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

[_guy sajer]

Why are the needs of the ancient Isrealites of more importance than the needs of the ancient Canaanites?

More important to whom?

So what if they needed a place to settle! That doesn't give them the right to invade another group's territory.

There was no rule of law back then. You had whatever rights you could keep by force. You're still projecting your own morals into a society where that means nothing.

But what was God's law? You're, in turn, projecting base cultural morals to a God to whom they should mean nothing. If humans are acting on God's direction, at his behest, with his approval, is it unreasonable to expect them to reflect God's morals?

Does God have higher morals than humans?

Is God bound by the cultural mores of human societies?

Is it unreasonable for us to expect that God has higher morals than base society and that those who act on his behalf should embody those higher morals?

We cite examples in which God specifically commanded his agents to kill. These are not examples of people acting according to traditional cultural more but in obedience to God.

We cite examples in which God himself killed, in one case all of humanity.

We cite examples in which God's prophet killed children for merely making fun of him.

We cite exmaples in which God's prophet killed priests of a competing religion.

Is God moral if he purposively kills/murders mortals?

Under what conditions can God kill/murder and still be moral?

Is killing all of humanity moral?

Is killing/murdering sinners moral? (Particularly when the primary sin in question is disobeying God or not heeding his word)

Please answer these simple questions. How many times do we need to restate the questions to get you to understand the point we are trying to make and to provide answers.

[_Roger Morrison]

Malelan, you ask:

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

What did the authors have in mind when they fabricated the god-character? How did the story-teller want the reader to understand this 'god': protagonist or antagonist?

One has to remember the Bible stories go back a loooong way... Why is Judeo mythology taken as more credible than other myths: Greek, Roman, Egyptian...

Is this question related to your other thread: "...In da box?"? Warm regards, Roger

[_maklelan]

And murder isn't offensive?

Now it is, but in a kill-or-be-killed society it's as normal as the weather.

Why is trying to justifying child moslestation more offensive than trying to justify murder, particularly when many of the victims in question are innocent children?

Besides, my comment wasn't meant to be factually accurate, but to demonstrate the absurdity of your position through juxtaposition.

But the juxtaposition only reflects upon my part if there's a relationship in addition to the subjectively offensive nature of both of them, which there isn't.

In any case, ancient societies had varying attitudes and mores toward treatment of (and sex with) under age children. You need to study more. The cultural mores in the West regarding protection of children are relatively recent, and certainly not shared by pre-modern societies, nor by many contemporary non-Western societies.

You attempt to quietly sneak Greek culture into the context of which I speak, but you can't use an umbrella phrase like "ancient societies" when I'm speaking specifically of Old Testament geography. They are entirely different.

Ok, how about another example? How about economic exploitation of children? Did ancient societies protect children from gross economic exploitation (e.g., child labor)? If I found that God sanctioned such behavior, and that his prophets practiced such behavior, would my moral disgust be explained by my presentism?

Some ancient societies did not protect their children, but in the ancient Near East there were strict laws regarding what you could force upon a child (even your adopted child), and there was generally enough slave labor that children weren't even thought of. The laws of Eshnunna, Lipit-Ishtar and Hammurabi all contain several laws addressing the proper treatment and inheritance processes for sons and daughters.

You miss the general point, which you have not addressed, and that is whether one has the right to hold God and those acting on his behalf to exhibit higher morals than base morals of contemporary society and culture, regardles of the age. Does God have eternal laws of morality, or is God's morality bound by our cultural conventions?

And you fail to decouple the morality of God from his requirements for his creations. Is it appropriate for a parent to allow a child to defecate all over themselves? Certainly you don't think that because a parent allows a toddler to do that means the parent does so because they love by the same ethical standards, or thinks it's perfectly acceptable to another adult. God allows his imperfect children (as a whole--not just his chosen people) to establish the context within which he fashions his laws. To do otherwise would be to deprive his children of their agency, which he has promised not to do.

Your argument implies for latter; I am arguing the former.

My argument does no such thing. God has always intended for us to live a higher law, but sometimes that's just not prudent within the world that he has allowed us to develop.

[_maklelan]

But what was God's law? You're, in turn, projecting base cultural morals to a God to whom they should mean nothing. If humans are acting on God's direction, at his behest, with his approval, is it unreasonable to expect them to reflect God's morals?

Actually it's entirely unreasonable. The rules a parent sets for their children are not necessarily an indication of the moral framework by which the parents live, but an indication of the parent's understanding of the needs and capacities of the child as it passes through different stages of development. It's permissible for a toddler to roll around on the ground and make strange noises, but not because the parents do the same thing, it's because they understand that a child has different perceptions of limits.

Does God have higher morals than humans?

Of course.

Is God bound by the cultural mores of human societies?

Of course not.

Is it unreasonable for us to expect that God has higher morals than base society and that those who act on his behalf should embody those higher morals?

To the degree that they can stay alive, of course not.

We cite examples in which God specifically commanded his agents to kill. These are not examples of people acting according to traditional cultural more but in obedience to God.

Because God knows that his children must live in the world and be surrounded by people with different standards. That doesn't mean our standards should be lower just so we all get along, but if our very existence depends on competition with these cultures, God will want us to be able to compete.

We cite examples in which God himself killed, in one case all of humanity.

And, according to the gospel, those souls are better off now for it.

We cite examples in which God's prophet killed children for merely making fun of him.

They weren't children, they were young men, and God's prophet didn't kill them, he just cursed them. The prophet didn't send a bear or order their deaths.

We cite exmaples in which God's prophet killed priests of a competing religion.

No, God killed them, unless you believe that the prophet can control the elements independent of God's will.

Is God moral if he purposively kills/murders mortals?

Yes. He lives by a different law than we do.

Under what conditions can God kill/murder and still be moral?

Whatever conditions he deems to be such. I'm in no position to judge the morality of God's personal choices, I'm only commenting on the state of the world during a time period when you would have them handing out hugs to people who would have wiped out their entire race.

Is killing all of humanity moral?

Depends. What moral framework would you like to judge it by?

Is killing/murdering sinners moral? (Particularly when the primary sin in question is disobeying God or not heeding his word)

Same answer.

Please answer these simple questions. How many times do we need to restate the questions to get you to understand the point we are trying to make and to provide answers.

I've provided answers to every single question you've ever asked, so don't give me that crap. You don't know squat about the ancient Near East or about how we perceive the morality of God. You're also introducing a red herring. Turning the question to address the morality of God's personal actions does not address the issue of the morality of God's children killing others. You've managed to not engage that issue at all.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Yes. They had just left Egypt and needed a place to settle. The closest place had people dwelling in it, and when people came passing through they were automatically assumed to be the enemy. A preemptive strike is not an illogical or immoral course of action in the ancient Near East.

Was it really necessary to strike pre-emptively against women and children?

[_maklelan]

Yes. They had just left Egypt and needed a place to settle. The closest place had people dwelling in it, and when people came passing through they were automatically assumed to be the enemy. A preemptive strike is not an illogical or immoral course of action in the ancient Near East.

Was it really necessary to strike pre-emptively against women and children?

Back then it was.

[_Roger Morrison]

Yes. They had just left Egypt and needed a place to settle. The closest place had people dwelling in it, and when people came passing through they were automatically assumed to be the enemy. A preemptive strike is not an illogical or immoral course of action in the ancient Near East.

Was it really necessary to strike pre-emptively against women and children?

Back then it was.

Only in the barbaric, violence entrusted societies that knew-not "God". Unfortunately many remain loyal to that non-"God" and continue to attempt conflict resolution in ways and means contrary to the teachings of the the "Two New Commandments" given by Jesus.

I'm not sure how to understand Your take on the "pre-emtive strike"??? That it was the norm of the times, do you believe it was encouraged, or condoned, by "God"? IF "God" is an unchanging "God" as many state, are we to assume "God" condones the same slaughter today as in Old Testament times?

How does one reconcile the slaughter of innocents with the "peace" message of Jesus? Wonders Roger...

[_maklelan]

Only in the barbaric, violence entrusted societies that knew-not "God".

And what of the people who had to coexist with them?

Unfortunately many remain loyal to that non-"God" and continue to attempt conflict resolution in ways and means contrary to the teachings of the the "Two New Commandments" given by Jesus.

I'm not sure how to understand Your take on the "pre-emtive strike"??? That it was the norm of the times, do you believe it was encouraged, or condoned, by "God"? IF "God" is an unchanging "God" as many state, are we to assume "God" condones the same slaughter today as in Old Testament times?

A lot of people assume that an unchanging God cannot change his rules, which is false. God adapts our rules to our level of understanding and how well they will help us to survive in the world that has been developed largely through the agency of people who don't know God. We must live in that world.

How does one reconcile the slaughter of innocents with the "peace" message of Jesus? Wonders Roger...

There was no peace message of Jesus in Moses' day.

[_guy sajer]

But what was God's law? You're, in turn, projecting base cultural morals to a God to whom they should mean nothing. If humans are acting on God's direction, at his behest, with his approval, is it unreasonable to expect them to reflect God's morals?

Actually it's entirely unreasonable. The rules a parent sets for their children are not necessarily an indication of the moral framework by which the parents live, but an indication of the parent's understanding of the needs and capacities of the child as it passes through different stages of development. It's permissible for a toddler to roll around on the ground and make strange noises, but not because the parents do the same thing, it's because they understand that a child has different perceptions of limits.

Your analogy is a bad one. We are not talking about toddlers, we are talking about adult human beings, moral agents, capable of rational thought and moral reasoning. If God is a moral being, and morals matter to him, there is no reason he cannot teach these morals to his servants. They may not obey them, but he can still teach them. At the very least, God can select from among them those capable of representing his morals and instructing in them. Certainly in other areas we see God teaching laws and morals (e.g., Mosaic Law), so he certainly is capable and there’s precedence.

There is a world of difference between toddlers lying around on the floor and gurgling and committing wanton slaughter of fellow human beings at God’s behest.

I guess we just disagree. I see little use for a God who is bound in his teachings and in the morals he upholds by the cultural mores of society. I think it is entirely reasonable for a God, who presumably upholds “eternal” truths and morals to behave consistently with those truths and morals and to at least attempt to instruct his children in those truths and morals.

Does God have higher morals than humans?

Of course.

Is God bound by the cultural mores of human societies?

Of course not.

Is it unreasonable for us to expect that God has higher morals than base society and that those who act on his behalf should embody those higher morals?

To the degree that they can stay alive, of course not. [/quote]

You’re portrayed a God of instrumental morality, as opposed to a God of formal morality; a God for whom the ends justify the means, as opposed to a God who holds and acts according to moral laws. That’s fine. Only be aware that is what you’re doing and be cognizant that in Christian Theology (and Mormon Theology) God is very much a moral formalist not a moral utilitarian. (Although believers of all stripes invoke instrumental reasoning when it suits their purposes.)

Again, what are we to think of a God who uses killing as an instrument to achieve his ends? Particularly when on the other hand, we attribute to this same God omnipotence, who could therefore achieve his ends without resorting to base human morals to do it.

You appear to feel comfortable with this God. I do not. I am confident that I am on the right side of this debate.

We cite examples in which God specifically commanded his agents to kill. These are not examples of people acting according to traditional cultural more but in obedience to God.

Because God knows that his children must live in the world and be surrounded by people with different standards. That doesn't mean our standards should be lower just so we all get along, but if our very existence depends on competition with these cultures, God will want us to be able to compete.[/quote]

That’s a great moral philosophy you’ve got going there: “killing as a means of competition.” You’ve also assumed that the Israelites are God’s chosen (which is necessary to assume to make the argument that God wants “us”, ergo his chosen, to compete). Here’s another great attribute of God (presumably “no respecter of persons”); he chooses favorites among his children; showers attention and love on them; empowers them to kill; and then ignores the rest of his children (except when they get in the way of his chosen, which he deals with by having his chosen kill them). While God was empowering his chosen to seize other people’s land and slaughter those who stood in their way, what was he doing for the 99% of the rest of humanity, his other children?

And this is the perfect, loving father we want to model ourselves after?

I guess another problem I have is that I don’t accept the assumption of a “chosen” race or people. I see no reason or evidence to accept this claim.

We cite examples in which God himself killed, in one case all of humanity.

And, according to the gospel, those souls are better off now for it.[/quote]

Well, I’m glad that’s cleared up.

Do realize how callously sick you sound?

So, is the moral standard that it is ok to kill people if they are better off as a result? How would you apply this wonderful moral philosophy in practice?

We cite examples in which God's prophet killed children for merely making fun of him.

They weren't children, they were young men, and God's prophet didn't kill them, he just cursed them. The prophet didn't send a bear or order their deaths.[/quote]

Whoops, my bad. They were young men, so it was ok to kill them. Sorry I missed that subtle moral nuance.

Go back and read the passage; there was clear cause and effect here between curse and death. So, if I call GBH a wrinkly old fart, am I too worthy of violent death?

We cite exmaples in which God's prophet killed priests of a competing religion.

No, God killed them, unless you believe that the prophet can control the elements independent of God's will.[/quote]

No, Elijah told his followers to kill them, and they did.

Is God moral if he purposively kills/murders mortals?

Yes. He lives by a different law than we do.

Under what conditions can God kill/murder and still be moral?

Whatever conditions he deems to be such. I'm in no position to judge the morality of God's personal choices, I'm only commenting on the state of the world during a time period when you would have them handing out hugs to people who would have wiped out their entire race.

Is killing all of humanity moral?

Depends. What moral framework would you like to judge it by?

Is killing/murdering sinners moral? (Particularly when the primary sin in question is disobeying God or not heeding his word)

Same answer.

Please answer these simple questions. How many times do we need to restate the questions to get you to understand the point we are trying to make and to provide answers.

I've provided answers to every single question you've ever asked, so don't give me that crap. You don't know squat about the ancient Near East or about how we perceive the morality of God. You're also introducing a red herring. Turning the question to address the morality of God's personal actions does not address the issue of the morality of God's children killing others. You've managed to not engage that issue at all.[/quote]

Ok, I’m tired of trying to do the cut and paste quote thing. So let me just finish here.

Now you have provided answers. And I find your answers deplorable. I find you moral philosophy (or what of it than can be gleaned) abohorrent.

You are a true apologist in that you defend the otherwise immoral.

You then attempt to shift the burden by trying to portray those taking moral positions as unreasonable. If you tried to take this argument outside the comfy confines of Mormon apologetics (or more broadly outside the realm of Christian fundamentalism), your moral philosophy would be widely acknowledged as the barbarity that it is.

I don’t need to spend a lifetime studying the ancient Near East (and I doubt you are the expert your portray yourself to be—you are probably somebody whose read a few things and is now posturing on an anonymous board as an expert) to reach the conclusion that wanton killing is wrong; it is wrong now, it was wrong yesterday, and it was wrong thousands of years ago. Perhaps not wrong by the cultural mores of society (and I am skeptical or your argument that wanton slaughter was as universally accepted as you claim it was), but from an absolute standard of morality—a standard I fully and reasonably expect any God I worship to uphold. I don’t give a flying f*** that some in the Ancient Near East felt that killing men, women, and children wholesale was hunky dory.

A God that commands his servants to kill wholesale so that his servants can seize their land;
A God that kills commits genocide (and this is true genocide, not attempted);
A supposedly all powerful God that uses the base morals of morally primitive societies to achieve his ends; instead of instructing his servants in his higher morals and holding them accountable for them;
A God who treats people as instruments for his and others’ means, and thereby denies them their humanity;
A God that kills wholesale for no other reason than people don’t show him the obsequiousness he demands;

This God is a psychopathic bastard. This is the God of the Old Testament. This God does not merit my devotion, rather he merits my moral scorn; as does your pathetic argument to morally justify wanton killing.

One other thing you forget. All through history, there have been people in culture who have stood up and courageously challenged the cultural mores of society; who recognize the limitations of culturally bound beliefs and traditions; who have urged society to higher levels of moral nobility. Where was God, and where were God’s servants in taking on this role?

If there was any role for a prophet of God, would not this be THE role; to instruct society in God’s higher law, to urge society to aspire to greater moral nobility. Instead, we consistently find God’s servants acting according to the basest morals of contemporary society. And we find God himself adopting those base morals. You may have no problem with this, but I do.

You ask what moral framework I’d like to judge God by? How about God’s own moral law: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Oh yeah, that was the same God who was gleefully drowning all of humanity when he was not ordering his servants to kill on his behalf.)

You say, “Turning the question to address the morality of God's personal actions does not address the issue of the morality of God's children killing others. You've managed to not engage that issue at all.”

No, my friend, you have it completely wrong. Turning the question in this way goes to the very heart of addressing the morality of God’s children killing others. I cannot help it that you, in your blind quest to justify the unjustifiable, are too obtuse to see the connection.

The easiest and best answer for your question is that God doesn’t kill and that he doesn’t allow his followers to kill. Instead, the Old Testament is a collection of myths written by men, for men, and reflecting the cultural traditions of the time. This answer explains away all the anomalous results in one fell swoop and it is infinitely more attractive as an answer than the tortured, abhorrent moral framework you are trying to create.

If this is really how you view the moral universe, one can only hope that you won’t find a position of power in a theocracy government anywhere.

[_maklelan]

Ok, I’m tired of trying to do the cut and paste quote thing. So let me just finish here.

Now you have provided answers. And I find your answers deplorable. I find you moral philosophy (or what of it than can be gleaned) abohorrent.

Just like the other posters: that's a wonderful thesis, now where's the body of your argument?

You are a true apologist in that you defend the otherwise immoral.

And you have utterly failed to show that you at all comprehend ancient morality or modern perceptions of it.

You then attempt to shift the burden by trying to portray those taking moral positions as unreasonable. If you tried to take this argument outside the comfy confines of Mormon apologetics (or more broadly outside the realm of Christian fundamentalism), your moral philosophy would be widely acknowledged as the barbarity that it is.

You already made this comment and I responded to it with a non-religious book by non-Mormons who say the exact same thing as me. You failed to respond to my evidence.

I don’t need to spend a lifetime studying the ancient Near East (and I doubt you are the expert your portray yourself to be—you are probably somebody whose read a few things and is now posturing on an anonymous board as an expert) to reach the conclusion that wanton killing is wrong; it is wrong now, it was wrong yesterday, and it was wrong thousands of years ago.

Great thesis, but no argument.

Perhaps not wrong by the cultural mores of society (and I am skeptical or your argument that wanton slaughter was as universally accepted as you claim it was),

Then investigate it instead of just a priori dismissing it as false because it challenges your current passive world view.

but from an absolute standard of morality—a standard I fully and reasonably expect any God I worship to uphold. I don’t give a flying f*** that some in the Ancient Near East felt that killing men, women, and children wholesale was hunky dory.

And that has absolutely no bearing on anything.

A God that commands his servants to kill wholesale so that his servants can seize their land;
A God that kills commits genocide (and this is true genocide, not attempted);
A supposedly all powerful God that uses the base morals of morally primitive societies to achieve his ends; instead of instructing his servants in his higher morals and holding them accountable for them;
A God who treats people as instruments for his and others’ means, and thereby denies them their humanity;
A God that kills wholesale for no other reason than people don’t show him the obsequiousness he demands;

This God is a psychopathic bastard. This is the God of the Old Testament. This God does not merit my devotion, rather he merits my moral scorn; as does your pathetic argument to morally justify wanton killing.

You've restated your assertion several times now without so much as a single axiom to back it up.

One other thing you forget. All through history, there have been people in culture who have stood up and courageously challenged the cultural mores of society; who recognize the limitations of culturally bound beliefs and traditions; who have urged society to higher levels of moral nobility. Where was God, and where were God’s servants in taking on this role?

They would have been killed if they tried that.

If there was any role for a prophet of God, would not this be THE role; to instruct society in God’s higher law, to urge society to aspire to greater moral nobility. Instead, we consistently find God’s servants acting according to the basest morals of contemporary society. And we find God himself adopting those base morals. You may have no problem with this, but I do.

You're wrong, they're not acting according to it, they're acting in defense of it. God's not saying those morals are right, he's saying you have to deal with them, so you better be equipped.

You ask what moral framework I’d like to judge God by? How about God’s own moral law: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Oh yeah, that was the same God who was gleefully drowning all of humanity when he was not ordering his servants to kill on his behalf.)

Please point that scripture out in the Bible.

You say, “Turning the question to address the morality of God's personal actions does not address the issue of the morality of God's children killing others. You've managed to not engage that issue at all.”

No, my friend, you have it completely wrong. Turning the question in this way goes to the very heart of addressing the morality of God’s children killing others. I cannot help it that you, in your blind quest to justify the unjustifiable, are too obtuse to see the connection.

Way to assert a position without backing it up.

The easiest and best answer for your question is that God doesn’t kill and that he doesn’t allow his followers to kill. Instead, the Old Testament is a collection of myths written by men, for men, and reflecting the cultural traditions of the time. This answer explains away all the anomalous results in one fell swoop and it is infinitely more attractive as an answer than the tortured, abhorrent moral framework you are trying to create.

If this is really how you view the moral universe, one can only hope that you won’t find a position of power in a theocracy government anywhere.

Wow. A lengthy post with a dozen theses and not a single axiom or piece of logic to back them up. You're doing a good job of maintaining the reputation of posters here of not engaging evidence or providing any of it for their own conclusions. Keep up the good work.