Why does God not stop the evil?

[Dave Ellis]

Please explain to me which part of anachronism you fail to understand.

How can a timeless, unchanging and perfect God be an anachronism?

If God has existed as he is since the beginning of time, and he's had the same perfect moral code in place, your anachronism argument is simple nonsense.

Unless you are asserting that God would order genocide in this day and age, then it logically follows an unchanging being would never have ordered a genocide at any point in it's history.


Or, if your argument is based around the idea we hadn't invented the word or concept Genocide at that time, that's even more ridiculous. We are not prevented from labelling historical actions with certain words we create after the fact. Why would you even make such a pointless argument?

God ordered the mass slaughter of every living Amalekite. Given the definition of Genocide, the action fits the definition. Therefore it's a genocide. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Who is this "we?" Speak for yourself.

I agree with his statement, therefore he is justified in using we.

 

[Dave Ellis]

How do you know the world is real, and not just a dream?

In the strictest sense, we don't. If we were actually living in the Matrix right now, we'd have no way to demonstrate it. We are forced to live our lives based on the assumption that the world is real.

That's probably the only thing I take on pure faith. I'm pretty well forced by practicality to assume without actual evidence that this is the real world and not the matrix.

Of course he does not regard them all as equal. He considers his own subjective view to be right and everyone else's must be measured according to his own subjective view. But since they are all opinions, none is ACTUALLY better than any other, more right than any other, or more wrong than any other. They are all opinions.

Does a man living present day who believes he's Napoleon have an equally valid view to a person who does not believe that man is Napoleon?

All opinions are not equal. In fact, rarely do we regard opinions as equal. This continued assertion that all opinions are equal and beyond criticism is simply nonsense. That's not the way the world works.

 

[Dave Ellis]

No problem at all. They were wrong anyway. You know why you will agree with me?

Because you agree it is wrong to kill people because they are a certain race thats why.

* Note: I'm making this argument to prove a point, I don't have any sympathies with the holocaust or genocide at all.

So in the interest of playing Devils Advocate, I will posit the argument that I don't agree with you. Mass Murder and Genocide is fine under many circumstances.

Demonstrably prove me wrong to the same degree that you can demonstrably prove that 2 + 2 = 4 by using an objective source to justify your argument.

 

[Freodin]

Elieonai, I really don't understand why you are evading the main point.

The question is not, as we have already agreed on, whether act X is morally right or wrong, or whether or who agrees on that. The question is whether such a statement is right or wrong independent of conscious thought, opinion or evaluation.

You have also repeatedly claimed that you can present arguments to show that your objectivist point of view is correct.

Then why don't you simply stop that conversation about your (evasive, misleading and dishonest) debating style by presenting these arguments?

 

[KCfromNC]

and since there is no way to adjudicate between opposing opinions

Are you unaware of the ways this happens in reality, or are you ignoring them to prove a point?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

The only one banging their hands on the table is you. You continue to claim that God gave away dominion, even when I present evidence that he didn't. Your response? Repeat what you have already said. That is banging your hands on the table.

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.

Therefore, people die anyway so genocide is moral? Is that what you are arguing?

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.

You are banging you hands on the table again.

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.

That doesn't answer my question. If God had ordered Lanza to shoot those people would he have been moral?

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.

My questions are only showing how indefensible your position is. Putting "because God says so" at the end of a command does not make the command moral. It never has. You are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to show that genocide is moral if God orders it. If your "objective morality" allows genocide then it is not an objective morality that I want to be a part of.

 

[Davian]

That doesn't even begin to answer the question. You insist that objective moral values exist. Okay. But if those values are to have any practical significance to our moral problem-solving, then we must find a way of coming to know them.

Why Moral Subjectivism Doesn’t Imply Moral Relativism « Ockham's Beard

from that link:
"... what makes something right or wrong is not dependent on my personal proclivities, but on a common set of norms as agreed to by a group."

I said much same back here. Morality is about groups of individuals, not individuals.

 

[seeking Christ]

[QUOTE=Dave Ellis

 

[seeking Christ]

[QUOTE=Dave Ellis

 

[seeking Christ]

Therefore, people die anyway so genocide is moral? Is that what you are arguing?

Obviously not.

That doesn't answer my question. If God had ordered Lanza to shoot those people would he have been moral?

Obviously, I'm not about to answer a question so asinine.

My questions are only showing how indefensible your position is. Putting "because God says so" at the end of a command does not make the command moral. It never has. You are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to show that genocide is moral if God orders it. If your "objective morality" allows genocide then it is not an objective morality that I want to be a part of.

None of this has any bearing on what I'm saying. You will NEVER understand these portions of Scripture following your method here. I'm ok with that if you are, just don't continue pretending to ask any questions about it because you really don't want to know.

And again, in that case the simplest thing to do is listen to what the Jews say about their own stories: God never commanded any of it. Not sure why you have such a need to ignore that, I posted it many pages back, directly to YOU.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Obviously not.



Obviously, I'm not about to answer a question this asinine.

So, god does or does not, ask you guys to do asinine things?

 

[seeking Christ]

So, god does or does not, ask you guys to do asinine things?

Of the sort being considered here in this thread? No.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The Pope isn't the only one issuing papal bulls here. You refuse to carry on a reasonable or a civil conversation. Here you are at least trying to be civil and I give you credit for that, but reason is nowhere to be found. Look at your first line in the post I snipped this from, for example.

Hey, I'm not the one making excuses for those who commit genocide. You have no right to preach civility or morality.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I refuse to believe you are literally incapable of following a conversation. This is belligerence.

a·nach·ro·nism

[uh-nak-ruh-niz-uh

m] Show IPA
noun 1. something or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological time, especially a thing or person that belongs to an earlier time: The sword is an anachronism in modern warfare.

2. an error in chronology in which a person, object, event, etc., is assigned a date or period other than the correct one: To assign Michelangelo to the 14th century is an anachronism.





The genocide described against the Amalekites (not to mention other civilizations in other parts of the Bible) was done on direct order from God.

Given either one of those definitions, how does a commandment from God qualify as an Anachronism? How is it possible that a commandment from God is immoral or out of place in one time period, yet that same commandment is a moral, just action in another?

If God is unchanging and timeless, his moral standard has also remained the exact same for all time, and it will never change.

That means his order to genocide was moral then, and by extension is still moral now. Or, genocide is immoral, and we have a documented case of your God ordering an immoral act.

Which one is it?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Of the sort being considered here in this thread? No.

So you are saying the Bible is wrong and the events in question never actually occurred?

 

[seeking Christ]

Hey, I'm not the one making excuses for those who commit genocide.

Neither am I.

 

[seeking Christ]

If God is unchanging and timeless, his moral standard has also remained the exact same for all time, and it will never change.

That means his order to genocide was moral then, and by extension is still moral now. Or, genocide is immoral, and we have a documented case of your God ordering an immoral act.

Which one is it?

Cute.

You have no idea what's involved here, nor will you ever by going about it this way.

Forgetting the Bible, have you ever met anyone who thought the bosnian serbian conflict was good, or somehow "supported" any of the massacres in Africa?

 

[seeking Christ]

So you are saying the Bible is wrong and the events in question never actually occurred?

Objection: asked and answered. Why not read up on what was discussed before you joined us? Start at maybe page 70. There are multiple discussions going on at the same time and the OP is kind enough to tolerate some side bar discussion; let's not abuse his good nature, eh? The posts I made from around p 70 on (or beginning about post # 690) only address this side bar, so you can skip over a lot w/o missing any of this.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Neither am I.

Well, you apparently have no problem with wiping out the Amalekites. You're doing an awful lot to deflect criticism of that genocide as well.