Which Button Would You Push?

[Halbhh]

This all seems irrelevant. Did Harry Truman say God said so? Are you, like a previous poster, defending God on a tu quoque--humans do it too?

Truman? "The buck stops here." is a famous thing from him. I'm interested to know whether your view is only against God, or instead a general view against all war. That would better allow me to discuss the issues with you. If you are an extreme pacifist for instance, then I'd not need to address certain topics at all, and could skip past them. Or if you have an unusual view like for example that only infants are innocent, but women and children otherwise older than 1 year are all fine to kill as collateral damage, then that would be useful to know also. But mainly I'm interested to know if your viewpoint is only restricted to blaming God, but never men.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Truman? "The buck stops here." is a famous thing from him. I'm interested to know whether your view is only against God, or instead a general view against all war. That would better allow me to discuss the issues with you. If you are an extreme pacifist for instance, then I'd not need to address certain topics at all, and could skip past them. Or if you have an unusual view like for example that only infants are innocent, but women and children otherwise older than 1 year are all fine to kill as collateral damage, then that would be useful to know also. But mainly I'm interested to know if your viewpoint is only restricted to blaming God, but never men.

I'm against genocide regardless of who commits it.

Is it moral to kill the infants of your enemies?

Is it moral to commit genocide?

 

[Halbhh]

I'm against genocide regardless of who commits it.

Is it moral to kill the infants of your enemies?

Is it moral to commit genocide?

By definition, God is the One who reverses all death.

Example:

Suppose you, Tinker Grey, hear that Ralph killed Jane and her baby....

But then, later...you learn that in reality Jane and her baby are alive and well, and are living comfortably a nice life in New Zealand.

Then, logically, it follows that the claim/assertion that Ralph killed them must be false...

 

[Tinker Grey]

By definition, God is the One who reverses all death.

Example:

Suppose you, Tinker Grey, hear that Ralph killed Jane and her baby....

But then, later...you learn that in reality Jane and her baby are alive and well, and are living comfortably a nice life in New Zealand.

Then, logically, it follows that the claim/assertion that Ralph killed them must be false...

Is it moral to commit genocide?
Is it moral to kill infants?

 

[Halbhh]

Is it moral to commit genocide?
Is it moral to kill infants?

Exodus 20:13 You shall not murder.

Not only is it immoral to murder people, but it's a very serious sin, a 'mortal sin', for which one would perish in the real death (the one that really is a irreversible death), the 'second death' after the Judgement all will face after this temporary existence here.

Life and death here are sorta....temporary. They are like...a play on a stage -- but an improv one generally -- and the actors will be held to account for what they do, even though it has only temporary effect.

 

[Robban]

This all seems irrelevant. Did Harry Truman say God said so? Are you, like a previous poster, defending God on a tu quoque--humans do it too?

Just in case I am the previous poster I would like you to know something.

Torah is spiritual, I have never had a problem with it.

I do not take it literally in as much as I se it from the spiritual

meaning.

Torah is timeless, once one has learnt a piece it is up to that person to find a way to apply to today.

Deep mystical interpretations of the Torah-what is called nistor,
"hidden" dimension.

But also there is nigleh it's revealed dimension.

It is nothing new, the Saducees followed nigleh.

Fortunately they were expelled from the Sanhedrin.

 

[Taodeching]

I decided after some thoughts I would mash all the buttons

 

[Robban]

Deleted, wrong thread, wrong section. strange how it can be,

 

[Paulomycin]

I am not saying God owed them anything or that he doe snot have the right. I am asking why it is a good thing to kill the infants.

1.) Because they're all born in sin.
2.) Because Appeal to Emotion is a classic logical fallacy. The most famous of which involves appealing to children or babies, in lieu of a rational argument.

 

[durangodawood]

I decided after some thoughts I would mash all the buttons

That wont kill the terrorists twice, you know.

 

[Paulomycin]

Quoting scripture word for word is not an appeal to emotion fallacy.

This part. . .

Why was it good for God to tell Saul to kill the infants when God could have just killed the bad people?

. . .is not "quoting scripture word for word." That's your eisegetical and editorial bias imposed onto the text. Then you're saying that your spin interpretation = the word for word text when it clearly isn't.

I know you think that infants were as bad as the actual bad people but sin and total depravity is just an assertion and has not been demonstrated to be true.

It has been demonstrated, because it's part of the entire word-for-word narrative. Sorry, you can't cherry-pick the narrative according to your own self-imposed moral philosophy of: "These people actual bad people, but these people I can exploit for a cheap appeal to emotion."

 

[durangodawood]

1.) Because they're all born in sin.
2.) Because Appeal to Emotion is a classic logical fallacy. The most famous of which involves appealing to children or babies, in lieu of a rational argument.

Good grief. The story has babies in it. He didnt introduce babies into the analysis.

If you cant coolly and unemotionally discuss the impaling of babies on the end of a sword, well thats your problem.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Just in case I am the previous poster I would like you to know something.

Torah is spiritual, I have never had a problem with it.

I do not take it literally in as much as I se it from the spiritual

meaning.

Torah is timeless, once one has learnt a piece it is up to that person to find a way to apply to today.

Deep mystical interpretations of the Torah-what is called nistor,
"hidden" dimension.

But also there is nigleh it's revealed dimension.

It is nothing new, the Saducees followed nigleh.

Fortunately they were expelled from the Sanhedrin.

I honestly don't remember. Thanks for the info though; it's interesting.

 

[Theridiidae]

If there was a button A to kill all of the terrorists in a country that are going to in the future kill people and a button B to kill everyone in that country, what would you do?

Nothing?
Push the A button?
Push the B button?

The same thing I would do in the trolly problem. Nothing.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The same thing I would do in the trolly problem. Nothing.

Well, at least in this scenario, doing nothing kills no one.

Ooh, I know. What if it were a precariously balanced rocker button where if a slight breeze blew from one direction it would engage the A-switch and if it blew the other way it would be the B-switch?

What then?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

1.) Because they're all born in sin.

Why does that make it good for God to kill them?

2.) Because Appeal to Emotion is a classic logical fallacy. The most famous of which involves appealing to children or babies, in lieu of a rational argument.

The text says that God ordered Saul to kill the infants. I am not making an argument. My question is why is it good for God to kill infants? That is not an appeal to emotion.

 

[Paulomycin]

Good grief. The story has babies in it. He didnt introduce babies into the analysis.

So you assume that if babies are involved, then appeal to emotion fallacy is perfectly justified. lol. But that's always the best time to use appeal to emotion fallacy for rhetorical effect! It's nothing more than emotional manipulation.

If you cant coolly and unemotionally discuss the impaling of babies on the end of a sword, well thats your problem.

But I am. I'm coolly and unemotionally arguing from scripture that. . .

(a.) they were born in sin, and thus not "born innocent,"
(b.) God doesn't owe them anything,
(c.) total war, though indescribably awful, is not murder,
(d.) the Israelites are God's chosen instruments of Divine justice. Total justice. No do-overs. No sparing babies. Pretty much all total Divine judgement is consistent that way. No different from the flood narrative, nor the Apocalyptic narrative.
(e.) Appeal to emotion fallacy isn't a rational argument.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

This part. . .



. . .is not "quoting scripture word for word." That's your eisegetical and editorial bias imposed onto the text. Then you're saying that your spin interpretation = the word for word text when it clearly isn't.

Did God order Saul to kill the infants? If not, then show me how the text says differently.

It has been demonstrated, because it's part of the entire word-for-word narrative. Sorry, you can't cherry-pick the narrative according to your own self-imposed moral philosophy of: "These people actual bad people, but these people I can exploit for a cheap appeal to emotion."

How can an infant be bad enough to kill?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The same thing I would do in the trolly problem. Nothing.

Me too. Although I can see a justification to push A but there is no justification I can think of to push B.

 

[durangodawood]

So you assume that if babies are involved, then appeal to emotion fallacy is perfectly justified.

No its not a fallacy. Its the topic: how to think about God doing a "very wrong thing". Sometime very wrong things also have emotional content. That doesnt make it a fallacy to discuss them.