truelies

As a parent if I tell my 10 year old to go to bed at 9pm and yet stay up myself until midnight have I somehow been wrong or evil because I set a different rule for myself than I do for those under me? We have always understood that rank and privledge go together.

In the case at hand when God orders/does the slaying of people it is just not the same as when WE do so for our own ends. We are not Lawful Sovereigns- He is. As many a redneck parent has said 'kid i brought you into this world and i can also remove you from it'. Logically the person who says 'God how dare You' is simply declaring their own status as an ethical rebel worthy of judgement. This of course is working from a presumption that the writers of Scripture are in fact giving an accurate description of the true relationship between the Creator of the Universe and humankind.

Amaleq13

The argument is about the killing of infants not the killing of people, in general. I readily agree that, to paraphrase the star of many Westerns, "there's folks what needs killin'." In fact, I would include child murderers in that category.

No, I don't as should be clear from actually reading the posts in this thread. What I do deny is that the "reason" given is consistent with the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, and (most significantly) all-good God. Surely an omnipotent and omniscient God could think of a better way to persuade Pharoah than murdering children? My original suggestion with regard to the Amalekite massacre appears to be appropriate for this example as well. God could just as easily have "teleported" all the first-born to the other side of the planet and provided them new parents. In fact, one could argue that the sudden disappearance of the children would be far more difficult to explain as something other than the act of God than their deaths. How about an even more direct approach by having God temporarily turn Pharoah into a Hebrew slave? The list of possible alternatives that do not violate any other of God's attributes is virtually endless. If my "somewhat"-less-than-omnipotent mind can conceive of them, how many more might a truly omnipotent Entity think up?

The original argument was not that there was no "reason" given to "explain" God's murderous behavior. The original argument was that the behavior is immoral regardless of the reason. The murder of the firstborn is simply another example of blatantly immoral behavior attributed to an allegedly all-good God. That the Bible contains more than one such story does not constitute an argument in support of the morality of the behavior.

Do you honestly consider the murder of children for the reasons given to be morally justified?

Do you honestly consider there to be any morally justifiable reason to murder children?

Enlighten Me

Infants deserve mercy because they epitomize innocence. Innocence is a highly valued state of being in Christianity, otherwise, the myth associated with the sacrifice of an angry God of his human/god son would not have bothered to characterize the sacrificial victim as "innocent." Christianity survives, in part, because of the imagery of the innocent baby Jesus. I find it hard to reconcile the monstrous behavior of OT God with any alleged purpose that the believer must accept "on faith."

Amaleq13

There is no comparison between the "morality" of establishing a curfew based on age and the immorality of murdering children.

This is nothing more than yet another example of the logical fallacy of special pleading. You have offered no rational argument to establish that the murder of children can be considered morally justifiable.

To understand the specific reason your "argument" is a logical fallacy, please refer to:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-pleading.html

BDS

Dear Amaleq;

To a Jew, 'goodness' is DEFINED as "in accordance to God's will'. So the killing of the first born was morally 'good' by definition.

As God said to Job, "Where were you when I hung the stars from the sky?"

In other words, what are your puny, ignorant, and imperfect ethical judgments, compared to mine?

Now if you want to create and argue for an ethics in which killing innocent children is always evil, be my guest. However, to simply say (as I suggest you have) that God is wicked because it's obvious that killing innocent infants is wicked isn't arguing any point whatsoever. You might as well say, "God is wicked because God is wicked."

By the way, your web site defines "special pleading" as, "a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption." The idea that religious people don't provide "adequate justification for the exemption" is simply incorrect. They would argue (and it's tough playing the Christian apologist when I'm not a Christian) that "goodness" is defined by God's will, and that the justification is more than adequate.

hinduwoman

Since God is omniscient he would know that these particular infants are gpoing to be killed. So why bother to give them life in the first place?

Amaleq13

Only if it is first assumed that the killing of children was something God willed. I'm denying that assumption with my argument. This is an example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. It is not a coincidence that your efforts keep appealing to logical fallacies. It is the result of the inherent flaws of the position you are trying to defend.

As I have stated repeatedly, I understand the saying. As I have also stated repeatedly, it is an example of special pleading. Placing a logical fallacy in the "mouth" of God does not change the fact that it is a logical fallacy.

I have to "create" the idea that killing innocent children is unethical? That is absurd. Ethics and morals are agreed upon standards of society. Some folks base their agreement on the Bible or a similar religious text while others base theirs on things like reason. If we set aside the "exception" being granted to God by some, are you seriously questioning whether it is wrong to kill an innocent child? You didn't answer that question when I asked it twice at the end of my post. Aren't you the same guy who was recently complaining that I did not directly respond to your question?

Do you honestly consider the murder of children for the reasons given to be morally justified?

Do you honestly consider there to be any morally justifiable reason to murder children?

If your answer to either is "yes", please explain.

Have you read the entire thread? I ask because your consistent inability to grasp my actual argument suggests otherwise. I am not arguing that "God is wicked". I am arguing that the claim"God killed infants" is inconsistent with the notion that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good. How many times do I have to repeat this before you accept it as my actual argument?

The stories in the Bible where God is depicted condoning, ordering or directly murdering infants can only be fiction if this same God is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-good. The stories are entirely inconsistent with the alleged "character" of God.

What makes this "adequate"? I consider it wholly inadequate because it appears to be yet another appeal to a logical fallacy. I'm not sure which one would be the most appropriate since it seems to me to qualify for several. As I mentioned above, this flawed thinking is an example of circular reasoning. It could also be considered just a reworded example of special pleading. It could be considered an example of the relativist fallacy also described at the site. Take your pick.

What it does not appear to be is an "adequate" justification for considering the murder of children to be moral.

winstonjen

Infants deserve mercy beause they haven't hurt anyone. Also, they can't defend themselves against outside forces.

BDS

To Amaleq: [insult deleted-cheetah]

It is not I who am arguing that killing innocent children is consistent with a omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, but Christains, Jews, Muslems and other religious people. To argue against them, without ever addressing their actual arguments, is simply silly. So are comments like: "Do you honestly consider there to be any morally justifiable reason to murder children?" Needless to say (to anyone but Amaleq) Christians and Jews DO think there are justifiable reasons, that justify the slaughter during the Passover. I tried to point out some of these reasons, but you wouldn't listen. This is all so tediously obvious that I hate to explain it over and over again.

As far as infants deserving mercy because they are helpless and innocent, so are ants, cows, and trees. But we step on them, slaughter them, and cut them down without any compunction.

Try another reason.

Amaleq13

Then you are in the wrong thread because that is the argument being discussed here. You want a different argument, start a different thread.

I agree but this is clearly irrelevant to my posts. I have directly addressed every attempt to defend this ridiculous position. Please point out the specific argument that I have "ignored". So far, they have all been fatally flawed by reliance on logical fallacies.

This is an entirely reasonable question given the subject of the thread. It is also entirely reasonable in response to your question about why mercy should be given to children sentenced to execution. That you continue to avoid answering it suggests to me your efforts are not genuine.

Why do you continue to avoid answering my straightforward and clearly relevant questions? Are you afraid that your answers will reveal that your alleged position is a fraud? Again, you are the same guy who complained earlier that your own question was not answered. Surely you don't want to appear to be a hypocrite? Actually it might be too late since hurling insults after complaining about being insulted seems to be accomplishing that task already.

How does repeately and specifically explaining why I consider their reasons to be invalid and illegitimate (i.e. how they are logically flawed) constitute "not listening" to them? You make less sense with every post.

As I explained before, using the word "mercy" is inappropriate because it presupposes that they are guilty of something. It entirely begs the question of the question of whether such acts are consistent with the attributes of God as well as whether the murder of children can ever be considered morally justified. Before you can ask whether they deserve mercy you have to first establish they deserve the punishment. The concept of "mercy" presupposes that the punishment is warranted.

If you wish to argue against killing in general, I think you need to start your own thread because this one is about God killing infants for the offenses of their adult relatives. To my knowledge, no one claims that ants, cows, or trees have ever been killed by God as punishment for the offenses of their adult relatives. Surely you aren't trying to create a tangential argument to distract from the paucity of your position on the original?