Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"
I know you're expecting it, but here's the relevant line anyway:
Quote:
Originally Posted by God?
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
I'll point out the relevant words:
Slay both man and woman, infant.
If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...
(Now bring on the tired arguments for "justified genocide" that you love so dearly.)
And as for your question in this thread: this has been explained to you a million times, but your enfeebled brain can't process it, apparently. Yes, society itself plays some part in determining the relative morality for itself. But no, that is not the only source of morality, as evolutionarily beneficial traits and instincts regarding empathy play a large role too. Basically morality is a hodge podge source from instinct, philosophy, history, society. It all goes in the stew. Mmm. Stew.
I know you're expecting it, but here's the relevant line anyway:
I'll point out the relevant words:
Slay both man and woman, infant.
If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...
(Now bring on the tired arguments for "justified genocide" that you love so dearly.)
And as for your question in this thread: this has been explained to you a million times, but your enfeebled brain can't process it, apparently. Yes, society itself plays some part in determining the relative morality for itself. But no, that is not the only source of morality, as evolutionarily beneficial traits and instincts regarding empathy play a large role too. Basically morality is a hodge podge source from instinct, philosophy, history, society. It all goes in the stew. Mmm. Stew.
That was justice being handed down for crimes committed.
I know you're expecting it, but here's the relevant line anyway:
I'll point out the relevant words:
Slay both man and woman, infant.
If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...
(Now bring on the tired arguments for "justified genocide" that you love so dearly.)
And as for your question in this thread: this has been explained to you a million times, but your enfeebled brain can't process it, apparently. Yes, society itself plays some part in determining the relative morality for itself. But no, that is not the only source of morality, as evolutionarily beneficial traits and instincts regarding empathy play a large role too. Basically morality is a hodge podge source from instinct, philosophy, history, society. It all goes in the stew. Mmm. Stew.
That was justice being handed out for crimes committed.
That wasn't deliberate and systematic destruction. It was justice.
"Justice" from one point of view, sure. Just like the Nazis would say. And of course it was deliberate and systematic. Read it again: utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Utterly destroy all they have and spare them not. Deliberate. And as for systematic destruction? Your god is so into genocide he wants to kill not only every living Amelek, but also their cattle, so that the ones who might manage to evade the actual killings will no longer be able to support themselves and starve.
That exactly fits "deliberate and and systematic destruction."
"Justice" from one point of view, sure. Just like the Nazis would say. And of course it was deliberate and systematic. Read it again: utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Utterly destroy all they have and spare them not. Deliberate. And as for systematic destruction? Your god is so into genocide he wants to kill not only every living Amelek, but also their cattle, so that the ones who might manage to evade the actual killings will no longer be able to support themselves and starve.
That exactly fits "deliberate and and systematic destruction."
I'd say yes. For me, personally, the requirements for a justified killing are pretty high. The requirements, of course, vary. But genocide never is. (For this, I'm using killing/murder interchangably. Let's just say "taking a life.")
My qualm with your version of morality is this, Vizio: in the end, everything and anything is theoretically justifiable. God just has to OK it. If god OK'd it, I would be "morally justified" in coming to your house, killing you, and then wearing your skin. I'm not saying that a theoretical god would ever OK that. But he could.
And that, to me, makes the whole notion of morality as coming from one source topple like a house of cards. If every "evil" is theoretically justifiable, then nothing is truly morally wrong. Not a single thing. Because in the end, with a permission slip, everything is allowable and justified.
And that, to me, is just something I can't support.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
