Genocide in 1st Samuel 15:2-3

[TheKnight]

So you just don't believe in making moral judgments at all? Anything goes with you? Frying toddlers for breakfast? Slaughtering all left-handed people? It's all good?

Just because I believe an action can be designated as undesirable doesn't mean I have to call it good or evil.

Why must I label murder as evil? Why not simply say "I live my life by a certain standard, with certain goals, and murder is antithetical to that goal and standard."?

What on earth is the difference between a conclusion as to what our ethical values are and a moral judgment?

Because, one is saying "Our society accept X as ethical and rejects Y as unethical." That's entirely different than saying "X is good and Y is evil."

The difference is how you say it.

Where? What are they?

A court may take someone's life for a capital offense.
A person may take the life of someone who is trying to kill another person.
A person may take the life of someone who is trying to rape another person.
A person may take the life of someone who is trying to steal (with violence) from another person.
A person may take the life of someone who is breaking into a person's house.
A person may take lives during the course of war (including civilian lives--though that too is the exception and not the rule).

I believe these are the only exceptions, but I'm not sure.

So: Your God commands murder. You believe that murder is moral, if your God commands it.

Yes. Because the action is only immoral if God says that it is.

 

[Autodidact]

Why must I label murder as evil?

It's questions like this that make me despair for you, TheKnight. I'm beginning to think that your religion has damaged your moral sense beyond repair. Do I really need to answer this question for you?



Apparently, if you subscribe to TK's religion, you an no longer condemn murder. Your logic eventually leads you to a place where the only position you can maintain is a wishy-washy, post-modern, contstructivist, anything-goes-ism, including baby-killing.

To avoid this position, do not become a Noahide. Even better, adopt atheism, where we can maintain moral standards.

 

[Kerr]

I agree. I don't believe in an objective standard. There are only subjective perspectives of what we experience. We can't do any more than that.

Because of that, I think we should refrain from making moral judgments (outside of our own internal moral system).

Instead, we should, as a society, realize that our moral compasses are subjective and come to a conclusion (that everyone would accept) as to what our ethical values are concerning actions.

That is one way to look at it. Another is to realize that we may be wrong, and therefore thinks things through before acting.

 

[TheKnight]

It's questions like this that make me despair for you, TheKnight. I'm beginning to think that your religion has damaged your moral sense beyond repair. Do I really need to answer this question for you?



Apparently, if you subscribe to TK's religion, you an no longer condemn murder. Your logic eventually leads you to a place where the only position you can maintain is a wishy-washy, post-modern, contstructivist, anything-goes-ism, including baby-killing.

To avoid this position, do not become a Noahide. Even better, adopt atheism, where we can maintain moral standards.

Are you always going to avoid questions because of your superiority complex? You do realize that it is a valid question, don't you?

What's the point of calling it evil? Why not simply say " Murder is antithetical within the framework of values and ethical standards that I have."

It seems like you're never willing to actually answer the questions that people have...you just figure that the answer should be obvious.

As I've asked in other threads...do you have some sort of evil-o-meter that we don't know about?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Killing in self defense is certainly justifiable.

And don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm claiming Jews felt they were defending themselves from Amalekite babies...

I'm just answering the basic and simple question put forth in your post.

Okay, so some killing is justifiable. Is killing in time of war justifiable?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Are you always going to avoid questions because of your superiority complex?

Probably not without throwing a few jabs at "religionists" first.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So by your math if it's ever justified to kill anyone, then it's always justified to kill everyone? Is that what you're saying?

It's always an extreme huh?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Whoa whoa whoa...once you admit that there are situations where it is justifiable to kill a human being, you must also admit that the those situations which are considered "appropriate" are dependent on the person doing it.

You have your standard of what makes it justifiable, I have mine. If the reason I don't kill others is because God tells me not to then the reason I would kill another would be because God tells me to.

The morality of it isn't even a question.

You have it right. The morality of it is not the issue.

For example, in a time of war when the mother and the father have been killed and it is impossible to take care of the baby. Is it more moral to not kill the child than to leave it to suffer alone in the dessert? Is it justifiable. It's not a black and white issue and it is arrived at by most, who are given the responsiblity of the situation, through a process and not an emotion.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No, they are not the same. For example, you cannot justify killing a random person on the street for no reason. But it can be justified to kill someone who tries to kill you or someone you love. The difference is a matter of guilt, thread and so on. Genocide includes killing a LOT of innocent people, thereby it is wrong.

A whole tribe attacks my tribe. My tribe kills them all. By definition it's genocide. Is it justifiable?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I think what he's saying is, if the ultimate authority sets the bar for what is justifiable, then by definition the commands of that ultimate authority are justified, even if we don't understand it... or don't want to understand it.

Ever notice that when it seems like a person is making a decision about the life or death of another person, they're accused of "playing God". There's a reason for that.

If you don't believe in God, it's easy to decide that the reported actions of people acting in His name are horrible, because you figure men made those decisions... decisions which men have no right to make.

However, keeping consistent with belief in God as the creator of everything means understanding that He put us here, and He can take us away.

We might not understand certain decisions he makes... we might think them cruel, or unfair, but it's not our call to make.

In a Biblical context, all are born to die. All are deserving of death. The real issue is whether or not one will be with God for an eternity. It is commonly accepted among many Christians that babies automatically go to heaven.

That the ultimate moral authority, and just authority, would see fit to exercise It's authority is not a question that is going to be entertained by that authority. We are allowed to debate it among ourselves to no consequence other than to try and defame the authority of a supreme, moral, and just being.

Would it not be seen in another view that by taking the life of an Amalekite child, that God has deprived it of the ability to possibly kill Israelis in the future, possibly reject God in the future, possibly[fill in the blank with any obsene act], and instead given that child an eternity of sinless perfection with God in heaven (in the view of some interpretations of Scripture). Which position is moral, to kill the child or not?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I respectfully disagree. A deity, any deity, does not decide what is right, at last not from my perspective.

Strange perspective.

 

[Kerr]

A whole tribe attacks my tribe. My tribe kills them all. By definition it's genocide. Is it justifiable?

I am not sure I would consider it justifiable.

Strange perspective.

Let me put it this way. If there is a God, would it be right for me to rape someone, like one of my close friends, because that God ask me to? What if there are two gods, and one wants me to kill all people with red hair and the other wants me to save them all from the god that wants to save them? Which one is right? Which one is wrong? In the end, we must all decide what is right or wrong. God or no God, we have the ability to feel compassion, to reason, for a reason. And we have the ability to tell right from wrong. I have yet to need a God for that, because I am able to determine it myself. Why would the existence of any deity change that?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

To avoid this position, do not become a Noahide. Even better, adopt atheism, where we can maintain moral standards.

:bow:We all bow down to your higher moral authority, oh goddess, Auto.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Let me put it this way. If there is a God, would it be right for me to rape someone, like one of my close friends, because that God ask me to? What if there are two gods, and one wants me to kill all people with red hair and the other wants me to save them all from the god that wants to save them? Which one is right? Which one is wrong? In the end, we must all decide what is right or wrong. God or no God, we have the ability to feel compassion, to reason, for a reason. And we have the ability to tell right from wrong. I have yet to need a God for that, because I am able to determine it myself. Why would the existence of any deity change that?

I believe that the Bible addresses this. Make sure you pick the right Deity.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I am not sure I would consider it justifiable.

Isn't it not self defense writ large?

 

[Ringer]

God or no God, we have the ability to feel compassion, to reason, for a reason. And we have the ability to tell right from wrong. I have yet to need a God for that, because I am able to determine it myself. Why would the existence of any deity change that?

Just out of curiosity, how do you know you that it was a deity itself that gave you the ability to do this? Most Christians would agree with you here and say you are correct except we have the theory that God gave us these abilities. It is written on everybody's heart regardless or race, sex, or religious affiliation.

 

[Kerr]

I believe that the Bible addresses this. Make sure you pick the right Deity.

Which means you must be able to determine which deity is the right one. This also means that a deity does not decide what is right or wrong, for in the end it still boils down to our ability to tell which deity is the right one... or rather, which deity that acts morally.

Just out of curiosity, how do you know you that it was a deity itself that gave you the ability to do this? More Christians would agree with you here and say you are correct except we have the theory that God gave us these abilities. It is written on everybody's heart regardless or race, sex, or religious affiliation.

I am not saying that . And if I ever say that, it is not because I believe in it, but to present an alternate perspective. As a non-religious atheist I do not believe any one of our abilities have a divine source, they are just examples of how awesome nature is .

 

[Kerr]

Isn't it not self defense writ large?

Not if it is genocide. Genocide means guilt does not matter, which is one of the reasons it is so wrong.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Has "keithnurse" abandoned his thread?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Not if it is genocide. Genocide means guilt does not matter, which is one of the reasons it is so wrong.

Okay, so if their entire tribe attacks my side it is only justifiable if I leave someone alive? Even if it means my tribe will suffer?