If morality comes from god.....

Akrasia

Why do I think murdering the first born child from every family in Egypt was wrong?


it wasn't wrong to god. Why should it be wrong for me?


I hate kilkenny people. they disrespect the clare hurlers. Killing all kilkenny people should be perfectly ok because they refuse to accept the greatness of clare hurling.

I'm only following the example of your lord

AtomicHorror

Akrasia wrote: »

Why do I think murdering the first born child from every family in Egypt was wrong?


it wasn't wrong to god. Why should it be wrong for me?


I hate kilkenny people. they disrespect the clare hurlers. Killing all kilkenny people should be perfectly ok because they refuse to accept the greatness of clare hurling.

I'm only following the example of your lord

I guess the obvious response is that God defines the moral axis, not you.

Asiaprod

Akrasia wrote: »

Why do I think murdering the first born child from every family in Egypt was wrong?


it wasn't wrong to god. Why should it be wrong for me?


I hate kilkenny people. they disrespect the clare hurlers. Killing all kilkenny people should be perfectly ok because they refuse to accept the greatness of clare hurling.

I'm only following the example of your lord

Are we assuming that this was a real event or just another myth?

2Scoops

Akrasia wrote: »

I hate kilkenny people. they disrespect the clare hurlers.

I sincerely hope you don't actually believe that!

robindch

Asiaprod wrote: »

Are we assuming that this was a real event or just another myth?

Miaow!

But I don't think whether it happened or not is the issue. Instead, people assume that it happened and then go on to derive, from that, the belief in seriously wonky (god-based) system of ethics in which pulling babies limb from limb isn't seen as murder, but actually, the morally appropriate thing to do in some set of circumstances.

Coming down to the wire, most religious people aren't any more likely to kill babies than irreligious people. But the religious also fail to notice that the people in the story who did kill the babies, probably did so with exactly the same moral framework and moral justification as their own.

Hence, you're quite right to say that if a religious person believes that murder-by-proxy was ok for god in Egypt years ago, then they should believe that murder-by-proxy is still ok today. God's morality doesn't change, as we are reminded regularly.

BTW, what's all this about hurlers anyway? Any true Irish person will realize that gaelic is the real game and Kerry play it better than anybody. Hurling is for wimmins and pansies.

eoin5

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I guess the obvious response is that God defines the moral axis, not you.

Yep, and he works on a 'do as I tell you, not as I do' basis. Oh and of course he works in mysterious ways dont forget.

Zombrex

Akrasia wrote: »

Why do I think murdering the first born child from every family in Egypt was wrong?

Because your sinful nature rebells against God, and the authority of God. Part of that is holding God to a standard that doesn't give God the respect he deserves as a holy being.

God can kill anyone he likes. And when he does so it is always for a just reason, even if you don't understand what that reason is. You only think it is wrong because you refuse to acknowledge the glory of God. It is your lack of understand that leads you to conclude it was wrong, not God's actions.






... well you did ask :pac:

PDN

Akrasia wrote: »

Why do I think murdering the first born child from every family in Egypt was wrong?


it wasn't wrong to god. Why should it be wrong for me?


I hate kilkenny people. they disrespect the clare hurlers. Killing all kilkenny people should be perfectly ok because they refuse to accept the greatness of clare hurling.

I'm only following the example of your lord

Sorry to interrupt the trolling with a serious answer here.

Morality does not consist of saying, "If one person is entitled to do this, then so am I."

For example, I can see situations where there is a strong argument for the United Nations to intervene with a military force to save lives (Darfur, Rwanda, Congo etc). Such intervention may involve killing people.

However, I can not conceive of any situation where it would be morally right for me to raise a private army and to invade those countries for the same purpose.

Equally I do not have the right to confiscate the car of my neighbour whom I see driving an imported vehicle with no VRT paid, to raid the office and examine the accounts of a builder whom I know is dodging VAT, or to imprison anyone for ten years. Yet the State has the right to do all these things - and we do not necessarily see that as immoral.

Different people and agencies have different powers. What would be a moral course of action for one is not necessarily moral for another.

Many Christians, myself included, believe that God has a moral right to give and take away life. We do not have such a right, which is why we are opposed to abortion and capital punishment.

robindch wrote:

Coming down to the wire, most religious people aren't any more likely to kill babies than irreligious people. But the religious also fail to notice that the people in the story who did kill the babies, probably did so with exactly the same moral framework and moral justification as their own.

Hence, you're quite right to say that if a religious person believes that murder-by-proxy was ok for god in Egypt years ago, then they should believe that murder-by-proxy is still ok today. God's morality doesn't change, as we are reminded regularly.

It is a bit ironic that you accuse others of failing to notice stuff in the story, yet you yourself fail to notice that no people in the story did in fact kill any babies.

Akrasia

PDN wrote: »

Sorry to interrupt the trolling with a serious answer here.

Morality does not consist of saying, "If one person is entitled to do this, then so am I."

For example, I can see situations where there is a strong argument for the United Nations to intervene with a military force to save lives (Darfur, Rwanda, Congo etc). Such intervention may involve killing people.


However, I can not conceive of any situation where it would be morally right for me to raise a private army and to invade those countries for the same purpose.

Thats not the point. I would be able to accept that kind of reasoning if God had smote the pharoah for enslaving his people, or if he had done something to the guards who were preventing the slaves from leaving, but he didn't do that. he deliberately went straight for the innocents. All the plagues were directed at the entire population of Egypt, and the most devastating plague was aimed squarely at the most innocent and least responsible egyptions of all.

If any UN force did anything remotely like what god did to the egyptians i would consider it an illegitimate force and I would be out on the streets protesting with every fiber of my being.

Equally I do not have the right to confiscate the car of my neighbour whom I see driving an imported vehicle with no VRT paid, to raid the office and examine the accounts of a builder whom I know is dodging VAT, or to imprison anyone for ten years. Yet the State has the right to do all these things - and we do not necessarily see that as immoral.

The state is only permitted to do things within certain boundaries of legitimacy, beyond which we have the moral duty to overthrow it. If they can get away with breaking the rules, it is because they are in a position of power, it does not mean their actions are morally justified

Different people and agencies have different powers. What would be a moral course of action for one is not necessarily moral for another.

Can you imagine a single scenario where it is moral to torture innocent person X to try and prove a point to guilty person Y? Especially if you have the power to simply remove person y from his position of authority without harming anyone else.

Many Christians, myself included, believe that God has a moral right to give and take away life. We do not have such a right, which is why we are opposed to abortion and capital punishment.

But why would he torture and take the lives of the innocents and leave the guilty in power? Where is the moral lesson in that?

It completely contradicts any progressive sense of justice.

It's not the act of killing that I object to most, it's the fact that innocents were punished. You believe god has the sole right to take life, fine. What about if we emulate the lord without going so far as to take life.

Why don't we mutilate the children of criminals as a way to discourage the parent from committing more crimes?

Its a very effective method used by terrorists and gangsters to prevent people from betraying them (If you talk to the police we'll hurt your family)

Why don't we do it? Because it is wrong, it is a violation of our fundamental conception of justice.

It is a bit ironic that you accuse others of failing to notice stuff in the story, yet you yourself fail to notice that no people in the story did in fact kill any babies.

Where did it say that? But even if it's true, it doesn't make the action much better. (babies were innocent but young children deserved to die?)

kelly1

Akrasia wrote: »

Why do I think murdering the first born child from every family in Egypt was wrong?


it wasn't wrong to god. Why should it be wrong for me?


I hate kilkenny people. they disrespect the clare hurlers. Killing all kilkenny people should be perfectly ok because they refuse to accept the greatness of clare hurling.

I'm only following the example of your lord

Just on a general note, a repeated pattern I've noticed here is that atheists come into this forum attacking God and finding perceived faults with His ways.

What do you bother? What is your agenda??

You'd be far better off looking at yourself in the mirror and you might just find a "log in your own eye". God is entirely holy, pure, righteous, just and without blame and you have the neck to find fault with God! If you ever do repent and realize that you're a sinner (as I am), you'll realize that you've got the telescope backwards. God is everything. We, without God, are nothing.

Chew on that for a while!

God bless you.
Noel.

PDN

Akrasia wrote: »

Thats not the point. I would be able to accept that kind of reasoning if God had smote the pharoah for enslaving his people, or if he had done something to the guards who were preventing the slaves from leaving, but he didn't do that. he deliberately went straight for the innocents. All the plagues were directed at the entire population of Egypt, and the most devastating plague was aimed squarely at the most innocent and least responsible egyptions of all.

If any UN force did anything remotely like what god did to the egyptians i would consider it an illegitimate force and I would be out on the streets protesting with every fiber of my being.

That is the point.

Anyone of moderate intelligence can see that I am not saying that what is moral for God is also moral for the UN.

My point is that morality is different for various levels of authority. The supreme authority is God, infinitely above that of the boys in blue berets. He has the authority to give and to take life.

Where did it say that? But even if it's true, it doesn't make the action much better. (babies were innocent but young children deserved to die?)

What on earth are you talking about?

My point was that Robin is banging on about people killing babies in the Egypt story. I am pointing out that the babies, or children, were killed with no human agent involved.

Akrasia

kelly1 wrote: »

Just on a general note, a repeated pattern I've noticed here is that atheists come into this forum attacking God and finding perceived faults with His ways.

What do you bother? What is your agenda??

You'd be far better off looking at yourself in the mirror and you might just find a "log in your own eye". God is entirely holy, pure, righteous, just and without blame and you have the neck to find fault with God! If you ever do repent and realize that you're a sinner (as I am), you'll realize that you've got the telescope backwards. God is everything. We, without God, are nothing.

Chew on that for a while!

God bless you.
Noel.

there's nothing to chew on. You've just dogmatically told me things without anything to back them up.

An entirely righteous and just entity wouldn't torture and punish innocent people to prove a point to a corrupt dictator. (He would just remove the dictator from power)

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

For example, I can see situations where there is a strong argument for the United Nations to intervene with a military force to save lives (Darfur, Rwanda, Congo etc). Such intervention may involve killing people.

However, I can not conceive of any situation where it would be morally right for me to raise a private army and to invade those countries for the same purpose.

You are missing the point. Since when did the UN go around intentionally killing babies? The point is that God supposedly intentionally killed all the first-born babies. How in any way can this be morally justified. "God is the supreme authority" Doesn't make it moral. There's no way babies could have done anything wrong.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

That is the point.

Anyone of moderate intelligence can see that I am not saying that what is moral for God is also moral for the UN.

My point is that morality is different for various levels of authority. The supreme authority is God, infinitely above that of the boys in blue berets. He has the authority to give and to take life.

The point Akrasia is trying to make (I think) is that even though there are levels of authority, the top level should still appear moral.

You can't raise an army and go to Somalia, the UN can. They have the authority, you don't.

But you can still recognize and understand the moral reasoning behind the UN raising an army and going to Somalia for peace keeping. You can't do it, but you can approve of the UN doing it. And the UN can't do what ever they like simply because they have a higher level of authority to act as peace keepers. The UN still have to act in a moral fashion as we, its members, perceive.

The UN is given authority from its collective members. It's morality matches the morality of its members. The same is true of police forces or governments (at least in principle)

God acts not only in a manner that we do not have the authority to act, but also in a manner that we do not approve of or cannot justify. God justifies himself to us and we are expect to accept that because of his authority. That is exactly what the UN doesn't, and can't do, it cannot justify itself simply because it has higher authority than an individual to act in these manners.

That would appear to be in conflict with the idea that God is a higher moral standard to us. If God has a higher moral standard to us, if he acts at a higher level of moral authority, if we are wicked and he is righteous, why does so much of his actions in the books of the Old Testament, appear morally repugnant to us.

I know exactly the excuse you will make as to why we think this (see my earlier post), I post simply to (I hope) clarify Akrasia questions

Akrasia

PDN wrote: »

That is the point.

Anyone of moderate intelligence can see that I am not saying that what is moral for God is also moral for the UN.

Morality is morality, regardless of whether the state or an individual or a god is acting.

It is illegal for me to imprison someone for a crime, but that is not a statement of morality, simply an administrative function of the state. If I was on a desert Island with 30 other people and there was someone running around killing people, I would be morally justified in imprisoning him. It wouldn't be immoral just because I am not a state.
It is immoral for a state to imprison innocents even though they claim the legitimate right to imprison people.

My point is that morality is different for various levels of authority.

My point is that it isn't.

The supreme authority is God, infinitely above that of the boys in blue berets. He has the authority to give and to take life.

Might does not make right. Authority does not necessarily imply legitimacy. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it.

A caring and just god would punish the guilty and never harm innocents because that is the fundamental basis of justice.
On earth in progressive nations we strive for that end. We rarely achieve it, but we're not omnipotent or omniscient like god, we should expect better from him.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

if we are wicked and he is righteous, why does so much of his actions in the books of the Old Testament, appear morally repugnant to us.

Maybe you relate to those who God judged?

JimiTime

Akrasia wrote: »

Morality is morality,

Please explain.

Akrasia

I missed this bit.

PDN wrote: »

However, I can not conceive of any situation where it would be morally right for me to raise a private army and to invade those countries for the same purpose.

I can easily conceive of such a situation.

If there is a genocide happening and the state is doing nothing, it can be perfectly moral to raise an army to liberate the oppressed people.

In WW2, the French surrendered to the Nazis, but a resistance movement grew up to continue the fight against the new occupying forces and the pseudo french state. Are you suggesting the French resistance was immoral? (putting aside certain things they may have done in the course of the conflict)

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Maybe you relate to those who God judged?

I'm not following? Are you talking about empathy with the suffering of others?

iUseVi

JimiTime wrote: »

Maybe you relate to those who God judged?

Funny thing is, God judged Pharaoh - but killed the babies. So the above statement is unfortunately meaningless.

all the stars

Akrasia wrote: »

Why do I think murdering the first born child from every family in Egypt was wrong?


it wasn't wrong to god. Why should it be wrong for me?


I hate kilkenny people. they disrespect the clare hurlers. Killing all kilkenny people should be perfectly ok because they refuse to accept the greatness of clare hurling.

I'm only following the example of your lord

indeed! i hate Fig Rolls - can we eliminate their creators please?

all the stars

Wicknight wrote: »

God can kill anyone he likes. And when he does so it is always for a just reason, even if you don't understand what that reason is.

:eek: yikes!

Zombrex

iUseVi wrote: »

Funny thing is, God judged Pharaoh - but killed the babies. So the above statement is unfortunately meaningless.

As mentioned in another thread on original sin, the Judeo-Christian religions have a long tradition of inflicting suffering on those close or important to a person as a way of punishing the person themselves.

This tradition was not exclusive to the Judeo-Christian religions, it is found in Greek mythology and Babylonian mythology.

Unfortunately children and wives more often than not bare the brunt of this, as they were considered possessions of the men, and therefore a way to get at the man. Killing a man's child or raping his wife was treated in the same way that the CAB taking a man's sports car today would be considered acceptable punishment.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

It is your rebellious nature that makes you say that.

I am getting sick of your trolling.

You are free to state your own opinions, even though it means that many Christians avoid this board like a plague - seeing it as a forum for anti-Christians to taunt believers.

However, you are developing a pattern of mockingly pretending to present the Christian point of view. It is not clever or smart, just trollish. Each time you do it earns an infraction and infractions mount up to a ban if you continue.

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

As mentioned in another thread on original sin, the Judeo-Christian religions have a long tradition of inflicting suffering on those close or important to a person as a way of punishing the person themselves.

This tradition was not exclusive to the Judeo-Christian religions, it is found in Greek mythology and Babylonian mythology.

Unfortunately children and wives more often than not bare the brunt of this, as they were considered possessions of the men, and therefore a way to get at the man. Killing a man's child or raping his wife was treated in the same way that the CAB taking a man's sports car today would be considered acceptable punishment.

Indeed. Of course the central tenet of Christianity hinges on this vulgarity. Christ died (and shed blood, very important) so that other people could get off scot free. It's been that way ever since the Israelites were murdering sheep and goats in the desert and using them as "scapegoats". Transfer of sin.

Of course makes no sense because there's no such thing as sin, but even if there was, it seems to me to be entirely vulgar that other people (and goats) should take responsibility for what a person has done.

DISCLAIMER: This is my opinion. END DISCLAIMER.

JimiTime

iUseVi wrote: »

Funny thing is, God judged Pharaoh - but killed the babies. So the above statement is unfortunately meaningless.

Actually, he judged Egypt. For the record btw, I believe in Capital punishment, I just don't believe in our justice system to carry it out. Without God at the helm, man hasn't a clue.

all the stars

Wicknight wrote: »

It is your rebellious nature that makes you say that.

:cool: more like me hoping i've gone unnoticed by god! im not planning on making an early exit even if he wants me too! heck no - far to much i plan on gettin done - i go when im ready hopefully!

iUseVi

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually, he judged Egypt. For the record btw, I believe in Capital punishment, I just don't believe in our justice system to carry it out. Without God at the helm, man hasn't a clue.

Do you have a bible verse for this? What so he judged the babies too? What sin had they committed?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

It is a bit ironic that you accuse others of failing to notice stuff in the story, yet you yourself fail to notice that no people in the story did in fact kill any babies.

Thanks for the polite reminder, though I think you missed my point quite dramatically!

I was referring to god-sanctioned murder-by-proxy as, for example, in Deuteronomy 2:32:

Deuteronomy wrote:

Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain: Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we took. From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us.

Sounds like god's ok, even happy, to have people doing his killing for him, hence the point about murder-by-proxy being a means by which god manages people here on earth. Such a story thereby providing legitimation to people these days who believe they hear god's call to kill.

Do you understand my point now?

JimiTime

The odour of smugness in these boards. I suppose, its win win for christians. If we're right, we are saved, and the being that created us, who knows us and what makes us happy will grant us eternal life. happy days. If atheists are right, we die, we never know we were wrong. Happy days.

Just thought I'd join in on the trolling.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Thanks for the polite reminder, though I think you missed my point quite dramatically!

I was referring to god-sanctioned murder-by-proxy as, for example, in Deuteronomy 2:32:Sounds like god's ok, even happy, to have people doing his killing for him, hence the point about murder-by-proxy being a means by which god manages people here on earth. Such a story thereby providing legitimation to people these days who believe they hear god's call to kill.

Do you understand my point now?

It's quite understandable that I missed your point since you were responding to a post that asked about God killing the firstborn children in Egypt. You responded by referring to 'the story' when in fact you were referring to an entirely different part of the Bible. OK

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

I was referring to god-sanctioned murder-by-proxy as, for example, in Deuteronomy 2:32:Sounds like god's ok, even happy, to have people doing his killing for him, hence the point about murder-by-proxy being a means by which god manages people here on earth.

I have to say, the 'killing' by proxy is a part I don't understand myself. i.e. The reason God didn't just do it?

iUseVi

JimiTime wrote: »

The odour of smugness in these boards. I suppose, its win win for christians. If we're right, we are saved, and the being that created us, who knows us and what makes us happy will grant us eternal life. happy days. If atheists are right, we die, we never know we were wrong. Happy days.

Nice way to dodge the issues you don't want to address. Congratulations.

JimiTime wrote: »

Just thought I'd join in on the trolling.

People are getting accused of trolling because they are raising valid points against Christianity. People haven't come up with satisfactory answers, and don't like being backed into a corner, so the troll excuse gets rolled out.

(Can't say I blame you all, no one likes being backed into a corner.)

PDN

iUseVi wrote: »

Nice way to dodge the issues you don't want to address. Congratulations.



People are getting accused of trolling because they are raising valid points against Christianity. People haven't come up with satisfactory answers, and don't like being backed into a corner, so the troll excuse gets rolled out.

(Can't say I blame you all, no one likes being backed into a corner.)

Actually that is not true. The subject of the killing of children in the Old Testament has been raised on this forum many times before, and many Christians (myself included) have stated that we find it difficult to understand and explain.

This thread, however, has turned into a troll fest where atheists are posting for no purpose other than to mock and taunt Christians. That certainly is trolling rather than any attempt to discuss Christian belief.

Thread locked until the trolls learn to behave themselves.