Is genocide ok if God tells you to do it?

[Jayhawker Soule]

God commanded the Israelites to go to war and, in order to accomplish victory in that war, eliminate every man, woman, boy, and child. ... War, halakhically, is basically in a process. They go surround a city (on 3 sides) and they offer the city peace. If the city refuses to surrender, then they must allow those who desire to run to get away...Anyone who stays after that point is open for eliminating.

The idiocy here is mind-boggling. Have you ever studied Torah? Have you ever read the reams of commentary on this topic? You pollute the topic much like a repugnant disease pollutes the respiratory system. That some associate you with Judaism is a disgrace.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Let's break this down...

You said earlier that...

I don't not believe that the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group is moral.

Then you defined genocide as...

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

Then you said...

God commanded the Israelites to go to war and, in order to accomplish victory in that war, eliminate every man, woman, boy, and child.

...which could easily be defined as a racial, political, or cultural group.

So I'm confused as to how you arrive at...

God didn't command us to do anything immoral.

 

[TheKnight]

The idiocy here is mind-boggling. Have you ever studied Torah? Have you ever read the reams of commentary on this topic? You pollute the topic much like a repugnant disease pollutes the respiratory system. That some associate you with Judaism is a disgrace.

I am fairly new in my studies of Judaism, however, I have studied this topic. Maybe not to the extent of a Talmudic scholar, but I have read up on the matter. Earlier in this thread I did post a lecture from a Rabbi concerning the matter.

Lecture 1

Lecture 2

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

Deuteronomy 20:10-11

When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that are found therein shall become tributary unto thee, and shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it.

If you would like more information concerning Halakha and war then I would be more then happy to look up more for you.

 

[TheKnight]

So I'm confused as to how you arrive at...

I arrive at that conclusion because I define morality based on what I believe to be a God-given moral structure. If God is the one who decides that which is moral and that which is not, then if God tells us to do something, then it is moral.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I arrive at that conclusion because I define morality based on what I believe to be a God-given moral structure. If God is the one who decides that which is moral and that which is not, then if God tells us to do something, then it is moral.

In this system, how do you tell God from Satan (or, if you don't believe in Satan, some other hypothetical entity powerful enough to do what a human would consider to be God-like things)?

 

[Autodidact]

God commanded the Israelites to go to war and, in order to accomplish victory in that war, eliminate every man, woman, boy, and child.

God didn't command us to do anything immoral. He commanded the Israelites to go to war and take the land that was theirs. He also commanded them to do whatever was necessary to take that land.

*sigh* As I said, it's tedious to repeat stuff.

Here's what God said:

Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.

Does it say do what is necessary to win? Or does it say to be sure to kill every child and every infant?

In Numbers 31, the war was over. The Israelites had already won. Victory was not at issue. They had victory. It's not about victory. Forget victory. They already had victory.

They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho

Victory was not at issue. The war was over. But they forgot to kill the babies!

"Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

It had nothing to do with victory. The problem was, winning wasn't good enough--they neglected to commit genocide, which angered God, so he sent them back to be sure to kill the boy babies and take the virgins captive.

You condemn it because you have a predisposed hatred of it.

I admit it. I hate genocide. Also killing babies. It just bugs me for some reason.

God is the definer of morality. Something is only moral/immoral because God labels it as such. Therefore if God tells us that something is immoral, then it is immoral. If God tells us that something is moral, then it is moral.

(emphasis added. I will have more to say about this later.)

So if God commands you to do something which otherwise would be heinous and reprehensible, it's moral, because God commanded it? So, for example, if God commanded Israelite soldiers to kill newborn male infants, that would be a moral action, for you? (And in fact He did command just that.)

God tells us the He does not want us to take lives.

Except when he orders us to.

 

[TheKnight]

In this system, how do you tell God from Satan (or, if you don't believe in Satan, some other hypothetical entity powerful enough to do what a human would consider to be God-like things)?

God is one. That means that outside of God nothing exists. Without going into the entire Kabbalah of the nature of God and the realms He created, the simple answer to your question is that I don't believe in Satan. There is no supernatural opposite figure waiting around to make us sway from God's will. There is only God.

 

[Autodidact]

I arrive at that conclusion because I define morality based on what I believe to be a God-given moral structure. If God is the one who decides that which is moral and that which is not, then if God tells us to do something, then it is moral.

Again I add emphasis. So it doesn't matter how horrific, how unjustified, how otherwise completely indefensible in every way, if God orders it, it's moral, right? That's your morality.

 

[Autodidact]

God is one. That means that outside of God nothing exists. Without going into the entire Kabbalah of the nature of God and the realms He created, the simple answer to your question is that I don't believe in Satan. There is no supernatural opposite figure waiting around to make us sway from God's will. There is only God.

Well there's no God either, but that's not the point. The point is, if God commands things that we would consider evil if anyone else commanded them, then how do you tell whether God is not evil?

 

[TheKnight]

Here's what God said: Does it say do what is necessary to win? Or does it say to be sure to kill every child and every infant?
Moses is instructing them to kill those
In Numbers 31, the war was over. The Israelites had already won. Victory was not at issue. They had victory. It's not about victory. Forget victory. They already had victory.

I'm sorry I'm confused. Numbers 31, the one where the war was over, does not mention killing those in Amalek. Numbers 31 is when the officers come back from war and Moses asks whether they left anyone alive. They did, and Moses then instructed that they go kill the people as they were instructed.

It had nothing to do with victory. The problem was, winning wasn't good enough--they neglected to commit genocide, which angered God, so he sent them back to be sure to kill the boy babies and take the virgins captive.

Sure. They neglected to wipe out the people (as God instructed them to do the first time). He didn't send them back (agian, I'm not sure which story you're referencing because Num31 does not mention Amalek but instead mentions the Midianites...

So if God commands you to do something which otherwise would be heinous and reprehensible, it's moral, because God commanded it?

It's not otherwise immoral. The morality of an action depends on whether or not God sees that action as immoral.

So, for example, if God commanded Israelite soldiers to kill newborn male infants, that would be a moral action, for you?

If God commanded it, then yes, it would be moral.

 

[Perfect Circle]

It's not otherwise immoral. The morality of an action depends on whether or not God sees that action as immoral.

If God commanded it, then yes, it would be moral.

So, you're response to the OP would be an emphatic yes.

 

[TheKnight]

Again I add emphasis. So it doesn't matter how horrific, how unjustified, how otherwise completely indefensible in every way, if God orders it, it's moral, right? That's your morality.

It appears you don't understand the point of view of the Theist, nor do you understand the concept of a God as Creator.

God, the Creator and thus the Definer of all things, is the sole person who can determine whether or not an action is moral. There is no objective morality outside of what God defines as moral or immoral.

If God commands things that we would consider evil if anyone else commanded them, then how do you tell whether God is not evil?

Because God is the person who defines evil. You are basing your opinion off of the assumption that there is an objective moral standard outside of God's defining it. The fact of the matter is that without a God-defined (or higher-power defined) standard of morality, then there is no such thing as objective morality. All you would have then is human opinion (as is demonstrated by the moral dichotomy between Theists and Non-Theists).

Because you do not believe in a God, you believe (so I assume) that there is an objective standard of morality outside of your personal views on morality. However, unless a party that is not human defines the moral standard, there cannot be an objective standard of morality devised by human means. There can only be individual opinion of morality.

In the Theist frameset, however, there is that which God commands as being moral and, because God is not a human and indeed is more powerful than we, that God-defined standard is the only possible objective standard that we can fine. Every other moral standard is relative to the individual.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm sorry I'm confused. Numbers 31, the one where the war was over, does not mention killing those in Amalek. Numbers 31 is when the officers come back from war and Moses asks whether they left anyone alive. They did, and Moses then instructed that they go kill the people as they were instructed.

1 Samuel: Kill everyone.
Numbers 31: YOu won. Now go back and kill the babies.

Sure. They neglected to wipe out the people (as God instructed them to do the first time). He didn't send them back (agian, I'm not sure which story you're referencing because Num31 does not mention Amalek but instead mentions the Midianites...

Could you avoid the point any better if you ducked?

THE WAR WAS OVER. Are we clear on that? God ordered the soldier to go back and kill all the male babies after they won. It was not necessary to assure victory. They had victory. You are wrong. It has nothing to do with what they needed to get victory. * The problem was that they have failed to commit infanticide. This angered God. YOU ARE WRONG. Can I make it any more clear? You said that God only commands war, and whatever is necessary to win war. You are wrong. So again, why was this infanticide moral?

It's not otherwise immoral. The morality of an action depends on whether or not God sees that action as immoral.

But if anyone else commanded the exact same action, it would be immoral, right?

If God commanded it, then yes, it would be moral.

So moral just means, "whatever God commands." And for you, that means that genocide and infanticide are both moral, whenever God commands them. Right?

 

[TheKnight]

So, you're response to the OP would be an emphatic yes.

If I were to put it simply, yes.

 

[Autodidact]

To sum up:

You agree that:

1. Genocide is immoral. (from your posts)
2. God commands genocide. (from your posts)
3. Therefore, God commands something immoral.

But for you, it's not immoral when God commands it, because you define moral as "whatever God commands, not matter how immoral." Right?

Is this the morality you're recommending to us atheists, by the way?

 

[TheKnight]

1 Samuel: Kill everyone.
Numbers 31: YOu won. Now go back and kill the babies.

Either way, the commandment to wipe out Amalek is not found in Numbers 31. Numbers 31 is an entirely different situation.

THE WAR WAS OVER. Are we clear on that? God ordered the soldier to go back and kill all the male babies after they won. It was not necessary to assure victory. They had victory. You are wrong. It has nothing to do with what they needed to get victory. * The problem was that they have failed to commit infanticide. This angered God. YOU ARE WRONG. Can I make it any more clear? You said that God only commands war, and whatever is necessary to win war. You are wrong. So again, why was this infanticide moral?

If victory is defined as the elimination of the other people, then the fact that fighting stopped does not mean that victory was achieved.

But if anyone else commanded the exact same action, it would be immoral, right?

Yes. Because no one has the authority to command anyone else to do anything.

So moral just means, "whatever God commands." And for you, that means that genocide and infanticide are both moral, whenever God commands them. Right?

Yes, moral means whatever God commands. That means if God commands us to kill, then we must kill. No matter who the victim is.

 

[Autodidact]

If I were to put it simply, yes.

So why make us fight for 34 pages to establish that? Why not just admit it up front? I guess you're not very proud of your so-called "morality." Of course, to someone who thinks genocide is moral, I guess a little lack of consideration is as nothing.

 

[Autodidact]

If victory is defined as the elimination of the other people, then the fact that fighting stopped does not mean that victory was achieved.

So now you're defining "victory" to mean "genocide has been achieved?"

Yes, moral means whatever God commands. That means if God commands us to kill, then we must kill. No matter who the victim is.

I think the best thing for all of us is to lock you up now, before you act on your moral principles. At a minimum, please do not take care of anyone else's children.

 

[Autodidact]

btw, did you notice that your morality contradicts your own asserted morality. What I mean is, you said that genocide is immoral. Then you said it's moral, if God commands it.

So, let's say you're a Hebrew soldier. The battle is over. You're back at camp. Moses tells you to return to the prisoners and kill all the baby boys. Do you do it?

 

[TheKnight]

To sum up:

You agree that:

1. Genocide is immoral. (from your posts)
2. God commands genocide. (from your posts)
3. Therefore, God commands something immoral.

But for you, it's not immoral when God commands it, because you define moral as "whatever God commands, not matter how immoral." Right?

It's more like:

1. Genocide is immoral because God does not allow us to commit genocide of our own volition.
2. God may command us to commit any form of cide and it would not be immoral to do so because God commanded it.

Is this the morality you're recommending to us atheists, by the way?

And alas, your agenda rears its ugly head.

You assume that I am recommending my morality to you. You assume that it is my desire that you believe as I believe. You make this assumption that because I am religious (and we all know that you hate religion), I desire to convert you to my beliefs (because we religious people are all evil scheming deviants hell-bent on getting the world to submit to us).

I could care less what you believe. You believe what you believe, I'll believe what I believe. I will stand by what I believe to be moral, based on your posts, I would assume that you would do the same. That's fine. You live by your morality, I'll live by mine.