Bible - cruelty and violence

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

God's cruelty shows that God is evil.

Yes
9
47%
No
9
47%
Don't know
1
5%
 
Total votes: 19

Compassionist
Guru
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Bible - cruelty and violence

Post #1

Post by Compassionist »

Please read this list of cruelty in the Bible. Is the Bible true? If it is true then why is God so cruel and violent? Doesn't God's cruelty make God evil and unworthy of praise and worship?

User avatar
Thatguy
Scholar
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:32 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Bible - cruelty and violence

Post #71

Post by Thatguy »

Wootah wrote:
Thatguy wrote:I know he doesn't need me to speak for him, but... from my perspective he was not doing that at all. His argument struck me as one that was meant to resonate with you because you and he would share a modern moral perspective that killing non-combatant civilians during war time is morally objectionable. The argument would work best if you found it true because you and he share modernity.
Actually that is an ad hominem attack but I think you don't realise it.

...

If they weren't fighting the Nazis they weren't innocent. Any of the good innocent citizens of Dresden had 4 years to help stop the Nazis from inside Germany and were probably dead long before the bombing.

...

You also haven't made any case that your view is moral or modern and how the two words even relate to each other.

Obviously I agree with targeting enemy combatants in most situations. But when winning actually matters kill them all can be moral and can't be ruled out. Quite often in history it takes only wiping out one city to get the rest to fall in line (see many bad people for examples of that in history). Who knows - a harder line against Germany in 1930-1940 may have stopped Hitler with a lot less total causalities. But you are sure of your modern morality ... I prefer to be grateful for the awful physical and moral sacrifices of those that won our freedoms. And that includes the awful things God had to do so that those of us today that want to choose freedom can do so.
You are right, I don't see an ad hominem attack. If you mean that I implied that your moral perspective isn't the dominant modern one then that is not an ad hominem attack. To possibly be one, I'd have to equate "modern" with "morally correct." In our culture, particularly in advertising, modern is often considered better. But it need not be. Traditional, old time, old school moral views may be superior, at least in part, to modern moral views. In any event, if we were discussing theories of physics, my being critical of your morality would probably be an undue attack on the person. If we are discussing morality, my being critical of your morality is the point of the conversation.

As for the idea that one must take up arms against evil or else you are guilty, I have real problems with that. This would make, for instance, those Jews who did not fight the Nazis guilty, not innocent. The idea that the civilians of Dresden were all complicit in Nazi atrocities because these civilians had not sacrificed their lives to oppose the wrongdoing is harsh. There are things my country does that I consider very immoral. Does that mean that I am responsible for those things unless I take up arms against my government? If someone opposed to my country shot me, would they be justified because I have, by not sufficiently opposing the wrongful act, been an evil participant in it? Few people have both the courage and the optimism to become armed rebels. I can't accept that only those who do are not guilty. But let's set that aside and think of the children. There are many in a civilian population and most people would consider them innocent even if they didn't stab a Nazi policeman in the neck.

On the one hand you say I haven't proven my case about modernity or morality, on the other you admit that it's best to target combatants. Is it best because that's strategically the best use of your ammunition or is it best because there's something wrong with targeting civilians?

That the moral view that civilians should not be specifically targeted during wartime is the modern one is shown by modern international law. This reflects a dominant international view of right and wrong. International law prohibits most targeting of civilians. There is, indeed, an exception for military necessity. I would imagine that that's why McCulloch cited Dresden rather than Hiroshima or Nagasaki, since Dresden's firebombing has far fewer supporters in current times. Not none, just far fewer. At that point in the war, the outcome was certain. The Allies were going to win. Bomber Harris, the British general, admitted that the strategy was not to go after strategic targets such as factories themselves but to demoralize the civilian population by killing it.

Barbaric wartime practices may so intimidate your enemy that you scare them into submission. But does this justify any wartime conduct? Was the Rape of Nanking acceptable because it could have saved other lives, convincing other cities not to resist so as not to unleash the beastliness of the enemy soldiers?

Waiving the flag and invoking the honor of our fallen martyrs isn't enough to resolve whether the firebombing of a city that was a civilian refugee center was justified. Those fighting the Axis were fighting a good war, in my opinion, but that does not mean that they were free to do as they pleased as long as their actions may arguably contribute toward defeating their enemy.

As for whether God had no choice but to kill innocents, I think you've used an ad dominem attack without realizing it. That an all powerful God had to choose such morally troubling tactics implies that he could not have figured out less destructive means. I guess I expect less moral expediency from my all powerful, all good deities.

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Bible - cruelty and violence

Post #72

Post by Wootah »

Thatguy wrote:You are right, I don't see an ad hominem attack. If you mean that I implied that your moral perspective isn't the dominant modern one then that is not an ad hominem attack. To possibly be one, I'd have to equate "modern" with "morally correct."{/quote] So you weren't implying that you modern morality was morally correct ... ok.
In our culture, particularly in advertising, modern is often considered better. But it need not be. Traditional, old time, old school moral views may be superior, at least in part, to modern moral views. In any event, if we were discussing theories of physics, my being critical of your morality would probably be an undue attack on the person. If we are discussing morality, my being critical of your morality is the point of the conversation.
Indeed.

Just call it 'my morality' when talking about your morality or base it upon an ideological foundation if possible. Or if you can explain what modern morality is go for it (it would be a worthy debate topic in its own right).
As for the idea that one must take up arms against evil or else you are guilty, I have real problems with that. This would make, for instance, those Jews who did not fight the Nazis guilty, not innocent. The idea that the civilians of Dresden were all complicit in Nazi atrocities because these civilians had not sacrificed their lives to oppose the wrongdoing is harsh.
Clearly and yet morality is hard. It is very hard to not put your hand in the cookie jar when everyone else is not just because you don't want to be a thief but because all the other thieves will despise you. Morality is no light road and one that Christians honestly acknowledge that we do and will fail at but hope to return back to that path when we fall off. That is debatable evidence as well that morality is objective.
There are things my country does that I consider very immoral. Does that mean that I am responsible for those things unless I take up arms against my government?
Like?
If someone opposed to my country shot me, would they be justified because I have, by not sufficiently opposing the wrongful act, been an evil participant in it?
I would need specifics to know. Are you in Iran?
Few people have both the courage and the optimism to become armed rebels. I can't accept that only those who do are not guilty. But let's set that aside and think of the children. There are many in a civilian population and most people would consider them innocent even if they didn't stab a Nazi policeman in the neck.
Most criminals think they are innocent as well or had justifiable cause. The so and so had it coming .... I am not sure what else I should be saying other than again repeating that morality is hard.
On the one hand you say I haven't proven my case about modernity or morality, on the other you admit that it's best to target combatants. Is it best because that's strategically the best use of your ammunition or is it best because there's something wrong with targeting civilians?
I'm pretty sure it was the best for most of recorded history.
That the moral view that civilians should not be specifically targeted during wartime is the modern one is shown by modern international law. This reflects a dominant international view of right and wrong.
So if the modern view is to do X then X is moral?
International law prohibits most targeting of civilians. There is, indeed, an exception for military necessity. I would imagine that that's why McCulloch cited Dresden rather than Hiroshima or Nagasaki, since Dresden's firebombing has far fewer supporters in current times. Not none, just far fewer. At that point in the war, the outcome was certain. The Allies were going to win. Bomber Harris, the British general, admitted that the strategy was not to go after strategic targets such as factories themselves but to demoralize the civilian population by killing it.
To end the war faster and save more lives overall and save our lives. Ergo moral.
Barbaric wartime practices may so intimidate your enemy that you scare them into submission. But does this justify any wartime conduct? Was the Rape of Nanking acceptable because it could have saved other lives, convincing other cities not to resist so as not to unleash the beastliness of the enemy soldiers?
Generally nothing the criminal does is moral. But I think that if it was strategy from Japan then they probably tried to offset their conscience by hoping it would end the war sooner.
Waiving the flag and invoking the honor of our fallen martyrs isn't enough to resolve whether the firebombing of a city that was a civilian refugee center was justified. Those fighting the Axis were fighting a good war, in my opinion, but that does not mean that they were free to do as they pleased as long as their actions may arguably contribute toward defeating their enemy.
I think the war was so brutal that the Germans and Japanese probably thought that they would be annihilated and so they had to fight on. Actually showing them that they could be annihilated helped them to actually surrender.
As for whether God had no choice but to kill innocents, I think you've used an ad dominem attack without realizing it. That an all powerful God had to choose such morally troubling tactics implies that he could not have figured out less destructive means. I guess I expect less moral expediency from my all powerful, all good deities.
Is there such a thing as ad dominem? I googled it.

Actually I think it implies that He values our reality. Sure he could limit free will but he doesn't want our reality to be like that and yes he is willing to suffer and pay a huge price to win us our freedom. See the New Testament.

User avatar
Autodidact
Prodigy
Posts: 3014
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:18 pm

Post #73

Post by Autodidact »

Wootah wrote:
Autodidact wrote:If any other being or person committed the same actions, would you consider them just or righteous? For example, if a ruler orders his soldiers to stab the enemy's babies to death, would that be just or righteous, in your view?
You make the point most clearly that there is something more to the Bible.

Either you believe Jesus or you don't. If you do them you will have my perspective on the violence in the bible. If you don't you will have yours.

Not many people become Christian by agreeing with the violence in the Old Testament.
No, they are usually raised to believe.

So, to understand you, if you believe in Jesus, then you believe that stabbing babies to death is morally right?

User avatar
Autodidact
Prodigy
Posts: 3014
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:18 pm

Re: Bible - cruelty and violence

Post #74

Post by Autodidact »

Wootah wrote:
Thatguy wrote:I know he doesn't need me to speak for him, but... from my perspective he was not doing that at all. His argument struck me as one that was meant to resonate with you because you and he would share a modern moral perspective that killing non-combatant civilians during war time is morally objectionable. The argument would work best if you found it true because you and he share modernity.
Actually that is an ad hominem attack but I think you don't realise it.
The appeal, or so I read it, was that it recognized that even very recently in history people fighting what most of us see as a good war against a reprehensible enemy had a different moral perspective than we now do. Bombing the primary targets- soldiers and war equipment is still seen as morally acceptable today. Bombing the secondary targets- heavy industry, refineries, bridges, rail hubs or airports- (what I'd hope you are speaking of when you speak of as "bombing them to the stone age") is still seen by most as morally acceptable even though it has higher "collateral damage." Straight out targeting of civilians, though, living their lives in their homes, even enemy civilians who support a terrible government, strikes us in modern times as morally wrong. And by us, I (and presumably he) mean not just he and I, but you as well. We might not know of any specific good people killed in Dresden. But if you target people who aren't fighting, women and children not even working in factories making war supporting material, you ARE going to kill good, innocent people.


If they weren't fighting the Nazis they weren't innocent. Any of the good innocent citizens of Dresden had 4 years to help stop the Nazis from inside Germany and were probably dead long before the bombing.
Similarly, if you kill every first born male child in a country or if you kill everyone in a village that you conquer, you will be killing innocents. If you believe that all is fair in love and war and that the only good German was a dead German then clearly his argument wouldn't succeed with you in finding shared modern moral views that run counter to Biblical morality. It does work for the rest of us, though.
(Apologies readily offered if I got either of your perspectives wrong. I'm just reflecting what it looks like from my chair.)
You also haven't made any case that your view is moral or modern and how the two words even relate to each other.

Obviously I agree with targeting enemy combatants in most situations. But when winning actually matters kill them all can be moral and can't be ruled out. Quite often in history it takes only wiping out one city to get the rest to fall in line (see many bad people for examples of that in history). Who knows - a harder line against Germany in 1930-1940 may have stopped Hitler with a lot less total causalities. But you are sure of your modern morality ... I prefer to be grateful for the awful physical and moral sacrifices of those that won our freedoms. And that includes the awful things God had to do so that those of us today that want to choose freedom can do so.
I have a feeling you would see it differently had your mother been living in Dresden at the time, or if you were an Amalekite.

User avatar
Autodidact
Prodigy
Posts: 3014
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:18 pm

Post #75

Post by Autodidact »

Wootah: God commands you to stab my baby to death with a sword. Is it right or wrong? Do you do it?

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Post #76

Post by Wootah »

Autodidact wrote:
Wootah wrote:
Autodidact wrote:If any other being or person committed the same actions, would you consider them just or righteous? For example, if a ruler orders his soldiers to stab the enemy's babies to death, would that be just or righteous, in your view?
You make the point most clearly that there is something more to the Bible.

Either you believe Jesus or you don't. If you do them you will have my perspective on the violence in the bible. If you don't you will have yours.

Not many people become Christian by agreeing with the violence in the Old Testament.
No, they are usually raised to believe.

So, to understand you, if you believe in Jesus, then you believe that stabbing babies to death is morally right?
Where does Jesus command that for Christians as a general moral rule?

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Bible - cruelty and violence

Post #77

Post by Wootah »

Autodidact wrote:I have a feeling you would see it differently had your mother been living in Dresden at the time, or if you were an Amalekite.
Don't mistake my posts for boasting or pride. I would greatly dread to be in such situations and strongly doubt how I would perform morally as well. I hope to never be tested. Many Germans and Japanese would argue they had to be stopped.

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Post #78

Post by Wootah »

Autodidact wrote:Wootah: God commands you to stab my baby to death with a sword. Is it right or wrong? Do you do it?
How would I know if it is right or wrong? Would I do it. Probably. What would you do? Assuming you wouldn't what would the basis of your reply be? What if God showed you the result of your action was good and the result of your inaction was bad? Would you do it then?

User avatar
Autodidact
Prodigy
Posts: 3014
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:18 pm

Post #79

Post by Autodidact »

Wootah wrote:
Autodidact wrote:
Wootah wrote:
Autodidact wrote:If any other being or person committed the same actions, would you consider them just or righteous? For example, if a ruler orders his soldiers to stab the enemy's babies to death, would that be just or righteous, in your view?
You make the point most clearly that there is something more to the Bible.

Either you believe Jesus or you don't. If you do them you will have my perspective on the violence in the bible. If you don't you will have yours.

Not many people become Christian by agreeing with the violence in the Old Testament.
No, they are usually raised to believe.

So, to understand you, if you believe in Jesus, then you believe that stabbing babies to death is morally right?
Where does Jesus command that for Christians as a general moral rule?
Is Jesus God, or not?

I'm confused about your beliefs. Do you believe that God/Jesus was right to command His people to kill babies and wipe out entire peoples, or not? Do you believe the soldiers were right to follow His commandments?

User avatar
Autodidact
Prodigy
Posts: 3014
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:18 pm

Post #80

Post by Autodidact »

Wootah: God commands you to stab my baby to death with a sword. Is it right or wrong? Do you do it?
How would I know if it is right or wrong?
Exactly. As a Christian, you would not. As an atheist, I would.
Would I do it. Probably.
Do you ever find yourself wondering why atheists hate Christianity so much? It's because it persuades perfectly nice people like you that it's moral to kill my baby. I have a problem with that.

Now, another question. Are you ever mistaken? Is it possible for you to be mistaken about what God wants from you?
What would you do?
Since God doesn't exist, it's not a problem for me. There is no circumstance under which I would stab a baby to death.
Assuming you wouldn't what would the basis of your reply be? What if God showed you the result of your action was good and the result of your inaction was bad? Would you do it then?
Wow, that's a long way into fantasy land. First, God would have to exist. His failure to do so makes it hard for Him to show me anything. I'm sorry, I can't imagine a situation in which anybody persuades me that killing your baby is a good thing.

Post Reply