| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/11/2006 01:09:27 PM · #751 |
It's interesting how the Amorite argument has progressed. Initially God said, "Kill the Amorites", now he's saying "Kill Amorite Children".
I looked up every reference I could find on the word "Amorite" and this is as close as I could find to any order to kill them. Note that God says he will be the responsible party...
Amos 2:9
"Yet I destroyed the Amorites before them, though they were tall as the cedars and strong as the oaks."
Deut 31:4
"And the LORD will do to them what he did to Sihon and Og, the kings of the Amorites, whom he destroyed along with their land."
Joshua 24:8
"" 'I brought you to the land of the Amorites who lived east of the Jordan. They fought against you, but I gave them into your hands. I destroyed them from before you, and you took possession of their land. "
Exodus 34:11
"Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. "
Exodus 23:23
"My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out."
So Milo, are you saying killing children is wrong? What are you basing this on? and what authority or standard do you point to when a culture exists which disagrees?
Message edited by author 2006-08-11 13:13:18.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 01:13:15 PM · #752 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Milo, I think you were mixing up two senses of the word absolute.
God's morality is absolute in the sense there is no other measuring stick. His is the last word; the only word. |
And if you judge God̢۪s words and actions against his other words and actions the measuring stick can change.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are trying to say that any decree is absolute in that it holds in all circumstances. I think this is a strawman. That would be a very inflexible and nonsophisticated morality (the six-year-old morality, once again). Even my two-year-old understands it's good to pee in the potty, but not good to pee on the couch. |
It̢۪s not my view morality were discussing, it̢۪s God̢۪s. When judged against himself God fails to be consistent and his morality is found to be contingent upon circumstance. Is it morally Right to intentionally kill children during the time of war? If it is Right under some circumstances and Wrong under other circumstances, then appeals to God̢۪s morality can be, and have been, used to justify any atrocity.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 01:14:14 PM · #753 |
See, my above post, I won't continue the argument until we start actually arguing what is really being said...
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 01:25:33 PM · #754 |
OK, here (same basic principle)...
From the book of Numbers-
15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 01:36:27 PM · #755 |
and here we go again, ad nauseum. I think even the Israelites understood this was not "ordinary times". They didn't go killing children any old time they felt like it. They were commanded and did it. Maybe they didn't even like it.
I will back up to something I said 30 posts above. If I create a statue, do I not have the right to smash it with a stick? Does this give anybody else the same right? Could I even tell my friend to smash it with a stick? Does that mean anybody else can smash it?
It seems "harsh" and it seems "bogus", but the reality is a) God created everybody (at least we're assuming this under our theistic worldview) and b) the potter can make some vessels for noble purposes and others for common ones.
And before I hear another post about "that's just wrong", I have to ask you, "why do you think it's wrong?" and you need to answer me with something other than "because I think so".
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 02:46:30 PM · #756 |
The problem at this point in the argument is you can't judge God, which is what milo and scalvert is trying to do. If God is truly omnipotent then how can we match wits with something like that? Killing children may seem wrong to us and even inconsistent with God's teachings but how can we judge that when we are not omnipotent ourselves? It's like saying would you kill Hitler when he was a child? If you knew 100% he would go on to do the things he did then I would say it's morally right to do so. After all wouldn't it be morally wrong to allow Hitler to grow up and kill millions as you idly stand by?
Message edited by author 2006-08-11 14:46:49.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 02:58:29 PM · #757 |
| Not understanding God is a convenient excuse, particularly when creationists point to gaps in our understanding of evolution as "proof" against it. :-/ |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 02:59:54 PM · #758 |
Originally posted by scalvert, the sneaky:
Not understanding God is a convenient excuse, particularly when creationists point to gaps in our understanding of evolution as "proof" against it. :-/ |
Don't think you can get away ignoring my post when yanko posted below it...
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 03:29:06 PM · #759 |
LOL, OK Jason...
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If I create a statue, do I not have the right to smash it with a stick? Does this give anybody else the same right? Could I even tell my friend to smash it with a stick? |
We've got a few assumptions here (feel free to correct them):
A. The sculptor in this case is perfect, unchanging and omniscient
B. All the statues are created by the sculptor
C. The sculptor tells all his statues that killing another statue is wrong
So then we have this scenario: Knowing the little boy statues will eventually grow up to be clay Hitlers (despite the sculptor's absolute perfection), this unchanging Smitelangelo wants some of his statues to kill all the other statues' little boys (but they can keep any little virgin girl statues for themselves). I dunno... something just strikes be as wrong here. Why do I think it's wrong? Maybe because if humans hadn't developed the general sense that killing other humans' kids was taboo, there'd be slim pickings at prehistoric singles bars and we wouldn't be around to debate it. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 04:03:06 PM · #760 |
So I think I have just won my original argument. Let's recap:
1) I stated that theists have access to an absolute (final) standard of morality.
Nobody appears to be arguing this anymore. Instead we are merely arguing WHAT that morality is (ie. are those little Amorite safe or not?) not that it cannot logically exist.
2) Atheists do not have access to an absolute (final) standard of morality.
Nobody has told me anything otherwise.
3) Our two local atheists do not act like they believe 2.
Scalvert and milo feel like they are inficting heavy damage to my argument by implying that I feel it's ok to kill Amorite kiddies. This implies that milo and scalvert are "better" by their assumption that it's silly to kill those kiddos. But "better" only makes sense when there is a "best". And from 2 above, we know that they don't have access to one.
So not only have I proved that only God can be the standard of Morality, you have also nicely shown that even you two believe that such a standard exists. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 04:20:48 PM · #761 |
Huh? Ya lost me there.
1. I'm not arguing that you THINK you have a standard of morality. I'm arguing that it ain't standard. Slavery was endorsed then, but not now. Burning witches was a popular church pastime then, but not now. Your unchanging, perfect standard of morality changes and/or isn't perfect (if he's perfect, he doesn't create Hitlers. If they're not Hitlers, then so much for the rationale for doing something that's always supposed to be wrong).
2. Why do you keep insisting there must BE a standard for morality? I keep saying that the standard is artificial and created by society. It's rooted in our general genetic makeup and changes at the whims of society. You can't just point to the Bible or any other manuscript as a benchmark because different people with the same religion exhibit different moral standards. Yankees and Confederates both backed their moral obligations with the Bible. Heck, Catholics kill Protestents and Shiites kill Sunnis. What kind of standard is that?
3. By my number two above, not killing children is better than killing them because our societal standard of morality says it's best not to kill ANY children. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 04:29:08 PM · #762 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
3. By my number two above, not killing children is better than killing them because our societal standard of morality says it's best not to kill ANY children. |
So when 1930s German society felt it was OK to kill lots and lots of children, I guess you have no recourse but to say, "well, my society says it isn't ok" (whoops, I forgot about partial birth abortion and the like)? That's not too convincing to me.
Uh, Herr Hitler, we think what you are doing is bad. We think you should stop. Why? Well, we all got together over here, and well, we just think it's wrong.
Message edited by author 2006-08-11 16:30:23. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 04:33:21 PM · #763 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Huh? Ya lost me there.
1. I'm not arguing that you THINK you have a standard of morality. I'm arguing that it ain't standard. Slavery was endorsed then, but not now. Burning witches was a popular church pastime then, but not now. Your unchanging, perfect standard of morality changes and/or isn't perfect (if he's perfect, he doesn't create Hitlers. If they're not Hitlers, then so much for the rationale for doing something that's always supposed to be wrong).
|
Mathematics hasn't changed, but our understanding of it sure has. If witches really did exist, do you think it would be wrong to burn someone sworn to do evil and carry out Satan's plans? It wasn't our morality changed, our understand of witches did.
Message edited by author 2006-08-11 16:35:18. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 04:48:11 PM · #764 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So I think I have just won my original argument. Let's recap:
1) I stated that theists have access to an absolute (final) standard of morality.
Nobody appears to be arguing this anymore. Instead we are merely arguing WHAT that morality is (ie. are those little Amorite safe or not?) not that it cannot logically exist. |
I̢۪m arguing that you call an absolute (final) standard is on a sliding scale and cannot be taken as an absolute (final) standard because it is dependant upon a God who can change the standards. That has always been my argument and you have yet to show that it̢۪s flawed other than by special pleading.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) Atheists do not have access to an absolute (final) standard of morality.
Nobody has told me anything otherwise. |
We can agree atheist do not have access to an absolute (final) standard of morality because standards of morality are set by the society in which they exist. I don̢۪t think I ever argued otherwise.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
3) Our two local atheists do not act like they believe 2.
Scalvert and milo feel like they are inficting heavy damage to my argument by implying that I feel it's ok to kill Amorite kiddies. This implies that milo and scalvert are "better" by their assumption that it's silly to kill those kiddos. But "better" only makes sense when there is a "best". And from 2 above, we know that they don't have access to one. |
I̢۪m arguing that what you call an absolute (final) standard of morality is on a sliding scale and cannot be taken as an absolute (final) standard because it is dependant upon a God who can change the standards.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So not only have I proved that only God can be the standard of Morality, you have also nicely shown that even you two believe that such a standard exists. |
Then you need to re-read your arguments. All you̢۪ve shown is that you believe a perfect being is not subject to his own commands of morality, though his own morality by definition, as part of his nature of perfection, must be perfect at all times. It is an inconsistent belief and you resort to special pleading in order to surmount that problem.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 05:50:59 PM · #765 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If witches really did exist, do you think it would be wrong to burn someone sworn to do evil and carry out Satan's plans? It wasn't our morality changed, our understand of witches did. |
Problem: The infallible Word of God says they do exist.
10"There shall not be found among you anyone (J)who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one (K)who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,
11or one who casts a spell, (L)or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.
12"For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and (M)because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you.
So how exactly did our understanding change? Are you saying we now understand the Bible is wrong? Blasphemy! Perhaps we just misinterpreted witchcraft, sorcery, casting spells, calling up the dead, etc.? (reinterpretation is the usual excuse) Maybe they WERE real, but we finally got the last of the little buggers in Salem? Oh wait, I get it... the LORD drove them out so we didn't have to get our hands dirty. Oh, but then there's that whole Salem thing and the Spanish Inquisition, so somebody must've thought it was our job...
Yeah, I'm just back to being confused. Christians (including King James himself) were pretty adamant about dealing with witches, and the Bible clearly indicates they're around, but they just aren't making it on CNN these days. I guess this was another specific time and place thing. :-/ |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 06:01:19 PM · #766 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So when 1930s German society felt it was OK to kill lots and lots of children, I guess you have no recourse but to say, "well, my society says it isn't ok" |
EXACTLY! Welcome to History 101. German society comes to believe that Jews are evil and starts killing them according to their moral convictions. Other societies disagree. The burkha market is hot in Afghanistan because that society believes it's morally wrong for a woman to be seen in public. The standards of morality are (and always have been) set by society, and they do change over time:
[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." -Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 06:09:17 PM · #767 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So when 1930s German society felt it was OK to kill lots and lots of children, I guess you have no recourse but to say, "well, my society says it isn't ok" |
EXACTLY! Welcome to History 101. German society comes to believe that Jews are evil and starts killing them according to their moral convictions. Other societies disagree. The burkha market is hot in Afghanistan because that society believes it's morally wrong for a woman to be seen in public. The standards of morality are (and always have been) set by society, and they do change over time:
[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." -Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. |
Ok so there is no basis for one society to say to another that what they do is immoral because morality is set by each society? In other words everyone should just practice isolationism and ignore genocides and such that occur. To do otherwise would be the secular equalivalent of a crusade if I follow your logic...
Message edited by author 2006-08-11 18:09:52.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 06:18:25 PM · #768 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Ok so there is no basis for one society to say to another that what they do is immoral because morality is set by each society? In other words everyone should just practice isolationism and ignore genocides and such that occur. |
Pretty much, except saying everyone should practice isolationism. For some societies, that would be the right thing to do (Switzerland?), and for others it wouldn't. Have you taken any action regarding the crisis in Darfur? What about Rwanda? Hitler may well have continued unchecked if not for his greed for more turf.
From Wikipedia- Médecins Sans Frontières, the international medical charity, supplied photographic and other documentary evidence of ritualised cannibal feasts among the participants in Liberia's internecine strife in the 1980s to representatives of Amnesty International... the [U.N.] Secretary-General, Pierre Sane, stating at the time in an internal communication that "what they do with the bodies after human rights violations are committed is not part of our mandate or concern".
Message edited by author 2006-08-11 18:22:33. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 09:01:28 PM · #769 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
Ok so there is no basis for one society to say to another that what they do is immoral because morality is set by each society? In other words everyone should just practice isolationism and ignore genocides and such that occur. |
Pretty much, except saying everyone should practice isolationism. For some societies, that would be the right thing to do (Switzerland?), and for others it wouldn't. Have you taken any action regarding the crisis in Darfur? What about Rwanda? Hitler may well have continued unchecked if not for his greed for more turf.
From Wikipedia- Médecins Sans Frontières, the international medical charity, supplied photographic and other documentary evidence of ritualised cannibal feasts among the participants in Liberia's internecine strife in the 1980s to representatives of Amnesty International... the [U.N.] Secretary-General, Pierre Sane, stating at the time in an internal communication that "what they do with the bodies after human rights violations are committed is not part of our mandate or concern". |
Well, that's a pretty tough bed you've made for yourself to sleep in. Maybe you are comfortable in it, but I bet the majority of people reading along wouldn't be. I think the Jews can be thankful because all that was standing between them and their becoming the root of all evil was apparently only one cold winter in Russia.
genocide...
female circumcision...
forced sex slaves...
...they are all just a matter of viewpoint.
I'm not even sure milo agrees with you. He seems to think the Amorites have a right to live...
Message edited by author 2006-08-11 21:06:56. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 10:18:37 PM · #770 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...they are all just a matter of viewpoint. |
What is it exactly that you're hoping I'm comfortable with? There either are or have been societies at some point that tolerated each of those. I don't personally approve and neither do most modern civilizations.
Genocide? It's bad when Hitler kills Jews, but do you think Iranians or Palestinians would have any moral problem with wiping out Isrealies tomorrow if they could? The Balkans, Rwanda, Darfur... pick a genocide. They happen all the time, and the rest of the world usually does little to intervene. Actions we consider evil are or were accepted in those cultures. Without some popular support, the aggressors could never kill so many. Hitler didn't murder millions all by himself. How far do you think he would have gotten if 99% of Germans at the time thought it was morally wrong to persecute Jews?
When America cried foul over Apartheid in South Africa, many of them pointed to our own history, "Hello... Pot>Kettle>Black." Colonists and conquistadors had no problem killing indians. They brought missionaries with them to preach "Good" even as they decimated indian civilization. Some may have felt that killing indians was wrong, yet they had no reservations (pun intended) about claiming indian land as their own and herding the current tenants off to camps in the desert. Would we be OK with that now? From the point of view of current U.S. society, most would probably say that was morally wrong. If you asked the same question 300 years ago, do you think you'd get the same answer? Same Christian religions, different moral standards- set by society and subject to change. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 10:21:38 PM · #771 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...they are all just a matter of viewpoint. |
What is it exactly that you're hoping I'm comfortable with? There either are or have been societies at some point that tolerated each of those. I don't personally approve and neither do most modern civilizations.
|
What you need to be comfortable with is when someone hears you say you don't approve and they reply, "to hell with your approval" really all you can do is shut up.
Another question. Do you agree lockstep with the morals of our society? If not, what right could you, one person, have over the choices of society? |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 10:25:23 PM · #772 |
Pardon the intrustion - I've not been following the whole thread, so I apologize in advance if this has been asked and answered. Serious question - what are the generally accepted definitions of theist and atheist?
If this throws the discussion off-track, please simply ignore and continue. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 10:57:12 PM · #773 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What you need to be comfortable with is when someone hears you say you don't approve and they reply, "to hell with your approval" really all you can do is shut up. |
He would be right by his standards and I would be right by mine. Why can't I fight for my beliefs?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you agree lockstep with the morals of our society? If not, what right could you, one person, have over the choices of society? |
Of course I don't- and neither does anyone else. We agree within groups on different principles: abortion, euthanasia, minority rights, Iraq, legalized gambling, etc. Even within your own church you won't find everyone agreeing lockstep on every topic. One person's right over the choices of society is called a vote. Be sure to exercise that right. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 10:58:25 PM · #774 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
what are the generally accepted definitions of theist and atheist? |
I think that would be belief in God and non-belief in God, respectively. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 11:09:21 PM · #775 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Melethia:
what are the generally accepted definitions of theist and atheist? |
I think that would be belief in God and non-belief in God, respectively. |
God, or the deity of your choice? I ask this in all seriousness. What do you call someone who believes there is most likely a spiritual component to existance but not necessarily a single "god"? Who doesn't believe that God (in the Christian sense) is any better, worse, or fundamentally different than any other organized religion's deity? |
|
