The Moral Argument

[Oncedeceived]

...and free will goes under the bus.

Because he doesn't mess with free will.

God loves contradictions, apparently.

Where in the Bible does it claim that free will is paramount and that it will never be taken from someone?

 

[Davian]

Where in the Bible does it claim that free will is paramount and that it will never be taken from someone?

Where in the Bible does is say that Christians are not to contradict themselves in internet discussion forums?

 

[bhsmte]

Where in the Bible does is say that Christians are not to contradict themselves in internet discussion forums?

You gotta love it when scramble mode gets engaged.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where in the Bible does is say that Christians are not to contradict themselves in internet discussion forums?

Show me where it is a contradiction?

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

Says who and where? These were cities far away. Who says what they were up to? If they were all part of one big Canaanite group that the Jews were out to get, then they would know who the Jews were and what they were up to with their fake peace treaty.

Jews could not force marriage

Says who and where? Jewish girls were sold by their fathers either to marriage or slavery, so why would these evil, despicable little girls get better treatment? The passage you quoted to me says that they were to be set free if the soldier didn't like them after had sex with her. It never asked whether the prisoner wanted to get married or have the solider "go into her".

It isn't hard to imagine compassion for them would grow and they would give them the choice of marriage or servitude.

It's quite hard to imagine, actually, that someone capable of stabbing a baby with a sword would develop compassion for something that he views is plunder from a war. Quite hard to imagine.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Says who and where? These were cities far away. Who says what they were up to? If they were all part of one big Canaanite group that the Jews were out to get, then they would know who the Jews were and what they were up to with their fake peace treaty.

Interestingly enough, it wasn't all the Canaanite group as you and others seem to think. There were groups of Canaanites that were not harmed at all. In some areas they were driven out from the land and in the examples we are discussing they were wiped out. There is evidence that these people really did burn their children to the false god of their choice.

There is evidence that shows this to be true.
Moloch (Masoretic מֹלֶךְ mōlek, Greek Μολώχ) is the Biblical name of a Canaanite god or possibly an ancient form of propitiatory child sacrificeby parents as sacrifice for the deity.

The name Moloch results from a dysphemic vocalisation in the Second Temple period of a theonym based on the root mlk "king" and lmlk to the king. There are a number of Canaanite gods with names based on this root, which became summarily associated with Moloch, including Biblical מַלְכָּם Malkam "great king" (KJV Milcom), specifically mentioned as a god of the Ammonites, as well as Tyrian Melqart and others. The 'sacrifice' theory is supported by thousands of clay seals stamped with lmlk from the time of King Hezekiah which indicate the term refers to a religious tithe, and the lack of any reference to a specific god named Moloch beyond the extrapolation that the biblical text is using lmlk as a name which is traditional but not supported by other materials (see below under 'Name').

Rabbinical tradition depicted Moloch as a bronze statue heated with fire into which the victims were thrown. This has been associated with reports by Greco-Roman authors on the child sacrifices in Carthage to Baal Hammon,[1] especially since archaeological excavations since the 1920s have produced evidence for child sacrifice in Carthage as well as inscriptions including the term MLK, either a theonym or a technical term associated with sacrifice. In interpretatio graeca, the Phoenician god was identified with Cronus, due to the parallel mytheme of Cronus devouring his children.

Moloch has been used figuratively in English literature from John Milton's Paradise Lost (1667) to Allen Ginsberg's "Howl" (1955), to refer to a person or thing demanding or requiring a very costly sacrifice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch

Says who and where? Jewish girls were sold by their fathers either to marriage or slavery, so why would these evil, despicable little girls get better treatment? The passage you quoted to me says that they were to be set free if the soldier didn't like them after had sex with her. It never asked whether the prisoner wanted to get married or have the solider "go into her".

1. Slavery within the Hebrew nation was an act of desperation. Some members would be put up as servants and this would last seven years. It was done when they couldn't provide enough for the family.

2. No, the Bible doesn't say anything about the women being able to chose to marry. I believe that if one was to honor a women with marriage rather than just some sex slave, it would seem improbable that they would actually force her against her will to marry. They would most likely put them to work in the household. Why not just make them all sex slaves and save themselves to marry from their own community?


It's quite hard to imagine, actually, that someone capable of stabbing a baby with a sword would develop compassion for something that he views is plunder from a war. Quite hard to imagine.[/QUOTE]Are women incapable of compassion if they abort (stabbing or suctioning out a baby) are doctors?

So do you believe that it is objectively immoral for toddlers and babies to be killed anytime, anywhere no matter, no matter what period of time it happens in?

 

[quatona]

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.

Firstly, I don´t recall making the first claim. Could you please tell me where i did?
Secondly, the two claims aren´t contradictory:
There´s always someone who commands genocide, and there´s always people who execute it.
I´m not sure why you think commanding genocide can´t be immoral. Hitler didn´t call a single Jew himself, after all. So even if I had made both statements, I wouldn´t see any goalposts moved at all.

 

[quatona]

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

So if God told you to kill a child you would do it?
It´s interesting, though, that God isn´t consistent in his attempts at preventing wrongdoing by commanding people to kill the perpetrators-in-spe when they are still toddlers, or - without harming anyone at all - or just prevents them from being born.
Is "freewill" a valid God defense or isn´t it?

 

[bhsmte]

So if God told you to kill a child you would do it?
It´s interesting, though, that God isn´t consistent in his attempts at preventing wrongdoing by commanding people to kill the perpetrators-in-spe when they are still toddlers, or - without harming anyone at all - or just prevents them from being born.
Is "freewill" a valid God defense or isn´t it?

You can only hope, these folks dont have some delusion of god telling them to wipe some people out.

 

[quatona]

So, you believe it is objectively immoral to kill toddlers and babies?

I don´t believe there´s objective morality. I am giving you my subjective human belief.
Whereas you are the one who claims that, by your allegedly superiour objective morality, killing toddlers and babies is ok.
Your moral compass is broken.

 

[quatona]

You can only hope, these folks dont have some delusion of god telling them to wipe some people out.

I´m beginning to understand where anti-theism comes from.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You can only hope, these folks dont have some delusion of god telling them to wipe some people out.

Fear mongering much?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Firstly, I don´t recall making the first claim. Could you please tell me where i did?

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your position. So you don't think it was an immoral act commanded by God?

Secondly, the two claims aren´t contradictory:
There´s always someone who commands genocide, and there´s always people who execute it.
I´m not sure why you think commanding genocide can´t be immoral. Hitler didn´t call a single Jew himself, after all. So even if I had made both statements, I wouldn´t see any goalposts moved at all.

There is a difference between God the Creator who created life vs. man who is created and has no right to take life other than in self defense. You don't see the difference?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So if God told you to kill a child you would do it?
It´s interesting, though, that God isn´t consistent in his attempts at preventing wrongdoing by commanding people to kill the perpetrators-in-spe when they are still toddlers, or - without harming anyone at all - or just prevents them from being born.
Is "freewill" a valid God defense or isn´t it?

This seems a little confusing. No, God would not ask me to do so. You have to understand the reasoning behind the Bible and not just read the words. Our directive is set in the Bible. There is no reason to believe that God would take the same actions today that He needed to take then because it is all finished. The purpose was completed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don´t believe there´s objective morality. I am giving you my subjective human belief.
Whereas you are the one who claims that, by your allegedly superiour objective morality, killing toddlers and babies is ok.
Your moral compass is broken.

Now you are misinterpreting me. I've never claimed I have superior objective morality.

If you wish to judge God and His moral character that is fine.

Now how is my moral compass broken? So why is your subjective human belief being subjective have anything to do with me and mine?

 

[Davian]

Show me where it is a contradiction?

That was in post #1120.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That was in post #1120.

Not there.

 

[quatona]

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your position.

You didn´t necessarily misrepresent my position - you put words in my mouth in order to fabricate a contradiction which wouldn´t even be there if I had said what you claimed I had said.
I am not assuming malicious intent.

So you don't think it was an immoral act commanded by God?

Don´t drive me around with random questions - just address the points, ok?

There is a difference between God the Creator who created life vs. man who is created and has no right to take life other than in self defense. You don't see the difference?

Before you move on to the next point (or add some special pleading), let´s just stay with the last one you made and which I addressed. There is no such contradiction between a command being immoral and others executing it (which is also immoral).
Concede your error, and we can move on.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You didn´t necessarily misrepresent my position - you put words in my mouth in order to fabricate a contradiction which wouldn´t even be there if I had said what you claimed I had said.
I am not assuming malicious intent.

Good because there was none.

Don´t drive me around with random questions - just address the points, ok?

Does this mean that you do not think that a mutual discussion includes questions of you as well as questions for me?

Before you move on to the next point (or add some special pleading), let´s just stay with the last one you made and which I addressed. There is no such contradiction between a command being immoral and others executing it (which is also immoral).
Concede your error, and we can move on.

Ok, so you see this as immoral and no moral reason could be behind the action, correct me if I am wrong. However, if you see it as immoral because you see no moral reason could be behind it and I see that if God is the arbitrator of life and death and created mankind and has necessary information that makes the action moral who is right? Is anyone right?

 

[quatona]

Now you are misinterpreting me. I've never claimed I have superior objective morality.

Ok, sorry. It seems like you are arguing for an allegedly objective morality. If the idea that committing genocide is good is just meant to be your subjective opinion...

If you wish to judge God and His moral character that is fine.

So far there´s only you here on the message board presenting these "moral" ideas. God didn´t show up.

Now how is my moral compass broken?

Look, I came into this discussion to correct you on your idea that genocide isn´t genocide just because it´s commanded by a God.
You know, there are some ideas that I will not dignify by even discussing them.
There is no point in doing so. You are justifying heinous atrocities - it´s noted. You and I don´t have a square inch of common ground for a meaningful conversation about morality or ethics.
I´m just glad we don´t live in a theocrazy where justifying your atrocities by pointing to an alleged command of God gives you a free pass.

So why is your subjective human belief being subjective have anything to do with me and mine?

I perceive you and your subjective ideas as a severe threat. That´s what our subjective opinions have to do with each other. (But then, I am taking comfort in the assumption that you wouldn´t actually live up to your "morality" - and that you are just talking, in order to defend an indefensible theology).