Is genocide ok if God tells you to do it?

[Autodidact]

Why would a Jew be referring to the Christian God?

Actually, despite describing himself as a Jew, Knight is actually a Noahide. Why he lists his religion as Jewish is a mystery, and I keep forgetting to ask him.

 

[TheKnight]

Wrong yet again Knight. It would of course, partially depend on your definition of 'God' but given your usage you most likely are referring to the christian god. If that god existed he's a being, obviously. Right and wrong would be based on his personal opinion. Which is not objective. So yes, we can clearly say he's not an objective base for morality and thus no more qualified to dictate morality than you or I.

The point is that we are unable to determine objective moral standards. We all have different opinions of what is/isn't right. Even if it is God's opinion, the fact that He has created us, and the fact that He is more powerful means that what He tells us is/isn't good for us is as He says.

He is certainly more qualified. The mere fact that He is our Creator means that He knows what is/isn't good for us.

Sure, it's okay if God tells you to do it, but you'd better make damn good and sure it's Him telling you.

Exactly. This is the appropriate answer. We should do it if we know that it is God who is doing it. However, we must make absolutely sure that we know that it is God.

Actually, despite describing himself as a Jew, Knight is actually a Noahide. Why he lists his religion as Jewish is a mystery, and I keep forgetting to ask him.

I don't describe myself as Jewish, but as one who believes in the validity of Torah and Jewish law. Never once have I called myself a Jew. I am a non-Jew, a Noahide, who believes that 3300 years ago God delivered the Torah to 3 million Jews at Mt. Sinai.

I put Hasidic Judaism as my religion because many people believe that Judaism is exclusively Jewish. I will say that I believe in Judaism but am not Jewish in order to clear that misconception. Judaism is a universal religion and it has something for everyone. Yes, it was delivered through the Jewish people, but it was a message meant for all mankind.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't describe myself as Jewish, but as one who believes in the validity of Torah and Jewish law. Never once have I called myself a Jew. I am a non-Jew, a Noahide, who believes that 3300 years ago God delivered the Torah to 3 million Jews at Mt. Sinai.

I put Hasidic Judaism as my religion because many people believe that Judaism is exclusively Jewish. I will say that I believe in Judaism but am not Jewish in order to clear that misconception. Judaism is a universal religion and it has something for everyone. Yes, it was delivered through the Jewish people, but it was a message meant for all mankind.

Your religion is listed as Hasidic Judaism.

 

[TheKnight]

Your religion is listed as Hasidic Judaism.

Correct. That doesn't mean Jew. That means that my religion is Hasidic Judaism.

 

[fantome profane]

The point is that we are unable to determine objective moral standards. We all have different opinions of what is/isn't right. Even if it is God's opinion, the fact that He has created us, and the fact that He is more powerful means that what He tells us is/isn't good for us is as He says.

It is not a fact that because “God” is more powerful that what “God” tells us to do is the right thing to do. That is the question being asked in this thread. If as you say you have no objective moral standard, then you have no standard on which to conclude that “God” is good, or that “God’s commands” are the right thing to do.

We should do it if we know that it is God who is doing it.

So how do you determine that “God” is good?

How do you determine that “God’s commands” are good?

What objective moral standard to you use to make the determination that “we should do it”?

 

[TheKnight]

It is not a fact that because “God” is more powerful that what “God” tells us to do is the right thing to do. That is the question being asked in this thread. If as you say you have no objective moral standard, then you have no standard on which to conclude that “God” is good, or that “God’s commands” are the right thing to do.


So how do you determine that “God” is good?

How do you determine that “God’s commands” are good?

What objective moral standard to you use to make the determination that “we should do it”?

It doesn't matter if God is good.

The logic is like this:

1. God created me.
2. Because God created me, He knows more than I do and therefore knows what is best for me.
3. If God asks me to do something, and I am sure that He did, than I must do it.

It's not a matter of God being good. It's not a matter of objectivity. If we know that God created us, than it logically follows that we would do what He says. Not to do so would be to presume that we know more than He does and that's just dumb. Not if we know that He created us.

If we know He created us, know that He is more powerful than we are, and know that He exists eternally, on what basis can we logically oppose what He tells us to do?

 

[fantome profane]

It doesn't matter if God is good.

The logic is like this:

1. God created me.
2. Because God created me, He knows more than I do and therefore knows what is best for me.
3. If God asks me to do something, and I am sure that He did, than I must do it.

It's not a matter of God being good. It's not a matter of objectivity. If we know that God created us, than it logically follows that we would do what He says. Not to do so would be to presume that we know more than He does and that's just dumb. Not if we know that He created us.

If we know He created us, know that He is more powerful than we are, and know that He exists eternally, on what basis can we logically oppose what He tells us to do?

I might be beginning to understand you. Tell me if this is it.

You are not saying that genocide is moral if “God” says to do it, you are saying we should commit an immoral act because “God” says to commit an immoral act. Is that it?



But I also have to tell you that it does not logically follow that because “God” created us that we should do what “God” says. “God” may have evil motives, and may ask us to perform evil acts, and if you are a moral person, this is not “ok”.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It doesn't matter if God is good.

The logic is like this:

1. God created me.
2. Because God created me, He knows more than I do and therefore knows what is best for me.
3. If God asks me to do something, and I am sure that He did, than I must do it.

2 does not follow from 1. 3 does not follow from 2.

It's not a matter of God being good. It's not a matter of objectivity. If we know that God created us, than it logically follows that we would do what He says. Not to do so would be to presume that we know more than He does and that's just dumb. Not if we know that He created us.

It sounds like what you're really saying here is that we should do what God says because He knows better than us. Him creating us seems irrelevant.

If we know He created us, know that He is more powerful than we are, and know that He exists eternally, on what basis can we logically oppose what He tells us to do?

This bit sounds like "might makes right". Is that your intent?

 

[Autodidact]

It doesn't matter if God is good.

I should be starting a collection of pearls like this.

The logic is like this:

1. God created me.
2. Because God created me, He knows more than I do and therefore knows what is best for me.[/quote] this assumes that God cares what is best for you, which does not follow. God could have created you for an evil purpose, or just for His own amusement, as straw dogs.
3. If God asks me to do something, and I am sure that He did, than I must do it.

It's not a matter of God being good. It's not a matter of objectivity. If we know that God created us, than it logically follows that we would do what He says.

Well of course you don't know any such thing, but setting that aside, it doesn't follow. If an evil God created you for an evil purpose, it would be your duty not to obey Him.

If we know He created us, know that He is more powerful than we are, and know that He exists eternally, on what basis can we logically oppose what He tells us to do?

On the basis that it's evil.

 

[TheKnight]

I might be beginning to understand you. Tell me if this is it.

You are not saying that genocide is moral if “God” says to do it, you are saying we should commit an immoral act because “God” says to commit an immoral act. Is that it?

Yes. Because outside of what God tells us to do there is no such thing as morality. Therefore we do it because God says to do it. Why do we listen to Him? Because He created us, and because He created us it follows that He would know more than we do.

But I also have to tell you that it does not logically follow that because “God” created us that we should do what “God” says. “God” may have evil motives, and may ask us to perform evil acts, and if you are a moral person, this is not “ok”.

There is no such thing as a "moral" person outside of God's definition of morality. We can dream up opinions of morality all we like. It won't matter because morality is not objective. God having evil motives is something we cannot know. The only way we could know that is to say that we have equal to or more knowledge than He does.

If I make something (like a computer for instance), I know more than it does. Therefore it follows that I would know what is best for the computer. In a similar fashion, the very fact that God created us leads to Him knowing more.

He doesn't actually have to know more than we do, the thing is that we can't ever know how much He knows and whether or not He knows more. Therefore from our point of view, and with what we can determine, it only makes sense to do as He says.

It sounds like what you're really saying here is that we should do what God says because He knows better than us. Him creating us seems irrelevant.

How can we say He knows better if He didn't create us?

This bit sounds like "might makes right". Is that your intent?

No. Forget what God knows for a second....


If we as a humanity discover that God created us. And we also discover that God has given us specific instructions. On what basis can we oppose those instructions as being incorrect? It is my belief that disagreeing with it isn't enough.

This assumes that God cares what is best for you, which does not follow. God could have created you for an evil purpose, or just for His own amusement, as straw dogs.

He could have, but I can't know that. So because I cannot know His reasoning (and it doesn't matter anyways because the point is that He made me and therefore I listen, not that He's trying to do the right thing.) I should do what He says.

You say He could have created us for an evil purpose....what exists beyond Him so as to define evil? Outside of Him nothing can exist, including morality. Therefore there is no external standard of morality by which to judge Him. Not only that, but even if there is such a standard, we don't know it.

Well of course you don't know any such thing, but setting that aside, it doesn't follow. If an evil God created you for an evil purpose, it would be your duty not to obey Him.

On the basis that it's evil.

And how exactly would I know what evil is and isn't without first assuming that:

1. I can know evil outside of God
and
2. God doesn't already know what is morally right.

I agree, if an evil God created me for an evil purpose, than it would be my duty not to obey. However, as a limited creation of this God I have no way of knowing whether or not He is evil.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How can we say He knows better if He didn't create us?

Dunno. But God creating us does not necessarily imply that God knows best either.

If God didn't create us, you would have a hard time showing that He's the ultimate moral authority. If God did create us, you would still have a hard time showing this. That's why I said that whether he created us is irrelevant to whether we should obey Him.

No. Forget what God knows for a second....


If we as a humanity discover that God created us. And we also discover that God has given us specific instructions. On what basis can we oppose those instructions as being incorrect? It is my belief that disagreeing with it isn't enough.

On the same basis that we determine reality in any other way: through observation, evidence, rationality and logic.

Let me put it this way: say God appears before you and announces that granite is lighter than air. Would you be wrong to disagree with God in that case?

 

[fantome profane]

Yes. Because outside of what God tells us to do there is no such thing as morality.

But by your logic there can be no morality with or without “God”. So what you are saying is that if there is no such thing as morality you will just follow “God” regardless of moral considerations.

Therefore we do it because God says to do it. Why do we listen to Him? Because He created us, and because He created us it follows that He would know more than we do.

It does not follow that we should do it, and it certainly does not follow that it would be moral. You can keep repeating this statement, but there is no logic to it.

There is no such thing as a "moral" person outside of God's definition of morality.

But you have made the point several times that it is very important to be sure that it really is “God” giving the command for genocide. The implication here is that if it is not “God” giving the command for genocide then you should not do it. In the absence of “God’s command” genocide is immoral. Is this correct?

God having evil motives is something we cannot know.

...

I agree, if an evil God created me for an evil purpose, than it would be my duty not to obey. However, as a limited creation of this God I have no way of knowing whether or not He is evil.

Exactly, so as I have said “God’s command” can have no impact on our evaluation of whether or not an act is moral or not.

So

1. If genocide is immoral in the absence of “God’s command” and
2. “God’s command” can have no impact on our evaluation of whether or not the act is moral (“it doesn’t matter if God is good”) then
3. Genocide is immoral with or without “God’s command”.

 

[Autodidact]

If God is capable of commanding us to do what we would otherwise deem evil, then how can you ever be sure that it is God who is commanding us? How do you know it isn't Satan pretending to be God?

 

[Perfect Circle]

Knight, since all of you reasoning is based on God as the definer of morality, could you take a second and clarify how you know that he created you? I think if we understood how you came to this conclusion, it might help understand where you draw your morals from.

 

[Autodidact]

In fact, it seems to be that if I were a powerful, evil, supernatural being, a good way to really accomplish some evil would be to persuade people to think I was God, so they would do as I say. The Knight says you have to be sure that it is God that is commanding you. But how could you ever be sure of that, if God's commandments cannot be distinguished from those of Satan?

 

[TheKnight]

Dunno. But God creating us does not necessarily imply that God knows best either.

I agree. But we can't know otherwise.

If God didn't create us, you would have a hard time showing that He's the ultimate moral authority. If God did create us, you would still have a hard time showing this. That's why I said that whether he created us is irrelevant to whether we should obey Him.

You're missing my point. I don't need to show that He is the ultimate moral authority. All I need to do is show that we do not have the capability or the knowledge to know whether or not God is the ultimate moral authority (neither can we know what that authority is if there is one). As His creations, and therefore being naturally less powerful than He, it is only natural for us to assume with our limited knowledge that our Creator is the ultimate moral authority. Whether He actually is or isn't doesn't matter if we cannot know otherwise.

On the same basis that we determine reality in any other way: through observation, evidence, rationality and logic.

Logically, we don't know what reality is. Anyone who says otherwise is an arrogant fool.

Would you be wrong to disagree with God in that case?

Yes. For if I were to test it He could easily create an instance in which granite is lighter than air.

But by your logic there can be no morality with or without “God”. So what you are saying is that if there is no such thing as morality you will just follow “God” regardless of moral considerations.

Yes. There are no moral considerations to make. We have limited knowledge. To presume otherwise is arrogance. I prefer to be humble than to be arrogant and foolish.

I know that I cannot (nor can any other human being) know for sure what is objectively morally correct. That being the case, if I have sufficient reason to believe that there is a God, that He created me and all things that exist, then I have no reason or basis with which to contend anything that He tells me to do. The fact that my limited perception disagrees with it has nothing to do with the logicality of it.

It does not follow that we should do it, and it certainly does not follow that it would be moral. You can keep repeating this statement, but there is no logic to it.

And you could keep saying it wouldn't be moral. I'm trying to explain to you that there is no such thing as "moral". Moral is conclusion that you reach based on your own perception of what reality consists of. That is fine. I'm simply doing the same and making the decision that, from my vantage point, has the highest probability of correctness.

But you have made the point several times that it is very important to be sure that it really is “God” giving the command for genocide. The implication here is that if it is not “God” giving the command for genocide then you should not do it. In the absence of “God’s command” genocide is immoral. Is this correct?

No. If God does not define either way whether or not genocide is moral, than it is neither moral nor immoral. If God says that genocide is immoral, then it is immoral unless He says that it is moral.

In the absence of God's command (and I mean if His command is truly absent) then there is no such thing as moral. An action is neither moral nor immoral if God has not deemed it one or the other.

The fact that I don't like genocide is not enough to determine that it is immoral. There are plenty of things that I don't like that are not immoral.

Exactly, so as I have said “God’s command” can have no impact on our evaluation of whether or not an act is moral or not.

So

1. If genocide is immoral in the absence of “God’s command” and
2. “God’s command” can have no impact on our evaluation of whether or not the act is moral (“it doesn’t matter if God is good&#8221 then
3. Genocide is immoral with or without “God’s command”.

Maybe I have misrepresented my view. Without God's command (if He does not command either way) genocide is neither immoral or moral.

Genocide is only immoral when God says that it is. If God says nothing concerning it, then it is neither evil nor good.

If God is capable of commanding us to do what we would otherwise deem evil, then how can you ever be sure that it is God who is commanding us? How do you know it isn't Satan pretending to be God?

I don't believe in Satan. As I have said in other threads, nothing exists outside of God's oneness. We may perceive duality, we may perceive dichotomy, we may even perceive a plurality of existences, however, there is nothing that exists out of His essential oneness. All of creation, all that we think exists pales in comparison to His essential existence. In light of that oneness and that singular unity that is He, there is no such thing as evil or good, nor a Satanic figure, nor anything.

Knight, since all of you reasoning is based on God as the definer of morality, could you take a second and clarify how you know that he created you? I think if we understood how you came to this conclusion, it might help understand where you draw your morals from.

I draw my morals from the Torah as understood via the Jewish oral tradition which I see as being divine. How I got to that conclusion won't help you to understand where my morals come from.

Besides, I don't need to know. All I need is a 50%+ evidence of probability that the decision I am making is correct. From where I stand, there is.

In fact, it seems to be that if I were a powerful, evil, supernatural being, a good way to really accomplish some evil would be to persuade people to think I was God, so they would do as I say. The Knight says you have to be sure that it is God that is commanding you. But how could you ever be sure of that, if God's commandments cannot be distinguished from those of Satan?

I could sit around pondering ifs all day. However that's not efficient. Based on such self-questioning reason, I would never be able to make any decision. In fact, based on such hypothetical pondering you yourself could not make any reasoned decision.

That being said, while it is possible that I could be deceived by some sort of creature that is malignant, neither you nor I can know that. Nor can you determine a 50%+ evidence of probability that this is the case.

The best thing any of us can do is measure the information brought to us in a reasoned manner and reach a conclusion that we are happy with and that makes sense to us. To expect more, to expect perfection, would be futile.

 

[Autodidact]

I
Logically, we don't know what reality is.

I think this quote really tells us all we need to know.

there is no such thing as "moral". Moral is conclusion that you reach based on your own perception of what reality consists of. That is fine. I'm simply doing the same and making the decision that, from my vantage point, has the highest probability of correctness.

And once again a so-called absolute morality devolves into utter post-modernist relativism.

In the absence of God's command (and I mean if His command is truly absent) then there is no such thing as moral. An action is neither moral nor immoral if God has not deemed it one or the other.

Right. For example, if god commands the holocaust, then it's moral.

Maybe I have misrepresented my view. Without God's command (if He does not command either way) genocide is neither immoral or moral.

Actually, you have repeatedly said that genocide is immoral, unless God commands it, in which case it's moral.

Genocide is only immoral when God says that it is. If God says nothing concerning it, then it is neither evil nor good.

Religionism leads to moral retardation. Religion so retards the moral sense that the religionist is unable to determine whether genocide is moral or immoral.

Besides, I don't need to know. All I need is a 50%+ evidence of probability that the decision I am making is correct. From where I stand, there is.

But earlier you agreed that it was imperative that you know. You said that we must follow God's commandment, even to do evil, but we must be sure that it is God's commandment. Now you agree that you can never be sure of that. Therefore, by your logic, we should not follow God's commandment to do evil.

I could sit around pondering ifs all day. However that's not efficient. Based on such self-questioning reason, I would never be able to make any decision. In fact, based on such hypothetical pondering you yourself could not make any reasoned decision.

On the contrary. Since I don't posit imaginary or unknowable entities, and base my decisions on empirical observation and logic, I am able to make moral decisions, including that it is immoral to stab babies to death. Only you are unable to do so.

That being said, while it is possible that I could be deceived by some sort of creature that is malignant, neither you nor I can know that. Nor can you determine a 50%+ evidence of probability that this is the case.

In that case, according to your logic, you should never obey a commandment from a being who appears to be God, if that commandment is evil, as it could as well be from an evil source.

Or, to put it even more starkly, you have no way of knowing that your God is not evil, since he is capable of commanding us to do evil things.

If you can't tell God from Satan, then isn't God the moral equivalent of Satan?

The best thing any of us can do is measure the information brought to us in a reasoned manner and reach a conclusion that we are happy with and that makes sense to us. To expect more, to expect perfection, would be futile.

Or one could try for the truth.

 

[fantome profane]

As His creations, and therefore being naturally less powerful than He, it is only natural for us to assume with our limited knowledge that our Creator is the ultimate moral authority. Whether He actually is or isn't doesn't matter if we cannot know otherwise.

That is anything but the natural assumption. And it is certainly an assumption I do not make. And it absolutely does matter what assumption you make. If you cannot know if “God” is the ultimate moral authority it does not make sense to assume it. This would be the logical fallacy known as “argument from ignorance”. This assumption may make life easier for you, it may relieve you of the burden of trying to make moral decisions for your self, it my free you from the frightening possibility of actually disagreeing with “God”, but it is not a logical assumption.

And you could keep saying it wouldn't be moral. I'm trying to explain to you that there is no such thing as "moral". Moral is conclusion that you reach based on your own perception of what reality consists of. That is fine. I'm simply doing the same and making the decision that, from my vantage point, has the highest probability of correctness.

But you are not doing that. If you were doing that I would not object. Tell me about your vantage point, tell me what you think of genocide, tell me what moral evaluations you make. But you are not making moral evaluations, you are not looking at things from your own vantage point. What you are doing is ignoring your own “vantage point” and just letting “God” tell you what to do.

Logically, we don't know what reality is. Anyone who says otherwise is an arrogant fool.
Yes. There are no moral considerations to make. We have limited knowledge. To presume otherwise is arrogance. I prefer to be humble than to be arrogant and foolish.

The best thing any of us can do is measure the information brought to us in a reasoned manner and reach a conclusion that we are happy with and that makes sense to us. To expect more, to expect perfection, would be futile.

These last two quotes seem to contradict each other. But I have to say I am in complete agreement with the very last one. It is true that as humans we do not have access to absolutely all the information, but we do have access to information. It is true that our reason my not be perfect, but we are capable of reason. We do not have perfect knowledge, but we do have knowledge. And what is more important we have a moral obligation to use that information, knowledge and reason to make moral evaluations. Not perfect, but human evaluations.

 

[TheKnight]

Right. For example, if god commands the holocaust, then it's moral.

Yes. There is no such thing as moral outside of that which God defines as such.

Actually, you have repeatedly said that genocide is immoral, unless God commands it, in which case it's moral.

That is because God deems genocide immoral unless commanded by Him. Not because genocide is inherently immoral. There is no such thing as inherently immoral.

Religionism leads to moral retardation. Religion so retards the moral sense that the religionist is unable to determine whether genocide is moral or immoral.

I am able to admit the truth. Morality is not based on what I like or don't like. Do I like genocide? Not at all. Does that mean it is immoral? No. Right and wrong are not based on what I like and don't like. They are based on that which I believe is God's definitions of moral behavior.

But earlier you agreed that it was imperative that you know. You said that we must follow God's commandment, even to do evil, but we must be sure that it is God's commandment. Now you agree that you can never be sure of that. Therefore, by your logic, we should not follow God's commandment to do evil.

Know=having a 50%+ evidence of probability that God said what we think He said.

On the contrary. Since I don't posit imaginary or unknowable entities, and base my decisions on empirical observation and logic, I am able to make moral decisions, including that it is immoral to stab babies to death. Only you are unable to do so.

It doesn't surprise me that one who denies the existence of God is so arrogant as to assume that her position is logical when it is not.

It doesn't surprise me that you are unwilling to try to understand a reality different than your own.

In that case, according to your logic, you should never obey a commandment from a being who appears to be God, if that commandment is evil, as it could as well be from an evil source.

According to my logic, 50%+ of a probability is enough to make a decision with confidence.

Or one could try for the truth.

You speak like a Christian religious fundamentalist. I don't know if you realize it, but since I've left the world of Christianity I've begun to notice that those like yourself and those Christians who spout their beliefs as truth have something in common. Both of you are unwilling to even maybe possibly be open to the fact that you might just be wrong in your position. No, instead you become filled with emotion, such intense burning hot emotion and block out all else that doesn't agree with those ill-formed opinions that you had already developed.

Truth is something mankind will ever be in search of. While he may grasp the edges of its garment, he shall never fully attain it. Anyone who claims that they have absolute truth (or empirical logic) is someone to be avoided. The person who does not allow for the possibility of his position being wrong is wrong already.

That is anything but the natural assumption. And it is certainly an assumption I do not make. And it absolutely does matter what assumption you make. If you cannot know if “God” is the ultimate moral authority it does not make sense to assume it. This would be the logical fallacy known as “argument from ignorance”. This assumption may make life easier for you, it may relieve you of the burden of trying to make moral decisions for your self, it may free you from the frightening possibility of actually disagreeing with “God”, but it is not a logical assumption.

I'm not assuming that He is. If I cannot know otherwise, it won't matter if He is or isn't. I wouldn't know the difference. All I would know is that He made me. Logically, Creators know what is best for maintaining optimal condition of those things that they create.

In the end it comes down to choice. You choose to believe that He is not, I choose to believe that He is.

But you are not doing that. If you were doing that I would not object. Tell me about your vantage point, tell me what you think of genocide, tell me what moral evaluations you make. But you are not making moral evaluations, you are not looking at things from your own vantage point. What you are doing is ignoring your own “vantage point” and just letting “God” tell you what to do.

My logic, my experience, and that which I have seen in the short course of my life have led me to the conclusion that the Torah is true, that God gave it to the Jews 3300 years ago in the Sinai desert. As a result of that conclusion, I realize my extremely limited ability to come to accurate moral conclusions all by myself. I therefore rely on that which I have determined to be God's communication of moral structure to mankind.

I hear of various forms of genocide, and I feel anger. Anger at the act. It is not something I enjoy, it is not something I like. However, when I think about it, there is no moral-o-meter that beeps "WRONG!"...there is just my emotions (fickle emotions at that) which say that I don't like it. None of that has to do with morality.

These last two quotes seem to contradict each other. But I have to say I am in complete agreement with the very last one. It is true that as humans we do not have access to absolutely all the information, but we do have access to information. It is true that our reason my not be perfect, but we are capable of reason. We do not have perfect knowledge, but we do have knowledge. And what is more important we have a moral obligation to use that information, knowledge and reason to make moral evaluations. Not perfect, but human evaluations.

I agree with you. We have knowledge. We have reason. I believe that God gave us the gift of reason to determine that which is moral. I see morality as being codified in the Torah. My reasoning and my knowledge has led me to that conclusion.

 

[JustWondering]

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?

Humans are retards, so if a higher intellect told us to slaughter each other it should be ok right?