- Oct 28, 2006
- 24,784
- 11,595
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You probably don't mean for it to be the case, but from my view, assuming the dogmatic moral position that you imply here is a cop out from having to face, and do, heavy rational lifting. I could be wrong, but it almost sounds like you just want to use a verbal bully-tactic to establish your unknown ethics as beyond the human pale of argument. I'd expect as such from a Platonist, but not from an atheist.
If you can give it a label ("atrocity") to support your feeling on the subject, so can I: "necessary evil."
No, thanks. That would be too easy for academia to deal with.You can label it "tuna sandwich" if you like --
That's correct; so I'll use a more DEscriptive term: "necessary evil."TLK Valentine said:-- but you then have to take responsibility for your label.
I'm sure you can: you have all of academia behind you.TLK Valentine said:I can easily explain "atrocity."
Not to your satisfaction.TLK Valentine said:Can you explain how it was "necessary"?
Not to your satisfaction.
You're wrong.Tell me I'm wrong.
Can I submit a pic and a hypothetical like you did?TLK Valentine said:Then tell me why.
I'm no Atheist.
But if you disagree, then by any and all means -- justify omnicide.
That, in my opinion, is the truth.Is that the truth, or just an excuse not to try?
That's because the satisfaction you're looking for is something to ridicule, not contemplate.TLK Valentine]Because I'll be honest with you, AV -- I think you got nothing.
Even a failed attempt (in good faith) will satisfy me.
I'm getting ready to type a THANKS FOR THE QED here; but I'll wait for your response first.TLK Valentine said:But you won't even try, because I suspect I'm right -- You got nothing.
He's an academic, as far as I'm concerned.You're an ... "agnostic."
You were there?
You saw everything He did, and the order He did it?
No preFlood rapture of any children who hadn't reached the Age of Accountability?
You know, what's really interesting about the Flood narrative is the apparent motivation.
Consider the following analogy.
Hiding somewhere in Baghdad is the single most dangerous terrorist in human history -- let's call him "General Akboob":
(Anyone else remember the video game "Total Carnage"?)
Anyway, the US, possessing near-unlimited intel, has managed to locate his exact whereabouts at this very moment: 1313 Saddam Hussein Lane.
With the resources of the most powerful nation on Earth available, the president of the United States (forgoing our standard "no assassination" policy) to take this guy out.
Does he:
1. Order a smart-bomb strike so precise, it could fly in through an open bedroom window without breaking the glass,
OR
2. Nuke the entire city?
Any rational, moral person would choose (1.) -- what possible reason would there be for choosing (2.)?
Answer: FEAR.
The only reason to even consider option 2 is if we were so desperate to kill this man -- to insure that he was well and truly DEAD -- that the lives of the 7 million other people living in Baghdad -- all innocent bystanders -- as well as the fallout (both nuclear and political), would be acceptable collateral damage.
Any president who would seriously consider such a strike would be carried out of the Oval Office in a straitjacket.
And yet, God -- with literally infinite intel and resources, so wanted to snuff out the human race, that literally every other living thing on the planet was an acceptable loss. That's not moral or even rational -- it's blind, panicked, FEAR.
Tell me I'm wrong. Then tell me why.
I can see how this might be a concern, and I think it's a legitimate one with all of the crazy things that go on in our world. But in offering your evaluation of me, you now have me concerned about you. You say you can't see how an ancient account of a so-called act of “divine omnicide” doesn't actually translate into an across the board directive for any Christian simply to drop what they're doing and go and attempt to do likewise. Really?
So, tell me, Bradskii, how do you think any of us should be making moral justifications? Do you think there are any multivariate levels of social, psychological and/or ethical complexities present that we need to work through in order to discern distinctive nuances that may be at play in our moral deliberations? Or, do you instead think that “morality” is a simple thing to figure out?
At this point, I want to also bring your attention to the fact that a little earlier in this thread, I and a few other posters were originally discussing the essence of the term “genocide,” a term which I think is more readily comprehensible and more common to our historical understanding of our world than is “omnicide.” The semantic difference between these terms being not too dissimilar from that of conceptually comparing things like “The Holocaust” and “Dr. Strangelove.”
I've never really had a problem in discerning between real life and make-believe, or between my own human ethical outlook and a divine one that is clearly encased within the conceptual matrix of an ancient, foreign culture.
Whether fortunately or unfortunately, knowing what “God wants” is a complex thing, even a complicated one. This is peculiarly so where the application of moral tropes from the Bible is concerned, and in this, I think we can both acknowledge that it's those who think Christian moral deliberation is a simple thing who have the most problem in sorting out their emotional penchants for unjustified violence from authentic moral actions.
I also think that some of the social and psychological dynamics at play in the kind of religiously entangled moral discernment you're alluding to is what separates a Saul of Tarsus from a Paul of Damascus ... ... and I'm sure some amount of solid Hermeneutics plays an important part in this as well.
Wow.Why would He need to do that? Are you suggesting that God would have thought it immoral to kill children? We can examine scripture to check that theory.
Ah, I see. You're no atheist. You're also no existentialist. You're an ... "agnostic."
I guess that means you're not sure what you just read in my last post.
That's because the satisfaction you're looking for is something to ridicule, not contemplate.
Well, I gave you something ... so let's see that QED.If you give me nothing, I'll just ridicule that.
Being taken seriously is a privilege, not an entitlement.
Fear? Is this the kind of 'fear' that only agnostics know about?
There is a variance when it comes to morality. Not everyone has the exact same viewpoint. Mine is generally based on the golden rule, some degree of empathy and a consideration as to whether harm has been done.
But this discussion is not about a general understanding of morality. It's about treating stories in the bible as being factually accurate. And therefore believing that God drowned the whole planet. Including children. And that it was justified. And if that was justified then anything could be.
So if a person who accepts that story truly believes that God has commanded them to do something horrific, then the fact that it is truly horrific and undoubtedly immoral would be no reason to reject the command. Personal responsibility wouldn't then exist. It would be truly a case of 'I was just following orders'.
That's the mindset of those who take this position. The eminently reasonable argument that 'God wouldn't tell me to fly a plane into a building' no longer exists.
Well, I gave you something ... so let's see that QED.
I don't have all morning.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?