ex-xian

Well, I had wanted to post a detailed response, but since you're leaving soon...

I would argue that there are logical reasons to help children. That's why I donate my time and money to support children's advocacy. Your argument amounts to a tu quo qua, and is invalid as such. Regarding the above post, your holy book says that if a person knows to do good, and does not do that good, then that person has committed a sin. So it is immoral not to help the child. Why isn't it immoral for god not to help?

I assume that you're going to cite free will again, so let me ask one more question. Early in Billy Graham's career, he had a preaching partner who deconverted. The gentleman had questions for awhile, but the final straw was this: he saw the cover of a Time magazine that showed an emaciated woman in Africa holding her dead son in her arms. They died as the result of a drought. Billy's buddy asked this question, "How can there be a loving god if all this woman needed was rain."

I think that a pretty good question! This has nothing to do with free will. This is just god not sending rain to a drought stricken land, and scores of people dying as a result.

Hired Gun

What Odemus said. I won't debate you because, first, I would have to teach you logic. Then I would have to teach you how to debate. Then I would have to teach you doctrine and theology. This ain't no beginner's class.

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun

I believe you missed the entire point of my post. Men are considered 'immoral' when they don't take a physical risk to save a child who is in immediate danger, but they escape this label when they refuse to act (through monetary contributions, etc.) when there is no immediate danger or risk. If it isn't immoral for people not to take steps to save children from discomfort or death when there is no risk of harm to them, then why would you consider God any less moral?



Thank you for your totally unsupported opinion. Once again, I can't argue against a totally unsupported opinion. But I can point out that this is exactly the type of sacrifice that countries make when they draft young men into battle.



There is great logic in this plan of salvation for free will agents. I attempt to explain that logic in "Why I Believe God Is Real" and throughout the ex-atheist site. The definition of omnipotence need not include the ability to contradict logic. The Christian God has a very defined nature. There are a lot of things that God can't do, by His nature. He can't lie. He can't change His Nature. Therefore, 'all-powerful' is really a hyperbole; God is as powerful to man as man is as powerful to an ant. If anything, God limits His own power.



It's also the moral code that every veteran of war holds in his heart as he leaves his family to fight a war for the sake of the many.

Yes He does.

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun

Thousands of Christians each making the same claim to interpret the Bible correctly?

The details of the Bible can be argued to oblivion. Is it okay to divorce? Should we be baptized? Do works qualify us for heaven? However, there are limits to interpretation involving any one issue. These limits aren't a matter of opinion, but a matter of logic and reading comprehension. No scholar reads 'Of Mice and Men' and sums up the character of George as a cold blooded murderer. The only way you could arrive at such a conclusion would be through either intentional deceit or woeful misunderstanding.

It doesn't take much understanding to interpret 1) Love God 2)Love each other 3) Love your enemy. You can interpret the rest of scripture accurately if you able to grasp these 3 commands.

I used to think that 2 and 3 were great, but that 1 was stupid. But I have learned that without 1, there is no logical reason for 2 or 3.

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun

Nice cheap shot, but a little tired. I can only say that from this side of the screen, if you fail to recognize what I know to be the truth about myself, it's no surprise that you are unable to recognize the truth of other matters as well.

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun

The argument wasn't about the morality of the issue; It was about Biblical interpretation concerning the advocacy of the issue.



The argument wasn't about the morality of the issue. It was about Biblical interpretation that would allow one to think that the Bible advocated reciprocal killing. The verse in question expresses sentiment, not advocacy.



You are entitled to your opinion. In my opinion, nothing would stop the practice of brutal infanticide quicker than the threat of having it done to one's own children. However, the point of the argument was not concerning the morality of the issue, but Biblical interpretation that would allow one to think that the Bible was advocating this issue, which it is obviously not.

I believe that the atomic bomb that we dropped on Hiroshima caused more pain and suffering to children and adults then a quick dash against the rocks. Who can forget the Life photo of the burned and crying Japanese girl running through the street. Yet not many Americans would say that we are immoral for dropping that bomb. What about you? Is there no such thing as justifiable infanticide in your opinion? Have you managed to discover a moral absolute?

I doubt it.

A.S.A. Jones

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Hired Gun
The argument wasn't about the morality of the issue; It was about Biblical interpretation concerning the advocacy of the issue.

If the argument wasn't about the morality of the issue, why was the original question "How do you interpet this Hired Gun? Isn't the writer asking god to kill the babies of his captors? How is this moral?" If the argument wasn't about the morality of the issue, why is one of your replies, " I don't see it as immoral. I see it as human"?

The argument wasn't about the morality of the issue.

The original question asked "How is this moral?"

It was about Biblical interpretation that would allow one to think that the Bible advocated reciprocal killing. The verse in question expresses sentiment, not advocacy.

Sentiment towards what, the murder of children? How is this any better than advocacy?

You are entitled to your opinion. In my opinion, nothing would stop the practice of brutal infanticide quicker than the threat of having it done to one's own children.

In this case, why not stop child molestation by threatening the children of child molesters with rape?

However, the point of the argument was not concerning the morality of the issue, but Biblical interpretation that would allow one to think that the Bible was advocating this issue, which it is obviously not.

So, is it immoral to smash the children of murderers against rocks or not? I repeat, if it is "human" to ask God to do this to the children of one's enemies, then it's equally "human" to ask God to rape the children of child molesters.

I believe that the atomic bomb that we dropped on Hiroshima caused more pain and suffering to children and adults then a quick dash against the rocks.

This does not answer my question, "I'd like to see how the barbarity of one child's death differs from the barbarity of another child's death. Does the Babylonian child suffer less than the Israelite child, for example?" How can the Israelites can be commended or even excused for wanting to see children brutally slaughtered? No matter what their parents did, the children were innocent of any crimes.

What about you? Is there no such thing as justifiable infanticide in your opinion? Have you managed to discover a moral absolute?

You answer my questions and I'll answer yours. But will you answer mine?

I doubt it.

My thoughts precisely.

Dr Rick

You haven't substantiated one.

Your analogies between men and omnigods are fallacious, as the former is omnipotent. A man that gives money to a charity is making a sacrafice, even if it's just a very small one. A man that dies protecting a child is making a bigger sacrifice. An omnipotent god intervening to stop the death of a baby does not sacrifice or risk anything.

Your analogies between acts of men are no better. When you compare genocidal acts to veterans of war, you are either justifying genocide or condeming veterans, but that tells us nothing about an omnigod.


Unfortunately, false analogies aren't your only fallacies; for instance this exchange:

I responded to your false dichotomy fallacy with: "It is immoral for the leader of the affluent country to make such a demand." and you just completely shifted the argument to a strawman fallacy with:

...which has nothing to do with the initial premises and question you proposed. This isn't logic or reasoning; You are entitled to your god-belief, but you are not logical in your defense of it.

A series of logical fallacies is not a sound argument.

BTW, "you're welcome."

Hired Gun

Let's examine the chain of comments that led to this point of the discussion:

Posted by Cipher:
If you don't take every word in the bible as the literal word of god, then you would have to interpet the bible. Where do you get the guidance to select the parts of the bible that make up your moral code? It can't be within the bible, because you would then select everthing as true, even the the verses advising infanticide and genecide.

Then in another post, Cipher continues:

How then would you interpet "Dash thy little one's heads against the stones."? Along with the dozens of others in the bible. I take this as advocating infanticide. What do you think? Or will you apply so much interpetation as to leave the phrase meaningless. What about the dozens of other verses in a similar vein?

Or just because whatever god orders is "right and moral" even if it involves infanticide? Is this what you are advocating? How then is this a better moral code? Why would I follow such a code, since it would conflict with my conscience?

The next post:

Palsms 137:8-9
8) O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
9) he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

How do you interpet this Hired Gun? Isn't the writer asking god to kill the babies of his captors? How is this moral? Would it be better to ask god to kill his captors and then be freed?


In summary, Cipher's main points are:

1) God is advocating infanticide.
2) In my opinion, infanticide is immoral.
3) How can you justify using the Bible as a moral code.

My answer never addresses the morality of infanticide because the Bible does not advocate infanticide and therefore it is not necessary that I declare infaniticide to be moral or immoral. The morality of the issue is irrelevant to Cipher's point of contention.

What I did do, is attempt to show you that any judgment of morality, even if it involves infanticide, is merely opinion, and opinion is insufficient to dictate morality. You think that the writer of Psalm 137 is immoral for expressing his anger. Why should I care about your opinion? While I would agree that what the writer proposes be done to his enemies' children is barbaric, I recognize the fact that warfare in his time was hand to hand, up close and personal. Who am I to judge a man of 3000 years ago when my own country did the same in the 1940's, only with modern weaponry, to ensure the safety of its citizens? Is every marine who ever killed a child an immoral bastard?


[quote]Quote by Hired Gun:

Quote:

The argument wasn't about the morality of the issue. Reply by Queen: The original question asked "How is this moral?"

Once again, (I would rather repeat an answer than be accused of ignoring a question) I feel no need to address the morality of an issue that the Bible does not advocate.



The sentiment being expressed is the anguish of the man over the loss of his children. Expressed sorrow isn't any better than advocacy because it is a totally different thing than advocacy. Are you saying that no one has the right to fully tell another how they feel? Or is expressing one's hurt also immoral in your opinion? "Hence forth, I, Queen of Swords, declare it immoral to ever express any anger or sorrow over the loss of one's child, even if that loss was due to a brutal murder. Keep your sentiment to yourself. Deal with your pain in silence. The Queen has spoken."

Don't compare apples to oranges. Don't equate expressing sentiment with advocacy of the sentiment being expressed.



If we were having this conversation in the middle of a desert, 3000 years ago, I might have given your proposal some serious consideration. However, child molesters usually have already done what you propose and so I doubt that it would be an effective deterrent.



So, is it immoral to drop the bomb, knowing that children will be horribly mangled or killed? I noticed that you did not attempt to answer this question. Why do you expect me to answer such a question when you yourself cannot?

Humans asking God to do something is not the same as God actually doing it, nor is it the same as God advocating it.




I'd like to see how the barbarity of one child's death differs from the barbarity of another child's death, too. Does the Hiroshima child suffer less than the Babylonian child, for example?

How can the Israelites be commended or excused for wanting to see children slaughtered? I don't see anything that would lead me to believe they were being commended for having these feelings. Excused? I can't judge another for expressing the depths of their sorrow in a violent way. If someone were to harm my child, I'm sure that all sorts of sick and nasty things would go through my mind and I wouldn't condemn another for his honesty in expressing those thoughts.



I seem to realize one thing that you have yet to learn. Morality is relative. No issue can be proven immoral or moral because there are no moral absolutes. Therefore, your question can't be answered. Prove me wrong and attempt to answer your own question. I'm sure that you think you have the answer. Be sure to e-mail me 2 cents.

A.S.A. Jones

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Hired Gun
My answer never addresses the morality of infanticide because the Bible does not advocate infanticide and therefore it is not necessary that I declare infaniticide to be moral or immoral. The morality of the issue is irrelevant to Cipher's point of contention.

No, it isn't. Cipher clearly asks how it is moral for the writer to ask God to kill the babies of his enemies. You replied that it is not immoral, but that it is human. Therefore, you were addressing the morality of infanticide.

What I did do, is attempt to show you that any judgment of morality, even if it involves infanticide, is merely opinion, and opinion is insufficient to dictate morality.

Whose opinion is this? Yours? Why should I care about your opinion?

You think that the writer of Psalm 137 is immoral for expressing his anger.

Actually, I think the writer is immoral for wanting babies to be killed.

Why should I care about your opinion?

Did anyone ask you to?

While I would agree that what the writer proposes be done to his enemies' children is barbaric,

Previously you said that this was "not immoral", it was "human". How can something barbaric be not immoral?

I recognize the fact that warfare in his time was hand to hand, up close and personal.

Yes, I imagine the babies gave him one hell of a fight.

Who am I to judge a man of 3000 years ago when my own country did the same in the 1940's, only with modern weaponry, to ensure the safety of its citizens? Is every marine who ever killed a child an immoral bastard?

Depends. What was the child trying to do to him - shoot him? In any case, how does one atrocity justify another?

Once again, (I would rather repeat an answer than be accused of ignoring a question) I feel no need to address the morality of an issue that the Bible does not advocate.

The author is advocating it by the author saying that the person who slaughters children will be happy. Where is this position contradicted?

The sentiment being expressed is the anguish of the man over the loss of his children.

No, the sentiment being expressed is that the killers of babies will be happy. That's not anguish, that's a pat on the back for a murderer.

Expressed sorrow isn't any better than advocacy because it is a totally different thing than advocacy.

But the quoted verse doesn't deal with expressed sorrow, so this is a completely irrelevant line of argument.

Don't compare apples to oranges. Don't equate expressing sentiment with advocacy of the sentiment being expressed.

Don't compare apples to oranges. Don't equate expressing anguish with expressing support for murderers.

If we were having this conversation in the middle of a desert, 3000 years ago, I might have given your proposal some serious consideration.

Why? 3000 years ago, did child molesters never touch their own children?

However, child molesters usually have already done what you propose and so I doubt that it would be an effective deterrent.

So it would be an effective deterrent when it concerned children who hadn't been touched by their own parents? Well, that shouldn't be a problem - simply subject such children to virginity tests and if they're clean, pray to God that they get raped. Any immorality in that?

Edited to add : Whoops, I meant to say, actually rape the children. After all, just praying to God may not deter anyone - it's the deed itself which counts.

So, is it immoral to drop the bomb, knowing that children will be horribly mangled or killed? I noticed that you did not attempt to answer this question.

I noticed that you did not attempt to answer my question either. See, it works both ways.

Why do you expect me to answer such a question when you yourself cannot?

Small difference between "cannot" and "are waiting to see if my own questions will be answered". Since you addressed my points, I don't think it was moral to drop the bomb.

Humans asking God to do something is not the same as God actually doing it, nor is it the same as God advocating it.

When the humans put their words into a book that is supposedly the inspired word of God, and when God doesn't contradict their support of murderers, this comes close to God advocating it.

I'd like to see how the barbarity of one child's death differs from the barbarity of another child's death, too.

Hiroshima had nothing to do with Babylonian casualties, so this is entirely irrelevant. However, the dead Israelite children were supposedly the cause for the Babylonian children's deaths, so how did the barbarity of the Israelite children's deaths differ from the barbarity of the Babylonian children's deaths?

How can the Israelites be commended or excused for wanting to see children slaughtered? I don't see anything that would lead me to believe they were being commended for having these feelings.

But putting these feelings into action was supposed to be the best way to stop infanticide. This is, to me, a commendation of those feelings.

Excused? I can't judge another for expressing the depths of their sorrow in a violent way.

I can, if they wish to harm children who have done nothing to hurt them.

If someone were to harm my child, I'm sure that all sorts of sick and nasty things would go through my mind and I wouldn't condemn another for his honesty in expressing those thoughts.

I can understand having "sick and nasty" thoughts towards the perpetrator of those crimes. But not towards the perpetrator's children. No matter what the parents have done, the children are innocent.

I seem to realize one thing that you have yet to learn.

You seem to have made a wrong assumption, though it's probably not the first time.

Morality is relative. No issue can be proven immoral or moral because there are no moral absolutes.

The fact that there are no moral absolutes does not mean that no issue can be shown to be immoral or moral.

Therefore, your question can't be answered. Prove me wrong and attempt to answer your own question.

And which question would that be?

I'm sure that you think you have the answer.

I'm sure that I want to know what you think I have the answer to.

Be sure to e-mail me 2 cents.

Your arguments weren't worth that much.