Why does God not stop the evil?

[quatona]

I have not asked you do ignore anything. You are not Dave Ellis, so please refrain from interrupting.

I responded to a post you directed at me and in which you quoted me.

 

[quatona]

I gather you are saying premise 2 is not true?

Refrain from gathering, just read. I said that premises 1 + 2 were unsupported.

 

[Elioenai26]

Refrain from gathering, just read. I said that premises 1 + 2 were unsupported.

The terrorists on 9/11, were of the subjective opinion that killing people because they were not Muslims was good and right.

Now, since this was their subjective opinion, one of several of course, and since there is no way to adjudicate between opposing opinions, because an opinion is neither inherently good or bad, right or wrong, better or worse than any other opinion, and since there is no standard that is not someone or some group of people's opinions to measure opposing opinions against to determine which adheres more to said standard, then can we say that the terrorist attacks even have a moral connotation at all? If so, how?

 

[quatona]

The terrorists on 9/11, were of the subjective opinion that killing people because they were not Muslims was good and right.

Again, you are changing the subject. Just to gain clarity before you move the goalposts once again:
From the fact that you didn´t respond to my statement but intead moved to new shores - am I right in assuming that you now do understand the difference between "not true" and "unsupported" (of which you pretended it wasn´t intelligible to you in your previous post?

Now for the point that you have replaced your recent one with (which, again, you replaced by a completely different one that you preferred to anbandon altogether once it was shredded into pieces immediately):

I´m not sure that your description of their motives and rationales is entirely correct, but one thing´s for sure: they considered 9/11 a good and right act.

Now, since this was their subjective opinion, one of several of course, and since there is no way to adjudicate between opposing opinions, because an opinion is neither inherently good or bad, right or wrong, better or worse than any other opinion,

Well, that´s not my personal opinion - but I´m sure you will ignore this statement just like you did the other countless times...

and since there is no standard to measure opposing opinions against to determine which adheres more to said standard, then can we say that the terrorist attacks even have a moral connotation at all? If so, how?

For a moral subjectivist, this is not a problem at all. He has his subjective opinion, and in view of the lack of any indication that there is a moral objectivity (which is a constituting aspect of his view) he will stick to this opinion. The fact that others have differing opinions doesn´t change his opinion, it doesn´t prompt him to consider his opinion insignificant or even adopt the opinion of those who have a different opinion.
What you do not understand (and which I am not expecting you to understand after countless and various attempts from many posters of explaining it to you) is that (in the use of a subjectivist) "morality" is not meant to point to an assumed objectivity. Actually, this should be obvious per definition of the terms, but something about it seems not to sink in with you (despite the fact that you yourself have been explicitly pointing out this difference on many occasions).

 

[Loudmouth]

So far we have God intentionally limiting His power by giving His dominion away, to us (heckuva responsibility, eh?) God Himself personally finding reproach for any possible solution, and -

Except that God didn't because the Amalekites were still being judged by God and were targeted for genocide by God. So much for giving his dominion away.

One thing you can't ignore is there is NO physical evidence to confirm any of this ever happened, and all evidence we do have suggests nothing like this ever happened.

What I can do is see how the Hebrew people portrayed their god, and from that portrayal I can determine if they are describing a moral or immoral god.

By the way, why didn't you address the post where I compared these unholy Priests to Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook? I think that's really the answer for this particular gory story.

I am comparing God to those unholy priests. I can compare God to Lanza if you want.

In fact, let's do so. If God had ordered Lanza to do those killings, would that make Lanza a moral person?

 

[Davian]

And I have repeatedly shown what you insist on missing.

Yet, you haven't.

You can lead a horse to water ...

The updated phrase would read, you can get a theist to paint themselves into a corner, but you can't stop them from walking out over the wet paint.

My reply to that will be to quote AV: I;s barn ignant, I's dies ignant. (With apologies for surely not getting it quite right, and yes of course the irony is intentional don't be foolish)

Actually, AV gave a forthright answer, complete with external reference. Can you imagine doing the same?

What I think is permissable? I'm sorry but I fail to see any relevance.

Dodge.

Do you accuse me of having friends in low places, crawl spaces, and flower vases?

Weave.

Do you accuse me of being an accomplice to it?

Dodge.

"Permissable" is a concept that applies there, and no I have no temptation to do any such thing.

Weave.

Not even when idiots online intentionally rattle my cage for no good reason.

And then the insults. Is that a Christian thing? You should get out of your cage more often.

 

[seeking Christ]

Let me refer you to the point you just responded to...

"We are here to question the religion and get answers from the Christians as to how certain things in the Bible that simply don't add up to us can be justified"

We have many questions about Christ's passion. Does that answer your question?

No. My question was why would you raise something so complex in this thread? There is no way to address it. Give it its own thread.

The problem is, you regard any challenge or questioning of your beliefs as foolishness or garbage and dismiss it as such without a response.

Absolutely false. Come up with a civil attitude and substance and you'll be addressed just fine.

 

[seeking Christ]

So in other words, since you can't answer my question, you concede it is genocide?

Objection: asked and answered.

 

[seeking Christ]

If you want an example of Christian genocide over the last 20 years, there are two examples that spring to mind right off the bat:

1. The war in Yugoslavia in which the Catholic Croats and Christian Orthodox Serbs carried out a genocide on the Muslim Bosnians, in which the leaders were later charged and convicted of genocide in the international criminal court.

2. The Lords Resistance Army is still undergoing a genocide of non-believers in central africa with the stated goal of establishing a state based on the law of the 10 commandments and Christian Fundamentalism. The international criminal court has arrest warrants out for various leaders of the LRA.

"Third world nations do horrible things, blame it on my own misunderstanding of the Bible!" Is not a valid argument. People in these areas do horrible things w/o Christianity too. It has nothing to do with this thread. Or are there war criminals from these events participating here? Somehow I don't think you've really had any opportunity to cross-examine them.

Lastly, many of the Christians in this very thread are making excuses for the genocide described within the Bible.... which is implied approval of those actions as well.

No, its not. This is at least a valid thing to discuss for this thread, so I'll give you credit where it is due, but your logic here is utterly flawed. You are the one making the positive claim, I will let you explain it in whatever way you can first, and I've emphasized the objectionable part so no more of this playing dumb nonsense.

 

[Elioenai26]

I´m not sure that your description of their motives and rationales is entirely correct, but one thing´s for sure: they considered 9/11 a good and right act.

The fluff is not necessary, just state the point as you encourage me to do.

Well, that´s not my personal opinion

It is not your personal opinion that all opinions are equally valid? Why?

For a moral subjectivist, this is not a problem at all. He has his subjective opinion, and in view of the lack of any indication that there is a moral objectivity (which is a constituting aspect of his view) he will stick to this opinion. The fact that others have differing opinions doesn´t change his opinion, it doesn´t prompt him to consider his opinion insignificant or even adopt the opinion of those who have a different opinion.
What you do not understand (and which I am not expecting you to understand after countless and various attempts from many posters of explaining it to you) is that (in the use of a subjectivist) "morality" is not meant to point to an assumed objectivity. Actually, this should be obvious per definition of the terms, but something about it seems not to sink in with you (despite the fact that you yourself have been explicitly pointing out this difference on many occasions).

What a great waste of time in saying nothing. You completely failed to respond to my question so I will ask it again:

I will allow you to answer the question I just asked and see if you can come up with something. You assert that not all opinions are equally valid. Why?

 

[seeking Christ]

Except that God didn't because the Amalekites were still being judged by God and were targeted for genocide by God. So much for giving his dominion away.

This is not rational discussion. You may bang your fist on the table all you like, but don't expect me to join you. I can try to aide your understanding, but not with any new information, only be repeating what you have already been presented with, which is that people don't live forever so God remains sovereign according to His plan even though He gave us His dominion, on Earth.

Notice that none of my statements have anything to do with you accepting any of it as factual, it is merely logical. You know for a fact people die. If God gave dominion to anyone, people dying doesn't violate that. Both these conditions must be able to co-exist and indeed they do. You also know you can do anything you are capable of, which is all "dominion" means. You therefore have dominion. When God takes you and I out, our dominion ceases. This in no way violates anything. It is perfectly normal. We know this because dead people can't do anything. It's kinda part of the definition, and generally how we can tell people are dead.

Nothing new or radical here, just terms that are unfamiliar to you.

What I can do is see how the Hebrew people portrayed their god, and from that portrayal I can determine if they are describing a moral or immoral god.

Obviously no you can't because you have no idea how they understand any of these stories, you just loudmouth your way through your own ad hoc versions and arrive at whatever you feel like coming up with, which is the most absurd thing you can possibly conceive of. You'll excuse me if I don't find that terribly noble.

I am comparing God to those unholy priests. I can compare God to Lanza if you want.

In fact, let's do so. If God had ordered Lanza to do those killings, would that make Lanza a moral person?

The comparison of Lanza to those unholy Priests you've been concerned with is valid, I think. I explained why, and others agree. What you are asking here is in no way a valid comparison so I'll not be addressing that. The unholy Priest would've kept killing just like Lanza would've had no armed resistance approached his position. Like most of our mass shooters nobody had to even fire a shot at him, he took his own life first. These unholy Priests were not such easy targets and were killed, to stop the evil, per God's judgment, per the story. Not really so difficult to understand this one, but others you raised are quite a bit more challenging.

There was a time when I thought maybe you asked questions because you wanted to understand, or at least be presented with something someone could conceive of as rational. We took a couple baby steps in that direction in the past 48 hours or so, amidst entirely too much turmoil. There is no way to come through a mess like what you're creating here and maintain any rationale intact. If nothing else I'm pretty clear at pointing out what is objectionable junk; I'm sure you have more than enough intelligence to know how to proceed if you actually want info.

 

[quatona]

The fluff is not necessary, just state the point as you encourage me to do.

It was a legitimate point: I am not sure that their rationales were the ones you ascribed to them. So I couldn´t agree with this part of your statement.

It is not your personal opinion that all opinions are equally valid? Why?

Immaterial. You claimed that this was my personal opinion. I corrected you: It is not my personal opinion, and I have never stated it was. I simply don´t want you to put words in my mouth.

What a great waste of time in saying nothing. You completely failed to respond to my question so I will ask it again:

I will allow you to answer the question I just asked and see if you can come up with something. You assert that not all opinions are equally valid.

I merely corrected you on your statement that it was my opinion that all opinions are equally valid. I never stated or implied anything like that. Thus, your argument was a strawman. That´s all I pointed out.

But just to humour you: "Equally valid" has no meaning from the pov of a subjectivist. Your question is loaded, and again it is your attempt to superimpose your objectivist paradigms on subjectivism.

 

[Elioenai26]

It was a legitimate point: I am not sure that their rationales were the ones you ascribed to them. So I couldn´t agree with this part of your statement.




Immaterial. You claimed that this was my personal opinion. I corrected you: It is not my personal opinion, and I have never stated it was. I simply don´t want you to put words in my mouth.






I merely corrected you on your statement that it was my opinion that all opinions are equally valid. I never stated or implied anything like that. Thus, your argument was a strawman. That´s all I pointed out.

But just to humour you: "Equally valid" has no meaning from the pov of a subjectivist. Your question is loaded, and again it is your attempt to superimpose your objectivist paradigms on subjectivism.

The inherent weakness of subjectivism is that under it, and if everyone were a subjectivist, there would be no justifiable basis for adjudicating between opposing moral views. So ethical subjectivism for this very reason, fails as a tenable ethical system. In fact, it cannot even be called moral at all. For morality deals with right and wrong behavior. But since there is no standard by which to adjudicate between opposing moral values beyond the values themselves, there can be no right or wrong behavior in any meaningful sense of the terms. The view prohibits a sound basis for such distinguishing and approving or condoning certain acts.

But we as humans cannot stop doing it. We cannot stop condemning people for bad behavior and actions and ideas and thoughts. Hence, even if subjectivism were true, it still would not be advisable to adhere to....unless.......unless....you want to adhere to it so that you can be free to do as you will.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The inherent weakness of subjectivism is that under it, and if everyone were a subjectivist, there would be no justifiable basis for adjudicating between opposing moral views. So ethical subjectivism for this very reason, fails as a tenable ethical system. In fact, it cannot even be called moral at all. For morality deals with right and wrong behavior. But since there is no standard by which to adjudicate between opposing moral values beyond the values themselves, there can be no right or wrong behavior in any meaningful sense of the terms. The view prohibits a sound basis for such distinguishing and approving or condoning certain acts.

Your own religious morality suffers from the very same problems you claim make subjectivism untenable.

But we as humans cannot stop doing it. We cannot stop condemning people for bad behavior and actions and ideas and thoughts. Hence, even if subjectivism were true, it still would not be advisable to adhere to....unless.......unless....you want to adhere to it so that you can be free to do as you will.

Subjectivism is not the same as relativism. How many times must we repeat this?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have pointed out to you why your basic question is not germaine, and attempts to force Scripture to be what it is not. If that level of thinking is too high for you, this issue will forever be out of your reach.

The more basic aspects here haven't been grasped, so going on to the more complex issue of why children are depicted as being slaughtered in some stories would be not only premature but impossible; besides, you haven't told me what you know about why God sent the flood, so there's no expedient way to cover the prerequisite info there.

All you want to do is accuse "genocide" anyway. There is no semblance of intelligible conversation, nor even civility. If you think you're going to get answers like that you're sorely mistaken.

So, in summary, you've got nothing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Of course not.

Im simply stating that when you hold the view that genocide is wrong even if the Nazis thought it was right, then you are saying that there opinion does not matter. You are saying that genocide is not right just because they thought it was, but that it was wrong even if an entire society thought it was right good and acceptable.

when you speak from this view you are saying that opinions don't actually determine what is morally right and what is morally wrong or what is acceptable and what is not acceptable what is moral and what is immoral you're also saying that a society does not determine what is right and what is wrong what is moral or what is immoral.

It is the same exact thing as saying that the earth is round. Individuals do not determine whether or not the earth is round by saying the earth is round nor do they determine that the earth is not round by saying that the earth is not round. Their opinion regarding the shape of the earth simply does not matter or have 1 way or another an effect on the actual shape of the earth. it is the same thing as saying even if an elementary school child thinks that the earth is flat because all they can see when they walk outside is flat land the earth is not flat because the child thinks that it is flat or is of the opinion that is flat. we would say that the child was wrong in saying that the earth was flat because the shape of the earth is not determined by the opinion of the child or the opinion of an adult or the general consensus of a society. we are rational reasonable and right to maintain that the earth is round even if Russia or China thought the earth was not round. likewise we are rational and reasonable to maintain that genocide is wrong even if some societies think the genocide is right or some individuals think that genocide is right or even if Germany, Russia, and China thought that genocide was right it would be wrong because genocide's being wrong is not determined by general consensus of society or an individual's opinion genocide is WRONG OBJECTIVELY.

When a judge sentences a child molester to prison and tells the molester that molesting children is wrong, the child molester can say: " well your honor, that's your opinion" all he wants to. the judge is basing his sentence on the view that child molestation is objectively wrong.

Now, if you are having trouble understanding this, that is not a good argument for moral relativism. Nor is it a good argument against moral objectivism. It is simply evidence that you are having a hard time understanding simple philosophical precepts and definitions.

The two truth bearers: "genocide is objectively wrong" and "the earth is round" are true in virtue of their correspondence to an actual state of affairs that obtain in the real world, not a person's opinion.

What exactly is so hard for you to understand about this?

Does any of this address my question?

 

[Dave Ellis]

I have not asked you do ignore anything. You are not Dave Ellis, so please refrain from interrupting.

If you want something to think about, think about the following:

1. If God does not exist, then the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks were not objectively wrong.

2. The 9/11 Terrorist Attacks were objectively wrong

3. Therefore, God exists.

Meditate on that for a while.

I agree, the 9/11 attacks were not objectively wrong. However, I believe they were wrong, as does most of the rest of our society. that however is a subjective belief, not an objective one.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The terrorists on 9/11, were of the subjective opinion that killing people because they were not Muslims was good and right.

Now, since this was their subjective opinion, one of several of course, and since there is no way to adjudicate between opposing opinions, because an opinion is neither inherently good or bad, right or wrong, better or worse than any other opinion, and since there is no standard that is not someone or some group of people's opinions to measure opposing opinions against to determine which adheres more to said standard, then can we say that the terrorist attacks even have a moral connotation at all? If so, how?

With your post taken into account, I now ask you to use your objective source to prove them wrong.

Keep in mind, an objective source is independent of your own personal opinion. Your own subjective opinion may be in agreement with your objective source, but simply asserting your belief that they were wrong is not enough.

So, how can you objectively prove them wrong independent of your own personal stance. Demonstrate it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

No. My question was why would you raise something so complex in this thread? There is no way to address it. Give it its own thread.

They're fairly simple questions... what's the point of starting a new thread just so you can dodge even more questions in that one?

Absolutely false. Come up with a civil attitude and substance and you'll be addressed just fine.

Bahahahaha, you should talk about a civil attitude.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Objection: asked and answered.

Actually, you never answered it.

I believe you said something about "refusing to engage in this foolishness"