Is genocide ok if God tells you to do it?

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't know anything to be wrong because right and wrong are not objectively determined things. I determine right and wrong based on a higher standard of morality that I believe God delivered to the Jews 3300 years ago at Sinai.

You do so poorly ... disgustingly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course I can't. I only listen to the voices in my head. Surely that is what is wrong with me.

For the record, I can and do think for myself. I can and do make decisions for myself. I would not obey a voice in my head because that wouldn't be God.

So... you've decided a priori that God never comes as a "still small voice"?

I don't know anything to be wrong because right and wrong are not objectively determined things. I determine right and wrong based on a higher standard of morality that I believe God delivered to the Jews 3300 years ago at Sinai.

So... 3301 years ago, it was "anything goes"? How would you know what was right and wrong without God giving some tablets to Moses?

 

[TheKnight]

So... you've decided a priori that God never comes as a "still small voice"?

No. I can't say with certainty that God speaks in voices to the head. However, due to my experiences with people who have claimed to hear God speak (and I have heard a lot) and the high frequency of such people not actually hearing God speak, I think it would be reasonable to assume that God does not speak as a voice to the head.

Almost every person who says they hear God "talking to them" has juxtaposed their own fantastical delusions about how God speaks onto the incident. So far, I have found that 100% of those I have met who claimed to hear God speak did not and they recognized this after a critical and deductive inquiry concerning the event was conducted.

So... 3301 years ago, it was "anything goes"? How would you know what was right and wrong without God giving some tablets to Moses?

No. God gave the first moral system to Adam at the beginning of Creation (The Noahide laws). However, it is due to their connection to Torah and the fact that they were also reiterated at Sinai that I believe in them.

 

[averageJOE]

For the record, I can and do think for myself. I can and do make decisions for myself. I would not obey a voice in my head because that wouldn't be God.

I don't know anything to be wrong because right and wrong are not objectively determined things. I determine right and wrong based on a higher standard of morality that I believe God delivered to the Jews 3300 years ago at Sinai.

Do you realize those two statements contradict each other?

You say you can think for yourself...then say that you don't know what "wrong" is, and only knows the difference between right and wrong based on what God says...?

Why not think for yourself and make that conclusion yourself?


You then continue to say:
"Almost every person who says they hear God "talking to them" has juxtaposed their own fantastical delusions about how God speaks onto the incident. So far, I have found that 100% of those I have met who claimed to hear God speak did not and they recognized this after a critical and deductive inquiry concerning the event was conducted."

Like I said, both Charles Manson and Osama Bin Laden claimed that they were only doing what God told them too do. If God does exsist, how can you say that they were lying and delusional? What if God really did talk to them? If you ask me, God telling Manson and Bin Laden to slaughter innocent people is pretty consistant with what he's said in the past. You know...about killing babies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. I can't say with certainty that God speaks in voices to the head. However, due to my experiences with people who have claimed to hear God speak (and I have heard a lot) and the high frequency of such people not actually hearing God speak, I think it would be reasonable to assume that God does not speak as a voice to the head.

I can't remember the term for the fallacy right now, but there's a flaw in your logic.

You say that most people who "hear God" experience something that does not come from God; fair enough. However, all you have, then, is a collection of things that you know God didn't do. This doesn't say anything about how God actually operates.

False positives don't necessarily mean that true positives don't exist. As an analogy, take smoke detectors: I don't know about you, but in my house, the smoke detector has never gone off because the house was on fire. It's gone off a number of times because I've burnt something while cooking, but I've never heard it go off for its intended purpose, i.e. alarming me to a danger to my life.

Do all these false positives mean that a smoke detector won't work if the house is actually on fire? Of course not.

To translate your argument into my analogy, it would be like saying "because I've only ever detected burnt food with my smoke alarm, I know it won't be set off by a real house fire."

No. God gave the first moral system to Adam at the beginning of Creation (The Noahide laws). However, it is due to their connection to Torah and the fact that they were also reiterated at Sinai that I believe in them.

Ah... so you really have no support for your original statement, then. How exactly can you tell the difference betwen an objective morality recognized by everyone and a subjective morality implanted somehow into every single person?

 

[fantome profane]

If there were evidence of a 50%+ probability of that thing being a representation of God, then yes.

Just to clarify, you are saying is that all you need is to be 51% sure that the apparition is really “God” and not a chemical imbalance in your brain, and then you would go out killing babies. Is that what you are saying? That all you need is 50%+? Are you saying that if you were 51% certain that you had received a message from “God” then your own sense of right and wrong would go right out the window?

Almost every person who says they hear God "talking to them" has juxtaposed their own fantastical delusions about how God speaks onto the incident.

This comes very close to a very true statement. All you need to do is remove the first word. If you did so then your statement would conform with your experience.

So far, I have found that 100% of those I have met who claimed to hear God speak did not and they recognized this after a critical and deductive inquiry concerning the event was conducted.

 

[Autodidact]

Precisely.

And to answer your earlier question, Jay, that is my point.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

The answer to the question is simple.

Yes. If a truly omniscient being which is also omnibenevolent really told you that you had to completely exterminate a sub-section of humanity, then doing so must logically be the right thing to do.


Do any of you have the capability of knowing what is going to happen 300 years from now? No. So then would it be ok to let a sub-section of humanity live if it meant extermination of the human race at some later point say 300 years down the road? I certainly hope no one thinks that is ok.


The problem with the question is the premises. How do you really know something is omniscient or has other being's interests at heart?

MTF

 

[Wandered Off]

Yes. If a truly omniscient being which is also omnibenevolent really told you that you had to completely exterminate a sub-section of humanity, then doing so must logically be the right thing to do.


Do any of you have the capability of knowing what is going to happen 300 years from now? No. So then would it be ok to let a sub-section of humanity live if it meant extermination of the human race at some later point say 300 years down the road? I certainly hope no one thinks that is ok.

It doesn't matter what we know.... A truly omnimax being would presumably be able to craft any number of alternatives that didn't require humans to commit genocide to prevent catastrophic consequences it could foresee.

 

[Autodidact]

I guess what concerns me the most is that people who accept all of it, including that there is a
God who would command such a thing, sometimes do actually kill other people based on all of those beliefs. I'm sure I don't have to cite the examples to all of you.

And if infanticide is fair game, how about us adults, it as nothing to kill us if God commands it; or if the voices in your head tell you that God commands it.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

It doesn't matter what we know.... A truly omnimax being would presumably be able to craft any number of alternatives that didn't require humans to commit genocide to prevent catastrophic consequences it could foresee.

That's an interesting word we have here. How exactly can you presume to know the capabilities of an "omnimax" being? I'm guessing humanity has had enough exposure to similar beings to know what sort of qualities or capabilities such a being would have?

If an omnibenevolent and omniscient being ever did give an order for genocide on the grounds that it was the best available option, then yes you should do it. The question of how likely that order would be is one open for speculation and I fairly sure that you and I would both agree that the "Gods" of the "Big Books" use extermination far too often for either omnibenevolence or omniscience to actually be true (playing favorites certainly doesn't jive with omnibenevolence as I understand the term).


But a "merely" omnibenevolent and omniscient being is still constrained by the laws of reality. You might be able to see every option, but if it should come to pass that reducing total harm done across all time (as in till humanity's future runs out whenever that is) that genocide was needed, then genocide is needed. It's only when you add the "quality" omnipotence that the argument goes out the window. An omnipotent and omnibenevolent being would NEVER have need for genocide to "fix" a problem, and thus the only questions of "constraint" are on how "God" interacts with the lower portions of reality (free will and what not).

MTF

 

[thesoundoftruth]

i had this debate in another thread, but that one seems to have vanished, so i thought id create this one.

when conquering Palestine, the Hebrews committed genocide against a number of peoples there. and this wasnt long after he gave them the commandments telling them not to kill.

of course i dont believe this, i believe its an excuse the Hebrews used to excuse their genocide. but, for the sake of argument, lets say the order did come from god, did that make it ok? shouldnt an order like this be a sure sign that your god is evil? or does having him on your side matter more?

The Hebrews commited such acts in opposition to what god wanted, this bein the reason god did give such commandments that said that killing one's neighbor was deemed a sin and would be punished with eturnle damnation. As for your question about if god says its ok it is the anserw would be that it would never happen not even a slight chance thus making it an impossible hypothetical for god is all loving and how one can be all loving and be evil is beyong me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As for your question about if god says its ok it is the anserw would be that it would never happen not even a slight chance thus making it an impossible hypothetical for god is all loving and how one can be all loving and be evil is beyong me.

So what do you make of the story in 1 Samuel 15 about the slaughter of the Amakelites? Do you reject this part of the Bible as factually true?

 

[Wandered Off]

That's an interesting word we have here. How exactly can you presume to know the capabilities of an "omnimax" being? I'm guessing humanity has had enough exposure to similar beings to know what sort of qualities or capabilities such a being would have?

I use "omnimax" as a shorthand for omnibenovolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. The capabilities are implied in the definition... An omnimax being would be able to do anything. It's not qualified. If a being doesn't have the ability to do anything, it's not omnimax by definition. The number of such beings to which humanity is exposed would not alter the definition.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So what do you make of the story in 1 Samuel 15 about the slaughter of the Amakelites? Do you reject this part of the Bible as factually true?

What do you think?

 

[Autodidact]

The Hebrews commited such acts in opposition to what god wanted, this bein the reason god did give such commandments that said that killing one's neighbor was deemed a sin and would be punished with eturnle damnation. As for your question about if god says its ok it is the anserw would be that it would never happen not even a slight chance thus making it an impossible hypothetical for god is all loving and how one can be all loving and be evil is beyong me.

I'm not sure, due to your terrible typing, spelling and lack of punctuation, but are you trying to say that the many genocides in the OT were committed by the Israelites against God's commandments? Have you ever read it???

So, if God did command His people to commit genocide and infanticide, that would be evil?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, if God did command His people to commit genocide and infanticide, that would be evil?

Of course.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What do you think?

About the story? A few things.

One thing I note is that the central theme of the story is obedience to God, not slaughter. The genocide itself is dealt with in an almost matter-of-fact way, like it's taken as a given or it wasn't considered to be a controversial detail.

There are a few different ways of approaching it that immediately come to mind:

- face value as a literal account of a historical event, albeit with a "moral" message attached to it. In this interpretation, God is a monster.

- an embellishment of actual history (or at least folklore) with religious messages: the Israelites wiped out the Amakelites... because they were commanded to do so by God. Following this, Saul was de-throned... because he disobeyed God.

- a fable intended for moral or religious instruction rather than as a historical account. Even in this interpretation, I still find the message disagreable: obey God's commands without question, even if rational thinking suggests some other course of action. I also have major problems with the fact that the genocide itself doesn't factor into the moral message - no issue is taken with it at all.

 

[Autodidact]

I think obedience is a big part of it, and also how God deals with those who follow His commandments, as well as those who don't. If you do, He rewards you with great victories. If you don't, uh oh. A lot of it strikes me as a sort of boasting, PR for God, how He makes us great, how powerful He is, how He can beat up the other Gods, or we can beat up Their people with God on our side, that sort of thing.

I don't think this is irrelevant to modern times. Many, many people still think this way, that God awards victory in war to those who follow Him.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So what do you make of the story in 1 Samuel 15 about the slaughter of the Amakelites? Do you reject this part of the Bible as factually true?

What do you think?

About the story? A few things.

One thing I note is that the central theme of the story is obedience to God, not slaughter. The genocide itself is dealt with in an almost matter-of-fact way, like it's taken as a given or it wasn't considered to be a controversial detail.

There are a few different ways of approaching it that immediately come to mind:

- face value as a literal account of a historical event, albeit with a "moral" message attached to it. In this interpretation, God is a monster.

- an embellishment of actual history (or at least folklore) with religious messages: the Israelites wiped out the Amakelites... because they were commanded to do so by God. Following this, Saul was de-throned... because he disobeyed God.

- a fable intended for moral or religious instruction rather than as a historical account. Even in this interpretation, I still find the message disagreable: obey God's commands without question, even if rational thinking suggests some other course of action. I also have major problems with the fact that the genocide itself doesn't factor into the moral message - no issue is taken with it at all.

OK, but ...

So what do you make of the story in 1 Samuel 15 about the slaughter of the Amakelites? Do you reject this part of the Bible as factually true?​

I'm simply asking you to answer the question you pose.