Even a cursory reading of the Old Testament will reveal some hair-raising instructions from God to his various champions about the treatment to be meted out to his foes, men, women and children to be slaughtered, not a single one to be left alive, etc. The Hague prosecutors would be jubilant if they had evidence of this quality concerning Milosevic. How do the Christians get their guy off the hook for this one?
Winners are never war criminals. Grant and Sherman should be very glad for that.
Hey! Reeder-I’m actually trying to debate something very similar to that…
- Who, exactly, is (or was) at war with God?
- Is God bound by our laws? Specifically the ones which define what a war criminal might be, seeing as how the OT events occurred (if they occurred at all) long before those laws were penned.
- Supposing He is…how do we try Him? And if He is found guilty, what then?
We sue the churches for 100 trillions dollars for their support to war crimes…
Are you suggesting that the omniscient giver of life should be bound by the same laws as human beings, when it comes to taking lives?
—Are you suggesting that the omniscient giver of life should be bound by the same laws as human beings, when it comes to taking lives?—
Oh no: we certainly wouldn’t want to deny you the chance to champion moral relatavism!
What are the odds of naming Him in a personal injury lawsuit? I have astigmatism that ought to be worth a few bucks…
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that moral relativism means that the same laws apply to all persons? Even omniscient ones?
Methinks that you’re grievously misusing the term.
Well, I think God, having created life itself, and being solely responsible for the existence of the entire universe, and who takes the souls of the virtuous with Him to live in happiness for all of time, probably shouldn’t be treated the same as the rest of us. If that were the case, you could consider Him guilty of hundreds of billions of murders for every person who has ever lived. And that would be silly. [note: I’m just being academic here. I don’t really even believe in God.]
As for war crimes, somehow I doubt the ICC has jurisdiction over God or can try crimes from ancient times.
Rats. I mistyped.
What I mean to say is “Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that moral non-relativism (or moral absolutism) means that the same laws apply to all persons?”
Obviously, the same moral laws do NOT apply to all persons. Parents, for example, do not require their children’s permission to stay out late, or to watch late-night TV. Similarly, an employer is not bound by the same exact rules of conduct as the employee.
The statement “God has more freedom to take human lives than mere humans do” is itself an absolute statement. There are no exceptions to that rule, and its validity does not depend on mere human perception. As such, it can not be logically construed as a defense for moral relativism.
“There are no absolutes” is also, itself, an absolute statement. It is also a defense for moral relativism.
Certainly not all rules should apply to everyone. Rules like “don’t cross the street” are for children and not adults. However, this is not because it is moral for the adult and immoral for the child. It is simply to keep the child safe.
Yet, in this case, we are talking about a case of morals, not safety (as in parent/child differences) or a procedural one (employer/employee).
You are saying that something is moral if God does it, but immoral if a person does it. I would say that this is moral relativism by definition. Murder is not allowed because it is against God’s rules, if you follow the Bible. I presume it is because murdering people is wrong (a moral decision) because human life is worthwhile. For this not to be moral relativism, however, God would have to say that murder is not immoral. It is in fact perfectly moral for everyone, because morals are absolute. It is simply not allowed for human beings for other reasons. I find this nonsensical.
Yes, but it’s an invalid defense. Why? Because it is self-refuting.
No, it is not, for two reasons.
REASON #1: That statement is itself absolute. If (if!) we strip away some of the qualifying clauses, then it becomes relative – but the statement itself remains absolute.
REASON #2: I don’t think you’re using an accurate definition of moral relativism. Moral relativism doesn’t merely say, “Well, there are some moral rules which are relative.” No, moral relativism claims that there are NO moral absolutes. None. Zip. Nada. Ergo, identifying one relative moral rule does not entail advocacy of moral relativism.
In other words, the statement is NOT a relative one – and even if it were, it would not constitute a defense of moral relativism. Moreover, please note that God said “Thou shalt not…” in his famous command against killing. In other words, he said that it was wrong for us to do so, not that it was wrong for the Almighty as well.
Furthermore, I think that your making a false distinction between moral rules and rules based on “safety” and “procedural” interests. These terms are not mutually exclusive. The parents may have the child’s safety in mind in enforcing a curfew, but the child is still morally obligated to obey the parents, except where an overriding moral principle comes into play (e.g. matters of life or death). Similarly, an employee may be obligated to obey his manager due to procedural concerns, but this is a moral obligation as well – that is, it is a condition imposed by the employment agreement, to which the employee willingly consented in good faith. Hence, it may be a “procedural” rule, but it is also a moral one, since it constitutes part of the employee’s obligation to his employer.
—God said “Thou shalt not…” in his famous command against killing. In other words, he said that it was wrong for us to do so, not that it was wrong for the Almighty as well.—
But this is not, then, a moral absolute. Morals are universal wrongs, not wrongs that simply apply to some beings and not others.
Not true. Some morals DO apply to some, and not others. An adult is subject to a higher standard than a four-year-old child, for example.
It’s just that SOME moral rules are absolute, while OTHER moral rules are not. The command against killing is NOT absolute, since there are some exceptional situations wherein it may be allowed. (To save countless other lives, for example. Also, this command was given to human beings, and thus, is not necessarily binding on the ultimate giver and author of life.)
MOREOVER, even if the command against killing is non-absolute, the statement “God has more authority to end life than human beings” is not. It is a more specific claim, and is intrinsically absolute.
You seem to be under this illusion that identifying one morally relative statement constitutes proof of moral relativism. Such “proofs by example” are invalid, since moral relativism claims that ALL morality is relative. Why, that’s like identifying an odd prime number, and then proclaiming that all odd numbers are prime! Clearly, that is fallacious.
So Apos, you have attempted (unsuccessfully) to show that the statement “God has more freedom to take human lives than mere humans do” is a relative statement. Even if were, this would not demonstrate an endorsement of moral relativism. Not in the least. Not by a long shot. Not by any rule of logic.
—Some morals DO apply to some, and not others. An adult is subject to a higher standard than a four-year-old child, for example.—
Sorry, but if killing is really WRONG, then it is wrong period. Otherwise, all you are saying is simply that killing is only sometimes wrong, and most people just don’t have the prescence of mind to tell when it is and when it is, not. In that case, killing is NOT wrong: but is simply a relative question of other morals. You seem to acknowledge this. To wit:
—Also, this command was given to human beings, and thus, is not necessarily binding on the ultimate giver and author of life.)—
If so, then it is just a guideline, not a moral wrong.
—You seem to be under this illusion that identifying one morally relative statement constitutes proof of moral relativism. Such “proofs by example” are invalid, since moral relativism claims that ALL morality is relative.—
I suppose my supposition is that, for any act god undertakes, you’ll simply make an excuse as to why it’s, after all, okay. It all depends on what god says. That’s moral relatavism.
—So Apos, you have attempted (unsuccessfully) to show that the statement “God has more freedom to take human lives than mere humans do” is a relative statement.—
It most certainly is. If the statement was “god knows better than humans when taking life is justifiable” that would be one thing. But that wasn’t the statement at all.