This is nonsense. Individuals find individual value and purpose in many things, that doesn’t for one second imply that “unnecessary damage” can only be defined objectively by God. And if it were so, then we’d be in trouble, because “he” never defined it.
Individuals find individual value in things, yes, but my whole point is that if God doesn’t exist, all “purpose” is left up to the individual. That means we all make up our own moral codes that fit ourselves because we would be the arbiters of what we interpret as “truth”. So if I really wanted to, because there would be no “Ultimate Truth” I could go around doing whatever the heck I want for the fact that nothing has a higher goal than what I or the rest of humanity can come up with. Without an ultimate arbiter that holds all beliefs together, humanity has no real purpose but that which it defines. If God doesn’t exist, there is no relevant force that dictates whether or not murder is wrong [which God has, btw, if you’ve heard of the Ten Commandments] - thus theoretically, as I have stated, murder [regardless of its reason] is not objectively evil if there is no God.
You’re completely representing secular morality - I’m really starting to believe that theists have some sort of blockage in their brain that renders them unable to see the flaws in such arguments. To spell it out: The two options aren’t “what God says”, and “what I, the individual, happen to fancy doing.” If you can’t see that, then you have no real business discussing the point.
So what, are you suggesting objective truth is decided by majority-vote or something? Or randomness? Or even something that we don’t know or haven’t defined? Because this makes as much sense to me as it seems my post makes sense to you…
Ironically, history is littered with cases of people killing people “because God told them to” - objectively no different from your heinous misrepresentation of secular morality.
No offense, but your viewpoint is just as heinous, if not more - you appear to be looking at the issue of God ordering the death of people from some sort of secular…ish point of view, but it can only make sense if you look at it through the eyes of a Jew or Christian - which, by the way, is only commonsensical when having a debate with a Jew or Christian, if I may say so. As in, it
can’t make sense if you don’t see or at least theoretically interpret God as the ultimate arbiter in the scenario…
Is “God told me to do it” a reasonable defence? If you believe in God, why do you not believe that someone might murder someone else because God really did tell them to?
Yes it is, if God exists and if God did truly tell someone to do it. God doesn’t tell people to murder without a legitimate, non-malicous purpose however - to assume otherwise is evidence of a complete misunderstanding of God. The wiping out of some smaller cultures was not done purely for the sake of malice - the cultures that were destroyed were pretty nasty and if left unchecked would have simply continued the needless destruction of human life. I recall that one worshipped a large, metal idol which had a hollow inside that allowed it to be heated like an oven. Young children and babies were sacrificially seared alive on its outstretched arms apparently.
One might make the case that all inhabitants were slain regardless of age or sex, but whether or not they were, there are a few things I can state in defense of it.
1: This was several thousand years ago, in an age where physical cruelty was not unheard of anywhere.
2: The cruelty recorded of these “exterminations”, or whatever else one may want to label them, was apparently far less drastic and cruel in comparison to the methods of the cultures destroyed.
3: It was the Old Testament [again, thousands of years ago] - in comparison with modern-day Christianity and even modern Judaism, many things were done differently in those times.
4: Whether or not you consider these relevant justifications, your belief system, as far as I can currently see [again, I would appreciate it if you elaborated], cannot definitively conclude that these acts were “good” or “bad” - because purpose and morality would be left to the individual [unless as I interpreted earlier that it’s a matter of majority-vote or randomness, or whatever else you may care to elaborate on.]
Surely that person should go free unless someone can prove that they didn’t get a message from God?
This is completely ridiculous and is not even relatable to the scenario I gave. God has made it clear with the Ten Commandments and by what was taught by Jesus that *unlawful *killing is wrong and can get you to hell pretty quick. Anyone who kills out of a vice is guilty of unlawful killing in God’s eyes, basically. God apparently ordered the destruction of the above-mentioned cultures though, so assuming God didn’t elaborate on who not to kill, the cultures in their entirety would have pretty-much been fair game. In fact I’m pretty sure God told them to completely wipe them out.
Of course it sounds barbaric, and how could God allow such a thing to happen, and why is it not okay to kill now? Well, I have already stated how long ago it was and the circumstances of several thousand years ago should be obvious. My guess is that it was partially a test of the people’s dedication to God - ie. would they be willing to do everything exactly as God said?
