Thou Shalt Not Kill - Except......?

yes and which is which? haven't you heard the saying one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? its all reletive to the person in question there isn't an error in what jar says, the relativity of the morals is from the culture of the people, if the people find under certain reasons its not murder but other reasons it is, then it is by logic relative to the culture.
who says jar is placing his beliefs higher than anyone elses, what he is doing is looking at todays laws and looking at what people think we should go by, namely the bible and choosing todays laws, because they work while the bibles don't if god makes a law we should follow i would say yes, god is wrong for killing innocents. if you think killing innocent people because of gods rages then, i don't know what to think.as far as i can tell the only reason you say god is right in doing it is because its god and not a human, choose your evil dictator from the last century and replace god with thier name and ask the same question, you asked jar.
is it wrong of "blank" to commit genocide?
and i bet it would be "yes!" , but god doesn't count for people since its not about the act its about who did it, isn't it?

Right, but that's my point. Somebody alluded to the commandment that we are prohibited from killing. I was arguing that if it means we are not supposed to kill, then we all are indictable-- even strict vegans. Yes, obviously the commandment pertains to the murder of humans. Its also a safe bet that in modern UK times you'd be jailed for breathing directly on the intruder. Hell, I heard of a story here in the US where an intruder trying to gain access to the residence by the skylight on the roof. Turns out that he fell through and got hurt. Somehow, some way, he won the case. I don't know if this is an urban legend. I looked on Snopes but couldn't find a reference. Sounds like somebody else is getting irked by the current state of affairs. I think this whole PC thing has gotten way out of control. Anyway, this is a side issue. Back to the topic at hand. I'm in no position to judge God who knows all the circumstances involved. And since God is the very measure of what goodness is, I doubt that we can speak one ill-gotten word about Him that wouldn't immediately be refuted when we go to be with Him. But to answer your question more directly, if morals are absolute, then what do you care if He killed all the first born children in Egypt. Take it seriously? In what way?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

quote:

---

If you espouse that morals are relative then you give yourself no basis to criticize anyone else's beliefs.

---

Tell me how you really feel about it. So its all about culture and time? Next year from now murder may perfectly acceptable by collective standards? Relative morals means that we all make up our own at our discretion. Even the Bible has some of those and give them not as commands, but as concessions. But imagine if that was the only standard. A true relativistic society is total anarchy. At some point, our moral view is going to be attacked by someone whether we believe in absolutes or relativism. If morals really are restricted to personal belief, that is an absolute phenomenon. But aside from that, since none of us are right or wrong, then there isn't anything left to discuss. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

quote:

---

So let me just ask you: Is it wrong of God if He committed genocide?

---

My gosh man, make up your mind. Now its immoral for God to do whatever He pleases? If its wrong by absolute standards, then God is wrong, in which case, something is even above God. If its wrong by relative standards then that's your opinion and nothing more. I don't know what more can be said about it other than, thanks for sharing. Then give it time, it'll be back in style. Fashion and morals are retroactive. Just give it a few years and you'll be in agreement with God's judgment by water. Why is that fortunate as opposed to it being what it is?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

So? Haven't you ever heard that everyone in jail is an innocent man? There's always some sort of justification in their mind. Their sincerity doesn't mean that it measures up to God's standards. I don't know Osama so I can't say what his disposition is. All I know is that what God says makes an a lot of sense when you compare it to with sociology of human behavior.

quote:

---

If you espouse that morals are relative then you give yourself no basis to criticize anyone else's beliefs.

---

There's a lot of power in that tiny little conjunction, "if." It change the entire meaning of the sentence if it weren't present. Nonetheless, I did infer, based on your post, that you endorse relative morality. I have deduced that because there are only two options from which to choose from. Well, three actually.1. All morals are relative.
2. All morals are absolute.
3. Some morals are absolute and some are relative.Which belief best summarizes your views on the subject? Some people say that God committed genocide with the Flood. Then what would you say? I don't want to put words in your mouth. What qualities makes somebody a bibliolatrist and who gets to decide that?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Probably not next year but that is certainly possible. That is how morality works. No, that is not true. Relative morality means that through consensus the culture determines morality. But again, no one but you and the other absolutistas has ever said anything that silly. The behavior shown in the Old Testament is quite often immoral and for God to order genocide is certainly immoral by today's moral standards. As you can see, morality has advanced since the time of the Old Testament. Relative morality can certainly be above the stories in the Bible. The God portrayed in the Bible was quite often immoral by today's higher standards of morality.The stories in the Bible must be judged by morality standards of the era when they were written, and by the fact that so many of them are just fables, meant to convey a point and not necessarily internally consistent.When the Pied Piper leads all of the children of Hamlin off never to be seen again, it is a terrible, immoral act. But the point of the story is not the magnitude of evil done to the children who were innocent of any wrong and not even party to the contract. The point of the story is that one should keep their word. Well no one has shown any Absolute Standards of morality so that is a moot point. As to relative standards it is NOT just my opinion but a judgment based on the morals of my time and culture.See how it works? That is possible. However there is also the idea supported by evidence that morals evolve, just like life and knowledge. Morals are based on the accumulation of experience and baring a return to fundamentalist religious systems, likely to continue to improve.Hell even God realized he screwed up that time and promised not to do it again.Morals evolve, Over time and as we gain knowledge we are better able to understand the facets that go into decision making. The folk that lived at the time of the Old Testament saw nothing wrong with god ordained genocide. Unfortunately, we still have a few folk today that lack the moral sense to see how bad that was. Hopefully over time there will be few and fewer people so limited.You seem to think that there cannot be Relative Moral Standards even though folk have given you example after example of just that.On the other hand, not one absolutist has been able to provide an example of an Absolute Moral, an Absolute Moral Standard or Absolute Truth.Such things might exist, but if so it would seem likely that someone could present one that stands up to examination.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I've got an even better one. Lets suppose the freedom fighter/terrorist barged through two different families door and accosted them. One family is strict pacifists. The freedom terrorists brutally murdered the whole family except for one. The other family was all about peace too, but he reasoned that every man at some point has to fight against evil. The man who fought back saved his entire family and killed the freedom terrorists.The pacifist criticizes the other man for adding to the violence by trying to combat violence with more violence. He denounces him as a warmongerer and a hypocrite. The other man denounces the pacifist for allowing his family to be slaughtered while he sat and did nothing. He calls him weak-willed, a coward, and somebody who doesn't know how to pick his battles. He says to the pacifist: "I fought for what was inmportant. And because I did, my family was spared, while you sat and did nothing. You are immoral for sitting there and doing nothing! You're a coward! The pacifist say, "My morals are still intact because I didn't allow the irrational feeling of anger consume me. My family is in a better place than both of us because we stuck by our laurels. You're just a hatemongerer and you add to the problem."Which one is right and which one is wrong? Or are they both right, or both wrong? Or is no one right and no one wrong? Were the freedom terrorists right or wrong? Did they serve their sense of justice, or should justice find them?Is there an answer to the paradox or is it all conjecture? Society seems to play no real role in it. Case in point: The parable I've just given can be applied to our country right now, where one group says that a preemptive strike against another country is wrong, while the other half says that its more of a crime to let your enemy steamroll over you. Same society, same time frame, diametrically opposed viewpoints. Looks like we're right back to square one. If morality is relative then it doesn't matter what any of us think. If its absolute then we'd all better make sure we're living in accordance to that code. Which is it? Is it both? Can both exist? This is what I think: God knows what's going on, completely, and I don't. Because Father knows best, I'm going to allow for Him to lead me to the Promise Land. Really the argument was made to pit relativist views against itself. I'm sorry that everyone read into it more than that. The point is, if you say that God is wrong, that's either your opinion, you are absolutely right, or you are absolutely wrong. If its just your opinion, then take a number. We all have one. If its absolutely right or absolutely wrong of God, then what makes that the absolute standard if not God?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

What does jail and innocence have to do this issue? This reference has no connection.Yes, likewise the fundamentalist (Islamic or Christian) always has some sort of justification to excuse the evil that is portrayed in their holy book as godly. Sincerity does not matter. Thanks for illustrating my point. I don't have to know Osama to know that he is guided by a false sense of divine sanction. The promoting of killing under the banner of god is wrong. Nice two step and dodge. I can't answer your question until you clarify without equivocation. Really... NJ lets go back and look the context of your paragraph.... How could I see the the error in my rationale only under the condition of your alleged "if". Your use of "if" was in the sense of "since" as introducing an exclamatory phrase. Honesty is important in discourse.I mentioned nothing of relative morality or attempted to get you to sympathize with my relative views. A fabrication on your part. If you are deducing someones position make it explicitly clear that is what your are doing.To answer your question, will take door number 3.I will give you an absolute, that is in line within the context of this thread:It is morally wrong to kill under the presumption that god has commanded or desires you to kill. I will give another absolute. A bibliolatrist is a "worshiper of the Bible; a believer in its verbal inspiration".

Only if you cherry-pick your scriptures.I quoted scripture where God forbade capital punishment. That is the only "untainted" account in the Bible - it says, "God did this...." Every other account that does condone capital punishment is just some guy saying, "God told me to do this...." It's Charles Manson justifying himself.Furthermore, the only time that Jesus was presented with the option of capital punishment, He demonstrated why God doesn't condone it. Then He doesn't have to. Period. Case closed. Then He can. Period. Case closed. No. The law is in place to help us get along with each other. That is what He wants.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Because people that commit these acts know that it is unlawful. So if and when they are caught, they'd be most likely to make excuses for why what they did wasn't really immoral, but actually an instance where they purged the immoral from their midst. If you make your points clear, others won't have to fill in the blanks for you. I agree that its wrong. What, though, makes it wrong?

quote:

---

Some people say that God committed genocide with the Flood

---

. Two-step and dodge? I asked you an incredibly simple question which warrants an incredibly simple answer. But, hey, maybe if you can pass off my response as a dodge, it'll masquerade your own. Oh, looks like it didn't work.

quote:

---

here's a lot of power in that tiny little conjunction, "if."

---

quote:

---

Do you not see the error in your own rationale? If you espouse that morals are relative then you give yourself no basis to criticize anyone else's beliefs. Indeed, you are trying to get me to sympathize with your views on relativity, all the while esteeming your own beliefs higher than that of any one else's.

---

"If" you do this, then you invariably give up "this" position. LOL! What's the problem? Secondly, I then went on to say that I do believe you espouse moral relativism based on your past responses. Alright. What, then, makes a moral absolute? Does not the law have to be higher than those subject to it if it is dispensed absolutely? What criteria must exist for a moral to be absolute? What kind of backlash can we expect for breaking this moral code? You don't need to view it in mystical terms, but rather, what kind of consequence (cause and effect) can we expect as a result from going against this absolute? Actually, that's an example of relativity since the criteria isn't simply that someone reveres the Bible as the Word of God, but that gives excessive reverence to it. Again, I'd have to ask what makes it excessive and who gets to make that determination?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

You missed the point entirely. Osoma does not believe at all that his "acts are unlawful". He genuinely believes his is doing gods work. Your jail analogy is off. Again whatever did I originally say that made you believe I espoused moral relativism. Please provide a quote from my fist post that led you to believe this. No it isn't an example of relativity. Even at that, again you read into it what you wanted! The criteria does not state excessive reverence, it only says "a worshiper" and a "believer in verbal inspiration". It is a Webster definition.

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" Gen 3:22Doesn't this verse imply that we all should have the same sense of what is right and what is wrong?Edited by VerifyMe, : No reason given.

I don't think so, rather it speaks to the capability of knowing right from wrong. We all make our decisions on right and wrong based on insufficient, incomplete and all too often mistaken data, but that is all we have to work with.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Let me get this right. In summary you are saying -There are absolute morals as laid down by God
Laws are most obvious result of this absolute morality
We know when we do wrong because we can feel it is wrong
We know when we are acting unlawfully because unlawful = wrong
Gods actions cannot be immoral by definitionIs that a fair summary?But again - Except in the very black and white scenarios you put forward no two people FEEL the same way about a given situation. The law is also no guide in more complex situations.Take the fighter pilot bombing a target known to contain civilians (even if it is a "justifiable" military target).You say it is wrong. I would agree and personally would not do it.But if instructed to do it the soldier would be breaking no law.Soldiers who do this sort of thing do not believe themselves to be doing wrong.
The people commanding this sort of operation believe themselves to be justified in the wider context and therefore doing no wrong.How is it that something that so obviously feels wrong to me does not inspire the same feeling of wrongness in all others if morality is absolute and we all know when we are doing wrong?I appreciate why you do not like the idea of relative morality (though I disagree with your conclusions as to the consequences).
But just because you do not like the consequences as you see them does not mean that there MUST therefore be absolutes in existence.

Yes this is an absolute law.
Our experience in war has taught us that humans are not well suited to killing. In some cases veterans of war return changed fundamentally after killing for their country. Obviously killing is not in our nature and if left unassaulted is something that will not happen. God law seems to fit nicely with our own instincts in this case so it should be a naturally easy command to follow and in most cases is.
Nothing like the breaking of this law has been so large a factor in helping us learn of good and evil. Killing is the most unforgiving act in term of the victim.
God prefers that we forgive all trespasses. How can one forgive if one is dead. The soul can and does but it leaves lessons unlearned and experiences unfelt by the victim and may force a resurrection for this soul. I base this on a biblical passage that place the age of man at 120.
I confess that my views, on resurrection, at this point in time are in flux and confirmation of this position would be appreciated.Regards
DL

What about when the god of Old Testament commands killing?