God and the flood

[quatona]

I would rather homosexuals not fight to have same sex marriage legalized in America.

Genocide? No problem - I have bigger fish to fry...gay marriage.

 

[quatona]

I find in conversations like this, people can only give lip service to moral relativism for so long. Eventually, some thorny issue will pop up, like children drowning, and the moral objectivist comes out of people.

If I weren´t a moral relativist I wouldn´t have participated in this discussion, waiting for you to give a good reason why and when genocide is an acceptable means of problem solving, in the first place.

The more interesting part here is how in these conversations the moral relativist eventually comes out in self-professed moral objectivists.

 

[quatona]

I would rather homosexuals not fight to have same sex marriage legalized in America.

If God commanded you to marry a man, would you do it?

I would rather abortionists not fight to have abortion clinics funded by my tax dollars.

If God commanded you to give all your money to abortion clinics, would you do it?

 

[anonymous person]

Please follow me over to my newest thread entitled "Moral Argument Syllogism" for a discussion on whether or not atheists have grounds for maintaining that God did something objectively wrong in sending the global flood.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God did not command Noah to drown anyone. God brought the flood upon the earth Himself. He took their lives. The lives He gave them which they used for evil He cut short.

You still haven't addressed my question regarding the infants and children. You claimed that too deserved death, not because of their wicked conduct, but because of the blood curse they inherited. I pointed out that Noah and his family inherited the same curse, yet they were spared. So why weren't the infants and children spared?

If He had not acted, I see no reason to think any of us would even be here to talk about the issue. Mankind would have long since destroyed itself.

To repeat another question you also ignored: couldn't an ostensibly omnipotent and omniscient entity preserve the human species through less destructive means?

Whatever God commands is what is obligatory, whatever He forbids is forbidden. This is Divine Command Theory of which I am an adherent.

For posterity, could you please repeat your answer to the question below? I posed it in a another thread, but that thread has since been deleted in its entirety.

So if God commanded you to kill men, women, and children, you would do so without hesitation, and you would consider it "morally commendable" to obey such a directive?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Genocide is not wrong is it?

What would Rumi say?

In your theology? No, it's not.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Whatever God commands is what is obligatory, whatever He forbids is forbidden. This is Divine Command Theory of which I am an adherent.

For posterity, could you please repeat your answer to the question below? I posed it in a another thread, but that thread has since been deleted in its entirety.

So if God commanded you to kill men, women, and children, you would do so without hesitation, and you would consider it "morally commendable" to obey such a directive?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I find in conversations like this, people can only give lip service to moral relativism for so long. Eventually, some thorny issue will pop up, like children drowning, and the moral objectivist comes out of people.

I wonder if you can see the irony in this, given your own position? You aren't merely paying lip service to it. You're embracing it wholeheartedly.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Please follow me over to my newest thread entitled "Moral Argument Syllogism" for a discussion on whether or not atheists have grounds for maintaining that God did something objectively wrong in sending the global flood.

Please address the questions you have ignored and evaded before proceeding onto another discussion in which you will (again) ignore and evade questions put to you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

AV1611VET and nomadictheist, it does seem as if we have a thread chock full of people who are not moral relativists after all!

Now if only I could get someone to debate me on why, in the absence of God, drowning children is objectively wrong.

Can you explain why the presence of a divine command makes the act of genocide morally commendable?

 

[SkyWriting]

In this thread I want to allow anyone who believes that if the Genesis account is true in what it records about a flood being caused by God, then such a God cannot possess certain attributes.

I want them to list the attributes they believe are incompatible with such an act assuming it occurred, and give an argument for why.

They are compatible. It's your task
to discover how that can be so.

 

[SkyWriting]

Why use a method that caused terror and pain? What method of causing one's bodily processes to cease does not carry with it some sort of terror or pain?

The nerves carry the same signals for pain and pleasure.
Only your brain chooses how to decipher them.
For example, your eye lenses turn your view
upside down. Your brain changes the view back
to "right side up". It's all you.

 

[anonymous person]

Can you explain why the presence of a divine command makes the act of genocide morally commendable?

No. This thread is not about Divine Command theory.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No. This thread is not about Divine Command theory.

Then don't bring it up.

 

[anonymous person]

Then don't bring it up.

I can mention it. But I'm not going into detail about it here. You can mention it, never said you couldn't. But don't derail my thread by attempting to get me to go into detail about it here. Thanks.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I can mention it. But I'm not going into detail about it here. You can mention it, never said you couldn't. But don't derail my thread by attempting to get me to go into detail about it here. Thanks.

I'm trying to keep you on track. You're being evasive.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you explain why the presence of a divine command makes the act of genocide morally commendable?

You mean, despite the fact that God sent a preacher of righteousness around to give 120 years of advanced warning?

I'm sure Satan stepped up his plan to have children born around that time, so God could be accused of infanticide.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You mean, despite the fact that God sent a preacher of righteousness around to give 120 years of advanced warning?

I'm sure Satan stepped up his plan to have children born around that time, so God could be accused of infanticide.

That pesky Satan... always one step ahead!

 

[AV1611VET]

That pesky Satan... always one step ahead!

I'm sure scientists make him proud.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm sure scientists make him proud.

Or fundies.