Is genocide ok if God tells you to do it?

[painted wolf]

Religious/political propaganda doesn't equal truth.

Quite frankly the modern position of not harming civilians during a war... is very very modern.
Highlighting the ancient Hebrews as bad for killing civilians is frankly pathetic given the realities of warfare prior to the Geneva Conventions.

wa:do

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Assuming a hypothetical in this situation just doesn't work.

I say this because if we know that the ancient Hebrews never committed genocide, and we're not even sure that God exists, it doesn't make sense to abuse ancient Hebrew myths to explore something that is obviously against both Jewish and Christian teachings.

That's why it's a strawman.

 

[Humanistheart]

Assuming a hypothetical in this situation just doesn't work.

I say this because if we know that the ancient Hebrews never committed genocide, and we're not even sure that God exists, it doesn't make sense to abuse ancient Hebrew myths to explore something that is obviously against both Jewish and Christian teachings.

That's why it's a strawman.

Obviously against jewish and christian teaching? The original thread was the question of weather or not commiting genocide if god tell's one to is wrong. While most 'believers' have come to recognize that the bible is not a history book, it is still held with them that it contains spiritual truth. So weather a story happened or not in real life is somewhat irrelevant to them. Historically we know the hebrew people were never enslaved in egypt, that genesis is completely wrong in every possible way, and we have no solid proof that Jesus actually ever lived. Obviously the historical inaccuracies take a back-seat to the spiritual truths these people feel the bible teaches other wise no one would believe in the bible or god at all. So saying that these things never hitorically happened means very little in a conversation which was set on the hypothetical premise that the abrahamic god is real.

And if you think genocide is not a part of christian teaching perhaps your forgetting the imfamous cathlic slogan during the crusades "Kill them all and let god sort out his own" which they did. Men, women, and children, christians jews and muslims, all were slaughtered at the hands of the catholic church. And sadly this is only one of many many examples.

However, with that said it is true that the jewish people have amazingly civil restrictions for when they wage war. Very progressive particularly for the time in which they were established.

 

[Dunemeister]

Assuming a hypothetical in this situation just doesn't work.

I say this because if we know that the ancient Hebrews never committed genocide, and we're not even sure that God exists, it doesn't make sense to abuse ancient Hebrew myths to explore something that is obviously against both Jewish and Christian teachings.

That's why it's a strawman.

The issue is whether genocide is "ok" if God commands it. Seems to me that assuming the hypothetical is not only appropriate, it's necessary.

 

[Dunemeister]

You are equating authority and morality, as I think you have done before. It is one thing to say there is no higher authority, but is there a higher morality? I am prepared to say that genocide is immoral, and I base that on a higher morality than “God”. If “God” (hypothetically) orders genocide then that is all the evidence that I require to say that “God” is immoral.

To disobey “God” may be anti-authoritarian, but it is not necessarily immoral.

Well, I guess here we must agree to disagree.

 

[Dunemeister]

I agree, the idea that someone would follow an immoral act because they have some kind of 'authority' is the kind of thinking that allowed the halocaust to happen. Morality and authority are not inherently connected.

Ah, but they are. Most ethical disputes devolve into "Yeah, who says?" So authority is not tangential, it is central.

God, ex hypothesis, commands humans not to kill. That means that we are not to take it upon ourselves to take the life of another human being. That does not mean God can't arrange for the death of someone. Our lives are not our own, after all, they are a (temporary) gift from God. He can give and he can take away, blessed be his name. And in his arrangement for someone's death, he can use a human instrument.

That's why I say the issue isn't so much whether murder is immoral. I grant it. But that law, even as it appears in the law of God, governs OUR behavior, not God's.

Now, I understand why there might be a bias against making authority a central issue in ethics. Ours is a generation steeped in narcissism. We feel we can do what we want when we want so long as we don't hurt anyone else (and we get to decide what "hurt" means). We believe in rights, not social responsibility. We believe in free expression, not civility. We believe in doing what feels good now rather than self restraint and delayed gratification. We believe in the autonomy of the individual and we have a natural aversion to authority. And all these trends muddle our view of ethics. In particular, we separate ethics from authority and thus believe that we can, on our own, without reference to any authority whatsoever, determine the parameters of our own behavior. That's a recipe for social dissolution, not an ordered, civil, loving society.

 

[Dunemeister]

Obviously against jewish and christian teaching? The original thread was the question of weather or not commiting genocide if god tell's one to is wrong. While most 'believers' have come to recognize that the bible is not a history book, it is still held with them that it contains spiritual truth. So weather a story happened or not in real life is somewhat irrelevant to them.

Ahem. The bible, where it speaks historically using historical narrative, is a history book. Just like any other history book, it is told from a perspective and the author has selected his sources and arranged the narrative to say something important about that history.

Historically we know the hebrew people were never enslaved in egypt, that genesis is completely wrong in every possible way, and we have no solid proof that Jesus actually ever lived.

We know no such things.

Obviously the historical inaccuracies take a back-seat to the spiritual truths these people feel the bible teaches other wise no one would believe in the bible or god at all. So saying that these things never hitorically happened means very little in a conversation which was set on the hypothetical premise that the abrahamic god is real.

Well, I believe the histories as told in scripture, and I think that the history is important. Judeo-Christian religion is quite unique in the central role history plays in its theology. For they are religions about God's actions WITHIN history. Without the history, it all crumbles to dust.

And if you think genocide is not a part of christian teaching perhaps your forgetting the imfamous cathlic slogan during the crusades "Kill them all and let god sort out his own" which they did. Men, women, and children, christians jews and muslims, all were slaughtered at the hands of the catholic church. And sadly this is only one of many many examples.

However, with that said it is true that the jewish people have amazingly civil restrictions for when they wage war. Very progressive particularly for the time in which they were established.[/quote]

 

[Humanistheart]

Ah, but they are. Most ethical disputes devolve into "Yeah, who says?" So authority is not tangential, it is central.

God, ex hypothesis, commands humans not to kill. That means that we are not to take it upon ourselves to take the life of another human being. That does not mean God can't arrange for the death of someone. Our lives are not our own, after all, they are a (temporary) gift from God. He can give and he can take away, blessed be his name. And in his arrangement for someone's death, he can use a human instrument.

That's why I say the issue isn't so much whether murder is immoral. I grant it. But that law, even as it appears in the law of God, governs OUR behavior, not God's.

Now, I understand why there might be a bias against making authority a central issue in ethics. Ours is a generation steeped in narcissism. We feel we can do what we want when we want so long as we don't hurt anyone else (and we get to decide what "hurt" means). We believe in rights, not social responsibility. We believe in free expression, not civility. We believe in doing what feels good now rather than self restraint and delayed gratification. We believe in the autonomy of the individual and we have a natural aversion to authority. And all these trends muddle our view of ethics. In particular, we separate ethics from authority and thus believe that we can, on our own, without reference to any authority whatsoever, determine the parameters of our own behavior. That's a recipe for social dissolution, not an ordered, civil, loving society.

And who gave god the right to create sentient species as his play thing? The fact is god cannot be an objective morality base. God is a being, powerful sure, but a being. As you said many debates can disolve to "Who said so?" and this can work for god as well. I am a being, I disagree with his moral stance. Who's to say I'm wrong? God could say I'm wrong and it means no more than if I say he's wrong. Power does not equite to true morality, simply the ability to force your personal morality on others, not unlike Stalin or Hitler.

And how can laws of ethics only apply to humans and not god? It's like if I curse then ground my daughter for using the same foul word. Totaly hypocrasy. Why follow a hypocrite?

And keep in mind that no where in the hebrew bible does god say do not kill, this is a poor translatation found in bibles like the King James Version. The most accurate way to translate it is "thou shalt not murder" and murder is relative to the societies laws. In fact the opposite is true, god encourages the killing of humans by humans quite often if you read the bible.

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

 

[Humanistheart]

Ahem. The bible, where it speaks historically using historical narrative, is a history book. Just like any other history book, it is told from a perspective and the author has selected his sources and arranged the narrative to say something important about that history

Yes, we do know that the hebrew people were never enslaved in egypt. There is nothing outside the bible to suggeset this, and we're talking about egypt here. This is a land that preserves history weather it wants to or not, and there has never been ANYTHING found in egypt that even hints that the hebrew people were there. But if you think this is not the case, your welcome to site some empiracle proof that I'm not aware of.

 

[fantome profane]

I realize that this is a hypothetical discussion, concerning events that likely did not happen. But I would like to remind people that the concept is not entirely hypothetical. In reality, everyday, people perform incredibly immoral acts because they are absolutely certain that “God” told them to do it. Scan through this board and it won’t take you that long to find someone supporting immoral discrimination on the basis of race, religion or gender and telling us that this immoral activity is moral because “God” told them to do it. People will strap explosives to themselves with the intent to kill and injure as many people as possible, people blow up buildings and busses, behead innocent people etc. And this will continue to happen until we grow up and start taking responsibility for our own actions.

I don’t want to make this another of those “religion is evil because of terrorism” tirades. That is not what I am saying, this is not about religion, nor is it really about “God”. It is about abdicating our own moral responsibility.

So continue with this hypothetical discussion, but remember that what we think about these hypothetical issues can have real impact.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So continue with this hypothetical discussion, but remember that what we think about these hypothetical issues can have real impact.

And you remember that dressing up the OP as a hypothetical deserving serious consideration is either ignorance or deceit. Specifically ...

when conquering Palestine, the Hebrews committed genocide against a number of peoples there.

... is not positing a hypothetical but spewing ignorant drivel and doing so with an agenda and the clear intent to incite.

 

[Caladan]

Do you have - at the very least - knowledge of archaeological evidence of a genocide caused by ancient Hebrews?

If not, it's a strawman.

If the Bible says that "they did" and we know that they didn't, that sheds some light on how we interpret the text.

Bingo :yes:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

<wink> It had to be frustrating for those poor Israelites who found themselves decimating the Philistines over and over again. </wink>

 

[fantome profane]

And you remember that dressing up the OP as a hypothetical deserving serious consideration is either ignorance or deceit. Specifically ...... is not positing a hypothetical but spewing ignorant drivel and doing so with an agenda and the clear intent to incite.

Are you suggesting that the OP had an anti-Semitic intent? It certainly could be read that way, especially using the term &#8220;Palestine&#8221;. But I interpreted it as a general anti-religious attack delivered in a rather clumsy manner. But I may be naïve.

But in any event let me say that if there is any intended anti-Semitism here it is ridiculous, ignorant and disgusting.



But there is a question here, regardless of how clumsily the question was asked. The idea that an immoral act becomes a &#8220;moral obligation&#8221; because &#8220;God&#8221; commands it is an idea that I feel needs to be addressed. If we accept this hypothetical idea then we must also accept the idea that a man has a &#8220;moral obligation&#8221; to strap explosives to his chest, stuff his pockets with nails and other &#8220;shrapnel&#8221;, walk into a crowd, and blow himself and many other people up &#8211; if hypothetically &#8220;God&#8221; told him to do it. If &#8220;God&#8221; told him to do this (hypothetically) can we still judge this act as immoral? Yes, we can and we must. We cannot allow this idea (regardless of how hypothetical) to justify immorality. We cannot use this idea as an excuse to abandon our own personal moral responsibility, ever, under any conditions.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But there is a question here, regardless of how clumsily the question was asked.

Yes, and the "Euthyphro dilemma" is certainly deserving of a serious thread. Why not start one?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Parenthetically, a Jewish answer might note:

Genesis

22

The me turned from there and went toward Sedom,
but Avraham still stood in the presence of YHWH​

23

Avraham came close and said:
Will you really sweep away the innocent along with the guilty?​

24

Perhaps there are fifty innocent within the city,
will you really sweep it away?
Will you not bear with the place because of the fifty innocent that are in its midst?​

25

Heaven forbid for you to do such a thing like this,
to deal death to the innocent along with the guilty, that it should come about: like the innocent, like the guilty.
Heaven forbid for you!
The judge of all the earth -- will he not do what is just?​

The Jewish sages (with atypical unanimity) laud Abraham for this.

 

[Dunemeister]

And who gave god the right to create sentient species as his play thing?

Who says that's why he created humanity? And if God's the creator, it's absurd to ask who gave him the right to do anything. God doesn't answer to another.

The fact is god cannot be an objective morality base. God is a being, powerful sure, but a being. As you said many debates can disolve to "Who said so?" and this can work for god as well. I am a being, I disagree with his moral stance. Who's to say I'm wrong? God could say I'm wrong and it means no more than if I say he's wrong. Power does not equite to true morality, simply the ability to force your personal morality on others, not unlike Stalin or Hitler.

It's not God's power, but his authority that gives him the right. His power might provide some incentive for creatures to obey, but that's not what gives him the right to determine what's right and wrong. Besides, God doesn't "determine" what's right and wrong. God is the way he is, and God's personality, plans, intentions, and creative purposes determine what the rules are for us. It's not as if God has to think about what's moral.

And how can laws of ethics only apply to humans and not god? It's like if I curse then ground my daughter for using the same foul word. Totaly hypocrasy. Why follow a hypocrite?

Again, the issue has to do with the distinction between the wise creator and the ignorant creature. Being the creator gives God certain rights that do not apply to his creatures.

And keep in mind that no where in the hebrew bible does god say do not kill, this is a poor translatation found in bibles like the King James Version. The most accurate way to translate it is "thou shalt not murder" and murder is relative to the societies laws. In fact the opposite is true, god encourages the killing of humans by humans quite often if you read the bible.

This is precisely what I'm getting at. Murder is a high-handed killing, arrogating to yourself a right that you don't actually possess to take the life of another. God has the right, but we don't. Thus there are times when God directly kills and also when God uses human proxies. And he also provides legal mechanisms that involve the killing of offenders (i.e., capital punishment).

 

[Humanistheart]

Who says that's why he created humanity? And if God's the creator, it's absurd to ask who gave him the right to do anything. God doesn't answer to another.

Then I can say I don't answer to another. Simple as that. Which means your god has no authority over me. If you can't site a reasons for why god would have authority your argument means nothing. Plus, you are obviously not familiar with all theological concepts concerning this god. According to some traditions, god and his wife, came from their parents, who came from their parents, who came from their parents, and so on and so forth. There are beings with a higher level of perfection and power. If one of them decides to see how this god is raising his children, see's the world like this and kicks his butt out of our realm then how much will you claiming he has authority matter? Not one bit. So no, he has no authority.

It's not God's power, but his authority that gives him the right. His power might provide some incentive for creatures to obey, but that's not what gives him the right to determine what's right and wrong. Besides, God doesn't "determine" what's right and wrong. God is the way he is, and God's personality, plans, intentions, and creative purposes determine what the rules are for us. It's not as if God has to think about what's moral.

Your right on the last sentance, god never thinks about what is moral. The bible makes that clear, he has no concept of morality what so ever.


Again, the issue has to do with the distinction between the wise creator and the ignorant creature. Being the creator gives God certain rights that do not apply to his creatures.

Wise creator? You must have a different definition of wise than the rest of us. Unless you think that child abuse, slavery, racism, mass genocide, and calling bats birds is 'wise'.

This is precisely what I'm getting at. Murder is a high-handed killing, arrogating to yourself a right that you don't actually possess to take the life of another. God has the right, but we don't. Thus there are times when God directly kills and also when God uses human proxies. And he also provides legal mechanisms that involve the killing of offenders (i.e., capital punishment).

God has the right? Why? You have not yet once demonstrated why god 'has the right'. Not in one post have you shown why this would be the case. What exactly is your logic behind this? Originally you said it was authority, but you never deomonstrated why he'd have said authority or what it would be based on, and you already ruled out power as a bases for this. So what prey-tell are you basing that immoral claim on?

 

[fantome profane]

Yes, and the "Euthyphro dilemma" is certainly deserving of a serious thread. Why not start one?

As a matter of fact,……I did.
Euthyphro's Dilemma

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As a matter of fact,……I did.
Euthyphro's Dilemma

I stand corrected. Well done ... :clap