Tercel

I'm not entirely sure it's a sensible question.
This is because the two choices you present would only be distinguishable if it was the case that God could change his will. Is that possible? God is supposed to be the Unchangable I AM or whatnot... this would seem to me to suggest that it's unlikely to be possible for God to simply change his will on a subject as universal as morality.

But does God have "whim"s?

If God is omnipresent, eternal and exists outside of time then, I imagine, any changing of the mind of God wouldn't seem to us like a change but like it had always been that way, since any changes would theoretically be reflected through all time and space.

Those are my 2c anyway: I don't claim to know the answers, but it's fun to speculate on these things.

Eudaimonist

I wrote: I think it may obscure the issue to ask if morality is "higher" than God. Perhaps it's clearer to ask: is the nature of morality subject to God's will, or is it ineluctable?

Tercel responded: I'm not entirely sure it's a sensible question.
This is because the two choices you present would only be distinguishable if it was the case that God could change his will. Is that possible? God is supposed to be the Unchangable I AM or whatnot... this would seem to me to suggest that it's unlikely to be possible for God to simply change his will on a subject as universal as morality.

Ineluctable then, for what it's worth.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonia ]</p>

Draygomb

God's morality seems to remain constant, Do whatever I say or go to Hell.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill,
Not at all.

The term genocide implies that some party X goes after party Y BECAUSE party Y is of some particular race or cultural status. This is the claim you are leveling towards God when you say 'God committed genocide.' However this is not the case in Numbers 31. God did not go after Midianites BECAUSE they were Midianites. God declared war against the Midianites BECAUSE they were evil.

Claiming God committed genocide against the Midianites is the same logical fallacy as claiming the US is committing genocide in Afgahnistan because every person we kill happens to be Afgahni.


Thoughts and comments,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Jayhawker Soule

If the United States issued orders to

• burn every city,
• kill all the adult males,
• kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him, and
• keep alive for ourselves some 32,000 women children that have not known a man by lying with him

that might well be considered genocide. Or don't you agree?

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

nixon

If you try to kill all of a certain race or ethnic group, that is genecide. Just because they are evil doesn't mean it isn't genecide. The only opinion a Christian can have here is that the Midianites deserved death because they were evil. Which of course non-Christians who believe killing without cause is bad will condemn.

nixon

I thought I'd add another possible God ordered rape. This one is really unusual because the victim is a...MAN.

Turn to Genesis 38 verses 8-10

8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother."
9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother.
10 And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.

Now obviously Onam didn't want to impregnate his sister in law...and God killed him for it. Now if that ain't rape, what is?

Bill Snedden

It certainly is an ineluctable aspect of genocide that the race, culture, society, etc. of the victimized party must be part of the reason for their eradication; otherwise, one could not say, "kill all the x". If god only wished to eliminate evil, why didn't he simply say, "kill all the evildoers"?

Your contention that the primary motivation of god's genocidal acts (of which the slaughter of the Midianites was only one example) was that the victims were "evil" and that the fact that the totality of members of a particular group were eliminated is somehow "coincidental" or ancillary must necessarily include the contention that every member of that group including newborn infants were "evil" as well. In addition, it includes the implicit contention that none of the Hebrews were evil (otherwise god would have ordered them destroyed also). It will be interesting indeed to see you attempt to defend this.

Moreover, if one of the attributes of a particular group is "evil", how is targeting "evil" any different than targeting the group itself? If it is a necessary attribute of that group, then targeting it is exactly the same as targeting that group. So, god still fails the test.

The U.S. is not seeking to eliminate every Afghan, nor the entirety of Afghani culture or society; "terrorist" is not an attribute that applies to all Afghanis. Moreover, the primary target, al-Qeda, is mostly comprised of non-Afghanis.

Even so, if in the process of this conflict, the U.S. and its allies were to cause the total annihilation of every Afghani, it would also be guilty of genocide.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill,
Flawed logic my friend.

IF 10 killers are convicted of murder AND those
10 killers are executed AND those murders happen to be caucasian...THEN the judge is guilty of genocide? Not quite.

In this case it is either A-inaccurate to say this is genocide or B-say this is genocide with the condition that under some circumstances (like this one) genocide is morally acceptable.


In either case God has done no evil.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Godless Dave

OK, given that, couldn't that intuitive morality come from our genetic heritage, and not from a deity?