Well, assuming that the Christian God exist, and they are sinners, they would need atonement for their sins as well. So, yes, it would be objectively wrong for them to commit this kind of act because this kind of act is not consistent with the Christian God.
This hardly answers the question, what would you say to them? The same thing I would, "this is wrong, I don't like this, please stop." You might say God doesn't like this as well but the points the same and what was achieved by asking the question you asked? I don't understand the point of the question.
Now this is a good question lol. If God existed and there was no afterlife.....hmmm...well, I obeyed my parents even though more often then not there was no reward as a result. So yes, I would think that I would still obey.
The question wasn't asking whether you would follow, I'm asking what would be gained by following the morals God promotes? What makes God's morals right other than the notion that he rewards those who follow those morals and punishes those that don't follow? Is that the only thing that makes God moral? I don't understand the basis for your claims that God sets the standard for objective morality.
Well, like I said, God commanded this as an act of judgement. The Amorites were evil people, engaging in all kinds of jacked up activity that most of the other nations were engaging in, like human sacrifices and homosexuality. Plus, they were enemies of Israel so they had to be dealt with.
From my understanding, the records in the Bible about the nations they went to war with are easily dismissed as propaganda, you can't trust the documents in the same way you can't trust governments that go to war and spread lies about their enemies. All nations do it, the Nazi's did it, America did it, England did it, Russia, Japan, Australia, the French. They've done it countless times throughout history. They lie about their enemy to raise morale, to encourage nationalism, to give the idea to the people that they are fighting the good fight and that the war effort is a good thing. You can say whatever you want about God not lying, we're not talking about that here, this is about the Israelites lying and not in a bad way, just in a way that supports their war effort.
Once again, you have to distinguish between murder and killing. If God orders you to kill someone, it is an act of JUDGEMENT. You dont seem to be understanding the difference.
As I've proposed a couple of times now, I doubt the notion that if God exists he is morally perfect or commands morality. What makes his commands "Judgement" and the commands of Hitler "Murder"?
As I said, it was an act of JUDGEMENT for the nations sins. There are no scriptures in the bible where God just ordered people to be killed for no reason. So for you to shed this in the worse light possible is disingenuous.
I never said he did it for no reason, i am however saying now that his reasons were poor and I don't support the conclusions he drew or the commands he made because of those reasons.
Second, its not as if God discriminated, he even carried out massive acts of judgement upon his own people, the Israelites, all as an act of judgement.
I don't care whether he hated the Jews as much as he hated everyone else, the point is that he ordered the death of men, women and children, something you seemed to be unaware of. The men left were the ones that didn't go to war so presumably the ones incapable of fighting, or the passive ones that refused to fight against the Israelites, why did they have to die too? It doesn't make sense.
How are acts of war considered murder? Like I keep stressing, you need to know the difference between murder and non-malice killing.
Even in modern wars, civilian casualties carried out intentionally is considered murder. Of course what Moses supposedly did is murder, non-combatants, EVERY ONE OF THEM! Didn't matter how old, didn't matter what they did, what they supported, if they were in the cities at the time the Israelites entered them they were dead. This is genocide on par with if not exceeding the Nazi genocide.
Objectively wrong according to Australian law but subjectively elsewhere? This makes it subjective by definition.
No it doesn't even if I agree with the notion that absolute objective laws exist, subjective interpretations and subjective morality still exists. They are real things, the only thing that is up for debate is whether absolute objective laws exist. Seriously, if Christianity is right and all that, I still have my subjective morality it would just be wrong.
Objection means that an act is wrong regardless of who thinks it was right. For example, if Austrialian law allowed young girls to work in brothels ages 6-12, would this be objectively right?
According to Australian law, yes. Also, what about the 13-18 year olds?
Second, you said "subjectively worng according to me and many others I know agree with me"......now who is appealing to population? hahaha.
Not me? How was I appealing to population? I was stating a fact, many people, everyone I know personally do not support and are offended by the notion of someone walking into a strangers home and killing all of it's inhabitants.
Well, unless those biblical references were in the post that I didnt respond to, I havent seen them.
One of them was, it's a shame you didn't bother to read it. I don't even care that you didn't respond, the least you could have done was read it.
So, during the sting operation, the officers know the woman isn't a prostitute, but they also know that her standing there would bring men that think that she is a prostitute to her. It is a delusion based on preconceived notion.
What? How was it a delusion? Are you saying that everyone that is mistaken is deluded? If I see someone or something, and think it is something that it is not, I am deluded? This just massively redefines the term delusion. Either way, the Police officers intent was deception, in the same way God's intent was deception. He goaded people into a scenario where they would believe or continue to believe something that was untrue. If you don't consider this deceptive behavior, what do you think the definition of deception is?
And yes you did, you claimed God was a liar, and I asked you were did you get that idea, and you gave me the scripture. Thats exactly what happened.
I still maintain God is a liar, I just want you to get the facts straight, I didn't say that if someone is deluded that they are being lied to. I said that God specifically in this case lied to people by deluding them into believing or continuing to believe something that was not true. His intent was deception and that's what makes him a liar.
What?? I am quoting every thing that I respond to, what why do you keep saying I dont read it. If I am responding to it, i am reading it. But anwayz, you want quotes, I thought you would never ask...
"Most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe" (Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology, 1978, P.C.W Davies)
"At this singularity, space and time came into existence, literally nothing existed before the singularity" (John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principal 1986)
"The universe began from a state of infinite density about one Hubble time ago. Space was created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe."
(Will the Universe Expand Forever? Scientific American, March 1976. Pg 65 James Gunn, Beatrice Tinsley)
"The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural" (Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe, New York, Macmillian, 1933, pg 24)
"Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang" (Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, 1996, pg 20)
So as I said, you are very late. STEM began to exist, this is actual and factual.
Very... ahhhh... modern? 1996 is the most recent quote there and then 1986 and that ends up at 1933? Really? This is the best you could do? OK well fortunately the most recent piece doesn't conflict with what I am trying to say. i never stated that the universe did not begin to exist, i object to what you think that implies though. You think it means that the singularity came into existence. This is false, the beginning of the universe is marked as the expansion of the singularity which means that the singularity already existed at the beginning of the universe. So the only relatively modern evidence you gave does nothing to support your notion of the singularity coming into existence.
God created the space that space expanded in to, obviously. The point is, out of nothing, nothing comes.
Yet God can effect nothing? How? Nothing doesn't have the property that allows things to be effected. It has no properties, no attributes. How can God create any effect at all out of nothing?