God's commands? Are they immoral?

[HitchSlap]

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.....

Labeling someone wicked is a subjective matter of perspective. Asking humans to carry out his dirty work is morally reprehensible. If he was an intelligent being, he could have handled the situation a little more diplomatically. I mean, I'm not omniscient, and I could have come up with at least a dozen better ways to handle the situation. Instead, what you have in the bible, is a story of a people at odds with another group of people, and might makes right, so superior fire power wiped out their "enemies," and they attributed this to a god being on their side. Not unlike a winning football team attributing their victory to god.

 

[quatona]

What makes it superior...objectively?

It apparently doesn´t make it as easy to justify genocide (or whatever monstrosity of your choice) as an appeal to unconditional obedience to whatever an alleged authority might tell you does, to boot.

 

[Elioenai26]

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.


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 you´d provide me with a great revelation when informing me that ethical subjectivism posits that my ethical opinions are subjective. Guess what: I knew that already.



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.


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 if something is "simply" my opinion I couldn´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.


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


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 freedom of speech is not being threatened.

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 opinion counts just as your 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.

I do not make it a habit of responding to people who have not thoughtfully, prayerfully, and humbly read God's Words, but rather, take what little they do know out of context and proceed to quote mine to formulate a strawman against which they launch their attacks....

You are completely ignorant of what God's commands are. You are completely ignorant as to why they were given and how they are completely in agreement with God's nature.

Instead you take one or two verses out of context, and hold them up and say God is acting contrary to His nature in these instances. You purposely overlook the context, you purposely ignore the rest of the Bible, you purposely ignore the situations and circumstances in which these verse are speaking and you purposely ignore the fact that God created man and woman and can do whatever He wants to with them so long as it is not contradictory to His nature of being Just, Holy, Righteous, Merciful, and Loving.

The destruction of wicked people is a shinning example of God bringing down upon evil men and women the wrath that their sins merit. It is a shinning example of what it means to say that God is Holy and Righteous. You purposely ignore the fact that God was patient with these insolent evil people for centuries before their sins were ripe for judgment.

You seem to act as if God just one day decided to kill some people because they were of a certain race. This is nonsense and the sooner you actually start reading the bible instead of trying to dissect it and pick at it you might actually learn something.

 

[Elioenai26]

It apparently doesn´t make it as easy to justify genocide (or whatever monstrosity of your choice) as an appeal to unconditional obedience to whatever an alleged authority might tell you does, to boot.

I like how you use the word monstrosity.

That is great.

But see, since there is no objective law to appeal to, then whatever word you choose to use is nothing more than your opinion, however big it may be.

Personally, I think it is a monstrosity for you to spend so much time talking about the conduct of a being you do not even believe exists....

I do not know of anyone who spends their time talking and going on and on and on and on about the conduct of elves or unicorns, or santa claus, but by your actions, you seem to prove yourself to be one who would engage in such ridiculousness.

 

[Elioenai26]

Labeling someone wicked is a subjective matter of perspective. Asking humans to carry out his dirty work is morally reprehensible.

Saying God is morally reprehensible is still your subjective opinion though...... unless you believe objective moral values and duties exist?

If he was an intelligent being, he could have handled the situation a little more diplomatically. I mean, I'm not omniscient, and I could have come up with at least a dozen better ways to handle the situation. Instead, what you have in the bible, is a story of a people at odds with another group of people, and might makes right, so superior fire power wiped out their "enemies," and they attributed this to a god being on their side. Not unlike a winning football team attributing their victory to god.

You have not read the bible. Go read it and then come back here and reference it correctly.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

I would assert "global community" possibly has no moral meaning. But I'd definitely dispute that if a "global community" exists, it's morals are secularly derived, considering that most of the members of that global community derive their moral values from religion.

 

[HitchSlap]

I do not make it a habit of responding to people who have not thoughtfully, prayerfully, and humbly read God's Words, but rather, take what little they do know out of context and proceed to quote mine to formulate a strawman against which they launch their attacks....

You are completely ignorant of what God's commands are. You are completely ignorant as to why they were given and how they are completely in agreement with God's nature.

Instead you take one or two verses out of context, and hold them up and say God is acting contrary to His nature in these instances. You purposely overlook the context, you purposely ignore the rest of the Bible, you purposely ignore the situations and circumstances in which these verse are speaking and you purposely ignore the fact that God created man and woman and can do whatever He wants to with them so long as it is not contradictory to His nature of being Just, Holy, Righteous, Merciful, and Loving.

The destruction of wicked people is a shinning example of God bringing down upon evil men and women the wrath that their sins merit. It is a shinning example of what it means to say that God is Holy and Righteous. You purposely ignore the fact that God was patient with these insolent evil people for centuries before their sins were ripe for judgment.

You seem to act as if God just one day decided to kill some people because they were of a certain race. This is nonsense and the sooner you actually start reading the bible instead of trying to dissect it and pick at it you might actually learn something.

No, but I do wish you'd make it a habit to address the content of people's post rather than blather on about your opinion of someone. You know what they say about opinions, don't you?

 

[HitchSlap]

I am highlighting the utter lack of grounds for the accusation that YHWH is a genocidal, tyrannical, evil despot, which is what some godless men would have us believe.

If people like you would spend 1/10th of the time actually sincerely reading God's Word that you do in combing through the verses that infidel websites tell you to go to, then you would be knowledgeable regarding the Bible.

Instead, you come across more as an angry parrot that keeps repeating the same stuff over and over again ad nauseum.....because you have no real substance to your arguments.....It is all rhetoric, all fluff, and wind....nothing really concrete at all....

I think of Hitchens when I think of it all.......all bluster, all anger, all malice, all hatred, very very little substance.....

I'm just discussing the details of the story. You can believe what you want to.

 

[quatona]

I do not make it a habit of responding to people who have not thoughtfully, prayerfully, and humbly read God's Words, but rather, take what little they do know out of context and proceed to quote mine to formulate a strawman against which they launch their attacks....

So, since you are and have hundreds of times responded to me, I take it that with this description you don´t mean me. Which makes me wonder why you wrote this paragraph in response to me...

You are completely ignorant of what God's commands are.

Since we are talking about biblegod: I can read the bible just like you can.
It´s funny that after you have in multiple posts (here and in other threads) explicitly defended exactly that which I am saying biblegod commanded (the indiscriminate extinction of an entire population - men, women, children, toddlers as well as your so beloved "innocent unborn babies"), you now would me believe that this isn´t what the bible tells us.

You are completely ignorant as to why they were given and how they are completely in agreement with God's nature.

1. For the arguments I made (and which you´d still have to even try to start addressing) it´s completely irrelevant why they were given.
2. The question whether or not they are "in God´s nature" is immaterial for the arguments I made. For all I care, let the indiscrimate extinction of an entire population be in agreement with biblegod´s nature. Makes things even worse, if you ask me.

Instead you take one or two verses out of context,

No, I haven´t. I have simply referred to what biblegod commanded, and which to this point hasn´t been even disputed.

and hold them up and say God is acting contrary to His nature in these instances.

I´m beginning to wonder if you read my posts at all - but I certainly don´t recall saying anything about "God´s nature" at any point - until you brought this concept up in this very post.

You purposely overlook the context, you purposely ignore the rest of the Bible, you purposely ignore the situations and circumstances in which these verse are speaking and you purposely ignore the fact that God created man and woman and can do whatever He wants to with them so long as it is not contradictory to His nature of being Just, Holy, Righteous, Merciful, and Loving.

I am not ignoring them, I am not overlooking them - I just don´t mention them because they are immaterial to the points I have made. They may be of significance to the points you like to address rather than the points I actually raised - but I can´t help you with defending your own strawmen.

The destruction of wicked people is a shinning example of God bringing down upon evil men and women the wrath that their sins merit. It is a shinning example of what it means to say that God is Holy and Righteous. You purposely ignore the fact that God was patient with these insolent evil people for centuries before their sins were ripe for judgment.

No, I don´t. Let God have been patient for ages. It´s immaterial for the points I raised.

You seem to act as if God just one day decided to kill some people because they were of a certain race.

Except that I never said anything to that effect, and those of your statements that start with "you seem to..." are increasingly mere imaginations of yours. As far as your own imaginations are concerned - I can´t help you with them. You have to do that on your own.

 

[Skavau]

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?

Sure, why not.

And just to let you know, this is the last question I am answering from you on this until you answer the question I asked here.

 

[Skavau]

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

Apparently, according to Elioenai condemning someone for thinking genocide as acceptable is "whining" and "complaining".

Are you suggesting that you do not think that 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.

Yeah, I'd call it a litmus test of morality. This is about as black and white as it gets.

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

Why?

Are you putting it on record that you think that genocide being wrong is conditional on what God thinks? That Genocide in and of itself is not abhorrent at all but only abhorrent if God says so.

And you have the audacity, the nerve to lecture us on objective morality?

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.

Except it is not. These things have real impact. If you were making an analogy more succinctly here we could compare the health benefits of eating a specific pizza with that of a hamburger and determine which is healthier. Similarly, which morality we can affirm which is beneficial.

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.

Neither can you. You cannot say that you believe morality is objective and then u-turn when it comes to God doing specific things.

 

[Skavau]

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!

Precisely what moral values am I borrowing from the Judeo-Christian worldview and additionally confirm how I could have only concluded these moral values from the Judeo-Christian worldview. Be specific.

You assume God exists while arguing against His existence.

No, I do not. Asserting moral values has nothing to do with God.

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

Because morality, as a concept has nothing to do with God and nor does it justify the atrocities that you believe God has done, is doing and will do.

 

[Elioenai26]

The problem arises if certain actions of biblegod do not match the standards of biblegod´s allegedly objective/absolute morality.

I would agree, that would be a problem.

arguments of the sort "Without God X would be permissible" become absurd,

What are you even talking about?

and statements of the sort "I wouldn´t do X, because I know God wouldn´t command me to do X" (even though we learn that biblegod has done so before) become untenable.

Not if one takes into account the context of the command. Something you do not do. Something I do.

IOW: When reading the bible we learn that with God almost everything is permissible, and we learn that God is a moral relativist.

When reading the Bible we learn that God is sovereign. If you do not like that then that is a personal problem.

 

[Elioenai26]

Apparently, according to Elioenai condemning someone for thinking genocide as acceptable is "whining" and "complaining".

Are you suggesting that you do not think that genocide is somehow "really" wrong?


Yeah, I'd call it a litmus test of morality. This is about as black and white as it gets.


Why?

Are you putting it on record that you think that genocide being wrong is conditional on what God thinks? That Genocide in and of itself is not abhorrent at all but only abhorrent if God says so.

And you have the audacity, the nerve to lecture us on objective morality?


Except it is not. These things have real impact. If you were making an analogy more succinctly here we could compare the health benefits of eating a specific pizza with that of a hamburger and determine which is healthier. Similarly, which morality we can affirm which is beneficial.


Neither can you. You cannot say that you believe morality is objective and then u-turn when it comes to God doing specific things.

God is in heaven, you are on earth.

I will trust what God has said, not what you, a mere mortal thinks is right or wrong.

Let that be my position.

 

[quatona]

I like how you use the word monstrosity.

That is great.

Thank you.

But see, since there is no objective law to appeal to, then whatever word you choose to use is nothing more than your opinion, however big it may be.

Err yes. You are lecturing someone who asserts that his subjective ethical opinions are his subjective ethical opinions that his subjective ethical opinion is his subjective opinion. And you do that repeatedly. Isn´t that a bit...redundant?

Personally, I think it is a monstrosity for you to spend so much time talking about the conduct of a being you do not even believe exists....

Well, I am not really concerned with this non-existent being - I am more concerned with those who invent It and then project their opinions on It - trying to distract from the fact that their subjective moral opinions are nothing more than their subjective moral opinions.

I do not know of anyone who spends their time talking and going on and on and on and on about the conduct of elves or unicorns, or santa claus, but by your actions, you seem to prove yourself to be one who would engage in such ridiculousness.

"Why are you even here?" is predictably one of your very last resorts when you have run out of arguments and are unable to address the points made.

I´ll tell you what: As soon as a Unicornist starts to justify genocide, torture, rape or whatever else I strongly disapprove of by appeal to the objectivity and authority of the HolyJustLovingRighteous IPU I will be as busy deconstructing his fallacious and circular lines of reasoning just like I am now with deconstructing yours. Promised.

The times when superstitions could be used as excuses are over.

 

[Elioenai26]

Precisely what moral values am I borrowing from the Judeo-Christian worldview and additionally confirm how I could have only concluded these moral values from the Judeo-Christian worldview. Be specific.

That to not love one's neighbor is wrong.

No, I do not. Asserting moral values has nothing to do with God.

Has everything to do with God. Without God, there are no objective moral values and duties.

Because morality, as a concept has nothing to do with God and nor does it justify the atrocities that you believe God has done, is doing and will do.

God has not done any atrocities. God judges the wicked. God is Holy. If God ordered all the people of a certain wicked city to be destroyed then He can do that. The children die and go to heaven, the wicked who did not repent before they were killed are judged and get what they deserve, and the wicked who repented before they were killed go to heaven.

Everybody gets what they want.

 

[Skavau]

God is in heaven, you are on earth.

I will trust what God has said, not what you, a mere mortal thinks is right or wrong.

Let that be my position.

Why is my mortality relevant? Why is his eternal nature relevant?

Moral claims stand up or fall based on their validity, not on the character or the power of the being who makes them. That you would even make this kind of claim demonstrates your clear categorical mistake when it comes to understanding morality.

 

[Elioenai26]

Thank you.

Err yes. You are lecturing someone who asserts that his subjective ethical opinions are his subjective ethical opinions that his subjective ethical opinion is his subjective opinion. And you do that repeatedly. Isn´t that a bit...redundant?

Well, I am not really concerned with this non-existent being - I am more concerned with those who invent It and then project their opinions on It - trying to distract from the fact that their subjective moral opinions are nothing more than their subjective moral opinions.

"Why are you even here?" is predictably one of your very last resorts when you have run out of arguments and are unable to address the points made.

I´ll tell you what: As soon as a Unicornist starts to justify genocide, torture, rape or whatever else I strongly disapprove of by appeal to the objectivity and authority of the HolyJustLovingRighteous IPU I will be as busy deconstructing his fallacious and circular lines of reasoning just like I am now with deconstructing yours. Promised.

The times when superstitions could be used as excuses are over.

You seem to have me confused with someone who justifies genocide torture and rape.

I condone none of the above. In fact I am firmly against them all.

 

[Elioenai26]

Why is my mortality relevant? Why is his eternal nature relevant?

Moral claims stand up or fall based on their validity, not on the character or the power of the being who makes them. That you would even make this kind of claim demonstrates your clear categorical mistake when it comes to understanding morality.

God is in heaven and does what He wills.

God is Holy, you are not.

God is Righteous, you are not.

God is Love, you are not.

God is Wrath, you are not.

God is a Consuming Fire, you are not.

God is omniscient, you are not.

God is omnipotent, you are not.

God is omnipresent, you are not.

God created me, you did not.

 

[Skavau]

That to not love one's neighbor is wrong.

I would interpret this as respect the rights of others as you would wish your rights to be respected. That is not a unique concept solely found within the Judeo-Christian worldview.

Has everything to do with God. Without God, there are no objective moral values and duties.

Incorrect.

One can still make moral claims and argue their validity and utility without the existence of God. That you think God is responsible for codifying our predisposition towards moral values is irrelevant.

In any case you have already demonstrated that you don't actually believe in objective moral values or duties. You only have one moral value. You believe God can do what he likes and you follow him regardless. That is might equals right. That is not even moral but an example of twisted masochistic servitude.

God has not done any atrocities.

A meaningless affirmation. No matter what God does, no matter how many he torments or destroys you would never describe it as an "atrocity". It is why no-one can take you seriously when you describe God as "Holy, righteous, just" because those are attributes you bestow him regardless of what he does. They have no meaning to you. They are empty platitudes.

God judges the wicked.

Of course, according to you the "wicked" is merely anyone God chooses to judge negatively. Meaningless.

God is Holy.

Of course, according to you God is always "Holy".

If God ordered all the people of a certain wicked city to be destroyed then He can do that.

I am staring in the face of moral subjectivism.

The children die and go to heaven, the wicked who did not repent before they were killed are judged and get what they deserve, and the wicked who repented before they were killed go to heaven.

Of course, God could inflict any punishment or reward he likes and you would always describe it as well-deserved.

Words have no meaning to you.