God's commands? Are they immoral?

[Skavau]

So far all I see are people's opinions about God being evil.

But if all that exists are opinions then the attempt to portray me as being in some sort of moral quandry is futile.

Perhaps.

But by your own standards you should be in a moral quandary. Never mind that you think others are unable to account for morality. You claim you can and you claim that a being exists with a perfect moral standard. How do you reconcile these claims with the things that God did and the things that you believe God does (torment in hell)?

If I say it is my opinion that God is morally perfect and Him ordering the destruction of the Amalekites was morally justifiable, then your opinion that it was evil is just an opinion. You like spaghetti, I do not.

Then without knowing it you negate morality to mere preference. This is so with or without God for I would argue that genocide is wrong regardless of who ordered it, who implemented it and regardless of who exists. You would characterise this as just an opinion. As you will.

But make no mistake of where you are. You are defending genocide and torture and calling it moral all the same. The pertinent question now is exactly what the word "morality" even means to you. What does the word "morality" mean to you?

No one's opinion is either better or worse than any other persons opinion.

This is untrue, by the way.

 

[Elioenai26]

Perhaps.

But by your own standards you should be in a moral quandary. Never mind that you think others are unable to account for morality. You claim you can and you claim that a being exists with a perfect moral standard. How do you reconcile these claims with the things that God did and the things that you believe God does (torment in hell).


Then without knowing it you negate morality to mere preference. This is so with or without God for I would argue that genocide is wrong regardless of who ordered it, who implemented it and regardless of who exists. You would characterise this as just an opinion. As you will.

But make no mistake of where you are. You are defending genocide and torture and calling it moral all the same. The pertinent question now is exactly what the word "morality" even means to you. What does the word "morality" mean to you?


This is untrue, by the way.

Why should your moral beliefs be preferred over mine?

 

[Skavau]

Why should your moral beliefs be preferred over mine?

Because mine defend human liberty over needless oppression and suffering. Yours glorify them.

 

[quatona]

So far all I see are people's opinions about God being evil.

But if all that exists are opinions then the attempt to portray me as being in some sort of moral quandry is futile.

If I say it is my opinion that God is morally perfect and Him ordering the destruction of the Amalekites was morally justifiable, then your opinion that it was evil is just an opinion. You like spaghetti, I do not.

No one's opinion is either better or worse than any other persons opinion.

No persons opinion is more true or less true than any other persons opinion.

Accepted.
Unless you´d suddenly start claiming objectivity for your opinion. Oh wait, that´s what you did, and that´s how the entire discussion started.

However, I find it hard to imagine that someone who has a long track record in claiming the moral high ground for his worldview ('without God everything would be permitted') finally turns out to be a defender of genocide. I guess it´s fine as long as you don´t wear mixed garments while slaughtering children.

So much for the morality you said we´d all be missing without a God. Indeed, fortunately so.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Its made pretty clear in Jeremiah 45:4-5 that God can and will bring evil upon others

If that's the case I don't see why Christians would be upset when a non-Christian (say an atheist) claims that the killing of the Amalekites was evil. God is portrayed in Jeremiah as outright saying that he sends evil on people. Why the beef?

 

[quatona]

Why should your moral beliefs be preferred over mine?

They shouldn´t - they are preferred.
Your moral beliefs violate the very deeply seated empathy and almost universally shared beliefs that you used to claim to be impossible unless they had been written in our hearts by your God.

Now you are a notorious defender of genocide, right there in company with those guys whom you used to picture as the epitome of evil. Congratulations.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Asking an atheist if they think God's command are immoral wouldn't make a lot of sense from their perspective either. They don't believe in the existence of a God to begin with. They might view the actions attributed to the Israelites in the Bible as evil (or unethical / immoral) but they don't view them as having been commanded by a God. If they did they would be theists by definition. They would simply say that the commands attributed to God (to them a fictional character) are unethical.

 

[quatona]

Elioenai, I remember threads where you repeatedly urged me to answer the question "Is it objectively immoral to kill/torture children?". I kept answering that I can´t speak objectively, but just could give you my subjective opinion. In response to which you repeatedly pictured me a sociopath for not being able to give you a downright "Yes!".
Now you tell me that you do not only consider genocide (including the killing of countless children) not immoral, but downright objectively morally good.

It´s one thing that you have outed yourself as a defender of genocide (it´s a burden you will have to carry - and I certainly am happy that I am not in your shoes), but for purposes of these discussions you should at least get your arguments straight.

 

[Skavau]

Elioenai does enjoy setting up false dilemmas when it comes to morality. He seems to think that anything less than absolute claims on morality are invalid yet can't quite elaborate on what he means by absolute morality beyond it seems, mere adherence to orders.

 

[Elioenai26]

Because mine defend human liberty over needless oppression and suffering. Yours glorify them.

Ok, let us grant that what you say is true...

So what?

Are you saying that objective moral values and duties do exist and that I should be ashamed of my views which you think are in violation of these duties and values?

Or is all of this just your opinion?

 

[Elioenai26]

Accepted.
Unless you´d suddenly start claiming objectivity for your opinion. Oh wait, that´s what you did, and that´s how the entire discussion started.

However, I find it hard to imagine that someone who has a long track record in claiming the moral high ground for his worldview ('without God everything would be permitted') finally turns out to be a defender of genocide. I guess it´s fine as long as you don´t wear mixed garments while slaughtering children.

So much for the morality you said we´d all be missing without a God. Indeed, fortunately so.

You still seem to be whining and complaining that I should think genocide is somehow "really" wrong.

You seem to think that I should think like you. You seem to be implying that I should know genocide is really wrong.

But I ask, if that is just your opinion, then I will side with God's opinion.

But again I ask, if ethical subjectivism is all we have, then everything you just said is your opinion. You like pizza, I like hamburgers.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot on one hand say that God is evil for commanding the destruction of the Amalekites, which by the way deserved it, and then say that morality is simply people's opinions.

What you can say is that I feel or I am of the opinion that it is wrong and they were of the opinion or felt that it was right.

You cannot say anything beyond that. So I am perfectly within my rights to say that God was just in destroying wicked people. He has done it in the past, is doing it now, and will do it in the future.

 

[Elioenai26]

Elioenai does enjoy setting up false dilemmas when it comes to morality. He seems to think that anything less than absolute claims on morality are invalid yet can't quite elaborate on what he means by absolute morality beyond it seems, mere adherence to orders.

I enjoy highlighting the inconsistency of your position.

You have to borrow from the Judeo-Christian worldview's take on morality to argue against the Judeo-Christian worldview!

You assume God exists while arguing against His existence.

C.S. Lewis realized that is what he was doing. Why can you not see the inconsistency?

 

[Gadarene]

I enjoy highlighting the inconsistency of your position.

You have to borrow from the Judeo-Christian worldview's take on morality to argue against the Judeo-Christian worldview!

You assume God exists while arguing against His existence.

C.S. Lewis realized that is what he was doing. Why can you not see the inconsistency?

Where does it say under that morality that genocide is wrong? It doesn't, which is why this point is being argued.

 

[HitchSlap]

Why should your moral beliefs be preferred over mine?

Because secular morality is superior to the morality of the Bible.

 

[HitchSlap]

I enjoy highlighting the inconsistency of your position.

You have to borrow from the Judeo-Christian worldview's take on morality to argue against the Judeo-Christian worldview!

You assume God exists while arguing against His existence.

C.S. Lewis realized that is what he was doing. Why can you not see the inconsistency?

Please source where Clive said genocide was moral. Because I've most everything he's written, and I don't remember that.

 

[RDKirk]

Because secular morality is superior to the morality of the Bible.

What makes it superior...objectively?

 

[Elioenai26]

Where does it say under that morality that genocide is wrong? It doesn't, which is why this point is being argued.

Where it says to love your neighbor as yourself. That is where it says it at.

Many people who are unfamiliar with the Bible think that the command to love one's neighbor comes solely from the New Testament:
And He [Jesus] said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' " (Matthew 22:37-39)
However, when Jesus said this, He was quoting directly from Old Testament law:
'You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD. (Leviticus 19:18)
Not only did the Old Testament command the Hebrews to love their neighbor, but the same command also warned the them not to take vengeance on their own or even bear a grudge (thinking or acting badly against a neighbor). The command applied not only to one's Hebrew neighbors, but also to the foreigner or alien who resided among them:

• 'The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 19:34)
• "So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. (Deuteronomy 10:19)

So, what Jesus said was not something brand new, but was already a part of Old Testament law. So, why did Jesus have to say it?
Eye for an eye

So, where does this "eye for an eye" idea come from? It also comes from the Old Testament law. In fact, it was the prescribed punishment for crimes committed by one person against another. Previous to Old Testament law, punishment for a crime was usually much more severe than the crime itself (see Are the Old Testament Laws a Copy of the Code of Hammurabi?). However, unlike Jesus' examples of slapping one on the cheek or making one carry a heavy load, these were serious crimes, such as assault against a pregnant woman and murder.1 For these kinds of crimes, judges were given the authority to determine guilt and punishment - no different than we do in modern society. The authority to take an "eye for an eye" was never given to an individual,2 but always reserved for the legal system of the state. In Israel, not only were serious crimes punished, but false accusation of serious crime against an innocent party was to be punished "eye for an eye" so that "the rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you."3
Good vs. evil

Not only were the Hebrews commanded not to take vengeance on their own, and love their neighbors, but they were told to eschew hatred and evil and practice good.4 However, like most people, the Hebrews were susceptible to taking the easy way of "solving" their problems. What is easier than doing payback against your neighbor when he does something against you? And one could cite the "eye for an eye" scripture as justification for one's actions (even though it really only applied to judgments by the legal system). This is why Jesus emphasized not taking one's own vengeance but doing good even to those who slight you. The teaching seemed new only because the people had strayed from God's original instructions.
Love in the Old Testament

Although the New Testament tends to be thought as emphasizing love more than the Old Testament, this is not necessarily true. In fact, there are over 150 verses in the Old Testament that describe the love that God has for people.5 This love is not to be one-way, since the Old Testament tells the people to return this love by loving God.6 So, contrary to popular perception, love is emphasized in the Old Testament as it is in the New Testament.
Conclusion

The common perception that the God of the Old Testament is vastly different than the God of the New Testament is shown to be untrue. In both the Old and New Testaments, God is described as being loving, and love is emphasized as being the most important of God's laws. Both Old and New Testaments command people to love their neighbors, and even those who are different or outsiders to our own group. Both Testaments command people to do only good and not seek vengeance when wronged, but to allow the law to punish those who commit crimes. The Old Testament concept of an "eye for an eye" applied only to punishment for serious crimes, like assault, and was not to be carried out by individuals, but only through the judicial system.


www.godandscience.org

 

[Elioenai26]

Please source where Clive said genocide was moral. Because I've most everything he's written, and I don't remember that.

I do not recall he ever said it was moral.

Stop labeling God's judgment of wicked people as genocide, you make yourself look dishonest and ignorant when you do that.....

Unless that is how you want to be seen.....

 

[quatona]

You still seem to be whining and complaining that I should think genocide is somehow "really" wrong.

You seem to think that I should think like you. You seem to be implying that I should know genocide is really wrong.

Well, that´s neither what I said nor what I meant to say - and going by what I *seem* to be saying is unlikely to give you good results.
In short: No, that´s not what I am saying - no matter how much you´d like me to say it.

But again I ask, if ethical subjectivism is all we have, then everything you just said is your opinion.

Yeah, errm, what else did you expect my opinion to be than...my opinion?
You almost say that as if until this very moment you hadn´t known what ethical subjectivism means, or if you feel I need to be explained that ethical subjectivism posits that my ethical opinions are subjective. Guess what: I knew that already.

You like pizza, I like hamburgers.

Yes, this analogy fits to a certain degree, but doesn´t fit in regards to other aspects - just like every analogy. But I know what you mean: both are subjective. I´m sure you didn´t mean to trivialize genocide by comparing it to pizza.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot on one hand say that God is evil for commanding the destruction of the Amalekites, which by the way deserved it, and then say that morality is simply people's opinions.

Well, firstly I never said God was evil for commanding it (although since the beginning of this thread my point was an entirely different one which I have elaborated on a couple of times without you even trying to address it), but even if I did: What makes you say that because something is "simply" my opinion I can´t express my opinion? Where´s the problem?
After all, as opposed to you, I don´t even try to claim my opinion to be more than my opinion.
You are the one who claims that beyond subjective opinions there is an objective moral truth. Unfortunately you have so far utterly failed to demonstrate that there is such.

What you can say is that I feel or I am of the opinion that it is wrong and they were of the opinion or felt that it was right.

Sure, and so can you.

You cannot say anything beyond that.

Sure, and when a subjectivist gives his opinion this is - for obvious reasons - all he intends to do.

So I am perfectly within my rights to say that God was just in destroying wicked people.

You need to pay attention, Elioenai. You need to address the points made. You don´t need to address arguments I haven´t made (or, well, apparently for whatever reason you do need to).
At no point have I questioned your right to express whatever monstrosities rush through your brain. Rather, I am quite happy that you finally do.

And guess what? By the same token I am perfectly in my right to respond to you the way I do. Don´t pull the victim card. Your right to express your subjective opinion has not been and is not being threatened, just like mine hopefully hasn´t and isn´t (although at some points in your post you seem to be telling me what I am or am not allowed to say).

However, since you have so far miserably failed to demonstrate that an "objective morality" exists, and since you have so far miserably failed that this "objective morality" (if it should exist) agrees with you, your subjective counts as your subjective opinion - no matter how hard you try to project it on the deity of your concept whose existence you also have miserably failed to demonstrate.

And now that I have patiently responded to all your strawmen, you may want to address the arguments as I have made them in my previous posts, for a change. Thank you.

 

[HitchSlap]

What makes it superior...objectively?

As a global community, we can collectively say that genocide is criminal, heinous, reprehensible, and doesn't foster good will, cooperation and understanding between nations and ethnicity's. We have many objective examples of this being true.