Should atheists be allowed to serve in the US military?

[RDKirk]

.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It was to begin with but then we were debating about whether ISIS actions were moral or not. That moved into how people class what are moral, values and ethics. But it was manly about you saying that ISIS had seen what they have done as morally right. I was saying that its more that they are obviously morally wrong and everyone can see that.

Everyone except them apparently.

That it isn't about them following their religion and the majority of Muslims have got it right by the way they live.

But it is about them following their religion; they even tell us so! Before you accuse of me casting aspersions on the majority of Muslims I'll clarify this point by noting that ISIS' religion is a radical jihadist version of Islam. They are following their religion. It's not a religion you or I approve of by any measure, but it is their religion. It would be silly to not acknowledge their motivations when they have already made their motivations plain to us.

The way the majority of Muslims live and the way Christians and many other religions live is basically similar. So its easy for us to see the difference. You have admitted that the majority of Muslims live good and I would say the majority of Christians be it Catholics or any denomination live good. They all live good in a similar way.

Then why attribute any of that goodness to their religion at all? It would seem that there is no need to. They all live morally regardless of what particular theology they believe in.

Well we had been talking about that the majority of the time. We were going into why some people see there actions as right. By you saying that ISIS are morally right and they are using the Koran to justify their actions. I was saying like the iRA they are not and are getting thing out of whack. They are mixing things with their personal hate. I was trying to show how this happens and that their is a clear distinction.

But I didn't say that they are morally right. You keep bringing this up even though I never made such a claim.

But what we have been discussing. There are ways using what is commonly regarded as right behavior. There is logic and reasoning and comparing this against what we consider to be correct behavior. People can twist and turn things into anything they want and find justifiable reasons for doing so. We have to be able to tell the difference. If you spend the time to closely look at what they are saying and doing you can easily exposed it as false. But if you dont have any basis for comparing it against then how can you do this. This is what I was saying about subjectivity you dont have any basis because you regard everyone's views as a different form of morals instead of it being crazy thinking. That is sort of saying that everyone is right or has the right at the same time no matter what they do and say. You have to draw the line and say some are wrong and way off the mark. But you have to have a common well established set of morals or standards to do that.

First, it's important to note that ethical subjectivism does not necessarily imply moral relativism or nihilism. The notion of a common and well-established set of moral standards is compatible with subjectivism, contrary to what you are implying.

Second, as I asked in my previous post, where have I committed myself to subjectivism? Why am I here charged with defending this thesis?

Third, how are the problems you see arising from subjectivism eliminated by religion? As I noted early on, there are varied ethical systems within theology, not a single unified framework. Each religion presents its own moral claims and justifies them by invoking God, but no religion thus far has been able to demonstrate that any of "God's commands" actually emanate from the divine. Doesn't this leave you with the same problem as before - how to determine who is right and about what?

Well if the moral position is that you should kill what other moral position can they have, thats its OK to kill. Thats what we are talking about isn't it the moral of to kill or not to kill when it comes to abortion.

Not exactly. People with similar values relating to the sacredness of life may nonetheless hold differing views on the morality of obtaining an abortion. The assumption you seem to be making is that having a particular value necessarily translates into a particular moral position. I argue that this isn't the case, for a number of reasons. One is that values do not exist in isolation from one another. People have multiple values and it is often through the interplay of various combinations of values that they are able to reach particular moral positions. As such, valuing the sacredness of life does not automatically lead to a strict anti-abortion stance, anymore than it leads to a vegetarian lifestyle.

No one is an ethic which has nothing to do with morals and one is a moral that has nothing to do with ethics. I will make it clearer for you. You are a solicitor and your moral position is you believe murder to be wrong. But as a solicitor ethically you have to defend a murderer as though he was innocent even if you believe he is guilty. So you have to put aside your morals and even go against them and help that murderer to the best of your ability. You can't bring your personal morality into it and start judging them as being wrong and deserving punishment according to your belief and morals when you help them. So your morals have to be left out of it. So ethics are not the same as morals as they dont take into consideration the moral position of things. They are standards for work or legislation which is to keep those standards upheld no matter what a persons personal morals or beliefs are.

I can see how such a division may be convenient, but I don't consider it necessary. One could also conceptualize this scenario as an instance where one set of ethics (the professional ethics of law) is given priority over another (one's personal ethics). Some authors have argued that one of the goals of professional ethics education is for individuals to integrate their professional ethics with their personal ethics (see Knapp and VandeCreek, 2006, Practical Ethics for Psychologists: A Positive Approach).

Well as far as moral go I believe we all have those written on our hearts and know them deep within us. Things like not killing, stealing, adultery which can also take into consideration long term relationships and betrayal of relationships with casual sex. There is a truth that belongs to God and there are the so called truths that this world uses. They are two different things and one can be perverted and compromised but the truth of God stands firm.

How do you tell the two apart?

No there are not. If you take the time to look at it instead of assuming and believing the lies as to what these crazy groups are saying then you will see. If you go back to the receipt book which is the bible for Christians and look at what it says you will see. It doesn't say that people should go into a pub and blow up other Christians. It says look one another as you love yourself and this is the 2nd greatest commandment. It says turn the other cheek when wronged. So you can easily tell which is the truth if you bother to look at it.

People have been looking at it for centuries and various different interpretations have ensued. The way you look at the Bible is not necessarily the way all other Christians look at it. It's not as simple as saying "Go have a look!" If it were, the entire field of Biblical hermeneutics would have no purpose.

 

[stevevw]

Why do you insist that the morality demonstrated by ISIS doesn't match God's? I would have thought they have very much in common, especially the bits about wiping out those who don't worship what you worship.

God doesn't say to wipe out others who dont worship Him. God doesn't say to slice their heads off or rape the women.

 

[Chany]

God doesn't say to wipe out others who dont worship Him. God doesn't say to slice their heads off or rape the women.

He used to in your view.

 

[Strathos]

So are we still arguing about whether atheists should be allowed in the military or what?

 

[stevevw]

He used to in your view.

No He didnt. See thats the difference you are misinterpreting something now. He made judgemnet on a specific situation where it was the other party who were doing the horrible things. But it was only on those who were deemed to have sinned and not everyone who was against God like ISIS. ISIS is now against every nation on this planet who doesn't agree with them. They are targeting innocents who have not done a thing wrong. The last person they decapitated was an aid worker who was helping people including muslims. He was a good person doing good things. What they are doing is unjustified. What God had demanded was justified in the old testament. It wasn't against innocents and they were doing depraved and evil things. It was Gods judgement just like the coalition of the willing or the allies have done in the past against evil people. But God is the ultimate and worthy judge as His knowledge and wisdom goes far beyond what we know.

 

[stevevw]

Everyone except them apparently.

[FONT=&quot]Yes except them. You can see their mentality. Just yesterday they have declared that their followers should now kill Australians because we have sent some forces over with some planes to help. We haven’t really done anything yet but they are quick to now include us in their death sentences. So they are acting as revenge killings with hatred and that’s it. There is no justification.

[/FONT]

But it is about them following their religion; they even tell us so! Before you accuse of me casting aspersions on the majority of Muslims I'll clarify this point by noting that ISIS' religion is a radical jihadist version of Islam. They are following their religion. It's not a religion you or I approve of by any measure, but it is their religion. It would be silly to not acknowledge their motivations when they have already made their motivations plain to us.

[FONT=&quot]I don’t know where they are getting their religion from. But their religion is the same religion that millions of Muslims follow around the world including here in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Australia[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and they don’t do anything like this. So how can there be two such contradictory versions from the same book and religion. Doesn’t the IRA claim the same thing about their beliefs? It seems a twisted version that is really based on hate, fear and revenge killing.

[/FONT]

Then why attribute any of that goodness to their religion at all? It would seem that there is no need to. They all live morally regardless of what particular theology they believe in.

[FONT=&quot]I don’t understand. If you want to say that religion promotes bad behavior I am just saying it promotes good behavior. Religion is supposed to promote good behavior and lifestyles. That’s what is the basic message from Buddhists to Catholics. Live good and love others.

[/FONT]

But I didn't say that they are morally right. You keep bringing this up even though I never made such a claim.

[FONT=&quot]But you calling them morals. Morals are what are right and wrong. If it’s right then it’s moral. If it’s wrong and bad behavior then its immoral. That’s if you even want to say that what they believe are even moral or immoral according to them. I would say it’s immoral according to a Christian belief. Others may just call it bad behavior. Many call it evil.

[/FONT]

First, it's important to note that ethical subjectivism does not necessarily imply moral relativism or nihilism. The notion of a common and well-established set of moral standards is compatible with subjectivism, contrary to what you are implying.

[FONT=&quot]How are subjective morals compatible with common and well established moral standards[/FONT]

Second, as I asked in my previous post, where have I committed myself to subjectivism? Why am I here charged with defending this thesis?

[FONT=&quot]Well it wasn't mentioned specifically but you were more or less saying that we can have many versions of morals at the same time. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ISIS[/FONT][FONT=&quot] can have a set of morals, Catholics can have one and so can other people. It sort of is saying that many people can be right at the same time.

[/FONT]

Third, how are the problems you see arising from subjectivism eliminated by religion? As I noted early on, there are varied ethical systems within theology, not a single unified framework. Each religion presents its own moral claims and justifies them by invoking God, but no religion thus far has been able to demonstrate that any of "God's commands" actually emanate from the divine. Doesn't this leave you with the same problem as before - how to determine who is right and about what?

[FONT=&quot]I believe that morals can best be described by religion and that moral truths require a religious foundation or can best be explained by God or some qualities or actions of God. So there are moral truths that are there and have been from the beginning. They are written on our hearts and we all know them. But many will deny them or substitute them for other things which have a mixture of man made views and beliefs that water them down or turn them into something else. The subjectivity is a part of this as it allows all that. It says there can be many versions of morals and there is no objective morals from God.

[/FONT]

Not exactly. People with similar values relating to the sacredness of life may nonetheless hold differing views on the morality of obtaining an abortion. The assumption you seem to be making is that having a particular value necessarily translates into a particular moral position. I argue that this isn't the case, for a number of reasons. One is that values do not exist in isolation from one another. People have multiple values and it is often through the interplay of various combinations of values that they are able to reach particular moral positions. As such, valuing the sacredness of life does not automatically lead to a strict anti-abortion stance, anymore than it leads to a vegetarian lifestyle.

You earlier said yourself that values were different from morals. Yet now it seems you are interchanging the words and meanings. What you more or less said is that reasons and differences in what and how things are done in relation to a moral can be different among people. You have just called them values. So be it values of meanings or differences that people come to and have it still doesn't change the fact that the moral standard that you should kill is the same for everyone unless you think killing is OK without good reason.

So the values one may have about something to do with the moral that you should kill doesn't not change or affect the moral item that you should kill. You are just calling all the processes that are involved in deciding exceptions to that moral as a persons values. But they are not the moral itself and that stays the same and is a truth that will stand throughout time and all the values and justifications and rationalizations that people have about the moral of killing. The values as you call them are different between some but you can also call them ethical positions. These are the differences and reasons how some see things about when and why you can have an exception to the rule which is the moral of not killing and that life is precious and important.

I can see how such a division may be convenient, but I don't consider it necessary. One could also conceptualize this scenario as an instance where one set of ethics (the professional ethics of law) is given priority over another (one's personal ethics). Some authors have argued that one of the goals of professional ethics education is for individuals to integrate their professional ethics with their personal ethics (see Knapp and VandeCreek, 2006, Practical Ethics for Psychologists: A Positive Approach).

How do you tell the two apart?

Well yes it would be good but it would be hard as ethics can be different and varied unlike morals I believe. You can be a care worker and have the ethical standards or confidentiality where you cannot breach that persons rights to privacy which is under law. But then if you find that there is a situation where harm to that client or others is at risk or you find information that maybe unlawful and of a criminal nature then there can be exceptions where you can breach that clients privacy rights. Thats because it involves a greater matter of importance like risk of harm or life to others or criminal matters that need to be dealt with under the law. But still this doesn't involve a person morals which are more to do with them as a person and what they believe to be right or wrong. Ethics are often for a group of people, society or organization to keep everyone in line with a code of conduct. They cant bring their personal views into it as those standards are their to protect people or stop certain behaviors that may breach peoples rights or cause then harm.

People have been looking at it for centuries and various different interpretations have ensued. The way you look at the Bible is not necessarily the way all other Christians look at it. It's not as simple as saying "Go have a look!" If it were, the entire field of Biblical hermeneutics would have no purpose.

I am talking about some moral truths that have been there from day one. They are universal and float in the winds of time. Like killing and stealing. Whatever they called it in days gone by it was still known by people that it was wrong. They may have justified it wrongly or rightly and they may have had a different view of what it represented. But they couldn't get away from the fact that when they are breached their conscience knows they have done wrong. They are the truths of God and dont come from man made interpretations. They are immaterial and cannot be explained where they come from apart from God.

The bible has those truths in them. There are many other stories and things written that have little to do with morals in the bible like revelations which can be a book that people have different understandings about. Thats because its about prophesy and telling future events which is something that we do have trouble with. But for any moral of truth in the bible it is plain to see and understand and if someone reads it they will know in the same way as anyone would know. The only time it is changed is when people add mans views in on it and twist things to mean something completely different. But then the truth is taken out and substituted with lies and misrepresentation.

 

[stevevw]

Everyone except them apparently.

[FONT=&quot]Yes except them. You can see their mentality. Just yesterday they have declared that their followers should now kill Australians because we have sent some forces over with some planes to help. We haven’t really done anything yet but they are quick to now include us in their death sentences. So they are acting as revenge killings with hatred and that’s it. There is no justification.

[/FONT]

But it is about them following their religion; they even tell us so! Before you accuse of me casting aspersions on the majority of Muslims I'll clarify this point by noting that ISIS' religion is a radical jihadist version of Islam. They are following their religion. It's not a religion you or I approve of by any measure, but it is their religion. It would be silly to not acknowledge their motivations when they have already made their motivations plain to us.

[FONT=&quot]I don’t know where they are getting their religion from. But their religion is the same religion that millions of Muslims follow around the world including here in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Australia[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and they don’t do anything like this. So how can there be two such contradictory versions from the same book and religion. Doesn’t the IRA claim the same thing about their beliefs? It seems a twisted version that is really based on hate, fear and revenge killing.

[/FONT]

Then why attribute any of that goodness to their religion at all? It would seem that there is no need to. They all live morally regardless of what particular theology they believe in.

[FONT=&quot]I don’t understand. If you want to say that religion promotes bad behavior I am just saying it promotes good behavior. Religion is supposed to promote good behavior and lifestyles. That’s what is the basic message from Buddhists to Catholics. Live good and love others.

[/FONT]

But I didn't say that they are morally right. You keep bringing this up even though I never made such a claim.

[FONT=&quot]But you calling them morals. Morals are what are right and wrong. If it’s right then it’s moral. If it’s wrong and bad behavior then its immoral. That’s if you even want to say that what they believe are even moral or immoral according to them. I would say it’s immoral according to a Christian belief. Others may just call it bad behavior. Many call it evil.

[/FONT]

First, it's important to note that ethical subjectivism does not necessarily imply moral relativism or nihilism. The notion of a common and well-established set of moral standards is compatible with subjectivism, contrary to what you are implying.

[FONT=&quot]How are subjective morals compatible with common and well established moral standards[/FONT]

Second, as I asked in my previous post, where have I committed myself to subjectivism? Why am I here charged with defending this thesis?

[FONT=&quot]Well it wasn't mentioned specifically but you were more or less saying that we can have many versions of morals at the same time. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ISIS[/FONT][FONT=&quot] can have a set of morals, Catholics can have one and so can other people. It sort of is saying that many people can be right at the same time.

[/FONT]

Third, how are the problems you see arising from subjectivism eliminated by religion? As I noted early on, there are varied ethical systems within theology, not a single unified framework. Each religion presents its own moral claims and justifies them by invoking God, but no religion thus far has been able to demonstrate that any of "God's commands" actually emanate from the divine. Doesn't this leave you with the same problem as before - how to determine who is right and about what?

[FONT=&quot]I believe that morals can best be described by religion and that moral truths require a religious foundation or can best be explained by God or some qualities or actions of God. So there are moral truths that are there and have been from the beginning. They are written on our hearts and we all know them. But many will deny them or substitute them for other things which have a mixture of man made views and beliefs that water them down or turn them into something else. The subjectivity is a part of this as it allows all that. It says there can be many versions of morals and there is no objective morals from God.

[/FONT]

Not exactly. People with similar values relating to the sacredness of life may nonetheless hold differing views on the morality of obtaining an abortion. The assumption you seem to be making is that having a particular value necessarily translates into a particular moral position. I argue that this isn't the case, for a number of reasons. One is that values do not exist in isolation from one another. People have multiple values and it is often through the interplay of various combinations of values that they are able to reach particular moral positions. As such, valuing the sacredness of life does not automatically lead to a strict anti-abortion stance, anymore than it leads to a vegetarian lifestyle.

You earlier said yourself that values were different from morals. Yet now it seems you are interchanging the words and meanings. What you more or less said is that reasons and differences in what and how things are done in relation to a moral can be different among people. You have just called them values. So be it values of meanings or differences that people come to and have it still doesn't change the fact that the moral standard that you should kill is the same for everyone unless you think killing is OK without good reason.

So the values one may have about something to do with the moral that you should kill doesn't not change or affect the moral item that you should kill. You are just calling all the processes that are involved in deciding exceptions to that moral as a persons values. But they are not the moral itself and that stays the same and is a truth that will stand throughout time and all the values and justifications and rationalizations that people have about the moral of killing. The values as you call them are different between some but you can also call them ethical positions. These are the differences and reasons how some see things about when and why you can have an exception to the rule which is the moral of not killing and that life is precious and important.

I can see how such a division may be convenient, but I don't consider it necessary. One could also conceptualize this scenario as an instance where one set of ethics (the professional ethics of law) is given priority over another (one's personal ethics). Some authors have argued that one of the goals of professional ethics education is for individuals to integrate their professional ethics with their personal ethics (see Knapp and VandeCreek, 2006, Practical Ethics for Psychologists: A Positive Approach).

How do you tell the two apart?

Well yes it would be good but it would be hard as ethics can be different and varied unlike morals I believe. You can be a care worker and have the ethical standards or confidentiality where you cannot breach that persons rights to privacy which is under law. But then if you find that there is a situation where harm to that client or others is at risk or you find information that maybe unlawful and of a criminal nature then there can be exceptions where you can breach that clients privacy rights. Thats because it involves a greater matter of importance like risk of harm or life to others or criminal matters that need to be dealt with under the law. But still this doesn't involve a person morals which are more to do with them as a person and what they believe to be right or wrong. Ethics are often for a group of people, society or organization to keep everyone in line with a code of conduct. They cant bring their personal views into it as those standards are their to protect people or stop certain behaviors that may breach peoples rights or cause then harm.

People have been looking at it for centuries and various different interpretations have ensued. The way you look at the Bible is not necessarily the way all other Christians look at it. It's not as simple as saying "Go have a look!" If it were, the entire field of Biblical hermeneutics would have no purpose.

I am talking about some moral truths that have been there from day one. They are universal and float in the winds of time. Like killing and stealing. Whatever they called it in days gone by it was still known by people that it was wrong. They may have justified their actions of killing wrongly and they may have had a different view of what it represented. But they couldn't get away from the fact that when they are breached their conscience knows they have done wrong. They are the truths of God and don't come from man made interpretations. They are immaterial and cannot be explained where they come from apart from God.

The bible has those truths in them. There are many other stories and things written that have little to do with morals in the bible like revelations which can be a book that people have different understandings about. Thats because its about prophesy and telling future events which is something that we do have trouble with. But for any moral of truth in the bible it is plain to see and understand and if someone reads it they will know in the same way as anyone would know. The only time it is changed is when people add mans views in on it and twist things to mean something completely different. But then the truth is taken out and substituted with lies and misrepresentation.

 

[Euler]

God doesn't say to wipe out others who dont worship Him. God doesn't say to slice their heads off or rape the women.

Yes he does. In several places actually. He also demands that women's wombs be sliced open to kill the unborn. He also drowns women, children and innocent animals. He also turns people into table condiments. He also places curses into fig trees. He also teases a father into killing his son, then tells him he was only jokin'. He also demands that women be stoned for wearing the wrong materials. He also honors a curse made in his name to have 42 youths torn to pieces by bears.

Just a charmer. So, how is he any different from the ISIS thugs?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes except them. You can see their mentality. Just yesterday they have declared that their followers should now kill Australians because we have sent some forces over with some planes to help. We haven’t really done anything yet but they are quick to now include us in their death sentences. So they are acting as revenge killings with hatred and that’s it. There is no justification.

I don’t know where they are getting their religion from. But their religion is the same religion that millions of Muslims follow around the world including here in Australia and they don’t do anything like this. So how can there be two such contradictory versions from the same book and religion. Doesn’t the IRA claim the same thing about their beliefs? It seems a twisted version that is really based on hate, fear and revenge killing.

Why does this come as a surprise to you? There are various versions of Islam, as there are various versions of Christianity. People reading the same sacred text may have different interpretations, which translate to differences in theology.

How are subjective morals compatible with common and well established moral standards

The subjectivist doesn't deny the existence of common and well-established moral standards. She argues that the origins of those standards are subjective, not that they don't exist.

Well it wasn't mentioned specifically but you were more or less saying that we can have many versions of morals at the same time. ISIS can have a set of morals, Catholics can have one and so can other people. It sort of is saying that many people can be right at the same time.

No, it's not. You are confusing two senses of the word "moral" - one descriptive and the other prescriptive. When we are talking about ISIS' morality we are using the word descriptively - to describe what ISIS claims to be moral. When we say that ISIS' actions are immoral we are using the word prescriptively - we are making a claim about what is moral (and what isn't).

I believe that morals can best be described by religion and that moral truths require a religious foundation or can best be explained by God or some qualities or actions of God. So there are moral truths that are there and have been from the beginning. They are written on our hearts and we all know them. But many will deny them or substitute them for other things which have a mixture of man made views and beliefs that water them down or turn them into something else. The subjectivity is a part of this as it allows all that. It says there can be many versions of morals and there is no objective morals from God.

How does that solve the problem though? There are many religions making many different moral claims, each appealing to God as justification. They can't all be right can they? How are you able to ascertain which religiously based moral claims are true and which are false?

You earlier said yourself that values were different from morals. Yet now it seems you are interchanging the words and meanings. What you more or less said is that reasons and differences in what and how things are done in relation to a moral can be different among people. You have just called them values. So be it values of meanings or differences that people come to and have it still doesn't change the fact that the moral standard that you should kill is the same for everyone unless you think killing is OK without good reason.

Ummm... no, I haven't interchanged the words. My point was that a single value does not necessarily translate to a particular moral position, and that a moral position on an issue such as abortion is probably determined by various combinations of values (e.g., life, autonomy, etc).

So the values one may have about something to do with the moral that you should kill doesn't not change or affect the moral item that you should kill. You are just calling all the processes that are involved in deciding exceptions to that moral as a persons values. But they are not the moral itself and that stays the same and is a truth that will stand throughout time and all the values and justifications and rationalizations that people have about the moral of killing. The values as you call them are different between some but you can also call them ethical positions. These are the differences and reasons how some see things about when and why you can have an exception to the rule which is the moral of not killing and that life is precious and important.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

I am talking about some moral truths that have been there from day one. They are universal and float in the winds of time. Like killing and stealing. Whatever they called it in days gone by it was still known by people that it was wrong. They may have justified it wrongly or rightly and they may have had a different view of what it represented. But they couldn't get away from the fact that when they are breached their conscience knows they have done wrong. They are the truths of God and dont come from man made interpretations. They are immaterial and cannot be explained where they come from apart from God.

How does God serve as an explanation?

The bible has those truths in them. There are many other stories and things written that have little to do with morals in the bible like revelations which can be a book that people have different understandings about. Thats because its about prophesy and telling future events which is something that we do have trouble with. But for any moral of truth in the bible it is plain to see and understand and if someone reads it they will know in the same way as anyone would know. The only time it is changed is when people add mans views in on it and twist things to mean something completely different. But then the truth is taken out and substituted with lies and misrepresentation.

As I said previously, if it were "plain to see and understand" just by reading it then the entire field of Biblical hermeneutics would be pointless. What you consider "plain to see" in your interpretation of the Bible isn't necessarily plain to everyone else reading it. Are you assuming that your interpretation of the Bible is infallible?

 

[JGG]

God doesn't say to wipe out others who dont worship Him. God doesn't say to slice their heads off or rape the women.

He said to totally wipe out the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites because of their evil religion.

Deut. 20:16-18 “However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them — the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites,Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites —as the LORD your God has commanded you.Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you willsin against the LORD your God”

Is that not the same? Isn't it a precedent? Is it not possible that non-Muslims will convert, or corrupt Muslims? God has commanded extermination several times before. Can we say for certain that He has not now?

 

[stevevw]

sorry triple post what is going on.

 

[stevevw]

sorry double post

 

[stevevw]

Yes he does. In several places actually. He also demands that women's wombs be sliced open to kill the unborn. He also drowns women, children and innocent animals. He also turns people into table condiments. He also places curses into fig trees. He also teases a father into killing his son, then tells him he was only jokin'. He also demands that women be stoned for wearing the wrong materials. He also honors a curse made in his name to have 42 youths torn to pieces by bears.

Just a charmer. So, how is he any different from the ISIS thugs?

I could tell when you said that God was teasing Abraham that your dont know what your talking about. We can go into all those as I have with others in the past and how you are wrong. But I know what will happen. You have already made your mind up by the biased way you talk about these things.

But heres some verses that say the opposite and I suggest you go and find them ones now and see who God really is. We know God through Jesus Christ and there is no evil or hatred in Him. So there is no evil or Hatred in God.

If God teased Abraham and his son then why did Abraham love God so much and follow him for the rest of His life. Why did Abraham become the greatest believer in God in all the bible. Why was Abraham used as an example of how much God loved us and kept His word for us. Why was Abraham and God such good friends in fact one of the greatest of friends in the bible.
James 2:23
And the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.
Galatians 3:29
And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.


So why would the great men of the bible the same ones that wrote the so called stories you say are about Gods evil hatred to mankind write such beautiful praise about Him which is the opposite of what you are trying to assert. They write about Gods love and kindness all the time. How can two opposite things be in the same bible and even the same books.
Psalm 147:3
He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds.

Psalm 103:8
The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.

Zephaniah 3:17

The Lord your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing.

 

[stevevw]

It seems every time I edit now it puts another post up.

 

[stevevw]

Sorry double post

 

[stevevw]

He said to totally wipe out the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites because of their evil religion.

Deut. 20:16-18 “However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them — the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites,Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites —as the LORD your God has commanded you.Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God”

Is that not the same? Isn't it a precedent? Is it not possible that non-Muslims will convert, or corrupt Muslims? God has commanded extermination several times before. Can we say for certain that He has not now?

See you already make false allegations and twist things. You say God killed them because of their religion like that was the only thing and they were just poor innocents being persecuted for a different belief. This is the very trickery that Satan himself uses to make the truth look like a lie. The people were depraved sinners offering blood sacrifices of their children and drinking blood. They were committing all sorts of sin and were judged to have completely rejected God. There was none that were innocents and they were never going to turn back to God just like with Sodom and Gomorrah. But you conveniently left that out so you could make it look like God was attacking innocents.

As you see with ISIS they are the evil ones attacking the innocents for no good reason and are no in any position to judge and be taking any action. This is clearly seen. With God it was completely different. He is the righteous judge who is worthy to do so and is wise and all knowing to make those judgements. So its completely the opposite. What God had done in judging these evil people who were killing and destroying innocent people is the same as the US and the allies taking action to kill the evil ones who are killing innocents now like ISIS and other terrorists. Except God id even more worthy to do so as He is in the position of the only righteous Judge of all because in Him there is no evil.

 

[JGG]

See you already make false allegations and twist things. You say God killed them because of their religion like that was the only thing and they were just poor innocents being persecuted for a different belief.

Actually, that's what a Christian site told me. Also, God didn't do it, the Israelites did. They just claim God told them to.

I should also add, that the website I got the scripture from, not only gives a different analysis of the passage, and why genocide is permissible, but gives an explanation that is contradictory to yours.

This is the very trickery that Satan himself uses to make the truth look like a lie. The people were depraved sinners offering blood sacrifices of their children and drinking blood.

Citation? The website I borrowed the passage from gives a contradictory explanation.

They were committing all sorts of sin and were judged to have completely rejected God. There was none that were innocents and they were never going to turn back to God just like with Sodom and Gomorrah. But you conveniently left that out so you could make it look like God was attacking innocents.

So God punished them for the sin of sacrificing their children...by slaughtering their children? Couldn't ISIS make the same claim? Have you not completely rejected Allah? Have you not engaged in rites and practices forbidden by their God?

Things brings up the question, how much sin is "all sorts of sin"? What is the threshold of sin where extermination and genocide becomes okay? Is it okay to kill those who have "rejected God" or rejected your God? Afterall, these nations were not atheist, they believed in a different God(s)

The passage makes it clear: "Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God." Deut. 7:1 says: "When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;"

Sure sounds like they want their land. Does that justify genocide?

As you see with ISIS they are the evil ones attacking the innocents for no good reason and are no in any position to judge and be taking any action. This is clearly seen. With God it was completely different. He is the righteous judge who is worthy to do so and is wise and all knowing to make those judgements. So its completely the opposite. What God had done in judging these evil people who were killing and destroying innocent people is the same as the US and the allies taking action to kill the evil ones who are killing innocents now like ISIS and other terrorists. Except God id even more worthy to do so as He is in the position of the only righteous Judge of all because in Him there is no evil.

I'm not saying it isn't evil. But given that you have no problem with the Israelites when they did it, I don't see how you can comment on the morality of it when ISIS does it. The Israelites slaughtered these people because God commanded it, ISIS is slaughtering people because Allah commands it. If genocide and killing is wrong then it's wrong, right? If genocide is okay, then it's still okay, right? How do you make exceptions?

 

[stevevw]

Why does this come as a surprise to you? There are various versions of Islam, as there are various versions of Christianity. People reading the same sacred text may have different interpretations, which translate to differences in theology.

So you have just decided in your own good wisdom that what they believe in just another version of the religion. Just like the IRA's version is another version of Christianity. It didn't ever occur to you that it may not be another version but it may just be a crazy made up interpretation of something that they made up themselves. Why does it have to be one alternative that is another version of the same religion. I thought religion was suppose to be good to others and promote love and kindness. Isn't that how its suppose to be. How do you know its not a crazy idea that ISIS made up as they went along and just used a bit of the religion and twisted the truth of it by mixing it with man made interpretations of influenced by hate and cruelty. Isn't hate something that doesn't come from religion.

The subjectivist doesn't deny the existence of common and well-established moral standards. She argues that the origins of those standards are subjective, not that they don't exist.

Then if thats the case why do they also acknowledge that there can be many versions of morals like ISIS, the IRA's and all the other versions you have just been defending with abortion. I was stating that the common majority of beliefs in Muslims was that of the people who are living good lives with good morals. But you were saying this doesn't prove anything. ISIS version of moral belief can be just as valid and have expert opinion behind it to make them believe that they are just as right. You argued that other religions who believe that abortion is ok have their version of morals that say the opposite of what those who say abortion is wrong. So all this isn't having some common well established moral standards. Its dividing them and allowing many different versions.

No, it's not. You are confusing two senses of the word "moral" - one descriptive and the other prescriptive. When we are talking about ISIS' morality we are using the word descriptively - to describe what ISIS claims to be moral. When we say that ISIS' actions are immoral we are using the word prescriptively - we are making a claim about what is moral (and what isn't).

Well thats where the confusion is because I'm not making the claim. I am stating a truth based on my moral position which is what I believe to be the objective moral truth. We have to have a standard to go by so we can make some judgements about things. So we can say this is definitely wrong and that is right. But Ill revert back to what you said earlier about abortion. You said that some religions can think that abortion is OK with their moral views just like other religions say that its wrong with their moral views. They both cant be right at the same time. Who is right and who is wrong.

How does that solve the problem though? There are many religions making many different moral claims, each appealing to God as justification. They can't all be right can they? How are you able to ascertain which religiously based moral claims are true and which are false?

Well thats what you were saying before with abortion. You were giving me examples of religions that said that abortion was morally OK. Yet we both knew we had religions that said it was morally not OK. So you were implying that we can have some saying its OK and some saying its not at the same time. I was saying no you cant and that they were not saying it was OK but were actually still saying it was wrong and they were all agreeing. The truth is there is only one moral truth and that is Gods. But people try to side step the truth by adding this subjectivity and then we begin to have all these many versions.

Ummm... no, I haven't interchanged the words. My point was that a single value does not necessarily translate to a particular moral position, and that a moral position on an issue such as abortion is probably determined by various combinations of values (e.g., life, autonomy, etc).

But aren't all those values still adding up to you should respect life, life is precious, treat life carefully, make sure you do everything to keep someone safe ect. They maybe all different situations that can be applied. But they all are pointing in the same direction that life is valuable and we should take someones life. Interpretations are another thing within each moral position. If you dont value some aspect of what life is in the first place then you wont be held accountable for not thinking that life is valuable in the situation.

So if someone thinks that an embryo is not life at a certain stage then and it has no value then there is no accountability in relation to that moral that abortion is wrong because its taking a life. But then we have to assess the truth through reasoning and facts. When is life life or is someone just avoiding the truth that maybe an embryo is life from the beginning. That will have to be based on some evidence. But if they truly dont know and believe its not life then there is no value and they are not breaching anything.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

A moral position that killing is wrong is a truth that can stand the test of time and what different people may think. I believe its a truth from God and not a man made thing. It hasn't been formulated or developed over time so that we have eventually come to a realization that killing is wrong. Its just in us from the beginning. When Cain killed Abel in the beginning he knew without having to be pointed out that he had done wrong. There wasnt a time where we were killing and each other and then we gradually eveolved to think killing was wrong. Its always been wrong and we have always know that. Thats the moral truth of God which is eternal.

The value of life has always been known as well. But we can have a different view of what is valuable. Like I said with life and non life. If its seen as just a egg with no life then it cant have any value. But then there has to be an assessment of what is life to find out the facts. Many religious people say that life starts at conception. So life is valuable from the beginning. So if someone doesn't think there is any life then abortion can be justified. But we also have to assess are they believing that the fetus is not life to justify their actions of having an abortion. So here we can see if there is any value and this can apply to many things like euthanasia and the death penalty. But the value is going to be similar is it life. Does it have a value of life or no life.

How does God serve as an explanation?

C. S lewis's argument for morals being from God is probably the best explanation I can think of.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too — for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist — in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless — I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality — namely my idea of justice — was full of sense. Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.*
CS Lewis’ Moral Argument | Atheology

As I said previously, if it were "plain to see and understand" just by reading it then the entire field of Biblical hermeneutics would be pointless. What you consider "plain to see" in your interpretation of the Bible isn't necessarily plain to everyone else reading it. Are you assuming that your interpretation of the Bible is infallible?

My interpretation of the bible is what it says. Its not some matrix book that we can get several different versions from. Its quite easy to understand. The parables of Jesus are written in a way so that it is easy to understand. Its like a cake receipt. You dont have different versions of the receipt otherwise you will get a flat or burnt cake. If all else fails follow the instructions on the back of the pack.

 

[stevevw]

the quote isn't working properly