Where do you get your morals from?

[Par5]

You mean "genocide". Ethnic cleansing is a broader category, removing or driving people out of a region by any means, with or without killings. Does this help clarify?

It's the opposite of what God commanded Israel about foreigners that came to live among them --

Leviticus 19:34 You must treat the foreigner living among you as native-born and love him as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

and

17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. 18 He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing.19And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt. -- Deuteronomy 10

There you go again, cherry picking verses and omitting the verses where the same god you believe in orders the slaughter of everyone, including children and infants. You have already stated on another thread where biblical genocide was being discussed, that the children murdered were then only asleep and waiting to be transported to some celestial paradise. For you to say such a thing in order to justify biblical genocide begs the question, which just happens to be the same as the title of this thread, where do you get your morals from?

 

[Halbhh]

There you go again, cherry picking verses and omitting the verses where the same god you believe in orders the slaughter of everyone, including children and infants. You have already stated on another thread where biblical genocide was being discussed, that the children murdered were then only asleep and waiting to be transported to some celestial paradise. For you to say such a thing in order to justify biblical genocide begs the question, which just happens to be the same as the title of this thread, where do you get your morals from?

The question isn't whether people lust after money, power, blood, and more, but instead what can save them from that downward pull that sometimes takes over any human heart.

You could put your faith in America. Many have. Or technology, or human nature. American often amplifies human nature.

Consider:
America

Oh, and about your question -- I've sought out someone wiser than myself to help me know the way to go. Someone I found wiser than Emerson, Lao Tzu, and many others.

 

[Robert65]

I see morality as partly innate and partly social/cultural indoctrination. Since my earliest memories I have had what I now call a moral compass. When my actions deviated from said compass it would cause a level of dissonance within me thus compelling me (most of the time) to fall back inline with my moral compass. The other part is social indoctrination in which my values were handed to me and I was told "obey or else!" Sadly I did not seriously and objectively analyze morality until my late 40's, something I wish I had done decades previous. Today my moral code is based upon the negative of the Golden Rule which basically states; If I would not want a thing done to me then I should not do that thing to another. I have a moral litmus test too that assesses moral quandaries. To me the boundary that separated action from immoral action is harm... as subjective as that is.

 

[Halbhh]

I see morality as partly innate and partly social/cultural indoctrination. Since my earliest memories I have had what I now call a moral compass. When my actions deviated from said compass it would cause a level of dissonance within me thus compelling me (most of the time) to fall back inline with my moral compass. The other part is social indoctrination in which my values were handed to me and I was told "obey or else!" Sadly I did not seriously and objectively analyze morality until my late 40's, something I wish I had done decades previous. Today my moral code is based upon the negative of the Golden Rule which basically states; If I would not want a thing done to me then I should not do that thing to another. I have a moral litmus test too that assesses moral quandaries. To me the boundary that separated action from immoral action is harm... as subjective as that is.

It's a good start. You'd be impressed at some points (amazed or taken aback at others possibly) if you read all Jesus said on how to treat others. As you try the things He said to do, the results are amazingly better than we expect I've found.

See, God is not content to only outlaw slavery (as He has in Matthew 7:12), rape and other normal human evils (that continue widely today, all of them), but instead God seeks to change our hearts, here, during this temporary time we all have on Earth.

So that we will not even want to enslave others, not even by underpaying workers, nor by using others or taking advantage of others in direct or even indirect ways, not any way at all, old or new.

He's not aiming to merely give laws we will work ways around, but instead to truly change our hearts so that we stop mistreating others.

But that's less easy to do than it first would seem. All can do it some of the time, or even much of the time, but only some can do it consistently

Here's a good place to start to hear more of Jesus's words if you like poetical wordings at times:
John 1 NIV
Or if you like a less poetical wording, you might first start with this one:
Matthew 3 NIV

 

[Kentonio]

That's based on available historical data, but don't expect it to be accurate as we simply don't have hard data from hundreds of years ago. I'd actually expect those pre-20th century numbers to be radically under-estimated, due to advances in crime detection, reporting and investigation.

The world used to be an extremely violent and bloody place. Now its a much less violent and bloody place (in the advanced countries at least). Whether that's due to improved morality or simply advances in technology ensuring people's basic material needs are more widely met (and the increasing difficulty of actually getting away with crime) its impossible to say.

 

[Halbhh]

There you go again, cherry picking verses and omitting the verses where the same god you believe in orders the slaughter of everyone, including children and infants. You have already stated on another thread where biblical genocide was being discussed, that the children murdered were then only asleep and waiting to be transported to some celestial paradise. For you to say such a thing in order to justify biblical genocide begs the question, which just happens to be the same as the title of this thread, where do you get your morals from?

Let's consider precisely what is genocide --

1. the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

the definition of genocide


When the allies fire bombed Dresden, killing men women and children, by intent, was that 'genocide'?

Or Tokyo, an extreme instance -- "The Bombing of Tokyo (東京大空襲 Tōkyōdaikūshū) often refers to a series of firebombing air raids by the United States Army Air Forcesduring the Pacific campaigns of World War II. Operation Meetinghouse, which was conducted on the night of 9–10 March 1945, is regarded as the single most destructive bombing raid in human history.[1] 16 square miles (41 km2) of central Tokyo were destroyed, leaving an estimated 100,000 civilians dead and over 1 million homeless."
Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

Was that genocide?

Hiroshima? Did you know America used up the available refined nuclear bomb making enriched Uranium and Plutonium on hand for the 2 bombs, and after Nagasaki, we could not have quickly dropped another one? The 2 bombs were made to be as big as possible at that time.

But, to me and most people, 'genocide' is trying to kill all the members of an ethnic or racial group from a region because of their race or ethnicity.

That's not the same as mass deaths in wars motivated for other reasons. For instance, a war to take land. Or a nuclear bomb meant to force a quicker end to a war, even though it will kill men, women and children in large mass (potentially even 100% of a small city became possible in the 1950s).

What does genocide mean to most people?

I think of the Nazis trying to actually round up and kill all of the Jews in many Europeans countries. The actual aim was to kill all the Jews possible from many nations, because they were Jews. Not in order to take land, etc.

When Israel was directed to entirely destroy certain cities, the 2 reasons given in the text were to take the land, and 2nd to entirely end the evil of the cities, especially the child sacrifices in fires (Deu 12:29-31).

The goal was not racial nor ethnic. Alien captives could become full wives. Rahab for instance is one famous example, who became an ancestor of the line of King David, of thus of both Mary and Joseph too.

 

[Halbhh]

That's based on available historical data, but don't expect it to be accurate as we simply don't have hard data from hundreds of years ago. I'd actually expect those pre-20th century numbers to be radically under-estimated, due to advances in crime detection, reporting and investigation.

The world used to be an extremely violent and bloody place. Now its a much less violent and bloody place (in the advanced countries at least). Whether that's due to improved morality or simply advances in technology ensuring people's basic material needs are more widely met (and the increasing difficulty of actually getting away with crime) its impossible to say.

Interesting, and encouraging (even if not reliable, either way, even if just suggestive)!

Would you give the link please also?

I was able to find relatively reliable data graphed from 1900 - 2006 here:
https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_083892.pdf

That one also has New York City from 1797 to 2000, an graph with quite a different shape.

Next, a 2nd source (always good to try to find additional sources) --
http://www.jrsa.org/projects/Historical.pdf
(scroll to page 38)

 

[Par5]

Let's consider precisely what is genocide --

1. the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

the definition of genocide


When the allies fire bombed Dresden, killing men women and children, by intent, was that 'genocide'?

Or Tokyo, an extreme instance -- "The Bombing of Tokyo (東京大空襲 Tōkyōdaikūshū) often refers to a series of firebombing air raids by the United States Army Air Forcesduring the Pacific campaigns of World War II. Operation Meetinghouse, which was conducted on the night of 9–10 March 1945, is regarded as the single most destructive bombing raid in human history.[1] 16 square miles (41 km2) of central Tokyo were destroyed, leaving an estimated 100,000 civilians dead and over 1 million homeless."
Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

Was that genocide?

Hiroshima? Did you know America used up the available refined nuclear bomb making enriched Uranium and Plutonium on hand for the 2 bombs, and after Nagasaki, we could not have quickly dropped another one? The 2 bombs were made to be as big as possible at that time.

But, to me and most people, 'genocide' is trying to kill all the members of an ethnic or racial group from a region because of their race or ethnicity.

That's not the same as mass deaths in wars motivated for other reasons. For instance, a war to take land. Or a nuclear bomb meant to force a quicker end to a war, even though it will kill men, women and children in large mass (potentially even 100% of a small city became possible in the 1950s).

What does genocide mean to most people?

I think of the Nazis trying to actually round up and kill all of the Jews in many Europeans countries. The actual aim was to kill all the Jews possible from many nations, because they were Jews. Not in order to take land, etc.

When Israel was directed to entirely destroy certain cities, the 2 reasons given in the text were to take the land, and 2nd to entirely end the evil of the cities, especially the child sacrifices in fires (Deu 12:29-31).

The goal was not racial nor ethnic. Alien captives could become full wives. Rahab for instance is one famous example, who became an ancestor of the line of King David, of thus of both Mary and Joseph too.

 

[Par5]

The firebombing of Dresden and the nuclear attacks on Japan, terrible as they were in their acts of destruction and loss of human life, were not acts of genocide as they were not carried out with the intention of completely eradicating the German and Japanese people, unlike the Nazis who attempted to wipe out every Jew that lived.
You mention in your post the evil of child sacrifice. I agree. It was an evil thing and totally wrong and immoral, just as I think the slavery and genocide as recorded in the bible was totally wrong and immoral.
As I am sure you know, I had a post deleted and received a warning regarding a post I made to you in relation to biblical slavery and genocide. In reply to a post you made to me, I asked you what the content of that post had to do with your support for slavery and genocide. As was very obvious, I was referring to the slavery and genocide recorded in the bible. For that, my post was deleted and I received a warning.
Perhaps you would now like to say that like me, you believe the slavery and genocide in the bible were wrong and immoral? That the slavery was wrong as a slave was considered to be property who could have his wife and children taken from him as an inheritance for his master. That biblical genocide which included the deliberate targeting of children and infants to be put to the sword in order to ensure that ethnic group could not continue in existence, was wrong and immoral.
If that is indeed what you believe then I will gladly and sincerely apologize to you for saying you supported biblical slavery and genocide.

 

[Halbhh]

The firebombing of Dresden and the nuclear attacks on Japan, terrible as they were in their acts of destruction and loss of human life, were not acts of genocide as they were not carried out with the intention of completely eradicating the German and Japanese people, unlike the Nazis who attempted to wipe out every Jew that lived.
You mention in your post the evil of child sacrifice. I agree. It was an evil thing and totally wrong and immoral, just as I think the slavery and genocide as recorded in the bible was totally wrong and immoral.
As I am sure you know, I had a post deleted and received a warning regarding a post I made to you in relation to biblical slavery and genocide. In reply to a post you made to me, I asked you what the content of that post had to do with your support for slavery and genocide. As was very obvious, I was referring to the slavery and genocide recorded in the bible. For that, my post was deleted and I received a warning.
Perhaps you would now like to say that like me, you believe the slavery and genocide in the bible were wrong and immoral? That the slavery was wrong as a slave was considered to be property who could have his wife and children taken from him as an inheritance for his master. That biblical genocide which included the deliberate targeting of children and infants to be put to the sword in order to ensure that ethnic group could not continue in existence, was wrong and immoral.
If that is indeed what you believe then I will gladly and sincerely apologize to you for saying you supported biblical slavery and genocide.

Ok.

Of course I don't support genocide. To even say I do prevents discussion also. But I'm trying to take it you didn't mean so because of misunderstanding and wordings.

We seem to agree genocide is the attempt to eliminate an ethnic or racial group from a wide area (more than just one town), because of their ethnicity or race. (at least this is what it means to me)

I don't support that. And neither does the Bible.

Instead, analogous to the U.S. in WWII, the motive for wiping out a town was not in order to kill people because of their ethnic or racial identity. Not the motive. While the U.S. motive was to try to end the war more quickly, the motive in the Bible in Deuteronomy-Joshua was different from the U.S. in WWII, but was definitely not about race or ethnicity.

Therefore it was not genocide of course, but something else. Just like the U.S. killing 100,000 in Tokyo in one night was not genocide.

In the scripture, the motive to wipe out certain area cities (not every city, but certain ones) was given in such places as Deuteronomy 12:29-31 -- about the particular evil being done in those cities.

Because of that extreme evil, those cities were forfeit, God decided. And additionally their evil culture was to be destroyed to the extent it would not come right back a year or 10 later.

Also, God appears to have wanted Israel to understand that child-sacrificing idol worship leads to total destruction (everyone sent on to Judgement Day immediately, where the innocent will be separated away from the guilty after the fact).

The experience of destroying the cities, for Israel, was to be a lesson -- this evil leads to total destruction. (Also, we see in the text that Israel often decided not to entirely destroy various cities....)

But...

Israel would later in time come to do that same evil. In spite of the repeated warnings.

And Israel itself also would be devastated in result, with massive death and destruction -- it's all there in the Old Testament.

Israel got a similar extreme punishment when it's people began sacrificing children on altars.

There was again, just like before, no motive for that destruction of Israel that was about race or ethnic identity.

It was entirely about ending the evil, just like before. Same reason.

If you read through all the Old Testament you'd encounter the short Malachi chapter 4. It could help clear up a lot here. (just 6 verses also)
Malachi 4 NIV
See, unless humanity changes and loves its children, verse 6, loves children instead of killing them, sacrificing them...God would (however often needed) come and totally destroy the land (city, nation).

See it there?

The message given many times in the OT (and sometimes in the New) -- He is slow to anger, but will not tolerate the extreme evils forever.
He will destroy them.

So, if you are actually against slavery and genocide and child sacrifice and other evils...then you are aligned with God in that way.

But God appears to intend not merely to promulgate laws that people won't follow in their true spirit.
-- if they didn't want the change they would just go around the law and just end up doing the same evils in new ways, usually even worse! (and that happens plenty also in the scripture, over the chapters)

Not enough. He wants actual results -- real change. Not just laws.

He wants us to actually stop doing the evil. Not merely make a law against it.

He intends true change in human hearts, so that we don't even want to continue doing evil. The law is only to aid as a teaching tool, but can't run far ahead of where human hearts are ready to go.

So, first God had to gradually change our hearts. And that's a deeper story you can see in the Old Testament, very plainly and clearly, if you read through.

 

[Par5]

Ok.

Of course I don't support genocide. To even say I do prevents discussion also. But I'm trying to take it you didn't mean so because of misunderstanding and wordings.

We seem to agree genocide is the attempt to eliminate an ethnic or racial group from a wide area (more than just one town), because of their ethnicity or race. (at least this is what it means to me)

I don't support that. And neither does the Bible.

Instead, analogous to the U.S. in WWII, the motive for wiping out a town was not in order to kill people because of their ethnic or racial identity. Not the motive. While the U.S. motive was to try to end the war more quickly, the motive in the Bible in Deuteronomy-Joshua was different from the U.S. in WWII, but was definitely not about race or ethnicity.

Therefore it was not genocide of course, but something else. Just like the U.S. killing 100,000 in Tokyo in one night was not genocide.

In the scripture, the motive to wipe out certain area cities (not every city, but certain ones) was given in such places as Deuteronomy 12:29-31 -- about the particular evil being done in those cities.

Because of that extreme evil, those cities were forfeit, God decided. And additionally their evil culture was to be destroyed to the extent it would not come right back a year or 10 later.

Also, God appears to have wanted Israel to understand that child-sacrificing idol worship leads to total destruction (everyone sent on to Judgement Day immediately, where the innocent will be separated away from the guilty after the fact).

The experience of destroying the cities, for Israel, was to be a lesson -- this evil leads to total destruction. (Also, we see in the text that Israel often decided not to entirely destroy various cities....)

But...

Israel would later in time come to do that same evil. In spite of the repeated warnings.

And Israel itself also would be devastated in result, with massive death and destruction -- it's all there in the Old Testament.

Israel got a similar extreme punishment when it's people began sacrificing children on altars.

There was again, just like before, no motive for that destruction of Israel that was about race or ethnic identity.

It was entirely about ending the evil, just like before. Same reason.

If you read through all the Old Testament you'd encounter the short Malachi chapter 4. It could help clear up a lot here. (just 6 verses also)
Malachi 4 NIV
See, unless humanity changes and loves its children, verse 6, loves children instead of killing them, sacrificing them...God would (however often needed) come and totally destroy the land (city, nation).

See it there?

The message given many times in the OT (and sometimes in the New) -- He is slow to anger, but will not tolerate the extreme evils forever.
He will destroy them.

So, if you are actually against slavery and genocide and child sacrifice and other evils...then you are aligned with God in that way.

But God appears to intend not merely to promulgate laws that people won't follow in their true spirit.
-- if they didn't want the change they would just go around the law and just end up doing the same evils in new ways, usually even worse! (and that happens plenty also in the scripture, over the chapters)

Not enough. He wants actual results -- real change. Not just laws.

He wants us to actually stop doing the evil. Not merely make a law against it.

He intends true change in human hearts, so that we don't even want to continue doing evil. The law is only to aid as a teaching tool, but can't run far ahead of where human hearts are ready to go.

So, first God had to gradually change our hearts. And that's a deeper story you can see in the Old Testament, very plainly and clearly, if you read through.

On the basis of what you have just said in your post, I don't think I will be making an apology to you anytime soon. What I read is what I have been reading in most of the posts you have made concerning biblical slavery and genocide, and that is your attempts to justify biblical slavery and the murder of children and infants. I don't care if you say the bible can help explain your god's reasons for the slaughter of children. I don't believe in gods, and I certainly would not believe in a god that orders its followers to go and systematically slaughter children and infants.
The fact is that you attempt to justify such barbarity, and I find such barbarity totally unjustifiable. We could not be further apart in our thinking, so I see no point in continuing to correspond with you on the subjects in question. I wish you good day.

 

[Halbhh]

On the basis of what you have just said in your post, I don't think I will be making an apology to you anytime soon. What I read is what I have been reading in most of the posts you have made concerning biblical slavery and genocide, and that is your attempts to justify biblical slavery and the murder of children and infants. I don't care if you say the bible can help explain your god's reasons for the slaughter of children. I don't believe in gods, and I certainly would not believe in a god that orders its followers to go and systematically slaughter children and infants.
The fact is that you attempt to justify such barbarity, and I find such barbarity totally unjustifiable. We could not be further apart in our thinking, so I see no point in continuing to correspond with you on the subjects in question. I wish you good day.

For the humans murdering children and innocents on altars in fire, God had entire cities destroyed -- everyone sent to Judgment Day, where the guilty and innocent are sorted apart, the innocent to Life (eternal), and the guilty that don't repent to the second death -- and later promised He will do so again if people don't turn their hearts to their children in love.

He cares enough to stop evil, and will do so.

If a person assumes when children die that's the end for them -- that there is no afterlife -- they have in effect just assumed God doesn't exist.

Of course, that contradicts the same source for all this discussion, the scriptures.

When a person uses one of the various forms of God-doesn't-exist as a premise -- here the assumption mortal death is final -- then logic dictates they should arrive at the conclusion God doesn't exist. A simple transformation of one form of the assumption into another form.

See? It's circular reasoning.

We've all done circular reasoning at times. You have to notice all of your assumptions to be able to even avoid it at all.