Christian Discussion Thread V

[The Flutterlands]

Ok, so you're saying that killing innocent people isn't always wrong. That it may be justified in sufficiently extreme circumstances.

As a last and final resort? Yes. Was it terrible that America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan? Shit yeah. Did something good come out of it? Yes. It ended the worst war in human history which costed millions of lives around the world including the victims of the bombs. At that time, unfortunately, I don't think it was possible for someone to make a morally right choice.

I take this back. Japan was already at the end of it's rope by that time. So, no, the atomic bomb was not moral at all. Someone could have made a morally right choice and the war could have ended without the additional thousands of lives from the atomic bombs. If only I knew what that morally right choice could have been...

[Constantinopolis]

As a last and final resort? Yes. Was it terrible that America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan? Shit yeah. Did something good come out of it? Yes. It ended the worst war in human history which costed millions of lives around the world including the victims of the bombs. At that time, unfortunately, I don't think it was possible for someone to make a morally right choice.

I take this back. Japan was already at the end of it's rope by that time. So, no, the atomic bomb was not moral at all. Someone could have made a morally right choice and the war could have ended without the additional thousands of lives from the atomic bombs. If only I knew what that morally right choice could have been...

Well, leaving aside the atomic bombings, the Allied war effort killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians through conventional bombing of German and Japanese (and other) cities throughout the entire course of the war.

So, supporting the Allied war effort automatically means supporting the killing of innocent people for the greater good, no matter where you stand on the atomic bombings.

And that's fine. My whole point is that it's fine to take that stance, in sufficiently extreme circumstances.

WW2 is a great example to use because it's one of the few historical circumstances extreme enough that pretty much everyone supports the killing of innocent people for the greater good, in at least this one case.

[The Flutterlands]

I take this back. Japan was already at the end of it's rope by that time. So, no, the atomic bomb was not moral at all. Someone could have made a morally right choice and the war could have ended without the additional thousands of lives from the atomic bombs. If only I knew what that morally right choice could have been...

Well, leaving aside the atomic bombings, the Allied war effort killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians through conventional bombing of German and Japanese (and other) cities throughout the entire course of the war.

So, supporting the Allied war effort automatically means supporting the killing of innocent people for the greater good, no matter where you stand on the atomic bombings.

And that's fine. My whole point is that it's fine to take that stance, in sufficiently extreme circumstances.

True.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

So we can agree that killing is not a moral absolute, that in some cases killing is morally permissible, and in others possibly morally obligatory. But none of this explains what it is about killing that makes it immoral in the first place. Why is the act of terminating another life some inherently wrong, even if morally permissible at times?

[Geilinor]

So we can agree that killing is not a moral absolute, that in some cases killing is morally permissible, and in others possibly morally obligatory. But none of this explains what it is about killing that makes it immoral in the first place. Why is the act of terminating another life some inherently wrong, even if morally permissible at times?

I believe the Christian reasoning is the same as the one I gave. Murder is immoral because it weakens what life means and causes unnecessary harm.

[The Flutterlands]

So we can agree that killing is not a moral absolute, that in some cases killing is morally permissible, and in others possibly morally obligatory. But none of this explains what it is about killing that makes it immoral in the first place. Why is the act of terminating another life some inherently wrong, even if morally permissible at times?

Because human life and dignity is something that should be universally valued above all things in society.

[Mostrov]

How was it that the world was introduced to the concept of just war again?

What I've found to be the best news source, because even BBC can get a little bias in their reporting, is Australian news. No seriously, they don't pull punches and I've seen reporters correcting people they interview instead of trying to make sense of their mistaken (or outright insane) points.

Most Australian news is biased, in ways that are perhaps not immediately apparent to an audience that is unused to its style.

In other news I am officially in schism (although it has been pointed out all churches are). I've turned my back officially upon the current dioceses of the CoE/Anglican Church, although I remain hopefully in communion. Happily ensconced within my local part of the Anglican Catholic Church.

[Luminesa]

So we can agree that killing is not a moral absolute, that in some cases killing is morally permissible, and in others possibly morally obligatory. But none of this explains what it is about killing that makes it immoral in the first place. Why is the act of terminating another life some inherently wrong, even if morally permissible at times?

Because human life and dignity is something that should be universally valued above all things in society.

[Confederate Ramenia]

So we can agree that killing is not a moral absolute, that in some cases killing is morally permissible, and in others possibly morally obligatory. But none of this explains what it is about killing that makes it immoral in the first place. Why is the act of terminating another life some inherently wrong, even if morally permissible at times?

Because human life and dignity is something that should be universally valued above all things in society.

This is the closest to an answer I've ever heard. It doesn't just go with killing, but with so much. Thank you for this post.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

So we can agree that killing is not a moral absolute, that in some cases killing is morally permissible, and in others possibly morally obligatory. But none of this explains what it is about killing that makes it immoral in the first place. Why is the act of terminating another life some inherently wrong, even if morally permissible at times?

I believe the Christian reasoning is the same as the one I gave. Murder is immoral because it weakens what life means and causes unnecessary harm.

You gave a contrived reason that itself is no more defensible than claiming killing to be intrinsically evil.

That weakening of the meaning of life also doesn't fit into the human ethical paradigm. Humans generally have no qualms about killing. We're perfectly content to massacre ants in genocidal chemical attacks. Were perfectly content to sacrifice animals on the altar of our own survival. But suddenly killing a human is some how intrinsically wrong.

So what is it about the act, that makes it wrong. Why is killing an a person wrong? What condition of the action makes it so wrong?


Is it harm? They cease to exist, and you can't really harm that which does not exist. So how harmed are they by it?





I realize that the original point has long since passed, but I honestly thought someone could give me straight forward answer to this question.

[Geilinor]

I believe the Christian reasoning is the same as the one I gave. Murder is immoral because it weakens what life means and causes unnecessary harm.

You gave a contrived reason that itself is no more defensible than claiming killing to be intrinsically evil.

That weakening of the meaning of life also doesn't fit into the human ethical paradigm. Humans generally have no qualms about killing. We're perfectly content to massacre ants in genocidal chemical attacks. Were perfectly content to sacrifice animals on the altar of our own survival. But suddenly killing a human is some how intrinsically wrong.

So what is it about the act, that makes it wrong. Why is killing an a person wrong? What condition of the action makes it so wrong?

I just don't think the command of God is a good argument for it being wrong.

[Salus Maior]

I take this back. Japan was already at the end of it's rope by that time. So, no, the atomic bomb was not moral at all. Someone could have made a morally right choice and the war could have ended without the additional thousands of lives from the atomic bombs. If only I knew what that morally right choice could have been...

Japan wasn't surrendering even when all of its major cities were being fire-bombed, and a D-Day style invasion of Japan would have been MUCH worse. The people were fanatically loyal to their Emperor at that time, hell, Japanese civilians were sharpening broom tips and preparing for a full-on guerrilla war for when the Americans landed. A land invasion would have costed MUCH more on both sides than the atomic bombing of two cities.

[Salus Maior]

BELIEVE IT.

YOU. You just made my day.

Anytime

[The Alexanderians]

I take this back. Japan was already at the end of it's rope by that time. So, no, the atomic bomb was not moral at all. Someone could have made a morally right choice and the war could have ended without the additional thousands of lives from the atomic bombs. If only I knew what that morally right choice could have been...

Japan wasn't surrendering even when all of its major cities were being fire-bombed, and a D-Day style invasion of Japan would have been MUCH worse. The people were fanatically loyal to their Emperor at that time, hell, Japanese civilians were sharpening broom tips and preparing for a full-on guerrilla war for when the Americans landed. A land invasion would have costed MUCH more on both sides than the atomic bombing of two cities.

Somewhere in the hundreds of thousands of casualties some estimates I've heard go to millions. Every purple heart medal that America has handed out since the end of WWII? Every single one was made in preparation of a land invasion of japan. and we haven't even given out half of them yet. That means that every injury and death that has happened to American forces since WWII are still less then the projected allied causalities. That's not even counting the myriad civilian and Japanese military deaths. No if preservation of life was the goal the bombs were a better option, as terrible as they were they were the lesser of two evils.

[Salus Maior]

Somewhere in the hundreds of thousands of casualties some estimates I've heard go to millions. Every purple heart medal that America has handed out since the end of WWII? Every single one was made in preparation of a land invasion of japan. and we haven't even given out half of them yet. That means that every injury and death that has happened to American forces since WWII are still less then the projected allied causalities. That's not even counting the myriad civilian and Japanese military deaths. No if preservation of life was the goal the bombs were a better option, as terrible as they were they were the lesser of two evils.

Yeah, I mean in the 1960's we tried to solve Guerrilla war by pouring white phosphorus on villages and destroying entire jungles with cancer-inducing chemicals. How much worse would it have been in the 1940s? On the scale of the entirety of Japan?

[Diopolis]

Except Jack's philosophy boils down to: "The only thing that matters, is what a man can do, and what a man can't" Essentially, morality disappears, and all that remains is practical logic.




But none of this explains what it is about Killing" makes it morally wrong. What aspect of the action that makes it abhorrent?


I find it funny that people call God immoral for Killing or ordering killing, because killing is wrong. but they can't tell my why killing is wrong.

Do you want to be killed? No. Do I want to be killed? No. Nobody in their right mind wants to be killed. Therefore it's universally agreed that killing is wrong. So by that logic, is God right in killing and ordering people to kill?

Of course. The true measure of whether an action is right or wrong is in whether it agrees with the will of God. All other systems of morality are simply tools to help us figure out what constitutes the will of God.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You gave a contrived reason that itself is no more defensible than claiming killing to be intrinsically evil.

That weakening of the meaning of life also doesn't fit into the human ethical paradigm. Humans generally have no qualms about killing. We're perfectly content to massacre ants in genocidal chemical attacks. Were perfectly content to sacrifice animals on the altar of our own survival. But suddenly killing a human is some how intrinsically wrong.

So what is it about the act, that makes it wrong. Why is killing an a person wrong? What condition of the action makes it so wrong?

I just don't think the command of God is a good argument for it being wrong.

I haven't argued that it was. What I've been seeking is to understand and to get others to at least pursue the source of this common phenomenon.


So often the new Atheist movement and secular humanist movement, claim God is malevolent and not worthy to follow, because he orders genocide, and smites the first born etc etc. The OT is very death heavy.

People are so adamant that killing is wrong, and that's not trait limited to Atheists. Almost everyone would agree that killing is wrong, yet when pressed nobody can really say why. We just know. But in order to substantively charge God with being immoral for killing/ordering killing, you have be able to explain why it's wrong, and how that pertains to God's actions.

For instance as G&I said

I suspect it's largely rooted in pragmatism - we all agree killing parasites and disease is good... but we all have a vested interest in it not being okay to just kill people... because we understand that WE are some of them.

God however is not human. If our objection to murder comes from shared humanity, can we realistically apply to that standard to God, who is not human?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Do you want to be killed? No. Do I want to be killed? No. Nobody in their right mind wants to be killed. Therefore it's universally agreed that killing is wrong. So by that logic, is God right in killing and ordering people to kill?

Of course. The true measure of whether an action is right or wrong is in whether it agrees with the will of God. All other systems of morality are simply tools to help us figure out what constitutes the will of God.

I"m trying to get there systematically, not plop it on the table and demand to be shown something bigger

[Grave_n_idle]

I just don't think the command of God is a good argument for it being wrong.

I haven't argued that it was. What I've been seeking is to understand and to get others to at least pursue the source of this common phenomenon.


So often the new Atheist movement and secular humanist movement, claim God is malevolent and not worthy to follow, because he orders genocide, and smites the first born etc etc. The OT is very death heavy.

People are so adamant that killing is wrong, and that's not trait limited to Atheists. Almost everyone would agree that killing is wrong, yet when pressed nobody can really say why. We just know. But in order to substantively charge God with being immoral for killing/ordering killing, you have be able to explain why it's wrong, and how that pertains to God's actions.

For instance as G&I said

I suspect it's largely rooted in pragmatism - we all agree killing parasites and disease is good... but we all have a vested interest in it not being okay to just kill people... because we understand that WE are some of them.

God however is not human. If our objection to murder comes from shared humanity, can we realistically apply to that standard to God, who is not human?

Our evidence of god's morality is a book written by men, who are human.

[Diopolis]

On a side note, I must say I've converted to your way of thinking. Through my study and RCIA I've come to the similar conclusion: communism is the natural extension of Christian Morality.

Excellent! Another comrade has joined our ranks!

I have some significant anecdotal evidence that religion - and specifically a religious sense of justice - leads people to communist views. I have several friends, including atheists, who are communists and say that religion ultimately led them to it. Some are/were Christian, one is Jewish, two are Muslim.

Karl Marx was really mistaken to assume that religion has an inherent pro-status-quo effect on people.

Dunno if this counts, but my religion led me to distributism. Still anti-capitalist.

[Othelos]

Do you want to be killed? No. Do I want to be killed? No. Nobody in their right mind wants to be killed. Therefore it's universally agreed that killing is wrong. So by that logic, is God right in killing and ordering people to kill?

Of course. The true measure of whether an action is right or wrong is in whether it agrees with the will of God. All other systems of morality are simply tools to help us figure out what constitutes the will of God.

Eh, nah. I think there's a reason that we are capable of independent thinking.

[Diopolis]

Of course. The true measure of whether an action is right or wrong is in whether it agrees with the will of God. All other systems of morality are simply tools to help us figure out what constitutes the will of God.

Eh, nah. I think there's a reason that we are capable of independent thinking.

To help us use our free will in the service of God.

[Salus Maior]

Excellent! Another comrade has joined our ranks!

I have some significant anecdotal evidence that religion - and specifically a religious sense of justice - leads people to communist views. I have several friends, including atheists, who are communists and say that religion ultimately led them to it. Some are/were Christian, one is Jewish, two are Muslim.

Karl Marx was really mistaken to assume that religion has an inherent pro-status-quo effect on people.

Dunno if this counts, but my religion led me to distributism. Still anti-capitalist.

Eh, I guess I'm anti-pure Capitalism. I'm kinda on the socialist side of things now.

[Othelos]

Eh, nah. I think there's a reason that we are capable of independent thinking.

To help us use our free will in the service of God.

Depending on whether or not free will actually exists, independent thinking is the result of evolution, not divinity.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I haven't argued that it was. What I've been seeking is to understand and to get others to at least pursue the source of this common phenomenon.


So often the new Atheist movement and secular humanist movement, claim God is malevolent and not worthy to follow, because he orders genocide, and smites the first born etc etc. The OT is very death heavy.

People are so adamant that killing is wrong, and that's not trait limited to Atheists. Almost everyone would agree that killing is wrong, yet when pressed nobody can really say why. We just know. But in order to substantively charge God with being immoral for killing/ordering killing, you have be able to explain why it's wrong, and how that pertains to God's actions.

For instance as G&I said




God however is not human. If our objection to murder comes from shared humanity, can we realistically apply to that standard to God, who is not human?

Our evidence of god's morality is a book written by men, who are human.

That doesn't,... that really doesn't mean anything.