The Moral Argument

[Oncedeceived]

Right, us nuking two major metropolitan centers and blowing up hundreds of thousands of non-combatants was a terrorist attack. That's who you're talking about right? Because I didn't see anything in the definition of terrorism that you gave that mentioned sneak attacks or being the aggressor in a war.

It wasn't a war for the US. So I guess we agree to disagree.

 

[Moral Orel]

They identified members by the attacks that they leveled against them. It had nothing to do with their race, political affiliations (obviously) nor culture but that they had attacked them.

This is false. They were attacked by members of this group, fine, I'll take that as a given. They lumped in the toddlers and babies that did not attack them by identifying them by their race/culture.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is false. They were attacked by members of this group, fine, I'll take that as a given. They lumped in the toddlers and babies that did not attack them by identifying them by their race/culture.

They identified them as being present among those that attacked and killed their toddlers and babies.

 

[Moral Orel]

It wasn't a war for the US. So I guess we agree to disagree.

Let me ask you this. Do you believe it is possible for the "good guy" in a fight to commit an act of terrorism or to commit genocide? We can be done discussing this specific argument, but I'm starting to get a picture of how you define these words and it's starting to look like it isn't terrorism or genocide if you're on the side of good. Is that what you're getting at?

 

[Moral Orel]

They identified them as being present among those that attacked and killed their toddlers and babies.

EDIT: Retracted. I misunderstood you and hastily replied, my apologies.

 

[Oncedeceived]

EDIT: Retracted. I misunderstood you and hastily replied, my apologies.

I didn't see it so your are in the clear.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Let me ask you this. Do you believe it is possible for the "good guy" in a fight to commit an act of terrorism or to commit genocide? We can be done discussing this specific argument, but I'm starting to get a picture of how you define these words and it's starting to look like it isn't terrorism or genocide if you're on the side of good. Is that what you're getting at?

Terrorism to me is unprovoked violence against innocents, so I don't think so. I don't believe as humans the good guy in a fight commits genocide.

 

[bhsmte]

When all else fails, preach.

Security blanket.

 

[Moral Orel]

Terrorism to me is unprovoked violence against innocents, so I don't think so. I don't believe as humans the good guy in a fight commits genocide.

Okay, then you disagree on the definitions of the words "terrorism" and the word "genocide" as provided by the law and by the dictionary. If we were to use just the definition of genocide and non-combatant I provided from the dictionary, and the definition of terrorism that you provided from the government, and only the use of those definitions (not your definitions), are the acts we are talking about terrorism and genocide?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Anything God commands is good, no matter what finite, fallen, sinful men who deny His very existence may say.

Are you trying to convince us or yourself?

 

[Moral Orel]

It wasn't a war for the US.

US declares war on Japan

 

[Davian]

There was a man once. He had a beloved son. Ever since the son's childhood, an unclean spirit would torment the son, causing him pain and bodily injury. The father took his son to some of Jesus' disciples to cast the unclean spirit out but they were not able. Then Jesus showed up and things changed. The man said to Jesus, "if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us." Jesus replied, "'If you can’! All things are possible for one who believes." Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, "I believe; help my unbelief!"

It is when what we love most is in danger of being taken from us that we then move to seek out help to prevent the loss of this treasure which is most precious to us. If we ever reach this point in life, it is due to a work of providence, a work of the grace of God. Once reached, we look for consolation in others first. The man went to the disciples. Only when the arm of flesh had failed him, did he turn to Jesus. Arriving at a place of total disillusionment in the abilities of man to save is another work of grace. A most blessed and pure gift. Jesus asks the man how long his son had been under the influence of the unclean spirit. "From childhood", came the reply. The man has borne the threat of losing his son for so long, that he is compelled to shamelessly ask Jesus for help all the while knowing that he still harbors unbelief in his heart. He wants so bad for his son to be set free that he lays it all on the table before Jesus and asks Jesus to help him where he needs it most. He needs help with his unbelief and has finally come to the place where he no longer has his reputation, or his pride, or the opinions of man foremost in his mind. He just wants his son to be well. He wants that which he treasures most in life to be saved. He comes to Jesus with nothing to offer but weakness, fear, and trembling and a confession of unbelief, but does not stop there. He wants to change. He wants to believe. He wants no longer to live in fear of the future. He wants to be changed, he wants to be helped, and has finally come to the place where he can truly be helped.

Jesus heals his son that very day.

We hear nothing more about the man. The encounter took all of maybe a couple of minutes. But his life was changed forever because of that encounter he had with Jesus.

An alleged encounter. I do not see how that addresses my question.

You ask me how do you surrender.

No, that is not what I asked you.

It is not something you can do on your own. Surrender is the fruit of a work that God works in a man's heart. Without that prevenient grace, that prevenient drawing, without that anguish of soul and that utter desolation and despair present in the heart, one's heart can never despair of ever being fulfilled and satisfied by anything the world has to offer. It will always look to "the disciples". It will always look to created things, whether they be people, substances, possessions, etc.

So actually what you are asking me is, "How do I become desolate, how do I become so despairing of all that the world has to offer, how do I become debased and shamelessly honest about my utter helplessness and hopelessness that I run to Jesus and ask Him for help?"

No, that is not what I asked you.

Me personally, it took me sitting alone in a prison cell late one night and early into the morning. It took me taking an inventory of my life, my choices, my actions, the people I had hurt. It took me owning up to all of it. Laying it all out on the table. It took me coming to a place where I could no longer run, or put it off, or file it away in the back of my mind. I wanted to think about it. I wanted to atone for my sins. But they were so great. I knew I could never make it all right. And then I thought of all the people that were in similar situations as mine that met Jesus in the gospels. I had no hope in myself any longer. So I asked Jesus to have mercy on me, a sinner.

That moment, I was born again.

If you are not going to directly answer the question, or keep with the topic of the thread, this came to mind, paraphrased from a post I made in a different thread:

Granting for a moment the existence of a god that is able to provide this religious experience that you speak of;

We observe two individuals, Theist A, and Theist B. Both want to believe, both study their holy texts, and both participate in all the trappings of the associated religion.

Theist A somehow achieves this religious experience that you speak of. However, Theist B only manages to convince themselves of achieving this goal, in the self-deceiving manner of those that have religious experiences in those [for the purposes of this hypothetical] false regions.

Now, how do you and I tell the difference between the two? It's not like the one that has the "real" experience can demonstrate that he has an actual relationship with his god.

And, I know of no criteria by which we could prove the experiences of Theist B to be false, do you?

If what happened to Theist B can explain the experiences for both A and B, while you may disagree with my conclusion, you should consider it as a possibility.

Do you?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No. They killed part of a group based on self-defense.

Defend themselves? He commanded their complete destruction (Deuteronomy 20:16-18). And not out of self-defence, but because "they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't know.

You're not troubled by it?

You didn't answer fully. Why?

Because ethical subjectivism is a position on meta-ethics; it concerns what moral statements are about.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are misunderstanding my position. Genocide is a word with very specific meaning.
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic murder of a racial, political, or cultural group.

Yes. Like canaanites or amalekites.

1. Genocide is not killing in self defense. Do you agree?

Yes.

There is no context in which the indiscriminate killing of a bunch of babies or toddlers can be classified as "self-defense". Do you agree?

2. Genocide is not killing a specific group (a group that attacks you) in retaliation of attacks upon one's own group.

That would entirely depend on who of the group is killed, and what you understand by "group".

For example, take Nazi Germany.
They attacked us and we defeated them by killing a bunch of soldiers and (virtually) beheading the Nazi leadership. This was not genocide, but rather winning a war.
Now... if we would have moved into Germany and killed every single German there, then it would have been genocide.

3. We punish evil in our own culture. There are a higher percentage of some ethnicity's more than others. Would you claim that those who are put to death due to their crimes is an act of genocide?

It would be, if we killed (or tried to kill) every single one of those of that ethnicity, including those that haven't committed any crimes.
Like their toddlers and babies, for example.

4. Do you think that the bombing of Japan an act of genocide?

I certainly think it was a vile and perhaps unecessary act.
Since the mission was not to kill every single Japanese person, no.

They were being instructed by the God of all. They had first person experience of God and His actions.

That is what they claimed.

Wouldn't you say that Hitler and those that followed him thought the actions they were taking was for prosperity for all of their group?

I said "well being and prosperity FOR ALL".
Not for a single group.

And no. The holocaust was driven by hatred and racism.

Suffering was only bad if it happened to them, the suffering they caused was for the prosperity of themselves.

Exactly. For "themselves". Not "for all".

Another problem I see with your premises is that rarely is something the same for all whether or not it is good or bad.

As I expected, you wish to argue against these simple premises.
This is the result of moral bankrupcy.

My question then is who determines the well being and prosperity if it counters what others feel is well being and prosperity to deny the other?

It's not hard.
Well being and prosperity is charactarized by:
- health
- security
- freedom
- access to enough food
- access to enough water
- a place to sleep
- hapiness
- ...

Those who wish to deny certain people to have access to any of these things, are those people that I would call immoral.

Wouldn't you?
Again, as I said, if you wish to argue against this, then I don't know what you mean by the world "moral" and "good" and "right".

I cannot have a proper discussion with you on morality without this common ground.

ISIS is not using first hand experience to guide them.

ISIS would disagree.

They are interpreting a book that instructs them. They believe the Q'uran is leading them. That is not true of the Jews. They were being instructed first hand.

No, they were instructed by a dude that claimed to have been instructed first hand.
Just like mohammed claimed to have been instructed first hand.

Maybe this would clarify best: if I didn't know God existed and didn't understand Him to be the God of the Bible I would agree with you. However, I do have knowledge of that and so I understand that God really does know and conveyed that to the Israelites.

Knowledge is demonstrable.
You can call your "beliefs" to be "knowledge" till you are blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that they are merely your beliefs.

We have no idea what evil behavior throughout a complete culture for centuries does to people's genetic makeup. We understand more now about Epigenetics and how that can adversely affect behavior.

You never cease to amaze me.
You have some truelly shocking and disturbing beliefs.....

Why isn't abortion part of the discussion.

Because we are talking about a group of people that went on to massacre entire tribes claiming to do it on behalf of a god.
We aren't talking about a women having her pergnancy terminated.

No the discussion in not about people killing women and children in the name of God.

This particular sub-discussion is.

I believe that murder is wrong in all cases.

Except when a perceived authority orders it, apparantly.



I'm done with this.

Clearly you are to blinded to see just how awfull and despicable these views you are giving here really are.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No one experienced that.

You should read up on islamic history.

That is your opinion based on your a priori assumption that God doesn't exist and that the accounts are not true.

The irony is hilarious...
The only one here with a priori assumptions is YOU.

YOU are the one here who is making claims about the existence and communications of god. I'm merely the one not believing those claims because of insufficient / non-existing evidence in support of them.

I don't believe anyone ever claimed to. Thousands claimed to have seen the actions of Yahweh.

No. The book claims this. You don't know that. You just believe it.

That doesn't mean that all that people claim is false.

Exactly. Maybe you should apply that same standard to the claims of your book.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Wrong.

All that God does is good because God is good.

Is it good because he does it or does he do it because it is good?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So as long as the naturalist bears all this in mind, us theists have no problem with discussing such matters. As soon as the naturalist wants to borrow from the worldview he repudiates to say that killing children is wrong regardless of what religious folk say, we will point out this inconsistency.

If the naturalist were to borrow from your worldview or that of ISIS, she would say something like the following:

I pray I would be willing to do His will if it included killing men women and children, yes.

Make no mistake, the moral bankruptcy you are repudiating comes from your own worldview, in which actions like that become "morally commendable" solely at Yahweh's behest.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Okay, then you disagree on the definitions of the words "terrorism" and the word "genocide" as provided by the law and by the dictionary. If we were to use just the definition of genocide and non-combatant I provided from the dictionary, and the definition of terrorism that you provided from the government, and only the use of those definitions (not your definitions), are the acts we are talking about terrorism and genocide?

It seems that the definition of terrorism is vague and somewhat pliable and being so my definition is probably just as valid as any but if we use the one you presented I suppose that the bombing of Japan could be defined as such, I don't think it does with the one I posted from the same source.

As far as the genocide for the example we were discussing, no. When discussing genocide one element which seems to be absent and I think it is important in a definition of genocide and that is murder. When one speaks of genocide it is about the murder of a people for the sole purpose of eliminating them as a group (the murder of this group being the most important part of genocide). Would you agree?

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't think it does with the one I posted from the same source.

And remember, we're using the dictionary's definition of non-combatant. That's why your source describes the act as terrorism, because the specific people we bombed were non-combatants.

When one speaks of genocide it is about the murder of a people for the sole purpose of eliminating them as a group (the murder of this group being the most important part of genocide). Would you agree?

No. You can kill a lot of people in a lot of ways that don't require the special term of "murder". That's why the definition from the dictionary doesn't use the term. So just going by the definition from the dictionary, and not your definition that you want to use the word "murder", is it genocide? Now I'll agree, that if we use your definition of genocide it wouldn't be genocide if it absolutely was self defense, but the definition of genocide from the dictionary doesn't care if it is self defense or not, true?