Jinto

Do keep insulting me instead of adressing the arguments, it only helps to accentuate your intellectual bankruptcy.

Regrettably, your opinion does not make it so.

And thus I have just won the argument. Have a nice day.

Hired Gun

I gave my opinion on the morality of infanticide, despite its irrelevancy to the issue of the Bible's alleged advocacy of infanticide.



By George, I think you're getting it now...

[/b]

Actually, I think the writer may be excused for wanting to cause his enemy the same pain that his enemy has caused him. The only way to cause his enemy the same pain would be to do what the enemy did to cause him that pain. You are welcome to see things differently. If we have established one thing in this particular exchange, it's that both of our opinions concerning morality are unworthy of each other's consideration:

Why should I care about your opinion?

Did anyone ask you to?

The question is, how can something be barbaric and human and still be considered moral. Some states continue to execute prisoners with the electric chair; though barbaric, many (ad populum fallacy) consider this to be morally permissable. We slaughter animals, and this isn't as clean a procedure as you may think. Just visit a slaughterhouse and see if you think that what goes on there isn't barbaric. Yet society considers it morally permissable. So you see, barbarism isn't necessarily the equivalent of immorality.



It's this type of comment that demonstrates your argumentative nature, not your ability to argue.

[quote]

I just wonder why so many people get their panties all wedged up when they read of warfare in the Bible but not many go on and on about how wicked it was of us to burn the skin off of men, women and children 60 years ago. It seems to me that people like pointing that finger of theirs in any direction except *self-ward*. Of course, I know why I used to point at the Bible and call it an immoral piece of crap. I enjoyed the feeling of self-righteousness. Yep, my morality was even greater than God's.



An ommission does not mean approval by default. God never 'voices' his approval or disapproval of the Psalm writer's sentiments.



Nothing other than anguish causes a person to seek revenge.



You will be hard pressed to find a Biblical scholar, secular or Christian, who agrees with you. It's in every Biblical commentary and teaching aid that I have ever read.



Anguish frequently does express itself in the desire for revenge.



Oh no, it isn't that. We live in an affluent society that can afford to incarcerate its criminals. The 'jail tent' wasn't very escape proof and so punishment was usually physical and brutal back then.



You're getting silly with your absurd proposals and that was what I intended to convey with my comment about your suggestion to rape children. I simply said that it is a very natural, human reaction to want to reach out and hurt the person responsible in the same way that they have hurt you. I don't see how you can deny this aspect of humanity.



It has been my point, since the beginning of this thread, that these types of questions can't be answered with anything but unsupported opinion or arguments that result in logical fallacies.



Well, that supports the first half of my theory. You gave me an unsupported assertion that dropping the bomb was immoral. Care to fulfill my second prediction and attempt to logically explain why dropping the bomb was immoral?

Is there no justifiable warfare, in your moral code? Is warfare always wrong, even in defense? Is this what you are saying?



Comes close???? So you admit that it actually doesn't advocate it?How does one 'come close' to advocating something that one doesn't actually advocate?



Hahahaha! Is this how you are attempting to expose a 'false analogy'? Had I known how stupid this post was going to get, I would have spent more time on Jinto's post.

Of course Hiroshima had nothing DIRECTLY to do with Babylonian casualties, but there is nothing different in the analogy that would allow it to be considered false. Both involve warfare that knowingly kills and wounds men, women and children. If you consider killing Babylonian children as immoral, then it would only speak of your hypocrisy to declare killing Hiroshima children as moral. Fortunately, you didn't do this. You declared both as immoral, but now you are in a quagmire. If you declare a country who defends itself by doing what it has to do, even if that means killing, as immoral, then you have placed the future of our own society at risk should we ever be attacked and placed in a kill or be killed situation. If rule makers adopted your own personal moral code, we would all be expected to lay down and die at our enemies' hands or forever be branded as immoral hypocrites by our own foolish philosophy. Bah.





Allow me to clarify. I was the one who suggested that sometimes (meaning perhaps, but not certain, indicating that this is only a theory and not a fact) the best way to stop an enemy from doing an atrocious act is to suggest that the act be done to him. This is an effort to place the enemy's foot in the shoes of his victim, hopefully to spark some self examination that would lead to empathy and mercy.

The Bible never makes this suggestion, nor is there anything written, of which I am aware, that documents that this suggestion was ever put into practice by the Israelites against the Babylonians. It remains my suggestion, not the Bible's, and I am neither commending or condemning the practice. It would depend on the situation and I am not in the situation that would allow me to do either.



Judge them harshly Queen.



Are you saying that innocent life should be preserved at any cost? My goodness. That's two moral absolutes that you've come up with in less than two days. You really need to inform the univeristies of your discoveries.



You have proved one half of my assumption. You gave your unsupported opinion that bombing Hiroshima was immoral. I'm waiting for the second half, where you will attempt to explain, and fail, the logical reasons for believing why the bombing was immoral.



No, that's exactly what it means. An issue can be considered to be moral or immoral, but it can be demonstrated (shown) to be moral or immoral.



Demonstrate to me why you believe that the bombing of Hiroshima was an immoral act.

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun

I feel no need to continue to beat a dead horse and your horse is obviously dead.

As for your expected and dishonest claim of victory, I have given good logical reason to believe that God has every right to tell us how to play the game He has created for us, and it is very evident that free will allows us to not play His game, but that's what the game is all about, isn't it? It's all about those who decide the game is worthy to be played and those who decide that the game is not worthy.


A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun

Gosh, Rick, thanks! I'll certainly try to do my best and employ the advice you have given me.

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun

I'm sorry, Win. You present a very good argument, but I'm running out of time. Two more posts, and I make like Enoch and vanish from this thread.

A.S.A. Jones

Jobar

Hired Gun, I am disappointed that you do not choose to stay here and continue this debate; whatever my opinion of the strength and logic of your arguments, the fact that you are willing to stand up and duke it out with us is too rare. Most believers have not the confidence and verbal fluency to try to deal with all of us toe to toe, and though I still find your arguments the weaker, I will say that you get points for guts.

Now, with that said- I want to go back to your answer to me at the end of pg. 3. I said (in blue)-

Er... so tell me, what is the difference between "a position of absolute righteousness" and "a set of moral absolutes"? I see none, myself. Isn't 'righteous' the same thing as 'moral'?

Nope. A moral absolute would be a moral statement, a do or a don't, which would apply absolutely, to all people (or any other moral agents) everywhere and everywhen. All I ask for here is a single moral absolute. Telling us how you recognize moral absolutes- or 'a position of absolute righteousness' if you prefer- would be good, too.

So just what makes "our moral decisions" into "an absolute foundation of principle"? Just because you decide it? Tell me, have you ever seen the Godhatesfags web site? Do you think that Fred Phelps' moral decisions, based on *his* relationship with God, establishes an absolute foundation of principle? And how can you call all this 'objective'? Looks entirely subjective to me! Given that others interpret the words in the Bible differently- often EXTREMELY differently- there is no way you can say there is an "Objective Moral Standard".
I inform you that this site *has* made converts- or de-converts. People who have come here to argue for their faith have come to the conclusion that they were mistaken, and the ancient myths they cherished have no factual basis. So, we *do* debate with the confidence that our arguments are convincing, to people who are truly willing to listen to them, and apply logic to their ideas and faith.

Of course, if you think blind faith is more to be treasured than open-eyed rationality, we won't convince you. C'est la vie.

Anyway, any time you want to return here, we'll be here to apply our diamond hones, and see if your mental steel can stand the fray.

Hired Gun

Allow me to clarify. This is what I said:
Many people do not make any sacrifice at all. They don't expend any amount of money. They could very easily expend just a small amount of their money to save lives, but they don't. Yet society does not label them as immoral.

God doesn't make any sacrifice at all. He doesn't expend any amount of energy. He very easily could expend just a small amount of energy to save lives but he doesn't. Yet infidels label him as immoral.

You fail to demonstrate the inadequacy of this argument by analogy. Also, you entirely miss the subpoint:

No one makes a stink over people who don't make even the smallest of financial sacrifices; they escape the label of 'immoral'. But oddly, society not only expects, but also criticizes a member for not placing himself in physical danger to save another. Thusly, the person who doesn't act to save lives by making even the smallest of sacrifices is excused, while the person who refuses to make the bigger sacrifice is labelled as immoral.



Well Rick, those posts weren't intended to tell us anything about an omnipotent god. They were intended to demonstrate that what may first appear as an immoral act, may be reasonably seen from a different perspective that would allow it to be moral. It would have been helpful for you to post my comment concerning veterans of war in its context so that I could refute the hell out of you. Such as it is, I don't have the motivation at this late hour to go through the 10,000 words I have written and try to find the comment being addressed.



Once again, Rick, I don't know what it is that you think I am arguing here that would make you think of a false dichotomy. The point I am trying to prove in the above is the same as the one prior to it: They were intended to demonstrate that what may first appear as an immoral act, may be reasonably seen from a different perspective that would allow it to be moral.



Um...what do you think that your comment of "It is immoral for the leader of the affluent country to make such a demand", is? Is it a FACT? No, it is not. It is an opinion. Is there a line of reasoning to demonstrate how you arrived at that opinion? No, there is not. It is, therefore, not only your opinion, but your unsupported opinion. What would you have had me call it?

If anything, the above is not a strawman, it would be a false analogy. However, it isn't false, and here is why:

What is the difference between sending 5 innocent people, knowing they will be tortured and killed, to prevent the deaths of a large portion of the population, and drafting thousands of young men, knowing that many will be killed in battle, to prevent the deaths of a large portion of the population?

This is what I am trying to demonstrate: Morality is even more relative than most moral relativists care to admit. They get all bent when they are faced with a scenario that involves cute and cuddly babies. Their emotionalism blinds them. But when the scenario changes to avoid the emotionalism, while maintaining the substance of the scenario, suddenly things can be seen for what they really are. What is once seen as immoral instantly changes to being morally permissable.



You certainly have proven that. Why did you make them in the first place?

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun

ex-xian! You, yes, YOU, are next! :-) Sorry for the wait. I've saved the best for last!

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Hired Gun
I gave my opinion on the morality of infanticide, despite its irrelevancy to the issue of the Bible's alleged advocacy of infanticide.

Ah, finally you admit that one of the issues was the morality of infanticide. Thanks for getting to the point, especially since it only took three posts.

By George, I think you're getting it now...

Unfortunately, I can't say the same for you. Because your statement "opinion is insufficient to dictate morality" is simply that - your unsubstantiated opinion, and you have shown no reason why opinion is supposed to be insufficient to dictate morality.

Actually, I think the writer may be excused for wanting to cause his enemy the same pain that his enemy has caused him.

The writer wants children to be murdered. I see no reason to excuse this.

The only way to cause his enemy the same pain would be to do what the enemy did to cause him that pain.

This is assuming that the enemy feels the same way about his own children as the writer did. What a pity if the enemy falls into the same category as the child molesters you mentioned - someone who has no empathy for his own kids. Oh well, just chalk it up to experience, wipe the children's blood off one's hands and hope that a more soft-hearted enemy comes along soon.

The question is, how can something be barbaric and human and still be considered moral. Some states continue to execute prisoners with the electric chair; though barbaric, many (ad populum fallacy) consider this to be morally permissable.

Are the children convicted criminals? If not, your analogy falls flat.

We slaughter animals, and this isn't as clean a procedure as you may think.

Are children animals being slaughtered for food? If not, your analogy falls flat.

Try for another analogy. Third time's the charm.

It's this type of comment that demonstrates your argumentative nature, not your ability to argue.

But you of all people should appreciate a snappy comeback. Of course, you did not address the difference between warfare - a fight between armed adults - and the type of butchery we are discussing, which involves an adult murdering a child.

I just wonder why so many people get their panties all wedged up when they read of warfare in the Bible but not many go on and on about how wicked it was of us to burn the skin off of men, women and children 60 years ago.

Completely irrelevant. We're discussing the bible, not WWII. I understand that you want to shift the focus to something else, but it's not going to happen.

It seems to me that people like pointing that finger of theirs in any direction except *self-ward*.

Completely irrelevant to the topic of how it could be moral to murder children.

Of course, I know why I used to point at the Bible and call it an immoral piece of crap. I enjoyed the feeling of self-righteousness.

I'm sure you still do.

Yep, my morality was even greater than God's.

If God tacitly condones the murder of children, I'd say a lot of us have more morality than he does.

An ommission does not mean approval by default.

Ever hear the phrase "silence gives consent"?

God never 'voices' his approval or disapproval of the Psalm writer's sentiments.

He can comment on eating shellfish, mixing fabrics and treating mildew, but he doesn't have anything to say about a man offering support to a child murderer?

Nothing other than anguish causes a person to seek revenge.

Actually, people seek revenge because of various emotions, including guilt and rage. Moreover, there's a difference between anguish and a pat on the back for a murderer.

You will be hard pressed to find a Biblical scholar, secular or Christian, who agrees with you. It's in every Biblical commentary and teaching aid that I have ever read.

In other words, you're not the only Christian who would love to find an alternative meaning for this verse, hopefully something suggesting sorrow rather than brutal retaliation against babies too small to fight back?

Anguish frequently does express itself in the desire for revenge.

Psychopathy frequently does express itself in the desire to kill children.

Oh no, it isn't that. We live in an affluent society that can afford to incarcerate its criminals. The 'jail tent' wasn't very escape proof and so punishment was usually physical and brutal back then.

But you're missing the point. You say that raping the children of child molesters is not an effective deterrent because child molesters often rape their own children, but you would have listened to this proposal 3000 years ago. 3000 years ago, why would you have listened? How would your objection - namely, that child molesters often rape their own children - been overcome? "Jail tents" have nothing to do with this.

Never mind. We'll just keep getting back to the point as often as is necessary.

You're getting silly with your absurd proposals

I feel the same way about you.

and that was what I intended to convey with my comment about your suggestion to rape children.

But you suggested that killing children was an effective way to stop infanticide. It's only logical to extrapolate this and suggest that raping children is an effective way to stop child molestation.

I simply said that it is a very natural, human reaction to want to reach out and hurt the person responsible in the same way that they have hurt you.

Unfortunately, in this case, you're hurting the person's child, and the person's child isn't responsible for anything.

I don't see how you can deny this aspect of humanity.

Who says it's an aspect of humanity? You? Why should your opinion count for anything?

Well, that supports the first half of my theory. You gave me an unsupported assertion that dropping the bomb was immoral.

I wasn't aware that you would require support for my assertion when you provide none for yours.

Care to fulfill my second prediction and attempt to logically explain why dropping the bomb was immoral?

Sure, if you'll tell me what relevance this has to the topic of whether it is moral to slaughter the children of Babylonians.

Care to do that?

Is there no justifiable warfare, in your moral code? Is warfare always wrong, even in defense? Is this what you are saying?

No, this not what I am saying. However, there's a difference between warfare and specifically seeking out children to slaughter. That's my point.

Comes close???? So you admit that it actually doesn't advocate it? How does one 'come close' to advocating something that one doesn't actually advocate?

Like this. One can listen to someone else making such a statement and not contradict it. One can then write a book, supposedly one's own words, and include the comment that certain child murderers will be happy. Throughout the book, there are examples of people being punished for their misdeeds, but the advocate of child slaughter does not seem to pay any penalty for his bloodthirst. That comes close to advocating it.

But only for the children of Babylonians, of course.

Hahahaha! Is this how you are attempting to expose a 'false analogy'?

No, actually this is how I show that you are trying to evade the point.

Had I known how stupid this post was going to get, I would have spent more time on Jinto's post.

By all means do.

Of course Hiroshima had nothing DIRECTLY to do with Babylonian casualties, but there is nothing different in the analogy that would allow it to be considered false.

So, who was advocating the slaughter of Japanese children because their parents happened to have murdered his own children and where did the advocate say that the man who dropped the bomb would be one happy guy?

Both involve warfare that knowingly kills and wounds men, women and children.

Wrong. One involved specifically seeking out and slaughtering children, the other didn't.

You declared both as immoral, but now you are in a quagmire.

First time I heard this country referred to as a quagmire.

If you declare a country who defends itself by doing what it has to do, even if that means killing, as immoral,

Israel had to defend itself against babies? Must have been real fierce babies, that lot.

then you have placed the future of our own society at risk should we ever be attacked and placed in a kill or be killed situation.

Which society would this be? Because I don't think we have one in common.

In any case, there's a difference between warfare and deliberately going after children in order to make them suffer for what their parents did.

If rule makers adopted your own personal moral code, we would all be expected to lay down and die at our enemies' hands

Not unless our enemies were babies. When do you foresee this happening?

or forever be branded as immoral hypocrites by our own foolish philosophy. Bah.

You forgot "Humbug".

Allow me to clarify. I was the one who suggested that sometimes (meaning perhaps, but not certain, indicating that this is only a theory and not a fact) the best way to stop an enemy from doing an atrocious act is to suggest that the act be done to him.

Right, which is why I applied your reasoning to child molestation.

This is an effort to place the enemy's foot in the shoes of his victim, hopefully to spark some self examination that would lead to empathy and mercy.

Yes, I can really see an enemy standing over the bloodied corpse of his child and slowly feeling a camaraderie with the Israelite who had just killed the child.

Are you saying that innocent life should be preserved at any cost? My goodness. That's two moral absolutes that you've come up with in less than two days.

My goodness, indeed. That's the second time you've put words in my mouth; unfortunately for you, they don't quite fit.

You really need to inform the univeristies of your discoveries.

What discoveries would these be? That you make a lot of assumptions? They might be aware of this already.

You have proved one half of my assumption. You gave your unsupported opinion that bombing Hiroshima was immoral. I'm waiting for the second half, where you will attempt to explain, and fail, the logical reasons for believing why the bombing was immoral.

And I'll give it, when you attempt to show, and fail, how warfare that did not target children in particular was comparable to seeking out children in order to slaughter them and thereby win the empathy of their parents.

No, that's exactly what it means. An issue can be considered to be moral or immoral, but it can be demonstrated (shown) to be moral or immoral.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, or how it contradicts my statement that "The fact that there are no moral absolutes does not mean that no issue can be shown to be immoral or moral."

Demonstrate to me why you believe that the bombing of Hiroshima was an immoral act.

As soon as you demonstrate what the bombing of Hiroshima had to do with deliberately targeting Babylonian children in the hope that their parents would learn empathy and mercy.

Dr Rick

Thanks for posting on the IIDB fora, ASA Jones; you're welcome back anytime.

Rick