Mormon Worldview

[drumdude]

Bombing cities kills women and children.

Huckelberry,

I hope you can understand the difference between deliberate killing of infants under the command from God and children who are killed unintentionally through modern warfare.

I would never morally equate the bombing of Dresden which killed many innocent children with this story from the Bible where God commanded the murder of every single infant.

Under the divine command theory, any atrocity that God commands is moral by definition. I think that is immoral.

You alluded to some hypothetical where the murder of every single infant is necessary to satisfy some higher good. I think that’s an unrealistic post hoc justification.

When one man says God told him to rape and murder we call him delusional. When the Jews say God told them to rape and murder we call it moral? I’m calling out that insane double standard.

[sock puppet]

1 Samuel 15: 3

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”

I have a moral intuition that this is wrong. I also have an education that leads me to believe this is just a man made fiction, or an exaggeration of what happened historically. The Christian has to do a lot of mental gymnastics to reconcile it, whereas I can see it for what it is. A barbaric relic of humanity’s past.

In your world, if you think God is telling you to kill an infant you will do it because you believe he has the authority to. That’s immoral to me.

You claim to have a moral foundation but that foundation is often rotten and is worse than no foundation at all. I can make a better foundation now by saying intentionally killing infants during war is always wrong.

Drumdude, I do not know a reason to think pgm would think God is telling him to kill an infant. What would be happening to give him such an idea? Such ideas do not happen by accident but they could arise under strong circumstantial pressure. That would have to be circumstances plus the best moral reasoning a person could muster. However we see the Amalikites with our complete ignorance about them,it is clear that some Isrealites thought they were enough danger that they had to be destroyed in war. That would have been a decision based upon their best moral reasoning, the same sorts of reasoning you realize all humans must use.

Killing children in war is not something confined to the ancient past it has happened in all wars in the past hundred years. Bombing cities kills women and children.

This biblical story is troubling. When someone, like Samuel, is telling another person, here Saul, to "hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord" (1 Samuel 15:1), the listener often pushes aside his "moral compass" because, after all, it is "the Lord" instructing. Many will do/not do whatever another human being tells them if announced as "the words of the Lord." It is an insidious charlatan that prefaces what he wants another to do as if it is "the Lord's" instructions.

Or justification for immoral behavior might be the product of self-delusion about "the Lord", like Nephi slaying Laban because (per 1 Nephi 4:10-12):

10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.

12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

[huckelberry]

Bombing cities kills women and children.

Huckelberry,

I hope you can understand the difference between deliberate killing of infants under the command from God and children who are killed unintentionally through modern warfare.

I would never morally equate the bombing of Dresden which killed many innocent children with this story from the Bible where God commanded the murder of every single infant.

Under the divine command theory, any atrocity that God commands is moral by definition. I think that is immoral.

You alluded to some hypothetical where the murder of every single infant is necessary to satisfy some higher good. I think that’s an unrealistic post hoc justification.

When one man says God told him to rape and murder we call him delusional. When the Jews say God told them to rape and murder we call it moral? I’m calling out that insane double standard.

drumdude I do not follow divine command theory and I made no hypothetical justifying anything. I observed that people make moral decisions using their mind. I am probably addressing pgm1985 more than you.

I do think the difference about bombing is overblown to ease our conscience over babies blown to bits in Baghdad by our shock and awe.

[drumdude]

I do think the difference about bombing is overblown to ease our conscience over babies blown to bits in Baghdad by our shock and awe.

I’m sorry but I have to keep highlighting this difference. It’s the difference between the Israeli Prime Minister saying “we are now entering Gaza to exterminate every last infant because God told us to” and Bush waging a war on terror with unintentional civilian casualties. A war that utilized precision weaponry that often cost orders of magnitude more than dumb weapons, just because we deliberately tried to minimize civilian casualties.

There is simply no comparison to civilian casualties in war and genocide. To equate the two is to completely disregard all moral reasoning.

[huckelberry]

I do think the difference about bombing is overblown to ease our conscious over babies blown to bits in Bagdad by our shock and awe.

I’m sorry but I have to keep highlighting this difference. It’s the difference between the Israeli Prime Minister saying “we are now entering Gaza to exterminate every last infant because God told us to” and Bush waging a war on terror with unintentional civilian casualties. A war that utilized precision weaponry that often cost orders of magnitude more than dumb weapons, just because we deliberately tried to minimize civilian casualties.

There is simply no comparison to civilian casualties in war and genocide. To equate the two is to completely disregard all moral reasoning.

I did not equate the two; I opened the question as to what moral reasoning is used by people to determine how far the killing of war is going to have to go. I think then as now the decision was made on the basis of an estimate of military necessity. It may not have been the best or only estimate but the Amalekite affair was hardly God’s command dropping out of the sky and the people mindlessly acting. I do not think there was some voice in the sky I think people saw what they thought was necessary.

If one is thinking of God’s direction then for people to hear and recognize the direction they must see the direction as good sense; no other communication link exists. If God commands it must touch an internal awareness and agreement in the human or no communication happens.

[drumdude]

was hardly God’s command dropping out of the sky and the people mindlessly acting. I do not think there was some voice in the sky I think people saw what they thought was necessary.

I doubt it was historically accurate at all, but the moral of the story is what is important to me. The theme of the Old Testament is that the Jews are God’s chosen people and anyone who opposes them will regret it. To the point of losing every infant.

Religions can and do use stories like that to justify any manner of actions. With God on your side, anything is moral.

[Dr. Shades]

I think then as now the decision was made on the basis of an estimate of military necessity.

Then you’re ignoring the clear language of the Bible.

It may not have been the best or only estimate but the Amalekite affair was hardly God’s command dropping out of the sky and the people mindlessly acting.

That’s PRECISELY what it was (other than the fact that it came through a prophet). When you read something, huckleberry, you must pay attention to the actual WORDS.

I do not think there was some voice in the sky I think people saw what they thought was necessary.

Then you’re wrong. You’re inventing your own Bible that says what you wish it said; you’re not reading or comprehending the actual words of the actual Bible.

What’s the point of doing this, huckleberry?

If one is thinking of God’s direction then for people to hear and recognize the direction they must see the direction as good sense; no other communication link exists. If God commands it must touch an internal awareness and agreement in the human or no communication happens.

How did Abraham see the sacrifice of Isaac as good sense?

[huckelberry]

was hardly God’s command dropping out of the sky and the people mindlessly acting. I do not think there was some voice in the sky I think people saw what they thought was necessary.

I doubt it was historically accurate at all, but the moral of the story is what is important to me. The theme of the Old Testament is that the Jews are God’s chosen people and anyone who opposes them will regret it. To the point of losing every infant.

Religions can and do use stories like that to justify any manner of actions. With God on your side, anything is moral.

I suppose they did not realize that Israel got its ass kicked by Assyria Babylon, Egypt and had to pay tribute. Then conquered by Greeks and then Romans.

I thought the theme of the Old Testament was people needed to learn how to be decent courageous and kind to survive. Some factions being a bit slow on the last bit.

[huckelberry]

I think then as now the decision was made on the basis of an estimate of military necessity.

Then you’re ignoring the clear language of the Bible.

It may not have been the best or only estimate but the Amalekite affair was hardly God’s command dropping out of the sky and the people mindlessly acting.

That’s PRECISELY what it was (other than the fact that it came through a prophet). When you read something, huckleberry, you must pay attention to the actual WORDS.

I do not think there was some voice in the sky I think people saw what they thought was necessary.

Then you’re wrong. You’re inventing your own Bible that says what you wish it said; you’re not reading or comprehending the actual words of the actual Bible.

What’s the point of doing this, huckleberry?

If one is thinking of God’s direction then for people to hear and recognize the direction they must see the direction as good sense; no other communication link exists. If God commands it must touch an internal awareness and agreement in the human or no communication happens.

How did Abraham see the sacrifice of Isaac as good sense?

Shades, stories in the Bible are very condensed, an outline with key words. Yes it is presented in the story as Gods command as relayed by Samuel. That gives Saul assurance of God guidance and aid for the undertaking. I realize that there is no discussion about what details lead up to this moment or what people were thinking. I do not think that means they thought nothing and nothing lead up to the moment.

I am puzzled as to why you are missing my observation about a necessary connection between peoples understanding,and moral sense and what they can hear as Gods command. Why and how would something be heard and accepted as Gods word without that connection? Usually skeptics note how much what people think of as Gods word matches what the people want to hear. I think that happens a lot because that is the part people are able to hear(perhaps sometimes it is like conscience nagging even if ignored )

"Abraham kill me a son", yes I know what happens down highway 61. However 3500 years ago sacrifice was an important part of culture, how people thought of things and something assumed to be necessary. Sacrificing a son was somewhat extreme devotion but part of the net of possible expectations.

[huckelberry]

frankly what disturbs me or worries me about this subject is not the possiblity of god make weird violent demands but that humans are given to fears of corruption which bridge valid fears into imaginary and exaggrrated fears of things undermining the order of society. Those might be religious ideas seen as wrong , it might be just people not part of a group. It might be bad political ideas, it might be different sexual orientation.It might be fear of witchcraft it might be fear of Jews. It might be fear of injuns or dreamers at wounded knee.commies or Nazis .