1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneDo you really have to ask? The idea that evil is transmitted genetically is outlandish. The idea that man can be 100% evil is outlandish.
What makes this 'outlandish' other than you can no longer say that no one has given you a hypothetical situation in which genocide is justified? In asking for such a situation, the existence of God is a given. With the existence of God, the idea that God could have more knowlege than man is a given. The point is that additional knowledge can change whethe ...[text shortened]... ot justification is possible. Ultimate justification can only be made with ultimate knowledge.
Until you show that those premises are (likely) true, why should I accept your conclusion that your hypothetical genocide is justified?
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdThe whole point of this thread was to play on the Biblical literalist's turf and assume the stories of genocide are true. I would expect them to use scripture to support their position in this case.
I'm sure that others have pointed this out, but arguing your points by reference to a book that your rhetorical opponent doesn't accept as truth does little to advance your argument.
It demonstrates how nimble your biblical memory is, but mostly, it shows a disappointing inability to engage the enemy on common ground (or even, as would be more persuasive, their own ground).
Can you make your case without a concordance?
2 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitEvidently you fail to understand the concept of a hypothetical argument. If one has to "prove" the assumptions, what is hypothetical about it? There is no way to prove facts that might exist outside the knowledge of man.
Do you really have to ask? The idea that evil is transmitted genetically is outlandish. The idea that man can be 100% evil is outlandish.
Until you show that those premises are (likely) true, why should I accept your conclusion that your hypothetical genocide is justified?
Perhaps you missed this point from my previous post:
The point is that additional knowledge can change whether or not justification is possible. Ultimate justification can only be made with ultimate knowledge.
YOU don't have ultimate knowledge and thus are incapable of determining whether or not an action is ultimately justified. Presumably God would.
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI specifically asked for a hypothetical situation of morally justified genocide. Obviously, if one can change morality itself, then the question is trivial to answer. [I didn't intend to allow hypothetical morals; just agents and circumstances.]
Evidently you fail to understand the concept of a hypothetical argument. If one has to "prove" the assumptions, what is hypothetical about it? There is no way to prove facts that might exist outside the knowledge of man.
Perhaps you missed this point from my previous post:
[b]The point is that additional knowledge can change whether or not justificati ...[text shortened]... ble of determining whether or not an action is ultimately justified. Presumably God would.[/b]
Originally posted by SwissGambitThis hypothetical situation does not change morality itself. It only changes the inputs for determining whether or not it can be justified.
I specifically asked for a hypothetical situation of [b]morally justified genocide. Obviously, if one can change morality itself, then the question is trivial to answer. [I didn't intend to allow hypothetical morals; just agents and circumstances.][/b]
Originally posted by epiphinehasHere's the problem with your quotation-oriented blather. If I were to
[b]Okay, then. God demands your fealty upon pain of eternal damnation. 'Love me, or I'll smite you eternally,' He says.
God asks this not only of me, but of everyone, including you.
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28).
...[text shortened]... ur fear 'God' so it has a little majesty.[/b]
Whatever, bud. 🙂[/b]
propose the same argument -- that 'my god X' was good and moral
but smited people who didn't worship him -- you'd be outraged, and
rightfully so. I can point to an infinitude of mythological examples where
the god or gods acted in an unrighteous way, but its believers accepted
it as righteous merely because it was the god or gods that did it. Gods
can rape, murder, steal, lie, &c simply because they are the arbiters of
right and wrong.
Interestingly enough, so can your god. He can demand that innocents
be slaughtered. He can demand that women be used as chattel. He
can demand that humankind behave according to a 'moral code' and
then violate that moral code as he feels fit.
Your god is an idol, a product of your fearful imagination. Your god knows
nothing of love, compassion, sympathy, devotion, or truth. He knows
only fear, fear of everlasting torment. You call this holy; I call it satanic.
If I cite any other religious tradition, old or present-day, you'd agree with
me 100%. I cite yours, and the fear which rules your heart turns off your
brain. It's a tradgedy.
Nemesio
Originally posted by SwissGambitActually, you started from the assumed perspective that the stories are literally true, and that God's actions there are classifiable as genocide. Regardless of whether either or both of those claims are true, you're asking Xians to produce scriptural support for an argument they don't believe.
The whole point of this thread was to play on the Biblical literalist's turf and assume the stories of genocide are true. I would expect them to use scripture to support their position in this case.
It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Originally posted by NemesioSpot on...rec'd.
Here's the problem with your quotation-oriented blather. If I were to
propose the same argument -- that 'my god X' was good and moral
but smited people who didn't worship him -- you'd be outraged, and
rightfully so. I can point to an infinitude of mythological examples where
the god or gods acted in an unrighteous way, but its believers accepted
it a ...[text shortened]... and the fear which rules your heart turns off your
brain. It's a tradgedy.
Nemesio
2 edits
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdBut they don't deny that God committed genocide. They just think that he somehow had a good reason for it.
Actually, you started from the assumed perspective that the stories are literally true, and that God's actions there are classifiable as genocide. Regardless of whether either or both of those claims are true, you're asking Xians to produce scriptural support for an argument they don't believe.
It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
geno·cide
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
www.m-w.com