"Sorry, forgot some people don't realize genocide is bad. Amongst my friends, it's a given.
Genocide is wrong because murder is wrong. Murder is wrong because you are taking another person's life." You're going around in circles. Why is the loss of life even justifiable wrong in your eyes? Why is life so valuable compared to non life?
"So then God, when ordering and helping with the holocausts in the bible, must have been acting immorally.
See, that wasn't so hard."
I said nothing of the sort. There was no holocaust in the bible.
"It is racist to say that it was the people involved that make the holocaust more immoral.
Are you saying God is a racist?"
By people I'm referring to a collection of nations that condoned the holocaust. This is got nothing to do with racial colours or anything of the sort as you're trying to imply.
"Although stealing is immoral, God even said it was a sin in the ten commandments. But then he orders the Israelites to steal land. So God is acting immorally, yet again." Thou shall not steal refers to inner societal law. Besides If the creator of land says you can have this land I don't think it's called stealing.
"I own my pet cat. According to your logic, as the owner it is moral to burn my cat so badly that is barely alive, and keep it this way, burning it whenever I get the chance, for the next 10 years. Is this correct?" You don't really own your cat since the cat was initially created by God. Anything below of the hierarchy of God shouldn't torture.
"And seeing as you believe slavery is moral, then if I own a child slave, as the owner is it moral to torture that slave, in the most horrific fashion possible, far far worse than any holocaust victim suffered, while still keeping her alive for 30 years of torture?"
Slavery is amoral. It was simply a societal mechanism at the time to deal with time period circumstances. The bible acknowledges slavery and puts regulations and rules on the practise of slavery but it does not make a moral statement on slavery being right or wrong.
"Anyways, earlier you said that part of the reason the holocaust was immoral was the method used. Burning people forever is infinitely worse than anything Hitler did. So again, by your own statements, God is acting immorally." Wrong the methods employed by the people doing combined with the time and situation and lack of special permission from God made it immoral.
"Because it is bad for the person being enslaved.
If there is nothing wrong with slavery, why don't you come up to my place and you can be my slave for the rest of my life, and I'll will you to my kids if you live that long? I'll be a generous master and put a mat down in the garage for you to sleep on. Or you can send your kids, I'll get longer use out of them.
But you wouldn't because you know that would be bad for you or your kids."
It's bad because I think it's bad was the main clause of your argument. Just because it wasn't wrong (Or right) at that time period doesn't mean I'd love to become a slave. It was something you had to do because of the situation you were in not because you weren't a Israelite.
"LOL, well that's a nice interpretation: Master was just having a minor disagreement with his slave, and oopsy, he beat the slave to death. God is clear, if the slave lives a day or two, there is no punishment.
Sorry, but that is a silly interpretation you created so that you can justify God's immoral behaviour."
It's in place to so the court or council or w/e their juridical system was back then wouldn't could distinguish between intentionally murder or an accident. If the slave died in two or more dies it would of been a lot more minor generally. I didn't create this interpretation it comes from simply reading the passage and the context surrounding it.
Genocide is wrong because murder is wrong. Murder is wrong because you are taking another person's life." You're going around in circles. Why is the loss of life even justifiable wrong in your eyes? Why is life so valuable compared to non life?
"So then God, when ordering and helping with the holocausts in the bible, must have been acting immorally.
See, that wasn't so hard."
I said nothing of the sort. There was no holocaust in the bible.
"It is racist to say that it was the people involved that make the holocaust more immoral.
Are you saying God is a racist?"
By people I'm referring to a collection of nations that condoned the holocaust. This is got nothing to do with racial colours or anything of the sort as you're trying to imply.
"Although stealing is immoral, God even said it was a sin in the ten commandments. But then he orders the Israelites to steal land. So God is acting immorally, yet again." Thou shall not steal refers to inner societal law. Besides If the creator of land says you can have this land I don't think it's called stealing.
"I own my pet cat. According to your logic, as the owner it is moral to burn my cat so badly that is barely alive, and keep it this way, burning it whenever I get the chance, for the next 10 years. Is this correct?" You don't really own your cat since the cat was initially created by God. Anything below of the hierarchy of God shouldn't torture.
"And seeing as you believe slavery is moral, then if I own a child slave, as the owner is it moral to torture that slave, in the most horrific fashion possible, far far worse than any holocaust victim suffered, while still keeping her alive for 30 years of torture?"
Slavery is amoral. It was simply a societal mechanism at the time to deal with time period circumstances. The bible acknowledges slavery and puts regulations and rules on the practise of slavery but it does not make a moral statement on slavery being right or wrong.
"Anyways, earlier you said that part of the reason the holocaust was immoral was the method used. Burning people forever is infinitely worse than anything Hitler did. So again, by your own statements, God is acting immorally." Wrong the methods employed by the people doing combined with the time and situation and lack of special permission from God made it immoral.
"Because it is bad for the person being enslaved.
If there is nothing wrong with slavery, why don't you come up to my place and you can be my slave for the rest of my life, and I'll will you to my kids if you live that long? I'll be a generous master and put a mat down in the garage for you to sleep on. Or you can send your kids, I'll get longer use out of them.
But you wouldn't because you know that would be bad for you or your kids."
It's bad because I think it's bad was the main clause of your argument. Just because it wasn't wrong (Or right) at that time period doesn't mean I'd love to become a slave. It was something you had to do because of the situation you were in not because you weren't a Israelite.
"LOL, well that's a nice interpretation: Master was just having a minor disagreement with his slave, and oopsy, he beat the slave to death. God is clear, if the slave lives a day or two, there is no punishment.
Sorry, but that is a silly interpretation you created so that you can justify God's immoral behaviour."
It's in place to so the court or council or w/e their juridical system was back then wouldn't could distinguish between intentionally murder or an accident. If the slave died in two or more dies it would of been a lot more minor generally. I didn't create this interpretation it comes from simply reading the passage and the context surrounding it.
Upvote
0
