BadBadBad

I think you've got a good point here Wallener. You've made a sad but true indictment of mankind. Only you're talking about mankind not God. You're also not generally talking about deliberate one on one slaughter of children. So for example if there is civil war in a country, crops are destroyed, the masses are displaced and children starve. It's not quite the same thing as we're talking about here for two reasons. One, the reason for the deaths is not the vengeance of an omnipotent omnibenevolent God. Two, the principal objective is not to kill people especially children. The objective is to bring about change. When it's an omnibenevolent omnipotent God who is trying to bring about change, it's just kind of pathetic that he's viewed as having to do that by butchering children.

Wallener

Sounds like something a certain leader of a certain desert tribe is reputed to have said.

*Shrug*

You have not only just justified killing babies when it suits your purposes, you have declared babies in Dresden are worth less than the babies in Canaan.

badger3k

So, are you one of those who would call soldiers "baby killers" and spit on them?

I always thought veterans day was to pay our respect for those who died in the service of their country, not to celebrate the fact that they had to kill, and definitely not to celebrate the few who would commit atrocities.

<edit> Yeah, I know that's more of memorial day, but I live in a military town, and thanking my friends and myself for service on one day when it should be reflected throughout the year is just odd to me, so I tend to reflect on those who died. I guess that really can't be used for most people, so it's not the best example. Besides, to me, showing thanks and support means more than a parade and a day off from work</edit>

As for infanticide in nature, I don't see my dogs claiming to be guided by a higher power and saying they are morally superior to other dogs. I haven't seen any animals forming Churches and sacrificing one of their own on the altar of superstition. When's the last time you saw an animal put another on a cross and call it good? Who here is claiming that animals follow some sort of morality given to them from On High?

Wallener

Two specific examples from WW2: the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, both targeting residential areas, both specifically designed to inflict as much pain, suffering and death as possible on non-combatants. Robert McNamara - future Sec of Defense under Johnson - worked on planning the Tokyo bombings. He famously records his boss as saying "If we don't win, they'll hang us as war criminal".

Yet "we" celebrate Veteran's Day for the people who did that killing. There are civilian-killers from Vietnam sitting in Congress. And, as Bob so nicely exampled, it is very easy for "us" to create a moral justification for it and turn something that should be shameful into an actual cause for celebration.

If we can do it today, how can we claim surprise and indignation that some Levantine hillbillies did it 3000 years ago?

andrewcriddle

Thank you for clarifying.

IMHO I would distinguish between weak and strong senses of objective morality.

By weak objective morality I mean that morality is not just a matter of personal or group opinion, ie even if X and his culture think it right to do something, one can meaningfully say that he and they are wrong.

By strong objective morality I mean that if act Y is usually wrong it is always wrong; for example the claim that 'genuine lying' is always wrong, the difficulty is deciding when legitimate 'economy with the truth' has become illegitimate 'genuine lying'.

Again IMHO weak objective morality does not require strong objective morality and although I firmly believe in weak objective morality, I am much more doubtful about strong objective morality.

Andrew Criddle

Wallener

No. I am one of those who accepts baby killing - along with the killing of other humans - is part and parcel of our existence. What I would object to would be the pointless killing of people (babies or otherwise.)

If killing is bad, period, then all of them have committed an atrocity. Bob made a blanket statement - and then exempted himself from the statement. That's relativism. I haven't read through enough of the posts to see where your position lies, so if the shoe doesn't fit, just toss it at Bob.

Implicitly, everyone here who believes in evolution, since humans are animals, too. We may be able to state more complex rationales than chimps, but the root cause is identical - survival of the group.

What this comes down to for me is this: "we" do the same kind of thing on a routine basis, and benefit enormously from the same kind of genocidal impulses committed by our forebearers, so instead of spending endless time wondering why some people 3k years ago glorified their actions the way "we" glorify ours, perhaps the time would be better spent doing something about all the pointless blood being shed today.

Put another way: if you care about the lives of babies, do something for the ones alive today.

badger3k

Glad to hear that you're not one of those "people" (I use the term here as an insult, that's why the quotes). I don't want to diverge further on the issue, but how do you define pointless? If someone is preventing me from doing something, I could kill them for being in my way. I have a "point", or a reason for doing it. Whether others would accept that as valid is a different matter. Are you basing this upon the views of the society you live in/culturally connect with?

Why is something bad an "atrocity"? To me it's a matter of degree. Kicking someone who is sleeping is considered bad - is it an actrocity to you? An atrocity would be something more than "just" killing an enemy soldier. Deliberately targeting and killing civilians would probably fall under that. Whether it was politically or militarily necessary is a different matter to me. Just having something be accepted does not make it any less wrong, it just gives some reason for it. A soldier takes up a duty that means they have to kill (that's the basic reason for any soldier - someone to kill and hopefully not die for something - cause, country, whatever). It's the exceptions done outside of conventional morality that give us war crimes, Unlawful Orders, and all the other things (torture scandals, for example).


Basically on that I'd agree with you.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

If pain can bring about a good result, and that good result was what was intended, and if there is life after death, then even this could have been done with their best interest in mind, and done in love.

I hope it will, that is my view, I see how it can, and then see how it might, yet causing pain is not in our province (except in disciplining children, or administering just sentences), because we can't see the future, we can't know the results.

I should mention I'm sorry to hear about your mom...

But these considerations I mentioned not indicate that they were not given to cruelty or slackness or self-seeking? Again, if it is this particular account we are examining, not all wars in general, it does make it easier to criticize if we can edit it...

I realize that, this thread does seem to be criticizing the account as it stands, though, and that's fine, but to extend the criticism to editing, especially to make it easier to criticize, is I think out of court. In this thread...

He is in control, and we can be free, if we are obeying him! What is forbidden is finite, what is allowed is infinite, and sin just brings bondage, so it's not real freedom.

Luke 19:41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it ...

Death is evil, but not an ultimate evil, I would say. As in the saying "a fate worse than death."

Because I consider it credible that people can be like that some day, like God, who really cannot sin, and he could bring that about.

It's kind of X-rated. That's a bit of an understatement, and I'm not that anxious to post links, just look up Asherah poles, for instance, and Molech.

But we don't know that, and I can supply details as well as the next person, these details even have warrant in the account of this journey, and the details given in the first post, do not.

Mark 15:25 It was the third hour when they crucified him...

Actually, no, again, if we take the whole account:

Joshua 2:10-11 We have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you completely destroyed. When we heard of it, our hearts melted and everyone's courage failed...

Not necessarily, for vengeance, though:

Main Entry: vengeance: ... punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense : RETRIBUTION
- with a vengeance 1 : with great force or vehemence 2 : to an extreme or excessive degree

So "punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense" could be done without malice. Dictionary.com has "Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution," which is even clearer in this regard, this need not have a spiteful motive.

Again, you are supplying these details, I can supply my own, and we will get nowhere...

And where is the command to use swords, here? The command to leave none remaining, to destroy them. You could just as well say that because there was one main campaign, the command here was for them to conduct one main campaign, in every instance.

No, I meant that God bore the pain that they experienced.

Not every plague is a punishment, but if God can and does act in the world, some of them very well may be.

And here we have the first statement by a skeptic that makes a similar statement to the ones being made here by the theists.

Wallener is picking up steam here...

Yes, he is above genocide (life after death means these Israelites may meet these people again), and murder (which is taking the life without cause), and needless pain of any sort, and now must we say all pain is needless, or that as it is increasing, there a point beyond which it must be needless, by definition?

Regards,
Lee

badger3k

Thanks for the answers as well. I don't know, the weak objective morality sounds wishy-washy to me. Something like subjective morality with an appeal to authority, or something like that. It sounds like the weak form is saying that "action X is always wrong, except for these situations, when it is right" - is that accurate?

Where do you derive the objective standards of what is right and wrong, for starters?

BadBadBad

Still though, these are examples of the weakness of mankind compared to the omnipotence of God. The intent wasn't to kill children for vengeance. The decision here to kill all that breathe wasn't based upon omnipotent capabilities. For example, God could have sent a plague to wipe out only the leaders or even only the men of Germany or Japan. Had the Americans even had better weaponry, they wouldn't necessarily chosen to kill children.

I like the story of genocide in Rwanda. The people of Rwanda killed 800,000 of their neighbors in three months in 1994. It's really a better example since they individually hacked all these people to death with machetes and clubs just like in Joshua. Would they have chosen to do this if for example they could create universes? Would they have chosen to do this if they could irresistably move the hearts and souls of their enemies? As a 80-90% Christian nation, would they have done this if God was real and chose to make his presence known to unequivocably reveal his will that all should not be killed? Instead, we get the Catholic church with their nuns bringing gasoline to burn down the Tutsis as they hid in their garage. We get priests wearing flak jackets carrying pistols as they direct the killers to their Tutsi parishoners.



Yet "we" celebrate Veteran's Day for the people who did that killing. There are civilian-killers from Vietnam sitting in Congress. And, as Bob so nicely exampled, it is very easy for "us" to create a moral justification for it and turn something that should be shameful into an actual cause for celebration.

If we can do it today, how can we claim surprise and indignation that some Levantine hillbillies did it 3000 years ago?[/QUOTE]