Is a god who orders the killing of his children a monster?

[_maklelan]

Mak,

A couple observations.

1) Even if we follow your line of reasoning, you've not justified the extent of the violence. One example, after sacking midian, and after any lurking threat remained, Moses went ape because women and children were spared. All the children and non-virgins were then killed.

Well, you make it sound like killing everyone but the children and non-virgins was ok, but then killing them was bad. What kind of life would the parent-less children have had? Do you feel like there are times when death is better than life? Many people from the past and present certainly do.

2) Consistency. One of the biggest issues Christians supposidly have with atheists is to their minds, atheists have no 'objective' or 'absolute' moral standards. Yet as soon as someone brings up the Old Testemant, they all become moral relativists. So broadly speaking, if you're prepared to defend God on consequential grounds or by cultural norms, you'll have to accept that most atheists are at least in the right metaethic ballpark even if the details are in dispute.

This is a thin line that you paint, and I believe it is important. I think a big difference between my perception of the manner in which our capacity and our environment influence the commandments of god, and moral relativity is the concept of necessity. While moral relativists generally try to push the envelope as far as society lets them, God pulls the envelope in the other direction as far as is practical. I think moral relativism operates under completely different priorities and values. It would take a much longer post to fully address this, and I've got to get home to the wife. I appreciate your thoughts.

[_Dr. Shades]

Oh well done, Mak. Now you got us demoted. and you think I'm the one who's full of it?

Harmony, it wasn't a demotion, as I explicitly stated. On the contrary, it was a routine administrative reclassification.

I formally and emphatically request that an ignore button be instituted, or that I retain the right as author of this thread to ask certain people not to participate.

Keene has stated that he's not sure he agrees with such a thing philosophically. I can see his logic.

I am utterly speechless at how such ludicrous statements go unnoticed by otherwise intelligent peopel around here. Is there anyone in all of this board who can please say at least one sentence about the reality of what this person is saying, because she's either a figment of my imagination come to torment me or no one wants to interact with this individual. Someone please tell me I'm not losing my mind and that someone is really saying the thngs that are being posted by this person, because they completely defy all description.

Welcome to the world of Internet message boards. You're describing a universal affliction. I'm sure everyone who has ever participated on any Internet message board at any time has felt the exact same way about someone, probably more than one person and probably more than once. Trust me, I know exactly how you feel; I've been there!

The only cure is to simply get used to it. That's it. As long as her mode of expression is forum-appropriate, she (and everyone else) is entitled to her opinion--and, unlike at MA&D, free to express it. Remember, you have the same rights, so the playing field is level.

[_Roger Morrison]

Oh well done, Mak. Now you got us demoted. and you think I'm the one who's full of it?

I formally and emphatically request that an ignore button be instituted, or that I retain the right as author of this thread to ask certain people not to participate. I am utterly speechless at how such ludicrous statements go unnoticed by otherwise intelligent peopel around here. Is there anyone in all of this board who can please say at least one sentence about the reality of what this person is saying, because she's either a figment of my imagination come to torment me or no one wants to interact with this individual. Someone please tell me I'm not losing my mind and that someone is really saying the thngs that are being posted by this person, because they completely defy all description.

Come-on Mak, chill out :-) Do you not see the # of hits & the # of replies? Lots of folks are being amused here...
MANY REALLY intelligent folks don't engage in these mental exercises. Others of us quite enjoy them. It's not a matter of winning Bro. It's the thrill of the game. Enjoy it! You're on display!

"This person"--Harmony--i have found to be most engaging. She challenges a lot of BS and blah, blah of some, but i personally find her to be very astute and expresses HER opinions in no uncertain terms. THAT, is to be appreciated. She'd make a good GA :-) I like her, and you too...

Yer not losing yer mind. You are exercising it. And, i respectfully suggest it's for the better. Me thinks ya could learn a lesson by listening to the old Kenny Rogers tune, "The Gambler"...

I'll respond to your response to my post, tomorrow... Warm regards, Roger

[_maklelan]

Oh well done, Mak. Now you got us demoted. and you think I'm the one who's full of it?

I formally and emphatically request that an ignore button be instituted, or that I retain the right as author of this thread to ask certain people not to participate. I am utterly speechless at how such ludicrous statements go unnoticed by otherwise intelligent peopel around here. Is there anyone in all of this board who can please say at least one sentence about the reality of what this person is saying, because she's either a figment of my imagination come to torment me or no one wants to interact with this individual. Someone please tell me I'm not losing my mind and that someone is really saying the thngs that are being posted by this person, because they completely defy all description.

Come-on Mak, chill out :-) Do you not see the # of hits & the # of replies? Lots of folks are being amused here...
MANY REALLY intelligent folks don't engage in these mental exercises. Others of us quite enjoy them. It's not a matter of winning Bro. It's the thrill of the game. Enjoy it! You're on display!

"This person"--Harmony--i have found to be most engaging. She challenges a lot of BS and blah, blah of some, but i personally find her to be very astute and expresses HER opinions in no uncertain terms. THAT, is to be appreciated. She'd make a good GA :-) I like her, and you too...

Yer not losing yer mind. You are exercising it. And, i respectfully suggest it's for the better. Me thinks ya could learn a lesson by listening to the old Kenny Rogers tune, "The Gambler"...

I'll respond to your response to my post, tomorrow... Warm regards, Roger

I'm not used to people coming out and building an argument by falsely accusing me of the exact things that they never cease to do. I'm used to arguments of a more reserved and scholarly nature. I'll try to chill out, but the whole reason I'm here is to try to learn something from people with a different perspective. It may not seem like it with all the disagreeing I do, but I enjoy having to admit that I'm wrong, and I enjoy when someone who knows an issue better than me brings up considerations I've never seen. I have to say that they are few and far between here. You are definitely one of the posters that can present a level argument and appreciate the rebuttal. Thanks.

[_guy sajer]

Makelan, let's try to bring this back to reasoned discourse.

I agree with the general premise that morality is, to an extent, relative. What is perceived as moral or immoral is as often as not determined by contemporary culture, or in other cases, traditions passed down from generation to generation. Moreover, many of those living within those cultures do not posses either the tradition, framework, experience, etc. to critically reflect on the general mores of that culture.

I agree, moreover, that within the context of a particular culture, slaughter of innocents or other seemingly "immoral" acts by contemporary standards, may be perceived as "moral."

I agree that it is not always appropriate to judge beliefs and behavior of those living in the past using contemporary moral principles, that it is at times more appropriate to judge them according to the social mores of the times. A similar argument can be made for contemporary societies and cultures.

I feel at times a strong connection with certain "moral relativistic" arguments. Humans are complex moral creatures; simultaneously capable of base barabarity and great moral nobility. We are also inconsistent; at times invoking formalistic principles to critique behavior and at times invoking utilitarian principles.

If we were arguming about the morality of slaughter of innocents within the context of Ancient Near East Culture, then I think your arguments make sense.

But, as I see it, when we introduce God into the mix, it fundamentally changes the nature of the debate, and we inevitably have to consider morality of God, and we have to try to explain how a God, who presumably possesses the virtuous characteristics attributed to him by Christian theology can be, as it were, a mass murderer. You appear to want us to ignore this inconsistency and to limit our discussion on this to the framework you have proposed. However, to me, and it appears many of us, this inconsistency is too big to ignore, and it is, moreover, fundamentally relevant to understanding the question you pose. You, in turn, became frustrated with us that we would not engage in debate according to the rules and framework you proposed. Rather than acknowledge that we don't concede to limiting our remarks to this framework, you accuse us of faulty logic.

Your proposed framework makes sense, and it appears to provide a way to understand the observed phenomenon. However, our objection is that the conclusion it leads us to is a lousy conclusion. One can construct an argument that is sound, internally consistent, but still reach a "wrong" conclusion. (For example, economists use math to impose a rigid formalization in their theories; but these logically consistent theories often yield hypotheses that are invalidated by empirical evidence.)

You attempt to deal with the observed inconsistency, as I understand you, by arguing that God uses the conventional morality of human society to achieve his ends. God is, in other words, a utilitarian pragmatist (a position that, by the way, is contradictory to the principled God advocated by Mormon theology).

I do not find a utilitarian pragmatism to be a satisfactory moral framework to understand God. Rather, I prefer to frame the question of God’s morality within a formalist moral framework suggested by Rawls’ “Veil of Ignorance,” which is at its heart more or less equivalent to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I also believe in the inviolability of the individual as the First moral principle.

In line with this framework, I categorically reject the notion of a God who resorts to murder to achieve his ends, and also within this framework, the prevailing cultural mores of society are irrelevant in evaluating God’s morality. I also reject the notion of a God who so blatantly favors some of his children over others. (This is what Harmony is arguing.)

Let me add in conclusion that even if we accept your moral philosophy, this framework still does not account for genocide—drowning all of humanity in a global flood—nor in the death and destruction inflicted by God immediately prior to his visit to the Americas. Neither of these acts of mass murder satisfies the criteria you have established for using murder as a pragmatic means of national survival.

Oh yeah, one more thing. I am not jumping in to rescue you from Harmony, because I understand perfectly what she is saying.

[_maklelan]

Makelan, let's try to bring this back to reasoned discourse.

I agree with the general premise that morality is, to an extent, relative. What is perceived as moral or immoral is as often as not determined by contemporary culture, or in other cases, traditions passed down from generation to generation. Moreover, many of those living within those cultures do not posses either the tradition, framework, experience, etc. to critically reflect on the general mores of that culture.

I agree, moreover, that within the context of a particular culture, slaughter of innocents or other seemingly "immoral" acts by contemporary standards, may be perceived as "moral."

I agree that it is not always appropriate to judge beliefs and behavior of those living in the past using contemporary moral principles, that it is at times more appropriate to judge them according to the social mores of the times. A similar argument can be made for contemporary societies and cultures.

I feel at times a strong connection with certain "moral relativistic" arguments. Humans are complex moral creatures; simultaneously capable of base barabarity and great moral nobility. We are also inconsistent; at times invoking formalistic principles to critique behavior and at times invoking utilitarian principles.

If we were arguming about the morality of slaughter of innocents within the context of Ancient Near East Culture, then I think your arguments make sense.

Thank you. I think you get my point.

But, as I see it, when we introduce God into the mix, it fundamentally changes the nature of the debate, and we inevitably have to consider morality of God, and we have to try to explain how a God, who presumably possesses the virtuous characteristics attributed to him by Christian theology can be, as it were, a mass murderer. You appear to want us to ignore this inconsistency and to limit our discussion on this to the framework you have proposed. However, to me, and it appears many of us, this inconsistency is too big to ignore, and it is, moreover, fundamentally relevant to understanding the question you pose. You, in turn, became frustrated with us that we would not engage in debate according to the rules and framework you proposed. Rather than acknowledge that we don't concede to limiting our remarks to this framework, you accuse us of faulty logic.

Part of my frustration stems from the fact that I could not get anyone to respond to the points I felt were particularly strong. For instance, the point was made several times that through the commandments that God gives us we can arrive at his own morality. I shared what I believe to be a very relevant analogy about a father and child, but the analogy is glossed over as people continue to assert the prior position.

Your proposed framework makes sense, and it appears to provide a way to understand the observed phenomenon. However, our objection is that the conclusion it leads us to is a lousy conclusion. One can construct an argument that is sound, internally consistent, but still reach a "wrong" conclusion. (For example, economists use math to impose a rigid formalization in their theories; but these logically consistent theories often yield hypotheses that are invalidated by empirical evidence.)

You attempt to deal with the observed inconsistency, as I understand you, by arguing that God uses the conventional morality of human society to achieve his ends. God is, in other words, a utilitarian pragmatist (a position that, by the way, is contradictory to the principled God advocated by Mormon theology).

I think it's a little more involved than that, and I think his commandments keep his children ahead of the curve, which I believe is ultimately intended to influence society, either bringing them closer or bringing their iniquity to overflowing, as it were. I don't agree that this perspective contradicts the nature of God as outlined in the scriptures and the words of the prophets.

I do not find a utilitarian pragmatism to be a satisfactory moral framework to understand God. Rather, I prefer to frame the question of God’s morality within a formalist moral framework suggested by Rawls’ “Veil of Ignorance,” which is at its heart more or less equivalent to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I also believe in the inviolability of the individual as the First moral principle.

In line with this framework, I categorically reject the notion of a God who resorts to murder to achieve his ends, and also within this framework, the prevailing cultural mores of society are irrelevant in evaluating God’s morality. I also reject the notion of a God who so blatantly favors some of his children over others. (This is what Harmony is arguing.)

I think that's a fine framework to subscribe to, but do you feel that there are circumstances in which it is self-destructive? I believe those circumstances have existed, and desperate measures have been called for.

As far as harmony is concerned, anyone at all versed in Mormon perspectives on death, often hastening one's journey to the other side is a favor. A consideration that seems to be overlooked is that death is not always an evil thing. If it is a "better place," then why is it so evil for God to expedite the process. He giveth, and I believe he has every right to take away.

Let me add in conclusion that even if we accept your moral philosophy, this framework still does not account for genocide—drowning all of humanity in a global flood—nor in the death and destruction inflicted by God immediately prior to his visit to the Americas. Neither of these acts of mass murder satisfies the criteria you have established for using murder as a pragmatic means of national survival.

So now we switch to the question of God doing the killing himself? I tend to feel that everyone dies according to the will of God. If it all happens at once because of an accident, or sporadically because of natural means, it is God calling that person home every single time. Is it really justified for the creation who owes his life to God to criticize him for deciding when to call him home?

Oh yeah, one more thing. I am not jumping in to rescue you from Harmony, because I understand perfectly what she is saying.

And what of her accusation that I have ignored her?

[_harmony]

In line with this framework, I categorically reject the notion of a God who resorts to murder to achieve his ends, and also within this framework, the prevailing cultural mores of society are irrelevant in evaluating God’s morality. I also reject the notion of a God who so blatantly favors some of his children over others. (This is what Harmony is arguing.)

Let me add in conclusion that even if we accept your moral philosophy, this framework still does not account for genocide—drowning all of humanity in a global flood—nor in the death and destruction inflicted by God immediately prior to his visit to the Americas. Neither of these acts of mass murder satisfies the criteria you have established for using murder as a pragmatic means of national survival.

Oh yeah, one more thing. I am not jumping in to rescue you from Harmony, because I understand perfectly what she is saying.

I just wanted to bring this to the top again, so someone who shall remain nameless can see that one of the most intelligent men I've ever known on the internet or anywhere else understands what I wrote!

He's a lot smarter than me, and he's a lot more learned than I am, and he's got a lot more letters of the alphabet behind his name, but he understands what I wrote!

Thank you.

[_The Dude]

I agree with much of what you said, Maklelan.

...the course of human history made killing a necessity back then...

I agree. The course of human history made it necessary for all that killing, so God commanding it was completely UN-necessary. Does God need to command man to drink water when he's thirsty and pee when his bladder is full? I think not.

...God's personal morality is in no way manifested in a commandment to kill...

I agree. Man's morality of the time was manifested in killing and then turning around and saying it was god's command (and building a religion out of it). Nowdays, when someone kills, we give him no credit for pushing the blame onto god, but back then it was quite the norm. The morality of the times was manifested, naturally, and now it is quite different. We have changed.

We agree on all of this except for the part that you believe them when they said God commanded them to kill. Why is that? Should you, maybe, examine that assumption a bit more?

I go on to mention that God's personal morality is in no way manifested in a commandment to kill, and is therefore a weak argument against the existence of God (based on the idea that God would have had to change to become the new and improved benevolent God, which God can't do).

I agree. It's a terrible argument against the existence of God. There are much better arguments, but that's not what I'm trying to say.

OTOH, I think it's a very good argument against the Old Testament as representing God's word. It's the very argument made by deists like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, who believed in God, but thought the Hebrew and Christian conceptions of God were superstitious nonsense and degrading to 18th century morality. Now we're in the 21st century: it's not a pretty sight the way you still have to bend over backwards trying to justify it all.

Your post decides, without explaining how, that God was made in the image of Israel...

Kind of like you decide, without explaining how, that God really did command the israelites to do things that everybody else was already doing without God's command. Why is that?

It appears to me that you decided that arguing for or against the existence of God according to the premise of this thread is not necessary <snip insult>

Sometimes it's better to think outside the box instead of arguing according to someone else's premises. You know? I started with different assumptions because they made more sense to me than yours did, and the end result is that I also resolve the apparent conflict between the morality of the Old Testament and the very different morality that we have today. In the process, I'm not passing judgement on the ancient israelites and I'm not passing judgement on God's morality -- I'm questioning the sort of connection between the two!

Somehow, your efforts at imagining "all the reasons why a God could give those commandments without being powerless or non-existent," seems like a lot of hot air.

[_harmony]

And what of her accusation that I have ignored her?

You ignored what I wrote. Plain and simple, you didn't even read it, did you? You allowed your animosity towards me cloud your vision, your eyes crossed with anger, and that got in the way of you actually seeing what was said, and so you ignored what I wrote. You ratched up your rhetoric with every post, until finally you were so pissed off, you lost control of your argument, bolded every word and screamed your frustration, demanding that I not be allowed to post on threads you start, and trying to gain support for your animosity from the others here. You asked Shades to change the way this entire forum is run, an unthinkable thing for anyone who really believes in the purpose of this forum. You sounded like you were running to Mom and Dad, screaming... "MOM! DAD! HARMONY'S BEING MEAN TO ME! MAKE HER PLAY NICE!" or you'll take you ball and go home. And why? Because you don't think the same way I do, so you automatically consigned anything I said/say to garbage. You aren't the first; you won't be the last. But that doesn't make you right and me wrong. That just makes you the one screaming in the night. I've been known to frustrate the best (that would be DCP, in case you've forgotten), but even the Great One himself could not get around my basic argument.

In the words of my oldest daughter, when her middle school students whine: deal with it.

I thought you were pretty smart. I've since reconsidered that. You've managed to convince me otherwise. Guy understands my point; Roger understands me (he's one of the few I've ever seen who actually does understand me. Too bad he's a married Canadian.). You failed on both points. You claim to be here to learn. So learn. Learn to deal constructively with someone whose thinking you don't understand. I've learned from you. Heck, I've even learned from Wade (and that's a concession!). You'll only learn here if you figure out how to deal with everyone, give credit where it's due even when that hurts, and understand that you can learn something constructive from every single person here.

You know how to get me to leave your thread alone. You asked me once before to do so, and as soon as you asked, I did. Screaming at Shades to change his forum is not the way to make that happen. If you can't deal with me, just say so, but be man enough to own up to it. Don't try to make Shades go against the purpose of his board. And don't assume I'm going to ignore every thread. That's neither kosher nor fair. You trying to muzzle someone doesn't work here. I'll be polite if I think I've made my point (which I have on this thread), but muzzling me is something the apologists have been trying to do for years. I've been banned from almost as many boards as PP, not because they had cause, but because they simply couldn't deal with what I said.

[_Trinity]

Hi Maklelan,

I appreciate reading your post on this topic, so thank you for starting it. I have noticed a particular phenomenon that exbelieving Mormon (that have never been in another christian religion previous to their Mormonism) tend to have a harsher viewpoint of God, and also have a greater tendency to completely abandon a belief in God altogether when they go through the process of disbelieving Mormonism.

I'd like to explore a theory that it is the King Follett concept of man progressing towards God and that God was once a man that contributes greatly to this phenomenon. I think that when humans mentally bridge the God/Man gap they essentially "mortalize" God in a manner that makes it unavoidable for them to mentally project man-like traits, behaviors, etc onto God. The whole notion that God is our father and we are God embryos creates such a setting. God doesn't get a pass because God is/was just like us. The same rules apply.

Do you think being raised in such an embryo mentality skews the concept of God for Mormons dealing with challenges or loss of faith? I know people who were converts to Mormonism from another christian religion, and they appeared to more easily transition out of Mormon theology without throwing God out with the bathwater. God, for them, is a presence untouchable, unknowable, all divine and protected.

Maybe I am up in the night, but as a long-time Mormon turned agnostic I have had ample time to ponder about why I am not inclined to give this God of my upbringing a pass for seemingly poor behavior. Like so many who have posted on this board, viewing God as a father figure sours my perception of him.