish standards. The passage leads on and says: then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13"She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.14"It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her.

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.

We can imagine all sorts of things but that is not valid in regard to your problem with the passages.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What evil did the 2-week old babies and toddlers do?

What evil would they do if they lived? Do you know? God did.

 

[Oncedeceived]

...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.

...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.

Quatona, you are being contradictory, first you claim it was immoral of God because He commands it and then move the goalposts and claim it was an act of man so it was genocide. So which is it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Really? IF God knows that these toddlers and babies will grow up and do great harm against others, is it better to allow them into heaven and not allow them to harm others later on in their lives? If they would grow up and not do evil all God is doing is taking them early to heaven. God gives them their lives, they couldn't create themselves and it is up to Him to decide when they will receive their death. That includes you and me as well. God knows what each person will do with their lives, there are those people that might be necessary for a purpose that God feels is important and so that person will live to help that purpose along or God might determine the person's purpose is just to live and learn about Him. Ultimately, He is the arbitrator of life and death.

Do you find abortion equally repugnant? Do you feel that abortion is a women's right or do you feel it is morally wrong?

 

[bhsmte]

I wonder why god doesnt kill serial killers and rapists before they do harm, because he knows they will do harm?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What evil would they do if they lived? Do you know? God did.

Yet, Hitler apparantly was allowed to live.

I note your insistence on defending the killing of babies and toddlers.

 

[Sapiens]

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.




You keep claiming this.......




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



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.



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.

First, you say that humans have value subjectively, because we give it to ourselves and because it favors our survival of us all. Then you say that this is not objectively the case. Do we perceive it or decide it? Is it real or is not real?

Remember that what I am arguing isn't whether or not we can recognize the existence of values on our own or not, but rather their existence in the first place and why they exist. In fact, this argument assumes that you recognize some fundamental values as good or bad.

Here's a question for you: Why should humanity survive?

Objectively speaking, as I previously said, if we do not have value, then it means we are delusional to believe so, because it's not real, except in our heads. Like a psychosis is real for the psychotic. We would be conferring to ourselves a value we don't really have.

Should we value a human life and why?

I agree with you that human morality is very real, but the question is: why is it...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Really? IF God knows that these toddlers and babies will grow up and do great harm against others, is it better to allow them into heaven and not allow them to harm others later on in their lives?

So you are saying that doing evil things was part of these babies DNA?
There was no way to adopt these 2-week old babies and raise them in such a way that they would be nice little god loving creatures?

You are on serious thin ice here as well.
I once made a point on this forum that abortion, from a fundamentalist perspective, was actually doing the aborted a favor, since they would go straight to heaven and be prevented to turn into sinners that would go to hell.

Seems like you are making that exact argument now.

Your statements also puts serious question marks behind the concept of free will.

If they would grow up and not do evil all God is doing is taking them early to heaven.

How nice of him!!!
See? Brutally murdering babies and toddlers (and performing abortions) is not evil at all. No injustice is done to any of these pour little humans, because they are all playing happily in heaven!!!!

Do you find abortion equally repugnant? Do you feel that abortion is a women's right or do you feel it is morally wrong?

Well, following your logic above, performing abortions, would be doing the would-be humans a favor.....................

 

[Oncedeceived]

Therefor, it is permissable to kill their toddlers and babies?

The Canaanites didn't believe it was impermissible to kill toddlers and babies. Do you believe that they had a right to live and kill their own toddlers and babies in fires to Baal?

Killing toddlers and babies thus is a good thing - they all went to heaven?

Yes, it is if they were going to be evil and do great harm to others if they were not taken then. A short life here or an eternity where they will know no sorrow or pain. No tears will come from their eyes.

Their parents were killed. Better kill the toddlers and babies as well - just to be safe?

God knew the lives they would lead when adults and the outcome of their living. Would you rather they burn in hell for an eternity? They would grow up to do the same as their parents according to the Bible account, so they would have continued in the path their parents had taken and led the Jews into it too.

The toddlers and babies heared of it and didn't comply?

So are you claiming that it was objectively immoral to kill toddlers and babies?

There's no end to the moral bankrupsy it seems.

Do you believe then that killing toddlers and babies is objectively immoral no matter what the reason, where or who kills them? Is killing toddlers and babies an objectively immoral action universally?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yet, Hitler apparantly was allowed to live.

I note your insistence on defending the killing of babies and toddlers.

So, you believe it is objectively immoral to kill toddlers and babies? There is no justification for killing them, there is nowhere or at anytime should anyone kill toddlers and babies?

 

[DogmaHunter]

First, you say that humans have value subjectively, because we give it to ourselves and because it favors our survival of us all. Then you say that this is not objectively the case. Do we perceive it or decide it? Is it real or is not real?

It is real to us. That's kind of the thing with subjectivity.....

Remember that what I am arguing isn't whether or not we can recognize the existence of values on our own or not, but rather their existence in the first place and why they exist.

Their existence are dependend upon humans existing.
Human morality, for example, exists between the ears of humans. So does empathy.

In fact, this argument assumes that you recognize some fundamental values as good or bad.

Sure. From a human perspective though...

Here's a question for you: Why should humanity survive?

"should"?
Because we prefer life over death. Well, most of us do, anyway.

Objectively speaking, as I previously said, if we do not have value, then it means we are delusional to believe so, because it's not real, except in our heads.

I don't see how subjectivity translates to delusional.
I prefer cucumber over tomato's. That's a subjective preference. It's very real. It's not delusional. I genuinely prefer cucumber over tomato's.

This is not an objective truth. It's a subjective one.
It doesn't lose its meaning, simply because it is my subjective preference.

Like a psychosis is real for the psychotic

That's an entirely different ball game.
Psychosis is pretty much hallucination in various degrees. It has nothing to do with subjectivity vs objectivity.

We would be conferring to ourselves a value we don't really have.

Except we do really have these values, and for good reason. Well, most of us anyway.
Society would not function or survive without it.

But it is only important from a human perspective.
A gold fish doesn't care if you kill another human.

Should we value a human life and why?

Because we like to survive, and preferably as comfortably as possible.
Because we value safety and well being.

Simplisticly put: because we prefer life over death.
You don't? You don't care about wether you live or die? You don't care about wheter your loved ones live or die? Do you only care because some bronze age book tells you that you should? Or would you care anyway - even if you stop believing in the book?

I agree with you that human morality is very real, but the question is: why is it...

Because we prefer life over death.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The Canaanites didn't believe it was impermissible to kill toddlers and babies.

Neither do ISIS members.
Should we therefor kill all their women and children, no matter their ages?

Do you believe that they had a right to live and kill their own toddlers and babies in fires to Baal?

Well, apparantly you believe that people doing wicked things excuses you to brutally kill their toddlers and everything else that had "canaanite kudies" on it.

Yes, it is if they were going to be evil and do great harm to others if they were not taken then. A short life here or an eternity where they will know no sorrow or pain. No tears will come from their eyes.

Then you must be mega-pro abortion then, considering most of the aborted children will just grow up to be sinners destined for hell...

Then you must be mega-pro nuking the entire middle east and every other non-christian country, as they are all brought up believing in false god (or no gods) - at least then the babies will all go to heaven...

Think about it.....
As good as 100% of children born in Saudi Arabia or rural mountainous regions in Pakistan and Afghanistan, will all grow up to be worshipping allah instead of jawhe.

Following your logic, it would be "good" to massacre them all.

Clearly, you haven't thought these things through.........

So are you claiming that it was objectively immoral to kill toddlers and babies?

Yes, I consider the killing of toddlers and babies (and by extension, genocide) to be quite immoral, yes.

I'm horrified that you need to ask. Absolutely horrified.

 

[Moral Orel]

Was it a lie?

You believe "terms of peace" meant that the Israelites told them they would all be slaves?

As to the rape charge, first this happens:

and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

And then they can be let go. They did have sex with the soldier (forced marriage, forced sex) because they were "humbled" before they were let go here:

because you have humbled her.

It doesn't say that the captive has a choice in the matter. It says the soldier does. And let's not kid ourselves into thinking any of these young girls and "little ones" wanted to marry these soldiers. Some of them watched their fathers and brothers be sent to work camps, others watched their entire families put to the sword (even their baby brothers). The Israelites weren't seen as heroic saviors to them, they were murderers in their eyes (even if God justifies what they did).

We can imagine all sorts of things but that is not valid in regard to your problem with the passages.

Well the worst things I can imagine are things like rape, and slavery, and genocide. So if those are permissible, then what isn't?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you are saying that doing evil things was part of these babies DNA?

I'm not saying that. That would fit best in a naturalistic view but what I am saying is that God knows what these children would do in the future.

There was no way to adopt these 2-week old babies and raise them in such a way that they would be nice little god loving creatures?

God knows what these children would choose to do in the future. He would know if they would be evil or not.

You are on serious thin ice here as well.
I once made a point on this forum that abortion, from a fundamentalist perspective, was actually doing the aborted a favor, since they would go straight to heaven and be prevented to turn into sinners that would go to hell.

Seems like you are making that exact argument now.

We are not the arbitrators of life and death. We have no knowledge of what a child when grown will become. God does.

Your statements also puts serious question marks behind the concept of free will.

Perhaps, but if God were to interfere with free will in everyone at all times, free will would not exist at all.

How nice of him!!!
See? Brutally murdering babies and toddlers (and performing abortions) is not evil at all. No injustice is done to any of these pour little humans, because they are all playing happily in heaven!!!!

View attachment 172312

If the Jews did this without the command of God it would be wrong and immoral because they did not know the future of these children and they are not the arbitrators of life. Yet, it seems that you find this morally wrong. Everyone is claiming this is morally wrong, so do you believe that this action is objectively immoral?

Well, following your logic above, performing abortions, would be doing the would-be humans a favor.....................

Not according to my logic. I am telling you that we do not have the right to take life other than in self defense. We do not hold the necessary information to determine who will go on and do harm to others and to chose to do evil or if they will go on and do great good.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Neither do ISIS members.
Should we therefor kill all their women and children, no matter their ages?

No, because we do not have necessary information to determine their future.

Well, apparantly you believe that people doing wicked things excuses you to brutally kill their toddlers and everything else that had "canaanite kudies" on it.

You are misrepresenting what I have said and using an appeal to emotion. I am not the judge against the Canaanites nor anyone else. I am claiming that God is the arbitrator of life and death. He has the necessary information to make a moral decision in regard to evil and judgement against it.

Then you must be mega-pro abortion then, considering most of the aborted children will just grow up to be sinners destined for hell...

Then you must be mega-pro nuking the entire middle east and every other non-christian country, as they are all brought up believing in false god (or no gods) - at least then the babies will all go to heaven...

Think about it.....
As good as 100% of children born in Saudi Arabia or rural mountainous regions in Pakistan and Afghanistan, will all grow up to be worshipping allah instead of jawhe.

Following your logic, it would be "good" to massacre them all.

Clearly, you haven't thought these things through.........

Clearly you are misinterpreting what my position is and trying to pass judgement on me. Like I said, I do not have the necessary information to pass judgement on any people and only God possesses this information. God is the arbitrator of life and has this necessary information to make a moral judgement against evil.

Yes, I consider the killing of toddlers and babies (and by extension, genocide) to be quite immoral, yes.

I'm horrified that you need to ask. Absolutely horrified.

So do I understand you correctly that you believe abortion is equally horrifying and immoral? Do I understand you correctly that you believe that these acts are objectively immoral no matter who does it, no matter where it is done, and no matter what time period it happens in?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You believe "terms of peace" meant that the Israelites told them they would all be slaves?

As to the rape charge, first this happens:

And then they can be let go. They did have sex with the soldier (forced marriage, forced sex) because they were "humbled" before they were let go here:

It doesn't say that the captive has a choice in the matter. It says the soldier does. And let's not kid ourselves into thinking any of these young girls and "little ones" wanted to marry these soldiers. Some of them watched their fathers and brothers be sent to work camps, others watched their entire families put to the sword (even their baby brothers). The Israelites weren't seen as heroic saviors to them, they were murderers in their eyes (even if God justifies what they did).



Well the worst things I can imagine are things like rape, and slavery, and genocide. So if those are permissible, then what isn't?

They also saw their own baby brothers and sisters be placed in jars and burnt as offerings to the Canaanite god by their fathers and mothers. Jews could not force marriage, they could marry as early as a month after taking the women in but they also would be caring for these women too during this time and getting to know them. It isn't hard to imagine compassion for them would grow and they would give them the choice of marriage or servitude.

 

[Davian]

What evil would they do if they lived? Do you know? God did.

...and free will goes under the bus.

I wonder why god doesnt kill serial killers and rapists before they do harm, because he knows they will do harm?

Because he doesn't mess with free will.

God loves contradictions, apparently.