Evil

[Ana the Ist]

Hello I just wanted to comment on what you said about the Bible not being able to be applied in every situation. In any moral situation, when we have to ask what is the right thing to do, we do have a way to know what is the right and wrong things to do are, and that is found in the Bible. The verses below tell us that God has, since the establishment of the New Covenant, placed His laws on our minds and hearts. Each of us has a moral compass so to speak, and I believe that that comes from God. We know intuitively the difference between right and wrong and absent some outside factor we have the ability to make choices both right and wrong. I think that where the Bible isn't specific, we just have to turn to our God given morality. Anyway, thanks!!




Hebrews 8:10-13

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

No offense, but anyone with eyes can see this isn't the case. Not only do you and I strongly disagree on "good" and "evil" but so do many many christians. Who is correct them according to god's will and how would you possibly know?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Just a little curious, what would be your idea of a morally ambiguous situation? What sort of situations do you imagine finding yourself in that would be so enigmatic or uncertain that you wouldn't have a clear idea of what to do?

Would you ever think talking someone into committing suicide could ever be a good thing to do?

 

[Heir to the Kingdom]

Christians weren't shy about killing unbelievers until pretty recently.

They may have done it, but it doesn't mean that they were right or that God told them to do it.

 

[Heir to the Kingdom]

No offense, but anyone with eyes can see this isn't the case. Not only do you and I strongly disagree on "good" and "evil" but so do many many christians. Who is correct them according to god's will and how would you possibly know?

Anyone with eyes can see what isn't the case? That we have a moral compass? That we intuitively know the difference between right and wrong?

I absolutely don't agree if that is what you are talking about. The only people who might not have the ability to see the difference in right and wrong are children and the mentally disabled.

If you are an adult with the ability to reason, then you know the difference in right and wrong.

 

[Heir to the Kingdom]

Would you ever think talking someone into committing suicide could ever be a good thing to do?

Depends on the circumstances I guess...

 

[OrdinaryClay]

So you would say that no matter how morally ambiguous the situation...there's always a clear "good" and "evil" that can be ascertained by following God's will?

Yes

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Archaeological Evidence for Human Sacrifice in the Middle East. The cultures were certainly deeply corrupt morally.

Cayonu, Turkey
Do these mysterious stones mark the site of the Garden of Eden? | Mail Online
Baal

 

[OrdinaryClay]

All I am demonstrating is that I have standards.

Would you ever change those standards?

 

[OrdinaryClay]

...but also not on topic. All I have claimed is that the Natzi's believed God was on their side.

An absolute moral standard can, and does, still exist even if some people disagree with it. Just because sociopaths exist does not mean that what they believe is still not evil. IOW, An absolute standard does not require universal agreement to still be absolute.

That they thought they were right.

If the Nazi's won the war and killed every person who disagreed with them, and every person alive thought the Holocuast was moral do you think it would be moral?

I certainly don't. The holocaust was evil even if every person alive thouhgt it was good. That's the point.

 

[variant]

Would you ever change those standards?

Given evidence that mine are wrong.

My morality is based upon my observations, so different observations may very well yield a different morality.

 

[variant]

They may have done it, but it doesn't mean that they were right or that God told them to do it.

Well when you consider that it is my position that we can never really know what God did or did not tell people to do, you're now making my argument for me.

This means it becomes fairly problematic to use the idea of God as a standard for ones morality.

Now you can go and selectively say that Christians don't seem to be justified when they kill people who disagree with them, while embracing when Jews did so because it's in the Bible, but you are certainly contradicting yourself for little gain.

 

[variant]

An absolute moral standard can, and does, still exist even if some people disagree with it. Just because sociopaths exist does not mean that what they believe is still not evil. IOW, An absolute standard does not require universal agreement to still be absolute.

You don't have to be a sociopath to disagree about morality, that is an assertion worthy of ridicule.

See your argument is backwards, you have to show the absolute moral standard exists before branding everyone who disagrees with it a sociopath.

If the Nazi's won the war and killed every person who disagreed with them, and every person alive thought the Holocuast was moral do you think it would be moral?

I certainly don't. The holocaust was evil even if every person alive thouhgt it was good. That's the point.

That depends on the course of future events and how society changes and views the past.

As I have been using as an example the old testament folks seem to get pretty good press considering the number of people they smote.

With time and success of such an ideology you might even get people arguing that God indeed was on their side and that the Jews deserved their fate like the Amalekites (much like you see before you today).

Our position in history in a time and place with a critical, analytical, rational and scientific mindset leads us to judge such things more and more harshly, but that requires that we reject the basic tenet of revealed religion.

So, even if I were to completely accept your premise that there was God who was the guardian of an objective morality, It would still not mean WE have access to objective morality, or that religion was the best way of getting at the idea.

 

[Heir to the Kingdom]

Well when you consider that it is my position that we can never really know what God did or did not tell people to do, you're now making my argument for me.

This means it becomes fairly problematic to use the idea of God as a standard for ones morality.

Now you can go and selectively say that Christians don't seem to be justified when they kill people who disagree with them, while embracing when Jews did so because it's in the Bible, but you are certainly contradicting yourself for little gain.

I'm saying that the Bible has everything we need to know about right and wrong and what to do in any situation, and if it doesn't then we have a God given "moral compass" to guide us, and we can talk to God and hear what He wants. I know that last one is a stretch for you, but not for me. Even if you don't agree with the last one, you cannot deny that we know the difference in right and wrong.

Christians are justified in killing if the circumstances warrant it, but they aren't justified in murder and neither were the children of Israel. To commit genocide it has to involve killing innocent people, just like murder, but that isn't the case. They were at the direction of God taking the lives of evil, completely corrupt people. And I'm only embracing that the Jews did it because that was what had to happen at the time. Today there are no punishments being doled out by God. He isn't punishing anyone, and so it isn't right to assume the task of punishing people for their sins against God. Those in authority over us have the right to punish us for breaking the law in the form of fines and imprisonment and such, but God isn't interested in killing people to punish them for their sins againt Him because He doesn't remember them. All sins were forgiven, all sins of every person every alive throughout history have been forgiven. He isn't punishing people for their sins. The only thing left is the consequence of hell, that consequence coming at the refusal of His forgiveness. That's all that sends people to hell.

I am not contradicting myself in the least. You've got to understand that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are different.

 

[Heir to the Kingdom]

You don't have to be a sociopath to disagree about morality, that is an assertion worthy of ridicule.

See your argument is backwards, you have to show the absolute moral standard exists before branding everyone who disagrees with it a sociopath.



That depends on the course of future events and how society changes and views the past.

As I have been using as an example the old testament folks seem to get pretty good press considering the number of people they smote.

With time and success of such an ideology you might even get people arguing that God indeed was on their side and that the Jews deserved their fate like the Amalekites (much like you see before you today).

Our position in history in a time and place with a critical, analytical, rational and scientific mindset leads us to judge such things more and more harshly, but that requires that we reject the basic tenet of revealed religion.

So, even if I were to completely accept your premise that there was God who was the guardian of an objective morality, It would still not mean WE have access to objective morality, or that religion was the best way of getting at the idea.

I don't think that there is any earthly way to get an objective moral standard.

And I also think that what matters is what happened, not what we can imagine could have happened. It doesn't matter that we can imagine a world where the Jews "got what they deserved" in your words, what matters is the world we've got, and I honestly don't see how it could have been any other way than the way that it is right now.

 

[variant]

I'm saying that the Bible has everything we need to know about right and wrong and what to do in any situation, and if it doesn't then we have a God given "moral compass" to guide us, and we can talk to God and hear what He wants. I know that last one is a stretch for you, but not for me. Even if you don't agree with the last one, you cannot deny that we know the difference in right and wrong.

I think that in following your "moral compass" (read doing what you feel is intuitively correct) and interpretation of the Bible you are a long way from either objectivity or a anything I would consider a standard.

I honestly don't believe there is much you do differently when dealing with moral questions that I do, but you've merely steeped the process in your religious beliefs.

I don't think it adds anything.

It just ties you to ridiculous positions like justifying genocide.

Christians are justified in killing if the circumstances warrant it, but they aren't justified in murder and neither were the children of Israel. To commit genocide it has to involve killing innocent people, just like murder, but that isn't the case. They were at the direction of God taking the lives of evil, completely corrupt people. And I'm only embracing that the Jews did it because that was what had to happen at the time.

Whatever helps you sleep at night while defending morally bankrupt actions.

It is ridiculous to say that murdering children is justified because the children are not innocent. You should stop, because it simply makes your argument look bad.

Today there are no punishments being doled out by God. He isn't punishing anyone, and so it isn't right to assume the task of punishing people for their sins against God. Those in authority over us have the right to punish us for breaking the law in the form of fines and imprisonment and such, but God isn't interested in killing people to punish them for their sins againt Him because He doesn't remember them. All sins were forgiven, all sins of every person every alive throughout history have been forgiven. He isn't punishing people for their sins. The only thing left is the consequence of hell, that consequence coming at the refusal of His forgiveness. That's all that sends people to hell.

Today we have moved beyond such things, and developed more organized societies where genocides seem so much less necessary than I guess it seemed then.

It probably has to do with not settling our differences by forming mobs and beating our enemies with blunt/pointy objects.

The question is why we should listen to the wisdom of people who did live in such a world.

I am not contradicting myself in the least. You've got to understand that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are different.

I realize that it took over an eon for Christians to 'realize' this, once coming to power in society, so I am not willing to guess that the change happened around 33 ad.

You have to retcon your religion a bit to fit that in a thousand years earlier than today.

 

[variant]

I don't think that there is any earthly way to get an objective moral standard.

There probably aren't objective moral standards. And if there are, they certainly aren't objectively accessible to us.

And I also think that what matters is what happened, not what we can imagine could have happened. It doesn't matter that we can imagine a world where the Jews "got what they deserved" in your words, what matters is the world we've got, and I honestly don't see how it could have been any other way than the way that it is right now.

If you were following, I was ASKED to imagine such a world.

I already live in a world where you say the Amalekites 'got what they deserved'. I can look around and see how people today justify genocide when it suits them. I've been watching you do it in this very thread.

and I honestly don't see how it could have been any other way than the way that it is right now.

That's because you lack imagination, or the self awareness to realize that sometimes the bad guys won in history.
'

 

[Ana the Ist]

Anyone with eyes can see what isn't the case? That we have a moral compass? That we intuitively know the difference between right and wrong?

I absolutely don't agree if that is what you are talking about. The only people who might not have the ability to see the difference in right and wrong are children and the mentally disabled.

If you are an adult with the ability to reason, then you know the difference in right and wrong.

We don't agree on right and wrong though, so who is right and who is wrong?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Depends on the circumstances I guess...

Is that how god feels? That it would depend on the circumstances? Isn't his will written upon your blah blah blah or something like that?

It's a simple question and yet you already stumbled to answer...yet you pretend you have no idea what moral ambiguity is.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes

Fair enough.

Can you answer the same question then?

Convincing someone to commit suicide...good or evil?

 

[znr]

Pardon the butting in.. If someone is in so much pain that their existence is reduced to the point of profound misery, suicide is not the worst thing that can happen. I don't consider respecting someone's wish to escape this condition to be evil.

Fair enough.

Can you answer the same question then?

Convincing someone to commit suicide...good or evil?