| hasbeen |
| Posted 05/30/12 at 12:58 PM | Reply with quote #106 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by vmanchaQuote: Originally Posted by hasbeen
Why will any of the answers to those questions justify genocide of them, genocide that included the children...
How many children are killed by Joshua? Also why is it the command was given not to marry them? Why should such a command be given in a blitkkrieg fashion? That is the problem. It was not a blitzkrieg but a gradual take over of the land. Deut 12 gave the fashion for take over. Notify the enemy they can surrender or be defeated. If taken the would be servants for 7 yrs per law and released to be in society or move on. No mention of children actually being killed. In case of attacks it was custom as in other situation for children and women to retreat to rear or other town. Once these tons here of the shock and awe approach of war fair they will be more likely to surrender or get heck out of dodge. It is the best way to fight. Least casualties. Jews did best for the land by stopping the child sacrifices. Keep in mind God said while Jews were in Egypt he was not going to discipline the canaanites as their sin had not reached its max. He was patient with these Nazi like people for 400 yrs. What if Germany or USSR had ruled for 400 yrs. How may people would have died. How may freedoms taken away?
The passages that i have read say that god ordered them to kill everything and not just the people but the livestock etc as well.
A supposed timeless being that knows everything so must have known they would not change is patient for 400 years you consider impressive?
Why do you follow such silly nonsense.
|
| Loading... | |
| CrashTestAuto |
| Posted 05/30/12 at 02:16 PM | Reply with quote #107 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by gregwilson
Of course I never claimed that all morality is specially and directly revealed by God. Instead, the argument is that God gives mankind a general sense of right and wrong; but more importantly to the discussion, objective morality can be grounded in the divine nature of God and nowhere else.
This means that atheists have the same general sense of objective morality theists do, so Crash and I agree here. So, yes, even if I were an atheist I would have this sense of right/wrong. However, hopefully I'd be able to understand the incoherency of holding to the existence of objective morality without anything to ground it in, or at least better equipped to defend the worldview I hold to.
So the question remains. Under the deterministic worldview of naturalism, heavily under-girded by the theory of Darwinian evolution, on what moral grounds are there to condemn the actions of the Nazis? Portraying theistic moral reasoning as silly or backward does you no good, as we are still left with the question given naturalism.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I do reject objective morality. I actually reject it on both an atheistic and a theistic account. But ask yourself honestly, does that really matter? Say that you suddenly agreed that I was right, and God does not exist. Would you accept that Hitler did nothing wrong? Would simply throw your hands up in the air and accept that logic has dictated moral discourse pointless? No matter what our moral judgements are grounded in, they matter to us.
I personally value human (and non-human) life very highly, and no matter how logically ungrounded it is, that doesn't somehow invalidate my claim. There is something more to human existence than cold logic; morality and love being particularly important examples. I don't need God to tell me that, and neither do you. |
| Loading... | |
| gregwilson |
| Posted 05/30/12 at 02:30 PM | Reply with quote #108 |
|
Well I'll give Kagan this. He did much better than Sam Harris.
Ultimately, Kagan correctly pointed out that the divide comes from how one looks at morality. If all that is required for morality to exist is the ability for a creature to reason morally, then perhaps naturalism holds. But to Craig, and if may add most other ethicists, being able to know right from wrong is not all.
For instance, what gives man intrinsic worth? Naturalism produces humans with no purpose--they are accidental byproducts of the universe.
But wouldn't a necessary requirement for morality be that the actions one takes which affect other objects is that these objects have moral worth? Obviously a tree doesn't have moral worth (although some whack environmentalists might disagree), thus to cut it down to build a house seems like a morally neutral event. Of course chopping off a limb of a human being wouldn't be morally acceptable--even if that person had no ability to feel pain or reason morally.
Lastly, naturalism has no answer to the charge that it lacks any moral proscription. Simply put, even if murder, theft, rape, and torture are wrong, what tells me that I should act in certain ways? Might makes right under a naturalistic framework considering the only consequences one faces for one's actions are in the here and now.
|
| Loading... | |
| hasbeen |
| Posted 05/30/12 at 03:24 PM | Reply with quote #109 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by gregwilson
Well I'll give Kagan this. He did much better than Sam Harris.
Ultimately, Kagan correctly pointed out that the divide comes from how one looks at morality. If all that is required for morality to exist is the ability for a creature to reason morally, then perhaps naturalism holds. But to Craig, and if may add most other ethicists, being able to know right from wrong is not all.
As Kagan said at the start, "when i asked my fellows if god was needed for morality they said of course not"
Quote: For instance, what gives man intrinsic worth? Naturalism produces humans with no purpose--they are accidental byproducts of the universe.
How does that equate to having no worth at all?
Seems to me you are making the same error Craig did and that is to say that no universal eternal importance or purpose means no importance or purpose at all.
Quote: But wouldn't a necessary requirement for morality be that the actions one takes which affect other objects is that these objects have moral worth? Obviously a tree doesn't have moral worth (although some whack environmentalists might disagree), thus to cut it down to build a house seems like a morally neutral event. Of course chopping off a limb of a human being wouldn't be morally acceptable--even if that person had no ability to feel pain or reason morally.
I would agree although to cut down a tree for just the sake of destruction or killing a living thing could be seen as morally wrong.
Quote: Lastly, naturalism has no answer to the charge that it lacks any moral proscription. Simply put, even if murder, theft, rape, and torture are wrong, what tells me that I should act in certain ways? Might makes right under a naturalistic framework considering the only consequences one faces for one's actions are in the here and now.
And they cover this in the discussion and nobody has claimed right makes right or if you prefer survival of the fittest under naturalism but you, Craig tries to pull the same line and Kagan again reals him back. You really should watch it all as you are parroting Craig and Kagan answers them all, they discuss the issue of prudential reasons and the moral reasons at about 40 secs in or so to a few minutes in:
However if you require cosmic consequences or rewards to act as you morally SHOULD how are you moral compared to a person who sees suffering etc and empathies and reasons that causing such suffering is wrong and should be avoided.
|
| Loading... | |
| vmancha |
| Posted 05/30/12 at 03:43 PM | Reply with quote #110 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by hasbeen
Why will any of the answers to those questions justify genocide of them, genocide that included the children...
How many children are killed by Joshua? Also why is it the command was given not to marry them? Why should such a command be given in a blitkkrieg fashion? It had to be they were going to rub elbows with other tribes at times and they were not to intermarry. If you look however they did have a campaign with certain areas but skipped other areas since they were not committing genocide. It was not a blitzkrieg but a gradual take over the whole land. Deut 12 gave the fashion for take over. Notify the enemy they can surrender or be defeated. If taken the would be servants for 7 yrs per law and released to be in society or move on. No mention of children actually being killed. In case of attacks it was custom as in other situation for children and women to retreat to rear or other town. Once these towns heard of the shock and awe approach of war they will be more likely to surrender or get heck out of dodge. It is the best way to fight. Least casualties. Jews did best for the land by stopping the child sacrifices. Keep in mind God said while Jews were in Egypt he was not going to discipline the canaanites as their sin had not reached its max. He was patient with these Nazi like people for 400 yrs. What if Germany or USSR had ruled for 400 yrs. How may people would have died. How may freedoms taken away? Should god have been patient with them. When did their sin become complete?
|
| Loading... | |
| hasbeen |
| Posted 05/30/12 at 03:45 PM | Reply with quote #111 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by vmanchaQuote: Originally Posted by hasbeen
Why will any of the answers to those questions justify genocide of them, genocide that included the children...
How many children are killed by Joshua? Also why is it the command was given not to marry them? Why should such a command be given in a blitkkrieg fashion? It had to be they were going to rub elbows with other tribes at times and they were not to intermarry. If you look however they did have a campaign with certain areas but skipped other areas since they were not committing genocide. It was not a blitzkrieg but a gradual take over the whole land. Deut 12 gave the fashion for take over. Notify the enemy they can surrender or be defeated. If taken the would be servants for 7 yrs per law and released to be in society or move on. No mention of children actually being killed. In case of attacks it was custom as in other situation for children and women to retreat to rear or other town. Once these towns heard of the shock and awe approach of war they will be more likely to surrender or get heck out of dodge. It is the best way to fight. Least casualties. Jews did best for the land by stopping the child sacrifices. Keep in mind God said while Jews were in Egypt he was not going to discipline the canaanites as their sin had not reached its max. He was patient with these Nazi like people for 400 yrs. What if Germany or USSR had ruled for 400 yrs. How may people would have died. How may freedoms taken away? Should god have been patient with them. When did their sin become complete?
The passages that i have read say that god ordered them to kill everything and not just the people but the livestock etc as well.
A supposed timeless being that knows everything so must have known they would not change is patient for 400 years you consider impressive?
Why do you follow such silly nonsense.
|
| Loading... | |
| vmancha |
| Posted 05/30/12 at 03:57 PM | Reply with quote #112 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by hasbeen
The passages that i have read say that god ordered them to kill everything and not just the people but the livestock etc as well.
A supposed timeless being that knows everything so must have known they would not change is patient for 400 years you consider impressive?
Why do you follow such silly nonsense.
Did we kill everything with bombing campaigns? What about the nukes we dropped. Did japan stop afterwards? It unnerves the enemy when you show you mean business on this level. To do any less creates a police action. The people do not think you mean business and these guys were the worst. They did not respect human life. They worshiped animals and when their animal gods were embarrassed like the case of Egypt where the live stock etc were destroyed they felt their gods were weak. At that time they had fear of the only true god. As to his patients he will be patient with your unbelief for maybe 80-87 yrs if average. He could destroy your unbelief but why. You exist to prove to the rest of believers how futile rejection of god is. You reject the singularity the impossibility of information out of nothing the anthropic principles the fulfillment of prophesy's on and on. One day in heaven as a believer I will not disagree with Christs rule and agree with his grace and punishments. I will not be disenchanted in eternity as to why people are in hell. I will see his sacrifice and know people rejected him to be separated from him by their own arrogance. They will get to stay with the angels that reject him due to arrogance. That place will not be nice. But it will distract them from themselves in their misery and in fact will be better than the shear vacuum Lucifer is living in right now. Pain from the lake of fire will be better than the soul pain of self indulgent arrogance spiting in the eye of god for eternity.
|
| Loading... | |
