moral question

[painted wolf]

You can take the view that we should empathize with an ancient morality, and understand why people in that time and place might make decisions we would no longer consider acceptable, or you can take the position that the Bible should be a guide to our modern moral decisions, but I don't see how you can assert both these things.

Why not? There is some good stuff still in there... Golden rule and the sermon on the mount and such.

The change in morality from the OT to the NT alone should be a good lesson in how humanity can improve it's moral stance over time.

We base our morality on lessons from our history... the Bible is part of that history.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Why not? There is some good stuff still in there... Golden rule and the sermon on the mount and such.

The change in morality from the OT to the NT alone should be a good lesson in how humanity can improve it's moral stance over time.

We base our morality on lessons from our history... the Bible is part of that history.

wa:do

No problem with that. One of the things we can learn from it is how to progress beyond believing that the height of morality is taking our neighbor's land and slaughtering everyone in it.

 

[Orias]

Usually, but not always. We have a habit of self sacrifice as a species as well.

wa:do

Indeed, but that leads to the question if sociable desire is that of "moral" proposition, rather than the consideration of the continuity of the clan.

It all depends on how people chose to act out the highest law of self preservation, some seek comfort in their own living enviroment, whereas others conform to a more social or "sacrificial" state of habit.

Basically, sacrifice one individual, to save a thousand. Though it is still a form a self preservation.


So is kinship moral, or just natural?

 

[painted wolf]

Indeed, but that leads to the question if sociable desire is that of "moral" proposition, rather than the consideration of the continuity of the clan.

It all depends on how people chose to act out the highest law of self preservation, some seek comfort in their own living enviroment, whereas others conform to a more social or "sacrificial" state of habit.

Basically, sacrifice one individual, to save a thousand. Though it is still a form a self preservation.


So is kinship moral, or just natural?

Well, selective pressure in social species drives the move to more altruistic behavior.
It only makes sense that humans have this trait exaggerated.

It can also be enhanced by purposeful training. All successful warrior societies are based on this.

wa:do

 

[Orias]

Well, selective pressure in social species drives the move to more altruistic behavior.
It only makes sense that humans have this trait exaggerated.

It can also be enhanced by purposeful training. All successful warrior societies are based on this.

wa:do

So then morality is defined by the nature of the characterized "heart".

 

[painted wolf]

So then morality is defined by the nature of the characterized "heart".

As well as within the tolerance of other members of the society for what is considered "anti-social" behavior.

wa:do

 

[guilo]

OK, I have actually read all 37 pages of this thread. I obviously can't do this with every thread, which just goes to show what a strong case this one makes. I think there are some things that need clarifying to those who try to skip around the issue and muddy the waters.

1) Setting logical traps are imperative to come to any decision. Although you might think it is awfully nice manners to give somebody a logical choice in a matter, it doesn't really improve mutual understanding of a subject. If mathematics had choices in it's axioms, it would be useless and we would not be able to use it at all. Mathematics is just a branch of logic, just as argumentative reasoning is a form of logic, so it has to go by the same rules.

2) Answer the case at hand: The slaughtering of babies by sword, the raping of virgins, and general genocide justified by revenge. There is no question of any mitigating factors such as collateral damage, moral dilemmas such as abortion where the questionability of when a baby is baby comes into play. This is a simple yes or no question. 'Is this a dagger I see before me? Why, let me kill some harmless babies and children with it.'

3) The question does not revolve about human judgment, but divine judgment. Could God morally have justified killing heathen babies and raping virgin heathen girls, even when his Omnimax allowed him to know that heathens such as Ruth and Naomi would in future become an integral part of the plan for the chosen people (Ruth was the grandmother of David, David synonym with Israel and also ancestor of Jesus). This is not about the decision by men, but the command by God.

4) Christianity teaches at its core that man knows the difference between good and evil. Not Atheism. The fact that this question is much more easily answered by atheists and muddied around by Christians does not really convince me that Christians know what is right and wrong. Note: The Bible never says that we have to rely on God to know what is right and wrong, we know it ourselves. I know that killing babies, without mitigating factors, are wrong, and therefore God was wrong, and God is not all good, upon which everything in the Bible is based.

5.) Contextual analysis such as those done by theologians take a lot of respect from me, because it clarifies issues such as cultural norms and historical accounts. It does not condone the command of a God to slaughter babies. If you do not agree that God commanded the slaughter, you are inescapably committing to saying that the Bible gives an inaccurate account of what actually happened. This brings the whole Bible's integrity into question and casts doubt on many if not all of its other statements.

6.) Note to Christians: World War 2, abortion, pagan culture has nothing to do with this thread and the question it poses. It's about God, the Israelites, his chosen people, and the deliberate and systematic killing of harmless babies with no moral impurity yet inflicted by a pagan culture. Answer that question, not the one about whether Truman was right in dropping atom bombs.

 

[Nooj]

3) The question does not revolve about human judgment, but divine judgment. Could God morally have justified killing heathen babies and raping virgin heathen girls, even when his Omnimax allowed him to know that heathens such as Ruth and Naomi would in future become an integral part of the plan for the chosen people (Ruth was the grandmother of David, David synonym with Israel and also ancestor of Jesus). This is not about the decision by men, but the command by God.

Why is it immoral for God to have commanded the slaughter of babies?

Ruth and Naomi weren't Canaanites, but Moabites. The Israelites were commanded to annihilate the Canaanites who were living in Israel, but other pagan nations didn't come into it.

I know that killing babies, without mitigating factors, are wrong, and therefore God was wrong, and God is not all good, upon which everything in the Bible is based.

How do you know that killing babies is wrong? Also, how do you deal with Divine Command Theory? Some people might say that the mitigating factor is that God commanded it and so it was right to kill babies.

And I don't know why we're so focused on the babies. If you read the relevant section of the Bible, you'll see that they were ordered to kill the men, women, children and animals. It wasn't about revenge, it was holy war.

 

[painted wolf]

OK, I have actually read all 37 pages of this thread. I obviously can't do this with every thread, which just goes to show what a strong case this one makes. I think there are some things that need clarifying to those who try to skip around the issue and muddy the waters.

1) Setting logical traps are imperative to come to any decision. Although you might think it is awfully nice manners to give somebody a logical choice in a matter, it doesn't really improve mutual understanding of a subject. If mathematics had choices in it's axioms, it would be useless and we would not be able to use it at all. Mathematics is just a branch of logic, just as argumentative reasoning is a form of logic, so it has to go by the same rules.

2) Answer the case at hand: The slaughtering of babies by sword, the raping of virgins, and general genocide justified by revenge. There is no question of any mitigating factors such as collateral damage, moral dilemmas such as abortion where the questionability of when a baby is baby comes into play. This is a simple yes or no question. 'Is this a dagger I see before me? Why, let me kill some harmless babies and children with it.'

3) The question does not revolve about human judgment, but divine judgment. Could God morally have justified killing heathen babies and raping virgin heathen girls, even when his Omnimax allowed him to know that heathens such as Ruth and Naomi would in future become an integral part of the plan for the chosen people (Ruth was the grandmother of David, David synonym with Israel and also ancestor of Jesus). This is not about the decision by men, but the command by God.

4) Christianity teaches at its core that man knows the difference between good and evil. Not Atheism. The fact that this question is much more easily answered by atheists and muddied around by Christians does not really convince me that Christians know what is right and wrong. Note: The Bible never says that we have to rely on God to know what is right and wrong, we know it ourselves. I know that killing babies, without mitigating factors, are wrong, and therefore God was wrong, and God is not all good, upon which everything in the Bible is based.

5.) Contextual analysis such as those done by theologians take a lot of respect from me, because it clarifies issues such as cultural norms and historical accounts. It does not condone the command of a God to slaughter babies. If you do not agree that God commanded the slaughter, you are inescapably committing to saying that the Bible gives an inaccurate account of what actually happened. This brings the whole Bible's integrity into question and casts doubt on many if not all of its other statements.

6.) Note to Christians: World War 2, abortion, pagan culture has nothing to do with this thread and the question it poses. It's about God, the Israelites, his chosen people, and the deliberate and systematic killing of harmless babies with no moral impurity yet inflicted by a pagan culture. Answer that question, not the one about whether Truman was right in dropping atom bombs.

Actually... all the OP says is "Killing babies: right or wrong?" It doesn't address a particular story in the bible, regardless of the posters insistence that this is what they wanted to talk about.

Thus ...logically... it is about any instance where killing a baby is involved. So yes, despite protestations to the contrary, it is about collateral damage, abortion and so on.

Unless you can somehow read a specific intent in the mighty five words of the OP?

Killing babies: right or wrong?

I'm not seeing anything about a particular faith, a particular instance in a book or e even a particular method of dispatching said babies.

wa;do

 

[guilo]

Why is it immoral for God to have commanded the slaughter of babies?

Ruth and Naomi weren't Canaanites, but Moabites. The Israelites were commanded to annihilate the Canaanites who were living in Israel, but other pagan nations didn't come into it.

How do you know that killing babies is wrong? Also, how do you deal with Divine Command Theory? Some people might say that the mitigating factor is that God commanded it and so it was right to kill babies.

And I don't know why we're so focused on the babies. If you read the relevant section of the Bible, you'll see that they were ordered to kill the men, women, children and animals. It wasn't about revenge, it was holy war.

It is for the same reason that Hitler commanding the slaughter of Jews was immoral. Just because he didn't do the killing doesn't put him in the right. Quite the oppositee, he was most to blame. (Sorry for using Hitler, I heard it's bad manners to use him to strengthen an argument.)

Apparently Moabitic women and children weren't good for Israel either; read the book of Ezra. There they chased them into the desert. (Which somehow makes me wonder about something Painted Wolf said about killing them being more humane than letting them starve. Unfortunately the Israelites did both for good measure at different times in history.)

Point number 4 shows how I know it's wrong, and you should too. It also shows that God doesn't determine what's right and wrong, we already know it.

Babies are the case because they are the cases with no mitigating factors attached, such as pagan idolatry. They don't have any of that baggage yet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How do you know that killing babies is wrong? Also, how do you deal with Divine Command Theory? Some people might say that the mitigating factor is that God commanded it and so it was right to kill babies.

Personally, I deal with Divine Command Theory by pointing out that God's commands are irrelevant to morality. Also, subjective decisions on the part of God are, by definition, not objective and therefore cannot be the source for any objective truth.

Also, there are the practical problems with Divine Command Theory:

- if a person subscribes to it, they lose all ability to tell God from Satan: both can meet any test of supernatural ability we can think up, so the only way for us to distinguish between them is by determining which one is good and which one is evil... but Divine Command Theory robs us of the ability to determine whether an entity that might be God is evil, because good and evil are defined in terms of the actions of God.

- it implies that any action commanded by God would become good. The example I've heard that best illustrates this is if "thou shalt not kill" was amended to "thou shalt kill twice daily". If God commanded it, it would be moral to do it and immoral not to, right?

 

[guilo]

'The Lord God said, "The man has become like one of us. He can now tell the difference between good and evil. 'Genesis 3:22

No excuses then for either man or God to discern between good and evil if the Bible is taken as truth.

By the powers vested in me by above mentioned verse, I declare killing babies evil. In so doing I automatically have to deduce that God did evil.

 

[Bird123]

Killing babies: right or wrong?

THe correct answer is that it's neither right nor wrong. If you choose to kill babies, you will understand your actions at some point in the future. If this is about abortion, I'm personally against abortion. If you don't want children, don't have sex. It's pretty simple. There are consequences for our actions and choices. Is abortion killing a human being??? No, we are all spiritual beings in our true natures. We aren't installed in our physical bodies until after we are born at the point when long term memories are possible. If you doubt what I say, search the world for you will find those who remember the installation. God has it all figured out ahead of time.

 

[waitasec]

THe correct answer is that it's neither right nor wrong. If you choose to kill babies, you will understand your actions at some point in the future. If this is about abortion, I'm personally against abortion. If you don't want children, don't have sex. It's pretty simple. There are consequences for our actions and choices. Is abortion killing a human being??? No, we are all spiritual beings in our true natures. We aren't installed in our physical bodies until after we are born at the point when long term memories are possible. If you doubt what I say, search the world for you will find those who remember the installation. God has it all figured out ahead of time.

an example of a simple explanation that explains nothing

 

[McBell]

THe correct answer is that it's neither right nor wrong. If you choose to kill babies, you will understand your actions at some point in the future. If this is about abortion, I'm personally against abortion. If you don't want children, don't have sex. It's pretty simple. There are consequences for our actions and choices. Is abortion killing a human being??? No, we are all spiritual beings in our true natures. We aren't installed in our physical bodies until after we are born at the point when long term memories are possible. If you doubt what I say, search the world for you will find those who remember the installation. God has it all figured out ahead of time.

It is utterly amazing to me how people assume abortion when they read about killing babies.
That is one successful appeal to emotion fallacy.

So you think killing babies is a neutral thing?

 

[Danmac]

It is utterly amazing to me how people assume abortion when they read about killing babies.
That is one successful appeal to emotion fallacy.

So you think killing babies is a neutral thing?

The seed isn't part of the apple either.:sleep:

 

[McBell]

The seed isn't part of the apple either.:sleep:

It remains a logical fallacy regardless of how much you like it.

Did you start another thread yet?
One wonders what the hold up is...

 

[Autodidact]

THe correct answer is that it's neither right nor wrong. If you choose to kill babies, you will understand your actions at some point in the future. If this is about abortion, I'm personally against abortion. If you don't want children, don't have sex. It's pretty simple. There are consequences for our actions and choices. Is abortion killing a human being??? No, we are all spiritual beings in our true natures. We aren't installed in our physical bodies until after we are born at the point when long term memories are possible. If you doubt what I say, search the world for you will find those who remember the installation. God has it all figured out ahead of time.

IT'S NOT ABOUT ABORTION. It's about whether stabbing a baby to death with a sword is right or wrong. And your position is that it is neither right nor wrong? That's odd, why not? Is nothing either right or wrong to you?

 

[Autodidact]

The seed isn't part of the apple either.:sleep:

Can you clue us in as to what you are talking about, because you lost me entirely.

 

[Nooj]

It is for the same reason that Hitler commanding the slaughter of Jews was immoral.

Which was? As an aside, since we're all so interested in mitigating factors, if there were mitigating factors like the Jews actually being evil like Hitler said, would that have made the Holocaust okay?

Point number 4 shows how I know it's wrong, and you should too. It also shows that God doesn't determine what's right and wrong, we already know it.

How do you know you aren't wrong in your morality? The Israelites thought they were doing the right thing, do you really think they were saying to themselves 'oh man, this is wrong' while they were killing the babies?

'We' don't already know it. 'We' are a bunch of humans with all sorts of different moralities.

Babies are the case because they are the cases with no mitigating factors attached, such as pagan idolatry. They don't have any of that baggage yet.

So if they were pagan idolators, they would deserve death?

The perceived lack of mitigating factors is due to not reading the text at face value. The babies are killed because they're considered unclean, like everyone else. Even the possessions of the Canaanites are (generally) unplundered, which wouldn't be the case if the motive was rapine. The entire populace is killed in a sacrifice to God. Ethnicity is a mitigating factor. Holy war is a mitigating factor. They didn't wake up one day and think to themselves, I'm going to kill all those people for no reason. If you're going to condemn them, you have to argue that their reasons weren't good enough for genocide to be justified. This is what a lot of these debates about Biblical genocide come down to.

Unless, of course, you think that genocide is wrong in all cases. But then why this insistence on mitigating factors? Stop talking about pagan idolatry and just say that genocide is always wrong. And then I can ask 'Why is genocide wrong?'.