The Moral Argument

[Eudaimonist]

Can you tell us why you think God could have no morally sufficient reason for commanding the utter destruction of the Amalekites?

That involved the death of innocents. Even if they might choose to do evil in the future, they hadn't done so yet.

It's not surprising to me that you hide behind talk of the "greater good". That is what tyrants cloak themselves in when they create fountains of blood.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

It's unfortunate though, because God does exist and one day you'll have to render account of yourself before Him.

Yeah, it´s unfortunate when you present poor arguments for a good or valid case. It´s utterly counter-productive.

I can't force you to believe that of course, but I believe it would be in your best interest if you did.

You are free to believe whatever you like.

Because when that day comes, it might just be too late...

Assuming that God applies those criteria you would him apply, that is.

Don't stop searching and asking questions! That's what I do.

That´s what I did. Here an argument was presented, and I put it to scrutinity. It´s invalid. It´s a logical mess.
You can´t preach away that fact.

 

[bhsmte]

It's unfortunate though, because God does exist and one day you'll have to render account of yourself before Him. I can't force you to believe that of course, but I believe it would be in your best interest if you did. Because when that day comes, it might just be too late... Don't stop searching and asking questions! That's what I do.

You can believe what you like, but unless you can substantiate your claim objectively, don't be shocked when 2/3 of the worlds population disagrees with you and many of those folks, feel just as strongly about their positions, as you do yours.

And the whole; threat thing, that many Christians try on this board, really rings hollow and is a sign of a certain level of desperation.

 

[Moral Orel]

In response I posed several thought experiments that were pertinent to the questions raised about God commanding certain courses of action.

It's different when you bring God into the picture though, isn't it? God isn't limited to just two choices. He can make the trolley turn to mist, or make the children fly away. If we're talking about God being put in this position, then we have to consider all the other things that he could do. If those other things that he could do mean not letting anyone die, and yet he chooses to flip the switch and kill one person, then he wants someone to die. Why does God want there to be such unnecessary death and destruction?

 

[quatona]

There are those who benefit from what we write here in addition to ourselves.

I wonder what your target group is when hoping that tangling yourself up in lies and self-contradictions is doing something for them.

 

[bhsmte]

It's different when you bring God into the picture though, isn't it? God isn't limited to just two choices. He can make the trolley turn to mist, or make the children fly away. If we're talking about God being put in this position, then we have to consider all the other things that he could do. If those other things that he could do mean not letting anyone die, and yet he chooses to flip the switch and kill one person, then he wants someone to die. Why does God want there to be such unnecessary death and destruction?

Great questions and you can see by the responses, that virtually anything will be claimed and excused, to claim it was a greater good, that an all powerful God, had no other choice.

When you really think about it, it is really quite sad and depressing.

 

[anonymous person]

No, they weren´t. They were not about the actions and decisions of an omnipotent omniscient creator god.

They do not have to be about God to be pertinent. They are pertinent because they refute the objection that there are no morally sufficient reasons for killing certain people in certain circumstances. They are pertinent in that if we being finite can affirm there exists morally sufficient reasons for killing people under certain circumstances, then it is not unreasonable to think an omniscient God can have morally sufficient reasons for doing the same.

They were about crisis management when things have already gone wrong. Omni-God could never possibly in such a dilemma. Omni-God has countless other options to his disposal.

Ok well now you have shifted goal-posts onto an entirely different field.

You are bringing up what omnipotence entails which is not something pertinent to our discussion about these thought experiments.

And you are the guy who first appealed to this very rationale, and then immediately invalidated it by introducing another.

Our rationale for choosing to save the two over the one has always been that the greater good be achieved, regardless of how many people end up living or dying. It just so happened that in the first thought experiment, the greater good happened to be determined by how many would be saved, and that because of our limited scope of knowledge.

It´s quite ironic that on your way to attempting to substantiate the Moral Argument (about objective morality and its necessary connection to a God) you work your way up from agreed upon human moral opinions and from values that aren´t depending on there being a God, at all. Humans value human lifes - who would have thunk?

Lately I have been simply attempting to demonstrate that we all affirm that there can be morally sufficient reasons for taking life in certain circumstances. I have not been trying to substantiate the moral argument for quite some time.

 

[bhsmte]

I wonder what your target group is when hoping that tangling yourself up in lies and self-contradictions is doing something for them.

It would appear, that what you mention above, is one of the major reasons, why so many younger people are leaving the church. They simply, can't reconcile what they are being fed.

 

[anonymous person]

That involved the death of innocents. Even if they might choose to do evil in the future, they hadn't done so yet.

It's not surprising to me that you hide behind talk of the "greater good". That is what tyrants cloak themselves in when they create fountains of blood.


eudaimonia,

Mark

For the sake of being charitable, I will grant that the children were killed were "innocent", whatever you mean by that.

Why do you think God could have no morally sufficient reason for ordering their death?

 

[anonymous person]

It would appear, that what you mention above, is one of the major reasons, why so many younger people are leaving the church. They simply, can't reconcile what they are being fed.

I can agree. Many cannot reconcile what they are being fed.

 

[anonymous person]

You can believe what you like, but unless you can substantiate your claim objectively, don't be shocked when 2/3 of the worlds population disagrees with you and many of those folks, feel just as strongly about their positions, as you do yours.

And the whole; threat thing, that many Christians try on this board, really rings hollow and is a sign of a certain level of desperation.

Popularity has never been a good measure of what is true.

 

[bhsmte]

Here you go folks. See if any of these 6 reasons listed, relate to what is exhibited in these threads:

https://www.barna.org/barna-update/...ns-young-christians-leave-church#.Vwk3Fkc8OFo

 

[Eudaimonist]

For the sake of being charitable, I will grant that the children were killed were "innocent", whatever you mean by that.

Why do you think God could have no morally sufficient reason for ordering their death?

I've already answered that. Take my answer for what it is.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

They do not have to be about God to be pertinent. They are pertinent because they refute the objection that there are no morally sufficient reasons for killing certain people in certain circumstances. They are pertinent in that if we being finite can affirm there exists morally sufficient reasons for killing people under certain circumstances, then it is not unreasonable to think an omniscient God can have morally sufficient reasons for doing the same.

Yes, it is totally unreasonable. God is not a finite being ending up in a moral dilemma. God, allegedly, is the creator of the whole thing.

But more importantly: If you start from human affirmations about moral values, you are basing your argument on the very instance that you actually would us believe is irrelevant - that´s, after all, why you would us believe we are in desperate need an "objective" (non-human) morality.

Ok well now you have shifted goal-posts onto an entirely different field.

No, I have shifted it back on topic.

You are bringing up what omnipotence entails which is not something pertinent to our discussion about these thought experiments.

Since you proposed to simply conclude from the results of a human dilemma on the options of a God, this is exactly what needs to be done.

Our rationale for choosing to save the two over the one has always been that the greater good be achieved, regardless of how many people end up living or dying. It just so happened that in the first thought experiment, the greater good happened to be determined by how many would be saved, and that because of our limited scope of knowledge.

You are equivocating "greater good" here.

I have not been trying to substantiate the moral argument for quite some time.

So you do your best to derail this thread?
You affirmed repeatedly that this tangent was pertinent to the Moral Argument.
Anyway, that you are persistently trying to take the discussion off-topic doesn´t change anything about the implications that your arguments presented here have for the Moral Argument.

 

[Moral Orel]

Can you tell us why you think God could have no morally sufficient reason for commanding the utter destruction of the Amalekites?

Because He had other options. The trolley problem can't be applied to Him because He isn't limited to just flipping a switch like we are. So He would choose to kill one child, when He could choose to save everyone. Now if you make a choice, then you want that choice to happen more than all your other choices. So sure, I want one child to die if it means saving two, but it means that God wants one child to die instead of one. Same can be applied to the Amalekites.

He could have done a lot of things that made them stop being a danger to the Israelites. He could have mind-controlled them to not attack. He could have given the Israelites superpowers. If they really needed to be exterminated, He could have done it himself a-la-Sodom-and-Gamorah style. So He even wanted the Israelites to suffer the mental trauma of plunging their swords into babies. Why did He want all of this horrible stuff to happen?

 

[bhsmte]

Because He had other options. The trolley problem can't be applied to Him because He isn't limited to just flipping a switch like we are. So He would choose to kill one child, when He could choose to save everyone. Now if you make a choice, then you want that choice to happen more than all your other choices. So sure, I want one child to die if it means saving two, but it means that God wants one child to die instead of one. Same can be applied to the Amalekites.

He could have done a lot of things that made them stop being a danger to the Israelites. He could have mind-controlled them to not attack. He could have given the Israelites superpowers. If they really needed to be exterminated, He could have done it himself a-la-Sodom-and-Gamorah style. So He even wanted the Israelites to suffer the mental trauma of plunging their swords into babies. Why did He want all of this horrible stuff to happen?

I always find it amusing, how those who claim God is all powerful, also will place significant limits on his abilities, when they need to justify what the bible claims.

 

[quatona]

I always find it amusing, how those who claim God is all powerful, also will place significant limits on his abilities, when they need to justify what the bible claims.

Yeah, God the creator of all things, the guy with the masterplan, sitting there in front of a switch, in the dilemma whether to flip it or not. Hilarious.

 

[bhsmte]

Yeah, God the creator of all things, the guy with the masterplan, sitting there in front of a switch, in the dilemma whether to flip it or not. Hilarious.

I just find it psychologically fascinating, watching the justification of how God acts, when he is deemed all powerful.

Number one reason I visit this site.

 

[anonymous person]

It's different when you bring God into the picture though, isn't it?

It sure is. And the difference should help you with some of the doubts and issues you have. God is greater than we are and can do what we cannot. This should be a source of comfort and assurance.

God isn't limited to just two choices. He can make the trolley turn to mist, or make the children fly away.

What if a greater good is achieved by Him allowing the one to die than would be achieved by turning the train to mist or giving the children wings?

Turn it back to the Amalekites. What if the command to destroy them achieved a greater good than would have been achieved had He let them just continue to terrorize people?

If we're talking about God being put in this position, then we have to consider all the other things that he could do. If those other things that he could do mean not letting anyone die, and yet he chooses to flip the switch and kill one person, then he wants someone to die. Why does God want there to be such unnecessary death and destruction?

Very good question. A very good one.

I immediately think of Jesus. Why would God subject His Son to such torture, torment, abuse, and humiliation?

Why would God allow His righteous Son to die at the hands of evil religious people?

One reason is because God loves us. Entailed in this is that He allow us the freedom to love Him in return. But where love can be returned, it can be withheld.

Through the death of One Man, Jesus of Nazareth, salvation was made available to billions.

There is no more clearer example of a morally sufficient reason for allowing untold suffering and anguish than this.



Taking it back to the Amalekites for a moment.

God loved them. This means that He allowed them to return their love or withhold it.

They chose to pillage, murder, harass, and generally live lives of total disregard for people. They did not love God and God let them live for a long time. He gave them time to change and they could have if they wanted to.

God also loved the people who the Amalekites would raid and rape and pillage from. He loved the children and women who would be raped by the Amalekite warriors, some of which would have been youngsters, trained in war and brutality. He loved the babies who the Amalekites would dash against walks and burn as sacrifices.

God loved the one's committing the evil and those receiving it.

God being Holy, after so long of waiting patiently, decided to defend the helpless and the weak and do what was best for everyone, even the Amalekite children. He ordered them to be cut off from the land of the living like a gangrene limb is cut off to preserve the body entire. It grieved God to do this. He wanted them to repent. But they were not willing.

So what about all the Amalekite babies?

First of all, I doubt there were any babies killed. In fact, later on in Israel's history, we see the nomadic Amalekites still around, a thorn in Israel's side even after Saul attacked them initially. Israel had not utterly destroyed the Amalekites because many of them were still alive. It was customary wartime practice during this period for those about to be attacked to see to it that their non-combatants, babies and the like, were removed from the place of battle to safety. Had any been left alone or abandoned when the Israelites attacked, they were to have been mercifully killed to spare them the manifold ills that would have come upon them from exposure.

God gave these people some 500 years to repent but they were unwilling.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I just find it psychologically fascinating, watching the justification of how God acts, when he is deemed all powerful.

I just find it disturbing and creepy to see people attempt to justify atrocities and claim that it is all moral and good. It explains much about history.


eudaimonia,

Mark