Four questions for Christians

[Consilius]

'purifying the world' is not of concrete advantage to anyone.

Your god of the bible disagrees.

Are you saying that Hitler's actions were in line with the Bible?

[Ryantology]

Are you saying that Hitler's actions were in line with the Bible?

In that he was a megalomaniac who told his own people they were special and that being special made it okay to massacre everyone who wasn't, Nazi history sounds like someone re-wrote the Bible and set it in the 20th century.

I get the distinct impression that the only detail which makes the Holocaust evil to Christians is the fact that God wasn't explicitly ordering it.

[Consilius]

What the specific event could possibly be is irrelevant. Let's say that children could be made into the optimal bioweapons for an intergalactic conquest that would supply earth with unheard of bounties of natural resources.

mhm, and what would you do in this situation?

Actually your situation, it wouldn't benefit anyone. Because parents and everyone else who did not die or participate in the killing will feel so much anger and disgust at their fellow human beings that likely chaos would just break out. But anyway, like you said, irrelevant, so what would god want you to do?

Before you look to me to answer my own question, let's go on in this. You are trusting that people would simply "know" or "feel" that this is wrong, no matter their relations to the victims or the immense benefits they receive from just letting a few lives slip.
You are saying that, no matter how legal the atrocities done to these children are, there is an invisible, immutable, eternal, and universal moral code that overrules them.
What a religion like Christianity would prescribe would be in line with this moral code.

---

Are you saying that Hitler's actions were in line with the Bible?

In that he was a megalomaniac who told his own people they were special and that being special made it okay to massacre everyone who wasn't makes Nazi history sound like biblical fan fiction.

I get the distinct impression that the only detail which makes the Holocaust evil to Christians is the fact that God wasn't explicitly ordering it.

But the Bible says "love your enemies". How then could Christianity be an exclusive, belligerent, supremacist cult?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Before you look to me to answer my own question, let's go on in this. You are trusting that people would simply "know" or "feel" that this is wrong, no matter their relations to the victims or the immense benefits they receive from just letting a few lives slip.
You are saying that, no matter how legal the atrocities done to these children are, there is an invisible, immutable, eternal, and universal moral code that overrules them.
What a religion like Christianity would prescribe would be in line with this moral code.

I do not "trust" that this will happen. This is a logical conclusion because we are all products of evolution, and therefore we do not harm our children. Also, i have the benefit of watching how parents and people in general react to killings of children. This isn't an issue of trust. This is blatantly obvious. No, I don't believe in a universal, eternal moral code, but let's not get derailed.

Your next point: No. Your god has prescribed killing children in the bible many times over. For a lot less than what we're talking about in this hypothetical situation.

[Consilius]

What the specific event could possibly be is irrelevant. Let's say that children could be made into the optimal bioweapons for an intergalactic conquest that would supply earth with unheard of bounties of natural resources.
My argument is not limited to this case I just made up. It represents much more.

I believe the specific event is of paramount importance. There are specific examples of child genocide described as 'good' in the context of Christian morality. It is not just an ambiguous idea to Christianity; child genocide is explicitly acceptable according to the morals you are supposed to adhere to. If you are attempting to suggest that secular morality does not hold a higher ground, you have to come up with at least one reasonable scenario in which a modern secular morality would, in a manner like your morality, not only regard mass slaughter of children as acceptable but an act which is explicitly considered positive.

I mean, is "God said so" the only acceptable justification?

Is that a "tu quoque" defense I hear?

[Ryantology]

But the Bible says "love your enemies". How then could Christianity be an exclusive, belligerent, supremacist cult?

The God who said "love your enemies" was the same God who casually ordered the annihilation of his people's enemies in the OT. I'm not able to explain why your God is so inconsistent about this.

Is that a "tu quoque" defense I hear?

Yes, when you asked if Hitler's actions were consistent with the Bible. As my statement is not in defense of any position at all but rather a request for you to clarify your own, I seriously doubt it was mine. After all, you must remember that, since I'm not a believer, I consider your morality to be on the same level as mine (in the sense that it originated from humans just as the moral code I possess).

[Consilius]

Before you look to me to answer my own question, let's go on in this. You are trusting that people would simply "know" or "feel" that this is wrong, no matter their relations to the victims or the immense benefits they receive from just letting a few lives slip.
You are saying that, no matter how legal the atrocities done to these children are, there is an invisible, immutable, eternal, and universal moral code that overrules them.
What a religion like Christianity would prescribe would be in line with this moral code.

I do not "trust" that this will happen. This is a logical conclusion because we are all products of evolution, and therefore we do not harm our children. Also, i have the benefit of watching how parents and people in general react to killings of children. This isn't an issue of trust. This is blatantly obvious. No, I don't believe in a universal, eternal moral code, but let's not get derailed.

Your next point: No. Your god has prescribed killing children in the bible many times over. For a lot less than what we're talking about in this hypothetical situation.

Firstly, you cannot claim that you know what and what not a person will do in reaction to something. We are much more complex than that.
Secondly, you are looking at a single event (infanticide) and then applying it to a completely different situation. Turning a child into a machine is different from killing one. One is done for economic benefit, and the latter is done as a punishment on parents. We could argue over infanticide in the Bible, but this is a different subject entirely.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I do not "trust" that this will happen. This is a logical conclusion because we are all products of evolution, and therefore we do not harm our children. Also, i have the benefit of watching how parents and people in general react to killings of children. This isn't an issue of trust. This is blatantly obvious. No, I don't believe in a universal, eternal moral code, but let's not get derailed.

Your next point: No. Your god has prescribed killing children in the bible many times over. For a lot less than what we're talking about in this hypothetical situation.

Firstly, you cannot claim that you know what and what not a person will do in reaction to something. We are much more complex than that.
Secondly, you are looking at a single event (infanticide) and then applying it to a completely different situation. Turning a child into a machine is different from killing one. One is done for economic benefit, and the latter is done as a punishment on parents. We could argue over infanticide in the Bible, but this is a different subject entirely.

You are dodging the point completely. I said it was a logical conclusion to predict the reactions I predicted. I have the weight of reason and evidence to back my prediction. (Edit: Ok i see how you can misunderstand my level of confidence in this, i never speak in absolutes. When i say something like this, i mean without additional factors, this is likely what will happen. Nothing in this world happens 100%, so I don't see the point in having that disclaimer all the time. Of course there's a chance I can be wrong. And of course i accept that.)

Secondly, you were the one who said the situation doesn't matter. And I don't see how it matters. Also, you, and not me, came up with this as an example of how killing lots of children will benefit mankind. Silly me I assumed we would eventually kill them.

The point is that you're attributing my "morality" to your god. When really ... the evidence is not on your side. Your god says one thing but does another then say something else when you ask him later. Please enlighten me on how you can confidently say that god will not do this to children. How did you come to this conclusion?

Edit: Nevermind. Yes your god killed children not to save lives but to prove a point. That proves my point.

[Consilius]

But the Bible says "love your enemies". How then could Christianity be an exclusive, belligerent, supremacist cult?

The God who said "love your enemies" was the same God who casually ordered the annihilation of his people's enemies in the OT. I'm not able to explain why your God is so inconsistent about this.

Is that a "tu quoque" defense I hear?

Yes, when you asked if Hitler's actions were consistent with the Bible. As my statement is not in defense of any position at all but rather a request for you to clarify your own, I seriously doubt it was mine.

Now you have left the argument about whether Hitler was following the Bible or not and went into biblical contradiction. It remains that what I claimed the Bible said is true.
What is said elsewhere in the Bible on the subject of loving enemies is a result of the broken relationship between man and God that is the plot of the Old Testament. Jesus came to make the incomplete law of the OT perfect by preaching it and living it out.
“'You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.'" Matthew 5:43-44

---

Firstly, you cannot claim that you know what and what not a person will do in reaction to something. We are much more complex than that.
Secondly, you are looking at a single event (infanticide) and then applying it to a completely different situation. Turning a child into a machine is different from killing one. One is done for economic benefit, and the latter is done as a punishment on parents. We could argue over infanticide in the Bible, but this is a different subject entirely.

You are dodging the point completely. I said it was a logical conclusion to predict the reactions I predicted. I have the weight of reason and evidence to back my prediction.

Secondly, you were the one who said the situation doesn't matter. And I don't see how it matters. Also, you, and not me, came up with this as an example of how killing lots of children will benefit mankind. Silly me I assumed we would eventually kill them.

The point is that you're attributing my "morality" to your god. When really ... the evidence is not on your side. Your god says one thing but does another then say something else when you ask him later. Please enlighten me on how you can confidently say that god will not do this to children. How did you come to this conclusion?

Edit: Nevermind. Yes your god killed children not to save lives but to prove a point. That proves my point.

The question still remains why killing an innocent will never be acceptable. Clearly man-made laws don't determine the way we react to things.
You are accusing me of claiming myself the custodian of morality because I have a God on my side. That's not true at all. We ALL agree that certain things are right and wrong, and we ALL can come to logical conclusions about things, just like we ALL can experience goodness.
I argue that the laws God works by are unchanging.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

You've completely lost me. Please answer the question about how you can know what god will do. Which you said, earlier, that god will not condone making these children into machine. I'm asking you how do you know that?

No, that's not what I'm accusing you of, I genuinely just want to know that why you are confident in saying god will not choose to turn these children into machines. You can of course come to your own conclusion about what's right and wrong, just like I can. but you cannot presume to know what another person (in this case god) will think is right or wrong. (you, just a few minutes ago, brought this point up when i said people will be unhappy about children being killed.) Especially when in this case this person has been acting in so many contradicting ways regarding the same issue.

This is the only thing I want to clear up. You now again, argue that god's law is unchanging, when he clearly has killed children on different occasions, said that killing is not ok (10 commandments), and then said again that children belong to his kingdom. So how do you come to this conclusion? To me he obviously changed something.

I won't respond to your question about why killing an innocent will not be acceptable until we can settle this issue.