-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
moral question
- Thread starter Autodidact
- Start date
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
They felt they were morally justified because they believed they had not only Gods blessings, but also Gods explicit orders.
From a modern moral perspective, we see this as a poor excuse, and would not tolerate such behavior in our society, or so we think.
We can see this in the belief of the suicide bomber who feels he is doing Gods will, that the death of innocents is justified by their sacrifice for the "greater good".
We , on the outside, look at this and shake our heads in disbelief. Yet we excuse our military for 'collateral damage'.
We look at the battles of the OT and condemn them for killing every last woman and child in the city, but we justify dropping two Atom bombs on civilian targets in Japan.
Perhaps this was the underlying reason for the massive 'God and Country' revival of the Fifties, we needed Gods blessing for our own mass murder.
From a modern moral perspective, we see this as a poor excuse, and would not tolerate such behavior in our society, or so we think.
We can see this in the belief of the suicide bomber who feels he is doing Gods will, that the death of innocents is justified by their sacrifice for the "greater good".
We , on the outside, look at this and shake our heads in disbelief. Yet we excuse our military for 'collateral damage'.
We look at the battles of the OT and condemn them for killing every last woman and child in the city, but we justify dropping two Atom bombs on civilian targets in Japan.
Perhaps this was the underlying reason for the massive 'God and Country' revival of the Fifties, we needed Gods blessing for our own mass murder.
McBell
Unbound
You have a rather interesting definition of collateral damage.
"WordNet (r) 2.0"
collateral damage
n : (euphemism) inadvertent casualties and destruction inflicted
on civilians in the course of military operations
Now it is clear to see that the events Autodidact are referring are not in any way "inadvertent" when the babies are specifically targeted.collateral damage
n : (euphemism) inadvertent casualties and destruction inflicted
on civilians in the course of military operations
As far as I can tell, you just don't like how I word your views.I've given you alternatives. I explained my view on it.
Have a good one.
Do you believe that God told the Israelites to kill the babies?rakhel said:
waitasec
Veteran Member
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
Are you seriously saying that the countries today don't specifically target individuals they believe will harm them in the future?
Many people believe that God is the author of morality. If God is condoning an immoral act-- even if it's an act that humans often do despite knowing it's an immoral act-- doesn't that strike you as a good reason to believe that this God, should he exist and have commanded the things the Bible states that he commanded, is not a moral Being? And certainly not someone to whom we should look for moral guidance?
The whole "We kill babies too" argument really doesn't apply to God because he should be able to rise above all that, assuming he exists and is a moral being, and all that.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
I believe that they were told by their leaders that G-d told them it was acceptable to destroy the town and kill everyone in it.
Even if we do, don't you think it's strange that God would have to resort to this brutal, immoral method of protecting his chosen people?
So you believe that the Torah is inaccurate when it states that God commanded this? Just trying to be clear.
Do you believe the leaders were simply mistaken about God's wishes or were lying to get the people to kill everyone?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
As I said before, the very acts and attributes of the God of the OT are reason enough to dismiss him as a fable.
I am talking about the human basis of morality. God, for the OT tribe and even in modern society, is just an excuse for some peoples behavior.
What exactly do you feel that I have twisted?
It seems like both you and Tarheel emphasize that the Israelites merely claim that God told them to kill babies, but are unwilling to take that to the logical conclusion, ie, if God didn't in fact tell them to kill babies, then either they were a) mistaken, b) lying, or c) the Torah got it wrong (in which case it was the subsequent generations that were either mistaken or lying).
Ok. I'm with you.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
The OP is about morality and that is the question I was answering. It may or may not involve G-d.
However, what I find funny is that Timbleweed and I could say essentially the same thing, yet what he says makes more sense to you than what I say because of my belief system
However, what I find funny is that Timbleweed and I could say essentially the same thing, yet what he says makes more sense to you than what I say because of my belief system
I believe that people use religion to justify their horrible actions. I also believe that we can be hypocritical in condemning brutal actions in other people, but condoning them when we do them ourselves.
But I don't think that's what this thread is about.
Do you or do you not think it's ok to kill babies?
No.
In the OT, it states that God commanded people to kill babies. This obviously presents problems about the morality of God.
Unless, of course, the Israelites just claimed that God told them to kill babies, and he really said no such thing. In which case they were either mistaken or lying about God's commands.
If they were either of these, then the Torah (or OT) is not infallible. This might not be a problem for Jews, but it is for many Christians.
Sometimes, but they're generally condemned when they do.
But there's a difference between dropping a bomb on a military target that you know will destroy the surrounding homes and going house-to-house slaughtering individual civilians one-by-one with your sword. In the one case, we have a a single action where the strategic or tactical benefits can be weighed against the harm. In the other case, whatever benefits might have occurred have already been realized by the time the decision is made: if your army has breached the walls of the city and you've neutralized the defenders to the point where it's possible to ransack in safety, then you can't use military necessity to justify killing civilians. At that point, it's just murder. They're not "collateral damage"; you're killing them deliberately.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Well, it wouldn't be gonocide if they didn't kill the babies now, would it?
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Self-defense?